Nikon D2X review

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

  1. Alan Browne

    Roxy d'Urban Guest

    Yes, a real pity about the price. I ain't going there anytime soon!

    One thing that intrigues me though, is that the camera can meter with
    manual focus lenses by means of inputting the focal length and maximum
    aperture into the camera by means of a menu. What this tells me is that
    there should be no reason why a bit of firmware or software (whatever they
    call it) can't do the same for the D70.

    Maybe if they added that feature the D70(s) would be the best thing since
    sliced cheese.
     
    Roxy d'Urban, Jun 2, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Providing an option to enter the focal length would give the D70 'D'-lens
    capabilities for all lenses. But would cares about that?

    Adding an option to enter the maximum aperture of a lens enables support
    for matrix metering on the D2X as opposed to just center-weighted (or spot)
    metering.

    The D70 lacks a sensor for the aperture position using the Ai system.
    But the strange thing is that there not way to enable just the light
    meter. Keeping the light meter disabled must be a deliberate design
    decision by Nikon to cripple the D70. So there must be marketing/political
    reasons not to optimize the firmware for the D70.
     
    Philip Homburg, Jun 2, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Did _you_ look at the graphs? There are no error bars, so no
    conclusions can be drawn (see my previous rant re: "useless review").
    Just taking the bogus graphs at face value, though, any differences, if
    they exist, are negligible.

    In any event, the smaller D2X pixels _MUST_ mean more inherent noise --
    thus any "lower noise" must have come at the expense of resolution or
    some other desirable. Or is it part and parcel of the Nikon religion
    that the laws of thermodynamics are suspended within their cameras?
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #23
  4. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Tom Scales babbles incoherently:
    Yes, fine, whatever you want, Mr. Scales.

    But the review is still "uselss".
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #24
  5. Alan Browne

    Newsgroups Guest

    Who gives a shit? How many people shoot at ISO 1600 or 3200 all the time
    anyway?

    That likes assuming film people are going to shoot Ilford 3200 all the time.

    The D2X is simply stunning at ISO 100 which is how I shoot mine 99.9% of the
    time...
     
    Newsgroups, Jun 2, 2005
    #25
  6. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Roxy d'Urban babbles:
    My, my, aren't _we_ touchy. A bit of an insecurity complex, Mr.
    d'Urban? Maybe in your heart-of-hearts you realize you have a
    white-elephant lens and camera collection and each generation from
    Canon is just making it even more of a joke?
    The advantage is not mystical, nor is it subject to "belief". Indeed,
    it must exist, and it must be a large one. What is your alternative
    explanation for the fact that I see 5 to 7 Canon users for every Nikon
    when I am out "in the field"?
    Speaking for yourself, dimwit? I _have_ used the equipment and am left
    unimpressed.
    Nikon's slogan: "Backwards Compatibility to the Ape!"
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #26
  7. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Newsgroups top posts like an idiot:
    Listen, are you trying to form a cogent argument based on facts, or are
    you just upset because you bought into a sub-optimal camera line?
    What does this have to do with the fact that dpreview.com has no error
    bars on its noise graph?
    I've made no assumptions at all -- let alone about 'Ilford' -- so I
    have no idea what you are talking about here.

    And the noise graph _STILL_ has no error bars on it, the D2X pixels are
    still smaller than the 1DsMkII's, etc.
    Just think how much better it would be if the pixels were larger. But
    hey, don't let me interrupt the practice of your religion.
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #27
  8. Alan Browne

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Error bars? Come on. Now dpreview is useless, too, all of a sudden,
    because they agree with everyone else? When have there ever been error
    bars?
    Yes, that's the whole point.
    That's a nice theory. Too bad reality doesn't work that way.

    How about this -- go and shoot with a D2x, and look for the noise you
    claim nature insists must be there. It's not there.
    Camera manufacturers have been making sensors with smaller pixels *and*
    less noise, over and over, time and time again, for quite a long time
    now. Why do people *still* insist this is not possible?

    Religion's got nothing to do with it. Religion is when you believe
    something based on no evidence at all, like, for example, the idea that
    a camera must have lots of noise because the pixels are smaller when no
    such noise actually exists. I don't go on faith, see. I look at the
    pictures and see for myself. The noise isn't there. You can go on
    believing it is; such beliefs have served people well (?) in other
    areas for centuries.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jun 2, 2005
    #28
  9. Alan Browne

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    My explanation would be "Canon is more popular."
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jun 2, 2005
    #29
  10. Alan Browne

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    No, it wouldn't work like that. The reason the camera needs to know the
    max aperture of the lens is because the mechanical aperture thingy tells
    the camera how far the lens is stopped down from its maximum. The D70
    lacks that thingy, so even knowing the max aperture, it still couldn't
    do it. It's the lack of the mechanical thingy that (a) makes the D70
    unable to do this, and (b) is the "cost" reason to omit this feature.

    I would think they could enable stop-down metering with the DOF preview
    in the firmware, though I have no way to actually know that.
    Yeah. It really should be there. Compatibility with old lenses is a huge
    strength of Nikon stuff, so they should exploit it.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jun 2, 2005
    #30
  11. Alan Browne

    Walt Hanks Guest

    There were 6 other weddings taking place last Saturday at the location of my
    sister's wedding. That made 7 of us shooting weddings. Of those 7, there
    was 1 person shooting Hasselblad, 1 shooting Canon, and the rest were
    shooting Nikon. And, BTW, only the Canon shooter and 1 Nikon shooter were
    digital.

    Anyone ever purchased a car, then suddenly started seeing that car
    everywhere? As with all things, we tend to notice what we have or expect to
    see and not notice what we don't have or expect to see. It's human nature.

    Walt
     
    Walt Hanks, Jun 2, 2005
    #31
  12. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    I can see it now: "well, the best of my crappy camera was better than
    the worst of your better camera, snif,".
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 2, 2005
    #32
  13. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    That is not an "explanation" but a re-iteration of my observation.

    Try again.
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #33
  14. Alan Browne

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    It is an explanation because that is the end of it. You see more Canon
    users because Canon is more popular. You see more SUVs on the road because
    SUVs are more popular. You see more Windows users because Windows is more
    popular. You can't possibly imagine, even in your wildest fantasies, that
    people choose products based on technical advantage or superiority? Windows
    alone completely dispels that notion.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jun 2, 2005
    #34
  15. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Noise in instrinsically statistical. Without a specification of the
    distribution of the error in the measurement (ie, "error bars"), no
    comparison between the models can be made. This is basic statistics.
    So the whole point of a review is to make undisclosed assumptions?
    Interesting notions you have there...
    I'm sorry you are ignorant, but larger pixels == more photons == less
    noise, everything else remaining the same (aperture, exposure, etc).
    Noise/bandwidth tradeoff. Look it up. Connections to thermodynamics
    are unavoidable.
    If you took the post-processing system in the camera and presented it
    with data that came from larger pixels, the result would be better.

    Please shove the strawmen back up your ass from whence they came.
    You either are misrepresenting my argument, failing to understand my
    argument, or you are just being stupid. Which is it?
    Believe whatever claptrap you like, but thermodynamics is written into
    the fabric of reality we inhabit. Deal with it.
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #35
  16. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Nitwit.

    www.google.com: define:tautology
    Was someone talking about Windoze?

    Let's keep to the subject at hand: why are Canon cameras "more
    popular"? I aver the camera system is better designed, simpler,
    components interoperate better, and in the end takes better pictures.
    That is to say, it has "technological superiority". I can argue in
    detail about each point mentioned here.

    I still await your alternative explanation.
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #36
  17. Alan Browne

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    No, the whole point is that any differences, if they exist, are negligible.
    You can go on blindly believing that it means a D2x must have lots of noise,
    or you can look at the pictures and see for yourself that it doesn't.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jun 2, 2005
    #37
  18. That is interesting.

    Why does the meter care about the focal length?
     
    Ben Rosengart, Jun 2, 2005
    #38
  19. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Ok, I've seen enough: I'm going to conclude you are acting stupid here
    because _you are stupid_. Reasons:

    1) I have never said ther D2X "must have lots of noise". This is
    _your_ strawman you are knocking down, remember? Does this excite you
    or something? If so, rage away, dude.

    2) You have a demonstrable inability to separate your camera into its
    signal processing components, analyse each independently, and then
    reassemble into the whole. To wit: you are seemingly unable to
    perceive that if one were to put larger pixels into a D2x (everything
    else remaining the same), the noise would _decrease_. Pardon me, kind
    sir, if I prefer equipment that reduces noise at the source instead of
    cleaning up the mess downstream by making assumptions...
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #39
  20. Alan Browne

    Tony Polson Guest


    A landscape photographer would take 12.4 MP over 8.5 MP every time.
     
    Tony Polson, Jun 2, 2005
    #40
    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.