Quirky digital R "solution"?

[Phil_F_NM]

I put that in the subject line to possibly gain a few more looks at the
thread. I cheated. (cross posted from LUG mailing list.)

Anyways, I've been wanting a Leica R camera since before I got my first
M2 in 2003. Once I went with the rangefinders I strayed away from using
SLRs, eventually becoming RF-only.

I've recently found that for a very few applications, the Leica RF
bodies just can't cut it. Macro and telephoto just can't be done
without a Viso III and a bunch of extra gear. An SLR is the most
expedient solution.

Now I want to get back into an SLR at the lowest cost of entry possible
with the highest performance I can get. Yeah, there are plenty of D200
and EOS 5D bodies used on the market for very cheap but I also love the
incredible sharpness of the Leica M8 and M9 with their Kodak sensors.

A few months ago, Dante opened my eyes to how good an old Kodak DCS 14n could be and I've been thinking that I could use the newer, slightly
upgraded Kodak DCS SLR/n or SLR/c for my SLR needs.

The Kodak SLR/n bodies are available with a whole kit as shipped from
the factory for about $800. The RAW images that old camera produces
rival the best that today's top end Nikon and Canon offerings can
produce, from what I've seen.

I'm thinking I can get a DCS body and a good Leica R telephoto and
Macro lens with Leitax adapters and chips for less than the cost of
a D700 body alone. I'd prefer a full frame camera as well having been
spoiled by the M9.

So, are any RFF'ers out there using the same system? Kodak DCS SLR or
14n + Leica R glass? I know about the camera's quirks and have read
most of the negative reviews. I'm not using it for sports, so fast
response isn't as big of a concern.

Your opinions are appreciated.

Thanks all,
Phil Forrest

 

[berlincontemporary]

I put that in the subject line to possibly gain a few more looks at the
thread. I cheated. (cross posted from LUG mailing list.)

Anyways, I've been wanting a Leica R camera since before I got my first
M2 in 2003. Once I went with the rangefinders I strayed away from using
SLRs, eventually becoming RF-only.

I've recently found that for a very few applications, the Leica RF
bodies just can't cut it. Macro and telephoto just can't be done
without a Viso III and a bunch of extra gear. An SLR is the most
expedient solution.

Now I want to get back into an SLR at the lowest cost of entry possible
with the highest performance I can get. Yeah, there are plenty of D200
and EOS 5D bodies used on the market for very cheap but I also love the
incredible sharpness of the Leica M8 and M9 with their Kodak sensors.

A few months ago, Dante opened my eyes to how good an old Kodak DCS 14n could be and I've been thinking that I could use the newer, slightly
upgraded Kodak DCS SLR/n or SLR/c for my SLR needs.

The Kodak SLR/n bodies are available with a whole kit as shipped from
the factory for about $800. The RAW images that old camera produces
rival the best that today's top end Nikon and Canon offerings can
produce, from what I've seen.

I'm thinking I can get a DCS body and a good Leica R telephoto and
Macro lens with Leitax adapters and chips for less than the cost of
a D700 body alone. I'd prefer a full frame camera as well having been
spoiled by the M9.

So, are any RFF'ers out there using the same system? Kodak DCS SLR or
14n + Leica R glass? I know about the camera's quirks and have read
most of the negative reviews. I'm not using it for sports, so fast
response isn't as big of a concern.

Your opinions are appreciated.

Thanks all,
Phil Forrest

I have used qiute some cameras over the years and always found the 5D raw files to be super high-res. With good glass (Contax Zeiss that was) really amazing and wiping the floor with anything Nikon has produced below the D3X.

I´d take a 5D over a Kodak SLRn/whatever anytime.

 

[hexiplex]

In spite of being a fan of Nikons ergonomics and overall DSLR design (I never could get used to that big selector wheel on the back of the Canon DSLRs for instance) I think I have to agree with the above poster. The 5D is the ultimate choice in regards to money vs. image quality. If I ever get the dough, I am getting myself one just to try out fullframe digital... You can get a 5D that's been well cared for for about the same money as one of those Kodak DSLRs, the choice is easy between the two, at least for for me, Canon all the way.

 

[gavinlg]

The 5d takes most of the leica R lenses without modification, and is the best IQ for money camera you can buy. Tough as nails too, and a good simple user interface.

 

[andredossantos]

Add me to the list of people recomending the 5DII. I pretty much agree with everything that's been said above.

Not only can you mount R lenses but also pretty much any other glass you can imagine: Hasselblad, Nikon, Olympus OM, Contax, Etc. Plus, Zeiss makes primes in EOS mount which are superb. And to top it off, Canon's L glass is absolutely superb as well and the primes will more than hold their own up against the best of any other brand.

 

[pachuco]

The 5d takes most of the leica R lenses without modification, and is the best IQ for money camera you can buy. Tough as nails too, and a good simple user interface.

+1 - I could not agree more.

 

[PatrickT]

Yep, 5D or 5D II are easily the best options out there. Fantastic IQ and most R lenses are easily adaptable.

 

[splitimageview]

The only problem I have had, is focusing the damn thing (5D) with adapted lenses.

The stock focusing screen is useless, at least with my eyes.

Live view works on the 5D II, of course, but not hand held.

Tried the EE-S focusing screen, had no better results. Ordered focusing screen shims, tried calibrating by shooting a ruler. Tried other screens with split image...finally gave up.

Am now considering a Sony A900...stock viewfinder appears to be something that works with my eyes. And it (with it's brother the 850) is the only full frame with in body stabilization...

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I was a Canon user years ago and loved their film bodies. The 5d is a nice camera and about as expensive as the Kodak bodies but the files are mushy in comparison when compared side by side, in my opinion. As for a 5d mkII that is out of the question. The main consideration here is very low cost for price of entry into a full frame DSLR.
I'm still considering a 1st gen 5d, regardless.
I agree about the focusing screens on the Canons, there needs to be a better solution. I want a split image and microprism screen that works well. The Kodak viewfinders are amazingly bright as stock and with an aftermarket focusing screen they look like a good possible solution.

Phil Forrest

 

[rxmd]

I guess it can be a fine camera if you can live with the restrictions, such as problems with larger memory cards, having only a FireWire port on the camera, batteries that don't last too long.

It also has an aged sensor where the Luminous Landscape review back in the day said that "anything above 400 is still not terribly useful". Look at the noise in the closeups, it's quite sobering.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

It also has an aged sensor where the Luminous Landscape review back in the day said that "anything above 400 is still not terribly useful". Look at the noise in the closeups, it's quite sobering.

The great thing about the Luminous Landscape review is that it's online and I have raw images from the camera on my computer to work with.
The noise is about on par with a Leica M8, which I have no problem with.
There are a few portraits taken at ISO400 which look fantastic. The exposure was nailed, which helped, but in the shadows the noise is very low.

As for larger memory cards, 4GB is plenty for me. Actually, I'm thinking that 2GB is probably sufficient. The firewire port is neither here nor there for me since I always remove the card from the camera and import images from a cardbus. IEEE1394 is nice for the ability to tether and control the camera though. I'm a big fan of the interface actually.

So, I still haven't heard from anyone actually using one of these cameras, which is the question I posed at the beginning. A lot of alternative opinions and more expensive options put forth too. I already know Canons and Nikons pretty well. I'm interested in hearing from folks who've had experience working with the Kodak.

Phil Forrest

 

[rxmd]

As for larger memory cards, 4GB is plenty for me. Actually, I'm thinking that 2GB is probably sufficient. [...] So, I still haven't heard from anyone actually using one of these cameras, which is the question I posed at the beginning.

Sorry, I haven't used it myself. I have a friend who used one for architectural photography before it broke down last fall. He chose the Kodak because before the Canon 17mm TS lens there was no better digital body for use with wideangle shift lenses. The advantage there is that you work on a tripod and don't need high sensitivities.

Memory-card-wise it apparently doesn't take cards larger than 1GB, which can get limiting when your TIFFs are upwards of 30 MB.

I think his viewfinder wasn't original, it had gridlines. If you're willing to change the focusing screen anyway there is no net advantage for either system.

I considered one myself for a while and you see 14n's for under 500 EUR sometimes, which is just about the cheapest full frame camera you can get. You'd need a DCS Pro/c though which appears to be rarer, unless you want to put Leitax mounts on all of your R lenses.