Nikon D2X: Complete Indepth Review

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by deryck lant, Apr 14, 2005.

  1. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    deryck lant, Apr 14, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. deryck  lant

    Matt Clara Guest

    It appears noise in low light situations is among the best in the industry.
    Certainly a far cry from "noise box" a certain individual was putting the
    D2X down for, before it was even on the market, as I recall. Not to name
    names or anything (Brian Baird).
    ;-)
     
    Matt Clara, Apr 14, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. deryck  lant

    TAFKAB Guest

    Not bad, but I think when we see the head to head comparison with the 1DsII,
    itmay not look so good. 1600 and 3200 are awful.

    No, I wouldn't turn one down...
     
    TAFKAB, Apr 15, 2005
    #3
  4. deryck  lant

    Walt Hanks Guest

    And the reviewer makes a good point about the noise issue. How many people
    actually shoot at 1600 or higher on a regular basis, and how often to they
    magnify the results beyond 8x10? It is a small fraction of pro shooters
    that do so. I just can't imagine spending $3K more for a 1DsII just to get
    better high ISO noise when I almost never shoot at high ISO. To me, the
    Nikon's superior color balance and shadow detail are far more important.

    I'm trying to keep an open mind while I save my pennies for the conversion
    to digital, but I am having a hard time justifying the high cost of Canon's
    full-frame system. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next
    few months while I wait not-so-patiently for the account balance to grow.

    Walt
     
    Walt Hanks, Apr 15, 2005
    #4
  5. deryck  lant

    Matt Clara Guest

    Yeah, I think the $3K difference in price speaks volumes, nor would I claim
    the Nikon 1600 and 3200 images look awful, particularly compared to film of
    the same speeds. As for the comments on who really uses those settings, I
    can say having used the D70 for event photography, I frequently do use 1600
    to grab available light shots in low light situations. In fact, the ability
    to change ISO on the fly allowing one to effectively and efficiently switch
    from flash to available light is one of the greatest draws of the digital
    slr. At least to me. Neat Image helps in the noise department, too.

    Really, the only justification to buying either the Canon or the Nikon top
    of the line digital slrs is a) you've got money to burn (and then some), or,
    b) you can make that money back through work made possible by the camera in
    relatively short order.
     
    Matt Clara, Apr 15, 2005
    #5
  6. The D70 has a nice ability to set noise reduction for long, low light
    exposures. I am not aware of how well it works as I have not yet tried
    it.
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, Apr 15, 2005
    #6
  7. deryck  lant

    Paul Bielec Guest

    In fact, the ability
    When you take pictures outside on a sunny day, then you enter for
    example an old dark church where use of flash is either not allowed,
    either pointless, being able to switch ISO is sweet.
    Now, my last trip to Prague, I bought a remote and a table top tripod so
    it will be even better next time.
    The way these things devaluate, it better be short time.
     
    Paul Bielec, Apr 15, 2005
    #7
  8. deryck  lant

    ian lincoln Guest

    Pros usually buy pro lenses. If you've bought alot of L glass it won't be
    cheaper to settle for the nikon.
     
    ian lincoln, Apr 15, 2005
    #8
  9. deryck  lant

    Matt Clara Guest

    That's true, but not always. Canon has plenty to offer in the dslr field,
    more than Nikon does, so of course there's no reason to switch, and if you
    wait long enough, Canon will have something to answer Nikon (something with
    similar or better specs in the same price range).
     
    Matt Clara, Apr 15, 2005
    #9
  10. deryck  lant

    Walt Hanks Guest

    I will be re-starting from scratch. I sold all my old MF Nikon equipment
    and can move in any direction I want when the time comes. But when
    comparing equivalent cameras, say a 20-D to a D-70, the Canon systems ends
    up costing a lot more. I realize that the cameras aren't truly equivalent,
    but they offer the closest comparison available at the moment (the D2x isn't
    readily available yet, but a cost comparison to the MarkII is another way to
    look at the lines).

    Ahhh, decisions, decisions. About Sept. 1 should be d-day for me. I plan
    on renting both systems for a few days before making the final choice,
    because cost is only one factor.

    Walt
     
    Walt Hanks, Apr 16, 2005
    #10
  11. deryck  lant

    Matt Clara Guest

    No kidding? I just bought a beat to hell F3HP for $100. Hope it works
    well...
    :)
     
    Matt Clara, Apr 17, 2005
    #11
  12. deryck  lant

    Roxy d'Urban Guest

    Expect at least another four new DSLR's to consider by then!

    Canon is definitely the more expensive option, which is why I moved from
    the EOS system back to Nikon after trying it for about three years. In my
    opinion unless you are buying the top of the line Canon gear, you are
    compromising quality and construction for no good reason other than to own
    the latest thing.

    Besides, there are more than a few fools who offload perfectly good,
    top-end Nikon gear onto the used market in their scramble to acquire the
    latest gadgetry from Canon (in the belief that it will somehow make their
    pictures better). I know, I was one of those fools, but I am making up for
    past mistakes by obtaining used Nikon equipment at incredible prices.
     
    Roxy d'Urban, Apr 18, 2005
    #12
    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.