Kodak Pro/n vs D200 - Clearing the Buffer...

[Straus]

Ok so I work with a couple Pro/n bodies and when shooting fast the write time to card or time it takes to clear the buffer is insane. I'll start by saying I am using pretty fast CF cards. Lexar 80x & SanDisc Ultra IIs. The camera is writing the 6mp RAW to the cards so not the 13mp.

So the question is for anyone out there who has or is using the D200. Can you guys give me a comparison to shooting fast with this camera? I know the write speeds are at least 50+% better but I'd like some real worlk comparisons if possible.

Thanks

[BruceHendricks]

I sold my 14NX BEFORE I took possession of my D200 by about a week. Yes it was a gamble, but it paid off in spades. The D200 kicks the the 14N/NC/DSLRN series cameras all over the court.

I only use Lexar WA Pro cards (Sandisk cards are rated faster with the D200 according to Galbraith's site) and my cards range from 32X - 80X. I've never hit the buffer and do not have to wait a long time to write. I can not do a dirrect comparison in that regard because my days of owning a Kodak are thankfully behind me (hey - we all make mistake sin life!).

However, the only possibly advantage overall the Kodak camera might have is when used like a MF camera in the studio under optimum lighting using ACR for conversion of raw. Since the camera has a few more MPs, the files are slightly larger - if you can live with all the other problems that come with the Kodak - a Rip Van Winkle start up time, stupid body design, slower sync, Moire using PD, etc, etc, etc Only under optimum condiditions does the Kodak become equal to the D200. Otherwise the D200 kicks butt over the Kodak series.

Forget "full frame". I was hung up on it. SO you change a coupel lenses on the wide spectrum. Funny, but the Kodak catch phrase "lens optimumization" is not in Nikon's vocabulary. Possibly because they 3/4 chip ration design allows the light to come in at a steeper angle to the chip - which is better for digital photography.

Do yourself a huge favour. If you anything other then studio work at base ISO with perfect lighting on a tripd 100% of the time, DUMP the dinasour called Kodak (remember they didn't care to about us their users who they charged to upgrade their falty chip). Loyalty does not exist at Kodak anymore. The company doesn't care about it's customers or even it's reps.

Big yellow is dead... they just are not smart enough to tell the last one leaving to shut off the lights. They are still putting time/energy and money into developing film - that just shows how backwards they are!

[Paul_Spatafora]

I've been using this camera and have been comparing the results with a D200 and have come to the conclusion that it beats the Kodak in noise supression at the expense of detail. Others have found the same results. It's not a speed demon, and never claimed to be. The D200 does claim to be 5 fps and I think it delivers. I like the colors from the Kodak better than the D200. It seems it needs a little more work to match the Kodaks colors. Sometimes a lot of work. I have found the Kodak to work in more envirnoments not just the studio. I've shot many weddings with it with very good results. Keep in mind, the Kodak is a 3+ year old camera. In the electronic world, this is ancient!

I had hope to buy the D200, but I'm going to wait. I think my D70 gives me better high ISO that the D200 for some reason which I can't explain. I also don't like the egronomics of the camera. The little grip is very annoying when you have to handle it all day. It feels like I'm doing a tiger claw all day!!

I use Bibble for RAW conversion now. PD is outdated. I hope to keep it until Nikon solves it high ISO issues and gives ISO800 results close to the Canon otherwise the an upgrade is not warranted. Maybe Nikon will surprise us this fall!!

My 2 cents.

Paul

[LarryLetzer]

I have both the 14NX and the D200. I cannot address the buffer clearing as I am a portrait and event photographer and rarely use CF cards. Most of our work is tethered. I am very pleased with the 200's ability to capture quality detail with JPEGs where I have to shoot RAW with the Kodak to obtain the same detail. However, in the studio and on location in homes, I shoot RAW to get maximam detail. I just wish I could use Photo Desk to convert Nikon RAW images. Maybe Photo Desk is three years old, but I have found nothing to compare with PD as far as batch processing is concerned. We often shoot hundreds of images per job and an easy batch processor is a must. Kodak if you are reading this please consider selling PD to other camera makers.

[BobSmith]

The camera is writing the 6mp RAW to the cards so not the 13mp.

The Kodak is a lot slower when writing 6MP than the full 13MP DCR. If you ask the camera to write jpegs or smaller than full DCRs then the camera has to process or downsample the file before writing and hence quite a delay. Shoot only full res raws for best performance. Look at the Galbraith database (does it still show Kodak data??). It used to be true that Microdrives were the fastest performing cards in the Kodaks... outperforming many supposedly faster, more costly compact flash cards.

Bob Smith

[Ecopix]

A first and lengthy post, because this discussion cuts to the heart of the Kodak’s continuing relevance, now it is discontinued and other makers introduce new models.

I too use a D200 and an SLR/n. In fact, I bought the SLR/n after shooting thousands of images with the D200 on assignment. The SLR/n has been a very wise purchase. They are both beautiful cameras and complement one another well in my opinion. Write speed and press-ready image quality are what separates the cameras most.

You have to use the right tool for the job. If write-speed is important for the work, use a D200. The original questioner already had the figures. In practice write speed is not an issue with the D200. In single shot it is virtually instantaneous. In bursts, there are other things happening in your environment that will command your attention before the camera’s writing time. You rarely see the little green light when you are busy working.

This is in stark contrast with the Kodak camera, the little red light of which seems to rule your life. It also has certain eccentricities that make it less suitable for event photography. Just because you press the shutter button, doesn’t mean the camera will comply. The bride might say “I do”, but the camera might say “but not me”!

So why use the SLR/n or its siblings at all? Because there is a lot of photography in which image quality is more important than camera speed, for example editorial, product, stock and fine art. When the camera is on a tripod with the shutter at 6 seconds who cares if the data takes another few seconds to record? It’s worth the wait.

The D200 is like a 35mm camera – it’s image quality is very good and adequate for most purposes (more than can be said for the D70 – mine hasn’t left the bag since I bought the others). I find the SLR/n’s image quality is of a different order, and nearly gives Hasselblad 6x6 film a run. After showing the world how to make digital SLRs, Kodak stepped back and decided to make something quite different and photographically beautiful. For a start they got rid of the anti-aliasing filter, which is a horrible thing to put between a fine lens and a fine sensing array. The D200 really suffers from its anti-aliasing filter.

Kodak’s approach was to write complementary software (PD) which did the job afterwards. The result is incredible image fidelity at middling ISO (remember when slow was 50 ISO!), and a look, under magnification, which matches fine film. I find the moiré reduces to negligible when “advanced with moiré reduction” is on max in PD. I can’t explain the difference in results reported by others, except to say that Nikon DSLRs range widely in image quality so perhaps the Kodaks did too. I may have a good one.

Also, you don’t see this when you use zoom lenses at wide apertures and handheld shots (in fact my zooms have corner problems with the full-frame chip). These modern sensors are so fine you really see a difference when you use classy lenses (this goes for the D200 too). The well-known water-colour effect is replaced with detail. As examples, I get great results with 24mm, 55mm micro and 105mm 2.5 fixed Nikkors, and 50mm, 80mm and 120mm Ziess lenses adapted from Hasselblad. Auto lens optimization works perfectly with these (Nikon’s “hue adjustment” isn’t in Kodak’s vocabulary either – at least L.O. works!)The SLR/n is only 3.5 megapixels larger than the D200, yet I get markedly finer, smoother and more pleasing images from the Kodak, out of proportion to this, when I use it carefully.

But the biggest difference is in the bottom line. I shoot big projects – thousand of images in an intensive week, then another week of long computer hours getting hundreds of them press ready. Like many in this industry, the pressure is really on me (I should be working now). The D200 images need a lot more work – sharpening, tonal correction, dodging and burning, saturation, colour balance, highlight detail etc. The SLRn’s are close to press-ready straight from the camera and PD software, with only minor work in Photoshop. The D200 saves seconds on location (which is often important), but the SLR/n saves literally days of work in post. It’s only when I send out the images that I can send out the invoice! And start the next job!

So my advice is that if write speed is causing you problems, a D200 will solve that. But don’t sell the Kodak camera if it suits some of your work. Used appropriately, it’s not a dinosaur, it’s a living treasure that can help you prosper.

Wayne Lawler, EcoPix (Australia).

PS. Why do Americans crucify Kodak so much? There is no sentiment in business. You identify Kodak so much with American culture you can’t see that it is just another giant multinational company sourcing and selling products worldwide, just like Nikon. (If you think the D200 is Japanese, look at it’s baseplate. If you think film is dead, line up at a minilab in India. They’ll be selling Kodak film to the masses). I don’t have any loyalty to Kodak - in the bad old days my fridge was green - I just know a beautiful photographic image when I see it. Kodak and Nikon could do another camera together, with Nikon doing all the engineering, which they do best, but deferring to Kodak expertise for the subtleties of the photographic image, which Kodak have mastered for a century.

[LarryLetzer]

Wayne, you make a good point about American pros disliking Kodak. Well, unfortunately, Kodak has brought it on themselves. I bought a 760 several years back. The camera was shooting very soft images at wider focal length distances. I sent the camera in and Kodak said the camera was "within specs." They sent it back and still the same. One Kodak tech person whom later became head of this department told me my $985.00 lens was faulty. This went on for 9 months and finally to shut me up, Kodak sent a tech guy to my studio to observe how I photographed. when I got done, he said, "Thats exactly how I photograph." When he saw my images on the monitor he said this camera is bad. I waited 9 months for Kodak to admit that.

40 years ago I suggested to Kodak to use different color foils to differentiate between the different types of film. They sent me a letter saying this was a great idea, but they do not accept ideas outside of Kodak. Then about 8 years later they adopted my proposal. Finally, I paid for the extended warranty for the NX camera. The camera stopped working and I sent it in. Kodak said the camera had impact damage so they would not have to fix it free. I ended up paying $1050 for the repair and they even charged me to send it back while it was under warranty. No, Kodak lost a lot of friends when they rushed the 14N to market well before its time.

I do agree with you that the SLRN image quality is better than the D200 as I own a few of each. I shoot only Jpegs with the D200 and those JPEGS are excellent. In the studio we have the 760 and the SLRN and these RAW images are great. Kodak does well with RAW while Nikon makes wonderful JPEGS.