Just released Nikon D2X

[innocent]

Happy New Year
Where is everyone? sure earning a living otherwise still on picnic.
Finally release date for the d2x is out 25 Feb 2005 priced under 5000USD. How many of us are going for the rush? If this camera is what I've read about it then we would have been rewarded for our patience with Nikon. I still have my WT1A that was left over from the defunct d2h, I hope it will come in handy when or if I subscribe to the d2x.

Some help needed: Please I need advice about the optimum interpolation of digital images using GFractal or PS. Thanks in advance

 

[lnbolch]

> Posted by Innocent (Innocent) on Monday, January 17, 2005 - 3:33 pm:

> Finally release date for the d2x is out 25 Feb 2005 priced under

> 5000USD. How many of us are going for the rush? If this camera is what

> I've read about it then we would have been rewarded for our patience

> with Nikon.

Not I. If you read the material carefully, you will see that it like the D2H, the D2X is a camera aimed at photojournalists and sports photographers. It has leapfrogged over the Canon 1D MkII, but is not in any way taking aim at the Canon 1Ds. The key difference between the two cameras is that the D2X is a 12MP camera with a Sony sensor and the D2H is only 4MP with a Nikon developed sensor. Other than the sensors, they are extremely similar cameras.

Again, if you go for the D2X, you will be paying a premium for features you do not need and acquiring a camera unsuited to the kind of photography you are attempting. Of course, you will probably blame Nikon and the camera as usual.

Dare I recommend you take a very close look at the Fujifilm S3? It uses a Nikon chassis and Nikon lenses, but it much more fine tuned to studio and landscape work rather than news and sports. It also costs about half what the D2X costs. People doing studio and nature were quite effusive in their praise of the S2, and the S3 seems to carry on the tradition with quite a number of significant new features and upgrades.

Am I going to buy one? No, because neither the D2X or S3 meets my needs and my needs are much different from yours.

larry! http://www.larry-bolch.com/ ICQ 76620504

 

[innocent]

Hello Larry, I have been reading some reviews about the S3 and I am impressed with the s&le images. However with an fps slower than the D70 and the poor battery life, I wonder if D70 will be a better option. But as you have advised, I will now be considering the S3 more seriously. How's your new 8800 performing btw? Regards Innocent

 

[gjames52]

If this camera is what

> I've read about it then we would have been rewarded for our patience

> with Nikon.


Is the world in some self-perceived hurry, wireless transmission, 5 or 8 frames per second, this meg or that, for what next week’s magazine or tomorrows newspaper? TV killed the likes of Life magazine and others, and the impact of great sports photography as TV showed the event over and over again. So, if you can’t beat them, then join them and use digital video 30 frames per second and with single frame selection for printing. Or you could wait for the D2Y

 

[lnbolch]

> Posted by Innocent (Innocent) on Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 12:36 > However with an fps slower than the D70 and the poor battery life, > I wonder if D70 will be a better option.

Frames per second should not be a problem for any sort of contemplative photography, such as you showed me, and you can carry a pocket full of batteries. In this day and age, having sufficient batter power for the shoot is simply a given.

The D70 certainly is a very capable performer for an entry-level camera.

> How's your new 8800 performing btw?

Actually no interest in the CP8800, but still planning to get the CP8400. We have just endured an unbroken stretch of over a month of temperatures in the minus double digits, so I have been neither motivated toward shooting or shopping. I have more than enough winterscapes to last a lifetime.

Staying warm indoors and having a great time arranging and playing music for my creative kicks. Eventually, the cold spell will break and I will go shopping.

larry! http://www.larry-bolch.com/ ICQ 76620504

 

[innocent]

Thanks Larry. The FinePix S3Pro it is. I'll move on sometime in the future to the full frame canon 1Ds MkII or whatever it will be at the time. If my business meeting this noon is successful then I'll go for the Canon immediately. I fully understand that at my stage of photography, any point and shoot camera with manual override will do, but I am used to working with the best tool. I hate compromises, particularly if I can do without one. More so, it has been said elsewhere, that no matter how much skill you have, that a job suited for a 4 x 5 can't be shot with a disposable camera (I don't have such job yet anyway). Having said that, let me tell a story, it is about my trip to Ascot Race course, I just bought my F5 and on it was my 20-200VR + Nikon polarizer (to make it look professional ( I'd just been granted a day press pass (incredible). There I was firing out my F5 at 8fps, shooting at any horse that crossed my path. So a gentleman came to me, undoubtedly a seasoned photographer (elderly), he knew all the horses and their riders by name and with him was a couple of assistants whom he directed to shoot at specified locations. When this guy noticed me, he cam over and interestingly inquired how I was enjoying my toy, which at the time I felt Yeh, I'm great, but on reflection, I just realised that what he meant was " oh dear, hear goes another newbie". This photographer had on him a cranky F4 with a lens that has so many horse-bites from the look of it. I watched him shoot the race with such confidence which made me wonder whether FPS can improve photography? When I developed my images, I barely had any useable shot even to my standard of judgement. So I agree, equipment doesn't make a better operator, but does it help?

 

[lnbolch]

> Posted by Innocent (Innocent) on Thursday, January 20, > 2005 - 10:42 am: > ...I watched him > shoot the race with such confidence which made me > wonder whether FPS can improve photography? > When I developed my images, I barely had any > useable shot even to my standard of judgement. > So I agree, equipment doesn't make a better operator, > but does it help?

Not always. It can extend the capability of the experienced and either be of little advantage or dreadfully mess up the attempts of the inexperienced.

I covered auto-racing of ever sort for more than a dozen years. Even with the drama of a NASCAR race on a superspeedway with twenty-car crashes, I used the motor drive on single-shot and framed and timed every exposure I took. So why use a motor? For two reasons, it eliminated the lag of manually advancing the film and I did not have to move the camera away from my face. None the less, I shot with both eyes open. As I was knocking off one shot, I was seeking the next.

My current camera is capable of three frames per second, and in the tens of thousands of exposures it has made, I only used it once. This was at a high-powered rocket launch. It allowed me to get up to three shots of the birds igniting and flying.

Other than for scientific instrumentation purposes, I see little need for faster shooting than that. I do shoot sequences at 1.5 frames per second from time to time, mostly because the intervals are adequately precise to be able to do the surreal time-encapsuled collages at http://www.larry-bolch.com/sequences.htm

I expect that bragging eight frames a second is primarily Canon or Nikon marketing to newspaper purchasing agents. It undoubtedly adds a great deal to the cost of manufacturing the cameras, and thus profit. Compared to the price of a typetting device or printing press, it is a trivial item to the purchasing agent.

As I said earlier, for contemplative photography, it is a feature without meaning. It in no way even slightly improves the utility of the camera. Even for a full time professional sports photographer with any skill whatever, it is largely overkill.

larry! http://www.larry-bolch.com/ ICQ 76620504

 

[tom_rains]

> For what it's worth: I just got back from Expo 2005, Imaging USA in Louisiana. Saw both the D2X and the S3. Made up my mind to get the S3, especially after talking to dozens of both Nikon and S2 users. All the bells and whistles don't amount to a hill of beans if you can't get the fleshtones correct. This is where the S3 shines. By the way, the booth that was the most crowded was the Kodak and the least crowded was Olympus. >

 

[innocent]

talking about skin tones, the d70 s&les I downloaded and compared subjectively with the s3 s&les puts the d70 as a good contestant. The s3 images published by Fuji (pls see: http://home.fujifilm.com/products/digital/lineup/s3pro/s&le.html) is akin to the d2h's over-saturated images. Most of the s&les have colour fringin g on the fabrics/fur - viewed at 100%. The lack of good Fuji software to deal with moiré is also not helpful unlike the Nikon capture. The slow flash syn c makes it too clumsy to work with my 28-70 f/2.8 handheld, compared to the d70.

Regarding the DR, I think Fuji have over-dramatised it. I am not impressed about the shadow details on one of the model's face. If you compare the Fuj i s&les with canon 20d's which cost significantly less, I have my doubt whether there is any perceivable difference. A little adjustment in Nikon capture will probably put the d70 at par in this regard.

The s3's advantage over the d70 from my point of view is the file size, period, which makes it very appealing for stock library work. In other areas, I am becoming a bit hesitant on the s3.

In many ways the d2x is an over-kill and if it can't deliver accurate colours with less noise than the d2h then, Nikon would have lost out to Canon. However too early yet to bury the d2x.

For me, the Kodak is not an option to contemplate, too many odds against it to bother anyone with. Certainly, like the s3, it has got its strong points too. I am becoming much inclined to go for the d70, and to use it as a 'Polaroid' back to test my exposure in a multiple strobe setup, then shoot with my F5 and also to use it for friends and family photos. If I win the lottery, the Fuji medium format with adjustable frames and Canon 1ds MkII seems to be the way forward. I will however wait to see some s&le images of the d2x reviewed by profs to decide on my next purchase.

 

[charlie]

Innocent.... I have sat here and read your comments for months. You are all talk and no action. You judge by s&les other have taken and not accepted that every camera can be set to match your needs(mosttly but not always all needs). You will probably spend the next 3 years still talking about it and miss out on the opportunity of actually owning and using. If you are a professional, and you need it as a tool, I sure don't know how you are earning an income, since you havent chosen any of the choices yet.

In addition, you seem to be leanning towards the Canon... so do me a favor and move on to the Canon discussion board, and save me your opinions which don't count unless you actually own the product and can speak from experience. This is a Nikon section.

Or.... just buy one of the Nikons and get on with your life.

Paul
Good Luck - No malice intended, just pushing you off the cliff of decisions.