D2X good for 'poor and lazy' photographer?

First of all, I 'save' $2-3K buying a D2X instead of 1DSMK2. Well, not that I could afford selling all my Nikon glasses to switch over to Canon in the first place.

Another thing is, I probably don't have to do much running like 1DSMK2 owners? You see, I am a bit crippled and out of shape, and since my passion is in wildlife and nature photography, I will always be 1.5x 'closer' to my subjects at the same shooting distance at a higher pixel density per unit area than the 1DSMK2, assuming using lenses at the same focal length.

This means, shooting with a D2X, not only do I save money by not having to buy the hugely expensive telephoto lenses, I also don't need to do much running. If I had gone with the 1DSMK2, and can't afford to buy telephoto lenses, I will always have to run closer to my subjects to match the higher pixel density per unit area of D2X to get the same 'resolution.'

So D2X is really good for a financially and physcially-challenged photographer (not pixel fetishist) like me?!

Compare the weight and size of a 300mm f4 vs a 450mm f4. Yikes! 1.5 can help a LOT for us old guys.

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

So it seems like D2X is more advantageous for "long reach" photos with its higher pixel density and 1.5x multiplier effect when comparing it to a 1DsMK2 attached with a lens of the same focal length at the same shooting distance.

But to cover the same FOV in wide-angle, one with a D2X either has to back away from the scene or use a wider lens, thereby reducing pixel density of the same unit area covered in the frame, yielding less resolution (not sure about quality, as I like to refer to quality as the holistic integration of noise, color, resolution and some other factors)

It may seem obvioius that we can't have the best in both worlds? Unless somebody can show that even by standing further away from the subject or using the wider lens on D2X, the photos captured by D2X with its reduced pixel density covering the same FOV can rival or beat the quality generated by 1DsMk2, then we are talking! But this maybe just wishful thinking on my part. Hopefully somebody can prove it in same real life tests.

Steve Bingham said:

Compare the weight and size of a 300mm f4 vs a 450mm f4. Yikes! 1.5
can help a LOT for us old guys.

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

Click to expand...

Interesting. Bjorn made a similar point in his review, though admittedly it had more to do with the superiority of medium format digital for landscape over "35mm". I have to say that if that was my main area of photography, I'd be saving up for Hasselblad's V96c back for my 503CX, and not a D2X (not that I'm currently in the market for the D2X either!)

Pixelguy said:

But to cover the same FOV in wide-angle, one with a D2X either has
to back away from the scene or use a wider lens, thereby reducing
pixel density of the same unit area covered in the frame, yielding
less resolution (not sure about quality, as I like to refer to
quality as the holistic integration of noise, color, resolution and
some other factors)

Click to expand...

Yes medium format (film or digital) are the ultimate wide-angle landscape/nature photography, but under the constraint of the title of this heading "poor-man's camera" I am purposedly leaving out medium format as a viable alternative.

Which brings us back to D2X, I think Thom Hogan or somebody else has said something along the lines of: D100 @ 6Mp already exceeds the "resolution" of medium format. So my question is: If D100/20D etc are that good already, isn't D2X a viable alternative/replacement for medium format finally?

But then, reverting back to my suspicion about the 'limitation' of D2X at wide-angle shots due to its 'lack' of pixel density, I think the jury is out as to its final "quality" expressed as a holistic integration of noise, DR, and colors.

Which brings us to the question, how do we judge the 'quality' of an image? In the world of relativity, which we live in, we gotta compare D2X to something to gain perspectives.

So the question set out to be answered is still: What is the best possible "quality" of D2X images @ 12.2Mp specifically wide-angle shots covering the same FOV of a 1DsMK2 @ 16Mp, when D2X is 'compromised' by a longer subject-to-camera distance or a wider lens? Does it match or exceed expectations?

I think only the wide-angle shots need to be vigorously investigated at this point because clearly or not so clearly to many that D2X wins hands-down in pixel density and "reach" in telephotos shots.

Tim Franklin said:

Interesting. Bjorn made a similar point in his review, though
admittedly it had more to do with the superiority of medium format
digital for landscape over "35mm". I have to say that if that was
my main area of photography, I'd be saving up for Hasselblad's V96c
back for my 503CX, and not a D2X (not that I'm currently in the
market for the D2X either!)

Click to expand...

The D2Xseems to have some advantages over the 1DsII in wide angle shooting too. Have a look at this:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=12412389

Walter

Pixelguy said:

Which brings us back to D2X, I think Thom Hogan or somebody else
has said something along the lines of: D100 @ 6Mp already exceeds
the "resolution" of medium format. So my question is: If D100/20D
etc are that good already, isn't D2X a viable
alternative/replacement for medium format finally?

But then, reverting back to my suspicion about the 'limitation' of
D2X at wide-angle shots due to its 'lack' of pixel density, I think
the jury is out as to its final "quality" expressed as a holistic
integration of noise, DR, and colors.

Which brings us to the question, how do we judge the 'quality' of
an image? In the world of relativity, which we live in, we gotta
compare D2X to something to gain perspectives.

So the question set out to be answered is still: What is the best
possible "quality" of D2X images @ 12.2Mp specifically wide-angle
shots covering the same FOV of a 1DsMK2 @ 16Mp, when D2X is
'compromised' by a longer subject-to-camera distance or a wider
lens? Does it match or exceed expectations?

I think only the wide-angle shots need to be vigorously
investigated at this point because clearly or not so clearly to
many that D2X wins hands-down in pixel density and "reach" in
telephotos shots.

Tim Franklin said:

Interesting. Bjorn made a similar point in his review, though
admittedly it had more to do with the superiority of medium format
digital for landscape over "35mm". I have to say that if that was
my main area of photography, I'd be saving up for Hasselblad's V96c
back for my 503CX, and not a D2X (not that I'm currently in the
market for the D2X either!)

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

When comparing D2X and 1DS2, they are so close in performance, that there are no significant difference. High ISO is probably better on 1DS2 (all reviews so far says so), resolving power is ..... well equal.

Does they (d2X and 1DS2) compete with medium format ? With medium format film - YES, Medium format digital - NO, absolutely not.

Here is a link to a site comparing different digital backs (on a Hasselblad) and 1DS2. Unfortunately it's in Norwegian, but the pictures talks by them self.
http://www.digitalkameratene.no/wip4/side2.epl?cat=2759

BTW, I'm crippled myself (wheelschair user), and a Nikon user, but I don't intend to buy a D2X because it's too big. I'm put my hope in a F6 body with DX sensor. FF just add cost without any benefits for me doing landscape and products, and Nikon has the best WA-lenses.
Good luck with your hunt.

Geir Atle

What has happened to this world?
When "poor" people are thinking of buying a $5000 camera, and that seems normal?

I am not putting you down friend . . I am just saying the prices people readily accept are ridiculous. I remember a top of the line 35mm was well under $500.

$5000!!!! And people don't flinch. The majority of the population in this world doesn't even make 1/2 the amount of a 2X.
--
Knox
http://www.avatarphotoart.com
http://alleycatphotos.com
http://www.pbase.com/streetkid

Of course the problem is that the distance you are at is the perfect framing for full frame on the 1DS so youcant take any pictures at all that are worth anything because you are cropping off the head and feet.

And no you cant move back because there is a canal with alligators right behind you and as you said you can change the focal length either ...

Thats logic. If i am fat and lazy and i only own one lens and i am lucky enough to be in the spot that is perfect for my framing but cant move anywhere ....

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

PalmsWestPhoto said:

Of course the problem is that the distance you are at is the
perfect framing for full frame on the 1DS so youcant take any
pictures at all that are worth anything because you are cropping
off the head and feet.

And no you cant move back because there is a canal with alligators
right behind you and as you said you can change the focal length
either ...

Click to expand...

You just use a shorter lens from the start. - Simple.

Senario: He opt. to go with a 1DS2, and a 300mm F2.8 lens. If he goes the D2X-way, he just start with a 70-200mm F2.8, Then your your senario will never happen. He still has the reach of a 300 (FOV).

The problem is the other way. If you need a wider lens than anything Nikon can offer - anything wider than 16mm (FOV), then you have a problem (you can always take panorama shots, and stich them together).

Geir Atle

PalmsWestPhoto said:

Thats logic. If i am fat and lazy and i only own one lens and i am
lucky enough to be in the spot that is perfect for my framing but
cant move anywhere ....

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

Click to expand...

Even if Nikon can make a lens in 8mm DX format @ f/2.8, the problem of less pixel density per frame unit area at a given FOV in comparison with 1DsMk2 is still there.

Right now, I am dying to see if D2X can "beat" 1DsMk2 in image "quality" at the same FOV or angle of coverage either with D2X backed away from the subject or using a wider Nikon lens.

Geir Atle Ward said:

PalmsWestPhoto said:

Of course the problem is that the distance you are at is the
perfect framing for full frame on the 1DS so youcant take any
pictures at all that are worth anything because you are cropping
off the head and feet.

And no you cant move back because there is a canal with alligators
right behind you and as you said you can change the focal length
either ...

Click to expand...

You just use a shorter lens from the start. - Simple.
Senario: He opt. to go with a 1DS2, and a 300mm F2.8 lens. If he
goes the D2X-way, he just start with a 70-200mm F2.8, Then your
your senario will never happen. He still has the reach of a 300
(FOV).

The problem is the other way. If you need a wider lens than
anything Nikon can offer - anything wider than 16mm (FOV), then you
have a problem (you can always take panorama shots, and stich them
together).

Geir Atle

Geir Atle Ward said:

Thats logic. If i am fat and lazy and i only own one lens and i am
lucky enough to be in the spot that is perfect for my framing but
cant move anywhere ....

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Choose one you like:

Nikkor 12-24 F4 ($$$)
Tokina 12-24 F4 (Cheaper and SHARPER than nikkor!)
Sigma 10-20 DC HSM (Widest now)
Tamron 11-18 DG

With sigma 10-20 DC lens you can go down to 15mm!

Pixelguy said:

Right now, I am dying to see if D2X can "beat" 1DsMk2 in image
"quality" at the same FOV or angle of coverage either with D2X
backed away from the subject or using a wider Nikon lens.

Geir Atle Ward said:

PalmsWestPhoto said:

Of course the problem is that the distance you are at is the
perfect framing for full frame on the 1DS so youcant take any
pictures at all that are worth anything because you are cropping
off the head and feet.

And no you cant move back because there is a canal with alligators
right behind you and as you said you can change the focal length
either ...

Click to expand...

You just use a shorter lens from the start. - Simple.
Senario: He opt. to go with a 1DS2, and a 300mm F2.8 lens. If he
goes the D2X-way, he just start with a 70-200mm F2.8, Then your
your senario will never happen. He still has the reach of a 300
(FOV).

The problem is the other way. If you need a wider lens than
anything Nikon can offer - anything wider than 16mm (FOV), then you
have a problem (you can always take panorama shots, and stich them
together).

Geir Atle

Pixelguy said:

Thats logic. If i am fat and lazy and i only own one lens and i am
lucky enough to be in the spot that is perfect for my framing but
cant move anywhere ....

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I use the Nikon 12-24 f4 and 17-35 f2.8. The two cover between 18mm and 52mm - which is where I do 90% of my shooting. In fact, one of the reasons I didn't get a FF Canon was this very reason. Canon wide angle lens IN THIS RANGE tend to vignette and distort more than the Nikons. The Canon 17-40 has known faults in this very area. Different strokes for different folks.

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

And way half as much and handle ten times faster. Us old farts think about these sort ot things, you know! Wisdom gained from 50 years of serious butt busting photography. Yeah, now I can do landscapes again. By the way, that's why AA quit when he did. Way too much work - even when he switched to his Hassy. Think of the D2x as a longevity thing.

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

Or at least equal at ISO 100-200 - which is what I shoot most.

Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com

While on vacation in Belize in January, my only complaint with my 20D is that it was "only" an 8 MP camera. I loved the crop factor for the same wildlife type of photography that you appear to be doing. I had never considered moving to Nikon as I would have to sell all my Canon gear. I thought about moving up in the Canon line up but the 1DMKII would only hurt MY needs. I don't need it's frame rate or more robust build and the 1.3 crop factor would be a disadvantage. The IDSMKII is effectively an 8 MP camera if you crop it to the same 1.5 aspect as the 20D. On top of that is is an $8,000 purchase.

Then it dawned on me, if Nikon can keep noise minimal at ISO 400 and non existant at 100 with 200 somewhere in between, I suddenly have my dream camera. Within a week of my return from Belize I had sold all my Canon gear and got on a D2X wait list.

So for the right type of photographer, that is me and it sounds like you, the D2X is perfect. The same can be said of all D-SLR's from all manufacturers based upon what an individual is after. Back in September I laughed at the D2X's specs and I am glad nobody was around to hear.

Greg

Me too initially I laughed at D2X, but after some serious introspection based on real-world shooting scenarios, D2X may just be that 'perfect' camera after all. 1DsMk2, what is it? lol.

Greg Matty said:

While on vacation in Belize in January, my only complaint with my
20D is that it was "only" an 8 MP camera. I loved the crop factor
for the same wildlife type of photography that you appear to be
doing. I had never considered moving to Nikon as I would have to
sell all my Canon gear. I thought about moving up in the Canon
line up but the 1DMKII would only hurt MY needs. I don't need it's
frame rate or more robust build and the 1.3 crop factor would be a
disadvantage. The IDSMKII is effectively an 8 MP camera if you
crop it to the same 1.5 aspect as the 20D. On top of that is is an
$8,000 purchase.

Then it dawned on me, if Nikon can keep noise minimal at ISO 400
and non existant at 100 with 200 somewhere in between, I suddenly
have my dream camera. Within a week of my return from Belize I had
sold all my Canon gear and got on a D2X wait list.

So for the right type of photographer, that is me and it sounds
like you, the D2X is perfect. The same can be said of all D-SLR's
from all manufacturers based upon what an individual is after.
Back in September I laughed at the D2X's specs and I am glad nobody
was around to hear.

Greg

Click to expand...

Wow wow wow, it is amazing how much detail and quality that the Nikon 200VR can retain in comparison to the Canon 300mm cousin when both are shot at the same subject-to-camera distance covering the same FOV. In fact, I am noticing more resolving power in the Nikon shots even though the pixel density per frame area is lower in the Nikon shots compared to the Canon in Bjorn's setup.

This is simply groundbreaking.

I hope Bjorn or somebody would do a similar setup in wide-angle format to see if the D2X advantage and superiority maintains at this level. As Bjorn has mentioned, wideangle comparison may bring in other factors like CA, fall-off, but real life samples are what counts! So I am looking forward to your posts out there!

Pixelguy said:

First of all, I 'save' $2-3K buying a D2X instead of 1DSMK2. Well,
not that I could afford selling all my Nikon glasses to switch over
to Canon in the first place.

Another thing is, I probably don't have to do much running like
1DSMK2 owners? You see, I am a bit crippled and out of shape, and
since my passion is in wildlife and nature photography, I will
always be 1.5x 'closer' to my subjects at the same shooting
distance at a higher pixel density per unit area than the 1DSMK2,
assuming using lenses at the same focal length.

This means, shooting with a D2X, not only do I save money by not
having to buy the hugely expensive telephoto lenses, I also don't
need to do much running. If I had gone with the 1DSMK2, and can't
afford to buy telephoto lenses, I will always have to run closer to
my subjects to match the higher pixel density per unit area of D2X
to get the same 'resolution.'

So D2X is really good for a financially and physcially-challenged
photographer (not pixel fetishist) like me?!

Click to expand...