Here goes - Nikon D2X or Canon 1Ds MkII ?

[rob_malkin]

"e-ttl & i-ttl can't beat manual flash mode"

 

if you want to work at the speed of my grandad

 

rob

[dmanthree]

Actually, brand wars are fine. I always knew that if I met Ernest Hemmingway, the first question I'd have is "what kind of typewriter did you use?"

 

Canon. Nikon. Who cares?

[patrick_yu2]

Mark C, David V, et. al.,

 

My apology for the incorrect information presented in my previous submission. I don't know how I did the mathematics wrong. Anyway, I just took another look at the open-source information available for the sensors used in 1Ds Mark II and D2X, the sensor pixel size for 1Ds Mark II is 50.23 mm2 while that for D2X is 29.07 mm2. Assuming that both sensors are designed for reasonably low CMOS noise floor, 1Ds Mark II should have more headrooms on a fundamental basis. Putting aside the cost of both cameras, from technology standpoint, 1Ds Mark II is likely to be a better instrument than D2X.

[bill c.]

Hendrik-- I'm responding to your post because I have come from a very similar situation. I used and loved Pentax for many years, and switched to Nikon when Pentax didn't have the professional support or products.

 

My camera is a tool, and frankly, no brand holds my loyalty right now. There are a lot of things to like about Nikon and its cameras, and there are a lot of things to not like about it, too. I've talked to many Canon users who feel the same way.

 

You, along with all the rest of us, are currently between a rock and a hard place. Five years ago it freaked me out that I would have to pay $1800 for an F5. Now, I'm wondering if I could consider $5,000 for the D2x. And if I'm spending that much, should I drop another three grand and just get the Canon full-frame? How many more assignments and commercial jobs and stock sales will come my way to pay for the camera if I get it?

 

Since I work a lot as a photojournalist, and I already have a fair amount invested in Nikon glass, the D2x looks pretty good, especailly with that fast-shooting reduced sensor (great for newspaper sports). The full 12 megapixels will probably be sufficient for two-page spreads in high-end magazines, and all in all, the camera looks to be very fast.

 

The problem is, will Canon and/or Nikon come out with another camera or combination of cameras that will trump the D2x's usefulness at a lower price point? And has Canon already done so, with the 20D? And will Kodak ever get the bugs out of the full-frame DCS/N and speed it up?

 

It seems that there's nothing solid to anchor our decisions on, as Canon and Nikon seem to be filling in the dead spots in the other's line. There's no apples-to-apples comparison as there was with film cameras.

 

But I can tell you one thing-- if Canon wanted to drive a nail into Nikon's coffin, all it would have to do is come out with a full-frame version of the D2x for about a grand less. My Nikon stuff would go up on Ebay faster than you could blink--but then, probably no one would want it. I looked into the prospect of selling my N90s a couple of weeks ago, and for the prices most sellers were getting (about $150), I decided to keep it. The same thing would probably happen to my D70, no doubt.

 

My photography doesn't make a profit any more, it just keeps the camera manufacturers and photo stores in business. I used to love getting new equipment, but now it is a hateful prospect. The price is incredibly steep, the learning curve is pretty much a vertical line, and the technology will be surpassed inside of 18 months (if that long). Right when I really get used to a camera, it's out-moded and I have to upgrade. My profits are down and my clients are demanding higher quality at lower prices, because, after all, it's just a digital image, right? No film to deal with. How much can it cost?

 

Wait three months, Hendrik, then make a decision.

 

-BC-

[ilkka]

'if I met Ernest Hemmingway, the first question I'd have is "what kind of typewriter did you use?" '

 

The one big difference is that words are exactly the same, have the same meaning and nuances, whether they are written on a Remington or IBM typewriter, a MAC or PC or by longhand. When they are processed to a book, they are identical. This is not the case with photography. The lens forms the image on film or digital sensor and both make a huge difference to the final image. Equipment are important in photography, not so in writing or even painting.

[mark_chappell]

<I>the sensor pixel size for 1Ds Mark II is 50.23 mm2 while that for D2X is 29.07 mm2

</i><P>

 

ummmm..... don't think so. There are 864 mm<SUP>2</SUp> in the <B>entire</B>

sensor

of a 1Ds (24 X 36 mm). By your estimation of 50.23 mm<SUP>2</SUp> per pixel, that

sensor could

contain about 17 pixels total -- off by a factor of a million.<P>

 

I think you might mean micrometers<SUP>2</SUp>, not mm<SUP>2</SUp>.

[patrick_yu2]

In response to Mark D's comment: I am sorry to have committed yet another crime by not being precise. Ignore the "unit measurement" in my last post and focus only on the "numbers". Thanks.

 

In response to Bill C's comment: Canon can kill Nikon's high-end DSLR business by dropping the ASP of 1Ds Mark II by another $2.5K or $2K. But then, would Canon want to leave money on the table? Regardless, these instrument cost too much over the material cost. However, they would tell us about the marketing cost, R&D cost, ... in order to justify the $8K and $5K ASPs.

[hendrik]

Thanks for all the meaningfull responses.

 

For the rest.......you're all nice guys!!

 

Yes, photocell density in the Nikon is probably the main downfall of the system.

 

Most of my prints are 17x24in but about 15% of sales are 26x40in. All printed Epson 4000 & 9600.

 

Thanks again for the responses, I'm going to sit and wait until end of March and then let loose! (Until then I'll do some research Z ;-) )

[carl smith]

<i>The problem is, will Canon and/or Nikon come out with another camera or combination of cameras that will trump the D2x's usefulness at a lower price point?</i><br><br>Well rumor has it Canon plans to have a full frame camera doing 8fps in a couple years selling for <$5k.<br><Br>

Patrick, while Canon is charging a lot for the camera, a lot of it has to do with the sensor size. I don't know what the figure would be now but last time I remember reading something they said for the original 1Ds that sized sensor probably goes for upwards of $2k plus at or over $1k for the AA filter (Kodak had optional AA filters in the 90s that weren't as big apparently and they cost almost $1000 and an AA filter for the Kodak DCS Pro back retails for like $1500). Once you add up all the components, the body, and the gaggle of accessories that comes with the 1Ds MK II, I doubt they're making as much money as we'd like to think. I'd still love to know how much they really make on it, that camera isn't what makes them the big bucks, but it certainly draws attention.

[mark_chappell]

<I>The problem is, will Canon and/or Nikon come out with another camera or

combination of cameras that will trump the D2x's usefulness at a lower price point?

<P>

 

<B>OF COURSE</b></i> they will! That's just about inevitable. Your choice is to wait

(probably indefinitely) for the ultimate camera, or get one now, enjoy using it to make

images, and then when you want to, get the latest and greatest. Current digital

technology is sufficient to provide wonderful image quality. It may get better in future but

that won't somehow make today's equipment worse.

[patrick_yu2]

For Mark C.: It is hard for someone to really enjoy a camera if, in 3 or even 2 years, it is going to be significantly behind in terms of techology and output quality. For instance, the difference in output quality between D2X and D1X, and between 1Ds Mark 1 and 1Ds Mark 2 are not in-significant. I would argue that, even for professional, $5K and $8K are significant investment, especially for those who need more than one of these to get the work done.

 

For Carl S.: In terms of process technology, you can build additional logic/analog circuitry over CMOS senor but the same cannot be applied to CCD sensor. Imagine, if all the colour imaging processing and storage elements (e.g. low-power RISC CPU with multi-Gigahertz clock frequency and deep pipeline and multiple execution units, plus multi-gigabyte buffers) can be etched on the same CMOS sensor, we will have nano-second shutter release response and near-negligible frame-to-frame gap time. Ideally, such a CMOS monstor cost only a few US dollars. This is the reason why every vendors with products in the sub-US$10K range have switched to CMOS sensor. Large-pixel number CCD sensor is fundamentally expensive to make and perfected, and the difficulty increases with pixel_number.

[mark_chappell]

<I>For Mark C.: It is hard for someone to really enjoy a camera if, in 3 or even 2 years, it

is going to be significantly behind in terms of techology and output quality.</i><P>

 

Then I must be odd, since I've had no trouble enjoying my digital cameras with full

knowledge that in even ONE year they will be surpassed by something better.

[tom_dowdall]

I have not waded through all the responses so sorry if this a repeat. I own an

MKII and I have many friends who own both Canon and Nikon. The one

knock I hear about Nikon is the noise at high ISO if they do not resolve this

issue they will have more people jump ship.

 

that's all