D2x gets glowing review - "...arguably the best camera ever made"

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by UrbanVoyeur, May 4, 2005.

  1. UrbanVoyeur

    UrbanVoyeur Guest


    Compares directly to 1Ds Mark II - and possible has greater resolution
    from greater sensor density.

    I use Canon personally, but I have to respect a great tool. I wonder
    what Canon's answer will be?
    UrbanVoyeur, May 4, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. UrbanVoyeur

    Tom Scales Guest

    Uh, oh. Be careful, Steven's going to slam you!
    Tom Scales, May 4, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. UrbanVoyeur

    Sheldon Guest

    This scenario is typical Nikon. If you are willing to wait, Nikon tends to
    come out with what can arguably be a superior product. After seeing Thom's
    sample photos, I would have to say that he may be correct in thinking that
    12mp may be all we need in this format.

    The idea is that both Canon and Nikon will continue to drive each other to
    perfection. No need to switch. Just wait a bit.
    Sheldon, May 4, 2005
  4. UrbanVoyeur

    UrbanVoyeur Guest

    Great camera though the D2X may be, I'm not prepared to say that 12 MP
    are all the pixels we need in this format. Or 16 for that matter.

    I think its way too early in the game.
    UrbanVoyeur, May 4, 2005
  5. British Journal of Photography drew the same conclusion.

    Perhaps a larger sensor area makes the sensor techs lazier? Not that this is
    a bad thing- I mean, i'm sure 50mm lenses are often amongst the sharpest
    because they are the simplest to design.

    Anyway, at this level, surely this is all hair-splitting...

    Martin Francis, May 4, 2005
  6. UrbanVoyeur

    RichA Guest

    Well, the knocking down of the pixel count/area to speed up
    capture and frame rates (8ps) was a suggestion made ages ago
    when people wondered why they had a 4 megapixel pro camera at
    all. What exactly is the "H" for nowadays and why, if the sensor
    is the expensive part of camera does the H still cost what it does??

    And as a side issue, why must most cameras "bin" pixels when
    resolution or "quality" is reduced? They combine pixels to
    cut the resolution which results in larger pixels. Since resolution
    is being reduced, why not simply use the pixels in the centre of the
    sensor? This would achieve the same objective as "binning" and would
    allow lenses to "become" different focal lengths. They would increase
    in focal length. So, (as a rough example) you're 8 megapixel camera
    with it's 50-200mm lens could become at the push of a button a 4
    megapixel camera with a 100-400mm lens, without changing lenses.
    What Nikon has done by allowing this reduction in true pixel count is
    smart, it's bought them speed and focal length flexibility.
    RichA, May 4, 2005
  7. UrbanVoyeur

    John Francis Guest

    That would be a 2-megapixel camera, not a 4-megapixel camera.

    One objection would be that the viewfinder shows an image
    corresponding to the full area of the sensor.

    If you only want the central portion of the image, nothing is
    stopping you from cropping to that 2-megapixel image, anyway.
    John Francis, May 5, 2005
  8. UrbanVoyeur

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Right. The (minor) advantages of doing it in-camera are that you can
    accurately compose the picture (using the smaller frame in the viewfinder);
    you get a faster frame rate; and you get smaller files. The first one
    would be the main one for me. But I doubt I'll ever use "high speed
    crop" mode.
    Jeremy Nixon, May 5, 2005
  9. Why no build a 27 Mpixel full frame version with this technology?

    After all, the sensor in the D2X is 'only' 88 lp/mm.
    Philip Homburg, May 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.