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?! I would like to see the Leicaflex with the full microprism screen.Dante stella stories photographs technical guestbook A proposito della civiltà di apparenze. The standard screen is in it now and in anoter box I have a grid screen for it. I still enjoy using cameras with fixed screens like the Konica Autoreflex T3N or Canon EF (microprism) or Nikkormat FT2 but I find them more difficult to use for macro work. I used the T2 earlier this month to photograph some enormous mushrooms which popped up on my neighbor's lawn. I also have two Konica FT-1s and a Konica Autoreflex T2 with Nikon E screens installed. A grid type screen is my standard one when shooting with a Canon F-1/F-1n, Minolta X-700, Nikon FE, Bronica ETR/S, Bronica SQ-A and Bronica GS-1. These include brightness, contrast, usability in low light and others. There are many factors which go into making a screen desirable for various uses. For high magnification macro shooting I prefer a plain matte screen. For macro work I find split image, microprism and combination focusing aids distracting. The screen allows me to focus equally well on any area of the scene. The grid lines serve as a sharpness reference and can aid in composition. I especially like the a grid screen for macro work and for using slower lenses like zooms. This is the brighter Lasermatte version of the grid screen. My favorite screen for general work is the L D. As far as I know Canon did not make a screen for this series which had the microprism for the whole viewing area. I have all of the standard focusing screens for the Canon F-1/F-1n cameras including some L types.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |