Michael's new D2x ISO test

[John Camp]

I trust Reichman's tests because they've always been practical. What seems odd about his conclusions here is that other "practical" tests seem to come to the opposite conclusion -- there isn't a middle ground. Sports photographer Rick Rickman on SportsShooter had been testing a D2X for some time, and posted this:

"Most importantly for me, is the fact that I was shooting at ISO 800 and at that speed the quality of the image was exceptional. To give you some kind of comparison. I have been using the D2Hs now for a long time and as we all know there is some noise with those cameras at higher ISO values.

However, with the D2H there is very little noise from ISO 200 to ISO 400. The image quality of the D2X at 800 ISO is very similar to what you would expect to see from the D2H between ISO 200 and 400. The image quality is very very very good and that was at the 7 megapixel image size as well. The color quality and the skin tones are exceptional.

For the past couple days I've been here in Florida at the PMA show. I've had the great fortune to spend some time with a few great photographer like Joe McNally, Rob Van Patten, Frans Lanting, Dave Black Moose Peterson, and some other who have also been using this camera. We've been comparing notes and I can safely say that the concensus is that this camera is really going to raise the bar in digital photography."

So: it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. My cameras (Kodaks) are fine with standard lighting, but don't behave well with really low light (that is, quality doesn't decline steadily as you get lower light; at a certain point, it falls off a cliff.) I hope the D2X doesn't have a low-light problem like this. We should get massive numbers of serious tests on Friday.

JC

[Fotografia]

With continuous improvements in technology it will certainly become more difficult (and require a strict scientific approach and methods of measurement) to compare quite technical characteristics like noise under certain conditions. We are at a point where all current digital SLRs are very usuable photographic tools, and personal preferences and previous good experience / comfort with a brand are probably more important than slight differences in technical datas. (The same applies to cars, tires, hotels etc, etc. for a comparable amount of money.)
I still think that out-of-the-laboratory but in-the-field reviews by experienced photographers like Michael have their own right of existence. They may be more 'opinion' than 'comparision' from a strictly scientific point of view, but an educated opinion they are in their field of photography, and, of course, if I'm rather interested in speedy cameras for capturing sports, I may look for someone who can tell me about it.
In so far, Michaels revision does him honour, but this website is being useful perhaps more in it's indications, views, and thoughts than in pronouncing an absolute truth (which, looking at the internet discussion forums, has anyway too often the colours of CANON or NIKON or film or digital or BMW or MERCEDES...)

[Peter McLennan]

Oops!  See what I mean?  

"Micheal" ?  Jeez.

[Murph]

I think he did the right thing in admitting an error in methodology, and now we move on.  I like his method of doing reviews just about better than anyone else on the net.  

I want one!  Now I just need to come up with $6,000 for camera, memory card, lens(es), etc.  *sigh*

[nineinone]

was just wondering if Michael could perhaps post some of the original RAW's of that high ISO test he just did of the D2x versus the 20d @PMA, the D2x files just look so darn strange!

perhaps a few of us Nikon shooters might be able to take a look at them in Nikon Capture to get a better look.

I mean, even if you forget the noise, its looking like the 20d is actually outresolving the d2x, which is, to say the least, not expected. I just cant believe the image quality will be that bad, literally across every category, across the board.

[BernardLanguillier]

Hi there,

You should read the following-up posts from Michael on this topic.

Hi did a meaculpa and clarified the aspects of the comparison that were not really scientific enough. He can only be praised for his reaction.

We'll have a lot of objective comparisons available from various sources as early as Friday, it might be better to wait for those.

Best regards,
Bernard

[Peter McLennan]

Thank goodness for a person who can admit to making a misteak.    We all make 'em, right?  

The trick is to realize that you've made one, admit to it and correct it, ASAP.

In fact, Micheal's correction was so quick that I never got to see the error. 

Kudos, Michael for being human and being professional.

[Marshal]

I think the lesson learned from this story is to never do reviews like this too hastily and risk careless mistakes. He was in a hurry to wrap up the PMA reporting and spend some quality time with family down the road a few hours.

Michael has taken his beating and learned from it. While the pundits continue to chew on this for the next several days, we need to just move on. There will be many additional high ISO tests and samples in the days & weeks ahead. I'm admittedly very impatient to see them and hoping for other independent reviews very soon. Hopefully, Friday will begin the deluge.

Looking forward to seeing Phil's in-depth review in a bad way. Whenever its complete in the next few weeks, he'll have very good info and no doubt a large # of good and accurate sample pics to share at all ISOs.

[Seigmund]

After repeatedly castigating the perpetrators of the mindless debate on digital imaging chip characteristics, Michael seems to have fallen into the old “Nit Picking Pixel Peeper” trap at the first sight of the D2x, and while he is to be commended for removing his initial “report” I fear he may have done lasting damage to his credibility as a reviewer of photographic equipment.

I am surprised and a bit disappointed that Michael’s primary interest in this new professional camera is the rather narrow and somewhat meaningless characteristic of “high ISO” noise. I can’t recall the last time (if ever) that I had to shoot at ISO 3200 to land an image. I was also shocked at his conjecture that the D2x may well mimic the fate of the Kodak 14n, a tool widely acknowledged to be flawed for general professional use. All this based on a handful of haphazard images? The D2x represents an almost wholly new generation of Nikon technologies and imaging philosophies, and is deserving of more thoughtful consideration. Like many long-time Nikon users, I have been waiting for a professional digital offering with a favorable balance of price, performance and cash flows, and would have very much appreciated an appraisal of the significant features and handling characteristics that would carry weight in a purchase decision. Having spent several years living and photographing in Alaska, I need to know if the D2x can seamlessly continue the work that my F5’s have done so well. I want to know if it can be operated with gloves on. Can it withstand days of exposure to rainforest conditions and hours of –40F cold? Will the image files be suitable for exhibition enlargement? Most importantly, can I make money with it? If this camera is in fact a failure with no remedy in sight, then I must also consider the substantial cost of total system replacement.

To Michael: I don’t begrudge your biases (we all have them), but if you are going to take the time to write about a new camera offering at least say something useful. “It's a big world, and as photographers we have many choices to make”.

Regards,
Scott

[Marshal]

Other extensive and more detailed preliminary reviews have been posted in the last few hours. Just go to the DPreview.com site and click to those links from the Nikon D1/D2 series message board.

Bjorn Roslett, B. Moose Peterson, Juergen Sprecht and others have all begun posting very useful user reports and/or sample photos.

The Canon 1Ds-II will continue to win the high ISO/low noise contest, but the D2X actually bests the Canon in some categories.