Switch from MF to D2X?

[ilkka_nissila]

I just noticed that the poster talks specifically about golf. I don't think high ISO is needed/useful in golf.

[KenPapai]

Golf COURSES, where ISO will be 200 or less.

<p>

I think, in effect, Nikon and Canon are equals. When I was in high school the snobs had Nikons, and low-lifes like me had Minoltas. I lusted for Nikon then.

<p>

Now, almost 30 years later I know better.<p>Nikkor glass is exceptional; as good as the best Canon L glass. Nikon bodies however are way behind Canon at the prosumer level. At the PRO level it is a different story; obviously Canon dominates, nearly without peer, for sports. However, Nikon's top, the D2X, while an extraordinary camera, is not quite up to par with the 1Ds2 no matter what this or that review says. NO ONE talks about MF people switching to the D2X. However MF people ARE switching to the 1Ds2.<p>

Lastly, I think Thomas is worrying too much. A D2X will be wonderful tool for taking photos of golf courses at the pro level. Wonderful. Could he do better? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

[thomas_breazeale1]

Yes,99 percent of the time I will use the camera for landscape work only where I will always be shooting at the lowest ISO possible which I believe 100 for the D2X.From what I have read noise is not an issue at that ISO until you start using some serious slow shutter speeds like over 30 seconds..am I correct?

[thomas_breazeale1]

Maybe you are right about the worry factor..just my nature.

[ky2]

Thomas, the D2X is a brilliant machine. Rent one for a week or two, and see if it fits your needs. I believe the noise-reduction (Darkframe substraction) feature of the D2X eliminates long exposure noise-- maybe Shun can confirm that.

[ted turner]

I think the convenience of digital alone in the context of travel photography makes your decision easier.

 

Canon or Nikon? I don't really want to go there. But you asked. The D2X DOES go head to head with the 1D2M2 and wins in many ways. I used one for bike racing shots last week and was simply amazed. Nikon guys will vote Nikon and Canon dudes will vote Canon. Rent both and decide.

 

I will say; however, compared to the 1DsM2, the D2X will be lighter, cheaper, deliver better edge sharpness, will have a more film like look (great color!), much better ergonomics, better flash system...I just love it. As you know, the Canon has less high ISO noise. The difference in resolution is generally insignificant for most applications; but it might be for billboard work -- no experience here.

 

I've rented MF gear several times (Mamiya 6 and 7) and loved the images; still thinking about adding a small kit to my bag. But a NEF file properly processed through Nikon Capture delivers an amazing image. Want lots of exposure latitude? Just try the D-Lighting tool in Nikon Capture. Why would anyone want to scan film again?

 

Ted

 

www.pbase.com/turnert

[umd]

<i>However, Nikon's top, the D2X, while an extraordinary camera, is not quite up to par with the 1Ds2 no matter what this or that review says.</i><br><br>

 

Recent comparision at dpreview.com and Bjorn Rorslett's test tell otherwise, and they support this with image samples. D2x blows 1DsMkII every way except may be high iso. I would rather believe my eyes rather than unsupported empty talk like "it is good no matter reviews say".

[KenPapai]

If someone wants to loan me a D2X for a couple weeks I'd love to put it through its paces. ;-)

<p>

I wonder if there are people out there -- with serious Nikon AND Canon kits and switch between them? The closest I've seen in real life is Tim Burton -- Canon DSLRs coupled with the best Nikkor lenses.

<p>

Getting off track here anyway...

[ilkka_nissila]

People who use the D2X might not have to sell their MF equipment because the camera (and associated tele lenses) cost substantially less than the 1Ds Mk II. Also, I would like to think that people are intelligent enough to see that film and digital have different advantages and optimal uses.

[john_kothanek1]

Thomas, I also travel a lot with my camera as I am sure many do. I recently switched from the Canon to the nikon D2x after my Canon gear got crunched. I couldn't be happier. I am not going into a comparison between meduim (I also have a few RB67s) and digital. Totally different animals obviously. Having said that the D2X is everything i wanted a camera to be. Even having used only Canon digital and 35mm the Nikon is VERY intuitive and it just feels incredible in my hands and to my eye.

 

For travel I find that with my trusty Lowenpro bag the Nikon with a 12-24 mm DX, 28-70mm 2.8 70-200mm 2.8 VR, a Flashtrax 40 GB (to transfer photos for on the road storage) battery charger, SB 800 and a total of about 12 GB of compact flash cards I am MUCH lighter than a comparable meduim format kit. I REALY love the instant verification of a shot with the view screen. I can choose to reshoot with a different angle, zoom in or out or different exposure settings to ensure the picture is what I am looking for. That capability alone is extremely beneficial to me. I love the idea of knowing exactly what I shot and am brining home. I am not a pro like most or many of you guys so that is a massive asset to me.

 

I also LOVE the idea of not carting film around. I was always paranoid about loss of a shot (or gasp a ROLL)or some security person in an airport insisting that they HAVE to scan my film. Yes that has happened to me. Only once but it did happen. Now I merely take out a card and secure it in my bag if I am on extended travel and shooting a lot I am able to download the images to my Flashtrax (not the best of the mini hard drives frankly)

 

I think the quality/look of the photos will blow you away but that is your taste entirely. The workflow issues that are alluded to are great. It is just so much easier for me at least.

 

In other words I would strongly suggest you go with the D2X it SHOULD make things much easier for you without sacrificing quality.

 

Thank you all from letting me learn from you.

 

John

[thomas_breazeale1]

I think most of us who have used film for many years can see the obvious differences in the two mediums,I for one love the film characteristcs (color palette,less intense sharpness etc.)better than I do a digital capture and in my opinion nothing can beat a properly exposed Velvia tranny.But sometimes reality takes precedence over heart tugs and the cards fall where they fall.I have enjoyed reading your insights in this thread..much appreciated!<div></div>

[thomas_breazeale1]

Thanks for your well written piece based on personal experiance..always helps when someone has 'been there done that'.

[mark_turner4]

I'm coming in kind of late on this, but you menitoned, Thomas, seling your MF equipment to pay for the new camera. It's not gonna happen. You'll be lucky to get enough for your Hasselblad to buy a nice lens for your Nikon. As for the quality, the Fuji S3, and now the D2x, are the first digital cameras for me to produce a print that looks like film. I don't know the technical name for the look, but these are the first to looks like film. The D2x will give you every bit the resolution than you are getting with your Hasselblad. And you mentioned billboards, they can be done easily with any good camera, as the resolution is only about 30 dpi. That said, how do I get this kind of job? I wanna travel to golf courses all over the world!

[ilkka_nissila]

Mark, how do you know how many lenses and cameras Thomas has for Hasselblad? Yes, with one lens and body if it is a little out of date you can buy a nice lens for Nikon, but he's probably got a lot more.

 

I however agree that there is no point in selling it ... there will be a time when medium format digital backs / SLRs become affordable and will be used actively.

[thomas_breazeale1]

To answer your lasts post...I have 5 lenses that are either CF,CFE and FE plus the 205FCC.All are in mint condition without a scratch and even with the low prices of MF equipment today I would surely expect to get more out of them than just one Nikkor lens!...if not I will keep it for a spare and give it to my grand kids ha,ha!

[dave_unwin]

thomas,

 

one thing that hasn't been mentioned here which may be of benefit in your line of work is the ease of stitching digital files together for pano's etc. for occasions where the scene is static, stitching multiple files can provide more resolution than you can poke a stick at. well a 9-iron in your case :)

 

i am heading in the opposite direction, having picked up a hassie to complement my canon digital gear.

 

good luck!

 

dave

[michael_a._shapiro]

This note may be more appropriate to the Digital Darkroom Forum, but it's important to this issue, also. To do a fair comparison between film and digital, proper procedure needs to be followed on the digital end. Bruce Frasier has a book out called "Real World Camera Raw." This book is essential; at least the concepts are. The point is that the major raw processing must be done in Camera Raw, not Photoshop. Then you'll see what digital capture/output can really accomplish.

I hope this is helpful.

Michael

[gaius1]

Michael, the truth is that any comparison will be biased. For example, I like to compare wet prints from TMX against greyscale output from a digital image from a Frontier or Laserlab. Obviously the Frontier output will be inferior as it has a fixed, limited resolution and only a palette of 256 shades. Most "reviewers" like to compare the output from a GBP 5000 DSLR with a consumer-grade desktop film scanner, downrezzing the film scan to match, and of course they come to the opposite conclusion from me!