What would you choose? Nikon D2X or D90?

<p>Lets say you could buy a used D2X or a used D90 both for about the same price. Would would you get??????? And I dont care about the video junk on the D90!<br>

Thanks<br>

Bill</p>

<p>For what purpose? What type of photography? These are very different types of cameras. There are many situations where there would be enough overlap that either model would do nicely. And a few situations where one might be clearly superior to the other.</p>

<p>Having owned a D2H for five years I'd now prefer the D90. I no longer do any PJ type photography and the D2H is far too heavy and bulky for my current needs. The D2H and D2X remain good choices for most photojournalism (other than dimly lit venues). But the D90 would work well enough for some PJ or documentary photography and even some action oriented photography in situations where the rugged build of the D2-series isn't really needed.</p>

<p>There are several other considerations. Do you need to use compatible manual focus lenses with full metering capability? Do you need the advantage of an integral vertical grip with most controls readily accessible? Do you routinely shoot in dim light and prefer not to use flash? If so, the D90 might be the better choice. If you routinely shoot at the slowest ISO, the noise advantage is moot.</p>

<p>Get both, and after trying them, sell the one you like the least. Or, maybe you'll decide to keep them both. Why not, unless you need the cash?</p>

<p>If you are short on funds, buy the latest technology. Also consider the D300s.</p>

<p>Jeeze Lex, LOL<br>

Uh I shoot everything, and I mean all kinds of stuff. Just pick a camera thats good for all of the above photography.</p>

<p>If you have to ask, neither of them may be what you need right now. </p>

<p>Bill,</p>

<p>Lex offered you very good advice.</p>

<p>There are many personal variables when choosing a camera for yourself. A small difference between models can make a big difference to you, personally. It all depends upon your own preferences. Some photographers will make a decision based solely upon a few grams of weight between camera bodies. Absurd, in my opinion.</p>

<p>Whats that suppose to mean Josh? Because I like to see what the people here think Im not ready to upgrade? Sorry I dont have 10k laying around to throw away trying different cameras. Thats why I said "HINCE" used cameras!</p>

<p>Bill,</p>

<p>Given the limited information you initially provided us, I would not be so testy. Now that we know that money is an issue, I would consider a Nikon D70. I love this camera, and I am not being facetious in recommending it. It produces fantastic images, and will flash sync at 1/500sec. Exposure accuracy with the D70 is on a par with Nikon bodies accepted in the pro category, in my opinion.</p>

<p>Bill,</p>

<p>Anyone who wants to own a D2x should already be well acquainted with it by this point. You give the impression of not knowing much about it (or the D90), which makes me wonder how able you are deal with the D2x's strengths (great pro body, autofocusing, low ISO IQ) and weaknesses (lousy high ISO). <br /> Better to read first, and there is certainly no shortage of material available about the D2x, D90 and just about every camera that hasn't been released in the past few months (i.e. none made by Nikon).</p>

<p>If you go with a D70, be sure it's a D70s, not just the original D70. The D70 (and s) offers something that no comparable Nikon body has since, which is the full 1005 RGB color matrix meter, the same one found in the pro bodies and D200/300/700). </p>

<p>Hi Bill, I started my DSLR days with a D70 and kit lens. Since then I have owned and used many - D200, D300, D2h, D2X, D100, D700 and D3. I still have the last three, the D100 having been converted to Infrared. Of them all I have to say the D2X was and still is my favourite. I only got rid of it to go full frame. I use the D2x profiles in both the D3 and D700. It was and is a great camera and I would recommend it to anyone. I could not justify keeping it with the D3 and D700. It is not a great camera to convert to Infrared (sensor not the best for conversion) so I went with the D100 for specialist use. A good D2x will never let you down and will enable you to expand your horizons for years to come. The D90 is also good but I have no interest in these video combinations. </p>

<p>Bill,</p>

<p>For a broad range of general photography the D90 is the superior technology. That is, unless, you have or wish to use Ai / AiS / Ai'd lenses in which case the D2x is the only of these two bodies to support metering of the Ai lenses. </p>

<p>So to answer your question directly, I'd chose the D90 - I don't happen to care for the video function either.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>D90 easily.</p>

<p>D90 is much more modern. D2X is a more robust camera and can be knocked around, also has key buttons on the outside, which is why I like it better.</p>

<p>Neither. D2x is way to big, heavy and draws too much attention. I like the AF layout though. The D90 - doubt it will stand up to the abuse I put on my gear. So yeah. D200 or D300 for me :D</p>

<p>Alvin<br>

Disclaimer: Only tried the D2X + 400/2.8VR, not mine. Can't say how it works with my regular lenses :D OMG I touched a 400/2.8VR</p>

<p>D90</p>

<p>If you don't have specific needs that you know the D2x will fill, the D90 is the way to go. Since you are considering used, you would be well served to first research the used D300 market to see if adding $200-300 would get you a camera that will be a better choice for your needs.</p>

<p>Bill,<br>

Unless high ISO performance is important to you, I second Alvin's suggestion of the D200(I know that wasn't one of the original choices). It might not be as new as the D90 but it is produces great images, is rugged, can meter with ai/ais lenses and should be a fair amount cheaper than your first two choices. I bought my new for $599, you can use that extra cash to add a lens or two.</p>

<p>To me, the big 3" high-quality LCD on the back of the D90 is a big advantage. And if you shoot landscape or macro, having live view for precise focusing is a big plus. Those are features not available on the D2X or D200.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you need fast and precise AF, the D2X has a big advantage. The dilemma is that while the D2X will AF much better indoors, its high-ISO capabilty is far inferior to that on the D90.</p>

<p>One issue to consider is that if a used D2X is selling for the same price as a used D90, the chance is that that D2X has gone through plenty of use and abuse. Used D2X bodies in good condition are probably closer in price to new D90's.</p>

<p>Without any further information, as your question is without supporting info, I say D90 also. Have you carefully read through all the review info on these bodies, and do they match your lenses and flash equipment? Personally I've been using D200s and am very happy. I have a mix of older and new lenses, don't use much high ISO and need some durability. So far so good, I am not running around looking for the "next" thing, because these meet my needs. If these cameras don't meet your needs, you will probably end up looking for other stuff. D90 is great but a D300 will be more durable. If you need the heavy bod of D2x maybe D90 is not for you. Only you will know for sure. I suggest making a list and writing things down and comparing as such. </p>

<p>Ok guys let me start off by apologizing for not being more detailed in my question. "SORRY ABOUT THAT"<br>

OK as some of you know already I'm always bragging on the brute speed and layout of my Nikon D1X over my Nikon D80. So with that being said I guess what I'm trying to say is I love the way the D1X/D2X feels to me. BUT, Ive heard so much about the new D90-D300 here lately that it has made me question the fact about getting the D2X. As shun sated above the 3 inch LCD on the D90 would be GREAT!!!!!!! So now you guys know my dilemma on whats going on with me. And for those of you who recommended the D70? That was my very first SLR camera and I sold it to my buddy to help pay for my used D80. So yes it was a great camera but I got hooked in by the LCD size on the D80 over the D70. Then after getting the D80 I all of a sudden realized that the D80 wouldn't flash sync up to 1/500th! But me and my buddy are pretty tight and I'm sure he will sell it back to me before he moves on to another. And I want it for the simple reason it was my first SLR, and I had to sell my Nikon Coolpix in order to buy my used D70. I LOVE ALL OF YOU HERE, but sometimes it gets frustrating that I cant afford the new latest SLR and chime in on how it operates and the pros and cons. I have to wait til the nest model comes out so I can get that one used LOL. I guess I have a champagne taste on a BEER budget.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Bill</p>

<p>Bill: if you like speed and an agile AF system, a used or refurbed D300 (not the "S" version, since you don't need the video, and perhaps don't care about dual card slots) would seem to be something to watch for. It has a better AF system than the D2X, substantially better high ISO performance, the nice LCD, and an overall lovely way about it. And believe it or not, that pop-up flash (absent on the D2X) can actually be very helpful - by itself, or as a CLS commander. And it leaves you with more lens options than does the D90.<br /><br />Those not-very-used D300 bodies are going to just keep getting cheaper, so keep your eyes open.</p>

<p>I also hear the D2x is worthless shooting anything over 800 iso??????? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I also hear the D2x is worthless shooting anything over 800 iso???????</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In today's standards, the D2X is pretty much worthless shooting at ISO 800, never mind over 800. See the sample image I posted on January 17: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00VW6n">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VW6n</a></p>

<p>Since I bought my D300 in November 2007, I took both the D300 and D2X on a trip over Christmas that year. After that, I have not used the D2X even once; I still own it, though.</p>

<p>If you only use ISO 100 and perhaps 200 and you need fast AF, the D2X is a better camera than the D90. The D2X can meter with no-CPU lenses while the D90 cannot. Otherwise, the D90 should be the better camera today.</p>

<p>I wouldn't just dismiss the video feature. I have used that on the D5000, D300S, D3S. While it is not great to use a DSLR to capture video, it is handy sometimes.</p>

<p>If you prefer the handling of your D1X over your D80 then I would guess you would prefer the handling of the D2X over the D90. Out of the D1x and the D80 what one do you find produces the most pleasing images. I would not mind getting a D2Hs one day for its more reliable battery but I am not in any kind of hurry to get another DSLR.</p>

<p>Shun, Thanks so much for all that info on the D2X!!!!! I think it now comes down to a D300 or D90. But I just seen a comparison and the D90 out did the D300 on a ISO test. WOW!<br>

Stuart, My D80 seems like I get about 5 good photos out of a 100 shot. Where as the D1x I would keep about 30-40out of 100. It might just be me but it seems like my D1x is always TACK sharp "every photo" where the D80 is hit and miss. I think I will try the D90 guys and see what its all about. Thanks so much for all your help!!!!!<br>

GOD I LOVE THIS FORUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br>

Thanks again guys. And THANK YOU SHUN!!!!!!</p>