D2x

[louise1]

<p>I currently have a d200, and have been reasonably happy with it for the past 3 years. I have a fair amount of nikon glass and while I've thought about going to the canon 5dII, or the D700 full frame, I've delayed (recession, investment in dx lenses etc) a friend is selling her d2x body for a good price and I'm wondering if I shouldn't upgrade to that as an interim step.<br>

Will I see a tremendous difference between these two cameras? I'm assuming yes, considering they were both on the market in 2006 with about $3,000 price difference.<br>

What do you think?</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>Unless the price is a lot less than a new D300, I wouldn't do it. IMO The D300 is a better camera that the D2X.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>As usual, I'll ask in which ways you are unhappy with the D200 so that you want an upgrade.</p>

<p>The D2X will give you significantly better AF capability, especially for sports and indoors under dim light. However, you lose about one stop in terms of high ISO results. The D200 has a so so optional vertical grip; the D2X has that built in and is solid as well as heavy.</p>

<p>In other words, unless you have serious problems with AF capabilities on the D200, I wouldn't expect any "tremendous difference" from the D2X. The better upgrade would be a D300 or perhaps wait for its successor.</p>

[louise1]

<p>I rented the d300 last year, and I loved it more than my D200. The image quality was better than my d200, as was the AF. I also found that the color was more accurate and I had less post editing. However, economics being what they were, I held off purchasing a D300 at that time as I'm not entirely unhappy with my D200. But I am not entirely happy with the sharpness of image and the color. (which is why i rented the d300 so that I could compare it with the same lenses)<br>

But I think you've answered my question. The D2x is comparable to the D300 for about the same price as this friend's camera, so why go that route. Perhaps I'll just wait for the next iteration, or if someone hands me a couple of thousand I'll go for the D700. Until then I'll continue on with my D200.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I wonder why you have sharpness problems with the D200. See my test shots posted on 2007 October 7 on the following thread: <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00MrJd">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00MrJd</a></p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>i think that both the d2x and d200 are very similar cameras as they are the same generation of digital camera from nikon. Todays D700 and D3 are also very similar. Having the D200, there is no real improvement in image quality if you go to a D2X. I agree with the folks that are pointing you to a D300 instead.<br>

I have both the D200 and D300 and theirs quite a difference. The D300 is far better.<br>

If i'm not mistaken a used D2x and D300 are very close in price and you already have had a good experience with the d300, Sounds like a no brainer to me.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>unless there are specific features you want from the d2x and/or arent planning to shoot at above iso 400, the d300 is kind of a no-brainer, especially if the prices are similar.</p>

<p>as shun points out, this would be more of a lateral move than an interim step. the d2x isnt really comparable to the d300, since the d300 is newer and has better features overall. losing a full stop of ISO (with the d2x vs. d200) as opposed to gaining a full stop (with the d300 vs. d200)would indeed be a tremendous difference, but in the wrong direction.</p>

<p>bottom line is, if you can live with your d200 for now, it would be better to save your pennies until you can upgrade to a d300 or d700.</p>

[bsd230]

<p>I used to have the D200 and loved it as well. My only real complaint is that I felt images were a little soft straight out of the camera and high ISO performance. I went up to the D700 and saw a significant difference in image quality.</p>

[keith_b1]

<p>Everything that everybody has said is true, but...<br>

The D2X has a much, much better viewfinder than the D200. Important if you like to focus by eye, not so much if you're using autofocus. Also, you can get a charming graininess(noise) at ISO 800.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The D2X has a much, much better viewfinder than the D200.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not as far as I am concerned, and I have both of those cameras. The D2X has a 100% viewfinder, but IMO its advantage over the D200's viewfinder is small.</p>

<P>

If you need to focus manually, it is best to get a split-image focusing screen, on either the D2X or D200, or for that matter any other DSLR unless you can use live view.

</P>

[John Crowe]

<p>The D2X is a professional body and is a completely different camera than the D200, hence that $3000 difference when both were new. Having said that you may not notice the difference in image quality, depending on your lenses and your personal sensitivity. So, choosing the D2X as your next upgrade really depends on it's price, compared to other possible upgrades.</p>