Wow, what a difference: D2H vs. D2Xs; what about the D2X?

[dennis lee]

Boy I had a great time yesterday. The local camera shop had what they called a 'tent' sale this weekend. A

mini camera fair with Leica, Nikon, Fuji, Canon, Pentax, Olympus and Tamaron represented by their reps

with lots of gear.

 

I spent a ton of time with the Nikon gear, shooting lots of images on my own card with the D2Xs and

D200. I tried out the SU-800 with the SB-800 and the R1C1 setup, along with checking out a few lenses

that I haven't seen before.

 

The biggest surprise for me was when I got home and started looking at the files. Wow. Coming from the

world of the D2H, wherein every, and I mean EVERY RAW files needs extensive adjustment, I was

practically knocked off my stump when I opened these files. The D2Xs files where amazing, right out of

the box. The D200 where pretty good too, and quickly adjusted if necessary. But the quality of the D2Xs

was so good that I could have gone straight to DNG conversion with their JPEG counterpart with minimal

work.

 

When I get back from an event with my D2H, I'm looking at spending an equivalent amount of time

adjusting files as I spent shooting the event. With the initial looks of this D2Xs, that time committment

would simply not exist.

 

My question, finally, do the files of a D2X look as good as these D2Xs files? I found a used D2X for a

pretty reasonable price and if they are comparable in color rendition I would seriously consider the

upgrade.

 

So, is there a dramatic difference in the 'out of the box' RAW files of the D2Xs and the original D2X?

 

My only disappointment yesterday was that the Leica rep did not have an M8 for me to slobber on. Thank

you to Nikon and all the others.

[roto]

Dennis,

 

After upgrading to the new firmware and with a new battery the residual differences between D2x and D2xs are minimal and do not affect image quality.

 

As a matter of fact, even with the previous firmware versions, the D2x is able to deliver very good pictures straight out of the camera. I don't normally need much post-processing, unless I want to do something unusual or make a large print (A3, A3+).

[neil_swanson]

Dennis

 

I was there too. I tried some different lenses on my D2HS. I think the Nikon guys were surprised to see an HS, I mean it isn't a huge seller but a great performer.

 

If you had tried a D2HS I think you would have felt the same about the images right out of the camera. I had a D2H and the HS produces a much better file out of camera than the 2H. Very very much like a D2x but smaller.

 

It was a pretty good show/sale wasn't it? I met up with a friend who bought a D80 w/18-135. Somehow all I bought was some ink for my Epson 2200.

[dennis lee]

Hi Neil, yes it was fun. Tell me, how did you come about your upgrade? Is that your used

D2H for sale in the cabinet? Are you bouncing with joy every time you look at your new RAW

images?!

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>... do the files of a D2X look as good as these D2Xs files?</I><P>I just finished

reviewing the D2Xs whch meant I got to shoot with one for about a month. well over a

thousand iamges in all sorts of conditions from studo to very low light. In terms of image

quality there isn't much of a difference except when shooting at ISO settingss higher than

800. That also jibes with what Rob Galbraith found as well. If you are inclined to use the

High Speed Crop mode theimplementation of it in the D2Xs is far superior t othe D2x.

People may laugh and wonder why not just crop when processing but I found it to a very

useful shooting mode -and I know I'm gonna have to crop anyway, then doing it in camera

saves a huge amount of time when processing. Also the battery life is about 50% better

with the D2Xs and the new battery --which will also work in your D2H or a D2X as well.

[neil_swanson]

Dennis

 

I just plain ebayed the D2H and bought the D2HS from Berger Bros in NY. Not my D2H in the cabinet. I saw a used D2X there in the cabinet though also. Yes I really like this camera. I've been finding that I do alot of post precessing maybe just to do it:-) I've been using NX and it rocks, also use capture. BTW the best hi ISO images from either camera, D2H, HS or D2X come from using NX, or Capture. Over 800 you really see the difference in noise (lack of) and color. The Nikon SW just does the math better and really all these programs are interpreting math more or less.

[dennis lee]

Thanks Neil, I downloaded NX last night and have been trying it out. Not bad so far. I

operates a little slow on my system and a few other operational quirks, but it does seem to

process a little better... at least I'm having a little better luck with some very 'warm' files from

a wedding a couple weekends ago. I'll keep working on it. Thanks for the tip.

[mark_cooke]

I agree on all points. I have recently swapped my D2H for a D2Xs and the difference in image quality has far exceeded my expectations. I suppose its the difference between 4 and 12 mega pixels, but wow!!

 

My only grip is with the Capture NX and Pictue Project software. I am using the trial version at the moment, but they won't allow me to open NEF files. It might be because its a trial version, but if thats the case, whats the point of having a trial, if you can't trial it?. The trial version also won't connect to the nikon server for updates.

Anyone else found this.

[dennis lee]

Mark, I just downloaded the trial version also. Although it runs a bit slow (I have the new

dual processor Mac, which does not support NX or vice versa) I am able to do everything I

should be able to do. As a matter of fact, some of my NEF's look so much better right off

the bat in NX than CS2 it is a bit staggering. That overall dull, brown, lifeless look of my

Raw files has improved significantly. One odd thing is that the file sizes of my D2H are

correlated to the D1x (see preferences), and not the D2H. When I open a file with

photoshop CS2 from NX it does come up as the same file size as when opening through

Camera Raw at D2H settings for 16 bit.

 

One disappointing observation is that I can make a great looking file in NX, but then if I

want to tweak it a bit with PS tools, and open the file in CS2, the image is converted to

a .tif and loses a fair bit of the color saturation I see in NX.

 

The NX program doesn't seem quite as intuitive as Adobe Bridge, or maybe it's just that

I'm not that used to it yet. But, my RAW files look much closer to the JPEGs I get. That

should make my life much easier. More experimentation is in order.