|
|
last update: April 7, 2003 |
||||||||
| Nikon D1x Review I've been using it for months; it's about time I told you my experience with this pro camera. |
Add a comment or send Thom feedback on this article. | ||||||||
|
Previously, I reviewed the D1 with parenthetical comments added after brief experience with the D1x and D1h. If you're looking for an introduction to the Nikon digital SLRs, start with that review and come back here after you've read that. Here I intend to give some very specific handling impressions based upon months of field use and experience with multiple bodies (my DC workshop had all four of us shooting with D1x's!).
|
Note: This isn't so much a review as an addition to my original D1 review. Read that review first if you haven't already. The
Definitive D1x Book Is Here
|
||||||||
The BasicsThe D1x has a feature set that is at the top of the heap in digital SLRs (as this was written in January 2002). Even Canon's 1D, the upcoming Contax's 6 megapixel full frame sensor, and Fuji S2 6-megapixel camera are arguably either the equal or only slightly better in some specifications than the D1x. [Here in April 2003 the same is still basically true; the 10mp output option for RAW files in Capture puts the D1x near the top of the heap, with perhaps only the Canon 1Ds being its better resolution-wise.] It's a testament to Nikon's engineering that they beat Canon to the punch on a pro-caliber digital SLR. (Of course, to be fair, Canon beat Nikon to the punch in a more modestly priced SLR targeted towards serious amateurs.) Still, if Nikon only continued upgrading the sensor resolution and buffer size of the D1x, it would remain competitive with virtually all the rumored cameras I've heard about that might appear in 2002 or even 2003. Having used the D1x for six [now 20] months, the list of specification changes or additions I'd ask for is relatively minimal:
HandlingI've slowly gotten used to the D1x. As I noted in my D1 review (and in my book), the D1x's outer body design seems to have been slapped together when compared to the Italian-designed F5. The differences are subtle, with ridges and humps that aren't quite as nicely placed as on the F100 or F5. Fortunately, Nikon wisely retained most of the control locations of the F100 and F5, so picking up a D1x after using a film body isn't a rude shock, just a small adjustment in hand positions. A number of D1x users complain about getting nose grease on their LCD (i.e., they don't like the left-side placement), but frankly, it doesn't bother me. Replace the Nikon-supplied cover with a Hoodman, and clean it regularly. It would be nice to have the front-reflective LCD pioneered by the Compaq Ipaq (so we can see the image outdoors), but I suppose that the extra battery draw might not be worth it. Speaking of the battery, it's a shame that Nikon picked Nimh for the EN-4 used in the D1x. While Nimh doesn't have the memory effects of Nicad, a Nimh battery loses more of its charge just sitting than does Nicad (at least 30% a month), and doesn't have particularly good cold weather properties. The state-of-the-art battery technology these days is Lithium Ion, which work well in cold and have better storage properties. But here's a tip: when you get tired of recharging the three EN-4's you need for a full day's shooting (more in the cold), get a Digital Camera Battery. Not only will you get by on one (external) battery a day, but you can power your SB-28DX from the same battery and get faster recycling, as well. Of course, the DCB is also a Nimh battery, so life isn't perfect. [Third party replacement batteries are now available for the D1 series, but they're still NiMH, though half the price of Nikon's.] |
Don't forget my quarterly newsletter on D1 issues, supplied on CD. The D1 Report is the only way to learn more about getting the most from your camera.
Cleaning the CCD I've now posted an article on how to clean the CCD.
|
||||||||
ResultsThe attraction of the D1x is the extra resolution of the doubled-up photosites on the CCD. Using Bibble or QImage Pro to decode NEF images [and now Nikon Capture], the D1x effectively works like a 10 megapixel camera (4008 x 2624). Both programs have been in almost continual improvement since their introduction, with the latest version of QImage probably retaining a slight lead on color accuracy and some types of detail rendering, Bibble having better color saturation and less aliased high frequency detail. Nikon's own interpretation of the NEF format (through the optional Nikon Capture or the supplied Photoshop import filter) renders at just shy of 6 megapixels (3008 x 1960 [now also supports 4008 x 2624]), and is no slouch, either. Well exposed and managed images from NEF files using all three software products produce images that are startling in their detail and freedom from all but frequency-induced artifacts. [The 4th issue of the D1 Report has an expanded look at the various RAW file interpreters.] Note that I said "well exposed." The very first thing every D1x user needs to learn is that any overexposure produces significant loss in highlight detail. Having run my D1x through a number of rigorous tests, and comparing it against D1x bodies brought to my workshops, I've come to the following conclusions:
This asymmetrical balance means that you need to respect the "expose for the highlights" mantra (see Histograms). Failure to do so means highlights show up as paper when you print your image. If you shoot NEF, you can "adjust" the exposure somewhat after the fact, though again, you won't be able to reduce highlight values as easily (or as much) as you can raise shadow detail. [Note: "adjusting the exposure" in NEF format isn't really adjusting the exposure but is the application of a different linearity curve to the underlying data.] Getting to "exposure perfection" isn't a lot different with a D1x than it was with slide film:
JPEG shooters need to heed the same advice, except you don't have the same ability to adjust after the fact. You must get your JPEG exposures dead on, as the reduction from 12-bit to 8-bit data and the instantiation of the camera settings (tone, contrast, sharpening, white balance, etc.) pretty much lock in your exposures in the camera. Selecting high contrast on the camera while shooting JPEG is not a good decision unless you absolutely know that you've got a narrow exposure range and need the boost. High levels of in-camera sharpening tend to push some types of highlight detail over the edge with JPEG, as well; you lose the detail and/or gain artifacts. Frankly, after trying all the different formats, I won't work in anything except NEF in the future, the difference is that dramatic. The problem, however, is that the NEF workflow isn't exactly convenient. To produce the highest quality images, you need to deal with each NEF file individually, selecting white balance and exposure settings carefully before letting your software (Bibble, Capture, QImage) do the interpolation of the sensor data. (Yes, I know you can batch process NEF files, but programs such as ACDSee haven't fully caught up to handling NEFs gracefully, so I rarely batch images for preview. Digital Pro offers hope in this respect, but is still a relatively immature program as I write this.) A properly exposed and processed NEF file prints easily on my desktop printer at 13 x 17 inches, with stellar detail and color fidelity (the AdobeRGB color space profile built into the camera seems reasonably accurate, and makes managing color a lot easier than with the original D1). Indeed, I've compared images off my D1x with drum scans of Provia F from my 35mm body, and I prefer the D1x's rendition in most cases. If I were printing larger than 13 x 17, I might want a little more resolution, but for my work, the D1x has plenty. Early users of the D1 often complained about several specific problems in their D1 images: magenta color cast, a band-like pattern of noise at higher ISO values, and sometimes excessive red channel noise (which shows up as slightly mottled skies). None of these things have plagued my D1x. As just noted, color fidelity is quite good--I've actually managed to take pictures of Macbeth ColorCheckers with the D1x, make only two modest adjustments in the printer driver settings, and print them out with an exact color match on a Fuji Pictography printer. Noise is mostly unnoticeable up to about ISO 500, and doesn't have the distinct pattern the original D1 did. I have noticed a fair amount of dark current noise in long exposures (5 seconds or longer taken at warm or hot temperatures), but nothing that isn't easily handled. On
the resolution side, I still see occasional moiré and color
fringing in high frequency detail. This varies a bit with lenses,
too. That's
not surprising--we'd need well more than 10 megapixels to get to the
range where these common digital problems would be minimized.
|
Highly Recommended, even as new digital SLRs are announced, the D1x remains quite competitive.
|
||||||||
|
Khai Tran [khai.tran@cisco.com] writes: Have you had any problems with the front plastic flap that covers the Video out and AC/DC IN? Mine (from day one) does not stay closed and hopelessly flaps around and is just plain annoying as it gets in the way quite a bit during shooting. Thom's Response:
Every heavy-duty D1 user (D1, D1h, or D1x) I know has voiced the same
question. Because of the design, the cover has a tendency to "curl"
a bit, which makes it prone to pop out of the socket. It doesn't help
that your left hand grasps the camera at about that point. My solution
has been to use gaffer's tape to hold it closed, but that isn't a very
elegant solution (and isn't a solution at all if you need to access the
plugs regularly). Your email reminded me of another annoyance (external
battery plug location), which I've added to the review, above. [For
awhile, an accessory called the FlapCatch was made by a third party, which
addressed the flap issue. I still use mine. But another possibility is
to use hook-and-loop tape-backed fasteners in the flap; you have to cut
them very small, but it works.] |
|||||||||
|
|
