Nikon D2X?
Posted by Scott Laird Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:02:27 GMT
I’m a Canon guy, but one of my Nikon friends forwarded me some specs for Nikon’s latest DSLR, the D2X. Allegedly, these were released by Nikon Denmark:
- 12.4 MP, 5 FPS, 16 shot raw buffer
- reduced-frame 6.8 MP, 8 FPS, 29 shot raw buffer
- Everything else basically similar to the current D2H.
The specs seem kind of weird to me–the buffer size and frame rates are closer to a sports camera (like the D2H) then a studio camera. The buffer sizes, particularly, seem aimed at people shooting lots of frames in a row, which isn’t the market the the DnX series has went after in the past. On the other hand, having a dedicated mode that only uses the center pixels of the image chip sounds like a decent way to please sports shooters–you get higher magnifications, which is fine when you’re using long lenses anyway, higher frame rates, and smaller files, all in one.
I’d wait to see official confirmation of this before I thought about ordering one. Of course, I’m not really in the market for a new Nikon.
Comparing the D2X to Canon’s two top-end cameras in interesting:
- The 1Ds (11 MP, 3 FPS) is slower with slightly lower resolution, but it has a much larger imaging chip which gives it better wide-angle performance and probably lower noise levels. Also, the 1Ds is rumored to be replaced soon.
- The 1D mk II (8 MP, 8 FPS) is in between the two D2X modes. It’s higher resolution then the lower-resolution mode and faster then the high-resolution mode. It also has a larger imaging chip, which gives better wide-angle performance, and a larger buffer.
Most likely, Canon will introduce a 1Ds mk II in a week or two, and Nikon’s new body will be left by the wayside again, just like the D2H was when the 1D mk II came out.
From the Nikon friend :):
I’m waiting to see images out of D2X. Now that we have the real stats for both the 1Ds Mk II and the D2X, I would say that they’re “pretty close” in terms of stats (except price: the Canon is 60% more).
It’s no longer like Nikon D1X vs. Canon 1Ds (which was easy - Canon wins). I think it’s more what system you’re used to. All my Nikonian friends can’t stand Canon’s ergonomics; I’m sure the Canonians probably feel the same about Nikon.
Also, although it seems everyone forgets or doesn’t mention this, there is one nice advantage to the DX format size: you get to use the really nice part of the glass. And you don’t have the non-trivial angle-of-incidence problems that are inherent with electronic sensors (can you say “color fringing”, 1DS fans? Hope they’ve improved the microlenses!).
Of course, from what we know about CMOS properties, it would seem that the 1Ds MkII may have better high ISO performance than the Nikon. But I’m waiting to see some images.
Well I am tired of reading comments nikon vs canon. In my opinion canon is a leopeard, hunts faster, eats faster, digest faster. But still If I think to be more secured I would choose a LION “The NIKON”
For me and my group, it is a matter of preference. You get used to a certain brand and your hand just feels in place, and that’s it, you can be stuck for life with that manufacturer’s line. Ergonomics is always subjective.
I have both brands and I tend to see better results with my Nikons. It is not just the speed, it is the result that matters. It is not the size of megapixels, it is how you photograph.
I know this Canon-Nikon discussion will go on and on and on, but in the end, it is the pictures that matter - the results!
For me and my group, it is a matter of preference. You get used to a certain brand and your hand just feels in place, and that’s it, you can be stuck for life with that manufacturer’s line. Ergonomics is always subjective.
I have both brands and I tend to see better results with my Nikons. It is not just the speed, it is the result that matters. It is not the size of megapixels, it is how you photograph.
I know this Canon-Nikon discussion will go on and on and on, but in the end, it is the pictures that matter - the results!
For me and my group, it is a matter of preference. You get used to a certain brand and your hand just feels in place, and that’s it, you can be stuck for life with that manufacturer’s line. Ergonomics is always subjective.
I have both brands and I tend to see better results with my Nikons. It is not just the speed, it is the result that matters. It is not the size of megapixels, it is how you photograph.
I know this Canon-Nikon discussion will go on and on and on, but in the end, it is the pictures that matter - the results!
For me and my group, it is a matter of preference. You get used to a certain brand and your hand just feels in place, and that’s it, you can be stuck for life with that manufacturer’s line. Ergonomics is always subjective.
I have both brands and I tend to see better results with my Nikons. It is not just the speed, it is the result that matters. It is not the size of megapixels, it is how you photograph.
I know this Canon-Nikon discussion will go on and on and on, but in the end, it is the pictures that matter - the results!
Canon Advantages:
Less Noise Full Frame Camera More Megapixels 2 Card slots
Nikon Advantages
Better @ Long Exposures (Less Noise) Better Flash system/Wireless Flash Control Sharper Images (espescially @ longer focal length)
I was debating this whole jump to Canon because of the extra noise in the D2X; however, the on camera noise reduction as well as the Nikon software will eat up that noise if needed. The image is sharper because the camera uses the best part of the lens (1.5 Magnification) and the system is $3000 less than the canon. I think the 1Ds Mark II is slightly better because of the option of 2 card slots, a waterproof body, and a larger sensor; but not significantly enough better to need to spend the extra loot! For the difference in price you can get a DX 2.8 fisheye (10.5 equal to 16mm) and you’d still have money left to buy a 80-200 2.8 VR. NIKON! NIKON! NIKON! 4 megapixels don’t make you any better, it’s the lens and the lights. Save your money, something betters coming out next year anyway.