D2X VS 1DsMkII - Humor (sort of)

[Longwatcher]

So there I was reading the reviews of the competition, just to see if it was really competition. This is what I got out of the comparison. Please take into account that I think the 2DX is a great camera and I am Bias, but it really doesn't compete with 1DsMkII except in speed and pixel density.

- The D2X has far higher resolution (which is about the only truth and only if the cameras are in the same location and you crop the 1DsMkII's shot down to the same FoV as the D2X)

N- The D2X has equal noise quality at ISO 100-400
--what about ISO 800, 1600 and 3200?
N- Those are just there for the consumer, 'Pro's' wouldn't be using those levels anyway.

N- The D2X can take pictures faster then the 1DsMkII.
-- What about the 1DmkII.
N- We are not doing a comparison with that camera here.

N- The power use is a significant improvement over previous models with the Pro able to take over 200 pictures before the battery needs recharging.
-- Isn't that considerably less then the 1D series 1200+ pictures on a battery charge?
N- Yes but we designed it that way, so the camera would be lighter.
-- Not to mention less then a D60, 10D, or 20D on a single BP-511.
N-We are not comparing against those cameras at this time.

N- With the D2X you are less likely to see artifacts on the corners of your frame.
-- Isn't this caused by your smaller sensor size?
N- See aren't we wise to keep to the smaller sensor.
-- Couldn't I just crop the 1DsMkII images down to the same size and get a better picture.
N- But ours is better straight out of the camera, Pros don't need that extra field of view anyway; If they do they can buy some more of our new lenses!

N - With the D2X you will get a sharper image using a Nikor lens then you will with a 1DsMkII.
-- Uh!, do you mean with a Nikor lens with adapter on a 1DsMkII.
N- Of course that is the best way to compare the two cameras to use the same Nikor lens.
-- Wouldn't the Nikor lens have a slightly different focal point then a Canon lens, which maybe is causing the softness in the Canon?
N- We are not comparing Canon lenses!

-- What about dynamic range?
N- We didn't feel a comparison would be valuable to our Customers.

........................End of comparison...............

Normally I don't like bashing people when they are down, but I have a distinct desire for honesty and I also have a strange curiousity as to why several reviews have apparently been pulled in the past few days. Reviews from normally less biased sources then overt Nikon fans. I suspect lawsuits at work to keep people quite and thus I feel obliged to comment.

...............BTW this is my post #1000, so I can now claim grumpy senior member status................

[Andy_T]

:lol:

Longwatcher, great explanations!
Now watch out for that lawsuit coming :shock:

Best regards,
Andy

[Tom W]

LOL, I know of the review from which you get your humor. I, too, wonder where those other tests went.

[cmM]

lol
Awesome comparisson.
Make sure Nikonians don't see this... they're pissed off as is, they'll lynch you! :-P

[Tom W]

The particular review to which I _think_ that Longwatcher is refering to has been a very serious point of contention. DPR has been a mess since that test came out (well, more of a mess than usual) with all kinds of cross-posting, flame wars, and general angst between the Canon users that have pointed out the test's apparent deficiencies and the more vocal among Nikonians who try to rationalize its accuracy.

Longwatcher sums it up quite well IMHO. The D2x is likely a great camera. I can't see any reason that it wouldn't be. Nikon doesn't generally produce junk. My opinion is that it will fill its price point perfectly, nestled between the 1D2 and the 1Ds2. But the one prominent review has cast a shadow of doubt over the camera, primarily by showing its bias so prominantly.

[CyberDyneSystems]

200 shots?

Is that A typo?

I also think the very first point has a symantics issue,. which is purposely being used to mislead. The D2X has a higher pixel density due to it's much smaller sensor size,. but what we usually refer to as resolution in Digital Cameras is it's pixel count in an H x W pair of numbers (ei: for example 3200 X 1650),. numbers which are clearly larger for the 16MP 1Ds2 than they are for the D2X.

The 1Ds2 makes an image with 16 million pixels from a sensor with 16 million (working) photosites.

The D2X makes an image with 12 million pixels from a sensor with 12 million workimg photosites.

[Longwatcher]

First my Post was Satire (thus covered by the 1st admendment), but resolution was what they were talking about when comparing the two. The intent of the review was to point out the higher resolution of the D2X given the same distance. Which since it has a higher pixel density it will tend to have a higher resolution per inch at the same distance. However, the review kind of glossed over the pixel density versus whole pixel number and just commented on the higher resolution. Thus my Satire.

Second, yes 200 images (not 2000) was what I read in the review. And indications are this is about right for the environment he was in and is apparently typical of Nikon D2 series from the impressions I got in other threads, the high I read was 500 images, which is a little over what I get on a BP-511 in a 10D, no where near the 2000 plus of the 1DsMkII (3400+ on first attempt for me). It was cold at the location of the reviewer, so you would have a lower number, but I would need 6-12 spare batteries to complete a photo session if my Canon cameras were that bad and I have only had to swap out batteries once at most with any of my Canon cameras.

Lastly, I was just on Dpreview - Nikon forum - those folks are somewhat delusional over there.

[PeterTaylor]

If this is the same article that I read it did quote that battery performance of the D2X has been quite good. But there was one caveat, that while the battery performance had not been outstanding, the reviewer had got over 200 shots per charge, and has he did say this had included a lot of image monitoring and checking on the LCD screen. Oh and that he had been using the camera outdoors in temperatures that were below 0°C during most of the shooting.

Also if we are talking about the same article a Note has been added since the 26th February

PS Yes I am just a little biased

[CyberDyneSystems]

Still amazed at the battery issue,. The D2H I thought was well into the 1,500-2,000 shots per charge catagory. But at 0 degrees,. this would explain the whole issue.

I'll have to go read the Review,. the images I've seen from this camera are fantastic,. supe high detail! Very reminiscent of the 1Ds (classic) I've not seen enough 1Ds2 images to compare that one.

One thing that the D70, D2H owners will have to get used to with the D2X is suddenly they are armed with a camera that requires the same attention to USM as us Canon folk are now quite used to.

[Pekka]

Longwatcher sums it up quite well IMHO. The D2x is likely a great camera. I can't see any reason that it wouldn't be. Nikon doesn't generally produce junk. My opinion is that it will fill its price point perfectly, nestled between the 1D2 and the 1Ds2.

All top gear what we can buy now (both Canon and Nikon) are so good that they do not limit our creativity. They all get the job done, and YOU are the weak link. I do not know any photographer who truthfully _needs_ a better camera than e.g. Canon mark II series is.

Much of the new gear hype (and fighting) is about noise levels and spatial resolution and pixel density and other numerical stuff. The big image is lost. The truth is that high ISO noise of any current top DSLR's does not look bad on print, noise levels we currently get (on Canon and Nikon and Fuji and Kodak and..) or using 8mp instead of 15mp does not ruin our chances of getting the title for "Press photographer of the year 2005". Scrutinizing the 200% output on 72dpi screen has messed our minds.
In the end the choice of brand comes down to simple questions like:

- Are the lenses you need (or think you will need) available?
- Are the accessories you need (or think you will need) available?
- Does the camera feel comfortable and intuitive to work with?
- Is the whole system reliable?
- Can you get it fixed when it breaks, where and how fast?

But the one prominent review has cast a shadow of doubt over the camera, primarily by showing its bias so prominantly.
Yes, definitely biased. Exactly what I tried to comment in http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=12428039 (the only time I wrote on that forum :) )

[CyberDyneSystems]

Does anyone have a link to this review?

[Tom W]

Lastly, I was just on Dpreview - Nikon forum - those folks are somewhat delusional over there.

I was just peeking over there as well. The original tester has re-done a portion of the test using a 300 mm lens on the Canon, and a 200 on the Nikon. He still uses crops, and won't show the entire image. Anyway, the center image Canon shot is considerably better, but it seems to have less contrast and color towards the edge. Given that he used the 300/2.8, I doubt if there's any edge sharpness problems with the Canon lens. He was shooting landscape shots at f/5.6 so the DOF might have been a major issue.

Anyway, there is some blind allegiance among some of the folks on the "dark side" (I suppose there is on both sides of the equation). They're now praising the crop factor as the greatest virtue, while generally ignoring the inherent noise issue that is a byproduct of higher pixel density.

[Tom W]

Does anyone have a link to this review?


Yes:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev00.html#top_page

edit: revised link to top page of article.

[charlesu]

Even if the new N camera is as good as initially perceived at low ISO, N is long overdue I updating their pro customers. I know a number of people who have given up on N and moved to Canon or even Kodak (so they could keep their glass).

I have to admit I don't understand the legitimacy of some of the arguments made about the testing.

Reality will be how well it produces a large format print as compared to the Canon 1D MKII and the S MK II. Frankly, looking waht the camera is dumping as a plain jpeg and judging it to be superior because of the "sharpness" just seems plain silly to me. I want to see a large format high-resolution print made from both the N and the 1D series cameras.

Bottom line is I don't think Canon will worry to much about dropping the price of the 1Ds MKII over this.

[roanjohn]

The reason why the Canon shot was softer compared to the Nikon is because the Canon sensor outresolved the Nikon lens attached to it!!!

This, of course, is just my HO!!!

Sorry Nikon!!! :-)

Ro1

[Raj]

Reading Nikons answer in longwatchers post, i feel bad for the Nikon's spokesman. I am sure he must be trying to speak well but actually with a hollow voice (I remember this feeling from my viava exams when I tried to answer but knew I was making up a story :-)) & must be cursing Nikon for not providing anything more competetive to sell ...
I always feel sad for loosing team... salesman who cant sell something .... :-)

[sGu]

I don't know what the big deal is with people "WOWing" over D2X, I haven't seen anything D2X does that Canon cameras can't do, all I can see is Canon does the job better.

For all the Nikon folks cheering n jumping up n down, I just feel sorry for them not tried Canon camera earlier because of their "loyalty", otherwise they'd be doing the same thing and saying the same praise months ago.

Btw, that face shot at ISO800 from D2X floating about on the net looks horrible to me, way too much noise than ISO1600 on a 1D MK II(When frame is correctly exposed)

[Longwatcher]

One comment on testing for resolution with different sized sensors.

If you, me, whoever wants to have as close to an unbiased test when comapring two different sensor formats, I suggest the following:

conduct a total of 9 test (at least three shots of each test)
The target should have both a complex area and a smooth area, preferably one of each in both the center and at at least one corner.
All shots should be taken at same aperture (f8 probably best), same shutter speed, same ISO setting.

1. Camera-A with same focal length lens as Camera-B taken from the same spot
1A. Repeat with a different focal length lens
1B. repeat again at a different focal length (can be same lens as 1 or 1A if zoom)

2. Camera-A with a lens that simulates the same FoV as the lens on Camera-B from the same spot.
2A and 2B as 1A and B above

3. Camera-A with same focal length lens moved to location that gives same FoV as Camera-B with same focal length lens
3A and 3B as 1A and B above

This will require 54 shots total as a minimum. More is better.
You need only use the best exemplars in the review, but best to link remaning shots in an addendum page if space permits.

By doing this you cover all combinations of potential bias from particular lenses and scenes and minimize your bias (which will still be there)
If comparing noise, then repeat at different ISOs and apertures.
A good, but non-scientific test will take about 5400 shots minimum to really compare the two systems. a scientific test would require resolution and color charts and even more shots.

Just my opinion,
disclaimer: I am not a scientist, I am only a technical advisor.

[CyberDyneSystems]

... whoa whoa whoa whoa wait a minute....

Somehow I missed the plot here,. (odd thing is I recall reading it right the first time but by the time I got through I had let this oddity pass from my conscince as some sort of bad dream...

Are you saying ALL the images in that review with with a Nikon lens?

//runs to read review again....

[CyberDyneSystems]

O-kay,. only for the one test... phew....