Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 14n report  (Read 16216 times)
cerebros
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


« on: March 23, 2003, 05:13:08 AM »
ReplyReply

"chromatic aberration (though I am still convinced that this is almost entirely lens related, not sensor related), "

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what Michael has been saying, but I thought his point was that these sensors are showing up the chromatic aberration of the lens because they are utilising the light coming through the lens far more than film - i.e. the sensors are showing you something that is always there with these wide angle lenses, but that film can't pick up
Logged
Ray
Guest
« Reply #1 on: March 23, 2003, 08:51:15 PM »
ReplyReply

It may well be that current and future firmware updates will produce a marked improvement. It still leaves me wondering why Kodak would release a model that, initially at least, fairs so badly in relation to its competitor.

One should also bear in mind that viewing an image on its own is not a comparison. I'm sure that Michael could take some fairly stunning shots with the 14n that he borrowed. With a bit of work in PS to reduce the noise, use of a good program to reduce aliasing, some selective sharpening and such prints might appear technically flawless and generally impressive.

The point as I see it, is one of value. The extra price of the 1Ds gives you a top of the range body and an expensive built-in AA filter. The 14n needs to produce images of 'at least' equal quality to the 1Ds, otherwise it's over-priced - even in relation to the generally unaffordable 1Ds.

I can find an argument that would suggest it's the Nikon lens that's letting the image down. This is where Michael's non-scientific approach to testing sometimes raises more questions than it answers. OTOH, Kodak's own samples of this camera featured on their web site, use a consumer grade lens (I believe - not sure) and none of the shots use a wider aperture than F11, last time I checked. I've never heard of a good quality 35mm lens that produces sharpest results at F11. I can only assume there was a good reason for this choice of lens and aperture. My cynical interpretation would be, the 14n is perhaps not capable of higher resolutions than a consumer grade lens can deliver at F11. Hope I'm wrong.
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1684


« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2003, 10:28:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Michael's brief test comaring the 14n and the 1Ds demonstrates the amazing power of the Internet when used selflessly.

Ask yourself this: Having travelled across the continent and found yourself standing in the freezing dawn confronted with conditions like we've seen "East of Zion", which camera would you want in your hands?

Thank you, Michael, for this site and the integrity to use it for the good of photography.
Logged
Guest
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2003, 11:11:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark,

I have now updated the review to confirm that what we are seeing is colour aliasing.

Yes, I've seen it before, with every digital camera, but never to the extent seen under some situations with the 14n. The reason is, of course, the lack of any anti-aliasing filter in the camera. I have tried the software AA in Photo Desk and it seems unable to remove it in any real way.

It appears that Kodak's decision not to include an AA filter did allow them to keep the price down, but the cost to image quality appears to be significant.

Michael
Logged
Peter K. Burian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 26, 2003, 09:24:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Neil: I know several pros who recently discussed switching from Brand A to Brand B, but in the end, none of them did it. After making the final cost calculations, they simply felt that it was prohibitive.

(Whether to switch from Canon to Nikon, or vice versa)

You may be different, of course.

One good thing: high end equipment, in very good to excellent condition, brings high prices on E-bay. Especially if you have the boxes, manuals, cards, etc. etc. - buyers definitely pay extra for that.

Cheers!

Peter
Logged
sergio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 661


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 28, 2003, 06:53:00 AM »
ReplyReply

This is bad in every sense for everyone. For Canon owner's this leaves them without competetion reducing the chances of lower prices. And for Nikon owners like me, I simply cannot wait  for another year and half ( I have already waited since sept for the Kodak ) to go into the digital era. Many clients are requesting the digital workflow. That forces me to sell a lot of Nikon ED glass for whatever that sells for and invest in new Canon lenses which are costly and in a digital body ( probably go for the 10D and after it the 1Ds). I will be spending a lot more than what I counted on.
Logged

Guest
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2003, 10:49:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Come on Peter!

This is the second time that you've raised the specter of my prohibiting you from this Forum, with no provocation whatesoever on my part. What makes you think that I would even consider doing this?

I have no problem with dissenting views. Never have. In fact I welcome them, as long as they are intellegently presented.

Michael
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2003, 07:04:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Erik,
Well, I sort of agree with you there to a limited extent. But I'm getting the impression that you're trying to make every subjective opinion of equal value. You can then justify just about anything. Good becomes bad, pornography becomes fine art and the works of Shakespeare are no better than pulp fiction, depending on one's subjective opinion. Maybe you're right.

I think a better way of looking at this, is to say that we all have a certain expectation of the performance of a product, an expectation based upon reading reviews, word of mouth opinions and personal experience with other similar products. When those expectations are exceeded, we give the product top marks. When the expectations are merely met, the product might still be considered good and recommended. If the product falls below our expectations then we tend to give it the thumbs down. But you're right, if that's what you're saying, that peoples' expectations differ widely. Michael's expectations of camera performance is very high. There might well be quite a few people who already have a few Nikon lenses, who will buy the 14n, perhaps as their first digital camera, and will be thrilled to bits with its performance.
Logged
Peter Gregg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62


« Reply #8 on: March 22, 2003, 08:36:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Just wanted to say thanks for the first 14n review side by side with the 1Ds.

I am looking forward to your next findings with the camera. I would like very much to see you include this camera at it's best, which is ISO 80. I know it isn't fair because the 1Ds does not have ISO 80, but this is where the 14n is supposed to be at it's best capabilities, so I would be eager to see and read what happens there too.

Peter Gregg
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2003, 07:28:41 AM »
ReplyReply

I think the resolution is there, but it is being smothered to keep noise down - and not very sucessfully either.

I get better - indeed excellent - results with the 12mp output from my S2.

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Peter K. Burian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2003, 06:31:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Send me an e-mail adress and I'll send you a crop from one of my RAW images made at ISO 100. A 4MB tif file, without compression.

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at the image quality the Pro 14n can deliver.

Peter Burian
Logged
Doug_Dolde
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 24, 2003, 10:33:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I second that last post.  I'm grateful to know the facts.
Logged
Mark Tomalty
Guest
« Reply #12 on: March 25, 2003, 11:04:19 AM »
ReplyReply

To add a little 'balance' to the issue of the color artifacts in the
small branches of the test image from the 14n I can safely say
that I get the identical effect with my 1Ds under similar conditions,
i.e. fine detail such as silhouetted branches or wires against a very
light and contrasty background such as a sky.
It happens with the best of my lenses and with the worst,the only
difference is that the worst lenses add chromatic aberration into the
pot for a truly colorfull image!
It has been this exact characteristic that has really kept me from
fully embracing the 1Ds as my main tool.
I have had the opportunity to test,albeit briefly,a couple of other
1Ds bodies which appeared to exhibit the same characteristics.
A photographer acquaintance in Calgary ran similar tests and came
to the conclusion that his 1Ds body was relatively free of the artifacts
under similar conditions.
This would seem to suggest that there might be some variance in the
sensors from camera to camera.
Given that you have used your 1Ds in likely more situations than most
have,Michael,has this type of artifact made an appearance in any of
your images?

Thanks
Mark
Logged
neil
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8923



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2003, 09:14:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Chip tech aside, the 14n doens't meed my needs as a professional. Neither does a D1x at either price point. I am the market targeted by kodak and so I don't know that either manufacturer has a clue.

In fact I'm planning on moving to canon over the next few months abandoning my Nikon glass, D100 and F5. In the current photography market speed and adaptability are key to gaining market share. Digital ability has cut my costs and improved my ability to deliver good images as clients request. If Canon is going to best help me then I have to make the best decision for my business - not wait around for manufacturers.
Logged

Peter K. Burian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 28, 2003, 09:12:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That forces me to sell a lot of Nikon ED glass for whatever that sells for and invest in new Canon lenses which are costly and in a digital body ( probably go for the 10D and after it the 1Ds). I will be spending a lot more than what I counted on.
Sergio:

If your current needs can be met with a 6 megapixel EOS 10D, would you not be just as satisfied with a Nikon D100 or D1x?

Do you really need to sell all your lenses, etc.?

Peter
Logged
Peter K. Burian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 47


WWW
« Reply #15 on: March 29, 2003, 07:16:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Excuse me Peter but I have to ask, do you some kind of financial tie with Kodak, or do you just like to see how many posts you can make? I can't believe the great lengths you have gone to defend the 14n camera. Why don't you give the bandwidth a rest, and finish your (obviously positive) review of the camera, post it and move on. Your attitude is getting a bit old.
Thanks in advance.
Jeff: I am not "defending" anything nor do I have any ties to any manufacturer.

I am simply discussing approaches to testing and the publication of judgements and conclusions.

You may not have noticed, but many of my posts are simply responses to comments that have been addressed to me (often by Michael).

I cannot "post" my Preview of the Pro 14n because it is for publication in a print magazine.

REVISED - IF Michael prohibits my access to this Forum -- for airing a dissenting opinion -- I will move on.

Those who DO want to read various perspectives on the camera can also check others' comments -- and find sample images -- at http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/25354
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5129


« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2003, 09:15:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I am happy with a review that presents facts (as Michael R. has), presents the credentials, competence, goals and biases of the reviewer (as are certainly clear in the case of Michael R. by reading this site) and then progresses towards conclusions: the reader is then well equipped to judge the credibility of those conclusions. We are not in court; we not need to burden the text of every evaluative statement with disclaimers like "in my opinion" or "for my purposes".


P. S. If it were clearer how the 14n behaves at intermediate speeds like 100-200, which allow shutter speed and depth of field combinations comparable to ISO 400 or more in medium format due to the DOF effects of different image size and the availability of faster lenses for 35mm, I could decide better how its speed restrictions  compare to what medium photographers are used to dealing with anyway, and judge if, at least for somone heavily invested in Nikon lenses, this camera has some small MF studio replacement niche. It is the now familiar economic argument: some Nikon based pros could easily amortize $5000 over the waiting time for the much called for better next model.


P. P. S. Is Nikon not willing to license any of its top professional quality camera body components to other DSLR makers any more? There must be a reason why neither Fuji nor Kodak matches even the F100 in non-digital features.
Logged
Guest
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2003, 09:37:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I will tomorrow, but remember than the difference between ISO 80 and ISO 100 is less than 1/3rd of a stop. Within the margin of error of even a good shutter.

Michael
Logged
pwsharpe
Guest
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2003, 07:34:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I think to be fair, you should update the Kodak to the newest firmware, and shoot at ISO 80. As I recall there was some initial tweeking of some of the Canon digitals. BTW, on screen, (calibrated) the Kodak skin tone seemed more believable. I have a feeling that Kodak will continue to improve this camera with firmware releases, as they have for those that preceeded  it. Many readers may not know that the firmware is easily updated from a file downloaded from the Kodak website. It only takes a couple of minutes, ... and it is free.
Logged
Dixon Zalit
Guest
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2003, 06:03:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Noise troubles aside, has anyone noticed some of the up side of the 14N?

Exposure latitude and natural colors. As a negative film user, it seems to me that the Kodak is trying to make the 14N produce colors more like negative film with a little more room for overexposure. This camera may be less likely to blow highlights than the Canon.

Skin tones. The final shot of the man with glasses has, to my eyes, a much nicer verson of colors on the face. I'll bet that colors on the blue sweater and camera strap may be more realistic too.

As for resolution, the final crop of the man's eye shows a shocking failure to resolve detail. I really wonder if this is the lens. Mabe this test could be done with a simpler lens like a 50mm prime. And yes, the noise..........
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad