Very funny review of D2x

Here is a link to a very funny review. Enjoy.

 

Here is another 1DsM2 shot with the 70-200 2.8 IS lens. My little

girl learning to ski.<div></div>

Here is the Link.

 

 

http://www.planetneil.com/nikon/d2x-altf.html

hehe, that was funny. I still need the box though.

 

BTW isn't it against the law to post 1DsII shots in this forum?

Excellent review!! All Nikon gearheads should read it.

Against the law? I thought most posts here were through Canon cameras, using Sigma lenses (they ceratinly LOOKED that way to me)!

 

(I guess no one in the EOS forum likes someone flashing a $8K camera before them. Cut the guy some slack!)

It was originally posted in the EOS forum.

 

I didn't really care for the review but LOVED his online portfolio.

Thanks! Stephen, thanks for posting this review. Despite the

humor its a serious review when you read between the lines.

I agree with review pretty much right down the line.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

PS: on this forum we deny the existence of cameras with formats

larger than DX.<br>

<br>

Moderators please delete the non-conforming photograph.

I originally posted it on the EOS forums. Very funny review. The picture was originally on a Canon forum. I think the review does help bring some perspective about camera equipment in general.

 

The point is just to enjoy taking pictures.

 

Regards

Steve

"PS: on this forum we deny the existence of cameras with formats larger than ?DX.?"

 

Ofcourse not! Nikkor lenses are used on DX, 35mm and some on LF as well. That said, I don't really see why we need a larger than DX sensor. I'd rather like to see further refinement of the DX format and smaller, lighter lenses. A ligter lens is an utter bliss on a day's shhoting in the field.

Many Nikkor lenses are also used/usable on full frame DSLRs.

 

I think Sigma is more likely to come with more useful lenses for the "DX"format. I am waiting for the 30mm f/1.4 to show up soon.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a larger sensor handle noise a lot better than a smaller sensor. Also, don't larger sensors have better dynamic range? That is why Medium Format sensors are so good? So why is everyone saying the Dx size is the wave of the future?

 

Regards,

Steve

Steve; most all folks would like a low cost 100 dollar full frame 24x36mm 12 megapixel digital sensor; in a 300 dollar camera. I also would like a giant pickup truck with a V8 that gets 50 miles/gallon; and only cost 5 grand. The smaller sensors cost less; are easier to produce; have better production yields.

Great review. The one thing, slightly subtle, that I've noticed with my D2X is that I'm doing a lot less post exposure processing. It just comes out right at exposure. And it's a good thing because the files are so large, the processing time is much increased. And post those Canon pics on the Canon forum. (Adorable daughter BTW)

The wave of the future is often determined not by technology but by the pure overwhelming force of the majority.

 

At this point in time, most experts have already agreed that the APS-C format sensors will be the main stream and will dominate the DSLR world for years to come.

"So why is everyone saying the Dx size is the wave of the future?"

 

Count me out.

The section of the review where he uses the LCD display to zoom in on the baby is just... priceless.

 

Be well,

<em>"So why is everyone saying the Dx size is the wave of

the future?" --Stephen Persky<br>

</em><br>

Because its the wave of the present.<br>

<br>

Im told the cost of the image sensor is currently about 1/2

the cost of the camera. When manufacturing techniques improve the

cost will come down. Until then a FF DSLR will be quite expensive.

Also the more data a camera must process the more expensive other

digital components are. These will come down in cost also.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

24x36mm is the wave of the recent past. The 16x24mm "DX" sensor is the wave of the present. The wave of the future is something nobody knows for sure; at least I don't know.

 

I would say for 95%+ of the people who read this forum, the 12MP D2X provides more than enough quality for all their needs. There is no point to go to a larger (and far more expensive) digital sensor, ever. The main problem for the D2X today is its own high cost at $5000. Some of the reviews of the D2X also begin to convince people that 16x24mm is the "better" choice, certainly most cost effective.

 

What Nikon is lacking today are: (1) a 60 or 70mm/f1.8 portrait lens, (2) a 20mm/f1.4 DX wide angle prime and perhaps (3) a 50-135mm/f2.8 AF-S VR to "replace" the 70-200.

 

Canon, K-Minolta, Pentax, Sigma ... are making a lot of new lenses for the 16x24mm type sensors (Canon's is a bit smaller). In another couple of years, people will have a lot of lenses for 16x24mm sensors and there will be a lot of resistance to change from that size, be it going larger or smaller.

 

Author Yao says it very well. It is the overwhelming force of the majority that decides the direction. That was why the primary film format went from the higher-quality large and medium formats to the lower-quality 24x36mm in the first place.

One point to note, is Nikon's history of building cameras that are serviceable for years as a

useful photographic tool. They are having some success with this strategy in the digital

arena too. Consider the D100, which is in its third year and still available new and still

working well in the field (I've had mine for over 2 years now). The D2H has been around

for a while too. The technology curve must frustrate Nikon a bit, as well as Canon's

market tactic of selling more replacement gear (consider the now obsolete 11MP Canon).

But, the D2x is a camera with legs, and should be a very useful tool for 5 years easy,

perhaps more. I can see the price coming down to $2999 and also a pro-sumer version

(D200 if you will) in the teens. I'm very happy I've stuck with Nikon in the digital era. I can

shoot my D100 for another year or so, then upgrade to a 12MP class camera and shoot

that for many years. The line of DX lenses will expand, and we should have a quiver full of

useful arrows with which to shoot (pun intended).

 

 

Nikon rules.

24x36 may well become the medium format of the future as 6x9cm

may edge out 4x5 and 4x5 edge out 8x10. There is something to be

said for an 8x10 view camera because of the large view of the

subject it affords. Still a tethered or better wired 6x9 or 4x5

on a super high resolution monitor should be a gas to work with.

A 6x9 HR flat panel could easily replace the ground glass on a

mini-view camera. No turning the cut film holders, no dark slides

or loading 120 roll film. No vacuuming holders and loading film

in the dark. Sounds like a drag doesnt it!<br>

<br>

Money Honey! Elwood Pretzel<br>

<br>

I dont care what anyone says: DX rocks for telephotos and

sucks for wide angles.<br>

<br>

Life is hard, then you die,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

Where is the promise of DX??<br>

<br>

I want a 12.5mm f/1.8 Super Wide Angle.<br>

I want < 1/10 of 1 percent linear distortion (NO bogus

mustache distortion).<br>

I want high acutance and I want it as sharp as a scalpel.<br>

I want flare and ghost control to shame my 28/2.0 AIS.<br>

I want it to be small and light so it looks like a 50mm lens

without its hood.<br>

I do NOT want it to cover full frame only DX, NO compromise.<br>

I dont care if its G-type lens (Yah, Ive been brain

washed).<br>

Ill pay 1,250 bucks for it.<br>

<br>

WE WANT THE WORLD AND WE WANT IT NOW! Jim Morrison.<br>

Dx may well be the wave of the future, but DX cameras and lenses have a ways to go. The requirement of backwards compatibility has caused camera bodies (mirror box dimensions, specifically) to be stuck in the 35mm era. This introduces fundamental optical design difficulties and constraints. DX lenses remain large and are constrained to retro-focus design in the short and middle focal lengths, viewfinders and prisms are oversized for the job, with masking making the viewed image smaller than ideal, etc.

 

If we cut the cord to the old 35mm lenses, DX will surely take off in terms of lens and camera body possibilities?

 

My two bits, what do I know?

;-)

Just a thought: there are advantages to a large mirror box as

there are advantages to using a reducing back on a view camera.

The extra area inside allows flare to get lost increasing contrast

in shadows (its the flare that cuts the contrast).

Mani, one solution is what Canon does with its EF-S lenses, based on the assumption that there is no point to use DX or EF-S lenses on film bodies anyway. Those EF-S wide angles protrude further into the mirror box such that EF-S compatible DSLRs (e.g. the 20D) must have a smaller mirror which also moves backwards in addition to up to clear those EF-S lenses.

 

I am not sure that the latest Nikon DSLR has that built in, but once you decide to go that route, it breaks the compatibility with all film bodies and perhaps even the early DSLRs. That is precisely the messy compatibility nightmare Canon is in: those EF-S lenses are not compatible with the D60, 10D, and all 1D family DSLRs.

 

As the way it is for Nikon, the 12-24mm/f4 meets all of my wide angle needs. It would be nice if it were f2.8, but I have two f2.8 zooms that reach 17mm. Therefore, the only range I don't have f2.8 is 12-17mm, which IMO is hardly an issue.

Personally I wouldn't want Nikon to try to scale down the body. We can all see what that lead to in the case of the D70, which has the worst viewfinder in the history of Nikon SLR cameras. The D2 series, on the other hand, have excellent viewfinders. I'll gladly carry the "extra" weight and enjoy the savings of having my 180/2.8 replace a 300/2.8 ...