difference (D200, D2X, D2Xs)

<p>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!<br>

thanks<br>

David Blevins</p>

<p>they're all obsolete at this point, but a D2x is the best of the bunch.</p>

<p>D2XS is actually newer than D2X. And better...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>they're all obsolete at this point</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Back in 2005, the D2X might be better than sliced bread, but now in 2012, it is a very out-of-date camera.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.</p>

<p>What type of subject do you shoot and what is your budget? Do you have any existing Nikon lenses?</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's a ridiculous comment. They are old, yes. Sensor technology has improved dramatically, yes. But to say they are obsolete is just hyperbole.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hyperbole? me? i categorically deny any resemblance to that remark!</p>

<p>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)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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??</p>

<p>David, sorry for hijacking your thread. Check out this <a href="http://www.bythom.com/d2xreview.htm">review</a> for more info on the D2x series.</p>

<p>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? </p>

<p>David. Since you already have a D200, there is no reason to get a D2x or any D2 variant.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'll just go ahead and drop you a check for postage to ship that baby up to Oregon. Sound good?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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 ....</p>

<p> "My friend is telling me that a D2x is better than sliced bread!"<br>

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.</p>

 

<p>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. </p>

<p>I think they are old camera's and you should not buy one. I have a D200 and do not recommend it.</p>

<p>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...</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>To make a long story short, the differences between the D2X and D2XS are very minor.</p>

<p>Starting from the D3/D300 generation, Nikon started using 3" LCDs.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>My direct knowledge of the D90 leads me to believe that it's quality control was no where near that of the pro bodies.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?).</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<h3 ><em>ob·so·lete</em>/ˌäbsəˈlēt/</h3>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="80px">Adjective:</td>

<td valign="top">

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>No longer produced or used; out of date.</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#ddd">

<td colspan="2" height="1px"> </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="80px">Verb:</td>

<td valign="top">

<table >

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>Cause (a product or idea) to be or become obsolete by replacing it with something new: "we're obsoleting last year's designs".</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

<tr bgcolor="#ddd">

<td colspan="2" height="1px"> </td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="80px">Synonyms:</td>

<td valign="top">

antiquated - out-of-date - outdated - old-fashioned

</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

</blockquote>

 

<p>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.</p>

<div></div>

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.

<p>I can get clean stuff on my D90 at 1600 no problem, and 3200 is okay for some things. when it's properly exposed.</p>

<p>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.</p>