Phils 1DS MK2 Review is up !! Nice one !

Seems to reflect the thoughts of owners pretty well to a tee - I noticed that the D2X resolves exactly the same as the ancient 1DS MK1 - pretty good going for a 3yr old FF canon ! .. that was in JPG too where the 1DS MK1 isn't at its best, this "old" camera literally SINGS with Capture One DSLR ..

Excellent review of an excellent camera - I'm Keeping the old 11Mp Relic though

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Isn't today the anniversary of Black Tuesday?

Adam-T said:

Seems to reflect the thoughts of owners pretty well to a tee - I
noticed that the D2X resolves exactly the same as the ancient 1DS
MK1 - pretty good going for a 3yr old FF canon ! .. that was in JPG
too where the 1DS MK1 isn't at its best, this "old" camera
literally SINGS with Capture One DSLR ..

Excellent review of an excellent camera - I'm Keeping the old 11Mp
Relic though

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Click to expand...

--
Photo-a-day blog : http://jrimagestream.blogspot.com
Photo Gallery : http://www.jrweb.org/gallery
Guy Elden Jr.

All I read was the "compare to ..." portion with res charts, it proves again the Ds2 is "The One". The test conducted by Color Foto of Germany also shows that the Ds2 beats the D2X hands down in terms of resolution power.

Interesting review. Kind of what I expected, I liked the 1Ds. Only thing is, Phil was off a little on the 1Ds being the first Full frame 35mm DSLR... the Contax N Digital gets that credit, but over all a nice camera.

Supremely balanced and just perfectly incisive about the issues at hand.

For me, a Canon user, I must say that the review showed me that Nikon's D2X is quite a camera for the $$$. If I were just now getting into the DSLR market and had no lenes I would certainly go Nikon for the $$$
--

NoTx said:

Full frame 35mm DSLR... the Contax N Digital gets that credit, but
over all a nice camera.

Click to expand...

The Contax was never really in full production, a few trickled out but it was basically Stillborn

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

brent collins said:

For me, a Canon user, I must say that the review showed me that
Nikon's D2X is quite a camera for the $$$. If I were just now
getting into the DSLR market and had no lenes I would certainly go
Nikon for the $$$

Click to expand...

I've used the D2X and it's a Superb camera, there's a lot I like about it over my own 1DS - the problem is that the only standard fast wide zoom for DX is the 17-55 F2.8 and it seems to have more AF issues than a dodgy 10D regardless of camera used on making you use their excellent but very limited range legacy glass like the 17-35 F2.8 and 18-35 F3.5-4.5 if you want better than 18-70DX image quality .. the 1DS/ 1DSII manages this with the old but excellent 28-70L which is bang on accurate and sharp edge to edge wide open at all focal lengths (or mine is anyway) .. also there aren't any DX lenses which manage F1.8 at a 16mm FOV - yeah the 16-35L is seriously flawed wide open but it DOES F2.8 unlike Nikon's 12-24.. another point is that full frame, Canon's lenses all "make sense", I found them to be weird range on cropped sensors, even the 1.3X on the 1D I had..

I have to agree and say that if I didn't have the 1DS and a line of sharp Canon Ls (17-40 / 28-70 / 80-200 / 100-400) I'd probably go for the D2X myself and use my cheapo but Excellent Legacy D70 glass to great effect (18-35 F3.5-4.5 / 28-105 F3.5-4.5 / 70-210 F4) despite the weird focal lengths they become, that 18-35 despite being a screwdriver lens AFs faster than all the cheaper Ring AF-S lenses and a lot of Canon Ring USM ones too and is sharper than any Canon wide angle regardless of red stripe..

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

In all truth, most Contax cameras tricke, but they are readily availible. Hell, Samy's still has an N DIgital in stock (and will forever, they want $4500 for it).

Adam-T said:

Adam-T said:

Full frame 35mm DSLR... the Contax N Digital gets that credit, but
over all a nice camera.

Click to expand...

The Contax was never really in full production, a few trickled out
but it was basically Stillborn

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Click to expand...

Many camera companies, like Sony, provide the bare minimum of crappy software to download, convert/edit and view your captured images. Canon is among the best in this regard, even though few who get the 1Ds2 will use DPP 2.0 on a regular basis. The comparison of DPP to ACR in this review emphasizes that; too bad C1 wasn't also compared. Obviously Phil will use the DPP section again for his 5D review and get more mileage out of it. After all any of us 1D2 owners can also update to the same DPP version. I liked the direct comparison of picture styles, both with the images and the color chart, very instructive. Thanks Phil.

On the other hand the 1Ds2 review is so late into the products lifecycle that it is quite anticlimatic. I guess it was needed anyway as a comparison of the Nikon D2x review, which was published just a few months ago.
Mike K

Adam-T said:

I have to agree and say that if I didn't have the 1DS and a line of
sharp Canon Ls (17-40 / 28-70 / 80-200 / 100-400) I'd probably go
for the D2X myself and use my cheapo but Excellent Legacy D70 glass
to great effect (18-35 F3.5-4.5 / 28-105 F3.5-4.5 / 70-210 F4) ...

Click to expand...

I was thinking about this combination (well, the D2X with the 18-35 and 28-105) to replace my EOS-A2 (no Canon Ls), but I have been wondering whether these "mid-level" Nikon zooms were worthy of the D2X. I value compact and relatively light and sharp zooms over the f/2.8 beasts.

brent collins said:

For me, a Canon user, I must say that the review showed me that
Nikon's D2X is quite a camera for the $$$. If I were just now
getting into the DSLR market and had no lenes I would certainly go
Nikon for the $$$
--

Click to expand...

yeh, but if you shoot Wide angle than 1.5x crop just plain sucks. also the 5D is same MP AND FF. the only reason to go with a D2X at present is because of Nikons glass. Not the body per se

How fair is it to compare a 1Ds file at 1600 and 3200 with one from D2X with noise reduction? Why don't we run some noise reduction on the 1Ds file and compare then? Sure, it'll loose some detail, but so does D2X's file, and there is nothing one can do about it, while with Canon one has a choice. Or, if it's possible to turn the NR off on the D2X, why didn't Phil do it?

Here's a link to a post on Rob Galbraith where somebody compares long exposures on 1DsII, D2X, and 5D, and comes to a conclusion that D2X ISO's sensitivity is 2/3 to 1 stop slower than Canon's at similar settings (that's btw reflected in the fact that for the same ISO, D2X needed longer exposures in Phil's tests but Phil doesn't mention it for some reason). If taken into account, the noise graphs in the review would look different as well:

http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=368165&an=0&page=0#368165

And also, I still don't understand the argument for using a 50 mm prime against the 24-70 zoom at its worst end (70 mm). Couldn't Phil use the 85 mm prime for Canon and just walk away a couple of steps from the scene to frame properly?
Igor.

Looks like more "digital specific lenses" are something to look forward to. Looks like Olympus is right on then mark with their advertising.

I hope I understand you right. Are you saying that Nikon's ISO 800 is actually 400? The number is pumped up to make it look in noise test.

JUn

the sensitivity he said was as you noted, but reversed in brighter light. Of course, brighter light is not where people are dealing with noise issues.

The big difference Phil did bring out was the non-defeatable even in raw detail losing that occurs in Nikon's noise reduction. The difference in detail at ISO 3200 between the D2x and the 1DsMkII is totally telling.

While some reviews of the Nikon said the noise performance was great on it, (and this may have been the touchy point Phil delayed the review on) Phill captured the real life differences quite well. The 1DsMkII is the detail/high ISO champ by a long shot.

(which comes in very handy in real life shooting)
--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

The default is 'Normal NR' and hence that's the mode most people will use. The difference between the different NR modes was clearly demonstrated in my D2X review. Lastly do you believe that Canon does not perform NR? If so you'd be wrong, however what my review clearly demonstrates on that exact page you're talking about is that (a) Canon has to do less NR and (b) the NR has much less impact on the image.

IgorCU said:

How fair is it to compare a 1Ds file at 1600 and 3200 with one from
D2X with noise reduction? Why don't we run some noise reduction on
the 1Ds file and compare then? Sure, it'll loose some detail, but
so does D2X's file, and there is nothing one can do about it, while
with Canon one has a choice. Or, if it's possible to turn the NR
off on the D2X, why didn't Phil do it?

Here's a link to a post on Rob Galbraith where somebody compares
long exposures on 1DsII, D2X, and 5D, and comes to a conclusion
that D2X ISO's sensitivity is 2/3 to 1 stop slower than Canon's at
similar settings (that's btw reflected in the fact that for the
same ISO, D2X needed longer exposures in Phil's tests but Phil
doesn't mention it for some reason). If taken into account, the
noise graphs in the review would look different as well:

http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=368165&an=0&page=0#368165

And also, I still don't understand the argument for using a 50 mm
prime against the 24-70 zoom at its worst end (70 mm). Couldn't
Phil use the 85 mm prime for Canon and just walk away a couple of
steps from the scene to frame properly?
Igor.

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Why, how wide do you normally shoot?

sparkie said:

yeh, but if you shoot Wide angle than 1.5x crop just plain sucks.
also the 5D is same MP AND FF. the only reason to go with a D2X at
present is because of Nikons glass. Not the body per se

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

...24mm 1.4 - I very much enjoy using these lenses on a full frame digital camera now. They are tough to emulate on a 1.3x camera, much less a 1.5 or 1.6.

between 21mm to 35mm 70% of the time. 16mm the rest. wide angle wise

and when your back is up against a wall, or you can move further back then you'll bed wishing you had the extra mm