Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Polls
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
 Sponsors
 Special Offers
 Our Store
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Student Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
 Subscribe
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

The D2X
Rick Rickman, Photographer
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 10:22 AM on 02.21.05
->> I have been spending the last week or so shooting with this baby and I am extra-ordinarily pleased and surprised. This camera, as my daughter would say, is the bomb!

NIKON has done a very intelleigent thing with the release of this camera. They have made sure that the camera was right and ready for release before seding it to market. It is an absolute gem! I was able to shoot a motorcross event and some nice light painting images with the D2X and really put the camera through its paces.

One aspect of this camera that is going to be very exciting for Nikon Sport Shooters is the fact that the camera will go from a five frames per second shooting mode that produces the camera's largest file of 12 or so megapixels to a true 8 frames per second 7 megapixel file by the touch of one button. When you do this the camera converts to a 2X focal length.

What this does for you is double the lengtn of all your telephoto lens. I was sitting in the stands above the biggest jump at this motogross event Shooting with a 200 f 2.0. I would shoot the riders taking this jump in the 5 frames a second mode for a while then switch to the 8 frames a second mode just to see if it actually worked. Not only does it work seemlessly but you can actually easily hit the button bewteen shots and the autofocus doesn't loose track of the rider. There is absolutely no shutter lag!!!!

Now here's what this made me think about. The next time you are shooting football and the play begins to move out of range of your 400 or 600 mm lens and you begin to wish that you were further down field because the action that you are seeing is great, you won't have to worry. I can hit that little button and all of a sudden I'm right in the action again. the guy beside you will probably have to crop his shot to the point that quality will become an issue but not me.

As some of you know I love to shoot skiing and one problem I always encounter is the fact that some of the best pictures are just too far away to shoot even with a 600 and a 1.4. Well now with the D2X that will no longer be true.

The autofocus is better than the D2H which I have always found extremely good. Just for fun. I did a little test with a 400 2.8 on the camera and I followed a rider from the point that I could first seem them to the point that the rider was so close that the lens could no longer focus which amounted to 16 frames and the camera held focus for 15 of the 16 frames. Now if this was just a cyclist coming at me you'd expect any camera to be able to do that but in this cased there were other riders moving between the camera and the one I was shooting. There were poles and signage that got in the way as well as the heads of track officials and monitors. So for me this was truly new and exciting.

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.

Rob Van Patten is one of the finest fashion photographers out there and he showed me some things he's done with the camera and the detail is astonishing. Dave Black and I are a little obsessed with light painting of late and you won't believe the quality of image this camera will produce both of portrature or still life images.

I decided I'd send this out because a number of you had asked last week about the D2X and I and others had been sworn to secrecy but have been told that if someone asks it's ok to discuss at this point. I told whoever it was I'd tell them as soon as I was able about this great new camera so as I promised.

I you are shooting NIKON you really should get on the list to get your hands on this camera. You will be so pleased. I'm going to buy 3. Anyway, happy shooting!

Rick
 This post is:  Informative (16) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Geoff Miller, Photographer
Portage | MI | USA | Posted: 11:02 AM on 02.21.05
->> Rick,

Thanks for the breath of fresh air! Glad to know that Nikon finally "let you off the lease" with regard to the info. Maybe this'll get some people out of their "funk".
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Myers, Photographer
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 11:10 AM on 02.21.05
->> One technical question...

You mention how when you switch to the high-speed mode, the camera changes from 1.5x to 2x factor. So, your telephoto lens effectively becomes a little longer. At the same time, the image changes from 12 megapixels to 7.

My question is whether this is nothing more than Nikon using a smaller part of the sensor, rather than the whole image? If so, it would explain the change from 12 to 7 megapixels, as well as the lens effectively becoming a longer focal length. If that's the case, it's the same thing as cropping the larger image... it's just a "digital zoom" effect. It doesn't sound like a feature - more like a limitation, allowing the camera to capture images faster by only capturing a smaller part of each image.


Also, just curious - how could you have been using the D2hs "for a long time" when it just was released? Did you get a test model before it was released?


The D2x sounds like a wonderful camera. It's what I wish I had, rather than my D2h. Thanks for the update!
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Troutman, Photographer
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 11:45 AM on 02.21.05
->> Yes, as I understand it the high-speed crop tosses away pixels just like cropping in Photoshop. BUT the camera frame rate jumps up to 8 frames per second (as Rick mentioned). This sounds very useful in the right situations as described above. I had some concerns about ease of framing an image inside the crop marks when I looked through the D2X viewfinder back at the Luau in November. Sounds like it's no big deal once one gets used to it.

I should have my cameras in just a few more days and then will have to make the tough decision about selling my D2H bodies. With better AF, better high ISO noise and jaw-dropping image quality there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to use the D2H unless one needs the smaller file size. But then, JPEG medium is a viable setting on the D2X, which (purely on specs) should have better image quality than JPEG fine on the D2H without being too large a file. That's a test I plan on running.

Rick, do you think you will be using the D2H much at all anymore now that the D2X is finally here?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 12:02 PM on 02.21.05
->> HAs anyone used the D2X at a higher ISO than 800? How does it hold up at 1600 for concerts/theater lighting?
How is the battery? Can you shoot all day with one battery?
Debbie
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bob Ford, Photographer
Lehighton | Pa | USA | Posted: 12:09 PM on 02.21.05
->> Debra, the top listed ISO for the D2X is only 800. I've read it has High1 and High2, but those aren't the same as 1600 and 3200.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Sam Adams, Student/Intern, Photographer
Albuquerque | NM | USA | Posted: 12:17 PM on 02.21.05
->> What iam wondering and maybe some one can clear this up for me is what is it going to look like though the veiwfinder when you switch from the 1.5x to the 2x crop
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Clark, Photographer
Santa Fe | NM | USA | Posted: 12:35 PM on 02.21.05
->> Thanks for the great info Rick. I am glad to hear that Nikon has produced a top notch camera. Have fun a the PMA Show.

Cheers, Michael
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

PJ Heller, Photographer
Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 1:09 PM on 02.21.05
->> What this does for you is double the lengtn of all your telephoto lens.

But that also means that all your shorter glass (i.e. 12-24 or 17-35) is no longer very wide. Anything new on the lens front to address this issue?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Andrew Davis Tucker, Photographer
Augusta | GA | USA | Posted: 1:45 PM on 02.21.05
->> Rick,
I was wondering if you could post some of these images so that we could see them?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Stevens, Photographer
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 2:17 PM on 02.21.05
->> Sam, from what I read when you switch to the "high speed" mode it has corner markers that show the reduced crop that you must pay attention to. I thought I remember seeing something about them lighting up like a focus point but I'm probably wrong about that one.

So, in short, your view through the viewfinder doesn't change.

And, I'll reiterate Myers' point about the cropping. To say that some other photog is going to have to heavily crop their photo and you're not is kinda misleading. You're still cropping it in high speed mode. You're just letting the camera do it automatically.

Not that that's a negative at all. I'm sure this is going to be one fine camera for the Nikonians especially if the noise at 800 is like the D2H at 200-400. You guys have been waiting for some time for Nikon to catch up with us! :) You may have just done it and in ONE body (instead of two) no less!

Later,

Mike
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Wes Hope, Photographer
Maryville | TN | USA | Posted: 2:24 PM on 02.21.05
->> Sam wrote: "What iam wondering and maybe some one can clear this up for me is what is it going to look like though the veiwfinder when you switch from the 1.5x to the 2x crop"

The viewfinder physically stays the same. Inside the viewfinder are crop marks indicating your boundaries when you switch to the lower megapixel/faster shooting speed mode. Once in the mode, keep your subject within the crop marks and you're golden.

I hope that clears that up for you Sam. I looked online and didn't find a photo of the viewfinder to point out the crop marks.

Something to remember though folks, the D2x 2X conversion is simply a cropping in-camera. When you switch modes, you're selecting only part of the sensor to record the image. Hence the smaller megepixels and the ability for the processor to work faster (high fps). But in the end, all you're doing is cropping the image even more.

Technically, pixel-wise, it will look fine, but it won't look the same. So, yeah, your 80-200 becomes a 400 at the longest end (with the 2X crop). But it won't have the same shallow depth of field as a true 400/2.8. Yeah, you can get tight on the action, but if you want that shallow DOF look, super-blurred backgrounds, subject isolated against a sea of indestinguishable crowds and signs, then simply switching the camera over to an in-camera crop isn't going to cut it for you. Just like the current 1.5x or 1.3x doesn't cut it for some now.

By the way, big thanks to Rick for sharing his first hand experiences with the camera. I learned my lesson with the D2h and am going to wait a while on the X until a hear from a few more pros like Rick.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Wes Hope, Photographer
Maryville | TN | USA | Posted: 2:25 PM on 02.21.05
->> Sorry Michael, I didn't mean to say almost the exact same thing as you. That's what happens when it takes me 10 minutes to write a post and someone else beats me to the punch. :)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Myers, Photographer
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 3:54 PM on 02.21.05
->> No problem, Wes. You added something I hadn't even considered, that since the effective image sensor is that much smaller at 2x, the depth of field will also be different.


I've shot with Nikon cameras before they were Nikon... meaning my way-old Nikon rangefinder cameras seemed like the next step up from my old Contax cameras. From those, to the F series, and now digital... except that the D2h was the first digital version that I thought I could afford. Anyway, I have lots of real good thougths about Nikon, and I certainly like the way they "feel", but I get the feeling regarding the 2x feature that they're taking something that's not so good, and claiming it's really a "feature". It's real nice that it speeds up the burst speed, but when you come right down to it, there's all the same disadvantages that cause people to dislike "digital zoom" compared to "optical zoom".

Also, at $3K, I figured I could afford the D2h, having passed on all the previous digital Nikons as being out of my price range. At $2K the D2h is a real bargain! I'd certainly like to have the kind of resolution you can get with 12 megapixel images, but I suspect it's also going to be out of the range of what I can afford. There's also the consideration that if my D2h is already doing just about everything I want to get out of a DSLR, I might not realize that much of an improvement in changing from D2h to D2x.

Lastly, even if I could afford it, I learned my lesson with the D2h and will never again buy another digital camera until it's been out for a while and all the bugs are worked out. Nikon did take care of my D2h; after three attempts to fix it, they sent me a new one, so once again I have nothing but good to say about Nikon, but I no longer want to be first on anyone's delivery list.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Stevens, Photographer
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 5:20 PM on 02.21.05
->> No problem, Wes. It happens ... :)

Mike, I think you are misunderstanding what the camera is doing in high speed mode or misspeaking what you think is happening. There is no "digital zoom" in the D2X. It's cropping plain and simple so there really isn't a downside to it.

Digital zooms are typically found in P&S cameras and, from what little I know, work like enlarging in PhotoShop: They just guess at the surrounding pixels and make a stab at what kind of detail is actually there. Nikon isn't doing that at all.

Basically, it boils down to this:

The body can handle five 35 meg photos (according to PhotoShop) per second (175 MB of data per second) for 15 shots using the entire image sensor or eight 20 meg photos per second (160MB of data per second) for 26 shots using a smaller portion of the sensor. Either way the camera is moving about the same amount of data per second. The only difference is the pixel dimensions of the captured image which directly affects the "perceived" focal length of the lens in use.

Mike
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Holleman, Photographer
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 5:38 PM on 02.21.05
->> I wonder if the faster 8fps frame rate could also be achieved by selecting a smaller output ("medium" or whatever) without the crop. I'm guessing not, since it hasn't been specifically mentioned in anything I've read about the D2X. But it sure would be nice to have the 8 fps without the 2x crop.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Troutman, Photographer
Carmel | CA | USA | Posted: 6:13 PM on 02.21.05
->> A preliminary review with an image of the viewfinder layout can be found here:

http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD2X_intro.shtml

I can hardly wait to get this camera!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Doug Holleman, Photographer
Temple | TX | USA | Posted: 6:17 PM on 02.21.05
->> I really need one of these, but there's probably no way I'll ever be able to afford one. Maybe Sportsshooter could get a hold of one to raffle off or something. I'd buy a couple of tickets for that.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Gavin Werbeloff, Student/Intern, Photographer
Decatur | GA | USA | Posted: 7:16 PM on 02.21.05
->> I just did some quick math, and I came up with file sizes for the D2X, and other cameras for comparison. These are all 16 bit TIFF sizes.

D100 - 34.4mb
D2H - 23.1mb
D2X Full - 70mb
D2X Crop - 39.3mb
1D Mk II - 46.7mb
1Ds Mk II - 90mb

I was also looking at the throughput numbers for images/second and there it seems like there is some room for some extra pixels in the crop. Using the pixels per second at full res, the D2X is actually theoretically capable of putting out a 7.6 mp image at 8fps, with a Tiff file size of 43.6Mb.

Please note, I'm not trying to bash a camera that's not even on the market yet, and not saying its not good enough, its just that when Nikon announced this feature, I was interested and started doing the math, and this is what I came up with.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Myers, Photographer
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 8:34 PM on 02.21.05
->> To Michael Stevens... I've always considered "digital zoom" to be the camera "cropping" the image. The end result is a photo that you could have also gotten in Photoshop by cropping the (full) image. Optical zoom on the other hand gives you the same data, on the same sensor, but the image is "enlarged", so you don't lose anything.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I read all this information, the only thing the D2x is doing, is saving a smaller part of the image, which is why it can do it faster. If you took a tiny little part of the image, you could probably end up with a 10x or 20x or whatever factor, and save all that many more frames per second. If what I'm thinking is correct, it's wrong to imply that the new setting effectively changes your lens from 200mm to 400mm.

I'm not sure if it would have been possible, but I like Doug's idea up above, of saving the original image in a different format to get the higher fps rate.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steven Georges, Photographer
Garden Grove | CA | USA | Posted: 9:20 PM on 02.21.05
->> Thank you Wes!!! I wish photographers would stop stating that smaller chips give you longer focal lengths. Cropping (in the camera or in PhotoShop) does not give you the compression and depth of field that a true longer lens gives you. Assuming the quality is good, the extra pixels do give you cropping options you would not otherwise have.

The sensor crop option is simply to give you extra frames per second when you don't need the edges. A nice idea. A side advantage to the crop mode is you can see what is about to come into your frame. A real advantage for shooting sports. Remember the original NC2000?

The REAL potential for this technique will be in future professional camera's.

Nikon needs to stop putting in consumer size 1.5 chips in their professional cameras!

This cropping trick can give Nikon a way to introduce larger chips in future professional camera's while maintaining compatibility with their DX lens'. When you put on a DX lens, it could automatically crop the (larger) chip down to a DX size. I'm disappointed Nikon choose not to do it this time around. They must be saving it for the D3.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steven Georges, Photographer
Garden Grove | CA | USA | Posted: 9:30 PM on 02.21.05
->> Rick states he can't talk unless someone asks him a question.
OK here's one,

Because the D2X does not have 1600 ISO, how does the D2X's High1 compare to the D2h's 1600 and the D100's 1600?

BTW - Thanks Rick for posting the info, we all appreciate it!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Rossiter, Photographer
Lethbridge | AB | Canada | Posted: 10:22 PM on 02.21.05
->> Great post Rick, thanks!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Tony Donaldson, Photographer
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 10:30 PM on 02.21.05
->> Rick,

Thanks. What I want to know is how the viewfinder changes if at all when switching to the high-speed mode. I suggested to Nikon that they use the technology they used for the D100/D70 with the internal grid and darken the outside portions of the frame in that mode, not blacking them out, but darkening them, so you'd have a useful sports finder of sorts. Does the frame around the HS crop at least turn black to aid in framing? Is it a kludge or is it intuitive?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Cordes, Photographer
Orange County | CA | USA | Posted: 10:37 PM on 02.21.05
->> I can't wait. I am so happy about this camera coming out. I never did buy a D2H because I never liked anything about it and I figured Nikon would come out with a better camera than the D2H. Still been using D1X and D1H, I can't wait to step up. Thanks for the info Rick.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Wes Hope, Photographer
Maryville | TN | USA | Posted: 10:43 PM on 02.21.05
->> Tony, nothing changed on the one I played with at the Atlanta PJ seminar. You just have to shoot inside the lines.

What were the old digital cameras, the NC2000's or may have been the DSC 5--? They had a regular viewfinder with just a black rectangle inside showing what the sensor would record. That'd drive me nuts.

You just can't be the type to "think outside the box."
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Robert Longhitano, Photographer
Montgomeryville | PA | USA | Posted: 10:59 PM on 02.21.05
->> Thanks Rick!

Tony I know we talked about the HS speed mode. If it's only a red LED like Wes mentioned. I was planing to get an extra focussing screen and mask it with black gaffers tape. It's a low tech solution and I see no reason why it will not work.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Arthur Carvalho, Photographer
hooksett | NH | USA | Posted: 11:01 PM on 02.21.05
->> A question that I was unable to find the answer to when reading through the specs of the camera.

Will the flash sync speed be incresed from 1/250th to 1/500th when shooting in the cropped mode? Seeing as how you are using less of the sensor, I would think that less time would be needed to to ccover the "whole" sensor.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Stanley Leary, Photographer
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 11:16 PM on 02.21.05
->> Wes:

If you put a camera on a tripod and shoot the photo with wide-angle, like 24mm, and then shoot with a 600mm you can then compare them in Photoshop. Then crop the wide angle to the same crop as 600mm. You will see the same depth of field if everything is shot at the same f/stop and shutter speed. Yes, the pixel effect is there. Andrea Feininger is the guy who I first read showing this phenomenon.

However, now that you are using more pixels than previous Nikons it isn't quite the same as just a digital crop, because you now have a 7 mega pixel as compared to the 4 mega pixel of the D2h. So it will technically not be like a digital zoom.

It will be more like Rick explained. And for 90% of sports shooters their output rarely will need the larger sizes like the commercial shooter.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (4) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Gene Kellogg, Photographer
Watford City | ND | USA | Posted: 11:27 PM on 02.21.05
->> Thanks Rick for the info. Its good to hear that Nikon is doing something good for a change. I have one question about the HS crop. Does it create any more noise then in the full setting?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

andrew wilz, Photographer
Aspen | CO | usa | Posted: 11:51 PM on 02.21.05
->> Guys,

My understanding of the "crop factor" is: exactly that.
Your field of view (in degrees) is the same as a lens with the equivalent focal length of the crop factor (1.5x or 2X)times the focal length you are currently using. Ie: 200mm X 1.5X= 300mm lens field of view equivalent. This is the CROP factor... So... with a Canon 70-200mm lens, you have a maximum angle of view at 200mm of 12 degrees diagonal. With a straight up 300mm (2.8)you have an angle of view of 8.15degrees...
This is what you would would have using the 70-200mm lens on a body with a 1.5X crop factor... It's not increasing the avaliable length of your lens... you're just reducing your field of view. Think of what happens with a wide-angle lens on the same body...
With a 300mm lens... it's still the same 300mm lens, you're just capturing less of what the lens is actually "seeing" with your sensor.

ok.. i'll shut up for another 6 months now..
(sorry about the Canon comparo.)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rob Miracle, Photographer
Cary | NC | USA | Posted: 12:55 AM on 02.22.05
->> Regarding why the D2X can't do 8fps in 1.5X crop mode when shooting medium (6.8mp files):

The answer is quite simple. Medium and Small modes still require the whole sensor to be read (12.5mp of data) and the resulting output JPEG is 6.8 or 4.x MP. The data processing by the ASIC chip is still a 12.5mp image. The data transfered from the sensor to the ASIC chip is still 12.5mp. And that takes time. This is why you only have 12.5mp files in RAW mode at the 1.5x crop.

By selecting the 2x crop mode, the internal electronics only moves 6.8mp of data from the sensor. Its cut down before it ever hits the data bus. In RAW mode you get 6.8mp files.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Tony Donaldson, Photographer
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 1:02 AM on 02.22.05
->> Rob L,

The masked screen would work fine, but harder to "shift on the fly". Just seems there would be a way to do it, but haven't heard from anyone if it's easy or a pain.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Robert Longhitano, Photographer
Montgomeryville | PA | USA | Posted: 1:10 AM on 02.22.05
->> Tony, very true, it would of been nice to have a removable prism. It made changing screens so much easier.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Stevens, Photographer
Phoenix | AZ | USA | Posted: 1:26 AM on 02.22.05
->> Hey Mike, we are on the same page. You are just describing it different than I.

I agree it's wrong to imply that your lens' focal length changes with the crop. There are other factors involved which is why I typed "'perceived' focal length" in quotes. It gives you the field of view of a longer lens but all the other factors don't always even out so it's not the same.

Mike
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Warwick Patterson, Photographer
Whistler | BC | Canada | Posted: 1:33 AM on 02.22.05
->> Oh man...now you've gone and done it. I was completely happy with my D2H, but now I'm going to have to go check out the D2X :) Umm...Mr. Bank Manager, can I have another loan?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rick Rickman, Photographer
Laguna Niguel | CA | USA | Posted: 1:43 AM on 02.22.05
->> Hi guys and gals:

I've been a little busy here at PMA but to answer a few of your questions as best I can.

Tony D, the view finder actually is very nice the way it is. When you shift to the high speed mode there is a frame that lights up just a bit to show you the cropped view. I really like that because as Steven George mentioned it gave you the opportunity to actually see what was coming into the frame. I felt it was great.

There is no noise difference between the two sized files. The quality of the color and the noise are excellent in both sizes. I had the chance to see a couple of frames shot at 1600 that looked very good. I don't know how to guage it other than to say that the quality of the image at 1600 actually look a little better than that of an image from a D2H at 800. It is very decent and having worked for newspapers for many many years I'd say that I would be easily able to put those images in a newspaper and have them run 6 columns across with no problem. The quality is good folks and I think most of you will be very very pleased.

As always is the case there are going to be people who will find fault with the camera but they are the same folks who have trouble finding anything good in life in general. The best way I know to put this is this way. Many of you have been using the D2H or D1H or D1X and have been happy with the results of these camera. This D2X is a whole lot better than any of those cameras and your gonna be a whole lot happier with the D2X. For me that pretty much sums it up. Like I said. I'm gonna buy three.

Rick
 This post is:  Informative (6) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matt Hevezi, Photo Editor
Camp Pendleton | CA | USA | Posted: 2:01 AM on 02.22.05
->> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/view/
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (14) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steven Georges, Photographer
Garden Grove | CA | USA | Posted: 3:06 AM on 02.22.05
->> I'm not surprised the D2X is a great camera because the D2h is a great camera. I LOVE that camera! It is the best camera I've ever shot with! (That includes film cameras)
The ONLY problem many of us had with the D2h was with the chip.
1. The size of the chip. (Canon's top of the line professional camera's are bigger)
2. The size of the MegaPixels. (Canon came out with twice the MP's at 8 FPS)
3. The grain/noise and lack of shadow detail at high speed. (The older cheaper D100 didn't have that problem. You thought I was going to say Canon, didn't you.)

Fixing two out of three isn't bad.

Number 4 was the color balance but Nikon fixed that with the firmware update. To fully take advantage of all the work Nikon put into making the color on the LBCAST chip look good when shooting raw, it helps to use Nikon Capture. The PhotoShop raw plug-in just doesn't look the same.

I also love Nikon lens' and strobes. See, I'm not always negative! :-)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Danie van Jaarsveld, Photographer, Photo Editor
Randjesfontein | Gauteng | South Africa | Posted: 6:51 AM on 02.22.05
->> I too had a stint with a pre-launch D2X and found the selection of a smaller section of the "chip" very useful. It does take some getting used to as the new, smaller frame is marked on its corners and if you are shooting tight, it is easy to cut the subject without realizing it. I clipped the wings off a formation of jet fighters when I believe I would not have done so with a full viewfinder.

The two best features about the camera for me was:
- the complete lack of noise in shadow areas. The colour is clean and reminds of Velvia (remember that ? ).
- the second is a very useful new feature on the menu system, a history of your most recently changed settings. No more trawling through the custom settings, just open the history and go to the settings that you have dabbled with. This is awesome for trying different autofocus patterns, the 2x crop or any other on-the-fly adjustment.

And oh yes, that big 12.5mp image is unbelievable. Our wide angle lenses can eventually record some detail.

I think the D2X will be to Nikon digital cameras what the F5 was to Nikon film cameras.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Neal Vaughan, Photographer
St. Joseph | MI | USA | Posted: 3:27 PM on 02.22.05
->> "- the second is a very useful new feature on the menu system, a history of your most recently changed settings. ....other on-the-fly adjustment."


Oh man, that's great. I've been using a D70 and have LONG wished for a feature like that but thought it would never be implemented.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Wes Hope, Photographer
Maryville | TN | USA | Posted: 5:01 PM on 02.22.05
->> Stanley wrote: "Wes: If you put a camera on a tripod and shoot the photo with wide-angle, like 24mm, and then shoot with a 600mm you can then compare them in Photoshop. Then crop the wide angle to the same crop as 600mm. You will see the same depth of field if everything is shot at the same f/stop and shutter speed. Yes, the pixel effect is there..."

I hate to say it Stanley, but that's a crazy statement. And to keep photographers from thinking that it's possible, I went ahead and shot an example.

I also took the time to explain what exactly the digital "conversion" entails with one of my lackluster sports photos (technical note: I forgot to add that the 300mm was shot wide open at 2.8 on the football pic). I don't think anyone is confusing the D2x function as a digital zoom a la consumer point and shoots.

http://www.sportsshooter.com/hopefoto/crop/


For the record, I think it's a great feature because a digital file *will* uphold a 2x crop better than film would have.

BUT people need to realize that this doesn't magically turn a 200mm into a 400mm. Young, impressionable shooters need to realize that it isn't a cheap way to achieve the look they see from the pros. This isn't a pixel issue, it's a depth of field issue. You can't replicate the look, the compression caused by telephoto lenses, with a crop. Period.

I plan on buying a D2x, but I guarantee it won't be because of this cropping feature. The only thing making it a winner over the H or the Hs is the promise of lower noise and the ability to make bigger, better prints. I love the D2h and have been one of the biggest fighters to prove that it's a good camera.
 This post is:  Informative (5) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Patrick J. Smith, Photographer, Student/Intern
San Jaun Capistrano | CA | USA | Posted: 5:21 PM on 02.22.05
->> Could we see any trend in sportsshooter's switching back to Nikon??? Although I currently shoot with Canon Mark II's, I am a Nikon guy at heart and love the sound of this high speed cropped mode. As you mentioned Rick when I shoot football next season my 200mm would instantly become a 400mm and would stay at f2 or 2.8 depending on the lens. One other fact Rick mentioned was that Nikon chose to take it's time getting this camera perect before release and I think Canon has failed to do that with both the original 1Ds and the 1D Mark II. (Which they attempt to fix with firmware) Hopefully for both Canon and Nikon users this D2x will be as good as it sounds, because competition is always good in my opinion.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Stanley Leary, Photographer
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 6:32 PM on 02.22.05
->> Wes:

your focus was not on the lamp, therefore not a good example. Sorry, still wrong.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (6) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (1) |   Definitions

Patrick J. Smith, Photographer, Student/Intern
San Jaun Capistrano | CA | USA | Posted: 6:50 PM on 02.22.05
->> There is nothing difficult to figure out about the crop in the new D2x and obviously a 600mm f/4 has more dept of field than a 24mm! I just can't wait to test one where I can actually "keep" my images. The D2x I used was nice and the image looked incredible on the LCD and Flatscreen it was displayed on, but until you can truly put it through the test of real shooting nobody knows. Thats what I hate about so many forum posters...they trash talk equipment they have never used or sometimes hasn't even hit the market or been announce.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (3) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Thomas Oed, Photographer
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 7:55 PM on 02.22.05
->> Thanks for the update Rick...

Hey, while you're at PMA, have they announced anything else new, besides the D2Hs?

Oh, that reminds me... in answer to Michael's question above:

"Also, just curious - how could you have been using the D2hs "for a long time" when it just was released? Did you get a test model before it was released?"

Rick can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing when he was referring to "D2Hs", he meant as in 'Plural of D2H', not the new model!

I've seen this mistake being made all over all sorts of boards... quite maddening, but also quite understandable! : D
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

M. David Leeds, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 8:40 PM on 02.22.05
->> Hi Rick, hope you're well. I'm very happy to hear how pleased you are with the new body - I'm anxious run them thru a ringer or two.

This crop/not crop debate is making me crazy.

The reason that this happens is the sensor in these cameras is smaller then a 35mm frame, thus recording less of the information of the lens ie CROPPING the image. Yes, you've got the cropped image and you're @ f2.8, or 4, without the loss of light (ie stops) that you would get with a teleconverter, BUT you'll get the same image (depth of field, perspective, etc) of the lens you're using if you were to shoot a full frame image with said lens and then cropped it. It's the same concept as if you were to run a roll of 110 film thru a 35mm camera or for that matter 35mm film thru a 120 camera (see Mamiya film backs). The film (sensor) is smaller and therefore only capturing a portion of the view of the lens. It doesn't make your lens change it's perspective, focal length, or anything else for that matter. It's one of the main reasons so many of us long for a full frame capable digital camera body - so that the full value of the lens can be utilized.

Stanley - With all due respect, If you're claiming that a 600mm lens @ say f4 (wide open) and a 24mm lens @ f4 - both on tripods and side by side - focused @ the same subject - that they'll have the same depth of field, then I think you need to re-read whatever Andreas Feininger theory you're citing, because I think you've misunderstood it.

Patrick - a 600mm lens has considerably LESS depth of field than a 24mm lens - at any f stop.

This is yet another example of the problem with auto-everything cameras - nobody is handed a manual film body and given the chance to understand the medium.

It would be greatly appreciated if people would understand what they're talking about before making blanket statements as factual.

Kind regards,

M David Leeds
 This post is:  Informative (5) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Wes Hope, Photographer
Maryville | TN | USA | Posted: 9:39 PM on 02.22.05
->> Stanley, I was there. You weren't. I focused on the lamp. So, to quote you, "Sorry, still wrong."

It looks out of focus because to test your theory you have to crop the crap out of the image. It's highly pixelated.

And I agree M. David. This debate is making me crazy too. Either people get it or they don't apparently. I don't think you or I or others can explain it any more clearly.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
Waldorf | MD | US | Posted: 9:40 PM on 02.22.05
->> Patrick...do you want to explain how a 24mm has LESS DOF than a 600mm lens?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Dave Amorde, Photographer
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 9:55 PM on 02.22.05
->> Wow - are we all speaking English here?

Stanley, get your 24mm out of your camera bag. Get your 600mm out as well. Compare the DOF indicators on the focus ring. Report back. Take one image with each lens, and compare the perspective. Report back.

If necessary, rinse and repeat.


Over and out.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Baum, Student/Intern, Photographer
Washington | DC | United States | Posted: 9:58 PM on 02.22.05
->> Wes is right a 600mm and a 24mm cropped will never look the same because of DOF and angle of view, but keep in mind you are doing a comparison with a third of the pixels of the D2x. The 600mm will look better on the D2x, but three times the pixels will help the cropped 24mm.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]

|| Sponsor Special Deals

Redrock Mircro DSLR Cinema Bundle
Available from: Samy's Camera | Price: $2443.95
Notes: SAMY'S CARRIES THE FULL LINE OF REDROCK MICRO PRODUCTS!! The Redrock DSLR Cinema Bundle is a comprehensive package for converting video DSLRs to useful cinema production tools. This bundle is compatible with most video DSLRs including the Nikon D90 and Canon 5D Mark II.
-- More Info --



Return to --> Message Board Main Index
Look at these singles!!! Click Here ::..