Reading mode: Light Dark

1Ds and D2x in the hands (and news on 5D)

Go to last post
Sorry but I like 1Ds. If I had 5D/20D I would get extra grip anyway.

1Ds fits my hands just fine and I have average hands. I hope Canon will not make it as small as 350D, I would hate it.
--
Eugene

Canon is the best when it is working. Sigma is the same way now.

 
Both cameras are beautiful in their own way I think. The Nikon D2 is a Giugiaro design with more angular macho appeal while the Canon 1D series is a Colani inspired design with swept back wind cheating curves like some streamlined sports car. Both are beautiful in their own way.

In terms of useability I much prefer the Nikon approach to ergonomics. It's got dedicated knobs and switches for most functions while the Canon approach is very electronic with multiple button presses and combinations. I feel that i can work a Nikon faster than a 1 series Canon but then again it's just a personal preferance.
 
I agree that the ability to shoot in low light is an advantage, but I've shot 3200 speed T-max for years before digital and even the Nikons are a big improvement in grain and detail over that. As a matter of standard deviation, ISO 1600, the D2X has a noise level of 4.2 (NR Off) the 1DSMII of 3.6 thats a 15% difference. Can you see that, maybe, depending on the photo. However the Nikon noise is mostly Luma, Grainlike, while the Canon is mostly Chroma, video like. I just prefer the look of a Nikon image shot @ 1600 even if it's mathamatically noisier. But I'll throw you a bone, 3200 ISO is crunchy on a D2X and 1DsMII but probably usable on a 5D.

As far as...
"non-defeatable (even in faux raw mode) noise smearing reduction"

This is just uninformed nonsense. There is indeed a true RAW mode, and you CAN turn the high iso NR OFF.

'Always beg frogiveness, not permission.'
 
Congrats on making the magnificent seven in Popular Photography!

As a side note, what kind of commercials do you do? I've was a DP for over ten years doing commercials and music videos pretty much all over the world. I'm trying to get out but they keep pulling me back in. I enjoy doinf stills more.
Cheers.
 
evinsky said:
matter of standard deviation, ISO 1600, the D2X has a noise level
of 4.2 (NR Off) the 1DSMII of 3.6 thats a 15% difference. Can you
see that, maybe, depending on the photo. However the Nikon noise
is mostly Luma, Grainlike, while the Canon is mostly Chroma, video
like. I just prefer the look of a Nikon image shot @ 1600 even if
it's mathamatically noisier.
Click to expand...
Well if you're just using the camera ISO settings, the sensitivities aren't the same. So Nikon ISO 1600 isn't Canon ISO 1600, more like Canon ISO 800 or Canon ISO 400 (or something like that, there was a lot of postings about this issue a few months ago).

Given the photosite pitch it's not going to be that competitive on the noise front.
 
John Mason said:
I don't think the 5D viewfinder will be to the same level of the 1D
series cameras.

Maybe it will be. My impression without seeing a 5D is that it's
basically a full frame 20D. There is a big difference in the
construction and optics of the viewfinder systems of a series 1
body and the D30/D60/20D/maybe 5D.

To each his own. I like the dedicated buttons on the series one
and find them easy to use yet hard to accidently do something.
Probably what one is used to, but I'm lost on a Nikon. I'm not
lost on my E1. I like that one too for the buttons and ergonomics.

But, picture quality is what I pick the camera for and for digital
in a 35mm body format that still is the 1DsMkII. The DX2 with it's
non-defeatable (even in faux raw mode) noise smearing reduction is
a killer for me. The high ISO capability of the Canon's as for
"not needing them" is a rather oft repeated comment I read here
from non-trolls. All is I can say is that with that attitude a
whole new realm of photography will forever be off limits. Clean
high ISO is an amazing and useful advantage. You never did it
before, simply because you never could. Film couldn't and digital
couldn't. Well, now it can. And it's great!

Did the poster stay with Kodachrome 25 years ago and stick with it
even as films improved? It's disingenuious or silly to contend the
high iso advantage of the Canon's is not a marketable and logical
advantage over it's competitors.

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN
Click to expand...
Maybe those who "have no need" for high ISO capability don't take their cameras out of the studio. Well except on an occasional bright sunny day perhaps, LOL. With today's sensors, any brand of Digital SLR will render sharp, even stunning photos under ideal lighting & weather conditions. I need a camera that will get the shot at a poorly lit High School football field on a rainy night under any conditions, unaffected by the rain, snow, etc. For this, the 1D MK2 has no competition. Dial it up to 1200, 1600 or even 3200 & you still get usable, & often excellent shots. And, if the conditions improve the 1D MK2 is still a match for the competitors in the studio. On a side note, the trusty old 1D with it's 4.3 MP CCD sensor handles high ISO's better than the best offerings of some companies out there today. Without high ISO capability a Digital SLR is severely handicapped.
 
evinsky said:
But it's fine at 800 and 1600 looks great converted to B&W which is
all I ever do with low light shots.
Click to expand...
What - my long gone S2 beats the pants on the newer D2X, and my 300D puts it to shame.

Nikon stinks at ISO 800 and above. My D2h produced sandpaper images at 1600 this weekend.

Don't kid yourself, the D2X is a fine camera, but I don't own one b/c it has no low light ability. I rather muscle PS with a D1 image than give Nikon more of my money for DX mini sensors and poor low light performance.

I am neither stupid or desperate. I can work with what I have.

Nikon is in trouble when their $5000 camera needs to be converted to B&W to get an acceptable image.

Coming home tonight I though long and hard about the 1D MKII - knowing my Nikons cannot cut it.
 
Thank you, I'm currious, how did you know I made the final round of POTY?
this year...
I have shot (Directed & Photographed) 3 shows for CMT and one for MTV europe.
I also lensed 4 interview shows for TV1 as well as the Susan Thompson Show.
I Directed/Shot my first Documentary feature film. In post now.
Lastly I've shot about 10 commercial industrials and 10 still shoots.

--
'Always beg frogiveness, not permission.'
 
The difference is roughly 1/3 stop in sensitivity. Negligable. And the Nikon is actually accurate. The Canon is conservative in their rating. SO lets agree there is a 1/3 stop advantage in sesitivity and 1/3 stop equivilently lower noise at a given high ISO so in any given situation the Canon 1DsMII can shoot roughly 2/3 of a stop lower light for the same result than the Nikon D2X. Is that worth $3000? With fast VR lenses is 2/3 of a stop really keeping you from getting any of the shots you need? Maybe it does. It never does for me.

But wait, what if your shooting long? The Nikon 200 F2 is reallly a 300 on DX. Humm...
So I shoot the D2X and 200 F2 @ ISO 800
You shoot a 1DsMII and a 300 2.8L @ ISO 1600
What's this? I now have 1/3 better noise performance, and I still saved $3000

And please don't tell me the IDsII resolves more so you could crop the image, it has maybe a 10% resolution advantage, not 50%

I guess you could always get an Eos to Nikon Adapter and find a used ($22,000) 300 F2 Nikkor. Then you got me.

--
'Always beg frogiveness, not permission.'
 
When someone posts pictures that I like here on dpreview, I like to see if they have a website to check out some more. I noticed the Absolute Compression shot and I remembered that shot from the magazine. Nice stuff by the way.

I've shot over a hundred and fifty commercials all over the world for clients such as Toyota and Coca-cola as well as quite a few music videos for MTV and MuchMusic in Canada. I just couldn't take the business anymore and decided to go back to my true love of doing stills. I got really burned out from being on the road all the time.

Good luck with your documentary. You have some great shots on your website. Cheers!
evinsky said:
Thank you, I'm currious, how did you know I made the final round of
POTY?
this year...
I have shot (Directed & Photographed) 3 shows for CMT and one for
MTV europe.
I also lensed 4 interview shows for TV1 as well as the Susan
Thompson Show.
I Directed/Shot my first Documentary feature film. In post now.
Lastly I've shot about 10 commercial industrials and 10 still shoots.

--
'Always beg frogiveness, not permission.'
Click to expand...
 
I'm usually over in the Nikon forum defending my brothers in arms from the swarm of white lens sharks.

I'ts nice to be on the offensive for once. I'm not sure what about Nikon engenders such loyalty in me.

My grandfather and father both shot Nikon but I also shoot Leica M as do many Canon shooters.
I never defend Leica for taking thier sweet ass time giving me a Digital M.

Anyways, just like me you wouldn't be posting if you didn't get some sort of fix from tearing the other guy's
$5000 baby a new one.

Alright boys... I wan't a clean fight

In this corner in the Black Barrel weighing in at better ergonomics & value is....

And in ths corner weraing the white barrel, weighing in with better noise performance and full frame sensors is...

I'm out.
Happy shooting.
--'Always beg frogiveness, not permission.'
 
not because D2x is a bad camera (obviously many people like it) but because

it took them 4 year to come up with it. 4 years of uncertainty would make any one mad.
--
Eugene

Canon is the best when it is working. Sigma is the same way now.

 
evinsky said:
The difference is roughly 1/3 stop in sensitivity. Negligable.
And the Nikon is actually accurate. The Canon is conservative in
their rating. SO lets agree there is a 1/3 stop advantage in
sesitivity and 1/3 stop equivilently lower noise at a given high
ISO so in any given situation the Canon 1DsMII can shoot roughly
2/3 of a stop lower light for the same result than the Nikon D2X.
Is that worth $3000? With fast VR lenses is 2/3 of a stop really
keeping you from getting any of the shots you need? Maybe it does.
It never does for me.

But wait, what if your shooting long? The Nikon 200 F2 is reallly
a 300 on DX. Humm...
Click to expand...
I don't know of anyone (and I know a lot of photogs) who thinks about how many MPs they got at the time of taking the picture. So 200mm on your Nikon is the same as 200mm on any camera. Your subject in the viewfinder will look exactly in perspective as if your lens was on FF body.
With proper lenses FF 16mp camera can beat 12mp camera any day.
evinsky said:
So I shoot the D2X and 200 F2 @ ISO 800
You shoot a 1DsMII and a 300 2.8L @ ISO 1600
What's this? I now have 1/3 better noise performance, and I still
saved $3000
And please don't tell me the IDsII resolves more so you could crop
the image, it has maybe a 10% resolution advantage, not 50%
Click to expand...
16% to be exact. But this discussion is not about money. This discussion is about ergonomics and ability and 1Ds2 is able to take better pictures than D2x any day.
evinsky said:
I guess you could always get an Eos to Nikon Adapter and find a
used ($22,000) 300 F2 Nikkor. Then you got me.

--
'Always beg frogiveness, not permission.'
Click to expand...
--
Eugene

Canon is the best when it is working. Sigma is the same way now.

 
evinsky said:
I'm usually over in the Nikon forum defending my brothers in arms
from the swarm of white lens sharks.
I'ts nice to be on the offensive for once. I'm not sure what about
Nikon engenders such loyalty in me.
Click to expand...
There is only one problem. You are the only one who thinks that you are on offensive. In reality you are on defensive because you are here. You came here to defend Nikon.
evinsky said:
My grandfather and father both shot Nikon but I also shoot Leica M
as do many Canon shooters.
I never defend Leica for taking thier sweet ass time giving me a
Digital M.

Anyways, just like me you wouldn't be posting if you didn't get
some sort of fix from tearing the other guy's
$5000 baby a new one.

Alright boys... I wan't a clean fight

In this corner in the Black Barrel weighing in at better ergonomics
& value is....

And in ths corner weraing the white barrel, weighing in with better
noise performance and full frame sensors is...

I'm out.
Happy shooting.
--'Always beg frogiveness, not permission.'
Click to expand...
--
Eugene

Canon is the best when it is working. Sigma is the same way now.

 
well,

you don't have to tell us how good the D2x is (we know that already) but please don't forget that basically here you're talking to 1Ds/1DsII users, we're not so easy to impress :)
 
of course, your ignoring the detail robing effect of Nikon's proprietary edge recognition noise reduction technology

apples to apples pics the canon still wins big time in the noise/detail department

but for a 5,000 usd camera DX2 ain't so bad. Probably why canon announced a 3000 usd full frame.

Competition is great!

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top