D2X versus 1Ds2 for pro portrait work

[david-m]

Sorry if this is an 'old question' (but I have just returned from a 9 month cycle trip in

'back-o-beyond' and need to catch up) - does the Nikon D2X compare to the (more

expensive) Canon 1Ds2 in final printed image quality. Uses would be primarily studio/

location portrait (and some travel) to enable 16x20 (and larger, if you include

cropping) enlargments of excellent (fine detail) quality, also good enough for pro

magazine work.

 

Also, as this would be my first DSLR, (moving sideways from RZ67 and Leica M6) am I

leaping in too high or are these cameras pretty straightforward to learn to use (I am well

trained in PS on Mac OSX).

 

Thanks so much for any advice.

 

David M (UK)

[peter_phan]

Do you want a full frame 35mm camera (Canon 1Ds MKII) or an APS frame camera (D2X)? I'd love to have a full frame 1Ds MKII, if only I could afford one. Shallow depth of field characteristics are much better from a 35mm full frame body. Plus, if you're not in a hurry, I'd wait a couple months. Canon is rumored to be introducing a new high-resolution body between the 1D MKII and the 1Ds MKII, probably aimed at the D2X.

[jbq]

Yes, it compares - i.e. the comparison is meaningful. The D2X has measurably more noise and measurably less overall resolution.

 

Depending on what you expect, 16x20 might be the upper end of what you should expect from those cameras (200dpi without cropping), and as such the extra 15% of linear resolution in the 1DsII could make sense. I would expect both cameras to be capable of producing levels of fine detail similar to what you'd get with 6x7. Reichman's test of a 1Ds ("only" 11MP) against his Pentax 6x7 showed that the 1Ds actually showed more detail than an Imacon scan of the 6x7 slide, and that it took a good drum scan to bring them up to par. It's reasonable to assume that with 25% more linear pixels the 1DsII might actually to visibly better than the best 6x7. Putting it another way, if you're satisfied by 16x20 from 6x7, you'll likely be satisfied by 16x20 from either of those cameras.

 

One of the big factors in the choice between those cameras is to figure out what you intend to do with them, and specifically which lenses you plan to use.

 

I'd give the 1DsII an edge if you intend to use fast lenses wide open, or if your style involves "short" lenses (35mm up to 135mm on 35mm film). On the other hand if you normally shoot longer lenses than that (135-200mm on 35mm film), the D2X will let you use lenses like the 85/1.4, 105/2 or 135/2 and be in very comfortable territory.

 

Now, I don't have either of those cameras or anything that comes close to them (the closest I have is a 10D), so obviously you want to take what I wrote with a relevant grain of salt.

[Carl Stone]

Do yourself a favor and read Bjørn Rørslett's comparison of the two cameras. This address

<http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html>, scroll down to the info, compares the two

cameras. Canon makes a very nice DSLR in the 1DS M K ll, but Nikon is not an also ran, the

Nikon DX2 is an awesome camera in it's own right. Only you can make the right choice,

according to your needs. :o)

[sl attanapola]

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

"and that it took a good drum scan to bring them up to par."

 

If you read between the lines more carefully (and look at the 4000 ppi scan), you'll see that a 4000 ppi scan of 6x7 produces far more detail than 11MP digital. Also, he was looking at much smaller prints from the 1Ds than he says he was (basically 11", not 13", in the short direction).

 

I suspect that either (a) his Imacon is defective, (b) he doesn't know how use it, or © the Imacon is a far worse scanner than its fans would have you believe. Probably a combination of (b) and ©, I'd guess.

[david_littleboy__tokyo__ja]

By the way, to get back to your original question, I'd strongly recommend getting a low end or midrange dSLR first. A Canon 300D or 350D and a couple of fast lenses would do things (mainly low light work) that you other cameras can't, and give you a chance to get used to the digital workflow.

 

FWIW, although I am critical of the Dubious Landscapes 1Ds/6x7 comparison, he does have the point that for prints that your viewers will not be getting quite as close as "normal reading distances", 240 ppi from digital originals make wonderful prints, so the 1Dsmk2 should make phenomenal borderless 13x19 prints. At 16x24, though, you'll need your viewers to stay 18 or 20 inches away.

 

One thing about digital, though: don't even think about cropping. Get it right in the camera. (Actually, I think that applies to all photography, but it doesn't take much cropping to turn a crisp digital image to mush at larger print sizes.)

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>does the Nikon D2X compare to the (more expensive) Canon 1Ds2 in final printed

image quality. Uses would be primarily studio/ location portrait (and some travel) to

enable 16x20 (and larger, if you include cropping) enlargments of excellent (fine detail)

quality, also good enough for pro magazine work.</I><P>Yes it most definitely does

(both are superb cameras) and the $3K you save can be put towards buying one or two top

notch lensesr lenses & a back up D70 body.

[jbq]

I am somewhat critical of Bjorn's methodology (or actually of how applicable the results are). For me the proof is in the final prints, not in unprocessed camera JPEGs seen on-screen, and typically I think it's more fair to compare with the same angle of view, the same aperture diameter, and adjusted sensitivity to compensate.

 

In a nutshell, I'd think it'd be more fair to compare the D2X at ISO 1250 (not actually available) or 1600 against the 1DsII at 3200, with a lens at f/4 on the D2X and another lens with the same angle of view at f/6.3 or f/5.6 on the 1DsII. Same angle of view, same depth of field, same shutter speed, but none of his tests really compare the cameras in such an apples-to-apples way.

 

Once such tests are done, another aspect is to compare the "extreme" options available (lowest available sensitivity for cases where light isn't a limiting factor, long lenses, wide lenses, fast lenses for a shallow depth-of-field at a given angle of view). For general "travel" photography those aren't necessarily relevant comparisons, but for some kinds of highly controlled work they might be. Most of the examples I can come up with involve lenses on the Canon side that have no equivalent on the Nikon side, though (the 85/1.2 especially comes to mind for portrait applications, if you're the kind of photographer who likes an ultra-shallow depth of field).

[patrick_yu2]

I wonder if anybody has conducted any study or mesasurement to compare the color depth between D2X and 1Ds II. Since each pixel in 1DsII is larger than those of D2X, 1DsII should in theory provide more color variation and gray level. Thanks.

[oskar_ojala]

<i>I am somewhat critical of Bjorn's methodology (or actually of how applicable the results are).</i>

 

<p>I completely disagree on this one. Bj�rn has a well-defined methodology, which he explains, and which is valid for the kind of photography he does. It may not suit your style of photography, but that's not his problem ;-)

 

<p>You might want to check out <a href="http://www.bythom.com/d2xreview.htm">Thom Hogan's review</a> of the D2X.

[jbq]

Oskar: well, following a similar methodology comparing 35mm film with 4x5 film you'd notice that a piece of 4x5 film has less resolution at the same focal length, more falloff at the same aperture, as much grain for the same magnification, less depth-of-field at the same aperture, and you'll conclude that 35mm must be far superior. Yet in just about all applications where 4x5 is applicable few people will pick the 35mm frame over the 4x5 one when printed at 24x30.

 

I have the feeling that some of Bjorn's conclusions are quite similar. Heck, I'm not saying that the D2X is a bad camera. Without a doubt it's right at the top of what money can buy.

[basscheffers]

Both have more than enough resolution and looking at the samples, I prefer D2X images, which has more to do with the colours than resolution. And remember the 1DsII only produces 16% more pixels on eaxh axis, not much to write home about.

 

Nikon also always seems to have been the portrait snappers favourite, so if you want some cred with your peers... ;-)

 

If you are spending this much, it probably makes sense to rent both of them for a weekend (cheaper rates!) and put them side by side on tripods in your studio. Then tell us what you found!

[david-m]

Thanks

 

As I am still bejetlagged and in 'cycling/camping/snapping pretty little landscapes' mode it

never occurred to me to rent them out - so that is my next move, thanks.

 

And many thanks for the in depth and thoughtful answers for you all.

 

David M (UK)

[chiswick_john]

I've been using a 1Ds 2 for a while now and have the following observations; It's big and heavy - not ideal for traveling with, it has a rather aggressive AA filter which 'mushes' fine irregular detail like foliage in landscape - comparisons with the D2X I have seen with this kind of subject matter give the Nikon a definate advantage, Canon's wide lenses are not very good away from the center of the frame and IMO severly handicap the potential of this camera. Plus points are - good high ISO capability, good weather sealing, FF means you can exploit a shallower DOF for isolating subjects, huge and clear VF. Hire and try is my advice.

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Jean-Baptiste: your analogy is somewhat invalid, as the aim with digital systems is to compare the capability of imaging systems (sensor and camera), whereas in film photography measuring film resolution is relatively straightforward.

 

<p>Bj�rn mentions: "<i>However, because chip size may differ so might angle of view for the end image, or chip pixel counts may differ to result in non-identical angular resolution of the pixels. A sound and basic principle underlying scientific tests is that you should be able to have full control of the variables involved and preferably change only a single variable independently of the others.</i>" By performing this test, resolution can more accurately be predicted for the systems in different scenarios. Also, he does tests both with equal and different fields of view.

 

<p>To address this, Bj�rn concludes (sorry for the long quote, read the whole article, it has the conclusions too): "<i>To many people, understandingly more familiar with photography than the intricacies of equipment testing, the test above caused a lot of concern and accusations of it not being fair (implied, to the Canon). What people craved for, was a comparison in which field of view is equal, not done the way I have outlined above, but obtained by putting different lenses on each camera so as to get the infamous "crop" factor, 1.5 in this case. Although this approach might seen intuitive, it is in reality the least satisfactory of all because you now can only get a single variable (perspective) equal, and unless one of the lenses involved is a better performer than the other, you might end up evaluating lens performance instead of the camera. However, having said that, I did this test too a couple of days later, as a result of public demand.</i>" I think this makes perfect sense, especially since he did the equal-FOV test with the same lens.

[oskar_ojala]

I realised my posting was a bit long, so I'll summarize my point briefly: testing should always concern one variable only. Bj�rn R�rslett does this and does multiple tests to determine different aspects of image quality, hence my support for his methodology. Tests that try to change five variables at once are not useful for general application.

 

In addition to this, I'm all for subjective evaluations by professional photographers who have used the equipment in their work (such as Ellis Vener), as this can provide important insights on issues such as ergonomics and reliability. This brings valuable addition to the data that testing can provide.

[basscheffers]

David, I think Calumet do a "try before you buy scheme", not sure how competitive their sales prices are, though.

[ilkka_nissila]

I would look at the rendering of skin by doing a direct comparison on your own. I would also recommend comparing to your present film equipment in both color and black and white.

 

I also think Bjorn did a sensible and complete test. There are situations where you need more reach than even your longest lens provides, and in this situation the D2X has a huge advantage. Secondly, he compared the results with an equal angle of view, which showed that the 1Ds Mk II has an advantage in the center but not so in the peripheral areas of the image.

 

If the skin tone test does not favour either camera specifically, then the Canon would appear to be a better camera for studio portraits, but it is heavier, so it is worse for outdoor work (remember you need a backup which adds to the weight and cost).

 

In people photography, a larger viewfinder image is preferable as you can see the faces more clearly and it may be easier to catch the moment.

[ellis_vener_photography]

David,

My answer was based on my experience using the D2X and the 1Ds mk.2 in ideal and

"real world" situations.

[peter_phan]

<i>Nikon also always seems to have been the portrait snappers favourite, so if you want some cred with your peers... ;-)</i>

<p>

Based on what? Based on a poll conducted in the 1980's? A very large portion of Nikon users have since switched to Canon since then. Look around now, and you'll see it's mostly Canon. Just take a look at a few of the big names in photography who are now using Canon:

<a href=" http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/explorers/lobby.html">http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/explorers/lobby.html</a>

And yes, quite a few of them originally started with Nikon. So my point is, your claim that "Nikon also always seems to have been the portrait snappers favourite" is really baseless.

[Jim_Tardio]

There's no shortage of "Big Names" using Nikon either. Here's a link:

<p>

<a href="http://www.nikonnet.com/dyn/inspire/legends_index.html">http://www.nikonnet.com/dyn/inspire/legends_index.html</a>

<p>

But that really doesn't mean much since many "Big Names" are provided with gear to endorse.

[roger krueger]

I'm a 1dsII user, but my work is very different from what you want to do--extreme ISO

performance (3200 2-3 stops under) and a wide+fast lens (the 24/1.4) are my reasons for

loving it and needing it.

 

For artificially lit ISO 100 work I have a very hard time seeing the 1dsII as worth the extra

money. The only thing the 1dsII has in its favor for portrait work is the extreme shallow

DOF of the 85/1.2 that can't be matched in the Nikon system?not on film, and especially

not on a 1.5x digital body.

[david-m]

Thanks again,

 

I am extremely tempted by the NIkon D2X, but also have reservations about the difficulty

of getting a shallow depth of field - but surely (and I speak here with complete digital

ignorance) using a fast lens, wide open will achieve this, or ...

 

Also, would anyone recommend first buying something like a D70 (with a really good lens

to use later on a D2X), learning with it, and then getting a D2X.

 

Many thanks for great informed answers.

[rob_malkin]

I would imagine that your workflow will be radicaly different when using digital. It might be an idea to get a D70 and see how you get on with that.

 

As far as the dof goes, its one of the main reasons I dont do any portraits that I am bothered about on my D70. F100 all the way for that.

 

r