Extensive First look at the D2X

[Scott_H]

[font color=\'#000000\']Seperate histograms for each colour channel, and the luminance channel.  Plus seperate bliky screens for each colour channel and the luminance channel.  Now that is cool.[/font]

[jdemott]

[font color=\'#000000\']Nikon offers several lenses in the wide to ultra wide range that are designed specifically for the DX digital format (i.e., they have a slightly smaller image circle).  They include a 12-24mm f4 zoom, a 17-55mm f2.8 zoom, and a 10.5mm f2.8 fisheye (roughly comparable to 18-35mm, 24-80mm and 15mm in full frame 35mm format).  Like all lenses, they embody some design compromises, but the three mentioned are all pro quality Nikon glass.  How they will perform on the D2X remains to be seen.  However, one has to assume that Nikon's aim in offering a suite of DX wide angle lenses together with a new generation of pro DX camera bodies is to have a complete system that covers the full spectrum of user needs--including wide angle.  

As to your points about not taking the weight and financial investment of a 1Ds, I'm not sure that a D2X will be the solution you're looking for.  I haven't compared specs, but the D2X will be a full sized pro body built for rugged use so I doubt there will be much weight saving compared to a 1Ds.  I haven't seen a price announced for the D2x but the speculation seems to be in the $5000 range--less than a 1Ds for sure but not cheap.[/font]

[BernardLanguillier]

[font color=\'#000000\']I haven't compared specs, but the D2X will be a full sized pro body built for rugged use so I doubt there will be much weight saving compared to a 1Ds.  I haven't seen a price announced for the D2x but the speculation seems to be in the $5000 range--less than a 1Ds for sure but not cheap.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Well,

Having compared the specs, my conclusions is that the D2X is significantly lighter than the 1Ds MKII:

- body itelf is 1070 gr vs 1215,
- weight of battery is 0.2 kg (estimate) vs 0.335 kg,
- autonomy of the battery is 2000 images vs 600,
- the DX lens (17-55 f2.8 for instance - 0.755 kg) are lighter than full frame equivalent (24-70 for instance which is 0.95 kg)

-> for a typical landscape use based on the lens mentioned above (3 or 4 days trekking trip in cold weather for instance), you could probably be OK with 2 batteries with the D2X against 4 with a 1Ds MKII.

-> the total weight saving with the D2X for such a typical setup is about 1.1 Kg

-> you can almost take one more tele zoom lens (70-200 both Nikon and Canon at 1.47 kg, or 80-400) along when using the Nikon with no extra weight compared to the one lens set-up of the Canon.

Besides, the APS sensor is great for landscape photography thanks to the additional DOF at given magnification. It will allow you to use a larger aperture for a given DOF (f11 instead of f16 for instance) which will:

- enable you to shoot at the best aperture of the lens (f8 - f11) while still keep enough DOF. You would typically have to go down to f16 with a FF body which will introduce significant diffraction and affect sharpness,
- enable you to use a faster shutter speed which will:

  - reduce the risk of motion blur for both the subject (leaves in the wind) and the photographer (which can be compensated by VR anyway),
  - reduce significantly battery drain for long shots.

If the image quality is on par up to 400 ISO, then the D2X would appear overall like the ultimate landscape DSLR.

Best regards,
Bernard[/font]

[BernardLanguillier]

[font color=\'#000000\']I'm not sure I agree with your comments about DOF, motion blur, sharpness, etc.  To make a fair comparison, one would take photos of the same object (a flower, a tree or whatever) and fill the frame with it on both cameras.  The APS sensor would use a focal length two thirds that of the full frame sensor (e.g., 100mm versus 150mm).  One would then shoot the photos with the same ISO, shutter speed and aperture settings for both cameras and print the resulting images at the same size (for example 12 by 18).  Under those circumstances, if other things were equal (i.e., pixel count, lens quality, amount of shake or wind, etc.), the resulting prints should be substantially identical.  What is gained by using a shorter focal length is lost by having to enlarge the APS image more to get the same size print.[/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hi John,

Yes, if you assume that "pixel count/square cm" is the same, then of course the advantage of APS sized sensor is gone.

However, we know that the density of pixel is much higher with a D2x than with 1DsmKII, which results in similar pixel count although the size is different (only a 25% pizel count difference).

The traditional notion of enlargement that we had with film is kind of gone now. The only concept that still lnks to that is the image quality "per pixel", which we will indeed have to check carefully once the cameras will be available.

Considering a given resolution of the final image (say 200 DPI), you will not have to enlarge the D2X image much more than that of the 1DsMKII since their acutal pixel count of differs by 25 %.

Best regards,
Bernard[/font]

[Marshal]

[font color=\'#000000\']Rob Galbraith at his site has a very thorough first look at Nikon's newly announced D2X.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_pag...cid=7-6459-7204[/font]

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']I find the slightly higher than 1ds pixel count pretty impressive.  Does anyone have any thoughts whether this camera can actually create images comparable to a 1ds?  I think the big problem would be getting good quality wide angle pictures, since you need to use a rather extreme wide angle lens to end up with a rather modest wide angle with a 1.5x sensor.  I would be very interested in seeing if it's possible to get wide angle pictures comparable to what you can do with a 1ds and a zeiss distagon wide lens.
It's not just academic interest.  There are places I want to go that I don't want to take the weight or financial investment of my 1ds; a D2X with something like a Tamrom 20-40mm might be ideal, since that's quite a good lens and with a 1.5x sensor it would effectively be 30-60mm and the edge CA and corner softness would be very much reduced.
In what I read I saw no mention of price for the D2X.  Does anyone know?  Does anyone know if Nikon offers any ultrawide lenses substantially better than the countless not so great Japanese designed wide angles?  I assume that Nikon must at least be planning to develop some good lenses to support this new format.[/font]

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']Hmmm, thanks for the info.  I reckon I'll be following my usual practice with high tech gadgetry (including computers).  I find I'm better off always being at least one generation behind the cutting edge.  I got a super good deal on my 1ds by waiting and at this point I think I'll keep shooting with the 1ds and doing a bit of waiting where the D2X is concerned.  As for 1ds Mark II, I may wait forever.  There are rather too many cloudy issues of doubt about whether this camera is sufficiently better in terms of real life resolution increase, especially for landscape shooting (relatively small apertures most of the time).  On the other hand, a used D2X with a 12-24mm lens in a year or so could be very attractive indeed if the image quality is fairly close to 1ds with Zeiss distagon wide lenses.  Weight and price would be less than half compared to 1ds and 4 lenses to cover that focal range.  If the optical quality is really good, I think Nikon has a big winner here.[/font]

[jdemott]

[font color=\'#000000\']Bernard,

Thanks for checking the specs on the weight differences.  If the performance differences on the batteries are borne out when production cameras actually become available, there may be a meaningful difference in the weight of the total kit.  

Didger's question dealt with wide angle lenses, but the greatest weight savings for the APS sized sensor is for photographers who need longer lenses.  The 70-200mm f2.8 will yield equivalent coverage at the long end to the much heavier 300mm f2.8 on a full frame camera.

I'm not sure I agree with your comments about DOF, motion blur, sharpness, etc.  To make a fair comparison, one would take photos of the same object (a flower, a tree or whatever) and fill the frame with it on both cameras.  The APS sensor would use a focal length two thirds that of the full frame sensor (e.g., 100mm versus 150mm).  One would then shoot the photos with the same ISO, shutter speed and aperture settings for both cameras and print the resulting images at the same size (for example 12 by 18).  Under those circumstances, if other things were equal (i.e., pixel count, lens quality, amount of shake or wind, etc.), the resulting prints should be substantially identical.  What is gained by using a shorter focal length is lost by having to enlarge the APS image more to get the same size print.

Theoretically, as megapixel counts continue upwards, APS sensors will reach a shapness/resolution barrier before full frame sensors will, due to limitations on the ability of lenses to resolve a given number of line pairs per mm.  For any given megapixel rating, a full frame sensor of course has fewer pixels per mm.  At current megapixel counts, that shouldn't be a problem with good lenses.

For landscape photographers, the big question of course is how the different sensors will handle noise when they are used with the long exposures and low light situations that are common.  To answer that question, we'll just have to wait to see some actual photos from the new cameras.

John[/font]