Judging by the results of this review when compared to Bjorns review either one of them doesn't know what they are doing or someone is lying. I translated a ot of the spanish review and it seems like many things were missed in their comparisons with the Canon 1Ds MrkII. The images shown also look pretty far off when compared to other comparison images elsewhere.
I can tell you positively that the comparison carried out in Caborian.com is by far better than the one produced by Bjorns, with all due respect.
It is a shame that I don't have the time to translate it for you, but if I did, you would understand that apart from the fact that they used zeiss lens against a Nikon for wideangle comparison the rest of the test is technically impecable.
In fact, the only thing that would change would be the distance between the winner 1Ds mark II and the D2x, which is already short but it is there, especially regarding Noise at high ISO and more detail in the shadows.
Page 5 of the review is the most accurate (D2X + Nikkor 200mm F2G vs 1Ds + EF 300mm F2.8) and shot side by side. The comparison with the 1DsMk II on the previous pages was with a 14 mm F2.8D vs Zeiss 21mm for wide angle and 300mm f2.8 D vs (EF300mm F2.8 IS L + 1.4TC )
pscard wrote:
Page 5 of the review is the most accurate (D2X + Nikkor 200mm F2G vs 1Ds + EF 300mm F2.8) and shot side by side. The comparison with the 1DsMk II on the previous pages was with a 14 mm F2.8D vs Zeiss 21mm for wide angle and 300mm f2.8 D vs (EF300mm F2.8 IS L + 1.4TC )
I agree with u about the wideangle and the 300mm. The latter though brought nicer results to Canon even when another lens was added (1.4 TC). It is also true that the 300mm of Nikon was not the last generation one..interesting results.
Google has a transalation tool that can be used to translate the review from Spanish to English (or any other major language). Simply enter the URL of the Spanish review and select Spanish to English.
Boy is that bad!!!! The pics on page two are just awful and I am having serious thoughts about cancelling my D2X order. I don't care about ISO 800 as I don't use it but the pics of the park and close ups of the branches make the D2X look like an absolute roach? They are just so OOF/soft that I am in shock.
Bjorn's pics looked MUCH sharper independent of any comparison to any other camera but many people are discounting his review. I don't really care how it compares to the IDSMKII as I can't afford that. As long as it takes sharp photos at moderate ISO's I'll be happy but I can't afford big dollar primes to make that happen. I need to be able to get great shots with just the 70-200 2.8VR, the 24-120 VR and the 80-400 VR.
I guess we'll learn more as more and more camera's are delivered.
Interesting that they couldn't find a Canon wide-angle lens worth testing, and had to resort to using Zeiss glass... The Nikon 14mm f2.8D wasn't a wise choice for comparison either, as this lens is known to perform poorly on all the current Nikon DSLR's.
I was ready to write this review off as another Loony Landscape epic after the first page, but reading further (as best I could, given the funny translation and my own poor understanding of Spanish), I think they did do a reasonably fair job in comparing the cameras. It's always nice to have alternate viewpoints for debate, especially when they are carefully and thoughtfully prepared, as this review appears to have been.
I think they probably UP sampled the D2x to compare with the 1Ds mk 2 (you either have to downsmaple 1Ds or upsample D2x), which is what you'd expect to do in a print situation.
Nikon does seem to have much similar colors, etc. and softness to Canon now :-) Guess they have learned to use a stronger AA.
Greg Matty wrote:
Boy is that bad!!!! The pics on page two are just awful and I am having serious thoughts about cancelling my D2X order. I don't care about ISO 800 as I don't use it but the pics of the park and close ups of the branches make the D2X look like an absolute roach? They are just so OOF/soft that I am in shock.
Bjorn's pics looked MUCH sharper independent of any comparison to any other camera but many people are discounting his review. I don't really care how it compares to the IDSMKII as I can't afford that. As long as it takes sharp photos at moderate ISO's I'll be happy but I can't afford big dollar primes to make that happen. I need to be able to get great shots with just the 70-200 2.8VR, the 24-120 VR and the 80-400 VR.
I guess we'll learn more as more and more camera's are delivered.
molson wrote:
The Nikon 14mm f2.8D wasn't a wise choice for comparison either, as this lens is known to perform poorly on all the current Nikon DSLR's.
I Totally agree on that! More than anything else the CA with the 14mm is unbearable. Things change though with the 17-55. As already stated in the article is time for the best glass with the D2X, very demanding camera!
molson wrote:
Interesting that they couldn't find a Canon wide-angle lens worth testing, and had to resort to using Zeiss glass... The Nikon 14mm f2.8D wasn't a wise choice for comparison either, as this lens is known to perform poorly on all the current Nikon DSLR's.
I was ready to write this review off as another Loony Landscape epic after the first page, but reading further (as best I could, given the funny translation and my own poor understanding of Spanish), I think they did do a reasonably fair job in comparing the cameras. It's always nice to have alternate viewpoints for debate, especially when they are carefully and thoughtfully prepared, as this review appears to have been....Show more →
i think i said the exact same thing on the translation thread with the caveat that the D2x was most likely hindered by ACR processing (as opposed to NC) which I have experienced with the D2h. I've done side by side comparisons, and there just isn't one.
We used the 14mm because Nikon in Spain has said to us that it was better. I supposed that the 12-24 was much better, and the test give me the reason. Today all the guys said me: you must have used the 12-24, or the 300mm f2.8 VR, or the Canon 20, but we are not millonairs. We have not bad equipment, but it is very difficult to have all what you want. Itīs a pain to make this tests. You must hear so much critic.....
Thanks Ripo for your feedback and most of all for the test.
Even in the worst scenario, the most reliable results are the ones reported at the end of the test with the new 200mm of Nikon and the 300mm of Canon. The difference I feel is little but, no doubt, it is there.
well, a carbon fiber tripod was used for the canon and an aluminum one for the nikon...a definite unfair advantage for the canon!! everyone knows CF absorbs vibration better and can affect photos!
just kidding!!!
ripo, thanks for your hard work...much appreciated. given the staunch partisanship of both camps, it may well be impossible to devise a single test that will make everyone happy. still, i found your write and the pictures to be a very valuable piece of the puzzle. again, thanks.
now, if only there is some way to squeeze a canon 1.3x CMOS sensor into a nikon D2X body...
oh, and while i'm dreaming, how about a "universal" lens mount that accepts both F-mount and EF-mount lenses?
paganini wrote:
I think they probably UP sampled the D2x to compare with the 1Ds mk 2 (you either have to downsmaple 1Ds or upsample D2x), which is what you'd expect to do in a print situation.
The only trouble with this approach is, once you start re-sampling or interpolating the image, you are no longer judging the camera's performance, but rather the performance of your interpolation software.
?
)
The Nikon 14mm f2.8D wasn't a wise choice for comparison either, as this lens is known to perform poorly on all the current Nikon DSLR's. 
