kpataky Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I have a D200 and I absolutely love it. I need a second camera body and wasconsidering another D200. I was wondering if someone wanted to take a stab attrying to convince me to buy a D2Xs instead. Price not being an option, I wantsomeone to tell me why they think the D2Xs is so much better. The inclusion ofexamples and sample pictures to prove your point would be great. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonybeach Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 "The inclusion of examples and sample pictures to prove your point would be great." Sorry, but on the web that would be a pointless excercise. Regarding the larger question which I have considered myself, I have decided to go with a D2x (I can't afford a D2xs) because of: Better AF Better battery life More megapixels and better ISO 100-320 IQ (reported by those that know) Built in portrait grip (I sold the MB-D200 because I considered it flimsy) Better AWB 8 fps in 6.8 MP cropped mode Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 There are essentially 3 reasons to get a D2Xs over a D200: (1) You need the best build quality from a Nikon DSLR, (2) You need the best AF capability Nikon current has and (3) You want to show off your top-of-the-line Nikon. The difference between 10 and 12MP is pretty much meaningless and most people feel that the D200 has better high ISO capability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic_. Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I too have the same question. I went from leaning towards the D200, then the Fuji S5 Pro, and now the D2Xs. Result: Total confusion. There are some reviews on B&H Photo's website for this camera. www.bhphoto.com http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=438726&is=REG&si=rev#anchorToReadReviews Besides what Shun lists above, there are a few more reasons, such as better quality of the pictures. Caveat: I haven't tried any of these cameras, as I don't live near a store. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adw Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Maybe the S5 Pro is worth a look. It is the same body as the D200 so it wont take much getting used to, however it uses a Fuji sensor with greater dynamic range and high ISO handling - at the expense of a few megapixels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_larese1 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 If you *need* to print at 11x14 at 300 dpi, go with the D2xs. If you're good at 8x10 at 300 dpi, buy two D200s :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpataky Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 Steve, I have printed up to 4 foot by 3 foot sized posters with images that have come from D200 - action sports shots - even ones shot at night. They all came out crystal clear. As for focusing and color, I have been using the D200 since December of 2005 when it came out. I have learned just about everything this camera has to offer. I have tweaked the settings so the in camera sharpening and the colors look perfect to me. As far as frames per second go, the D2Xs can only do 5fps like the D200 at the 12mp setting, and at 8fps, the images get cropped. I have taken my D200 all over the world, shot hundreds of football and baseball games and found it is more than rugged enough to withstand the rigors of that. Knowing all of this, it is hard for me to imagine that for $2500 more, the D2Xs is that much better - so much so, I should go out and get one instead of another D200. No one has yet to make a convincing argument to convince me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Off topic, Steve, you have not replied the e-mail I sent you last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_smothers Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 It is all personal preference. I only use pro bodies since I am responsible & contracted to deliver professional results & my gear just has to work, everytime, everywhere --- all of the time. Not saying I couldn't get by with a D200, D70, D100 or even a D1 in a pinch. I have been there and done it. I just cannot handle the form-factor body size of the non-pro DSLRs. In addition, when you are constantly hauling & mounting 500 & 600 AF-S II lenses, it is just nice to know you have the most solid frame available, not to mention most rugged & best AF system. No one will probably convince you on an "apple-to-apple" basis why you NEED a D2X(s) over a D200. Technically speaking in terms of picture quality, it was never a problem...as usually the person behind the lens usually was responsible for the "better photos" anyway, not because he had a newer camera with more features or gizmos.... Too much talk & concerns about this goes around far too often. Get what you think you need to do your job, and get to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klix Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I think most/all people can get by with a D200. Having said that, if at least 80% of your photography is sports, wouldn't you want the fastest AF module? You original post says "Price not being an option" but your subsequent post factors in the D2Xs' price tag? Which is it? The ultimate question is: for the same price, as a sports photographer, would you take the D200 over the D2Xs? Not too many people would. Now if you factor in the cost, then it becomes a personal question, depending on your personal budget. I have a D200, and I know there are circumstances (e.g., shooting a rodeo) when I would have wanted the better AF module. But I don't shoot sports all that much, so when it comes to a second body, my decision was a little easier. KL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_larese1 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Hi Kevin - I'm sure your prints look beautiful. For print making, you can certainly print below 300 dpi and have it look great. In the publishing world, 300 dpi is the magic number as most line screens are set at 150 (you need twice that amount). That's why I said if you *need* 300dpi, it's just a matter of math (based on the RAW files opened in CS2). Try arguing with an art director who's only checking Image Size for a double-truck spread ;) Shun, check your Inbox :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_larese1 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Hi again Kevin - Rereading your original post, you say you love your D200, and you're happy with the 2x3' prints from. I'd totally go with another D200 as a backup, or even a D70. Doesn't sound like you need the D2x (but who doesn't need $2,500?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_larese1 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I'd like to but a pronoun, "it." :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_larese1 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 ... and a "y," geez... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juan_parm_nides Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I prefer the DX2s over the D200 in very fast actions. The D2Xs focuses faster and more acurate and in low light works better, IMO. But the Nikon D200 is a very nice camera too, I love it. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpataky Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 KL IX - I originally said "Price not being an option" because too many people attempt to answer the debate with price in mind. I wanted to leave that left out of the answer equation. I have the money to spend if need be, but I guess I really want to know if people think for $2500 more, the D2Xs is that much more a better camera than the D200? I personally feel it is not. Now, if it shot 12mp images at 8fps or flash synched at 1/500th sec or was able to microwave my coffee for me or something, then maybe I could justify it. Those features are just not there. And I have been using the D200 quite successfully professionally for action sports for 16 months - and I have never had an issue with image quality, focusing or durability. (And Steve, they are 4'x3' posters not 3'x2' - as in 48"x36") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_sokal___dallas__tx Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Kevin, My question for you is what do you want to do with your camera. I shoot with a D2X and D200 (and still have my D70). I shoot a variety of fine art stuff and weddings. For shooting in very low light situations like a candle lit reception, there's no doubt the D2X is superior for focusing. I've also used it in HSC to shoot college hockey and it was great. O/W, I don't see that much difference. There's a little variation in color and ISO performance (probably in the D200's favor), but the differences are not significant IMO. And the 2MP difference is insignificant. On a recent trip to Portugal I took the D200 and left big brother behind because I didn't want to lug the beast around. So I think they're both great cameras, well built, and both produce gorgeous images. My choice would be more dependent on what I was shooting. I've never used a D2Xs so I don't know how much it differes from my D2X with firmware update. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpataky Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 I am shooting action sports - mostly Minor League baseball now, but also high school, and little league. Also softball at the High School and 14U levels. In the fall I shoot Youth and High School Football with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Kevin, since you mentioned sports, please see reason #2 I mentioned earlier. The D2Xs' AF capability can easily justify it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaelchristensen Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I just printed larger than 16x20 at a pro lab staffed by a guy who shoots Hasselblad digital. He could not believe the quality I got out of the D2oo .. good rich tones and great quality .. his digital is 22 megapixels .. so, I'm not sure anybody can present a compelling argument for a 2+ megapixel increase as being better. Not my experience. And, the D200 is about the right size and price .. and I have friends who shoot weddings with the D80 .. again 10 megapixels .. So to be perfectly candid, the D2x is perhaps the better camera for everything else other than picture quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_sokal___dallas__tx Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 For sports, I think you can justify the D2X for the HSC mode and better autofocus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elliot1 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Get the d200. You will go nuts switching back and forth between the two cameras (different menus, controls, etc.) I bought a d80 as a backup to my d200s, but promptly sold it and bought another d200. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_larese1 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 (And Steve, they are 4'x3' posters not 3'x2' - as in 48"x36") Cool, even better :) Sounds like you're sold on the D200. Careful or people will start calling you a troll if you make the D2x sound too ridiculous ... ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic_. Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 So where does that leave the Fuji S5 Pro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 The D200 is somewhat smaller and lighter than the D2Xs. This I consider to be its most significant advantage. I am not saying it is a lightweight camera, but not super heavy either. The autofocus of the D2Xs is nothing short of spectacular. If you use plain AF lenses, the difference between it and the D200 is quite obvious. The D200 hunts a lot more with my 180mm prime, for example, while the D2Xs follows a moving subject in an amazing way. I can't justify the price of the D2Xs - I don't like the added size and weight. If the D2Xs had the chassis of the D200, but the Multi-CAM 2000 system, I would consider it worth the price and get one. But right now as it is, I can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now