Kodak DCS 410 sensor (9.2x13.8 mm) 2.6X factor
Nikon 1 J5 sensor (8.8x13.2 mm ) 2.7X factor

By taking some photographs with my Kodak DCS 410 for IliahBorg (Here)
I took the opportunity to finish, to end a pending comparison

Here the small sensors called 1” with a multiplication factor of 2.6x or 2.7x compared to the famous 24x36 mm
The two cameras with a focal length of 50mm are equivalent to 130 and 135mm respectively

In short, a comparison between two generations of cameras, The Kodak DCS 410 (1996) and the Nikon 1 J5 (2015)

Kodak DCS410 (1996)
1.54 MP sensor (1524x1012)
Price: $8,000.00 USD
Taken with the AF 50mm f/1.8 D Nikkor
(multiplication factor of 2.6)
ISO100

   __________________

Nikon 1 J5 (2015)
21 MP sensor (5568 x 3712)
Price: $500.00USD
Photos were taken with the: Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.8 G
(multiplication factor of 2.7) CX
160-6400 (12800) ISO

For those who might be interested, I have here all the photos, more than 90

Hi,

That 410 works better than I remember! :)

Stan

The DCS 410 is also getting old, like all of us 🙄
It's already beautiful that it can still work after 27 years!

Hi,

Kodak must have used good capacitors. In my experience, that's usually the component
most likely to crap out and kill things electronic. So I call em CRAPacitors! :P

Other than batteries, of course. Battery cells are already on the road to ruin about the
time they leave the manufacturing line. But, then, they are all using corrosive
chemicals by their very nature.

All I have here Kodak wise these days is a 520c and a 760c. Both still working,
but then also newer than the 410.

Stan

Yes, I get much better results with these last two

Kodak DCS 520 (1998) / Canon EOS-1D Mark IV (2009)

Kodak DCS 760 (2001) / Canon EOS-1D (2001)

I had read that the Kodak DCS 410 was a cheap version of the DCS 420 🗣

Hi Stan! when i first talked to @Maoby and told me he had a working DCS100 I asked for the caps since mine had the tantalums all shorted, I had to replace every single one of them.
And to my surprise he told me his was completely original. Very surprising actually.

Hi,

I have had the same experience. Tantalums from brand X go bad in a few years while those
from brand Y never fail even after 30 years.

And when we make things, we get the parts inside of tape on a reel, and so can make a lot of
boards before we change the reel. And then, is that a reel of brand X again, or are we rotating
our stock over to brand Y?

Sigh.

We always have at least two suppliers of everything.

Stan

Who doesn't have his signature here....
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer

See here the difference in quality between the two cameras, both date from the same year 1994

Kodak AP NC2000 Pro (1994) / Kodak DCS 420 (1994)

Kodak AP NC2000 $18,000.00 USD
Kodak DCS 420 $ 11,000.00 USD

Kodak DCS 410 (1996)

I have grouped here the five comparisons made with my Kodak DCS 410
Between 2016 and 2023

Kodak DCS 410 (1996) / Nikon D600 (2012)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157669080808992

Kodak DCS 460 (1995) / Kodak DCS 410 (1996)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157704023152432

Kodak DCS 410 (1996) / Kodak DCS 720X (2001)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157705066801222

Kodak DCS 410 (1996) / Nikon D810 (2014)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72157720201625373

Kodak DCS 410 (1996) / Nikon 1 J5 (2015)
www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720307390560

Enjoy 😇

www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/albums/72177720307390560

The Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM ART turns into a 364.5mm f/1.8 on my little Nikon 1 J5 😁

If you're referring to the greater acuity as seen especially on the edges of the letters in the 100% vs 26% comparison, that may be completely due to the differences in resampling between the two images, as presented. 385% vs 100% would be quite different, I think. So would 577% vs 150%, where neither benefits from the false sense of "acuity=detail" detail at 100%.

100% vs 25% with Nearest Neighbor would easily give the acuity award to the Nikon, but would also be quite aliased. With 4x4 binning, the Nikon should be more acute, but not as aliased as, and less noisy than, Nearest Neighbor.

There is just too much illusion created in arbitrary resampling for viewing on coarse-pixel monitors. There is, unfortunately, no unbiased freedom of arbitrary resampling. Resampling is almost always part of the reason that things look the way they do, detail-wise; it is not just the capture that determines this.

Not really. You can't claim equivalence without scaling the f-number, too.

It is either a 2.7x crop of 135/1.8, or a crop equivalent to 364.5/4.86 on a FF. You can't mix them. They are married (with no possibility of divorce) by the pupil size of 75mm.

I was sure that some joker would come and talk to me about opening equivalence.
Sorry, my Sigma frames as 364.5mm and its aperture remains at f/1.8
The angle of view varies, but not the aperture for the amount of light.
I'm a little tired of this so-called photographer, who likes to repeat the same nonsense to make himself interesting.

The Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM ART becomes 364.5mm f/1.8 on my little Nikon 1 J5

Those are two different contexts, though. Angle of view is not focal length. When you say a focal length and an f-number together for the same gear, it is like saying that you sold your old house and bought at new one for half as many dollars, without telling anyone that they were in different countries with an exchange rate that is far from 1:1.

"1.8" is not an aperture; "f/1.8" is an aperture, but only when you replace the "f" with the true focal length. That true focal length is 135mm, so the aperture is 75mm, and yes, that aperture doesn't change with different sensor sizes, but different sensor sizes affect total light captured with a given exposure.

Do you, or do you not, agree that lens on a 1" sensor gives similar imaging to a FF camera with 364.5mm at f/4.86, and not f/1.8?

A reference about equvalence: www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/index.html

I make it 368mm at f/4.91 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

😉

We're almost always starting with rounded numbers, so there must be a small amount of play in evaluating the numbers. The "600/6.3" of my Tamron 150-600 G1 zoom is really something like "578/6.43" at infinity distance, IIRC. That's a difference in calculated pupil of 95.24mm vs 89.89mm, a factor of 1.0595:1.

Let me give you a simple example.
If I take a photo with my D810 and my 135mm f/1.8
And I take a second photo with my D810, in APS-C format with my 135mm ( x1.5 ) = 202.5mm still at f/1.8
My f/1.8 doesn't magically change the aperture when I shoot APS-C with my D810.

It's the same here with the Nikon 1 J5 135mm ( X2.7) = 364.5mm still at f/1.8
If you don't understand or don't want to understand, there's nothing I can do for you.