Nikon D2X
- Thread starter Mike S
- Start date
bigreen505
Expedition Leader
Recommended settings
More setting and how to use the camera
Do NOT over expose your pictures. The D2x has the most heinous looking blown channels of any camera I have used, it has very limited dynamic range on the highlight side and it clips reds very, very early resulting in people with splotchy looking yellow faces. Just watch your individual channel histogram for localized over exposure. It can see pretty far into the shadows.
Make sure you have the best lenses you can get. The sensor has very dense and very small pixels so it is extremely tough on lenses. 12-24 is barely acceptable, 20-35 is really bad. Read Bjorn Rorslet lens reviews, they are very accurate, though I do disagree with a couple comments.
If you process your images with Adobe software (Lightroom, Camera Raw) use the Fors calibrator to develop a profile of your camera. Do a calibration with all your lenses and average the results. Or if you are lazy (or don't have a access to a MacBeth ColorChecker) you can do a Google search (what I did) and build a pretty decent profile. In my experience, the resulting profile is very saturated and good for everything but people (very Velvia looking colors).
I have been told that you will get the best images if you use Nikon software to process your images because Nikon does not give Adobe full access to the information in the raw file. My workflow is built around Adobe and the potentially higher image quality from Nikon software is not worth the hassle for me.
The files that come out of the camera are very fragile, so treat them accordingly. You cannot tug at the pixels like Canon files, but they don't need too much work. Capture sharpening is required, but do it lightly.
That should get you started.
More setting and how to use the camera
Do NOT over expose your pictures. The D2x has the most heinous looking blown channels of any camera I have used, it has very limited dynamic range on the highlight side and it clips reds very, very early resulting in people with splotchy looking yellow faces. Just watch your individual channel histogram for localized over exposure. It can see pretty far into the shadows.
Make sure you have the best lenses you can get. The sensor has very dense and very small pixels so it is extremely tough on lenses. 12-24 is barely acceptable, 20-35 is really bad. Read Bjorn Rorslet lens reviews, they are very accurate, though I do disagree with a couple comments.
If you process your images with Adobe software (Lightroom, Camera Raw) use the Fors calibrator to develop a profile of your camera. Do a calibration with all your lenses and average the results. Or if you are lazy (or don't have a access to a MacBeth ColorChecker) you can do a Google search (what I did) and build a pretty decent profile. In my experience, the resulting profile is very saturated and good for everything but people (very Velvia looking colors).
I have been told that you will get the best images if you use Nikon software to process your images because Nikon does not give Adobe full access to the information in the raw file. My workflow is built around Adobe and the potentially higher image quality from Nikon software is not worth the hassle for me.
The files that come out of the camera are very fragile, so treat them accordingly. You cannot tug at the pixels like Canon files, but they don't need too much work. Capture sharpening is required, but do it lightly.
That should get you started.
bigreen505
Expedition Leader
Mike,
Those lenses are all okay, particularly if the 80-200 is AFS. If you use the AFS a lot I would strongly recommend replacing it with the 70-200 VR. It is a stunning lens on the D2x. Likewise, if the 35-70 is your primary lens you might replace it with the 17-55 or 28-70 AFS. Some of the AF-D generation lenses are acceptable, but I was stunned how much better the current zooms are in terms of color fidelity and sharpness and would go so far as to say they have a distinctly Leica 3D look to them.
I don't think the primes have changed.
While TDesanto's questions are reasonable, the settings I pointed you to will help you get the most from the camera in all uses.
Those lenses are all okay, particularly if the 80-200 is AFS. If you use the AFS a lot I would strongly recommend replacing it with the 70-200 VR. It is a stunning lens on the D2x. Likewise, if the 35-70 is your primary lens you might replace it with the 17-55 or 28-70 AFS. Some of the AF-D generation lenses are acceptable, but I was stunned how much better the current zooms are in terms of color fidelity and sharpness and would go so far as to say they have a distinctly Leica 3D look to them.
I don't think the primes have changed.
While TDesanto's questions are reasonable, the settings I pointed you to will help you get the most from the camera in all uses.
tdesanto
Expedition Leader
Mike,
It seems we were both posting at the same time.
You're gonna be dissapointed with your 24mm on this DX camera. The 60mm, though, you'll probably like it even more. I know I use my 50mm f1.4 more now than ever after I switched from my F5 to digital.
You might also find the 35-70 more interesting now with the crop factor. It might prove to be a decent portrait lens.
The 70-200 ED AF-S VR is an outstanding lens. I use it a lot now. The 17-55 AFS is also a great lens...it almost has the bokeh of a prime lens. If your 80-200 is an AF-S, I'd try it against the 70-200 before spending $1700 on a lens. I've never done a side-by-side comparison with the 80-200 AF-S, so I don't know if there's that much of a difference.
I must say, though, that I'm glad to see there are more Nikon users in a distinctly Canon forum. Great choice.
It seems we were both posting at the same time.
You're gonna be dissapointed with your 24mm on this DX camera. The 60mm, though, you'll probably like it even more. I know I use my 50mm f1.4 more now than ever after I switched from my F5 to digital.
You might also find the 35-70 more interesting now with the crop factor. It might prove to be a decent portrait lens.
The 70-200 ED AF-S VR is an outstanding lens. I use it a lot now. The 17-55 AFS is also a great lens...it almost has the bokeh of a prime lens. If your 80-200 is an AF-S, I'd try it against the 70-200 before spending $1700 on a lens. I've never done a side-by-side comparison with the 80-200 AF-S, so I don't know if there's that much of a difference.
I must say, though, that I'm glad to see there are more Nikon users in a distinctly Canon forum. Great choice.
Lost Canadian
Expedition Leader
Mike, did you look at the D300? I'm looking into a new camera myself and I've been back and forth between a used D2X/D2Xs or new D300? Do you, or does anyone else have any thoughts?
bigreen505
Expedition Leader
tdesanto said:
There is a huge difference on the D2x, mostly in the way they see color. Hard to explain, but very easy to see the difference. Whether *you* think it is worth the difference is a personal call. I would say the difference is less noticeable on the D200.
I have no experience yet with the current D3/D300.
WhereTheHellIsJames?
Explorer
Mike S said:
Well, here's a tip, but not on how to use it:
With the new body and your existing quiver of fine glass, you should really be picky about a backpack! I have a DaKine Sequence and it's great for running around with, and is always within arms reach for me.
Seriously though, nice score on the D2X! Excellent choice (holy cow is it ever fast!) and unless you're a "Pros-pro", you'll have no complaints aside from the bulk/weight.
Real tip: experiment with this body! There are so many cool things that you can do with it.
BTW, nice to see that there are some other Nikon folks around here!
I definitely would shoot with the lenses you have before spending any money on the newest AFS versions at almost 2k a pop. There are quite a few well known pros who still regularly shoot with older generations of the "prime zooms" because they can't justify the cost of upgrading unless Nikon is footing the bill.
The lenses you've got are more than "ok" in my opinion, they were top of the line ~7 years ago and still beat up on 99% of consumer lenses without question. If you're not printing beyond 10x15 these lenses are going to be more than adequate in sharpness at almost all stops. I agree with some of the other posters and think you'll definitely find you want something wider than your 24 though, so start budgeting
My advice would be to focus on composition and making your colors pop through proper setup, the links below are great... learning how to get the best out of what you've got (when your equipment is already in the 99th %) is going to get you far better results than upgrading glass prematurely.
The lenses you've got are more than "ok" in my opinion, they were top of the line ~7 years ago and still beat up on 99% of consumer lenses without question. If you're not printing beyond 10x15 these lenses are going to be more than adequate in sharpness at almost all stops. I agree with some of the other posters and think you'll definitely find you want something wider than your 24 though, so start budgeting
My advice would be to focus on composition and making your colors pop through proper setup, the links below are great... learning how to get the best out of what you've got (when your equipment is already in the 99th %) is going to get you far better results than upgrading glass prematurely.
spressomon
Expedition Leader
Lost Canadian said:
FWIW: I picked up a D300 with a couple lenses about 2-months ago. And although I don't have any experience with the D2X/D2Xs I really like my D300. Zero complaints. I, for many many years, used FM, FM2 bodies and resisted going DSLR for along time...no regrets.
Mike S
Sponsor - AutoHomeUSA
I am a long time Nikon user. I think I have all the bodies I ever owned - Nikkormat FTN, F2A, F4, and a couple of Nikonos. I have a Canon g4 point and shoot that is OK for some stuff. I also have a LOT of glass accumulated over the years.
I been thinking digital Nikon for a year or so, and looked at D200, D300 cameras. These are very good cameras, but sufficiently different from my F4 that I jumped on the D2X when I found it. It has the 'feel' and ruggedness of the F4, which I have come to like.
So now I have a pile of gear on my desk and am trying to educate myself on all the basic functions and settings, then I'll start on learning the total package.
Thanks gentlemen for you help, and keep the comments coming - I am on the steep part of the learning curve.
Mike
I been thinking digital Nikon for a year or so, and looked at D200, D300 cameras. These are very good cameras, but sufficiently different from my F4 that I jumped on the D2X when I found it. It has the 'feel' and ruggedness of the F4, which I have come to like.
So now I have a pile of gear on my desk and am trying to educate myself on all the basic functions and settings, then I'll start on learning the total package.
Thanks gentlemen for you help, and keep the comments coming - I am on the steep part of the learning curve.
Mike
bigreen505
Expedition Leader
Mike S said:
I still have a F3 and F2 somewhere, but I sold all my Canon gear when I switched to Leica.
The D200 is a great value, but it is not on the same level as the D2x in any way. I can get pictures from a D200 close to a D2x, but they never quite have the same look, especially in difficult lighting. Build quality wise the D200 can take some punishment. One area that the D200 wins over the D2x is when using crappy lenses. As I wrote previously, the D2x is the most demanding camera of lens quality I have ever seen. Lenses like the 12-24 that are almost useless on the D2x are just fine on the D200.
Again, no experience with the current bodies, but I have heard stellar reviews of the D300 and several Nikon pros are patiently waiting for the D3x.