Another 1Ds/2 vs D2x

[Michael_Slade]

[ QUOTE ]
I shoot commercial work and have been using D1x bodies for 3.5 years. Although I would always certainly welcome a larger viewfinder it hasn't really caused me any frustration at all. If I'm shooting a large ad campaign with many people on set I will sometimes shoot tethered to a Powerbook but not too often.

[/ QUOTE ]

+1

Shot commercial work with my D1 also. Just have to find the right tool for the job. 'Course the D2x will make those shots even nicer...

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[MarkTDavidson]

I first started in photography with an Argus C3. Typical of the cameras of the era (1950's) the viewfinder was tiny AND dark. When I got my first SLR ( Pentax H3V) I never gave the viewfinder a second thought. Going back to it I notice that it is darker than my Canon but I never felt that it prevented me from taking a good photo. 100%? who cares? In film the edges were almost always cropped out by slide mounts or printer crop.

I am astounded by the carping about trivial details of the various cameras out there. People seem to make out that these tiny differences make enormous differences as if they were Formula One drivers complaining about a 3 gram weight difference between cars.

My Canon is a fine picture taking tool as was my Nikon and my Leica. They were all different and thank God for that. But the pictures were all equally excellent or rotten depending on me.

[Hendrik_van_der_Veen]

I had the change to play with the Canon full-frame and the Nikon D2X on the same day. The Nikon body is light-years better. The body is really well made. The pictures it produced were identical. I saw both processed (not by me) after a few days and could not see any difference on screen or in print (8 pictures from both cameras at A3+). They were professionally processed and printed. I did not had the change to pixel-measurebate the on-screen pictures, but the prints were viewed a long time under a good lamp.

Therefore I’m convinced quality is the same and differences are not practically relevant. Both Canon and Nikon users can be happy with the results.

The only difference is full-frame vs. cropped sensor. When you know how to use them, differences are non-existing. The price is only much much higher. Do you really want a full-frame Nikon at the price of the Canon? Well, some maybe, but I can’t even pay the D2X after I bought the D1X for 5500 euros a few years ago.

I can wait and will buy the Dx semi-pro with 13Mp for 1500 euros, although I must confess I hesitated to buy the D2X (who needs food anyway [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ). Let me read this review again: http://www.planetneil.com/nikon/d2x-altf.html

[Bern_Caughey]

[ QUOTE ]
The Nikon body is light-years better. The body is really well made. The pictures it produced were identical...

...The only difference is full-frame vs. cropped sensor. When you know how to use them, differences are non-existing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Due to previous experience with 1.6 & 1.3 FOV cameras I have a very hard time believing the equivalent "normal" & wide-angle lenses produce equal distortion.

Regards,
Bern Caughey

PS Another photogrpher sent me that review & it was the best I've ever read.

[CorySilken]

[ QUOTE ]
Due to previous experience with 1.6 & 1.3 FOV cameras I have a very hard time believing the equivalent "normal" & wide-angle lenses produce equal distortion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, they most definitely do not. And your working distance to create a specific amount of compression or wide look is totally different, not to mention depth of field. (I switched from 1.5 to ff)

-C

[Hendrik_van_der_Veen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Due to previous experience with 1.6 & 1.3 FOV cameras I have a very hard time believing the equivalent "normal" & wide-angle lenses produce equal distortion.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, they most definitely do not. And your working distance to create a specific amount of compression or wide look is totally different, not to mention depth of field. (I switched from 1.5 to ff)

-C

[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking about image quality, not about the differences how these cameras capture the image. It wasn't a test between these two cameras. The photographers simply brought their own gear and one had a brand new D2X. I was simply amazed how good the quality was at that size (A3+) and the fact I could not see any differences between the D2X and 1Ds/2 in print.

[Johan_Elzenga]

[ QUOTE ]
I was talking about image quality, not about the differences how these cameras capture the image. It wasn't a test between these two cameras. The photographers simply brought their own gear and one had a brand new D2X. I was simply amazed how good the quality was at that size (A3+) and the fact I could not see any differences between the D2X and 1Ds/2 in print.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty obvious. If you print a 1DsII image on A3+ size, you are printing at a resolution of approximately 280 ppi. Print a D2X image at the same size and you print at roughly 240 ppi. So all you are saying is that you could not really see a difference between a 240 ppi print and a 280 ppi print, which does not surprise me one bit (especially if the prints were inkjet).