The used nikon D2X is getting to the price that I can afford. The D2XS is quite a bit more. Is there much difference between the two? I am currently shooting with a D200, which is very nice. Just wanted another flagship camera.....Your thoughts please.
The X firmware can be upgraded to have most things the Xs has. One of the main improvements on the Xs though is the masking on the viewfinder for the high speed crop and improved metering in hsc mode. That and I think a slightly improved AF system.
I'm pretty sure there were almost no differences, which is why the D2xs was so short lived.
Slight improvements and a much higher cost... no sale here. Why are you particularly interested in the D2x? It seems like a D300 would be a much better option at about the same price used.
The display is also a bit better on the s but the price difference is crazy for what you get...
and regarding pure performance, the D300 is a much better option to me. The D300 outperforms the D2x in almost all aspects. The only advantages of the D2x are (and they might be relevant of course), pro integrated body, extra display (ISO etc...), crop mode, audio recording but as a picture machine, the D300 will often deliver better pictures.
Now that I am using the D3 more and more, I really think there is a missing link in the Nikon range. I really would appreciate a D300 in a D2x body, because I make mistakes due to user interface differences. I was thinking of upgrading the D200, because I could use the extra stop(s), but I need the crop factor. Having the buttons at the same place on two different bodies would seriously help me. Maybe a D700/D300 combo would be a better solution, but I am getting used to the integrated grip and the extra display, and I prefer that user interface and the relative "compactness" of an integrated body vs body+grip.
To summarize: the D2x is a wonderful machine but for a big part outperformed by the D300. It is a matter of taste... and it also depends on the type of shooting. If you don't need high ISO, the D2x might still be the best choice. I would not consider a D2xs at a much higher price, it is not worth the difference.
Yeah it's hard to argue with Guy at all here... while I'm a fan of the build and body and controls on the D2 series (and still keep around my D2H because of it) the D300 offers so much for the dollar it's very hard to find reasons to argue for the D2's anymore... it's improved in so many ways, but particularly in terms of image quality above ISO400.
To answer the OQ more directly though, no there's not enough difference between the X and Xs to justify what seems to remain a significant difference in cost. Enjoy the D2X if you can steal one at a good price. If you never really need ISO800 or higher, you will love the camera because it's still an excellent image maker with an excellent build and control layout and a terrific AF system.
Thanks everyone. I have been out of the scene for a while and did not know that the D300 was such an improvement in image quality. I guess I will be looking at the D300's instead.
