Could this be? D2X image samples?

[mark_chappell]

I agree that if you have a large collection of lenses and you'd rather not have to add

specialty superwides like the 12-24, then the Canon 1Ds full-frame has a big advantage, if

you do landscapes with wideangles. On the other hand, if you have a major interest in

using telephotos for wildlife work (as I do), then the D2X has the advantage -- you don't

need as long a lens to attain an equivalent image of your subject, or you don't have to get

as close to your subject with a given focal length.

 

Having used 6 and 8 megapixel Canon DSLRs, I agree that the difference between a 12

megapixel D2X image and a 16 megapixel 1Ds image is not going to be of any

significance in the vast majority of uses.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Agree 100%. But there is more to the 1Ds sensor than megapixels. If you put the best L

glass in front of it, you can tell the difference between the 1Ds and any other DSLR.

</I><P>The only way you can possibly verify this statement would be to shoot in the

same

sets of circumstances with a matched set of lenses (a 16-35mm f/2.8L, a 70

-200mm f/2.8L, and say a 24mm Tilt/Shift ,shifted ) on a 1Ds, a 1Ds mk. 2, and a Kodak

DCS Pro SLR/c since these three cameras all use a Canon EOS mount. Now you have

reducedthe variability to strictly the sensor.<P>More directly, to honestly confront the

hype; Canon lenses are not superior to similar lenses from Nikon and many people have

reported getting clearly visibly superior results using wide angle lenses from Zeiss and

Leica that were adadapted for use on Canon 1Ds cameras compared to what they were

getting from Canon lenses of the same focal length.

[mark_chappell]

<I>More directly, to honestly confront the hype; Canon lenses are not superior to similar

lenses from Nikon</I><P>

 

That's painting with a pretty broad brush. I've used both systems and it's probably true

that <B><I>in general</b></i> the lens quality is about the same. However, at

particular focal lengths you can find one brand that's clearly better than the other. For

example, the word-of-mouth is that Nikon makes better wideangles than the C brand. I

don't have sufficient personal experience with N vs C wideangles to judge that question,

but I've enough with long lenses to

conclude that the Canon stabilized super-teles are clearly superior to their Nikon

equivalents, if only because there <B>are</b> no real Nikon equivalents -- for whatever

reason, Nikon doesn't make stabilized 400, 500, or 600 mm primes. Yet. <P>

 

Of course, at the Nikon and Canon level of mechanical and optical sophistication, its

usually the brain behind the camera that

really matters in determining picture quality.

[vivek iyer]

With the D2X'crop mode, one can have a 400mm f/2 VR lens. If a suitable 2X converter is added, it will be 800mm f/4. Don't you want to switch back, Mark?

[mark_chappell]

<I>With the D2X'crop mode, one can have a 400mm f/2 VR lens. If a suitable 2X converter

is added, it will be 800mm f/4. Don't you want to switch back, Mark?</I><P>

 

Nope. I need way more focal length than a pseudo-800 mm (typically, I'm using a 500/4

with a 2X converter on a 1D Mk. II (1.3 crop factor). That's

what you need most of the time for birds. And I have 8.5 frames/second with 8.2

megapixels, and can get

usably low noise levels at ISO 1600. And If I want to spend the money and heft the

weight to get more reach, there's a stabilized 600/4 available in the Canon line. <P>

 

If one is not a wildlife photographer (especially a bird photographer), there's not much of a

functional difference between the two systems, IMO. But us wildlife nuts greatly benefit

from REAL 500 and 600 mm stabilized lenses, and that's where Nikon has failed to go for

way too long. Maybe they've seen the light (300/2.8 VR), but maybe not -- time will tell.

By not

moving VR into the big tele range years ago, Nikon pushed a hell of a lot of wildlife and

sports

photographers over to the Canon system, which -- <I><b>for that specialized function

</i></b> -- still has no competition from Nikon.

[vivek iyer]

Let us hope that Nikon will act soon and try to woo back folks like you in to their fold.

[mark_chappell]

<I>Let us hope that Nikon will act soon and try to woo back folks like you in to their

fold.</I><P>

 

Yeah.... if for no other reason, that will keep Canon on their toes.

[vivek iyer]

Yes! ONE is no competition, Professor :)

[sundaram_venkatachalam1]

<i>any other DSLR. </i>

<p>

Correction: any other non full frame DSLR.

<p>

<i>

The only way you can possibly verify this statement would be to shoot in the same sets of circumstances with a matched set of lenses (a 16-35mm f/2.8L, a 70 -200mm f/2.8L, and say a 24mm Tilt/Shift ,shifted ) on a 1Ds, a 1Ds mk. 2, and a Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c since these three cameras all use a Canon EOS mount. Now you have reducedthe variability to strictly the sensor.

</i>

<p>

Ellis, hopefully my previous statement clarifies my earlier statement. Now, where can I get these full frame beauties to test :)

<p>

Eric ~, your observations are correct. A lot of us (including me) would rather blame the equipment than myself for bad photographs. The bottomline is : smaller sensors are more than good enough but if I could afford a full frame DSLR, I would buy one. If the SLR/n was built on a D2* body, I would buy it. Unfortunately, it is not.

<p>

[ilkka_nissila]

Mihut, the excitement is because this is a Nikon DSLR which takes Nikon lenses which we have collected for years and years. And this is the Nikon forum. Why should we care what Canon has on sale for $8000? Why pay 15000 if you can get what you need for 5000?

[olivier_reichenbach]

I love it when people criticize a camera BEFORE having ever held one in their hands, let

alone shot with it. Like a film critic who wouldn't see the film before writing about it,

relying on word of mouth to inform him. And the trailer.

 

Is this the second coming of the Leica forum where "Leica enthusiasts" trash their brand

every single chance they have?

 

As for switching to Canon, well, hard as I tried I could never get any of my more than 15

Nikon F mount lenses to fit on a Canon body, so I think I'll stick to Nikon.

[vivek iyer]

You should try the Nikkors with an adaptor. They will fit a Canon EOS mount and will focus to infinity as well.

 

The other way around is not that easy!