1DSMKII vs. D2X

[MDJAK]

Just paid for and subsequently read Lloyd's extensive and exhaustive review comparing the two cameras. Seems as if the Nikon is better in many respects. Contemplating jumping ship. Go ahead, slam me.

[defordphoto]

Go right ahead. Let us know how it turns out. I'm sure we'll see you back here within a year. If not, enjoy.

[MDJAK]

That's right, just throw me to the wolves. And I thought you cared.

How come it doesn't say this was moved? I almost thought it was struck.

[Pekka]

Who's Lloyd'?

[MDJAK]

See here: http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/D2X-vs-1DsMII/D2X-vs-1DsMII-info.html


Even if you disagree with his findings, it is a very well written and well documented review. He also reviews the performance of many, many lenses with both cameras.

[Pekka]

Well, his http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/phototechnique/essay07/essay.html is totally stupid an article, sorry to say. The conclusion could well be that 1DsMk2 gives much better subject separation with same lens.

[Avalonthas]

Go ahead and buy the nikon, you will hit urself in the head when u come back to Canon and look at all the useless glass you invested in. :P

[MDJAK]

Pekka, I would never engage in an argument with you. I'm a newbie and you are more experienced and knowledgeable than I can ever hope to be, try as I might, and I mean that in all sincerity. However, you are reading but a small portion of a very large body of material and jumping to what I believe to be an inaccurate conclusion. He's trying to show great depth of field with those shots, not bokeh or separation. He's stopping down the lenses, just as one would do if they were taking a portrait of someone with a beautiful mountain range in the background and wanted that in focus as much as possible. That's the point of that as far as I see. He's trying to show the entire field and the structure in focus. Once again, my point is certainly not to engage in argument with you for I'd surely lose. But I do think it is short sighted of you, without reading his entire article and viewing his pictures to call it stupid. Let's not forget, he owns both cameras.

[MDJAK]

Go ahead and buy the nikon, you will hit urself in the head when u come back to Canon and look at all the useless glass you invested in. :P

Actually, he slams both manufacturers when it comes to glass, saying that these new high resolution cameras outshine their glass.

[Belmondo]

Maybe before you start your search for high-end equipment, especially if you are a newbie as you say, you should learn who the reliable equipment reviewers are. I've never heard of the individual you've cited.

[MDJAK]

Have you heard of Michael Reichman, the writer of the luminous-landscape.com? Do you respect him? His website, which I read with great interest, is where this link was posted, as follows:


"April 11, 2005

"I've now returned from a week-long vacation in San Francisco and Big Sur. In addition to some R&R I met with several of my friends and colleagues in the photographic world, and got to visit a few photography galleries. I even did a bit of shooting along the coast. Call it a busman's holiday.

"This week will see a couple of camera reviews here, but not of the latest models. Rather, one model that has been around for a couple of years, and another that has been on the scene for about a half year, but which has already been reviewed here by a guest reviewer.

"I'm referring to the Epson R-D1. My mini-review, or Another Opinion (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/rd1-another.shtml), as I call it, is now online. Later in the week a Second Opinion on the Olympus E-1, written by Sean Reid, will also be published here.

"And for those interested in the current battle of the giants – that between the reigning king of the DSLR hill, the Canon 1Ds Mark II, and its newest serious contender, the Nikon D2X, Lloyd Chambers has just published an 85MB review of the two cameras, based on ownership of both. In the end he chose to keep one over the other, and he provides his reasons why in considerable detail. This review is available for download (http://www.diglloyd.com/diglloyd/D2X-vs-1DsMII-info.html) from Lloyd's site at a cost of US $34.

"Update: Please note that Lloyd and his review are unrelated to this web site. It is being mentioned here as a matter of interest only."




Please note that I am in no way saying the 1dsmkII is not a great camera. All I'm pointing out is that this gentleman makes some very valid points, one of which is that the Nikon battery, which lasts twice as long, weighs less than half. I carried my 1dsmII around Manhattan today. I would have appreciated the weight saving.

Without reading his article, the fact that you've never heard of him doesn't mean that much. Perhaps if you read it, then you can draw some proper conclusions.

[CyberDyneSystems]

ROFLMAO

Nikonians need to pay someone $35.00 a pop jsut to hear him say "Noink is Better than Canon" :lol:


MDJAK,

Let me know how much for your rusty old 1Ds MkII :mrgreen:

[Tom W]

I'm a little surprised that he's charging $34 for the comparison myself.

[MDJAK]

Rusty? I'll have you know I treat my "stuff" as well as, if not better, than I treat my kids.:rolleyes: Ask them, they'll tell you so. In fact, my family (who've spent not a rusty nickel in B&H) have probably spent more time there with me than almost anyone on this forum. I drag them down there every sunday in search of a new toy. Today, after fingering the Gitzo cf tripods, I left with only a Sandisk 1gb sd card. I had an empty slot to fill.

[MDJAK]

I'm a little surprised that he's charging $34 for the comparison myself.

I felt the same way. I resisted the urge to buy it, as almost all info on the web seems to be free. I will say, though, that it is worth reading, whatever conclusions one draws. And I have absolutely no connection with him, never heard of him before reading about it on the luminous-landscape.

I've been waiting and waiting for dpreview to do a full review, but it just doesn't seem to be coming for some inexplicable reason.

[MDJAK]

Might I also state that my question about why this thread was moved has not been answered. There have been many threads regarding nikon vs. canon on the equipment forum that have not been moved. The equipment forum is the most widely read; perhaps that's why.

[Belmondo]

Okay, I'm convinced. Does anyone want to buy a mess of used Canon equipment? Can I still be a moderator here? :confused:

[Tom W]

Pekka, I would never engage in an argument with you. I'm a newbie and you are more experienced and knowledgeable than I can ever hope to be, try as I might, and I mean that in all sincerity. However, you are reading but a small portion of a very large body of material and jumping to what I believe to be an inaccurate conclusion. He's trying to show great depth of field with those shots, not bokeh or separation. He's stopping down the lenses, just as one would do if they were taking a portrait of someone with a beautiful mountain range in the background and wanted that in focus as much as possible. That's the point of that as far as I see. He's trying to show the entire field and the structure in focus. Once again, my point is certainly not to engage in argument with you for I'd surely lose. But I do think it is short sighted of you, without reading his entire article and viewing his pictures to call it stupid. Let's not forget, he owns both cameras.

I think that the problem with his conclusion on the DOF article from OutbackPhoto is that he claims superiority for the deeper DOF. If deeper DOF is the mark of superiority, then my S-400 has them both beat with its f/2.8-4.9 lens. Depth of field can be an asset or deficit depending on a particular use - shallow or deep isn't inherently better than the other. But Lloyd seems to claim that the deeper is an overall advantage, where it actually is only in some circumstances. And, of course, it can be controlled easily by changing the aperture. It isn't his comparison that is bad, but his conclusion in this particular case.

Other than that, I'm not about to pay $34 to see the rest of his review. There'll be plenty of comparisons coming out on the net that test the cameras in a controlled, equal environment. And none will be expensive.

[Tom W]

Okay, I'm convinced. Does anyone want to buy a mess of used Canon equipment? Can I still be a moderator here? :confused:


Always looking for a 300 mm f/2.8 leg for the coffee table. :)

[Pekka]

Pekka, I would never engage in an argument with you. I'm a newbie and you are more experienced and knowledgeable than I can ever hope to be, try as I might, and I mean that in all sincerity. However, you are reading but a small portion of a very large body of material and jumping to what I believe to be an inaccurate conclusion. He's trying to show great depth of field with those shots, not bokeh or separation. He's stopping down the lenses, just as one would do if they were taking a portrait of someone with a beautiful mountain range in the background and wanted that in focus as much as possible. That's the point of that as far as I see. He's trying to show the entire field and the structure in focus. Once again, my point is certainly not to engage in argument with you for I'd surely lose. But I do think it is short sighted of you, without reading his entire article and viewing his pictures to call it stupid. Let's not forget, he owns both cameras.

I was commenting the article I referred, not the one he sells. Calling it stupid was not good call or polite, sorry, Better word could be manipulative.

He is a long-time Nikon user (Nikon D2H and D100 before D2X) and as Björn's review in http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page he uses same method of targeting certain areas and forgetting to mention some. E.g. pick on vignetting or edge sharpness which has nothing to do with camera but is purely function of lens at full frame FoV --- 1.5 or 2.0 crop just ignores that data and the cost is that it can not do real wide angle at all. 14mm is 21mm (or 28mm with 2.0x).

I'm not saying that buying brand X model Y camera is something that you should not do. But please read all reviews with a filter on. The reviews on any media are seldom, if ever, nonbiased and without prejudice and intention to proof a point. Merely because it is human nature to be subjective and let feelings and past experiences to infuence our thoughs. I consider Dpreview's reviews most professional in this respect.

[ssim]

Didn't you recently get a 1DsMKII. Are you really that dis-satified with it that you are ready to jump to the other side based on one persons review. As has been mentioned here the author seems to be a long time Nikon user and one would expect his review to be biased to their side.

Perhaps you could enlighten us on what about the 1DsMKII that you are so unhappy with.

For me, I couldn't envision starting over with a new brand. Particularly when I am using a product that gives me results that I am very happy with.

[MDJAK]

"I consider Dpreview's reviews most professional in this respect."

As do I. I've been visiting their website daily for over two years now. And ever since the preview of the 1dsmII was posted there, I've waited with baited breath for the full review. So far, nada. Can you explain why the delay? I realize the camera is hard to come by, but every other website has managed to review it, some twice.

[nosquare2003]

MDJAK, you have the 1DsMKII that I don't have one. I'm interested to know what limitations imposed by the 1DsMKII to your photography. And can these limitations be overcome by D2X or the Nikon systems?

[Tom W]

"I consider Dpreview's reviews most professional in this respect."

As do I. I've been visiting their website daily for over two years now. And ever since the preview of the 1dsmII was posted there, I've waited with baited breath for the full review. So far, nada. Can you explain why the delay? I realize the camera is hard to come by, but every other website has managed to review it, some twice.

Phil's reviews are pretty objective, and he puts the test images right there for you. He has a standard battery of tests and treats all equipment with a similar procedure. I can't say why he hasn't published a test on the 1DsII yet, but you might want to e-mail him and ask. I suspect that he's going to test the two flagship cameras together, and maybe even throw in a medium format digital back for fun.

Anyway, that said, I'll add to what Pekka said - it is best to take in information from a multitude of sources. The now-famous test done by Bjorn on the "naturegrafix" web site has been a major source of confrontation over on DPReview due to the test methodology. Bjorn, in fairness, re-did part of his tests, but still didn't do well in equalizing the test criteria IMHO. But he's a long-time Nikon shooter and is subject to the rules of human nature.

So read these tests with a grain of salt, steer clear of non standard-ized tests, and try to account for all flaws in the test procedure. Make sure that there aren't any outside influences that could alter the outcome. Get all the points of view before deciding one way or another. And look for some realistic noise tests - every one I've seen has been pulled from the net.

This stuff is too expensive to be swapping formats rapidly without thoroughly examining the options.

[Longwatcher]

I read some of Llyods comments on Rob Galbraith's site before he decided to make some money off the suckers*1. From what I got from them was he liked the Nikon better, but it seemed to be a case of because he was used to the Nikon. Otherwise he seemed to think they were comparable. And yes he had DoF backwards as far as I was concerned. As to Bjorn, I stand by the fact that his tests were so flawed as to be useless as a point of comparison, even after the retest.

I did a comparison of the D2X and 1DsMkII to the best of my ability given web resources and they are both good cameras, but the D2X compares more with the 1D2 then the 1DsMkII. In that case the D2X may be a slightly superior camera (the camera, not necessarily the system). But against the 1DsMkII, we are talking potentially different beasts and from an overall utility standpoint in the studio (thus the 's') the 1DsMkII is superior in my opinion.

Just my opinion,
disclaimer: I am somewhat (possibly strongly) biased in favor of Canon despite the little (read major) irritation last Friday.

If you have the money, please get both and a couple of comparable lenses and try it out for yourself and let us know what you think. But if you can't afford it, you already have the better camera in the 1DsMkII.

*1 = BTW: I will give Lloyd credit, what a great way to pay for your cameras.

[Tom W]

I'm just wondering when somebody's going to do a controlled out-of-the-camera high-ISO noise comparison test. Seems that every time somebody posts some noisy pictures (such as was done on Luminous Landscape immediately after the D2x was released), those images and tests seem to get removed from the web.

[Andy_T]

Conclusion
At a minimum, the D2X has a depth of field advantage of one and one third stops.

'Advantage' being the larger DOF of a reduced frame camera :lol:

It's fun to see that the major difference, the sensor size here is displayed as advantage of the D2X.

What Pekka and Tom W already pointed out very clearly ... this part of the review is sufficient to raise some doubts about its author. You will note that Michael Reichmann does not say a single word about the quality of the review, but states it is referred to as a matter of interest.

I seriously doubt that people really trying to decide whether they should buy the 1DsII or the D2X will pay 34$ for the article after they've read the 'aperture' section of the review :rolleyes:

Best regards,
Andy

[chris.bailey]

I think we are in danger of pixel peeping here. If you want to spend your money on a Nikon go ahead. I'm sure it will be excellent. Having 'played' with one in the flesh and coming from 5 Canons in a row I found it awkward and having got to the point where the Canon systems D and 1 series are pretty much second nature I would need a hell of a good reason to have to re-learn and to be honest I would rather be out there taking some pictures.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Chris,..

This may be the wrong site to to take the name "pixel Peeping" in vain on..

Many of us ARE pixel peepers... Admitedly,. unabashedly,. and religously! :lol: :lol: :lol:

CDS
AKA Dr. Peeper
I'm a peeper, your a peeper, He's a peeper, She's a peeper
Wouldn't you like to be a peeper too?

[MDJAK]

Well, having sat on the sidelines for a day or so taking my well deserved lumps, and reading the review a few times with the necessary "filters" as mentioned above, I realize it does have its flaws. I did jump to conclusions that perhaps were not warranted, and for that I offer everyone who responded above my apologies.

I now see how things can be slanted to one's own point of view.

mark

[chris.bailey]

Well, having sat on the sidelines for a day or so taking my well deserved lumps, and reading the review a few times with the necessary "filters" as mentioned above, I realize it does have its flaws. I did jump to conclusions that perhaps were not warranted, and for that I offer everyone who responded above my apologies.

I now see how things can be slanted to one's own point of view.

mark

I think you got off very lightly, I was expecting blood on the carpet at least :-) So having got us all riled up, what are you going to do then?

[Merle]

Ford, Chevy, Dodge ? More than one consumer spending thier dollars and many consumers with different opinions. That is why more than one company can exist and both Nikon and Canon are making money. ;) :lol: :D