Okay so the "X" has been out for a while.....

Discussion in 'Nikon DX DSLR' started by Doug Barber, Oct 10, 2005.

  1. Now that the D2X has been in peoples hands for a while. I thought it was time to ask this question.
    Many folks around here know that I shoot with a D2H and I'm very happy with it. I have not had the noise issues that some have found and I really cannot say there is anything that I don't like about the camera.
    But I'm (starting) to think about making the move to a D2X... So is it REALLY worth the move. Or is it more... just fun to have the latest and greatest camera on the block. As I side note to this thought process, I'm not into having the greatest thing on the block this week. I'm just interested in having the best tool for what I do.
    I post enough around here some people will have an idea what my work is like and (with luck) will have a goods idea if the "X" will do anything for me that the H is not.

    Any Thoughts?
     
  2. Doug,

    It is about time you move up to the next step.

    My opinion is yes it is well worth it and even though this is my first Nikon I don't think you would make a mistake purchasing it. In fact, you will love it. It is the only camera that will last me a very long time and I can't even imagine owning any other camera.

    Good luck and look forward to seeing some pictures IF you should take the jump :smile:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 11, 2005
  3. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    This is dependent on what your subjects are, and how you shoot them, and finally, how the images are to be presented. There is absolutely no doubt the D2X can provide much bigger image files with greater sharpness than the D2H or D2Hs. It is a very fine camera, but also very unforgiving of poor technique thanks to its high resolution. The high ISO (HI-1, "1600") performance is not equally good as the D2HS, it might under some conditons come close to D2H, most times not. The Hi-2 ("3200") mostly is for people with weird interests.

    The down side, besides its tendency to demonstrate your flawed technique, is mainly that you literally drown in massive amounts of data when shooting with a D2X. Even a short shooting session generates several GB of raw files, not to mention all those GBs needed by the processed and converted files later on. You need to be very selective as to the raw images which are allowed to enter your workflow, and you must provide storage capacity to take care of all those files later on. And did I mention file archiving, retrieval and backup routines?

    Personally I dropped my D2H and now run several D2X bodies instead. That approach suits me.
     
  4. RLHodge

    RLHodge

    27
    Oct 5, 2005
    Houston, Texas
    I don't have a D2X yet but what is the effect of shooting under medium resolution. Doesn't that still give you over 6 megapixels of resolution with a proportionally smaller file size.

    Would such a solution be acceptable for prints up to 8 x 10 in size?

    I currently have a D2H and I'm running into the problem of being able to crop even a small part of my shots and still retain print quality. Seems like the "X" even with the medium resolution would be a good compromise.

    Comments?
     
  5. Rick,

    This brings me to a question about cropping. If I shoot in 12 meg and I want an 8x10 a couple of wallets and maybe 5x7. Would the wallet pictures look good or would it be too much? I always like to shoot 12 meg. I'm sure the 6 would due too but for the sake of asking, what would the answer be?

    Thanks,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 17, 2005
  6. jfenton

    jfenton

    Jan 26, 2005
    Haverhill, MA
    Hi Doug..My 2 Cents

    I shoot wildlife and landscapes and once in a great while I shoot a wedding for a friend / relative...so here is my take:

    A) I love the high MP and what it does for me as far as having the ability to crop is concerned.

    B) While the files are large and do require larger cards, I simply review the jpegs nd then cull the NEF's I want into a folder and never even transfer the rest to my computer.

    C) The X had better WB and color and to me requires less processing that a D2H.

    D) I comfortably shot to ISO 640. After that, I'd far prefer the noise characteristics of the D2Hs. It is considerably better than the X.

    E) The dynamic range appears to me to be wider than the D2H, but the same as the Hs (I've done limited shooting with the Hs).

    F) I miss the 8fps at the largest frame size. When I'm shooting a moving target, there are times when it really makes a difference.

    G) I have a substantially lower "critically sharp" keeper rate with the D2X. It is a combination of the sensitivity with the higher resolution sensor and also of what I consider to be a sub par set of focusing / tracking algorithms when compared to the D2H. The focus tracking ability of the 2 D2X bodies I've owned don't come close to what I could achieve with the H.

    Lastly...I do not shoot it handheld unless I'm using a flash or preferably am mounted on a tripod. It can certainly be shot handheld, however, the results are less than acceptable in many occasions.

    Give me a camera with the WB, Color acuity, dynamic range and 8fps at say 8MP, along with great focus / tracking algorithms and I'd sell this one in a heartbeat
     
  7. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  8. jfrancis

    jfrancis

    May 8, 2005
    Orlando, FL
    I don't think you will see the difference in 8x10 prints and smaller unless you are cropping the original considerably.
     
  9. JB

    JB

    502
    May 27, 2005
    Washington, DC
    As usual, Bjørn nails it.

    My 2 cents - if the D2H meets your needs, stick with it. If you decide to buy a D2X plan on dramatically slower workflow and increased demands on storage and archiving.
     
  10. RLHodge

    RLHodge

    27
    Oct 5, 2005
    Houston, Texas
    Hi Melissa:
    I'm sure the 12 megapixal files would look great in 8x10 or 5x7 prints. In fact thats more resolution than you need for a 300 DPI file.

    Regards,
     
  11. Thanks you all for your comments and insight...
    Your words will give me some things to (ponder) on as I look at this issue.

    Thanks again
     
  12. general

    general

    Apr 30, 2005
    Nebraska
    D2X is great

    Melissa,

    I routinely print D2X exposures at 12 X 18 inches (on 13 X 19) paper and the results are outstanding. I have an established workflow that is appropriate for 80% or more of my exposures. Would be happy to share via E Mail if you want to know more.
     
  13. Thank you Rick for the info.
     
  14. X Out for Awhile

    I have made some nice (to my eyes :) 16"x20" prints from my D70. I think the most important thing is (as Thom Hogan likes to say) is shooting discipline, as well as subject matter. I've also got lots of fuzzy, out of focus D2X images and of course, that shows me my shooting discipline has a long way to go. :)
     
  15. I've found that my shooting style has changed considerably with the D2X. It's been a bit like moving to medium format from 35mm. With the D70 I just took shot after shot and accepted I'd get a low ratio of keepers. Now with only 50 images on a 1Gb card, I'm much more careful, think more with each shot, take many fewer shots, check them much more closely and delete and reshoot if the histogram isn't right.

    The reasons seem to be threefold: 1) As I said above I can fit far fewer NEFs on a single card. 2) The LCD is much better for evaluating images than the D70. 3) I'm conscious that the files are very large and require a lot of storage space and a lot of working with.

    The most important part of all this is I'm shooting more slowly and thinking a lot more.
     
  16. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  17. Derrel

    Derrel Guest

    Might make sense to wait just a bit

    It might make sense to wait just a bit before commiting to a D2x. Depending on how and what you wish to shoot (and download and archive and retrieve from your archives) it's possible that the 'x' will not fulfill your expectations. I had been looking for a good "all-in-one" camera to replace the mess of Fuji S2-D1-D1h that I had, and so I sold the D1h and got the D2x. Nice camera body. Great ergonomics, wonderful to have 5fps at 12 real, wonderful MP, but for the newspaper sports assignments I do, the D2x just is NOT as good as it ought to be. High Speed Crop is NOT the panacea it appears to be--it costs you two focusing brackets and gives a smaller finder image to work with,and the resolution drops considerably in HSC mode compared with 12.2 mode.The biggest problem with the X however is noise at elevated ISO's...the Canon 20D I have in low,poor light yields about as good an image as the D2x does,due to Canon's superior noise reduction and better, more-advanced experience with CMOS. Yeah, 8.2MP versus 12.2 MP and Canon actually is about equal,or better in terms of image quality at low EV at higher ISO's. The D2x's dual nature, that of high MP+high speed really does not pan out for my sports photography as I had hoped it would. For high-volume sports the D2x has too big a file, too poor High ISO performance, and too small a finder area in HSC mode...the D2Hs would be better! Looking at the tremendous strides Nikon has made with the D50,in terms of low noise at elevated ISOs, makes me think that the next Nikon, the D200 let's call it,might actually be a better step-up camera. The D2x at ISO 100-125-160 is spectacular,particularly with studio strobes and 2400 to 4800 watt-seconds of power--it is a "lifetime" camera in that context....but at ISO 800 or Hi-1, well, I'm very,very disappointed in the D2x under the lights in gymnasiums or football or soccer fields at night...Hi-1 isn't worth the $5k price I payed, Hi-2 is pathetic,and the loss of 1000 and 1250 ISO with the D1h is sorely missed late in the afternoon as the light fades and notching up ISO is what it takes. I would wait, just a while, and see what comes out next. If you can live with ISO 100-320 that's good, the D2x is fine....at higher ISO's the 1st generation Sony CMOS sensor in the D2x does NOT please me...I had expected better.
     
  18. Steve S

    Steve S

    Feb 1, 2005
    SE Florida
    so Derrel,

    Given what you just said, why didn't you buy a d2Hs instead?
     
  19. jb007

    jb007 Guest

    Wow Derrell : "...at higher ISO's the 1st generation Sony CMOS sensor in the D2x does NOT please me...I had expected better." some advice - keep away from sharp implements and firearms!
     
  20. Derrel

    Derrel Guest

    For Steve and JB

    Steve,
    Well, I really _wish now_ that I would have purchased the D2Hs. And as for JB's comments, I don;lt rweally appreciate that tone and attitude...I really DID expect the D2x to be a better performer than it turned out to be. Why the smart-aleck response jb? What's your problem?...that I find the D2x lacking sadly at high ISO's? That it is not good at Hi-1 and that the D2x is simply pathetic at Hi-2? The other guys at the paper shooting Canon's are getting substantially better results udner indoor and stadium lighting than the D2x can do. I doubt you have much experience at indoor gymnasium or outdoor stadium lighting if you think the D2x is a good sports camera at elevated ISOs.Natural light is one thing, but under indoor sports or night football/soccer lighting, the "x" is a poor camera. It's just NOT state of the art right now....the lowly 20D is a better camera at high ISO,at a substanbtially lesser cost.
    I am passing this along to those who wonder if the D2x really is "all that"..the answer is "no, it's a very poor sports camera at elevated ISO". I wish,I wish,I wish that I would have bought a D2Hs, but frankly I was thinking that the D2x would be "just as good" and I needed a camera right away in late April,after I shorted out my D1h covering a 5-hour track and field meet in a steady drizzle/rain..I needed a camera 'immediately' and had to buy something to shoot with....the D2x seemed like the best thing since sliced bread,according to bird shooters who were shooting it at 250 or 320 ISO in good,bright,natural light. I was just surprised to see how badly it sucked compared to the D1h at elevated ISO's. The D2x is clearly NOT as good as what Canon has,or even what Nikon has in the D2Hs, at HIGH ISO indoor/night sports. Period. Sad, but true. 32 years as a Nikon shooter,and this is the most disappointment I have ever had from a Nikon body in terms of a suitable camera for PJ/sports. I thought it would be better than what it is...I'm not gonna talk it up as a high ISO camera, and anybody who thinks the D2x looks "good" at Hi-1 compared with a Canon shooter's files from the same game ought to see how bad the Sony sensor is at Hi-1. Just not state of the art. Clearly,just not there yet. The D2x is simply MARVELLOUS at lower ISO's, but it has no 1000,no 1250,etc...it's a low-iso camera and is not geared to what I really wanted it to be good at...so,lesson learned.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
D500 and the Comparometer: FX has met it's match Nikon DX DSLR Dec 1, 2016
Okay I Couldn't Wait . . . I'm Such a Kid! Nikon DX DSLR Feb 15, 2011
Okay so i pre-ordered my D300s at Ritz, but.. Nikon DX DSLR Aug 31, 2009
Okay, another noise reduction problem/question. Nikon DX DSLR Aug 28, 2008
Okay... Things Are Starting To Come Together Nikon DX DSLR May 29, 2008