![]() ![]() Instead of 1 / focal length, go 1 / focal length x 2. The Nikon will also challenge you because you need higher shutter speeds to account for shake. It's only past that, or if you are a pixel sniffer, that you need to adjust your technique or the quality of your optics to get the best results. In the real world, the D2x has fantastic image quality, even with cheap lenses wide open, on enlargements up to 8x12. Many lenses can do this stopped down, but only a very small number can hit this wide-open. ![]() Although it technically uses the "best" part of 35mm lenses on its DX-sized sensor, the pixel pitch is so small that you will never get the full benefit of 12.2MP at wide apertures and huge magnifications unless your lens is getting 90 lp/mm resolution or better - a performance figure not representative of SLR lenses shot at their widest apertures. Kodak doesn't spend a lot of time writing algorithms for cheapo optics, nor should they. ![]() Look at Kodak's optimization list - their orientation is toward high-end lenses, zoom and prime. This means that retrofocus zooms work better than wide primes at the edges of frames (ok, since the 17-35/2.8 is better than almost any prime Nikon makes in that range). Because 35mm lenses were designed around a medium that has a 3-dimensional sensing surface, the Kodak is sensitive to lenses where light does not hit the sensor more or less head on. The Kodak will show you which 35mm lenses suffer from aberrations at the edges of their fields (but not as badly as a Canon 1Ds, which adds chromatic aberration from the microlenses on the sensor, too). So in terms of shooting for composition, you get the same overall resolution for what you actually see in the finder.īoth cameras will challenge your lenses in different ways. In terms of usable area, consider that the Kodak shows you about 90% of the frame in the finder and the Nikon 100%. ![]() Testers have discovered that the extinction resolution is identical. This not a huge difference in absolute count and less than 10% difference in the individual vertical and horizontal dimensions. The Kodak has 13.8 million pixels in a 36x24 area the Nikon has 12.2 million in a 24x16mm area. For a given angle of view, there is no palpable difference in image quality.īy the numbers, it's not hard to see why. But across a wide range of prints, I can't identify any real difference in image quality. They hit moire occasionally with different types of subjects. Put another way, I think that Nikon employs better engineers and Kodak actually talks to photographers.ġ. My short conclusion is that the D2x is fantastic - and I only wish that its firmware was a little more informed by Kodak's far more practically oriented processing systems. This review will concentrate on three key areas: (A) imaging characteristics, which describes the hardware (B) handling characteristics (how it works) and (C) image processing (how much work it requires on your part to get to paper). Numbers and statistics tell a very small part of the story, and there is only so much even a practical review can convey.Īt least for the purposes of this review, I think the solution is not to look at the D2x in a vacuum, but instead to evaluate its functional aspects against the other high-resolution Nikon-based SLR: the Kodak DCS Pro 14n. I would caution the reader to rent anything that costs this much money before buying it. Many people who write about digital cameras have never used a really efficient output system, whether it be a semiautomatic analog enlarger or a good piece of RAW conversion software and a calibrated dye sublimation printer. Many people who write about digital cameras take two or three shots at a time, immediately plug the cameras into their computers and examine the pictures of their cats at "actual pixels" size to see which lenses are "good" and which one have "chromatic aberration" (as if they knew what that was). They can review an EOS-1Ds or anything else, but where it says f/stops in the viewfinder, it might as well be ergs, knots, or any other mysterious unit. Many people who write about digital cameras have little or no experience with analog cameras. I have been a bit dissatisfied with these reviews, because they completely fail to capture the practical aspects of use and output. There are a lot of reviews out there, and they cover a lot of technical information. It is now about year since the release of the Nikon D2x. Sizing up the Nikon D2x and the Kodak DCS Pro 14n why does an expensive digital camera come in a box with recycled paper inserts?! Dante stella stories photographs technical guestbook A proposito della civiltà di apparenze. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |