Which old out of date dslr body to buy?

<p>Evening all,</p>

<p>In the past I've kept blathering about adding a newer DSLR body to my bag and so far have found excuses not to do so. I'm shooting D200's and keep asking myself what I need to do that the D200 isn't providing? The answer is that I'm getting everything I want from that platform. Still, in a day or two a call is going to be made to KEH. Here is the dilemma:</p>

<p>Cost is a big factor. Right now I'm not able to drop $1500+ on a body. I'm still waiting for the D400 which will be announced within 20 minutes of me placing this order. I'm debating between a D2X and a D300. Both are available as good users for around $450. Both are about 12 mp. The D2x is older but what will it not do the the D300 will? D2x should be faster, it is bigger and I've always been happiest with the pro level cameras. Handl ing on the D200 is quite good for me and I would expect the same from the D300. Is there a truly noticable difference in quality between images produced? I guess high ISO would be better in the D300. AF is not an issue nor is video capability. Battery life is. I know both are older, downright ancient in cam era years, epecially the D2x. I do NOT want a 7100. The full frame stuff is a bit pricey for me right now and I'm moving back to film for a lot of things. I'd prefer to stick to CF cards since I have so many but that is a mi nor issue. Not worried about putting two cards in the camera anyway.</p>

<p>I know many will say buy the newer camera and I probably will but from a practical level, why? Thanks for any input.</p>

<p>Rick</p>

<p>To me:<br>

1. I often choose a used camera if cost is a factor.</p>

<p>2. Talking about used cameras, the model only doesn't mean much, the condition is much more important. (for example, if Nikon sells you a brand new camera of an older model, dont expect a significantly lower price)</p>

<p>3. The price is always low (as everyone'd expect) but there are deals that are not so good and there are deals that are insanely good</p>

<p>I still own a D2X and until just recently also had a D300 still going strong. So comparing the two.</p>

<p>The D2x is a lovely camera. It is built like a tank and feels very good in my hands. As a photojournalist I adore the voice annotation. It saves me from the extremely tedious necessity of keeping notes that I can actually read. I still use it for daytime sports such as rodeo. Also, for some reason I can't put my finger on, the D2X produces beautiful skin tones. </p>

<p>The D300 is a step up in image quality as well as higher ISO performance. The D3oo, for example, has two stops better dynamic range. That is considerable. Add the good Nikon grip and the D300 will rip along at 8 FPS. </p>

<p>IF you don't need the voice memo, and sticking with your condition of only considering these two, the D300 is a wiser choice. \</p>

<p>Shame on you for crabbing the D7100. It is a spectacular camera. I shot an event today. Carried the D4 and D7100. I just keep reaching for the D7100. I have a grip on it as well and I like the way it fits in my hand. </p>

<p>I'd personally go for the D300. You can always make it the same, speed wise, by adding an MB-D10 grip (powered with AAs or an EnEl4 for high fps).</p>

<p>The D300 may be old but it's got a great sensor.</p>

<p>I never got the colours from a D200 that I liked..... maybe I just ran out of patience trying to dial it in?.. and it was slow and a bit noisy.</p>

<p>So, go and order a low mileage D300+Grip so I can pre-order a D400...:-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just keep reaching for the D7100. I have a grip on it as well and I like the way it fits in my hand.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Rick, if that <em><strong>grip</strong></em> made it go 8fps and let me do a 20 shot burst (with a fast SD card maybe?) I'd get one too! How do you find the buffer in fine JPEG CH shooting before it locks up?</p>

<p>Gotta admit the grip makes the D300 and D700 feel just right with a 70-200mm VRII.</p>

<p>I know you don't want my advice... I`d buy a D7100.<br /> Or a D700.<br /> But if I had to choose between the two you like, I`d get the D300. The jump from the D200 will be clearly noticeable.<br /> So it gives the D2X the lowest score. I`m not fond of the bigger full bodies, even more if they are specially outdated... it doesn`t mean that is an unusable camera; it still stands for taking good photos, but performance is not up to the current standards. But maybe you should buy it if it is the one you like, you`ll definitely be more happy.</p>

<p>A few months ago, I wanted a 'cheap' back-up for my D700. I tried a D200 first. It was ok. I then tried a D300, which I kept. It is a super camera and provides very good images, but I try not to go over 800 iso.</p>

<p>Although bought as back-up, it gets a good deal of use except in more demanding situations. If you can find a really good example - mine had only been used for 6k shots when I bought it - I think you will be happy with your purchase.</p>

<p>Although not quite out of date, the D7000 is extremely affordable and will give you the biggest jump in IQ between the various used bodies you may be looking at in your price range. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do NOT want a 7100.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Haha, some responders just can't help themselves! I guess that's not surprising on this forum.</p>

<p>Rick, I recently got a D300 to supplement a D200 I had used for about 3 years. I appreciate the image quality improvement, most notable at higher ISO. I also think the battery life and LCD screen are nicely improved from D200 to D300. </p>

<p>Another vote for D300 over the D2X...</p>

The advantages of a D300 for me would be:

-the better sensor

-live view

-AF Micro-adjust.

 

Some people dismiss the latter two but it depends on what you do. If you shoot still life, landscape, or architecture ,

having live view capability is a powerful compositional and manual focus aid. Being able to fine tune a camera's AF

system for each of your lenses can result in surprising improvements in sharpness.

 

The advantages of the D2X:

 

- a different formulation of the green filter in the Bayer filter array on the sensor (which accounts for the difference in skin

tones noted by Rick M.)

- bigger body.

- better battery life.

- higher frame rate

- two media slots.

<p>Well, the two media slots you get back by paying the premium for the D300s. That may or may not matter to you.<br />

<br />

I'd really like to know why <i>not</i> the D7100 - I presume price - or D7000. The D7000's AF isn't up to the D300's, but they're both a <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D7100-versus-Nikon-D7000-versus-Nikon-D300s___865_680_614">big step up in sensor performance</a> over the D300s. If the raw buffer gets you, fair enough, but the D7100 does pretty well when shooting JPEG. An original D300 is cheaper, of course, but there's a reason. And not just that Nikon don't make them any more.</p>

<p>The newer the body, the better the sensor. <br>

The D2X has a similar - but improved - AF behavior than the D200. The D300's AF is totally different.<br>

Wouldn't expect much difference in ISO performance between D2X and D200; D300 definitely better than D200 and D2X. D300 handles about the same as a D200 (there are a few differences); D2X will be different. Battery life was an issue for me with the D200; it isn't with the D300 (and I expect won't be with a D2X too). <br>

D7000: better sensor, otherwise a clear step down from the D300. I can't hold one comfortably, at which point all the advantages over a D200/D300 are quite moot.<br>

D7100: better sensor, improved AF, handles better than D7000 but not at the level of the D300.<br>

Currently, refurbished D7100 cameras sell for $799 - that's what I would be going for if you can stretch your budget to reach that far (I would even sell the D200 to cover the difference). Just check that you are OK with the difference in handling - it is certainly not what you are used to from the D200.</p>

<p>The D200, being approximately one year newer, definitely has better high-ISO results than the D2X. The D2X maxes out at ISO 800, which is not exactly high in today's 2014 standards. Even the D200's ISO 1600 is rather poor now, but at least it is rated one stop higher than the D2X (1600 vs. 800).</p>

<p>BTW, the D2X takes just one CF card; there is no dual card slots on the D2X and it maxes out at 5 fps, slower than 6 fps on the D300 (8 fps with grip and appropriate batteries). The D2X is not UDMA compatible so that CF card write speed is several times (approximately 4 to 5 times) as long as that on the D300.<br>

<br />I would consider a D2X only if you prefer a large body and mainly use it at slow frame rate at ISO 100, max 200. Anything beyond that, there are much better options today.</p>

<p>As an addendum to my original posting, good examples of the D300 have noticeably increased in price in the last few months in the UK. I paid £300 for mine - near mint with six month warranty dealer warranty - and I saw one or two less than that. Generally, they now seem to have increased between £40 and £90.</p>

<p>There must be more than me who think they are good.</p>

<p>As Shun pointed out D2x doesn't have dual slots - it is single slot only. </p>

<p>Considering the release sequence which was D2h, D2x, D200, D3/D300, D7000. It doesn't surprise me that the D200 is slightly better at some things than the D2x. D3/D300 where released on the same day - and are worlds away from the D2x and D200. </p>

<p>With that being said - I like the skin tones in the D2x better than the D200's. The D300 had the best dynamic range at the time and is a great body. </p>

<p>If the D2x and D300 are similarly priced - go with the D300 - it uses the same battery as the D200. </p>

<p>Okay, I pulled the trigger on a D300 from KEH along with a battery grip and spare battery. Cost is a factor but I have two things I dislike about the 7100 and for me they are major. One is the buffer and the bigger concern is that it is just too small for me. I have big hands and prefer a bigger camera. If you ever picked up my camera bag you would understand that weight is not an issue. I wasn't worried about dual card slots and video capability is moot for me. 8 fps is plenty fast for anything I've ever done and most of my glass is manual focus. I appreciate everyone's input, all of you are a valued resource and people I enjoy talking with. We should all get together somewhere for a beer one of these days. I'll let you know how I like it, it should be here Saturday. Happy Fourth everyone!!</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>Congrats! I hope it's a genuine grip, and came with the AA holder too. Even better would be the BL-3 for an EnEl4. That combo rocks ALL DAY for days!</p>

 

<p>Rick: Thanks for clarifying. If you need raw then the D7100 buffer is an issue; I believe it's pretty much not for JPEG, but I guess you know that. I appreciate the handling thing, as a D800 owner. I do think you're missing out on a lot of sensor performance, however.<br />

<br />

Best of luck with your new toy - I hope you're happy with it!</p>

<p>Go for a D700 - that was I bought after a D200 and it is/was wonderful<br>

<br />Still use it - and my D800 of course</p>

<p>Just to add a little support to using a D300; I use two D300s factory refurbs for my event and concert work and they have served me very well for over three years. I could have chosen a D7000, but I prefer the functionality, size and speed of the D300s. My clients are extremely happy with their photos, and so am I.</p>

<p>I would but the (now) old D800.</p>