Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: Ben Rubinstein on August 17, 2005, 03:43:55 pm
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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 (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 :D ?
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 :D .
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=1586130)
Regards,
Bernard
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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 (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
-
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.
-
I need to reconsider the d2x in light of the canon 5d. I just want to have a good fixed focal length or zoom lens at 24mm for the canon. I have been using an ef 24mm f2.8 on my eos-3, along with several other fixed focal length wide angles.
It has been mentioned that the sample landscape image canon provides shows the soft edges produced by the 17-40mm that the dx2 seems to avoid with a smaller sensor. I'm also concerned that constantly changing fixed focal length lenses in the field will result in more dust spots on the sensor.
So to get the best wide angle images from the 5d should I stick with my 24mm f2.8, go with the 16-35mm, 24-70mm, ..?
TIA - R
-
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, I thought it was just the D70 and that I could get used to the D2X but it just wouldn't work, wierd. The viewfinder is noticeably small compared to FF but what I would give for that wide spread of AF points in a canon camera!
-
Pom,
Wait until you look through the penta "mirror" in your 5D.
I was looking at the spec's on the CanonUSA site, they did a fair amount of cost cutting to get this baby out.
Here's the link
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir....d=11933 (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=11933)
I was actually expecting a reduced format Pro level camera from Canon.
The cost of the chip is a big disadvantage when going up against reduced format equivalent.
If it was my money, I'd keep the 1Ds, but then its not...
Bob
-
A journalist who was present at the launch said on Rob Galbraith
http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showfla....#357422 (http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=357422&an=0&page=0#357422)
that the viewfinder was maybe better than the one on his 1Ds mkII, I don't think he was BS-ing, he was pretty unhappy about the build compared to his mkII.
-
Both pentaprisms and pentamirrors functionally serve the same purpose. However, the latter is less expensive and serves as a cost-cutting measure for low-end cameras like the Canon Digital Rebel/EOS 350D. The EOS 20D, 5D, 1D and 1Ds all use prisms.
Paul
-
I can list a few reasons why I'm extremely pleased with the D2x.
The body in every way is pro caliber. Everything falls to hand readily. Most ergonomic camera I've ever owned
Focus system is very capable and complex. A learning experience in itself. But when understood, its a wonder
Old manual Focus lenses work very well. Even some of the older ones that were extremely sharp in the center but soft on the edges as D2x uses best part of the lens. Saves conciderable weight and space over modern AF equivalents.
Simple mirror lockup. self explanitory
Very sharp in default mode, minimal sharpening required even in Raw.
I just don't see moire in my shots. Whether that's camera or processing, doesn't matter - it works.
Nikon makes pro level DX lenses. Not cheap, but excellent.
Nikon Flash setup is incredible with the new 800/600 series.
Metering system is color sensitive, with more sensor elements than one could ever want. Excellent exposure results if you let the camera decide when the need arises. Spot/averaging/compensation when you want to decide.
As for noise over 800, maybe, but I rarely shoot there. As for reduced dynamic range, I sure don't see it
I'm making 16"x24"s that look as good as anything my 'blad did
I'm not going to debate if D2x or 1DsMKii is better. Canon offers in many cases a comparable capablity. Nikon is conciderably cheaper and has a pro-class body with pro quality systems.
Lastly, the final output is up to you not the camera, so recognize you're the weakest link with pro level camera's
Hope this helps.
bob
-
Nikon have encrypted the white balance data for RAW files so you need to use their apparently sub standard software to convert the RAW.
or use Bibble Pro that also decrypts WB correctly.
And it's fast !
Herman
-
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
Thats typically the way camera companies market. Make us early adopters pay full boat, and after the rush subsides, drop the price a little.
My favorite setup for walking with the D2x is to take an old fossilized 20mm f/4 from the mid 70's with a 50-135 from early 1980's. The camera allows you to imput the lens parameters and full matrix metering is available. The weight is less than the D2x with 17-55. Big camera-small light lenses make workload reasonable. The 50-135 with DX is the equivalent of a 70-210 and a small fraction of the weight. And sharp, you betcha. It may be the sharpest tele zoom I've ever owned. I paid $200 bucks used mint.
Don't get me wrong I own the super AF lenses too, but they do tend to weigh one down. With the remarkable i-TTL flash system, I would never concider using anything but the AF lens system. The results are amazing. The camera covers up a multitude of sins when working with flash.
Bob
-
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
-
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.
Do you think the current inexpensive flat bed can pull out the detail and density range of a 4x5 (or 5*4 if you're a brit)?
I see your using an Imacon. Stellar scanner.
Anyone have an interest in a ZoneVI (Besselar modified by Z-VI) 4x5 enlarger w/cold light? Print washers, etc. I can't imagine ever using it again.
Bob
-
Hello Bob,
Unfortunately, I don't think so. I bought an Epson F3200 first, hoping that it would do the trick, but I end up having an image quality which is probably inferior to that delivered by the D2X, or perhaps still slightly better only. The 4990 is seemingly a bit better than the F3200, but still not good enough to really extract the detail and DR out of the slides.
I think that it does probably make sense to scan 4*5 with a 4990 for prints no larger than A3 and web posting. Then you can always ask a scanning bureau to work on those special images that deserve more care and that you want to print larger.
I bought the Imacon second hand from ebay for less than 5000 US$. Still a very large amount of money obviously, but I guess that it is relatively cheap compared to the original price of the scanner, and compared to the price of a new 646 for instance. Was it a good purchase? Judging from the results yes, but judging from the usage I make of it, it would have made more sense to have the slides scanned by pros I think.
Best regards,
Bernard
-
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.
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
I find myself being a camera system butterfly ... I flipped back to a Nikon D2X from Canon 20D instead of my original plan to move to the 1Ds for the reasons already given here - #1 being the superior ergonomics and weight balance.
Regarding the viewfinder, I've not noticed any issues at all with bright sunlight unless you are trying to use it from a distance where maybe you'll get reflections.
I abandoned the soft LCD cover and replaced it with the Hoodman flip up version. Since the D2X pretty much nails the exposure every time I find little need for chimping and so the hooded design works very well, particularly in bright light. I dial in a -1/6 -1/3 stop exposure in the custom exposure tuning and hardly ever need worry about blown highlights.
I initially had the focussing issues that others have alluded to but that was really due to the default mode of AF-C being selected. For landscape/more static work AF-S mode eliminates any hunting of the focussing system.
The one thing that still catches me out is the mirror lock up mode as I still forget to reset it sometimes and you can't cancel lock up without firing an exposure once it has locked up - ok, no biggie but you do then have to delete the shot.
Weight-wise the D2X feels a lot lighter than my old D1X and not much different to the 20D with BG-E2. The D2X with 17-55DX feels more balanced than the 20D/24-70L combo for general travel work too.
What I really like are the minor attentions to details such as the storage compartment on the back of the rubber seal for the remote/PC connector caps so that you don't lose them. Similarly the thumb ridge on the rear and the slightly recessed grip at the front make carrying and using the camera very easy and comfortable. For my hands it is a perfect fit.
-
In choosing between the 5D and the D2x, there are a lot of issues, but disposing of your present Canon stuff to switch to Nikon would cost you a lot without necessarily gaining much...The fact is, the image quality of the 1DSII and the D2X (and probably the 5D) are so close as to make "quality" of final print more of a question of technique than of camera. Some points:
You mention that the D2X feels heavy. The 5D is lighter, at about 2 pounds compared to about 2 pounds, 8 ounces for the D2X. The 1DSII is a real brick, coming in at 3 pounds, 5 ounces. (There's a bigger weight difference between the 1DSII and the D2x than between the D2x and the 5D.) The D2X really isn't a heavy camera. But you have to understand that the quality of the cameras is different -- the D2x and the 1DSII are fully professional cameras with stuff like weather sealing, better autofocus, etc.
You talk about looking for a solid wide angle lens. If your main use is wide angle, I would check carefully the corner softness of the 5D (and the 1DSII for that matter.) Nikon's WA lenses are better. But: Canon-mounts take other brands of lenses, and I am told (on this forum, somewhere) that WA Zeiss and Contax lenses work well on Canons, with readily available adapters. It would cost you a few bucks, and you might want to explore the issue with some other Canon shooters (I shoot a D2x), but that may be a solution. If the 5D comes in at the $3300 price, you could get a #### good WA lens for the difference between $3300 and $4700 of the Nikon, and not have to give up your other Canon equipment.
In my opinion, contra Michael's, full-frame is essentially a non-issue; if anything, I think, like Bernard, that the benefits of a smaller sensor outweigh the benefits of full-frame, as long as final print quality is essentially the same.
But the cameras are different in ways other than sensor size. Canons apparently are better in dim light, which is a benefit for fast-action sports shooters working in arenas or other night-time or dimly lit venues. The only time I personally have shot anything faster than ASA400 is the occasional through-the-glass-in-the-museum photo, where you can't use a flash because of reflections, and tripods are not allowed. Basically, the quality of shots of ASA1600-3200 are another non-issue for me, but it may be an issue for you.
There is also the question of ergonomics. Ergonomics count for me, but the slower you work, the less important it is, IMHO. If you have to work fast, as in street photography or news photography, it can be pretty important. On the other hand, you can get used to almost anything, with time. News photogaphers (Weegee) used to do grab shots with Speed Graphics and flash bulbs...
JC
-
Is there a difference between a penta "mirror" and a penta "prism" from a functional viewpoint (pun intended).
My D70 is like looking down a tunnel compared to the D2. I'm assuming thats by design with the .70 mag.
I also read a discussion where the features list on a Canon Japan site had pentaprism not mirror.
Sorry if I put out misinformation. Frankly I don't know what the reality is.
Bob