It's hard to make a sensible decision sometimes. You have to go with what *you* shoot and what *your* needs are.
People say that images are "useless" from the D2x when shot over ISO 800, yet I have three "useless" ISO 1600 images published in magzines (two in a fine art magazine), so, "useless" might not be the best term. Of course, for newspapers you can pretty much shoot garbage and be ok.
I would love to have a D3,4 or whatever, but the reality of finances says make do with what I have. I am amazed that so many of us sold images that were taken with older cameras, maybe we should give the money back, because the images really were crap.
The physics of light haven't changed for me, at least since 2004 when I went digital. My best selling images are still from my D100 files, how odd is that?
Since the value of D2x's have pretty much bottomed out, buy one and shoot with it for a while, then sell it if you don't like it. If you're going to live at ISO 1600 or higher, don't even bother. You could do the same with the D300. At least then you could make a decision based on *your* judgement from your own real world experience.
It's been a while since I used a D2X but I recall shooting at 800 quite often chasing dogs in tree shaded areas. When I had a file that exhibited more noise than I was comfortable with a quick pass with Noiseware seemed to do a fine job. The various pre-sets are great when you want to reduce the filtering overall or specifically to luma or colour noise. Fur detail didn't seem to take a nasty hit when using Noiseware in this manner.
Noise reduction in NX2 is rather nice too with the excellent U-Point technology making selctive NR quick and easy.
While we tend to focus these days on the attributes of the bodies at higher ISO values we often forget the wonderful redition some of the older machines deliver at the lower ISO sensitivities. I guess it really boils down to what range you'll be spending most of your shooting time in.
D300 has better high ISO. I went from a D2Xs to a D300.
BioBanker wrote:
isn't the D2h supposed to be a bit better at high(er) ISO than a D2x?
Negative. The D2H was terrible (and highly disappointing given its sensor) at high ISO. The X was better and the D2Hs was the best. I don't know what they did in the Hs version, but the Hs is wat the H should have been.
I owned the D2X for a while, but sold it and bought a D300 for precisely the reason you are asking about. I really missed the sensor spread and vertical grip of the D2X though. Now that I have a D3 I'm a happy camper.
The D2X isnt as good as the D300 at ISO 1600, but I would like to task anyone who compares the 2 cameras to PRINT something out and then see how they do. I have a d2x ISO 1600 11x14 metallic that just leaves me speechless. This of course is my subjective opinion, so YMMV. Just sayin' that printing yields a much higher quality than what would be expected from viewing on the computer screen.
Yeah print is so much different than monitor viewing. I have a 30"x40" print on it's way from an indoor/natural lighting shot of my dog at ISO 1600 on it's way, and another 30x40 shot at ISO100 both my former D2x, it will be interesting to see...
Experts will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the D2H/D2Hs are a bit better at high iso than the D2x because of the larger photosites. If you do not crop a lot, that is a way to get into a pro body with a crop sensor for very little money. And, frankly, with the demand one sees for D2H(s), you could always sell it for what you paid if some test shots didn't look right to you. I really like my D2Hs and will use it to 800, sometimes higher. But at Hi1-2 (whatever that equates to) it sucks compared to a D3. It seems better than my D200, though, at >800.
A used D700 would be the best high iso choice, I think, but if you need the crop and don't own longer lenses, then you will spend more money on lenses than the body, and such a kit may get out of range quickly.
I've only read a few of the early replies, but have seen several untruths. I have and still use both the D2x and D300. The D300 is much better at high ISO, 800 is very clean and 1600 is surprizingly usable. My D2x starts fading at 400 and is ugly at 800. As for speed, the D300 with the grip and AA's (or en-el4a) is much faster in frame rate than the D2x. With the latest firmware (issued 11/08) the D300 AF is slightly faster at AF Aquisition and much better at AF tracking than the D2x. Overall, the D300 is the better camera. If the D300 is lacking, it is in comfort for my hand. I like the feel of the D2x much better and the D300 would not be tolerable to me without the grip. That is my personal preference based on the way I'm built. The D2x does have a look to it that I like and even in the D2x mode, the D300 doesn't really get it right. The D300 has it's own look, and the middle tones seem a little flattened out compared to the D2x.
The D300 does take a little getting used to, there are many more controls.
Photos from both are in my gallery at: www.pbase.com/baywing Shots are mixed together, but the exif data will id which is which.
I've had both and I agree 100 percent with what John McFadden has said. Between the two I find the D300 more versatile under bad light, but there was imho a look to the D2xs files that would make me chose it again, if I had the choice between the two.
In fact I still use the D2xs number 1 profile for most of my D700 shots. I've got a custom profile for the D700 but find that the sensor is too bright for my tastes with yellows and orange hues. The D2xs profiles often look much better!
I only disagree with Baywing about one small detail (or is it large? )
I have always found the focus tracking much better, and I mean much better with the D2xs. I think the stronger battery gives large lenses much more of a torqued feeling. When I shot motorsports, I found the D2xs far superior.
I actually traded my D300 for a used D2X just recently. I did this because I missed the feel of the D2X and there is something about the D2X files. I shot with the D2X for a while... and then got a D300. My main body is the D700 so my low light needs are met. My D2X is my wildlife, long lens camera and coupled with the 300mm f/4 and 1.4 TC it's a great, budget package that delivers superb images. I agree that the D300 has better ISO performance and better AF system... but the D2X AF is really fast and acquires focus faster than the D300 in my experience. I think Nikon really need to release another pro DX cam. Something with the D300 sensor and the D2X body with updated AF. There is a gap there... many shooters want the DX crop, but the pro feel. This is why we go back and forth. For now, I will keep my D2X because it's just a pleasure to shoot with... something I could never say about the D300...
The D2X in HSC mode is faster than the D300 + Grip. And the main reason is because of the lower VF blackout time. And if you're shooting any AFD lenses, the D2 bodies are faster to focus.
stedge wrote:
Experts will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the D2H/D2Hs are a bit better at high iso than the D2x because of the larger photosites. If you do not crop a lot, that is a way to get into a pro body with a crop sensor for very little money. And, frankly, with the demand one sees for D2H(s), you could always sell it for what you paid if some test shots didn't look right to you. I really like my D2Hs and will use it to 800, sometimes higher. But at Hi1-2 (whatever that equates to) it sucks compared to a D3. It seems better than my D200, though, at >800.......Show more →
Pavel wrote:
....I have always found the focus tracking much better, and I mean much better with the D2xs. I think the stronger battery gives large lenses much more of a torqued feeling. When I shot motorsports, I found the D2xs far superior.
Johnny McClung wrote:
....but the D2X AF is really fast and acquires focus faster than the D300 in my experience. I think Nikon really need to release another pro DX cam. Something with the D300 sensor and the D2X body with updated AF. There is a gap there... many shooters want the DX crop, but the pro feel. This is why we go back and forth. For now, I will keep my D2X because it's just a pleasure to shoot with... something I could never say about the D300...
I agree with the above comments and would add that I really prefer the sensor layout of the CAM 2000 system for my shooting style. I do, however, see where the BIF specialists might find the greater central density of cross sensors found in the later CAM 3500 AF more effective for their work.
Pavel wrote:
I only disagree with Baywing about one small detail (or is it large? )
I have always found the focus tracking much better, and I mean much better with the D2xs. I think the stronger battery gives large lenses much more of a torqued feeling. When I shot motorsports, I found the D2xs far superior.
Interesting comment as that goes opposite my experiences and all I've read from Thom Hogan and others. I've only used AFS lenses on the D300 and find the tracking much more tenacious than the D2x. There are many more AF settings on the D300 and it took me a while to find the ones which optimized the AF performance. Maybe you've got a super D2x? I just saw that you are talking the D2xs not the x so maybe the s was a little tweaked over the straight x.
With a screw drive lens, the D2x(s) wins hands down, though the D300 with the grip and good power is no slouch.
Robert: since the topic is High ISO performance, there is no question that the D300 delivers better results at ISO 800 and above. But the level of "acceptable" noise content in an image can be ... and often is ... a subjective thing rather than a measurement. There are people who cannot accept even the slightest sign of noise/grain, and there are people (like me) who have a higher tolerance for noise, including the kind of noise that can reduce detail.
I've used my D2x at ISO 800 to H2 (the Nikon equivalent of ISO 3200) with "acceptable" if not downright useable imagery, particularly with a little help from noise reduction software. Much depends on what you intend to do with your pictures. If you print them, you can print a high-noise image at 8" X 12" and hardly see any noise at all, or you can downsize it to 1200 pixels wide for computer/web viewing and see absolutely no noise whatsoever. Much depends also on exposure technique, post-processing skills and other factors.
When I faced a similar decision, I wrote to Thom Hogan for a little guidance. In short, his response was: "ISO 100-400, the D2x. ISO 800 and above, the D300." And yet, I stayed with my D2x with no regrets. The metering, speed, accuracy, crop mode, handling, color, etc. remains exceptional no matter which camera I compare it to. I do try to make ISO 800 my limit and therefore have invested in fast glass, but I will shoot as high as needed to grab a shot I don't want to miss. Am I tempted to go in the direction of a D300s or D700? Yes. I do think about it. But the D2x performs so well and handles so beautifully, I stay with it.
In my wildlife shots, I've lost far more detail to dynamic range limitations than to high ISO noise - especially in white plumage. Looks like the D300 is significantly better there.
I'll have to qualify my comments as I quit the D300 just before the last firmware update came out so no experience at that level. I also did not use the D300 with a grip.
That said, I found the D2 series faster to acquire initial focus but the D300 did stay on target easier. Don't know if this is due to the sensor layout of the latter or simply the different AF module in general. Most noticeable with AF lenses but I saw it even with AF-S optics. The D2 bodies just seemed to be 'instant-on' for me where the D300 always wanted a slight bit of time to acquire with certainty. I had my release and focus lock priorities set-up similarly on both cameras so I don't believe the difference in performance was due to that issue.
Sometimes I wonder if the differing experiences are due to various usage and subject material. I do believe the pro level BIF/sports shooters are pushing their machines to the very limits and may well notice small performance variations that would escape an amateur like myself. My observations could easily be more a result of my skill level with active subjects than the actual abilities of the camera I'm using.
Woe is me again! The longer this discussion continues and the more information I assimilate the more I`m torn between the two.
Both seem to have distinct advantages over the other. Both have features that I find desirable.
The D2X is attractive because i have a D2H and can share batteries & chargers. It has HSC which I would like for birds because my longest lens is a 400mm 5.6 and a TC in low light is OUT of the question. As you can see by the examples I posted low light is the norm here in coastal Alaska requiring higher ISO to get higher shutter speeds. My D1X is a pleasure to hold and use ( more so than the D2H) in good light but in low light its nearly a B&W machine. It requires sunlight to bring out its best. I`m fearing that the D2X might be the same. I love the feel of the pro line bodies but want IQ in LOW light as well.
The D300 with grip will provide the use of same battery & charger (+ AA batteries in a pinch) as my D2H. I like that part. Also the grip , though it does not make a pro body of a 300 does none the less give it a better feel to larger hands.
Maybe its not as much a matter of noise in low light as it is in dynamic range. Shadows are quick to blacken and bunch up into solid black masses with the bodies i have used so far.
Im thankful to everyone that has contributed to this most informitive thread. So much information & knowlege has been presented that I have only myself to blame that I am still on the fence about this decision. I`m in a remore location so renting to try is not an option. I know of no other photographers in this area that use Nikon DSLRs so borrowing is out. Natural light I love but just wish i had more of it to work with. Decisions would be a lot more simple to reach. Thanks for all the help. I will get off the fence sooner or later. Hopefully sooner meaning before the end of the year. We are entering a buyers season and maybe something will come along that I cannot pass by. At this point the one thing that is certain is that either choice will be a step up from what I`m using now. Thanks again & take care. bob
i see the opposite. the high ISO noise in the D2X is much more visible in prints than on the screen. for me, the D300 is about a stop better. then again, a 16x24 is my upper limit for D2X files. not enough detail to be worth printing any larger. the D300 focus tracking is better in the sense that once it locks onto something it hangs onto it much better than the D2X, but if it ever locks onto the wrong thing, it also never lets go. for birds in flight, closest subject focus priority like the D2X offers is much better because if it loses tracking and locks onto the background, recentering the bird under the main focus point reacquires on the bird. the D300 and newer bodies won't. it's the main reason i sold my D300 and kept my D2X. however i am limited to ISO 400 on the D2X while on the D3X, i can use ISO 800 in crop mode with about the same amount of noise.
Herb...
froda wrote:
Yeah print is so much different than monitor viewing. I have a 30"x40" print on it's way from an indoor/natural lighting shot of my dog at ISO 1600 on it's way, and another 30x40 shot at ISO100 both my former D2x, it will be interesting to see...
I just saw that you are talking the D2xs not the x so maybe the s was a little tweaked over the straight x.