1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

TO ALL D2X USERS.........

Discussion in 'Nikon DX DSLR Forum' started by Keith, Jun 1, 2005.

  1. If you had to do it all over again, would you have spent the money? has the camera worth the $3k US upgrade over the D2h? You see a ton of threads around focusing issues etc.............seriously interested in your thoughts.............

  2. I wouldn't think twice about purchasing my D2x again.
    I would however, have gotten on the waiting list alot
    sooner, had I know how good the X really is.

    I think there are some people with genuine concerns and
    problems with their camera's. But I also believe that the
    same person will post their problem on numerous boards,
    unintentionally making it appear that their are more
    problem bodies than their actually are.

    I think another big problem is technique related.
    Smaller sensors are more prone to showing vibration
    and movement of the camera than larger sensors.
    There are a lot of people who believe they can hand-hold
    a telephoto lens and get sharp shots, the aps sized sensor
    is proving them wrong. IMHO

  3. Keith, I wouldn't hesitate to buy the D2X again. My first body had some strange issues but fortunately I found them out within the first week. The local store I bought from exchanged it without issue.

    It's funny because when I read all the complaints against the 20D when it first came out I was really turned off on Canon. When I started experiencing problems with my D2X, I wasn't upset at all, just simply returned it and tried another. I was a bit concerned about focusing issues since the new one was an older serial # but I've definitely got a keeper!

    It's a lot of money, for sure, but from what I have seen, it is an absolutely wonderful camera!
  4. IxLr8

    IxLr8 Guest

    I'm giving up my D2H, i'm getting a 2nd D2X body... My wife is ready to kill me....
  5. Larry Gleason

    Larry Gleason

    Jan 26, 2005
    I do believe that you have hit two nails directly on the head and most here need to focus (no pun intended) on your second point. The 2X is way more fussy hand-held than the 1X.
  7. Larry Gleason

    Larry Gleason

    Jan 26, 2005
  8. dan_m

    dan_m Guest

    Hand-helds are harder

    I thought it was just me. This camera really seems to show motion blur. I'm shooting at higher iso's just to keep my shutter speed fast and avoid it. Why one species of camera should show blur more than another I just can't explain. My last camera was a 14NX Kodak (more pixels, but in a larger sensor). I did fine with it. Oh well, I will try harder.
    Dan M.
  9. Larry Gleason

    Larry Gleason

    Jan 26, 2005
    Re: Hand-helds are harder

    I think that I may now have the answer. First, I do increase my shutter speed according to the action. That must be done anyway. Second, I do believe that it is because of the higher resolution in the D2X that any "shaking" say, compared to the D1X, will result in motion blur not previously seen. That is the "fussy" part where I have to pay more attention to locking down the D2X (no more casual hand holding).

    Now for the best part. Look at Phil's D2X review where he shows the size of the pixels of different cameras. The D2X pixels are tiny compared to the rest and from what I remember, the Canon 20D pixels came the closest in size. The Canon Mark II has more pixels and although the Kodak was not compared, it would be like the Mark II with more pixels. But I bet that the Kodak pixels are also not as small as the D2X. I'm thinking that it is those tiny pixels that are subject to motion blur which can also be called OOF in some instances. Maybe a better way to say it is that tiny pixels are more sensitive to movement and is further noticed in larger photographs. What the math or physics may be I have no idea. Call it a cop's gut hunch.
  10. I got fed up waiting for the D200 so I jumped on the D2X and I'll have to admit it's been a love-hate relationship.

    The camera is, without a shadow of a doubt, the finest instrument I've ever owned. I have had no problems with focusing (which is totally overblown IMO) and I'll be hanged if I can detect any sensitivity to motion blur over my D100, but I'll leave that discussion to others to hash out while I'm shooting. The camera is a dream come true... it really is that good.

    The things I don't like about it has nothing to do with the camera! It's all the support equipment one finds themselves needing. Suddenly my computer has turned into a slug, I'm running out of storage space way too fast, Nikon Capture may be the best software for dealing with NEFs but it's soooooo slooooowwwww, should I upgrade my PSCS2?, and I'm running out of wall space with all these 36x48 inch prints.

    And they say golf is expensive :?

  11. Re: Hand-helds are harder


    I do believe you've put your finger on the phenomenon. Last week in a shoot with Yves and Frits in Montreal I was downright disappointed with some of my shots; they were slightly blurred and I began to think my D2X was suffering from the "focus problem." Later on in my vacation I again encountered the same phenomenon at Niagara Falls. I went out the next day and shot the same images but "froze" in place before each shot and there was world of difference in the images. I inherently figured that taking an image with the D2X at over 1/1000 second I could casually "snap" the shots off. They are so small though (as you point out) that they are very sensitive to motion of the camera. It never occurred to me, but now I can control this by stabilizing the camera before shooting.

  12. JeffKohn


    Apr 21, 2005
    Houston, TX
    I don't really understand how higher resoultion would make the camera more prone to shake/blur or somehow decrease the DOF as has been speculated in other places.

    Think about it, if smaller photosites meant more blur, what would that mean for an 8MP 4/3 sensor, or the 8MP sensors in prosumer digicams? And for DOF, photosite size isn't even a variable in the equation (although sensor size is).

    I think a big part of this is that people are used to viewing 6MP images at 100% on-screen (or in the case of the D2H, 4MP), and now moving to the D2X they're not considering that viewing a 12MP image at 100% means viewing at much greater magnification.
  13. Larry Gleason

    Larry Gleason

    Jan 26, 2005
    I don't think that its the higher resolution that makes the camera more prone to shake/blur as I initially thought. As previously indicated in my last post I suspect that it has to do with the size of the pixels. There are models that have more pixels than the D2X but their pixels are not as small. Put a large boat and a rowboat in the same ocean and which is the one that is going to get tossed about? Without having seen Phil's review of pixel size (but does not address sensitivity to movement) I had already batten down the hatches on my D2X for shaking/blur for sharp results (as compared to the way I handled my D1X). This is not a gripe from me. It is merely an adjustment on my shooting technique as the 2X is a fantastic beast.

    Didn't the Canon 20D users spike some oof issues when it first came out? So far that model appears to have pixels closer in size to the 2X than the rest. Don't get me wrong. I do believe that there are units of all models received that had/have serious focus issues. This may account for the high number of camera problem-user fault opinions that have surfaced. It just may be a matter of correct opinions all around for separate issues thinking that it was just one issue.
  14. JeffKohn


    Apr 21, 2005
    Houston, TX
    But that's just it, the D2X pixels are not that small in the grand scheme of things. Yes, they're smaller than a 6MP DSLR with 1.5x crop has, or the 1D/s MKII. But the D2X pixels are downright huge compared to an 8MP prosumer digicam. And the Olympus E-300 has an 8MP 4/3 sensor which means it's pixels are smaller than the 20D though I haven't done the math to see if they're slightly smaller or larger than the D2X (would guess pretty similar though).
  15. No.

    Unless I got one that focused properly. Mine's been back at Nikon twice and I'm still waiting for it to come back to see if they have finally figured out how to fix it. Spending 5K only to send the camera to Nikon for 3-4 weeks for servicing isn't my first choice. If you do buy one make sure you can exchange it and make sure to rule out focusing issues straight away.
  16. Larry Gleason

    Larry Gleason

    Jan 26, 2005
  17. That seems to be a common misconception among prosumer/consumer
    camera users. I can't tell you how many times someone has
    asked me how many megapixels is your camera? Only to reply
    but my point and shoot camera has more mega than your pro series
    camera. Consumers just don't understand that more megapixels don't
    necessarily make better images. Chip size and the quality of the
    chip along with the supporting hardware make the difference.

    I put my Kodak 660 (a six mega antique) up against an eight mega
    Sony and smoked it for quality. Both color and sharpness were far
    and above what the Sony could hope to achieve. The D2x is in
    a totally different league than the very best consumer cams.
  18. Larry Gleason

    Larry Gleason

    Jan 26, 2005
    I also get those type questions and my standard response has become, its not about the number of pixels as it is about the quality of the pixels. Flat out, the D1X may be 5.47 pixels by the numbers but they are quality pixels. The mightly beast supporting 12.4 quality pixels, yeehaw!!!
  19. JeffKohn


    Apr 21, 2005
    Houston, TX
    Quality of pixels is a completely different issue, I certainly didn't mean to imply that 8MP prosumers are in the same league as any DSLR. I was just pointing out that if small pixels == camera shake/blur then you have to reconcile that with 4/3's DSLR sensors not to mention prosumer digicams, both of which have even smaller pixels than the D2X.
  20. I couldn't agree more Jeff. And I suppose I got off
    on a tangent about Pro vs Consumer cameras. What
    I should have said was because of the 1.5 or 2X factor
    with these cameras, they are more susceptable to camera
    shake than FF camera's. The chip size increasing the
    focal lenghth of the lens is IMHO the reason the D2x
    is more suceptable to shake than any other factor.
    It requires more attention to technique than other

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.