It's time to upgrade from my D200. I shoot portraits and would love the D700 but unfortunately, it's out of my price range. Is the D2X still a good purchase? My main lens is the 28-70 2.8. Thanks .
erstad17 wrote:
It's time to upgrade from my D200. I shoot portraits and would love the D700 but unfortunately, it's out of my price range. Is the D2X still a good purchase? My main lens is the 28-70 2.8. Thanks .
Yes, it's still a good purchase ... but that depends on price and condition. If you can find one with low clicks and with 9+ cosmetics, it will set you back around $1,000-$1,200.
IQ-wise, the D2x is the equal of the D3/D700 at ISO 100-400. Beyond ISO 400, the newer cameras show better noise control and have improved features; perhaps faster and more accurate AF as well. At ISO 1600 and above, nothing can really touch the D3/D700. The D2x loses quite a bit of detail at that setting and beyond, but you can still squeeze usable pics out of it at high ISOs with proper technique and spot-on exposure.
Still, at current used prices, the D2x is quite a bargain considering what it offers in the way of build, speed, metering, color, etc. I'm a big fan of the D2x and still own one.
I used the D2X and the 28-70mm for several years. Great combo, but I hated the wide end not being wide. Stellar sharp images. Once you have used a pro body, you will never want to go back. The D2X and 28-70mm was my carry anywhere camera for years.
I mainly shoot outdoor portraits with the occasional flash for fill. I hardly ever go past iso 400 so shooting low light really doesn't concern me. Thanks everyone for all of your input.
I wouldn't touch the D2X, the D300 is a superior camera in every area. Yes the pro bodies have nice grips etc but there's no way I'd go back to a D2 series camera now. With the D300 you get a warranty, much much better screen, better high ISO, less weight, video, if you go for a D300s.
Nov 25, 2009 at 05:53 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
This review by Thom Hogan is worth a read. He compares the D300 to the D200 and to the D2x. The D300 is NOT superior in every area and there are good reasons for getting a D2x, and vice versa.
I think it's a best investment for your money to purchase a newer camera model. Technology is changing very fast and I don't see a reason to buy now a camera that was launched in mid 2005. It was a great camera, it still produce good pictures but if you need it not only for today but for tommorow.... think twice! I'll buy a new D300 or even a new D90 - not so "pro" feeling but is a brand new camera... warranty... better display and so on. On the other words, instead a 200,000 miles 5yrs old BMW I'll prefer to put my money on a brand new VW Golf VI.
For portraits, I'd choose the D2x. I have both and the D2x is still my go-to camera for low ISO work. The D300 has some noise in open, blank areas even at it's base ISO that just isn't there on the D2x. It's not objectionable, has a film grain-like look. Search the net, most of the reviews mention this including the reviews of the new D300s. D300 images have a different look even when using the D2x emulation curves, it looks like the mid-tones are opened up. As a result, the D300 seems to have a slightly greater dynamic range.
The D2x will have a look more like your D200, the D300 will look different. When using flash, my D2x doesn't pre-flash, the D300 always does. If this matters, it could be a deciding point.
Avi B wrote:
For portraits, where you will be shooting under ISO 400 all the time, the D2X is the hands down winner for you.
I agree. When all is said and done, the D2x at ISO 100-400 is up there with the D3/D700 when it comes to acuity and color/tone gradations. The D300 has very good acuity and is better than the D200 in this regard. But it's not the equal of the D2x. As far as color and gradations go, there's a reason why Nikon has provided the D2x's Mode 1 and Mode II tone curves for D3/D700/D300 bodies!
"The D3 and D300s are a slight step backward (compared to the D2X) at base ISO...
In my own experience, I found the D2X to render fine detail (such as in landscape subjects) very slightly better than the D300, and quite a bit better than my copy of the D700.
molson wrote:
Here's another Thom Hogan article to consider... http://www.bythom.com/upgradepath.htm "The D3 and D300s are a slight step backward (compared to the D2X) at base ISO...
In my own experience, I found the D2X to render fine detail (such as in landscape subjects) very slightly better than the D300, and quite a bit better than my copy of the D700.
Thanks. Hadn't read this update. Supports those of us who have favored the D2x over the newer cameras when working at ISO 100-400.
When you say 'time to upgrade from the D200" and you're considering a D2x, I'd have to ask why? It's obviously not for the pro body since you'd like a D700 but it's out of your price range.
There's a good reason to go the D2x, one of my favourites ever, I'm just not seeing the reason to 'upgrade' in this instance.
If you've got a D200 already, I'd consider waiting. Though there are 'some' differences, the images are almost the same between your current D200 and the D2x.
You can download the D2x profile settings and get the same colours.
If you want a D2x because you want a new toy, great. Nice camera. If you're looking to 'upgrade', maybe you'll be better hanging onto your until next year.
