Nikon D2X review

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Alan Browne, Jun 1, 2005.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Jun 1, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    Walt Hanks Guest

    Excellent review. It really puts the relative advantages and disadvantages
    in perspective. Too bad it's totally out of my price range.

    Walt
     
    Walt Hanks, Jun 2, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    It's a useless review. Direct comparison of the Canon 1DsMkII and the
    Nikon D2X has _zero_ information value because prospective customers
    are either:

    a) already in possession of a lens set from Canon or Nikon, and thus
    body choice is limited to whatever the corresponding company offers.
    Even if this wasn't true, the review is still useless by what is
    _unreviewed_ -- for example, the huge technological advantage Canon has
    over Nikon re: EOS.

    b) not in possession of any lens set at all, in which case selecting
    the body is generally the last choice one makes, not the first. How
    many people are in this position and are willing to write a $5000
    cheques for their first camera based on the ranting he read at
    dpreview?
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #3
  4. Alan Browne

    Musty Guest

    Looks like top-notch build and features. Too small sensor IMHO. I would
    rather get the biggest sensor for the money (lower FOV crop and less noise).
    For that money I could get a 1D MkII ($3500 after rebate) and a 16-35 f2.8L
    lens. $5000 for APS-C? no thanks...

    Musty.
     
    Musty, Jun 2, 2005
    #4
  5. Alan Browne

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Jun 2, 2005
    #5
  6. Alan Browne

    RichA Guest

    Canon's lens was no where near as good as the Nikon. Despite Askey's
    mentioning that the full frame sensor put a strain on the Canon lens
    edge, the centre of photos were still better in the Nikon, and NO
    chromatic aberration.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Jun 2, 2005
    #6
  7. Alan Browne

    Tom Scales Guest

    Interesting. When I'm shooting with my D2X, I don't find myself slapping my
    head and shouting "out my God, Canon has a HUGE technological advantage".

    And the results are amazing.

    Tom
     
    Tom Scales, Jun 2, 2005
    #7
  8. Alan Browne

    Tom Scales Guest

    Haven't touched one, have you. You'd take 8.5mp over 12.4mp because you
    believe the sensor is too small?

    Hmm.

    But the results are incredible.

    Tom
     
    Tom Scales, Jun 2, 2005
    #8
  9. Uh, that's what he's saying. That technical advantage (sensor only - Nikon
    has always built better bodies). just kind of evaporated..and for $3000
    less. Plus better ergonomics. Most of the reviews on the web favor the D2X.
    Phil is a Canon shooter and he does too. Sounds like Canon has a little
    marketing problem.

    HMc
     
    Howard McCollister, Jun 2, 2005
    #9
  10. Alan Browne

    Robert Brace Guest

    Tom, how could you?? You shouldn't be out there taking amazing photographs
    with your D2X, you should be sitting somewhere quietly contemplating that
    "huge technological advantage" the Canon system has.
    Just think, actually wasting your time out taking photos and not completely
    overcome with remorse because of the huge techno-disparity of your Nikon
    system!!! You indeed have my sympathy.
    LOL
    Bob
     
    Robert Brace, Jun 2, 2005
    #10
  11. "You'd take 8.5mp over 12.4mp because you
    believe the sensor is too small? "

    A landscape photographer might. The crop could be pretty annoying, I
    imagine.
     
    James Of Tucson, Jun 2, 2005
    #11
  12. Alan Browne

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Less noise? Did you look at the graphs? Or are you one of those people who
    seem numerous in these parts, who only shoot at ISO 1600 and above?
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jun 2, 2005
    #12
  13. Alan Browne

    Musty Guest

    Nope haven't touched one. If I was to spend $5000 _today_ (assuming I have
    zero camera gear), yes I would get the 1D MkII because it is $1500 cheaper
    and has a bigger sensor. I believe that bodies come and go. The larger
    sensor would serve my noise and wide-angle needs while I wait for
    (hopefully) a 35mm frame camera that costs less than $3000 in the future. In
    the meantime, I would have a high-end pro, weathersealed camera and some $$
    to spend on a high quality lens. That is my opinion.

    Musty.
     
    Musty, Jun 2, 2005
    #13
  14. Alan Browne

    Musty Guest

    I shoot @ 1600 on some occassions. I usually try to stay @ 400 or lower.
    Sometimes I am @ f2.8 and still need to go to 1600 - the point is
    flexibility. This is what is expected from a top-of-the-line professional
    camera - flexibility and minimal compromise. The FOV crop is even a bigger
    issue for me. If I pay big $$'s for high-end wide glass, I dont want end up
    with a "normal" FL. Remember, we're talking about $5K for this camera body.
    We will see just how well this camera sells. I wish Nikon would start
    putting bigger sensors in, so it can give Canon some motivation to provide
    more affordable FF cameras.


    Musty.
     
    Musty, Jun 2, 2005
    #14
  15. Alan Browne

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    One wonders how anyone ever got any pictures at all, with film.
    I hadn't commented on that, because it's entirely legitimate.
    I know. I bought one. :)
    I rather hope they put that off for a while longer.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jun 2, 2005
    #15
  16. Alan Browne

    Musty Guest

    You're obviously more afflicted with this photography disease than I am, but
    after owning my 20D for a little while, I do not see it at all un-reasonable
    to step up to a pro model - problem is I need to build up my glass
    collection before I do any such silly thing :)
     
    Musty, Jun 2, 2005
    #16
  17. Alan Browne

    DonB Guest

    The panic is setting in!!
    DonB
     
    DonB, Jun 2, 2005
    #17
  18. Alan Browne

    Roxy d'Urban Guest

    This is what I find hysterical about most of these assholes who believe
    that Canon has some mystical superiority over Nikon in the technological
    department: hardly any of them use the equipment in question, yet they
    have opinions the size of oceans.
     
    Roxy d'Urban, Jun 2, 2005
    #18
  19. body.

    Until Nikon can obtain a larger sensor, noise, and FOV are two compromises
    that will have to be made for bodies for Nikon lenses. Every review of the
    D2x has mentioned the noise problem at high ISO speeds.

    The Canon 1DMarkII is actually more the competitor to the D2x than the
    1DsMarkII. Besides being closer in price, it also has a less than full-frame
    sensor (though much larger than the D2x). You're trading megapixels, for FOV
    and lower noise.
    I'm sure that it will sell very well to persons that already own Nikon
    lenses, and not very well to those that don't. At least it gives
    professionals with Nikon lenses a professional body to use while they wait
    for a Nikon body with a larger sensor.
     
    Steven M. Scharf, Jun 2, 2005
    #19
  20. Larger sensor, and lower noise are probably the reason that people are
    willing to pay $8000. For a long time, there was no competition in the
    professional segment at all, So Canon could set the price to match their
    production capacity, and the demand. If Nikon were to come out with
    something that competed against the 1DsMarkII in terms of FOV and low
    high-ISO noise, they would charge more too. With no other competitors, they
    would not start a price war.

    Probably Canon will update the 1DMarkII with a higher resolution sensor in
    the near future, and the advantage in resolution of the D2x over the
    1DMarkII will disappear.
     
    Steven M. Scharf, Jun 2, 2005
    #20
    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.