trading down

[karen_dodge]

<p>I was lucky enough to purchase a Nikon D2X from a professional photographer at a great price. It was his spare camera so it only has 9577 actuations on it. The thing is, it's very heavy and I am not a professional photographer. I absolutely love every other aspect of this camera. I'm thinking about selling it to get something that's not so heavy. I'm strictly a Nikon fan so I would stay with that brand. Am I CRAZY to think about doing this? Should I just build up my muscles more? It would have to be something I could get for $800-1000. because I think that's all I'd get for the D2X. Please advise.</p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Not crazy. Lots of grams (ounces) that you're probably not liking. Cameras that are too big & heavy get left at home and don't take any pictures. I'd sell it and get a D90.</p>

[maury_cohen]

<p>Or even a D60.</p>

[phule]

<p>You should sell the D2X and buy something that feels better to use. Just like Andrew said, what good is a nice camera if you leave it at home because it's not comfortable to use.</p>

<p>If you can get to a store that carry's a variety of Nikon models, do so and hold each one of them with the lens or lenses you'd be using most often. When you're satisfied with one model, sell the D2X and buy that one. :)</p>

[elnoralouisa]

<p>You need to have what works for you. I had a nice camera that was weatherproof, and very heavy. I traded down to a smaller one that was newer, suits me better, and actually, because it's a newer model, I think the picture quality is better. <br>

You don't have to have the biggest heaviest camera. You need a camera that is best of your type of photography (and if you do a lot of walking around with it, a lighter one!).</p>

[dorothy_kay]

<p>Look at the D90, I absolutely love mine.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>D200 or D300 would also make nice replacements - you keep more of the pro-Nikon build quality, the controls will resemble closer too, and in terms of capabilities they are a bit closer than the D60/D90 advice offered.</p>

<p>But a D300 would probably stretch the budget.</p>

[john_demott]

<p>I have a D2X and a D90. Both are great cameras. The D90 has better dynamic range and better high ISO/ low light performance, and it is much lighter. The D2X seems nearly indestructible, has a wonderful viewfinder, is incredibly responsive, takes great photos at low ISO, and weighs a ton. I am much more likely to take the D90 than the D2X for most shooting simply because of the weight. If you can have only one, then, unless you need the ruggedness of the D2X, trade it for a D90.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Maybe you should try it first to see how you like the results. Maybe you can borrow a friend's D60 or D90 and see if you like that better before you take the plunge. You might find you like the D2X better (or possibly not).</p>

[moreau_andre]

<p>Here's a thought: keep the Nikon D2x and use it for macrophotography, portrait or studio work for still life photography, where you'll not be walking around with it. Use a tripod to hold the camera. For everything else, I would consider a small camera like the Olympus E-PL1 for about $600.</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I suggest looking at the D90 and the D5000. The D5000 is a little smaller and lighter than the D90 and uses the same sensor. However the D5000 only autofocuses with lenses that have built-in focus motors. I chose the D90 over the D5000 because of the lens limitation, but you may find that the D5000 fits your hands better. The D90 also has buttons for a lot of functions that the D5000 has in menus.</p>

[karen_dodge]

<p>Thank you all so much for your responses. This gives me much more courage to proceed in looking for something that better fits me.</p>