D300 vs D2x for portraits

[terry_evans3]

Hello,

 

I currently have a D300, and would like a second body that would be primarily for portraits. I prefer shooting at low

ISO, and would like a body better suited for just portraits. Would the D2x be a good choice?

 

Thank you,

 

Terry

[ShunCheung]

The D2X was well known for its fast AF and extremely rubust construction quality. Otherwise, it has largely been superseded by the D300. I still own both cameras. As far as I can tell, portrait work cannot take advantage of the strength of the D2X. It is more like a step backward from the D300.

 

If you want, you can shoot the D300 at Lo 1, which is essentially ISO 100. The difference between ISO 200 and Lo 1 on the D300 is some potential clipped highlights at Lo 1. That shouldn't be an issue for portrait work.

[pge]

When you say "a body better suited for just portraits" do you mean a body better suited for holding in portrait mode. If so a grip for the d300 is cheaper than a d2x.

[elliot1]

D700 (or another D300).

[terry_evans3]

Phil, I already have the grip. I just thought there may be a body with a sensor better suited for portraits and landscape.

 

Also, thanks Shun. BTW, what are the strengths of a D2x? I hear so many people saying that the D3, D700, and D300 are better suited for high ISO, and the D2x is better for color, low ISO, portraits, and landscape.

[rffffffff]

it depends on the particular lenses you'll use, but a D3 or a D700 would be a better choice for just about anything that you dont need telephoto lenses for.

 

After the new cameras came out (D300, D3, D700), there is really just about nothing I can think of that would be better on a D2X than on one of the above. I don't own a D300, so I still use the D2X for telephoto stuff, as I don't have the proper lenses to compensate on the D3, but if I had a D300 also I would use the D2X only as backup.

[User_276104]

If you're interested in a sensor geared toward portrait work, you may want to look into the Fuji S5. It's a

fairly old camera by digital standards, but it was aimed at wedding/portrait photographers when first introduced.

 

I just checked B&H and it's still priced at $1,600 new, though out of stock. I don't know how much they fetch used.

[ShunCheung]

The strength for the D2X: "<I>The D2X was well known for its fast AF and extremely rubust construction quality.</I>"

[fullmetalphotograper]

I shot the D2x for 3 1/2 years. It is a great camera and does a great job with portraits. I have started to shoot the D3 and

use the D2x as a backup camera. What I have found is the D2x did not stop functioning when the newer cameras came

out. What I like is the fact that the ergonomics and controls are very similar with the D3 and D2x.

 

My suggestion here is that you may want to look at another D300 or maybe a D700 one part because the sensor but

because the controls from a D2x will differ greatly and the ergonomics. When you are shooting an assignment this can be

something of a pain, a sort of mental strip gears when changing cameras.

[wpahnelas]

a D2X would be a good choice; a D300-D700-D3 would be a better choice. the latter are noted for high-ISO performance, but not solely for that. if your object is to acquire something less expensive than nikon's current top-of-the-line models, you choice is easy (or easier -- i don't think a D2X new is much less expensive, last i checked). at this point, however, i think it would be wise to invest in one of the new bodies -- you'll be happier in the long run, i suspect.

[daverhaas]

I have both the D300 and the Fuji S5 Pro. Once I got familiar with the handling and behavior of the D300, the S5 became a backup. Now, weddings / portraits are 100% D300.

 

The D300 meets or beats the S5 in range and tonal quality. It kicks the Fuji in ease of use, resolution, speed (both FPS and AF), and post processing pain.

 

Dave

[joseph_braun2]

Hi Terry,

 

I am just curious: why would you want to use a lower ISO in this instance? The D300 at iso 200 is noiseless!

[ShunCheung]

I am under the impression that since the OP (Terry Evens) already has a D300, he does not have to buy any

additional camera at this time. I certainly don't see the point to add something mostly inferior to what he already has

(except as a bakcup).

[bruce_margolis]

"......would like a body better suited for just portraits."

 

Terry, maybe I am missing something here. I don't see where a D2X will be more helpful for portraits than a D300. Indeed, if you want to simulate a D2X with your D300, just download the D2X Picture Controls from Nikon. Then you have an effective D2X inside a better D300. No?

[terry_evans3]

Thank you all for your advice. I had read on another forum that the D2x was the best body for portraits and landscape, so I thought it would compliment my D300. I guess that's not the case.

 

Regards,

 

Terry

[John Crowe]

For portraits and landscape you ideally want a full frame body. If you can't justify the cash for a 700D or D3 but you do have phenomenal patience and a sense of adventure, then you could consider a used Kodak SLR/n in good condition. I even use mine alongside my D2X for the odd sports images and results are incredible and while it beats the D2X in most situations the processor simply cannot keep up with sports shooting. Oh, and ergonomics are awful with respect to the placement of one's nose (the LCD gets in the way). No one dares to compare the lowly Kodak to the new Nikons but I would not be surprised if it out-images them at low ISO. Prices are about half of the D300.

[Ed_Ingold]

Other than a few more choices of focal lengths for portraits (and wide-angles) and less DOF*, I see no advantage for a full-frame vs DX camera for portraits. A D3 has lower noise at high ISO and a body built like a tank, but does that matter for a studio situation.

 

The D300 has the same resolution as the D2x and better image quality by a substantial margin. 12MP is sufficient for an excellent 16x20 inch print.

 

The Canon 5d (full frame) is at least two generations behind Nikon in image quality. The Kodak full-frame camera is older yet and has a miserable record for image quality.

 

*DX cameras have a greater DOF than FX cameras, which sometimes makes it hard to render a backdrop OOF.

[ShunCheung]

Once upon a time, the D2X may indeed be the best Nikon DSLR for portrait and landscape.

It highly depends on when that comment was made; it would have been true back in 2005 (when I bought my D2X) and 2006. Since I bought my D300 late last year, I rarely use the D2X any more.

[paradoxbox]

it is important to take into consideration that when shooting portraits using nikon sb600's / sb800's they were designed for use with dx sensors. i can't remember off the top of my head but i'm not sure how well the sb800's work with non dx sensors.

 

this could cause lighting issues if you decide to use a full frame camera with an sb 800. so it's important to figure in a new SB-900 flash if you are serious about lighting/flash photography and decide to go with a full frame camera.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...i can't remember off the top of my head but i'm not sure how well the sb800's work with non dx sensors..."</b>

<p>

The SB800 works just as well with the D3 as it does with the D300. It also works very well with the F5.

[ShunCheung]

Cory, you got it completely backward. The SB-600 and SB-800's flash coverage correspond to focal lengths for the

FX sensor, i.e. full 35mm film frame. If you use them on DX DSLRs, they will cover too much and in a sense wasting

some flash power.

 

At this point only the SB-900 has an FX/DX coverage selection. If you use the SB-900 on a Nikon DSLR introduced

from December 2006 or later, the FX/DX selection can be detected automatically via the hot shoe connection.

 

Nikon DSLRs introduced since December 2006 include the D40, D40x, D3, D300, D60 and D700.

[captain_jack]

Hi Edward Ingold,

 

"The Canon 5d (full frame) is at least two generations behind Nikon in image quality."

 

I am a D300 user, recently converted from Canon to Nikon. People in Canon camp (and otherwise also), swear by 5D's IQ. Could you please elaborate on why do you think 5D is 2 generations behind in IQ?

 

This is not a finger pointing, but request for more information.

 

Thanks