D300 or Used D2x

[sean_underhill]

I'm looking at upgrading. D300 or a used D2x? Both are about the same price. It

will be used for all types of photography from weddings to outdoor.

[don_cooper]

I've been using a D2X for 2 years and love it. However I'd swap it in a minute for a D300. With the D300 you get equal or better quality, less noise at higher ISO's, and better autofocus. Of course you can't pound nails with the D300 but maybe you wouldn't have that as a requirement.

[john_tyler2]

id definitely go with the d300 for the reasons dan stated. It preforms better at high iso's.

[bill_keane2]

Get a D300. The focus system alone is better (and you might even be able to pound nails with it).

[ellis_vener_photography]

Go for the D300. pounding nails with a camera (or a focusing system) isn't a good use for these cameras.

 

You might bend the nail.

[ShunCheung]

Sean, this topic has been discussed a number of times. As far as I know, quite a few people have upgraded from the D2X to D300, and I am among them. At least in my opinion, this is completely a no brainer. I used those exact words on May 15 in the following thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PShg

 

In particular to a wedding photographer: the D2X will give you barely acceptable results at ISO 800. The D300 is still quite good at ISO 1600 and decentat 3200. For low light, high ISO, the D3 is still the best but at a much higher cost.

[bruce_margolis]

Sean, I am curious why you would consider the D2X over the D300. Not picking on you, just curious what people are thinking that might lead them to this decision. As Shun said, this has come up quite a few times so just wondering.....

 

I also would vote for the D300. Here's what EL had to say........

 

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/nikon-d2x-versus-d300.html

[eric_arnold]

i'd get a used D2x if i wanted an obsolete body with no warranty, subpar high-ISO performance and a dinky LCD that weighs more and is less versatile than a newer, state-of-the-art body for the same price. i'm sure it would be good for pounding nails, though...

[John Crowe]

I looked at both and went for the pounding nails option. In my case I was able to save $1000 since I would have had to get the grip for the D300 and since I got such a great deal on the D2X. I was able to use that $1000 to buy a Kodak SLRn so I could finally use my 14/2.8 on a full frame body.

 

 

The viewfinder of the D2X is far superior to that of the D300 for those of us with eyeglasses and also for those of us who use a lot of manual focus lenses. The larger body of the D2X also fits my large hands much better than the D300 and any other camera that I have ever owned. The D2X also simply feels steadier in my hands when it is attached to my 400/2.8 and 200/2.

 

 

Well time to get back to renovating the loft, can't seem to find my hammer...hmmmm the D2X is right here...

[edwin_walke]

I have both the D300 and recently bought a D2x. Love it and it would be a tough choice if I had to give one up. One plus for the D2x is if you are using any of the older camera body AF motor driven ( non AF-S ) lens the D2x runs circles around the D300 focusinBg those lenses. I also like the High Speed Crop which not only gives you 8FPS shutter speed but a 2x crop factor. I like to use long lenses and getting 600mm out of my 70-300 AFS VR is a big benefit. Both handle great with the edge going to the D2x in my opinion -- I have the MD D10 on the D300 with AA batteries and it seems to be about the same with as the D2x.

 

For me the choice would center on the magnificant LCD on the D300 and although I rarely use it now -- Live View.

[photo5]

Edwin,

 

I wear eyeglasses and have no problems seeing the entire frame while shooting with my

D300. And I would dispute the claim that the D2x "runs circles around the D300 focusing

those lenses." Do you have any hard data to support that statement?

 

I have absolutely no use for Live View.

[shuo_zhao]

The Live View is very useful when you want to hold the D300 up high to shoot over a crowd that would've otherwise blocked your view.

[jim_francis]

Well I'll be the outlier -- I have a D2-X an I prefer it because it's built like a tank. I don't disagree with any of the other statements, however,

[franky_iovino__nyc_]

The D2X is a well-made perfectly capable camera. However, spare yourself of the angst of having to read thru all of the gear head opinions in this forum and just go for the D300.

[sean_underhill]

Thanks for the advise. It looks like the D300 is the way to go and I'll carry a hammer if I find myself needing to drive nails during a shoot.

[ilmilco]

Also i was a little puzzled about lifeview functionality from the D300....BUT

I tried it with a decent lens, and found out i could focus more accurate with lifeview, manual focus and zoomed in on the display, than the autofocus did. The difference in the end result picture was obvious : much sharper in the details i wanted. So try and you will be impressed.

 

On the other hand : I am still trying to learn to take decent B/W pictures with the digital camera.

[garrison_k.]

"BUT I tried it with a decent lens, and found out i could focus more accurate with lifeview,"

 

Unsure how this is? A viewfinder pressed against your nose and forehead provides the camera with a lot more stability than opposed to having the camera out at arms length while using liveview and slightly rotating the camera clockwise when you press the shutter.

[dan_brown4]

Can't disagree with anyone here, because I am still living in D200-land. But I have to

say that it's troubling to hear that last year's top-professional Nikon DSLR is now

"obsolete."

[ronald_olsen]

I bought the D2x instead of the D300. I have got about 65 pictures for my book in the past three years; if I had waited for the D300 to come out, none of them would have been captured, nor could they ever be captured. I'm very glad I didn't wait ! Since I shoot at ISO 100-250 and manual focus, I doubt that the D300 would give me much improvement in quality of my photos, if any, even now .

[ShunCheung]

Ronald, I am afraid that you are completely missing the point.

Back in 2005, I also didn't wait for the future D3, D300 ... either and paid $4000+ for a D2X, which was my first really serious DSLR.

 

Likewise, given how rapidly technology improves, I am sure that in another year or two (or perhaps merely a few months from now), the D3 and D300 will become "old" and out of date cameras. But we simply cannot wait until 2009, 2010 for the D4, etc. etc. and missing all the image opportunities in the mean time.

 

However, given the fact that you can get a brand new D300 for about $1700 now, there really is no point to opt for out-of-date technology such as the D2X. In particular, since Sean shoots weddings, the D300's far superior low-light capability makes it a very easy decision.

 

I still own my D2X which I don't intend to sell. I don't use it much any more. Sometimes I use it as a 2nd body to shoot still subjects and leave all the AF and high-frame-rate work to the D300. But even though you don't need 8 frames/sec and ISO 1600, just the fact that the D300 has a much better LCD on the back and the live view option can be very useful.

[christianaires]

The other thing you have to think about is.

 

How was the d2x used? How many pictures were taken with it.?

 

It could be on its last days.

 

Id go with the d300. I doubt you will regret it, and wish you had bought the used d2x.

[ty_mickan]

Depends if you need a pro camera or whether the consumer camera will be adequate. At normal ISO's, you will not notice any difference in PQ.

[ilmilco]

Garrison K : I used a tripod , and with that was able to focus more accurate with manual focus.....