Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2013 · D2x, still worth it?
  
 
smithcottage
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · D2x, still worth it?


Great!!! I forgot about that!


Jan 11, 2013 at 02:12 AM
MarcG19
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · D2x, still worth it?


I'm on the fence about selling mine. On the negative side is the fact that I don't use it much. On the positive side, I often just need base ISO, and for that the subjective qualities of its images are spectacular, assuming you're comfortable with film-like dynamic range (and, so I've heard, don't go above ISO 400 - I've never used it above ISO 100, however). Also, there's the pro body build - big and heavy (which I don't like, as mentioned elsewhere), but there are advantages to it.

To quote Thom Hogan:
D2x may be the best 12mp crop sensor camera when considered in all respects at base ISO..... there's almost nothing to complain about when you shoot the D2x at base ISO. Even shadow areas have decent recovery, and there's excellent micro contrast in the detail. My biggest issue with the D2x was at the highlight end, where you had to watch very carefully what happened above 2.5EV above middle gray lest you lose highlight detail.

http://www.bythom.com/stateofconfusion.htm



Jan 11, 2013 at 04:30 AM
John Skinner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · D2x, still worth it?


After rereading this thread, I'm sorry to have to comment about the 'latest & greatest' phenomenon that plagues this entire industry/hobby. And it's really quite regional.

If you shoot or work in other countries, yea, there are people that feel that need or try and justify WHY they are stroking up the newer body arguments all the time. And has there been advances in image handling in 7 years.. Oh yea.

But here is the thing.

A huge majority of us on here have seen/lived with/worked with film images for most of our lives. They've grace billboards, print ads, web sites... LIFE & National Geographic ! All doing a great jobs. When digital came into play and the D1 body was released. It was the game changer. For years, until Canon and Nikon made those super-duper improvements, the D1 and D1x were the main players at major events across the world. Images we all still look at and marvel at today..

DO I NEED and ISO rating of 128,000? Do I need 59 Focus points? Do I need and body with lighting fast focus//lock-on? How about the ability to swing 11 fps with a capacity of 300+ image storage? Not really... And if I'm shooting RAW, don't I have the ability to correct 80% of my issues post-op?

And this isn't even considering all of the crazy things Photoshop has to offer AFTER a RAW correction. The possibilities are almost endless. SO I'm not taking a stance against those who look over the proverbial fence everyday at what Walt the neighbor is shooting with. I'm merely questioning the justifications for making these upgrades period.

There has never been a time in our history where we have had SO MUCH CHOICE, with such subtle differences and the masses and the talking box is having so much of an influence on the how's & why's we do things.

Once the digital bodies surpassed that of film (IMO, around that D2x stage) we now became slaves to the market and what they've fed us as justifiable reasons to spend more and upgrade. Personally, I just don't see it.

As a complete luxury I have an H4D here. And yes I use it. DO I NEED TO? No.

The D2x surpasses film on a bad day, and up to ridiculous size campaigns or tears.

The upgrade thing has become too....... well, too much IMO. My most memorable and sought after images have all been made using a complete manual body on regular old 120 rolls. It's had to imagine that 59 more focus points or any of the other features offered up past the D2x stage would have made a bean of difference.

At least you'll never sell me on it.



Jan 11, 2013 at 07:10 AM
Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · D2x, still worth it?


Jon, there's nothing wrong with not upgrading, and your opinion is entirely valid for you and for your needs. However, there's a bunch of us out here to whom your opinion does not apply. I can personally tell you that I shot film for 20 years because that's all there was. And I still sought out the best film for a particular image, and I did upgrade cameras when I found that they had better functionality for what I needed to do. It's no different now, except that the tools do improve substantially every 3-4 years.

I've always tried to use the best possible tools within my budget, and my subjects definitely challenge both the gear and the photographer. You don't get many second chances at wildlife in Africa, and my keeper rates for ground-to-air aviation are in the 1% range.

Do I need ISO 12800, VR, and AF that can track a fast-moving gnat in the dark? Not always. But more often than you'd probably want to know about, one or more of those features saves my bacon and allows me to capture an image which older cameras or gear simply would not have been able to do. And right then, at that moment, the upgrade was worth it. Here's a couple of images where advanced features saved my butt:

ISO 12800, fast AF, and nanocoating:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/85/395485.jpg


Fast AF and VR (550mm at 1/100):
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/30/388130.jpg

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/ufiles/63/264063.jpg


And last but not least, my 40x60 prints look a lot better from 36MP than they did from 12MP, 4MP, or film.

When faced with a particular upgrade opportunity, some people don't take it because they don't see good value in the upgrade... the cost is greater than the perceived benefits. Some people don't take it because they can't afford it. Some people don't take it because they prefer to know one particular piece of gear inside and out, even if another tool is better, so they upgrade on a slower cycle. I upgrade every time I can: I even upgraded from my perfectly wonderful 200-400 v1 to the v2, simply for the nanocoating and slightly better VR. I upgrade every time I can as long as the gear does actually provide a significant boost in capability.

I don't care how often you upgrade. But please realize that, if you don't understand why I and others upgrade far more often than you do, then that simply means that you don't understand the different needs and preferences of other shooters... nothing more.



Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



rickde
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · D2x, still worth it?


Used D2x's are going for about $500-$600 on ebay these days. That's a really good deal. If you are a working pro who needs a rugged weatherproof body with incredibly long battery life, beautiful color rendition and can benefit from the DX crop factor a used D2x can be had for very little coin. Yes, the high ISO ability is more limited than the newer DX sensors but the D2x is still an excellent workhorse camera. Some will argue that a used D300s or D7000 would be a better choice, and that may be true, but you would still need to add the extra battery grip to come close to the shooting endurance of the D2x. There is no question that the D300s and D7000 have better high ISO ability(I'm just talking DX format). I paid the full $5,000 for my D2x new in 2005 and still use it heavily. It would be foolish for me to sell it for say $500. What would I gain? A small down payment on say a D800?

However, that said, if you mainly shoot landscape and architecture you may want to consider going to an FX format sensor like the D600 or a used D700, especially if you intend to shoot lots of wide-angle shots. Of course, however, that means 4 times the price for a new D600 body vs the used D2x. And you would also need to purchase FX lenses. With the D2x you can still use your old DX lenses to full advantage. These days the D2x isn't for everyone but, on the used market, they are a steal pricewise. I will most likely be in the market for a newer model DSLR soon. I may consider a D800, D400? or D4 who knows. But I plan to keep using my D2x until it dies. It is still an excellent tool.

And BTW my D2x can still take photos like this:

http://www.rickdebariphoto.com/p106574103/e50867e3a


Edited on May 23, 2013 at 12:10 AM · View previous versions



Jan 12, 2013 at 02:57 AM
Dee50
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · D2x, still worth it?


Hi all

Many thanks to all who took the time to reply to this post and gave me food for thought.

In the end I decided to go for a used D300 and bought one over the weekend. Will arrive this Tuesday and comes in mint- condition with 1 year guarantee. Shutter count is just over 3.5k and cost 400 pounds UK. Can’t wait to open the box and get started.

The D300 should keep me going until the D400 or whatever (if ever?) comes out. Even if the D400 were to be released tomorrow, I wouldn’t jump in until the reviews were out and the beta testers revealed any QC issues etc.

I now have some further questions about the D300 but will open a new thread for that.

Thanks once again to everyone.



Jan 20, 2013 at 06:13 PM
dholl
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · D2x, still worth it?


gugs wrote:
IQ is not on par anymore even with the cheapest consumer bodies (resolution, dynamic range).


Technically, in terms of measurebation, you have a point. But in real-world subjective terms, the D2X provides superior-IQ up to ISO-400 than any consumer DSLR. The deep colours, the gritty sharpness (nothing to do with resolution), the 3D-look (nothing to do with DoF)...these are all reasons why I want to buy a D2X myself again. I've used the D3000, D200 and D40X, and I've seen the output of the new generation (D7000/D5100) and none of them match how lovely D2X images can be.

On top of that, you've got great handling and a 7fps option.

I'd say go for it if modern features and low-light performance isn't important.



Jan 27, 2013 at 11:44 PM
petterf
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · D2x, still worth it?


I've thought about a D2Xs as a rugged brother for my D3 to use in the snow, at the beach or in other situations where iso range is not a problem but the other benefits are there.
Same batteries, charger, card slots, handling etc.
This until I get a D3s and move my D3 down to the toughest spot.



Jan 28, 2013 at 03:53 AM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password