Nikon first look... Then buy!

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Nikon DX2 first impressions.
Skin tones. Says it all in two words.
I spent some time with a DX2 at a recent Expo and decided it is absolutely a
better portrait camera and better at reproducing skin tones than the current
line up of Canon cameras. I ordered one yesterday complete with the "Kit
lens". I was mildly surprised to discover the sensor is a crop factor of
1.5, rather than Canon's 1.6.

I haven't owned a Nikon for 9 years. If it is as good in the field as it is
in the studio, I'll be selling off a heap of Canon lenses and bodies as I
change brands. I've never been satisfied that the 20Ds were anything other
than a fancy point and shoot with a removable lens. The Nikon D100's I used
for the Newspaper impressed me with their ability to retain detail in
otherwise noisy images.

The DX2 might cost twice as much as a 20D but it's still less than a 1D MkII
which is the only other alternative to replacing the unreliable 20Ds with
something more reliable. If I also get some decent glass and "Portra film
like" skin tones, all the better. More next week after it does it's first
wedding. (20D as a backup!)

--
Douglas...
"You finally make it on the Internet
when you get your own personal Troll".
Mine's called Chrlz. Don't feed him, he bites!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:24:53 +1000, pixby wrote:

> Nikon DX2 first impressions.
> Skin tones. Says it all in two words. I spent some time with a DX2 at a
> recent Expo and decided it is absolutely a better portrait camera and
> better at reproducing skin tones than the current line up of Canon
> cameras. I ordered one yesterday complete with the "Kit lens". I was
> mildly surprised to discover the sensor is a crop factor of 1.5, rather
> than Canon's 1.6.
>
> I haven't owned a Nikon for 9 years. If it is as good in the field as it
> is in the studio, I'll be selling off a heap of Canon lenses and bodies as
> I change brands. I've never been satisfied that the 20Ds were anything
> other than a fancy point and shoot with a removable lens. The Nikon D100's
> I used for the Newspaper impressed me with their ability to retain detail
> in otherwise noisy images.
>
> The DX2 might cost twice as much as a 20D but it's still less than a 1D
> MkII which is the only other alternative to replacing the unreliable 20Ds
> with something more reliable. If I also get some decent glass and "Portra
> film like" skin tones, all the better. More next week after it does it's
> first wedding. (20D as a backup!)

Yay! Another one sees the light through the Canon hype!

Something else I am researching at the mo' is the Nikon 200-400mm f/4 VR
zoom. Apparently this lens is nothing short of astonishing wide open. It
also means that Canon have a bit of catching up to do if they want to keep
their sports troopers happy!
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"pixby" <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Nikon DX2 first impressions.
>Skin tones. Says it all in two words.
>I spent some time with a DX2 at a recent Expo and decided it is absolutely a
>better portrait camera and better at reproducing skin tones than the current
>line up of Canon cameras. I ordered one yesterday complete with the "Kit
>lens". I was mildly surprised to discover the sensor is a crop factor of
>1.5, rather than Canon's 1.6.
>
>I haven't owned a Nikon for 9 years. If it is as good in the field as it is
>in the studio, I'll be selling off a heap of Canon lenses and bodies as I
>change brands. I've never been satisfied that the 20Ds were anything other
>than a fancy point and shoot with a removable lens. The Nikon D100's I used
>for the Newspaper impressed me with their ability to retain detail in
>otherwise noisy images.
>
>The DX2 might cost twice as much as a 20D but it's still less than a 1D MkII
>which is the only other alternative to replacing the unreliable 20Ds with
>something more reliable. If I also get some decent glass and "Portra film
>like" skin tones, all the better. More next week after it does it's first
>wedding. (20D as a backup!)


Did you mean the D2X? Nikon don't make a DX2.

Perhaps you bought one of the Vietnamese-made copies in error, such as
the not-so-well-regarded "Nikkon DX2 with Optical Lens".

;-)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>
> Did you mean the D2X? Nikon don't make a DX2.
>
> Perhaps you bought one of the Vietnamese-made copies in error, such as
> the not-so-well-regarded "Nikkon DX2 with Optical Lens".
>
> ;-)
>

Now that's funny! Reminds me of the "Maxwell" blank cassettes from Taiwan
in the late 70's. Looked remarkably like Maxell.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Tony Polson wrote:
> "pixby" <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Nikon DX2 first impressions.
>>Skin tones. Says it all in two words.
>>I spent some time with a DX2 at a recent Expo and decided it is absolutely a
>>better portrait camera and better at reproducing skin tones than the current
>>line up of Canon cameras. I ordered one yesterday complete with the "Kit
>>lens". I was mildly surprised to discover the sensor is a crop factor of
>>1.5, rather than Canon's 1.6.
>>
>>I haven't owned a Nikon for 9 years. If it is as good in the field as it is
>>in the studio, I'll be selling off a heap of Canon lenses and bodies as I
>>change brands. I've never been satisfied that the 20Ds were anything other
>>than a fancy point and shoot with a removable lens. The Nikon D100's I used
>>for the Newspaper impressed me with their ability to retain detail in
>>otherwise noisy images.
>>
>>The DX2 might cost twice as much as a 20D but it's still less than a 1D MkII
>>which is the only other alternative to replacing the unreliable 20Ds with
>>something more reliable. If I also get some decent glass and "Portra film
>>like" skin tones, all the better. More next week after it does it's first
>>wedding. (20D as a backup!)
>
>
>
> Did you mean the D2X? Nikon don't make a DX2.
>
> Perhaps you bought one of the Vietnamese-made copies in error, such as
> the not-so-well-regarded "Nikkon DX2 with Optical Lens".
>
> ;-)
>
Give yourself 2 brownie points Tony.
Just did a giggle on D2X and DX2. I discovered I'm not alone in the
confusion. How simple does it need to be? I mean it's only three characters!

--
Douglas,
Zero care factor for negative responses
from anonymous posters.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Pixby" <pixby_douglas@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42ec9f6f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> >
> Give yourself 2 brownie points Tony.
> Just did a giggle on D2X and DX2. I discovered I'm not alone in the
> confusion. How simple does it need to be? I mean it's only three
characters!
>

Since it's only 3 characters it should be easier for you to keep them
straight.

Greg
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B Digital Cameras 4
amirooo Digital Cameras 1
Maxzone Digital Cameras 0
I Digital Cameras 1
G Digital Cameras 1
R Digital Cameras 1
D Digital Cameras 4
T Digital Cameras 4
O Digital Cameras 1
C Digital Cameras 2
4 Digital Cameras 1
M Digital Cameras 1
F Digital Cameras 1
Thollupped Digital Cameras 2
S Digital Cameras 2
U Digital Cameras 2
M Digital Cameras 1
I Digital Cameras 1
A Digital Cameras 1
F Digital Cameras 1

ASK THE COMMUNITY