Kodak SLR/c review

The latest Kodak body, the SLR/c (Canon mount) is reviewed on the DPReview
site, and it's pretty ugly. Artifacts everywhere! Even though it can resolve
more detail than the Canon 1Ds, image quality is nowhere near as good,
overall. Even the samples are littered with artifacts, including sensor
dust, moire, CA, etc.

This one will keep you on film.

"Bouser" wrote in message
...
The latest Kodak body, the SLR/c (Canon mount) is reviewed on the DPReview
site, and it's pretty ugly. Artifacts everywhere! Even though it can
resolve
more detail than the Canon 1Ds, image quality is nowhere near as good,
overall. Even the samples are littered with artifacts, including sensor
dust, moire, CA, etc.

This one will keep you on film.


That's some pretty awful moire!
Very disappointing results I'd say.

From: "Bouser"

The latest Kodak body, the SLR/c (Canon mount) is reviewed on the DPReview
site, and it's pretty ugly.

Hard to imagine they'll sell many of these to Canon users since the 1Ds is
about $3,000 more but has better image quality and has about 6x the projected
shutter life.

This one will keep you on film.

Or with the 1Ds

Bill

Bill Hilton wrote:

From: "Bouser"


The latest Kodak body, the SLR/c (Canon mount) is reviewed on the DPReview
site, and it's pretty ugly.


Hard to imagine they'll sell many of these to Canon users since the 1Ds is
about $3,000 more but has better image quality and has about 6x the projected
shutter life.


This one will keep you on film.


Or with the 1Ds


The Nikon mount version is substantially better and judging from Phil's
Canon results - which are awful compared with the worst I got out of the
Pro/n - is different in more ways than just the mount.

David

In article ,
says...
The Nikon mount version is substantially better and judging from Phil's
Canon results - which are awful compared with the worst I got out of the
Pro/n - is different in more ways than just the mount.

It shares the same sensor, and I presume the same software, as the Pro
SLR/n. Phil didn't test the SLR/n, only the DCS14, so it's really hard
to say.

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
...
From: "Bouser"

The latest Kodak body, the SLR/c (Canon mount) is reviewed on the
DPReview
site, and it's pretty ugly.

Hard to imagine they'll sell many of these to Canon users since the 1Ds is
about $3,000 more but has better image quality and has about 6x the
projected
shutter life.

This one will keep you on film.

Or with the 1Ds

Zakly. Very disappointing results with the Kodak. Even the sample shots show
tons of artifacts.


Bill

"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...


Bill Hilton wrote:

From: "Bouser"


The latest Kodak body, the SLR/c (Canon mount) is reviewed on the
DPReview
site, and it's pretty ugly.


Hard to imagine they'll sell many of these to Canon users since the 1Ds
is
about $3,000 more but has better image quality and has about 6x the
projected
shutter life.


This one will keep you on film.


Or with the 1Ds


The Nikon mount version is substantially better and judging from Phil's
Canon results - which are awful compared with the worst I got out of the
Pro/n - is different in more ways than just the mount.

?? I wonder how? Same sensor, same software, same firmware. How much
different could it be? Maybe it's the body. It is, after all, made by Sigma.
Yes, really.


David

"Bouser" wrote in message news:v6mEc.230$MB3.111@attbi_s04...
"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...


Bill Hilton wrote:

From: "Bouser"


The latest Kodak body, the SLR/c (Canon mount) is reviewed on the
DPReview
site, and it's pretty ugly.


Hard to imagine they'll sell many of these to Canon users since the 1Ds
is
about $3,000 more but has better image quality and has about 6x the
projected
shutter life.

The Sigma shutter is rated to 200,000 exposures, the Nikon shutter is
only rated to 50,000.

The Nikon mount version is substantially better and judging from Phil's
Canon results - which are awful compared with the worst I got out of the
Pro/n - is different in more ways than just the mount.

?? I wonder how? Same sensor, same software, same firmware. How much
different could it be? Maybe it's the body. It is, after all, made by Sigma.
Yes, really.

Yes, they rejected using a Canon body on low value and poor
ergonomics. Yes, really.

"Georgette Preddy" wrote in message
om...
"Bouser" wrote in message
news:v6mEc.230$MB3.111@attbi_s04...
"David Kilpatrick" wrote in message
...
snip
Yes, they rejected using a Canon body on low value and poor
ergonomics. Yes, really.

Idiot.

They rejected using a Canon body because Canon wouldn't sell them or license
them the bodies.

Duh.s

Georgette Preddy wrote:


The Sigma shutter is rated to 200,000 exposures, the Nikon shutter is
only rated to 50,000.

and 200,000 divided by the prediot-sigma factor is only 50,000.