As someone who has used Kodaks for a couple of years, I'm also facing a similar quandary - just upgrade to the DCS14n, or jump ship for the Canon? Here's my take on some of the points being bandied about. > > Agreed there seems to be little difference on the surface, but I suspect > another two points will be of major importance: > > Image quality ( no anti-alias filter on Kodak)
Are you saying you want a AA filter? My DCS330 came with an AA filter installed which I changed for an IR(only) filter. My DCS760 came with an IR filter - the AA filter was an option at considerable extra cost. I never bothered purchasing it, preferring to deal with any color aliasing or color moire on a localized basis WHEN it happened, rather than having all images softened by an AA filter. Same goes for any processing software that automatically applies color anti-aliasing to the whole of every image, in my experience. But that's just me. I shoot primarily product and technical stuff. If I did mostly portraits, fashion, weddings - I'd probably opt for full-time AA. Does the Canon really come with an AA filter installed? Is an IR(only) filter available? My impression is that, as pixel density per inch goes up, there is less and less need for AA HW or SW. > > Service of Kodak ( do fixation do Kodak under warranty? I can't vouch for any personal experience one way or the other about Kodak's warrantee service. In three years I've simply never had any problems. But I have heard the "service horror stories," not unlike the ones I've heard about Apple computers, Epson printers, and any other brand of computer or printer for that matter. If the potential for this does bother you, I'd suggest taking advantage of Kodak's Gold Service Program which, among other things, assures you of a loaner while yours is being serviced, but at additional cost. I've never opted for this on either Kodak, but sure as heck would pay for the service policy if I ever bought another stinking Apple monitor (my own personal horror story.) What's really always kept me from giving much consideration to Canon/Fuji/Nikon alternatives has been the ongoing litany of complaints on this list and others about their lame software. If it's not complaints about lack of features or extra cost (Kodaks have always come with the "industrial strength" software package and upgrades are free,) it's processing speed, especially on Macs (Kodak SW has always been equally speedy on both Macs and PCs.) Apparently another upgrade to Photo Desk is to be released with the 14n. Having taken a look at the Capture One SW, that is an impressive point for the Canon and probably solves the SW issue. Were it available for the Kodak (and it actually works as sweet as it looks) I'd pop for it today. As a cost comparison then, the 14n at USD 4,800 plus 750 for the Gold Service totals 5,550. (I'm taking list prices from the Calumet catalog received last week.) The Canon at USD 8,000 plus 500 for the CapOne totals 8,500, or just a bit more than 50% additional, for fewer pixels, but a more robust body and more sophisticated SW. At this point, I'd really want to see picture quality and workflow from both before making up my mind, I guess. > This will be my only camera for a new career as a photographer (I was a > graphic designer in my previous life!) so I hope I choose the right product. Best bet is to wait until the succeeding model comes out. Then, in the reviews, they always tell you that "this new model cures this and that problems that the previous one had." Which, of course, they never mentioned back then... -- Jay Busse Photo Illustrators =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
