difference (D200, D2X, D2Xs)

[DawsonPointers]

<p>Peter, I agree. How high of ISO do you find acceptable with D80/D2xx?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>John, based on what I've read/heard and seen in a limited sense (I've only owned the D50 and D90, and before that used the D1 and Kodak full-frame DSLR), I would stop at 800 (properly exposed) on a D80 or D200, unless I had to have the shot and knew that it was only going to be printed small or viewed online.</p>

<p>But sometimes the noise isn't a dealbreaker anyway if the image is clearly a low-light image. For that, I like the quality of the noise in the newer DSLRs (like the D90) better than the older ones.</p>

[ant_nio_gomes]

<p>David,<br>

Harvey focused a good point making the difference to pro bodies, but what is a quality can also become a weakness as pro bodies are likely to be used by pros and that can mean several things that you shall look after, as the body previous usage conditions and shutter count. Even the best have a maximum activations count and may require service, if not a new shutter.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Peter, I agree. How high of ISO do you find acceptable with D80/D2xx?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>First of all, we should not discuss high ISO for the D2X/D2XS and D200 together. The D2X maxes out at ISO 800 and as usual, results from the hightest rated ISO from Nikon DSLRs is rather poor. The D200 maxes out at ISO 1600. Therefore, native, the D200 is a stop better.</p>

<p>As a rule of thumb, I would use up to one-stop below the highest rated ISO on Nikon DSLRs. Since the D200 maxes out at 1600, I would use up to ISO 800. IMO, ISO 1600 on the D200 is quite ugly. The D80, D40X, D60, and D3000 use a very similar sensor as the D200 and they all provide similar results.</p><div></div>

[Gup]

<p>By the way, I believe the D2x uses a CMOS sensor. There seems to be some confusion on this.</p>

 

[DawsonPointers]

<p>Thank you Gup. I stand corrected.<br>

And thank you Shun for posting your image at ISO 1600. That has been my experience too with the D80. I love that camera (it was my first DSLR) and love taking photos with it in well lit situations. As a second body, I'm delighted to have it.</p>

[abbas_haider]

The main question was what are the different between those cams, well I would like to add D2H too.

 

D200 CCD sensor 10 MP mid pro dslr ( similar to D40x, D60, D80 in term of sensor only).

D2H & D2Hs CCD sensor 4.1 MP top pro dslr usedin high speedshotinf and sports 9 fps the s term is for upgraded .

D2X &D2Xs CMOS sensor 12.8 MP top dslr and the first nikon body to have CMOS sensor.

 

The second question was which one is the preference to have off course D2Xs as it is high ly relible. I am canon

shooter and I use some times my friend D200 and we are doing great with is sorry to hear that some could not get the

best out of it.

 

Coming back the diverted matter whether it's obsolete, not at all, obsolete to me is a dead body if you check eBay you

can see nikon F6 price is higher than D300. At the end all these cams are much better than my iphone camera

 

Below shot is taken with my nokia N95 asi was going to the plant and I wasn't caring my cam

 

Wish you all best

 

[mdma]

<p>I think David's question has been answered well, but I'd like to add an interesting tidbit - Although Shun hasnt used his D2X in 4+ years, NASA currently <a href="http://www.popphoto.com/gear/2011/07/how-does-nasa-get-nikon-d2xs-ready-to-go-to-space">are</a> and looks like they're only slowly <a href="http://blog.iamnikon.com/en_GB/d-slr/shuttle-photography-with-the-pros/">replacing them now</a> (see last comment from blog author: thermal blankets for the D3 were <em>under construction</em> at the time - June 2011. And a little more info <a href="http://blog.iamnikon.com/en_GB/tag/d2x/">here</a> about Nikons in space).<br>

Are they obsolete, as a photographic tool? My personal view is no. At <strong>low ISO</strong> they would likely produce better photos than my iPhone 4 or midrange Sony compact camera, and I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference compared to photos from my D3100.<br>

Would I buy one? Not really, because they represent poor value for money and a similarly priced D90/D5100 is more practical for most people. If I were to buy one: <strong>D2Xs</strong>. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Sawroop, NASA is a very special case. Since their equipment needs to go into space typically with no possibility to repair (or at least very difficult to replace/repair), and every ounce they put into orbit is very costly, sometimes they have regulation that nothing newer than 5 year old can be used. Everything they use must be well tested with bugs ironed out. As a result, any new DSLR won't meet their criteria. That is frequently why NASA is using very old electronics, not because they are any better.</p>

<p>For those of us who are earth bound, we have no such concerns.</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>I've owned multiple versions of all three of these cameras.</p>

<p>For comparison, I found that the D200 would go to somewhat higher ISO with better reproduction quality; the D2x and D2Xs fell apart at a little lower ISOs, BUT when the images fell apart the results could be wonderful and artistic. </p>

<p>However, I lost some amazing shots using a D2x and a a D2Xs that might have fared better with a D200 (on the street) and would have been easy shots for a D90, D300, a D5000 or newer camera.</p>

<p>Today, a refurbished D5000 which sells for just over $350 (and even is obsoleted by the D5100), which I think uses the same processing engine as the D300 of which I've owned about 9 editions as well as the D90, of which I've used or owned about four, can top all three of these older cameras easily, and the D5000 tops out for usable shots usually at ISO 2500 for 'street' shooting.</p>

<p>But the D5000 requires 'G' lenses, almost does not have any meaningful frames per second, has fewer shooting features (many processing features however) and so on. </p>

<p>If you're shooting sports and need frames per second, then take the D2Xs for highest frames per second and its crop sensor. The huge battery is heavy, but it also lasts and lasts and lasts. (The D2X I think came with a shorter amperage/shorter life battery of the same size/fittings, but I may stand to be corrected it may be possible to use the newer battery from the D2Xs with the D2X.</p>

<p>The D200 was a pretty fast frames per second camera if shooting sports in adequate light, (6 frames per second,I think I recall, maybe 5 frames per second) something that many of the more modern cameras of a lower level than the D300 are incapable of.</p>

<p>The D2X and D2Xs both are great for high frames per second shooting plus they both balance well with long and superlong teles though the combos are very large and heavy.</p>

<p>For portability, take the D200, but if you want 'heft' with a D200 and more reserve power, take the battery booster, though as I recall it won't boost the frames per second (unlike the D300's battery pack, used correctly).</p>

<p>A studio photographer I know still prefers to use his D2Xs at base ISO with lights because he's in love with the flesh tones he can get; that's entirely subjective to him. [Reputedly Fuji would do a much better job.]</p>

<p>With one of my D2Xs cameras at base ISO in Bryce Canyon I felt I got my best color shot ever, and I felt it was not the same color I felt I could have gotten with any other camera, but I could be wrong.</p>

<p>Colors from today's Nikons are somewhat more standardized; not idiosyncratic in my experience.</p>

<p>Any of these cameras, the D2X, D2Xs. and the D200, each takes wonderful photos in bright daylight, low ISOs, and there isn't much real difference between the 10 MPS of the D200 and the approaching 13 MPS of the D2X series.</p>

<p>If I were a studio shooter using lights, I would consider using the D2Xs for durability with all the bells and whistles; same with landscapes in bright daylight only.</p>

<p>The D200 is a camera I would own and shoot with today; I was just looking at some aerial shots from over Manhattan's Upper East Side. I shot last fall with a D200 and they look terrific.</p>

<p>The plain fact is that if there's enough light and you don't mind a smaller screen, the older cameras are still pretty good, starting with the D2x series and the D200s -- but I also took some wonderful photos with a D70; world class, some of them. </p>

<p>I'd still carry any of them if that was all there was nearby.</p>

<p>I wouldn't shoot with any of the on the Metro.</p>

<p>john<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>, I believe the D2x uses a CMOS sensor. There seems to be some confusion on this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gup, you're right, <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/28">the d2x had a CMOS sensor</a> but unfortunately high-ISO performance didnt improve until the d300. i had a d80 and 1600 was only slightly better than shun's sample. i could occasionally get decent 1600 results on a d80 but i tended to not go over 1250. high-ISO performance was a big reason i got the d300 and then d3s but obviously not everyone shoots like that.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Eric, the D2x did not have a CCD sensor....neither did the D2Xs.</p>

[Sycamoe]

<p>Just a quick comment on this noise discussion. I actually think my D200 does a pretty fair job up to almost 800. That's because in my head I'm comparing it to high speed film at 800, which I always thought looked pretty lousy. Obviously the newer cameras are superb to even 1600 or 3200, sometimes decent even higher. But the cameras out even 5 or 6 years ago weren't all that bad. I think we're all getting pretty spoiled with high iso performance now...just my humble opinion.</p>

[alex_zepeda]

<p>CMOS, CCD... doesn't make a whit of difference to me. I was just looking through some pictures I took with a Fuji F30. Hands down worse optics, but much, much better dynamic range than the D200. So, no, I don't think that a D200 will best a modern compact or high end smartphone camera. I paid about $450 for my D200 a few years ago... dunno what used prices are like, but I'd certainly look into spending $400 on a D90 or D300 instead if I were you. For the money that the D2whatevers are going for I wouldn't give them a second look unless you had some very specialized requirements (and if you did, you wouldn't be asking these questions in this forum).</p>

[russ_albion]

<p>Nothing wrong with the D200:<br>

Camera used: Nikon D200<br />Lens Used: Tamron 17-50/2.8<br />Shutter Speed: 1/25<br />Aperture: 2.8<br />ISO: 800</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>As long as we only check things in small JPEG images for web display, things are rarely wrong. As people say, the devil is in the details.</p><div></div>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Heck, I can take a great picture with a D1 and post it online and it'll look fine...</p>

<p>One other thing... when you are buying a 4, 5, 6 year old piece of electronic whiz-bang-ness, you are buying technology that is probably going to fail sooner than if you buy a 0, 1, or 2-year old piece.</p>

<p>As for the D2X and D2XS... again... many of those used cameras were used HEAVILY by pros who might not have been so gentle on them... Really... no offense, all, but buying cameras that old is just not wise.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>It took my nephew three new D90's to finally find one that worked (of course he had paid for one of those expensive replacement guarantees)...and then he sold it. His dad's D90 still has problems.</p>

<p>I'd feel better about a D2X with 100,000 actuations (that's about what mine had when I sold it a year ago). Not a mark on it either, and my one original battery never let me down! </p>

[Gup]

<p>"As for the D2X and D2XS... again... many of those used cameras were used HEAVILY by pros who might not have been so gentle on them... Really... no offense, all, but buying cameras that old is just not wise."<br>

Peter, my current D2x has less than 8000 actuations on it and looks like new. You get what you pay for in life, whether it's a camera or anything else. Of course many were used by pros, and many weren't. It's quite obvious before you pay for it which it is. I buy all kinds of old equipment, some electronic, some mechanical, and some of it very old. Who goes into a transaction with his eyes closed? Would you not buy a D3 or a D3s or a D4 in the future because it 'may' have been used heavily by pros? </p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>my current D2x has less than 8000 actuations on it and looks like new.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>that's great, but the chances of getting such a low-actuation cam from 5-6 years ago are pretty low. and the difference between a D2x and a D4 is not just a matter of usage but also a matter of less-archaic tech. put it this way: would you buy a Betamax VCR today? or a Commodore 64? even if they were 'lightly-used'?</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>You can take a really awesome photo with a 4 or 5 year old camera if you are a really awesome photographer... That is a fact...</p>

<p>But that doesn't mean it's wise to buy old technology. It isn't. Even if it hasn't been heavily used, it's older, and more likely to fail every year, based on the age of the components. That is an unfortunate fact.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Would you not buy a D3 or a D3s or a D4 in the future because it 'may' have been used heavily by pros?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would, in fact, never buy an old pro camera that had been heavily used (and if the person wasn't a pro, and bought one of those and only took a thousand pics a year --what were they thinkin?--, it probably is still not a good idea...), and I wouldn't buy any 4 or 5 year old digital camera ever. I'm not a pro and don't need a pro camera, so I wouldn't consider one anyway. I am an advanced amateur, like the OP...</p>

<p>...we've gotten way off here... The OP is an amateur. If he needed a pro camera, he wouldn't be asking about what old used camera to buy on the internet, would he...</p>

<p>So... logically, the D2XS would be an unwise purchase for him.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>You can have a brand new in box D2XS with a shutter that has never been used, but it will still have these limitations:</p>

<ol>

<li>No live view, which is critical for precise manual focusing</li>

<li>Small 2.5" LCD, inconvenient for image review</li>

<li>Horrible ISO 800 noise</li>

</ol>

<p>Even the D90, which has already been discontinued itself, will beat the D2XS easily in all of those areas, plus the D90 has basic video capability.</p>

<p>The last time I took my D2X to any international trip was 2007, before the introdcution of the D3 and D300. On those trips, I bring minimum 3 camera bodies, and I didn't even bother to bring the D2X as a backup in the last few years. In 2010/2011, I brougt the D700, D300, and D7000 with the D7000 as my main DX-format camera. Even the D300 is merely a backup. If I have to take a 4th body, it would be the D200; yes, I have one of those also.</p>

[brodeub]

<p>The D90 doesn't easily accommodate mf glass. One of the nice things about the D2x/xs/xh/xhs series is that it works well with manual glass, so you don't need live view for more precise focusing. If you're primarily using AF glass, the main trade-offs are high-ISO noise and dynamic range. So the degree of obsolescence is relative to the type of shooting you do.</p>

[vince-p]

<blockquote>

<p>If I could get an 18mp CCD body that would give good noise performance to ISO 1000, I would be happy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Harvey, I think you're describing a Leica M8/8.2/9. I wouldn't go above 1000, from what i've heard, but that's generally agreed to be the upper limit of good performance I think. (Correct me if I'm wrong... Actually, "correct me if I'm wrong" are the most unnecessary words on photo.net.) </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>The D90 doesn't easily accommodate mf glass. One of the nice things about the D2x/xs/xh/xhs series is that it works well with manual glass, so you don't need live view for more precise focusing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It sounds like you haven't tried precise manual focusing on the D2X. Mine does not have any KatzEye type focusing aid screen, and at least I have difficulty with it. Once I tried a friend's Zeiss ZF 50mm/f1.4 when that was brand new, and I got a bunch of slightly out-of-focus images with the D2X on a tripod.</p>

<p>The DSLRs I used today: D700, D7000, and D300, plus many I have tested: D3, D3S, D3X, D300S and now D800 can all meter with AI/AI-S lenses. When you need precise focusing, e.g. macros, long teles with static subjects, landscape, nothing beats live view.</p>