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

Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
3,423
Location
Edmonton, Alberta
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.............

Keith
 
R

Robin Horlock

Guest
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

Cheers,
Robin
 
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
5,985
Location
Orlando, Florida
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!
 
I

IxLr8

Guest
I'm giving up my D2H, i'm getting a 2nd D2X body... My wife is ready to kill me....
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
373
Robin Horlock said:
I think there are some people with genuine concerns and
problems with their camera's.

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

Cheers,
Robin
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.
 
Joined
May 1, 2005
Messages
2,221
Location
San Antonio TX
Larry Gleason said:
Robin than I said:
The 2X is way more fussy hand-held than the 1X.
Is it more fussy? I suspect it is not. It just is fine enough to be better than I am.
I'm also a bit of a target shooter.
A rifle that can't shoot a 4 inch group could, forever, let me think I'm a perfect aim, whereas a gun that can shoot a 1/4 inch group demonstrates my imperfections.
Camera shake of two-hair radii may not be visible at 4 MP. One cm back-focus at f1.4 may have not been apparent until now.
I, my lens, my tripod might now be the weak link or greatest lack of precision...no longer is it the sensor.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
373
Vernon t said:
Larry Gleason said:
Robin than I said:
The 2X is way more fussy hand-held than the 1X.
Is it more fussy? I suspect it is not. It just is fine enough to be better than I am.
I'm also a bit of a target shooter.
A rifle that can't shoot a 4 inch group could, forever, let me think I'm a perfect aim, whereas a gun that can shoot a 1/4 inch group demonstrates my imperfections.
Camera shake of two-hair radii may not be visible at 4 MP. One cm back-focus at f1.4 may have not been apparent until now.
I, my lens, my tripod might now be the weak link or greatest lack of precision...no longer is it the sensor.
Then let me restate what I was saying in your terms. The D1X is the first rifle and the D2X is the second rifle. Perhaps "fussy" wasn't the best choice of a word but you gave the meaning behind what I meant by fussy. We are not in disagreement.
 
D

dan_m

Guest
Hand-helds are harder

Larry,
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.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
373
Re: Hand-helds are harder

dan_m said:
Larry,
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.
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.
 
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
4,010
Location
Youngsville (The edge of nowhere), North Carolina
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 :?

Woody
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,027
Location
Annandale, VA
Re: Hand-helds are harder

Larry Gleason said:
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.
Larry,

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.

Rich
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
3,625
Location
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.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
373
JeffKohn said:
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.
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.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
3,625
Location
Houston, TX
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.
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).
 
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
2,426
Location
Eden, NY
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.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
373
JeffKohn said:
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).
Here's a link to what I was basing my theory/observation on-

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/
 
R

Robin Horlock

Guest
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.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
373
Robin Horlock said:
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.
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!!!
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
3,625
Location
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.
 
R

Robin Horlock

Guest
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
cameras.

Cheers,
Robin
 

Latest posts

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