Kodak DCS 760 (2001) / Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003)

I had fun doing a comparison between my Kodak DCS 760 APS-H and my DCS Pro 14nx FF

Kodak DCS 760 (2001) / Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003) by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr

Kodak DCS760 (2001)
6 MP sensor (3040x2008)
Price: $9,000.00 USD
Photos taken with the AF 50mm f/1.8 D nikkor
(with a multiplication factor of 1.3) APS-H
80-400 ISO

  ____________

Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003)
13.9 MP sensor (4536 x 3024) FF
The first Kodak 24x36 Digital
Price $4,000.00 USD
Photos taken with the AF-S VR 24-120mm f/4 G ED N nikkor
(with a multiplication factor of 1.0) FF
80-400 (800) ISO
*Upgraded (Kodak Professional DCS Pro 14nx ) for $1800 USD
ISO 160-1600

You can see the full comparison here...

Kodak DCS 760 (2001) 50% / Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003) 50% by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr

I see

Kodak DCS 760 (2001) 100% / Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003) 100% by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr

Kodak DCS 760 (2001) / Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003) by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr

Your comments are welcome 😎

Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003)

I have gathered here, the comparisons made with the Kodak DCS Pro 14n

If anyone is interested

Kodak DCS 200 (1992) / Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157719668781183
Laurel & Hardy

Kodak DCS 460 (1995) / Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157719654397825
APS-H / FF

Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003) et Nikon D3S (2009)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157719633865833
FF Kodak / Nikon

Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003) / Pentax 645D (2010)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157720071808920
BIG

Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003) / Sigma sd Quattro H (2016-17)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720299296614
Mini ISO

Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003) / Nikon D810 (2014)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720302716631
FF Kodak / Nikon V02

Canon EOS-1Ds (2002) / Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157719580210824
FF Canon / Kodak

Kodak DCS 760 (2001) / Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720307824390
Kodak / Kodak

Kodak DCS 760 (2001)

And also the seven comparisons made with the DCS 760 APS-H

Just here

Kodak DCS 460 (1995) / Kodak DCS 760 (2001)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157677082533667
Kodak 6MP

Kodak DCS 520 (1998) / Kodak DCS 760 (2001)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720295717055
Kodak DCS

Kodak DCS 760 (2001) / DCS 720x (2001)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157669401903581
Kodak 2001

Kodak DCS 760 (2001) / Nikon D1X (2001)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157690133059694
The Digital Odyssey

Kodak DCS 760 (2001) / Canon EOS-1D (2001)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157719978445767
Two 2001 APS-H CCD

Kodak DCS 760 (2001) / Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720307824390
Kodak/Kodak

Kodak DCS 760 (2001) / Sigma Quattro H (2016-17)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157710441728172
APS-H

Thanks, as always, for doing these.

This comparison is of interest to me because, several years ago when I took an interest in Kodak DSLRs(after they were considered "obsolete") a DCS 14n was the first one I found myself with. Probably 6 months later, by chance, I bought a boxed/complete DCS 760. Up until just recently they were my only Kodak cameras.

I love the 760. Even though the 14n and SLRn have the resolution, I love how the F5-based body handles especially compared to the N80-based cameras.

I wish APS-H had been more popular. I've found most of my APS-C lenses will cover it just fine, which is nice since I can avoid the weight/bulk of full frame lenses but still keep reasonable wide angles.

You're welcome, it's my pleasure.

Naturally, the F5 base is far superior to the N80.
I've always liked the APS-H format, too.

My latest comparison includes an APS-H and an MF if you're interested.
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720308541118

Kodak DCS 760 (2001) 100% / Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003) 100% by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr

Kodak DCS 760 (2001) 50% / Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003) 50% by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr

www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720307824390

Say Cheese!

Kodak DCS 760 (2001) by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr

Kodak DCS Pro 14n (2003) by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr

Photos taken at ISO 400
The maximum for the DCS 460

www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720307824390/with/52850260526/

Kodak DCS 760 (400 ISO) 100% / Kodak DCS Pro 14n (400 ISO) 100% by Marc Aubry, sur Flickr

I had the 14n for a short while. It was great at some things, and horrendous at others. For me, at the time I was using it for wedding work and a bit of landscape. High iso was awful so I used canon equipment for that. But in the end, the rainbow artifacts that came up in bridal dresses and branches of trees meant the camera had to go.

I understand. And the Kodak DCS Pro 14n is far from being a pleasure to handle. 😈
Thanks for the feedback 👍🏻

I got my 14n back in 2003 or 2004 and I still have it. It won't start up properly now, something goes wrong during boot up that makes it constantly cycle. I didn't wear it out, it went wrong all on its own while stored in a cupboard. I'd take it out once a year just to check it still worked and one day it went wrong. Very occasionally with a lot of persistence I can get it to take one shot.

I was shooting a 6MP D100 at that time and I think the jump to 14MP is the most significant image resolution leap I've experienced. However, the sensor is pretty poor. It is very noisy even at ISO80 and Kodak had to do a lot to make it produce acceptable images. It suffers horribly from colour aliasing and "Italian flag" patchy colour casts. The lens correction mechanism isn't any good and it only works well with a small number of lenses. Mine also suffered horribly from pink ghosting around highlights from reflections between the IR filter and back of the lens. IMO it was rushed to market, wasn't really of merchantable quality and was a bit of an embarrassment of a product. Still, in it's narrow operating window, with a fair wind and all that, I still made some very good largish prints (for the time) from it. I replaced it with a 5D classic which was a well sorted camera from the off and far superior in every way. I could still live with a 5D today, if I had to.

My camera now lives in my camera museum (ie the attic) along with a number of other relics of the early days of consumer digital.

I'm sorry for you.
It's always frustrating to realize that a camera no longer functions properly. 😩

The last call ...