Considering a Nikon D2X? Good or Bad?

<p>I desperately need to upgrade to a DSLR and I'm thinking of buying a used Nikon D2x. I do need a pro DSLR as I have worked with the D40x and D90 and they are not really cutting it for me. But my main concern is how "old" the D2x is. <br>

Most of the work I do is freelance for newspapers, product photography and I am staring up a few weddings this summer.<br>

Any suggestions? I was thinking a D300 but I'll have to save up more $$ as this is my biggest problem [isn't is always?] </p>

<p>Thank to all in advance for help! </p>

<p>Kelly, this topic has already been discussed many times. My rule of thumb is that it is almost always a bad idea to buy some out-of-date DSLR that was a pro model once upon a time. There are good reasons that they are dirt cheap today because technology has improved so much that they are left far far behind. Additionally, many of them have gone thru a lot of professional abuse.</p>

<p>Today you should be able to find a used D300 for about $1000 and a new D300S for $1500. Those are much better buys.</p>

<p>Check out these threads:<br>

<a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00WBgj">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00WBgj</a><br>

<a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00VKyd">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VKyd</a>: On Dec 27 last year, I posted a detailed comparison about why the D2X is very far behind. Since I bought my D300 in late 2007, I have hardly ever used my D2X any more, although I still own it.</p>

<p>Pros <br>

superior AF, instant reactiontime/no shutterdelay, built quality, great IQ under 800ISO<br>

Negative<br>

Grain at over 800ISO (although beautiful grain in B/W)<br>

OK, D3 is superior (I have one as well) but the D2X didn't go obsolete immediately after the D3 hit the market<br>

D300<br>

Positive : better high IS0 the D2X (although only soso compared to D3), small (without MB-10) compared to D2/D3, pop up flash, AutoISO<br>

Negative: high ISO compared to D3, IQ compared to D3 and to D2X under 400ISO, sluggish shutterdelay and AF (when coming from a D2/D3)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Kelly, there have been several threads about D2x vs. D300 lately. Thom Hogan has a side by side comparison of the two <a href="http://www.bythom.com/nikond300review.htm">http://www.bythom.com/nikond300review.htm</a>. Most of the people that will will reply to your question here will advise you to save your money and get the D300. Both are fine cameras, and both are capable of capturing great photos.</p>

<p>What is it about the D90 that is "not cutting" it for you ? If this is the case, then the D300 might not do it either. If you could be more specific about why it isn't doing what you need it to do, then you will get better advice from people here.</p>

<p>I have used a D2x for since 2005 and it has been a fantastic workhorse for me, and will be for the foreseeable future. It is robust, responsive, and a joy to use. One potential downside for you might be the size of it, it is not a small camera, and I would advise you to hold one in your hands first before deciding if you want one.<br>

It is often noted that the D300 is better at higher ISO. That is a good reason to buy one over a D2x, which tops out at about ISO 400 for acceptable quality photos. If you don't that, then much of the advantage of buying a D300 over a D2x go away. I didn't need it in 2005, and I don't need it now. Nikon has fed us a bunch of these high-ISO capable cameras lately, but at ISO 100-200 the D2x still rocks, and that's the main reason I haven't replaced it.</p>

<p>Agreed with the aforementioned comments. As one of the few remaining D2X advocates, I would have a hard time recommending it today. I love my D2Xs and still manage to complete professional contracts on a routine basis without incident or issue. I cannot imagine being without the solid full-size body & iron-clad construction, but that is just my personal style.<br>

The D300 especially used is a great option and one intensely popular camera. I still really like the Fuji S2/S3 and more recent the amazing Fuji S5 Pro series if you are doing wedding photography. The quality of skin tones and in-camera capabilities are astonshing with the Fuji series. See Ken Rockwell's take on the S5 ony google if you want more insight. (Grain of salt with dear ole Chuck Norris of all things Nikon, our buddy Rockwell --- but on S5 I do respect his thoughts....)<br>

All-in-all, you cannot go wrong with the D300 --- but I if I was going back to the tropic jungles of Costa Rica and volcanic deserts of Cameroon, I would still reach for my D2Xs without question. I guess it is all about personal comfort & a sense of world-class reliability that comes with proven experience. :)<br>

Have fun,<br>

Andy</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I went back to read Thom Hogan's comments. He missed some important factors such as the 3" LCD that is now standard on even the D3000. If you have used the high-quality one on the D90, D300/D300S, D700 and D3 family, it will be hard to go back to the small one on the D2X. There is also live view, which is common nowadays.</p>

<p>Since the OP needs to work for a newspaper and especially for weddings, the poor high-ISO results from the D2X should immediatley rule it out. Live view becomes very handy when you need to hold the camera overhead and shoot into the crowd. Having a swivel LCD would have been even better, but only the D5000 has that feature.</p>

<p>Ronald has a good question, though: why doesn't the D90 cut it for the OP?</p>

<p>I know I'm obnoxious as to post this question again, but thanks for bearing with me. I just wanted some fresh take on this as I'm dizzy from all the info I've read prior to my post. <br>

My D90 and D40x are great, but they are just not built as tough as I'd like. I hate to say that I'm a little heavy on my stuff and no all my lenses work AF wise on these cameras. With so many different cameras, I'm staring to feel lost. But again, I thank everyone for helping me out.</p>

<p>I ,being merely a hobbist, could not begin to advise a Pro on what his equipment should be. But being of advanced age and having been involved intmately with technology (computers) all my working life I CAN make a few comments that may be appropiate. When I started in photography if you wanted a finer print you went to either finer grain film with the attendent low ASA or alternatively a larger negative. In any case you needed good light to take an acceptable picture and somehow we managed to do that, some with seemingly less effort than others. I think it was called skill. You had the choice of using a faster film or a faster lense to acheive good results in low light. I don't really remember using any film faster than ASA 400 on a regular basis. Lenses went down to f1.2,f1.4 regularly with Canon even having an f .095 but these lense were expensive at best and true high quality was not achieved till they were stopped down somewhat. Somehow photography as a field managed to produce some remarkable images during that time and wars and photojournalism flourished. Then came Digital and all changed and somehow skill and knowledge lost out to technology and it became necessary to have the latest camera body to make an acceptable photograph. I am having a tough time making this transition from film to digital. I started with a D1x and would STILL be learning to use it were it not for the poor batteries. Changed to D200's because of the batteries improvement but quickly went back to D2h &D2x for the pro comfort and the fact they will do everything I need. The technogogy changes so rapidly that whatever you buy today I will guarantee there will be something 'better' is less than 6 months. The thing that is curious to me in all this 'progress' is the case for lens developement. We have magnificent zoom lenses of every description and everyone seems to agree that you should buy 'quality' in lenses above all as they are more important to image quality than the electronics but little attention seems to have been paid nor progress made in FASTER quality lenses to complement the electronic magic the bodies produce. So it seems only you can answer your question based on your use as to what is the better body for you. Me, I am very satisfied with the D2h,D2x. I have not missed a single image I wished to capture because of a deficiency of one of these bodies. I've missed a lot because of my lack of skill.</p>

<p>Shun, with all due respect --- professional PJs had no problem for many years with using the D2X without issue with amazing results. It is fine to say that some of today's cameras are better in terms of "live view" which IMHO is nothing but a toy to make point-and-shoot crowd happy. "Don't all digital cameras show me what I am looking at???"And the size of the chimping LCD screen makes or breaks a camera choice?<br /> <br /> The D2 series were incredibly designed, produced and utilized pro cameras.Sure, some cameras are improved, but don't act like you NEED a modern DSLR (pro-sumer grade to produce quality images)<br /> It is like saying some cars are better today, because they have GPS and OnStar, so go ahead and pass on that ridiculously inept old classic.<br /> <br /> To each his own!<br>

<br /> If you need to chimp on a screen with great quality, go buy an Epson P7000 --- makes any LCD look like video from an Atari 2600. Gadgets and gizmos --- the more the better. Heck with learning photography anymore --- heck let's add video to a SLR. What's next? Ability to play Nintendo DS cartridges?</p>

<p>LOL</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Kenneth, couldn't say it better. Let's all go trade out our old Calphalon cookware, they just released a new series of pots.... That will certainly make us better cooks!</p>

 

<p>Guys, that kind of argument is like saying human beings have been around for thousands of years without cars and airplanes, and they lived fine. Therefore, we also don't need cars and airplanes.</p>

<p>If you only shoot for your own enjoyment , you can use whatever you want. As long as you are happy, that is all that matters. News photographers used Speed Graphics for years too. However, if you shoot for a newspaper or shoot weddings today, you have customers to deal with. And part of your job is to make them happy so that they give you business. Essentially you are always in competiton against other photographers so that you cannot afford to use a tool that gives you a major handicap.</p>

<p>I don't see a whole lot of PJ's using the D2X in these days. In fact they have not been since the D3 came out in late 2007.</p>

<p>Major handicap.... LOL<br>

:P</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you give me someone with experience, passion and knowledge of photography any day with a D2Xs over a guy with no experience and a prosumer body with a few kit lenses.<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>But Andy, that is not the argument here. In this case the photographer is the same Kelly, and using a D2X with its very limited high-ISO capability vs. a D300 with 2 stops better high ISO capability will make a significant difference in news and wedding photography. In my case the photographer is also the same, me. I still own my D2X but haven't used it since I bought the D300 in 2007.</p>

<p>Worse yet, there is no price advantage getting a used D2X, which costs about the same as a used D300. That is why I always feel that this is a no brainer.</p>

<p>Andy: skill and experience don't manufacture photons. The bar has been raised, permanently. People expect images shot in low available light, and no longer riddled with ugly chroma noise. Motion blur that used to be acceptable no longer is. Why? The gear. Doesn't mean that an amateur <em>with</em> that gear is going to produce a better result. But you can't tell me that someone shooting a wedding in a dim church with a camera that can't gracefully exceed ISO 400 isn't handicapped compared to someone who can to shoot cleanly at ISO 3200. <br /><br />The results aren't about gear head bragging rights. It's about skin tones, dress details, and all of the rest that you can achieve with those extra several stops of working room.</p>

<p>I see Andy has retracted the paragraph I quoted above. Too bad I have captured that. But if Andy no longer stands by that comment, people can also ignore my last post also.</p>

<p>Speaking as a former reporter and PJ, who also did a lot of field work in documenting safety inspections (1980s-'90s), and current-day camera abuser...</p>

<ul>

<li>"Ruggedness" is overrated. I got perfectly serviceable use from mid-level SLRs and consumer grade P&S cameras. And I was far from easy on my equipment in the field.</li>

<li>The only camera I killed on the job I had to drown in a river (a Ricoh SLR with Pentax K-mount lenses).</li>

<li>I've dropped many cameras, all of which survived well enough to continue functioning, including an Olympus XA-3 P&S I dropped onto a sidewalk. Still works fine more than 10 years later.</li>

<li>Short of pouring rain, most consumer grade cameras will hold up just fine. If you shoot in pouring rain, you need a raincoat for your camera, not a "pro" camera to compensate for abuse and neglect.</li>

<li>Don't buy lenses with plastic lens mounts. Those are an abomination.</li>

<li>Unless you're photographing combat or involved in some endeavor where equipment abuse is absolutely unavoidable, you don't need high end pro gear for ruggedness. You need to take better care of your equipment. You don't have to baby it. Just stop throwing it down and stomping on it in fits of pique. Stop leaving it in your buddy's seat as a prank when he gets up to buy the next round or go to the can. Stop pouring beer on it (I actually did that this weekend - dumped a nice splash of Killian's Red over my D2H while attempting to drink, walk and shoot simultaneously at a weekend arts festival. Yes, of course, the D2H survived.)</li>

<li>If you absolutely must buy a "pro" level dSLR just to satisfy your urge to say you've done it, get a D2H. It's half the price of a D2X, just as rugged, and if you really are doing PJ work for print publications, nobody will notice the difference between 4 mp and 12 mp. Newspaper reproduction on ordinary newsprint is crap. Anyone who claims they can tell the difference between 4 mp and 12 mp resolution in newsprint is lying. You might tell the difference in high quality magazine repro on glossy paper.</li>

</ul>

<p>I could go on and on with the usual bombastic assertions but, long story short: If you think you "need" a more durable dSLR and cannot provide any specific justifications supporting why you "need" one, get a D2H. At least you'll only be out half the money when you realize you don't actually "need" a pro level dSLR.</p>

<p>And if you need better photo quality than the D90 provides, you need a D3X or D3S. Or a Mamiya or Pentax larger format sensor digicam.</p>

<p>not really bad, but not wise. as mentioned above, the price of the d2x hasn't really gone down. the d300 is a much better choice with no question. have you tried the d90 and read the right stuff on it? i use the d90 for weddings and corporate events and i'm happy and get paid right. makes me wonder why the d90 just won't cut it.</p>

<p>but i must admit that each one has his own preferences and desires. also benchmarks for desires and functionality.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2428131">Andy Smothers</a><br>

Shun, with all due respect --- professional PJs had no problem for many years with using the D2X without issue with amazing results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By the same logic one could say that the Graphlex and Speed Graphic were used by pros for many years without issue and with amazing results. That was then. This is now. And the now changes very quickly.</p>

<p>When the D2H and D2X were on the market less than a year, one photo industry publication I queried (back around 2005) specified they would not accept photos taken above ISO 640 with those models, and preferred ISO 400 or below. I remember the "ISO 640" restriction very clearly because it was so oddly specific.</p>

<p>That's a problem. A very specific problem. They weren't interested in whether noise reduction software was capable of making the photos acceptable for print (it's very easy to reduce blotchy chroma noise without affecting "sharpness" in the slightest). They were only interested in the EXIF data. I've read similar specific restrictions for some stock agencies.</p>

<p>So for some pros who are hoping to have their work published and purchased, older dSLRs may present very definite and specific disadvantages when the publication or stock agency to which work is submitted wants the EXIF data.</p>

<p>For better or worse the industry is long past the point at which the only factor is the aesthetics of the photo. If a photographer wishes to be competitive in a market saturated with well heeled dilettantes who can afford flagship dSLRs and the fastest lenses costing thousands of dollars - many of whom are willing to work for free, for the thrill of seeing their photos published - then being competitive includes using up to date equipment.</p>

<p>The D2X is well-built and was popular in its day, but I doubt that its image quality exceeds that of today's D90.</p>

<p>Why is the D90 "not really cutting it" for you?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It is fine to say that some of today's cameras are better in terms of "live view" which IMHO is nothing but a toy to make point-and-shoot crowd happy. "Don't all digital cameras show me what I am looking at???"And the size of the chimping LCD screen makes or breaks a camera choice?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

Live View isn't designed to make hobbyists feel comfortable with advanced cameras. Among other applications, Live View increases the precision of manual focusing. It's extremely beneficial when focusing perspective control lenses. How may point-and-shooters have any idea how to use tilts and swings?</p>

<p>I liken Live View to focusing a view camera with a loupe.</p>

<p>Out of respect for the OP, I provided key recommendations.<br>

I agreed that today I would not recommend a used D2X in lieu of a D300. You can see that if anyone actually takes the time to peruse before pointing in this forum.<br>

It is humorous to watch everyone jump out and make assertions when I was agreeing with the support for the transition to a newer model DSLR body. My major comment of contention was that Shun nor anyone cannot tell me that you always need to keep upgrading each year or you will have a major handicap. I recommended the Fuji S5 for the best in skin/natural tones for weddings & even the purchase of the D300.<br>

Liveview was indeed produced to lure more P&S advocates, those who were used to have instant video LCD feedback and were totally not used to using a viewfinder to orientate their pictures. I cannot recall how many hundreds of people asked, "How do you turn on the video screen so that I can see what I am shooting" --- LOL. That is exactly why it was made initially. Sure, it is great for macro, as an ancillary benefit.<br>

I earnestly believe that now that I have also been told that skill and experience are not responsible for good photos, that is the best way to end this post.<br>

Cheers.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Oh Dear ! I just sold 15 full-page photographs to a German magazine, taken with the D2x. I'd better call them up and tell them to forget it now, since my camera is so bad.</p>

<p>If you're going to shoot sports, get it. Otherwise buy something newer. The D2X is a fine piece of equipment, and perfect for everything up to 400ISO. Don't get me wrong, it is very good above 400 ISO as well, but not compared to today's dSLR's.</p>

<p><strong> </strong>Nobody is asserting (with any credibility) that high quality commercial photos cannot be taken with the D2X. If you already own a D2X it is an excellent camera to continue to use, especially within its optimal ISO range.</p>

<p>The core issue here is whether the D2X is a good value in the current market for a buyer interested in a 12 mp dSLR. For most people it is not, at least not at the current used market prices. If and when the D2X used prices drop significantly then it may be a better value.</p>

<p>Among the very few exceptions would be for someone like me. And that's only because I already own a D2H and have several fully compatible accessories, including the EH-6 power adapter, 12-pin remote adapter and other doodads. Those would be expensive to replace. For me, if I needed only a higher resolution dSLR that would be used only at the optimal ISO, the D2X would be a cost effective addition. (And I'd still rather have a D90.)</p>

<p>But for someone like Kelly, who doesn't already own a dSLR with those types of compatible accessories, the D2X is not a good value. It doesn't offer any advantages over the D90 in terms of image quality, and it's not a good enough value for a "tougher" camera, particularly when no specifics have been given about why a more rugged camera would even be necessary.</p>

To OP . . . I wouldn't be scared of an older camera at all due to "old or outdated technology". To me the only camera that is "outdated" is one that is broken and will no longer take photos. I shoot old Hasselblads, old Nikon film cameras, an old Rollei, an old D1X (I have 2) and a D3. I shoot the D3 the least. I prefer the images of my D1X over the D3 (when shooting digital). For me, the D2X was the beginning of the more clinical looking digital images which is not as appealing for what I do. Of course that look may be exactly what some people are looking for.