D2 vs D90

[john_ashby2]

<p>I have a D90, which I really like. Over the weekend I was showing it to my dad who went through the F2, F3, and currently uses an F4. He didn't like the light plastic feel of the camera or the more consumer-oriented controls, and he really hates the DX sized sensor. I looked into buying a used D2Hs for about $500 yesterday to give him. But as I looked into the camera specs, it seems like it doesn't come close to the D90. I found out it's only a DX sensor at a fraction of the resolution of the D90, has a small low-res screen. and just doesn't seem that impressive by modern standards. I got the impression that for the $500, even a new consumer camera would be a much better choice. </p>

<p>The D2Hs came out in 2005, and the D90 in 2008. So am I right that a $1000 consumer camera beats a 3 year older $3500 professional camera in pretty much every way? The only advantages I see to the D2 are the professional feel and tougher body.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>You should really lay hands on a D300. You can get them for just over $1000. It's got essentially the same image quality as the D90, but a much better AF system, much more rugged build, and externalized controls.</p>

[john_ashby2]

<p>Actually when I bought my D90 I spent a couple of hours with the D90 and D300 and ultimately decided to go with the D90. Considering the lenses, filters and flash I bought I spent over $3000, so the few hundred difference between the bodies did not factor in at all.</p>

<p>Ultimately, the only advantages I saw to the D300 were things like the slightly faster burst mode, 14-bit RAW files (and for my use I'd never see the difference with those features). I normally like the more pro-style controls of the D300, but it felt less intuitive than the D90. The D300 didn't *feel* any more rugged to me, it was bigger and heavier but still felt very plasticy, so the extra size and weight felt like a disadvantage. You might have a good point with the AF system though. Playing with the D90 m where I take my time and set up shots to see what the camera can do, the results from the D90 are fantastic. When I'm out in the field and don't have much time or I'll miss the shot, I haven't been as happy. The focus doesn't seem that sharp when I don't spend the time to make sure. I don't know if the D300 would be better, but it's possible.</p>

<p>Anyway, right or wrong, I don't have the choice any more since the cost to sell my D90 and buy a new D300 is too high for the difference.</p>

<p> </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The D300 has a magnesium (rather than plastic) frame, and has weather sealing, which the D90 does not. I'm particularly fond of the external controls, since I hate having to poke my way through menus to change important aspects of the exposure and the camera's behavior.<br /><br />The AF system in the D300 is the same one used on Nikon's D3. It's a substantial improvement over the D90's, if that matters for one's style and subject matter. I shoot a lot of fast-moving subjects in low-constrast situations. The D300's AF system is terrific in that regard. The 3D tracking and the 51-point system <em>can</em> make all the difference for some circumstances. Coming from a D200 (which still has more sophisticated AF than the D90), I can tell you that the D300 is far more nimble that way. All depends on what you do.</p>

[john_demott]

<p>The D2H was designed with photojournalists in mind, offering very high frame rates and fast AF performance combined with a very rugged build quality. Resolution was limited as a necessary compromise to get high frame rates. If you are looking for a pro Nikon body of that vintage, the D2X is more of a general purpose camera. It has a 12MP DX sensor and very good AF in a weather-sealed, pro-quality body. Compared to a D90, the D2X suffers from noise at high ISOs (ISO range is 100-800, but 800 definitely shows some noise) and has slightly less dynamic range. I feel the D2X has a somewhat better anti-aliasing filter that gives a slightly crisper feeling to the images than the D90, but overall I would give the nod to the D90 on image quality. The D2X is still quite a fine camera and has excellent ergonomics--big, bright viewfinder, well spaced controls, vertical grip, etc.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Since your dad is used to the F2, F3, and F4, I think he would appreciate the build and handling of the D2X. It's image quality is not lacking, as in the D2H, and at low ISO can compete with the D300. At least twice the price of the D2H though! </p>

[steve_smith50]

<p>One advantage of the D200, 300, 700 and the 2 and 3 series DSLRs is that they provide full metering capability with Nikon manual focus AI'd, AI and AIS lenses. Of relevance to your father if he is thinking about going to digital since I would expect he has MF lenses and maybe some AF lenses as well.<br>

There is a difference in the build quality of the pro and semi-pro bodies. Yet my wife has shot all over with her D70s, including overseas travel, and we haven't had any problems with durability. But we also are careful with our gear, no rough handling.</p>