We just finished testing a production D2x against a 1Ds Mk II, and our findings pretty much match Bjorn's. And also match my previous test against a 1Ds Mk I and a pre production D2x (
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=11989302 )
A synopsis;
We used a 35mm 1.4L on the Canon and a 24mm 2.8 on the Nikon. (advantage should go to Canon,...the 35 1.4 is an awesome lens) All at f5.6 and f8, ISO's 100, 200, 400 and 800. We didn't do any low light shooting, but just used strobes, and metered as we normally would. We then took all files and upressed them to 68MB 8 bit RGB files. (advantage again should go to Canon,...less upressing required to get to that size) We used DPP for Canon and NC for the Nikon, and upressed with bicubic smoother in PSCS. No sharpening. Bottom line;
100 & 200 ISO.....Nikon slightly better.
400 ISO...no difference.
800 ISO....Canon slightly better.
Dynamic range perception....no difference. (Kodak and Imacon were better....probably because of higher bit depths)
Viewfinder......Nikon brighter, Canon slightly bigger,...I give it a draw.
LCD/Histogram viewing outside.....Nikon better.
If you need the shorter DOF for a given focal length or mostly shoot higher ISO's......buy the Canon. If you mostly shoot 100-400 ISO and like the longer DOF, buy the Nikon. It's 6 to 1, half a dozen to the other. Now if we can just get Minolta to put out a 25MP 16 bit camera, we can sell off both of them and be happy ex-Nikonites and Canonites.
Regards,
Mastrianni
Linear Mode
