A Tricky Question!

I would submit that the need for resolution depends on the user, and how firm of a grasp they have on what they really need.

Alex shoots with a D2X and uses every bit of the pixels available. He probabally would snap up a body with twice the res.

I, on the other hand, wouldn't take a D2X if you gave it to me. <considers> OK, I'd take it, but only to sell it on eBay so I could replace a D2H with a D2Hs....

If you don't need it, or can't project a need for it, I'm with John. No need to be on the treadmill.

All the best, James

"do you think we might see a French/German Cup Final after all?"

 

I've got money (well, worthless US greenbacks anyway) that says Germany doesn't solve Argentina

 

Personally I'm hoping for a skilled, attacking, aggressive final: Brazil vs. Argentina. Of course "attacking, aggressive" assumes Brazil stops playing European style (no insult intended)

I agree that you should get the tool that serves your purposes, but I don't think we are in position to evaluate what uses somebody can get from their equipment. And I also agree that the D100 being "adequate" or even "great" doesn't preclude the D2x (or any other camera for that matter) of being "better".

Now, completely off-topic, but a Brazil vs. Argentina final would give me a heart attack even before I started watching it (I am Brazilian). There is only one thing worse than losing to Argentina, and that's losing to France again...

Luiz

Sorry for the slow reply. I have been away for a couple of weeks in the Red Sea.

To kick off my answer, I include a quote from the Review of the D100 I did in UWP Magazine in February 2003.

The six million pixel, sorry, dollar question remains: does the D100 produce large enough files to be a replacement for film? Has the future arrived? Well the answer to this question depends on what you want to use your images for. For on screen viewing, projection and home printing – yes. For large reproduction in books and fine-art A3 prints – not quite.  For magazine publishing - mostly.

The D100 is a fantastic camera for underwater photography and can simply do things that film cannot. But the D100 is not a replacement for 35mm because the final image is still no match for a slide. It is best considered on its strengths not its weaknesses. At this stage the D100 is not a replacement for film, it should be thought of as an alternative or better still companion. A camera which has a completely different set of skills. The future hasn’t arrived with the D100, but it is firmly in sight.

Which I think is actually not totally gushing. But then I am not all that partial to plasticy sliced white either.

Now actually I don't agree with all that I wrote then. The repro-quality of my images from the D100 improved greatly as the RAW converters improved. Plus the software for up-rezzing images. Indeed one of my D100 images was printed as a DPS in John's mag in April (although I must admit that it does struggle a little - let down more by the 12-24 than the sensor).

Alex

Anyway to get back to JB's original question. The upgrade to the D2X was driven by two factors - the first was better AF for UW low light wildlife photography (I shoot lots of fish behaviour and this is generally in very low light at dusk). The more important reason was feeling that I was offering clients the best UW image quality I could - or at least as good as anyone else. This was less important for editorial work, but I felt was very important for the increasing amount of advertising stuff I was doing (at the time I bought the D2X I was just building relationships with agencies in NY and London - which are now going well).

I always felt that the D100 was slightly inferior to 35mm film, and certainly inferior to the top of the range Canon 1D2 Mk2. When images are selling for good money it is nice to know that your output image quality is as good as any they will get.

I am sure that you agree, John. When you were working as an advertising pro you needed 2 1/4 rather than 35mm to be taken seriously. For my market read D2X vs D100.

Anyway, all that said, I think that the D200 is probably a better UW camera than the D2X for nearly everyone.

I am very happy with my D2X, which has now done 28,000 UW images. And a few have come out OK. It may not have won me as many competitions as my D100 shots, but it has enabled me to buy a new car (well new to me, I am not doing that well)!

Alex

p.s. And finally, would I upgrade again? Yes!

28000 shots?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Hey Zeus!

Yeah. Initially I was pretty shocked by that. But although I don't dive as regularly as some, when I am in the field I do dive very intensively. I do just under 200 dives per year, and I have had the D2X for nearly 1.5 years now. So it works out at about 100 shots per dive. Which actually seems pretty reasonable, considering several times last week I filled my 4GB card on single dives (200 shots). But then the Red Sea is pretty amazing at this time of year.

Alex

So it looks like we were actually in agreement back in 2003 after all!

i can see the smirk on JB's face from Yap....... haha

John, can you send me a D200?

What? In your Christmas stocking?

One point which hasn't been brought up yet regarding more pixels is the ability to crop. Sports photographers do it all the time, and with more pixels you can crop more and still retain quality.

I shot the D100 for three years and equate 6 megapixels with 35mm film. I've had 2 page spreads, a cover cropped from horizontal, and sharp 24x36 prints from D100 images. Sharper than anything I've had printed from 35mm.

Now I'm shooting a D200 underwater, and a D2X topside. The main reasons are better autofocus and higher resolution. I equate these with 2 1/4. A head and shoulders shot shows every thread in a shirt and every hair on a person's head.

Excerpt from the original article about the D100 and Sea & Sea housing:

"Also, magazine art editors without exception want the option to use only a small part of the frame. They rarely want to use a picture the way the photographer cropped it. They have their own ideas. So definition is very important."

I have choosen the S2 versus the D100 in 2003 and have also upgraded for the D2x in 2005 for the same reasons as was posted already (way better autofocus in low light especially compared to the S2, file quality and way better battery management, etc etc). I do not regret at all. Since I needed also a topside camera (leaving the D2X in the housing all the time during a dive trip) I wanted originally a D200. But I choose another D2X for topside and also for a full backup in the housing. Not very cost efficient but hell of a convenient setup for topside and backup.

Ah, you Swiss! Always playing the 0-0-10 formation! (NB. people in the USA: That is a World Cup joke)