Kodak DCS Pro 14 N SLR

[JDArt]

What's the scoop on this studio camera? Was it / is it any good? There are plenty on the used market these days. Still high res by today's standards: 14 mpix. I rarely hear talk of it.

[Jon]

It's one of the most profound turds ever produced. The other one being the Canon mount DCS. INCREDIBLY slow. Which wouldn't be totally prohibitive if it had good color. A particular huge weakness is horrible edge contrast and definition, especially in light to dark transition areas. This camera series is the reason for the coining of the term "blooming." A very expensive doorstop/boat anchor. I had one for a year one day, couldn't get it to go away fast enough - another victim of the megapixel myth, I was.

One would be better off buying the Kodak-converted F5 model (I can't remember its model number, but once in a blue moon you see one on Ebay - that was actually a pretty good camera all things considered and was incredible in low light).

[Nikonfreak]

So we'll mark that down as a vote against.



Julio

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by Jon

One would be better off buying the Kodak-converted F5 model (I can't remember its model number, but once in a blue moon you see one on Ebay - that was actually a pretty good camera all things considered and was incredible in low light).

Is it the DCS 760? The 6 megapixel thing?

[Jon]

That might be it...I honestly can't remember the model number.

It was/is a genuine Nikon body (and retained the Nikon branding and model number with the addition of Kodak badges), had extra body height resembling an oversized motor drive (I assume where the bulk of the electronic guts were housed), and for the sake of easy description it had a digital back.

Edit> It is the 760 that I was thinking of. Here's an image from an auction.

[cyclohexane]

I think Sidebyte has a Pro 14N. Either that, or he has the SLR/n, which was the updated version of the Pro 14N. I personally wouldn't touch them. See this:

http://www.bythom.com/14n.htm

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by JDArt

Is it the DCS 760? The 6 megapixel thing?

I have the DCS-760. It's certainly NOT a turd. Image quality is great (IMHO, slightly better than a Nikon D100 or D70) and shooting performance is quite respectable even by today's standards The only issues with it are that it is a big, heavy camera, which uses big, heavy batteries. Being based on the F5, it has excellent autofocus, and is quite fast, but it's heavy, imagine an F5 with more than an additional pound of electronics and batteries added.

Incidentally, I also owned, for a while, a DCS-520, which was the Kodak Canon-mount 2 Megapixel digital SLR that was built into an EOS 1n body. I actually bought that because that was the cheapest and easiest way to get a charger and batteries for my DCS-760 (they use the same batteries). DCS-520s are dirt cheap nowadays because they are just 2 Megapixels, but they are definitely NOT turds, they perform quite well.
Going rate for a DCS-520 kit WITH batteries and charger is around $400, without batteries and charger, but with AC adapter, is maybe $250-300. It's only 2 Megapixels, but it's probably the best 2 megapixel camera ever made - Of course, when it was introduced in 1998, it was a $16,000 outfit.

Both the DCS-760 and the DCS-520 are very common on ebay. There are around a half dozen DCS-760s on there right now, and that's typical. At least 3-4 of them sell every week, and usually more than that.


As for the DCS Pro 14n, I've heard alot of complaints, but there are other folks who swear by them, at least for studio use where shooting speed and High ISO quality is not important. But nobody will ever claim that they are anywhere near as well constructed or as fast as the earlier DCS-760 or the DCS-520. But, 14 megapixels and a full frame sensor does make it still a useful camera if you can live with very slow shooting performance and poor high-ISO performance.

[Sidebyte]

Typical blastphemous remark from someone who never owned or used one. The 14n (sold it) was and is one of the FINEST studio or landscape instruments ever made. At low, VERY low ISO it produced images that rivaled ansd sometimes surpassed the Canon mega-expensive FF Monster.
That and the fact that Kodak produced the best ever software especially for Jpeg's. Some of the cleanest and fine detailed files I have ever seen. I sold it to because it was SLOW, noisy and heavy but NOT because of the quality of low ISO images. They are still equal or superior to ANY digital camera produced even today.

[dc2]

All I can add is I see one of the most detailed images I have ever seen and it was taken with this machine

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Sidebyte

Typical blastphemous remark from someone who never owned or used one.

Do I type with an accent or something? Maybe it's my stutter that threw you off.

[Sidebyte]

Originally Posted by Jon

Do I type with an accent or something?* Maybe it's my stutter that threw you off.

No, it was your unfair description of a rather unique and capable instrument. Better you listen to those like Galbraith and Thom Hogan who used the camera instead of "shooting from the hip"!