Georg N. Nyman PhD.

BACK TO HOMEPAGE

Nikon D2Xs

A Digital Symphony

The Nikon D2Xs is the most recently launched update of the top-of-the-line DSLR D2X, which was launched about two years ago. Nikon is consistently incorporating their 1,5x factor DS sensor system for digital SLR´s with all the well known and often discussed advantages and drawbacks - which means that also their newest flagship has got the same sensor size but with about 12 Megapixel of imaging surface.

Is it any better than the already very good D2X? What are the newly incorporated features? Are they features only or also benefits for the user?

I got my hands on Nikon's new flagship (many thanks again to Nikon Austria) and this timing was especially of interest for me as I had most recently the new D200 in my hands and my very recent evaluation allows me now to compare these two cameras quite well - the D200 with 10 Megapixel and the D2Xs with 12 Megapixel but more or less double the price compared to the D200. Would the D2Xs outperform the D200 by so much that its much higher price was worth to be paid?

My very first impression - the D2Xs is much larger and heavier than the D200 - it is not overweight, just not a featherweight - but I like heavier cameras as they give (for me at least) a better grip and better shooting than those very lightweight plastic bodies (of all manufacturers...). For me, being used to the size and weight of medium- and large format cameras, this is a real camera, a real photographic instrument. For those, who did not read my other reviews - I am not a reporter, I am not a sports photographer, my fields of interest are scenic and landscape photography, portraits, macro photography and photomicrography. With the increasing difficulty to get medium format color film processed in really good quality, I am starting to consider to move slowly from medium format to digital photography but I cannot afford to buy a professional digital back for well over 25.000 US Dollar for any of my medium format cameras. I know they exist, but....!

I guess that I never will stop shooting "serious" landscapes with my Linhof Master Technika, but the weight of this equipment with several lenses slowly becomes a burden for my back. A "lightweight" alternative for, let me call it "semi-serious" landscape/outdoor photography would be great. Currently this is my Rollei SL66SE or my Mamiya RZ67Pro II - but this equipment gets pretty heavy as well as soon as I add several lenses and backs. Would a top-end DSLR become a serious alternative at least to medium format plus backache -knowing that for a fraction of the weight, I can move much easier and faster?

Let me start with a few mathematical considerations - the standard viewing distance of 25cm (10 inches) is used to judge the quality of a 18x24cm print. I learned long time ago, that if a print of this size is fine when viewed at 25cm, then I can enlarge it to larger formats and it still will be regarded fine because one usually views larger prints at larger distances. Now take the 25cm and let us take the normal resolving power of an average human eye - <2 arc minutes - that means that 0,1mm at 25cm is already more or less on the limit of visibility for an average human eye. This again results in 2500 lines on 25cm and this could mean that a digital camera which resolves 2500 lines at standard viewing distance would be sufficient to produce images which are good enough for larger prints as well. I am aware that these considerations are very coarse and more parameters are needed to get to a reliable result (like contrast, wavelength etc) but what I wanted to show is that for a top of the line DSLR, it might be possible to produce images of sufficient resolution for large printing.

Resolution is definitely not the only important parameter of a digital image - color rendition, noise, artifacts, color bandwidth and many more parameters are necessary to consider. I do not have a fully outfitted photo-optical laboratory available (unfortunately) but I wanted again to see how does this camera perform under various conditions - similar or even identical to the ones, which I used for other reviews.

The general impression, as already mentioned before is, that this camera is a real professional one - nicely heavy to get a good and stable grip on it, all metal and no flimsy plastics, everything sits well and clicks when attached and no wobble, no backlash and no too large tolerances anywhere.

As before, I am not going to repeat the technical specifications as they are available on various locations on the internet - on Nikons D2Xs camera homepage, on the website of DP-Review and on many of the camera dealer homepages all over the world.

The controls are reflecting the usual Nikon way - I am very used to it and so I had no problems at all with all controls on the D2Xs.

The LCD monitor for previewing the image is now better than that on the D2X and color is more accurate. The other LCD panels are for information and work very well, contain a lot of information and are easily readable.

The battery is new and better ( about 25% higher capacity) than the previous ones for the D2X and the others I used before. I was able to do all work with one single charge, including all previewing, setting and adjusting controls with on the LCD menu etc. With my D1X, I need to carry at least three to four batteries with me when I have an outing, but I guess, I will be fine with one single spare battery for the D2Xs.

Another "new" feature is the ability to shoot in B&W - something I like very much. It is of course a converted B&W mode, not a mode which would use all available pixels to shoot at the full sensor resolution of 12Mpx (would be great, right?), but it is fine and the results are really quite good.

Below is a photograph which I took on site in the B&W mode - not bad for a digital camera....

Of interest is also the ability to clean the sensor without having the AC adapter connected to the camera - which is important when it becomes necessary to do the cleaning routine outside a studio.

There are more enhancements incorporated in comparison to the previous model, the D2X but I would like to concentrate now on the visual results - the technical data can be taken from many other sources and other websites.

Would the significantly higher price of the D2X compared to the new D200, the 12,4 MPx compared to the 10Mpx be worth spending? As I mentioned before, I am not a sports or news photographer, I am into landscapes, scenic photography and getting more and more in portrait and related areas - and I am a passionate medium- and large format photographer. So, with other words, would the D2X attract me so much that I would sell some other gear to get that new camera (if I had the money to buy it...)?

Well, let me start again with a very subjective response to this question - for me, the D2X is a real camera. What do I mean with this rather strange comment? I like to express my feeling that I am holding a camera which is able to work with me forever, a camera which does not let me down, a camera which I can rely on to 100% - it is a true professional workhorse. It gives me the same feelings which I have when I use my Linhof Master Technika - reliable, sturdy, trustworthy, solid and excellent in quality.

I do not want to downgrade other brands but I have the impression that the Nikon concept is a very solid one, very conservative regarding design (which I like) and very much optimized for people who place technical performance over futuristic design.

Now let me show you the photographs taken with the D2XS - I compared some scenes with film by taking the same shot with either a Nikon F100 or an F90S (both equipped with Nikon lenses of similar performance like the ED 17-35/2,8 AFS). The D2XS was either equipped with the Nikon ED 12-24mm or the AFS 17-35/2,8 lens. The film speed was ISO 100 and the film type either a Fuji or a Kodak ISO slide film. Scanning of the slides was done with a Nikon Super Coolscan 8000ED at 4000dp

I wanted to see if the D2XS was significantly better than the D200, if the noise in the dark areas was visibly less than that of the D200, how the results from the D2XS compared to film and how this camera performs not only for landscapes and outdoor scenes but also for indoor portraiture.

The first series of shots have been taken in Zurich/Switzerland - starting with dusk and then into full darkness - of course all shots taken with cable release from a very stable tripod to prevent any vibration.

Here the shot taken with color slide film - the sky was still slightly above darkness and the illumination of the buildings was not yet switched on.

Interestingly, the colors of the slide film did not represent perfectly the colors in the sky - the film rendered the colors too reddish and too intensive. As you shall see on the digital image, the colors of the shot taken with the D2XS represent the actual colors better - maybe a bit too weak, but better in that very situation than with film.

And here the same shot, taken with the D2XS, maybe one minute later:

Here the side by side comparison of the two shots - details which show clearly the huge difference in color between slide film and digital - slide film on the left side, digital on the right side:

As it got darker, the time came to take the comparison shots film-digital to see how the digital D2XS performs in dark areas - especially compared to not only film but also the D200.

Here at first the shot with color slide film (Nikon F100, 17-35/28AFS ED):

And here the same shot, taken with the D2XS, equipped with the Nikon ED 12-24mm, a couple of minutes earlier:

How does the film shot compare with the digital shot regarding details? Here the answer:

The film shot had been processed in Photoshop, sharpened and finally processed with a grain reducing and noise reduction software called Neat-Image which works very well. Without that finally noise reduction, the film image looks much coarser - not less details, but much more grain visible.
I was surprised by the small amount of visible noise in the shot taken with the D2X - that camera and its algorithms seem to be much better and much more effective than the ones build into the D200 - well, the price difference needs to be pointed out as well, not to forget about, right?

I took another shot, next day in full sunshine - a nice arrangement of flowers. Here it is, taken with the D2XS.

And here the comparison again - upper part is the detail of the same shot, taken with film and the lower part digital:

For me, here the digital shot is the clear winner - much more detailed than the film shot. I have to admit, I was very surprised and having seen this, I wonder if I should not really move over to digital and sell my film equipment....

Another day, another scene - this time back in Vienna/Austria. At the Mariahilfer Strasse, one of the main shopping miles in Vienna, you can find a very attractive and photogenic church - the Mariahilfer Kirche. It is open during daytime and not overcrowded and such a very interesting motive for comparison photographs.

Here the shot (you have seen it before for other comparisons) taken inside - this shot was taken digital with the D2XS:

The next shots are comparing the results of digital with film - this time, the film was a color negative Fuji at ISO 160 (the new Fuji color film) - the upper part is digital, the lower one film. The film scanned with the Nikon ED 8000, was processed with Photoshop and then the grain reduced with the Neat-Image software.

The grain reduction of the film image works very well but as expected, eliminates some of the minute details which are otherwise visible but overshadowed by film grain. To show the resolution capability of the D2XS, I have copied out of the above total scene two details - the plant placed in front of the altar and the upper part of the altar

Maybe of interest - the above details have been taken from a digital shot which had an exposure time of 2 seconds at f:11 and at 12mm focal length with the Nikon 12-24mm ED AF lens.

Another comparison of interest might be the silver on gray with some distinct colors - readers of my D200 review know this object from before. Here the shot taken with the D2XS - the red glass color comes out very nice and the warm-white silver shines well

Taking the same setting on film results in a shot (see below) which, due to the long exposure time (several seconds) does show some color shift which cannot be corrected anymore unless you apply a large amount of Photoshop intelligence - the silver either turns yellow or the red of the glass disappears and shifts into violet - another advantage of digital - no reciprocity failure

I also tried the D2XS on Larissa, the younger one of my two daughters - here some shots to see how the camera deals with skin tones - I like the results very much. Lighting is not perfect, but time was limited as I was in the middle of a household move - but still, I think, one can see - the D2XS performs very well for portraiture

Now some more technical results - resolution tests, color reproduction performance etc. First the resolution chart - the standard chart, which I use for all tests, consisting of four segments - red, green, blue and black/gray.

Here the same target but this time, the D2XS was taking the image of the target according to the included specifications of the manufacturer (Patterson) to get correct results

As one can see, the limit of resolution is somewhere close to 54 lp/mm - slightly higher than that for the D200, but this is rather logical - 12,4 Megapixel vs. 10 Megapixel...not much, but still visible.

The enlarged detail of the same image, taken with the camera shows that 54lp/mm is not reached but 48 lp/mm are more or less "resolved". I am aware that several readers would not agree to the term "resolved" - and for good reasons - but this discussion would lead into a very theoretical debate about the term "resolution" which is of interest, but probably not within this short review. I try to be at least to be consistent throughout the various camera reviews and I try to apply the same criteria as much as possible.

For comparison - the original chart, scanned and cropped to the same size

Just for fun - the two resolution charts below show the evolution of digital imaging - the left one comes from my Nikon EE2S and the right one from the Nikon D1X - just a few years ago, the EE2S was as expensive as a mid size car and was one of the top performing digital cameras...

Another test which I always perform is the IMATEST Color Checker test - it reveals how good the color rendition of the photograph of the test chart is compared to the original color of the Gretag Macbeth test chart and the overall color performance, density response and noise of the camera

First comes the color error - the square are the ideal position of the color and the round ones are calculated from the photograph taken with the camera - in this case, a very good color response with a very low mean deviation and a very low sigma value

The graph below shows a very low white balance error - basically an error which for most gray densities cannot be detected without a technical instrument

The two graphs below show more details about the color, noise and density response - comparing these data to other cameras, my conclusion is that the D2XS is absolutely a top of the line DSLR with outstanding performance date

When I was working with the Nikon D200, I was made aware (and other tests mentioned it as well) that that camera reveals more than usual electronic noise - to see how the D2XS performs, I took images of the same scene as before with the D200 - just a room with a lot of dark details in the dusk.

Exposure range was a second to a couple of seconds and the ISO setting was 100 - 800(HI) no noise reduction - 800(HI) high noise reduction. The noise at the high ISO setting is of course visible but I think less than with the D200 and the noise reduction works well - as expected reducing the fineness of details, but this is how such an algorithm works. Here the comparison shots - the detail comes from the dark area below the clock, the facing mahogany front part.

Finally the twilight lead me to look at the White Balance setting of the D2XS - I liked the "auto" setting but I wanted to see if the other settings are better or comparable to the D200. As you might remember, especially the "incandescent" setting of the D200 left quite a lot to be desired. Same scene, a bit later - outside dusk, inside incandescent light.

Again a pleasant surprise - the White Balance setting modes are visibly better than for the D200 - even the "incandescent" mode delivers very well acceptable results - just a little bit too much magenta compared to the "auto" setting.

To sum it up, the Nikon D2XS is a very attractive and powerful camera, the photographic results are impressive and are almost perfect (what is perfect?) - the best DSLR camera, I have had my hands on up to now. The price is justified, the handling (especially for Nikonians) easy and logical and if my bank would allow me, I would run and get one of these camera tomorrow morning.
As usual, I could have done more, there would be much more to look at, but what I wanted to come to is an opinion about this camera, supported by as many photographic proofs as possible. This short review does also by no means claim to be comprehensive or complete.

Send mail to Webmaster with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: 17-Mar-2008