2 new reviews of the DX2

Phil Askey in dpreview

and from steves-digicam

Even Phil Askey admit that Nikon have good camera

Edit: Now I see that James add the same note in the front page, that what happen when you jump directly to the forums...

As an owner, I agree with most of what they say.

Their main criticism is higher noise/less clean images than the top Canons at ISO 400 and above. This is not a criticism that concerns me, since the 8000 pix I have taken with this camera UW have all been at ISO 100 - where everyone agrees the camera is awesome!

I would also add on the noise front that Nikon argue that they would rather give the user the power to set the noise reduction themself - and this can be done easily and effectively in Nikon Capture. I'd counter that with two points. First you have to buy Nikon Capture (after you have given Mr Nikon $5000 for the camera) and second I'd rather have my high ISO images looking as good as possible straight from the camera.

Alex

Remember that "as good as possible" is relative. Managing noise is irreversible and reduces detail. I think it makes sense that noise reduction takes place in PP. Besides, as THom Hogan describes it - the software in the camera is finalized about 2yrs before the camera hits the street. It is inherently obsolete - so sharpen and reduce noise in PP with the best current software available.

I like the fact that Nikon allows you to turn off HI ISO NR!

I'm also amazed at how obsessed we have become with noise! This camera takes clean images - almost too sterile for my taste. I suspect I'll be adding grain to my ISO 400 shots not cleaning it up.

I love how quiet Wetpixel has been on the camera comparison front - and I attribute this to the D2x more than any other camera. I think that Canon sold tons of entry level cameras because of the superiority of their flagship. Now that Nikon has an equivalent flagship we can all go back to taking pics with our cameras!!!

I love how quiet Wetpixel has been on the camera comparison front - and I attribute this to the D2x more than any other camera.  I think that Canon sold tons of entry level cameras because of the superiority of their flagship.  Now that Nikon has an equivalent flagship we can all go back to taking pics with our cameras!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I can imagine you grinning as you type this Kasey!

I think it probably has more to do with the fact that the cameras are all very good these days. Some are slightly better than others - but all are capable of very publishable results.

I agree with the other points you make.

Alex

I think the review is very fair as well. For underwater photography, I agree that it does not matter much as I would not be using anything but ISO100 as well. However I have to say that at ISO800 for land use, it is not very flattering. Since I am out of budget for expensive fast telephoto lens, I am stuck with using the D2X at ISO 400-800 in 400-500mm range and it is not always pretty!

Hopefully I will get a chance to use the camear underwater soon, last weekend the weather was not very cooperating, hopefully it will be better in a couple of weeks.

Quick poll: What did everyone use back in the FILM days?

I rarely used ISO 400, 95% of my photos are ISO 50-100 (Velvia and Provia). I do think that most digitals already perform better than film at ISO 800 and above, unless you think that grain is different and better than noise.

Quick poll: What did everyone use back in the FILM days?

 

I rarely used ISO 400, 95% of my photos are ISO 50-100 (Velvia and Provia). I do think that most digitals already perform better than film at ISO 800 and above, unless you think that grain is different and better than noise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dunno, last time I shot film, I was about 18. In the past 2-3 years, I shot mostly only underwater stuff as I was too lazy when on land. Now I start to shoot more land photography just because I dont have as much time to dive as I used to and feel that I better get more use out of my D2X.

Me and my Hasselblad were on a film shoot yesterday. The photographer did 15-20 rolls. Damn it was tiring changing and preping the camera that many times. Good riddance I say (today only).

This conversation is getting very off topic now.

Alex

What did everyone use back in the FILM days?

Well, a variety of film, but mostly Velvia and Provia slide. Kodak Supra for print film.

Once in while 400 for land shooting and 800 for special occassions. And yes, the 800 was grainy.

While I'm not all that concerned about high ISO performance, one issue remains; I much prefer film grain over digital noise. Maybe grain has been programmed in and is therefore less objectionable than digital noise.

What matters most in a camera depends on what and how you shoot. High ISO isn't very important to me.

What matters most in a camera depends on what and how you shoot.  High ISO isn't very important to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's exactly my point! So, if excellent high ISO performance is a must, the better option is a Canon 20D, which is even better than the 1ds at high ISO (and 1/5 of the price). Heck, a Canon 20D and many Canon lenses (if switching from point and shoot or a Nikon system) are much cheaper than the body of the D2x or 1ds.

Quick poll: What did everyone use back in the FILM days? ...<snip>

About a 50-50 split between 100 and 400...and half of the 400 was Tri-X...but I'm probabally the exception here...

All the best, James