Considering a Nikon D2X? Good or Bad?

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>My major comment of contention was that Shun nor anyone cannot tell me that you always need to keep upgrading each year or you will have a major handicap. I recommended the Fuji S5 for the best in skin/natural tones for weddings & even the purchase of the D300.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Andy, that was not at all what I said. My comment only refers to the D2X vs. the D300, which are the OPs choices. Between 2005 and 2007, there was a major major jump in Nikon's technology when the D3 and D300 were introduced. Prior to that, Canon had perhaps 90% of the news and sports photography market. However, by the 2008 Beijing Olympics, we saw roughly half of the sports photographers were using Nikon, which was very obvious seeing all those black Nikon lenses vs. white Canon lenses on the stands.</p>

<p>The D2X tops at ISO 800, the D300 ISO 3200 and D3 ISO 6400. The difference is very easy to tell just by the numbers. Since the OP wants to shoot news and weddings, that difference is going to be extremely noticeable.</p>

<p>I myself still use the D300 and D700 today. The D300S and D3S are nice, but they don't represent all that big an improvement. In particular, the D3S just too expensive and I am sure that its technology will soon be superseded. For me, the D700 is good enough until the next quantum leap in technology.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Oh Dear ! I just sold 15 full-page photographs to a German magazine, taken with the D2x. I'd better call them up and tell them to forget it now, since my camera is so bad.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ronald, could you show us some of those images? Were they captured indoors with available light at ISO 800 and 1600, which would have been Hi 1 on the D2X since it tops at 800. Those are the ISOs news and wedding photographers use frequently. If your images were captured at ISO 100 and 200, which the D2X does very well, I am afraid that your example has no bearing on the OP's question.</p>

<p>Back in January, I posted this ISO 800 image sample from the D2X: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00VW6n">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00VW6n</a> You can easily see how noisy and dull the colors are. I also have another image from the D3S also at ISO 800. Even though the subjects were not the same, anybody should be able to see the difference.</p>

[lee_richards2]

<p>I am on Shun's side. As a working PJ who does weddings as well I am going to recommend the D-300. Cameta and Adorama have them as demo's with a warranty for under $1200.00 delivered. (I doubt you will find a really good D2Xs for less than that without rolling the ebay dice.) The extra couple of high ISO performance is huge for PJ and especially for wedding work. The camera is built very well (I think just as well as the D2 series for all intent and purpose) and is lighter to carry. If you want to look cool or have a vertical button get an aftermarket grip for it;)</p>

<p>Lex makes a good point about the resolution issue when he points to the D2H. When I shoot assignments for the paper where resolution is going to be about crayon-on-napkin I frequently use my old D2H. It is my favorite camera. One feature it has that I miss on the D300 is the voice memo function. There is nothing easier than taking the picture and putting the names and cut-line information on the frame with the pic. The D2X has this too. The small 4MP sensor makes workflow a breeze. I have shot full page magazine photos with it without any problem. And they are pretty cheap these days. I would only rule it out because as a wedding camera it is not so hot. </p>

<p>I use the D3 most of all but then it is very expensive and I really do not think I could justify the expense over the D300 if pressed to do so unless the business is easily paying for it. There are much better ways to spend the difference IMO.</p>

<p>The bottom line for me is that, as nice as the D2X is, it is obsolete compared to the D300/s. I got my D300 before the D3. The D300 really made some assignments much easier. It was a great camera for weddings and being able to bump the ISO a bunch without trashing the picture quality gave me creative options that I did not have before and have come to rely on. The D300 is a marvelous camera and far from obsolete. It is tough as a tank and very fast. I think you will really like it. </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>The D90 has better image quality at higher ISOs than the D2x. Your D40x probably is better at higher ISOs too. The D2x has a better AF system and will meter with older lenses. The D300 has better high ISO performance than the D2x and has Nikons latest pro AF system. The D2x is still quite expensive used in some places. If you could live with the D2x bodies not so great HI ISO performance then it could be a good buy if it was cheep enough and in good shape if they were cheep enough maybe 2 D2x bodies is more useful than 1 D300 but often they are nearly the same price as a used D300. If you want good performance in low light then the D2x is not that camera and you would be better of with the D300 or even better a D700.</p>

<p>There is the argument that if you can't take decent photos with the D2x then the D300s/D700/D3s won't make you a better photographer and that is true but if you take decent photos that are full of noise because a camera performs badly at Hi ISOs then those newer bodies maybe just what you need.</p>

[kelly_pierce]

<p>Lex, your prob right: I may be just a bit too hard on my equipment. I may just shy away from the D2X and spend my money on a better lens. Things seemed so much easier with film or when I had a D1......thanks again guys! </p>

[kelly_pierce]

<p>or, I'm going to look into the D300. :)</p>

[kelly_pierce]

<p>or, I'm going to look into the D300. :)</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>I have used the D70, switched to the D2x, the D2Xs, (as well as the D200 of which I had numerous), then the D300 (of which about 9 have passed through my hands, including 3 or 4 at the present time, and like to shoot lowest light scenes with a D3 or D700 (which because it shoots at 14 bits all the time without slowing frames per second, offers superior Image Quality over the D300 in everyday shooting; but both the D700 and D3 are much, much more expensive) (I have no present use for video, though I do shoot it. I would shoot serious video with a anon-based 'Red' outfit, if I were into video and maybe use Nikon manual focus lenses.)<br>

I am able now as a very consisent buyer of cameras and lenses to make 'special deals' on Nikon equipment (don't e-mail me because I will not share), and may have a slightly different perspective than some about the D2x - D2Xs.<br>

I spend a lot of time in Ukraine (alternating with the USA).<br>

While I don't shoot female models for the Internet skin trade, much of which once was centered in Kyiv, I had an opportunity to meet one or two photographers who did make their living doing that, and also for legitimate magazines, almost always of females showing glamour and/or fashion/make-up subjects all glitzed up, most often the most beautiful agency models - some of the pretties women in the world. <br>

(Ukraine has an unusual number of fabulously beautiful women, and many become models, which provides fodder for such photographers - one reason such trade has flourished here.)<br>

There is a new anti-porn law so broad that it seems to even exclude pure art 'nude' photography, and there is much fear about even photographing nudes, in a country where once every thing 'went', but when that was so, the photographers I spoke who shot studio absolutely preferred their D2x and D2Xs cameras over any other (except the then incoming D3).<br>

The reason they said was that the D2Xa and D2Xs provided some pretty fabulous skin tones, that they could not reproduce with other camers such as the D200 and even the D300, though they acknowledged that the D300 had better specs.<br>

I remember shooting a D2Xs in Bryce Canyon, Utah, at low ISO at sunrise and getting spectactular gradations of reds - just fabulous colors -- some of the best in my life, and also the same in a boatyad at Moss Landing, CA., and those colors were memorable . . . not like anything I've shot since. (I'm not now much of a nature shooter, but I do nature from time to time, especially birds when I have a plentiful supply of long lenses, and once lived practically 'next door' to the fabulous CA 'Elk Horn Slough' estuary and bird/marine sanctuary with hundreds of species of birds (and marine life).<br>

The Ukrainian photographers preferred the D2X and D2Xs camera also because of their inherent build quality.<br>

When you have maybe one camera (and a much cheaper backup) and the main camera must be an absolutely reliable workhourse, and from that camera you must shoot 20,000 frames a month, come hell or high water, to make a living (and not such a good one) and you can hardly afford a quality backup, then having utmost reliability is of supreme importance. <br>

Both those sister cameras -- the D2X and the D2Xs were practically indestructible. <br>

The D300 is a great camera, but sometimes it has issues/ if it isn't sometimes a solder issue in the battery chamber (like the D200) or some other small problem, it is a great, reliable camera, but it sometimes on some particular camera may have 'issues', and those 'issues' may be 'intermittent' and therefore once believed 'fixed' may actually crop up again and again.<br>

Battery read/performance on the D300 is something that leaves something to be desired on some D300s I've had. Some idiosyncratically will not read from a battery; while its twin brother will read 'full' from the same just-charged battery the next minute on fresh insertion. Then, curiously a new insertion into the old camera will resume good reading and good shooting for an indeterminate period . . . . days, weeks or months before a new failure. <br>

More than one such camera has appeared in my camera bag, and contrary to past times, it has been a couple of years since I've even rough handled a D300. (I had a 70-200 f 2.8 roll onto the pavement, and got charged for a repair by Nikon repair, got a call the next day 'it's fixed' and returned to find a brand new one in the repair box!!!!)<br>

The last D300 that had such 'intermittent battery issues' I got a message it was was 'fixed' which I disbelieved, and called intercontinentally to Nikon in the Caribbean to say 'it can't be' . . . 'it's intermittent'. . . . and finally after hours of pleading got through to a Nikon West Coast rep. She took it out, shot with it, it finally revealed the same glitch for her sure enough, she had a tech go over it (with a microscope I think) and found broken solder at the battery terminal making sometimes intermittent contact, which then was fixed and apparently has no new problems since. <br>

Such a camera might have made three to ten more trips to techs before diagnosis and repair . . . they first told me it was the camera/lens, then the battery, then well . . . you get the point.<br>

I never had such problems with my D2x's or a D2Xs's.<br>

The shutter and build quality of a D2x or a D2Xs cameras plus the sheer size and capacity of the battery (expecially on the D2Xs) means that carrying a back pocket full of ENEL4e batteries (ordinary power for the D200, the D300 and the D700 series) which can get hot if you're sweaty or it's been raining and they start to short while you're sitting them, just does not happen. Shorting batteries in a sweaty or rainy back pocket can get mighty hot and more than a little uncomfortable especially when one's driving as one's rear starts to smoke.<br>

I prefer the old batteries from the D2Xs (the ENEL4a) so much that I carrry the MB-D10 battery pack on my D300s not for the vertical button which I almost never use, but for the sheer size of the ENEL4a used as an optional battery with its concomittant mass, which gives heft and stability to shooting telephoto at absurdly low shutter speeds (e.g. 1/10th sec wide open on a 70-200 f 2.8 and get sometimes astonishing clarity when handheld.<br>

A significant minus of the D2X/D2Xs was the location of the focus selector compared to the new placement near the vertical shutter release on the MB-D10 battery pack/vertical shutter release, for the D300, D700 et al.,. On the D2X or D2Xs the multi selector as a focus point selector was practically unusable for vertical shooting, no matter that one was using a vertical shutter -- a serious and rare Nikon design deficiency.<br>

The D2X and D2Xs both were almost absurdly heavy, and since I have an operated neck, a lifetime of disability and a significant partial paralysis in my shooting arm and hand, that is a significant minus, but 'getting the shot' means more than almost any amount of pain, so I would rather shoot with a D2X/D2Xs or its equivalent in weight - the D300 with the MB-D10 battery pack with an optional EN-EL4a battery inside or similarly a D700 with the same battery and battery pack in order to 'get the photo (and suffer the severe pain) in search of world class photos rather than settle. (that's just me, though, I guess).<br>

If I were shooting birds in a daylight marshy area, the hoodoos of Bryce Canyon, or much of the desert Southwest, doing many types of landscapes or such, I might be very happy with a D2X or a D2Xs, or even happier because of what many claim is a somewhat better color palette (or choice of palettes), with better rendered colors with their sensors and signal processing.<br>

But I shoot much 'steet' often at high ISO, and the D300 has filled my bill for several years after shooting a number of D200s, D2X(s) and D2Xs(s) (as well as other camers), and the D300, D700 and D3 (and progeny) are able to 'make' more shots for me that otherwise I would have to pass by with the D2X and D2Xs.<br>

I just reviewed Paris Metro shots taken several years ago and later with the D2x and D2xs compared to the D200, then the D300 and the differences are astounding -- the difference was between throwaways and lifetime keepers or between 'just interesting might-have-beens' to 'I'd put this on the cover of a book' (which is where at least one is destined).<br>

I could be very comfortable doing a great deal of shooting with a D2X or a D2Xs and getting world class shots. With a good lens such as a 70-200 f2.8, a supertele of fast aperture such as a 200-400 f 4 zoom V.R., handheld, and proper subject (marshland birds or flying water birds) one can almost be guaranteed of getting some world class captures.<br>

However, that being said, I also probably could take such captures with any old 35 mm film camera with a decent lens starting from about 40 years ago with introduction of the Nikon F series and do the same. <br>

The differences would then be for digital at what point would low light begin eliminating certain shots from being keepers or preventing me from attempting them, and the extent to which the more modern cameras would enable me to have a much, much greater percentage of 'keepers'.<br>

If I were like some of the pros I met in Kyiv, shooting models in a studio, I would have little trouble shooting a D2X/D2Xs, and the only trade-up that would make best economic sense while shooting 20,000 frames a month might be a D3 and progeny, because of 'build quality' as well as various do-dads or adjustments that come with high-end cameras not of use to most users.<br>

My perspective, however, is highly personal.<br>

I happen to believe one can take a $5 lens and make a memorable capture.<br>

When once I took the wrong camera bag, found when I reached inside only a $5 lens from a dealer's '$5 buys any lens' bargain sale someone had left me, I put it on my camera, and within seconds, had taken a wonderful street photo though the lens was not only manual focus, but also manual stop down (meaning to focus I had to open it up, then stop down for the exposure - a type of lens no longer made for common usage on 35 mm cameras).<br>

Expensive or high end equipment does not 'make' for great capturs, it only makes for a better opportunity for a skillful photographer to reap a higher percentage of 'keepers' from most situations with less work.<br>

The most expensive and highest end piece of equipment is still between the ears.<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

 

[ty_mickan]

<p>i don't see a problem with using s d2x, and that camera can still produce the same results it did when it was lusted after three years ago. if quality was the absolute be all, then we'd all be shooting film, but we happily use the d3 because it is the 'best' digicam, although silver halide still has the edge in nearly all aspects (save high iso), especially for weddings.</p>

[rohia]

<p>Hi Kelly......Nikon D2X good or bad? Here's why I think it's good. I'm a hobbyist and I can go out for a day with my D2X and a nikon AF 80-200 2.8fD ED lens (major heavy lens) attached and shoot 400-600 shots in RAW. The interesting thing for me, is I don't need any accessories like a battery pack, extra batteries and so on. When i shoot I view the photos, I scale photos to check sharpness, I basically do everything you shouldn't LOL....and after doing all that, I feel assured that my battery indicator will hardly of even moved!! I'm still fascinated with the amount of shooting you can do on one charge. If you want something that's just gonna keep going for the work you describe, then I recommend the D2X and when you can, save up for the D3.</p>

[andy_smothers]

<p>Good to see not everyone believes that the D2X is an old paperweight that is totally incapable of producing quality images. But when you consider that experience and skill are not requirements for good photography, only a modern consumer DSLR, then why even bother? LOL.<br>

<br /> Just kidding....good informed discussion, learned a lot with this open dialogue.</p>

<p> </p>

[tom_freda]

<p>

<p>Kelley,<br>

I'm a former photo journalist from the film days. I usually shot with 2 Nikon bodies; one with Tri-X rated at 800, the other with Tri-X rated at 200 (both developed in Rodinal 1:100). Excessive cropping in editing was common, even expected. Despite that, the quality was always excellent and complaints were only when something was out-of-focus. Today, although I don't to news work anymore, I use D2X and other Nikon bodies in my personal and pro work. I've done many comparisons and my images with the D2X far exceed the quality that I got with film at low ISO and usually exceeds but mostly equals what I got at 800.<br>

There’s no doubt that digital, in general, is the likely successor to film in most situations. However, the problem I see nowadays is that photographers' expectations have gone through the roof in some respect; in particular; high ISO image quality. Photographers aren't satisfied unless their camera is capable of shooting noise-free images by candle-light. If that's your thing, then fine. But in my opinion, few situations in newspaper photo journalism require ISO shooting beyond 1600, and the D2X is more than capable of producing excellent results for newsprint, even at that range.<br>

In further defense of the D2X; due to its pixel density, Nikon and other manufactures have done nothing to improve on the acuity of the D2x at low ISO. It's all been slight improvements in dynamic range (indiscernible to 99 percent of people) and lower noise at ridiculously high ISO.<br>

These days, I personally rarely shoot over 200, with 90 percent at 100. My clients seldom need files bigger than 12" at the longest side. Again, I've done the comparisons, and at ISO 100 (where there's zero noise), nothing exceeds the D2X IQ. That includes the D300. And yes, that also includes the 21 and 25 MP full-frame cameras, which lose their advantage because those files require downsizing and that costs in acuity compared to the native D2X files.<br>

If anyone doubts this claim, all one has to do is do a few Google searches to find it well supported by archived tests that showed that D2X image quality rivaled the 16MP full-frame Canon EOS 1DS MkII ... and tons of those are still being used today by newspaper photographers.<br>

Going back to film cameras; for those of us old enough to remember, pro film bodies lasted for years and years. My first F2s bought in 1977 served me well until I replaced them with F3s in 1993 ... that's 16 years of continuous use! How many people keep their pro DSLRs more than 3-4 years? Very few. One has to ask: who is benefiting from that kind of turnover - that converts desirable high tech equipment worth thousands of dollars to near obsolescence in such a short a time? Answer: Not the consumer, that's for sure. It's the manufacturers who have hit the mother lode by preying on photographers' insecurities and convincing us that what we bought just a few years or even months ago is not up to snuff any more. We’re being conned by the camera makers. If it wasn't true, we'd be seeing more cameras with interchangeable or upgradeable sensors. Plain and simple.<br>

Bottom line? Use the camera that suits your needs and use your own practical judgment in that decision. Don't let the camera makers, or even other photographers who've fallen hook, line and sinker for their consumerist marketing scheme, convince you otherwise.<br>

And best advice of all: Take advantage of all those photographers who are dumping their perfectly fine D2X bodies. Good ones are going for about $1000, a fifth of what they sold for just 3 years ago.</p>

</p>

 

 

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"...the problem I see nowadays is that photographers' expectations have gone through the roof in some respect; in particular; high ISO image quality."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. But the real problem is that client expectations have also increased. Working photographers who want to remain competitive can't ignore that.</p>

<p>What you and I considered acceptable for newspaper reproduction years ago with Tri-X at 800 wouldn't be acceptable to many clients or stock agencies today. For better or worse, any photographer wanting to stay competitive needs to consider upgrading equipment more often now. I can't market most of my D2H files because it's not acceptable by some stock agency standards. We may see a time in a few years when 12 mp dSLR files may not be acceptable to some clients.</p>

<p>And in one respect, that hasn't changed. Years ago we would occasionally change films as the emulsions improved in order to stay competitive. Check the archives of discussion forums here and elsewhere 10-15 years ago. Back then, there were just as many debates and arguments over which film was "better" and which needed to be updated.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>The stock agencies will slowly demand larger and larger files and older cameras will fall off the bottom of their acceptance lists. Photographers are going to be in an endless upgrade path just to continue working. Just for fun I downloaded some D2x NEF files at ISO 800 and 1600 and was pleasenly supprised with how they looked. So much had been made of how the D2x was noisy even at ISO800 I was expecting much worse. I have seen far grainier scans from much slower films. I processed the NEF files in Nikon Capture 4. In the past I had looked at many of the online comparisons and the D2x did not fair to well. I do wonder if some of the older Nikons got such a bad rap for noise because many would not use the Nikon software to process the RAW files. I tried lightroom when I bought my first D70 and found it to produce more noise than Nikon Capture 4 at the time.</p>

[mark_jordan3]

<p>While I got many good years of service out of my D2X, after picking up a D700 last year I really can't think of any scenarios under which I'd buy another D2X (except maybe dirt cheap for IR conversion). I'm not one to get spun up over 3" displays and other incremental improvements as pivotal selling points, but hands down the image quality and range of the current generation of cameras are superior. Particularly if you will be shooting professionally I think you owe it to yourself and your customers to use the most up to date equipment within budget. D300 construction is more than adequate for what you'll be doing.</p>

[ArthurRichardson]

<p>It's life Jim, but not as we know it.....</p>

<p>Loosen up, go out there and shoot someone or something..........</p>

[jeroenbollen]

<p>Oh my god what a useless discussion, apart from those who claim that it is the man (or woman) behind the machine that makes the difference.....<br>

We live in a consumer society nowadays and every manufacturer will try to sell you their latest release. It is not that I do not believe that newer camera's will do better, but what I experienced is that newer camera's WILL demand more skills and will show your flaws more and more.<br>

I had serious trouble when I started with my D2X. Was it a bad camera or was I not good enough. Even though it hurts me to say: I was not good enough! The mega number of pixels (in those days) showed every move I made by creating a blur. Todays 24 million and more camera's will be a serious attack on your stediness (a good whiskey may help in some occassions...) and with all the options in focusmodes etc an academic degree nearly is a must.<br>

My point is that you should choose whatever camera you like (as in: what camera ergonomically is best for you) and get to know it, and then MOST IMPORTANT........ MAKE LOTS OF PHOTO's. I'm sure you then will have lots of fun using it.<br>

And finally: there will allways be pros and cons for each and every camera </p>

[ron_lakeman1]

<p>I just want to know what professional photographer is shooting all these weddings and pj assignments with available light?</p>