This was written with tongue firmly in cheek wasn't it ? The bad press was because it was a bad camera !
Sounds to me like he's right on the money. At least 95 percent of the images I've done in the past year were done with a 14n. I've been in the pro photo biz for almost thirty years now so I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. Must be a pretty damed effective *bad* camera. It's only a *bad* camera when used outside of its considerable capabilities. MUCH of the bad press... or maybe not press so much as forum chatter... could very definitely be traced to people who have no clue what to expect from and how to handle a no AA filter camera. It also didn't help that the methodology for creating and handling Kodak images is quite different from just about every other DSLR on the planet. Primarily the fact that Kodaks love over exposure and hate underexposure. Just about exactly opposite most every other. First time users with no sans AA filter experience and no prior Kodak DSLR experience were pretty much doomed to lackluster results. A little education on how to milk the most out of one of these things goes a long way. There are numerous threads on various forums that bear this out. Threads where someone hates the camera but for whatever reason stuck it out and bothered to learn its idiosyncrasies. Suddenly they become a 14n zealot. I've seen very few reports of where users of prior Kodak cameras were disappointed with the 14n. The vast majority of those upset were users new to the Kodak way.
Bob Smith
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
