professional sports photographer tests the D2x in the real world & reports his findings

See: <A HREF="http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=14717">

www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=14717</A>

<blockquote> I can hit that little button and all of a sudden I'm right in the action again. the guy beside you will probably have to crop his shot to the point that quality will become an issue but not me. </blockquote>Err, what does he think high speed mode is? It is a crop!<blockquote>I have been using the D2Hs now for a long time</blockquote>No you haven't, it ships AFTER the D2x!<p>He's pretty enthusiastic, but I don't think he knows what he's talking about.

I'm with Guy... this guy isn't coming across as Nikon's best informed ambassador. But at least he didn't say the camera sucked.

<i><B> I have been using the D2Hs now for a long time<BR>

 

No you haven't, it ships AFTER the D2x!</B></I><BR><BR>

I believe he was referring to using multiple individuals of the D2H, not the D2Hs.

"I have been using the D2Hs now for a long time"

 

I think he's saying he's been using the D2H, but several of them; perhaps "D2H's" to eliminate confusion.

Looks like I got beat to the punch!

<I>Err, what does he think high speed mode is? It is a crop</I><P> yes of course it is ,

but he doesn't have to do it after the fact ( i.e. less time spent editing), he can concentrate

on what is going to be exactly in the iamge as opposed to being distracted by what he'll

have to crop out later, and as rangefinder shooters know he'll be able to se what or wh o is

aboutto come into the frame giving him a leg up on in terms of anticipating the action.

Remember he is a SPORTS photographer and all ofthose factors - speed, time,

conscentration & physical reflexes are major pluses in that field. <P>

 

So I think it is you who doesn't know what you are writing about.

<i>"I have been using the D2Hs now for a long time"</i>

<p></p>

He might still be referring to the D2H...

<p></p>

another way I could have written the preceeding sentance is

"He might still be referring to the D2Hs"... plural.

<p></p>

Anyway, I am still relieved to hear about the ISO issue... my main concern was how well it would actually work at ISO 800. He says it's great, but I guess only time and further shooting will tell.

<p></p>

I know of another photographer who shoots Ice Hockey down Windsor/Detroit way who has been using a D2X for a little while now. He also swears he'll never shoot with anything else... well, until the next 'wave' is released, I guess.

Humm, a respected professional sports shooter doesn't know what he's talking about? It's really sad that there is so much rankor in Nikon forums lately.

 

Getting to the crop factor statement...here is the way I took the message (and the way I think it was intended):

 

To shoot at 8fps one needs either the D2h or the Canon 1D. The D2h has a 1.5x sensor and the Canon 1D has a 1.3x sensor. If the subject is far enough away and fits within the crop (2x) area of the D2x sensor then you can push a button and shoot the subject at 6.8 MP. OTOH, the Canon 1D shooter standing next to him has to crop his 8 MP image and enlarge it to the same size image as what the D2x produced in the 2x crop mode. So, cropping an 8 MP Canon 1D shot and enlarging it to the size of the D2x 2x crop shot results in fewer than 6.8 MP. Hence the Canon 1D shot could have less resolution than the D2x crop shot.

Too bad that his post didn't have any picture to back up his comments. It would have been nice to see actual pictures of what he talked about. Regardless of crop or not, Nikon D2X's ability to switch modes sounds pretty smart to me. Extra features and options, to me is what makes the difference in such competitive markets. I hope some of you guys can get your hands on one soon and do some tests and post your pictures cause I surely wont' be able to afford to do so anytime soon. By the way, I know he was referring to him using many D2H's but what is this about the D2Hs released after the D2X? Did I miss something here? Has there ever even been an announcement about Nikon releasing a "D2Hs"?

A couple of thoughts...

 

Maybe we amateurs will see some bargains in the D2h department ;^).

 

Is it true that the D2x tops out at ISO 800?!? That's a bit troubling, indoor action can sure

benefit from ISO 1600 with f2.8 glass. Also very useful for the slower glass, etc.

No it tops out at ISO 1600 & 3200 but these aren't standard ISO type settings. Hopefully

the D2X isn't nosier than the Canon EOS 1D mk II at 800; despite what i had read in

advance the 1d mk Ii was what I consider "noisy" at 800.

<i>"No it tops out at ISo 1600 & 3200 but these aren't standard ISO type settings"</i>

<p></p>

Ellis: CAN the sensitivity of the D2X be extended a couple of stops beyond ISO 800 in the same way the D2H can be extended beyond ISO 1600?

<p></p>

The specs don't say as much (http://www.nikon.ca/products/d2x/specs) but I am willing to stand corrected if I have misunderstood how these things work. Either way, having shot a bit with a D2H, it is rarely practical to shoot in the extended ISO range of the D2H, so I am still unsure about the ISO 800 thing in terms of shooting flexibility in closed arenas.

My D2H sucked so much at ISO400 that I dumped it. The D100 looks better at 1600.

The D2X has Hi-1 and Hi-2 modes which are essentially iso 1600 and 3200. According to Michael Reichmann, the D2X has a one-stop disadvantage at iso 800 and Hi-1 over the Canon's, which comes from the pixel size. But apparently at the slow ISO settings, the camera is excellent.

 

That's definitely good enough for me. I don't need higher than iso 400. Now, let's hope the production capacity meets the initial demand so that I can get mine soon.

By comparing other Nikon DSLR cameras like the D2H to the D2X and how they handle

what lot of people are losing sight of here is that the two cameras use completely different

sensors and processing technologies.

<p><i>Err, what does he think high speed mode is? It is a crop!</i>

<p>Of course but, as I understand it, the crop leaves you with a 7 million pixel images.

The situation would be completely different if he started with a 6 or even 8 million pixel

image. He would still need to crop and would loose more details.

<p>Anyway I think it's a clever feature because you can choose between top speed or top

quality at the touch of a button.

<p>--ben

"I you are shooting NIKON you really should get on the list to get your hands on this camera. You will be so pleased. I'm going to buy 3."

 

George Foreman grill commercial sounds more realistic!

I'm a little new, but what the h-e-l-l is he talking about when he says when he shoots skiiers, they're to far away "even with a 600 and 1.4" Unless I'm nuts, they don't make 600mm 1.4 lens, and if they did, compared to other lens I've seen, they'd be about $100,000. What am I missing?

 

Dan

Ok, Nikon does make this lens and it's for sale on Ebay right now for 5,400 dollars. I've got egg on my face. Holey Toledo batman!

 

D

A 600mm lens with a 1.4x teleconvertor, making it effectively a 840mm lens with a one-stop loss in maximum aperture.

He's referring to a 600mm f/4 and a 1.4x teleconverter.

Guy and Nikos,

 

The photographer in question, Rick Rickman, is not some chump shooting wrestling matches for the local high school newspaper. He is a 25-year veteran sports photographer that may possibly be the most published living sports photographer out there. His work has been published in Sports Illustrated, Time, Newsweek, National Geographic and many, many other publications. He is also a "Nikon Legend Behind the Lens." His corporate client list includes, among others, AT&T, Coca Cola, Magnavox, and the U.S. Olympic Committee.

 

And one other thing, in 1985 he won a little award you may have heard of called the Pulitzer Prize. So I suspect he knows his way around a camera. He's got waaaay more credibility than you two clowns.

That's right, bring in the name calling. What's the matter, you aren't confident enough with your own choice of equipment that you need the validation of someone else?<p>

This person maybe the God of sports photogrpahy, I have no idea. For one, I don't see any images. I'll take your word for it. I'll also wager that his claim to fame did not come from his equipment reviewing prose, but the ability to get the great shot. Which part are we debating here? His review is poorly worded waffle, unsubstantiated by any image that makes him a poor ambassador for Nikon's new camera<p>

Which I incidentally really really hope is up to scratch, what with my lenses not fitting a Canon and all.<p>

Respectfully,<p>

A. Clown

Sorry, but anyone posting their opinion on the internet has about as much credibility as anyone else. My points about high speed mode giving identical quality to cropping and the D2Hs not being available yet stand. Still I am glad to know that, should I ever find myself shooting "motogross", whatever that is, that the D2x will work "seemlessly". What, it seems less than it is? Great!