david-m

Blimey, that's a bit small.

Try this one<div></div>

Ok, so trying to post a couple of images.

First one is full-frame

Second one is close-up of head/hairs.

This was a large/fine jpeg (no in camera adjustments) with PS sharpening of amount-180,

radius- 1.2, Threshold-3. Otherwise no other adjustments.

BTW, I do really like the camera (build, features, ease of menus, ero)!!!

Hope these 2 images post OK.<div></div>

Thank you, these are all good answers, but ...

as I have said (twice now) I have am a pro PS user. Let me explain. I have used PS for about

6 years now on scans from my film cameras and know the software inside out, so I cannot

imaging it is my PS skills (sharpening being one of the most basic proceedures in PS).

Also (and thanks Lex for the long email) I seem to have managed to sort out the focussing

and exposure system on the D2X, so although I sometimes misfocus, my complaints are

about focussed images that are just very soft.

I am very interested to hear that maybe other people are impressed with this zoom

because they are coming from a purely digital background, with lower MP cameras, and so

this is an improvement for them. But I find it hard to beleive that this lens can be SO bad.

For heavens sake, it cost me 980GB Pounds. Even my 25 year old Olympus OM1 and a ?20

28mm is far far sharper.

So, have I been taken-in by the digital hype?

No, I don't thinks so (yet). I have been to

many pro websites and seen their comments on moving over from film to DSLR, and

nobody complains about the quality. I have two good freinds who switched from RZ67 to

DSLR and they both love the quality (admittadly with primes). Maybe my standards are a

little too high; I remember

when I first got my RZ67 complaining that it wasn't up to scrath compared to my very old

Hassy lenses - I could just be an awkward bugger!

So my next step is to test a couple of primes, or maybe take this lens back and see if it is

faulty.

Oh yes, and one more thing. I do not have image Capture, but can import raw files directly

into PS for adjustments. Would a bit of software like Nikon Capture or Bibble etc actually

import a better RAW file?

And, of course, a couple of recommendations for good Nikon primes in the 17mm, 35mm

and 50mm range vey welcome.

Thanks

Sorry, but out of all these answers, do I take it that I should get rid of my ?980 zoom and

get a couple of prime lenses instead OR is this 17-55 2.8DX zoom a good lens? Totally

confused.

BTW, I know all about sharpening (please see the bit of my question which relates to be PS

savvy - ie - I am a pro PS user). Thanks, for the er, help.

Any other ideas, please?

After much soul searching, I just bought a Nikon D2X with 17-55 f2.8. First of all, the

camera is a great piece of kit but I am still in the first few days of the learning curve

(coming from RZ67 and Leica M6), so I can't give too much comment on it. But, (and this is

just shooting finest, large jpg) I seem to end up with a bit of a soft image, as in - not pin

sharp - hairs or stubble looking a little indistinct. These are all just on the screen at

100%. I have printed a couple on an epson 1290, which look the same as the screen.

Is the lens a bit soft, or am I expecting too much from Nikon lenses (compared to Mamiya

and Leica), or is this just a digital issue. I am pretty up to pro speed on PS CS, so I can't

blame

my computer work. Will raw files be so much different (I imported one as a comparison but

it looked only slightly improved). I have taken shots with flash/tripod/carefully focussed/

f8 etc etc but no improvement. I have downloaded files from the internet from the D2X

which seem amazing, so could this be the difference between a zoom and a prime? If I

should be using raw, any suggestions about a convertor - I can import the raw files using

picture project, but is this good enough?

Any thoughts or suggestion PLEASE.

Thanks

David

Hi David,

Thanks for the complements.

No we don't get any sponsership - we just save like mad, and in the end we never spend

too much. You know, just cycling, camping and eating pasta - not too expensive.

Thanks for the kind words.

This trip took about 3 months to organise (mainly trying to cancel my mobile phone and

broadband internet connection!), but really it is just a case of getting all the

gear together, buying a few maps, getting on the plane and doing it.

The 4870 scanner is excellent, and prints pretty OK up to 10x8, but no way is it

comparable to a dedicated slide scanner (like the Mk4 or 9000 Nikons).

Like I said before, both of the M6 TTLs were totally perfect even under these extreme

conditions and, of course, produce beautiful images. Still, I can't hide the fact that I am

seriiously thinking of buying a Nikon D2X to replace my RZ67 in my portrait business!

Would still take the little Leicas on my cycling trips, though!.

Regards

I only took 50 rolls. Uphill, against the wind and on bad roads, 50 rolls in kind of the

maximum weight I want to add to my already overloaded bike). It was enough.

Yep, I used a BW polariser on perhaps 20% of the landscape shots. Definately

recommended. Bit of messing around taking the thing on and off to judge the amount to

use, but no real deal actually.

David

If anyone is interested, I have just started to post some photographs taken on a 6 month

cycling trip through Chile, Argentina and Bolivia. I used two M6TTLs with a 28 cron and

50 cron and Provia F/ E100G. All carried in the front handlebar bag on the bicycle.

They are scanned in just using an Epson 4870 flatbed.

This is one of many trips I have taken like this, with these cameras, and as always (so far)

no problems

at all with the equipment. And the roads were generally pretty atrocious, with rocky

bumpy roads and temperatures ranging from 30 C degrees to minus 20 degrees C (all in

the same day!). I kept all the films with me until I returned back to the UK for development

(what else to do), with no discernable difference between the first films taken and the last.

If you would like to take a look then you are welcome at:

www.flickr.com/photos/doxid

You can view them as a slide show, or much larger by clicking on the image then clicking

on 'all sizes'.

Thanks and enjoy (more to come later)

David

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.

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)

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)