Here goes - Nikon D2X or Canon 1Ds MkII ?

[hendrik]

Hi all,

 

I have waited until 2005 to turn over to full digital workflow. Until

now I scanned all my negs. Digital was restricted to travel

photography as a backup to my MF setup.

 

I feel now that the technology is mature enough to start replacing my

35mm setup with digital and in a while a digital back for the MF.

 

Unfortunately I will have to change systems since I was a Pentax 35mm

user.

 

The system will be for studio portrait, product stills, and as a

backup (at first) for wedding work.

 

The budget will keep me to a body, 2 lenses, 2 flashes, xtra battery,

AC power adaptor, remote release, 2x memory cards - (nikon wireless?).

 

At this stage I'm leaning towards the Nikon product, I'm just too

much of an individual to be just another Canon user ;-)

But then everybody using Canon can't be wrong!

 

Your thoughts please.

 

Regards<div></div>

[._._z]

My advice: do some research.

[nikos peri]

My advice: wait for some people to actually have seen/used/tried/tasted the D2x to have something to compare that Canon to

[edward_h]

> At this stage I'm leaning towards the Nikon product, I'm just too much of an individual to be just another Canon user

 

You've already made up your mind. Stop wasting our time and go and wait forever for that d2x to show up in the stores.

[ralph_jensen]

"I'm leaning towards the Nikon product, I'm just too much of an individual to be

just another Canon user."

 

Actually, there are far too many photographers using Nikon too. For serious

photographers, expressing one's individuality through equipment owned is

FAR more important than the quality of the equipment itself.

 

In that light, you should consider Argus (any model), Kodak Retinas, or even a

Voigtlander Brilliant (Crown Graphics are still a little too popular to qualify).

 

Of course (sigh), if you're resigned to being a sheep you could just go with

either of the two technology leaders (Canon and Nikon); as you hinted, the

final choice will depend more on personal taste than on what anybody here

might have to say. But both are excellent.

 

If you have a LOT of time on your hands, just Google for "Canon vs. Nikon"

and then read all of the search results, one by one. . . .

[jim_gifford]

The Canon is a product you can put in your hands and try out. You can find real-world user opinions of it.

 

The Nikon isn't going to be in your hands, or any other consumer's hands, for about a month. It isn't exactly a "pig in a poke" because we know what the specifications will be... but there are no in-depth real-world experiences upon which to draw.

 

My thought is: If you must buy now, you have to buy the Canon. If you can wait four or five months, you will find it fairly easy to get good feedback on BOTH cameras and use that to help decide which one to buy.

 

Be well,

[ShunCheung]

Here comes yet another Canon vs. Nikon flame war. Yes, wait another a couple of months when the Nikon D2X is actually available and people have some experienc with it. Right now, everything is BS.

[juan_de_crus]

hi Hendrik.

 

Im a photography magazines subscribers of many brand. The usual comments of most pro photogs is that 1dsm1(11.1mgp) is almost as good as of a m.f. they say. So more for a 16.7....??? (no feed backs yet)

 

And, As of, ToDAY, i still havent seen or read articles that your brand preference has reach that level.... but still hey! it's your call. or maybe you have done some research your self! please let us know... :)

[ellis_vener_photography]

Very few people have actually shot with a D2X and those who have are still bound by their

NDA (non-disclosure agreement).

 

Both systems have terrific image quality and lenses.

 

How big will you be printing and how will you be printing those images? A sample D2X

image I found on a japanese website is 4288 x 2848 pixels ( 9.493" x 14.293" @ 300ppi or

15.822" x 23.822" @ 180ppi -- the latter is closer to real world inkjet printer resolution at

that size)

 

Additionally the Nikon iTTL (SB-800/600) Speedlight system works terrifically in a

wireless TTL set up, while I've seen many reports (as recently as this morning) of problems

with Canon's Speedlight system. currently Nikon also does a better job with wide &

ultra-wide angle lenses better.

 

Canon's attributes are: more vibration reduction lenses, and more tilt/shift lenses. they

also have more experience in high resolution sensors.

 

If budget is a consideration you are going to get more bang for your buck with the D2x:

price will be around $5000 as opposed to the 1Ds mk. II price of $8000. You have to think

about this very seriously if you re a professional because you'll need a back up body.

 

I like both Nikon and Canon for different reasons. I think that what you need to do is hold

off for a month or so until you can get to a store to try both side by side and then decide.

[digitmstr]

>> studio portrait, product stills, and as a backup (at first) for wedding work.<<

 

That sounds like a Canon 1Ds MKII, for sure.

 

>>At this stage I'm leaning towards the Nikon product, I'm just too much of an individual ;-)<<

 

And you shoot pentax 35mm? :)

[digitmstr]

In truth there's no comparison...every one knows Canon is better ;P

[Troll]

Wouldn't a 1D MkII be a more appropiate comparison to the D2X?

[ellis_vener_photography]

Bill,

 

1D mk 2 = 8mp.

D2X = 12.8mp

1Ds mk II = 16.3mp

 

Strictly looking at the price, you are right. I've made beautiful 13" x19" inkjet prints

using the EOS 1D mk. II -- using a Canon i9900 printer's built-in interpolation scheme.

[mark_chappell]

I use Canon and I agree with Ellis: both systems have their advantages. IMO, for what you

want to do, it's a toss-up in terms of lens quality (it would be different if you intended to

use long telephotos a lot, as I strongly believe the stabilized Canon superteles are superior

to their Nikon counterparts). Given your intended use, I would not go for the Canon 1Ds

Mk. II unless you were absolutely, positively convinced you need those extra megapixels,

and unless you need to make really big prints that seems unlikely.

 

But as others have said, the 1Ds Mk II is a known, tried quantity while the D2X is

essentially vaporware at this point. I also recommend waiting a few months until there's

some user feedback on the latter, which sounds like a great camera but basically hasn't

been put to the public test yet.

[carl smith]

Wait a couple months.

[godfrey]

Why do you need to switch to NIkon or Canon? Pentax makes a couple of very good DSLRs,

the *istD and *istDS. You could use all your Pentax glass and many Pentax accessories.

 

Actually, even if you were to switch to N/C eventually for other reasons, you should

consider picking up a Pentax *istDS body. They're not that expensive ($800) and you'd

have all your favorite lenses to work with.

 

Godfrey

[model mayhem gallery]

I would agree with thte last statement in this forum or buying Pentax Glass. I am no professional, but even in my ameteur experience I am learning the most important items I have in making great shots are my leneses and my lights. I use some canon lenses but my best lenses are my Sigma EX lenses which work on either Canon or Nikon. I believe most of your picture quality comes from your lenses not the camera. So what you realy want to do is decide which lenses you are going to invest in. Cano generally has faster focus motors and really long zooms, Nikon probably has a better flash system with good wideabngle lenses. Or get a Digital Pentax system.

[andrew robertson]

Get the new Argus digital camera.

[lee hamiel]

I find it interesting how all have responded so far.

 

First - .[. Z - has the profound assistance to tell you to search - meaning F.O.

 

Nicola had good info

 

Edward - Says F.O.

 

Ralph - started off being helpful - then F.O. (sigh)

 

Jim - good advice

 

Shun - lot of help there ...

 

Juan - not sure what you are trying to say there

 

Ellis - great and finally someone being helpful in detail

 

Giampiero - what's wrong with Pentax - he hates using a name associated with copiers okay!

 

Bill - good question at a price difference

 

Ellis - Good again

 

Mark - Good advice

 

Carl - Good advice

 

Godfrey - Sounds worth looking into & helpful

 

Minute (?) - Sounds legit ?

 

Andrew - Yeh - I have a C3 Brick - but please ...

 

I'm interested in that he asked "Here Goes" & this exemplifies the expectations of those here. Be helpful or move on people - we don't have to bash him for asking.

[ilkka]

I am in a bit similar situation, except I have Pentax MF glass. If Pentax made a MF digital ala Mamiya I would be first on the line to try it and very likely buy it.

 

I think D2X is interesting enough to wait for it for another couple of months. I think it is an excellent tool in between Canon's two offerings and in that way might be a better overall camera. And the 2.8/17-55 would be a very good normal zoom. But it all depends on what your particular needs are.

 

Clearly, when looking at what these and other companies have introduced in the past few years, it is safe to say that Canon is the leader in the high end 35mm digital SLR field, Nikon is clearly second and the others are far behind. This is likely to continue, and that would make a substantial investment in Canon maybe a bit safer than Nikon, and much better than in Pentax or Minolta.

[patrick_yu2]

Recently, I had the opportunities to speak to the official representatives from Nikon & Canon. I also found opportunities to speak to the professionals who are using either system. My conclusion is: go with your pocket ;-)

 

As a technologist by heart and by training, and now also a marketeer, I see the 4Mpixel difference between these cameras are mostly a wash because of the following reasons: 1) pixel size of Nikon's CMOS sensor is bigger than Canon's CMOS sensor; 2) sensitivity & dynamic range are typically a linear factor of the pixel size. So, if the design & application engineers, as well as their R&D engineering on colour image signal process are equally competitive, these two products should produce fairly similar results of comparable quality. Besides, in real life, these products will be out-dated 2 to 3 years from now, and their equivalent by then could be at lower price (digital products typically decline in price, good examples are plasma TV). Furthermore, each of these is a product which is what it is based on many compromise (signal processing, camera body, metering system, lens, flash electronics, etc.). So, if you believe that you can trust Canon and Nikon both make good high-end products, either one is a good enough choice from quality perspective. So, I would go for the cheaper one (not really cheap in money terms :) and use the money left for another high-end system 3 years from now :) Make sense?

[patrick_yu2]

I would like to add further to Ilkka's comments.

 

Canon is selling more consumer-grade digital cameras than Nikon. At this point of time, my feeling (without hard figures to substantiate) is that Canon is selling more DSLR than Nikon. If this relative positioning between Canon and Nikon remain for the next few years, Nikon could have less & less R&D to invest, leading to the downward spiral. This is the logics. But, don't know, may be Nikon has some trump cards which they have shown yet, may be Nikon is going to have a strong partnership and alliance with another big guys to keep up the R&D investment. My be, like the A-company, Nikon insists on its own pose, and has a cult following. From investment, I want to Nikon to keep up of course!

[kelvinphoto - arlington, t]

It pretty easy decide of what you want? fullframe vs Non fullframe. 16mp vs 12mp. low noise at high ISO vs non review d2x noise. ultrasonic vs afs. 40x60 print vs 30x40. portrait vs portrait-sport body. don't worry about flash if you intent to use it in studio or manual flash. e-ttl & i-ttl can't beat manual flash mode, and METZ BEAT THEM ALL.

[mark_chappell]

<I> pixel size of Nikon's CMOS sensor is bigger than Canon's CMOS sensor; </i><P>

 

Is that true in the case of the 1DsII vs. the D2X? I figure about 19,000 pixels per square

millimeter for the 1DsII vs. about 32,000 pixels per square millimeter for the D2X. So,

other things being equal, the 1DsII pixels are about 70% bigger than those on the D2X.

[vatovec]

Mark is right in both cases (1DmkII and 1DsmkII) the Canon pixels are substantially bigger. Means less noise and more dynamic range all other things being equal.