I am wanting to upgrade bodies to shoot birds in winter here in coastal Alaska. Daylight shooting but not bright or sunny.
I like the D2X and am used to the D2h & D1x I already have but want to be able to use a higher ISO in shooting low light but still daylight scenes.
The D2X & D300 are priced about the same now. Which will be the better tool for ISO 800-1000 shots. My tele lenses are not fast at F4 & F5.6 so a boost in ISO will help. I know from Wills current post that the D3 series is a better choice but im a senior on SSI and that body is not within my budget so please help me decide between these two I ask about. As badly as i want to have the D2X I am willing to go with the D300 if it will get images that the D2X will not be able to get in low light.
Here is a sample of what I did last year & want to do again this year w/ more keepers: http://northland.smugmug.com/Other/Winter-Swans-of-Thorne-River/454-copy/489528328_qGS4y-L.jpg http://northland.smugmug.com/Other/Winter-Swans-of-Thorne-River/045-copy/490797531_RCHkB-L.jpg Thanks & take care. Bob
From what I've seen, the D300 beats it - probably by two stops. The D300 with a grip isn't bad at all, but, it's not a D2x or D3/s/x either.
My thought is if you really, really want the D2x, that might be the better camera (hey, we're supposed to enjoy this, right?), but I'd still at least try a D300 out if I were you. You can rent them from lensrentals.com
Steve I really do want the D2X because I love the feel of the pro series bodies but i want the images too. Looking at the light in these shots i posted do you think its up to the task? These were shot with at 400 ISO using Tokina 100-300/Fuji S-2 BTW. Will be using the same lenses ( also Sigma 400mm5.6 ) again this year but if i get the D2X I will have the advantage of HSC which I think would be a big plus in eliminating heavy crops. These are wild creatures and most elusive and unapproachable without hiding and stalking. Thanks again & take care. Bob
But the D300 is not as fast as a D2 body, even with the grip. The VF blackout on the D2 bodies is very fast and it's noticeable. But if you're after higher ISO performance, then it seems to make sense.
I dunno, I'd rather spring for a D700 if possible. That would get you truly into the range you will want. Look around for a decent used one. Again, not as fast as the D2 bodies, but the higher ISO IQ difference is significant.
Hi Avi. I don`t need speed as in frame rate but in terms of ISO I do. The D700 is outside my budget for this year. Maybe when they drop to the $1000 mark I will be able to do so but i think thats going to be beyond this year.
I know you use a D2x. How well does it do at 800-100 Iso compared to the Fuji examples shown here taken at 400 ISO? Thanks & take care. bob
Well I hear your issue, once you get a D2ish body in your hand you don't really want to let it go. The reality IMO is that the D2X holds up reasonable well at 800-1000 and even 1600 if you careful with your exposures and get your PP down. The D300 is more easily going to handle the ISO, but seeing as how you are in Alaska the whole build issue sneaks into the discussion and while the D300 is a tough fellow no question the D2X is a bit tougher. The prices of D2X's is holding reasonably steady. I don't see them dropping any further in the near term. They are after all, along with their D2H brothers, the only game in town when it comes to a pro body in a crop format. Why not buy one and put it to the test. If you are not happy after a trial period you can not doubt sell it for what you paid and switch to the D300.
Dave that sounds like what I wanted to hear. I have long wanted the D2X but feared I might be let down just in that one critical area. Thanks & take care. Bob
The D300 is significantly improved for high ISO on the D2X and D2H. It is likely as big or bigger gap than the one between the D300 and D700, and that's saying something. And while I too prefer the physical build of the D2's over the D300, there are features in the D300 - like the big beautiful LCD, the AF fine tune, the downloadable PC's, the sensor clean, etc etc etc - that might more than offset the integrated grip and build of the D2's. And to be honest, the D300 is pretty rugged in its own right. If you intend on spending significant time above ISO800, I'd personally opt for the D300. I was a fan of the D2's by the way... so no bias here.
dj dunzie wrote:
The D300 is significantly improved for high ISO on the D2X and D2H. It is likely as big or bigger gap than the one between the D300 and D700, and that's saying something. And while I too prefer the physical build of the D2's over the D300, there are features in the D300 - like the big beautiful LCD, the AF fine tune, the downloadable PC's, the sensor clean, etc etc etc - that might more than offset the integrated grip and build of the D2's. And to be honest, the D300 is pretty rugged in its own right. If you intend on spending significant time above ISO800, I'd personally opt for the D300. I was a fan of the D2's by the way... so no bias here....Show more →
This spring I bought a D2x because I wasn't too satisfied with my D300.
I like the look and feel of the pro bodies much better and the HSC would be a nice bonus too.
After a couple of weeks I sold the D2X already, the high ISO was very disappointing in comparison to the D300.
I'm still waiting for a pro body with a new DX sensor, I guess it will never happen again.
isn't the D2h supposed to be a bit better at high(er) ISO than a D2x?
Since you have a D2h, that should be able to tell you right there.
You should be considering d300 and d90 IMO.
Get ready for files that are WAY bigger and demanding on your computer!
My old D300 performed significantly better at high ISO than my current D2h. But for me the feel of the Pro body and the easy files are more important than high ISO. It also gives me an excuse to buy fast glass!
Check out the D90. Similar ISO performance as D300, lesser focus system and less rugged body - but less expensive. Takes great pictures too. The couple hundred bucks saved may be worth it to you.
I have the D1X and D2H - and bought the D300 in Nov 2007 when it first came out. I have been quite pleased with the build quality of the D300 (have shot in the rain, cold & heat) - and can state that it is has held up equally as well as my pro bodies (in fact the grips have not come loose like my D2 series).
I don't think there is all that much difference in build quality - but there is a striking difference between the D2X and D300 in image quality (especially pertaining to noise) at ISOs over 800.
Also, you need to consider, that with the MB-D10 battery grip and the BL-3 chamber cover, you can use your EN-EL4 batteries from the D2H and shoot at 8 fps.
How large do you print? Do you crop heavily? How many pixels do you really need?
davenfl wrote:
The reality IMO is that the D2X holds up reasonable well at 800-1000 and even 1600 if you careful with your exposures and get your PP down.
This is not the first time I seen this idea posted. Moreover, I would think images would clean up nicely with downrezzing.
Have you ever shot your D1X on "Medium" image size setting? From what I've read, you get the same IQ (and clean high ISO) as a D1H.
I own both cameras and have used them to photograph wildlife. There is no question in my mind that the D300 is at least 1.5 stops better than the D2X at higher ISOs. Both are great cameras, the D2X being the heavier and sturdier, but I've never been disappointed with the performance of the D300. I hope that helps. Gregg
I have owned both cameras as well. The build/feel of the D2x is a truly addicting quality of the camera, along with ISO100 photos. I live in the 800-1000 range, and that is one of the reasons I switched to the D300. I spend a lot of time snapping photos of my family when we are off on our adventures, so taking the time to ensure bang-on exposure is a luxury I often do not have. That said, when I shot landscape with my D2x I was very pleased up to ISO800. It is a wonderful yet cruel world when you have to make the decision on one or the other. Why can't it be both + a D700?
The OP's question was "which would be better at ISO 800 to 1000 shots". The D2x and D300 are about neck and neck at ISO 800, not 1.5 stops apart (how do you even measure that) Of course, it you want to shoot at ISO 1600 and above the D2x doesn't come close. The lack of difference at ISO 800 is exactly the reason I didn't buy a D300.
I still own a D1x, the images are great. I have tried D300 from a friend. Anything
over ISO 800 on d1x or d2x is useless, noisy. I think D300 is your best bet. That my opinion.
Agreed here. If you want above 1000 ISO get a D700 (IMHO). I love my D2X, and nothing feels as good as a pro body Nikon I have both the D2X and D700 and each is good for what they do. My 80-400 focuses much faster on the D2X, it almost slams into focus, whereas on the D700 its noticeably slower even with the battery pack. The D2X will focus the AF (not AF-S) lenses much faster. Plus that big, bright beautiful viewfinder.....
Jack OBrien wrote:
The OP's question was "which would be better at ISO 800 to 1000 shots". The D2x and D300 are about neck and neck at ISO 800, not 1.5 stops apart (how do you even measure that) Of course, it you want to shoot at ISO 1600 and above the D2x doesn't come close. The lack of difference at ISO 800 is exactly the reason I didn't buy a D300.
it isn't just that the newer cameras are less noisy they are Less Contrasty and more forgiving
I had a love hate thing with the D2x, when the contrast was low it seemed to really shing and the gradients between the tones and stops was smooth, but it was a Jeckyl- Hyde thing when situations were contrasty it seemed to be even More contrasty and all the sudden crap just looked ugly and too contrasty no matter what you did and you were really forced to severely underexpose and then try and recover everything in post processing which worked pretty good for the most part but what a pain. Then new cameras esp the D3 and D700 are unbelievable : more dynamic range in Every situation and quality of light and quieter at all stops and esp at >ISO800
froda said: It is a wonderful yet cruel world when you have to make the decision on one or the other.
Robert Spencer says: Woe is me. Guess I need a D3 series but bank robbery is not my forte. Perhaps I should think about swindling or bribery. I
I do think i can make do with ISO 800-100 & HSC to negate the need to crop. I have never tried printing because I do coffee table books that are small. http://www.blurb.com/search/site_search?search=robert+spencer+Ingman&filter=all
I am really getting some good info here but the decision remains a difficult one. Take care. bob
) Of course, it you want to shoot at ISO 1600 and above the D2x doesn't come close. The lack of difference at ISO 800 is exactly the reason I didn't buy a D300.