Thom Hogan has a comment on his site about the D2x today:
"If all you ever do is shoot at base ISO, then it's true, you don't need to consider what the camera does at higher ISO values. The D2x may be the best 12mp crop sensor camera at base ISO. That Decay image in the Teaching Point this week is a good example: there's almost nothing to complain about when you shoot the D2x at base ISO. Even shadow areas have good recovery, and there's excellent micro contrast in the detail. My biggest issue with the D2x was at the highlight end, where you had to watch very carefully what happened above 2.5EV above middle gray lest you lose highlight detail.
But if you venture even a stop or two above base ISO on a D2x, things start to fall apart. Dynamic range disappears and noise intrudes very rapidly. The highlight limitation is pushing your exposure down to start with and now the shadows start to have real issues. ISO 800 on a D2x is almost unusable because of all the issues that creep in. From base ISO to ISO 800 there is a quick and linear drop in image quality, and that continues as you push higher." - Thom Hogan, bythom.com, 4/2/12
I was a bad boy with that photo and was shooting ISO 400 due to the overcast day. So 2 stops above base. You can see the noise at 100% view. The later bodies certainly trump it in IQ, but it's still a nice DX camera.
>Thom Hogan has a comment on his site about the D2x today: > > >"But if you venture even a stop or two above base ISO on a D2x, >things start to fall apart. Dynamic range disappears and noise >intrudes very rapidly. The highlight limitation is pushing >your exposure down to start with and now the shadows start to >have real issues. ISO 800 on a D2x is almost unusable because >of all the issues that creep in. From base ISO to ISO 800 >there is a quick and linear drop in image quality, and that >continues as you push higher." - Thom Hogan, bythom.com, >4/2/12
Stated like a true techno-geek photographer to be consumed by the techno-geek masses. The obsession with the geek side and technical merits of equipment seems to be far more important these days to many than actual photography and the creation of an interesting image but I will leave it at that. I have written far more on this but have decided to delete it before posting.
>Stated like a true techno-geek photographer to be consumed by >the techno-geek masses. The obsession with the geek side and >technical merits of equipment seems to be far more important >these days to many than actual photography and the creation of >an interesting image but I will leave it at that. I have >written far more on this but have decided to delete it before >posting.
Wed 04-Apr-12 12:11 AM | edited Wed 04-Apr-12 12:14 AM by MelT
>We live in the electronics era. It's exciting.
I am not too sure about that. I see misplaced priorities when far more emphasis is placed on the technical aspects of cameras and lenses as oppose to "photography" itself. Just how many well exposed, sharp and noise free boring images does the world need?
>Don't get me wrong. I do think the new technology is >wonderful and I embrace it. I just think far more attention >is paid to "technology" these days then that actual >craft of photography.
Depends who you talk with / listen to / read. I feel like I'm one of the few balanced people who is equally into both technique and technology. That said, I use nikonians.org primarily for the tech side.
One opinion I've heard, which I don't agree with, is that focusing on technique is the same as focusing on equipment. Usually this is stated as fact by the artistic extreme end of the spectrum who don't even know their shutter speed from their aperture, when in reality it's just their opinion. And then these same people go and buy a brand new DSLR, even though they never bother to learn how to get the most out of it.
Technique is things like learning lighting direction and quality, learning photoshop, learning to manually focus accurately and quickly, learning to make good use of spotmetering, or learning to judge tonallity without a meter. None of these things are "as bad as" focusing on just technology, but some of the art people could care less about them. Personally, I don't get their approach. I'd like to ask them: How do you expect to make consistently decent pictures if you don't learn and practice the methods responsible for it?
A little joke: How can you tell a photographer is a true hardcore zealot fine art photographer? He never read his camera instruction book! And he very well might tilt his camera frequently as well.
> >We live in the electronics era. It's exciting. >
You are not alone with this opinion.
“The time will come when you will be able to make the entire photograph electronically, with extremely high resolution and the enormous control you can get from electronics, the results will be fantastic. I wish I were young again.” Ansel Adams, in his 82nd year, 1984.
D2Xs still my primary camera ! Almost all shooting is at base ISO I find ISO 400 similar to 400 speed film. I have gone as high as 800 for small web based images and 1600 for B&W as I love the grain/noise look from the D2Xs in B&W mode. But yeah....stuff falls apart pretty quick above base ISO compared to current cameras
I can't use all the capability my D2x's have so I shall probably never need another body given the robust nature of the beast. Since I am an old ,and I do MEAN old (78) photographer who was brought up on film and until a couple of years ago thought ASA 200 was fast and ASA 400 was blindingly fast. Since the standard was ASA 64 for me I have no trouble with under 400 ISO. My old eyes can't see very well in low light and so I don't really do much shooting in that medium. Here in southern Arizona we seem to have an abundance of sunlight which pleases me greatly. It seems reading these forums that only the latest is of any use to produce an image and you are severly handicapped with less that the current model and the announced model is going to be even more necessary to sucessful photography. With this philosophy it is no wonder some are never satisfied with their images.
>Hey Jeremy, > >I'm still using my D1X, and loving it. Drive on!! > >-August
Glad to hear the D1x is still online. What will actually "kill" these cameras is the batteries will die and it will be to difficult and/or expensive to keep them running.
I have a bit more life with my D2x because it uses the EN-EL4 battery that was used in the D3 cameras as well. I had better get a new one or two before they stop making them however (PS I also use the same battery in my D700 and F6).
There will most likely be a place to source batteries somewhere ....I use a Rollei From the 90'S and rebuild the batteries with generic cells and fit them into the plastic shell....where there is a will there is a way !
The fact is that relatively few photographers ever master their medium. Instead they allow the medium to master them and go on an endless squirrel cage chase from new lens to new paper to new developer to new gadget, never staying with one piece of equipment long enough to learn its full capacities, becoming lost in a maze of technical information that is of little or no use since they don't know what to do with it. - Edward Weston