Highly Anticipated Nikon D2x Review by dpreview.com

[Watcher]

Considering that the comparison was made between a zoom lens (24-70) and a prime (50), I'd say that the review is biased, especially after my bad experience with 24-70 last time. But congratulations Nikon have produced a winner, which looks very impressive to me.

If there could be a FF pro body with 8fps@2x and better ISO3200 performance priced at below USD4k, wah...

The zoom lens is the highest end on sale for this range. It is a L lens with all those expensive elements and components like USM and flourite, costing a cool S$2900 list. The Nikon lens is the cheapest 1st hand lens that has no L/ED element, using a simple screw-driven AF. It cost S$209 list, approximately 7% of the Canon lens.

Still unfair?

And why again the fetish about FF? Many reviews have shown weakness in wides for FF, mediocre for mid-zooms and not as cost-effective in long focal length. As for noise, on page 21 of the Phil's review, it showed that the noise with NR normal on the D2x is better than 1DsMkII.

 

[tomshen]

The zoom lens is the highest end on sale for this range. It is a L lens with all those expensive elements and components like USM and flourite, costing a cool S$2900 list. The Nikon lens is the cheapest 1st hand lens that has no L/ED element, using a simple screw-driven AF. It cost S$209 list, approximately 7% of the Canon lens.

Still unfair?

And why again the fetish about FF? Many reviews have shown weakness in wides for FF, mediocre for mid-zooms and not as cost-effective in long focal length. As for noise, on page 21 of the Phil's review, it showed that the noise with NR normal on the D2x is better than 1DsMkII.

Well, I was wondering why Phil didn't plug a 28-70 on D2x and a 50 on 1DsII. Or else fair enough prime vs prime. Actually I don't bother which camera is better but eliminating such variance would be more convincing.

As to FF, I would pay for it if price drops. All my lenses would be more useful. Although this may lead to a bit soft corners, personally I have no problem with it.

2x for tele is a clever design. Wish to see it on Canon body too.

Comparison between NR-D2x and No-NR-1DsII is only for illustration I suppose. Clearly 1DsII is better at high ISO when NR is turned off on D2x.

If I don't have any gears and must choose one system between D2x and 1DsII, very likely I would go for D2x coz its price is much more friendly than the difference of features for my photogaphy.

 

[mpenza]

No need to be too excited that a cheap 50mm prime is compared to a pro normal zoom. Images from the EF 50/1.8 would probably be comparable in sharpness to the AF-S 28-70/2.8 at a small fraction of its cost but that's another story.

What Phil said abt the use of zoom for the first test (for subsequent shots of the Tower Bridge, he used 28-70/2.8 on the D2X and the same 24-70/2.8L for the 1DsMk II):

Note also that the D2X is handed a slight advantage in that we had to use the 24-70 mm L zoom lens on the EOS-1Ds Mark II, we typically use a 50 mm prime lens but that wouldn't have given us the same frame coverage on the EOS-1Ds Mark II (we wouldn't be able to get close enough to the scene). Note that this also means that the EOS-1Ds Mark II had a shallower DOF in these comparisons.

Comparison with the 1Ds Mk II:
Having now matched the in-camera sharpening we can see that while the Canon's resolution advantage can be seen in areas of fine detail it's not a storming lead.

Once more the extra pixel count available in the EOS-1Ds Mark II can be seen in some areas of the image but it's not a massive difference

You can really appreciate just how good the D2X's sensor is and why using the optimum center part of a quality lens delivers complete sharpness all the way across the image. Compared to the $8000 EOS-1Ds Mark II the D2X is looking like a bit of a bargain.

The EOS-1Ds Mark II has 16% more horizontal pixels which equated to almost exactly 16% more resolution

With the D2X Nikon has shifted to a CMOS sensor, and although not yet as clean as Canon's second generation CMOS sensors at higher sensitivities there's no doubting the amount of detail captured combined with Nikon's image processing can produce stunning results.

 

[nightwolf75]

Man, just when I'd almost convinced myself I don't need a D2x.... well thanks Phil! ;(

buy lah... i'm sure ur wife won't bang ur head with a frying pan over it... :bsmilie:

seriously tho... never seen phil askey waxing so lyrical over a camera b4. usually, i jump straight to the conclusion b4 going back to re-read the review. first time in a long time his pro list is way way longer than the cons list.

 

[Smurfie]

And why again the fetish about FF? Many reviews have shown weakness in wides for FF, mediocre for mid-zooms and not as cost-effective in long focal length. As for noise, on page 21 of the Phil's review, it showed that the noise with NR normal on the D2x is better than 1DsMkII.

FF has its uses. Anyone who lambasts FF for being useless, is probably thinking that MF and LF are useless formats too. Do you really think so?


As for 50mm vs 24-70L, to me, it's not fair. Apples should be compared with apples, although when it comes to the D2X and 1DsMk2, it's difficult due to the D2X's crop factor. Then again, would it be fair if a 35-70mm zoom was used on the D2X at 35mm vs the 50mm f1.4 on the 1DsMk2? Besides, 50x1.5 = 75mm, which is out of the 24-70mm's range.

The D2X is a fantastic camera. Let's just not go hyperbole and need to make ourselves look good by bashing the other brand. As far as I'm concerned, when the D2X was made as a DX format camera, it wasn't competing with the 1DsMk2. It's the best cropped format digital camera around today though.

 

[Watcher]

FF has its uses. Anyone who lambasts FF for being useless, is probably thinking that MF and LF are useless formats too. Do you really think so?

No, I don't. I've stated many times my view here; search for my name. I've not said that it is useless. Instead, it is not value for money, especially when most don't need; rather, it is a want. AFAIK, tomshen shoots predominately portraiture (correct me if I'm wrong). So do tell in that case, what benefit would FF give?

In general, if FF cannot distinguish itself to provide an obvious competitive advantage for the majority, then by definition, it is a niche product.

MF and LF? Of course, they have their uses. But how many here really need it?

In the case of FF vs crop, for US$3k difference, I can buy about 4 D70s (at SG prices) or pay 3/4 for a 200 f/2.

As for the zoom vs prime, it can go either way. On one hand, yes, it is not very fair to use a zoom. OTOH, the zoom cost 13.87x of the prime, a highly regarded, L lens. You would expect that the comparison is close to the same. FYI, the 24 mm prime, which is rated highly, loses out to the 12-24 DX lens; read Bjørn Rørslett's review on it. The price comparison (list) is: S$1970 vs S$680, about 2.9x only.

 

[espn]

buy lah... i'm sure ur wife won't bang ur head with a frying pan over it... :bsmilie:

seriously tho... never seen phil askey waxing so lyrical over a camera b4. usually, i jump straight to the conclusion b4 going back to re-read the review. first time in a long time his pro list is way way longer than the cons list.

He even reviewed Nikon Capture & the other RAW converters too :thumbsup:

 

[tomshen]

AFAIK, tomshen shoots predominately portraiture (correct me if I'm wrong). So do tell in that case, what benefit would FF give?

Correct. The benefit is: with FF, one 24-70 could be very very useful from wide to short tele and probably another 70-200/2.8 or 135/f2 will complete my setup. I don't like 16-35 due to its distortion in portraiture.

 

[Watcher]

No need to be too excited that a cheap 50mm prime is compared to a pro normal zoom. Images from the EF 50/1.8 would probably be comparable in sharpness to the AF-S 28-70/2.8 at a small fraction of its cost but that's another story.

True. That is why I feel that it is comparable and not significantly advantages.

As for the extra MP,

Having now matched the in-camera sharpening we can see that while the Canon's resolution advantage can be seen in areas of fine detail it's not a storming lead. Another notable difference is the more 'film like' appearance to the Nikon image. You really would need to print at very large sizes to be able to clearly notice a difference between the two.

(Bold by me)
On the outdoor shoot, Phil used the respective zooms. He concluded:

Once more the extra pixel count available in the EOS-1Ds Mark II can be seen in some areas of the image but it's not a massive difference, the D2X resolving almost as much and you really would need to be printing at very large sizes to see a difference.

(Bold by me again)

 

[espn]

Correct. The benefit is: with FF, one 24-70 could be very very useful from wide to short tele and probably another 70-200/2.8 or 135/f2 will complete my setup. I don't like 16-35 due to its distortion in portraiture.

Well, Nikon came out with a cheaper solution.

10.5 FE DX
12-24DX
17-55DX

That's WAY cheaper than replacing or coming out with a FF body, isn't it

If you hate the 16-35L for the distortion, consider the 17-40L instead. I find it's much better.

 

[Watcher]

Correct. The benefit is: with FF, one 24-70 could be very very useful from wide to short tele and probably another 70-200/2.8 or 135/f2 will complete my setup. I don't like 16-35 due to its distortion in portraiture.

Fair enough

 

[mpenza]

As for the extra MP,
(Bold by me)
On the outdoor shoot, Phil used the respective zooms. He concluded:

not a storming lead

printing at very large sizes to see a difference.

(Bold by me again)

Definitely lah. I would expect the same too. If the CMOS sensor for both are properly designed and implemented to specs, the difference won't be big (16.6% difference length/breadth wise according to specs). The difference of either vs other DSLRs like D2Hs, D70s, 1D Mk II, 20D, 350D, etc would be more significant.

And the resolution tests confirmed it:
The EOS-1Ds Mark II has 16% more horizontal pixels which equated to almost exactly 16% more resolution,

 

[erwinx]

If you hate the 16-35L for the distortion, consider the 17-40L instead. I find it's much better.

I nominate ESPN as Canon moderator as he knows more about Canon than most of the Canon users who populate the Canon subforum

Looking at samples, I fully agree that D2x is a good camera like a typical Canon DSLR which is why Phil Askey praised it in the same way he praises Canon DSLRS :bsmilie:

I think FF vs DX should be resolved in the new few generations of DSLRs. Time (or sheer marketing power) will make one more successful than the other. With the added sales, the company that is more successful will have more R&D spending available to develop and release new lenses that perform even better at the corners to take into account the higher resolving power of digital sensors versus film.

 

[mpenza]

If you hate the 16-35L for the distortion, consider the 17-40L instead. I find it's much better.

The distortion mentioned by tom probably refers to perspective distortion which is due to the super wide-angle and the nearness to the subject, rather than distortion of the lens (i.e. other similar super wide angles would have similar perspective distortion) ;p

 

[espn]

The distortion mentioned by tom probably refers to perspective distortion which is due to the super wide-angle and the nearness to the subject, rather than distortion of the lens (i.e. other similar super wide angles would have similar perspective distortion) ;p

I think perspective distortion is something we have to live with, in fact every glass in the creation is affected somehow, with WAs more that's about it. If controlled nicely, the distortion can be something nice instead of something to dread about.

That said, I still think 17-40L has better distortion control, perspective or not over the 16-35/17-35. That's why I ask Tom to change

 

[tomshen]

I think perspective distortion is something we have to live with, in fact every glass in the creation is affected somehow, with WAs more that's about it. If controlled nicely, the distortion can be something nice instead of something to dread about.

That said, I still think 17-40L has better distortion control, perspective or not over the 16-35/17-35. That's why I ask Tom to change

huh? u Canon or Nikon user? I am confused leh.

BTW, I try not to compose head at the extreme corners with WA then the problem could be relieved. Composing limbs at corners could produce dramatic effect especially for event/street candid shots. Actually no rules, 16/17-35 are both very superior lenses depending on the applications.

D2x vs 1DsII reminded me that when I used sigma glasses on D60 last time, the edge problems were all hidden and I got quite good results. Any system has limitations, just learn to work around it.

 

[Smurfie]

In general, if FF cannot distinguish itself to provide an obvious competitive advantage for the majority, then by definition, it is a niche product.

MF and LF? Of course, they have their uses. But how many here really need it?

In the case of FF vs crop, for US$3k difference, I can buy about 4 D70s (at SG prices) or pay 3/4 for a 200 f/2.

First, I will have to state that you might have grossly underestimated the need for FF/MF/LF. LF is far from dead, and the interest in digital medium format backs is very high now. The 1DsMk2 is a fantastic in-between product which has served the needs of many photographers.

Do many people need it? Not many, but there is a market for it.

And, are we debating price advantages or format advantages? If it's price, then I would state boldly that the D70 or 350D is more camera than most will be able to use in a lifetime. It's the reason why I'm using a 20D and not a D2x or a 1DMk2 or a 1DsMk2. I can't justify spending that much, nor do I ever foresee my skills or creativity ever outstripping my camera's capabilities. Maybe you are much better than I will ever be, but is the D2x worth the US$4000 difference over the D70? Like you said, with that money, you can buy 4 D70s or 3/4 of a 200mm f/2.

As for the zoom vs prime, it can go either way. On one hand, yes, it is not very fair to use a zoom. OTOH, the zoom cost 13.87x of the prime, a highly regarded, L lens. You would expect that the comparison is close to the same. FYI, the 24 mm prime, which is rated highly, loses out to the 12-24 DX lens; read Bjørn Rørslett's review on it. The price comparison (list) is: S$1970 vs S$680, about 2.9x only.

Well, the 24mm compared to the 12-24mm DX is still 24mm and thus the same angle of view from the D2x. The main point in contention is that a 24-70mm on the 1DsMk2 is 70mm at the maximum. The D2x with the 50mm, however, is 75mm. That's a comparison of 2 different angle of views, which immediately invalidates a direct comparison. Besides, again, would that make a comparison using the Nikkor 35-70mm on the D2x and an EF 50mm f/1.4 on the 1DsMk2 any more valid? Would it raise any objections?

Let me try this analogy. A Rolls-Royce is really expensive. A Mitsubishi Evolution VIII is much cheaper than the Rolls-Royce. In a race, the Evolution VIII will leave the Rolls-Royce in the dust. But will it ever be a fair comparison of the 2 cars?

 

[espn]

huh? u Canon or Nikon user? I am confused leh.

BTW, I try not to compose head at the extreme corners with WA then the problem could be relieved. Composing limbs at corners could produce dramatic effect especially for event/street candid shots. Actually no rules, 16/17-35 are both very superior lenses depending on the applications.

D2x vs 1DsII reminded me that when I used sigma glasses on D60 last time, the edge problems were all hidden and I got quite good results. Any system has limitations, just learn to work around it.

I Nikon user la. But amongst the 3 WA Ls, the 17-40L has by far the best distortion control I see. With it being f/4, I don't think it matters for that 1-stop of light.

Superior is one thing, but the all rounded, value for money, shouldn't be 16-35 and 17-35 Ls. That's my opinion of course. The same problem with the 12-24 will occur at the wide ends, same goes for 17-35 AFS I think, I don't see any on my slides apart from barrel tho', but I might be mistaken. Mabbe the regular film shooters using 17-35 can comment.

The FF vs APS-C sensor debate has been around very long already la. I also appreciate the beauty of the 1.5X because it makes the Nikkor 18-35 wonderful by chopping the edges off! The limitation here I fail to see is the acclaimed "D2X cannot compare with 1DS MKII". Both are top end DSLRs of both camps, they are meant to compete with each other, and competition is good isn't it ;p else Nikon won't have woken up to create D2X. Heehee.

 

[espn]

First, I will have to state that you might have grossly underestimated the need for FF/MF/LF. LF is far from dead, and the interest in digital medium format backs is very high now. The 1DsMk2 is a fantastic in-between product which has served the needs of many photographers.

I don't think Watcher underestimated the need for FF etc. More like the practicability of it and it's usages.

I'll not argue on the bridging of 135 to 120 format using the 1DS MKII as you described. 135mm started off with film. So did 120.

Do many people need it? Not many, but there is a market for it.

There is a market, but which market are we talking about? I believe Watcher is refering to the consumer market than the professional market, which is quite true, how many consumers can afford the 1DS MKII, I know I can't. How many canonites that pride themselves on the 1DS MKII being the pride of Canon owns it? I know at least I can afford a D2X if I opted to and both are the top end DSLRs. It's affordability and practicability we're talking here.

And, are we debating price advantages or format advantages? If it's price, then I would state boldly that the D70 or 350D is more camera than most will be able to use in a lifetime. It's the reason why I'm using a 20D and not a D2x or a 1DMk2 or a 1DsMk2. I can't justify spending that much, nor do I ever foresee my skills or creativity ever outstripping my camera's capabilities. Maybe you are much better than I will ever be, but is the D2x worth the US$4000 difference over the D70? Like you said, with that money, you can buy 4 D70s or 3/4 of a 200mm f/2.

I think you misunderstood, he's not talking about 1DS MKII's FF, Watcher is commenting on general FF vs 1.5/1.6X crop factor sensors and it's practicability. I don't know about 1DS MKII being worth 7 times over 350D and if it's worth it, but as a Nikonian, the D2X is definitely worth the buy if compared with D70 although you can buy 4 of the D70s. At least it's affordable ;p

Well, the 24mm compared to the 12-24mm DX is still 24mm and thus the same angle of view from the D2x. The main point in contention is that a 24-70mm on the 1DsMk2 is 70mm at the maximum. The D2x with the 50mm, however, is 75mm. That's a comparison of 2 different angle of views, which immediately invalidates a direct comparison. Besides, again, would that make a comparison using the Nikkor 35-70mm on the D2x and an EF 50mm f/1.4 on the 1DsMk2 any more valid? Would it raise any objections?

The 12-24 on the D2X is actually 18-36 FOV. I think you would know that 5mm forward at far end isn't a lot of difference in steps to make. But 5mm backwards at wide is.

Thus Phil, using a 50mm to compare with 24-70L is actually pretty close & accurate in distance. If you wanna compare quality, I've absolute faith that Nikkor's 28-70 won't lose out to Nikkor's own 50 f/1.8. And if you ask me to compare Canon's 50mm vs 24-70L, I have the same confidence also. It's fair. Like what mpenza mentioned, paraphrased, it's either similar or better.

I won't use the 35-70 f/2.8D for testing against the EF 50 f/1.4, I would use the 17-55DX f/2.8 instead. If so, I would nod my head and still agree it's a valid comparison as with 50 f/1.8D vs 24-70L. It won't raise my objections. They're after all comparing very capable glasses against each other.

Although the 50mm is cheap <$600 for a f/1.4, it doesn't mean it sux when compared to a 3K glass. Everybody knows how well a prime can perform, if we discredit it just because it's compared to a 3K glasses, then every camp might as well toss it's 35mm, 20mm primes out the window. Valid comparison now?

Let me try this analogy. A Rolls-Royce is really expensive. A Mitsubishi Evolution VIII is much cheaper than the Rolls-Royce. In a race, the Evolution VIII will leave the Rolls-Royce in the dust. But will it ever be a fair comparison of the 2 cars?

We're comparing lenses (cars) now. But how about the bodies, let the roads in Singapore be the 'bodies', CTE 6-7pm. Now see how both cars perform.

 

[Smurfie]

We will have to agree to disagree then.
For me, I felt I made the mistake of buying the D2Hs, and am still wishing I put that money on the D70 instead. The D2x on the other hand, is a fantastic camera, which I just cannot afford. That is a huge reason why I ended up investing a lot more money into Canon. The 20D suited my sports needs, and was within my affordability bracket. Until the cheapskate editors put a couple more 0s in my pay check that is.

But till then, affordability and practicality is a "shifting goalposts"(to borrow a local politician's own phrase) to most photographers.

Oh, regarding formats, cropped formats are here to stay. They have long established themselves as the format to be for the consumer markets. The 1/1.8", 1/2.3" and 1/2.5" consumer cameras guaranteed that and has never looked back at the 35mm film.


By the way, my colleague far believes in the quality of the 35-70 over the 28-70. But looking at his 17-55DX pictures compared with those from the EF 50mm f/1.4, I would disagree, and say it's not fair. The 50mm f/1.4 is way superior, especially stopped down to f/2.8 to match the 17-55mm DX.

We're comparing lenses (cars) now. But how about the bodies, let the roads in Singapore be the 'bodies', CTE 6-7pm. Now see how both cars perform.

Yeah right.