OT: Nikon D2 forum is surreal

[PismoBeach]

The D2X has a ridiculous high frame rate mode that is 8fps but it is only 6mp. It is crammed into that tiny and cluttered viewfinder with the 9 AF points and that rectangular 2X crop line. Those that fall for the gimmick forget what happens when you enlarge something small. You increase the size of your imperfections such as noise. I could use either camera, but it is odd to me that Canon's $1500 camera does almost as much as the D2X for $5000.

 

[Freddy Rozentzvaig100749]

The D2X is actually two cameras in one. It's 5fps in regular 1.5x crop mode, but what the previous poster failed to tell you is that the D2X has an hsc (high speed crop) mode which only uses the center of the sensor. You are then shooting 6.8 MP images with a 2X crop factor, and 8fps. And for someone to truly imply that a $1500 prosumer body will do the same as a $5000 true pro body is a joke. And I'm no Nikon troll. As a matter of fact, this very week, I've started selling my Nikon gear because some things on the 5d make more sense for what I do, plus I have a die hard Canon fan for a business partner that wouldn't leave me alone till I switched. Nonetheless, I've had a D2X for a while, and for what it's built, it's amazing. And having used both, I can honestly say that anyone saying that a 20d will capture the same as a D2X really is way off base. Here is why: much higher FPS in HSC mode, pro grade autofocus system, EXTREMELY strong and fast screw drive for when you have to use a non af-s (ultrasonic in here terms) lenses, absolutely complete viewfinder info, including WB and ISO all the time, not just when changing, an 800 image single battery life, and most importantly, 12 MP vs. 8 MP. If you think that doesn't make a world of difference in detail, try shooting 45 people in church choir, and print a 20x24 to see how good the faces look on 8mp. Anyway, that's my $0.02 worth, coming from a non-brand loyal whatsoever photographer that just wants to have the right gear for what he does.

Happy shooting,

Freddy

 

[Morihei]

I use to love Nikon but how can anybody say that they are keeping up with Canon? Its just a simple fact that they are slipping behind even faster then before. The Nikon people tend to get very angry and take offense if you tell him this, its nothing personal. So we have to be very gentle when discussing these issues. Some of those guys on the Nikon forum are like time bombs and can go off at the slightest little mention of this topic. We do need Nikon to catch up quick so that Canon doesn't kill us with high prices. I like Canon but they are very expensive cameras.

And yes when the replacement for the 20-D is leaked out, (by Canon), then yes, all hell will break out.

 

[PismoBeach]

I shoot both systems and I know for a fact I could do the same things with both cameras.

Put either camera in my hands and I could get the same image. Basketball, baseball, still life. Tell me where I couldn't have the 20D match the image quality? I am not talking about build quality or ruggedness. The D2X does not have pro features like Canon's 1 series. It has an aps-c sized chip like the 20D, small eyepoint viewfinder.With the exception of using that silly HSC mode to get a few extra needless frames, there is not much the D2X has on a 20D in term of capturing an image.

 

[evinsky]

And I will agree that there is one aspect where Canon has nikon over a barrell. High ISO noise.

I'm not going to defend my D2X to you, it's futile, but I do believe it is every bit the camera if not more so than the 1DsMII, and that for $3000 less. I have not tested the 5D, and if my main concern was available light shooting I would probably switch, but as it is I have to make a living and the D2X just happens to do that better for me from 100-800 ISO.

My real question is this... if tomorrow Nikon came out with a FF camera with low noise performance would you switch back? You may be in for some surprises in the near future.

As far as FF is concerned, it's the new medium format. Unfortunately there really is no glass out there capable of taking full advantage of a FF sensor, and you 1DsMII shooters know this. There is a very intersting article on Edwin Puts site that puts it in perspective.

"But what is not often discussed is the fact that the reduction of the angle of view has the same effect as stopping down the aperture of the lens. In both cases the marginal rays are cut off and are no longer part of the image forming process. The net effect is this: if we have a lens with a maximum aperture of 2.8 and reduce the angle of view, we get in fact the image quality of a lens stopped down to 4 or 5.6!"

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/comments/c011.html

Peace.
--
'Always beg forgiveness, not permission.'

 

[Ian S]

You know, that is literally true when you qualify it that way ("full" advantage) and you will find a few people in this forum that will agree.

But practically speaking, Canon glass, including the maligned wide angles, produce very acceptable results on full frame cameras like the 1DS and, I predict, the 5D.

The "Canon can't make wide angle" story is something that started with a few Canon perfectionists, got recycled through the Nikon forums a few times then back here again so that we have started (almost) to believe it...

Cheers

Unfortunately there really is no glass out there capable of taking
full advantage of a FF sensor, and you 1DsMII shooters know this.

--
Ian S
'To see a World in a grain of sand
And Heaven in a wild flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour'
http://www.rainpalm.com
http://www.mekongpicturehouse.com

 

[DrSnuggles]

If Nikon had a full frame camera, I'd go to mass daily for a month

Daniel.

 

[PismoBeach]

Full frame gets wide angles without the outrageous distortions of using a 17mm to get the same field of view as a 28mm. Also, it's apparent the D2X has maxed the noise level of the 1.5x APS-c sized chip. Cramming any more into that pixel pitch will make images noisier than they are now. Nikon also shows no innovation, look at everything they have copied. USM copy as Silent wave, IS copied by VR, multiple AF points that started with EOS system and so on. I use both, I like both, but many people don't have the luxury of using both. I do and I see FF as not being the new FF because Canon will continue to lower the price. Canon's 5D is going to take the last of the Nikon fence sitters. That is reality. Those who will never switch will never switch. Nikon doesn't even have the quality anymore. My 80-200mm 2.8 silent wave zoom ring comes off and it squeaks when it auto-focuses. It is unacceptable for a pro level lens. Nikon is losing their pros and that is reality.

 

[Ed]

Both forums are surreal!

 

[DrSnuggles]

Amen, the build quality is not there. The bodies yes, are gorgeous. But the DX lenses, I just can't get excited about them, they're all plasticy, with screen printed gold lettering etc. Compare that to the AIS lenses, they still CAN build great quality lenses, theyre choosing not to.

I think what we are seeing is a change of the guard at Nikon. All the old guys who brought out some the most innovative products (many of which Canon or anyone has yet to match) are retiring. Theres just a few left from that era, and thats why Nikon still made an F6, the FM3a and the 45mm f/2.8P.

Would Nikon ever make anything like these now days?



http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/ultrawides/13mm.htm

or



http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/fisheyes/6mmf28.htm

I mean OMG, what an exciting time it must have been.

Daniel.

 

[PismoBeach]

I used to have an F4 and F5. They were solid as a rock. The D1 and D1H and D2H are very shabby in terms of quality. I had leatherette peel off and I had buttons fall off. There were times where I used tape to keep the camera in one pice. The 17-35 2.8 also had the zoom ring peel off and it also squeals when it focuses now. I never had anything like this happen in the film body and pre silent wave lenses. They also lost the 80-200 2.8 I sent in for repair. It took them 3 months instead of the regular 1 week repair time by the time they finally found it. Nikon took their customers for granted and it came back to bite them in the rear. Canon lowered their own prices with cameras such as the decrease from the $3000 D60 to the $1900 10D and then the $1399 20D. In that time there has been the D100. No credit for Nikon on that one. Canon also figured out a way to bring FF to the sub $3500 range and they will be the first to break the $2000 range. They were the first to break the $1000 barrier in DSLR, it took nikon a year to come out with the D70. It's jaw dropping how fast Nikon lost market share after being a giant for so long. Many Nikon people will say I am being negative but I am just being real. It takes major incompetence to lose that much market share in 3-4 years.

 

[Dan62326]

That's like putting a Neon SRT up against a Ferrari! The 20D can't focus to save its life compared to the D2x!

If you had posted this over there then you would have been ripped
to shreds. The sad truth is that a 20D can do the identical job of
a D2X for 1/3 the price.

 

[Dan62326]

What needs to be done is a brand new format that doesn't require a mirror. Full frame just costs more. Look at the Sony R1. The lens is 2mm from the sensor! We need something like that with removable lenses.

Also, smaller sensors equate to smaller lenses. Look at the new Olympus system. You can't find a 70-200 F2.0 for these current SLR's.

So you say smaller sensors equate to more noise? Well, if we weren't so crazy with the megapixels... I'm sure that technology will evolve to the point where noise isn't a problem until some insane ISO like 6400...wouldn't that be nice.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dx.htm

Your not wrong, I was banned from that forum, because I started a
petition asking Nikon to improve its communication with customers
and notify us whether they were ever coming out with a full frame
solution, so we could make a decison, and not wait forever with our
film cameras.

 

[Ah Pek]

The fairer comprison should be 350XT vs D2X !! Then it would be like a Civic vs Neon. Jeez, pitting a Ferrari against a Neon .....

--
'The majesticness of that duck is overwhelming!' - Bulbol

 

[Dan62326]

You are so totally right. Either system can produce superb results. The greater variable is the person behind the camera!

I just "switched" to Canon temporarily to try out their 1D. Once you dive in, it's not as bad as you might imagine.

However, I do feel a little awkward....kind of bad for Nikon. But I would not hesitate to switch back to Nikon if their bodies fit my style better. What is my style? Low prices...haha

So what if I have a bunch of lenses? That's what ebay is for! =)

I think the "other side" is never as bad as most people presume,
nor "your side" so good.

 

[Dan62326]

The AF system on the 20D is seriously inferior to that of the D2x. Plus, once you start tracking a moving subject, the gap widens.

But there is nothing the 20D can't capture that the D2X does. I am
talking image quality and 5fps frame rate. As for tougness the D2X
would win that but for less than $1500 a 20D is a great value. I
could go shoot and get the same images of a sporting event with
roughly the same size sensor and frame rate.

 

[Dan62326]

The way you have it would be a civic vs the Ferrari.

The fairer comprison should be 350XT vs D2X !! Then it would be
like a Civic vs Neon. Jeez, pitting a Ferrari against a Neon .....

--
'The majesticness of that duck is overwhelming!' - Bulbol

 

[evinsky]

I just can't get into Canon glass. The only lenses I've seen that even slightly tickles my fancy is the 35mm 1.4 and 85 1.8. But even those are a far cry from the 28 and 85 1.4 Nikkors. (the Canon 24 is soft wide open)

As far as build quality, Canon and Nikon both do an equally fine job on thier pro lenses. Except Nikons focus and zoom the right direction. Oh and I can still use that 13mm 5.6 and 6mm Fisheye on my D2X BTW.

One final note, the D2X, 5D and 1DsMII all resolve to about 6x7cm film. This means that just five years ago what we were shooting on Blads and Rz's, we can now do with our DSLRs. In less than three years the sensor technology will have plateued, the pro cameras just do not need more than 22MPs for any reason and dealing with those files will be awful. Noise levels will be controlled and it will no longer be the Canon how low (Noise) can you go show. Nikon does'nt play the get it out now cause we can game, and that conservitave philosophy has hurt them with some customers. But when they get it right, boy do they get it right. The D70 was the best selling DSLR ever! The D2X is the best per-pixel performing camera ever, (ISO100-800) and the Nikon VR works a whole stop slower than the Canon. The flash system is at least one generation ahead and the

auto focus on the D2 series wipes the floor with the 1Ds. As far as pros, you be surprised to see who STILL shoots Nikon. How bout 2/3ds of the Nathional Geographic photographers, Jay Silverman, Jay Meisel, Mary Ellen Mark, Hary Benson, Douglas Kirkland...

If you think it's inevitable that all pro's will go Canon then pass the pipe, I want a hit of whatever your smokin'.

--
'Always beg forgiveness, not permission.'

 

[Dan62326]

Canon needs to design a lens like the 24-120 VR so that I can use it on my 1D.

I actually just bought a Nikon to Canon adapter ring so that I can use my Nikon glass on my 1D.

It'd be so cool if there was a Canon equivalent to the TC-16A so that I could AF my Nikon lenses on a Canon body.

I just can't get into Canon glass. The only lenses I've seen that
even slightly tickles my fancy is the 35mm 1.4 and 85 1.8. But
even those are a far cry from the 28 and 85 1.4 Nikkors. (the
Canon 24 is soft wide open)
As far as build quality, Canon and Nikon both do an equally fine
job on thier pro lenses. Except Nikons focus and zoom the right
direction. Oh and I can still use that 13mm 5.6 and 6mm Fisheye on
my D2X BTW.
One final note, the D2X, 5D and 1DsMII all resolve to about 6x7cm
film. This means that just five years ago what we were shooting on
Blads and Rz's, we can now do with our DSLRs. In less than three
years the sensor technology will have plateued, the pro cameras
just do not need more than 22MPs for any reason and dealing with
those files will be awful. Noise levels will be controlled and it
will no longer be the Canon how low (Noise) can you go show. Nikon
does'nt play the get it out now cause we can game, and that
conservitave philosophy has hurt them with some customers. But
when they get it right, boy do they get it right. The D70 was the
best selling DSLR ever! The D2X is the best per-pixel performing
camera ever, (ISO100-800) and the Nikon VR works a whole stop
slower than the Canon. The flash system is at least one generation
ahead and the
auto focus on the D2 series wipes the floor with the 1Ds. As far
as pros, you be surprised to see who STILL shoots Nikon. How bout
2/3ds of the Nathional Geographic photographers, Jay Silverman, Jay
Meisel, Mary Ellen Mark, Hary Benson, Douglas Kirkland...

If you think it's inevitable that all pro's will go Canon then pass
the pipe, I want a hit of whatever your smokin'.

--
'Always beg forgiveness, not permission.'

 

[Dan62326]

The 20D has more than twice as much shutter lag. But along the lines of what you're saying, any DSLR could match the D2X.

I shoot both systems and I know for a fact I could do the same
things with both cameras.
Put either camera in my hands and I could get the same image.
Basketball, baseball, still life. Tell me where I couldn't have
the 20D match the image quality? I am not talking about build
quality or ruggedness. The D2X does not have pro features like
Canon's 1 series. It has an aps-c sized chip like the 20D, small
eyepoint viewfinder.With the exception of using that silly HSC mode
to get a few extra needless frames, there is not much the D2X has
on a 20D in term of capturing an image.