The D2X is not head-to-head with the 1Ds because it is 40% cheaper and hundreds of grams lighter. It's pretty pointless to estimate its noise characteristics before anyone has tested it.

Although, it probably will not produce quite the image quality of the 1Ds (when magnifying) becuase of the smaller sensor. It also probably has slightly more noise. (smaller pixels and iso 100 vs 50)

But GPS? You gotta be kidding me... that is the coolest thing i have ever heard of!

MAN i wish i had $5000.

Brent

You got to be kidding me... what does GPS data have to do with photography?

I think GPS info for an is a terrific idea. Photoshop CS actually allows you to add GPS coordinates to the profile information on an image.

Why is a description like "Third row, section 12, Game X at Stadium Y" less adaquate than "Longitude 57.3445645W, Latitude 38.544656N"?

Unless you are using D2X for an scientific expedition or surveying, I think it is pointless. Nikon is well known for making scientific survey equipments. I think they confused the requirements of surveying with that of commercial photographers.

Bob,

You forget the main thing, that Canon will never have: The Nikon F mount will always be around for a much longer time than a Canon mount [:-)]. It is about 45 years now and that is pretty amazing [:-)].

It is quite possible to have GPS positions associated with digital images without connecting a GPS unit to the camera. All that is required is that the camera clock is correct, and that one is carrying a GPS unit which creates a continuous track log. So every photo has an exact time of capture which can be used to look up the position of the GPS unit at that time. you could leave the GPS unit in your bag all day and never even think about it, rather than having a GPS box and cable hanging off your camera.

According to a review done by Rob Galbraith last month, the ISO ratings of the D2X go from 100 to 800 in 1/3 stop increments with separate settings for 1600 and 3200.

Brad - I belive you are correct. As I said, I'm no Nikon expert! Looks like the (H1) and (H2) which are cryptically mentioned in the specs (but notthe PR) are indeed ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 options. The 1D and 1Ds use such options for ISO 3200, but not ISO 1600. According to Rob Galbraith's review, noise reduction (when enabled) kicks in at ISO 800.

So though these factors still suggest that the small pixels of the D2X generate more noise, at lest Nikon provide options for ISO 1600 and 3200, which is good.

I'll revise the text to reflect this information,

My guess is that GPS there as a product feature that Canon doesn't have!

Don't get me wrong...I think this camera is the cat's meow, but...

You know, it is getting difficult to see the logic in the digital revolution. I've tried to justify changing over but can't seem to. I can understand PJ's, wedding shooters and perhaps some wildlife specialists going for digital but I just cant see it for most of us, especially ones that already have invested in film cameras.

I'm on my second F5 and like it. The lens that spends the most time on the body is a 28-70. It rarely gets above 50mm. The autofocus is plenty fast when I need it and I've yet to see a camera that will match the F5 in metering. If I want digital files I can pick up a 5000 scanner for 1100 bucks and I'll have 21 megapixel files that come damn close to the slide (and still have the slides for archive) and if I want a print I can spend 800 bucks on an Epson 2200 and have moderately sized prints that look better than the average lab print from analog.

Or...to match the performance of my F5 I can spend 3 to 5 thousand on a digital body that will be outdated and worth much less in two years. And darn, there goes my wide angle so there's another 1500 bucks to match my current favorite lens. I have no choice in format at that point so must archive all my files on disk.

So what am I gaining by spending 4500 to 6500 dollars?? Sure, I'll make it up at some point in savings on slide film and processing but that is a heck of an initial investment for little if any gain as far as I can tell. I don't see the rush to digital and I still think a slide through a loupe looks a lot better than a 6 meg file on my monitor. I'd also note that I see an awful lot of people spending a lot of bucks on digital bodies while putting 50 dollar lenses on them. I could be wrong (often the case) but it seems like we are losing something.

Lastly, am I the only one that still prefers prints from black and white film over desaturated digital files? Maybe I'm just getting too old and grumpy.

"You forget the main thing, that Canon will never have: The Nikon F mount will always be around for a much longer time than a Canon mount [:-)]. It is about 45 years now and that is pretty amazing [:-)]."

Well, it's true that a 1970's vintage Nikkor F-mount lens might fit on this body, but then so will a 1970's T-mount lens fit on an EOS body with a $6.95 adapter. You'll get just as much utility from either, as far as autofocus, metering, and any other benefit of automation.

This body is only fully functional with recent AF (and P) type lenses.

The difference is that this system adds the gps data automatically so the receiver of the files (maybe wirelessly sent?) can automatically verify the location where they were taken. This can be useful. Of course, it would be nicer if the body had an integral GPS unit so that the extra device wouldn't be needed. But they're moving in the right direction. Using the clocks to track gps data with images exposed is ridiculously complicated.

Steve, the images from a D70 when printed are far superior to any 35 mm color film in color accuracy, tonality, and rendition of coarse detail. The post-processing to get good prints from my LS-4000 scans takes maybe 10 times longer than to do the same from digitally captured originals. I also am heavily invested in film equipment but the quality of digital capture for most color work is far superior. I keep using both but I think the D2X will probably change that for good.

Yes, black and white film is great.

Ilkka, the least you could have done was let me stay comfortable in my delusion. That's not what I wanted to hear.

Seriously, looking at your portfolio for example, you have a good perspective for comparison. You're saying that your D70 would have given you better printed images overall....workflow aside and assuming current scanner technology? Secondly, for most of us at least, where is the value in the difference in price between the D70 and D2X?

I'm not debating...just asking an honest question. Not that long ago, that kind of investment to upgrade would have given you a decent 120 format camera and the difference between images would be obvious. There is a heck of a difference in price tag between the 70 and the 2x.

You have to admit, my F5 is a far superior weapon to your D70 as long as I don't drop it on my own foot.

It is amazing to me that people still debate the film vs. digital; they both have their place in today's photography. As for me, if the subject matter is critical, I'm burning film, Period! And the larger film the better...I'll take my Hasselblad if I can and if not 35mm slide film (F100). Point and shoot or experimental photography I'll use my D100 (same CCD as a D70). My prints from my film (both 120 and 35) are amazing and the digital prints are nice but don't print larger 11X14. This 12MP D2X is great but it is a day late (more like 1.5 years) and dollar short...I'll wait for the 16MP full frame before I spend another dime on anything Nikon digital. That is unless the get a 12MP+ back for the F6.

Steve, the primary difference in my mind between the D2X and D70 is that the former has excellent autofocus and a good viewfinder, while the latter is a disaster in both areas. But from the point of view of image quality alone (ignoring for the moment my issues with its focusing), the D70 is very good.

If you want to do black and white a lot, a film camera is indispensable. I have not seen digitally captured black and white images which are as good as film-based. If you want to use flash, c-41 film is great because of its skin tones and overexposure tolerance. If you want strong colours where they don't exist in nature, some films will do that too (we all know this and many of us like it! :-). But if you're interested in clean, grainless skies and smooth skin, no blue cast in the shadows, natural but still quite saturated colors in all outdoor conditions, etc. the D70 has all these advantages over 35 mm film. The files from the D70 are easy to adjust because of the low noise. You can lighten faces in shadows in photoshop and avoid the exaggerated grain and color shift film produces when shadows are made lighter. For me, the colours are the most important advantage the D70 has over film. I've never seen such a lifelike reproduction of natural colours with film. The fact that the images are sharp and the skies are completely smooth are bonus cherries on the cake.

While D70 files print in my opinion more beautifully, there is more fine detail in a Velvia slide, let alone black and white film. But I still overall think the smoothness of tones and very nice colours make the digital capture preferable for most colour work I do. I am only waiting for the D2X so that I can get a higher-percentage of in-focus shots of people and other moving and unpredictable subjects. That's the only real fault I can find in the D70. The files are plenty sharp enough as long as you use good optics. The plasticy "digital look" which was present in previous generations of digital cameras is gone.

Whether a D2X is worth $4000 over the D70 is a difficult question to answer. If you shoot moving subjects, or need the extra resolution, it is. But much can be done with the humble D70. The fact that you can get away with much less post-processing work is just a bonus.

>>I'll wait for the 16MP full frame before I spend another dime on anything Nikon digital<<

John, with what I can tell about Nikon's plans, you'll be waiting a looooong time. Nikon's made it quite clear with the various DX lenses coming out that they have no intention of "upgrading" to full-frame later. Unless someone around here has heard otherwise...

As for the GPS--someday, someone will come staggering out the wilderness, clutching a D2X and telling the tale of how it guided them home and saved their life. Nikon rep's will be waiting for them at the edge of that wilderness. ;>)

I can think of two applications for GPS data with the D2X.

The first is for photojournalists. Adding GPS data would show where, exactly, the photo was taken. Given the credibility problems journalists are facing after the problems with manufactured stories at several newspapers, this can only help.

The second is for documenting evidence. I believe the D2X has the ability to "watermark" the image so that it is acceptable as evidence. Adding GPS data would show where the image was taken and the exact time the image was taken (GPS time data is considered the "gold standard" for time). Assuming the GPS data was "watermarked" along with the image, this would help establish the credibility of the image when presented as evidence.

I think we all have to remember, this camera is made for professionals, not hobbyists, and some of the optional features are there for professional use.

Nikon's made it quite clear with the various DX lenses coming out that they have no intention of "upgrading" to full-frame later. Unless someone around here has heard otherwise...

Do you know anyone that has the white elephant DX-series Nikon speedlights? 'Nuff said!

Just forwarding this, apparently he couldn't post for some reason.

Hi Steve

My name is Karl; I live in South Africa. For some reason, I cld not post an answer on the D2X site.

Why, if I had the cash I wld buy the D2X.

I use an F100 at the moment and a Pentax 67 II, so durability and good quality are on my mind. The F100 I have used in a some hectic weather e.g. a snow blizzard, put it in the camera bag wet, and only thought about it again when we had managed to pitch the tent and crawled inside (-20 degree centigrade) I wiped it off and it functioned perfectly. I am careful with my gear but saving ones fingers felt like the prudent thing to do at the time. It has also been banged around a bit and has not scratch to show. The D2X will be far more durable than the D70/100.

I want to move to digital to remove the shlep of getting into the car, driving to the lab, getting the film developed and having it scanned before I can then work on the images and get the finished product to the client. Not only will it will save me time, vehicle wear and tear but also film and scanning costs. A while ago I wld hve said that there still is nothing to compare to a good 6x7 trannie on a light box, I have a quality computer screen now, and the 6x7 scans look really good on it.

I hope, and this will become clearer later, that the D2X will take the place of both the 35mm and the 6x7. This is one of the reasons that I have not yet bought into digital, I was worried that it wld not be able to print the 1m long scenic fine art work that I do. However, I recently compared an image from a friends Canon Rebel 6mp camera with a scan of my 6x7. Both images were interpolated up to a meter and then viewed at print size on PhotoShop. The 6x7 shot was sharper, but also had obvious grain, with some usm on the Rebel image it compared very well and did not have grain. Time will tell if the 12mp is going to do it for me.

With regard the b&w option, try using the RGB channels in PS instead of a straight desaturation or grey scale step it usually works much better, and you have more control.

If you are able to get this onto the D2X site that will be great.

Cheers

Karl

As a D1x user for the last 3 years, I'm excited about the D2x for a couple of reasons. First off, the price tag is pretty much the same as the D1x when it debuted. It seems like Nikon could gouge us a bit more if they wanted to. Second, they seem to have addressed most of the pet peeves I have with my toy, small display, auto rotating etc.

I'll prolly buy one in two years or so, when the price dips a little bit.

As for the switch to digital from film, the #1 reason to do so is practice... In the three years I've owned my D1x i've shot at least 20,000 frames, Most likely much more than that. The processing alone would make my starving artist style prohibitive.

You'll still hafta pry my f-100 from my cold dead hands, but only after I've bludgoened you with my D1x

"I'll prolly buy one in two years or so, when the price dips a little bit.""

You mean buy a used one? I'd say the odds are against any current DSLR being in production 2 years from now are pretty slim.

Andrew, more likely he will be clutching his GPS, that guided him to safety. And hiding D2X so that nobody can see what stupid mistakes made them lost in the first place ;-)

Brooks, I don't see why would GPS data or digital "watermarking" (I guess it means cryptographically signing the file?) or whatever made any difference regarding the authenticity. All that stuff is written in the digital file. It could have been inserted into the file later on the PC or Mac. Unless the camera (at the moment of image creatation) sends the data for signing over a satelite link to Nikon HQ, and Nikon pinpoints from the orbit from where the transmission is originating. Remember, security is process, not an product! Nikon (or anybody else) can't sell you security as an product. Because such thing doesn't exist and will never exist. You have to make secure process that can be independently audited if you want to be able to prove that photograph was taken at certain place at certain time.

Data Verification is possible. See the Canon Canon DVK-E2 system.

Bob,

You don't need DVK E2 to make sure your images were not tampered with. Generate SHA-1 hash of your files on the PC. If 3rd party needs proof that you sent the files and that they were not tampered with in transit, install PGP and sign the files. The fact that with DVK E2 it is done in-camera gives you only the convinience of not having to do that manually on your PC. Plus, I can't find anywhere any details about which hash algorithm Canon uses. Hopefully it isn't anything propriatary (history teahces us that such hash functions are far less secure than public ones such as SHA-1).

I really wonder about why Nikon and most other digital SLR manufacturers still produce a smaller sized CMOS or CCD that results in magnification and makes wide angle photography tougher. It is possible to a 35mm Equivalent CMOS (Like Canon's Mark 1Ds, i guess) even if it increases cost. Please Nikon, and others, do something. At least offer something. One reason I still have to use a film camera because I can't afford to buy really expensive ultra-wide lenses just to end up with a marely wide angle lens. Please please please, do something. I hope the readers of this site and article agree to me.

As for Nikon D2X, it seems like a great camera. However, it is targetted for professionals. I am rather waiting for a consumer or prosumer end better camera.

You probably don't want to be trusting the encrypted GPS info in your D2X cameras (if that is what it does), since this comes in over a serial cable using open spec, unencrypted NMEA protocol. It would be fairly simple to attach a PC to the same input and "fake" your time and position to be whatever you like. You might trust the encryption shenannigans in the camera, but you _definitely_ can't trust what is on the other end of the GPS cable.

GPS? maybe for photojournalism's instant positioning information?Wouldn't you want to have the rest of the world know where exactly you took that photo under fire before you had to quit the scene ?

The fact that with DVK E2 it is done in-camera gives you only the convinience of not having to do that manually on your PC

Doesn't it also mean that the verification is done BEFORE you get the chance to tamper with your files on a PC?

The DVK E2 scheme (I presume) verifies that the original data as shot by the camera hasn't been tampered with. If you use a program on your PC to verify files you've downloaded, then what are you verifying? Only that a file you sent to someone hasn't been tampered with by someone else after it was sent. It says nothing about the original file.

>>>>I'll wait for the 16MP full frame before I spend another dime on anything Nikon digital<<

>>John, with what I can tell about Nikon's plans, you'll be waiting a >>looooong time. Nikon's made it quite clear with the various DX >>lenses coming out that they have no intention of "upgrading" to >>full-frame later. Unless someone around here has heard otherwise...

Nikon has stated that if and when they release a fullframe DSLR it will include a larger diameter lensmount. The F-mount (and similar sized mounts used by other brands) is not capable of producing the image quality on the frame edges required for a digital sensor. Due to internal processes in the sensor which do not happen in film there will be too much loss of quality.

If and when a new mount is created this will coexist with the F-mount and NOT replace it (unlike other brands which discontinue mounts for other mounts repeatedly).

>> Steve, the primary difference in my mind between the D2X and D70 >> is that the former has excellent autofocus and a good viewfinder, >> while the latter is a disaster in both areas. But from the point >> of view of image quality alone (ignoring for the moment my issues >> with its focusing), the D70 is very good.

D70 has excellent features in all those areas for a camera in its class. You just can't compare a $1000 camera with a $4000 camera and conclude that the $1000 is no good.

>> The difference is that this system adds the gps data automatically >> so the receiver of the files (maybe wirelessly sent?) can

D2x will be compatible with the wireless networking system introduced with the D2h (802.11 I believe) so that's entirely feasible.

>> You know, it is getting difficult to see the logic in the digital >> revolution. I've tried to justify changing over but can't seem to. >> I can understand PJ's, wedding shooters and perhaps some wildlife >> specialists going for digital but I just cant see it for most of >> us, especially ones that already have invested in film cameras.

Same here. Digital is maturing in quality to a level where changing over (at least in part) is becoming feasible but the price point is still WAY out there. And with the digicam replacement policies of manufacturers (though Nikon is not as bad as most there) which give a camera an economic and technical life of a year, 2 at most, it's impossible to even save enough money on film to justify the move from a cost perspective.

Re. sensitivity. If the D2x uses the same sensor technology as does the D2h you cannot compare the MP and sensitivities (noise relation especially) to other cameras. The tech is far more advanced yielding lower noise and sharper results despite having higher EI and lower MP.

The DVK E2 scheme (I presume) verifies that the original data as shot by the camera hasn't been tampered with. If you use a program on your PC to verify files you've downloaded, then what are you verifying? Only that a file you sent to someone hasn't been tampered with by someone else after it was sent. It says nothing about the original file.

Yes, but how are you going to tell that the hash was computed and appended to the file at the time of image creation in the camera, rather than post-fact on my PC? It's just a file, as any other file. Just as the camera can write it to the card, creating the hash and so on, so can my PC. There is no way for the card to tell if it is connected to camera or PC. It just gets file from somewhere and stores it. Even if there is clock inside the memory card that will tell when the data is written, there are problems. First, image might be produced beforehand, and then just written to the card at the right time in future (remember, there's no way for the card to tell to what it is connected to). This is almost zero cost to the attacker, he just have to use some common sense and have the right image ready at the right time. Second, how do you know that memory card itself was not tampered with (for example, its internal clock, if it has one)? Not a zero cost as previous example, but still not that expensive, and in some cases definitely profitable for attacker. Even if encryption was used in communication between camera and memory card, so that devices can ensure that they are talking to each other, camera could sign the file so that we know that it was generated with that particular camera, card could add another signature telling when the data was written to it, encryption keys would have to be stored on both of the devices. Again, for everything to work automatically, those keys would have to be stored on the devices unprotected by passphrases. Anybody with sufficient funds, knowledge and/or appropriate equipment (that isn't expensive to make) would be able to recover those keys. Plus, there's still a problem of somebody tampering with internal clocks of both devices. And again, he can forge as much as he wants.

At one place I used to work at, we had some kind of cards used for authentication that were supposed to destroy content of chips on any attempt of physical tampering with the card, which might help in solving of some of the problems I described above, if implemented in both camera and memory card (imagine 1Ds self destroying its electronic parts because it incorectly detected that somebody is tampering with it ;-). I won't go into much detail, but even those cards were not 100% bulletproof. I doubt that stuff that comes with the Canon's kit is anywhere close to it.

As I said, security is process. You can't have single gadget that will give you security. Banks are fighting problems equivalent to this one for very very long time. And they are nowhere close to the ultimate solution. And here comes Canon, offering you single, simple device that's supposed to do it. Not likely. What digital security boils down to is to make attack too time consuming or too expensive or both (for anybody wanting to make profit or fame out of it). This Canon's setup looks way too simplistic (well, at least to me) to achieve any of those two points.

Oh, and I just had another idea. I could make a print of my forgery, put it on the wall, and than just shoot it with my camera making it slightly out of focus (hey, it was shot in the heat of the battle, real bullets flying around). And I don't have to worry about all that high-tech stuff I just described above. DVK E2 is going to do its job as its supposed to, verifying that image is written to the card as it was created by the camera, with timestamps, and even forged GPS data (OK, now I'm going into high-tech a bit again ;-)

The sensor technology in the D2X is not the LBCAST of the D2H. Nikon has designed a high-res LBCAST but the R&D of it took so long that Nikon decided to with the CMOS which was more ready for the D2X. So maybe there will be a D2Xs with the LBCAST sensor a bit later.

GPS capability is old news for D1X/D1H users as at least both those bodies (not sure about D1) have had that feature the whole time. Moose's GPS with the D1H/D1X article .

Where is review? How does this sensor compare W.R.T D70 for IR/UV?

A GPS tag in every image file is a wonderful thing when you are trying to locate a particular photo among tens of thousands of image files and the only thing you remember about it is where you shot it. Wired mag had an interesting article on this and related subjects in the most recent issue.

Nikon is making an important statement with this camera: THERE WILL BE NO FULL FRAME DIGITAL NIKON!

Almost three years after this camera is released, they announce a full frame one. Good for Nikon, and good for everybody else too!

A recently published interview with someone from Nikon Japan R&D said that they are going to keep developing the DX format for at least three (3) years. They didn't say what would happen after 3 years, my guess is that a smaller sensor isn't it.

Having just finished a 4,700+ mile photography road trip, I'd love to have GPS data for each of the images I captured. It'd be great to know exactly where it was I shot that sunset, mountain, insect etc.

However having a cable run from the gps to the camera to capture location data would be cumbersome. Perhaps Nikon could integrate a GPS into the camera, or provide a WIFI or bluetooth connection to a like enabled GPS.

The new D2x will be a great camera. For those who wonder why they should pay 4000$ more for a D2x than for a D70 : 1. The body of the D2x is much stronger...so rain, dust, hot or cold, yeah I even think you can let it fall...it will take much longer before the D2x will stop working compared to the D70. 2. The D2x is made to shoot over 100,000 files (what I do more or less on a yearly base)compared to the 40,000 files for the D70. 3. The colors of the D2x are way less saturated, softer, in other words it means the colors professionals prefer above the more saturated colors of the D70. 4. The accuracy, the speed and the viewfinder of the D2x will make it way easier to make good captures in circumstances where you need to shoot faster than your shadow (PJ, sports, etc) 5. The D2x has features, although not important for general photography, the D70 hasn't. The D2x is a camera for regulary daily use, while the D70 is made for a less intensive use. 6. Compared to the Mark II's of Canon...it's exactly the same as comparing an high end BMW and an high end Mercedes. It's what you prefer, what you like best, what you believe is the best choice for you...both are very good, both are the best you can find today on the market.

Comparing the price of a DSLR with any other SLR in the same category is very simple.

How many pictures are you shooting every week? If you shoot more than 360 frames (10 films) you will spend around 3,000$ a year on films and developing them....This means that you earn the higher price of the DSLR body back in one year. The second year you work with an higher priced DSLR you earn 3,000$, money you can put on the side to buy you the newest camera on the market in year 3.

DSLR cameras offer you the endless possibility to do experiments without any cost of film/developement.

How do you know what the colours of the D2X will be? Have you used one? As to what pros prefer, it depends completely on the individual and the genre. Not all pros shoot portraits. And also, during the film era you could not choose accurate and saturated colours. Now you can. And my prediction is that that's what the D2X will have also.

I'm new here, still using my beloved F3's and FM2's but leaning to going digital. My primary objection has been the focul length multiplier making my favorite 105 no longer a possibility (I like primes, guys. Zooms are too slow.). What do you think of the not yet mentiontioned Kodak PRO slr/n which uses the Nikon lenses as they were designed to be used: 1 to 1. Yeh, I saw that the new Canon is also 1-1 but it's a lot more money and a bit short on the megapixels.

To Ilkka,

The D2x will replace the D1x so Nikon will try to put in a ccd (cmos)with (more or less) equal colours. THese colours are less saturated than the D70...BTW you don't need softer colours for portraits only, journalisme, publicity, architecture,...they all need colours that need accurate, pure and real colours. best Geert

The software and firmware decide the colours, not the imaging chip. Any differences in the hardware of the sensor would be compensated by calibration which is a part of the software/firmware. If you want to modify the rendition of colours from a digital camera, all you need to do is profile (recalibrate) it. Any digital camera can be used to produce virtually exactly the same colours than another camera, given that all the technical details (spectral sensitivities and filter attenuation spectra) are known. Still, I'd be surprised if the colours from the D2X are significantly more bland than those from the D70. The colours from the D70 are one of the key reasons what makes it so popular. (And no, the D70 isn't popular just among amateurs, pros use it as well even though they may also own the D1X or equivalent.)

Steve (Foster), Just wanted to make a comment regarding the F5 vs D70. I used an F5 for around 3 years, did a lot of weddings and other shoots, and I loved it dearly until it was lifted from my car. It took me 3 years to recover financially from this loss to be able to purchase new gear. I took the opportunity to go digital due to workflow.

There are 3 things I miss off the F5 that the D70 doesnt have:

100% bright view finder

mirror lock up

vertical grip.

Other than that I find the D70 is as much the camera the F5 is. Usage is great, the image quality is fantastic, and as far as B&W if you use the right method of conversion in your software, you should be able to get great results without wasting tons of paper and chemicals.

Now before you say anything about the build quality, yes the F5 is made of super titanium blah blah metal, but I used to handle the F5 like a newborn too.

Not sure about the new D2X, I will wait until they are released and fully tested by the boffins and reviewers, then I will rent one for a while before I make my decision.

One reason i am interested in the gps feature is for my children and their children. when i view my father pics i would love to be able to visted the very site, the very same date and time that he shot the photo many years before me. as my father has now passed on i believe it would be a pretty real experience. i want to leave my family the same opportunity. by giving them more data they will be able to do so.

Yes, but how are you going to tell that the hash was computed and appended to the file at the time of image creation in the camera, rather than post-fact on my PC?

I don't know what the camera actually does but it would be possible to use an asymmetric key system for the 1-way hash with a private key in the camera and public key to verify the origin. It would also be possible to store the private key in volatile memory maintained with a battery whose circuit is broken when someone takes the camera apart, to make it difficult to reverse engineer the private key. One step in servicing a camera would then be to load the key by some process.

I would be skeptical as to whether the camera in question actually did something like this, but it is certainly possible. You would not be able to digitally watermark/sign a file on your PC without the private key.

"Nikon has stated that if and when they release a fullframe DSLR it will include a larger diameter lensmount. The F-mount (and similar sized mounts used by other brands) is not capable of producing the image quality on the frame edges required for a digital sensor. Due to internal processes in the sensor which do not happen in film there will be too much loss of quality. "

Jeroen, where did you hear this? To the contrary, I've seen Nikon say the reason they're not releasing a full-frame digital is economic, not technical. The Kodak DCS 14 or whatever proves that a 24x36 sensor can be used with the F-mount and any deficiencies that camera has in terms of image quality are due to other reasons. The images I've seen from that camera (at its lowest ISO) and the 17-35 were very impressive. Even if the F-mount is a bit smaller than ideal, there would be nothing to prevent Nikon from introducing a camera with a 1.1X crop factor or similar.

The rumor about Nikon and a larger lensmount originated in a ColorFoto magazine editor's column and Nikon fiercely denied that there is any truth to it. ColorFoto later apologized for publishing unsubstantiated rumors.

Of course nikon go for fullframe, THE D3, next nikon dslr, 16mp full, 8mp crop @1.5x , i want to wait to the full frame, search in google about this new dslr, very impresive, greetings...

I assume when you mentioned the web page detailing the Nikon D3 that you were talking about this page: http://apphotnum.free.fr/N2BE27%20v1.6.html

Apparently you didn't read the entire article. The last line on the page says: "The only main defect of Nikon F6/D3 is to be today entirely virtual and to have been imagined only for April Fool's Day."

Nikon has/have "no intention of upgrading to full frame"? Well, no one knows their intentions, and, if such is their intention, they are not likely to announce it, since it might undercut their short-term sales of the lenses made expressly for the smaller (but not small) 24mm x 16mm sensor. Tired of waiting, I bought the Kodak 14n, not what I would like, but quite good in image quality with firmware upgrades--and the sensor size is 36mm x 24mm. I'll still be waiting for what Nikon might ultimately do with full-frame cameras, but in the meantime at least I'll be using my Nikon lenses on a full-frame camera. If I had the money, I would admittedly buy the latest Canon digicam and associated lenses, but this "solution" will have to do for now. Since I paid "only" $2700 for the Kodak 14n (with the 250 MB buffer), this seemed a reasonable compromise for me, given my current investment in Nikon lenses. As for Canon, yes, perhaps they are doing better, but I am still smarting from the abandonment of the old FD mount lenses--perhaps not a rational way to look at lens acquisition, but one that affected my decision to go Nikon. Now that I've made that choice, I'll stay with it. I really do believe that one can get great pictures with both Nikon and Canon, and with digital and film--and I still do haul out the old AE-1 once in a while and still get pretty darned good results with it.

I didn't read all the posts but has anyone talked about the "dust on sensor factor"? with film cameras I can go to africa or the amazon as a wildlife photgrapher and shoot in the worst conditions. If I "God forbid change lenses" on my F5 then the next frame of film will be mud or dust free. Now granted I have had film sctratch from dirt, but the digital sensor would almost be toast if i changed lenses in a dust storm in a dessert, or a rainstorm in a rainforest. I think for the wildlife photographer, or photojournalist, in extreme conditions the F5 will stay in thier bag for quite some time! Although wartime photojournalist appreciate instant transfer of images to their affiliates. The rest of the "worst case" photographers will stick with film.

Regarding the dust question:

On the Nikon D1x (and I assume other digital SLRs) there is a shutter protecting the sensor, just like there is a shutter protecting the film in an F5. (To see it, take the lens off and carefully lift the mirror.) The shutter only opens at the instant of exposure, so there is no more risk of dust landing on the sensor during a lens change than there is of dust landing on film. (And, even if dust does get on the sensor, the image is digital so it's very easy to fix in Photoshop.)

From my experience, the most critical time when a camera is exposed to dust/sand/bugs/etc. is while changing a roll of film. This, of course, is not an issue with a digital camera.

D2X not good enough- I just changed over to Canon from Nikon. About 3 years ago my company invested about $25K in Nikon gear - D1, F5, loads of lenses, flashes et. The problem I always had was the physical sensor size. I really don't care about the MP as long as it has over 10. What many photographers don't seem to FULLY realize is effect that sensor or film size has on the overall look of a photograph as it pertains to depth of field. Going from Nikons APS size sensor to Canons full size senson has made a huge difference for me. I am an advertising photographer so narrow depth of field is very important to me. The bottom line is the larger the sensor size the narrower the depth of field. The same hold true in video. I am always reading about video pros that are looking for the "film" look. The "film" look comes mostly from the narrow depth of field produced by the 35mm cimema film cameras. With typical mid to low end pro video cameras (1/2" CCD) almost everything is in focus. It is almost impossible to separate the background from the subject unless you have a huge room. That is how you can always tell that it was shot it video. The same holds true for still cameras. It is almost impossible to take advertising quality photos using the APS format. It has that same "video camera" look. Many photographer think that you can just change the lens and you can make up for the smaller sensor size. Not true. It amazes me that Nikon does not have a full size sensor - What are they thinking? They are losing all the high end advertsing photographers for the reason I explained above.

The difference between Nikons APS size and Canons full size is huge. Huge enough for me to take an $16K loss in the Nikon gear and spend a fortune on all new Canon gear. The only reason that I did so was for the large sensor.

I have not used Canon since I was a kid (F1). All I can say is wow! I love it. I have never been so amazed by a piece of equipment as I have with the EOS Mark II 1Ds. There is still a use for 4x5 and 120 studio cams but for everything else this camera is amazing.

Bob Williams

Bob, surely you don't need a shallow DOF all the time. When you do need that, surely there are shorter lenses that can offset the multiplier effect. Won't purchasing a few shorter lenses give a less expensive solution than starting all over? After all, it is not wide aperture per se that gives a shallow DOF, but a wide aperture relative to focal length. A short lens will shorten the focal length and allow you to get the same ratio needed for the desired DOF, right?

There might be any number of good reasons to switch brands, of course, but I cannot believe that needing a shallow DOF is a particularly good reason to go to a camera with a large sensor. Of course, lens quality has to be correspondingly higher in the smaller "digital" lenses to make them truly effective, and at wider angles that might indeed be a real challenge, for all I know.

At the other extreme, the smaller sensors can make superteles out of ordinary telephoto lenses.

It is interesting that both Nikon and Olympus might be staking their futures on preferences for smaller, lighter lenses. Where Canon will continue to have an advantage on this issue is that over time the 24 x 36 sensor will probably come to be able to gather more and more megapixels. Already Kodak is getting almost 14 megapixels out of it, and now the Canon 1 Ds Mark II is getting about 16, right?

In other words, perhaps we won't have to go for a huge MF back to get true MF quality, if current trends continue. Resolution, not merely DOF, is something that photographers will always revere, especially as write times for huge files continue to drop, and as transfer rates and storage capacities on computers continue to increase. Yes, my Kodak's 37 MB TIFFs are a pain to store now, and yours are even bigger, but dropping storage costs will take care of that problem soon enough.

I, too, think that the future that I prefer lies with the big sensor, but apparently not for the same reason as you. I like big files and am willing to carry around the same lenses I always have in order to get them. I don't need tiny lenses, but many persons are going to choose that option, and I won't blame them.

All of this is going to be moot, of course, if Nikon makes an imminent announcement of a camera with a 24 x 36 sensor. In the meantime, don't expect Kodak to stand still. I'm getting decent results in good light with my 14n, and the newer Kodaks that also handle Nikon lenses are even better.

In other words, even if Nikon doesn't come through (and my guess is that they will), Kodak probably will. That company isn't divesting itself of most of its film-making facilities for nothing, and the fact that they are going after the consumer market doesn't mean that they ae indifferent to the high-end market.

Even at my age, I will stake my decisions on developing trends, not present realities, and for me the future promises bigger files and higher resolution out of digital cameras. With luck I will live to see my Nikon lenses getting full use on a Nikon digital body. In the meantime there is Kodak. I don't have the money to switch back to Canon (again), although I frankly don't doubt that they have the best high-end digicams around right now.

For others, let's face it: 12 megapixels will do quite nicely.

======Bob, surely you don't need a shallow DOF all the time. When you do need that, surely there are shorter lenses that can offset the multiplier effect. Won't purchasing a few shorter lenses give a less expensive solution than starting all over? After all, it is not wide aperture per se that gives a shallow DOF, but a wide aperture relative to focal length. A short lens will shorten the focal length and allow you to get the same ratio needed for the desired DOF, right?======

No I do not need shallow DOF all the time just most of the time. Purchasing shorter lenes will not solve the problem. Film (or sensor) size also effect DOF -factors - focal length - aperature- subject distance and film size. This is not usually taught however it is very true. WIth a 4x5 or 8x10 camera you can get extreme shallow DOF - 120 less - 35mm less- APS even less - even with the same relative focal length and aperature. Think of a show like the West Wing or just about any motion picture (shot on 35mm film) They are able to pull focus - focus from one persons face to another even when they are close to each other - one face goes out of focus whike the other is speaking. Now take the same situation and shoot it with a regular comsumer or semi pro video camerea (1/3" CCD) like the XL2 with the same relative focal length and aperature. There is no way that you can really pull focus because almost everything is in focus and out of focus blur is much less noticable. The only difference is that one is 35mm and the other is 1/3". That is why most video pros prefer to work with at least a 2/3" CCD video cam. I have an XL1 and an XL2 and have worked with 2/3" Video cams - the difference is extreme. It is almost impossible to get a good blurred background with an XL2 when shooting a person (you need a huge room). All rules for DOF apply equally to film and video. The difference between the APS format and the full frame 35mm is also extreme but not as extreme as the example given. Many experienced photograhers do not fully understand how film/sensor size effects DOF becuase for some reason it is usuall not taught or written about. It was never taught to me in photography school. Sensor/film size is an important thing to factor in when purchasing any camera. For some people narrow DOF is not important - in commercial photography and high end film production it is almost everyting. I hope this helps - I am not very good as explaining such things. bw

Thanks, Bob. I did post that first paragraph as an extended question precisely because I was not sure of my own claim that it is not wide aperture per se that gives a short depth of focus, but instead that it is aperture relative to focal length that is solely responsible for DoF.

I still cannot intuitively see why this would not be true, based on my meager understanding of optics, but thanks for trying to explain it to me.

Bob,

I understand and appreciate your comments about DOF and your reasons for switching to a larger sensor. The implication that media size directly affects DOF, however, may be confusing many readers. DOF is controlled by focal length, subject distance, and aperture. Sensor/film size directly affects the field of view (FOV), not DOF.

Thus, I think what you're trying to say is that due to constraints from the size of your studio, the maximum aperture of your lenses, and the size of your subjects, smaller sensors force you to use shorter focal length lenses to get the FOV you need. In turn, it is the shorter focal lengths that are impeding your ability to get the shallow DOF effect you're seeking. Thus, in your case, I buy the assertion the bigger sensor is a major advantage.

Although the sensor in the D2x is half the square area of the 1Ds Mark II sensor, the smaller 5.5 micron pixel pitch of the D2x actually gives it significantly higher resolution. In my business--nature/wildlife photography--it happens a lot that my 800mm and 500mm lenses are still not long enough to get DX frame filling shots. In these situations, the higher resolution of the D2x is a big advantage as it enables higher degrees of cropping and enlarging. Also, for several important reasons, the D2x's LiIon battery system is a major logistical advantage out in the field. And yes, every once in a while, GPS is a nice benefit, particularly for aerial shots.

So the way I see this breaking down is the 1Ds Mark II is a phenomenal studio camera, and the D2x is a great studio camera. Out in the field, with an ultra-telephoto attached, these roles are exactly reversed.

Thanks, Mark, for throwing subject distance into the equation. What you say does make intuitive sense to me now.

As for Bob, he simply confronted us with the empirical fact that sensor size is a big factor in his type of shooting. You have made theoretical sense of that fact for me. Thank you.

"Re. sensitivity. If the D2x uses the same sensor technology as does the D2h you cannot compare the MP and sensitivities (noise relation especially) to other cameras. The tech is far more advanced yielding lower noise and sharper results despite having higher EI and lower MP.

-- Jeroen Wenting, October 18, 2004"

amen, brother. seeing comparisons of d70 images vs. d2h images changed my outlook on the megapixel race. even now i would consider getting a d2h because it's images look so good. it's amazing what nikon can and will do.

OK guys I am not quite smart enough to make my point so I'll use a paragraph I got from dofmaster.com that makes my point. http://www.dofmaster.com/dof_dslr.html xxxxxxxxxxx Depth of Field Using 35mm SLR with 50mm Lens and Subject Distance of 10 Feet, and DSLR with 33mm Lens and Subject Distance of 10 feet

There may be times when you want to change lenses to keep the same subject size in the photograph. In this example, you could use a 50mm lens on the 35mm SLR, and a 33mm (50/1.5) lens on the DSLR. At a focus distance of 10 feet, you would get similar photographs as shown in Figure 13. As shown in Figures 11 and 12 below, the DSLR photographs will exhibit more depth of field when the focal length for the DSLR is adjusted so the framing is identical for the two cameras (Figure 13.) The total DOF at f/5.6 for the 35mm SLR is about 4.25 feet, from about 8.25 feet to 12.5 feet. The total DOF at f/5.6 for the DSLR is about 7.5 feet, from about 7.5 feet to 15 feet. So, the DOF is about 3.25 feet longer, at f/5.6, with the 33mm lens focused at 10 feet on the DSLR. xxxxxxxx

The point is this... from 10 feet away using the same aperature and using a lens that allows you to come up with the same exact framing, the depth of field on the 35mm is about 1/2 of the DSLR used in the example. I think we can all agree on this. We can also agree that for many photographers the wider depth of field on the SDLR may be a net positive.

Now to your point.... If you move back further from the subject and attach a larger lens then using the DSLR you can get depth of field that is more narrow. Yes this is true. The point is this.... the person with the 35mm can also move back further and his depth of flield will get even more narrow. Therefore a full frame 35mm camera ALWAYS has a more narrow DOF than a APS format when at the same distance from the subject.

FOr example - At a sporting event if I have my Canon Mark II and another photographer has a DX2 and we are shooting next to each other I will be able to get a depth of field that is more narrow. If the other photographer moves back so can I and I wll once again have more narrow depth of field. One camera may be able to isolate a single player using narrow DOF the other may show several players in various levels of focus. Of course it could work against the person with the 35mm if he needed very wide DOF. The point is that the 35mm full frame will always be able to produce a more narrow DOF than an APS size when shot from the same distance. So when holding both cameras the full fame camera is in fact the one that you should grab if you want to isolate your subject. What if you moved back 20 feet?.... well the full frame would once again be your choice for the most narrow DOF.

The example given shows the DOF difference doubled - that makes a huge difference. So my point is that by having a full frame DSLR I am allowing myself to get DOF that is much more narrow than with my old DX1. If I need DOF that is even more narrow I can pull out a 4x5 or 120. In conclusion.... if I bring my DX1 and Mark II and shoot will both of them all day, taking photos that are framed exactly the same (and same aperature) by using different lenes on each camera I will always have more narrow DOF on my Mark II. If I move back with the Nikon cam to match the DOF of the Canon I could just snap a photo with the Canon and once again the DOF would be more narrow.

So my point is this ( I know I make a lot of points!)... a larger film/sensor size gives you more narrow DOF relative to a smaller one. This of course could be a good or bad thing but it should be undestood.

Another way to look at it -my studio is about 40 feet long. Using the entire length of the studio my DOF will be the most narrow with my 4x5 2nd 120 3rd Mark II and last DX1. That is the point that I was trying to make when pointing out that larger sensor/film size equals more narrow DOF.

The DOF differnce between my DX1 and Mark II is huge. It is so much easier to isolate my subject with a nice blurry background with the Mark II. Hope this helps. I think that this is a very important point that is missed by many still and motion photographers . Bob

Bob, I went to the page in question, and it is very interesting.

As near as I can tell, both you and Mark are both right: you are correct with regard to the empirical facts which you report, and Mark is right about the three variables that determine the depth of field.

The site in question makes almost immediate allusion to the third variable which Mark mentioned: distance from the subject (i.e., "moving with one's feet," or words to that effect). This resolves both the practical and theoretical quandary for me, although this and a lot else in optics will never be intuitively satisfying to me, anymore than assuming that the speed of light is constant ever will in general physics.

Even so, if the facts are as they are (and I certainly am not disputing what you say), and if the math is right, perhaps intuition sometimes has to be set aside.

(Darn, this turned into a heavy thread.)

Thanks for the observations, Bob. This is truly something I have never thought nearly enough about, although I have been aware for some time (about three years) that small sensor digital cameras (read: Olympus E-20, in my case) can be a pain when trying to contract the DOF.

Bob Williams wrote: "The "film" look comes mostly from the narrow depth of field produced by the 35mm cimema film cameras."

Didn't you post almost the same thing in another forum not too long ago? Not that it's a problem but I feel I should make the same comment I made in the other thread. What you stated above is incorrect. The 'film look' comes from frame rate and not from DOF.

Karim,

I may have made a similar post on another forum. I have no idea but it is possible.

Film Look: Yes you are right "film look" as defined my most people is the way that frames look as they pass by at 24fps. Interlaced video has a much different look.

I guess what I was saying is "looks like film". Video shot at 24p does not in itself look anything like film to me. I use an XL2 and sometimes shoot at 24p. It looks like cheap video going by at 24fps rather than like film. The reason... almost everything is in focus. There is no way (other than purchesing an adaper that converts the DOF on an XL2 to the same as 35mm - $10K+) to really knock the background out of focus. Imagine a scene from a motion picture where 2 people are at a table talking(no need to point it out- I have used this example before). Usually the director will use a very narrow depth of field and pull focus on each actor. As an actor speaks he/she is in focus, when the other speaks they are in focus. A great pull focuser can do this so smoothy that you do not even notice. This is done all the time on films and most people just do not really notice. Your eye is fixed on the person speaking at all times. On most scenes in a film the director will move your eyes to a specific area that is in focus and knock the rest out. That to me - "looks like fim" Even if you watch the movie on TV and it is interlaced it still looks like it was shot on film to me. <p>Now lets go to video (cameras that cost less than $30K). There is no way to do this. If you focus on the person speaking the other will be will focus. In fact most of the room will probably be in focus. It looks very much like video. We all see stuff like this all the time on MTV and reality TV. You can tell quickly that it was shot on video. Now if you take this video and flm it at 24p it still to me looks just like video.

In fact if you read just about any book on producing films they will all tell you that 35mm looks like film because of the fact that you can easily knock out the background. 16mm film much like most digital video because it has a hard time knocking out the backgrounds and that is the main reason that filmmakers do not like to use it.

So to me if I want to shoot digital video and I want it to look like film I would rent a very expensive video camera that has a sensor of at least 2/3" and shoot it at 24p. You will be able to knock the backgrounds out and if you can light the scenes properly it will look pretty close to film.

Sorry I know that this has little to do with the D2X however the same principles appy when using a camera such as the D2X rather than a full frame such as the 1Ds Mark II as described in my earlier posts. Perhaps a couple of people may benifit from understanding the effects that sensor/film size has on the look of photography and video. I am not a very good teacher - the only reason I brought it was was that this (DOF as it relates to sensor/film size) is the least understood fundamental of cameras that I am aware of and it has a huge effect on the overall look. For some reason it is better understood in the motion picture industry that in the still.

Bob

Bob, I think you're a pretty good teacher, and that site you ref