difference (D200, D2X, D2Xs)

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by davidblevins, Mar 30, 2012.

  1. Can someone please tell me the difference between a D200 and a D2x and a D2Xs. What would you rather have? I am an advanced amateur. My friend is telling me that a D2x is better than sliced bread!
    thanks
    David Blevins
     
  2. they're all obsolete at this point, but a D2x is the best of the bunch.
     
  3. D2XS is actually newer than D2X. And better...
    I would rather have a used D300 or perhaps even a D90 at this point than any of those, though. Much better in low light for sure. go to bythom.com for some good reviews of ALL current and former Nikon DSLRs.
     
  4. they're all obsolete at this point​
    That's a ridiculous comment. They are old, yes. Sensor technology has improved dramatically, yes. But to say they are obsolete is just hyperbole. You can pick up a D200 for like $400 these days and for certain people, that makes a lot of sense. D200 can meter with old manual focus Nikkors and offers great image quality (if you don't need high ISO). D200 also has high build quality, nice feature set and great ergonomics.
    I don't have experience with the D2x. The used prices on these seems to still be high, so a used D2x probably appeals to a more limited crowd. But David, if you want a great features/build/ergonomics and can tolerate a less than state-of-the-art sensor - I say take a look at the D200. At the very least it is a cheap entry into the vast world of manual focus Nikkors.
     
  5. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Back in 2005, the D2X might be better than sliced bread, but now in 2012, it is a very out-of-date camera. I would highly recommend buying something newer. I still own a D2X, and I haven't used it in 4+ years.
    What type of subject do you shoot and what is your budget? Do you have any existing Nikon lenses?
    Also keep in mind that the D2X/D2XS are very big and heavy cameras. Some people like cameras that way but a lot of people would rather have something smaller and lighter.
     
  6. David, what camera do you have now, and what kind of shooting do you do? I agree that these cameras are all obsolete, and that's coming from a D200 user. The D300 can be found as cheap as a D2X, so it is definitely worth buying instead. Really, I'd only tell someone to buy a D200 if they need the specific handling features that it gives over a D90, and they have a sub-$500 budget. According to your profile, you currently have a D200, so does that mean that someone has recommended that you upgrade to the D2X? I definitely wouldn't recommend it. Chip, the D200 and D2X are obsolete by every definition of the word. They are old, not in production, and have been eclipsed in all ways by a better product. If someone were to give me a D300, I'd trade in a heartbeat. For my low ISO shooting it doesn't make a huge difference, but it's still better.
     
  7. That's a ridiculous comment. They are old, yes. Sensor technology has improved dramatically, yes. But to say they are obsolete is just hyperbole.​
    Hyperbole? me? i categorically deny any resemblance to that remark!
    Chip, we are talking about cameras which were ok to awesome at the time but have been surpassed by newer models. that is the definition of obsolescence, the type of user you specify would be happy with a d200 just to use older MF nikkors is gonna be eclipsed--by a wide margin--by someone who might need to shoot indoors at, oh, over ISO 800 or so, just today i had to shoot inside a museum with no flash and had to dial up 3200 ISO. just try to do that with any of those bodies. OTOH, a $650 5100 can easily handle that.(a $400 D200 might have some serious miles on it, btw)
    that said, sure, i would still use a D200 for studio/landscape, anything where i didnt need to shoot at over base ISO. i'd rather have a Fuji S5pro if we're gonna talk about archaic bodies though.
    the good thing about the d200/d2x/d2xs is they all had CCD sensors which, some say, produce technically better IQ than CMOS sensors with all else being equal, i.e. 10mp CCD > 10mp CMOS. that's why i prefer my d80 for landscape over my d300s. you can equalize this with good lenses to some degree but there's no getting over the fact that CCDs are limited in light-gathering ability. A D2X is a pro body with faster frame rate than d200. nikon has come along way since then.
     
  8. Maybe I just have a different understanding of the word obsolete than ya'll. It has a somewhat nebulous technical definition but to me at least, it implies that something is no longer of use. Anyways, Eric, it was probably hyperbole on my part to call your comment ridiculous. But I do disagree with the word choice.
     
  9. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Guys, I don't think it is necessary to argue about the exact definition for being "obsolete." I think we can all agree that the D2X and D200 are fairly old cameras whose technology is quite out of date.
     
  10. Shun - it is most definitely necessary to argue about technicalities like this. I mean isn't that one of the main reasons we're on here??
    David, sorry for hijacking your thread. Check out this review for more info on the D2x series.
    Btw, Shun it seems like a shame for your D2x to sit unused for 4+ years. I'll just go ahead and drop you a check for postage to ship that baby up to Oregon. Sound good?
     
  11. David. Since you already have a D200, there is no reason to get a D2x or any D2 variant.
     
  12. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I'll just go ahead and drop you a check for postage to ship that baby up to Oregon. Sound good?​
    Absolutely, please go ahead and make a check for the amount of $2500. Shun Cheung is my real name. That is like 50% off the price I paid.
    Part of the "advantage" of still having a D2X is that I can tell people that I haven't used it in 4+ years and counting, thus making my argument a lot more compelling. I am clearly not someone who has no experience with the D2X and merely make random comments.
    When I first bought the D2X, it indeed felt like the best thing since sliced bread. It was the very camera that made me decide to stop using film .... And then there was the D300 in 2007 ....
     
  13. Gup

    Gup Gup

    "My friend is telling me that a D2x is better than sliced bread!"
    Clearly some here are on low-carb diets. It's no secret I love my D2x. I still read the manual twice a year and haven't used half of the features it houses. The OP didn't ask opinions of what else is newer and shinier he asked the difference between the three models and which one you would choose of the three ;) Mine has seen a lot of weddings where it serves double duty as a good tool and the biggest camera in the room (which obviously makes me more important, right?). Up to ISO400, IMHO, it is the best pro crop body ever built. It still hasn't been replaced. It will shoot 8fps in crop mode. In the right hands it might actually last forever. We don't know yet. The D200 entered the Canadian market at $2400, the D2x at $6100. It is easy to research the archives both here and at dpreview.com for the features of all three. The difference between the D2x and the D2xs is a 'shaded viewfinder' in the latter in crop mode and something else that escapes me at the moment. Mine is my third backup now, but always with me. It has never failed me once.
     
  14. Shun, my counter offer is $25.62. Under my terms, you get to keep the box and all accessories and I will sign a non-disclosure agreement. That way, you can preserve your "advantage" and if there are any doubters, you simply point them to the dusty D2x box on your shelf. Win for you, win for me.
     
  15. I think they are old camera's and you should not buy one. I have a D200 and do not recommend it.
     
  16. I had a D200 for 6 months, and then a D2Xs for a year. Both are good. The D200 is noticeably smaller and lighter. The D200, unfortunately, has a finder that proves inaccurate for eye-focusing at f/1.4, and maybe f/2 as well. This, and the plastic viewfinder eyepiece lens that is easily scratched, are the reasons I switched to the D2Xs. The D2 finder can be accurately eye-focused with a fast lens. Also, the larger battery in the D2 series lasts way longer than the small battery in the D200. Hope this helps...
     
  17. I'll add this: The D2Xs has a significantly larger LCD view screen on the back of the camera. At the time it came out, the new LCD was a big deal.
     
  18. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Keith, the D2X and D2XS both have a 2.5" LCD screens. The size (area) is the same, but the D2XS' version has better viewing angles.
    To make a long story short, the differences between the D2X and D2XS are very minor.
    Starting from the D3/D300 generation, Nikon started using 3" LCDs.
     
  19. I prefer pro bodies. I used to own a D2X. All these cameras are old enough that there are not "sliced bread" differences between them. However, I would choose the D2X/D2Xs over the D200, D90, or D300 again. Actually the D2X/D2Xs is still a very capable camera and at least handling and use wise still a step above the D7000. The D2Xs has held its value much better than the D2X but the differences are not that significant. The most helpful difference is a better delineation of the crop format in the viewfinder.
    My direct knowledge of the D90 leads me to believe that it's quality control was no where near that of the pro bodies.
    I remain hopeful that the D400 will truly be better than "sliced bread." Nikon has ditched the crop pro body line so I am anticipating something to at least bridge the gap between the D300 and D4.
     
  20. if you want a high end consumer body, get the D200; if you want a more durable, better performing pro body, get the D2x/s. And yes, in many respects their performance has been far surpassed by newer bodies. BUT. And this is a big one - both these bodies had, in my opinion, unique image signatures. There is no new DX/FX DSLR body that gives me the colour look of a D200 and that is because of the CCD. If I could get an 18mp CCD body that would give good noise performance to ISO 1000, I would be happy. Now there are name reviewers who think that the D2x is the best 12mp camera ever made at base ISO but it loses it fast, really fast. There were reviews at the time which compared it quite favourably with the Canon 1DsII - a full frame 16mp camera. And I like its look better than the D700 for detail. Obsolescence is a relative term - a new 2012 Chevy Cruze has newer and better technology than a '67 Chev Corvette Stingray. Don't know about you but I know which one I want to drive.
     
  21. Gup

    Gup Gup

    At the time the D2x was being anticipated the big debate was whether a DSLR could ever equal the resolution of 35mm film. The threads and posts were fast and furious similar to recent history awaiting the announcements for the D4 and D800. The comparisons were very favourable for the new D2x. My point is the D2x still takes the same quality images today it did then. Yes the sensors are better now, but that doesn't diminish the fact that the D2x is still as good as recent film SLRs we all used happily for decades. I'm still scanning 35mm negs when I'm not talking to you guys. I would never deter someone from buying a good used one.
     
  22. At KEH.com you can get a D2XS for a little under a grand (and keep in mind that some of those, being pro bodies, might have been pretty heavily used). It's been discontinued for years (4?).
    You can find a D90 for 300 less than that easily. Better images, better display, add a grip if you want it to be bigger. Also, since it's NOT a pro camera, it may be more likely to handled more gently and have fewer activations. It's been officially discontinued for a much shorter time (only a year, I believe).
    Or you can get a D300 for just under a grand (GREAT value if you don't need video). D300s used still seem to be more expensive than they should be, because it's still a current camera (for now).
    At the risk of offending, the D2XS is definitely obsolete. If you own one and still get nice images with it, bravo for you! I plan to use my D90 till it dies, too! If you want to buy one because you like the huge pro body that doubles as a hammer (I know I like them, too) and you're going to shoot at base ISO all day... go for it, but I also think that's crazy. They should be 500 dollars at this point. And digital cameras will NOT last forever like film cameras do. Too much can fail just because it's old. Also, most of us do NOT need pro bodies. They'll just make it hard to get that carry-on small enough to get through security at the airport...
    ob·so·lete/ˌäbsəˈlēt/
    Adjective:
    No longer produced or used; out of date.
    Verb:
    Cause (a product or idea) to be or become obsolete by replacing it with something new: "we're obsoleting last year's designs".
    Synonyms: antiquated - out-of-date - outdated - old-fashioned​
     
  23. When you exposed good the D200 was reasonable good at hi-isoos(not like a D700 or so) and on low isoos it was perfect and I liked the colors much.
    00aD4V-454229684.jpg
     
  24. I think that the D2xx series uses a CCD rather than a CMOS sensor. I have a D80(CCD) and a D90(CMOS). A major
    difference appears as noise as you go to higher ISO. I am not satisfied with images taken with the D80 at ISO>400. The
    D90's images are ok up to 800 .
    If you have fast lenses or shoot in bright light, the D2xx probably are fine. I'd much rather have the greater flexibility
    provided by a more acceptable range of ISO plus newer features. If I get a new body, my D80 will likely be a candidate for
    IR conversion.
     
  25. I can get clean stuff on my D90 at 1600 no problem, and 3200 is okay for some things. when it's properly exposed.
    Properly exposed is always the key. Most low-light photos are under-exposed and THAT is the problem when you start to get noise more often than not.
     
  26. Peter, I agree. How high of ISO do you find acceptable with D80/D2xx?
     
  27. John, based on what I've read/heard and seen in a limited sense (I've only owned the D50 and D90, and before that used the D1 and Kodak full-frame DSLR), I would stop at 800 (properly exposed) on a D80 or D200, unless I had to have the shot and knew that it was only going to be printed small or viewed online.
    But sometimes the noise isn't a dealbreaker anyway if the image is clearly a low-light image. For that, I like the quality of the noise in the newer DSLRs (like the D90) better than the older ones.
     
  28. David,
    Harvey focused a good point making the difference to pro bodies, but what is a quality can also become a weakness as pro bodies are likely to be used by pros and that can mean several things that you shall look after, as the body previous usage conditions and shutter count. Even the best have a maximum activations count and may require service, if not a new shutter.
     
  29. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Peter, I agree. How high of ISO do you find acceptable with D80/D2xx?​
    First of all, we should not discuss high ISO for the D2X/D2XS and D200 together. The D2X maxes out at ISO 800 and as usual, results from the hightest rated ISO from Nikon DSLRs is rather poor. The D200 maxes out at ISO 1600. Therefore, native, the D200 is a stop better.
    As a rule of thumb, I would use up to one-stop below the highest rated ISO on Nikon DSLRs. Since the D200 maxes out at 1600, I would use up to ISO 800. IMO, ISO 1600 on the D200 is quite ugly. The D80, D40X, D60, and D3000 use a very similar sensor as the D200 and they all provide similar results.
    00aD7B-454281584.jpg
     
  30. Gup

    Gup Gup

    By the way, I believe the D2x uses a CMOS sensor. There seems to be some confusion on this.
     
  31. Thank you Gup. I stand corrected.
    And thank you Shun for posting your image at ISO 1600. That has been my experience too with the D80. I love that camera (it was my first DSLR) and love taking photos with it in well lit situations. As a second body, I'm delighted to have it.
     
  32. The main question was what are the different between those cams, well I would like to add D2H too.

    D200 CCD sensor 10 MP mid pro dslr ( similar to D40x, D60, D80 in term of sensor only).
    D2H & D2Hs CCD sensor 4.1 MP top pro dslr usedin high speedshotinf and sports 9 fps the s term is for upgraded .
    D2X &D2Xs CMOS sensor 12.8 MP top dslr and the first nikon body to have CMOS sensor.

    The second question was which one is the preference to have off course D2Xs as it is high ly relible. I am canon
    shooter and I use some times my friend D200 and we are doing great with is sorry to hear that some could not get the
    best out of it.

    Coming back the diverted matter whether it's obsolete, not at all, obsolete to me is a dead body if you check eBay you
    can see nikon F6 price is higher than D300. At the end all these cams are much better than my iphone camera

    Below shot is taken with my nokia N95 asi was going to the plant and I wasn't caring my cam

    Wish you all best

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/42957363@N03/6104798341/in/photostream
     
  33. I think David's question has been answered well, but I'd like to add an interesting tidbit - Although Shun hasnt used his D2X in 4+ years, NASA currently are and looks like they're only slowly replacing them now (see last comment from blog author: thermal blankets for the D3 were under construction at the time - June 2011. And a little more info here about Nikons in space).
    Are they obsolete, as a photographic tool? My personal view is no. At low ISO they would likely produce better photos than my iPhone 4 or midrange Sony compact camera, and I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference compared to photos from my D3100.
    Would I buy one? Not really, because they represent poor value for money and a similarly priced D90/D5100 is more practical for most people. If I were to buy one: D2Xs.
     
  34. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Sawroop, NASA is a very special case. Since their equipment needs to go into space typically with no possibility to repair (or at least very difficult to replace/repair), and every ounce they put into orbit is very costly, sometimes they have regulation that nothing newer than 5 year old can be used. Everything they use must be well tested with bugs ironed out. As a result, any new DSLR won't meet their criteria. That is frequently why NASA is using very old electronics, not because they are any better.
    For those of us who are earth bound, we have no such concerns.
     
  35. I've owned multiple versions of all three of these cameras.
    For comparison, I found that the D200 would go to somewhat higher ISO with better reproduction quality; the D2x and D2Xs fell apart at a little lower ISOs, BUT when the images fell apart the results could be wonderful and artistic.
    However, I lost some amazing shots using a D2x and a a D2Xs that might have fared better with a D200 (on the street) and would have been easy shots for a D90, D300, a D5000 or newer camera.
    Today, a refurbished D5000 which sells for just over $350 (and even is obsoleted by the D5100), which I think uses the same processing engine as the D300 of which I've owned about 9 editions as well as the D90, of which I've used or owned about four, can top all three of these older cameras easily, and the D5000 tops out for usable shots usually at ISO 2500 for 'street' shooting.
    But the D5000 requires 'G' lenses, almost does not have any meaningful frames per second, has fewer shooting features (many processing features however) and so on.
    If you're shooting sports and need frames per second, then take the D2Xs for highest frames per second and its crop sensor. The huge battery is heavy, but it also lasts and lasts and lasts. (The D2X I think came with a shorter amperage/shorter life battery of the same size/fittings, but I may stand to be corrected it may be possible to use the newer battery from the D2Xs with the D2X.
    The D200 was a pretty fast frames per second camera if shooting sports in adequate light, (6 frames per second,I think I recall, maybe 5 frames per second) something that many of the more modern cameras of a lower level than the D300 are incapable of.
    The D2X and D2Xs both are great for high frames per second shooting plus they both balance well with long and superlong teles though the combos are very large and heavy.
    For portability, take the D200, but if you want 'heft' with a D200 and more reserve power, take the battery booster, though as I recall it won't boost the frames per second (unlike the D300's battery pack, used correctly).
    A studio photographer I know still prefers to use his D2Xs at base ISO with lights because he's in love with the flesh tones he can get; that's entirely subjective to him. [Reputedly Fuji would do a much better job.]
    With one of my D2Xs cameras at base ISO in Bryce Canyon I felt I got my best color shot ever, and I felt it was not the same color I felt I could have gotten with any other camera, but I could be wrong.
    Colors from today's Nikons are somewhat more standardized; not idiosyncratic in my experience.
    Any of these cameras, the D2X, D2Xs. and the D200, each takes wonderful photos in bright daylight, low ISOs, and there isn't much real difference between the 10 MPS of the D200 and the approaching 13 MPS of the D2X series.
    If I were a studio shooter using lights, I would consider using the D2Xs for durability with all the bells and whistles; same with landscapes in bright daylight only.
    The D200 is a camera I would own and shoot with today; I was just looking at some aerial shots from over Manhattan's Upper East Side. I shot last fall with a D200 and they look terrific.
    The plain fact is that if there's enough light and you don't mind a smaller screen, the older cameras are still pretty good, starting with the D2x series and the D200s -- but I also took some wonderful photos with a D70; world class, some of them.
    I'd still carry any of them if that was all there was nearby.
    I wouldn't shoot with any of the on the Metro.
    john
    John (Crosley)
     
  36. , I believe the D2x uses a CMOS sensor. There seems to be some confusion on this.​
    Gup, you're right, the d2x had a CMOS sensor but unfortunately high-ISO performance didnt improve until the d300. i had a d80 and 1600 was only slightly better than shun's sample. i could occasionally get decent 1600 results on a d80 but i tended to not go over 1250. high-ISO performance was a big reason i got the d300 and then d3s but obviously not everyone shoots like that.
     
  37. Eric, the D2x did not have a CCD sensor....neither did the D2Xs.
     
  38. Just a quick comment on this noise discussion. I actually think my D200 does a pretty fair job up to almost 800. That's because in my head I'm comparing it to high speed film at 800, which I always thought looked pretty lousy. Obviously the newer cameras are superb to even 1600 or 3200, sometimes decent even higher. But the cameras out even 5 or 6 years ago weren't all that bad. I think we're all getting pretty spoiled with high iso performance now...just my humble opinion.
     
  39. CMOS, CCD... doesn't make a whit of difference to me. I was just looking through some pictures I took with a Fuji F30. Hands down worse optics, but much, much better dynamic range than the D200. So, no, I don't think that a D200 will best a modern compact or high end smartphone camera. I paid about $450 for my D200 a few years ago... dunno what used prices are like, but I'd certainly look into spending $400 on a D90 or D300 instead if I were you. For the money that the D2whatevers are going for I wouldn't give them a second look unless you had some very specialized requirements (and if you did, you wouldn't be asking these questions in this forum).
     
  40. Nothing wrong with the D200:
    Camera used: Nikon D200
    Lens Used: Tamron 17-50/2.8
    Shutter Speed: 1/25
    Aperture: 2.8
    ISO: 800
    00aDKG-454519584.JPG
     
  41. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    As long as we only check things in small JPEG images for web display, things are rarely wrong. As people say, the devil is in the details.
    00aDKQ-454523584.jpg
     
  42. Heck, I can take a great picture with a D1 and post it online and it'll look fine...
    One other thing... when you are buying a 4, 5, 6 year old piece of electronic whiz-bang-ness, you are buying technology that is probably going to fail sooner than if you buy a 0, 1, or 2-year old piece.
    As for the D2X and D2XS... again... many of those used cameras were used HEAVILY by pros who might not have been so gentle on them... Really... no offense, all, but buying cameras that old is just not wise.
     
  43. It took my nephew three new D90's to finally find one that worked (of course he had paid for one of those expensive replacement guarantees)...and then he sold it. His dad's D90 still has problems.
    I'd feel better about a D2X with 100,000 actuations (that's about what mine had when I sold it a year ago). Not a mark on it either, and my one original battery never let me down!
     
  44. Gup

    Gup Gup

    "As for the D2X and D2XS... again... many of those used cameras were used HEAVILY by pros who might not have been so gentle on them... Really... no offense, all, but buying cameras that old is just not wise."
    Peter, my current D2x has less than 8000 actuations on it and looks like new. You get what you pay for in life, whether it's a camera or anything else. Of course many were used by pros, and many weren't. It's quite obvious before you pay for it which it is. I buy all kinds of old equipment, some electronic, some mechanical, and some of it very old. Who goes into a transaction with his eyes closed? Would you not buy a D3 or a D3s or a D4 in the future because it 'may' have been used heavily by pros?
     
  45. my current D2x has less than 8000 actuations on it and looks like new.​
    that's great, but the chances of getting such a low-actuation cam from 5-6 years ago are pretty low. and the difference between a D2x and a D4 is not just a matter of usage but also a matter of less-archaic tech. put it this way: would you buy a Betamax VCR today? or a Commodore 64? even if they were 'lightly-used'?
     
  46. You can take a really awesome photo with a 4 or 5 year old camera if you are a really awesome photographer... That is a fact...
    But that doesn't mean it's wise to buy old technology. It isn't. Even if it hasn't been heavily used, it's older, and more likely to fail every year, based on the age of the components. That is an unfortunate fact.
    Would you not buy a D3 or a D3s or a D4 in the future because it 'may' have been used heavily by pros?​
    I would, in fact, never buy an old pro camera that had been heavily used (and if the person wasn't a pro, and bought one of those and only took a thousand pics a year --what were they thinkin?--, it probably is still not a good idea...), and I wouldn't buy any 4 or 5 year old digital camera ever. I'm not a pro and don't need a pro camera, so I wouldn't consider one anyway. I am an advanced amateur, like the OP...
    ...we've gotten way off here... The OP is an amateur. If he needed a pro camera, he wouldn't be asking about what old used camera to buy on the internet, would he...
    So... logically, the D2XS would be an unwise purchase for him.
     
  47. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    You can have a brand new in box D2XS with a shutter that has never been used, but it will still have these limitations:
    1. No live view, which is critical for precise manual focusing
    2. Small 2.5" LCD, inconvenient for image review
    3. Horrible ISO 800 noise
    Even the D90, which has already been discontinued itself, will beat the D2XS easily in all of those areas, plus the D90 has basic video capability.
    The last time I took my D2X to any international trip was 2007, before the introdcution of the D3 and D300. On those trips, I bring minimum 3 camera bodies, and I didn't even bother to bring the D2X as a backup in the last few years. In 2010/2011, I brougt the D700, D300, and D7000 with the D7000 as my main DX-format camera. Even the D300 is merely a backup. If I have to take a 4th body, it would be the D200; yes, I have one of those also.
     
  48. The D90 doesn't easily accommodate mf glass. One of the nice things about the D2x/xs/xh/xhs series is that it works well with manual glass, so you don't need live view for more precise focusing. If you're primarily using AF glass, the main trade-offs are high-ISO noise and dynamic range. So the degree of obsolescence is relative to the type of shooting you do.
     
  49. If I could get an 18mp CCD body that would give good noise performance to ISO 1000, I would be happy.​
    Harvey, I think you're describing a Leica M8/8.2/9. I wouldn't go above 1000, from what i've heard, but that's generally agreed to be the upper limit of good performance I think. (Correct me if I'm wrong... Actually, "correct me if I'm wrong" are the most unnecessary words on photo.net.)
     
  50. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    The D90 doesn't easily accommodate mf glass. One of the nice things about the D2x/xs/xh/xhs series is that it works well with manual glass, so you don't need live view for more precise focusing.​
    It sounds like you haven't tried precise manual focusing on the D2X. Mine does not have any KatzEye type focusing aid screen, and at least I have difficulty with it. Once I tried a friend's Zeiss ZF 50mm/f1.4 when that was brand new, and I got a bunch of slightly out-of-focus images with the D2X on a tripod.
    The DSLRs I used today: D700, D7000, and D300, plus many I have tested: D3, D3S, D3X, D300S and now D800 can all meter with AI/AI-S lenses. When you need precise focusing, e.g. macros, long teles with static subjects, landscape, nothing beats live view.
     
  51. So the degree of obsolescence is relative to the type of shooting you do.​
    obsolescence just means 'replaced by a newer model', doesnt mean 'unusable.'
    occasionally you've have cases where newer tech is not better than old tech but that doesnt seem to happen much in the world of nikon DSLRs.
     
  52. obsolescence just means 'replaced by a newer model'​
    Eric, is that how you really use the word obsolete? If somebody asked you about the difference between a 2005 Chevy Silverado and 2004 Ford F-150, would you start by saying they're both obsolete?


    I get it. Part of the definition says "no longer produced" but it also says "or used" and another definition is "out of date." If your only point is that these cameras are old models, then you could have just said that. But I think the word obsolete carries additional meaning and that your comment was something along the lines of "they are antiquated." That's fine. I disagree, but I understand where you are coming from. But I will not stand by as the true meaning of "obsolete" is rendered obsolete by all this loose language.
     
  53. I continue to use my D200 and buyers continue to buy images taken with it. It's a light ish camera compared to the others and does the job very well. It's particulary good with prime lens'. Cost wise I imagine you would pick one up for a reasonable amount of cash.
     
  54. The D2X was designed to be a cutting-edge camera for pros. It is no longer cutting edge. It is no longer, functionally, what it was designed to be. Therefore, no matter how much you all love yours, it is technically obsolete. Still use-able, but obsolete. Owning one and continuing to use it? Very wise indeed. Buying one used at this point considering the alternatives? Not so much.
    If I owned one, since I'm not a pro, I'd shoot with it till it died. It does, indeed, take amazing photos at base ISO.
     
  55. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    Well, I own one but no longer use it. The D2X is great at its base ISO, which is 100, but I can easily see the difference between ISO 100 and 200 on the D2X. It starts getting poor at 400 and totally unacceptable at 800. In the old days I used ISO 400 print film quite often; today, I am so spoiled with ISO 1600 and 3200 indoors that the ISO 400 limitation is completely unacceptable now. Photography has changed a lot in the last 5 years.
    And I wonder how I accepted that tiny LCD on the D2X (and of course no LCD for image review before).
    P.S. You can see Nikon has been making tiny improvements. The main command dial on the D2X is flat (horizontal). Starting from the D3/D300, they tilted it a tiny bit for a slightly more comfortable feel.
    00aDu2-455179584.jpg
     
  56. Eric, is that how you really use the word obsolete? If somebody asked you about the difference between a 2005 Chevy Silverado and 2004 Ford F-150, would you start by saying they're both obsolete?​
    Chip, the definition of obsolescence was posted earlier in the thread. Comparing digital cameras and cars? that analogy is pointless, since there is no such thing as a classic or vintage DSLR. You are being nitpicky here and overly so.
    Part of the definition says "no longer produced" but it also says "or used" and another definition is "out of date." If your only point is that these cameras are old models, then you could have just said that. But I think the word obsolete carries additional meaning and that your comment was something along the lines of "they are antiquated." That's fine. I disagree, but I understand where you are coming from.​
    Chip, did you even read this thread,or do you just want to argue? the D2x in its time was a $6000 camera which has been superceded in some aspects by $600 cameras. that's just the reality of technology and consumer electronics. instead of a car analogy, think of home computers. would you want one from 2005 now, even if it was top of the line then?
    if i had the opportunity to buy a mint D2x for $600, i wouldn't jump on it necessarily, since it only really shines at base ISO, as has been pointed out here. sure it's a big, rugged body but fairly limited for what it's supposed to be, an action/sports camera, because of ISO performance. i'm not much of a studio shooter, so performance in the field is important to me. for that reason, a D5100 might be preferable (especially since i already have a d3s, and a D2x isnt better than that at base iSO and certainly not better above ISO 400). as always, YMMV.
     
  57. Eric - the OP asked about the difference between three cameras and opinions on which is preferable. You responded by saying all three are obsolete. That is the source of my disagreement. I think "obsolete" was a poor word choice. We can agree to disagree on the use of obsolete.
    If you read my post, I said I understand where you are coming from. You don't seem to understand where I am coming from. With unlimited money, I would not buy any of these three cameras. I'd rather have a D3s, like you have. But we all make decisions based on limited resources. For a certain type of photographer on a budget, I don't think the D200 is obsolete. Yes, you could get a new, entry level DSLR with a better sensor for about the same money. I agree you would be getting a better sensor, but you would also be losing certain features and build quality. This is the basis for my opinion that the D200 in particular is not obsolete as a tool to make photographs.
     
  58. I think "obsolete" was a poor word choice.​
    Put me down as one of the people who, when confronted with someone wanting an inexpensive and capable DSLR who is obviously not a pro, thought it was the PERFECT word choice...
    Again... if you have one of these excellent but out-of-date cameras... keep using it, you'd be a fool not to. Keep making great photos.
    If you are purchasing a camera, I think you'd be a fool to consider a D2X over a used D300 or D90 or, in some cases, even a D5100.
    Let's not forget, the camera companies are making cameras that do stupid-high ISOs because people want them. Don't buy a camera in 2012 that only goes to 800 or 1600, and those not very well!
     
  59. You responded by saying all three are obsolete. That is the source of my disagreement. I think "obsolete" was a poor word choice. We can agree to disagree on the use of obsolete.​
    Chip, with all due respect, that is most certainly your pride talking. the choice of words won't change the objective reality here, that the D200, D2x, and D2xs are all...wait for it... obsolete cameras. that's not opinion, that's fact.if you need to take a moment to let that sink in, do so.
    Ok...ready? What i mean by that is this: anyone buying today, given the choice between any of those three, at MSRP, and a current body, at MSRP, would almost certainly choose a newer body. Even if you had the choice between a new D2 series body at used prices and a d3100 or d5100 at new prices, the newer cameras might be a better choice because of features such as video, live view, and high-ISO performance., not to mention performance above base ISO. in fact, the scenarios where a D200 or D2x would be preferable to a newer camera are few and far in-between: studio set up @ base ISO or sports/action/wildlife w/ perfect, non-variable natural lighting (yeah right), never necessitating an ISO above base. other than those limited uses, newer bodies would do a much better job at most tasks. Sorry to say, but there are very few credible arguments otherwise, since technology has clearly advanced since 2004-2005.
    That is also why your car analogy doesnt work: there havent been too many significant advances in automobile engine/motor technology in consumer trucks since 2005. the same cannot be said of camera sensors. I believe the D2x was nikon's first attempt at a CMOS sensor. It should have had better high-ISO performance than it did. when nikon engineers tweaked it, they came up with the d300. further tweaks led to the d7000, with a d8000 and/or d400 looming. those cameras will be two or 2 1/2 full generations ahead of the d2x/d200 when they appear.
    the D200 in particular is not obsolete as a tool to make photographs.​
    Chip, Nikon just launched the d4. before that camera had even shipped, people on this forum had declared the d3s 'obsolete' -- even though it was still Nikon's best FF sports camera at that time. did that make me sell my D3s and buy a D4? no, i'm still using it, because it still does what i need it to do, and probably will continue to do so for a while. i'm also still using my d300s and d90 (though both of those are less future proof than the D3s,if not already obsolete).
    my point is that none of these cameras are unusable "as a tool to make photographs." For example, the Wednesday thread had a pic from someone using a D2H to photograph snowboarding--a situation where the fast fps is still very useful, despite the 4mp sensor (which would be an issue if you were trying to shoot for a sports magazine or print at large sizes).
    a few years ago, i had a chance to get a new D200 at closeout prices--$600. i thought about it, but passed, since i still have my d80, which has the same sensor, so the benefits to me would have been minimal. i havent sold or given the D80 away because i actually prefer the its 10mp CCD to the d300/d90's12mp CMOS at base ISO for landscape pics. it just has a different 'look.' Nikon no longer makes DSLRs with CCD chips, so if you have one of these cameras, it's perhaps worth holding onto for that reason, at least as a backup.
    Chip, i never said "anyone with a d2 series camera should stop using them immediately, because there are newer models out and you are foolish and out of touch with reality for using an older camera." heck, there are d40s and d70s still churning out good pics today--but for me, it would be hard to take a step backwards and live without the bigger LCD and numerous other features of newer cameras.
    I also realize i'm lucky to live in a county where upgrading cameras and buying new models frequently is an option. in some parts of the world, this is not the case--and photographers still make do with what they have. shoot, i know pro shooters still using Canon 20 and 30d's--although the 5dmkii is more common. at the end of the day, it's not (just) the gear, it's what you do with it.
     
  60. Eric, we clearly have different opinions on the word obsolete. I was trying to be amicable with my last post. Feel free to keep writing about how it is an objective fact that all three of those cameras fit your definition of obsolete.
     
  61. Chip,it's not just 'my' definition, if you have been reading what others have said on this thread, you'd see that. i think where we differ is that you dont want to accept that your beloved D200 fits the definition of obsoleted,i.e., replaced by a newer model. i dont have any such attachment to a D200, so therefore i dont have a problem with seeing things the way they actually are and calling it as i see it.
    in any event, i'm not saying you can't continue to shoot and get good results with a D200/D2x/D2xs, but they are clearly not state of the art cameras in 2012. that's simply not a debatable point. if you want to argue over semantics, fine, but it's not going to make that high-ISO performance any better, the LCD screen any bigger, or somehow substitute for live view and video capabilities. if that doesn't matter to you, then, by all means, continue to use your D200 till it does. no skin off my back either way.
     
  62. Yes, you could get a new, entry level DSLR with a better sensor for about the same money. I agree you would be getting a better sensor, but you would also be losing certain features and build quality.​
    Build quality, ok. losing certain features? let's see, compared to current entry level models (D3100/d5100) a D200 has: ... less resolution (check); no live view (check); smaller, non-tilting LCD (check); drastically-worse high- ISO (check); no video (check). gee, it sure looks like i'd be losing a lot of features with a D200. and that's just at entry level. of course, if i step up to a d7000 or D300s i get better AF and/or metering+build quality+two control wheels+built in motor+ 8fps. and if i jump to FF i get even better high-ISO performance and all the other high-end features. but if i remain stuck in 2004, i get...uh, what exactly? oh yeah, the ability to meter with legacy glass. and build quality. thanks, i think. that's great for garage sale bargain hunters who only need something which will meter with AI/AI-s lenses, but well, uh, obsolete for 'most everyone else.
     
  63. http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2012/04/05/the-megapixel-war-is-over-and-has-been-for-a-while/
     
  64. Gup

    Gup Gup

    Good link Richard. I disagree that the D2x is not acceptable at anything higher than base ISO. 400 ISO still makes me money. In my film days everyone pushed 400 film if necessary. Yes, it got a bit grainy. Some considered a grainy image to even add character on occasion. I find the charm of my D2x to be in the using of it. I love holding it. I love the heft of it. I love the confidence I feel throwing my bag into my canoe or an overhead compartment or the trunk of a car that it will survive a bump or two. I love that its construction seems perfectly mated and balanced to my 2.8 zooms. I love knowing that I have still never even come close to creating images I have admired that others here have created with theirs. Maybe that's it. I don't consider my own skills to have surpassed what the D2x can achieve. I thought moving to a D700 would change my mind, but it didn't. I still shot with flash when indoors. It took better 'out of the camera' jpegs, but I never shoot jpegs. It was lighter to carry, so that's what I used it for if I knew I'd be walking. I held off buying any of the newer crop bodies as they were introduced so I have no experience with any of them. The D2x was my first digital and I admit to having a sentimental attachment to it. Meanwhile, now that some of the results have been posted for the D800 I can honestly say I am no closer to buying one than last month. I am still wanting a D4 with more resolution. I've actually started looking at sailboats...
     
  65. The D2x is more than adequate for my needs and skill. At my age (77) it will probably be the last DSLR body I ever own. I prefer pro level bodies for their robust build and features and DX is my preferred sensor format as it gives me added benefits of lense range. I would imagine from what I read the D2x is the last of the Pro DX bodies. Luckily they are of good enough build quality they will probably serve me well for my remaining life as I am strictly an amatuer and do not shoot prodigious quantites of images,I suppose that's a hold over from so many frugal years of film use.. I don't need the high ISO's it seems most require today. To me 200 ASA was high speed and 400 ASA was blinding speed. Mostly I shot 64 ASA film and was totally satisfied. So 400 ISO on the D2x seems a gift of high speed. Luckily I live in Southern Arizona and we are blessed with copius amounts of sunlight and at my age my night vision precludes much interest in the night hours. So when the price is factored into what you get in the D2x I can't turn them down.
     
  66. As an obsolete version of man I just picked a D200 for $400 USD. My strategy is to get the better body when they are obsolete :). So what I lost, nothing but keeping this expensive hobby enjoyable. I may likely upgrade to D800E 6 years later. I like the reasonable high mileage body. Cause they are being used and suppose to be good and loved ^_^.
    My wallet won't be obsolete by cameras again :)
     
  67. A lot of funny posts I read here...

    1. The D200 is less noisy from ISO 800 or higher than a D2x (newer cameras are a lot better though).
    2. A D2x is a lot sharper than a D200. It is actually a lot sharper than a D300 or D3. Both produce less lines than a D2x. Only the current
    generation of Nikon surpassed the D2x in that regard.
    3. For portrait mode you cannot forget about a D200 as the MB 200 battery grip is rubbish. Nikon however fixed this issue with the grip for
    the D300.
    4. I got of rid of the D200 because it doesn't produce the same sharp images as a D2x and the contrast produced is IMHO much better
    (but that's my opinion) and the battery grip drive me nuts.

    Difference between D2x and D2xs: Better angle of the display and that's the only difference in terms of hardware that you will notice. You
    can update the firmware of the D2x and everything will be a like in D2xs incl. 1/3 stops of ISO.

    Is the D2x obsolete today? No. It's the last pro body for DX. Forget about the D5100 or D7000. Their viewfinders are like toys. You have
    to look through it in order to understand.
    The image quality of those cameras is better though.

    In comparison to the D300:
    The images produced by the D300 are not much better at high ISO because the noise reduction makes the images really soft and you
    lose a lot of sharpness.
    However the D300 has ADR and a D2x hasn't. But for those who shoot RAW it is not a problem.
    But only comparing the JPEG engine? Well then the D300 gets the edge.

    For high ISO shoots you need a D3 / D700 or the current generation. Forget the D90 / D300. These don't do high ISO. They do noise
    reduction.

    That said: Most of our users don't have the monitor to really pixel count and see the difference in sharpness anyway
    Forget about comparing 5x7 prints. Blow them up by at least 20x30 and see how good cameras were in 2005.
    These cameras are not obsolete. The newer ones just became better.
     
  68. I've travelled all over Europe, the States and Canada with my D200 and it's been an absolute rock star DSLR! It's very durable and will take a heavy beating! I am still shooting a D2Xs for professional work and it's an extremely solid and reliable camera! Depends on your use for any of these bodies however. I have access to a pretty good pool of Nikon bodies and I'd say, in order of preference, I'd shoot my D3s, then D300s, then D2Xs, then D200 which is pretty much par for the course. Though having said that, I much prefer the ergonomics of the pro bodies. Any of the D2xxx DSLRs will produce great images even today. A D2Xs would be my choice out the ones you've mentioned in your original email and couple that with Lightroom 5 and you can't go wrong! Lightroom can correct or deal with at least 90% of any issue you're having with a D2xxx sensor. Remember that the shutters are rated for 300,000 actuations in the Pro bodies, 150,000 for pro-sumer bodies so even bodies with 50,000 plus actuations is generally good to go; most have far less. Beats spending $4000 - $5000 for a D3/D3s!
     

Share This Page