New Nikon D2X Reviews

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

More on the way.

Deryck

"deryck lant" wrote in message
...
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

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

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

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


More on the way.

Deryck

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

The D2X isn't any sharper than the 1DS Mark II when you take proper FOV
into account. If you read how Bjorn did his tests your eyes will roll a
bit.

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

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

Only if you ignore the smudgy, detail-masking software noise reduction.

Nikon has done decent with this camera. The noise is kept fairly well
under control up to ISO 400 without smudging too much detail. But is it
a 1Ds Mark II killer? No. But then again, it's about $2,500 less.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

"C J Campbell" wrote:
"deryck lant" wrote:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Ok, so according to this guy the D2X is noisier than the 1Ds Mk II, which
is
not surprising, but the surprising thing is that the D2X is sharper

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

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

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

-- in fact rivaling 35 mm film.

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

Also, the noise is not terrible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

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

The D2X isn't any sharper than the 1DS Mark II when you take proper FOV
into account. If you read how Bjorn did his tests your eyes will roll a
bit.

Honest to God, I can't believe he did a direct comparison with different
FOVs! Useless! And wow, imagine my surprise when the camera with the
narrower FOV "won" this comparison. I guess the only legit reviews (or maybe
just the best available) will come from DP Review. Bjorn's review is
amazingly flawed.


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

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

Only if you ignore the smudgy, detail-masking software noise reduction.

Nikon has done decent with this camera. The noise is kept fairly well
under control up to ISO 400 without smudging too much detail. But is it
a 1Ds Mark II killer? No. But then again, it's about $2,500 less.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

"TAFKAB" wrote in message
. com...

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

The D2X isn't any sharper than the 1DS Mark II when you take proper FOV
into account. If you read how Bjorn did his tests your eyes will roll a
bit.

Honest to God, I can't believe he did a direct comparison with different
FOVs! Useless! And wow, imagine my surprise when the camera with the
narrower FOV "won" this comparison. I guess the only legit reviews (or
maybe
just the best available) will come from DP Review. Bjorn's review is
amazingly flawed.

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

In article ,
er says...
Honest to God, I can't believe he did a direct comparison with different
FOVs! Useless! And wow, imagine my surprise when the camera with the
narrower FOV "won" this comparison. I guess the only legit reviews (or maybe
just the best available) will come from DP Review. Bjorn's review is
amazingly flawed.

There's a review on a Spanish site that does a better job. They compare
the cameras at similar field of views. OF course, I can't understand
much of it (I don't speak/read Spanish) but the results seem a little
more in line with what I've seen from the cameras beforehand.

Of course, some people on the Nikon forums are already crying foul over
it... AND Phil's yet-to-be-done "Canon-centric" review.

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

"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote:
"deryck lant" wrote:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

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

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

Thomas

"ThomasH" wrote:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Very interesting. Noise is much less than some people
believed

Really? It looks as though it's interfering with subject detail at ISO 400,
which is what I expected, i.e. basically a stop worse than the 20D.

have to have spread rumors about and Nikon has
still a DX size sensor, what I consider a major advantage.

People who like telephotos, tend to like small sensorsg.

By the way, my bet is that Canon is _really really_ nervous. Not for the
1Dsmk2 or a future EOS 3 class camera with the 1Dsmk2 sensor, but for the
20D.

Since Nikon could put that sensor in the D70 body making a 12MP camera the
same price as the 20D.

The noise may be problematic at ISO 400 and up, but if it's as good at ISO
100 as the 20D is at ISO 200, then a _lot_ of people will take the
resolution over the noise.

The award is well visible on the wide angle shots (12-24
DX Nikkor at f/4, 12 mm vs. Canon 17-40 L at f/4, 17 mm).

Not so fast. Other than vignetting at f/4.0 in one lens, the results aren't
in yet (also, he may have an irreproducable result the the review of the
17-40 at hand says the light falloff isn't all that bad). What do larger
prints look like at f/8 or smaller, which is what most people use for
landscapes? Large prints from the D2x involve a _lot_ of enlargement, and
lens infelicities get magnified more than from a full-frame camera.

Another award is the size and weight and price of long
lenses with the same effective focal length.

You said that beforeg.

The bottom line, though, is that lack of an honestly done resolution
comparison makes that whole review seriously suspect.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
There's a review on a Spanish site that does a better job. They compare
the cameras at similar field of views. OF course, I can't understand
much of it (I don't speak/read Spanish) but the results seem a little
more in line with what I've seen from the cameras beforehand.

Of course, some people on the Nikon forums are already crying foul over
it... AND Phil's yet-to-be-done "Canon-centric" review.

Some people...

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

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

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