Rhys
Sasquatch
Reged: 15/01/2004
Posts: 3376
Loc: York (home of the speedbump)
|
|
Just pondering about upgrading to a D2x at some point. Though reading all the reviews etc. Some folks say they'd rather stick with the D1x as it has less noise. The only downside is poor batteries.
Any views?
Might sell one of my cameras as I never use it anymore - should sell for enough to buy a D2Xs.. Hmmm... What to do...
--------------------
NRIPN (Officially Nuts..)
RGMP.co.uk (My Website.. getting there at last.)
Benchinistas.org.uk The home of Benchism
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15557
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Well, I've never owned or used a D1X, but I've certainly examined a lot of files from them, and I'm far from convinced that it's less noisy than the D2X.
The thing is, it produces 6MP images (or somewhat larger if you use Nikon Capture to re-interpolate the raw files), and the only real reason why the D2X is any noisier is that on a pixel-per-pixel basis its photosites are a good deal smaller than the D1X's. But if you down-size the D2X files to the same reoslution as the D1X I think you'll find that it's certainly no worse and probably a good deal better, simply because of the improvements in technology in the intervening years.
Of course all that is only really relevant if you're using higher ISOs anyway - at low enough sensitivities you can expect the full benefit of a genuine 12MP sensor resolution. Whether that matters enough for your purposes, of course, only you can say.
The batteries for the more modern cameras are certainly terrific, and just go on and on - I typically get 700-1000 NEFs out of a fully charged EN-EL4 in the D2X, and more than twice that in the D2H. And of course they hold their charge a lot better than any NiMH cells, and the remaining charge indication is very reliable. So all in all they're great power sources for a high powered DSLR.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
   
|
Rhys
Sasquatch
Reged: 15/01/2004
Posts: 3376
Loc: York (home of the speedbump)
|
|
Thanks Huw, nice and concise - that's what I like. 
I may upgrade sometime then.
Batteries on my D1x only last around 200 shots for the Battery Barn one (2400 mAh), not used the Uniross one (2000mAh) till it's dead yet but it should be around the same. All on NEF's with little or no preview - have that turned off to preserve battery. When it's cold the battery soon goes down. Think I got about 60 odd shots from one once before it died, not good.
I was concerned that noise would be worse at higher ISO's due to the photosite thing. I have a stack of old editions of AP so have read the write ups on it. Might have enough for a D2Xs when I decide to upgrade - supposed to be better, though would a firmware upgrade on the D2x make it the same?
--------------------
NRIPN (Officially Nuts..)
RGMP.co.uk (My Website.. getting there at last.)
Benchinistas.org.uk The home of Benchism
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15557
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
Might have enough for a D2Xs when I decide to upgrade - supposed to be better, though would a firmware upgrade on the D2x make it the same?
I couldn't say for sure. Received wisdom has it that the Xs is noticeably better for noise than the plain X, and generally that would indicate some hardware change, if it's a genuinely worthwhile reduction. Noise can always be processed down to any level you want in software, but only at the expense of image detail, so if that's all Nikon had done I don't think users would have been jumping up and down touting the improvement.
What I can say is that after the various firmware upgrades on my D2X I noticed no obvious changes in the images - only camera features. But FWIW, if I had the spare cash for a second D2X body I wouldn't worry too much about whether it was an X or an Xs.
See this thread from a few months ago for some more discussion of D2X noise and a couple of 100% crops, ISO400 and ISO1600. I had an ISO3200 sample on the web at some point, but I can't see it now - must have deleted it. If I can find it I'll put it up again.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15557
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
I had an ISO3200 sample on the web at some point, but I can't see it now - must have deleted it. If I can find it I'll put it up again.
Found it - first place I looked. :-) In fact I found a whole set of shots with 100% crops I'd obviously prepared to illustrate the noise but had forgotten about. So, when I've got a few minutes (lunchtime, probably) I'll post them up and you can make your own mind up as to whether the noise is within acceptable limits or not. For me it's okay, but granted it will look dreadful to someone who is perhaps used to a D3, 5D, or whatever. :-)
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
Benchista
Wich Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 38335
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Found it - first place I looked. :-)
And presumably also the last place you looked? 
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15557
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Found it - first place I looked. :-)
And presumably also the last place you looked?
<sarcasm> Well, duh, it's a pity you weren't here to advise me earlier - I could have saved so much time! </sarcasm>
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15557
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Okay, well here's my little D2X noise gallery - throw up your hands in horror or wonder what all the fuss is about, according to taste. :-) All 100% crops are unsharpened. Apart from the ISO400 shot, all were under tungsten lighting, which involves a substantial boost to the blue channel to correct the white balance, and so tends to be a worst case scenario for noise. The ISO400 shot was mixed tungsten/daylight.
ISO400:
ISO800:
ISO1600:
ISO3200:
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
Rhys
Sasquatch
Reged: 15/01/2004
Posts: 3376
Loc: York (home of the speedbump)
|
|
Cheers guys, that looks pretty good to me.
Will have to do a shot at ISO 400 and 800 with HI-2 (ISO 3200) and post for comparison. What changes did you make to the images to post them?
e.g. I generally change the image size to 100 dpi and longest side to 600 pix then save to web at 100k (PS7) - uploaded to flickr and posted.
--------------------
NRIPN (Officially Nuts..)
RGMP.co.uk (My Website.. getting there at last.)
Benchinistas.org.uk The home of Benchism
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15557
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
What changes did you make to the images to post them?
None, just crop and save as JPEG - 100% crop means no resizing.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
lightspeed
member
Reged: 17/09/2006
Posts: 117
|
|
Why would you want to upgrade to a D2X anyway? why not just buy a D300?
Not being facetious, just curious!
|
Done&rundleCams
Senior Member
Reged: 20/12/2001
Posts: 16870
Loc: Vancouver, BC
|
|
Hi Rhys,
Firstly, I would ask what the price difference is between a used D2X and a new D300?
Secondly, I would ask "do you feel the need or just the want?"
Jack
--------------------
Life is a Photo-op
MY BLOG: www.nakedmanonawire.blogspot.com
|
Rhys
Sasquatch
Reged: 15/01/2004
Posts: 3376
Loc: York (home of the speedbump)
|
|
Bah, thanks jack.. Been looking at D300's now... 
Thing is, I love my D1x but it has niggles being an older model. Batteries being the main concern. Also it's firewire not USB and other picky little things like that.
I've contemplated selling my 'blad kit for some months now as I never use it and it seams a shame for it to be sat festering when someone could be using it. I doubt I'll ever use it again. I've had it for several years and only shot 1/2 a dozen (if that) rolls through it. So when I eventually sell it I'll be looking at a replacement for my D1x (which I'll probably sell as well).
Now the reason I've thought about the D2x is because it's a natural step along from the D1x. I've also lusted after one in the same way as I have the D3 but that aint gonna happen anytime soon.
I've trawled through several reviews of the D300 vs D2x and it does look good but it would have to have a grip attached as I use the vertical grip on my camera quite a lot. Plus I have big hands and the larger camera suits me perfectly. There are occasions where it's peeing it down and I don't want to feel like I have to cosset it. I've just wiped my D1x down with a cloth and stuffed it back in my bag. High ISO doesn't really bother me either but I suppose it can be an advantage in some situations.
I'm in no rush at the minute (as I say I'll have to sell the 'blad first) I'm just mulling over the possibilities.
--------------------
NRIPN (Officially Nuts..)
RGMP.co.uk (My Website.. getting there at last.)
Benchinistas.org.uk The home of Benchism
|
Rhys
Sasquatch
Reged: 15/01/2004
Posts: 3376
Loc: York (home of the speedbump)
|
|
Just for comparison purposes I've taken a couple of quick snaps of an SD card then cropped an area 300% of the original image both at 400 ISO and 3200 ISO.
No alterations were made, the colour cast is due to the lampshade/walls etc. being yellowish. 18-70 DX at 48mm f4.5. I've not resized them, this is what they came out at.
ISO 400..
ISO 3200 (800 at HI-2)
--------------------
NRIPN (Officially Nuts..)
RGMP.co.uk (My Website.. getting there at last.)
Benchinistas.org.uk The home of Benchism
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15557
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
cropped an area 300% of the original image both at 400 ISO and 3200 ISO.
... I've not resized them
What do you mean by that? If you've not re-sized the image it would be 100% - not 300%.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 21375
Loc: London'ish
|
|
I could be nasty and point you to a thread with some photos taken on a D3 at different ISOs...
But I wouldn't do that!
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
Rhys
Sasquatch
Reged: 15/01/2004
Posts: 3376
Loc: York (home of the speedbump)
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
cropped an area 300% of the original image both at 400 ISO and 3200 ISO.
... I've not resized them
What do you mean by that? If you've not re-sized the image it would be 100% - not 300%.
When you zoom in on a pic in photoshop it says in the left hand bottom corner what % you've zoomed in. I zoomed in 300% then cropped to that, then saved for web at the 100k max file size (to post on here). The size of the pics I posted is the size that came from cropping.. I know what I mean anyway... 
Fen, thanks - I've seen them already but I'm not selling my daughter as well to pay for one.. 
I doubt I'd get a new camera anyway as the depreciation is too much to justify it. I'll get a used camera from a reputable shop when the time comes..
I might just forget it completely and use the money to help pay bills etc. if a recession comes in (work is pretty non existent as it is at the moment) sad as it sounds.. 
--------------------
NRIPN (Officially Nuts..)
RGMP.co.uk (My Website.. getting there at last.)
Benchinistas.org.uk The home of Benchism
|
Fen
BAD WOLF
Reged: 12/03/2002
Posts: 21375
Loc: London'ish
|
|
Quote:
Fen, thanks - I've seen them already but I'm not selling my daughter as well to pay for one..
Do you have any camels?
--------------------
Fen .......... My Galleries - My Blog - My Flickr
|
huwevans
Old Hand
Reged: 05/08/2000
Posts: 15557
Loc: Dorset, UK
|
|
Quote:
When you zoom in on a pic in photoshop it says in the left hand bottom corner what % you've zoomed in. I zoomed in 300%...
Okay - that's just the magnification you were viewing it at on your screen at the time then - not actually a processing step at all, hence my confusion.
--------------------
Huw Evans.
|
Done&rundleCams
Senior Member
Reged: 20/12/2001
Posts: 16870
Loc: Vancouver, BC
|
|
Quote:
Bah, thanks jack.. Been looking at D300's now...
Thing is, I love my D1x but it has niggles being an older model. Batteries being the main concern. Also it's firewire not USB and other picky little things like that.
I've contemplated selling my 'blad kit for some months now as I never use it and it seams a shame for it to be sat festering when someone could be using it. I doubt I'll ever use it again. I've had it for several years and only shot 1/2 a dozen (if that) rolls through it. So when I eventually sell it I'll be looking at a replacement for my D1x (which I'll probably sell as well).
Now the reason I've thought about the D2x is because it's a natural step along from the D1x. I've also lusted after one in the same way as I have the D3 but that aint gonna happen anytime soon.
I've trawled through several reviews of the D300 vs D2x and it does look good but it would have to have a grip attached as I use the vertical grip on my camera quite a lot. Plus I have big hands and the larger camera suits me perfectly. There are occasions where it's peeing it down and I don't want to feel like I have to cosset it. I've just wiped my D1x down with a cloth and stuffed it back in my bag. High ISO doesn't really bother me either but I suppose it can be an advantage in some situations.
I'm in no rush at the minute (as I say I'll have to sell the 'blad first) I'm just mulling over the possibilities.
Hi Rhys,
Of course, there is always the D700 vs the D3:
Quote:
The difference (in over here $) would be:
D3 - $5,000 plus 12% taxes = $5,600
D700 - $ 3200
MB10 - $ 280
ENEL4 - $ 160
MH22 - $ 220
BL-3 -- $ 40
****************
SubTotal= $ 3,900
+ 12% taxes
DA TOTAL = $4,360
And, of course, the "over here $" are CDN $
cheers,
Jack
--------------------
Life is a Photo-op
MY BLOG: www.nakedmanonawire.blogspot.com
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
