Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alex_Mustard

D2X Gossip

Recommended Posts

That seems wrong to me Matt.

 

If the write speed is faster, then the frame rate should be faster, all other things being the same. Shouldn't it?

 

I think my main wonder is why the D2X would have gone back to a mechanical shutter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just came across the invoice for my old D1X.

 

Date - 11/13/01

Price - $4778 body only

Accessories included a 512 Lexar 12X card - $449

 

Given inflation and technological improvements that D2X is a hell of a deal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgot to mention that the review includes comparisons with D2H and D1X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow!! He's done a test shooting into the sun and I reckon there are going to be some fairly increadible shots of sun rays/balls coming from the D2X (see page 3 of the review).

 

There is also a nice comparison between the 1DsMkII and D2X:

[*]D2X more noise at extreme ISO's

[*]D2X less light falloff with WA

[*]D2X better acuity under magnification (with the same lens used on both cameras!)

[*]1DsMkII should have better dynamic range.

 

Quite extraordinary really - not what I would have predicted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the write speed is faster, then the frame rate should be faster, all other things being the same. Shouldn't it?

 

I am but a young grasshopper :)

 

From http://www.wetpixel.com/modules.php?op=mod...os+canon+series

I think it's condemning if the S3's DR is matched by a conventional 8MP camera and the street price of the 1DMk2 has dropped.  It's a far better camera in every other way.  The price difference goes into a very expensive body.

 

I don't think the point is what's better for F-mount.  I think the point is why botther with a dual photosite design if it can't outperform a conventional sensor?  Fuji's sensor tech doesn't seem to be superior and it software and ergonomics are apparently substandard.  It may be the best available for F-mount for under $4000 but it seems very exposed to me.

 

That isn't quite fair. The sensor on 1DMkII has more than 1.5x larger area. If Fuji can get the same resolution and DR, then their scheme has some merit. Because the CCD has to read out in series, they'll never be able to do 8 frames per second (this is probably the main reason Nikon has gone to CMOS for their pro camera, and Canon understood this earlier and got a technology jump on Nikon) . However, they probably can make the rest of it faster with a better processing and memory.

 

~Matt Segal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is Bjorn's quote on shooting sunbursts that Anthony mentions:

 

"So, let's investigate various aspects of the image rendition of D2X. First out , the issue of "blooming", which can result from massive overexpoure of the imager, typically when you shoot into the sun...

I consider the "blooming" issue to be largely non-existant with the D2X, while on D70 at least it could be a nasty issue unless you followed the practice of stopping the lens down and setting the exposure to the lean side. This welcomed trait of D2X implies you can include bright spots of light into your images without fear of getting image anomalies."

 

This is not the whole issue of shooting sunbursts UW, but this does sound VERY encouraging.

 

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, look at the vignetting comparison shots! Score one for Nikon on the sensor-lens combination.

 

Still reading the review.

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bjorn Roslett's detailed D2X review is now online.  

 

And my thoughts of "the switch" have been consigned to the status of fever dreams.

 

Now, which of those credit card's has the biggest reserve :)

 

On a related note: A big warehouse of B&H's burned today. Sure hope they didn't have any 2x's in there...

 

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_0224...yyardfire.html#

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[*]D2X better acuity under magnification (with the same lens used on both cameras!)

Yeah, but I'm not so thrilled with his methodology here and don't consider the data he presented as conclusive. He also presented evidence of significant color fringing.

 

Regarding his noise data, he only compared it objectively to the D70 which is no noise champion. Why not compare it to its clear competitors, the 1D* Mk2's? You'd see the difference.

 

It does look as though the D2x is a superb camera. Yeah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but I'm not so thrilled with his methodology here and don't consider the data he presented as conclusive

Would be nice to see some other scenes - or better still another tester conducting a similar test. I'm not really sure how the methodology could be improved. It might have been instructive to also include a test with the Canon 300 2.8L, so that we could compare it to the other two shots and partially control for the Nikon lens on a Canon body.

He also presented evidence of significant color fringing.

Was that more a function of the lens or the camera?

Regarding his noise data, he only compared it objectively to the D70 which is no noise champion. Why not compare it to its clear competitors, the 1D* Mk2's? You'd see the difference.

Absolutely agree, but I think it is fairly clear that the 1DsMk2 exhibits significantly lower noise levels at high ISOs. I would be interested in seeing an objective comparison at ISO 100 though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, but I'm not so thrilled with his methodology here and don't consider the data he presented as conclusive

Would be nice to see some other scenes - or better still another tester conducting a similar test. I'm not really sure how the methodology could be improved. It might have been instructive to also include a test with the Canon 300 2.8L, so that we could compare it to the other two shots and partially control for the Nikon lens on a Canon body.

 

It couldn't be worst. Almost anything else would be an improvement. You can show that a 35mm shot has the same resolution as a medium format shot if you put a 50mm lens on both and shot the same subject from the same distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cut and paste from Thom Hogan addressing this issue:

 

"Read Bjorn's commentary VERY carefully. There are two situations that have to be addressed when discussing how a camera resolves, and Bjorn has dealt with both of them. In one case, there's the issue of what happens when you take a picture with a photo from a fixed position with the same focal length (instead of a barn, imagine a polar bear that can't be approached any closer and both the D2x and 1Ds photographer having 600mm lenses--that's what the barn test is all about). In the other case, both photographers frame the same angle of view, which requires one to use either a different focal length or a move. In Bjorn's case, he chose to move because the impact of a different focus distance on the same lens is less than that of using different lenses.

 

His thought behind his methodology is correct. Since I wasn't there, I can't vouch for whether he dotted every i and crossed every t in implementing it, but the logic is correct. If you can't follow that, I would humbly suggest that you study it some more, because Bjorn's choices were made after considering optical issues."

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cut and paste from Thom Hogan addressing this issue:

 

"Read Bjorn's commentary VERY carefully. There are two situations that have to be addressed when discussing how a camera resolves, and Bjorn has dealt with both of them. In one case, there's the issue of what happens when you take a picture with a photo from a fixed position with the same focal length (instead of a barn, imagine a polar bear that can't be approached any closer and both the D2x and 1Ds photographer having 600mm lenses--that's what the barn test is all about). In the other case, both photographers frame the same angle of view, which requires one to use either a different focal length or a move. In Bjorn's case, he chose to move because the impact of a different focus distance on the same lens is less than that of using different lenses.

 

His thought behind his methodology is correct. Since I wasn't there, I can't vouch for whether he dotted every i and crossed every t in implementing it, but the logic is correct. If you can't follow that, I would humbly suggest that you study it some more, because Bjorn's choices were made after considering optical issues."

 

Cheers

James

 

and what do you think James....

 

I think Thom is full of it on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Herb, as James and Thom have pointed out, the methodology is not the same as the example you give. Although Bjorn does provide one shot with the same lens, from the same position (thus biasing against the Canon), he also provides another shot (of the same scene) from a closer position (thus theoretically biasing against the Nikon).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want shoot the same scene with the same lens - so that means you need to move when taking the photos w/ one of the cameras. That's what he did.

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bjorn also shot both cameras in jpg with default settings, then compared images with obviously different contrast and sharpness applied. You think Thom would agree now?

 

I agree, Herb, Thom is full of it. I think the alternate perspective test is entirely useless since it isn't how anyone would shoot. It artificially favors the Nikon because it, in essence, forces the 1Ds shooter to apply a DX crop before competing. Within the limits of the hardware, the 1Ds shooter would have a different focal length lens (600 + 1.4x) on for the polar bear than the D2x shooter so the point is moot. Why arbitrarily assume that the D2x get the optimal lens and the 1Ds does not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You want shoot the same scene with the same lens - so that means you need to move when taking the photos w/ one of the cameras.  That's what he did.

 

Cheers

James

Only, no you don't. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herb, as James and Thom have pointed out, the methodology is not the same as the example you give. Although Bjorn does provide one shot with the same lens, from the same position (thus biasing against the Canon), he also provides another shot (of the same scene) from a closer position (thus theoretically biasing against the Nikon).

 

He used the wide angle shot with the same field of view to conclude that the there's greater light fall off at the corners of the 1DsII shot. I do not doubt that this is true. The problem is well known. It's a lens problem.

 

He then goes on to show shots with the two cameras with the same Nikon lens and the same subject distance, and then crops the same feature and concludes that the Nikon has a sharper image. This is analogous to the example I gave. It's awful!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Herb, as James and Thom have pointed out, the methodology is not the same as the example you give. Although Bjorn does provide one shot with the same lens, from the same position (thus biasing against the Canon), he also provides another shot (of the same scene) from a closer position (thus theoretically biasing against the Nikon).

How does shooting the same scene using the same perspective bias against Nikon? It's the only unbiased test. Sure, the Nikon has less resolving power in that test, but that's because it has less resolving power!

 

As I said before, all the tests were biased because they did not use either camera to the fullest extent. If you're only interested in jpg shooting with default settings then Bjorn's tests are for you but the Canon is known to be quite soft when shot this way. Of course, shooting RAW opens another can of worms and continual arguing over RAW converter usage but that's another issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

 

Thom also talks about that...:-P Ultimately, you want to compare each camera at its absolute best. But it takes a while to learn how to get the best out of each camera, and out of the different RAW processing software. I'm sure we'll see that soon once more people have had time to work with the D2x.

 

Overall, I was very pleased with the results that Bjorn posted. It looks like a great camera.

 

Cheers

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He used the wide angle shot with the same field of view to conclude that the there's greater light fall off at the corners of the 1DsII shot. I do not doubt that this is true. The problem is well known. It's a lens problem.

Yes, and further he compares the Nikon at 18mm equivalent to the Canon at 17mm. Why not zoom to 18mm since you're claiming the same field of view? How about using the 16-35 at 18mm instead?

 

You can't compare these two cameras exactly but you don't have to consistently error in favor of one brand. It's a fair criticism of a full frame camera that wide angle light falloff is a problem. How about a 2:1 macro sharpness test at f/22? Don't dare show the Canon in its best light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thom also talks about that...:-P

Anyone who realizes that yet endorses the test as fair makes me wonder. I think it's fine to conclude that the D2x's performance is state of the art but you can't conclude that it is convincingly better than the 1Ds2. Unfortunately, Bjorn claims exactly that, 4 wins to 2. He also misleads by stating that his only fair test is biased in favor of Canon when it absolutely is not, then draws the wrong conclusion because of poor methodology. I suppose anyone who disagrees is a measurbator though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He then goes on to show shots with the two cameras with the same Nikon lens and the same subject distance, and then crops the same feature and concludes that the Nikon has a sharper image. This is analogous to the example I gave.

 

Tomayto Tomahto Potayto Potahto...

 

We can all agree that the lens was focused, right? And the lens is identical between shots.

 

That means that essentially the same image was falling on each imager, differences in the end result thus reflect differences in the way the imagers handle the light that is presented to them.

 

D2X has more pixels/unit area than 1DMk11, so when cropped to the same FOV, the D2X has more pixels to work with. But the 1DMKII shot could have also had the yeti in the lower left of the frame that the D2X missed. Swings and Roundabouts.

 

Two photographers shooting with the same focal length set up at the only place you can park to shoot the notorious barn. They make prints showing the same composition from their respective shots. The D2X shooter crops less: benefit D2x.

 

Two photographers set up to frame the same shot of the notorious barn at the only place you can park, D2X shooter uses a 200mm lens, 1DMk11 shooter uses a 300mm. FOV's are the same when shot, but now we don't know if it is the superior canon chip being hamstrung by the crappy canon glass or vice versa.

 

Given that you can mount a nikon lens on a canon via adaptor, but not vice versa, I don't see any other way to control lens related variables and be able to assess the two imaging chips reliably. And given that the 1DMK11 is capturing a wider FOV than the Nikon, I'm truly surprised that anyone was surprised at the outcome of this test.

 

We've known since the moment it was announced that the D2X has the highest pixel density of any of the Canon or Nikon dSLRs. This test reflects that pixel density, and shows that the Nikon lens is able to resolve a lot of line detail. Those big pixels in the 1DMkII can't resolve that detail as well as the D2X, but as you're all about to point out, in the real world the canon shooter would be using a different focal length and spreading that section of the image over a larger area, thus picking up more pixels to do the resolving for them. And we'd be back to those swings and roundabouts again.

 

As far as I am concerned the only thing to take away from that particular part of the test is that smaller pixels packed densely can resolve more than bigger pixels (which are less noisy, no argument there). This augurs well for both ongoing growth of the Nikon/Sony imagers (as they have room to grow the chip spatially while not needing to shrink the pixels) and the Canon imagers, as it shows that it is technologically feasible to use smaller pixels than in their current state of the art without bringing in egregious noise issues. We all win in the end :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...