Not convinced of one test case D2X vs. EOS-1Ds MkII...

Of course, I have no intention to ignite here yet another
Canon-Nikon bash-and-smash discussion.

I firmly believe that this new Nikon is perfect for the
competition and perfect for the market, regardless of
which brand do you use! These are both magnificent
cameras.


I red the test and D2x vs. EOS-1Ds shootouy made by
Bjørn Rørslett twice and I was thinking about his method
of comparing these both cameras. In one case I have my
doubts. Take a look at:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Bjørn photographs a scene using a 300mm prime with both
EOS-1Ds mkII and D2X and writes: "Such a setup further
gives equal magnification of image detail (not equally
obvious to people, but nevertheless true)."

Well, this is not obvious to me either. He also writes:
"The field of view will obviously be different. Due to
its higher pixel density, D2X will have more pixels within
the crop than 1 DS Mk. II."

Sure, and no surprise here. Since the crop of the D2X
has much more pixels (876x714) than the crop from the
EOS-1Ds Mk II (664x512,) we see more sharp detail on the
D2X crop. I am not sure if this test case has merit.


Astonishing, but more convincing is the last of the test
cases, in which he compares two images made with the same
angle of view, thus by compensating for the 1.5 focal length
magnification factor in the Nikon. This approach appears
very sound. The images have a different magnification in
the sense of the previous test, but we can see the same
object photographed projected on an equal percentage of
surface in each sensor. In this case we expect of course some
more pixels in the Canon crop (16.7 versus 12.4Mpix), and
it is indeed astonishing that the Nikon crop is so much
sharper. Could be this caused by this specific exemplar of
Canon lens rather? Or maybe its the unexpected advantage of
the smaller DX sensor size in the Nikon? Only the central
part of the Nikkor projects light on the sensor, and not
the usually weaker and troubled corners...

Any thoughts?

Thomas

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:37:45 -0800, ThomasH wrote:


Of course, I have no intention to ignite here yet another
Canon-Nikon bash-and-smash discussion.

I firmly believe that this new Nikon is perfect for the
competition and perfect for the market, regardless of
which brand do you use! These are both magnificent
cameras.


I red the test and D2x vs. EOS-1Ds shootouy made by
Bjørn Rørslett twice and I was thinking about his method
of comparing these both cameras. In one case I have my
doubts. Take a look at:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Bjørn photographs a scene using a 300mm prime with both
EOS-1Ds mkII and D2X and writes: "Such a setup further
gives equal magnification of image detail (not equally
obvious to people, but nevertheless true)."

Well, this is not obvious to me either. He also writes:
"The field of view will obviously be different. Due to
its higher pixel density, D2X will have more pixels within
the crop than 1 DS Mk. II."

Sure, and no surprise here. Since the crop of the D2X
has much more pixels (876x714) than the crop from the
EOS-1Ds Mk II (664x512,) we see more sharp detail on the
D2X crop. I am not sure if this test case has merit.


Astonishing, but more convincing is the last of the test
cases, in which he compares two images made with the same
angle of view, thus by compensating for the 1.5 focal length
magnification factor in the Nikon. This approach appears
very sound. The images have a different magnification in
the sense of the previous test, but we can see the same
object photographed projected on an equal percentage of
surface in each sensor. In this case we expect of course some
more pixels in the Canon crop (16.7 versus 12.4Mpix), and
it is indeed astonishing that the Nikon crop is so much
sharper. Could be this caused by this specific exemplar of
Canon lens rather? Or maybe its the unexpected advantage of
the smaller DX sensor size in the Nikon? Only the central
part of the Nikkor projects light on the sensor, and not
the usually weaker and troubled corners...

Any thoughts?

Thomas

I think it's like comparing apples and oranges. Canon's comparable
product is the 1D MkII, not the 1Ds MkII.

--
?

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:37:45 -0800, ThomasH wrote:


Of course, I have no intention to ignite here yet another
Canon-Nikon bash-and-smash discussion.

I firmly believe that this new Nikon is perfect for the
competition and perfect for the market, regardless of
which brand do you use! These are both magnificent
cameras.


I red the test and D2x vs. EOS-1Ds shootouy made by
Bjørn Rørslett twice and I was thinking about his method
of comparing these both cameras. In one case I have my
doubts. Take a look at:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

Bjørn photographs a scene using a 300mm prime with both
EOS-1Ds mkII and D2X and writes: "Such a setup further
gives equal magnification of image detail (not equally
obvious to people, but nevertheless true)."

Well, this is not obvious to me either. He also writes:
"The field of view will obviously be different. Due to
its higher pixel density, D2X will have more pixels within
the crop than 1 DS Mk. II."

Sure, and no surprise here. Since the crop of the D2X
has much more pixels (876x714) than the crop from the
EOS-1Ds Mk II (664x512,) we see more sharp detail on the
D2X crop. I am not sure if this test case has merit.


Astonishing, but more convincing is the last of the test
cases, in which he compares two images made with the same
angle of view, thus by compensating for the 1.5 focal length
magnification factor in the Nikon. This approach appears
very sound. The images have a different magnification in
the sense of the previous test, but we can see the same
object photographed projected on an equal percentage of
surface in each sensor. In this case we expect of course some
more pixels in the Canon crop (16.7 versus 12.4Mpix), and
it is indeed astonishing that the Nikon crop is so much
sharper. Could be this caused by this specific exemplar of
Canon lens rather? Or maybe its the unexpected advantage of
the smaller DX sensor size in the Nikon? Only the central
part of the Nikkor projects light on the sensor, and not
the usually weaker and troubled corners...

Any thoughts?

Thomas

I think it's like comparing apples and oranges. Canon's comparable
product is the 1D MkII, not the 1Ds MkII.

--
?

ThomasH wrote:
Of course, I have no intention to ignite here yet another
Canon-Nikon bash-and-smash discussion.

I firmly believe that this new Nikon is perfect for the
competition and perfect for the market, regardless of
which brand do you use! These are both magnificent
cameras.



Any thoughts?

Thomas

Yeah! Who gives a flyin' ****?

wrote:



Yeah! Who gives a flyin' ****?


Mikey, If you have nothing useful to say, shut up.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

In article , says...

Any thoughts?

Thomas

Nothing that hasn't already been expressed here or on the dPreview
forums.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Alan Browne wrote:
wrote:



Yeah! Who gives a flyin' ****?


Mikey, If you have nothing useful to say, shut up.



--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems:
http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

But that WAS useful, boy!

Any thoughts?

Yes, the test is a disappointment. Unless you shoot under controlled
conditions, and use equal angles of view, and you compensate for the
different sharpening models used in each camera, the test tells you
absolutely nothing. Canon's use a less aggresive model than Nikon, so the
images may appear to be softer straight from the camera using defalt
settings. This test is fatally flawed.


Thomas

TAFKAB wrote:


Any thoughts?

Yes, the test is a disappointment. Unless you shoot under controlled
conditions, and use equal angles of view, and you compensate for the
different sharpening models used in each camera, the test tells you
absolutely nothing. Canon's use a less aggresive model than Nikon, so the
images may appear to be softer straight from the camera using defalt
settings. This test is fatally flawed.

Sharpening was off, he stated this.

As I saw today that he added meanwhile a new test case in which he
used 200mm Nikkor vx. 300mm Canon L prime to achieve a comparable
angle of view from a similar distance. In such case Canon's crop
has more pixels, but this is ok, the Canon has more pixels, period.

They have also added a test with raw files, in which the raw file
was processed by the camera owner himself.

Other that this one test case with "equal magnification" as he calls
it, I think that his tests have merits. They should not be considered
complete and comprehensive, but we have dpreview for that, right?

Thomas

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:



Yeah! Who gives a flyin' ****?


Mikey, If you have nothing useful to say, shut up.




Demanding that twit to be useful is akin to Knute demanding that the tides
not come in...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com