D'oh! Buh bye!

Forums: 
Sigh. Well, I've used the SLR/n to I feel very good effect now for about 14 months and almost 40K actuations. However, on removing a lens that seemed to lock too tightly to the frame I must have separated the lens locking mechanism. I sent the camera in for repairs a few days ago and just received a repair quote back for $1,375 (the camera is two months out of warranty, I suppose I should have extended it!). So, I'm afraid that's it. I'm out of the Kodak brand. Hello, D2x! Jim Herndon

HI Jim I can tell you two things (my Kodak had to go to finance the D2x) 1. you'll miss lots about the Kodak 2. you won't regret the change to the D2x kind regards Jono Slack http://www.slack.co.uk

Hi Jono, Thanks, it's good to hear that you are happy with your D2x. Honestly, there were some things driving me nuts about the SLR/n (moire, magenta fringing, lack of pro body), but in general the camera produced exceptional quality 95% of the time. I'm not so much peeved at Kodak (they tried to build a good camera) as I am that I'm spending so much on digital cameras every year and a half. I'm really hoping the D2x will at least be a 3 year camera for me. I know I'll miss full frame the most. I loved that, it's my one main gripe about the D2x. I did some quick tests a few weeks ago to check out a friend's D2x against my SLR/n, then two days ago I rented a Canon 1Ds (not Mark II) and ran some similar tests. I know it's taking my word (I might post some quicky results on another thread) but I found the SLR/n to have the best resolution of the three (but it has color dots or moire in the fine details), followed VERY closely by the D2x (with few color probs), followed by the 1Ds. I also found the color on the D2x very pleasing, although they pop in an attractive way they are also accurate. I always liked the color from the SLR/n, and found the color rendition between the D2x and SLR/n very similar. The 1Ds seems to do great with green, but there's a strange 'muddiness' to other colors that was really hard to correct well to my eyes. I was kicking around the idea of getting the D2x, anyway. Kodak's repair quote just makes the decision an easier one for me. I thought about repairing the Kodak, anyway, but the repair is a higher price than what I think I could sell it for (if I wanted). The Canon had to blow me away to switch systems, and it just didn't. Nice camera, but not worth the $8K price tag (and the switch in lenses) in my case. Thanks again, best wishes. Jim Herndon
Jono Slack wrote: HI Jim I can tell you two things (my Kodak had to go to finance the D2x) 1. you'll miss lots about the Kodak 2. you won't regret the change to the D2x kind regards Jono Slack http://www.slack.co.uk

Hi Jim
Jim Herndon wrote: Hi Jono, Thanks, it's good to hear that you are happy with your D2x. Honestly, there were some things driving me nuts about the SLR/n (moire, magenta fringing, lack of pro body), but in general the camera produced exceptional quality 95% of the time.
Exactly - I think we all feel that way about it.
I'm not so much peeved at Kodak (they tried to build a good camera) as I am that I'm spending so much on digital cameras every year and a half. I'm really hoping the D2x will at least be a 3 year camera for me.
Well, it's three years since the D1x, and the imperative to upgrade this one seems much less - all the comparisons between the D2x/Kodak/1DsMkII I've seen rather indicate to me that it is the glass that's becoming the limiting factor, and that if someone brought out a 20mp camera - there wouldn't be a great deal of difference.
I know I'll miss full frame the most. I loved that, it's my one main gripe about the D2x.
I bet you don't! I thought so too, but the viewfinder on the D2x is just fine - it's a little smaller, but it's bright and clear, and I don't have to look around the edges anymore. The real joy is to have shots which are sharp to the corners - which show no vignetting. I do miss the super wide 12mm on the Sigma (now a rather more mundane 18mm) but I don't miss anything else about full frame - I think you'll be surprised when you get used to it.
I did some quick tests a few weeks ago to check out a friend's D2x against my SLR/n, then two days ago I rented a Canon 1Ds (not Mark II) and ran some similar tests. I know it's taking my word (I might post some quicky results on another thread) but I found the SLR/n to have the best resolution of the three (but it has color dots or moire in the fine details), followed VERY closely by the D2x (with few color probs), followed by the 1Ds.
There have now been so many tests like this (several seem to put the D2x in front) - it seems to me that they're all so inconclusive that it indicates there really isn't much to choose (and different cameras will do better in different circumstances). The lack of colour spots on the D2x is certainly a bonus.
I also found the color on the D2x very pleasing, although they pop in an attractive way they are also accurate. I always liked the color from the SLR/n, and found the color rendition between the D2x and SLR/n very similar. The 1Ds seems to do great with green, but there's a strange 'muddiness' to other colors that was really hard to correct well to my eyes.
I found the colour took some time to get used to - nothing 'wrong' - just different, it also feels very saturated after the Kodak files. As for what I miss with the Kodak (your other message). I miss the 'ambience' of the files, and the feeling I always got of 'work in progress' when I opened them - the D2x files always feel much more completed. It's rather like the way I miss my old car - it was stupidly over-powered for a front wheel drive car, had pretty drastic torque steer, and I'd learned it's every quirk and foible and could work it - the new one has traction control/rear wheel steering etc. etc. and seems almost to drive itself . . . . I think I miss the Kodak for the same reason - I don't think anyone would accuse the D2x of being a point and shoot, and I'm sure I still have a lot to learn - but I'm not sure that it'll ever feel like a 'partnership' in quite the way it did with the Kodak. Rather silly really! Kind Regards Jono http://www.slack.co.uk

I know exactly what you mean, and so do others. I was shooting with a photographer who got more out of the 720X files than anyone I've seen. Not only color/contrast adjustments, but resizing. He found the process to tap into his creativity and he produces wonderful, fine art quality images. He just got the D2X and worries that his artistry is no longer needed and he is being taken out of the loop. Progress always brings new problems, but who expected this one? ;> ) best....Peter
Jono Slack wrote: As for what I miss with the Kodak (your other message). I miss the 'ambience' of the files, and the feeling I always got of 'work in progress' when I opened them - the D2x files always feel much more completed. Rather silly really! Kind Regards Jono http://www.slack.co.uk

Hi Peter! God! how incredibly right you are! The Kodak, because of its quirks forced uss to stay sharp, sometimes go to extreme lenghts, using all tricks, everything. So, get the DX2, but always KEEP!! the Kodak. Although I dont believe creativity will suffer regardless of camera. I mean Im used to ACR, which gives no support to DX2 so we have to go through the process of learning Bibble, NC etc, its a new ballgame, new creative goals. In todays world of progress! we should be happy we still have to use our eyes, still have to compose the shot, ie photographers are still needed. regards Fred

HI Fred and Peter It is interesting however, that after almost two months with the D2x, I'm beginning to realise where the scope for ME! lies When I first got the Kodak, one was immediately slapped in the face by the things one was going to have to master - moire/magenta spots, and in the early days colour casts as well. It was The New Camera Challenge. With the D2x there is still lots of scope for improving images, controlling mid tone contrast seems to be my current issue - it's just that the problems don't jump out at you like they did with the Kodak. Perhaps the New Camera Challenge with the Nikon is finding out where one can improve on the (already excellent) image quality, and how that feeds back to the way one will actually photograph the image in the first place. It amuses me the number of posts on the Nikon forum (and in reviews) to the effect that "This camera produces excellent results, but you'll need to work hard to get the best out of it". After the Kodak it's almost like buying a point and shoot! But you are right Fred - the fact that in many cases I'm just downloading the image I wanted to the camera - and there it is . . . voila - without spending ages getting it just right - doesn't mean that I'm being cut out of the cycle - I still took the shot after all! It just sometimes feels that way. Kind Regards to you both Jono Slack http://www.slack.co.uk

Thats it Jono, your creativity will always be there can never be subdued! Tell you what though, I wish the Nikon forum was like this one. Got a problem? just consult the Forum. Over at the Nikon Forum, as you say everyone is far too busy proclaaiming everything is fantastic, which its NOT!! You must remember how anti DX2 I was? because of this HF etc, well Im swallowing my early judgement. The DX2 is better. BUT that camera takes a lot of pre-thinking not like the Kodak, post-processing. Oh! by the way Im sick and tired of NC, painstakingly slow. kind regards Fred PS. One day youll get your Kodak back

Hi Fred
frederic fahraeus wrote: Thats it Jono, your creativity will always be there can never be subdued!
LOL - maybe that's a bad thing!
Tell you what though, I wish the Nikon forum was like this one. Got a problem? just consult the Forum. Over at the Nikon Forum, as you say everyone is far too busy proclaaiming everything is fantastic, which its NOT!!
Dreadful isn't it - and if someone posts anything interesting he get's roundly slagged off! Poor Mikael with his DR comparison, with some idiot saying they were the same shot!
You must remember how anti DX2 I was? because of this HF etc, well Im swallowing my early judgement. The DX2 is better.
I guess the full frame argument will go on for a bit longer, it seems to me that the limiting factor is usually the bit that falls apart first - and IMHO this seems to be edge definition on full frame (although one might have expected it to be general defninition with HF). It would seem that Canon have played to the crowd, whereas Nikon have stuck to their guns - it will be interesting to see who comes turns out to be right in the long-run.
BUT that camera takes a lot of pre-thinking not like the Kodak, post-processing.
I think you're right - but in the end, I'm coming to the conclusion that there is only one commandment with this camera: First Commandment for the D2x Thou shalt not blow out thine highlights
Oh! by the way Im sick and tired of NC, painstakingly slow.
LOL - took me one afternoon to decide . . . . I'm using Bibble now, and it seems perfectly acceptable, and quite quick - but like you I'm waiting for ACR to cover the D2x.
kind regards Fred PS. One day youll get your Kodak back
LOL - maybe, but the new owner seems quite happy with it! Kind Regards -- Jono Slack http://www.slack.co.uk

Hi Jono, Thanks again! Yeah, it is funny. I knew all the tricks to pull out as much as I could from a Kodak RAW file in ACR. I knew how to expose for the Kodak (unlike the D2x it's better to 'slightly' over-expose the SLR/n) and how to handle all its crazy body quirks (reversions to earlier firmware updates, my hot shoe contact needed constant cleaning, etc), and I suppose it became an old, lovable car to me, too. A Gremlin with a Porsche's heart! But, in my case, better quality up front is a great thing to hear. It just means my workflow will run more smoothly. Happy shooting! Jim Herndon

Hi again, Out of curiosity, what aspects of the SLR/n do you miss compared to the D2x? I might find out about them myself at a later date, but I'm interested in hearing what you have found! Thanks again. Jim Herndon

Jim Herndon wrote: However, on removing a lens that seemed to lock too tightly to the frame I must have separated the lens locking mechanism.
I don't know what it's exactely broken but can't you buy a N80 and try to fix it yourself, taking parts from the N80? -- Regards Gabriele California, CA -------------------- Equipment list in profile

I agree with gabriele. Eventually you can take to a good repair shop and they can use Nikon parts to fix. Especially if the damage is only on the baionet.

Good idea, guys. And thank you. I had just assumed that since the SLR/n is such a 'relatively' obscure camera that only Kodak could work on it. I might just try your idea. Thanks again. Jim Herndon

Hi Jim! I symphatize with you, I did the same with an S2 some six months ago. Just dont know why its so expensive. I was very much against the DX2 in the beginning, HF, less mp than the Kodak etc. I finally bought it a few weeks ago and agree with Jono. The shots are spotlessly clean and the pixel-quality incredible. Yet there is something about the Kodak-files. Weird? Regards Fred

Jim Herndon wrote: Sigh. Well, I've used the SLR/n to I feel very good effect now for about 14 months and almost 40K actuations. However, on removing a lens that seemed to lock too tightly to the frame I must have separated the lens locking mechanism. I sent the camera in for repairs a few days ago and just received a repair quote back for $1,375 (the camera is two months out of warranty, I suppose I should have extended it!).
Hey Jim, I don't want to seem like a ghoul, stalking someine in their time of misfortune, but... How much for the broken SLR/n?

Joseph S. Wisniewski wrote:
Jim Herndon wrote: Sigh. Well, I've used the SLR/n to I feel very good effect now for about 14 months and almost 40K actuations. However, on removing a lens that seemed to lock too tightly to the frame I must have separated the lens locking mechanism. I sent the camera in for repairs a few days ago and just received a repair quote back for $1,375 (the camera is two months out of warranty, I suppose I should have extended it!).
Hey Jim, I don't want to seem like a ghoul, stalking someine in their time of misfortune, but... How much for the broken SLR/n?

Ha! Give me an email (my email address is in my profile) offer and I will seriously consider it. The camera works if the lens is in the correct position. If the lens rotates slightly it loses its contact (and it rotates because the locking mechanism is broken). I suppose I could tape the lens (or glue it! Ha!), but wedding season is approaching for me and I'd be more than a little crazy to trust the camera at a wedding. Jim Herndon

Add new comment

Image
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: png gif jpg jpeg.
Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: zip rar.