First Nikon D2X review!

Ken Rockwell has posted his "Nikon D2X Review Test" at the following
address:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d2x.htm

For those not familiar with Rockwell's "tests," well, it's up to his usual
standards. Here's a hint: he apparently can test this camera without ever
handling one or seeing its output. Simply amazing.

Enjoy.

 

True, True. The unwashed masses are the lemmings that use Canon (Windows).
The truly discriminating that choose the best tools use Nikon (Mac).

Tom

 

I hope you don't really believe that...

 

Well, I do own a Nikon D70 and D100, which, for me, are the best tools. I
chose my lenses first (particularly the 12-24) and then the body. Canon
didn't have a comparable lens.

But --- you'll not I am posting this from a PC, not a Mac.

And my comment was tongue-in-cheek. I just loved the ridiculous comment
about "serious" DSLR sites. Both manufacturers make excellent equipment and
the choice is very individual. Broad statements are just funny.

Tom

 

Ah! Your inclusion of **"for me"** pulled you back into the realm of "the
reasonable."

I kinda figured you might be only half serious...but around here, one can
never be sure.

 

Hmmm. If you choose by lens first, don't you first have to decide on crop
factor?

 

OK, but even if the EOS-1D Mark II is less than 4k, why would it be
preferable? Assume for a moment you have no existing lenses or
accessories. It seems to me the D2x is placed pretty neatly between
the EOS-1D Mark II and the EOS-1Ds Mark II.

It gets you from 10x8 to 12x10. Is that not such a big deal to you?
Looks like a pretty big deal to me. Not quite in 645 territory, but
getting closer.

Andrew.

 

That was easy! The two choices in the price range were the 10D (1.6) and
the D100 (1.5). Minimally different, so.....

The 12-24 is an awesome lens. I have many wonderful shots with it. Worth
the price of the D100.

Tom

 

The spec is fine. The only worry that remains is the noise figure.

The question as put was "Why would someone buy this camera for $4700?"
The answer is "as long as the noise performance is good, why not?"

We can be fairly sure it won't. It's a big DSLR sensor, not 8.8 x 6.6
mm. The fact that it's made in the Sony fab is pretty much
irrelevant.

Andrew.

 

I like this:
"Resolution has little to do with image quality. Color and tone are
far more important technically. Even Consumer Reports in their
November 2002 issue noted some lower resolution digital cameras made
better images than some higher resolution ones."
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
"Some" vs "some" to form an all-encompassing theory.
Well, "some" pickups are better than "some" mini-vans. I guess that
makes pickups better than mini-vans, doesn't it?

Consumer Reports? I've personally never considered them to be
authorities, only reporters of what their (rather limited) labs find.
And many of their reviews do precious little actual lab work except to
verify how something works (like washers, for example).

 

I'm always stunned by the number of people who refer to his site as gospel.
It's a totally horeshit site, and offers little, if any information of
value. Check out the gallery, as well. Ken LOVES saturation!

 

Exactly. Yes, there are other factors that determine picture quality, but
all else being equal, higher resolution will result in sharper pix. He's
beautiful, isn't he?

My favorite example from CR is their tests of "loudspeakers." They put them
in a soundproof/sound deadening room, and measure the response curve. This
tells little, if anything about how the speaker will actually sound, other
that it can actually reproduce tones at a certain fequency. Unfortunately,
few people buy speakers to listen to test tones. They never actually listen
to music! According to them, your Cerwin-Vega with a fairly flat response
curve will sound better than the B&W with a similar, but slightly less flat
curve. Right.

 

As do I. What's the point of shooting in color unless you shoot in COLOR!!!
I loved the old Cibachromes, and the old Reala, but maybe I'm just trying to
escape reality... <G>
But Mr. Rockwell does seem to have a thing about Nikon and isn't ashamed of
it...

 

The 1D MkII is already selling for under $4k, all over.

 

The most valuable aspect of Consumer Reports (to me) is their reliability
statistics/ratings. This is something you can't get elsewhere in such a
straight-forward manner...that is also free of advertising bias.

 

True in terms of real-world use of speakers...BUT...
....The speaker-makers love to brag about frequency range!
So--It seems to me that it's perfectly legitimate of CR to test this, and
verify if their claims are valid. One thing CR is good is verifying claims
made by company advertising. Some are quite comical!

 

Unfortunately, their reliability ratings rely on reader feedback,
which is notoriously unreliable.
Not just CR's, but any such feedback tends to reflect the readership
rather than a cross-section of society.
They keep very few products to do long-term reliability tests.
Instead, they rely on asking their readers, and such results don't
take into account the tolerance level of any one or group of repliers
as to the severity of any problems. It's so subjective as to be
nothing more than the very vaguest of trends.

 

$3,999 was the common last price I saw. I paid $4,400 for mine.