Nikon D2X

[Ben Rubinstein]

Nikon have encrypted the white balance data for RAW files so you need to use their apparently sub standard software to convert the RAW. A lot of people see that as a major problem.
The Nikon i-TTL system is incredible, especially for fill flash, beats the heck out of ETTL II, but most landscapes don't need the shadows in the eye sockets filling!  :p
If you have a collection of canon lenses and gear, would you consider a canon DSLR, all you have to do is wait for the 22nd of this month for canon to announce a full frame 13 megapixel camera with spot metering if the rumours are to be believed.

[BobMcCarthy]

Nikon have encrypted the white balance data for RAW files so you need to use their apparently sub standard software to convert the RAW. A lot of people see that as a major problem.
The Nikon i-TTL system is incredible, especially for fill flash, beats the heck out of ETTL II, but most landscapes don't need the shadows in the eye sockets filling!  
If you have a collection of canon lenses and gear, would you consider a canon DSLR, all you have to do is wait for the 22nd of this month for canon to announce a full frame 13 megapixel camera with spot metering if the rumours are to be believed.

POM,

Its much more of an emotional issue than any real practical processing problem. I use Camera Raw with NEF's and PS-CR guesses very well the color temp. ####, they may have unencripted the file and just not said so. It good enough to be a non event.

At the same time, I put a grey card in my first shot of a series, and set grey off the card.

Its a non issue from a processing viewpoint. I save my files as PSD's anyway.

Your right about the flash system.

Bob

[jdemott]

That's where being a mere amateur, single and without the need for a car brings some advantage... :-) No wife to tell me that I'd better use the money for something more useful and reasonnable, like my future pension... :-)

Bernard, I hope that the right person enters your life.  My wife was the one who strongly encouraged me to get the D2x as soon as it was available, and I am very grateful.  I have no desire to enter the debates about whether the D2X is better than some other camera--it is such a joy to use without worrying about any other camera.  Time and again, I find myself thinking about the designers of the D2X and their dedication to perfection.  There are so many small things about how the camera handles that make it a pleasure to take photos.

As for large format photography, I keep feeling the temptation every time I look at some high quality prints.  My dear wife, every time, tells me to go for it.  So far, I've been the practical one who is resisting spending too much.

John

[BobMcCarthy]

The only thing that comes in the way of the D2X is my growing love for 4*5, but that is a completely different story.  I cannot resist the temptation of posting a completely irrelevant quick sample

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1586130

Regards,
Bernard

OOOOh, I hate when this happens.  I sure miss my Technikardan. Sold it in a weak moment. I see you are using the Ebony, i'M SO JEALOUS. Great Camera. I'd do another 4x5 but for the fact that it would only be for me (wife would get involved then) and the cost of scanners of high quality are frikin unbelievable. I swear the time I spent under a darkcloth, getting maybe 5 or 6 exposures in a day were the most enjoyable relaxing days of my life.

I see where Fred Picker died. It's been some time now, but I just got the news. He was my LF instructor. Reminds me a little of Michael in his approach to photography.

[Big Bird]

Didn't John Shaw switch to Canon??
One drawback that I noticed with the D2X is that the viewfinder is very difficult to see in the sun, much more difficult than a 1DmII which I have.

[Ray]

The only thing that comes in the way of the D2X is my growing love for 4*5, but that is a completely different story.  I cannot resist the temptation of posting a completely irrelevant quick sample

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1586130

Bernard,
This is a very relevant sample. Would it be possible to take such a shot with the D2X? A wide angle lens at f11 would possibly produce a similar DoF, but the background would be much more extensive and therefore the shot would be different. Using a longer lens from a greater distance to the flower might require stopping down to f32 which would severely compromise resolution on such a small format as the D2X although such an aperture is fine with 4x5. It would be interesting to see attempts of the same scene with the two cameras.

But perhaps even more interesting is the way the tilt on the 4x5 has played havoc with the OOF elements of the composition. The immediate foreground and the large blades of grass lower left are significantly out of focus.

Now I can see a case can be made for this being a useful technique of giving emphasis to the flower and the tall whisp of grass to the right of the flower. Nevertheless I find it a little disturbing. My eye keeps coming back to those OOF diagonal blades of grass which lead the eye to another smaller yellow flower which is also OOF.

The fact that the shorter grass, midfield, is slightly OOF seems to work much better. The OOF background here enhances the jutting blades of grass in the foreground.

I'm also a bit disturbed by the droopy, dying bits of flower. Do you think perhaps you should have removed those before taking the shot   ?

By the way, I believe Nikon also make one or two tilt & shift lenses. If this is the main reason for dabbling in 4x5, then unless you intend making huge prints, you could probably get equal or better results with the D2X.

Having said all that, it is nevertheless an appealing shot   .

[BobMcCarthy]

I spent half an hour today with a D2X in my hand, I just couldn't get my hand to fit right, my thumb just didn't seem to slot into the groove on the back,

You hold it with your lower palm and the fingers hooked into the front grip. The thumb should be free to work the hat and lock buttons.

[glenngaryglenross]

I'm in the market for a DSLR to replace my Canon EOS3 film camera. I used the EOS3 last summer on the Yosemite  high camp trip with S Kossack and have been using a Nikon Coolpix 5400 for snap shots. I've read the comments and reviews of the D2X here and at other sites and the major/minor drawbacks seem to be slightly less dynamic range, and more noise over iso 800. Its not full frame either. My purchases these days are more impulsive and I do not want to wait for the D200 or new Canon. Bernard, Bjorn, and Didger are/were supporters, but I know the Canon 20D and 1Ds are great too. Is there anything else that has emerged as a major problem with the D2X for landscape photography. TIA - R

[glenngaryglenross]

Thanks Bob,

Lighter, cheaper, pro DX lenses, and control layout are key factors for me at this point. I'm sure they both make great images. Best - R

[glenngaryglenross]

I can wait a week or so. I do have a lot of fixed focal length canon lenses and 1 L series zoom, but my lens collection probably needs updating to take advantage of either dx2 or 1ds, 20D. Thx - R

[Lisa Nikodym]

I tried a D2X briefly once, and it was very big & heavy compared with my old Canon film camera (Elan II), and even more so compared with my current digital camera (D70).  I'd recommend you heft one before buying to make sure you're comfortable carrying it around for some reasonable period of time.  I wasn't...

Lisa

[glenngaryglenross]

I did take a few test shots at bhphoto here in NYC the other day. It is heavy especially with the 17-55mm. The price had just dropped to $4600 for the body (although the website still shows $4995) - maybe in anticipation of the new canon. - R

[Hank]

I decided upon the D2X rather than upgrading from the Fuji S2 to the S3, in pursuit of better build, faster speed and larger buffer.  Glad I did for all the reasons previously stated.  

My wife also shoots professionally, and after using mine made the same choice.  Her one complaint echo's Lisa's.  It's noticeably heavy and wears her out by the end of a long day if she's not careful.  

We both tossed the provided camera straps and replaced them with the longest we could find- the Tamrac N-45.  Rather than simply hanging it over our necks as required by shorter straps, we slip our head and one arm through so it hangs over one shoulder, lower and at our side.  This gives us much better weight distribution between shots, as well as getting it out of the way while working with sets and subjects.

I haven't had time to try mine for landscape work yet, but based upon shooting performance and the images I've produced so far, I'm sure it will be stellar.

[BernardLanguillier]

I've read the comments and reviews of the D2X here and at other sites and the major/minor drawbacks seem to be slightly less dynamic range, and more noise over iso 800. Its not full frame either. My purchases these days are more impulsive and I do not want to wait for the D200 or new Canon. Bernard, Bjorn, and Didger are/were supporters, but I know the Canon 20D and 1Ds are great too. Is there anything else that has emerged as a major problem with the D2X for landscape photography. TIA - R

Hi there,

I am still very much a supporter. The more I use this camera, the more I like it. I will actually have a very hard time justifying the purchase of the D2X replacement when it comes out, since the prints I am getting at A2 are very impressive already... I'll have to buy a A1 printer along with the D3X I guess... which will force me to move to a new place too...

Actually, I am yet to come accross with someone using the D2X that'd not happy with how amazingly well the camera performs. Some people seemingly had some AF problems in C mode, but I have never experienced anything like that myself.

I just discussed in another thread that I thought the interface of a camera was not really relevant as far as art creation was concerned. I still very much feel so, but it is kind of a pity, because the D2X has IMHO reached perfection from an ergonomics standpoint. It was designer with digital photographers in mind. The functions I find important (MLU, exposure compensation...) are immediately accessible. WB and ISO settings are visible in the viewfinder,...

I am far from being a big man, but still find that the weight of the camera is just right. Anything much lighter would make hand held shooting a problem shake wise at this level of pixel size. FF camera have the edge here.

I personnally don't find DR to be an issue at all with the standard curve since I nearly always shoot in situations where reshooting after having checked the histogram is not an issue, but custom curves are available for those shooting in a speedier fashion, and willing to prevent highlights blow out while perserving good mid-tones contrast.

The lack of FF only has a real impact if you are looking at very shallow DOF. For the rest, I personnally only see advantages to APS sized sensors. Didger wrote extensively about his findings on the wide end, and the advantage of a 200-400 AF-S VR on the long end when mounted on a D2X for wildlife is so huge that it doesn't need any further discussion. The only problem is that this lens seems to be impossible to buy in North America because of the understandably huge demand for it.

As far as the AWB issue is concerned, I have already stated my positions on this topic before and will not start again. I'll just say that those claiming that NC is a sub-par product have probably never used the tool. It is indeed a bit slow, but the quality of the conversion is just plain breathtaking. This is especially true colorwise. I have plain and simple stopped using RawShooter because I just cannot seem to get the color right out of it.

The only thing that comes in the way of the D2X is my growing love for 4*5, but that is a completely different story.  I cannot resist the temptation of posting a completely irrelevant quick sample

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1586130

Regards,
Bernard

[mikeseb]

Bernard, the flower image you linked in a previous post is so gorgeous it makes my heart hurt. There is something about a medium- or large-format image--megapixels be damned--that takes the breath away.

Almost makes me want to take out my Sinar F again.

I am camera-poor and time-constricted, two conditions who meet on Frustration Lane.

Beautiful work indeed.

[bob mccarthy]

Thanks gentlemen,

The fact that I know you know what you are talking about makes the compliments all the more enjoyable!

2 years ago, I hardly knew what 4*5 was, but it really has changed the way I look at photography. That's where being a mere amateur, single and without the need for a car brings some advantage... :-) No wife to tell me that I'd better use the money for something more useful and reasonnable, like my future pension... :-)

I guess that I should quickly invest in 8*10 or 11*14 before things change for the worse (from a photographic standpoint at least).

Regards,
Bernard

20 years ago. I would have asked where your were going to put the enlarger,and if you were going to add an addition to your house. Of course contact printing would have been ok.

Today a flat bed scanner weighting less than 50lbs replaces a cast iron monster weighting a ton.

The contemplative nature of LF make one a better, thinking photographer, even when working in digital. My opinion only.

Good for you, Bernard.

bob

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard, I hope that the right person enters your life.

As for large format photography, I keep feeling the temptation every time I look at some high quality prints.  My dear wife, every time, tells me to go for it.  So far, I've been the practical one who is resisting spending too much.

Hi John,

Thanks. Actually, the right person is already around, but we are just not married, which makes it difficult for her to control my spendings...  I don't think that she would try anyway.

Joke aside, 4*5 can be rather cheap if you decide to start with a second hand view camera, scan with a flatbed scanner etc... The amount of film shot is rather limited, and using a 6*12 roll film back can further take the cost down once the back is purchased.

I have actually written an article on this very topic which is sitting on a HD somewhere.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BobMcCarthy]

Everytime I think for doing 4x5 for fun, I get cold feet and remember that service bureaus seem to be folding their tents left and right. And the cost per scan is not too cheap either. You went the right way, long term.

To: glenngaryglenross

I see the rumor mill fired up on the expected D200. Looks like a small form factor D2x with all the metering and focus goodies from the D2x package in a smaller pro quality body. Certainly, its still a paper camera, but we'll know soon. The rumor part I like is the speculated price "$2500".  Hope its true, but.....

Only John Shaw,Moose Peterson, and other Nikon stars (SWAG on my part) know and they're not talkin'

Bob

[BobMcCarthy]

Didn't John Shaw switch to Canon??
One drawback that I noticed with the D2X is that the viewfinder is very difficult to see in the sun, much more difficult than a 1DmII which I have.

Nah here's his site. I can't imagine him switching now. He's one of the chosen ones, besides he stuck with Nikon through the tough times. Took grit with the 1Ds out there.

http://www.johnshawphoto.com/equipment.htm

As far as the viewfinder, it's fine. If you mean the rear LCD display, then I'll offer it could be better outside, but then I'm looking through the protector. It's OK for evaluation. I just ramp up the brightness.

bob

[Big Bird]

I was referring to the rear LCD, NOT the viewfinder. Even with the brightness fully turned up, I found it hard to see in bright sun. I don't have a problem with the viewfinder, although I do find the display to cluttered looking with all the AF points in the way.