D2X Gossip

Herb, as James and Thom have pointed out, the methodology is not the same as the example you give. Although Bjorn does provide one shot with the same lens, from the same position (thus biasing against the Canon), he also provides another shot (of the same scene) from a closer position (thus theoretically biasing against the Nikon).

You want shoot the same scene with the same lens - so that means you need to move when taking the photos w/ one of the cameras. That's what he did.

Cheers

James

Bjorn also shot both cameras in jpg with default settings, then compared images with obviously different contrast and sharpness applied. You think Thom would agree now?

I agree, Herb, Thom is full of it. I think the alternate perspective test is entirely useless since it isn't how anyone would shoot. It artificially favors the Nikon because it, in essence, forces the 1Ds shooter to apply a DX crop before competing. Within the limits of the hardware, the 1Ds shooter would have a different focal length lens (600 + 1.4x) on for the polar bear than the D2x shooter so the point is moot. Why arbitrarily assume that the D2x get the optimal lens and the 1Ds does not?

You want shoot the same scene with the same lens - so that means you need to move when taking the photos w/ one of the cameras.  That's what he did.

 

Cheers

James

Only, no you don't.

Herb, as James and Thom have pointed out, the methodology is not the same as the example you give. Although Bjorn does provide one shot with the same lens, from the same position (thus biasing against the Canon), he also provides another shot (of the same scene) from a closer position (thus theoretically biasing against the Nikon).

He used the wide angle shot with the same field of view to conclude that the there's greater light fall off at the corners of the 1DsII shot. I do not doubt that this is true. The problem is well known. It's a lens problem.

He then goes on to show shots with the two cameras with the same Nikon lens and the same subject distance, and then crops the same feature and concludes that the Nikon has a sharper image. This is analogous to the example I gave. It's awful!

Herb, as James and Thom have pointed out, the methodology is not the same as the example you give. Although Bjorn does provide one shot with the same lens, from the same position (thus biasing against the Canon), he also provides another shot (of the same scene) from a closer position (thus theoretically biasing against the Nikon).

How does shooting the same scene using the same perspective bias against Nikon? It's the only unbiased test. Sure, the Nikon has less resolving power in that test, but that's because it has less resolving power!

As I said before, all the tests were biased because they did not use either camera to the fullest extent. If you're only interested in jpg shooting with default settings then Bjorn's tests are for you but the Canon is known to be quite soft when shot this way. Of course, shooting RAW opens another can of worms and continual arguing over RAW converter usage but that's another issue.

I agree.

Thom also talks about that...:-P Ultimately, you want to compare each camera at its absolute best. But it takes a while to learn how to get the best out of each camera, and out of the different RAW processing software. I'm sure we'll see that soon once more people have had time to work with the D2x.

Overall, I was very pleased with the results that Bjorn posted. It looks like a great camera.

Cheers

James

He used the wide angle shot with the same field of view to conclude that the there's greater light fall off at the corners of the 1DsII shot. I do not doubt that this is true. The problem is well known. It's a lens problem.

Yes, and further he compares the Nikon at 18mm equivalent to the Canon at 17mm. Why not zoom to 18mm since you're claiming the same field of view? How about using the 16-35 at 18mm instead?

You can't compare these two cameras exactly but you don't have to consistently error in favor of one brand. It's a fair criticism of a full frame camera that wide angle light falloff is a problem. How about a 2:1 macro sharpness test at f/22? Don't dare show the Canon in its best light!

Thom also talks about that...:-P

Anyone who realizes that yet endorses the test as fair makes me wonder. I think it's fine to conclude that the D2x's performance is state of the art but you can't conclude that it is convincingly better than the 1Ds2. Unfortunately, Bjorn claims exactly that, 4 wins to 2. He also misleads by stating that his only fair test is biased in favor of Canon when it absolutely is not, then draws the wrong conclusion because of poor methodology. I suppose anyone who disagrees is a measurbator though.

He then goes on to show shots with the two cameras with the same Nikon lens and the same subject distance, and then crops the same feature and concludes that the Nikon has a sharper image. This is analogous to the example I gave.

Tomayto Tomahto Potayto Potahto...

We can all agree that the lens was focused, right? And the lens is identical between shots.

That means that essentially the same image was falling on each imager, differences in the end result thus reflect differences in the way the imagers handle the light that is presented to them.

D2X has more pixels/unit area than 1DMk11, so when cropped to the same FOV, the D2X has more pixels to work with. But the 1DMKII shot could have also had the yeti in the lower left of the frame that the D2X missed. Swings and Roundabouts.

Two photographers shooting with the same focal length set up at the only place you can park to shoot the notorious barn. They make prints showing the same composition from their respective shots. The D2X shooter crops less: benefit D2x.

Two photographers set up to frame the same shot of the notorious barn at the only place you can park, D2X shooter uses a 200mm lens, 1DMk11 shooter uses a 300mm. FOV's are the same when shot, but now we don't know if it is the superior canon chip being hamstrung by the crappy canon glass or vice versa.

Given that you can mount a nikon lens on a canon via adaptor, but not vice versa, I don't see any other way to control lens related variables and be able to assess the two imaging chips reliably. And given that the 1DMK11 is capturing a wider FOV than the Nikon, I'm truly surprised that anyone was surprised at the outcome of this test.

We've known since the moment it was announced that the D2X has the highest pixel density of any of the Canon or Nikon dSLRs. This test reflects that pixel density, and shows that the Nikon lens is able to resolve a lot of line detail. Those big pixels in the 1DMkII can't resolve that detail as well as the D2X, but as you're all about to point out, in the real world the canon shooter would be using a different focal length and spreading that section of the image over a larger area, thus picking up more pixels to do the resolving for them. And we'd be back to those swings and roundabouts again.

As far as I am concerned the only thing to take away from that particular part of the test is that smaller pixels packed densely can resolve more than bigger pixels (which are less noisy, no argument there). This augurs well for both ongoing growth of the Nikon/Sony imagers (as they have room to grow the chip spatially while not needing to shrink the pixels) and the Canon imagers, as it shows that it is technologically feasible to use smaller pixels than in their current state of the art without bringing in egregious noise issues. We all win in the end

Tomayto Tomahto Potayto Potahto...

If they were after the same print with a shot from the same spot, the 1DsII shooter would use a lens that's 1.6x longer and would have better resolution on the print.

The way Bjorn did the test, the D2x would probably look better than a large format film camera.

Looking at it another way. If he had a Sony 828 with him and dialed it to the same real focal length ( not effective 35mm focal length ) and took the same shot with it. The Sony would come out looking better.

Moose Peterson's report is up:

http://www.moosepeterson.com/d2x/index.html

It's going to be an interesting day tomorrow when the NDA's expire (It's tomorrow on the East Coast as I write this).

Cheers

James

He then goes on to show shots with the two cameras with the same Nikon lens and the same subject distance, and then crops the same feature and concludes that the Nikon has a sharper image. This is analogous to the example I gave. It's awful!

Not quite actually...

The final round concerns getting images encompassing equal field of view. This is slightly complicated by the different aspect ratios of these cameras, so I concentrated on getting the equal field along the horizontal axis. In order to eliminate contribution from the lens, I availed myself of the fact that Canon has a shorter register distance than Nikon, making it feasible to put the Canon on a Nikkor lens. When the field of view is equalized, the Canon imager has the advantage of a higher pixel count and the null hypothesis would be that Canon shows the sharper image, all other factors being equal. The results did not corroborate that hypothesis, however.

Just for clarity...or is that acuity

Both cameras use the same lens, the AFS 300 mm f/2.8 Nikkor for these shots The difference, if any, is due to the respective imager. The tripod-mounted setup was moved to give an equal horizontal field of view. Since the Canon imager would cover the encompassed frame with 16.7 MPix vs. the 12.2 of the Nikon, you would a priori assume the Canon image was more detailled. You can examine crops of these images by clicking on them. My conclusion is that the D2X image has the upper edge, despite its fewer pixels. In my point of view, this was probably the most unexpected test result of all. It clearly shows that not all pixels are created equal and that the D2X imager has higher acuity.

Just for clarity...or is that acuity

Clear as mud. Try this test. Take a comsumer camera like a Coolpix 8800, zoom it out to 50mm (real not 35mm effective) and take a shot. Do the same with D2X with the best Nikkor 50mm lens, same subjest same spot. If you look at a crop of the same small subject from each photo. I'll bet the coolpix crop will have more "acuity".

same subjest same spot

But Herb, it's not the same spot :?

Bjorn states that he moved the tripod

to give an equal horizontal field of view

In other words, they are the same "effective focal length"

same subjest same spot

But Herb, it's not the same spot :?

 

Bjorn states that he moved the tripod

to give an equal horizontal field of view

 

In other words, they are the same "effective focal length"

He obviously didn't move it enough. If they were the same "effective focal length" the two pics would have the same field of view.

It is not my intention to fan the flames of a DPreview style argument between the tribes.

That worked well.

What is exciting is it seemed that Nikon had produced a viable challenger to the Canon 1Ds MK2. I've not shot either camera so I dunno which is better.

For Nikon users this is unexpected and great news. For Canon users too. They have been calling for sometime for the 1DS series to have a viable challenger to push forward Canon's R&D (stop them resting on their laurels) and to drive down the price.

Alex

Correction. We are not that bad here. I just looked on the 1D series forum on DPreview. 6 of the first dozen discussions are about the D2X, on a Canon forum. Crazy.

I wish people would care more about photography and less about cameras (that's directed at them, not any of the comments here, BTW).

Anyway, shops open in an hour...

I am sooooo glad I stuck it out with Nikon!!! The fact that there is even a debate on the D2x vs 1Ds mk II means that this is an amazing camera. For my purposes, the Nikorr lens system is much more attractive than Canon(17-35,12-24, macros), but I was lured by body envy. Now that an equivalent body has arrived I'm stoked! To think I considered the mkII and a whole new arsenal of lenses - Nikon has given us new faith in the company and in the DX format!

The arguments over resolution are pointless - the D2x is in the right ball park and now we can go back to taking pictures. Can't wait to see how it handles sunbursts!

Now hopefully Harald already has one of these in his hands...