If they were after the same print with a shot from the same spot, the 1DsII shooter would use a lens that's 1.6x longer and would have better resolution on the print.

The way Bjorn did the test, the D2x would probably look better than a large format film camera.

Looking at it another way. If he had a Sony 828 with him and dialed it to the same real focal length ( not effective 35mm focal length ) and took the same shot with it. The Sony would come out looking better.

Moose Peterson's report is up:

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

It's going to be an interesting day tomorrow when the NDA's expire (It's tomorrow on the East Coast as I write this).

Cheers
James

Not quite actually...

Just for clarity...or is that acuity

Clear as mud. Try this test. Take a comsumer camera like a Coolpix 8800, zoom it out to 50mm (real not 35mm effective) and take a shot. Do the same with D2X with the best Nikkor 50mm lens, same subjest same spot. If you look at a crop of the same small subject from each photo. I'll bet the coolpix crop will have more "acuity".

But Herb, it's not the same spot :?

Bjorn states that he moved the tripod


In other words, they are the same "effective focal length"

He obviously didn't move it enough. If they were the same "effective focal length" the two pics would have the same field of view.

That worked well.

What is exciting is it seemed that Nikon had produced a viable challenger to the Canon 1Ds MK2. I've not shot either camera so I dunno which is better.

For Nikon users this is unexpected and great news. For Canon users too. They have been calling for sometime for the 1DS series to have a viable challenger to push forward Canon's R&D (stop them resting on their laurels) and to drive down the price.

Alex

Correction. We are not that bad here. I just looked on the 1D series forum on DPreview. 6 of the first dozen discussions are about the D2X, on a Canon forum. Crazy.
I wish people would care more about photography and less about cameras (that's directed at them, not any of the comments here, BTW).
Anyway, shops open in an hour...

I am sooooo glad I stuck it out with Nikon!!! The fact that there is even a debate on the D2x vs 1Ds mk II means that this is an amazing camera. For my purposes, the Nikorr lens system is much more attractive than Canon(17-35,12-24, macros), but I was lured by body envy. Now that an equivalent body has arrived I'm stoked! To think I considered the mkII and a whole new arsenal of lenses - Nikon has given us new faith in the company and in the DX format!

The arguments over resolution are pointless - the D2x is in the right ball park and now we can go back to taking pictures. Can't wait to see how it handles sunbursts!

Now hopefully Harald already has one of these in his hands...

Here is anoter real world shooting review. In spanish, but pictures speak in any language.
http://www.caborian.com/index.php?option=c...=1&limitstart=0

Alex

And here is another sensible sounding reviewer from a post on Rob Galbraith:

"I see we still have the childish bickering going on between the 2 "camps". I find this very sad. We just finished testing a production D2x against a 1Ds Mk II, and our findings pretty much match Bjorn's. A synopsis:
We used a 35mm 1.4L on the Canon and a 24mm 2.8 on the Nikon. (advantage should go to Canon,...the 35 1.4 is an awesome lens) All at f5.6 and f8, ISO's 100, 200, 400 and 800. We didn't do any low light shooting, but just used strobes, and metered as we normally would. We then took all files and upressed them to 68MB 8 bit RGB files. (advantage again should go to Canon,...less upressing required to get to that size) We used DPP for Canon and NC for the Nikon, and upressed with bicubic smoother in PSCS. No sharpening. Bottom line;

100 & 200 ISO.....Nikon slightly better.
400 ISO...no difference.
800 ISO....Canon slightly better.
Dynamic range perception....no difference. (Kodak and Imacon were better....probably because of higher bit depths)
Viewfinder......Nikon brighter, Canon slightly bigger,...I give it a draw.
LCD/Histogram viewing outside.....Nikon better.

If you need the shorter DOF for a given focal length or mostly shoot higher ISO's......buy the Canon. If you mostly shoot 100-400 ISO and like the longer DOF, buy the Nikon. It's 6 to 1, half a dozen to the other. Now if we can just get Minolta to put out a 25MP 16 bit camera, we can sell off both of them and be happy ex-Nikonites and Canonites.


BTW,...I use Canon, so don't bother with the hate mail, (like the kind I got when I said the Kodak had better dynamic range than Canon)...it'll just get deleted. I'm off now, and will see about uploading the images when I get back next week.

Regards,
Mastrianni (http://www.federicomastrianni.com/)"


Alex

p.s. To me the message seems clear. Whatever brand you already own there is no need to switch.

There's no debate over D2x vs 1DsMkII. There's a debate over the shoddy techniques used by a reviewer that unfairly biases the results in favor of the D2x.

The reviewer used a Nikon lens for both cameras. In exchange for eliminating the lens from the equation, he introduces the question of lens performance for the Canon system. It may be the case that the setup works well but few photographers can be certain of that and identical focal lengths for the two cameras are not what you want anyway. What Bjorn did in no way removes the question of lens performance and no one should be surprised at the results.

Just to be clear, photographers don't choose focal length and subject distance then take whatever composition results. They choose composition first then select focal length and subject distance to provide that. Shooting the same subject distance with the same lens (of unknown quality for one body) and forcing a crop on the larger sensor is absurd and is clearly intended to give an unfair advantage to Nikon. No photographer would use the system that way. Why didn't he shot the subject too tight for the Nikon and conclude that the Canon was better because it recorded the whole image?

Regarding the Galbraith post, Alex, I haven't seen it yet but what you've quoted already sounds some alarms. What image mode did they shoot and why did they compare 8 bit images? Assuming dynamic range matters and that Canon may have an advantage, 8 bit biases in favor of Nikon. Don't pros shoot RAW and work in 16 bit? Hard to imagine the Canon lens has an advantage when shooting at f/5.6 and f/8.

I have no doubt that the D2x works well at lower ISO's but it would surprise me greatly if it offered better dynamic range at ISO 100 than the 1Ds. For me there's no denying the advantage of full frame for macro shooting and no tester is going to show that. I switched to Canon because it was the only viable full frame camera for underwater, not because the D2x wasn't going to be a good performer.

Blah, blah, blah......

It looks like it is going to be an excellent camera. Looks like it has a little more noise than 1dmk2 at 800, lot more noise beyond. I'll remember not to shoot beyond 800. Oh wait, I don't shoot that high anyway.

Color rendition looks very good.

I took an inventory of my gear. Got way too much Nikon specific stuff. I was hoping that the D2X would get me where I wanted to be. I think it will.

So, to replace my D100 I wanted some more pixels. I wanted to be able to shoot at least 400 and maybe 800 (I don't like the noise at 400 on the D100). I don't care about the crop factor. Heck, if I switched to Canon, it would be the 1Dmk2 which has a crop factor anyway. I wanted faster AF like the F100. I wanted good color and tonality (D100 was OK, but not excellent).

I think I'll just skip the techno-babble and brick wall shots. In time, I will get one and just be happy and shoot.

Besides, I remember my SO asking me, "If you get a Canon, will your photos be as good as Eric's?" Uh, yeah, sure. That's all I need. She said, "OK, then go ahead and get one." By sticking with Nikon, I can keep the story. "Sure, my shots still aren't as good as Eric's. That's because I still don't have the same camera as he has."

I agree there are lots of shoddy reports on the web. I have to say for those who want to know which camera really is best to wait for respectible and long established magazines to come out. I have been posting the ones I have seen to provide so information in the meantime.

Good magazines employ teams of reviewers, who have reviewed large numbers of cameras over the years. While they may have personal preferences - they don't have a point to prove or an axe to grind. Their views are also moderated by their editors. These reviews will be out soon. As the title of this post suggests much of what is out there at the moment is gossip.

I've just been to the shop to collect my D2X. And chatting to a local sports photo pro (shoots the Premiere League - so his photos go round the world - soccer BTW) and we were discussing the reviews. We are both Nikon shooters and we both agreed we'd probably cock up shooting on a Canon first time out. A pro used to one system - handed the other for a couple of hours - is unlikely to take better pictures with the borrowed kit - rather than his own which he knows inside out.

Alex

p.s. Battery is charging...

I was kind of waiting for someone to say this, but I surprised it was you Craig.

If the lens is focused (all indications are that it was), then differences relate to how the system handles that focused image. I don't recall having to throw away all my boxes of Canon optimised Velvia when I bought a Nikon to replace my AE-1 Program :roll:.

If he had mounted a DX lens on the canon I would give that view some credence, but the lens used is designed to give an image circle that covers the standard 35mm frame.

Huh? Debate and comparisons are all over the web! If you re-read my post my point was that only an excellent camera would warrant such comparison - which is "better" is irrelevant to me!

There's a slight misunderstanding.

Crag is right that the debate on this thread has only been about the methods of one reviewer. That was true up to the point when Craig made that comment.

Kasey is correct that else where on the web. There's debate on 1Ds mk II vs D2X.

gossip is over now i guess ...

There is plenty of debate, but I don't know why. For some reason, the D2X must be compared to the 1Dsmk2. I guess it is a "flagship" vs. "flagship" sort of thing. Maybe the D2X needs to be as good or better than the 1Dsmk2 for Nikon's market prestige.

I'm not sure I care if the $5000 12mp D2X is not up to snuff with the $8000 FF 16mp 1Dsmk2. My personal interest is how it compares to the $4000 1Dmk2 and how much more I get over the camera I already own.

What I am saying is that, regardless of the validity of using the Nikon lens with the Canon body, there will be many that question it. If it is truly acceptable to do so AND universally recognized as such then it wouldn't be a problem. That isn't the case though.

I personally didn't have a problem with it since I'm confident that the Nikon lens can be used succesfully that way, but I wonder how valid it is since I doubt anyone will using Nikon telephotos with Canon bodies. Not that that's the point, but it won't have any bearing on how the Canon is actually used.

I think it's because they are both flagships from the two big players and are both pro bodies intended to provide the highest image quality possible. Seems natural to me.

I care about the performance of the two cameras relative to one another but wouldn't engage in petty arguing since I'm not a loyal member of either "clan". What bugs me is the poor techniques used to conclude the D2x was superior. I'd be equally bothered by a typical Reichman comparison and we can all be comfortable knowing how that would turn out.

Guys, guys! Let's not turn this into a Ninon versus Cakon endless post. I haven't used neither of these cameras, but I am sure both are great, just pick and choose the one that best meets your needs and respect everybody else's choices. And remember, there is no "best camera", only "best photographer". I am sure that with my current photography knowledge I couldn't take photos as good as David Doubilet or Alex Mustard, even if I had a Canon 1Ds markII or a Nikon D2x, and I am also sure that these two photographers (and many others not mentioned for a reason of space) could take excellent photos even with point and shoot cameras.

This is my final contribution to this thread. This is from a post on DPreview. While I have no stats on the poster, this seems a fair and balanced appraisal of the D2X vs 1DS Mk2.

"I have the opportunity to test all three of the cameras yesterday. I was doing some indoor shots with SB-800 and 580EX flash guns. Lenses used were Nikon 50mm f1.4 and Canon 50mm f1.4. Here are some observations:

Sharpness:
Default settings are used on all cameras. At ISO 100, the D2x exhibits better out of camera sharpness and is also more prone to moire. My initial conclusion is that the D2x simply has a weaker AA filter than the 1-series cameras. The moire problem is nowhere as bad as the D70, but can be seen occasionally. It is very hard to get the 1-series to show moire (in fact I could not find one photo with it with my testing).

Resolution:
The 1Ds Mk II wins, but not by much compared to the D2x. I'd say the D2x is a very viable option in commercial applications requiring high resolution, just like the 1Ds Mk II. When compared to the 1D Mk II, the resolution increase is very apparent for the D2x.

Noise:
Nikon D2x at ISO 100 is actually just as clean or cleaner than 1D Mk II or 1Ds Mk II. Both 1D Mk II and 1Ds Mk II exhibit banding problem when shot against certain farbic/texture (even at ISO 100). On the same composition, no banding is observed on the D2x. I attribute this to the independent data read out of the RGB channels of the D2x.
At ISO 400, the best noise performer to my surprise is the 1Ds Mk II; it has the least shadow noise. Next is 1D Mk II and D2x is the noisest. In fact, D2x images at ISO 400 appears to have been done with heavy noise reduction and sharpening. At ISO 400, the D2x is still much better than the D70 in terms of sharpness.
I've not done detailed comparison above ISO 400. But the general feel I have is that both Canon 1-series have lower noise than the D2x by 1-2 stops. The D2x appears to have less chrominance noise when compared to the Canon.

Color accuracy:
Both D2x and 1Ds Mk II are very accurate. D2x appears to have richer yellow and blue. But for certain colors, 1Ds Mk II is more accurate than the D2x. 1D Mk II has the least accurate color of the bunch, but it is by no means bad at all.

Exposure with flash:
The most accurate is the D2x. It is very consistent and maybe 1/3 EV under. The Canon 1-series with E-TTL II is all over the place. Exposure is not severly under or over, but more like 1/3 to 1 over or under.

AF accuracy:
Most accurate under low light condition is the D2x. I couldn't find a shot that is significantly off. I was only using the center AF point in all cases. The Canon 1-series is sometimes off by a lot, especially under low K lightling conditions. The AF beams on the 580EX do not appear to improve this much at all."

Over and out.

Alex

Who's doing this? There's no Nikon vs. Canon argument here.

Also, there certainly can be a best camera. It's the "best photographer" that doesn't exist. The camera is just a tool and its contributions can be measured far more objectively than most people accept. It's clearly difficult and not everyone goes about it the right way.

Anyone who shoots these cameras in JPG at base ISO and concludes that the images are consistently clean gets a big "Duh!" from me. All these cameras can deliver more than 7 stops of dynamic range so exactly what do you expect? If the D2x provided a noisy JPG at base ISO it would be a terrible failure and that goes for any camera since the D1. It's just not the way to test these cameras, yet it's what people do because they don't want to mess with the raw converter issues. Just because comparing the cameras is hard doesn't mean that faulty comparisons are conclusive.

I think many here would be surprised at how many pros shoot JPEGs. Many busy working pros don't have the time to process raw files, or only use them under certain circumstances.

I hope to shoot primarily JPEGS with the D2x. The D2H produced beautiful JPEGs, much sharper and punchier than my D100. If the D2x does the same, I'll shoot it JPEG - I take no pleasure processing raw files on the D100, and the D2x files will be even more painful.

KC

How many pros shoot JPG underwater? If there are any there needs to be some serious education. On the other hand, many pros shoot RAW exclusively above water even when they shoot hundreds or even thousands of exposures in a day. That's what specialty RAW software like C1 is designed for.

The advantages of RAW are especially valuable underwater and I've never heard a pro give any argument, much less a convincing one, for using JPG for that application.

All cameras shoot RAW+jpg now, so I see no reason to shoot only JPEG. Storage is cheap, media is cheap, write times are fast - I just don't get it. If you don't want the RAW file now, I will bet you want it when Company X calls and asks for it for $2,500 to print in their annual report...

Cheers
James

Archiving the raw file - great, but I almost never go back to it now that I'm shooting a pro camera. I've only been diving with 2 pros that shoot digital - one shoots an S2 in JPEG, the other shoots 1ds mkII RAW + JPEG but rarely resorts to the raw file. Personally I rather spend more time shooting and less editing, but I realize that many photographers only dive on occasion and have weeks or months between dives to edit. In-camera processing has gotten really good, and if your shot is worth $2500 I don't think it'll matter whether it is raw/tiff or high quality JPEG!

I'm not really trying to convince anyone here, as I realize all the merits of raw, and I shot exclusively raw with my D100. With a good JPEG engine, however, some of us will take convenience over "ultimate" image flexibility. Personally, I either nail it in the camera or throw it away!

Raw conversions are an inconsequential time consumer in the overall process of editing an image and it doesn't even occur to me that I need to do them. It's just the first step in getting color and exposure optimized and I've never seen an image out of the camera that couldn't be improved even when I "nail it".

I fail to see the convenience of not taking the RAW image when it's available to you. As James said, with RAW+jpg it's yours for free. You can also batch convert your RAW images with in-camera defaults and save with lower compression or with lossless compression. There's just no argument for not shooting RAW underwater. Given strobe recycle time and battery life you can't shoot fast or long so storage speed and capacity don't really matter any more. When is taking a RAW image a burden?

Craig: The other side of the coin:

RAW workflow is just a different kind of workflow to JPEG. In most cases you need a different photo browser, a different image editor (CS vs Elements), and more storage. Transfers take longer - especially if you use USB2 vs cardbus - and there is just plain that extra step.

But then again, if you NEVER touch the raw files, then the only extra step is the extra image transfer time. I don't usually fill a card, even shooting RAW, so I think media size probably falls out of the equation too.

If you don't touch the RAW files this year, or even next, I'm sure you will want to come back to some of them eventually. There have ben MANY times where I have gone back to JPEG images before I started shooting RAW and I've said to myself "dangit, where's my shadow slider!"

Back to my original point - RAW workflow is different workflow, and I guess it's intimidating to some. But it need not be.

Cheers
James

As an active decision, Doug Perrine shot JPG for his Wildlife Photographer of the Year winning photograph. At the time, he was shooting a D60 and would most likely not have gotten the shot had he been waiting for the RAW files to flush out of the slow D60. This is what he says. I guess he was banging off shot after shot because the action was so crazy.

I know one other pro who shoots JPG, and he claims that it's better than RAW, but that's because his RAW workflow isn't quite right. And that's a big deal -- these guys have lots of re-learning to do, and some of them actually get better results shooting RAW than JPG (even though you can just use the manufacturer's converter to get even better results, by default, at least, on the Canon side -- I'm not too familiar with Nikon's RAW conversion results, but I hear they are great).

Charles Hood, who works for Dive Magazine in the UK, shoots mainly JPG. DIVE's art editor hates TIFF(!) and Charles shoots too much to have time for RAW conversion. He was also a winner in the Wildlife Photog of the Year (but I don't know if that shot was a jpg).
Alex

Hey Alex, I was in Bermuda at their BSAC, was going trough some BSAC Dive magazine killing time before my lecture, and I stumbled on your article about dusk diving, great suff and let me tell you, a lot of people commented on that piece. Jolly good show!

who cares what person shoots in what format. Is it not the FINAL image that counts? Does anyone really think Ansel's original from film images are as good as his finished prints?

I personally shoot exclusively in RAW for anything, unless I have to attend some crappy party where people just want images to document it as such. Only then is it jpeg.

Ive always disliked the N vs C thing. People get so wrapped up in that crap, and often times forget it's the person BEHIND the camera that counts. I'd like to see the 'chimp heavy' digi shooters just TRY to go back to film, and shoot as well. Better yet, take all these people and give them a disposable uw camera, and THEN see who can take a decent picture.

Yes, the tool matters, but both of these cameras are amazing. Let it be the IMAGES that speak, and perhaps.....just perhaps....we can just sit and enjoy them for a change.

Just my 2 cents.

Best,
Stu
www.stuartphotography.com

As I remember, Doug said he was shooting fast and furious in ambient light and the D60 wouldn't have allowed that in RAW mode. Being near the surface and not using strobes, JPG is less of a penalty. Also, usability has improved since the D60 with the exception of the S3 I suppose.

I think the workflow point is exactly it. People need to take the time to learn and RAW isn't harder, it's just different. I had the hardest time getting some of my friends to shoot RAW because they were intimidated. Once they gave in and tried it they were sold. For some reason people feel conforted to know they get a JPG right out of the camera.

High volume shooting is another matter and something I don't do, but C1 is a tool specifically designed to support it. I don't personally care for its UI but experienced photographers who defend it all seem to like its support for high volume batch converting.

In the end I think its a matter of investing time in learning how to do things. You should never modifiy your original file so why must it be a JPG? I'm a firm believer in maximum quality, 16 bit editing, broad color spaces, and automated conversions to my target output devices. JPG aquisition makes no sense at all in that context. I think it does make sense for photojournalists and possibly event photographers. If you have 0 minutes to edit before you deliver, as these guys sometimes do, then JPG makes sense. We never have that problem underwater and we need more editing as well.

I care that people want to make their images look their best yet they aren't operating their cameras properly to achieve that. Friends of mine were initially disappointed with their digital results after shooting Velvia for so long and it's hard to help them when they've got such crappy originals.

I don't think Ansel's final results would have been so good had he knowingly chosen an inferior aquisition format. If Ansel were shooting digital today, which he most certainly would, he wouldn't shoot JPG.

I'm proud to be "chimp heavy" and I consider it a compliment to be recognized for knowing how to use my equipment to maximum advantage. Does knowing the technical aspects of your camera somehow make you an inferior photographer? Are you somehow more of an artist if you don't know? If you truly believed that the final image is all that matters then you wouldn't demean shooters for their "chimp heavy" techniques. Will taping over your LCD make you a better photographer?

Terms like "chimping", "pixel peeping", and "measurebating" are simply juvenile insults created by insecure people who feel threatened by new technology and those who understand it better than they do. None of these things are bad in any way, and the ability to "chimp" is probably the greatest advantage digital brings to underwater wide angle shooting. (chimping BTW is reviewing your image after the shot to make sure it is correct, heaven forbid)

I'd reiterate that there's no Nikon vs. Canon stuff here, certainly not coming from me. The discussion is about flaws in testing methodology that lead to invalid conclusions. If you don't have anything personally invested in the brands then you don't get emotional.

I couldn't agree more. Knowing and exploiting the advanced technology of these high tech DSLRs has enabled us to produce many new types of underwater image. Images that were impossible to achieve on a transparency. Available light fliter photography and underwater telephoto were two techniques that couldn't be practically achieved on film. Some of my most creative and original uw images come from a detailed understanding of the technology.

Alex

As with any craft, the faster it is mastered, the sooner you don't have to think about it, those are the (constantly evolving) tools at our disposition and this field of photography is one that benefited the most from the advance of RAW files, I shoot a lot of top side JPG, mainly for a ''I need this yesterday'' line of client, would'nt be caught with my shorties down underwater, I would go so far as to say the less you dive, the more you should depend on RAW, I dont have access to convinient diving around here, so keeping atune to u/w photography is not as easy for me or a lot of us up north, having a nice fat juicy RAW files will bail my sorry a_s until I unrust myself back in the groove.

BTW I must have spent the best of 25 years in a darkroom trying to come up with something close to Ansel Adam, some people are not from this planet, I know technology was not the issue, since I had way better gears than him, technique is what made the difference, and I doubt he would have switched to digital but that point of view is moot since the ol'fella is not here to debate this issue, it's just that when you've seen B&W perfection, well it remain perfection, if it aint broken dont fix it. I personnally destroyed my darkroom (did'nt want to sell or give away that source of toxic waste) and do all my B&W in digital, but hell I'm far from perfect

This is in line with my way of thinking. In fact, I love shooting f*!% for that reason. I invest more of my energy creating images, and less editing and refining. The format will never make or break a truly good image.

Enough talk - going diving