DSLRUsers.com

So,

If I get a D2X it would be regarded as a Pro Camera, I would probably find myself walking around with a FAT with it. When I do more Weddings in the future which is happening, It would be strong, reliable, nice clear crisp images up to 800 iso, great battery life, be able to use all my current Nikon lenses with it & SB 800 Speedlights.

I'll also stay NIKON TRUE

The Canon 5D is not regarded as a Pro Camera and would have to change all my glass & light, It has a full frame sensor and has smooth iso to whatever, I would love to see a comparison shot with a D2X & 5D on the same settings.

How much difference will a full frame sensor make ?

I'd say a D2X would be built like a tank that even Latham couldn't break against a not so tough Canon.

Am I on the right track here or have I fallen off my chair and suffering from a head ache.

Cheers,

Mic.
Still in the land of PONDER

I've got comparison shots in same settings from both the D2x and the 1DsMk2 that I haven't posted yet.

Mic,
These sound like the exact same questions Stubbsy was asking a couple of weeks ago not you too.

mic wrote:If I get a D2X it would be regarded as a Pro Camera

[...]

The Canon 5D is not regarded as a Pro Camera

According to who?
What is "a Pro Camera"?
For that matter, what is "a professional photographer"?

To me a professional photographer is someone who's profession is photography, and usually that means they're earning money from it.
A "professional camera" would be a camera used by a photographer in the course of their profession.
By some definition if I get paid for a photo taken with a mobile phone then that's a professional camera!
By another definition if a camera is designed with "professional use" in mind then it's a "professional camera". As far as I can see the 5D still falls into this category.

But in the end, WTF does it matter?

______________________
Did I bite hard enough?

mic wrote:How much difference will a full frame sensor make ? I'd say a D2X would be built like a tank

You're right about the build - the D2X is 250g heavier (1150g vs 900g) but that's nothing compared to a Canon pro camera like the 1DsII at 1500g (of which 500g is the oversize NiMH battery pack). Don't forget that you'll want a battery grip for the 5D to get the portrait shutter button, pushing the size and weight up.

Full frame really only seems to affect noise in the 600-1600ISO range, the two seem equal again at 3200 from what I've seen. Of course, Nikon noise is better than Canon noise The whole "quality" question is open too, with the less tangible factors driving both ways.

My feeling is stick with the glass you've got, until you see how all the recent converts go (unless you too have an email, in which case it's a whole 'nother story).

edit: (and again to hide the looong URL) bare bones comparison

Dion: a professional camera is one that earns its won income, of course. You're describing a professional photographer which is an entirely different beast

Theres no such thing as a "pro" camera - its all in the mind

There are pros who use D70's, there is a PJ who shoots for Magnum Photos on foriegn assignment who uses a 4/5 megapixel Olympus point'n'shoot

One of the best PJ's in the world (my opinion), Ami Vitale, uses a D200 now.

It does not matter what you use.

moz wrote: Of course, Nikon noise is better than Canon noise The whole "quality" question is open too, with the less tangible factors driving both ways.

I'd have to disagree with you on this one. I've seen hundreds of prints of both Nikon, Fuji and Canon hi ISO and i think the Canon is absolutely amazing.

Andrew,

I'm pretty sure that Moz made that statement with his tongue very firmly planted in his cheek.

gstark wrote:Andrew,

I'm pretty sure that Moz made that statement with his tongue very firmly planted in his cheek.

Sorry Moz. You have tongue in cheek, i have foot in mouth.

padey wrote:

gstark wrote:Andrew,

I'm pretty sure that Moz made that statement with his tongue very firmly planted in his cheek.

Sorry Moz. You have tongue in cheek, i have foot in mouth.

I'm leaving that one alone.

Some good points so far and sorry for not refering to the Canon as Pro but I have just read write ups on it and they say that.

Can someone please xplain what a D2X images would have compared to a full frame sensor ? I am confused on this. What has the D2X got a half sensor ? 3/4 sensor why didn't they put a full sensor in such a camera.

Will it make any difference to me.

Thanks,

Mic.

The crop factor for DX is 1.5.
That is, the FF sensor is 1.5x wider and 1.5x taller than the DX sensor. Thus the area is 2.25x, etc.

mic wrote:Will it make any difference to me.

Most likely not. The only important difference that will be felt (depending on what you shoot and what lenses you've got) is the different angle of view. With FF you gain at the wide end and lose and the long end. With DX it's the opposite.

There are other differences of course, all of which have to do with which compromises have been chosen while designing the system.

Image resolution is not a deciding factor in this comparison. They cram in excess of 10 megapixels into both FF and DX sensors, not to mention some P&S sensors.

Does a larger sensor offer better image quality if the resolution is the same? This seems to be the focal point of the debate. Many seem to think the larger size of photo sites (individual sub-pixels) gives the FF sensor the edge in light sensitivity and noise resistance. The sensitivity argument is bogus, unless you use a faster lens on the FF camera that can illuminate the larger frame in the same way as a slower lens on the DX camera.

I believe the low-noise argument is bogus, too. Simply because all Canon sensors (regardless of FF, 1.6 or 1.5) appear to exhibit lower noise at high ISO's than the rest of the competition. I believe this isn't even a sensor issue, but a clever pre-processing algorithm Canon have come up with.

All things being equal, why wouldn't you (as a maker) simply choose a FF sensor and don't upset photographers with angle-of-view conversion factors? Because FF sensors pose serious problems, too. Firstly, there's the heat issue. Not so much the overall heat dissipation, but uneven temperatures across the sensor. This is much harder to compensate for.

Secondly, the infamous vignetting problem. Unlike film, digital sensors and the filter in front of them hate light that comes in at flat angles. The larger the sensor, the flatter the angles get at the periphery.

Finally, cost. A larger die will always cost more to manufacture than a smaller one. For reasons of yield and cost of material.

All these issues have to be offset somehow. Canon seem to be doing a good job at that, or they wouldn't be the market leader.

Personally, I lament the loss of wide angle the DX format has brought me, and the gain at the tele end isn't that important to me. However, I appreciate the fact that the DX cropping kind of strenghens not so perfect lenses, since most lenses are at their best in the centre.

Cheers
Steffen.

Steffen wrote:Secondly, the infamous vignetting problem. Unlike film, digital sensors and the filter in front of them hate light that comes in at flat angles. The larger the sensor, the flatter the angles get at the periphery.

Vignetting is not really related to the angle of incidence. For instance these days the sensors incorporate "microlenses" which expect the light at the edges to be coming in at an angle, and refract it down into the photosensor. Of course this has contributed to the sensor cost...

The bottom line is that the larger the sensor, the larger the required image circle. That's where vignetting can come in.

Great Info guys, you are a pack of Brainiacs

My decision is nearly there I'm just working out some $$$$$ with Wifey as I type. Mr Birddog will be getting an E-mail soon.

My passion is building, my Bank balance is shrinking, my wife has given up. I've got her on the ropes, get ready for the winning bell ring.

Cheers,

Mic.