Glenn01
Offline
Image Upload: Off
|
Man Jack, you not only take outstanding photographs, you can also write (I was going to say, "right real goood", but that was too obvious, even for me  ).
Your prose brought me right back to when I first heard about the D2X. As you know, I was coming off a long sabbatical from photography and got back in with the D2H. After a lot of research, humming and hawing, I finally took the plunge and bought myself the D2H in early May of 04. I had last owned a pair of FM2 bodies and some really nice lenses (not unlike the system I have today), and a few times had droooled over the F2A and then the incredibly advanced F3 when it first came out. However, my specialty was wilderness photography (and would dearly love to get back to that again!!!) and something with that much electronics in the boonies and the conditions there just didn't seem like a viable option. Thus, when I decided to go digital (and after recovering (somewhat) from sticker shock  !!), my first and immediate concern was "all this electronics - how in the world is this going to stand up to rain, snow, sleet, hail," etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum??!! I had thought long and hard about the D70, but the one overriding factor in going for the H instead was getting the most robust body possible (camera body - sheesh - I heard that you know   ). That isn't to say the D70 won't take a pounding. If there's one thing Nikon is known for, it's the ability to take a beating. However, the D2H was listed as a consumate PJ camera, and despite the 4 MP sensor being smaller than the D70, I felt I needed something that would stand up to the elements. Even so, I was concerned. Well, my fears were mostly for nothing, as a year and a bit later and after shooting in some pretty ugly conditions, the D2H has very definitely withstood the "acid" test and other than the well-known light meter problem it's not had a single moment's glitch.
I used the D2H for landscape work. This was something I was told wasn't really feasible due to the "noise" and only having a 4 MP sensor. Maybe I wasn't supposed to be able to do it, but I did, and I've been extremely happy with the images. But, I then started to hear rumblings about a new high-end camera, to be known as the D2X, and how it was to have something over 10 MP. It was also supposed to look almost identical to the D2H, and I started to get really interested. I too started hearing "Christmas" for a release date, but knew I couldn't really afford it at that time as the D2H was still being paid off (along with the lenses - I started from scratch and it's been financially extremely painful!!). However, I got wind of the D2X a bit later than most it seems, so very quickly the "Christmas" was pushed back to late February. The more I read on the specs, the more I liked what I was hearing, and it wasn't long before I realized this was a camera I was going to need for getting back into the pro market (more on the "need" bit in a sec). Come the end of January I started getting really excited, but I was also still on DPreview and I started reading about all the major flaws that was going to come with this camera from the extraordinary number of "experts" there (not to mention that they must all have been psychic, because at that time not one D2X had been released to anyone, anywhere). I actually began to wonder about this camera, and decided on 2 things - 1) get out of DPreview, and 2) make sure I read some actual reviews by people who have tried the camera first. For me, for obvious reasons (lenses) it wasn't a Canon vs. Nikon issue (but I did think about the 1DS MK II and decided that 10 Grand for a body was beyond my needs/reach). When Bjorn came out with his review, which was glowing to say the least, I pretty much decided that this camera was going to do what I needed it to do. Then I read where John Shaw, one of my all-time favourites (due to his style, quality and that we like to shoot similar types of subject matter) said he was going all digital after using the D2X, that was pretty much it for me. On March 23 of this year I took delivery of my "X" and while there have been some growing pains on my part in dealing with the RAW files, I have to say that this is indeed the finest piece of equipment I've ever owned as well. Like you Jack, every time I take it out of the bag and use it, I feel like something really special has just happened. No wait, let me rephrase that. Every time I'm finished taking an image with that camera, I feel like something special has happened. What's the difference? Well, when I take the camera out and start setting it up, I'm thinking solely about the subject, lighting, etc. With the lens on the camera, the assembly on the tripod, I'm busy composing, adjusting the camera settings, double checking the odd frame with the spot meter that I have programmed on the Function button, maybe changing the DoF a bit, maybe upping or reducing the shutter speed for a certain effect, and so on with all the myriad of little details that make the shot "just right". You see, I'm doing all this without thinking about the camera, without any fumbling, and without missing a beat. I'm totally immersed in the image before me and getting it caught the way I'm seeing it. "So what??" you say? Well, the whole point is, that camera is so ergonomically perfect for me that I don't have to think about it as I'm setting up the image. I can "just do" and everything is right where it should be and is so easy to set, that I don't have to think about the camera. It's simply an extension of me. Now THAT is the way photography should be!!
OK, if Jack thought he was going on a bit long, then I'm writing the uncondensed version that is probably rivalling War and Peace by now. Sorry about that. The bottom line is, everyone needs to have a camera that fits their needs. I mentioned about "needing" this camera. To be a professional, no, you don't need a D2X. I used the FM2's which were purely manual, thus not a fully "pro" camera. But, I sold a lot of images off them! Being "pro" is about the images you take, not what images the camera takes. Unless you constantly use full auto, the camera is still your slave (and even on full auto, it won't compose for you!). Of course, on full auto, you take what the camera gives you, which will likely not be what you wanted to get out of the scene. FWIW, I've shot exactly 5 frames on full auto in the past 5 months. The rest have been on full manual. Like Jack, this camera hasn't made me a better photographer, but being digital and not film, it HAS made the final output better. Much better!! That is as much a product of the ergonomics as it is the technology inside, and how I feel when I'm working this camera. Someone else will have the same feeling about the D70 or the 1DS MK II or the 20D or whatever. But no one can deny (well, some will, but they're generally not owners of this camera and have never shot one, so I tend to not listen too hard to those comments) just how fabulous the final output of this camera truly is. I shot Kodachrome 25 and Fuji 50 when I was in film, and the output from that film is no better (and in many ways, inferior) to the D2X. And, I've shot this camera in the rain, snow (heavy!!), sleet and hail. You can't ask for much more than that. If this, and the D2H are any indication, the D200 will be every bit the camera those hoping to own it will be, and probably then some. I'll look forward to that camera as well, with great anticipation and high hopes.
Glenn
"Summer Walkway"
Nikon D2X, 80-400 at 600 effective, f22, 1/10, tripod, MC-20 electronic release (full frame because I found out that Nikon does in fact use the whole sensor to record it's images )
Edited on Aug 23, 2005 at 02:43 AM
|
...