Nikon D2X review

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

  1. This is true only if the noise in sensors is completely determined by
    unavoidable noise sources. Which also means that there cannot be newer
    sensors (same size/same resolution) with better noise properties.

    That may be the case, but that would be for you to prove.

    If you can't prove that we are at the limit of what is possible according to
    physics theory, then it is quite possible that Nikon found the 3dB or so
    they need to compensate for using about half the surface area of the the
    Canon sensor.
     
    Philip Homburg, Jun 2, 2005
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. I think that to some extent he is right. I strongly doubt that the theory
    behind the dpreview graphs is good enough (and the provided information is
    sufficient enough) to draw any real conclusions.

    The first thing that is not measured is the bandwidth. So, any camera with
    strong noise filtering at high ISO is likely to come out ahead.

    The second issue is the kind of noise.

    Then there is the effect of color spaces and gamma on noise.

    Then there is the difference between chroma and luminance noise.

    Assuming that Bayer pattern interpolation algorithms are adaptive, how much
    influence does the subject matter have on noise.

    I guess, that there are plenty more areas you have to look at.

    In the end, I think that a good shoot out at different ISO levels probably
    provides much more real world usable results than a couple of graphs.

    (It is a pitty that the dpreview review did not explore the wide
    angle issues).
     
    Philip Homburg, Jun 2, 2005
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Why in the world would it matter what it would do with larger pixels?

    The Canons have larger pixels, and yet don't have less noise. So I'm
    sure you could increase the pixel size and get even lower noise, but
    so what? You could reduce it to television resolution at the same
    physical sensor size and get no noise at all! Whoopee! Would that
    be good enough for you? Oh, no, let me guess, you'd just complain
    that the resolution was too low.

    What matters to me is the pictures, not the theory, anyway, so this all
    seems very silly to me. "This camera is better because, in theory, it
    could make better pictures, if the theories all were correct!" So
    freakin' what? They're clearly not. And if you think any of it will
    make you a better photographer, you're wrong.

    Both the D2x and the 1Ds2 are technically better cameras than those used
    by almost any photographer in history. It is *completely stupid* to go
    on and on about this crap as if one of them being "full frame" or
    whatever matters in the least. Just go out and shoot something. If
    you can't make better pictures than those made by almost any photographer
    in history, well, then, I guess the technology isn't the most important
    thing after all!
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jun 2, 2005
    #43
  4. Alan Browne

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Which of those arguments gets you better pictures?
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jun 2, 2005
    #44
  5. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    I recall they had some description of their apparatus somewhere on the
    site. It's been a while since I've looked at anything on dpreview
    though; I've never been impressed with their reviews (as you can
    probably tell ;-). They look like user-manual printouts, some vague
    "testing" and finally some fairly predictable conclusions (they love
    the camera). The D2x review was all that, plus a large troll factor
    with mis-comparison to a 1DsMkII.
    Indeed, Canon wide-angle optics are fairly mushy in comparison to other
    35mm offerings. I have read(1) that people are using Zeiss/Contax
    lenses with EOS adaptors because of this.

    (1) http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=40662, etc.
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #45
  6. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Still awaiting your explanation. I take it I am in for a long wait?
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #46
  7. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    They are reasonable enough as tests go, and the results appear
    consistant enough that whatever error or bias is present is fairly small.
    The only area worth looking at is what comes out of the camera. How the
    manufacturer got there is another issue. Look at the noise, look at the
    sharpness tests, look at the color tests.

    Surely, now start your own website with everything on every camera done
    to the maximum extent possible.

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 2, 2005
    #47
  8. Alan Browne

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Your position seems to be "Canon is more popular because their stuff
    is superior." That is, of course completely absurd, and is never true
    for any product, never has been, and never will be.

    Canon is more popular. I don't care to analyze why, because it doesn't
    matter to me; I feel no particular need to jump on the bandwagon, so to
    speak, or to use what lots of other people are using. It would make no
    difference to my photography. So I don't care to find an explanation.
    But I know that what your explanation seems to be simply cannot be true.

    You seem to feel, very strongly -- violently, even, with a rabidness that
    is remarkable even for this newsgroup -- that using a Canon will somehow
    get you better pictures, and that everyone else should use a Canon, too,
    though I can't imagine how that would affect you. I simply don't agree
    with the premise -- not that Canon can give you better pictures, but that
    your choice of camera brand, whatever that may be, can do so at all. If
    I were to "switch" to Canon it would not make me a better photographer,
    and would not improve my pictures in the least -- nor does using a Nikon
    have any such effect.

    In other words, I think the entire argument is stupid, and it makes no
    sense to me why people feel the need to go to such great lengths to
    insist that other peoples' cameras can't possibly be any good. If you
    want to prove something, post your pictures. That's what's supposed to
    matter, after all. But if they're really good, and you really attribute
    that to your choice of camera brand rather than your own skill and talent,
    that's kind of sad.

    The people screaming that the D2x can't possibly be any good because of
    the smaller sensor are simply wrong -- the noise they insist must be there
    is not there. Perhaps they don't want to accept this because it would
    leave only their actual *pictures* with which to claim superiority? They
    shouldn't worry too much, though -- Canon will, in due time, release
    something that is clearly technologically superior (but which requires
    numerous firmware updates to mop up the bugs), and Nikon will take a year
    or two to match it, and the balance of the world will shift back to one
    those people can deal with. Meanwhile, the rest of us will just try to
    shoot some pictures.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jun 2, 2005
    #48
  9. Alan Browne

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    I point to the graphs because, when the first reviews came out, all the
    brand-advocacy people screamed that they were all done by biased Nikon
    cheerleaders, and that we should all just wait for the *real* review
    from dpreview and then we'll see the *real* story in the graphs.

    Now that we have that, and it seems to agree with the first reviews, the
    graphs are suddenly suspect and dpreview is suddenly useless.

    Doesn't anyone just do *photography* any more?
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jun 2, 2005
    #49
  10. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    As far as I know, Canon equipment applies no post-processing noise
    reduction in camera (beyond a dark-frame subtract mode). Canon's
    philosophy appears to be one of "leave it for a another computer to
    consider". The dpreview.com review in fact admits as much, when they
    note that default functions for the 1DsMkII (and the 1DMkII as well) is
    to simply leave JPEG rendered images more or less unsharpened.

    So if we took Nikon's in-camera NR stuff and applied it to a Canon
    image, what do you think the result would be? Right: probably less
    noise.

    There are of course other reasons why the 1DsMkII _may_ be noisier:
    Nikon has quieter electronics, etc. But of course, all of this is
    still conditioned on the assumption that the graph at dpreview can be
    taken "at face value".
    Well, you were responding, and fairly quickly at that. So it wasn't
    silly then ... but all of a sudden it is now. Curious, that.
    Take your complaints to www.dpreview.com then; it seems to be their
    position that one can honestly compare the two cameras.
    Then why are you so concerned about it?
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #50
  11. How long was it between the design of the two (1Ds MkII and D2x)
    sensors? Perhaps some progress was made in electronics in between.
     
    Ben Rosengart, Jun 2, 2005
    #51
  12. Alan Browne

    Tom Scales Guest

    > wrote in message
    Oh come on. Your argument is entirely based on technology never improving.
    Clearly not true.

    This isn't statistical, its real world.

    You have NO experience in the real world of the D2X and are making up theory
    to prove a point.

    Poorly

    Tom
     
    Tom Scales, Jun 2, 2005
    #52
  13. Alan Browne

    Tom Scales Guest

    It's "uselss", huh.

    It is an informed opinion. I am very happy with my D2X and see no advantage
    in spending an additional $3000 so that I can strut around proclaiming I
    have a bigger sensor. It's not the size, it's what you do with it.

    It's particularly interesting where the comment was made that the Canon wide
    angles aren't up to snuff. Isn't the best argument of full frame that it is
    better for wide angle photography?

    And yet I do lots of landscapes with my Nikkor 12-24 and they're great.

    Again, your argument seems to be primarily with yourself to convince
    yourself of a good decision. It's not based on any actual facts. Dpreview
    certainly is based on more facts than your argument.

    In the end, does it matter whether we chose a Mercedes or a BMW? Either
    way, they're a heck of a lot better than you average Chevy.

    Tom
     
    Tom Scales, Jun 2, 2005
    #53
  14. Alan Browne

    Tom Scales Guest

    I'm pleased that you aver that. I aver that Canon has significant marketing
    muscle, beyond that of Nikon. The Windows analogy was a great one, but you,
    of course, dismissed it, because it was contrary to your argument.

    Is Windows better than Apple's OS? Probably not. Does it outsell it by
    roughly 9:1 or more. Sure does. Is that because it is better designed,
    simpler, components interoperate better and in the end it does better
    computer processing?

    Nope.

    It's because its better marketed, more open, cheaper and has established a
    dominance.

    There are thousands of examples across many industries.

    Are Kleenex facial tissues better than the WalMart generic. Heck no. They
    probably come off the same production line. Some people by Kleenex though
    because they believe it.

    How else would you explain Scott bathroom tissue at $2 a roll.

    Canon is NOT outselling Nikon due to technical superiority. It certainly
    does not take better pictures.

    If there were prints from both cameras, properly post-processed and printed,
    there is no way you could pick the camera.

    Tom
     
    Tom Scales, Jun 2, 2005
    #54
  15. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Listen, if it is "absurd", then it should be easy enough to refute.
    This is why I am asking you for an _alternative explanation_ to the
    popularity that _you admit_.
    If you don't care to "analyze why", then why are you so bothered by my
    position?
    Ha ha ha. I direct your attention to previous commentary from myself
    in this thread re: "religion".
    I'm very happy to have rattled your cage sufficiently that you can't
    even think straight anymore (I'll assume that you could initially).
    And you are telling me that you "aren't bothered" by all this?
    But we aren't talking about whether switching will make someone better,
    but whether switching will produce technically superior images. Has
    anyone argued here or anywhere that Canon equipment produces (somehow)
    aesthetically superior images, or is this just another strawman of your
    own creation?
    Then why are you participating in it?

    ? and it makes
    no
    Where did I say this?
    I've posted my suggestion as to why Canon equipment is more popular,
    and requested a counter-argument. Can you explain why any of my
    pictures will help you form said rebuttal? Or is this yet another
    red-herring?
    You are hopeless. In another message in this very thread, you express
    shock and dismay that "the graphs were good enough in the past and now
    they aren't" (or words to that effect). But if "the pictures" are the
    only thing that matters in the end, WHY _DID_ THE GRAPH MATTER _THEN_,
    but _NOW_ it doesn't matter anymore? Shit, why do you need a technical
    review of the equipment at all?

    Warning: you are moving from demonstrably stupid to flatly dishonest.
    Your attempts at ascribing to me several statements which I have never
    made only add to the evidence in support of this conclusion.
    Again, I'll have to ask you to shove your misrepresentations back up
    your posterior -- or present a citation where I said this.
    But you just finished telling me that none of this technical stuff
    matters. Can't you keep the story straight, even within the same
    posting?
    More evidence of your duplicity. I guess all of these technicalities
    only matters when you say it matters. Or something.
    Ha ha ha. You bought a D2x, and I have a 1DMkII with a 500/4 on it.
    HA HA HA!!! Squirm, little man, squirm.

    What? But didn't you say none of this matters?

    Claro! Lo siento! I am so sorry that I have a better camera than you.
    ;-)
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #55
  16. Alan Browne

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Pretty much everyone seems to shut off the in-camera noise reduction; I
    did. I still don't see any noise worth worrying about.

    (That's the big problem I have with dpreview -- they do things like
    shoot jpegs with default settings, as though that should mean anything
    to anyone who would use these cameras. The real story I want to see
    is what the camera can do, not what the default settings can do when
    shooting jpeg.)
    It looks to me like any difference is inconsequential, and probably within
    the margin of error of the tests. It doesn't look like anything you'd see
    in the pictures.
    One can. They are comparable, at least from everything I've seen. I have
    never used the 1Ds2, but it looks to me like it's an outstanding piece of
    kit.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Jun 2, 2005
    #56
  17. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    Oh wow, a spelling flame! That's, like, so 1980's.
    Useless. It is, in rough order:

    1) a print out of the user manual
    2) some crude testing, making an inappropriate comparison
    3) the usual sample images
    4) predictable conclusions

    Who needs (1) -- download the manual from Nikon. (2) is questionable
    (reasons given elsewhere) (3) you can downloaded sample images from
    Nikon too. (4) like all the rest of their reviews, they like the
    camera. Big surprise, eh?

    Worst of all, by positioning the review as a "competition" between
    Canon and Nikon, the review becomes little more than a troll. Barring
    dimwits with money, there are no Canon owners who will buy this camera,
    nor are there Nikon owners who will be buying a 1DsMkII anytime soon.
    So you _are_ one of those aforementioned dimwits with money then?
    Yes, you must be.
    Well, you know, most people would buy a better lens. Maybe you are
    different (cf. "lots of money"). Personally, all of my stuff is
    telephoto.
    My "argument" is directed at fruitcakes, like you, who, when pressed
    against the wall, say that none of these technical details are
    important, it's all about the final image in the end, la da da de da.
    No, your misrepresentation of my argument. Do all Nikon users have
    problems with reading comprehension?
    See above re: "fruitcakes". If this is all an exercise in silliness,
    why are you so bothered by it? If the image only matters in the end,
    who cares what dpreview says?
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #57
  18. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    I ignored it because it was a red-herring.
    Maybe you can see why I ignore red-herrings then: they add nothing to
    the debate.
    "established dominance" is just another way of saying "more popular",
    which is just Nixon's tautological nonsense revisited.

    Canon equipment is not cheaper. (Remmeber the review?)

    Neither equipment is particularly "open".

    "Better marketed"? Isn't this another tautology? (If X is badly sold,
    it won't sell, if X is well sold, it will sell well.) You may have a
    point, but only if you show that not only is your claim true ("better
    marketed"), but that Canon/EOS/etc is "technologically inferior" or
    "technologically equivalent".
    So all those sports photographers at the past Olympics were mindless
    dupes of the Canon marketing machine. Yeah!
    And you criticize me for saying that the D2x review is "useless"!

    Let me say, I certainly hope that you and Nixon are not representative
    examples of Nikon users...
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #58
  19. Alan Browne

    eawckyegcy Guest

    No technology can trump the laws of physics. If you believe otherwise,
    you are well beyond stupid.
    Again, basic statistical inference tells us what we need in order to
    make a "valid" decision. As an introduction, you can try:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

    Never accept a distribution parameter without the corresponding
    distribution attached to it. Models come with assumptions.
    I would be very proud to have "made up" the laws of thermodynamics,
    information theory, etc. Alas, someone else beat me to it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
     
    eawckyegcy, Jun 2, 2005
    #59
  20. Last time I looked, he didn't do the sharpness test or the color test
    at high ISOs.
    What's the point. Reviews on the web are a valuable resource. But you have
    to carefully consider what conclusions can be drawn.

    For the noise, I spend more time looking at the images than at the graph.
     
    Philip Homburg, Jun 2, 2005
    #60
    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.