Upload & Sell: On
| p.1 #11 · Nikon D2X Still a Good Camera to Buy? |
I'm here as the other side of that coin.
As a shooter since 1978, with well over 1 million images created, I'm no stranger to bodies and glass. A while back when the D1x came out I hopped on the train and bought one of these after seeing those images from Nikon... For years we all saw the results of that body in just about every publication we looked at.... Moving ahead, I had not switched over to complete digital yet. I was still seeing times when the medium format has it's advantages over the D1x, and I would not let it go.
Back.. In around 2006-7 when the D2x(s) was released, I had the chance to use this body for 4 weeks. During that time I closely examined all off the larger images I had produced over those past years with medium format Hassy's and Mamyias, and in 90% of the cases, the D2x surpassed those larger neg images.
So I step into the D2xs. Since that time, I have continued to create images (that are in publications today) of product after product. I've never looked back.
The point to this was this. For a $1,000.00 investment. You can't really go wrong here. Although the other posters here tell you the 'newer' technology is this or that... It very well maybe. But is it really necessary to produce images that are clearly taken and used in publications today.. And print up to 30" or 40".
I don't need a body to shoot movies... I'll buy a movie camera. I don't need 12,000 ISO's.. If I shoot at night time with, or without strobes on location with nothing I can't tune in Ps.. So in as much as I'd love to hook into all this 'newer' tech thing..
I personally just can't see it. I've used the D3x and D4 for over a month here and although really nice pro bodies, it's just overkill.
Like 50+ focus points ! Why not set the camera out in the morning, let it know what it's to do all day, and feed and water it when it comes back home.
Just my 2 cents.. Maybe less, Canadian money is sub US prices.