skibum5 wrote:
ins't he just saying that the D2X has more reach?
...
...of course if he was trying ot use this as a GENRAL claim about resolution of D2x and 1dsmkii then that is pretty silly.
What he says is "The winner here is the D2X by a very comfortable margin. The clarity of image detail is simply stunning compared to the softness of the Canon version." He then awards the D2x a point for beating the 1Ds2.
Strangely there was no part of the comparison where the 1Ds3 scored a point for having a wider field of view. He does come to the issue of wider angles: "The DX-designated range of wide-angle lenses are constructed with a telecentric optical design, implying that the rays emanate nearly in parallel from the lens. Nikon is adamant that this principle of building wide-angle lenses is by necessity connected to having a smaller imager than 'full frame', in order to keep the DSLR camera compatible both with DX lenses and ordinary longer focal length lenses also fitting traditional 24x36 mm cameras. If they were to build telecentric lenses for full-frame systems, then the flange to film/imager distance would have to be increased, thus leading to an entirely new camera system." Brilliant. That must be why the 14-24 and D3/D700 don't exist and are crap.
There's a whole load of hand-waving and smoke and mirrors argument on the page about why he only used long teles for the test, when my experience of the D2x was that for some reason it suffered from WORSE CA than Canon's full-frame cameras when used with wide-angle lenses.
Finally he says "The inevitable conclusion is that both cameras are top-flight performers, but Nikon D2X takes the lead over Canon 1 DS Mk. II in several areas of performance."
Far from being a 'reference standard comparison', Rorslett's D2x v 1Ds2 page seems to be very carefully constructed to hide the advantages that the 1Ds2 has over the D2x, even though they will be pretty obvious to anyone who tries both cameras.
He's a 100% Nikon crack-smoker, and this 'comparison' pretty much proves it.
brainiac wrote:
What he says is "The winner here is the D2X by a very comfortable margin. The clarity of image detail is simply stunning compared to the softness of the Canon version." He then awards the D2x a point for beating the 1Ds2.
Strangely there was no part of the comparison where the 1Ds3 scored a point for having a wider field of view. He does come to the issue of wider angles: "The DX-designated range of wide-angle lenses are constructed with a telecentric optical design, implying that the rays emanate nearly in parallel from the lens. Nikon is adamant that this principle of building wide-angle lenses is by necessity connected to having a smaller imager than 'full frame', in order to keep the DSLR camera compatible both with DX lenses and ordinary longer focal length lenses also fitting traditional 24x36 mm cameras. If they were to build telecentric lenses for full-frame systems, then the flange to film/imager distance would have to be increased, thus leading to an entirely new camera system." Brilliant. That must be why the 14-24 and D3/D700 don't exist and are crap.
There's a whole load of hand-waving and smoke and mirrors argument on the page about why he only used long teles for the test, when my experience of the D2x was that for some reason it suffered from WORSE CA than Canon's full-frame cameras when used with wide-angle lenses.
Finally he says "The inevitable conclusion is that both cameras are top-flight performers, but Nikon D2X takes the lead over Canon 1 DS Mk. II in several areas of performance."
Far from being a 'reference standard comparison', Rorslett's D2x v 1Ds2 page seems to be very carefully constructed to hide the advantages that the 1Ds2 has over the D2x, even though they will be pretty obvious to anyone who tries both cameras.
He's a 100% Nikon crack-smoker, and this 'comparison' pretty much proves it. ...Show more →
hmm it is pretty silly to give +1 point for reach and fail to give the 1dsmkii +2 for all the images that one takes that are NOT reach limited
weren't the d2x hdieously noisy too or was that the d2h's?
yeah he sure was trying to boost how great crop cams were over FF and I do wonder what he has to say now about the D700 and 14-24? I guess they stink up the nikon line-up, no?
ichiro17 wrote:
i've taken sports and wildlife and I am confused as to how anyone can say the autofocus isn't up to the task. Its not a 1D so stop asking it to be
then again, everyone needs something to complain about, even if it doesn't make any sense
AGeoJO wrote:
Great shot, Bobby! I am glad that Canon didn't put an AF system that competes with that of 1D series body into the 5D MkII . I didn't want to feel what a lot Nikon D3 owners back then felt when Nikon came out with the D700, which is almost like a D3 in a more compact body and for significantly less.... Thank you, Canon!
Agree
I find this attitude inexplicable. I do not buy cameras in order to own something that others don't. I have had great use of my 1Ds3 since December 2007. I would have loved the 5D2 to have a better focussing system at its price, even an AF system as good as the 1Ds3's. Exclusivity for its own sake is a bad thing.
I find this attitude inexplicable. I do not buy cameras in order to own something that others don't. I have had great use of my 1Ds3 since December 2007. I would have loved the 5D2 to have a better focussing system at its price, even an AF system as good as the 1Ds3's. Exclusivity for its own sake is a bad thing.
Amen. I've never understood why AF to Canon is like the secret handshake of the Freemasons.
