We appreciate the points about upgrading OSX, but we're waiting for Tiger and in any case, I'd rather be out shooting than diddling with OS issues unless absolutely necessary. No data is at risk with quadruple backup of images off line and so far I have no idea whatsoever if NC 4.2.1 is in any way better for us than 4.1 or if there are not perhaps other new bugs in the latest version. Thank you very much, however for sharing your obviously far greater Mac expertise than my minimal expertise even after so many years of Maccing!
top-of-the-line Canon as well as the D2X
Yeah, for the great majority of my shooting conditions D2X is way WAY out front the best way to go from many points of view, but I don't know if it's possible to get the resolution of 1ds and 50mm compact macro in any way whatsoever with a D2X. That Tamron 28-75 gets amazingly close, but just not quite and there seem not to be any better options for 50mm equivalent lenses. I also have not been reading anything good about that Nikon 10.5 fisheye, whereas there are excellent (Canon and Zeiss) rectangular fisheye options. Moreover, I have 3 T&S lenses for the Canon that I know I'll love using in slot canyons. Furthermore, having Canon AND Nikon stuff means you're ready to rock if one or the other company comes out with something else really incredible, like the invevitable future 12 stop DR DSLR. I just wish Canon would start all over again with a lighter camera with a better display and ergonomics and batteries and color quality (without a lot of PS tweaking). The D2X just totally leaves Canon in the dust in those regards. Canon might have to retire the 1dAnything line. I just hope they don't do one more lens mount change.
I'll be doing another couple of days or so of basic testing (if the 4.1 version on NC works OK) with the D2X and then I'll get out for actual shooting.
Thanks for any additional clarification.
Without a raw converter, I haven't been able to do any really serious D2X testing; not enough time yet either. I don't plan to post any images since you'd need a lot of comparison shots to get a meaningful overview, and then there's the problem of color accuracy of monitors as well as compromises of web optimized jpeg. There's also the problem that I don't have infinite time or server space.
The color accuracy and "vibrancy" of D2X has already been much commented on. The perfect clouds (in pure sky shots) with no magenta cast really blew me away. Every picture of direct comparison things so far leaves the D2X looking better to me color wise. However, a few PS tweaks is enough to bring the 1ds images in line, except in the case of magenta clouds. The best way I can describe the difference I've observed between 1ds and D2X images is that D2X tends to be like a typical 1ds image after you've done optimal curves for more pop and vibrancy. Pre is sort of like looking through a layer of haze or smog and post is like suddenly everything is clearer. Nikon claims they're doing something a bit revolutionary with their sensor and in camera processing and maybe that's true and maybe you get something real for those twice as large files. It certainly looks like it and it's absolutely obvious you're getting something real with those incredible small image circle lenses, whether it's Nikon or the best models of Tamron or Sigma. At any rate, I'm already powerfully impressed.
I don't intend to do exhaustive testing of the D2X and all 3 new lenses. I've done SO much careful pixel peeping at 100% in the process of editing thousands of 1ds images done with all my lenses, that I now have a very good feel for what an image should look like at 100%. The excellent quality of that 24x36 print that Jonathan made for me corroborates my conviction that if it looks reasonably sharp at 100% it will print great. I'll know soon enough how well the D2X compares in real life. The color situation is already quite obvious enough.
