 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / February 2005New Nikon D2X Reviews
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html http://www.moosepeterson.com/d2x/index.html More on the way. Deryck > http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html Ok, so according to this guy the D2X is noisier than the 1Ds Mk II, which is not surprising, but the surprising thing is that the D2X is sharper -- in fact rivaling 35 mm film. Also, the noise is not terrible. The thing that startled me was that the Nikon appears to produce a more saturated image than the Canon, which is a real switch. > http://www.moosepeterson.com/d2x/index.html And the noise report here was simply that noise is not a factor with this camera. > More on the way. > > Deryck > Ok, so according to this guy the D2X is noisier than the 1Ds Mk II, which is > not surprising, but the surprising thing is that the D2X is sharper -- in > fact rivaling 35 mm film. Also, the noise is not terrible. The thing that > startled me was that the Nikon appears to produce a more saturated image > than the Canon, which is a real switch. The D2X isn't any sharper than the 1DS Mark II when you take proper FOV into account. If you read how Bjorn did his tests your eyes will roll a bit. > > http://www.moosepeterson.com/d2x/index.html > > And the noise report here was simply that noise is not a factor with this > camera. Only if you ignore the smudgy, detail-masking software noise reduction. Nikon has done decent with this camera. The noise is kept fairly well under control up to ISO 400 without smudging too much detail. But is it a 1Ds Mark II killer? No. But then again, it's about $2,500 less.  Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ >> Ok, so according to this guy the D2X is noisier than the 1Ds Mk II, which >> is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > into account. If you read how Bjorn did his tests your eyes will roll a > bit. Honest to God, I can't believe he did a direct comparison with different FOVs! Useless! And wow, imagine my surprise when the camera with the narrower FOV "won" this comparison. I guess the only legit reviews (or maybe just the best available) will come from DP Review. Bjorn's review is amazingly flawed. >> > http://www.moosepeterson.com/d2x/index.html >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > under control up to ISO 400 without smudging too much detail. But is it > a 1Ds Mark II killer? No. But then again, it's about $2,500 less. > >> Ok, so according to this guy the D2X is noisier than the 1Ds Mk II, which > >> is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > just the best available) will come from DP Review. Bjorn's review is > amazingly flawed. It's a horribly flawed review, but I don't think anyone is surprised by this. He has always been a big promoter of Nikon, doing whatever it takes to make Nikon "win" in any comparison.. I wonder if he really thought that no one would catch all his mistakes. Wait for the dcresource.com review. It's usually even better than the dpreview.com review. > Honest to God, I can't believe he did a direct comparison with different > FOVs! Useless! And wow, imagine my surprise when the camera with the > narrower FOV "won" this comparison. I guess the only legit reviews (or maybe > just the best available) will come from DP Review. Bjorn's review is > amazingly flawed. There's a review on a Spanish site that does a better job. They compare the cameras at similar field of views. OF course, I can't understand much of it (I don't speak/read Spanish) but the results seem a little more in line with what I've seen from the cameras beforehand. Of course, some people on the Nikon forums are already crying foul over it... AND Phil's yet-to-be-done "Canon-centric" review. Some people... Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ > There's a review on a Spanish site that does a better job. They compare > the cameras at similar field of views. OF course, I can't understand [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Some people... Are going to switch to Canon after Nikon's "non-showing" at the PMA. Typically, Nikon will announce a camera, give a ship date of several months down the road, delay, and then ship very limited quantities. Finally, about a year after the initial announcement, the camera is available at a slight discount. Clearly, Nikon is not yet suited to compete in the digital world, where you have to purchase a new body in order to increase image quality. Once you buy a digicam, you're stuck with that level of quality forever, which is starkly different to the old film axiom where to improve the image, you bought better film. And now, Nikon "announces" a new version of a 4.1MP procamera? Right. Yes, I may be one of those people who switch. Still considering, but a decision is coming quickly. > > Of course, some people on the Nikon forums are already crying foul over > > it... AND Phil's yet-to-be-done "Canon-centric" review. > > > > Some people... > > Are going to switch to Canon after Nikon's "non-showing" at the PMA. Maybe, but... > Typically, Nikon will announce a camera, give a ship date of several months > down the road, delay, and then ship very limited quantities. Finally, about > a year after the initial announcement, the camera is available at a slight > discount. I prefer this model to the Canon model, which is to announce and immdiately ship a new, significantly better model before one has had a chance to learn how to get the best from one's current camera. Especially if one waits until the early-adopter complaints have been resolved. > Once you buy a digicam, you're stuck with that level of quality forever, Oh, I don't agree with that at all. You are only stuck with the camera until you have amortized it's purchase price by shooting enough shots that the cost of the film would have equalled the body costs. Over here, Provia 100F + processing is maybe US$13 per roll, so that's 33 cents per shot, implies 3000 shots or so. Since one burns more digital frames than film, call it 6000. (And I haven't charged my time for the scanning in there<g>.) > which is starkly different to the old film axiom where to improve the image, > you bought better film. Well, that doesn't work, because the good films are all being discontinued: both Tech Pan and Velvia 50 are now (or about to be) history. Ektar 25, Konica Impressa 50, Panatomic X, Kodachrome 25 (and any Kodachome in 120, since you can't get it processed) are all gone. > And now, Nikon "announces" a new version of a 4.1MP procamera? Right. Disagree, again. 4MP is more than enough for the vast majority of sports/PJ work. For that stuff, larger pixels/better low-light performance is a lot more important than more MP. And the smaller files means easier data handling/data transmission. > Yes, I may be one of those people who switch. Still considering, but a > decision is coming quickly. I won't be switching to Nikon, but I don't think they're as dead as you think. All they have to do is put the D2X sensor in the D70 body and Canon will be in _serious_ trouble. Sure, at best it'll be 20D ISO 200 performance at ISO 100, but with 12MP, people are going to forget about niceties such as dynamic range and shadow detail real quick. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > Disagree, again. 4MP is more than enough for the vast majority of sports/PJ > work. For that stuff, larger pixels/better low-light performance is a lot > more important than more MP. And the smaller files means easier data Sure, it's enough - but is it worth sacrificing the ability to crop, re- use or sell the image to a publication that needs/wants higher resolution? As for the sensor and noise performance, Nikon didn't change the sensor from the D2H to the D2Hs. You might see some reduction in banding and other problems, but I wouldn't expect to see the noise performance of the 1D Mark II, or even the 20D, any time soon. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ >> > Of course, some people on the Nikon forums are already crying foul over >> > it... AND Phil's yet-to-be-done "Canon-centric" review. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > until > the early-adopter complaints have been resolved. The trick with Canon is not to upgrade every cycle. This will be my first DSLR, and the 20D is the first one I've tried that I really like. Don't care for either the D100 or D70, can't afford a D2X. Nobody forced you to upgrade. >> Once you buy a digicam, you're stuck with that level of quality forever, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 3000 shots or so. Since one burns more digital frames than film, call it > 6000. (And I haven't charged my time for the scanning in there<g>.) What I meant was that the picture quality provided by that cam is fixed, and unless you can upgrade the sensor, it's fixed. As you've explained, after you amortize the cost of the body, you can justify, financially, an upgrade. But that doesn't change the fact that in order to increase image quality (technically, of course) you have to move to another body. >> which is starkly different to the old film axiom where to improve the > image, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > more important than more MP. And the smaller files means easier data > handling/data transmission. I was at the Superbowl this year, and counted at least 20 Canon shooters for every Nikon shooter. It appears that most of the pros want more resolution, as well. Why not? there's no penalty, and you can sell posters of your good shots, as well as wire stuff. No excuse for Nikon not amping it up a little. Except, of course, that they don't have a sensor. >> Yes, I may be one of those people who switch. Still considering, but a >> decision is coming quickly. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > as > dynamic range and shadow detail real quick. The resolution would be nice, but based on what I've seen so far, I wouldn't buy one. > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan > The trick with Canon is not to upgrade every cycle. This will be my first > DSLR, and the 20D is the first one I've tried that I really like. Don't care > for either the D100 or D70, can't afford a D2X. Nobody forced you to > upgrade. I'm basically skipping the 20D and seeing how the RebelXT turns out in terms of noise and resolution. I have the 10D, and a lot of the things that make it cost more (magnesium allow body, etc.) I don't really need. Same with the 20D. I'd like the 5 FPS shooting rate and nine AF points, but since I barely use 3 FPS and the center AF point now, I figure I'll save myself $500-600 on this upgrade cycle. Unless the RebelXT is too small for my hands. Then I'll curse repeatedly. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ > Are going to switch to Canon after Nikon's "non-showing" at the PMA. > Typically, Nikon will announce a camera, give a ship date of several months > down the road, delay, and then ship very limited quantities. Finally, about > a year after the initial announcement, the camera is available at a slight > discount. Speaking of which: when is Canon's 1Ds Mk II going to be available? All the stores have had it backordered ever since it was announced. Or are Canon and Nikon competing to see who can release the most vaporware? On 2/26/05 9:58 AM, in article mMKdnY2j6bImAb3fRVn-qQ@wavecable.com, "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: > Speaking of which: when is Canon's 1Ds Mk II going to be available? All the > stores have had it backordered ever since it was announced. Or are Canon and > Nikon competing to see who can release the most vaporware? The Canons are in short supply - one of my local shops told me that they had a waiting list of 65 people. However, if you really want one, call a large dealer like B&H and you will have one inside of two weeks - so the 1Ds Mk II is definitely not vapor ware. > Speaking of which: when is Canon's 1Ds Mk II going to be available? All the > stores have had it backordered ever since it was announced. Or are Canon and > Nikon competing to see who can release the most vaporware? IT is available. Is it Canon's fault that people buy more than they can produce? Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ > Is it Canon's fault that people buy more than they can produce? Yes. /Allan > > Is it Canon's fault that people buy more than they can produce? > > Yes. I'm glad you're so understanding. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ >> > Is it Canon's fault that people buy more than they can produce? >> >> Yes. > > I'm glad you're so understanding. It's not a matter of understanding: it's just business. I'm sure their stockholders are even _more_ annoyed at this than their customers. Of course, they'd _also_ be annoyed by a production surplus that stayed on the shelf. Every businessman wants a crystal ball... > > I'm glad you're so understanding. > > It's not a matter of understanding: it's just business. I was being sarcastic. CJ is insinuating some sort of evil Canon conspiracy. ECC! Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ > > > I'm glad you're so understanding. > > > > It's not a matter of understanding: it's just business. > > I was being sarcastic. CJ is insinuating some sort of evil Canon > conspiracy. ECC! Canon does have plans for world domination. > > Speaking of which: when is Canon's 1Ds Mk II going to be available? All the > > stores have had it backordered ever since it was announced. Or are Canon and > > Nikon competing to see who can release the most vaporware? > > IT is available. Is it Canon's fault that people buy more than they can > produce? Yes. If Canon would charge $15,000 rather than $8000, then supply and demand would be better balanced. > > Speaking of which: when is Canon's 1Ds Mk II going to be available? All the > > stores have had it backordered ever since it was announced. Or are Canon and > > Nikon competing to see who can release the most vaporware? > > IT is available. Is it Canon's fault that people buy more than they can > produce? Only if it is Nikon's fault that people buy more than they can produce. > > IT is available. Is it Canon's fault that people buy more than they can > > produce? > > Only if it is Nikon's fault that people buy more than they can produce. So you have no point? Figures... Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ > > Are going to switch to Canon after Nikon's "non-showing" at the PMA. > > Typically, Nikon will announce a camera, give a ship date of several [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > stores have had it backordered ever since it was announced. Or are Canon and > Nikon competing to see who can release the most vaporware? You need to get on a waiting list for the 1Ds Mark II, since demand has far outstripped supply. You've got a lot of professionals who put off going to digital until a full-frame, low noise, high resolution, digital SLR was available, and now you have only one company able to supply them. I think that the sensor supply is limiting production levels. Here you go folks, straight from Brian's a.shole, er mouth: "OF course, I can't understand much of it ... but the results seem a little more in line with..." >> Honest to God, I can't believe he did a direct comparison with different >> FOVs! Useless! And wow, imagine my surprise when the camera with the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Some people... > Here you go folks, straight from Brian's a.shole, er mouth: > > "OF course, I can't understand much of it ... but the results seem a little > more in line with..." Stealth, what did I tell you about top posting and your potty mouth? No wonder you hide behind your "Stealth" persona. So, if I see a review that basically confirms my earlier observations instead of contradicting them, that's a problem? Odd. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ > The D2X isn't any sharper than the 1DS Mark II when you take proper FOV > into account. If you read how Bjorn did his tests your eyes will roll a > bit. I see. So anything that anyone says favorably about the Nikon is obviously "flawed" methodology, but anything that is unfavorable, no matter what methodology is used and no matter if even the original reviewer repudiates it, is good. I understand you now. > > The D2X isn't any sharper than the 1DS Mark II when you take proper FOV > > into account. If you read how Bjorn did his tests your eyes will roll a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > methodology is used and no matter if even the original reviewer repudiates > it, is good. I understand you now. Bad method is bad method. Bjorn is hardly what I'd call unbiased, too. He's about as pro-Nikon and Reichmann is pro-Canon. That said, you can still see the same detail-crushing software noise reduction on Bjorn's ISO 400+ shots that you did on Reichmann's botched comparison. The difference? Bjorn glosses it over. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ >> The D2X isn't any sharper than the 1DS Mark II when you take proper FOV >> into account. If you read how Bjorn did his tests your eyes will roll a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > methodology is used and no matter if even the original reviewer repudiates > it, is good. I understand you now. I don't think you understand at all. Put it this way: if you were shooting a test chart for resolution, would you make the chart smaller in one of the shots on purpose? If you did, what would the result be? I'm a Nikon guy (for now) and Bjorn's test is, well, useless. Unless you have the same field of view, what's the point? > I'm a Nikon guy (for now) and Bjorn's test is, well, useless. Unless you > have the same field of view, what's the point? There are 4 ways to go about it: crop or scale the image, move camera position to match field of view, compensate by using a lens with different focal lenght, or do nothing. Are any of them not flawed? /Allan On 2/26/05 3:51 PM, in article slrnd21rq9.ilq.allan_wind@pawan.dyndns.org, >> I'm a Nikon guy (for now) and Bjorn's test is, well, useless. Unless you >> have the same field of view, what's the point? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > /Allan Look at it this way: Suppose a test was set up so that one Nikon D2X was being compared against another Nikon D2X, one with a 100mm lens and one with a 150mm lens. Two pictures are taken from the same spot and both cropped down to the same small detail area. The larger crop taken from the camera with the 150mm lens would clearly show more resolution. Would you say that the D2X with the 150mm lens was the better camera? That is the equivalent of what Bjorn did between the D2X and the 1Ds MkII. Chuck > Look at it this way: Suppose a test was set up so that one Nikon D2X was > being compared against another Nikon D2X, one with a 100mm lens and one with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the D2X with the 150mm lens was the better camera? That is the equivalent > of what Bjorn did between the D2X and the 1Ds MkII. I understand what you are saying Chuck, and agree that the test is not conclusive. My point was simply that all options available have problems. For instance, if you put a 50mm on the Canon and use a 17-35mm Zoom at 33mm on the Nikon would that be a fair test? /Allan On 2/26/05 9:53 PM, in article slrnd22h22.3uh.allan_wind@pawan.dyndns.org, >> Look at it this way: Suppose a test was set up so that one Nikon D2X was >> being compared against another Nikon D2X, one with a 100mm lens and one with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > /Allan A test like that would be more fair than what what Bjorn actually did! But I understand what you are saying as well. I think that all of the reviewers would be better off just running each tested camera through its paces commenting as appropriate and letting us judge the results. Except for an attempted stroking of an ego or two I don't think that any of us are really well served by taking a just released product and immediately doing a comparo. Chuck >> Look at it this way: Suppose a test was set up so that one Nikon D2X was >> being compared against another Nikon D2X, one with a 100mm lens and one [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > problems. For instance, if you put a 50mm on the Canon and use a > 17-35mm Zoom at 33mm on the Nikon would that be a fair test? If the field of view was the same, it's a better test than comparing test objects that are different sizes. Bjorn's test simply and clearly stacks the deck in favor of the Nikon, and that's unforgiveable. The red house occupies a much larger portion of the Nikon shot than the Canon, and, as a result, the Nikon captures more detail in that house. Big surprise! > /Allan > > I'm a Nikon guy (for now) and Bjorn's test is, well, useless. Unless you > > have the same field of view, what's the point? > > There are 4 ways to go about it: crop or scale the image, move camera > position to match field of view, compensate by using a lens with > different focal lenght, or do nothing. Are any of them not flawed? Moving the camera will change the perspective. What you should do is use equivalent (I.e. compensate for the crop factor) focal lengths. This maintains the same perspective and FOV for both cameras. Not rocketry, just common sense. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ >> > I'm a Nikon guy (for now) and Bjorn's test is, well, useless. Unless >> > you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Not rocketry, just common sense. I can't believe this even has to be discussed, it's so damned obvious! Bjorn blew the test! "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message news:4221f0f7$0$22115. > > Not rocketry, just common sense. > > I can't believe this even has to be discussed, it's so damned obvious! Bjorn > blew the test! It was blown intentionally, which makes everyone wonder why it was necessary for him to do this. Every time you see obvious lies, such as those from Bjorn, or Ken Rockwell, you have to read between the lines and deduce, from their obvious agendas, why they are doing this. > "TAFKAB" <TheArtist@FormerlyKnownAs.Bowser> wrote in message > news:4221f0f7$0$22115. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > from > their obvious agendas, why they are doing this. Well, I never put Bjorn in the same very low class as Rockwell (what does he do for a living, anyway?), but this test is really bad. I know he's a Nikon guy, but to rig a test to favor one over the other in such an obvious manner is, well, stupid. Rockewll, on the other hand, is in a league of his own. I personally love his "test reviews" of gear he's never even used! the entire site is a joke. And yet, he's quoted like some damned authority, which shows just how gullible people are, and how few of them actually read the reviews. > >> There are 4 ways to go about it: crop or scale the image, move camera > >> position to match field of view, compensate by using a lens with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I can't believe this even has to be discussed, it's so damned obvious! Bjorn > blew the test! At least that part of it. He and Phil have been discussing it on the dPreview forums. Phil is a very diplomatic chap. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ >> >> There are 4 ways to go about it: crop or scale the image, move camera >> >> position to match field of view, compensate by using a lens with [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Phil is a very diplomatic chap. Yes, he is. And I bet he'll do a comparison of the two using an equivilant angle of view. Phil's site, and dcresource seem to be credible. > > At least that part of it. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yes, he is. And I bet he'll do a comparison of the two using an equivilant > angle of view. Phil's site, and dcresource seem to be credible. Not only equal FOV, but also the same RAW converter. I don't think Phil is going to settle the question once and for all unless both the 1Ds Mark II images and the D2X images are processed through ACR using the same parameters. This will eliminate (hopefully) discrepancies between the two cameras based on in-camera sharpening, noise reduction and contrast settings. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ > "deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote: > > http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html > > Ok, so according to this guy the D2X is noisier than the 1Ds Mk II, which is > not surprising, but the surprising thing is that the D2X is sharper The D2x is sharper _then the center 6MP of the 1Dsmk2 image_. He compared images from lenses of the same focal length, cropping the 1Dsmk2 to 6MP. Of course a 12MP camera is sharper than a 6MP camera. There's not a lot of people who'd buy a full-frame 16.7MP camera and only use the center 6MP. > -- in fact rivaling 35 mm film. 8MP rivals 35mm. 12MP should beats 35mm hands down. > Also, the noise is not terrible. As long as you don't need to bring up the shadows with "fill light" or other contrast masking techniques. Or don't shoot over ISO 200, since detail-smoothing noise reduction sets in at ISO 400. > The thing that > startled me was that the Nikon appears to produce a more saturated image > than the Canon, which is a real switch. At default settings. The fun of digital is that you get to choose your contrast and saturation. > > http://www.moosepeterson.com/d2x/index.html > > And the noise report here was simply that noise is not a factor with this > camera. He only shoots at ISO 100. And didn't try to handle a landscape in bright harsh light. The noise at the lowest ISO in most cameras isn't that bad, it's just that more noise limits how much you can pull up the shadows with contrast masking, how much you can pull out low-contrast detail with sharpening, and maybe how much you can enlarge. (Although some of the latest consumer cameras are beginning to lose it even at ISO 50; that area is getting seriously nuts.) David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > "deryck lant" <deryck@deryck.com> wrote: > > > > http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html Very interesting. Noise is much less than some people believed have to have spread rumors about and Nikon has still a DX size sensor, what I consider a major advantage. The award is well visible on the wide angle shots (12-24 DX Nikkor at f/4, 12 mm vs. Canon 17-40 L at f/4, 17 mm). Another award is the size and weight and price of long lenses with the same effective focal length. Thomas > > > > http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html > > Very interesting. Noise is much less than some people > believed Really? It looks as though it's interfering with subject detail at ISO 400, which is what I expected, i.e. basically a stop worse than the 20D. > have to have spread rumors about and Nikon has > still a DX size sensor, what I consider a major advantage. People who like telephotos, tend to like small sensors<g>. By the way, my bet is that Canon is _really really_ nervous. Not for the 1Dsmk2 or a future EOS 3 class camera with the 1Dsmk2 sensor, but for the 20D. Since Nikon could put that sensor in the D70 body making a 12MP camera the same price as the 20D. The noise may be problematic at ISO 400 and up, but if it's as good at ISO 100 as the 20D is at ISO 200, then a _lot_ of people will take the resolution over the noise. > The award is well visible on the wide angle shots (12-24 > DX Nikkor at f/4, 12 mm vs. Canon 17-40 L at f/4, 17 mm). Not so fast. Other than vignetting at f/4.0 in one lens, the results aren't in yet (also, he may have an irreproducable result there: the review of the 17-40 at hand says the light falloff isn't all that bad). What do larger prints look like at f/8 or smaller, which is what most people use for landscapes? Large prints from the D2x involve a _lot_ of enlargement, and lens infelicities get magnified more than from a full-frame camera. > Another award is the size and weight and price of long > lenses with the same effective focal length. You said that before<g>. The bottom line, though, is that lack of an honestly done resolution comparison makes that whole review seriously suspect. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > > > > http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Really? It looks as though it's interfering with subject detail at ISO 400, > which is what I expected, i.e. basically a stop worse than the 20D. Lets call it so: Nobody can compete with Canon in noise aspect, but lets look aside of absolute values: Is the "more noise" still well below a threshold to be good enough even for professional work? I guess here we are in a zone of subjective assessment and of emotional statements. Rorstlet says he is happy with ISO 800, you say that already 400 in D2X is bad. I agree with him, based on the huge scans which I downloaded from Moosse's pages. This entire "more pixel, better signal/noise ratio" debate reminds me of the good old times as we all dreamed of installing ourselves a HiFi system "ultima non ultra", but in fact we were tempted to browse shiny brochures and take whatever got less dB n/s ratio printed on the paper, and of course: more watts, more, more of them. Its like with pixels nowadays. And the s/n ratio, -90dB or -100dB, but measured differently, did not changed the fact that vinyl's noise was (say) -60dB, so was the tape, the FM radio was even worse and the background noise of our homes is usually 30-40dB. So, nowadays we usually print images on 5x7" (12x17cm) in majority of cases, maybe up to Letter/A4 format, and we also post them to the web, what is effective maybe 1.5Mpix. All what the cameras bring us is a reserve, which we can use for cropping, rotation, enlarging, filtering etc. I am setting aside professional use and needs, of course. > > have to have spread rumors about and Nikon has > > still a DX size sensor, what I consider a major advantage. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Since Nikon could put that sensor in the D70 body making a 12MP camera the > same price as the 20D. Maybe you are correct, but my bet is that Canon can popup here quickly with one more appropriate sensor! They have really an exceptional team capable of creating trend setting components. I took the 20D with me to a dark museum and was shooting at ISO 1600. Incredible! Combined with the IS lenses I achieved images which I would never dreamed of using film and a hard labor in scanning them. Thomas The message <2005022511433470814@deryck.com> from deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> contains these words: > http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html > http://www.moosepeterson.com/d2x/index.html Another review, this time with figures: http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1448&cid=15&pg=1 Deryck > Another review, this time with figures: Everyone knows figures don't lie! ;) Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/ The message <2005022614323270814@deryck.com> from deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> contains these words: > The message <2005022511433470814@deryck.com> > from deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> contains these words: > > http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html > > http://www.moosepeterson.com/d2x/index.html > Another review, this time with figures: > http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1448&cid=15&pg=1 This subjective comparison with the Canons is worth reading: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=12429658 Deryck The message <2005022711291670814@deryck.com> from deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> contains these words: > The message <2005022614323270814@deryck.com> > from deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> contains these words: > > The message <2005022511433470814@deryck.com> > > from deryck lant <deryck@deryck.com> contains these words: > > > http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html > > > http://www.moosepeterson.com/d2x/index.html > > Another review, this time with figures: > > http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1448&cid=15&pg=1 > This subjective comparison with the Canons is worth reading: > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=12429658 A test of skin tones and resolution: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=12439562 Deryck |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.