Switching Nikon D2x - Should I?

<p>Hi Folks,<br>

Happy New Year!<br>

I am thinking about packing in my Olympus E-xxx series to go down the Nikon route. I am interested to know what is your opinion of its high ISO (800-1600) performance compared to the newer Nikon or other (Canon) models.<br>

I am interest in sports + bird photography using a semi-AF set up as I have these Nikon mount lenses:<br /> <br /> TC-16A (1.6x TC)<br /> Tokina 300mm f2.8<br /> Tokina 70-220mm f3.5<br>

Tamron 80-200mm f2.8<br>

I also have 50mm f1.8 AF Nikkor + F90x camera.<br>

My budget is limited, so I can't afford buying a D300 + new telephoto Nikkor optics.<br>

Can someone recommend a good online store in Europe (UK) for a used D2x? How much should I expect to pay?<br>

<br /> Thanks.<br /> Simon</p>

<p>Grays of Westminster is a great store for Nikon goods, both new and used if you're in the London area. Check out their price list online. The D2X/D2Xs seems to run for around one thousand pounds.</p>

<p>I would still consider the D300 as it is reported to have better high ISO performance so you can shoot in lower light. Also it has a more advanced autofocus system though the D2 series system is really good also. Also, AF-S teles are easier to use for moving subjects but that may be out of your budget.</p>

<p>Supposedly some experts like the D2 color profiles. I have a photoshop book and you download the files to work along. They are files from a D2X and I am not impressed. My D200 and D700 make better high ISo files. </p>

<p>Later cameras are way better in other respects.</p>

<p>Here a sample of my photo taken with my E-300+Tokina 300mm f2.8<br>

<img src="http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u161/stingOM/Tokina%20300mm%20Images/Image00001-2.jpg" alt="" /> I am hoping to improve on it by taking some photos of birds in flight!</p>

<p>A secondhand D2X in nice condition goes for about 730-850 GBP (or up to 1000 GBP for the D2Xs) at major UK dealers, which doesn't seem like great value when compared to a new D300 for 900 GBP (with the now standard 2 year warranty). A battered user D2X can be had for 500-600 GBP, but that could easily turn out to be a false economy if something goes wrong. See:<br>

<a href="http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod585.html">http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod585.html</a><br>

<a href="http://apertureuk.com/used-NAF.htm">http://apertureuk.com/used-NAF.htm</a><br>

<a href="https://secure.ffordes.com/index.htm">https://secure.ffordes.com/index.htm</a></p>

 

<p>I've got both the D2X and D300. My opinions only - The D2X is excellent up to 400, not so hot at 800, forget it over 800. The D300 is excellent up to 800, still pretty darn good at 1600. The D300 has a better autofocus system. I'd definitely go with the D300.</p>

<p>If you need high ISO results, don't waste your money on a D2X or D2Xs, which are poor even at ISO 800. A D300 is not that much more expensive and will give you fairly good ISO 1600 and acceptable 3200 results plus many other advantages.</p>

<p>If you try to "save money" with a D2X, most likely you'll need to upgrade again soon and end up spending even more. I have both a D2X and a D300 and am speaking from personal experience.</p>

<p>Thanks folks. It looks like even the D200 beats the D2x on noise control:<br /> http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/infos/D200-vs-D2X/D200-vs-D2X-info.html<br /> Having said that with careful post processing, you can get a lot out of the D2x even at high ISO:<br /> http://www.digitaldingus.com/memberreviews/nikon/d2x/d2x.php</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Having said that with careful post processing, you can get a lot out of the D2x even at high ISO:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In photography, it is almost always better, in fact much better, to have a good original than relying on post processing to fix various issues. I also have a D200 and a D700. If I need low-light performance, I now use the D700.</p>

<p>Is there a way to get the Tc-16A TC re-chipped professionally to make it work with the D3 series.</p>

<p>Simon,</p>

<p>I shoot the D2X. I think the noise at 800ISO is very much like film grain, and acceptable for most uses (not studio portraits or anything like that). Anything over 800ISO, in my opinion, would probably look better in B&W because the color fidelity suffers along with added noise. The noise is still grain-like, and much more acceptable to me than noise from other cameras.</p>

<p>Below 800ISO, the D2X shoots fantastic shots. The colors are beautiful, the camera is fast, and it is legendary Nikon tough and ergonomic. It wants to be held and shot, and will survive what mother nature throws at it.</p>

<p>Shots at 100ISO really are perfect, and then your glass will begin to let you down. I attached this shot as an example. It's technically pretty good, but the dynamic range is REALLY stretched in the windows, which is where current-technology sensors are making gains. That being said, there were several stops difference in the lighting, so I had to use an off-camera SB-800 speedlight attached by a super-clamp on a cockpit rail. </p>

<p>There is no way I'd consider a D200. The D300, which I have shot and used, makes a nice file, but takes more work post-processing to punch up the pictures due to the increased dynamic range (I think it's files are more negative-like, whereas the D2X is more chrome-like). Neither the D300 nor the vaunted D700/D3 could have been able to pull this shot off without lighting. This is where the low-light ability of the new stuff shows it's limitations. Crappy existing light is still just that...crappy. Balancing and controlling light is the key, but we all know that.</p><div></div>

<p>The D2X is a very good value, although you need to be a patient shopper to make the most of this advantage. The build is wonderful and the ergonomics for those of us with large hands and eyeglasses are excellent. I primarily shoot at ISO 100 and have not shot at 400 or 800 yet, so this camera fits my needs perfectly. I shoot almost all manual focus AIS lenses from 14/2.8 AF to 400/2.8 AIS and the D2X tells me in the finder what aperture I have set on the lens.</p>

<p>Used prices seem quite high in Europe. I know import duties are steep but you should at least look at the possibility of importing from keh.com, bhphotovideo.com, or adorama.com, to make sure you are not paying too much.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is there a way to get the Tc-16A TC re-chipped professionally to make it work with the D3 series.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. There are people who are capable of modifying one for a small sum of money (I'd probably charge about $150-200) but the end result will not be what I consider to be "professional".</p>

<p>Even with the most modern chip, the TC-16A concept is basically flawed, and you are forced to either lock the camera in the mode where you have to control the aperture of all your lenses (Non AF-S AF lenses, as well as MF) from the lens aperture ring, or to suffer exposure errors when using AI lenses or "AI converted" pre-AI lenses. There will also be strange limits to the aperture range you can actually use on the lens, and the possibility of overexposure at small apertures on all lenses (AI-S, AI, and converted pre-AI).</p>

<p>The D2x is to die for at iso 100. I use mine up to about 800, but you must take care never to have to raise the exposure in post-processing, especially in dark areas. That's the key to noise control. However, if I mainly shot at iso 800 and above, I'd get a d3 or a d300. Perhaps the d90, though I'm not familiar with that one.</p>

<p>I'm using two D2X since 2005 and it's an endless love. I have the opportunity to work with all the camera produced by Nikon and, to be honest, for the actual used price, no other body is most performant than this.<br /> You can use all the lens produced by Nikon since the beginning Ai, AiS, AF, AFD, AFS. This means to have the possibility to use the "famous" AiS 35 1,4 or the 50 1,2 or other wonderful lenses.<br /> If you don't need to go over 800 ISO every day or so often, don't wait and don't be afraid to buy it.<br /> The secret? Work a lot with it and learn to "manage" it. You will be surprised from the results !!</p>

<p>I have shot a D2x since 2006 and its image quality still amazes me. I'll continue to shoot it until I get my D3x. However, I am with Shun on this. I believe the D300 has the best image quality of any DX format camera ever. If the D300's smaller body doesn't bother you (I prefer the large form factors of the Nikon pro bodies) then I cannot in good conscience recommend a D2x over a D300. Go for the D300. Just my opinion.</p>