Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Nikon D2X review

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 9:53:30 PM

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

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/



PS: Let's keep the, er, noise down...


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

More about : nikon d2x review

Anonymous
June 1, 2005 11:07:53 PM

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

"You'd take 8.5mp over 12.4mp because you
believe the sensor is too small? "

A landscape photographer might. The crop could be pretty annoying, I
imagine.
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 11:11:54 PM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 7laoo$9am$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/
>
>
>
> PS: Let's keep the, er, noise down...
>
>

Excellent review. It really puts the relative advantages and disadvantages
in perspective. Too bad it's totally out of my price range.

Walt
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 11:11:55 PM

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

Walt Hanks wrote:

>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/
>
> Excellent review.

It's a useless review. Direct comparison of the Canon 1DsMkII and the
Nikon D2X has _zero_ information value because prospective customers
are either:

a) already in possession of a lens set from Canon or Nikon, and thus
body choice is limited to whatever the corresponding company offers.
Even if this wasn't true, the review is still useless by what is
_unreviewed_ -- for example, the huge technological advantage Canon has
over Nikon re: EOS.

b) not in possession of any lens set at all, in which case selecting
the body is generally the last choice one makes, not the first. How
many people are in this position and are willing to write a $5000
cheques for their first camera based on the ranting he read at
dpreview?
Anonymous
June 1, 2005 11:46:06 PM

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

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117669297.801695.239460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Walt Hanks wrote:
>
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/
>>
>> Excellent review.
>
> It's a useless review. Direct comparison of the Canon 1DsMkII and the
> Nikon D2X has _zero_ information value because prospective customers
> are either:
>
> a) already in possession of a lens set from Canon or Nikon, and thus
> body choice is limited to whatever the corresponding company offers.
> Even if this wasn't true, the review is still useless by what is
> _unreviewed_ -- for example, the huge technological advantage Canon has
> over Nikon re: EOS.
>

Uh, that's what he's saying. That technical advantage (sensor only - Nikon
has always built better bodies). just kind of evaporated..and for $3000
less. Plus better ergonomics. Most of the reviews on the web favor the D2X.
Phil is a Canon shooter and he does too. Sounds like Canon has a little
marketing problem.

HMc
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 12:17:47 AM

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

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 17:53:30 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>
>
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/
>
>
>
>PS: Let's keep the, er, noise down...

I have just one question; Why is the Canon $3000 more?
-Rich
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 12:23:52 AM

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

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 17:53:30 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>
>
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/
>
>
>
>PS: Let's keep the, er, noise down...

Canon's lens was no where near as good as the Nikon. Despite Askey's
mentioning that the full frame sensor put a strain on the Canon lens
edge, the centre of photos were still better in the Nikon, and NO
chromatic aberration.
-Rich
June 2, 2005 2:46:08 AM

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

The panic is setting in!!
DonB
June 2, 2005 3:59:51 AM

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:D 7laoo$9am$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>
>
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/
>
>
>
> PS: Let's keep the, er, noise down...
>

Looks like top-notch build and features. Too small sensor IMHO. I would
rather get the biggest sensor for the money (lower FOV crop and less noise).
For that money I could get a 1D MkII ($3500 after rebate) and a 16-35 f2.8L
lens. $5000 for APS-C? no thanks...

Musty.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 4:34:56 AM

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

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117669297.801695.239460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Walt Hanks wrote:
>
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/
>>
>> Excellent review.
>
> It's a useless review. Direct comparison of the Canon 1DsMkII and the
> Nikon D2X has _zero_ information value because prospective customers
> are either:
>
> a) already in possession of a lens set from Canon or Nikon, and thus
> body choice is limited to whatever the corresponding company offers.
> Even if this wasn't true, the review is still useless by what is
> _unreviewed_ -- for example, the huge technological advantage Canon has
> over Nikon re: EOS.
>
> b) not in possession of any lens set at all, in which case selecting
> the body is generally the last choice one makes, not the first. How
> many people are in this position and are willing to write a $5000
> cheques for their first camera based on the ranting he read at
> dpreview?
>

Interesting. When I'm shooting with my D2X, I don't find myself slapping my
head and shouting "out my God, Canon has a HUGE technological advantage".

And the results are amazing.

Tom
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 4:35:50 AM

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

> Looks like top-notch build and features. Too small sensor IMHO. I would
> rather get the biggest sensor for the money (lower FOV crop and less
> noise).
> For that money I could get a 1D MkII ($3500 after rebate) and a 16-35
> f2.8L
> lens. $5000 for APS-C? no thanks...
>
> Musty.
>
>

Haven't touched one, have you. You'd take 8.5mp over 12.4mp because you
believe the sensor is too small?

Hmm.

But the results are incredible.

Tom
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 5:48:45 AM

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:Qusne.89587$w15.71478@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1117669297.801695.239460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Walt Hanks wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/
>>>
>>> Excellent review.
>>
>> It's a useless review. Direct comparison of the Canon 1DsMkII and the
>> Nikon D2X has _zero_ information value because prospective customers
>> are either:
>>
>> a) already in possession of a lens set from Canon or Nikon, and thus
>> body choice is limited to whatever the corresponding company offers.
>> Even if this wasn't true, the review is still useless by what is
>> _unreviewed_ -- for example, the huge technological advantage Canon has
>> over Nikon re: EOS.
>>
>> b) not in possession of any lens set at all, in which case selecting
>> the body is generally the last choice one makes, not the first. How
>> many people are in this position and are willing to write a $5000
>> cheques for their first camera based on the ranting he read at
>> dpreview?
>>
>
> Interesting. When I'm shooting with my D2X, I don't find myself slapping
> my head and shouting "out my God, Canon has a HUGE technological
> advantage".
>
> And the results are amazing.
>
> Tom
>

Tom, how could you?? You shouldn't be out there taking amazing photographs
with your D2X, you should be sitting somewhere quietly contemplating that
"huge technological advantage" the Canon system has.
Just think, actually wasting your time out taking photos and not completely
overcome with remorse because of the huge techno-disparity of your Nikon
system!!! You indeed have my sympathy.
LOL
Bob
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 6:15:11 AM

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

Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

> Looks like top-notch build and features. Too small sensor IMHO. I would
> rather get the biggest sensor for the money (lower FOV crop and less noise).

Less noise? Did you look at the graphs? Or are you one of those people who
seem numerous in these parts, who only shoot at ISO 1600 and above?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
June 2, 2005 6:20:20 AM

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:Gvsne.89588$w15.31554@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> > Looks like top-notch build and features. Too small sensor IMHO. I would
> > rather get the biggest sensor for the money (lower FOV crop and less
> > noise).
> > For that money I could get a 1D MkII ($3500 after rebate) and a 16-35
> > f2.8L
> > lens. $5000 for APS-C? no thanks...
> >
> > Musty.
> >
> >
>
> Haven't touched one, have you. You'd take 8.5mp over 12.4mp because you
> believe the sensor is too small?
>
> Hmm.
>
> But the results are incredible.
>
> Tom
>

Nope haven't touched one. If I was to spend $5000 _today_ (assuming I have
zero camera gear), yes I would get the 1D MkII because it is $1500 cheaper
and has a bigger sensor. I believe that bodies come and go. The larger
sensor would serve my noise and wide-angle needs while I wait for
(hopefully) a 35mm frame camera that costs less than $3000 in the future. In
the meantime, I would have a high-end pro, weathersealed camera and some $$
to spend on a high quality lens. That is my opinion.

Musty.
June 2, 2005 6:39:41 AM

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

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:119sqtf8e00n636@corp.supernews.com...
> Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > Looks like top-notch build and features. Too small sensor IMHO. I would
> > rather get the biggest sensor for the money (lower FOV crop and less
noise).
>
> Less noise? Did you look at the graphs? Or are you one of those people
who
> seem numerous in these parts, who only shoot at ISO 1600 and above?
>

I shoot @ 1600 on some occassions. I usually try to stay @ 400 or lower.
Sometimes I am @ f2.8 and still need to go to 1600 - the point is
flexibility. This is what is expected from a top-of-the-line professional
camera - flexibility and minimal compromise. The FOV crop is even a bigger
issue for me. If I pay big $$'s for high-end wide glass, I dont want end up
with a "normal" FL. Remember, we're talking about $5K for this camera body.
We will see just how well this camera sells. I wish Nikon would start
putting bigger sensors in, so it can give Canon some motivation to provide
more affordable FF cameras.


Musty.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 6:50:46 AM

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

Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:

> I shoot @ 1600 on some occassions. I usually try to stay @ 400 or lower.
> Sometimes I am @ f2.8 and still need to go to 1600 - the point is
> flexibility. This is what is expected from a top-of-the-line professional
> camera - flexibility and minimal compromise.

One wonders how anyone ever got any pictures at all, with film.

> The FOV crop is even a bigger issue for me. If I pay big $$'s for high-end
> wide glass, I dont want end up with a "normal" FL.

I hadn't commented on that, because it's entirely legitimate.

> Remember, we're talking about $5K for this camera body.

I know. I bought one. :) 

> We will see just how well this camera sells. I wish Nikon would start
> putting bigger sensors in, so it can give Canon some motivation to provide
> more affordable FF cameras.

I rather hope they put that off for a while longer.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
June 2, 2005 7:09:10 AM

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

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:119st06lucmni34@corp.supernews.com...
> Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > I shoot @ 1600 on some occassions. I usually try to stay @ 400 or lower.
> > Sometimes I am @ f2.8 and still need to go to 1600 - the point is
> > flexibility. This is what is expected from a top-of-the-line
professional
> > camera - flexibility and minimal compromise.
>
> One wonders how anyone ever got any pictures at all, with film.
>
> > The FOV crop is even a bigger issue for me. If I pay big $$'s for
high-end
> > wide glass, I dont want end up with a "normal" FL.
>
> I hadn't commented on that, because it's entirely legitimate.
>
> > Remember, we're talking about $5K for this camera body.
>
> I know. I bought one. :) 
>
You're obviously more afflicted with this photography disease than I am, but
after owning my 20D for a little while, I do not see it at all un-reasonable
to step up to a pro model - problem is I need to build up my glass
collection before I do any such silly thing :-)
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 1:56:00 PM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> Musty <musty@nospam.net> wrote:
>
> > Looks like top-notch build and features. Too small sensor IMHO. I would
> > rather get the biggest sensor for the money (lower FOV crop and less noise).
>
> Less noise? Did you look at the graphs? Or are you one of those people who
> seem numerous in these parts, who only shoot at ISO 1600 and above?

Did _you_ look at the graphs? There are no error bars, so no
conclusions can be drawn (see my previous rant re: "useless review").
Just taking the bogus graphs at face value, though, any differences, if
they exist, are negligible.

In any event, the smaller D2X pixels _MUST_ mean more inherent noise --
thus any "lower noise" must have come at the expense of resolution or
some other desirable. Or is it part and parcel of the Nikon religion
that the laws of thermodynamics are suspended within their cameras?
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 2:00:33 PM

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

Tom Scales babbles incoherently:

> Interesting. When I'm shooting with my D2X, I don't find myself slapping my
> head and shouting "out my God, Canon has a HUGE technological advantage".

Yes, fine, whatever you want, Mr. Scales.

But the review is still "uselss".
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 3:06:07 PM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

>> The advantage is not mystical, nor is it subject to "belief". Indeed,
>> it must exist, and it must be a large one. What is your alternative
>> explanation for the fact that I see 5 to 7 Canon users for every Nikon
>> when I am out "in the field"?
>
> My explanation would be "Canon is more popular."

That is not an "explanation" but a re-iteration of my observation.

Try again.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 3:27:02 PM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Did _you_ look at the graphs? There are no error bars, so no
> > conclusions can be drawn (see my previous rant re: "useless review").
>
> Error bars?

Noise in instrinsically statistical. Without a specification of the
distribution of the error in the measurement (ie, "error bars"), no
comparison between the models can be made. This is basic statistics.

>> Just taking the bogus graphs at face value, though, any differences, if
>> they exist, are negligible.
>
> Yes, that's the whole point.

So the whole point of a review is to make undisclosed assumptions?
Interesting notions you have there...

> > In any event, the smaller D2X pixels _MUST_ mean more inherent noise --
>
> That's a nice theory. Too bad reality doesn't work that way.

I'm sorry you are ignorant, but larger pixels == more photons == less
noise, everything else remaining the same (aperture, exposure, etc).

> How about this -- go and shoot with a D2x, and look for the noise you
> claim nature insists must be there. It's not there.

Noise/bandwidth tradeoff. Look it up. Connections to thermodynamics
are unavoidable.

>> thus any "lower noise" must have come at the expense of resolution or
>> some other desirable. Or is it part and parcel of the Nikon religion
>> that the laws of thermodynamics are suspended within their cameras?
>
> Camera manufacturers have been making sensors with smaller pixels *and*
> less noise, over and over, time and time again, for quite a long time
> now. Why do people *still* insist this is not possible?

If you took the post-processing system in the camera and presented it
with data that came from larger pixels, the result would be better.

Please shove the strawmen back up your ass from whence they came.

> Religion's got nothing to do with it. Religion is when you believe
> something based on no evidence at all, like, for example, the idea that
> a camera must have lots of noise because the pixels are smaller when no
> such noise actually exists.

You either are misrepresenting my argument, failing to understand my
argument, or you are just being stupid. Which is it?

> I don't go on faith, see. I look at the pictures and see for myself.
> The noise isn't there. You can go on believing it is; such beliefs
> have served people well (?) in other areas for centuries.

Believe whatever claptrap you like, but thermodynamics is written into
the fabric of reality we inhabit. Deal with it.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 3:38:04 PM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> It is an explanation because that is the end of it. You see more Canon
> users because Canon is more popular. You see more SUVs on the road because
> SUVs are more popular. You see more Windows users because Windows is more
> popular.

Nitwit.

www.google.com: define:tautology

> You can't possibly imagine, even in your wildest fantasies, that
> people choose products based on technical advantage or superiority? Windows
> alone completely dispels that notion.

Was someone talking about Windoze?

Let's keep to the subject at hand: why are Canon cameras "more
popular"? I aver the camera system is better designed, simpler,
components interoperate better, and in the end takes better pictures.
That is to say, it has "technological superiority". I can argue in
detail about each point mentioned here.

I still await your alternative explanation.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 3:50:53 PM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> > Believe whatever claptrap you like, but thermodynamics is written into
> > the fabric of reality we inhabit. Deal with it.
>
> You can go on blindly believing that it means a D2x must have lots of noise,
> or you can look at the pictures and see for yourself that it doesn't.

Ok, I've seen enough: I'm going to conclude you are acting stupid here
because _you are stupid_. Reasons:

1) I have never said ther D2X "must have lots of noise". This is
_your_ strawman you are knocking down, remember? Does this excite you
or something? If so, rage away, dude.

2) You have a demonstrable inability to separate your camera into its
signal processing components, analyse each independently, and then
reassemble into the whole. To wit: you are seemingly unable to
perceive that if one were to put larger pixels into a D2x (everything
else remaining the same), the noise would _decrease_. Pardon me, kind
sir, if I prefer equipment that reduces noise at the source instead of
cleaning up the mess downstream by making assumptions...
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 4:14:35 PM

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

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Njune.15158$PR6.1573@tornado.texas.rr.com...

> I shoot @ 1600 on some occassions. I usually try to stay @ 400 or lower.
> Sometimes I am @ f2.8 and still need to go to 1600 - the point is
> flexibility. This is what is expected from a top-of-the-line professional
> camera - flexibility and minimal compromise. The FOV crop is even a bigger
> issue for me. If I pay big $$'s for high-end wide glass, I dont want end
up
> with a "normal" FL. Remember, we're talking about $5K for this camera
body.

Until Nikon can obtain a larger sensor, noise, and FOV are two compromises
that will have to be made for bodies for Nikon lenses. Every review of the
D2x has mentioned the noise problem at high ISO speeds.

The Canon 1DMarkII is actually more the competitor to the D2x than the
1DsMarkII. Besides being closer in price, it also has a less than full-frame
sensor (though much larger than the D2x). You're trading megapixels, for FOV
and lower noise.

> We will see just how well this camera sells. I wish Nikon would start
> putting bigger sensors in, so it can give Canon some motivation to provide
> more affordable FF cameras.

I'm sure that it will sell very well to persons that already own Nikon
lenses, and not very well to those that don't. At least it gives
professionals with Nikon lenses a professional body to use while they wait
for a Nikon body with a larger sensor.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 4:25:32 PM

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

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:o 0ks91h8u2jfc1l77m0gntapplsnu7j7of@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 17:53:30 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/
> >
> >
> >
> >PS: Let's keep the, er, noise down...
>
> I have just one question; Why is the Canon $3000 more?

Larger sensor, and lower noise are probably the reason that people are
willing to pay $8000. For a long time, there was no competition in the
professional segment at all, So Canon could set the price to match their
production capacity, and the demand. If Nikon were to come out with
something that competed against the 1DsMarkII in terms of FOV and low
high-ISO noise, they would charge more too. With no other competitors, they
would not start a price war.

Probably Canon will update the 1DMarkII with a higher resolution sensor in
the near future, and the advantage in resolution of the D2x over the
1DMarkII will disappear.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 5:25:00 PM

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

Philip Homburg wrote:

> I think that to some extent he is right. I strongly doubt that the theory
> behind the dpreview graphs is good enough (and the provided information is
> sufficient enough) to draw any real conclusions.

I recall they had some description of their apparatus somewhere on the
site. It's been a while since I've looked at anything on dpreview
though; I've never been impressed with their reviews (as you can
probably tell ;-). They look like user-manual printouts, some vague
"testing" and finally some fairly predictable conclusions (they love
the camera). The D2x review was all that, plus a large troll factor
with mis-comparison to a 1DsMkII.

> (It is a pitty that the dpreview review did not explore the wide
> angle issues).

Indeed, Canon wide-angle optics are fairly mushy in comparison to other
35mm offerings. I have read(1) that people are using Zeiss/Contax
lenses with EOS adaptors because of this.

(1) http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4066..., etc.
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 5:26:07 PM

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

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> > Let's keep to the subject at hand: why are Canon cameras "more
> > popular"? I aver the camera system is better designed, simpler,
> > components interoperate better, and in the end takes better pictures.
> > That is to say, it has "technological superiority". I can argue in
> > detail about each point mentioned here.
>
> Which of those arguments gets you better pictures?

Still awaiting your explanation. I take it I am in for a long wait?
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 6:27:17 PM

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

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 19:11:54 -0400, Walt Hanks wrote:

>
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:D 7laoo$9am$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/
>>
>>
>>
>> PS: Let's keep the, er, noise down...
>>
>>
>>
> Excellent review. It really puts the relative advantages and
> disadvantages in perspective. Too bad it's totally out of my price range.
>
> Walt

Yes, a real pity about the price. I ain't going there anytime soon!

One thing that intrigues me though, is that the camera can meter with
manual focus lenses by means of inputting the focal length and maximum
aperture into the camera by means of a menu. What this tells me is that
there should be no reason why a bit of firmware or software (whatever they
call it) can't do the same for the D70.

Maybe if they added that feature the D70(s) would be the best thing since
sliced cheese.

--
?
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 6:43:50 PM

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

In article <pan.2005.06.02.12.27.08.188000@home.com>,
Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com> wrote:
>One thing that intrigues me though, is that the camera can meter with
>manual focus lenses by means of inputting the focal length and maximum
>aperture into the camera by means of a menu. What this tells me is that
>there should be no reason why a bit of firmware or software (whatever they
>call it) can't do the same for the D70.
>
>Maybe if they added that feature the D70(s) would be the best thing since
>sliced cheese.

Providing an option to enter the focal length would give the D70 'D'-lens
capabilities for all lenses. But would cares about that?

Adding an option to enter the maximum aperture of a lens enables support
for matrix metering on the D2X as opposed to just center-weighted (or spot)
metering.

The D70 lacks a sensor for the aperture position using the Ai system.
But the strange thing is that there not way to enable just the light
meter. Keeping the light meter disabled must be a deliberate design
decision by Nikon to cripple the D70. So there must be marketing/political
reasons not to optimize the firmware for the D70.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 6:56:43 PM

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

Tom Scales wrote:

> <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1117731633.633110.182840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Tom Scales babbles incoherently:
>>
>>> Interesting. When I'm shooting with my D2X, I don't find myself slapping
>>> my
>>> head and shouting "out my God, Canon has a HUGE technological advantage".
>>
>> Yes, fine, whatever you want, Mr. Scales.
>>
>> But the review is still "uselss".
>>
>
> It's "uselss", huh.

Oh wow, a spelling flame! That's, like, so 1980's.

> It is an informed opinion.

Useless. It is, in rough order:

1) a print out of the user manual
2) some crude testing, making an inappropriate comparison
3) the usual sample images
4) predictable conclusions

Who needs (1) -- download the manual from Nikon. (2) is questionable
(reasons given elsewhere) (3) you can downloaded sample images from
Nikon too. (4) like all the rest of their reviews, they like the
camera. Big surprise, eh?

Worst of all, by positioning the review as a "competition" between
Canon and Nikon, the review becomes little more than a troll. Barring
dimwits with money, there are no Canon owners who will buy this camera,
nor are there Nikon owners who will be buying a 1DsMkII anytime soon.

> I am very happy with my D2X and see no advantage
> in spending an additional $3000 so that I can strut around proclaiming I
> have a bigger sensor.

So you _are_ one of those aforementioned dimwits with money then?

> It's not the size, it's what you do with it.

Yes, you must be.

> It's particularly interesting where the comment was made that the Canon wide
> angles aren't up to snuff. Isn't the best argument of full frame that it is
> better for wide angle photography?

Well, you know, most people would buy a better lens. Maybe you are
different (cf. "lots of money"). Personally, all of my stuff is
telephoto.

> Again, your argument seems to be primarily with yourself to convince
> yourself of a good decision. It's not based on any actual facts.

My "argument" is directed at fruitcakes, like you, who, when pressed
against the wall, say that none of these technical details are
important, it's all about the final image in the end, la da da de da.

> Dpreview certainly is based on more facts than your argument.

No, your misrepresentation of my argument. Do all Nikon users have
problems with reading comprehension?

> In the end, does it matter whether we chose a Mercedes or a BMW? Either
> way, they're a heck of a lot better than you average Chevy.

See above re: "fruitcakes". If this is all an exercise in silliness,
why are you so bothered by it? If the image only matters in the end,
who cares what dpreview says?
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 7:19:36 PM

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

Tom Scales wrote:

> <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1117743967.869986.259380@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Jeremy Nixon wrote:
> >
> >> > Let's keep to the subject at hand: why are Canon cameras "more
> >> > popular"? I aver the camera system is better designed, simpler,
> >> > components interoperate better, and in the end takes better pictures.
> >> > That is to say, it has "technological superiority". I can argue in
> >> > detail about each point mentioned here.
> >>
> >> Which of those arguments gets you better pictures?
> >
> > Still awaiting your explanation. I take it I am in for a long wait?
> >
>
> I'm pleased that you aver that. I aver that Canon has significant marketing
> muscle, beyond that of Nikon. The Windows analogy was a great one, but you,
> of course, dismissed it, because it was contrary to your argument.

I ignored it because it was a red-herring.

> Is Windows better than Apple's OS? Probably not. Does it outsell it by
> roughly 9:1 or more. Sure does. Is that because it is better designed,
> simpler, components interoperate better and in the end it does better
> computer processing?
>
> Nope.

Maybe you can see why I ignore red-herrings then: they add nothing to
the debate.

> It's because its better marketed, more open, cheaper and has established a
> dominance.

"established dominance" is just another way of saying "more popular",
which is just Nixon's tautological nonsense revisited.

Canon equipment is not cheaper. (Remmeber the review?)

Neither equipment is particularly "open".

"Better marketed"? Isn't this another tautology? (If X is badly sold,
it won't sell, if X is well sold, it will sell well.) You may have a
point, but only if you show that not only is your claim true ("better
marketed"), but that Canon/EOS/etc is "technologically inferior" or
"technologically equivalent".

> Canon is NOT outselling Nikon due to technical superiority. It certainly
> does not take better pictures.

So all those sports photographers at the past Olympics were mindless
dupes of the Canon marketing machine. Yeah!

> If there were prints from both cameras, properly post-processed and printed,
> there is no way you could pick the camera.

And you criticize me for saying that the D2x review is "useless"!

Let me say, I certainly hope that you and Nixon are not representative
examples of Nikon users...
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 7:28:31 PM

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

Tom Scales wrote:

> Oh come on. Your argument is entirely based on technology never improving.
> Clearly not true.

No technology can trump the laws of physics. If you believe otherwise,
you are well beyond stupid.

> This isn't statistical, its real world.

Again, basic statistical inference tells us what we need in order to
make a "valid" decision. As an introduction, you can try:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

Never accept a distribution parameter without the corresponding
distribution attached to it. Models come with assumptions.

> You have NO experience in the real world of the D2X and are making up theory
> to prove a point.

I would be very proud to have "made up" the laws of thermodynamics,
information theory, etc. Alas, someone else beat me to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 9:42:23 PM

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Did _you_ look at the graphs? There are no error bars, so no
> conclusions can be drawn (see my previous rant re: "useless review").

Error bars? Come on. Now dpreview is useless, too, all of a sudden,
because they agree with everyone else? When have there ever been error
bars?

> Just taking the bogus graphs at face value, though, any differences, if
> they exist, are negligible.

Yes, that's the whole point.

> In any event, the smaller D2X pixels _MUST_ mean more inherent noise --

That's a nice theory. Too bad reality doesn't work that way.

How about this -- go and shoot with a D2x, and look for the noise you
claim nature insists must be there. It's not there.

> thus any "lower noise" must have come at the expense of resolution or
> some other desirable. Or is it part and parcel of the Nikon religion
> that the laws of thermodynamics are suspended within their cameras?

Camera manufacturers have been making sensors with smaller pixels *and*
less noise, over and over, time and time again, for quite a long time
now. Why do people *still* insist this is not possible?

Religion's got nothing to do with it. Religion is when you believe
something based on no evidence at all, like, for example, the idea that
a camera must have lots of noise because the pixels are smaller when no
such noise actually exists. I don't go on faith, see. I look at the
pictures and see for myself. The noise isn't there. You can go on
believing it is; such beliefs have served people well (?) in other
areas for centuries.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 9:43:57 PM

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The advantage is not mystical, nor is it subject to "belief". Indeed,
> it must exist, and it must be a large one. What is your alternative
> explanation for the fact that I see 5 to 7 Canon users for every Nikon
> when I am out "in the field"?

My explanation would be "Canon is more popular."

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 9:43:58 PM

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

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:119uhatkedofh1a@corp.supernews.com...
> eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The advantage is not mystical, nor is it subject to "belief". Indeed,
>> it must exist, and it must be a large one. What is your alternative
>> explanation for the fact that I see 5 to 7 Canon users for every Nikon
>> when I am out "in the field"?
>
> My explanation would be "Canon is more popular."
>
> --

There were 6 other weddings taking place last Saturday at the location of my
sister's wedding. That made 7 of us shooting weddings. Of those 7, there
was 1 person shooting Hasselblad, 1 shooting Canon, and the rest were
shooting Nikon. And, BTW, only the Canon shooter and 1 Nikon shooter were
digital.

Anyone ever purchased a car, then suddenly started seeing that car
everywhere? As with all things, we tend to notice what we have or expect to
see and not notice what we don't have or expect to see. It's human nature.

Walt
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 9:48:59 PM

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

Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com> wrote:

> One thing that intrigues me though, is that the camera can meter with
> manual focus lenses by means of inputting the focal length and maximum
> aperture into the camera by means of a menu. What this tells me is that
> there should be no reason why a bit of firmware or software (whatever they
> call it) can't do the same for the D70.

No, it wouldn't work like that. The reason the camera needs to know the
max aperture of the lens is because the mechanical aperture thingy tells
the camera how far the lens is stopped down from its maximum. The D70
lacks that thingy, so even knowing the max aperture, it still couldn't
do it. It's the lack of the mechanical thingy that (a) makes the D70
unable to do this, and (b) is the "cost" reason to omit this feature.

I would think they could enable stop-down metering with the DOF preview
in the firmware, though I have no way to actually know that.

> Maybe if they added that feature the D70(s) would be the best thing since
> sliced cheese.

Yeah. It really should be there. Compatibility with old lenses is a huge
strength of Nikon stuff, so they should exploit it.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 9:53:32 PM

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

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:Qusne.89587$w15.71478@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1117669297.801695.239460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Walt Hanks wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/
>>>
>>> Excellent review.
>>
>> It's a useless review. Direct comparison of the Canon 1DsMkII and the
>> Nikon D2X has _zero_ information value because prospective customers
>> are either:
>>
>> a) already in possession of a lens set from Canon or Nikon, and thus
>> body choice is limited to whatever the corresponding company offers.
>> Even if this wasn't true, the review is still useless by what is
>> _unreviewed_ -- for example, the huge technological advantage Canon has
>> over Nikon re: EOS.
>>
>> b) not in possession of any lens set at all, in which case selecting
>> the body is generally the last choice one makes, not the first. How
>> many people are in this position and are willing to write a $5000
>> cheques for their first camera based on the ranting he read at
>> dpreview?
>>
>
> Interesting. When I'm shooting with my D2X, I don't find myself slapping
> my head and shouting "out my God, Canon has a HUGE technological
> advantage".
>
> And the results are amazing.
>
> Tom
>
It is amazing how much more stable a camera is when you're not continually
slapping yourself on the head while using it... ;-)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 9:55:13 PM

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

Philip Homburg wrote:

>>In any event, the smaller D2X pixels _MUST_ mean more inherent noise --
>>thus any "lower noise" must have come at the expense of resolution or
>>some other desirable. Or is it part and parcel of the Nikon religion
>>that the laws of thermodynamics are suspended within their cameras?
>
> This is true only if the noise in sensors is completely determined by
> unavoidable noise sources. Which also means that there cannot be newer
> sensors (same size/same resolution) with better noise properties.
>
> That may be the case, but that would be for you to prove.

Fortunately, someone else has done it:

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.no...

"Within the accuracy of the data, it shows that the 1D Mark II at ISO
100 is essentially photon noise limited." As one would expect, the
same is true for other ISO's as well (see second graph).

Photon shot noise is completely unavoidable in this reality.

Now if a 1DMkII is "photon noise limited", we can expect that the
1DsMkII is likewise, and we can give the benefit of the doubt to the
Nikon D2x and assume it is too.

Making up for the smaller pixel would be an easy job for simple
anisotropic diffusion implementation. Maybe Nikon has something more
or less exotic, but it'll be end up acting the same: a very subtle,
adaptive, blur. Note that even dpreview's "review" points out that
after "sharpening" the Canon image, it had "more resolution" than the
D2x's. A hint? Hard to say, given the "test".
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 9:55:54 PM

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

Musty wrote:

> You are absurd.

Why, thank you!
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 9:58:02 PM

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

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117732261.467359.191730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> What is your alternative
> explanation for the fact that I see 5 to 7 Canon users for every Nikon
> when I am out "in the field"?

Marketing.

Nikon is a Japanese engineering company with a poor understanding of how to
market to the western world. Canon, OTOH, understands how to sell cameras.
If Apple Computer had understood computer marketing as well as Canon
understands digital camera marketing, you be typing your posts on a
Macintosh. Likewise, Beta videotape was always superior to VHS, but Sony was
outmarketed by JVC.

HMc
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 10:10:43 PM

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>
>>> The advantage is not mystical, nor is it subject to "belief". Indeed,
>>> it must exist, and it must be a large one. What is your alternative
>>> explanation for the fact that I see 5 to 7 Canon users for every Nikon
>>> when I am out "in the field"?
>>
>> My explanation would be "Canon is more popular."
>
> That is not an "explanation" but a re-iteration of my observation.

It is an explanation because that is the end of it. You see more Canon
users because Canon is more popular. You see more SUVs on the road because
SUVs are more popular. You see more Windows users because Windows is more
popular. You can't possibly imagine, even in your wildest fantasies, that
people choose products based on technical advantage or superiority? Windows
alone completely dispels that notion.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 10:39:03 PM

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> Just taking the bogus graphs at face value, though, any differences, if
>>> they exist, are negligible.
>>
>> Yes, that's the whole point.
>
> So the whole point of a review is to make undisclosed assumptions?
> Interesting notions you have there...

No, the whole point is that any differences, if they exist, are negligible.

> Believe whatever claptrap you like, but thermodynamics is written into
> the fabric of reality we inhabit. Deal with it.

You can go on blindly believing that it means a D2x must have lots of noise,
or you can look at the pictures and see for yourself that it doesn't.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 10:47:23 PM

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

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:27:17 +0200, Roxy d'Urban <not@home.com> wrote:
>
> One thing that intrigues me though, is that the camera can meter with
> manual focus lenses by means of inputting the focal length and maximum
> aperture into the camera by means of a menu.

That is interesting.

Why does the meter care about the focal length?

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 11:43:07 PM

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Let's keep to the subject at hand: why are Canon cameras "more
> popular"? I aver the camera system is better designed, simpler,
> components interoperate better, and in the end takes better pictures.
> That is to say, it has "technological superiority". I can argue in
> detail about each point mentioned here.

Which of those arguments gets you better pictures?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
June 2, 2005 11:55:30 PM

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

"James Of Tucson" <james0tucson@gmail.com> wrote:

>"You'd take 8.5mp over 12.4mp because you
>believe the sensor is too small? "
>
>A landscape photographer might. The crop could be pretty annoying, I
>imagine.


A landscape photographer would take 12.4 MP over 8.5 MP every time.
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 12:50:59 AM

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>
>>> Let's keep to the subject at hand: why are Canon cameras "more
>>> popular"? I aver the camera system is better designed, simpler,
>>> components interoperate better, and in the end takes better pictures.
>>> That is to say, it has "technological superiority". I can argue in
>>> detail about each point mentioned here.
>>
>> Which of those arguments gets you better pictures?
>
> Still awaiting your explanation. I take it I am in for a long wait?

Your position seems to be "Canon is more popular because their stuff
is superior." That is, of course completely absurd, and is never true
for any product, never has been, and never will be.

Canon is more popular. I don't care to analyze why, because it doesn't
matter to me; I feel no particular need to jump on the bandwagon, so to
speak, or to use what lots of other people are using. It would make no
difference to my photography. So I don't care to find an explanation.
But I know that what your explanation seems to be simply cannot be true.

You seem to feel, very strongly -- violently, even, with a rabidness that
is remarkable even for this newsgroup -- that using a Canon will somehow
get you better pictures, and that everyone else should use a Canon, too,
though I can't imagine how that would affect you. I simply don't agree
with the premise -- not that Canon can give you better pictures, but that
your choice of camera brand, whatever that may be, can do so at all. If
I were to "switch" to Canon it would not make me a better photographer,
and would not improve my pictures in the least -- nor does using a Nikon
have any such effect.

In other words, I think the entire argument is stupid, and it makes no
sense to me why people feel the need to go to such great lengths to
insist that other peoples' cameras can't possibly be any good. If you
want to prove something, post your pictures. That's what's supposed to
matter, after all. But if they're really good, and you really attribute
that to your choice of camera brand rather than your own skill and talent,
that's kind of sad.

The people screaming that the D2x can't possibly be any good because of
the smaller sensor are simply wrong -- the noise they insist must be there
is not there. Perhaps they don't want to accept this because it would
leave only their actual *pictures* with which to claim superiority? They
shouldn't worry too much, though -- Canon will, in due time, release
something that is clearly technologically superior (but which requires
numerous firmware updates to mop up the bugs), and Nikon will take a year
or two to match it, and the balance of the world will shift back to one
those people can deal with. Meanwhile, the rest of us will just try to
shoot some pictures.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 1:15:04 AM

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

On 2 Jun 2005 14:08:54 -0700, eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> There are of course other reasons why the 1DsMkII _may_ be noisier:
> Nikon has quieter electronics, etc.

How long was it between the design of the two (1Ds MkII and D2x)
sensors? Perhaps some progress was made in electronics in between.

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 1:16:04 AM

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

In article <1117731360.479200.285560@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In any event, the smaller D2X pixels _MUST_ mean more inherent noise --
>thus any "lower noise" must have come at the expense of resolution or
>some other desirable. Or is it part and parcel of the Nikon religion
>that the laws of thermodynamics are suspended within their cameras?

This is true only if the noise in sensors is completely determined by
unavoidable noise sources. Which also means that there cannot be newer
sensors (same size/same resolution) with better noise properties.

That may be the case, but that would be for you to prove.

If you can't prove that we are at the limit of what is possible according to
physics theory, then it is quite possible that Nikon found the 3dB or so
they need to compensate for using about half the surface area of the the
Canon sensor.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 1:16:04 AM

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

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117738253.120182.63660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>
>> > Believe whatever claptrap you like, but thermodynamics is written into
>> > the fabric of reality we inhabit. Deal with it.
>>
>> You can go on blindly believing that it means a D2x must have lots of
>> noise,
>> or you can look at the pictures and see for yourself that it doesn't.
>
> Ok, I've seen enough: I'm going to conclude you are acting stupid here
> because _you are stupid_. Reasons:
>
> 1) I have never said ther D2X "must have lots of noise". This is
> _your_ strawman you are knocking down, remember? Does this excite you
> or something? If so, rage away, dude.
>
> 2) You have a demonstrable inability to separate your camera into its
> signal processing components, analyse each independently, and then
> reassemble into the whole. To wit: you are seemingly unable to
> perceive that if one were to put larger pixels into a D2x (everything
> else remaining the same), the noise would _decrease_. Pardon me, kind
> sir, if I prefer equipment that reduces noise at the source instead of
> cleaning up the mess downstream by making assumptions...
>

Oh come on. Your argument is entirely based on technology never improving.
Clearly not true.

This isn't statistical, its real world.

You have NO experience in the real world of the D2X and are making up theory
to prove a point.

Poorly

Tom
Anonymous
June 3, 2005 1:21:04 AM

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

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117731633.633110.182840@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Tom Scales babbles incoherently:
>
>> Interesting. When I'm shooting with my D2X, I don't find myself slapping
>> my
>> head and shouting "out my God, Canon has a HUGE technological advantage".
>
> Yes, fine, whatever you want, Mr. Scales.
>
> But the review is still "uselss".
>

It's "uselss", huh.

It is an informed opinion. I am very happy with my D2X and see no advantage
in spending an additional $3000 so that I can strut around proclaiming I
have a bigger sensor. It's not the size, it's what you do with it.

It's particularly interesting where the comment was made that the Canon wide
angles aren't up to snuff. Isn't the best argument of full frame that it is
better for wide angle photography?

And yet I do lots of landscapes with my Nikkor 12-24 and they're great.

Again, your argument seems to be primarily with yourself to convince
yourself of a good decision. It's not based on any actual facts. Dpreview
certainly is based on more facts than your argument.

In the end, does it matter whether we chose a Mercedes or a BMW? Either
way, they're a heck of a lot better than you average Chevy.

Tom
!