need some input for D2X

[DragonFlyImage]

D2X is not here so Your talking about a camera that we wont see for a year or more maybe But if you want to get the D2h then yea the best you can get on the flash is manual fill and auto f/stop but its a good guess not like a TTL fill or TTL D len fills In about two years FILM WILL be the back up Fuji has stopped making there R papers because people aren't shooting slides they shoot digital
DragonFlyImage

 

[Thomas Sapiano]

I think adanac has a point on this, we're running in circles on a lot of things here. I think we can agree that there is a market that requires high pixel counts in exchange for reduced sensitivity and lower speed and there is a market that requires the opposite. Partially I think that the emmotion is a result of both of us misreading the inflection of the other's posts - picking up animosity where sarcasm was intended

I think what we are disagreeing on is more the relative size of the two markets:

I'm not knocking the D2h. It looks like an excellent design for
what must be a fairly small segment of the market. It certainly
isn't suitable for weddings, studio, most stock, scenics, gallery
prints, portraiture, ...

I would be relatively confident that Nikon will sell many more D2Hs than D2Xes - likely not as big a difference as between the EOS 1D and the EOS 1Ds, as the price difference will likely not be as large but very significant nonetheless. Quite a few professional photographers had no problems using the D1H with it's 2.7MP sensor - since the D2H offers 4MP, I would imagine that it would appeal to an even broader audience

My comments were directed mainly at the poster who claimed that
only amateurs want more pixels. This is total hogwash. If people
didn't want larger prints or more cropping options there would
never have been a market for medium and large formats. The same is
true of digital.

Yes, that would be total hogwash - but that isn't what he said. He said, "Most non professional photographers pass over the D2H because it is not 100MP" - I believe he was sarcasically making reference to people like the fellow who made the immediate response to his message that said "4 mps is nothing for a cam in like the D2H in the year 2003/2004 !".

He didn't say that no one but ammeteurs want more resolution, but instead than many ammeteurs make the mistake of wanting more resolution even though they will never make use of it There is a significant difference between saying "most non-professional photographers pass over" and "only non-professional photographers pass over" - the former doesn't say anything about professionals, it just makes a comment about ammeteurs. Of course, everone can take statements in different ways, however one could also take your comment that "some photographers only need to take 1 shot" in the wrong way as well

I don't think that anyone would try to assert that there is no legitimate use for more than 4MP of resolution - anyone who believes that has some screws loose I do, however, think for the vast majority of things that 35mm film was good for it will be more than sufficient. If one wants to delve into the realms that were once the haunt of MF and LF shooters, then one will most definately need a good deal more resolution - however the vast majority of photographers didn't shoot in those formats.

As you said, faster isn't always better, however one can also say that more pixels aren't always better. Each photographer needs to find the camera that balances the various aspects the best for their particular needs. For some, that will be a 3fps 11MP camera and for others that will be an 8fps 4MP camera - it's just the nature of the game. The problem is that there have been a lot of complaints by people whom the D2H was not aimed at complaining that it is "only" 4MP and that somehow in this day and age that is out of date - there is nothing wrong with complaining about the lack of a high-resolution camera, however those complaints shouldn't include the D2H as it has nothing to do with that

Provided they don't lose this market to Canon before they get the
chance to taste the gravy.

If they even want to taste that gravy - Nikon's traditional business has been with 35mm photography for decades, serviceing another market could bring additional revenue sources, however it also means their resources will be spread more thinly. Nikon may very well decide to cede that market to Canon and Kodak and focus on their traditional market. I would be relatively confident in guessing that a $4K 8MP 5fps 3200ISO camera would likely cater to a broader audience than a $6K 11MP 3fps 1600ISO camera

Either way, that particular choice is up to Nikon and only time will tell what their possition is. I could be wrong and the demand for EOS 1Ds-type cameras could be quite large if it wasn't for the price - but I'm sure that Nikon has all of the actual numbers layed out in front of them, and that will be a major part of their choice.

Bill Gates once said, "640K ought to be enough for anybody." That
sounded pretty stupid within a few short years. Nikon has not said
that 4MP ought to be enough, but a lot of the Nikonophiles in this
forum seem to accept it as gospel nonetheless.

Again, I don't think that anybody is saying that 4MP is enough for everyone - if that is the case, then I totally agree with you. What people are saying is that there are a lot of situations where the reproduction technology doesn't allow the use of more and there is no reason that that will change anytime soon. Camera manufacturers have to look at their target markets and build the specifications based on what their customers real needs are.

The key, I think, is the old engineering adage - "there is no such thing as a free lunch". If you want something (ie resolution or speed) there are inevitably going to be things that you are going to have to compromise to get it - a skilled user doesn't just blindly follow the "more is better" mindset, but instead looks at his uses and determines what his requirements are to find the appropriate ballance for oneself.

Putting it another way, would you want a 100MP camera with today's technology? Not only is there no lens on the planet that could ever make use of it, you'd also have hideous noise levels, pathetic dynamic range, and massive processing and storage requirements

 

[Lee Saxon]

I'm not clear on why a 4 megapixel camera would be better for anyone than a 6 megapixel camera? Being able to crop a tad tighter or print a tad bigger (or print at the same size and not have the look of "out to the grain" - for lack of a 'digital version' of that expression) has always got to be good. I do understand your comment in theory, but I don't think 2 more megapixels is enough to really choke the workflow. And I doubt that it would affect buffer size or speed to an enormous degree.

--
Lee Saxon, AIAS

Nikon D1x
Nikon FE
Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S
Nikkor 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6D IF AF
Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D AF
micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AI-s
Sony VAIO GR290K

 

[Thomas Sapiano]

I'm not clear on why a 4 megapixel camera would be better for
anyone than a 6 megapixel camera? Being able to crop a tad tighter
or print a tad bigger (or print at the same size and not have the
look of "out to the grain" - for lack of a 'digital version' of
that expression) has always got to be good. I do understand your
comment in theory, but I don't think 2 more megapixels is enough to
really choke the workflow. And I doubt that it would affect buffer
size or speed to an enormous degree.

Well the output files would be 50% larger, so all of those factors will be increased by that much. With the same buffer, you'd only get 27 JPEGs and 17 NEFs, you'd only fit 66% the number of images on any given archive media and CF cards. It also means that your computer needs to process 50% more data, and hence is going to take more time to process. While for a couple of dozen images, that wouldn't be a problem - multiply that by hundreds of images a day and it can become a considerable problem.

Additionally, C.P. the sensor would also only be able to opperate at 5.3fps, as the readout rate is typically governed by the bandwidth of the readout electronics - the more discrete pixels that have to be read out, the longer the entire readout process is going to take. Additionally, with the same size sensor and technology a 6MP camera would have pixels that are 66% of the area and that translates to more noise, narrower dynamic range, etc.

On it's own extra pixels don't hurt, but the problem is that those pixels don't come free - there is no such thing as a free lunch

 

[Bernard Languillier]

Hi There,

Here is my understanding:

6MP is 50% more than 4MP. The 3 following aspects would be directly influenced by this:

• wireless transfer speed,
• surface of pixels -> big impact on noise perfo (important for indoor sport shooters for instance),
• write speed to card, and therefore lenght of burst at max shooting speed.

These are key aspects for sport shooters, where 4MP is more than 6MP.

Best regards,
Bernard

I'm not clear on why a 4 megapixel camera would be better for
anyone than a 6 megapixel camera? Being able to crop a tad tighter
or print a tad bigger (or print at the same size and not have the
look of "out to the grain" - for lack of a 'digital version' of
that expression) has always got to be good. I do understand your
comment in theory, but I don't think 2 more megapixels is enough to
really choke the workflow. And I doubt that it would affect buffer
size or speed to an enormous degree.

--
Lee Saxon, AIAS

Nikon D1x
Nikon FE
Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S
Nikkor 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6D IF AF
Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S VR
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D AF
micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AI-s
Sony VAIO GR290K

 

[Kevin Morris]

Let me first apologise for any perceived animosity, but on first reading the general tone of your and Bernard's post was that only a mere amatuer would not be satisfied the the D2h's 4MP. This was even worse because the D2h was NOT the subject of the original post.

AFAIC, it doesn't matter one iota what users actually need. Ferrari doesn't sell cars by telling people they don't need 150mph. They surely gain a lot of their sales purely on the basis of excess capacity. Similarly, if Nikon tells people they don't need 10MP and should be happy with less, then they will be doing Canon a great service.

Take the F5 or EOS 1. Both cameras have capacities vastly in excess of the needs of most amateurs and probably a lot of pros as well. Should Nikon and Canon have turned those people away? I have no idea what the relative markets are, but I'm willing to bet that PJs and sports photogs represented a minority of users of those top-end cameras.

He didn't say that no one but ammeteurs want more resolution, but
instead than many ammeteurs make the mistake of wanting more
resolution even though they will never make use of it

Nobody should have to justify to a manufacturer what they need. It is up to the manufacturer to meet the needs (real or otherwise) of the buyer. Failure to do so, in the face of competition, can be a financial disaster.

there is nothing wrong with complaining about the lack of
a high-resolution camera, however those complaints shouldn't
include the D2H as it has nothing to do with that

Right. But the original thread was about the D2x. We all know it doesn't exist yet, but that was not the poster's point.

Provided they don't lose this market to Canon before they get the
chance to taste the gravy.

If they even want to taste that gravy - Nikon's traditional
business has been with 35mm photography for decades, serviceing
another market could bring additional revenue sources, however it
also means their resources will be spread more thinly. Nikon may
very well decide to cede that market to Canon and Kodak and focus
on their traditional market. I would be relatively confident in
guessing that a $4K 8MP 5fps 3200ISO camera would likely cater to
a broader audience than a $6K 11MP 3fps 1600ISO camera

It could be argued that Nikon has had much more to do with the larger formats than Canon. AFAIK, Canon has never delved into MF or LF, while the are LF Nikkors.

I don't think Canon set out to compete with MF, but given that their 1Ds is being favourably compared to MF scans, I doubt they're losing sleep.

My point is that I, and I alone, will determine just what I want in a camera. And when the time comes I will buy the camera that most closely meets those requirements. I would like it to be a Nikon, but if Nikon won't meet my needs then it will be something else.

--
Tuktu Sijuktei
'Please tell me if the lens cap is on.'

 

[Kevin Morris]

As I said, I don't have a problem. If Nikon wants to sell me a
camera then THEY have the problem. If Nikon doesn't announce a
suitable camera for my needs within the next few months then I will
buy a Canon 1Ds.

Go for it, I might do the same, but won't blame it on Nikon.

I will. It will be Nikon's fault for failing to meet my requirements, especially since there are alternatives on the market.

I'm not knocking the D2h. It looks like an excellent design for
what must be a fairly small segment of the market. It certainly
isn't suitable for weddings, studio, most stock, scenics, gallery
prints, portraiture, ...

Who said it was?

There is a general theme through this thread that 4MP ought to be enough for anyone. Yet it is backed up with examples of PJ demands.

My comments were directed mainly at the poster who claimed that
only amateurs want more pixels. This is total hogwash. If people
didn't want larger prints or more cropping options there would
never have been a market for medium and large formats. The same is
true of digital.

I hope that you are not talking about me, because I never said that
only amateurs want more pixels. I said that some pros know they
don't need more pixels (perhaps impliying that most amateurs don't
know that they might not need more - although this second part was
not explicitely stated).

Yes. I was refering to you. You said something like - most non-pros would pass over the D2h because it's not 100MP. My interpretation of the general sense of that statement is that only someone who doesn't know what they are doing would want higher resolution. You probably didn't intend it to be as arrogant as it sounds - putting thoughts into print is always fraught with translation errors.

I would also like to make the point here of defending amatuers. Not only do they represent the majority of camera buyers, there is also no reason why an amatuer cannot produce results every bit as good as the most talented pro.

They also know that a sharp pic taken thanks to a great AF will
always be far supperior to a blurred pic taken with a lesser AF,
even if the second camera has 4 times more pixels...

But if were were comparing the D2h with the (hopefully imminent) D2x, I presume they would both use the same AF module.

They also know that accurate colors gained thanks to an accurate WB
system on the spot will save them hours of post-processing and will
help them making sure that the pic on the first page of the NY
Times with their name under it gets there within one hour with
enough quality.

A three year-old's crayon drawing ought to be high enough resolution for a newspaper - OK, just kidding. But newspapers are not known for their print quality. They are known for their content.

Bill Gates once said, "640K ought to be enough for anybody." That
sounded pretty stupid within a few short years. Nikon has not said
that 4MP ought to be enough, but a lot of the Nikonophiles in this
forum seem to accept it as gospel nonetheless.

It is well known that 4MP (again pixels of "good quality") is
enough for a double page in a magazine at the current printing
definition.

My buyers often specify a dimension "at 300ppi". A 4MP file would need to be ress'ed up to make a double page magazine spread. And yes, magazines often print at lower than 300ppi, but that's typically what my buyers ask for.

I am not aware of a move of any magazine towards higher definition
printing technique, are you?

No, but it may happen in the future. Look at a National Geo' from the 60s and a recent one. There has been a significant improvement in print quality. I know this is somewhat speculative on my part but I'm looking at dropping $15K on a DSLR and upgraded lenses. It needs resolution to meet current and future needs. Buying a DSLR is not like buying a film camera. Selecting the sensor is like buying all the film I will EVER use with the camera.

This won't happen in the next 3 years, because customers of
magazine just don't ask for it. The current quality is enough, and
it will not change within the next 3 years (life span of the D2H).

If I thought my intended DSLR was only going to last 3 years then I would stick with film. It has to last me until it is either worn out or my customers refuse to accept files made with it.

Since the D2H is targetting sports and PJ phtograpers, for whom
magazines is the mahor output, I don't think that your Gates
comparison is relevant. It sounds good, but, IMHO, it just doesn't
make sense in the current context.

Which is probably why the original poster asked about the D2x.

Best regards,
Bernard

Cheers.

--
Tuktu Sijuktei
'Please tell me if the lens cap is on.'

 

[Kevin Morris]

Yes. I was refering to you. You said something like - most non-pros
would pass over the D2h because it's not 100MP.

Oops! Sorry Bernard. It was "jbviajero" that made that arrogant sounding statement.

--
Tuktu Sijuktei
'Please tell me if the lens cap is on.'

 

[LorenDJones]

I would venture to guess that a LOT of professionals pass over the
D2h because of its low pixel count. Back in the olden days of film,
very many pros used medium and large format.

I have...after anxiously awaiting Nikon's annoucnment. Yesterday I went with a second D100 to hold me over until a D2X or D200 is announced with more than 6MP. I do people and event photography along with large prints, so 6MP is my threshold....and I want more.

-Loren
http://www.priorcreative.com

 

[Thomas Sapiano]

AFAIC, it doesn't matter one iota what users actually need. Ferrari
doesn't sell cars by telling people they don't need 150mph. They
surely gain a lot of their sales purely on the basis of excess
capacity. Similarly, if Nikon tells people they don't need 10MP and
should be happy with less, then they will be doing Canon a great
service.

Oh, it most definately isn't a manufacturer's place to tell people what they do and do not need - however the primary job of their engineers designing the cameras are to decide what compromises need to be made. Companies have to closely examine what ballance their customers need to do their job (real or otherwise), what will get in their way and what price point they are looking at and determine the optimal specifications.

If there was no negative side effect of high resolution, then obviously they'd pack in as much as possible - the problem is that there are issues that do crop up as you add more pixels. The company needs to find the balance that they feel will appeal to the most potential users and present us with the options that they selected

Camera companies can only make a limited number of models, and they have to cast their nets in such a way that they'll catch as many fish as possible. Most people will never buy a Ferrari, so companies like Honda make a lot more money

Take the F5 or EOS 1. Both cameras have capacities vastly in excess
of the needs of most amateurs and probably a lot of pros as well.
Should Nikon and Canon have turned those people away? I have no
idea what the relative markets are, but I'm willing to bet that PJs
and sports photogs represented a minority of users of those top-end
cameras.

Of course not, however there are a whole list of other features that they could have added that got tossed out. The F5 and the EOS 1V are the way that they are because their respective producers felt that they offered the appropriate ballance of features and price for the target market.

Nobody should have to justify to a manufacturer what they need. It
is up to the manufacturer to meet the needs (real or otherwise) of
the buyer. Failure to do so, in the face of competition, can be a
financial disaster.

Exactly, but the possition of the manufacturer is to meet the needs of the buyers that will maximize their profits. Whether or not there are users that have a need is irrelavant to them, whether there are enough of those users willing to pay enough money to face that need is what companies have to do

However, there are marketing side-effects to high-end equipment that can effect the choices of users that will never even think about buying it. The primary point of flagship pieces isn't always to directly make money, but to convince consumers that they are the "professional choice"

Right. But the original thread was about the D2x. We all know it
doesn't exist yet, but that was not the poster's point.

Quite true - just that the post diverged and that's the reading I was basing things on. Again, just a matter of reading something into comments that wasn't intended

The problem with these types of threads are that sometimes we try to respond to a bunch of disconnected posts in one reply. Someone comming to the thread can then easilly mistake the thread as intended soully for the parent message, and thing degenerate...

It could be argued that Nikon has had much more to do with the
larger formats than Canon. AFAIK, Canon has never delved into MF or
LF, while the are LF Nikkors.

Oh, I agree with that - asside from those factors, Nikon has traditionally been the choice of many commercial photographers because of the wide selection of lenses in their kit. If you don't need autofocus, no one has remotely near the breadth of special purpose lenses that Nikon has.

I don't think Canon set out to compete with MF, but given that
their 1Ds is being favourably compared to MF scans, I doubt they're
losing sleep.

Oh, I'm sure they considered it. 11MP practically exceeds the resolution of any 35mm film except for maybe technical pan - if 35mm film met the needs of the users before, a digital camera with a similar resolution will still fill their needs Of course there are always users that were on the cusp, and the fact that DSLRs remove a lot of the limitations that MF imposed (form factor, drive rates, autofocus performance, lens selection, etc.).

A camera with a moderate resolution (eg 8MP) effectively provides more resolution than before, but could still provide performance near that will cater to non-studio environments. Wedding photography is a good example of a hybrid situation where performance and low-light sensitivity are important as is high resolutions.

I think the reason that the D2X is late (and mind you this is just idle speculation) was that Nikon was hoping that the Kodak 14n would have covered the studio end of the market while they provided a mid-market (8MP/5fps) camera to cover the market in a more granual method. The issues at the 14n's release likely threw off their plans and made them reexamine their priorities and now they are struggling to get a 10+ MP camera to cover more ground.

My point is that I, and I alone, will determine just what I want in
a camera. And when the time comes I will buy the camera that most
closely meets those requirements. I would like it to be a Nikon,
but if Nikon won't meet my needs then it will be something else.

Exactly - however there are millions of users out there and Nikon needs to make decissions that they think will please the most users. I am not a fan of Nikon's choice to go with HF sensors, however I have to make the decission on whether it's disadvantages outweigh the cost of getting out from under my investment. If their decissions don't mesh with us, then we basically get to decide whether we can live with them or whether we want to move on to the competition.

 

[Gavin Cato]

Sotara you continually keep posting this same repetitive tired nonsense that the D2h is no good because of 4mp, but the blinding problem here is that you have obviously never used a D1h and you have absolutely zero idea what you are talking about.

Please, for everyones sake, get a clue before commenting on things you know nothing of.

if they give 6 or more pixel to the D2h it would be the best cam
ever made and not just for PhotoJournalists !!! then everybody can
use it for art and speed-fotos. but 4 is nothing for a cam like
this.

And it is important ! does not matter what all the peopels say
about the mpixel ! the just calm themself because they dont have a
cam with more then 2 or 3 mps !

 

[Bernard Languillier]

I hope that you are not talking about me, because I never said that
only amateurs want more pixels. I said that some pros know they
don't need more pixels (perhaps impliying that most amateurs don't
know that they might not need more - although this second part was
not explicitely stated).

Yes. I was refering to you. You said something like - most non-pros
would pass over the D2h because it's not 100MP. My interpretation
of the general sense of that statement is that only someone who
doesn't know what they are doing would want higher resolution. You
probably didn't intend it to be as arrogant as it sounds - putting
thoughts into print is always fraught with translation errors.

I would also like to make the point here of defending amatuers. Not
only do they represent the majority of camera buyers, there is also
no reason why an amatuer cannot produce results every bit as good
as the most talented pro.

Actually, I am not the one who wrote that sentence "most non-pros

would pass over the D2h because it's not 100MP". Somebody else has the copyright on that one

By thw way, I am an amateur muself and I appreciate your support

Best regards,
Bernard

 

[edwardpiercy]

I think the D!x is a great camera, and I assume a future D2x will be even better. But alfter getting hands-on at the camera shop, it's just too much of a tank for me. You could buy TWO D100's for what the D1x costs. As far as a potenial D200, I might be up for that if they correct a couple of the problems users have experienced with the D100 (such as the plastic pin problem mentioned on this forum). Actually, I hate to sound like a heretic, but I don't need more than 6 megapixels. I would rather see improvements to the D100, fix the problems and a magnesium body like the Canon 10D would be nice.

Hi guys,

I am thinking of getting a D2X but I am not a pro, I use to have a
F4 with 3 AFD-lens to 2 AF-lens also SB22, SB24 and a Metz 60CT-4.
What my question is if I use my old flashs without getting the new
SB800 am I going to lose a lot of advatage of using this HT D2X
camera?
Why I choose D2X because I just think I should get a Nikon digital
camera ISO Fuji S2 well I don't know I think I feel better with
Nikon???
Or I should wait for the Fuji S3???