Reviews by checklg

This was a slightly unintentional purchase as I was initially enquiring about a D100 successor. However, as the D200 was not on the horizon and the specifications seemed unsettled I decided to check out the D2X, planning to discount it as too expensive. Ill stick with the D100 for now I thought.

The trouble was that the more I looked at the D2X, the more I liked it.

First of all the overall build is more robust than anything Ive handled since the F5, way more so than the D100. While Im not planning to chuck the D2X about Im no longer so worried about little things like changing lenses and bending the aperture control leaver. It is more bulky than its predecessor, but that bulk is made up of a set of camera controls that can be used when the camera is held in portrait mode and a fairly unstoppable battery.

In terms of features the little annoyances like the compact flash slot access, which could be flicked open so easily on the D100, now comes with a separate locking catch. Also, the ISO, Quality and White Balance controls are no longer mixed up with the exposure mode dial, and have their own control buttons positioned beneath the large LCD screen that provides menu access and image review. All in all anyone who has used a D100 should have no problem navigating the basic D2X functions.

So far Ive been using my D2X for close-up photography, making a great deal of use of the mirror lock-up facility and the MC-30 remote release. This leads me to my only D2X design criticism to date, the remote release socket. This is normally covered by a small plastic screw-in plug which threatens to get lost very quickly. Also, while I could attach the old style shutter release cable to my D100 while wearing woollen mitts (Scottish winters), I dont think I can do that with the D2X. Cold finger time coming up! Mind you the MC-30 has no sliding mechanical bits so the resulting shutter action is very smooth.

The D2X takes a variety of Compact Flash cards, and after a deal of thought I decided to buy a 2GB card for this camera. As the image size is about twice that of a D100 RAW file an upgrade was inevitable, and I eventually decided to go for 2GB as I can easily take a 100 shots on a good day out with seabirds. The card I ended up going for was the Sandisk Extreme III. OK, with a name like that it should either fly, be an ice-axe or possibly a safety razor, but it is very fast indeed when it comes to saving and previewing images. Highly recommended, and I think the capacity and speed will be very useful for bird-flight photos.

In terms of camera set-up my critical camera settings are:

Image Quality - RAW
RAW compression - OFF
Long exposure noise reduction - ON
High ISO noise reduction - OFF
ISO - 100
Image sharpening - None
Tone compensation Automatic
Colour space Adobe
Colour mode II
Self timer 5 seconds
Monitor off 1 minute
Exposure delay mode ON
File number sequence - ON.

As mentioned above Ive been doing some close-up work since the new purchase. The results seem much sharper than what I was able to get with the D100, which didnt have a mirror lock, only a shutter delay, and as a result Im now using Bicubic instead of Bicubic Sharper for resizing images in Photoshop CS. Bear in mind thats with NO in-camera sharpening. Ive also avoided the cost of a CS2 upgrade by using the Nikon View 6.2.5 RAW plug-in instead, and from my Pre-set White Balance tests I know Im not getting any colour casts in conversion as a result. This approach also avoids the thorny issue of D2X White Balance encryption.

Post processing in Photoshop CS now tends to be limited to:

A little exposure compensation at the point of RAW file conversion, +0.4 EV seeming to be spot on when Im starting from a Matrix metered exposure.

Conversion from the Nikon Adobe profile to the Adobe 1998 Colour Profile. Photoshop seems to force a conversion when Im doing LAB sharpening so I may as well get it over with.

An examination of black point and white point in Levels. Ive been finding that the D2X images need very little adjustment, if any, at this stage.

In terms of Colour Saturation I find that the Adobe Colour space with Colour mode II produces pleasant colours that benefit from an up to +8 Saturation adjustment in Photoshop. Colour mode III reproduces the nice autumnal tones of trees but I personally find it a bit strong for wildlife.

Re-size for Internet, printing etc. Starting out with 4,288 x 2,848 pixels also has the comfort factor of being able to do some cropping and still print at up to A4 if required. Also, arguably, any resizing algorithm has more data to work on when it starts out with more pixels, so I can crop down to 3,000 x 2,000 pixels if needed and then still resize with some confidence. Also, the pixel density of the D2X is worth noting, i.e. 4,288 x 2,848 pixels on a sensor 23.7 x 15.7mm in size. Nikon have stayed with a 135 size sensor, but the pixel density should now theoretically match that of a 100 ISO film Nikon have stayed with a 135 size sensor, but the pixel density should now theoretically match that of a 100 ISO film i.e. about 45 line pairs per millimetre.

Anyway, theory aside the images do seem sharp. For a couple of recent photos have a look at:

http://www.pbase.com/grahamcheckley/image/51157360

http://www.pbase.com/grahamcheckley/image/51157299

Regards,
Graham.

Like many people I looked at the Canon 10D and the Nikon D100 when I was thinking about buying a Digital SLR. The strange thing was that I knew that I wanted one of them, but I was not quite sure why....

Perhaps it was the fact that my CP4500 (bless it) threw away 75 percent of the data in every shot, or perhaps it was the experience of trying to photograph a flying Gannet from a passing boat. It may even have been the experience of seeing someone use a DSLR on the Farne Islands. What I did know was that while the CP4500 was good for Digiscoping and had an awesome macro facility, it did have some weaknesses.

At the end of the day I went for the D100 for the following two reasons. Firstly, I was familiar with Nikon digital from my CP4500, and secondly, they had a charged battery for the display model in Jessops.

Anyway I am well pleased with my (slightly arbitrary) choice, and here is a summary of my experiences to date.

With the D100 my autofocus delays disappeared. Suddenly I was able to photograph moving birds. The predictive focus tracking is a particularly useful feature, allowing the camera focus to automatically follow the subject in the last fraction of a second between my pressing the shutter and the camera taking the picture. In fact the feature struck me as so cool that I even tried using it for macro shots, but a hundred or so shots later I learnt to use manual focus. Besides which the motor noise scares bees.

Like most buyers I started out with a general purpose (in this case 28-105) lens. This Nikon AF f3.5 is still my general favourite for butterflies and insects as it is nice and light and eminently portable. However since then my purchases have now encompassed the AF 200 Micro, the AF-S 70-200 VR and the AF-I 500. In all cases I have stayed with the Nikon range because at the end of the day the camera performance relies on the lens. With the right lenses the D100 is capable of capturing high contrast, beautifully coloured images. Have a look at http://www.pbase.com/image/23925401 and http://www.pbase.com/image/14802153 for a couple of examples. I always set my own colour balance, but to date I have always allowed the camera its head when it comes to contrast and internal image sharpening. My goal is always the minimum post processing of the camera image, and the D100 supports this approach.

To date I have employed the matrix metering with fully manual exposure control for butterflies, and centre weighted with aperture priority for birds. Both work well. Yes, the D100 does have a slight tendency to underexpose. This is actually a positive feature because it helps avoid burn-out in higher contrast images. OK, it cannot cure a male Goldeneye on a sunny day, but it helps in many cases, and subsequent use of Nikon Capture Editor on the RAW images can be used to tweak the exposure if required.

A common criticism of the D100, say compared to the 10D, is image noise. Yes, noise is there, but whether you see it or not is another question. I normally use my D100 on ISO 400, but the only time I see any noise is if I try and compensate for a grossly underexposed photo in post processing. Post over-amplification of the image amplifies the noise. At that point I tend to junk the image as I am too lazy to try and employ noise reduction software.

Another great feature of the D100 are the controls. Yes, there is duplication between some of the physical controls and the menus (which is why I give it 9 not 10), but the good thing about the controls is that you can wear mitts while you are using them. If you have ever experienced Musselburgh sea wall in winter you will know why that is a good thing. I include the LCD controls in that category as I am a confirmed CHIMPer. Aperture and shutter speed are controlled by a pair of opposing controls on the top right of the camera body with the power switch, depth of field preview and shutter release close to hand. The shutter release is threaded to take a conventional plunger, which after my experiences of the CP remote is a blessing.

Lastly, the power supply. I bought a spare rechargeable battery and I have still never used it. Perhaps on of the reasons is that rather than take dozens of shots with the CP4500, hoping to catch that moment of stillness, I now tend to track and try to frame the end shot, relying on the D100 to catch the bird.

Regards,
Graham Checkley.

Made in 1995, this lens introduced the feature of built in autofocus to the Nikon big lens. As such it pre-dates the AF-S and AF-S II models, and while perhaps not quite as quiet or fast I have found it quiet enough and fast enough for me. It is also a lot cheaper.

As an f4 it comes with a 125mm front objective, and the first thing that you note through the viewfinder is the brilliance of the image. Using this lens on my Nikon D100 the autofocus bites and tracks very effectively, but the brightness of the image makes it easy to shift to manual when you need to compensate for close-by vegetation or depth of field. I have found both of these features very useful, and you can see illustrative examples on my website under http://www.pbase.com/image/26495752 and http://www.pbase.com/image/26495898. Similarly, if you wish to lock autofocus in order to re-compose your shot, the lens has four focus lock buttons spaced around the main objective.

Optically it seems capable of producing sharp images from f4 to f22, with the best (to my eye) at about f5.6. I suspect that if I used it with an F5 body I could shave with the results. In the digital environment the colour rendition is rich and the results need minimal post processing, a common factor I have found with the best Nikon lenses. All of my results to date were taken using a non-coloured glass internal filter, and have been cropped and slightly sharpened using Unsharp Mask in Nikon Capture Editor.

Metering is highly effective with the D100 set to centre-weighted, but I still intend to test spot.

The combination of lens and camera is 4,900g and as a result I use a Wimberley gimbal mount on a Gitzo 1325 carbon fibre tripod for support. Using this set-up, along with a short shutter release cable and the D100 anti mirror shock setting I have not experienced any standing wave vibration, and as a result I rarely bother to lock the Wimberley for a shot. The lens balance is affected by the weight of the lens hood, so it is worth fitting in all cases.

Heartily recommended. As mentioned above it is a bit more expensive than a new Sigma (I got it for 2,700 second hand), but Nikon fans may consider it an option worth following up on.

Regards,
Graham Checkley.