DSLRUsers.com

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:06 am**

Okay. Not a fair a comparison.

One is current model, very popular and being manufactured by the leading manufacturer. The other is older and has been discontinued.

What are the pros and cons of these two cameras?

Both are FF. Kodak has Nikon AF mount.

Comparison:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare ... d&show=all

Kodak is uglier, heavier, and slower (although it features 512Mb buffer).

But some people who own both cameras the 5d and Kodak slr/n suggested that Kodak is better than the 5D in some aspects:

The low-ISO files ..[of Kodak slr/n].. came out sharper and with better tonality than my 5D. The sensor also has more dynamic range than the EOS 5D, about a full stop, in my experience. At ISO 1600, noise level was comparable to the D70, which is very good.

Also, Kodak SLR/N can be purchased for around $1200AUS used in EXC conditions.

I am not planning to buy the camera, just something to talk about.

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:13 am**

joey wrote:Okay. Not a fair a comparison.

One is current model, very popular and being manufactured by the leading manufacturer. The other is

A Canon?

Seriously, this is like comparing French cuisine with hamburgers.

The 5D is designed for and targeted at serious amateurs. The fact that many pros buy and use it doesn't make it a serious studio camera. It merely makes it popular.

And no, I'm not telling you which of these cameras is the 'burger.

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:20 am**

gstark wrote:
And no, I'm not telling you which of these cameras is the 'burger.

A Canon?

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:30 am**

joey wrote:
gstark wrote:
And no, I'm not telling you which of these cameras is the 'burger.

A Canon?

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:36 am**

gstark wrote:The fact that many pros buy and use it doesn't make it a serious studio camera. It merely makes it popular.

I suspect Kodak SLR/n could be a serious camera for landscape photography too. Not just for studio where it has been popular.

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:41 pm**

I was wondering the difference between the /n and the /c apart from the mounts.
The price they are going for now is really good compared to the 6k+ they were going for a couple of years ago (same with everything).

One thing that impressed me was the ISO 6 :O

Posted: **Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:18 pm**

adam wrote:I was wondering the difference between the /n and the /c apart from the mounts.
The price they are going for now is really good compared to the 6k+ they were going for a couple of years ago (same with everything).

One thing that impressed me was the ISO 6 :O

There first version had several issues which were fixed in the later version. One of those were sleeping mode. There were few others outlined steve digicams review.

Posted: **Mon May 07, 2007 11:35 am**

There really is no way to compare these 2 cameras.

I'm not sure what you are looking for in a camera, if it is a cheap but decent quality one then you would be better off looking at a used 20D than the Kodak, if it is a high quality, near pro level camera then the 5D is the go.

DSLRUsers.com

Kodak DCS SLR/n v Canon EOS 5D

Kodak DCS SLR/n v Canon EOS 5D

Re: Kodak DCS SLR/n v Canon EOS 5D

Re: Kodak DCS SLR/n v Canon EOS 5D

Re: Kodak DCS SLR/n v Canon EOS 5D

Re: Kodak DCS SLR/n v Canon EOS 5D