I postulate that, the built-in computer and the algorithms
(calculation procedures) that are built into the camera, are
even more important than the finite number of pixels, but
they are hard to quantify. Given that the lens is the same
quality, it is easy to see that the better the interpretation
of that signal, the better the picture. Therefore, buy the
camera with the latest “technology” and you get the finest
they will build even better cameras, as camera designers continue
to build on today’s technology. The only way we can even humbly
approach to appreciate, how much work that had been expended
to create the technological wonders in this cameras, is to
view the finished product. It was easy to see that my older
D1 with 2.7 MP put out better pictures than many point and
shoots with much higher pixel counts.
do not even claim to scratch the surface of knowledge
of how these cameras work, above a superficial gloss over
of the processes, but I do have enough knowledge to be
totally amazed and appreciative. The D2X is definitely
one of these technological wonders, and it is here today.
camera is a natural for many walks of the photography realm.
Because of it's speed in many areas, and increased “magnification
factor”, it is a natural for the sports photographer and the
nature photographer, shooting moving, inaccessible or off
limits subjects. With it’s wireless capabilities it is the
fastest link to the news desk possible through a remote computer.
output size at 300 DPI was configured to be slightly larger
than the 8 ¾ X 11 ½ in size, for a full bleed
magazine page; so small product and magazine publication are
slam dunks. The smooth gradations, and yet contrast with out
harshness, and the ability to output a print at full 8X10
or 8 ½ X 11, and the large body size -which says “professional”-
is an easy choice for the wedding photographer. When I was
shooting, people would walk up to me and ask if I was a professional
(It must be the haggard looks). Funny how with the shrinking
of the point and shoot, a full size SLR with an attached battery
pack, is now a “professional” size to the general public.
Nikon D2X produces a 19.8 meg Raw file, that gives me a sharper,
with better color characteristics image, than I get from a
210 meg , Velvia 100 35mm image, scanned at high resolution
(5400 dpi, 16bit) with the same lens and printer. Is film
dead? No, but since I already have a high-resolution digital
projector, it is going to be very difficult buying film for
my F6 now. Every one that I have shown the end product prints
to have been very impressed with the quality, pro and non-photographer
you haven’t already guessed, I feel the Five Grand is
already worth it.
I am my only commercial customer and I figure the pay
back on this body is about eight months over the D1
and then that much goes to the bottom line every eight
months thereafter. That is a no brainier. The real
question is not what each feature does to what degree,
it is: does it do what I really need it to do?
your present camera does what you need it to do then you may
not need a Nikon D2X. There is no need for a D3 in my future.
It will take many years and many venues to test all of the
D2X’s benefits and features. This one does what I need it
to do, now. The future is here for me, and it is … the Nikon
am going to shoot part of the sand hill crane migration next
week on the Platt River in Nebraska and again the first of
May in Kansas USA. I will enjoy the no wait, as one can just
keep on shooting until the card is full most of the time.
I have already tried the “select nearest object” with my Nikon
F6 and it is great for panning with birds in bright light
(especially if you have ever tried manual focusing in these
situations). I should get a chance to try out the increased
“magnification factor”, follow-predictive focus and closest
focus lock on, in the low early, misty light of morning. If
I get any decent pictures I will try to share them here. I
wish you good shooting.
Wichita, Kansas USA