Highly Anticipated Nikon D2x Review by dpreview.com

[tomshen]

For those who "believe" 24-70 can match a 50, I can tell you that either you or I am wrong. My test with 24-70/2.8L and 50/1.4 showed that 50 outperforms 24-70@50 rather obviously, although a good copy of 24-70 is still a good performer. Many other users reported quite soft 24mm compared with 70mm end. On the other hand, 24-70 beats 16-35 down across the overlapping range in my own test.

 

[espn]

I don't know about the Canon side, but I've heard the same on the Nikkor's side for the overlapping between the 28-70 and 17-35, the 28-35mm on 17-35 loses out to the 28-70.

As for the 50 and 28-70, personally, I don't see much difference between the two except the 50 is lagi suitable for low lighting. That's about it

 

[mpenza]

do note that Phil tests the lens at f9, not wide-open.

but let's not go too much into lenses here. Both D2X and 1Ds Mk II are excellent cameras and currently the best high resolution DSLR for Nikon and Canon systems respectively.

 

[allcowsmoo]

went down to PC Show earlier on today and Nikon wasnt there. And very apparently..D2x wont be there as well. The only big camera booth was Bally Camera or something like that..

so if you are going down PCShow to check out the d2x, well, i've mentioned.. its not there..so ESPN can SAVE SAVE SAVE !

 

[Watcher]

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.

There may be demand and interest, but if you compare the sales in terms of units...

Again, assumption on what my views are. Show me where have I "grossly underestimated" FF/MF/LF. Just like another Canon user who had presumed that I don't know what XOR is even though I had, more than 5 years ago, designed and implemented a proprietary encryption protocol for the Victorian Board of Studies (equivalent to MOE) in AU.

The crop and smaller size formats are capable and is a sufficient compromise when you tally up the cost, versatility and convenience. That is why LF and MF sold less units when compared to 35mm format, even on film with the cameras not that significantly different in price. A large majority don't use a film MF, much less the digital version that cost a lot more (about S$40k) for a high-end digital back, thus not very practical nor relevant to the majority reader to mention digital MF.

The rest of the stuff, ESPN covered those already. BTW, no one seem to admit that on the outdoor shoots, the cameras were both using the respective pro zoom of the range 24-70 for Canon and 28-70 for Nikon. In that test condition, the D2X did not lose out at all, with again similar results. Thus the alleged advantage of 50 prime vs 24-70 L zoom seems not significant.

 

[Watcher]

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.

Sounds rather "vengeful" action for your own mistakes... If 20D suits you, fine. But why all these post in Nikon forum then?

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

Not really. It is just how each one can determine their own goalpost. If I'm a millionaire or don't mind carrying 5-7kg of LF equipment that cost $6 per shot, the LF is fine. But practically, the cost advantage for the miniscule amount of compromise ensures that the crop 1.5x factor is superior for the majority vs FF.

In Phil's review, he basically said the same thing. The D2X is comparable or even superior in performance to the 1DsMkII for about US$3000 less.

 

[idor]

I don't know about the Canon side, but I've heard the same on the Nikkor's side for the overlapping between the 28-70 and 17-35, the 28-35mm on 17-35 loses out to the 28-70.

As for the 50 and 28-70, personally, I don't see much difference between the two except the 50 is lagi suitable for low lighting. That's about it

Yeah I agree.... 28-70 Rulez.... :thumbsup:

 

[Watcher]

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?

70mm vs 75mm "immediately invalidates"? Practically, that is about 3 degrees different in angle of view (I guessed, didn't bothered to calculate).

Well, Bjørn Rørslett's review about 3 months ago did the test both ways, using long lenses (which is the alleged superiority of Canon lenses are supposed to be in). Read near the middle of that page and see the conclusion. BTW, Thom Hogan concurred with Bjørn's conclusion.

Using similar 300mm primes,

The winner here is D2X by a very comfortable margin. The clarity of image detail is simply stunning compared to the softness of the Canon version.

when both are cropped to the same angle of view.

Read the rest of that page to see how even when using the other hypothesis, 1DsMkII did not win.

 

[Smurfie]

Vengeful, nah. I don't subscribe to fanboyism as that's extremely silly. Neither Nikon nor Canon pays me. My pictures pay me. If Nikon does the job, I would use Nikon. The D2Hs was something which I bought with the hope that it would have done the job. It didn't. The 20D did, so it's with me, and it's helping me pay my bills. But that doesn't mean Canon's all good. Every CPS survey I return has plenty of scathing remarks from me.

Why I post in the Nikon forums is simple. I might use a Canon now, but my interest isn't in who's better or who's worse. All I want is equipment that does what I need done. What does interest me, is that perceived(by me) need for you to defend Nikon.

 

[Watcher]

What does interest me, is that perceived(by me) need for you to defend Nikon.

I actually don't defend Nikon when they are indefensible, I just don't comment. I defend what I think is correct.

 

[nightwolf75]

lighten up, folks! its just a camera.

i dunno smurfie. but, browsing ur posts, u seem to be lambasting nikon cos ur D2h din deliver. however, all things being equal, there are some valid points to ur arguments. same thing goes for watcher. i know him, and trust me, he dun go round 'defending' nikon, smurfie. if u go and talk to him in person, he's an equal opportunity blaster of all cameras. ;p

once again, lighten up. be it FF or watever, there will be people using the camera(s), whether nikon or canon or watever. end of the day, as long as it gets the job done FOR YOU, so be it. dun need to vent ur spleen on this topic, which can never be resolved.

 

[mpenza]

Well, Bjørn Rørslett's review about 3 months ago did the test both ways, using long lenses (which is the alleged superiority of Canon lenses are supposed to be in). Read near the middle of that page and see the conclusion. BTW, Thom Hogan concurred with Bjørn's conclusion.

As expected, the full-frame performed better in the centre vs the edges.

Centre sharpness of these images show very small differences, we are virtually at the pixel-peeping level here. The Canon combination is possibly just that little better to be declared the "best", with the 200 VR almost neck and neck to it and the old-timer 50-300 a tiny bit behind. I'm not certain these minute differences survive to the web crops, though.

What we can do is following the plane of focus out to the edges of the image, and if the crops from this area are examined, the differences become very obvious. The 300 mm lens now operates close to the periphery of its image circle and its performance declines accordingly, while both Nikkor lenses perform much better with far more image detail.

What he didn't say is you need to print very large to see the difference ;p

Note that in the tests, an old timer Nikon 50-300f4.5ED was chosen. It was probably a pro-level lens back then and should be expected to perform well. There're some similar old Canon lenses that would probably be just a step behind the 200 VR on D2X if tested.

 

[Watcher]

As expected, the full-frame performed better in the centre vs the edges.

Yes, but if you read from the near middle of the page, the summary is as follows:

12-24DX @12mm vs 17-40/4 @17:

Full-frame cameras are known to exhibit nasty light fall-off into the corners when wide-angle lenses are deployed on them. This results from light rays striking the imager at an angle, leading to vignetting in the periphery of the recorded image

AF-S 300 vs 300/2.8 L IS:

The winner here is D2X by a very comfortable margin. The clarity of image detail is simply stunning compared to the softness of the Canon version.

AF-S 300 vs AF-S 300 (ie mounting the same lens on the two different bodies):

My conclusion is that the D2X image has the upper edge, despite its fewer pixels. In my point of view, this was probably the most unexpected test result of all. It clearly shows that not all pixels are created equal and that the D2X imager has the higher acuity.

AF-S 200/2 vs 50-300 mm f/4.5 vs 300 mm f/2.8 L IS:

Centre sharpness of these images show very small differences, we are virtually at the pixel-peeping level here. The Canon combination is possibly just that little better to be declared the "best", with the 200 VR almost neck and neck to it and the old-timer 50-300 a tiny bit behind. I'm not certain these minute differences survive to the web crops, though.
...
The 300 mm (Canon) lens now operates close to the periphery (at the edge of the image) of its image circle and its performance declines accordingly, while both Nikkor lenses perform much better with far more image detail. Even the 50-300 lens, with its ancient optics harking back to 1977, can resolve fine detail such as single branches and spruce cones, all of which simply do not resolve on the Canon image.
...
the Canon might have at least as good performance as D2X in the centre of the frame, but is let down by poorer performance towards the peripheral areas of the image.
...
Thus, even though the bigger file size of the Canon would be considered to give a potential for larger prints, the lower sharpness outside the image centre conflicts with this. We might end up with the paradoxical situation in which both systems can deliver prints up to the same size in practice.

And for the advantage of a smaller frame image:

This is a hidden benefit of any smaller format. As a long-standing view-camera user I'm acutely aware of this when I switch back and forth between my 6x9 cm cameras and the 4x5" and 8x10" systems. The benefit of the smaller format is clearly constrained by the need for having sufficiently fast lenses available, so not all demands for very shallow DOF can be met with the smaller formats. The opposite, getting more DOF, always can be achieved.

 

[Smurfie]

i dunno smurfie. but, browsing ur posts, u seem to be lambasting nikon cos ur D2h din deliver.

I never lambast Nikon. Please search all my post and point out where I deliberately put down Nikon. Nikon's always an option for me, and that's why the D2Hs was actually bought by me(and truthfully, from the hype coming from the Nikonians). In fact, I never wanted to mention my D2Hs experiences because it happened to be quite negative. Even then, I always wished I bought the D70 at the start instead of the D2Hs. Does that mean the D2Hs doesn't work for other people? Does that mean I bear grudges against Nikon or Nikonians? No. Information is good. But hype and misformation isn't.

Perhaps my attempts to put balance to the viewpoints and playing down the Nikon hype on the Nikon forums can be read as lambasting Nikon. Even that said, I've been highly recommending the D50 to everyone. Must be the schizophrenic personality of mine?

 

[Watcher]

Information is good. But hype and misformation isn't.

My statements have facts to back them up. No hype, no bulls**t, no misinformation. Take one example: Noise on D2X vs 1DsMkII. From Phil's review, it can be seen that with NR normal on (which most people will turn on when shooting in Hi-1 and Hi-2 mode), the D2X is superior to 1DsMkII. The others can be cross-checked by reviews between Phil, Thom and Dave's (of imaging-resource.com). Compare and contrast this to the "review" by Michael Riechman and trumpeted on the other forum here in CS: no facts but just Michael's gut feel. None of his "fact" can be collaborated. Even Michael's recalcitrant attittude about his post after he admitted that he had mixed them up and post process them (while saying he has not) is a poster-child of negative example of hype and misinformation.

Hype is not hype if it is true.

 

[Kho King]

no matter how good the D2x or 1Ds MK2 is...I still can't afford either one. So...I am saving for a D?X now...

regardless of who win, Canon people still can't use D2X and Nikon people still can use 1Ds MK2.

 

[Smurfie]

Okay, I seriously do not enjoy pissing contests.

But the problem with reading your posts is this. You put up great arguments for Nikon's equipment(which are mostly true), without stating any of its pitfalls, while disparaging the other makers(which I perceive a lot). The D2x with NR on does produce excellent noise free pictures when compared to any competition.

But there is another fact to this NR feature of the D2x. Detail is lost when NR is on. Do you even mention this? Someone researching on cameras between the D2x and the 1DsMk2 might assume that the D2x always produces cleaner and more noise free pictures. Is that true? If that's the case, I know many(and I do mean many, myself included) photographers who have picked the wrong equipment for low light shooting.

 

[erwinx]

If that's the case, I know many(and I do mean many, myself included) photographers who have picked the wrong equipment for low light shooting.

fully agree with your sentiments that selective nit-picking is pointless.

I feel that the 'best' equipment for low light shooting is more of a 'system' question than which DSLR question since both D2x and 1Ds Mk2 are basically very good cameras.

The company that sells more cameras will have a bigger R&D budget to develop newer lenses, and also a bigger market to support a larger lens selection in their catalogue.

1Ds Mk2 + 24 f/1.4L, 35 f/1.4L, 85 f/1.2L, 135 f/2L etc

 

[Watcher]

same thing goes for watcher. i know him, and trust me, he dun go round 'defending' nikon, smurfie. if u go and talk to him in person, he's an equal opportunity blaster of all cameras. ;p

I don't comment about other brands on their forum coz I've been brought up not sh*t in other people's house.

 

[Watcher]

Okay, I seriously do not enjoy pissing contests.

But the problem with reading your posts is this. You put up great arguments for Nikon's equipment(which are mostly true), without stating any of its pitfalls, while disparaging the other makers(which I perceive a lot). The D2x with NR on does produce excellent noise free pictures when compared to any competition.

This is ridiculous. Who is pissing with you? The last time I checked, it is still the Nikon forum. From Phil's own comments, which everyone can read on their own.

What can I say? The ratio of Pros to Cons really sums up my whole feeling for the D2X, it's exactly what we expect Nikon to produce, a solid robust high performance digital SLR with superb image quality, build quality and a confidence inspiring sense of presence.

Disparage? Which statements that I put that you feel I had disparage other brands are false fact? You claim to "put balance to the viewpoints" and yet feel that when I state a factual weakness, it is disparage? On a Nikon forum?

But there is another fact to this NR feature of the D2x. Detail is lost when NR is on. Do you even mention this? Someone researching on cameras between the D2x and the 1DsMk2 might assume that the D2x always produces cleaner and more noise free pictures. Is that true? If that's the case, I know many(and I do mean many, myself included) photographers who have picked the wrong equipment for low light shooting.

If the person cannot read the entire post for the details (which after all, is linked at the start of this thread), then whose problem is that? The paragraph on page 21 just before the noise comparison graph stated it clearly the compromise. It is repeated at the bottom of page 22.

In development terms this new sensor may not be as mature as those found in Canon's digital SLR's but it real terms it performs almost as well, the only difference seems to be Nikon's choice of standard sensitivity range which is ISO 100 to 800. Turn off the High ISO noise reduction and shoot at ISO 1600 equiv. (HI-1) and noise levels will be higher than we'd like, turn noise reduction back on and you begin to lose detail (my preference is keep the detail as the noise isn't that objectionable).

If that someone made a decision without reading everything, then take responsibility for it!