Nikon D2x, any good coming from a 5D mkii

<p>What is the opinion of the Nikon D2x? I had to sell my 5D a while back and am testing the grass in the Nikon field. A second hand Nikon D2x has tempted my eye.</p>

<p>My main problem with the 5D was its awful focussing system and lack of focus points, I had a much better time on my girlfriends 1d mk II.</p>

<p>How would I go with the Nikon D2x, does it hold up to modern day cameras? How is it's focussing system?</p>

<p>A used D300 or D300s would make much more sense.</p>

<p>Or a Nikon D600, D700 or D800/D800E, all of which are full frame size. The D2X is an APSC sensor camera, not a full frame one like your old Canon 5D. Meanwhile Canon has an updated Canon 5D Mark III which would be much more like your old camera with fewer control differences than Nikons.</p>

<p>If your girlfriend still has Canon (and is still your girlfriend), why not take a look at the EOS 7D? You can share lenses, and otherwise, it's a camera that's well ahead of the D2x, except maybe build quality.</p>

<p>I replaced my D2X with a 5D II. Both are exceptional at what they do, but I don't use autofocus much. In the supertelephoto range the D2X actually beats the 5D II, in resolution, because of it's crop factor. If you are trying to save money it does not make much sense in switching systems.</p>

<p>The 50D, 60D, 7D, and even the T2i through T4i, will exceed the D2X in image quality, again not sure about autofocus though. I assume the 7D, at least, will surpass the D2X in AF ability.</p>

<p>I would not be concerned too much about the number of focus points since you won't often have need for all the extra ones.</p>

<p>P.S. You could likely get a 1D II for about the same as a D2X, but my preference would be for one of the cameras I listed above.</p>

<p>Back in 2005 when Canon introduced the 5D, I was surprised that they put a fairly primitive AF system, even in 2005 standards, into the 5D, and the 5D Mark II has that same AF system. Today, a lot of cameras have much better AF than the Canon 5D and 5D Mark II (but not 5D Mark III); it is not going to be all that difficult to find a Nikon that meets that requirement.</p>

<p>Today, the D2X is an "ancient" DSLR. Ever since I bought the D300 back in late 2007, I have rarely touched my D2X, which I still have.</p>

<p>In fact, when John Crowe (posted immediately above me) asked about getting a used D2X in January 2008, several of us, including Ellis Vener, recommended against that idea: <a href="00O1OV">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00O1OV</a><br>

But as usual, John has his own ideas.</p>

<p>Based on my experience with the AF of the D2X and what I've read about the AF of the 5MII, I think the difference will be a vast improvement</p>

<p>That said, the high ISO of the D2X is vastly inferior to that of the 5MII, basically limited to 800 ASA (if you dare), but best kept to max 400 ASA for optimum quality</p>

<p>And of course last but not least, it's a DX camera, which has on the one hand, e.g. when the virtual extended lens extention is of importance ( like for birding or sports) is an advantage, but on the other hand, e.g. when you want limited DoF or use wide angles, can be a disadvantage</p>

<p>You can get a brand new D7000 for less then $900.00. </p>

<p>The D2X is a marvelous camera and one I still use. But frankly it is my daylight, rough service camera for photojournalism. I use it SOLELY when I want the voice memo and in good light situations where I am going to beat it up a bit. (Rodeos for example.) For all other uses just about any newer camera will be better. </p>

<p>If money is the issue then I would consider the D300 that Shun mentioned. They sell used for just about what the D2X sells for and are a superior camera in just about any way. With the grip they are even faster. The CAM 3500 is a better autofocus system, the screen is larger and far more useful and the low light performance MUCH better.</p>

<p>The D7000s are a bargain now with refurbs selling for less than $800.00. So if you want to go Nikon, there are far better choices than the D2X.</p>

<p>I would go with new technology. I wouldn't even consider the D300, which I own. Too much noice. Otherwise good in many situations. I would go for a D7000 as well.<br /> <br /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_SLR">Here</a> are some nice time line charts of cameras from Nikon, Canon, Konica/Minolta/Sony, Olympus four thirds, Pentax and Sigma.<br /> <br /> D2X was released in mid 2004 and discontinued in the beginning of 2006. That would make it more or less a digital stone age camera by now. I am sure it would be a very useful camera in some situations, but I am also sure that you would loose photos with it, photos that you could easily have nailed with newer technology cameras. Preferably newer than 2009. And if you can afford it: The newest technology.</p>

<p>Having shot with Canon DSLRs including the 5D2 for quite a few years, when I made the move to digital medium format, I purchased a Pentax K-5 as an APSc backup to my 645D. It easily competes with the 5Ds of all vintages in terms of high ISO noise performace, is superior in terms of noise in shadows, is water/dust resistant, built in image stabilization, 6fps, and has features that are too numerous to list including many that neither Nikon or Canon provide at equivalent price points. It also uses the same SONY sensor as the Nikon 7000. It really is a superior camera, in my opinion to the D7000 or any of the Canon APS sensored bodies.<br /> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/829|0/%28brand%29/Pentax/%28appareil2%29/676|0/%28brand2%29/Pentax/%28appareil3%29/680|0/%28brand3%29/Nikon</p>

<p>The D2X or D2Xs is a fantastic camera for low ISO, high speed photography. Ergonomics are excellent and it just goes on and on and on. But... It's big and heavy, you start to see noise at ISO 800 and it's not really cheap. Still, I use the D2Xs more than the D300 because I like the colours from the D2Xs better.<br>

<br />The best DX alternative from Nikon at the moment is the D7000, but if it was me, and I didn't need full frame, I would go further and buy an OM-D or a Panasonic GH3. They don't have optical viewfinders, but there's nothing wrong with the image quality. My Nikon gear is gathering an increasing amount of dust after I started using m4/3 cameras for work.</p>

<p>I very seriously looked at a D2x this summer and love the rugged built and have no problem with the size. But I shoot a lot under low light and it was no better than my D200 at high ISOs. I eventually bought a D7000 instead and I'm loving it. ISO 6400 looks no worse than ISO 1600 on the D2x/D200.<br />The real question here is how much (if anything) do you have invested in Canon lenses and accessories. If you have a bunch of Canon glass, I would not advise switching to Nikon unless you have the money to replace everything. If not, then it's a non issue. </p>

I have a D2x that I currently use with an expensive underwater housing. The one area that I need the most improvement

is ISO performance. But a new housing is not cheep so for a while still I will keep shooting the D2x underwater . On land

I use a D800e for landscapes and a D3s for speed . Both cameras have sensors that at base ISO produce cleaner pixels

IMHO than my D2x. When Nikon comes up with a Dx sensor in a pro style body that gets closer in quality to my land

cameras I will probably buy it and a new housing that will cost probably as much. Dx sensors have advantages

underwater since you focus on a virtual image that is inches away. I would not go backward. Buy a newer camera with

better ISO, resolution, color depth and dynamic range. The D2x is not that fast. The one remaining advantage of the D2x

is build quality and eventually and sooner than more recently made bodies maintenance will be more difficult to come by

for a D2x. Good hunting. Andy

<p>I just want to also point out. Edwards comment about the maintenance costs on a D2X is worth considering. I have had two $450.00 repairs in the last 18 months. That is more than the camera is worth on a good day. The D7000 costs less than those repairs. </p>

<p>There was a time when Nikon's service in El Segundo was top rate. On my last repair they sort of blew me off. They didn't answer my questions and I was not "allowed" to speak to them. I would recommend going with the new D7000 and having a nice warrantee for a time. Or go with a new Canon. If you used them before you will be more familiar with their controls. </p>

<p>I'm thinking the same.<br>

I our part of the world the US$ equivalent on used DX Nikons is:<br>

D7000: Now new for $900, used for $600<br>

D300: used for $500<br>

D200: unsaleable, also the D2x.<br>

<br />HOWEVER....A good used D90 is up there at $600 and holding its value better than the D300. Interesting.</p>

<p>The D2X is a great camera. The AF is superb. The build is excellent. It is indeed not a high iso machine. That said, I've produced 16x24 prints from it at iso 1600 that cleaned up fairly well...no objections at all. In the lower end, iso 100-400, it is excellent and will produce clean prints at any size. The sensor was geared towards obtaining the max rez from its 12mp. It competes against a 5D easily in this regard.<br>

<br />Unfortunately nowadays, it seems everyone needs clean iso 25000, or the camera is junk.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Unfortunately nowadays, it seems everyone needs clean iso 25000, or the camera is junk.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I still own my D2X but haven't used it since 2008 for more reasons than that. First of all, IMO the D2X is terrible at ISO 800, which is its highest rated ISO; it is noisy, colors look dull, and dynamic range is poor. 1600 would be in its extended high range.</p>

<p>Additionally, the D2X is not UDMA compatible. When it was my main camera, I frequently ran into the buffer full situations while making a lot of consecutive shots for action. From the D300 and on, Nikon DSLRs that use CF cards are UDMA compatible so that memory write speed is much faster, and I don't even recall running into buffer full once on the D300, D300S, D700, or any D3.</p>

<p>The D2X lacks live view, which makes manual focus difficult for macro and landscape. It also lacks the dual memory card feature that is now standard on even upper consumer DSLRs such as the D7000.</p>

<p>In other words, technology has marched on since the D2X was introduced in 2004, 2005.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"There was a time when Nikon's service in El Segundo was top rate. On my last repair they sort of blew me off. They didn't answer my questions and I was not "allowed" to speak to them."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was my experience and impression as well. Not so much a decline in quality of actual service performed, but a serious problem with communication and perception of indifference.</p>

<p>For that reason I'd be reluctant to pay more than half the market value for any dSLR as old as the D2X since repairs may cost more than the camera is worth at the current market value. Now there are more recent Nikon dSLRs that offer better image quality for the same money.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I wouldn't even consider the D300, which I own. Too much noiSe.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Not if you convert and process the files properly.</p>

<p> </p>