Canon 1DsMII or Nikon D2X?

[MotionEffects]

Which camera body would you think is better: Canon 1DsMII or Nikon D2X? If the pixel count didn't matter, which one would you prefer. I know most people would prefer Canon since this is a Canon forum, but just want some honest opinion.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Offering my totally unbiased honest opinion........... ;)

Canon 1DsMkII

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Absolutely the 1DsMkII. That's not even because it's a Canon. It's that the Nikon pro bodies just stink for the money. They make some nice glass, but their bodies leave a lot to be desired. The 1DsMkII is just sooooo much more camera for the money.

[bolantej]

the 1Ds is the cat's meow. if you can get it, do. there is nothing better.

[MotionEffects]

My uncle just got the D2X. I havnt got the chance to really play around with it. I agree with Ronald S. JR. on the "Feel" of Nikon bodies. The D2X feels solid compare to my 20D, but thats also a pro camera.

[Tee Why]

I like how the D2X's body feels compared to my N. Overall, I think Nikon dslr's feel sexier than Canon equivalents. However, those considerations disappear as soon as I start shooting.
I'm not sure if the Canon has better image quality than the Nikon here. Looking at dpreview, I think they are comparable, especially if you shoot RAW. So I'd tend to lean more towards the Nikon b/c of the price and b/c you can also take 6mp shots at a higher fps.

[GPR1]

Well, do you prefer Ferari or Porsche? They're both great tools. Go on a N*k*n board and they'll extoll the virtues of that one. It's a little hard to make this comparison -- you say the pixel count doesn't matter, but it's all about pixel count for the Canon. The N*k*n is more a sports/photojournalism camera - bigger buffer, higher frame rate, etc. It's really more comparable with the IDMKII** series. Both are great, but if you want highly detailed, low noise, big prints, the Canon wins.

Greg

[Leorooster]

Haven't gotten a chance to use neither the d2x nor the 1dsmk2, but I can say that the build quality of the d200 is much better than that of my 5d and 20d. Friend of mine has a d200, I was playing with it a couple of days ago, I was very impressed by the build quality of the d200. Maybe the 1dsmk2 being a pro body would be better, but again I can't speak for this. And, keep in mind that build quality is only one component that one needs to consider.

[Dante King]

leo, maybe i did not have a 5d for long enough, but i found the build to be all the d200 was on the outside.

as for this comparison, the 1dsmk2 wins hands down. for so many reasons. there is a major price diff too, but canon has owned the top of the line with the 1dsmk2 for as long as it has been on the market and nikon has no serious challenger.

[Leorooster]

leo, maybe i did not have a 5d for long enough, but i found the build to be all the d200 was on the outside.

as for this comparison, the 1dsmk2 wins hands down. for so many reasons. there is a major price diff too, but canon has owned the top of the line with the 1dsmk2 for as long as it has been on the market and nikon has no serious challenger.

Dante - I don't mean d200 is better than 5d or 20d, but just in term of build quality (yes, on the outside :)), d200 wins hands down. I guess it's because of it's weather sealed like the Canon 1 series. Again, can't speak for 1dsmk2 as I don't have the luxury to own one yet ;) One thing I noticed is that I found that more Canon users switch to Nikon since the introduction of d200. It can easily been seen by just observing the FM buy and sale forum. Very interesting!:rolleyes:

[chris clements]

I was going to contribute to this debate, but I've decided instead to log into www.vatican.com to get their honest opinion on buddhism.

Will report back.

[Andy_T]

MotionEffects,

if you could tell us a bit more about what you want to do with the camera, then we could give you a better answer. The two cameras are very different animals.

Best regards,
Andy

[Longwatcher]

The are only two advantages to the Nikon D2X over the Canon 1DsMkII
Cropped speed mode and reports of slightly better ergonomics.

The 1DsMkII does have more pixels which means you can crop more out of it.
The 1DsMkII has better high ISO results
The 1DsMkII has access to the full range of Canon EF lenses (The D2X does not have full access to the entire range of Nikon lenses because of the crop factor) This affect wide angle lenses mostly, but Canon's tilt-shift lenses are also available.
For Studio/Portrait work there is no better 35mm format DSLR then the 1DsMkII. Period.
For Sports/Photojournalism the 1DM2N is the one. The D2X is a compromise camera in multiple categories.

All of the above said, the D2X is a good camera, just the 1DsMkII is overall a better camera.

Just my 1DsMkII owning biased opinion.

[JMHPhotography]

I don't think the two are even in the same class.

[DavidEB]

I like my canon just fine, but I also respect the Nikon. You're buying a system, not a camera. Some of the Nikon lenses are unbeatable (as are some of the Canon), and the Nikon flash system beats Canon's hands down. Hang out here and read thread after thread of "why are my flash photos underexposed?" -- those don't show up on the Nikon boards. The new Nikon can trigger remote speedlites from the on-camera flash, and the on-camera flash is weather sealed. Now that's hot.

Each system has its advantages. If they didn't then there wouldn't be improvements in the future.

[digitaljoe]

d2X for body - 1DsmII for image quality particulary 800 and above.
Arn't both due for a revamp fairly soon.?

[MotionEffects]

MotionEffects,

if you could tell us a bit more about what you want to do with the camera, then we could give you a better answer. The two cameras are very different animals.

Best regards,
Andy

Andythaler, I shoot mostly Automobile, Buildings and landscape (was a Architecture Major), and "some" glamour shots. Three of them don't mix but I interest in them for some reason.

Seems like that people dont like the IQ of Nikon compare to Canon, but the D2X seems to be great. I havnt gotten a chance to shoot it at high ISO, guess I'll find that out later. For the price of the D2X, its hard to beat.8-)

[Longwatcher]

If the automobiles are not moving then based on what you shoot I would look at used 1Ds, 5D, D2X, used SLR/n or c and 1DsMkII as all equally valid choices. The 1DsMkII is the best, because overall IQ will be the best from the 1DsMkII sensor and you don't need the faster shutter speed.

And especially if you do architecture you will eventually want the Tilt-Shift lenses Canon has that Nikon doesn't.

A majority of Landscape and Glamour photographers are also picking 1DsMkII over D2X unless they have an investment in Nikon glass they are not willing to part with. That is if they don't go for a 39MP phase MF back.

If the automobiles are moving (as in racing) then you need the frames per second maybe of the D2X cropped mode.

Just my opinion,

[CyberDyneSystems]

For your intended purposes,. I would definitely say 1Ds2 is the better camera for the job.
Not the least of which,. full frame for wide angle lenses,. but that aside,. the D2X is one of the best cameras out there for use with long telephotos and high speeds.

It's main advantages are not really going to play a role in your shooting.

[fstop11.net]

Plain n simple answer is 1Dsmark2. The build quality is just flawless. Looks a dam side better aswel. The DX2 is ugly

[smirchfa]

Check out this comparison - scroll down to the test shots: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21.asp


Hopefully, if you get a D2X, you don't need more than 400 ISO! Yes, I know about Noise Ninja and the like, but really, that's pretty sad.

[grego]

1DSMKII - full frame.
Nikon D2x - 1.5 crop.

[primoz]

Build quality? I guess you never saw Nikon body then. This is one thing where Canon has nothing to offer compared to Nikon... for years already... actually all the way from begining already. I'm not saying Canon is bad. It's far from bad and it works great for my everydays (ab)use, but Nikon is completely different class when it comes to build quality.
As far as "which one of those two" goes... both will be just fine. I don't shoot with 1ds2 nor with d2x, but I do own and shoot with 1d2 and 1d, and I have bunch of friends shooting with d2h. So this what I will say is more about 1d2 and d2h, but I guess it goes also for 1ds2 and d2x. Pro cameras are about same level. Yes technicaly looking one is a little bit better then other one in one area, while other one is in other area. But in general this doesn't really matter for end product... that's photo ;) So any of those two cameras is good enough for what it's meant. And both do perfect job. Pro cameras are not like low(er) end cameras, which don't have everything. Pro cameras are meant for pro shooting so there's no compromise in that, and therefore both of them do anything you will want. Now question is if Canon looks nicer then Nikon, but as far as I know this doesn't matter for final photo ;)

[primoz]

Considering they are about 30% cheaper (at least here) then same Canon camera... yes definitely ;)

[mbze430]

for all those that read the original post.. A side from the pixel count.

clearly, Nikon will win hands down. I own a 1dsmk2. But if both camera is FF with 16mp. I would jump on the Nikon bang wagon.

Majority of people I know that shot nikon since their life time jumping to Canon is clearly only because of the FF.

I will put money, if Nikon got their act together with a FF D2 camera, there will be WHOLE lot less Canon shooters.