New Nikon D2X Reviews

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

"deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote in message
news:2005022511433470814@deryck.com...
> http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Ok, so according to this guy the D2X is noisier than the 1Ds Mk II, which is
not surprising, but the surprising thing is that the D2X is sharper -- in
fact rivaling 35 mm film. Also, the noise is not terrible. The thing that
startled me was that the Nikon appears to produce a more saturated image
than the Canon, which is a real switch.

> http://www.moosepeterson.com/d2x/index.html

And the noise report here was simply that noise is not a factor with this
camera.

>
> More on the way.
>
> Deryck

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

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote:

> > http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
>
> Ok, so according to this guy the D2X is noisier than the 1Ds Mk II, which
is
> not surprising, but the surprising thing is that the D2X is sharper

The D2x is sharper _then the center 6MP of the 1Dsmk2 image_.

He compared images from lenses of the same focal length, cropping the 1Dsmk2
to 6MP. Of course a 12MP camera is sharper than a 6MP camera.

There's not a lot of people who'd buy a full-frame 16.7MP camera and only
use the center 6MP.

> -- in fact rivaling 35 mm film.

8MP rivals 35mm. 12MP should beats 35mm hands down.

> Also, the noise is not terrible.

As long as you don't need to bring up the shadows with "fill light" or other
contrast masking techniques. Or don't shoot over ISO 200, since
detail-smoothing noise reduction sets in at ISO 400.

> The thing that
> startled me was that the Nikon appears to produce a more saturated image
> than the Canon, which is a real switch.

At default settings. The fun of digital is that you get to choose your
contrast and saturation.

> > http://www.moosepeterson.com/d2x/index.html
>
> And the noise report here was simply that noise is not a factor with this
> camera.

He only shoots at ISO 100. And didn't try to handle a landscape in bright
harsh light. The noise at the lowest ISO in most cameras isn't that bad,
it's just that more noise limits how much you can pull up the shadows with
contrast masking, how much you can pull out low-contrast detail with
sharpening, and maybe how much you can enlarge. (Although some of the latest
consumer cameras are beginning to lose it even at ISO 50; that area is
getting seriously nuts.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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

"TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
news:421feba7$0$39266$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c893f02fad900998a6b8@news.verizon.net...
> > In article <AP-dnXmHHqOL74LfRVn-jw@wavecable.com>,
> > christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...
> >> Ok, so according to this guy the D2X is noisier than the 1Ds Mk II,
which
> >> is
> >> not surprising, but the surprising thing is that the D2X is sharper --
in
> >> fact rivaling 35 mm film. Also, the noise is not terrible. The thing
that
> >> startled me was that the Nikon appears to produce a more saturated
image
> >> than the Canon, which is a real switch.
> >
> > The D2X isn't any sharper than the 1DS Mark II when you take proper FOV
> > into account. If you read how Bjorn did his tests your eyes will roll a
> > bit.
>
> Honest to God, I can't believe he did a direct comparison with different
> FOVs! Useless! And wow, imagine my surprise when the camera with the
> narrower FOV "won" this comparison. I guess the only legit reviews (or
maybe
> just the best available) will come from DP Review. Bjorn's review is
> amazingly flawed.

It's a horribly flawed review, but I don't think anyone is surprised by
this. He has always been a big promoter of Nikon, doing whatever it takes to
make Nikon "win" in any comparison.. I wonder if he really thought that no
one would catch all his mistakes. Wait for the dcresource.com review. It's
usually even better than the dpreview.com review.

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

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
>
> "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote:
>
> > > http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Very interesting. Noise is much less than some people
believed have to have spread rumors about and Nikon has
still a DX size sensor, what I consider a major advantage.

The award is well visible on the wide angle shots (12-24
DX Nikkor at f/4, 12 mm vs. Canon 17-40 L at f/4, 17 mm).
Another award is the size and weight and price of long
lenses with the same effective focal length.

Thomas

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

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c89da1410376f8198a6c2@news.verizon.net...
> There's a review on a Spanish site that does a better job. They compare
> the cameras at similar field of views. OF course, I can't understand
> much of it (I don't speak/read Spanish) but the results seem a little
> more in line with what I've seen from the cameras beforehand.
>
> Of course, some people on the Nikon forums are already crying foul over
> it... AND Phil's yet-to-be-done "Canon-centric" review.
>
> Some people...

Are going to switch to Canon after Nikon's "non-showing" at the PMA.
Typically, Nikon will announce a camera, give a ship date of several months
down the road, delay, and then ship very limited quantities. Finally, about
a year after the initial announcement, the camera is available at a slight
discount. Clearly, Nikon is not yet suited to compete in the digital world,
where you have to purchase a new body in order to increase image quality.
Once you buy a digicam, you're stuck with that level of quality forever,
which is starkly different to the old film axiom where to improve the image,
you bought better film. And now, Nikon "announces" a new version of a 4.1MP
procamera? Right.

Yes, I may be one of those people who switch. Still considering, but a
decision is coming quickly.

> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

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

"TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote:
> >
> > Of course, some people on the Nikon forums are already crying foul over
> > it... AND Phil's yet-to-be-done "Canon-centric" review.
> >
> > Some people...
>
> Are going to switch to Canon after Nikon's "non-showing" at the PMA.

Maybe, but...

> Typically, Nikon will announce a camera, give a ship date of several
months
> down the road, delay, and then ship very limited quantities. Finally,
about
> a year after the initial announcement, the camera is available at a slight
> discount.

I prefer this model to the Canon model, which is to announce and immdiately
ship a new, significantly better model before one has had a chance to learn
how to get the best from one's current camera. Especially if one waits until
the early-adopter complaints have been resolved.

> Once you buy a digicam, you're stuck with that level of quality forever,

Oh, I don't agree with that at all. You are only stuck with the camera until
you have amortized it's purchase price by shooting enough shots that the
cost of the film would have equalled the body costs. Over here, Provia 100F
+ processing is maybe US$13 per roll, so that's 33 cents per shot, implies
3000 shots or so. Since one burns more digital frames than film, call it
6000. (And I haven't charged my time for the scanning in there<g>.)

> which is starkly different to the old film axiom where to improve the
image,
> you bought better film.

Well, that doesn't work, because the good films are all being discontinued:
both Tech Pan and Velvia 50 are now (or about to be) history. Ektar 25,
Konica Impressa 50, Panatomic X, Kodachrome 25 (and any Kodachome in 120,
since you can't get it processed) are all gone.

> And now, Nikon "announces" a new version of a 4.1MP procamera? Right.

Disagree, again. 4MP is more than enough for the vast majority of sports/PJ
work. For that stuff, larger pixels/better low-light performance is a lot
more important than more MP. And the smaller files means easier data
handling/data transmission.

> Yes, I may be one of those people who switch. Still considering, but a
> decision is coming quickly.

I won't be switching to Nikon, but I don't think they're as dead as you
think. All they have to do is put the D2X sensor in the D70 body and Canon
will be in _serious_ trouble. Sure, at best it'll be 20D ISO 200 performance
at ISO 100, but with 12MP, people are going to forget about niceties such as
dynamic range and shadow detail real quick.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c893f02fad900998a6b8@news.verizon.net...
>
> The D2X isn't any sharper than the 1DS Mark II when you take proper FOV
> into account. If you read how Bjorn did his tests your eyes will roll a
> bit.
>

I see. So anything that anyone says favorably about the Nikon is obviously
"flawed" methodology, but anything that is unfavorable, no matter what
methodology is used and no matter if even the original reviewer repudiates
it, is good. I understand you now.

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

In article <2005022614323270814@deryck.com>, deryck@deryck.com says...
> Another review, this time with figures:

Everyone knows figures don't lie!

--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

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

In article <mMKdnY2j6bImAb3fRVn-qQ@wavecable.com>,
christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...
> Speaking of which: when is Canon's 1Ds Mk II going to be available? All the
> stores have had it backordered ever since it was announced. Or are Canon and
> Nikon competing to see who can release the most vaporware?

IT is available. Is it Canon's fault that people buy more than they can
produce?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

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

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:
>
> "ThomasH" <henrymot@coco.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
> >
> > Very interesting. Noise is much less than some people
> > believed
>
> Really? It looks as though it's interfering with subject detail at ISO 400,
> which is what I expected, i.e. basically a stop worse than the 20D.

Lets call it so: Nobody can compete with Canon in noise aspect,
but lets look aside of absolute values: Is the "more noise"
still well below a threshold to be good enough even for
professional work?

I guess here we are in a zone of subjective assessment and of
emotional statements. Rorstlet says he is happy with ISO 800,
you say that already 400 in D2X is bad. I agree with him, based
on the huge scans which I downloaded from Moosse's pages.

This entire "more pixel, better signal/noise ratio" debate
reminds me of the good old times as we all dreamed of installing
ourselves a HiFi system "ultima non ultra", but in fact we were
tempted to browse shiny brochures and take whatever got less
dB n/s ratio printed on the paper, and of course: more watts,
more, more of them. Its like with pixels nowadays. And the
s/n ratio, -90dB or -100dB, but measured differently, did not
changed the fact that vinyl's noise was (say) -60dB, so was
the tape, the FM radio was even worse and the background noise
of our homes is usually 30-40dB.

So, nowadays we usually print images on 5x7" (12x17cm) in majority
of cases, maybe up to Letter/A4 format, and we also post them to
the web, what is effective maybe 1.5Mpix. All what the cameras
bring us is a reserve, which we can use for cropping, rotation,
enlarging, filtering etc.

I am setting aside professional use and needs, of course.

>
> > have to have spread rumors about and Nikon has
> > still a DX size sensor, what I consider a major advantage.
>
> People who like telephotos, tend to like small sensors<g>.
>
> By the way, my bet is that Canon is _really really_ nervous. Not for the
> 1Dsmk2 or a future EOS 3 class camera with the 1Dsmk2 sensor, but for the
> 20D.
>
> Since Nikon could put that sensor in the D70 body making a 12MP camera the
> same price as the 20D.

Maybe you are correct, but my bet is that Canon can popup here
quickly with one more appropriate sensor! They have really an
exceptional team capable of creating trend setting components.

I took the 20D with me to a dark museum and was shooting at
ISO 1600. Incredible! Combined with the IS lenses I achieved
images which I would never dreamed of using film and a hard
labor in scanning them.

Thomas

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

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s6qdnRwscKLfAL3fRVn-1g@wavecable.com...
>
> "Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c893f02fad900998a6b8@news.verizon.net...
>>
>> The D2X isn't any sharper than the 1DS Mark II when you take proper FOV
>> into account. If you read how Bjorn did his tests your eyes will roll a
>> bit.
>>
>
> I see. So anything that anyone says favorably about the Nikon is obviously
> "flawed" methodology, but anything that is unfavorable, no matter what
> methodology is used and no matter if even the original reviewer repudiates
> it, is good. I understand you now.

I don't think you understand at all. Put it this way: if you were shooting a
test chart for resolution, would you make the chart smaller in one of the
shots on purpose? If you did, what would the result be?

I'm a Nikon guy (for now) and Bjorn's test is, well, useless. Unless you
have the same field of view, what's the point?

>
>

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

In article <4220d6fa$0$83129$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser says...
> The trick with Canon is not to upgrade every cycle. This will be my first
> DSLR, and the 20D is the first one I've tried that I really like. Don't care
> for either the D100 or D70, can't afford a D2X. Nobody forced you to
> upgrade.

I'm basically skipping the 20D and seeing how the RebelXT turns out in
terms of noise and resolution. I have the 10D, and a lot of the things
that make it cost more (magnesium allow body, etc.) I don't really need.
Same with the 20D. I'd like the 5 FPS shooting rate and nine AF points,
but since I barely use 3 FPS and the center AF point now, I figure I'll
save myself $500-600 on this upgrade cycle. Unless the RebelXT is too
small for my hands. Then I'll curse repeatedly.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

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

On 2005-02-26, TAFKAB <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote:
> I'm a Nikon guy (for now) and Bjorn's test is, well, useless. Unless you
> have the same field of view, what's the point?

There are 4 ways to go about it: crop or scale the image, move camera
position to match field of view, compensate by using a lens with
different focal lenght, or do nothing. Are any of them not flawed?


/Allan

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

On 2/26/05 3:51 PM, in article slrnd21rq9.ilq.allan_wind@pawan.dyndns.org,
"Allan Wind" <allan_wind@lifeintegrity.com> wrote:

> On 2005-02-26, TAFKAB <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote:
>> I'm a Nikon guy (for now) and Bjorn's test is, well, useless. Unless you
>> have the same field of view, what's the point?
>
> There are 4 ways to go about it: crop or scale the image, move camera
> position to match field of view, compensate by using a lens with
> different focal lenght, or do nothing. Are any of them not flawed?
>
>
> /Allan
Look at it this way: Suppose a test was set up so that one Nikon D2X was
being compared against another Nikon D2X, one with a 100mm lens and one with
a 150mm lens. Two pictures are taken from the same spot and both cropped
down to the same small detail area. The larger crop taken from the camera
with the 150mm lens would clearly show more resolution. Would you say that
the D2X with the 150mm lens was the better camera? That is the equivalent
of what Bjorn did between the D2X and the 1Ds MkII.
Chuck

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

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8a80206b8ee19498a6c5@news.verizon.net...
> In article <mMKdnY2j6bImAb3fRVn-qQ@wavecable.com>,
> christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com says...
> > Speaking of which: when is Canon's 1Ds Mk II going to be available? All
the
> > stores have had it backordered ever since it was announced. Or are Canon
and
> > Nikon competing to see who can release the most vaporware?
>
> IT is available. Is it Canon's fault that people buy more than they can
> produce?

Yes. If Canon would charge $15,000 rather than $8000, then supply and demand
would be better balanced.

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

On 2/26/05 9:53 PM, in article slrnd22h22.3uh.allan_wind@pawan.dyndns.org,
"Allan Wind" <allan_wind@lifeintegrity.com> wrote:

> On 2005-02-26, C Wright <wright9_nojunk@nojunk_mac.com> wrote:
>> Look at it this way: Suppose a test was set up so that one Nikon D2X was
>> being compared against another Nikon D2X, one with a 100mm lens and one with
>> a 150mm lens. Two pictures are taken from the same spot and both cropped
>> down to the same small detail area. The larger crop taken from the camera
>> with the 150mm lens would clearly show more resolution. Would you say that
>> the D2X with the 150mm lens was the better camera? That is the equivalent
>> of what Bjorn did between the D2X and the 1Ds MkII.
>
> I understand what you are saying Chuck, and agree that the test is not
> conclusive. My point was simply that all options available have
> problems. For instance, if you put a 50mm on the Canon and use a
> 17-35mm Zoom at 33mm on the Nikon would that be a fair test?
>
>
> /Allan
A test like that would be more fair than what what Bjorn actually did! But I
understand what you are saying as well. I think that all of the reviewers
would be better off just running each tested camera through its paces
commenting as appropriate and letting us judge the results. Except for an
attempted stroking of an ego or two I don't think that any of us are really
well served by taking a just released product and immediately doing a
comparo.
Chuck

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

The message <2005022614323270814@deryck.com>
from deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> contains these words:

> The message <2005022511433470814@deryck.com>
> from deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> contains these words:

> > http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
> > http://www.moosepeterson.com/d2x/index.html

> Another review, this time with figures:

> http://www.hardwarezone.com/articl [...] id=15&pg=1

This subjective comparison with the Canons is worth reading:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/ [...] e=12429658

Deryck

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

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8afa2159bb045f98a6d5@news.verizon.net...
> In article <slrnd21rq9.ilq.allan_wind@pawan.dyndns.org>,
> allan_wind@lifeintegrity.com says...
>> > I'm a Nikon guy (for now) and Bjorn's test is, well, useless. Unless
>> > you
>> > have the same field of view, what's the point?
>>
>> There are 4 ways to go about it: crop or scale the image, move camera
>> position to match field of view, compensate by using a lens with
>> different focal lenght, or do nothing. Are any of them not flawed?
>
> Moving the camera will change the perspective. What you should do is
> use equivalent (I.e. compensate for the crop factor) focal lengths.
> This maintains the same perspective and FOV for both cameras.
>
> Not rocketry, just common sense.

I can't believe this even has to be discussed, it's so damned obvious! Bjorn
blew the test!

> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

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

The message <2005022711291670814@deryck.com>
from deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> contains these words:

> The message <2005022614323270814@deryck.com>
> from deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> contains these words:

> > The message <2005022511433470814@deryck.com>
> > from deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> contains these words:

> > > http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
> > > http://www.moosepeterson.com/d2x/index.html

> > Another review, this time with figures:

> > http://www.hardwarezone.com/articl [...] id=15&pg=1

> This subjective comparison with the Canons is worth reading:

> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/ [...] e=12429658

A test of skin tones and resolution:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/ [...] e=12439562

Deryck

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

In article <4221f0f7$0$22115$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser says...
> >> There are 4 ways to go about it: crop or scale the image, move camera
> >> position to match field of view, compensate by using a lens with
> >> different focal lenght, or do nothing. Are any of them not flawed?
> >
> > Moving the camera will change the perspective. What you should do is
> > use equivalent (I.e. compensate for the crop factor) focal lengths.
> > This maintains the same perspective and FOV for both cameras.
> >
> > Not rocketry, just common sense.
>
> I can't believe this even has to be discussed, it's so damned obvious! Bjorn
> blew the test!

At least that part of it.

He and Phil have been discussing it on the dPreview forums.

Phil is a very diplomatic chap.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

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

"Steven M. Scharf" <scharf.steven@linkearth.net> wrote in message
news:KZnUd.8664$Ba3.2053@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message
> news:4221f0f7$0$22115.
>
>> > Not rocketry, just common sense.
>>
>> I can't believe this even has to be discussed, it's so damned obvious!
> Bjorn
>> blew the test!
>
> It was blown intentionally, which makes everyone wonder why it was
> necessary
> for him to do this. Every time you see obvious lies, such as those from
> Bjorn, or Ken Rockwell, you have to read between the lines and deduce,
> from
> their obvious agendas, why they are doing this.

Well, I never put Bjorn in the same very low class as Rockwell (what does he
do for a living, anyway?), but this test is really bad. I know he's a Nikon
guy, but to rig a test to favor one over the other in such an obvious manner
is, well, stupid.

Rockewll, on the other hand, is in a league of his own. I personally love
his "test reviews" of gear he's never even used! the entire site is a joke.
And yet, he's quoted like some damned authority, which shows just how
gullible people are, and how few of them actually read the reviews.

>
>

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

Brian C. Baird <nospam@please.no> writes:

> In article <slrnd21n8f.hof.allan_wind@pawan.dyndns.org>,
> allan_wind@lifeintegrity.com says...
>> > Is it Canon's fault that people buy more than they can produce?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> I'm glad you're so understanding.

It's not a matter of understanding: it's just business.
I'm sure their stockholders are even _more_ annoyed at this
than their customers. Of course, they'd _also_ be annoyed
by a production surplus that stayed on the shelf.

Every businessman wants a crystal ball...

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

"Brian C. Baird" <nospam@please.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c8ce3402ecace9898a6ec@news.verizon.net...
> In article <87vf8d3v6q.fsf@memetrics.com>, Alain.Picard@memetrics.com
> says...
> > > I'm glad you're so understanding.
> >
> > It's not a matter of understanding: it's just business.
>
> I was being sarcastic. CJ is insinuating some sort of evil Canon
> conspiracy. ECC!

Canon does have plans for world domination.