Just announced over at DPReview.com, Kodak has announced a Canon mount version of the DCS Pro SLR. The new DCS Pro SLR/c is now the highest resolution Canon mount digital SLR, and also has a full frame chip. Check out the press release.

Finally an alternative to the full-frame 1Ds! Competition is always a good thing, especially if they get it right...

Tom

droool.... want to have....

Wow, now THAT is a surprise!

I know someone here that already owns a ProSLRn and can't wait to give it a try.

Cheers
James

Yeah, definitely a surprise. Nice to see something released outside the standard spring and fall shows.

If the quality is there, and the price is right, this could really put pressure on Canon to drop prices a bit.

Well just FYI, the ProSLRn is down to $4,500 now. I'd expect the MSRP on this one to be the same, so expect an MSRP of $4,995 and a street price of $4,500.

According to Jay, the SLRc body was built especially for Kodak with a new metering and AF system that is not purely Sigma. Lots to wonder about.

How's the viewfinder? How's the flash control? Is it E-TTL, E-TTL2 Etc.

Cheers
James

Can some of you Kodak owners out there talk about the ergonomics of the Kodak SLR/n?

I was over at a friend's studio yesterday (he was using my 1Ds to shoot some models), and he commented that the Canon felt really responsive. My own experience has been fantastic with Canon 1-series cameras -- they just feel right, and I don't have to think when I'm shooting. I can change settings very quickly.

Having never used the Kodak PRO SLR series, I want to get some feedback from those owners out there about how "in tune" with the camera you can become. Is it easy to use? It's apparent from tests that it is a fantastic studio camera, but how it is when shooting in the field?

New info:

According to Jay Kelbley of Kodak, the SLRc is E-TTL compatible:



So, perhaps the Aquatica I.C.U. will work with this camera to do TTL flash control w/ underwater strobes...

Cheers
James

Here's how many shots you can expect to get out of the Kodak SLR n or c:

From Kodak's website:



That's not bad. 250 full sized pix is pretty decent - maybe a half day to a full day's worth of diving digital photography.

Cheers
James

The Kodak SLR/n is N80-derived jut like the D100 / S2 so using it is similar. The Kodak is bulkier but on land that doesn't present too great a difference. The camera bulges out in the back a creates a problem for some people accessing the viewfinder. I'm not too bignosed so it's not an issue for me. It's a much smaller camera that the 1D and D1 series cameras. Its viewfinder is not particularly good but mostly the same as a D100. I'd say the image review on the Kodak is not as good as the D100 and it's battery solution is not as nice, either. It's sharpness due to lack of an AA filter and its huge pixel count are the main draws.

I called B&H yesterday and they have the Kodak in stock for $4,500.

I hope someone will come out with a review soon. I still have time before the Canon1D Mark II ships, the say mid April. I’m most interested in low light capacity and it still looks like the Canon will be the better performer. I would how ever save a bundle if I bought the Kodak and I could keep all my Nikon lens, and that full size sensor is mighty tempting.

Marc

Wow. Didn't see this one coming. All the Canon buzz has been 1DMk2 lately.

Having said that, I've never heard anything good about the Kodak DSLR's as wildlife cameras, just as being great for studio use. Haven't had the opportunity to try one myself.

This is a real change for Canon users to have a non-Canon manufacturer to choose from. Nikon users are of course used to this situation. I note that Nikon-mount camera competition hasn't particularly resulted in low prices.

Housings?

Clearly the the Kodaks are neither action cameras nor wildlife ones because of their slow frame rates and limited low light performance. The 14n had a maximum usable ISO of 160 so it's studio reputation was largely earned. The new Kodaks are faster with usable sensitivities at 400 and 640. If you aren't on safari how often do you need ISO 800 or 1600? If you do, the Kodak is probably not the camera for that. Most of your work will be at lower ISO's and most all of it underwater will be.

Kodak's bad noise reputation comes from several sources. First, they shipped flawed cameras before they were ready and got clubbed in the press for it. Second, Kodak tries to preserve very wide dynamic range so they accept higher noise in the lowest level detail. Third, they offer a feature called ERI which is really just holding an extra stop or more of sensor range in reserve. The end result of this the willing acceptance of noise performance being at least 6dB worse than the camera should be. I'm personally angry that Kodak doesn't offer an option to turn off ERI and get that back easily. In any event, you can bypass ERI by exposing in manual and modifying your RAW workflow. With proper adjustments, the Kodaks can offer very good noise perfornance. You just need to understand a little more. A side note is that you should view the Kodak's real ISO as one stop slower than indicated. I consider the SLR/n to be an ISO 80 camera and I think that's where you want an UW rig to be.

Besides the noise and ISO issues, the other big knock on the Kodak is the color aliasing problem due to the lack of an AA filter. I personally feel that this is unlikely to be a problem because the port and water might well serve effectively as an AA filter already. That coupled with the fact that ISO 200 is fast enough for most UW shooting makes me very bullish on the SLR/n as an UW camera. The side benefit of lack of AA filter is that images are inherently much sharper. The Kodak has a reputation among its users for tremendous detail.

I think it's interesting that Kodak decides to compete directly with the 1Ds by offering the Canon mount and it appears that the Canon mount version is the better camera by virtue of its cleaner body and faster shutter. I wonder why owners of Canon lenses wouldn't just go for the 1D2 or 1Ds instead. Being 2/3 the weight and possibly having higher resolution and wider dynamic range, the Kodak may have some appeal for Canon lens owners. We'll see. It would make a smaller package underwater. I'm looking forward to a three-way technical eval of the 1Ds vs. SLR/n vs. SLR/c so we can directly judge the Canon sensor versus Kodak sensor AND the Canon mount/lens versus the Nikon mount/lens in the context of full frame digital. I think that could be very interesting.

Interesting question Craig. Here's my take. If we compare the SLR/c to the 1Ds, we've got "equivalent" cameras, at least on the surface. Both are full-frame professional cameras with high resolution and large files. Well suited for studio, and probably landscape work. Not knowing enough about other features of the SLR/c, I'd say one major reason a Canon owner might choose the SLR/c over the 1Ds is price. There's a big difference between $4500 and $7000, enough to get a couple nice L lenses to take advantage of the resolution (if you didn't already have them). As an amateur, admittedly one who likes having the best toys, I mean tools, the difference is enough that if I were looking at the 1Ds, I'd have to think twice about getting the SLR/c. The price might not be as much of an issue for someone who makes a living off their work though, plus some of the known features, i.e. 45pt AF, body, etc, might come into play to make someone lean towards the 1Ds.

Then compare the SLR/c to the 1DMkII. In this case, you've got two cameras that are intended to serve different audiences. The SLR/c gets the nod for resolution and being full-frame, as well as out of camera sharpness. The MkII gets points for speed, more advanced flash (eTTL2) and possibly AF. The price argument is gone, they both cost the same. High ISO noise performance, according to speculation, is much better on the MkII. Some might argue the 1.3x crop is better all around than full-frame, at least with existing lens technology, because it crops out the worst area of the lens. Long story short, this decision would probably come down to whether you want to compromise some resolution for a faster camera that can handle low-light work better.

I think the SLR/c has a good chance at being sucessful, there's probably a decent market for it. But my money is still on the 1D Mk II being the most sucessful, as it's probably the best "all around" performer.

The price is definitely significant. However, I don't agree that that the cameras are equivalent. We'll see, but I suspect that the 1Ds will still have a considerably margin over the SLR/c in terms of ergonomics and handling, while the SLR/c will capture more detail. The 1Ds is well suited for action work as well -- it is very responsive and has low shutter lag, but lacks high FPS shooting.

I agree the 1Ds might still have a significant advantage, we just don't know yet. That's why I said "on the surface" and "not knowing enough about other features of the SLR/c".

Sorry David (Haas), this seems to have turned into one of those "next best XXXXX" posts.

Tom

We can all speculate wildly, a la DPReview forums.

By the way, there is a mini-review of the SLR/n up at Luminous Landscape (with comparison shots vs. the 1Ds).

While one might consider the SLR/c and the 1Ds roughly equivalent technically, you also have to consider the software accompanying each camera. And there, from what I've read, Canon is far ahead. There has never been any question about the image quality of Canon's CMOS sensors while Kodak's image quality has been more difficult to attain. And requires more "tweaking" by its users.

Consider also that the appearance of the SLR/c might push Canon into several "upgrades" on the 1Ds. Putting the new image processor of the 1D MKII into a new 1Ds MKII, would allow Canon to up the maximum frame rate to about 5fps. And changing the pixel size of the full frame sensor to the slightly smaller pixel size of the 1D MKII sensor, would up the pixel count to very nearly the same as the SLR/c. These would seem to be logical improvements for a camera that's been out there a year and a half and might just be the logical thing to announce at this year's Photokina. And maybe with a lower price tag as well. Competition is good, but I have my doubts whether Canon will just sit by and let Kodak's alternative be a really viable alternative.

divegypsy

I've read a fair bit more about this camera since first coming across it's existence on this thread, and I must say my enthusiasm has cooled.

1/It's Kodak/Sigma engineered, not Canon. That means the EOS lens mounting system has been reverse engineered, it hasn't been provided by Canon unlike some early Kodak DSLRs which supported EOS lenses. Even if your lenses work OK, it's hard to believe the AF, flash exposure, auto exposure etc can be expected to work as well as the 1Ds.

2/It's slightly smaller than the Nikon mount version - which will probably mean it needs a housing of its own. Good luck finding one. The 1Ds, which has been overwhelmingly popular for a high end DSLR, isn't exactly overwhelmed with housing choices.

3/It's quite ugly. Look at the controls. Build quality, anyone? Kodak reps have commented that this was done to keep the price down.

I think it's going to be good for megapixel junkies who don't venture outdoors much. If you could house it, and you shoot in manual focus anyway, and you don't mind it's somewhat cheap and ugly appearance, it might be the perfect camera.

I predict that the 1DMk2 will outsell it ever so slightly!

Don't think I agree with this. Of all the manufacturers, Canon's have traditionally be the ones with the most disappointing bundled software while Kodak's software has consistently been held in the highest regard. If you are talking about software commonly used, CaptureOne and ACR would be the ones. The Kodak support in the current version of ACR (2.1) is outstanding. As I see it, both the Canon and the Kodak have two excellent choices for RAW processing.

Don't agree that there's never been any question about the 1Ds's image quality either. It's known for be sensitive to lens choice and lens sample. It has a tendency to be soft in the perimeter, it has slow sensor and is not particularly known for low noise. I'm not saying it's bad or it's worse than Kodak, just that the full frame Canon has had its share of technical difficulties, too. It's apparently a hard thing to make work properly. Canon, by virtue of its AA filter and lack of "ERI", is easier to shoot with results that are consistent, while Kodak in some situations is problematic with regard to exposure and color aliasing.

I certlainly don't think the two cameras are technical equivalents since the 1Ds is a pro body and I also accept that the 1Ds is easier to get a good image out of than the Kodak. You have to be somewhat more commited to photoshopping with the Kodak but I find it no different conceptually than any other camera.



I don't agree wih point 1. Sigma's been making their own mount for a while and it is similar to the Canon mount. They're also experienced with Canon-mount lenses. This is a no-op.

Obtaining a housing for a new low-volume body is always a problem.

I think ugly is in the eyes of the beholder (or was that ugly goes all the way to the bone? I get the cliches mixed.) Hardly an important consideration underwater.

The SLR/n and SLR/c will make fine outdoor cameras and there's no reason to believe otherwise. Lanscape photography is considered one of their great strengths. Housed, the Kodak has the advantage of being a much lighter and smaller than the pro-body Canons. I'm not sure what the AF point was in the context of underwater shooting. Is there a suggestion that the the Kodak will be an inferior AF body with the same lenses in applications where that is actually important? I'd have a hard time believing that. I rarely use AF for macro anyway.

I certainly agree the 1Ds is a superior camera overall and especially above water. Curious to hear the arguments otherwise.