I also work in downtown Edmonton and I make three times that, but I'm still having trouble making ends meet. Of course, having a wife and kid probably doesn't help me out much there. Argh.
Poor body design. Why Kodak based it on a Nikon F80 body instead of the F4/F5 is beyond me. The former is a consumer camera body whereas the latter are pro camera bodies. Since the DCS 14n is arguably a pro camera, well, bad choice. And what's up with the control placement. It's AWFUL.
A noisy sensor. You'll get your best pictures from the DCS 14n at ISO 80. At ISO 100 the picture is already starting to degrade. At ISO 200 your image looks like one from a Nikon 5700 taken at ISO 800. At ISO 400 a Kodak image looks more like an oil painting more than anything else. So long as you never use this camera at anything over ISO 80 you'll get good image quality.
The one area I'll give Kodak full kudos for is blowout recovery. This camera does an incredible job of recovering blown highlights - something no other camera maker offers right now.
Re:It's a half-frame. Focal length issues.
on
Digital 35mm SLRs?
·
· Score: 1
Non-starter? Surely you jest. Most owners of the 10D, 300D, and D60 regard this as an advantage. We like our lenses to have extra "pull" without taking a hit on depth-of-field. The 1.6x cropping factor helps us kick ass with tele and macro photography
I'm not holding my breath on the Olympus. This is the company that can't turn out a prosumer digicam without bad chromatic aberration no matter what it does. Olympus lenses are nasty these days (I say this with full reverence for their older gear - I own an Olympus OM-2 and OM-10.).
The 4/3 system does look interesting, but I'm waiting to see if it winds up with the same extreme depth-of-field that most digital cameras suffer. It's a real problem for most serious photogs when they can't use selective focus (blow the background out of focus in order to isolate the subject of the photo).
If you put images from the two lenses side-by-side you'll notice that there's a slight difference in crispness, but nothing that can't be fixed by someone who knows Photoshop intimately (and before anyone jumps on me for not saying GIMP I'm highly expert in both and Photoshop is better in this department).
The all metal construction is a big selling point for me, but I admit that the plastic is nicer sometimes when you spend an entire day with your camera hanging from a neck strap.
It's the best camera I've ever owned.
on
Digital 35mm SLRs?
·
· Score: 1
If you can afford the Canon 10D and you're a serious amateur photographer, you should consider buying one. If your heart aches for the 10D but you can't afford it (like me), the Digital Rebel (300D) is a perfectly acceptable compromise.
I've had mine for nearly two months now and I'm completely infatuated with it. It's a very sturdy camera and the quality of the images is just unbelievable. I've had some very sharp looking 18x24 inch posters made from pictures taken with my 300D and they are comparable in quality to posters I've had made from drum scanned 35mm slides.
If you want to see some sample images, please feel free to look at the recent additions area of my site. All of the images except two (Govt. House) were taken with the 300D.
My contact info is on my site. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any specific questions about the camera.
Slashdot Mirror
I also work in downtown Edmonton and I make three times that, but I'm still having trouble making ends meet. Of course, having a wife and kid probably doesn't help me out much there. Argh.
The Kodak suffers from two problems...
The one area I'll give Kodak full kudos for is blowout recovery. This camera does an incredible job of recovering blown highlights - something no other camera maker offers right now.
Non-starter? Surely you jest. Most owners of the 10D, 300D, and D60 regard this as an advantage. We like our lenses to have extra "pull" without taking a hit on depth-of-field. The 1.6x cropping factor helps us kick ass with tele and macro photography
I'm not holding my breath on the Olympus. This is the company that can't turn out a prosumer digicam without bad chromatic aberration no matter what it does. Olympus lenses are nasty these days (I say this with full reverence for their older gear - I own an Olympus OM-2 and OM-10.).
The 4/3 system does look interesting, but I'm waiting to see if it winds up with the same extreme depth-of-field that most digital cameras suffer. It's a real problem for most serious photogs when they can't use selective focus (blow the background out of focus in order to isolate the subject of the photo).
If you put images from the two lenses side-by-side you'll notice that there's a slight difference in crispness, but nothing that can't be fixed by someone who knows Photoshop intimately (and before anyone jumps on me for not saying GIMP I'm highly expert in both and Photoshop is better in this department).
The all metal construction is a big selling point for me, but I admit that the plastic is nicer sometimes when you spend an entire day with your camera hanging from a neck strap.
If you can afford the Canon 10D and you're a serious amateur photographer, you should consider buying one. If your heart aches for the 10D but you can't afford it (like me), the Digital Rebel (300D) is a perfectly acceptable compromise.
I've had mine for nearly two months now and I'm completely infatuated with it. It's a very sturdy camera and the quality of the images is just unbelievable. I've had some very sharp looking 18x24 inch posters made from pictures taken with my 300D and they are comparable in quality to posters I've had made from drum scanned 35mm slides.
If you want to see some sample images, please feel free to look at the recent additions area of my site. All of the images except two (Govt. House) were taken with the 300D.
My contact info is on my site. Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any specific questions about the camera.