Nikon's new D2X is due out on Friday (and possibly tomorrow). And there has been much ranting and gnashing of teeth about it on the interweb. Nikon have done little to quell this since they have imposed non-disclosure agreements on everyone who has had proper time with the camera before now, and stopped them posting sample images.
In anycase, here is a collection of leaked/unofficial reports that I pulled together for an email to a friend. Having done so it seemed a pity to not share them further.
I have tried to included comments from both admitted Nikon and Canon shooters (I'm amazed by the number of owners on the web who seem incapable of admitting that the other company can make a decent camera). But I have been more skeptical of photographers who comment that the camera is X or Y compared to "MY camera". I have also been skeptical of forum posters who are known only by user names and provide no links to their images.
It is not my intention to fan the flames of a DPreview style argument between the tribes. I don't share or believe all the opinions below (how could I when some contradict). I post this for people's info, while they wait for the proper reviews/samples on 25th.
Please read all with a degree of skepticism, noting the background of the poster. Please also bear in mind my bias in choosing sources (although I have tried to be fair), since I intend to buy one of these cameras.
Alex
Full Version: D2X Gossip
Everyone is impressed with LOW ISO performance:
"I have been spending the last week or so shooting with this baby and I am extra-ordinarily pleased and surprised.... Nikon has done a very intelleigent thing with the release of this camera. They have made sure that the camera was right and ready for release before seding it to market. It is an absolute gem!
For the past couple days I've been here in Florida at the PMA show. I've had the great fortune to spend some time with a few great photographer like Joe McNally, Rob Van Patten, Frans Lanting, Dave Black, Moose Peterson, and some other who have also been using this camera. We've been comparing notes and I can safely say that the concensus is that this camera is really going to raise the bar in digital photography... If you are shooting NIKON you really should get on the list to get your hands on this camera. You will be so pleased. I'm going to buy 3. Anyway, happy shooting! "
Rick Rickman (Nikon User) http://www.rickmanphoto.com/about_txt.html
"I was invited to a pre launch D2X seminar at my dealer's Park Cameras in Sussex given by Nikon UK yesterday, 27 Jan 2005. We all had a good chance to see the pre launch camera and very impressive it is! A very large portrait print was on display taken with the 28-70mm F2.8 A-FS and it was so sharp and clean that I would say it was a 4x5 pix!! I think this camera is going to be all we had hoped for and then some."
Graham Whistler FBIPP FRPS (Nikon user)
""Nikon had its new just-about-to-ship flagship camera, the D2X at the booth, and also were displaying numerous large (20"X24") and bigger prints. Frankly, they were stunning! This is the best image quality I've yet seen from a Nikon DSLR, and is superior to what I was expecting, given the high pixel count and small pixel size of this new 12.4MP chip from Sony.
Samples images shown at Photokina were not very impressive, according to those that had a chance to view them. But the prints that I saw at the show today were knock-outs. The four months since announcement has been well used by both Nikon and Sony in lowering noise and improving colour fidelity. Nikon owners finally have a state-of-the-art high-res DSLR to shout about."
Michael H. Reichmann (Canon user) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
"The Outside shots at ISO 100 look very good. Good tonality. The color is also good. When there areas of overexposure, it is very natural. There are smooth gradients from the light tones to the overexposed areas. The images definitely have the CMOS look, but I really like them. It's different than the images from the canon. Fine detail looks very good, as I will show later. They could use a little more sharpening than the default amount, but I think they'll print very naturally, and film-like without it. Tonality in the bokeh was very good. The images were virtually noise free at ISO 100. I had my doubts about the noise performance on this camera, but it looks very good. We didn't have any blue sky when I shot the images, but I would have wanted to see how it would perform with a polarizer. That deep blue sky is a good test for noise performance."
Ben Horne (Canon 1Ds Mk2 shooter) http://www.benhorne.com/
"This camera has everything the existing full frame DSLR models have. It's hard to find anything negative to say about D2X pictures."
Kamera Magazine, Finland. http://www.kamera-lehti.fi/index2.html
Comparison with the 1DS MK2. "These are almost the same. It's hard to tell which is superior. As far as JPEG's concerned, 1DsMk2 has some advantage. Under the test condition, 1DsMk2 seems to produce clearer result. It produces images brighter at center area. Because of this characteristic, 1DsMk2 tends to have vignettes at the corners. D2X shows rich color with accurate WB under low winter morning light."
Cameraman Magazine, Japan. Sourced from DPreview.
"I have been spending the last week or so shooting with this baby and I am extra-ordinarily pleased and surprised.... Nikon has done a very intelleigent thing with the release of this camera. They have made sure that the camera was right and ready for release before seding it to market. It is an absolute gem!
For the past couple days I've been here in Florida at the PMA show. I've had the great fortune to spend some time with a few great photographer like Joe McNally, Rob Van Patten, Frans Lanting, Dave Black, Moose Peterson, and some other who have also been using this camera. We've been comparing notes and I can safely say that the concensus is that this camera is really going to raise the bar in digital photography... If you are shooting NIKON you really should get on the list to get your hands on this camera. You will be so pleased. I'm going to buy 3. Anyway, happy shooting! "
Rick Rickman (Nikon User) http://www.rickmanphoto.com/about_txt.html
"I was invited to a pre launch D2X seminar at my dealer's Park Cameras in Sussex given by Nikon UK yesterday, 27 Jan 2005. We all had a good chance to see the pre launch camera and very impressive it is! A very large portrait print was on display taken with the 28-70mm F2.8 A-FS and it was so sharp and clean that I would say it was a 4x5 pix!! I think this camera is going to be all we had hoped for and then some."
Graham Whistler FBIPP FRPS (Nikon user)
""Nikon had its new just-about-to-ship flagship camera, the D2X at the booth, and also were displaying numerous large (20"X24") and bigger prints. Frankly, they were stunning! This is the best image quality I've yet seen from a Nikon DSLR, and is superior to what I was expecting, given the high pixel count and small pixel size of this new 12.4MP chip from Sony.
Samples images shown at Photokina were not very impressive, according to those that had a chance to view them. But the prints that I saw at the show today were knock-outs. The four months since announcement has been well used by both Nikon and Sony in lowering noise and improving colour fidelity. Nikon owners finally have a state-of-the-art high-res DSLR to shout about."
Michael H. Reichmann (Canon user) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
"The Outside shots at ISO 100 look very good. Good tonality. The color is also good. When there areas of overexposure, it is very natural. There are smooth gradients from the light tones to the overexposed areas. The images definitely have the CMOS look, but I really like them. It's different than the images from the canon. Fine detail looks very good, as I will show later. They could use a little more sharpening than the default amount, but I think they'll print very naturally, and film-like without it. Tonality in the bokeh was very good. The images were virtually noise free at ISO 100. I had my doubts about the noise performance on this camera, but it looks very good. We didn't have any blue sky when I shot the images, but I would have wanted to see how it would perform with a polarizer. That deep blue sky is a good test for noise performance."
Ben Horne (Canon 1Ds Mk2 shooter) http://www.benhorne.com/
"This camera has everything the existing full frame DSLR models have. It's hard to find anything negative to say about D2X pictures."
Kamera Magazine, Finland. http://www.kamera-lehti.fi/index2.html
Comparison with the 1DS MK2. "These are almost the same. It's hard to tell which is superior. As far as JPEG's concerned, 1DsMk2 has some advantage. Under the test condition, 1DsMk2 seems to produce clearer result. It produces images brighter at center area. Because of this characteristic, 1DsMk2 tends to have vignettes at the corners. D2X shows rich color with accurate WB under low winter morning light."
Cameraman Magazine, Japan. Sourced from DPreview.
High ISO is harder to call. My feeling is that it will be about a stop poorer than the Canons (although not all the Canon's are the same). These are very varied. Some even report that the Nikon is very good!
"I was less impressed with high ISO test files that I saw which were taken by a colleague. A seat-of-the-pants judgment is that ISO 3200 with the D2x looks like ISO 1600 on the Canon 1Ds MKII, and ISO 1600 on the Nikon is not as good as ISO 800 on the Canon. Let's call it a 1 stop disadvantage for the Nikon at high ISO. Low ISO images though are exceptional. I don't know yet about mid-range speeds, such as ISO 400, and we'll have to await knowledge tester's results before any firm overall conclusions can be drawn."
Michael H. Reichmann (Canon user) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
"ISO sensitivity comparison:
ISO100-200 : No obvious difference
ISO400 : 1DsMk2 starts showing some noise in the shade under chin. D2X has no problem.
ISO800 : D2X starts showing some noise in bright gray area. 1DsMk2 looks the same as ISO400.
ISO1600 : D2X has less noise than 1DsMk2."
Cameraman Magazine, Japan. Sourced from DPreview.
"Some german guys who have been presented the D2x during a "Nikon professional user day" last week were all very very excited with the quality, they also praised the ISO performance."
DPreview. Unreliable!
"Most importantly for me, is the fact that I was shooting at ISO 800 and at that speed the quality of the image was exceptional. To give you some kind of comparison. I have been using the D2H now for a long time and as we all know there is some noise with those cameras at higher ISO values.
However, with the D2H there is very little noise from ISO 200 to ISO 400. The image quality of the D2X at 800 ISO is very similar to what you would expect to see from the D2H between ISO 200 and 400. The image quality is very very very good and that was at the 7 megapixel image size as well. The color quality and the skin tones are exceptional."
Rick Rickman (Nikon User) http://www.rickmanphoto.com/about_txt.html
"Now to the high ISO stuff. After reading the notice on MR's site, I was expecting some pretty bad stuff. However, I didn't find that to be the case. The camera did have a tendency to underexpose some of the shots (likely thrown off by some bright areas in the images --- nothing new here), but the noise levels at 800 were quite good.
Nikon has done quite a bit of in-camera noise processing on this camera. They have done a VERY good job controlling the chroma noise. There is next to no random color noise -- unlike any of the current canon cameras. However, this does not come without a price. Just like if you remove the chroma noise using software, you'll get some artifacts. In the bokeh, there can be some odd splotchy areas of color that don't look very natural. I've gotten the same thing when using chroma reduction in post production. It may look a little odd in print, and I hope there is SOME way to control the in camrea chroma reduction. If not though, it's not a huge deal.
Since there is some pretty strong chroma reduction, the images take on a more film-like look. There is a bit of a grit to them, but nothing out of the ordinary for the modern crop of digital SLR cameras. I don't have a direct comparision available, but I would venture to guess that straight from the camera, the D2X may have a little more noise at ISO 800 than the 1 series cameras from canon, but the images will likely print nicer, and more film like."
Ben Horne (Canon 1Ds Mk2 shooter) http://www.benhorne.com/
I should also add that Michael H. Reichmann (Canon user) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ posted a comparison test on high ISO noise between the D2X and 20D. This test generated a huge amount of web banter. The test showed the 20D to be considerably superior but he withdrew it because "enough errors in my methodology were pointed out to me that I've decided to withdraw the piece until a more rigorous and comprehensive test can be undertaken. I regret any inconvenience that this premature publication may have caused. "
"I was less impressed with high ISO test files that I saw which were taken by a colleague. A seat-of-the-pants judgment is that ISO 3200 with the D2x looks like ISO 1600 on the Canon 1Ds MKII, and ISO 1600 on the Nikon is not as good as ISO 800 on the Canon. Let's call it a 1 stop disadvantage for the Nikon at high ISO. Low ISO images though are exceptional. I don't know yet about mid-range speeds, such as ISO 400, and we'll have to await knowledge tester's results before any firm overall conclusions can be drawn."
Michael H. Reichmann (Canon user) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
"ISO sensitivity comparison:
ISO100-200 : No obvious difference
ISO400 : 1DsMk2 starts showing some noise in the shade under chin. D2X has no problem.
ISO800 : D2X starts showing some noise in bright gray area. 1DsMk2 looks the same as ISO400.
ISO1600 : D2X has less noise than 1DsMk2."
Cameraman Magazine, Japan. Sourced from DPreview.
"Some german guys who have been presented the D2x during a "Nikon professional user day" last week were all very very excited with the quality, they also praised the ISO performance."
DPreview. Unreliable!
"Most importantly for me, is the fact that I was shooting at ISO 800 and at that speed the quality of the image was exceptional. To give you some kind of comparison. I have been using the D2H now for a long time and as we all know there is some noise with those cameras at higher ISO values.
However, with the D2H there is very little noise from ISO 200 to ISO 400. The image quality of the D2X at 800 ISO is very similar to what you would expect to see from the D2H between ISO 200 and 400. The image quality is very very very good and that was at the 7 megapixel image size as well. The color quality and the skin tones are exceptional."
Rick Rickman (Nikon User) http://www.rickmanphoto.com/about_txt.html
"Now to the high ISO stuff. After reading the notice on MR's site, I was expecting some pretty bad stuff. However, I didn't find that to be the case. The camera did have a tendency to underexpose some of the shots (likely thrown off by some bright areas in the images --- nothing new here), but the noise levels at 800 were quite good.
Nikon has done quite a bit of in-camera noise processing on this camera. They have done a VERY good job controlling the chroma noise. There is next to no random color noise -- unlike any of the current canon cameras. However, this does not come without a price. Just like if you remove the chroma noise using software, you'll get some artifacts. In the bokeh, there can be some odd splotchy areas of color that don't look very natural. I've gotten the same thing when using chroma reduction in post production. It may look a little odd in print, and I hope there is SOME way to control the in camrea chroma reduction. If not though, it's not a huge deal.
Since there is some pretty strong chroma reduction, the images take on a more film-like look. There is a bit of a grit to them, but nothing out of the ordinary for the modern crop of digital SLR cameras. I don't have a direct comparision available, but I would venture to guess that straight from the camera, the D2X may have a little more noise at ISO 800 than the 1 series cameras from canon, but the images will likely print nicer, and more film like."
Ben Horne (Canon 1Ds Mk2 shooter) http://www.benhorne.com/
I should also add that Michael H. Reichmann (Canon user) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ posted a comparison test on high ISO noise between the D2X and 20D. This test generated a huge amount of web banter. The test showed the 20D to be considerably superior but he withdrew it because "enough errors in my methodology were pointed out to me that I've decided to withdraw the piece until a more rigorous and comprehensive test can be undertaken. I regret any inconvenience that this premature publication may have caused. "
Other features (reading DPreview its easy to forget that there are other features on a camera).
"The autofocus is better than the D2H which I have always found extremely good. Just for fun. I did a little test with a 400 2.8 on the camera and I followed a rider from the point that I could first seem them to the point that the rider was so close that the lens could no longer focus which amounted to 16 frames and the camera held focus for 15 of the 16 frames. Now if this was just a cyclist coming at me you'd expect any camera to be able to do that but in this cased there were other riders moving between the camera and the one I was shooting. There were poles and signage that got in the way as well as the heads of track officials and monitors. So for me this was truly new and exciting."
Rick Rickman (Nikon User) http://www.rickmanphoto.com/about_txt.html
Interestingly the Finnish magazine also mentionned the camera is very good at blues. Could be useful underwater...
"D2X produces accurate colours (also blues look real, unlike any other DSLR models tested on the same magazine)."
Kamera Magazine, Finland. http://www.kamera-lehti.fi/index2.html
Hope people find concentrating all this together is helpful. I reiterate I do not wish to start a DPreview style one-eyed argument.
Alex
"The autofocus is better than the D2H which I have always found extremely good. Just for fun. I did a little test with a 400 2.8 on the camera and I followed a rider from the point that I could first seem them to the point that the rider was so close that the lens could no longer focus which amounted to 16 frames and the camera held focus for 15 of the 16 frames. Now if this was just a cyclist coming at me you'd expect any camera to be able to do that but in this cased there were other riders moving between the camera and the one I was shooting. There were poles and signage that got in the way as well as the heads of track officials and monitors. So for me this was truly new and exciting."
Rick Rickman (Nikon User) http://www.rickmanphoto.com/about_txt.html
Interestingly the Finnish magazine also mentionned the camera is very good at blues. Could be useful underwater...
"D2X produces accurate colours (also blues look real, unlike any other DSLR models tested on the same magazine)."
Kamera Magazine, Finland. http://www.kamera-lehti.fi/index2.html
Hope people find concentrating all this together is helpful. I reiterate I do not wish to start a DPreview style one-eyed argument.
Alex
Thanks Alex for putting this all in one place. It's hard to find some of this information. Sounds promising, look forward to you personal feedback.
Rand
Rand
Excellent research and synthesis skills Alex - demonstrative of your science training I guess 
Sounds like there are some useful characteristics to this camera and that it should work well underwater (the blues comment by the Finnish mag was very interesting). The improved AF and viewfinder will be a boon too.
Really looking forward to hearing your comments in a couple of days too.
Thanks again.
Sounds like there are some useful characteristics to this camera and that it should work well underwater (the blues comment by the Finnish mag was very interesting). The improved AF and viewfinder will be a boon too.
Really looking forward to hearing your comments in a couple of days too.
Thanks again.
Thanks so much Alex for this report, maybe the D2X could actually be my next camera if this all pans out
cor
cor
I was planning on skipping a generation (at least), but now I may have to reconsider.
Alex
Thanks for the reposting and all the info. I always intended to get the D2X (im a d100 & d2h user now), but typically wait a few months. Since its still winter here, I will probably get it in april, which will give the early birds plenty of time to point out the kinks.
Also helps that Nikon HQ is 10 minutes from my home.
Thanks again !
Stu
www.stuartphotography.com
Thanks for the reposting and all the info. I always intended to get the D2X (im a d100 & d2h user now), but typically wait a few months. Since its still winter here, I will probably get it in april, which will give the early birds plenty of time to point out the kinks.
Also helps that Nikon HQ is 10 minutes from my home.
Thanks again !
Stu
www.stuartphotography.com
Some good pix taken with the D2X were posted on FM and then transfered to a web site:
http://photo.neuroscuba.net/gallery/benhorned2x
Check out the fine detail in the flower shot.
Cheers!
Tom
http://photo.neuroscuba.net/gallery/benhorned2x
Check out the fine detail in the flower shot.
Cheers!
Tom
Just remember that all the quotes are gossip. Posted by people who I have never met!
Also I have selected sources that I feel are reliable. But remember it is the Internet. It caters to every leaning! What ever you want you can find it in google-land. I'm sure that with a bit of a hunt I could have found quotes from the internet (although not from such credible sources) that said the camera was junk.
Official reviews will be out in a few days. Written by professional camera reviewers, who don't have an axe to grid, and checked by their editors. I would certainly advise reading these, then trying the camera for yourself, before parting with any of the folding stuff.
Alex
Also I have selected sources that I feel are reliable. But remember it is the Internet. It caters to every leaning! What ever you want you can find it in google-land. I'm sure that with a bit of a hunt I could have found quotes from the internet (although not from such credible sources) that said the camera was junk.
Official reviews will be out in a few days. Written by professional camera reviewers, who don't have an axe to grid, and checked by their editors. I would certainly advise reading these, then trying the camera for yourself, before parting with any of the folding stuff.
Alex
Thanks Alex for your postings....It looks like the D2X is gonna be a terrific camera with all those features. But it will be very expensive, at least for my pocket. So, in your opinion, which of these features are likely gonna be really useful UW? And, just in terms of uw photo, which are the biggest advantages of the D2X over the D70? I would like to know your opinion.
Thanks
Matetes
Thanks
Matetes
Hola Matetes,
Please consider that this is my opinion. i have only used the D2X on one controlled occasion and do not own one yet. So I will just put my opinions in note form.
Advantages of D2X over D70
12 vs 6 MP
ISO 100
Improved colour
2 generations of Autofocus (big advantage for macro)
Built for pro-workload
Buffer and frame rate (in certain situations)
Viewfinder
Advantages of D70 over D2X
Price
Fast flash synch with UW strobes (upto 1/8000th)
Smaller, cheaper housings
Please don't be distracted by the megapixels. 6MP is very good. I have 3metre print up in a shop window in central London taken with a D100. The client's art people asked me if it was medium format because they were so impressed by the quality. My last two cover shots from the D100 were both significantly cropped and still look good. 6MP shot well, post processed properly, is still plenty. Magazines are not increasing in resolution!
Finally I must say that the best way for anyone to improve their underwater images is to improve their underwater photograhic technique and also their vision for seeing/creating images. The camera really doesn't make such a big difference.
Alex
Please consider that this is my opinion. i have only used the D2X on one controlled occasion and do not own one yet. So I will just put my opinions in note form.
Advantages of D2X over D70
12 vs 6 MP
ISO 100
Improved colour
2 generations of Autofocus (big advantage for macro)
Built for pro-workload
Buffer and frame rate (in certain situations)
Viewfinder
Advantages of D70 over D2X
Price
Fast flash synch with UW strobes (upto 1/8000th)
Smaller, cheaper housings
Please don't be distracted by the megapixels. 6MP is very good. I have 3metre print up in a shop window in central London taken with a D100. The client's art people asked me if it was medium format because they were so impressed by the quality. My last two cover shots from the D100 were both significantly cropped and still look good. 6MP shot well, post processed properly, is still plenty. Magazines are not increasing in resolution!
Finally I must say that the best way for anyone to improve their underwater images is to improve their underwater photograhic technique and also their vision for seeing/creating images. The camera really doesn't make such a big difference.
Alex
QUOTE
Hola Matetes,
Please consider that this is my opinion. i have only used the D2X on one controlled occasion and do not own one yet. So I will just put my opinions in note form.
Advantages of D2X over D70
12 vs 6 MP
ISO 100
Improved colour
2 generations of Autofocus (big advantage for macro)
Built for pro-workload
Buffer and frame rate (in certain situations)
Viewfinder
Advantages of D70 over D2X
Price
Fast flash synch with UW strobes (upto 1/8000th)
Smaller, cheaper housings
Please consider that this is my opinion. i have only used the D2X on one controlled occasion and do not own one yet. So I will just put my opinions in note form.
Advantages of D2X over D70
12 vs 6 MP
ISO 100
Improved colour
2 generations of Autofocus (big advantage for macro)
Built for pro-workload
Buffer and frame rate (in certain situations)
Viewfinder
Advantages of D70 over D2X
Price
Fast flash synch with UW strobes (upto 1/8000th)
Smaller, cheaper housings
The D70 has a shutter speed of upto 1/8000th of a second, but doesnt it have a flash sync of upto 1/500th of a second? It may have a fast sync mode that uses a trick to do 1/8000th of a second sync flash, but do you still have TTL then? And what about battery life? The D2X only does 1/250th of a second right?
Another improvement on the D2X is an RGB histogram instead of just the green channel I believe.
I'm actually still sortof leaning to the D70 actually. Much cheaper (you can buy like 5 D70's for the price of a D2X?), much smaller/lighter, higher sync speeds. The doubling of number of megapixels on the D2X isnt going to matter much. 4200 pixels isnt significantly better than 3000 for most practical applications. The small viewfinder can be fixed by magnification on the housing. The only thing that could really make me go to the D2X is if the color is more lifelike (or should I say more slide-like), and if the AF is significantly better. I cant wait to see D70/D2X images side by side. That would be the deciding factor.
Cor
Hi Cor,
I don't want to drawn into speculation, but!!!...
No TTL on D70 at high shutter speeds. But who wants TTL?
http://www.wetpixel.com/PNphpBB2-viewtopic...c-start-0.phtml
Also D2X (ISO 100) 1/250th = D70 (ISO 200) 1/500th for controlling ambient light.
Battery life irrelevant - both do a full day of diving (D2X better, but D70 more than adequate)
I'll comment more freely when I have shot the camera (underwater). I don't want to speculate and potentially mislead people.
Alex
I don't want to drawn into speculation, but!!!...
No TTL on D70 at high shutter speeds. But who wants TTL?
http://www.wetpixel.com/PNphpBB2-viewtopic...c-start-0.phtml
Also D2X (ISO 100) 1/250th = D70 (ISO 200) 1/500th for controlling ambient light.
Battery life irrelevant - both do a full day of diving (D2X better, but D70 more than adequate)
I'll comment more freely when I have shot the camera (underwater). I don't want to speculate and potentially mislead people.
Alex
d70 flash sync at 1/500th.....was the best darn feature they tossed in there, and i was shocked it wasnt in the d2h or the d2x...as it is in the d1x. dont be confused though folks....high speed sync (fp) beyond the designated flash sync means LESS flash power.
I think most people can seperate speculation from facts. Nothing wrong with speculation, I'll form my own opinion anyways As anyone should.
I dont use TTL right now, as I use a D100 with YS90DX strobes, but just clarifying for people that do want TTL
Hope to see some UW shots with the D2X soon!
Cor
As anyone should.
I dont use TTL right now, as I use a D100 with YS90DX strobes, but just clarifying for people that do want TTL
Hope to see some UW shots with the D2X soon!
Cor
Alex,
Thank you for collecting all that gossip. The mostly very positive comments make the waiting time very comfortable.
I was happy about the good viewfinder. Must be excellent with the S45.
I do not know when I can expect THE phonecall of my dealer,- but anyway it will take a while until Seacam finishes the housing.
Unfortunately I will not be able to dive before end of May!
So I will be lost in practising topside.
Cheers
Thilo
Thank you for collecting all that gossip. The mostly very positive comments make the waiting time very comfortable.
I was happy about the good viewfinder. Must be excellent with the S45.
I do not know when I can expect THE phonecall of my dealer,- but anyway it will take a while until Seacam finishes the housing.
Unfortunately I will not be able to dive before end of May!
So I will be lost in practising topside.
Cheers
Thilo
QUOTE
Advantages of D70 over D2X
...
Fast flash synch with UW strobes (upto 1/8000th)
...
Fast flash synch with UW strobes (upto 1/8000th)
Alex,
from my understanding there are two possible ways strobe light can be cut off:
1. the strobe needs more time to emit full power than the fastest sync speed of the camera permits (for example 1/250s). This is rarely the case although there have been a few amphibic strobe models in the past which were very slow.
2. using a higher shutter speed than the camera’s fastest certified sync speed.
I do understand the highest sync speed is defined in this way: The shortest possible exposure time where the curtain completely uncovers the whole sensor/film for a certain amount of time – this enables recording all of the strobe light. Any higher speed (for example 1/1000) is handled by topside strobes by emitting several flashes in a way that every area of the sensor/film receives light. This is required because a number of small parts of the sensor have to be flashed sequentially as the sensor’s area is partly uncovered only.
This means for underwater manual strobe trigger: Above the fastest sync speed there is always a smaller amount of strobe light recorded because the whole sensor is never completely uncovered. This is completely independent from the strobe’s burning duration. Even if the strobe dumps its load very fast, it can not be recorded completely.
I think you can always use a faster sync speed than the camera’s certified but light cut off is present – no matter how fast the strobe is. So even my 10D triggers the strobes if they are on manual with 1/4000s. This is the fastest speed the camera can do at all. The camera does it because it does not know when an amphibic strobe is connected. Maybe this is different to Nikon and you mean the D70 accepts strobing with 1/8000s while knowing there is a strobe connected? Maybe other Nikon models would refuse such high speeds with a strobe connected?
Julian
Julian, there was a thread on this subject awhile ago. I couldn't find the link.
While what you are saying is technically correct, in testing it was shown that foreground (strobe exposure) remained consistant with very high shutter speeds effecting the background exposure.
I'm sure someone can find the link. It was done in a pool with the 10.5 mm fisheye trying to capture sunrays at high shutter speeds.
While what you are saying is technically correct, in testing it was shown that foreground (strobe exposure) remained consistant with very high shutter speeds effecting the background exposure.
I'm sure someone can find the link. It was done in a pool with the 10.5 mm fisheye trying to capture sunrays at high shutter speeds.
QUOTE
2. using a higher shutter speed than the camera’s fastest certified sync speed.
I do understand the highest sync speed is defined in this way: The shortest possible exposure time where the curtain completely uncovers the whole sensor/film for a certain amount of time – this enables recording all of the strobe light.
I do understand the highest sync speed is defined in this way: The shortest possible exposure time where the curtain completely uncovers the whole sensor/film for a certain amount of time – this enables recording all of the strobe light.
Your CMOS is showing Julian
The D1/1H/1X and d70 all use electronic shuttering for speeds >1/250 of a second. The curtains are open for 1/250, and the imager does the rest. This is possible because CCD's can be globally switched fast enough, while CMOS is switched and read out line by line, which can not be done fast enough for effective electronic shuttering.
When using a camera with a CCD type imager, if the camera is aware that there is a strobe present, it is arbitrarily limited by the firmware to the 1/500 max sync speed that is specified for these cameras. Covering the rear two contacts on the hotshoe prevents the camera from detecting the strobe, so shutter speeds >1/500 can be used. The strobe fire pin still goes low and triggers the strobe even if the camera does not "know" there is a strobe there....
Craig,
thank you for explaining. I have to admit my little CMOS world has just proven to be kind of limited.
fast electronic shutters permitting extraordinary high strobe sync speeds, DX fisheyes, … perfect for underwater.
I get to know more and more nice things about Nikon DSLRs. If Canon continues its poor and odd lens lineup for DSLRs (except for full frame 1Ds) for a few more years (no fisheye, etc.) … opposite to the general trend I really would start considering the Nikon system.
regards,
"CMOS-Julian" :wink:
thank you for explaining. I have to admit my little CMOS world has just proven to be kind of limited.
fast electronic shutters permitting extraordinary high strobe sync speeds, DX fisheyes, … perfect for underwater.
I get to know more and more nice things about Nikon DSLRs. If Canon continues its poor and odd lens lineup for DSLRs (except for full frame 1Ds) for a few more years (no fisheye, etc.) … opposite to the general trend I really would start considering the Nikon system.
regards,
"CMOS-Julian" :wink:
So let me see if I got this right...
The D2X has a mechanical shutter?
I understand that the CMOS needs more "write" time, but couldn't that still be controlled with an electronic shutter?
The D2X has a mechanical shutter?
I understand that the CMOS needs more "write" time, but couldn't that still be controlled with an electronic shutter?
Thanks for the lesson on sensor design Craig and Jolly. I leaned something from your comments.
In practice the limiting factor is the strobe dump. Ikelite claims that their strobes take 1/250 s for a full dump. Setting shutter speeds for 1/8000 s works on the D70 (I've done it) but you are not likely to get very much light from what you expect from the strobe settings.
This is where digital and manual strobe power comes in. If you shoot like most people do in the digital era getting the correct strobe power is a trial and error process. If you don't like the result change the settings and re-shoot. You just have to keep in mind that if you don't like the exposure at f8 and 1/8000s strobes at 1/2 power increasing the strobe power isn't probably going to help. Depending upon your strobe power you might have to decrease your shutter speed with a constant flash power to increase your forecround exposure (and live with the increased background exposure). This could be very complicated to figure out but fortunately you don't have to just try it and re-shoot!
In practice the limiting factor is the strobe dump. Ikelite claims that their strobes take 1/250 s for a full dump. Setting shutter speeds for 1/8000 s works on the D70 (I've done it) but you are not likely to get very much light from what you expect from the strobe settings.
This is where digital and manual strobe power comes in. If you shoot like most people do in the digital era getting the correct strobe power is a trial and error process. If you don't like the result change the settings and re-shoot. You just have to keep in mind that if you don't like the exposure at f8 and 1/8000s strobes at 1/2 power increasing the strobe power isn't probably going to help. Depending upon your strobe power you might have to decrease your shutter speed with a constant flash power to increase your forecround exposure (and live with the increased background exposure). This could be very complicated to figure out but fortunately you don't have to just try it and re-shoot!
CMOS -> Greater possible frame rate, lower sync-speed
CCD -> Lower possible frame rate, possible higher sync-speed
No?
~Matt Segal
CCD -> Lower possible frame rate, possible higher sync-speed
No?
~Matt Segal
That seems wrong to me Matt.
If the write speed is faster, then the frame rate should be faster, all other things being the same. Shouldn't it?
I think my main wonder is why the D2X would have gone back to a mechanical shutter...
If the write speed is faster, then the frame rate should be faster, all other things being the same. Shouldn't it?
I think my main wonder is why the D2X would have gone back to a mechanical shutter...
I just came across the invoice for my old D1X.
Date - 11/13/01
Price - $4778 body only
Accessories included a 512 Lexar 12X card - $449
Given inflation and technological improvements that D2X is a hell of a deal!
Date - 11/13/01
Price - $4778 body only
Accessories included a 512 Lexar 12X card - $449
Given inflation and technological improvements that D2X is a hell of a deal!
Bjorn Roslett's detailed D2X review is now online.
With an interesting shoot-out with the 1DS Mk2. Remember this is just one person's opinion.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
Alex
With an interesting shoot-out with the 1DS Mk2. Remember this is just one person's opinion.
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
Alex
Bjorn Rorslett's extensive review of the D2x is up.
Forgot to mention that the review includes comparisons with D2H and D1X
Wow!! He's done a test shooting into the sun and I reckon there are going to be some fairly increadible shots of sun rays/balls coming from the D2X (see page 3 of the review).
There is also a nice comparison between the 1DsMkII and D2X:[list]
[*]D2X more noise at extreme ISO's
[*]D2X less light falloff with WA
[*]D2X better acuity under magnification (with the same lens used on both cameras!)
[*]1DsMkII should have better dynamic range.[list]
Quite extraordinary really - not what I would have predicted.
There is also a nice comparison between the 1DsMkII and D2X:[list]
[*]D2X more noise at extreme ISO's
[*]D2X less light falloff with WA
[*]D2X better acuity under magnification (with the same lens used on both cameras!)
[*]1DsMkII should have better dynamic range.[list]
Quite extraordinary really - not what I would have predicted.
QUOTE
If the write speed is faster, then the frame rate should be faster, all other things being the same. Shouldn't it?
I am but a young grasshopper
From http://www.wetpixel.com/modules.php?op=mod...os+canon+series
QUOTE
QUOTE
I think it's condemning if the S3's DR is matched by a conventional 8MP camera and the street price of the 1DMk2 has dropped. It's a far better camera in every other way. The price difference goes into a very expensive body.
I don't think the point is what's better for F-mount. I think the point is why botther with a dual photosite design if it can't outperform a conventional sensor? Fuji's sensor tech doesn't seem to be superior and it software and ergonomics are apparently substandard. It may be the best available for F-mount for under $4000 but it seems very exposed to me.
I don't think the point is what's better for F-mount. I think the point is why botther with a dual photosite design if it can't outperform a conventional sensor? Fuji's sensor tech doesn't seem to be superior and it software and ergonomics are apparently substandard. It may be the best available for F-mount for under $4000 but it seems very exposed to me.
That isn't quite fair. The sensor on 1DMkII has more than 1.5x larger area. If Fuji can get the same resolution and DR, then their scheme has some merit. Because the CCD has to read out in series, they'll never be able to do 8 frames per second (this is probably the main reason Nikon has gone to CMOS for their pro camera, and Canon understood this earlier and got a technology jump on Nikon) . However, they probably can make the rest of it faster with a better processing and memory.
~Matt Segal
Here is Bjorn's quote on shooting sunbursts that Anthony mentions:
"So, let's investigate various aspects of the image rendition of D2X. First out , the issue of "blooming", which can result from massive overexpoure of the imager, typically when you shoot into the sun...
I consider the "blooming" issue to be largely non-existant with the D2X, while on D70 at least it could be a nasty issue unless you followed the practice of stopping the lens down and setting the exposure to the lean side. This welcomed trait of D2X implies you can include bright spots of light into your images without fear of getting image anomalies."
This is not the whole issue of shooting sunbursts UW, but this does sound VERY encouraging.
Alex
"So, let's investigate various aspects of the image rendition of D2X. First out , the issue of "blooming", which can result from massive overexpoure of the imager, typically when you shoot into the sun...
I consider the "blooming" issue to be largely non-existant with the D2X, while on D70 at least it could be a nasty issue unless you followed the practice of stopping the lens down and setting the exposure to the lean side. This welcomed trait of D2X implies you can include bright spots of light into your images without fear of getting image anomalies."
This is not the whole issue of shooting sunbursts UW, but this does sound VERY encouraging.
Alex
Wow, look at the vignetting comparison shots! Score one for Nikon on the sensor-lens combination.
Still reading the review.
Cheers
James
Still reading the review.
Cheers
James
QUOTE
Bjorn Roslett's detailed D2X review is now online.
And my thoughts of "the switch" have been consigned to the status of fever dreams.
Now, which of those credit card's has the biggest reserve
On a related note: A big warehouse of B&H's burned today. Sure hope they didn't have any 2x's in there...
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_0224...yyardfire.html#
QUOTE
[*]D2X better acuity under magnification (with the same lens used on both cameras!)
Yeah, but I'm not so thrilled with his methodology here and don't consider the data he presented as conclusive. He also presented evidence of significant color fringing.
Regarding his noise data, he only compared it objectively to the D70 which is no noise champion. Why not compare it to its clear competitors, the 1D* Mk2's? You'd see the difference.
It does look as though the D2x is a superb camera. Yeah!
QUOTE
Yeah, but I'm not so thrilled with his methodology here and don't consider the data he presented as conclusive
Would be nice to see some other scenes - or better still another tester conducting a similar test. I'm not really sure how the methodology could be improved. It might have been instructive to also include a test with the Canon 300 2.8L, so that we could compare it to the other two shots and partially control for the Nikon lens on a Canon body.
QUOTE
He also presented evidence of significant color fringing.
Was that more a function of the lens or the camera?
QUOTE
Regarding his noise data, he only compared it objectively to the D70 which is no noise champion. Why not compare it to its clear competitors, the 1D* Mk2's? You'd see the difference.
Absolutely agree, but I think it is fairly clear that the 1DsMk2 exhibits significantly lower noise levels at high ISOs. I would be interested in seeing an objective comparison at ISO 100 though.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Yeah, but I'm not so thrilled with his methodology here and don't consider the data he presented as conclusive
Would be nice to see some other scenes - or better still another tester conducting a similar test. I'm not really sure how the methodology could be improved. It might have been instructive to also include a test with the Canon 300 2.8L, so that we could compare it to the other two shots and partially control for the Nikon lens on a Canon body.
It couldn't be worst. Almost anything else would be an improvement. You can show that a 35mm shot has the same resolution as a medium format shot if you put a 50mm lens on both and shot the same subject from the same distance.
Cut and paste from Thom Hogan addressing this issue:
Cheers
James
QUOTE
"Read Bjorn's commentary VERY carefully. There are two situations that have to be addressed when discussing how a camera resolves, and Bjorn has dealt with both of them. In one case, there's the issue of what happens when you take a picture with a photo from a fixed position with the same focal length (instead of a barn, imagine a polar bear that can't be approached any closer and both the D2x and 1Ds photographer having 600mm lenses--that's what the barn test is all about). In the other case, both photographers frame the same angle of view, which requires one to use either a different focal length or a move. In Bjorn's case, he chose to move because the impact of a different focus distance on the same lens is less than that of using different lenses.
His thought behind his methodology is correct. Since I wasn't there, I can't vouch for whether he dotted every i and crossed every t in implementing it, but the logic is correct. If you can't follow that, I would humbly suggest that you study it some more, because Bjorn's choices were made after considering optical issues."
His thought behind his methodology is correct. Since I wasn't there, I can't vouch for whether he dotted every i and crossed every t in implementing it, but the logic is correct. If you can't follow that, I would humbly suggest that you study it some more, because Bjorn's choices were made after considering optical issues."
Cheers
James
QUOTE
Cut and paste from Thom Hogan addressing this issue:
Cheers
James
QUOTE
"Read Bjorn's commentary VERY carefully. There are two situations that have to be addressed when discussing how a camera resolves, and Bjorn has dealt with both of them. In one case, there's the issue of what happens when you take a picture with a photo from a fixed position with the same focal length (instead of a barn, imagine a polar bear that can't be approached any closer and both the D2x and 1Ds photographer having 600mm lenses--that's what the barn test is all about). In the other case, both photographers frame the same angle of view, which requires one to use either a different focal length or a move. In Bjorn's case, he chose to move because the impact of a different focus distance on the same lens is less than that of using different lenses.
His thought behind his methodology is correct. Since I wasn't there, I can't vouch for whether he dotted every i and crossed every t in implementing it, but the logic is correct. If you can't follow that, I would humbly suggest that you study it some more, because Bjorn's choices were made after considering optical issues."
His thought behind his methodology is correct. Since I wasn't there, I can't vouch for whether he dotted every i and crossed every t in implementing it, but the logic is correct. If you can't follow that, I would humbly suggest that you study it some more, because Bjorn's choices were made after considering optical issues."
Cheers
James
and what do you think James....
I think Thom is full of it on this one.
Herb, as James and Thom have pointed out, the methodology is not the same as the example you give. Although Bjorn does provide one shot with the same lens, from the same position (thus biasing against the Canon), he also provides another shot (of the same scene) from a closer position (thus theoretically biasing against the Nikon).
You want shoot the same scene with the same lens - so that means you need to move when taking the photos w/ one of the cameras. That's what he did.
Cheers
James
Cheers
James
Bjorn also shot both cameras in jpg with default settings, then compared images with obviously different contrast and sharpness applied. You think Thom would agree now?
I agree, Herb, Thom is full of it. I think the alternate perspective test is entirely useless since it isn't how anyone would shoot. It artificially favors the Nikon because it, in essence, forces the 1Ds shooter to apply a DX crop before competing. Within the limits of the hardware, the 1Ds shooter would have a different focal length lens (600 + 1.4x) on for the polar bear than the D2x shooter so the point is moot. Why arbitrarily assume that the D2x get the optimal lens and the 1Ds does not?
I agree, Herb, Thom is full of it. I think the alternate perspective test is entirely useless since it isn't how anyone would shoot. It artificially favors the Nikon because it, in essence, forces the 1Ds shooter to apply a DX crop before competing. Within the limits of the hardware, the 1Ds shooter would have a different focal length lens (600 + 1.4x) on for the polar bear than the D2x shooter so the point is moot. Why arbitrarily assume that the D2x get the optimal lens and the 1Ds does not?
QUOTE
You want shoot the same scene with the same lens - so that means you need to move when taking the photos w/ one of the cameras. That's what he did.
Cheers
James
Cheers
James
Only, no you don't.
QUOTE
Herb, as James and Thom have pointed out, the methodology is not the same as the example you give. Although Bjorn does provide one shot with the same lens, from the same position (thus biasing against the Canon), he also provides another shot (of the same scene) from a closer position (thus theoretically biasing against the Nikon).
He used the wide angle shot with the same field of view to conclude that the there's greater light fall off at the corners of the 1DsII shot. I do not doubt that this is true. The problem is well known. It's a lens problem.
He then goes on to show shots with the two cameras with the same Nikon lens and the same subject distance, and then crops the same feature and concludes that the Nikon has a sharper image. This is analogous to the example I gave. It's awful!
QUOTE
Herb, as James and Thom have pointed out, the methodology is not the same as the example you give. Although Bjorn does provide one shot with the same lens, from the same position (thus biasing against the Canon), he also provides another shot (of the same scene) from a closer position (thus theoretically biasing against the Nikon).
How does shooting the same scene using the same perspective bias against Nikon? It's the only unbiased test. Sure, the Nikon has less resolving power in that test, but that's because it has less resolving power!
As I said before, all the tests were biased because they did not use either camera to the fullest extent. If you're only interested in jpg shooting with default settings then Bjorn's tests are for you but the Canon is known to be quite soft when shot this way. Of course, shooting RAW opens another can of worms and continual arguing over RAW converter usage but that's another issue.
I agree.
Thom also talks about that...:-P Ultimately, you want to compare each camera at its absolute best. But it takes a while to learn how to get the best out of each camera, and out of the different RAW processing software. I'm sure we'll see that soon once more people have had time to work with the D2x.
Overall, I was very pleased with the results that Bjorn posted. It looks like a great camera.
Cheers
James
Thom also talks about that...:-P Ultimately, you want to compare each camera at its absolute best. But it takes a while to learn how to get the best out of each camera, and out of the different RAW processing software. I'm sure we'll see that soon once more people have had time to work with the D2x.
Overall, I was very pleased with the results that Bjorn posted. It looks like a great camera.
Cheers
James
QUOTE
He used the wide angle shot with the same field of view to conclude that the there's greater light fall off at the corners of the 1DsII shot. I do not doubt that this is true. The problem is well known. It's a lens problem.
Yes, and further he compares the Nikon at 18mm equivalent to the Canon at 17mm. Why not zoom to 18mm since you're claiming the same field of view? How about using the 16-35 at 18mm instead?
You can't compare these two cameras exactly but you don't have to consistently error in favor of one brand. It's a fair criticism of a full frame camera that wide angle light falloff is a problem. How about a 2:1 macro sharpness test at f/22? Don't dare show the Canon in its best light!
QUOTE
Thom also talks about that...:-P
Anyone who realizes that yet endorses the test as fair makes me wonder. I think it's fine to conclude that the D2x's performance is state of the art but you can't conclude that it is convincingly better than the 1Ds2. Unfortunately, Bjorn claims exactly that, 4 wins to 2. He also misleads by stating that his only fair test is biased in favor of Canon when it absolutely is not, then draws the wrong conclusion because of poor methodology. I suppose anyone who disagrees is a measurbator though.
QUOTE
He then goes on to show shots with the two cameras with the same Nikon lens and the same subject distance, and then crops the same feature and concludes that the Nikon has a sharper image. This is analogous to the example I gave.
Tomayto Tomahto Potayto Potahto...
We can all agree that the lens was focused, right? And the lens is identical between shots.
That means that essentially the same image was falling on each imager, differences in the end result thus reflect differences in the way the imagers handle the light that is presented to them.
D2X has more pixels/unit area than 1DMk11, so when cropped to the same FOV, the D2X has more pixels to work with. But the 1DMKII shot could have also had the yeti in the lower left of the frame that the D2X missed. Swings and Roundabouts.
Two photographers shooting with the same focal length set up at the only place you can park to shoot the notorious barn. They make prints showing the same composition from their respective shots. The D2X shooter crops less: benefit D2x.
Two photographers set up to frame the same shot of the notorious barn at the only place you can park, D2X shooter uses a 200mm lens, 1DMk11 shooter uses a 300mm. FOV's are the same when shot, but now we don't know if it is the superior canon chip being hamstrung by the crappy canon glass or vice versa.
Given that you can mount a nikon lens on a canon via adaptor, but not vice versa, I don't see any other way to control lens related variables and be able to assess the two imaging chips reliably. And given that the 1DMK11 is capturing a wider FOV than the Nikon, I'm truly surprised that anyone was surprised at the outcome of this test.
We've known since the moment it was announced that the D2X has the highest pixel density of any of the Canon or Nikon dSLRs. This test reflects that pixel density, and shows that the Nikon lens is able to resolve a lot of line detail. Those big pixels in the 1DMkII can't resolve that detail as well as the D2X, but as you're all about to point out, in the real world the canon shooter would be using a different focal length and spreading that section of the image over a larger area, thus picking up more pixels to do the resolving for them. And we'd be back to those swings and roundabouts again.
As far as I am concerned the only thing to take away from that particular part of the test is that smaller pixels packed densely can resolve more than bigger pixels (which are less noisy, no argument there). This augurs well for both ongoing growth of the Nikon/Sony imagers (as they have room to grow the chip spatially while not needing to shrink the pixels) and the Canon imagers, as it shows that it is technologically feasible to use smaller pixels than in their current state of the art without bringing in egregious noise issues. We all win in the end
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.