After realizing that Nikon is superior to Canon in quite a few key areas, I need to decide on a Nikon Body in the 1000 dollar range. I'm debating a Nikon D2X, I'm a fan of old bodies but I do not know too much about this camera.
How does it compare to a few of the newer consumer bodies such as the D7000? Or perhaps a used D300 or D300s? The D2X is catching my eye due to the full frame, this is because I do portraiture and I would like it If I can use a 85mm and not have to be really far back from my subject. Any help is appreciated
Welcome Joshua. I think what you meant, is that the D2x is a "Pro" body since it has the integrated grip. I've not used a D2x, but the D1h I got used got me hooked on the grip, integrated or not. With the exception of the D50, all the camera bodies I have also have a grip, built in or separate.
@Fsiagian Yeah this is a hard world to step in...*thanks Nikon* and NightOwl I know the grip is just an accessory but back in the day the D2X was considered a pro body.
Aug 31, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
1) You are asking very good questions ... that is a sign of intelligence, not stupidity ... do not mistake a lack of knowledge of a particular subject as stupidity.
2) The D2x is a great camera if you can find one in good condition at a reasonable price. Personally I would go for a D300s. Thom Hogan has a very good review of the D2x and a good review of the D300 as compared to the D2x. Well worth the read.
Dont buy a d2x...i sold a d90 to buy one, should have kept the d90...the d2x screen was terrible, cant check sharpness at all, over iso 800 was pretty bad, and worst of all i hated the layout of the AF points...sold and got another D300...soooooo much better camera....
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.
I think you made some very valid arguments. There will always be better cameras, but it really does come down to whether that camera has what you need to succeed in the field of photography your in.
I think no matter what camera body I do end up getting, it really comes down to one thing; the photographer itself!
It'll quite a journey to switch to NIkon and I'm ecstatic to see some of the results I can get with Nikkor Lenses and Nikon Bodies
