Interesting comparison between a D50 and D2X

Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
1,907
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
Knowing the D2X (with a going rate of $2500-2900 used with low shutter count) doesn't do that well at higher ISO's and also knowing the $400 D50 is the high ISO king in the Nikon line, I wanted to compare the two and see if it's worth it for me to have a $3000 camera in my bag.

I'm also wondering if since I'm a portrait shooter and will need something to do higher ISO's soon (new baby on the way) the D50 would be a good camera to hang on to.

I'll let the images do the talking... forgive the expressions from my wife's phone conversation... she's a very antimated speaker. :biggrin: It's about the only way to get her to sit still. :biggrin:

None were PP'd, just resized straight out of the camera. All with the 50mm f/1.8 and shot in .jpg in sRGB mode. Both Auto White Balance

$400 D50 - ISO800 - f/2.5
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


$3000 D2X - ISO800 - f/2.5
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)




$400 D50 - ISO400 - f/2
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


$3000 D2X - ISO400 - f/2
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)






And for good measure... a D50 ISO1600 shot - again $400 camera

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
253
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Hmmm... can't see how you can judge high-iso performance with anything smaller than a 50% crop.

Another thing is, Nikon's weakness in high-iso performance is in the shadow. You need to have some shadow on the face to give a more meaningful comparison. You may also want to compare under non-high-iso-friendly Tungsten WB (the environment you will use high-iso more often). :wink:
 
C

chinesestunna

Guest
I agree with both points sciomako makes. Also considering the D2X has 2x the pixel count (I know, basically only 50% increase in res) and about the same noise level, I'd say Nikon did well.
 
N

Nuteshack

Guest
i think everyone knows the d50 isa cleaner file above 500 iso.

unless you're shooting sports, studio or doing stock work like floral, wildlife, lanscapes etc where there's a lagitimate need for larger files, i see no practical reason for any Nikon DSLR other than the d50.
:biggrin:
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
1,907
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
I agree with you Nute. You can set these two up in a controlled environment to make one look better than the other, but in everyday life (where a guy like me spends more of his time behind the camera) it's pretty obvious the D2X isn't justifying it's existance.

That being said, I'n still having a hard time coming to terms with selling it :wink:
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
978
Location
Viera Fl
No comparison in the 50 to the D200 or D2x
Nail the exposure and learn the flash and you have a superior image
Images posted have an off WB and are a tad underexposed.

The learning curve with any SLR tales lots of time and PRATICE
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
1,907
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
Yeah I wasn't going for a framed portrait in these Gale... just showing the differences in ISO performance.

The white balance is good in both and the exposure is true to the lighting conditions, which is what I wanted to show.
 
Joined
Apr 7, 2005
Messages
1,714
Location
Westlake Village, Ca. and 20 mi NW of Prescott, Az
Knowing the D2X (with a going rate of $2500-2900 used with low shutter count) doesn't do that well at higher ISO's and also knowing the $400 D50 is the high ISO king in the Nikon line, I wanted to compare the two and see if it's worth it for me to have a $3000 camera in my bag.

I'm also wondering if since I'm a portrait shooter and will need something to do higher ISO's soon (new baby on the way) the D50 would be a good camera to hang on to.

I'll let the images do the talking... forgive the expressions from my wife's phone conversation... she's a very antimated speaker. :biggrin: It's about the only way to get her to sit still. :biggrin:

None were PP'd, just resized straight out of the camera. All with the 50mm f/1.8 and shot in .jpg in sRGB mode. Both Auto White Balance

snip.....................
Brian

I've been amazed at the pics from my D50. :eek: It's really, a gem!

If Nikon made a D3 type pro body with 'D50 like' IQ and res, I'd be all over it!!!!

Regards
JohnG
 
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
871
Location
Vienna, Austria
Knowing the D2X (with a going rate of $2500-2900 used with low shutter count) doesn't do that well at higher ISO's and also knowing the $400 D50 is the high ISO king in the Nikon line, I wanted to compare the two and see if it's worth it for me to have a $3000 camera in my bag.
Brian,

based on my comparison (done in JPEG and RAW) of 11 Nikon D-SLRs the high ISO king is currently the D40X, followed by the D80, D40 and then the D50 and D200.

Can't speak for the D70s, D2Hs and D2Xs, which I don't own.

More information can be found here: https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=110075

All the best to you and your wife with the baby,
Andy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
1,907
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
Wow, I missed that test Andy. Great work. I was wondering how the D40 and D40X fit in the mix with these, so thanks for sharing. Since you've shown the 40 does better than the 50... if they would have put provisions for AF lenses on it, that would have been the perfect 'go everywhere' SLR :wink:

Thanks for the kind wishes for wife and baby :biggrin:
 
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
871
Location
Vienna, Austria
Brian,

I do walk and travel with lots of different sets around.

Currently (for me) two sets stand out:

D40X and Sigma 30mm/1.4 and one 8GB SD card. This is the kind of F3+50mm/1.4 set. Great for available light indoor, the fixed lens forces you to "think" :smile:. And one battery that last at least for 1000 pics. No other stuff necessary to carry that around - Thats the best P&S camera I ever had.

If you need a bit more lens flexibility. Combine the D40x with the 18-200mm VR. The lens is a tad smaller than even the 55-200mm VR lens. You need only a bit bigger bag vs. option 1.

I even prefer these days to take intentionally the D40 vs. My D2X and D200 for many family related occasions.

Look here (http://www.pbase.com/andrease/d40_dubai) for what even the D40 with this lens can accomplish. You need mostly no flash.


regards,
Andy

18-55mm, 18-200mm VR, and 55-200mm VR
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


D40 with Sigma vs. D200 with 28mm/1.4
View attachment 99357

D40 with Sigma
View attachment 99358
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
978
Location
Viera Fl
It is very difficult to show the difference in ISO if the Exposure is not correct.:>))))
 
N

Nuteshack

Guest
sorry, but i disqualify the 40's for lack of AF support. and ona wider concensus it's apparent the d50 has the edge over the d80...i've considering the s5 but way way too many problems and fuji support is fatally problematic. and the 5d? it gives hoover vacume a run for it's money,,the ultimate DSLR FURball ..lol. so, imho the d50 still gets the nod ....;-))
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
1,907
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
i've considering the s5 but way way too many problems and fuji support is fatally problematic. and the 5d? it gives hoover vacume a run for it's money,,the ultimate DSLR FURball ..lol. so, imho the d50 still gets the nod ....;-))
echo those statements. As much as I'd love to try the S5, I'm just seeind too many complaints on the dpreview forum.

5D... well, I dont agree with canons controls and menus, so that wont do it for me. :wink:
 
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
1,921
Location
Bellevue, WA.
Sorry Brian, but the pics look good because of the model :wink:

All the best to the entire family with the addition to the Wilder Clan :smile:
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
77
Location
Hong Kong
and the 5d? it gives hoover vacume a run for it's money,,the ultimate DSLR FURball
Cracks me up everytime I read that comparison. A 5D owner wrote somewhere that he didn't need to vacuum the house after acquiring a 5D. :biggrin:

I'm sure the 5D is a great camera and I'd love to try one, but the vision of someone using a camera to clean their house still cracks me up.

No offense to the 5D intended.
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
1,907
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio
I can't argue with that reasoning Peter. :wink: :biggrin:

Thanks for kind words.


I haven't read any reviews on the 5D... I assume there's a lot of dust problems?
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
77
Location
Hong Kong
Hello Brian,

Thanks for posting the comparison. I have a D50 and think its high ISO capability is great.

P.S. Came across your lawnmower thread this morning - I had no idea such a lawn-mower sub-culture existed. Really enjoyed the photos and descriptions of the mean machines.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom