Would you buy a D2x today?

[rossb]

<p>I was looking at "Nature Photographer" today. A magazine that I purchased. On page 155 is a great ourdoor picture of a RAM that was shot with a D2x. Actually most of the pictures in the book are all better then I can do with my N80 and were shot with those old useless outdated camera's like the Maximum 9, 20D, 40D, D200, D2x. I think people see technology differently. Some folks need it all and some folks do not. Myself I am a big fan of rapid fire in bursts of 1. I get most of my family snaps that way. I shot our entire Chrismas on Elitechrome 200 that way. I had a great time. The slides will be in perfect condition 80 years from now. Of course there might not be any film scanners left but the positives will be in great shape. However I would not purchase a D2x beater camera for $800.00. Not because I think the technology is horrible but because I think it's likely to have problems with function. Besides you cannot load Ektachrome in the thing. They forgot the door (LOL)</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Personaly I would buy a used D2Xs today if it was in good condition and the right price. Personaly I feel that most pro DSLRs are only as good as the person behind the camera. Unless someone really can't live with the D2X's not so stellar Hi ISO performance then I can't see why great images cannot be made using a D2X.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Even though there appears to be a consensus that newer DSLRs have numerous advantages over the D2X, the D2X has something the newer DSLRs do not have: "A3 Group Dynamic Closest Subject Pattern 1" auto-focus. This focus option has been left out of Nikon's newer DSLRs but is highly valuable for wildlife and sports photography.</p>

[rossb]

<p>I think the D2x also has ISO 100 which is very helpful if you want long shutter speeds to capture movement. Nice for waterfalls and scenics. The new digital models do not include that except the D3x.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I would if I was a working pro on a tight budget, mostly because I already have a D2H and compatible accessories. It would make sense from an economic standpoint. And the D2X would be a step up from the D2H in terms of mp resolution.</p>

<p>But if I wasn't concerned about compatibility with some existing accessories that would be expensive to replace to suit other models, something like a D300 would make better sense.</p>

[canonfduser]

<p>Interesting responses, I appreciate all the input. The D2x was my dream camera for the past few years but now that I've read all the postings and had a long weekend to think about it I think I'll pass on the body because of the relatively high price and high accuation count. I'd still love to own a D2x and when one shows up for a really good price I'll snag it. I have a chance to play with my brother's D200 and D300 when I go to Washington D. C. for New Years this weekend and I'll see how I like the D300. I think the video option of the D300s may push me in that direction. </p>