D2x compared to Canon 1DS MarkII

<a href

="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dsmkii/page21.asp">Here</a>

in dpreview.com. D2x owners, be proud. Check the corner sharpness

and chromatic aberration issues if interested in the FF DX debate.

Considering the $2,500 price difference between the two cameras I'm still not sure why people are comparing them in the first place. I can't even imagine spending what it costs to buy the Canon. In terms of bang for the buck the D2X is at the top of the field in the sparsely populated upper tier class of dSLRs.

Canon obviously is highly competitive in the middle and lower tier of dSLRs but even some Canon fans are bailing out of the 1Ds MarkII in favor of the 5D, presumably hoping to recoup some of their expenses before depreciation bites too big a chunk out of the resale value. And it remains to be seen whether Canon risked any significant compromises in quality or construction integrity in order to market the 5D at a more accessible price.

Has the 1Ds mk2 price dropped from 8K to 7.5K? The D2X has an MSRP of 5K and I've

read reports of people getting it from legit dealers for 4.5K, so that is more like a 3K to

3.5K difference.

Both are terrific cameras and systems. Nikon is ahead in some areas, Canon is ahead in

some other areas.

B&H currently lists the Canon 1Ds Mark 2 for $7400, but you may be able to negotiate it down a bit more. The D2X is still $5000 probably because that is required by Nikon's minimum advertising price.

When I bought my D2X from B&H back in June, I got them to lower the price by a few hundred dollars. Now a few months later, I would imagine the real street price has gone down even more. I would target it around $4500.

For a prosumer body without all the pro body ruggedness, fast AF, etc., the 5D is a very expensive body, but I am sure that it is putting price pressure on the 1Ds Mark 2.

If you real Bjorn R.'s review earlier and now Phil Askey's review, you'll realize that the full-frame 1Ds Mark 2 doesn't have much advantage over the D2X. I am sure that a small number of people must have full frame because they need tilt-and-shift lenses, etc. But overall, I see no reason why Nikon must produce full-frame DSLRs to compete against Canon. IMO, that is a wrong assumption a lot of people are making in these days. In fact, the samll group that must have full frame has long switched to Canon. If Nikon follows suit and introduces one themselve, they'll have a hard time selling it.

What Nikon needs to produce is a good $2000 prosumer DSLR, and those over-priced Canon full-frame DSLR will be in a lot of trouble. There are very good reasons that nobody else other than Canon is jumping into the full-frame bandwagon right now.

<I>What Nikon needs to produce is a good $2000 prosumer DSLR, and those over-priced

Canon full-frame DSLR will be in a lot of trouble. </i><P>

I doubt it. The advent of such a machine would probably convince a lot of Nikon film

shooters to finally go digital, and hence would be a good financial move for Nikon.

Similarly, someone who wants to get into digital SLRs and isn't already "invested" in either

N or C might be swayed in the N direction -- but after a number of years in which good

DSLRs have been available, how many of those undecided folks are left? In my view,

anyone who has a substantial investment in Canon lenses would not have much incentive

to switch -- Canon's got too many good DSLRs (entry level to profession) and a

demonstrated ability to churn out updated models every 18 months or so. For the same

reason, I'm always puzzled by Nikon users who seem willing to sacrifice a big investment

in Nikon lenses just to move to Canon (where they purchase equivalent Canon lenses). I

can see making the switch if you have a perceived need for some special optics not

available in the competing brand (stabilized superteles or whatever), but not for FF vs DX

formats.

As a Canon user, I would love to see a very appealing D200 that would spur competition,

but I don't think it's going to have a big impact on sales of the FF Canons.

Mark, the point is not necessarily that Canon user will switch to Nikon. What the D2X has demonstrated is that full-frame is not necessarily the way of the future, as many people have (IMO incorrectly) assumed. If a $2000 D200 or a $1300 20D can do pretty much the same job as a 5D, how many people will be willing to spend $3300 just for the sake of full frame? They might as well go with the mach cheaper 20D or its successor next year, or perhaps a pro-quality 1D Mark 2/1D Mark 2N.

Canon's current problem is that they have too many products competiting against themselves. The 5D undercuts the 1Ds Mark 2. They are trying to emphasis that full frame is the future, but then that will seriously affect the sales of their small-sensor DSLRs and EF-S lenses. To say the least, those internal incompatibility within Canon is pretty messy right now.

I wonder whether there are any reliable photo industry surveys with figures that indicate the choices consumers have been making. I've seen several *unreliable* surveys but because they're posted in a way that they can be biased through ballot stuffing, the surveys are useless.

OTOH, if public forums are a reasonably good indication, it's probably safe to draw a few conclusions:

1. Many newbies will be swayed toward buying the brand name that impresses them as being associated with "pro photographers," even tho' they're buying into the bottom tier. So, despite the Nikon/Canon cachet, if a prospective buyer's great uncle was a photojournalist who used Pentax Spotmatics, the newbie might very well buy an *ist.

2. A longtime user of a particular brand is likely to stick with that brand. This is what drives non-Olympus people mad over the 4/3 issue. They seem to regard E-1 and Evolt owners as willful, disobedient children who won't join the fold.

3. Most longtime users of a particular brand are likely to consider compatibility of existing equipment - lenses, flash, etc. - between their film SLR and a dSLR they're considering.

4. Most pros will choose the equipment that does the job best, regardless of brand.

5. Those who consider themselves "serious amateurs" will carefully watch what the pros are doing and follow suit.

6. After six months half of those serious amateurs will experience buyer's remorse and wonder whether they should have jumped ship.

7. Six months after buying a bottom tier dSLR, newbies - who are now "experts" because the digital arena is fast paced and this pacing much logically confer enhanced abilities upon the user, right? Right? - anyway, six months after buying a bottom tier dSLR newbies will see that some serious amateurs are jumping ship and since they now consider themselves to be serious amateurs they must become a lemming.

My conclusion: The Next Big Thing in a dSLR should be the equivalent to a life raft. Or at least a donut lifesaver. Toss it out to the ship jumpers and reel 'em in.

I'll draw up a survey to affirm my predetermined conclusions, bias the wording in such a way that I can't possibly be wrong, and post it where the ballot stuffing can commence.

Canon are not saying FF is the only way to go; they are saying they expect high-end (and probably mid-range) to go FF and low-end to stay as APS-C. So the major volume of DSLR's from Canon will continue to be APS-C factor.

<p>

The Canon range is not confused they simply offer a choice. As it happens the 1.6x 20D suits me personally so I am not jumping into the FF 5D but I like having the choice.

<I>Canon's current problem is that they have too many products competiting against

themselves. The 5D undercuts the 1Ds Mark 2. They are trying to emphasis that full frame

is

the future, but then that will seriously affect the sales of their small-sensor DSLRs and EF-

S

lenses. To say the least, those internal incompatibility within Canon is pretty messy right

now.</i><P>

Shun: you keep saying this in various threads, and most of it is pure conjecture on your

part,

backed

up by zero data as far as I can tell. Canon seems to have sussed out the market pretty

well,

judging by their sales success. I see it as Derek does: they have a range of choices that

appeal to lots of different users. Saying that the 5D undercuts the 1Ds is akin to saying

that the D70 undercuts the D2X because both have the same sensor size. And so what if

the 5D starts stealing sales from APS

sensor cameras, like the 20D. The product lifetimes of DSLRs are not that long, so if they

gradually supplant one profitable line (20D) with another (5D), what's the problem? I

don't think that's likely

to happen for a while (especially if we consider the Digital Rebel line). Presumably they

think they are going to

do well with a range of cameras including FF and APS. Time will tell if that's the case, but I

find it amusing that you discuss this as if you were dealing with established facts (sales

data, etc) when in fact you're just speculating.<P>

And it's not as if Canon is alone in dealing with different sensor sizes. Nikon is attempting

to push the new F6 (a FF camera) at the same time it's beating the drum for DX lenses.<P>

We can argue about this until the cows come home, with no resolution until a few years of

dales data are in hand, What <B>really</b> puzzles me is why so many people on these

forums take so much delight in bashing the brand they don't own. Must be some aspect

of human nature, but how odd that people's perceptions of their self-worth seem so

wrapped up in tools instead of results (pictures). From a lot of experience with both lines,

I think both N and C have a lot going for them. Each has points I find appealing and

others I wish were different, but good photographers will be able to make good pictures

with either, and hacks are fated to produce crap images no matter what brand they use.

Nikon's immediate concern should be is to keep their photo & digital photographers from

jumping over to Canon. The D2x is a big step towards this. The next step hopefully is the

yet to come D200. Low priced consumer cameras such as the D70s & D50 also help with

market share however for better or for worse Nikon will for the immediate future always

be second fiddle to Canon in the digital slr field.

<I>for better or for worse Nikon will for the immediate future always be second fiddle to

Canon in the digital slr field.</i><P>

Um.... why? Is there that much difference in sales volume between the two? I thought they

were pretty close. And in terms of technology, I don't see a lot of difference either, in most

respects. There's some things about the D2X that I wish were found in my Canon 1DII, for

example. Each brand has some lenses that (at the moment) aren't replicated by its

competitor. But overall, they seem quite able to keep each other on their toes, which is

good.

<i>"If a $2000 D200 or a $1300 20D can do pretty much the same job as a 5D, how many people will be willing to spend $3300 just for the sake of full frame?"</i><br><br>

For some reason Phil Askey keeps comparing the 24-70L zoom against the 50/1.8 AFD, but it is true, FF does introduce more CA with some lenses. The 1DsMk2 does seem to pull more detail out of some shots, but it's a moot point.<br><br>

The thing is, that right now, if you want to go ISO 3200 FF (5D) is the way to go. However, the D2x is a great machine, with a better interface, and a much more intelligent power system. But afterall, it all boils down to what lenses you have. If you plan on using these beasts, you already own some very expensive glass, and that would dictate which body you'll buy.

Mark, there are a lot of psychological issues that this debate brings up. Some people use Nikon and desperately want Nikon to make a FF DSLR. Others buy the Canon or a D2X. The point really that Shun is trying to make is that high image quality can be obtained with DX DSLRs just as with FF DSLRs.

Both approaches have their merits. Yes, Nikon's FF camera is currently F6 and what is wrong with that? They'll eventually bring a FF DSLR because of the user requests.

If anything, Canon has shown recently that 1) FF need not be prohibitatively expensive, 2) the corner problems are there but they're not a deal breaker, 3) significant advantages in high iso performance have been realized.

Why would a Nikon user still want FF? Well, one is that fast lenses perform badly on DX cameras at wide apertures, and much better results would be obtained on FF DSLRs. Shun doesn't use really fast lenses (f/1.4, f/2) but I do use them to photograph people in window light and kids indoors, and the performance of my lenses wide open is simply poor on my D70 while I get good to excellent results on 35 mm black and white film. This is one of the things why a D2X is not sufficient for me to stop using film and that's why I haven't invested the money in it yet. I can't buy a Canon 5D because the system would cost me about $15000 if I really wanted to switch. And I'd have fewer lenses than I do now. No thanks.

For me, the ideal situation would be to have two DSLRs, one FF (like F6 but digital) and one D2X. I really can appreciate the advantages of the high-density small sensors for general photography but medium range lenses especially when used at wide apertures really suffer from the cropped sensor. Good photos can be made but the widest apertures are really not useful because of the quality drop.

Also, there are things like the prime lenses are built for a certain field of view and there can be surprising flare when e.g. a 35 mm is used on my D70, sometimes the flare doesn't show well in the viewfinder. A zoom lens user might not realize anything is wrong because they are used to this kind of thing, as a wide-to-normal zoom always has these problems (that the hood is not ideal for a given angle of view). Also, the 50 mm AF primes barrels wobble a bit when focused and it is much more obvious and irritating when used on a DX body than FF, where it is hardly noticeable. This is a build quality issue. If I got rid of my D70 I could get a much nicer built Ai-S 50 mm lens. Probably this is what I'll do but this means I have to pay big money for a D2 series body to get metering.

So I'm waiting. I really would prefer an intermediate sensor size like Canon has in their 1D Mk II but it doesn't look like either company is going to continue with that approach. There will be 1x & 1.6x for Canon and 1x & 1.5x for Nikon, and that's it.

It is nice by the way to see how Phil Askey is quite objective about his tests. Can't get much more thorough than he has done! Anyway, I believe that Nikon and Canon are both selling all the high-end cameras they can make at their current prices.

I could just shoot 35 mm film and D2X but I have a feeling I might as well wait for a cheaper D200 which might be similar in features to the D2X, and then if big money is needed for a FF D2F or D3 then I'll have spent less on the intermediate camera.

Ilkka, what you say makes perfect sense, especially "high image quality can be obtained with

DX DSLRs just as with FF DSLRs." Couldn't agree more.

Mark, what is the problem if Canon gradually replaces the 20D with the 5D? Well, if you want Canon wide angles for your 20D, you'll get lenses such as the 10-22mm EF-S, and you may have other EF-S lenses. Well, those lenses are as useless on the 5D as on Nikon bodies. That is the problem. Not to mention that any FF DSLR is still far more expensive than the equivalent small-sensor ones.

If you go back and read Phil Askey's follow up to his review, I was very surprised that he candidately pointed out that he was very close to providing the "recommended" instead of the usual "highly recommened" rating on the 1Ds Mark II. Doing so I am not sure how much it would have hurt his relationship with Canon. The problem Askey cited was that in comparison to the D2X and 5D, the 1Ds Mark 2 is over-priced.

It indeed boils down to final image quality. You are paying 2, 3 thousand dollars for FF. What exactly are the benefits? If the best reason is better ISO 3200 results, that would be a very weak argument. Most people don't even shoot at 3200, especially if they are after top quality.

Of course, Nikon has made more than its fair share of stupid mistakes. As starters, Canon's 20D is over a year old and people have been waiting for this prosumer "D200" for like a year now. That is why the frustration is mounting every time those D200 rumors turns out to be false, again and again.

Shun, as I mentioned FF has significant performance advantage with certain lenses. I've built my lens system by selecting the best performance at wide apertures and including the corners, according to what I've been able to afford. Many very fast lenses (e.g. 35/2, 50/1.4) look soft below f/4 on my D70. They give useable results wide open on 35 mm film, and excellent by f/2.8.

I have other lenses which give very good image quality even wide open on D70. These include the 105/2 DC and 180/2.8 which I wouldn't hesitate shooting wide open if needed on any camera. However, indoor available light photography is important to me personally and in this situation the lens sharpness (e.g 50/1.4 at f/1.4) is much lower than what the D70 sensor is capable of, but using a FF camera would improve the image quality a lot simply because a larger area of that lens-limited image is used.

Just as much I enjoy the extra reach that I get in a small package with my 180 mm lens using a DX format camera. It's great, and I have no complaints about the image quality of this combination (I know the D2X would be even better). Also, the 70-200 works really well on my D70.

I believe that there will be differentiation of sensor sizes far into the future: tele users will favour DX size sensors while PJs working with wide to short tele region will favour FF sensors and wide angle is still a bit open issue as far as I can tell. New designs will probably pop up in that area.

<I>Mark, what is the problem if Canon gradually replaces the 20D with the 5D? Well, if

you want Canon wide angles for your 20D, you'll get lenses such as the 10-22mm EF-S,

and you may have other EF-S lenses. Well, those lenses are as useless on the 5D as on

Nikon bodies. That is the problem. Not to mention that any FF DSLR is still far more

expensive than the equivalent small-sensor ones.</i><P>

This is kind of a pointless argument we're having (but I'll use a bit of my lunch break to

prolong it). It's not a problem <B>for Canon</b> to shift

toward more FF DSLRs if it keeps making them money, as seems to be the case at the

moment.

They make money by selling stuff. They sell stuff by offering products that appeal to the

consumer. And from the consumer's perspective, it's not like Canon is keeping it a deep

dark secret that they will have more FF

cameras in the future. So, nobody who buys an EF-S lens, and has just slightly more

awareness than an ice cube, will have any right to be surprised if there are fewer APS

Canons in the future. Despite that, EF-S lenses are selling well, as far as I know, even

though FF DSLRs have been in Canon's stable for 3+ years now. My guess is that Canon's

going to be making APS-format cameras for quite a while, even if their offerings switch

more and more

towards FF. And there's apparently a goodly contingent of people who want FF DSLRs,

even if it means switching

brands and losing a bundle on their existing lens collection by doing so. I'm not saying

this is necessarily logical, but there's no denying that FF seems to have a strong

appeal to a lot of photographers.<P>

In at least one aspect, Canon has a big advantage over Nikon. Canon's customers already

are well aware that FF is in the future, along with APS. Nikon seems to be committed --

at least at the moment -- to the DX format for their DSLRs. So they're going to be in a bit

of a bind if at some future time there is strong pressure (from technological advances or

just plain marketing) to go FF. If the company sees the winds blowing that way, they

should be warning their users well ahead of time, instead of springing a very unpleasant

FF surprise on folks who have amassed a collection of DX lenses.<P>

In short, you <B><i>think</i></b> Canon is cannibalizing its own sales and will be

shooting themselves in the foot with their increasing

diversity of DSLR models. The company apparently disagrees. With all due respect, they

seem to have a pretty good understanding (possibly more than your own) of how their

DSLR market works. Time will tell who's right.

After much thought - I would like to offer my opinion.

We are at a transitional phase in photography wherein the mainstream user is shooting digital (I am not yet). As a side analogy the camera makers have the benefit of most shooters being far more loyal due to long term use & the invested optics than say an automaker has with previous customers.

Due to design constraints & balancing out the cost to the end user most camera makers have slowly gone from using say an N-80 body for a Kodak digital to a totally new platform. A whole new ball game and back to the drawing board.

It would be interesting to see what the responses would be say in the late 1950's to the 1960's if photo.net existed then. The raging debate would be between Leica & Nikon - then 120 verses 35mm & also 4x5. All parties would have valid points based on their particular style & type of shooting along with the final output size & end viewing. That was probably the biggest transitional point in the photography world until the recent digital vs. film & now FF vs. another sensor size debate.

Bottom line is the desired results & what you want to see & at what size output & if this works for you.

I feel that the overall optical/camera formulas are in transition & that in the future we will have to let go of our preconceived notions as to what is right or wrong & simply let the results talk for themselves.

It will be interesting to see the debates in the next 20 years!

<i>"It will be interesting to see the debates in the next 20 years!"</i><br><br>

<hr>

<br>

"When is Nikon going to announce their answer to the Canon 1.2DXXX01-TurboPic-K1000? I can't use my D70000000 at ISO 256,000 anymore, it backfocuses on my 2-2000DX MegaZoomIII!"

<I>"When is Nikon going to announce their answer to the Canon 1.2DXXX01-TurboPic-

K1000? I can't use my D70000000 at ISO 256,000 anymore, it backfocuses on my 2-2000DX

MegaZoomIII!"</i><P>

"HEATHENS, all of you! My Leica is way better, even though the company has been dead for

19 years! Digital will NEVER be as good as film! Only REAL photographers use film! Leica

glow forever"<P>

Some things will never change. Maybe.

In 20 years time if any of the folks have any hair (without any split ends that is) left on their head, would not be using any optics as we know them now: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030329/bob9.asp

Wel, there is always a "conventional" digital photography vs "new" digital photopgraphy debate to look forward to!

<i>For some reason Phil Askey keeps comparing the 24-70L zoom against the 50/1.8 AFD, but it is true, FF does introduce more CA with some lenses.</i><br><br>

CA and corner sharpness were compared using 28-70/2.8 AF-S on D2x and 24-70/2.8L on 1Ds MkII, both well stopped down. Though they were at different focal lengths to compansate for the focal length multiplier.

Hi to all posters,

I am a keen amateur, keen to learn that is! I want to improve my photography skills by learning from experts I can not really contribute to the questions being asked as I am not expert enough to do so. I do have some questions of my own relating to FF sensors I own a Canon 20D which I am pleased with but I have thought about buying a Canon 1DS MK1 would this be a good move as the 1DS offers more pixcels and FF or should I stick with my 20D? I hope you don?t mind me posting on this topic but I really want to get the best from photography so who better to ask than the contributors here.

Kind regards

Ray

Ray: this is the Nikon forum and you'd probably do better to ask your question on the Canon

forum. I participate in both, so here's my recommendation: unless you are far more wealthy

than 99% of us, I would not recommend spending $8K on a 1DsII until you were

THOROUGHLY familiar with your 20D and what it can do. The 1DsII is a professional

machine, with tremendous capability and a price to match. I think you would do better to

build up a good collection of lenses and master their use before venturing into 1D territory.

Oops, misread your post slightly. A 1Ds Mk. I won't set you back quite $8K, but several $K

nonetheless. All the rest of my comments still apply.