[Blue]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

So true... but I guess there will be a segment of half baked photographers who can't bring themselves to admit that they can't shoot for nuts and need to rely on a camera with a larger sensor to cover up their inadequacies.

Or a larger magnifying glass to see their inadequacies . . .

[ecoronin]

Or a larger magnifying glass to see their inadequacies . . .

A 30" monitor lol

[Shingoshi]

If you're a landscape/cityscape photographer which by definition seems to prefer larger print sizes and very wide-angle lenses, the APS-C forfeits the investment one makes in very expensive lenses only to find them not providing the angle of coverage required for their work.

Which is why I'm considering the FF Kodak SLR/n for my wide-angle work. I think I will be using another Nikon-based camera I've found for my macro work. Because in landscapes the variation in grayscale is so great in such a small area that a high-resolution sensor is required. But for my macro work where the grayscale is likely to be more compressed and presenting fewer changes within the scene, the second camera will work just fine.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[knoxploration]

If you're a landscape/cityscape photographer which by definition seems to prefer larger print sizes and very wide-angle lenses, the APS-C forfeits the investment one makes in very expensive lenses only to find them not providing the angle of coverage required for their work.

Which is why I'm considering the FF Kodak SLR/n for my wide-angle work. I think I will be using another Nikon-based camera I've found for my macro work. Because in landscapes the variation in grayscale is so great in such a small area that a high-resolution sensor is required. But for my macro work where the grayscale is likely to be more compressed and presenting fewer changes within the scene, the second camera will work just fine.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

Yep, that's a good example of a form of photography where you're likely going to be happier with a fullframe sensor. That's been the crux of my comments - some forms of photography favor certain hardware requirements, others favor different requirements.

I'm a bit uncertain why you're favoring a second-hand camera that's been discontinued for almost five years, though. The SLR/N was based around a cheap consumer film camera body (the Nikon N80) which sold for less than $300 new, at the time SLR/N production was stopped. Shutter life rated at only 30,000 shots.

The SLR/n didn't exactly receive rave reviews even when it was new. It lags behind today's cameras in sensitivity and noise performance (a maximum limit of ISO 1,600, and even when it was a new model, reviews suggested that the maximum sensitivity required lots of noise-reduction in post processing.) You'd likely pay $7-800 body-only for it second-hand (based on recent Ebay sales) with no warranty and a big question mark over parts availability and remaining shutter life.

Also, you've said that one of your main issues with APS-C cameras such as the Pentax K-7 is that they don't offer enough resolution for what you'd consider a reasonable print size. Well, the SLR/n is slightly *lower* resolution than the K-7, so you're going to find yourself just as limited with it if not more so, other than in its wide-angle capability...

Seems like a recent entry-level FF camera would likely outperform it in every way, and not cost a staggering amount more... Unless you've a very specific reason for wanting the SLR/n over current FF bodies, you may well find it to be a false economy in the long run.

Which isn't to say there's not a reason. Could be you've done your homework really well, and have a very specific need answered by the SLR/n but not other FF bodies. I'm just curious, to be honest...

[joele]

Main reason I would like (don't need) FF is I would love to use the FA31 limited as a real wide angle, and I would prabably buy the Voigtlander 20mm skoper if it was actually an UWA prime.. wide-normal is more important to me than tele..

[Shingoshi]

The Kodak SLR/n is a Full-Frame camera with a cost far below that of anything else that provides that feature. I've seen a number of SLR/n available with relatively low duty-cycles. And as for maintenance, it's still available. So for those for whom such a decision makes no sense, I hope you die with your curiosity.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[knoxploration]

The Kodak SLR/n is a Full-Frame camera with a cost far below that of anything else that provides that feature. I've seen a number of SLR/n available with relatively low duty-cycles. And as for maintenance, it's still available. So for those for whom such a decision makes no sense, I hope you die with your curiosity.

Wow... Not sure how that last comment was intended, but it really didn't sound friendly. Note that I didn't say the decision made no sense, just that I was curious of your reasoning given the SLR/N's potential drawbacks. (The main one being that, compared to modern cameras, it is very, VERY noisy at anything beyond base ISO without significant processing). I've used it myself, albeit many years ago now. To quote Luminous Landscape (with a few bits emphasised by me):

It's interesting to first note how saturation dramatically decreased from ISO 160 to 250 and how the image loses contrast as the ISO increases. Noise has increased only slightly between these speeds. At ISO 400 the noise is somewhat worse, but blotchyness really starts to rear its ugly head. By ISO 800 the image becomes so noisy and blotchy as to be almost unusable. It's also worth noting how apparent resolution decreases as ISO increases.

This is a 100% sample at ISO 800:



(Courtesy Luminous Landscape, mini-review here: Kodak DCS Pro/n)

Believe it or not, I'm honestly trying to help. You're right that the SLR/n is among the cheapest full-frame DSLRs available (along with the 14N, SLR/c, and Contax's N Digital) - but they're cheap for a reason, that being that they're second-hand cameras with not only the potential issues of any second-hand, unwarranted product, but also huge drawbacks compared to modern cameras with modern technology.

The SLR/n just struck me as a curious choice, because in other posts you've espoused the benefits of full-frame in terms of resolution and print size, and another common reason for desiring FF is lower noise / better sensitivity. With the SLR/n, you'll get none of those advantages, and arguably you'll get significantly worse performance than you'd get from a modern APS-C DSLR in *most* areas. The one point where the SLR/n will significantly beat modern APS-C DSLRs is in wide-angle capability, and it would appear that's what's most important to you.

Were it me in your shoes though, I'd probably live with APS-C in the meantime while I save up and get the cheapest of the current FF DSLRs (Sony A850, fairly easily available now for around $1,800), or whatever model was current at the time I'd saved up. Perhaps you're aware of the potential drawbacks and find they outweigh the disadvantages of APS-C and the expense of a modern camera though. If so, that's great.

[Shingoshi]

I simply don't have the budget to satisfy anyone's curiosity. Now if curiosity can be translated into cash, I'll certainly accept donations. Until then, I have to make the purchases I can within my means. When I have the funds to buy up to newer technologies, I'll do it. But for now, I simply can't do that and must suffice with what I have. So until anyone's curiosity can put cash in my pocket, live with your curiosity.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[knoxploration]

I simply don't have the budget to satisfy anyone's curiosity. Now if curiosity can be translated into cash, I'll certainly accept donations. Until then, I have to make the purchases I can within my means. When I have the funds to buy up to newer technologies, I'll do it. But for now, I simply can't do that and must suffice with what I have. So until anyone's curiosity can put cash in my pocket, live with your curiosity.

Your budget and my curiosity have no correlation. If you're aware of, and satisfied with the performance pros and cons of the SLR/n, that's all that matters.

That seems like a great place to end our sidetracking of the topic, so let's say no more. ;-)

[thibs]

And as for maintenance, it's still available. So for those for whom such a decision makes no sense, I hope you die with your curiosity.

No risk, really.

[gazonk]

Because in landscapes the variation in grayscale is so great in such a small area that a high-resolution sensor is required.

I'm not so sure. I would actually be surprised if the Kodak can beat Pentax K10D on ISO 100 DR. Also, for landscape photography in dim light: At long shutter times the Kodak seems to be extremely noisy even at lowest ISOs:

Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c Review: 19. Photographic tests: Digital Photography Review

My K10d is VASTLY better than that! (I just had a look at a 30 second ISO 200 fireworks shot to be sure, it's almost noise-free)

[Samsungian]

Buy your fantasy Kodak and be done with it.

Was $600 too much to spend on this offer?

Its way too much coin for me & my Kodak Bias, but 14n is your Coveted Dslr.

Whats the right price for you to buy one?



Kodak DCS Pro 14N DSLR Camera Body - eBay (item 120489906622 end time Nov-14-09 05:38:16 PST)

I simply don't have the budget to satisfy anyone's curiosity. Now if curiosity can be translated into cash, I'll certainly accept donations. Until then, I have to make the purchases I can within my means. When I have the funds to buy up to newer technologies, I'll do it. But for now, I simply can't do that and must suffice with what I have. So until anyone's curiosity can put cash in my pocket, live with your curiosity.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

[pingflood]

The Kodak SLR/n is a Full-Frame camera with a cost far below that of anything else that provides that feature. I've seen a number of SLR/n available with relatively low duty-cycles. And as for maintenance, it's still available. So for those for whom such a decision makes no sense, I hope you die with your curiosity.

Xavian-Anderson Macpherson
ShingoshiDao

I will *strongly* suggest taking a look at a Canon 1Ds (mark I / "original") instead. I've seen them for $800-900, and the resolution out of them is superb -- even though they are "only" 11MP. (Keep in mind that the resolution jump from 11MP to 14MP isn't that great.) They are pro bodies, shutters usually lasting hundreds of thousands of shots, and are very reliable. The SLR/n (and 14/n) is no doubt the best "bang for the buck" if you're talking about low ISO and large prints, but in just about every other aspect it's inferior to something like a 1Ds.

That said, I think your reasoning for going FF in the first place isn't entirely sound -- a larger sensor does not magically increase resolution. But it does let you get away with using cheap, older glass, and the wider angle options are more plentiful. Yet say a Canon 50D with 10-22 will give you wide (in fact, VERY wide) and excellent resolution.. in a crop sensor.

[cousinsane]

I guess it's probably easier to design an ultrawide lens for APS than for FF. Think the Pentax DA 12-24 versus the Canon 17-40L. The DA, everyone loves. The Canon on the other hand has pretty horrendous corner at the 17mm end, just check photozone 's FF test.

[Art Vandelay II]

I guess it's probably easier to design an ultrawide lens for APS than for FF. Think the Pentax DA 12-24 versus the Canon 17-40L. The DA, everyone loves. The Canon on the other hand has pretty horrendous corner at the 17mm end, just check photozone 's FF test.

I wouldn't say that, the Canon 16-35mm is quite good as is the Nikon 12-24mm. Of course those are also in a different price range. Here's a comparison of Tamron 17-35mm vs that Canon 17-40mm and the Tamron easily holds it's own, and actually out performs it in a number of test. Not bad for a $350 f/2.8-4 wide angle zoom. It's a shame they discontinued it, hopefully that means they have a version in the works with an ultrasonic motor.

But still, the best thing about full frame is buying old cheap glass. Yeah, you can use old lenses on APS-C, but for those of us that shoot film it's pain switching back and fourth. Plus, there's no such thing as a sub $300 used 14mm prime. However, you can find old 20mm lenses all over eBay in that price range.

I break the two formats down like this...if you shoot mainly from ultrawide-105mm then full frame is the way to go (less noise, more resolution, shallower DOF). However if you are a telephoto user such as a sports photographer or wildlife photographer then I'd be all over APS-C...or even 4/3's (smaller/cheaper telephotos).

Now...they just need to improve the view finders. Pentax needs a 1.2x APS-C finder. Cropped sensor finders simply aren't big enough, and if anyone thinks they are run down to your local camera shop and find a 25 year old Nikon FM2, Pentax LX, Pentax ME Super, etc. and take a look through one then go back and try and use your APS-C camera.