difference (D200, D2X, D2Xs)

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>So the degree of obsolescence is relative to the type of shooting you do.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>obsolescence just means 'replaced by a newer model', doesnt mean 'unusable.'<br>

occasionally you've have cases where newer tech is not better than old tech but that doesnt seem to happen much in the world of nikon DSLRs. </p>

[chip_chipowski]

<blockquote>

<p>obsolescence just means 'replaced by a newer model'</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, is that how you really use the word obsolete? If somebody asked you about the difference between a 2005 Chevy Silverado and 2004 Ford F-150, would you start by saying they're both obsolete?<br>

<br /><br>

I get it. Part of the definition says "no longer produced" but it also says "or used" and another definition is "out of date." If your only point is that these cameras are old models, then you could have just said that. But I think the word obsolete carries additional meaning and that your comment was something along the lines of "they are antiquated." That's fine. I disagree, but I understand where you are coming from. But I will not stand by as the true meaning of "obsolete" is rendered obsolete by all this loose language.</p>

[western_isles]

<p>I continue to use my D200 and buyers continue to buy images taken with it. It's a light ish camera compared to the others and does the job very well. It's particulary good with prime lens'. Cost wise I imagine you would pick one up for a reasonable amount of cash.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The D2X was designed to be a cutting-edge camera for pros. It is no longer cutting edge. It is no longer, functionally, what it was designed to be. Therefore, no matter how much you all love yours, it is technically obsolete. Still use-able, but obsolete. Owning one and continuing to use it? Very wise indeed. Buying one used at this point considering the alternatives? Not so much.</p>

<p>If I owned one, since I'm not a pro, I'd shoot with it till it died. It does, indeed, take amazing photos at base ISO.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Well, I own one but no longer use it. The D2X is great at its base ISO, which is 100, but I can easily see the difference between ISO 100 and 200 on the D2X. It starts getting poor at 400 and totally unacceptable at 800. In the old days I used ISO 400 print film quite often; today, I am so spoiled with ISO 1600 and 3200 indoors that the ISO 400 limitation is completely unacceptable now. Photography has changed a lot in the last 5 years.</p>

<p>And I wonder how I accepted that tiny LCD on the D2X (and of course no LCD for image review before).</p>

<p>P.S. You can see Nikon has been making tiny improvements. The main command dial on the D2X is flat (horizontal). Starting from the D3/D300, they tilted it a tiny bit for a slightly more comfortable feel.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, is that how you really use the word obsolete? If somebody asked you about the difference between a 2005 Chevy Silverado and 2004 Ford F-150, would you start by saying they're both obsolete?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chip, the definition of obsolescence was posted earlier in the thread. Comparing digital cameras and cars? that analogy is pointless, since there is no such thing as a classic or vintage DSLR. You are being nitpicky here and overly so.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Part of the definition says "no longer produced" but it also says "or used" and another definition is "out of date." If your only point is that these cameras are old models, then you could have just said that. But I think the word obsolete carries additional meaning and that your comment was something along the lines of "they are antiquated." That's fine. I disagree, but I understand where you are coming from.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chip, did you even read this thread,or do you just want to argue? the D2x in its time was a $6000 camera which has been superceded in some aspects by $600 cameras. that's just the reality of technology and consumer electronics. instead of a car analogy, think of home computers. would you want one from 2005 now, even if it was top of the line then?</p>

<p>if i had the opportunity to buy a mint D2x for $600, i wouldn't jump on it necessarily, since it only really shines at base ISO, as has been pointed out here. sure it's a big, rugged body but fairly limited for what it's supposed to be, an action/sports camera, because of ISO performance. i'm not much of a studio shooter, so performance in the field is important to me. for that reason, a D5100 might be preferable (especially since i already have a d3s, and a D2x isnt better than that at base iSO and certainly not better above ISO 400). as always, YMMV.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Eric - the OP asked about the difference between three cameras and opinions on which is preferable. You responded by saying all three are obsolete. That is the source of my disagreement. I think "obsolete" was a poor word choice. We can agree to disagree on the use of obsolete. </p>

<p>If you read my post, I said I understand where you are coming from. You don't seem to understand where I am coming from. With unlimited money, I would not buy any of these three cameras. I'd rather have a D3s, like you have. But we all make decisions based on limited resources. For a certain type of photographer on a budget, I don't think the D200 is obsolete. Yes, you could get a new, entry level DSLR with a better sensor for about the same money. I agree you would be getting a better sensor, but you would also be losing certain features and build quality. This is the basis for my opinion that the D200 in particular is not obsolete as a tool to make photographs.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>I think "obsolete" was a poor word choice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Put me down as one of the people who, when confronted with someone wanting an inexpensive and capable DSLR who is obviously not a pro, thought it was the PERFECT word choice...</p>

<p>Again... if you have one of these excellent but out-of-date cameras... keep using it, you'd be a fool not to. Keep making great photos.</p>

<p>If you are purchasing a camera, I think you'd be a fool to consider a D2X over a used D300 or D90 or, in some cases, even a D5100.</p>

<p>Let's not forget, the camera companies are making cameras that do stupid-high ISOs because people want them. <em><strong>Don't</strong></em> buy a camera in 2012 that only goes to 800 or 1600, and those not very well!</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>You responded by saying all three are obsolete. That is the source of my disagreement. I think "obsolete" was a poor word choice. We can agree to disagree on the use of obsolete.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chip, with all due respect, that is most certainly your pride talking. the choice of words won't change the objective reality here, that the D200, D2x, and D2xs are all...wait for it... <strong>obsolete</strong> cameras. that's not opinion, that's fact.if you need to take a moment to let that sink in, do so.</p>

<p>Ok...ready? What i mean by that is this: anyone buying today, given the choice between any of those three, at MSRP, and a current body, at MSRP, would almost certainly choose a newer body. Even if you had the choice between a new D2 series body at used prices and a d3100 or d5100 at new prices, the newer cameras might be a better choice because of features such as video, live view, and high-ISO performance., not to mention performance above base ISO. in fact, the scenarios where a D200 or D2x would be preferable to a newer camera are few and far in-between: studio set up @ base ISO or sports/action/wildlife w/ perfect, non-variable natural lighting (yeah right), never necessitating an ISO above base. other than those limited uses, newer bodies would do a much better job at most tasks. Sorry to say, but there are very few credible arguments otherwise, since technology has clearly advanced since 2004-2005.</p>

<p>That is also why your car analogy doesnt work: there havent been too many significant advances in automobile engine/motor technology in consumer trucks since 2005. the same cannot be said of camera sensors. I believe the D2x was nikon's first attempt at a CMOS sensor. It should have had better high-ISO performance than it did. when nikon engineers tweaked it, they came up with the d300. further tweaks led to the d7000, with a d8000 and/or d400 looming. those cameras will be two or 2 1/2 full generations ahead of the d2x/d200 when they appear.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the D200 in particular is not obsolete as a tool to make photographs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chip, Nikon just launched the d4. before that camera had even shipped, people on this forum had declared the d3s 'obsolete' -- even though it was still Nikon's best FF sports camera at that time. did that make me sell my D3s and buy a D4? no, i'm still using it, because it still does what i need it to do, and probably will continue to do so for a while. i'm also still using my d300s and d90 (though both of those are less future proof than the D3s,if not already obsolete).</p>

<p>my point is that <em>none</em> of these cameras are unusable "as a tool to make photographs." For example, the Wednesday thread had a pic from someone using a D2H to photograph snowboarding--a situation where the fast fps is still very useful, despite the 4mp sensor (which would be an issue if you were trying to shoot for a sports magazine or print at large sizes).</p>

<p>a few years ago, i had a chance to get a new D200 at closeout prices--$600. i thought about it, but passed, since i still have my d80, which has the same sensor, so the benefits to me would have been minimal. i havent sold or given the D80 away because i actually prefer the its 10mp CCD to the d300/d90's12mp CMOS at base ISO for landscape pics. it just has a different 'look.' Nikon no longer makes DSLRs with CCD chips, so if you have one of these cameras, it's perhaps worth holding onto for that reason, at least as a backup.</p>

<p>Chip, i never said <em>"anyone with a d2 series camera should stop using them immediately, because there are newer models out and you are foolish and out of touch with reality for using an older camera."</em> heck, there are d40s and d70s still churning out good pics today--but for me, it would be hard to take a step backwards and live without the bigger LCD and numerous other features of newer cameras.</p>

<p>I also realize i'm lucky to live in a county where upgrading cameras and buying new models frequently is an option. in some parts of the world, this is not the case--and photographers still make do with what they have. shoot, i know pro shooters still using Canon 20 and 30d's--although the 5dmkii is more common. at the end of the day, it's not (just) the gear, it's what you do with it.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Eric, we clearly have different opinions on the word obsolete. I was trying to be amicable with my last post. Feel free to keep writing about how it is an objective fact that all three of those cameras fit your definition of obsolete.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>Chip,it's not just 'my' definition, if you have been reading what others have said on this thread, you'd see that. i think where we differ is that you dont want to accept that your beloved D200 fits the definition of obsoleted,i.e., <em>replaced by a newer model</em>. i dont have any such attachment to a D200, so therefore i dont have a problem with seeing things the way they actually are and calling it as i see it.</p>

<p>in any event, i'm not saying you can't continue to shoot and get good results with a D200/D2x/D2xs, but they are clearly not state of the art cameras in 2012. that's simply not a debatable point. if you want to argue over semantics, fine, but it's not going to make that high-ISO performance any better, the LCD screen any bigger, or somehow substitute for live view and video capabilities. if that doesn't matter to you, then, by all means, continue to use your D200 till it does. no skin off my back either way.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, <strong>you could get a new, entry level DSLR with a better sensor for about the same money. I agree you would be getting a better sensor</strong>, but you would also be losing certain features and build quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Build quality, ok. <em>losing certain features?</em> let's see, compared to current entry level models (D3100/d5100) a D200 has: ... less resolution (check); no live view (check); smaller, non-tilting LCD (check); drastically-worse high- ISO (check); no video (check). gee, it sure looks like i'd be losing a lot of features <em>with a D200</em>. and that's just at entry level. of course, if i step up to a d7000 or D300s i get better AF and/or metering+build quality+two control wheels+built in motor+ 8fps. and if i jump to FF i get even better high-ISO performance and all the other high-end features. but if i remain stuck in 2004, i get...uh, what exactly? oh yeah, the ability to meter with legacy glass. and build quality. thanks, i think. that's great for garage sale bargain hunters who only need something which will meter with AI/AI-s lenses, but well, uh, obsolete for 'most everyone else.</p>

 

[richard_barron]

<p>http://richardbarron.net/cameras/2012/04/05/the-megapixel-war-is-over-and-has-been-for-a-while/</p>

[Gup]

<p>Good link Richard. I disagree that the D2x is not acceptable at anything higher than base ISO. 400 ISO still makes me money. In my film days everyone pushed 400 film if necessary. Yes, it got a bit grainy. Some considered a grainy image to even add character on occasion. I find the charm of my D2x to be in the using of it. I love holding it. I love the heft of it. I love the confidence I feel throwing my bag into my canoe or an overhead compartment or the trunk of a car that it will survive a bump or two. I love that its construction seems perfectly mated and balanced to my 2.8 zooms. I love knowing that I have still never even come close to creating images I have admired that others here have created with theirs. Maybe that's it. I don't consider my own skills to have surpassed what the D2x can achieve. I thought moving to a D700 would change my mind, but it didn't. I still shot with flash when indoors. It took better 'out of the camera' jpegs, but I never shoot jpegs. It was lighter to carry, so that's what I used it for if I knew I'd be walking. I held off buying any of the newer crop bodies as they were introduced so I have no experience with any of them. The D2x was my first digital and I admit to having a sentimental attachment to it. Meanwhile, now that some of the results have been posted for the D800 I can honestly say I am no closer to buying one than last month. I am still wanting a D4 with more resolution. I've actually started looking at sailboats... </p>

[kenray]

<p>The D2x is more than adequate for my needs and skill. At my age (77) it will probably be the last DSLR body I ever own. I prefer pro level bodies for their robust build and features and DX is my preferred sensor format as it gives me added benefits of lense range. I would imagine from what I read the D2x is the last of the Pro DX bodies. Luckily they are of good enough build quality they will probably serve me well for my remaining life as I am strictly an amatuer and do not shoot prodigious quantites of images,I suppose that's a hold over from so many frugal years of film use.. I don't need the high ISO's it seems most require today. To me 200 ASA was high speed and 400 ASA was blinding speed. Mostly I shot 64 ASA film and was totally satisfied. So 400 ISO on the D2x seems a gift of high speed. Luckily I live in Southern Arizona and we are blessed with copius amounts of sunlight and at my age my night vision precludes much interest in the night hours. So when the price is factored into what you get in the D2x I can't turn them down. </p>

<p> </p>

[benhai_zhang1]

<p>As an obsolete version of man I just picked a D200 for $400 USD. My strategy is to get the better body when they are obsolete :). So what I lost, nothing but keeping this expensive hobby enjoyable. I may likely upgrade to D800E 6 years later. I like the reasonable high mileage body. Cause they are being used and suppose to be good and loved ^_^.</p>

<p>My wallet won't be obsolete by cameras again :)</p>

 

[chris_krohm]

A lot of funny posts I read here...

 

1. The D200 is less noisy from ISO 800 or higher than a D2x (newer cameras are a lot better though).

2. A D2x is a lot sharper than a D200. It is actually a lot sharper than a D300 or D3. Both produce less lines than a D2x. Only the current

generation of Nikon surpassed the D2x in that regard.

3. For portrait mode you cannot forget about a D200 as the MB 200 battery grip is rubbish. Nikon however fixed this issue with the grip for

the D300.

4. I got of rid of the D200 because it doesn't produce the same sharp images as a D2x and the contrast produced is IMHO much better

(but that's my opinion) and the battery grip drive me nuts.

 

Difference between D2x and D2xs: Better angle of the display and that's the only difference in terms of hardware that you will notice. You

can update the firmware of the D2x and everything will be a like in D2xs incl. 1/3 stops of ISO.

 

Is the D2x obsolete today? No. It's the last pro body for DX. Forget about the D5100 or D7000. Their viewfinders are like toys. You have

to look through it in order to understand.

The image quality of those cameras is better though.

 

In comparison to the D300:

The images produced by the D300 are not much better at high ISO because the noise reduction makes the images really soft and you

lose a lot of sharpness.

However the D300 has ADR and a D2x hasn't. But for those who shoot RAW it is not a problem.

But only comparing the JPEG engine? Well then the D300 gets the edge.

 

For high ISO shoots you need a D3 / D700 or the current generation. Forget the D90 / D300. These don't do high ISO. They do noise

reduction.

 

That said: Most of our users don't have the monitor to really pixel count and see the difference in sharpness anyway

Forget about comparing 5x7 prints. Blow them up by at least 20x30 and see how good cameras were in 2005.

These cameras are not obsolete. The newer ones just became better.

[merrill_newell]

<p>I've travelled all over Europe, the States and Canada with my D200 and it's been an absolute rock star DSLR! It's very durable and will take a heavy beating! I am still shooting a D2Xs for professional work and it's an extremely solid and reliable camera! Depends on your use for any of these bodies however. I have access to a pretty good pool of Nikon bodies and I'd say, in order of preference, I'd shoot my D3s, then D300s, then D2Xs, then D200 which is pretty much par for the course. Though having said that, I much prefer the ergonomics of the pro bodies. Any of the D2xxx DSLRs will produce great images even today. A D2Xs would be my choice out the ones you've mentioned in your original email and couple that with Lightroom 5 and you can't go wrong! Lightroom can correct or deal with at least 90% of any issue you're having with a D2xxx sensor. Remember that the shutters are rated for 300,000 actuations in the Pro bodies, 150,000 for pro-sumer bodies so even bodies with 50,000 plus actuations is generally good to go; most have far less. Beats spending $4000 - $5000 for a D3/D3s!</p>