D2xs vs. D300 backup

[greg_lisi]

<p >Hi all...<br>

As a novice (in training) I've been shooting small weddings and portraits. I have a D700 with good fast 2.8 glass(es) and a D40x as an emergency backup. I know someone with a creampuff D2xs who would sell it to me for a VERY decent price. I could use the 1.5 crop for extra long reach in church. I've already been in a few cathedral-like churches were I needed to stand in the back with my little D40x on a monopod just to get that certain shot a bit closer. Question is, how is the noise on the D2x say over ISO 400? With fast glass I might be able to get away with 400 (or under), but in my readings I understand the D2x over 400 is tredding on noise-city. I always shoot RAW and do have noise reduction s/w plugins that I never had to use with my beloved D700. The other alternative is to pay substantially more for a decent D300. I really don't want to upgrade my D40x to say...a D90, as I would rather have the bigger body for better balance with the longer lens.</p>

<p >As always, on this forum, your input has been gold for helping me develop (no pun intended) my passionate hobby.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Question is, how is the noise on the D2x say over ISO 400?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO, any professional wedding photographer should avoid using the D2X over ISO 400. I checked KEH recently. there is only a small difference between used prices for the D2X/D2Xs and the D300. Since the OP already has a D700, getting a D300 that has identical controls and share the same MB-D10 vertical grip and battery is the obvious choice.</p>

<p>Incidentally, the D300S has dual CF and SD card capability. For wedding photography, that should also be considered. Unfortunately, the D300 non-S can only use one CF card.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>+1 with <strong>Shun</strong>. D300 back up is the logical answer.</p>

[Albins images]

<p>If it is really about 'backup', I would strongly suggest getting an additional D700. An accidentally disfunctional D700 is only really replaced by another one. If you manage to earn a little from your photography, that would just mean an overseeable investment.</p>

<p>And further on I would like to echo the suggestions for the D300(s), certainly considering that you want a camera with higher ISO capablility. Personally, if I was in your proverbial shoes, indeed 2 D700 or similarly capable camera´s would be my solution. One for close ups of the ceremony and the other with - say - a 70-200/2.8 for longer distance snap shots.</p>

<p>If money is limiting (as it actually is in my situation..), look for a nice deal on an existing body (D700, or if you decide otherwise, D300 for example). Or wait for the follow-up of the D700 to arrive!</p>

<p>Good luck</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Attached is an image I captured with my D2X at ISO 800 during a Christmas party back in 2005. At the time the D2X was, of course, a state-of-the-art camera. I was using the 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX; even wide open at f4, I was down to 1/15 sec @ ISO 800. It is obvious how poor the noise and colors are.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Quite a few people advocate getting a second one of exactly the same camera as a back up, and there are very good reasons for that. The problem is that DSLRs are depreciating fast. Usually I try to have a very good primary camera and use an older one as a backup. It all depends on how much you can afford and how often you use your backuup.</p>

<p>At this point I would advice against getting a second D700. It was announced on July 1, 2008 and is well over 1.5 years ago. There is almost no doubt that Nikon will replace it with an improved model within 2010. Given that the D300S has dual memory cards and video mode, any D700-replacement will almost certainly have those features. Clearly dual memory cards is a major plus for wedding photography and even though you don't shoot much video, having it for occasional use is another plus. If such camera also has the improved high-ISO as the D3S, it'll easily trump the original D700.</p>

<p>Given that the PMA is merely a month away, I would suggest waiting a bit if you can afford somewhere around $3000 or perhaps a little more. Otherwise, look into the D300/D300S.</p>

<p>Speaking of the D3S, attached is another image I captured at ISO 800 yesterday, with the current start-of-the-art D3S. While it is a completely different image so that this is not an A/B comparison, it should be obvious how much better the noise and colors are.</p><div></div>

[johnw63]

<p>Shun,</p>

<p>If you still have those bodies, maybe you COULD do a side by side and post it as a sticky. It would keep the " How much better is the ..... " question down.</p>

<p> </p>

[greg_lisi]

<p>Thanks everyone for your input. As usual, it's always best to ask from "those who know." I pretty much decided to stay with today's technology for the money. Although the D2x is still a great camera, I don't think it can match what's out there now in terms of ISO versatility. I've been watching Ebay and D2x auctions. It's unreal how many D2x's there are and how many people are scoffing them up! Shun, your reasoning is dead on mentioning my applications and compatibility with my existing gear. Weighing all variables, especially my current limited budget, I would rather just get a new D90 for a backup from a reputable NYC dealer, whom I've delt with prior. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Actually I still have my D2X but the D3S will have to go back to Nikon in a few days. In fact I was shooting the D3S indoors to compare its high-ISO results against the D700; the D3S is about one stop better.</p>

<p>As far as I am concerned, the D2X being an out-of-date camera is a foregone conclusion. I haven't used mine in 2 years. Less than a month ago, on December 27, I posted a fairly long list to show how far it is behind the 2007 D3 and D300: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00VKyd">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VKyd</a>. Today, the D3X and D3S are raising the bar further.</p>