First Nikon D2X review!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by TAFKAB, Dec 1, 2004.

  1. TAFKAB

    TAFKAB Guest

    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.
     
    TAFKAB, Dec 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. TAFKAB

    Tom Scales Guest

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

    Tom
     
    Tom Scales, Dec 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. TAFKAB

    Mark² Guest

    I hope you don't really believe that...
     
    Mark², Dec 1, 2004
    #3
  4. TAFKAB

    Tom Scales Guest

    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
     
    Tom Scales, Dec 1, 2004
    #4
  5. TAFKAB

    Mark² Guest

    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.
     
    Mark², Dec 1, 2004
    #5

  6. Hmmm. If you choose by lens first, don't you first have to decide on crop
    factor?
     
    you know who maybe, Dec 1, 2004
    #6
  7. TAFKAB

    andrew29 Guest

    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.
     
    andrew29, Dec 1, 2004
    #7
  8. TAFKAB

    Tom Scales Guest

    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
     
    Tom Scales, Dec 1, 2004
    #8
  9. TAFKAB

    andrew29 Guest

    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.
     
    andrew29, Dec 1, 2004
    #9
  10. TAFKAB

    Big Bill Guest

    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).
     
    Big Bill, Dec 1, 2004
    #10
  11. TAFKAB

    TAFKAB Guest

    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!
     
    TAFKAB, Dec 1, 2004
    #11
  12. TAFKAB

    TAFKAB Guest

    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.
     
    TAFKAB, Dec 1, 2004
    #12
  13. TAFKAB

    Skip M Guest

    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...
     
    Skip M, Dec 2, 2004
    #13
  14. The 1D MkII is already selling for under $4k, all over.
     
    you know who maybe, Dec 2, 2004
    #14
  15. TAFKAB

    Mark² Guest

    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.
     
    Mark², Dec 2, 2004
    #15
  16. TAFKAB

    Mark² Guest

    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! :)
     
    Mark², Dec 2, 2004
    #16
  17. TAFKAB

    Big Bill Guest

    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.
     
    Big Bill, Dec 3, 2004
    #17
  18. TAFKAB

    nick c Guest

    $3,999 was the common last price I saw. I paid $4,400 for mine.
     
    nick c, Dec 3, 2004
    #18
    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.