Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

First Nikon D2X review!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 3:15:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ken Rockwell has posted his "Nikon D2X Review Test" at the following
address:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2x.htm

For those not familiar with Rockwell's "tests," well, it's up to his usual
standards. Here's a hint: he apparently can test this camera without ever
handling one or seeing its output. Simply amazing.

Enjoy.

More about : nikon d2x review

December 1, 2004 4:08:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
news:s28rd.117152$V41.27833@attbi_s52...
> Ken Rockwell has posted his "Nikon D2X Review Test" at the following
> address:
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2x.htm
>
> For those not familiar with Rockwell's "tests," well, it's up to his usual
> standards. Here's a hint: he apparently can test this camera without ever
> handling one or seeing its output. Simply amazing.
>
> Enjoy.


LOL - a typical diehard Nikonian?

For Nikon lovers, Thom Hogan's site is a better choice.
http://www.bythom.com/

But most other serious DSLR sites use Canon cameras though.

Kinda like PC/Win/Linux vs MACOSX ;-)
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 4:08:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:RP8rd.4409$u81.2782@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
> news:s28rd.117152$V41.27833@attbi_s52...
>> Ken Rockwell has posted his "Nikon D2X Review Test" at the following
>> address:
>>
>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2x.htm
>>
>> For those not familiar with Rockwell's "tests," well, it's up to his
>> usual standards. Here's a hint: he apparently can test this camera
>> without ever handling one or seeing its output. Simply amazing.
>>
>> Enjoy.
>
>
> LOL - a typical diehard Nikonian?
>
> For Nikon lovers, Thom Hogan's site is a better choice.
> http://www.bythom.com/
>
> But most other serious DSLR sites use Canon cameras though.
>
> Kinda like PC/Win/Linux vs MACOSX ;-)
>

True, True. The unwashed masses are the lemmings that use Canon (Windows).
The truly discriminating that choose the best tools use Nikon (Mac).

Tom
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 4:08:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:o YadnSr99KkmuzDcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>
> "leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> news:RP8rd.4409$u81.2782@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
> > news:s28rd.117152$V41.27833@attbi_s52...
> >> Ken Rockwell has posted his "Nikon D2X Review Test" at the following
> >> address:
> >>
> >> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2x.htm
> >>
> >> For those not familiar with Rockwell's "tests," well, it's up to his
> >> usual standards. Here's a hint: he apparently can test this camera
> >> without ever handling one or seeing its output. Simply amazing.
> >>
> >> Enjoy.
> >
> >
> > LOL - a typical diehard Nikonian?
> >
> > For Nikon lovers, Thom Hogan's site is a better choice.
> > http://www.bythom.com/
> >
> > But most other serious DSLR sites use Canon cameras though.
> >
> > Kinda like PC/Win/Linux vs MACOSX ;-)
> >
>
> True, True. The unwashed masses are the lemmings that use Canon
(Windows).
> The truly discriminating that choose the best tools use Nikon (Mac).

I hope you don't really believe that...
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 4:08:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:o V9rd.375611$a85.137903@fed1read04...
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:o YadnSr99KkmuzDcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>>
>> "leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:RP8rd.4409$u81.2782@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
>> > news:s28rd.117152$V41.27833@attbi_s52...
>> >> Ken Rockwell has posted his "Nikon D2X Review Test" at the following
>> >> address:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2x.htm
>> >>
>> >> For those not familiar with Rockwell's "tests," well, it's up to his
>> >> usual standards. Here's a hint: he apparently can test this camera
>> >> without ever handling one or seeing its output. Simply amazing.
>> >>
>> >> Enjoy.
>> >
>> >
>> > LOL - a typical diehard Nikonian?
>> >
>> > For Nikon lovers, Thom Hogan's site is a better choice.
>> > http://www.bythom.com/
>> >
>> > But most other serious DSLR sites use Canon cameras though.
>> >
>> > Kinda like PC/Win/Linux vs MACOSX ;-)
>> >
>>
>> True, True. The unwashed masses are the lemmings that use Canon
> (Windows).
>> The truly discriminating that choose the best tools use Nikon (Mac).
>
> I hope you don't really believe that...
>
>

Well, I do own a Nikon D70 and D100, which, for me, are the best tools. I
chose my lenses first (particularly the 12-24) and then the body. Canon
didn't have a comparable lens.

But --- you'll not I am posting this from a PC, not a Mac.

And my comment was tongue-in-cheek. I just loved the ridiculous comment
about "serious" DSLR sites. Both manufacturers make excellent equipment and
the choice is very individual. Broad statements are just funny.

Tom
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 4:08:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:-PSdnRxud_84tjDcRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:o V9rd.375611$a85.137903@fed1read04...
> >
> > "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> > news:o YadnSr99KkmuzDcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
> >>
> >> "leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> >> news:RP8rd.4409$u81.2782@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> > "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
> >> > news:s28rd.117152$V41.27833@attbi_s52...
> >> >> Ken Rockwell has posted his "Nikon D2X Review Test" at the following
> >> >> address:
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2x.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> For those not familiar with Rockwell's "tests," well, it's up to his
> >> >> usual standards. Here's a hint: he apparently can test this camera
> >> >> without ever handling one or seeing its output. Simply amazing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Enjoy.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > LOL - a typical diehard Nikonian?
> >> >
> >> > For Nikon lovers, Thom Hogan's site is a better choice.
> >> > http://www.bythom.com/
> >> >
> >> > But most other serious DSLR sites use Canon cameras though.
> >> >
> >> > Kinda like PC/Win/Linux vs MACOSX ;-)
> >> >
> >>
> >> True, True. The unwashed masses are the lemmings that use Canon
> > (Windows).
> >> The truly discriminating that choose the best tools use Nikon (Mac).
> >
> > I hope you don't really believe that...
> >
> >
>
> Well, I do own a Nikon D70 and D100, which, for me, are the best tools. I
> chose my lenses first (particularly the 12-24) and then the body. Canon
> didn't have a comparable lens.
>
> But --- you'll not I am posting this from a PC, not a Mac.
>
> And my comment was tongue-in-cheek. I just loved the ridiculous comment
> about "serious" DSLR sites. Both manufacturers make excellent equipment
and
> the choice is very individual. Broad statements are just funny.

Ah! Your inclusion of **"for me"** pulled you back into the realm of "the
reasonable."
:) 
I kinda figured you might be only half serious...but around here, one can
never be sure.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 7:06:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:-PSdnRxud_84tjDcRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:o V9rd.375611$a85.137903@fed1read04...
>>
>> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
>> news:o YadnSr99KkmuzDcRVn-qw@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> "leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>>> news:RP8rd.4409$u81.2782@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>> > "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
>>> > news:s28rd.117152$V41.27833@attbi_s52...
>>> >> Ken Rockwell has posted his "Nikon D2X Review Test" at the following
>>> >> address:
>>> >>
>>> >> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2x.htm
>>> >>
>>> >> For those not familiar with Rockwell's "tests," well, it's up to his
>>> >> usual standards. Here's a hint: he apparently can test this camera
>>> >> without ever handling one or seeing its output. Simply amazing.
>>> >>
>>> >> Enjoy.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > LOL - a typical diehard Nikonian?
>>> >
>>> > For Nikon lovers, Thom Hogan's site is a better choice.
>>> > http://www.bythom.com/
>>> >
>>> > But most other serious DSLR sites use Canon cameras though.
>>> >
>>> > Kinda like PC/Win/Linux vs MACOSX ;-)
>>> >
>>>
>>> True, True. The unwashed masses are the lemmings that use Canon
>> (Windows).
>>> The truly discriminating that choose the best tools use Nikon (Mac).
>>
>> I hope you don't really believe that...
>>
>>
>
> Well, I do own a Nikon D70 and D100, which, for me, are the best tools. I
> chose my lenses first (particularly the 12-24) and then the body. Canon
> didn't have a comparable lens.


Hmmm. If you choose by lens first, don't you first have to decide on crop
factor?
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 8:33:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Why would someone buy this camera for $4700 (as Ken is guessing)? I think
this one will have to go for less. Just assume, if Nikon asks for close to
5k, the only thing Canon will have to do is to lower the price of their
EOS-1D Mark II to less than 4k. The difference between 8MP to 12MP is for
most of us irrelevant. The difference of a cropping factor of 1.5 to 1.3
matters to some. No? - I guess the D2X will list for $4299 and find a street
price of $3999 just a few months after the first D2X are sold. Even at this
price, Canon will not have it too difficult to act accordingly.

Gregor

"TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
news:s28rd.117152$V41.27833@attbi_s52...
> Ken Rockwell has posted his "Nikon D2X Review Test" at the following
> address:
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2x.htm
>
> For those not familiar with Rockwell's "tests," well, it's up to his usual
> standards. Here's a hint: he apparently can test this camera without ever
> handling one or seeing its output. Simply amazing.
>
> Enjoy.
>
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 9:57:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"you know who maybe" <nguser2u@spamnotAOL.com> wrote in message
news:wrbrd.8650$_3.104051@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> "Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:-PSdnRxud_84tjDcRVn-3g@comcast.com...
>>

> Hmmm. If you choose by lens first, don't you first have to decide on crop
> factor?
>

That was easy! The two choices in the price range were the 10D (1.6) and
the D100 (1.5). Minimally different, so.....

The 12-24 is an awesome lens. I have many wonderful shots with it. Worth
the price of the D100.

Tom
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 2:04:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

GTO <gregor_o@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
> Why would someone buy this camera for $4700 (as Ken is guessing)? I
> think this one will have to go for less. Just assume, if Nikon asks
> for close to 5k, the only thing Canon will have to do is to lower
> the price of their EOS-1D Mark II to less than 4k.

OK, but even if the EOS-1D Mark II is less than 4k, why would it be
preferable? Assume for a moment you have no existing lenses or
accessories. It seems to me the D2x is placed pretty neatly between
the EOS-1D Mark II and the EOS-1Ds Mark II.

> The difference between 8MP to 12MP is for most of us irrelevant.

It gets you from 10x8 to 12x10. Is that not such a big deal to you?
Looks like a pretty big deal to me. Not quite in 645 territory, but
getting closer.

Andrew.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 2:16:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:15:20 GMT, "TAFKAB"
<TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote:

>Ken Rockwell has posted his "Nikon D2X Review Test" at the following
>address:
>
>http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2x.htm
>
>For those not familiar with Rockwell's "tests," well, it's up to his usual
>standards. Here's a hint: he apparently can test this camera without ever
>handling one or seeing its output. Simply amazing.
>
>Enjoy.
>

I like this:
"Resolution has little to do with image quality. Color and tone are
far more important technically. Even Consumer Reports in their
November 2002 issue noted some lower resolution digital cameras made
better images than some higher resolution ones."
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
"Some" vs "some" to form an all-encompassing theory.
Well, "some" pickups are better than "some" mini-vans. I guess that
makes pickups better than mini-vans, doesn't it?

Consumer Reports? I've personally never considered them to be
authorities, only reporters of what their (rather limited) labs find.
And many of their reviews do precious little actual lab work except to
verify how something works (like washers, for example).
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
December 1, 2004 3:08:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
news:10qr99hf6v7l0e1@news.supernews.com...
> GTO <gregor_o@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Why would someone buy this camera for $4700 (as Ken is guessing)? I
>> think this one will have to go for less. Just assume, if Nikon asks
>> for close to 5k, the only thing Canon will have to do is to lower
>> the price of their EOS-1D Mark II to less than 4k.
>
> OK, but even if the EOS-1D Mark II is less than 4k, why would it be
> preferable? Assume for a moment you have no existing lenses or
> accessories. It seems to me the D2x is placed pretty neatly between
> the EOS-1D Mark II and the EOS-1Ds Mark II.
>
>> The difference between 8MP to 12MP is for most of us irrelevant.
>
> It gets you from 10x8 to 12x10. Is that not such a big deal to you?
> Looks like a pretty big deal to me. Not quite in 645 territory, but
> getting closer.
>
> Andrew.

We can't say anything until a prototype comes out. The chip comes from Sony.
Who knows if it's going to repeat the same resolution/noise trade off like
the 8MP digicam. We are just laughing at Mr. Ken calling it a "review," and
"TEST?" It's possibly better to just read the 12 pages press release
instead.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 7:19:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:sa2sq0568ddh04t6hdm43p9av476tfdmik@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:15:20 GMT, "TAFKAB"
> <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote:
>
> >Ken Rockwell has posted his "Nikon D2X Review Test" at the following
> >address:
> >
> >http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2x.htm
> >
> >For those not familiar with Rockwell's "tests," well, it's up to his
usual
> >standards. Here's a hint: he apparently can test this camera without ever
> >handling one or seeing its output. Simply amazing.
> >
> >Enjoy.
> >
>
> I like this:
> "Resolution has little to do with image quality. Color and tone are
> far more important technically. Even Consumer Reports in their
> November 2002 issue noted some lower resolution digital cameras made
> better images than some higher resolution ones."
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
> "Some" vs "some" to form an all-encompassing theory.
> Well, "some" pickups are better than "some" mini-vans. I guess that
> makes pickups better than mini-vans, doesn't it?
>
> Consumer Reports? I've personally never considered them to be
> authorities, only reporters of what their (rather limited) labs find.
> And many of their reviews do precious little actual lab work except to
> verify how something works (like washers, for example).

The most valuable aspect of Consumer Reports (to me) is their reliability
statistics/ratings. This is something you can't get elsewhere in such a
straight-forward manner...that is also free of advertising bias.
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 7:35:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

leo <someone@somewhere.net> wrote:
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
> news:10qr99hf6v7l0e1@news.supernews.com...
>> GTO <gregor_o@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Why would someone buy this camera for $4700 (as Ken is guessing)? I
>>> think this one will have to go for less. Just assume, if Nikon asks
>>> for close to 5k, the only thing Canon will have to do is to lower
>>> the price of their EOS-1D Mark II to less than 4k.
>>
>> OK, but even if the EOS-1D Mark II is less than 4k, why would it be
>> preferable? Assume for a moment you have no existing lenses or
>> accessories. It seems to me the D2x is placed pretty neatly between
>> the EOS-1D Mark II and the EOS-1Ds Mark II.
>>
>>> The difference between 8MP to 12MP is for most of us irrelevant.
>>
>> It gets you from 10x8 to 12x10. Is that not such a big deal to you?
>> Looks like a pretty big deal to me. Not quite in 645 territory, but
>> getting closer.

> We can't say anything until a prototype comes out.

The spec is fine. The only worry that remains is the noise figure.

The question as put was "Why would someone buy this camera for $4700?"
The answer is "as long as the noise performance is good, why not?"

> The chip comes from Sony. Who knows if it's going to repeat the
> same resolution/noise trade off like the 8MP digicam.

We can be fairly sure it won't. It's a big DSLR sensor, not 8.8 x 6.6
mm. The fact that it's made in the Sony fab is pretty much
irrelevant.

Andrew.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 12:42:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <sa2sq0568ddh04t6hdm43p9av476tfdmik@4ax.com>,
bill@pipping.com says...
> Consumer Reports? I've personally never considered them to be
> authorities, only reporters of what their (rather limited) labs find.
> And many of their reviews do precious little actual lab work except to
> verify how something works (like washers, for example).

Consumer Reports does a good job with anything that doesn't require
keeping up with cutting edge technology that changes rapidly.

Their reviews of cars and tracking of their reliability is worth the
cost of subscription alone, testing of major appliances, paint and other
items is nice to have.

But their take on cameras, computers and other high-tech items? Well,
it's a lowest common denominator approach at best that can miss some
important subtleties.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 1:54:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:nvird.8585$NU3.2732@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
> news:10qr99hf6v7l0e1@news.supernews.com...
>> GTO <gregor_o@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Why would someone buy this camera for $4700 (as Ken is guessing)? I
>>> think this one will have to go for less. Just assume, if Nikon asks
>>> for close to 5k, the only thing Canon will have to do is to lower
>>> the price of their EOS-1D Mark II to less than 4k.
>>
>> OK, but even if the EOS-1D Mark II is less than 4k, why would it be
>> preferable? Assume for a moment you have no existing lenses or
>> accessories. It seems to me the D2x is placed pretty neatly between
>> the EOS-1D Mark II and the EOS-1Ds Mark II.
>>
>>> The difference between 8MP to 12MP is for most of us irrelevant.
>>
>> It gets you from 10x8 to 12x10. Is that not such a big deal to you?
>> Looks like a pretty big deal to me. Not quite in 645 territory, but
>> getting closer.
>>
>> Andrew.
>
> We can't say anything until a prototype comes out. The chip comes from
> Sony. Who knows if it's going to repeat the same resolution/noise trade
> off like the 8MP digicam. We are just laughing at Mr. Ken calling it a
> "review," and "TEST?" It's possibly better to just read the 12 pages press
> release instead.

I'm always stunned by the number of people who refer to his site as gospel.
It's a totally horeshit site, and offers little, if any information of
value. Check out the gallery, as well. Ken LOVES saturation!

>
>
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 1:54:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
news:p Yrrd.177951$HA.155721@attbi_s01...
>
> "leo" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> news:nvird.8585$NU3.2732@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:10qr99hf6v7l0e1@news.supernews.com...
>>> GTO <gregor_o@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Why would someone buy this camera for $4700 (as Ken is guessing)? I
>>>> think this one will have to go for less. Just assume, if Nikon asks
>>>> for close to 5k, the only thing Canon will have to do is to lower
>>>> the price of their EOS-1D Mark II to less than 4k.
>>>
>>> OK, but even if the EOS-1D Mark II is less than 4k, why would it be
>>> preferable? Assume for a moment you have no existing lenses or
>>> accessories. It seems to me the D2x is placed pretty neatly between
>>> the EOS-1D Mark II and the EOS-1Ds Mark II.
>>>
>>>> The difference between 8MP to 12MP is for most of us irrelevant.
>>>
>>> It gets you from 10x8 to 12x10. Is that not such a big deal to you?
>>> Looks like a pretty big deal to me. Not quite in 645 territory, but
>>> getting closer.
>>>
>>> Andrew.
>>
>> We can't say anything until a prototype comes out. The chip comes from
>> Sony. Who knows if it's going to repeat the same resolution/noise trade
>> off like the 8MP digicam. We are just laughing at Mr. Ken calling it a
>> "review," and "TEST?" It's possibly better to just read the 12 pages
>> press release instead.
>
> I'm always stunned by the number of people who refer to his site as
> gospel. It's a totally horeshit site, and offers little, if any
> information of value. Check out the gallery, as well. Ken LOVES
> saturation!
>
>>
>>
>
>
As do I. What's the point of shooting in color unless you shoot in COLOR!!!
I loved the old Cibachromes, and the old Reala, but maybe I'm just trying to
escape reality... <G>
But Mr. Rockwell does seem to have a thing about Nikon and isn't ashamed of
it...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 1:59:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
news:sa2sq0568ddh04t6hdm43p9av476tfdmik@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:15:20 GMT, "TAFKAB"
> <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote:
>
>>Ken Rockwell has posted his "Nikon D2X Review Test" at the following
>>address:
>>
>>http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2x.htm
>>
>>For those not familiar with Rockwell's "tests," well, it's up to his usual
>>standards. Here's a hint: he apparently can test this camera without ever
>>handling one or seeing its output. Simply amazing.
>>
>>Enjoy.
>>
>
> I like this:
> "Resolution has little to do with image quality. Color and tone are
> far more important technically. Even Consumer Reports in their
> November 2002 issue noted some lower resolution digital cameras made
> better images than some higher resolution ones."
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
> "Some" vs "some" to form an all-encompassing theory.
> Well, "some" pickups are better than "some" mini-vans. I guess that
> makes pickups better than mini-vans, doesn't it?

Exactly. Yes, there are other factors that determine picture quality, but
all else being equal, higher resolution will result in sharper pix. He's
beautiful, isn't he?

>
> Consumer Reports? I've personally never considered them to be
> authorities, only reporters of what their (rather limited) labs find.
> And many of their reviews do precious little actual lab work except to
> verify how something works (like washers, for example).

My favorite example from CR is their tests of "loudspeakers." They put them
in a soundproof/sound deadening room, and measure the response curve. This
tells little, if anything about how the speaker will actually sound, other
that it can actually reproduce tones at a certain fequency. Unfortunately,
few people buy speakers to listen to test tones. They never actually listen
to music! According to them, your Cerwin-Vega with a fairly flat response
curve will sound better than the B&W with a similar, but slightly less flat
curve. Right.

> --
> Bill Funk
> Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 1:59:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
news:f1srd.700541$8_6.170513@attbi_s04...
>
> "Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
> news:sa2sq0568ddh04t6hdm43p9av476tfdmik@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:15:20 GMT, "TAFKAB"
> > <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote:
> >
> >>Ken Rockwell has posted his "Nikon D2X Review Test" at the following
> >>address:
> >>
> >>http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2x.htm
> >>
> >>For those not familiar with Rockwell's "tests," well, it's up to his
usual
> >>standards. Here's a hint: he apparently can test this camera without
ever
> >>handling one or seeing its output. Simply amazing.
> >>
> >>Enjoy.
> >>
> >
> > I like this:
> > "Resolution has little to do with image quality. Color and tone are
> > far more important technically. Even Consumer Reports in their
> > November 2002 issue noted some lower resolution digital cameras made
> > better images than some higher resolution ones."
> > http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
> > "Some" vs "some" to form an all-encompassing theory.
> > Well, "some" pickups are better than "some" mini-vans. I guess that
> > makes pickups better than mini-vans, doesn't it?
>
> Exactly. Yes, there are other factors that determine picture quality, but
> all else being equal, higher resolution will result in sharper pix. He's
> beautiful, isn't he?
>
> >
> > Consumer Reports? I've personally never considered them to be
> > authorities, only reporters of what their (rather limited) labs find.
> > And many of their reviews do precious little actual lab work except to
> > verify how something works (like washers, for example).
>
> My favorite example from CR is their tests of "loudspeakers." They put
them
> in a soundproof/sound deadening room, and measure the response curve. This
> tells little, if anything about how the speaker will actually sound, other
> that it can actually reproduce tones at a certain fequency. Unfortunately,
> few people buy speakers to listen to test tones. They never actually
listen
> to music! According to them, your Cerwin-Vega with a fairly flat response
> curve will sound better than the B&W with a similar, but slightly less
flat
> curve. Right.

True in terms of real-world use of speakers...BUT...
....The speaker-makers love to brag about frequency range!
So--It seems to me that it's perfectly legitimate of CR to test this, and
verify if their claims are valid. One thing CR is good is verifying claims
made by company advertising. Some are quite comical! :) 
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 3:17:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:zIcrd.52261$QJ3.29341@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Why would someone buy this camera for $4700 (as Ken is guessing)? I think
> this one will have to go for less. Just assume, if Nikon asks for close to
> 5k, the only thing Canon will have to do is to lower the price of their
> EOS-1D Mark II to less than 4k. The difference between 8MP to 12MP is for
> most of us irrelevant. The difference of a cropping factor of 1.5 to 1.3
> matters to some. No? - I guess the D2X will list for $4299 and find a
> street price of $3999 just a few months after the first D2X are sold. Even
> at this price, Canon will not have it too difficult to act accordingly.

The 1D MkII is already selling for under $4k, all over.
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 3:30:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <_etrd.382891$a85.217574@fed1read04>, "Mark²" <mjmorgan
(lowest even number here)@cox..net> says...
> True in terms of real-world use of speakers...BUT...
> ...The speaker-makers love to brag about frequency range!
> So--It seems to me that it's perfectly legitimate of CR to test this, and
> verify if their claims are valid. One thing CR is good is verifying claims
> made by company advertising. Some are quite comical! :) 

Additionally, I'm pretty sure (IRC) CR advises people to listen to
speakers before buying as "speaker quality" can be pretty subjective.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
Anonymous
December 2, 2004 9:55:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:19:51 -0800, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
>"Big Bill" <bill@pipping.com> wrote in message
>news:sa2sq0568ddh04t6hdm43p9av476tfdmik@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:15:20 GMT, "TAFKAB"
>> <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote:
>>
>> >Ken Rockwell has posted his "Nikon D2X Review Test" at the following
>> >address:
>> >
>> >http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2x.htm
>> >
>> >For those not familiar with Rockwell's "tests," well, it's up to his
>usual
>> >standards. Here's a hint: he apparently can test this camera without ever
>> >handling one or seeing its output. Simply amazing.
>> >
>> >Enjoy.
>> >
>>
>> I like this:
>> "Resolution has little to do with image quality. Color and tone are
>> far more important technically. Even Consumer Reports in their
>> November 2002 issue noted some lower resolution digital cameras made
>> better images than some higher resolution ones."
>> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
>> "Some" vs "some" to form an all-encompassing theory.
>> Well, "some" pickups are better than "some" mini-vans. I guess that
>> makes pickups better than mini-vans, doesn't it?
>>
>> Consumer Reports? I've personally never considered them to be
>> authorities, only reporters of what their (rather limited) labs find.
>> And many of their reviews do precious little actual lab work except to
>> verify how something works (like washers, for example).
>
>The most valuable aspect of Consumer Reports (to me) is their reliability
>statistics/ratings. This is something you can't get elsewhere in such a
>straight-forward manner...that is also free of advertising bias.
>

Unfortunately, their reliability ratings rely on reader feedback,
which is notoriously unreliable.
Not just CR's, but any such feedback tends to reflect the readership
rather than a cross-section of society.
They keep very few products to do long-term reliability tests.
Instead, they rely on asking their readers, and such results don't
take into account the tolerance level of any one or group of repliers
as to the severity of any problems. It's so subjective as to be
nothing more than the very vaguest of trends.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 1:14:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

you know who maybe wrote:
> "GTO" <gregor_o@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:zIcrd.52261$QJ3.29341@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Why would someone buy this camera for $4700 (as Ken is guessing)? I think
>>this one will have to go for less. Just assume, if Nikon asks for close to
>>5k, the only thing Canon will have to do is to lower the price of their
>>EOS-1D Mark II to less than 4k. The difference between 8MP to 12MP is for
>>most of us irrelevant. The difference of a cropping factor of 1.5 to 1.3
>>matters to some. No? - I guess the D2X will list for $4299 and find a
>>street price of $3999 just a few months after the first D2X are sold. Even
>>at this price, Canon will not have it too difficult to act accordingly.
>
>
> The 1D MkII is already selling for under $4k, all over.
>
>

$3,999 was the common last price I saw. I paid $4,400 for mine.
!