What's the general attitude to the d2x??

Thinking about the financial side of this debate, my 5D cost about 30% more than the 14n to nx sensor upgrade (which I declined at the time) so cost wise I have paid an extra £400 more than those who upgraded but I have now got two cameras. One thing to be said about the march of technology, if you wait a bit it gets cheaper and cheaper ;-)

Paul Spatafora said:

Hi David,

I think the consensus is that the SLRn is a much better overall
camera than the 14n, so there is no issue there. I think the
general gist of my comments is that sometimes the focus is on the
equipment instead of the results. As for the 5D, I'm quite sure in
the hands of any skilled professional, great images can be made.
But that can be said of any camera, old or new in those same hands.

I've handled the 5D, D2x and D200 and they seem like fine tools
with great viewfinders and are very responsive, but for my purposes
they don't warrant the cost of replacing the SLRn at this time. I
hope you find great pleasure with your new camera and it helps you
produce great images. You're right about it's better to make a good
picture better than trying to fix a broken one. Let it be known
that I dream of having a digital back for my Bronica if they ever
come down in price.

As I stated previously, the SLRn is an old camera which still
produces excellent results and in the end, the clients don't care
what camera we use, as long as they are happy with the product.
Most great photographers just show the images, without much concern
as to what equipment they used. I think that was the point I was
hopefully trying to make.

I hope I was able to clear things up. Sometimes I find it difficult
to get an idea out there.

regards,

Paul

Click to expand...

website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm

Where to start?

1. I do a lot of post production on an image. Hopefully so subtle the result is undetectable. The "lovely" image is part painting! Not that this is the important issue. I'm not sure how much time others spend trying to get a certain feel in post production, but files need to be noise free in order to work forward.

The blue channel is generally the test. Flick's file with the dad and baby portrait is a classic example. This file for me would be considered a huge burden. Files I do for clients can easy run up 60 layers. So it doesn't take long for that noise to create havoc in the resultant image.

2. Handling initally doesn't seem to me to be an issue. I'm a bit slothful when it comes to creating an image. Often I'm in lower than normal light so the shot can be 2 seconds or more. So the handling when it is on a typod is not so important to me. However, I seem to be shooting more events. And they are becoming more and more about expressions. And sometime I feel the Kodak might be restricting my ability to become confident with the facet.

3. Dynamic Range is an important issue. I often blend at least two exposures and that is with the Kodak. So I'm sure this would become an increased issue with any lower dynamic range.

4. Battery time is important. Any d200 feedback on this would be helpful.

5. I like using cable release on my trypod. Is this available on the other units.

6. APS frame natural zoom. I am leaning toward getting a smaller frame size these days because of the advantage for longer zoom opportunities. Ie Wildlife, say an eagle in flight.

7. Switching to the canon camp. I have to say that I'm regretting being stuck with Nikon Glass. As my work unfolds it seems money is unlikely to become very free given the small market I live in. Which means I have to learn to be quite conservative with my kit. If Nikon had put out a FF by now I'm sure that feeling would have disapated. Certainly the d2x and the d200 seem to be giving a fair challenge to Canon. And I'm really pleased to see todays headline in DPReview. But the 1dsMarkII seems to me to be the right single purchase. I'm a fan of buying once and having it last a long long time! That may be a bit niave in the digital world. But my Kodak has worked fine and hasn't had a sensor clean yet.

8. I think I'd like to end up doing more fine art work where my images are goind to end up looking a little/lot hyperreal. Anyone seen Jim Fiscus' work or Andrez Dragan's work. This is the feelI'm hoping to learn to achieve.

Thank you everyone for your comments. They have all added to my thinking. Right now I'm leaning toward the d200/Kodak combo! Who knows when nikon will release a full frame.

Regards

Paul

D2Xs vary in quality just as 14ns or SLR/ns do. It is possible that I have an unusually bad one and Nirto has an unusually good one,

Nirto Karsten Fischer said:

Warren Sarle said:

The D2X has fewer pixels and an AA filter, so it has less aliasing
and less resolution than the Kodaks, given high-quality lenses.

Click to expand...

Often images have less artefacts and therefore IMO the cameras have
different quality advantages.

Click to expand...

I think that's what I said.

Nirto Karsten Fischer said:

Nirto Karsten Fischer said:

Since the D2X has a 1.5x crop factor, it requires higher-quality
lenses than the Kodaks.

Click to expand...

And for other parameters than e.g. pixel density the conclusion has
to be reversed -> corner sharpness, vignetting

Click to expand...

Yes if you have lenses with unusually bad corner sharpness or fall-off, but I have not found those issues to be a problem with any of my lenses on the 14n, except for the Sigma 12-24 at 12mm.

Nirto Karsten Fischer said:

Nirto Karsten Fischer said:

The D2X has very large AF sensors, which make it unable to focus on
small details such as an eye in a portrait. Nikon apparently
considers this a feature.

Click to expand...

You must have a different D2x than I - mine as very fast and
accurate focus on small detail even in dim light. The SLR/n and
even the D200 are not in the same league.

Click to expand...

Nikon tech support has acknowledged that the large AF sensors are why the D2X often focuses on the background instead of the subject. Thom Hogan has a diagram of the AF sensors somewhere on the web. These issues were discussed thoroughly in the sadly defunct Ron Galbraith forums.

Nirto Karsten Fischer said:

Nirto Karsten Fischer said:

The D2X has much less dynamic range than the Kodaks.

Click to expand...

'much less' is an exaggeration but the Kodak has an advantage here,
no doubt.

Click to expand...

To be more specific, in bright sunlight, I always get either blown highlights or very noisy shadows with the D2X. My 14n never had any trouble that much range.

Nirto Karsten Fischer said:

Nirto Karsten Fischer said:

My D2X has about as much noise at ISO 100 as my 14n at ISO 200.

Click to expand...

I have a SLR/n and have no complains concerning noise at low ISO
with either camera (I make regulary prints on my 7600 from them)

Nirto Karsten Fischer said:

The D2X has much better battery life, and it does everything faster
than the Kodaks.

Click to expand...

It also has much better ergonomics which helps to concentrate on
the work.

Click to expand...

It is indeed very nice that the D2X's buttons aren't activated by my nose. But it does have different usability problems. For example, the D2X's histograms have a ridicuolusly low gamma, which means that middle gray is about one third of the way from the left edge to the right edge of the histogram. Dark gray is about one fourth of the way. I find that this makes the histograms difficult to read without a magnifier.

Hi Paul,

I looked up those two names in you post and from looking at their work, I think any camera will do. The post work is so heavy that that it looks like an OpenGL file. I would think that after several heavy doese of Neat Image or Noise Ninja, noise won't be a problem. I also think to get the ultra smooth gradation you're looking for, will require to shoot any camera at base ISO and the best glass. I think all the new cameras will give you that ultra smooth look at base ISO, except fot the Kodak which will give you more detail, but that can smoothed out in PS.

I really like that type of work. You can get some interesting actions at Action Central that deal with that specific look you're after.

Good Luck.

My 2 Cents worth.

Paul

Warren Sarle said:

D2Xs vary in quality just as 14ns or SLR/ns do. It is possible that
I have an unusually bad one and Nirto has an unusually good one,

Click to expand...

I really don't know if you're kidding ...? My D2x seems just to be a normal one, it's one of the very early ones.

Warren Sarle said:

To be more specific, in bright sunlight, I always get either blown
highlights or very noisy shadows with the D2X. My 14n never had any
trouble that much range.

Click to expand...

SLR/n is better here too concerning dynamic range but I haven't any real problems with shadow noise from the D2x except in underexposed photos as to be expected. I start with very low contrast settings and tweak the Lightness in Nikon Capture to get a contrast with good shadow detail. My D2x is usually set to underexpose a bit (-0.3) but much more drastic values for highlight capturing I often dial in without hesitation.

Warren Sarle said:

But it does have different usability problems. For
example, the D2X's histograms have a ridicuolusly low gamma, which
means that middle gray is about one third of the way from the left
edge to the right edge of the histogram. Dark gray is about one
fourth of the way. I find that this makes the histograms difficult
to read without a magnifier.

Click to expand...

If I understand your complain correctly I think the histogram seems to be balanced for good highlight control and that's what I use it mostly for. The RGB histograms are used more than the combined histogram here.

With ergonomics I also mean everything from the general handling and user settings to the instant reaction and support for MF lenses, which I use a lot.

I have the multi selector button switch set up for 100% view to judge sharpness and the 'func' button for the MF lens values. When working with the D2x the camera itself is not presenting me obstacles with necessary work arounds, it's actually 'supporting' me with it's ergonomics. This is something I have learned not to underestimate.

Remember there is no sharpening added to the big file. None in SilkyPix... and none in post.

For an AA filter I think they look really good.

Albert

PaulLandscape said:

4. Battery time is important. Any d200 feedback on this would be
helpful.

Click to expand...

I have the D200 too and I can asure you that the D2x has (much?) better battery life than the D200 without the additional grip.

It's late here. I just got back from a school shoot. 83 full length shots done with the Kodak-- tethered to my laptop.

I'm glad to hear you state that the images are fine. To me, having complete confidence in your abilities, I am assured the images from the D200 are simply never going to yield the detail of the Kodak [at 13.5 or 6mp]. It is having been spoiled by the Kodak resolution and lack of AA filter that warrents my claim that the D200 is simply not a particularly sharp camera.

As I watched the images come up on the screen tonight, all I kept saying to myself was, 'yes, that's what it's supposed to look like.' I had spent much of the afternoon processing D200 images from a tournament. In contrast, they were just 'soft.'

Again, no offense to the images Albert. As compared to my D200 full length, they look the same...fine. At least I now know it's not 'my camera.'

Have a good night.

--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.

1 Battery life is only about 1.5 times as great on the Nikon as the Kodak [relative to my shooting, focusing, reviewing style].

2. Make certain you can live with the lack of detail. In your posts, you wrote that you thought the 5D images were soft. If that's the case, you'll think the D200 files are blurry. If you remember, I was the guy who believed the D70 would be fine for my supplemental needs...and I'm saying the D200 is soft! LOL

3. The sad fact is, if you shoot with Nkon glass, the D200 isn't the natural choice, it's the only IMO. I believe this is exactly where Nikon wants to be [unfortunately for us] and why sales are so high.

As with Albert's post, if you would like any files, drop me a line. I have group shots, head shots and full length-- 100 - 1600 ISO. If there is a subject or lens combo, I'd be happy [as I'm certain would Albert] to oblige.

Best of luck.
--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.

There is no arguement here. (and no offense taken)

They are not as sharp or detailed as the Kodak.
With almost 4 mp less plus the AA they never will be.

But man is it ever nice to process in batch and not deal with CA, or moire.

I'm convinced the prom shots are the best this camera will do with the 28-70. The 17-55 maybe a better equation... but for 8x10's I'm satisfied.... and more than satisfied up against the DCS760 with the AA.

Albert

APY_Jr said:

But man is it ever nice to process in batch and not deal with CA,
or moire.

Click to expand...

That 'ever nice...' list goes on and on. I admit I never had the moire issue like many. For me it was always finding that WB when I didn't have a grey-card.

APY_Jr said:

I'm convinced the prom shots are the best this camera will do with
the 28-70. The 17-55 maybe a better equation... but for 8x10's I'm
satisfied.... and more than satisfied up against the DCS760 with
the AA.

Click to expand...

Shooting the 35-70, my thoughts are similar. OTOH, if someone where to tell me that either of these lenses where considered 'soft' it would be news to me.

APY_Jr said:

Albert

Click to expand...

--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.

Umm, making a blanket stmt that 1.5 dx requires higher quality lenses is a little misleading.

Both cameras require higher quality lenses for different reasons.

D2X, which i own, requires higher qualtiy lenses to get the most detail out of the camera because of the extreme pixel density due to 12 MP and 1.5 DX format.

Kodak requires higher quality lenses due to the fact that it is full frame and thus any light falloff or distorition at the edges will be very noticeablke in full frame but not very noticeable in dx.

I can't stand all the DX bashing people do without explaining both sides of the argument.

There are pros and cons for everything, dx v.s. full frame, and nikon v.s. canon.

Nothing is perfect, it depends on your needs and shotting style.
--
Nikon D2X
10.5mm Nikkor
50mm F1.4 Nikkor
17-55mm F2.8 nikkor
200mm F4 Nikkor Micro
70-200 F2.8 VR Nikkor
Nikon TC14E2 TC17E2
Sigma 50-500
Sigma 1.4 TC
Lensbaby 2.0
2 Nikon SB800's
SU800
Nikon ML3
Fuji S3 Pro

PaulLandscape said:

Thank you everyone for your comments. They have all added to my
thinking. Right now I'm leaning toward the d200/Kodak combo!

Click to expand...

Interesting thread. Paul, I'm looking at the same combo. The Kodak is firmly in place as my studio camera (for all of my abstract macro work). The noise? Not a problem in a controlled setting. The color, dynamic range and detail? Perfect.

But when I want to get out of the studio, I usually bring my D100. Mainly for practical reasons: better battery life, and better ergonomics for carrying about. The D100, like the D200, has often been accused of being "soft". But like any camera, I found that one you learn its quirks, it can become an effective tool. The D200 would be a nice upgrade: faster, better res, tighter body, etc. But, is it worth it. That's my question. Most of my work is in studio. But like you, I wonder if I am missing some opportunities by not taking the camera on the road more often.

-- Dan
http://blog.danielsroka.com

Daniel Sroka said:

PaulLandscape said:

Thank you everyone for your comments. They have all added to my
thinking. Right now I'm leaning toward the d200/Kodak combo!

Click to expand...

Interesting thread. Paul, I'm looking at the same combo. The Kodak
is firmly in place as my studio camera (for all of my abstract
macro work). The noise? Not a problem in a controlled setting. The
color, dynamic range and detail? Perfect.

But when I want to get out of the studio, I usually bring my D100.
Mainly for practical reasons: better battery life, and better
ergonomics for carrying about. The D100, like the D200, has often
been accused of being "soft". But like any camera, I found that one
you learn its quirks, it can become an effective tool. The D200
would be a nice upgrade: faster, better res, tighter body, etc.
But, is it worth it. That's my question. Most of my work is in
studio. But like you, I wonder if I am missing some opportunities
by not taking the camera on the road more often.

-- Dan
http://blog.danielsroka.com

Click to expand...

I take my SLRn everywhere for the same reasons I use it when I take portraits. It excels in the outdoors. I'm not certain I would take it to a concert though. I'm not sure why it would be only a studio camera. Am I missing something?

Regards,

Paul

Paul Spatafora said:

Hi Paul,

I looked up those two names in you post and from looking at their
work, I think any camera will do.

Click to expand...

I would have agreed once upon a time. In fact, I would have thought the Kodak to be superior for the job. After quite some time trying to master this method I can't now agree. Maybe in another year or so I will be in another place and have mastered the method and realise the base file isn't a critical issue.

The post work is so heavy that that it looks like an OpenGL file.

I'm not sure for the connection or should I say reason you relate an Open GL file to this work?

I would think that after several

Paul Spatafora said:

heavy doese of Neat Image or Noise Ninja, noise won't be a problem.

Click to expand...

This image is pretty close to the Dragan Style:
http://www.pbase.com/kodak_challenge/image/58071771

It has no bluring whatsoever. It is shot using the Tamron and is good sharp lens IMHO.

Certainly Jim's work could use a noise reduction program but from my experience the real process is pixel by pixel. In other words where they want to remove infomation they do by hand.

Paul Spatafora said:

I also think to get the ultra smooth gradation you're looking for,
will require to shoot any camera at base ISO and the best glass. I
think all the new cameras will give you that ultra smooth look at
base ISO, except fot the Kodak which will give you more detail, but
that can smoothed out in PS.

Click to expand...

I think this is where I'm looking toward the lower resolution files. There seems to be a smoother transition between contrasting lines without it looking soft. Look at this file and tell me how they have got it so sharp?
http://www.fotonatura.org/galerias/foto.php?id_foto=107862&id_galeria=6424

Max uses a Canon 20D. This is difficult to acheive from the Kodak. Or maybe he has a far better method of post production.

Paul Spatafora said:

I really like that type of work. You can get some interesting
actions at Action Central that deal with that specific look you're
after.

Click to expand...

Almost all the guys/girls I talk to on line who have nailed this type of work do not use actions. I have tried, in the early stages of this progression, most of these actions. They are not the answer. Certainly some of the techniques involved are part of it.

I had contact with Andrzej and I quote: "I am using all the available simple tools. Perhaps some color filtering tricks you may be not aware of. But in general its just a very precise use of the simple tools."

This seems to be the general way of it.



Regards Paul

Have both the 14nx and a new D2X. The D2X is a world of difference in terms of image quality and speed. It's quick on the draw and gives an impression of excellent build quality and well-evolved human factors--and it mounts my 85 PC-Nikkor & other oddballs without a whimper. The murky, nasty shadow noise of the 14nx is gone--the D2X noise is much more film-like IMHO.

The D2X has features that go on forever, best to rent one for a week and find out for yourself. Also consider "downgrading" the pixel count and checking out the D2HS, a camera that has both exceptional color and probably the lowest noise of any other digital at the highest ISO settings. If I could afford both, I'd do it.

Besides, I never did care all that much for "Kodak color." Would get the 14nx converted to IR if that was possible--at least it would then serve some purpose.

-RogM

I don't know if it is still available, but there was an IR conversion out quite early in their release.

Thanks for the info.

Regards

Paul

I too had to make a decision when my 14nx died with a broken sensor 4 months ago.... Bought the D2x, what a great camera compared to the 14nx... Wondered why it took me so long to figure it out.... Never looked back.

Brock

For what it's worth, I have both and use my D2X 80% of the time. Still love the SLR/n for what it does well and for when I need full frame. The nikon system with the CLS (creative lighting system) with the flashes, the wireless capability (WT-2A) the camera ergonomics, the camera speed and the image quality are great.

I say have both and use the best tool for the job.

John
--
*********************
http://photos.johnfhill.com

After many years as an exclusively Kodak shooter, I bought a DX2. I would never attempt shooting JPEGS with the 14 Slrn or even the 760. I shot some Jpegs with the DX2 and boy am I impressed.

There are times I need a full sensor so I will use the SLRN on 14MP. Most of the time however, I use the DX2 shooting high speed crop (6 MP) and like the results.