D2X: Noise Box

GTO wrote:

1) IR performance of the D2X is poor. A D70 or D2H works much better for
this application.

2) UV is also pretty poor. Hold on to your older Nikon gears!

Of course, both of these things are positives for "normal" shooting.

But the D2X does not perform better than its six times less expensive
cousin, the D70.

Not at high ISO, no.

Is it again CCD vs. CMOS. Or are the Canons better at ISO 1600?

They do seem to be, yes, from what we've seen thus far.

4) The D2X is power hungry. 200 shots at 0 degrees Celsius and the batteries
are already flat does not excite me too much.

That was interesting indeed. 200 shots seems low.

--
Jeremy |

"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article ,
says...
But the D2X does not perform better than its six times less
expensive cousin, the D70. Is it again CCD vs. CMOS. Or are the Canons
better at ISO 1600?

The current crop of mid-to-pro level dSLRs from Canon (20D, 1D Mark II,
1DS Mark II) are indeed much better noise-wise at ISO 800 and 1600.

It's not so much an issue of CCD vs. CMOS (the Canons all use CMOS
sensors) as it is photosensor size. The D70 and D2X have the same size
sensor. The D2X has twice the photosites as the D70, therefore the
light sensitivity isn't going to be the same.

I had to laugh when I read Ken Rockwell's diatribe against larger sensors.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dx.htm. The larger sensors of the Canon
semi-pro and pro models, allow larger photosites, which help greatly in
lower noise at higher ISOs. Canon has done a lot using active noise
reduction to get the noise to acceptable levels on their 1.6 crop factor
digital SLRs, but you can't get around the semiconductor physics of leakage
and noise. Nikon has got to be working on a professional level camera with a
larger sensor, if not 1.0 crop factor, maybe 1.2 or 1.3.

In article . net,
says...
I had to laugh when I read Ken Rockwell's diatribe against larger sensors.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dx.htm. The larger sensors of the Canon
semi-pro and pro models, allow larger photosites, which help greatly in
lower noise at higher ISOs. Canon has done a lot using active noise
reduction to get the noise to acceptable levels on their 1.6 crop factor
digital SLRs, but you can't get around the semiconductor physics of leakage
and noise. Nikon has got to be working on a professional level camera with a
larger sensor, if not 1.0 crop factor, maybe 1.2 or 1.3.

He also doesn't seem to realize the Canon 1Ds had a CMOS sensor.

Bizarre.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article ,
Brian C. Baird wrote:
In article . net,
says...
I had to laugh when I read Ken Rockwell's diatribe against larger sensors.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dx.htm. The larger sensors of the Canon
semi-pro and pro models, allow larger photosites, which help greatly in
lower noise at higher ISOs. Canon has done a lot using active noise
reduction to get the noise to acceptable levels on their 1.6 crop factor
digital SLRs, but you can't get around the semiconductor physics of leakage
and noise. Nikon has got to be working on a professional level camera with a
larger sensor, if not 1.0 crop factor, maybe 1.2 or 1.3.

He also doesn't seem to realize the Canon 1Ds had a CMOS sensor.

Bizarre.

What Ken Rockwell doesn't grasp about digital photography is a large field ...

"John Francis" wrote in message
...

He also doesn't seem to realize the Canon 1Ds had a CMOS sensor.

Bizarre.

What Ken Rockwell doesn't grasp about digital photography is a large field
....


I added a section to http://digitalslrinfo.com/ regarding "Sensor Size,
Focal Length Multiplier, & Pixel Dimensions" specifically to counter the
mis-information on his site. Though I did find his little article on sensor
size enormously amusing with all its snide remarkes.

Brian Baird wrote:
http://luminous-landscape.com/review...2x-noise.shtml

I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.

Too many pixels in too small an area.

And ugly software noise reduction.

Ha!

In article .com,
says...

Brian Baird wrote:
http://luminous-landscape.com/review...2x-noise.shtml

I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.

Too many pixels in too small an area.

And ugly software noise reduction.

Ha!

You're a bit late.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Brian C. Baird wrote:
In article .com,
says...

Brian Baird wrote:
http://luminous-landscape.com/review...2x-noise.shtml

I feel sorry for anyone who had high hopes for this camera.

Too many pixels in too small an area.

And ugly software noise reduction.

Ha!

You're a bit late.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

I use film!

wrote:

Brian C. Baird wrote:

You're a bit late.

I use film!

Then you are even later.