| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
D2x or D300????
Vasiliy Baziuk, Photographer
 |
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 1:50 PM on 01.07.08 |
| ->> Can any one compare and contrast their experience with the Nikon D2x vs. Nikon D300....???? |
|
Alan Schwartz, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | U.S.A. | Posted: 2:38 PM on 01.07.08 |
| ->> Hi Vasiliy, What do you wish to know. The D300 has better ISO capabilities, but I like the D2X focusing system better, at least so far. Once I've become more accustomed to using the D300 I may change my mind. The D2X is a little bigger, so it fits better in my hand, no need for the battery thingy. The batteries on the D2X are terrific, still not sure about the D300. The D300 has a much nicer lcd on the back. The controls are about the same, although some of the controls (ISO for example) are on the top of the camera. I like this better on the D300. Oh, the D300 is under 2K. |
|
Jonas Carlson, Photographer
|
Stockholm | SE | Sweden | Posted: 3:53 PM on 01.07.08 |
| ->> I own a D2x and a D3, and I would say go for the d300. The high ISO is absolutely amazing. |
|
Hassel Weems, Photographer
|
Locust Grove (Atlanta) | GA | USA | Posted: 1:37 AM on 01.08.08 |
->> The D300 is far and away better for high ISO noise. I have not used it for any low ISO work so I do not know how it compares there.
I shot in a venue last week that I have previously shot with the D2X. Available light exposures with the D2X at 800 were marginal as far as noise is concerned. With the D300 I was shooting at 2500 and noise was not an issue at all. I was able to stop down a little and still have faster shutter speeds. I was very happy with how the camera performed.
The D2X handles better, but that could be because I've used the D2X since it came out and I just got the 300 last month. |
|
Shelley Cryan, Photographer
|
New England | CT | USA | Posted: 9:59 AM on 01.17.08 |
| ->> Any updated opinions on the D2X vs. the D300? I'm especially interested in "real world" high ISO performance, and what D300 users miss about using their D2X. Thanks. |
|
Mike Brice, Photographer
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 10:36 AM on 01.17.08 |
| ->> I have the D3, D300 and D2X, and I would shoot with the D300 before the D2X, given a choice, especially if I thought I might need ISO higher than 800. |
|
Vasiliy Baziuk, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 3:08 AM on 03.01.08 |
| ->> thanx everyone.... i just got the D300.... i think it was a really wise choice! thanx again for the help! |
|
John Howley, Photographer
|
Circleville | OH | USA | Posted: 1:40 PM on 03.11.08 |
->> For you D300 owners, how does it work with sports? I'm loving what I read about the high ISO capability but wonder about how fast the focusing is.
I'm fearing my D2H may be wearing out and will need replaced soon. A D3 just isn't going to happen financially but I could manage a D300. |
|
Matt Brown, Photographer
|
Fullerton | CA | USA | Posted: 1:48 PM on 03.11.08 |
| ->> Get the D300, Played with it for over two months, Very nice. You can't go wrong with it. I shoot Basketball, football, swimming,golf and volleyball. |
|
Vasiliy Baziuk, Photographer
|
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 10:22 PM on 03.16.08 |
->> D300 with the MB-D10 Multi Power Battery Pack is a work horse of a camera! and in my opinion is a better value than the D3.... i think Nikon knows that D3 is in direct competition with the D300 so they are marketing D3 more than the D300 b/c they can sell the D3 for more. However, you can save $3000 and have a camera that is just as good as the D3.... just compare the "Tech Specs" on Nikon's website and you will see it for your self.
After talking with various photogs in real life, and here on SS, and seeing the "Movies" at http://www.nikondigitutor.com/eng/d300/index.shtml on the features of the D300 the choice was obvious that D300 was the way to go. I have the D300 now and couldn't be any happier! |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
 |
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 1:20 AM on 03.19.08 |
->> I've got to make a similar choice. I had a D2h which became a D2x after a long story which I won't go into here. Because of problems with the D2h, I got a D70 for "backup". Then the D200 came out, and it replaced the D70. So, I've got a D2x and D200, and then got sold on the D3 which I just got. I don't want three cameras, so either the D200 or D2x is going to be sold. I know I "ought" to sell the D200, and keep the D2x, but as a backup camera, and one for taking on international trips, I've gotten used to the smaller size and weight of the D70, er, D200. The D200 is better as a "backup" that hopefully won't be needed, and also more travelable than the D2x, but I've got to sell one or the other.
If it was to be my only camera, I'd certainly prefer the D2x over the D200, and probably over the D300 as well. I guess it's like asking if you'd rather be driving a new Ford or a one year old Mercedes.
I'm probably not the one to give advice here.... but even though the technology on the D300 is improved, the D2x I think is overall a better camera. It's rugged, it can take more abuse, it's sealed better, it has great auto-focus, it gets better battery life, but it's limited to lower ISO speeds if you don't want noise. It has audio recording (which I find invaluable), and I think it's more of a "pro" camera. |
|
John Howley, Photographer
|
Circleville | OH | USA | Posted: 9:05 AM on 03.19.08 |
->> I did buy a D300 last week and broke it in over the weekend at the boys state basketball championships. I was very happy with how it handled. My only real problem was a couple of times where it seemed to be a bit slow getting the focus and firing.
The battery performed great. I shot about 2,300 frames (and chimped through everyone) and the battery still had about 10 percent of its charge left.
Overall, I'd grade it out around 98% satisfactory for the weekend.
It's next big test will be at the McDonalds All-American game in Milwaukee next week. I'd imagine in an NBA arena, it will do pretty good. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 12:42 AM on 03.25.08 |
->> I've been thinking about this discussion a lot lately. I guess I'm coming from a different viewpoint though. I recently got a D3, which is the closest I've ever come to having my dream of the "ultimate camera". But, that left me with a D2x and D200. I can't afford to have so much money tied up in three bodies, so I sold the D200 (would have sold either it or the D2x, but the D200 went first).
The thing is, I figure anyone doing this seriously has to have a backup camera body. If the unthinkable happens (and it's happened to me too many times to ignore it) and your main camera stops working, if you don't have a backup you're in deep trouble. My question is what to have for a backup.
Now that I'm down to the D3 and D2x, I figure the D2x is just going to become the backup. The D200 would have been smaller. A D80 would be smaller yet, and even more so for a D40. If it's something I'm not going to have to use, smaller and lighter would be a big plus.
However, this gets back to the question raised in this discussion - what's better, a "pro" camera that's slightly older, or a "pro-sumer" camera that's newer? Technology has certainly helped the D300, as it's better at higher ISO, has a larger viewing screen, and from what I've heard, is a wonderful camera. On the other hand, a "pro" camera will focus more quickly, has a faster "burst" mode, a better battery, and a lot of other features that a consumer camera body doesn't. So, which is better? I guess that depends on what features are most important to you. Either could be "better" depending on what kind of photos you take.
I guess I need to start a discussion here about what others do for a backup camera. I remember doing a search once, but couldn't find the advice I was looking for. |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 12:59 AM on 03.25.08 |
->> I am picking up my D3 tomorrow. I debated over and over on what to do. I need a camera that will enable me to shoot at high ISO-6400 would have come in handy many times. However, I really do not want a full frame camera. So many times, as soon as I bought the latest camera, a newer better one was announced. In the past it didn't bother me too much since my husband was using my extras (and I had extras/duplicates of everything) but he has since gone back to his roots of shooting Canon. 6 pro bodies over the years at a total of $30,000 which was maybe $6000 in resale. BUt, I can't really complain since they have all made me money and caused little to no heartache.
So I went back on forth on this for fear that Nikon will announce the D3X or whatever they call it-the D3 in DX format. I debated and thought maybe I'd get the D300 but I hated the D200 so much and I am just skeptical about the D300 and as an everyday shooter, I knew the D300 would not with stand life in NYC.
So, for now, I am planning on using the D3 when I am shooting a concert, in a courtroom or some place else that I know will be dark and my beloved D2X will be used for everything else.
Now of course, since I haven't used the D3 yet, this may all change but right now, I just can't see myself abandoning my D2X which has over 300k actuations. |
|
Marc Gold, Photographer
|
Reston | Va | usa | Posted: 2:22 PM on 03.25.08 |
->> Just had to chime in. I am shooting a d300 and D3, as well as a D2x that sits around.
The D300 with grip , faster than D2x, better viewfinder, LCd, battery life and much improved AF. ISO 3200 beautiful.
I shoot , hockey, baseball, swimming, golf, lacrosse and just about everything else. The d300 does great. My only complaint is after about 20,000 frames it has the no power syndrome.
D3, amazing camera, ISO 6400 is just fabulous this camera is the best DSLR i have ever touched. It is fast , great battery, lcd, viewfinder and the ISO 6400 produces beautiful shots.
The D300 is a very worthy successor to the D2X, The D3 is the top of the line. Either camera will produce great photos. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 1:37 AM on 03.27.08 |
->> I went to the r/c track today for a test session. The racer guys were trying out a new racetrack alongside Homestead Miami Speedway, and I was trying out my D2x to see what it was like after having so much fun with the D3.
I was rather surprised. Here's one photo I took while playing around trying to follow a car. It's cropped to about half its original size:
http://www.sgrid.com/2008/march/homestead-test-4.jpg
I was wondering about resolution and all that, so here's a copy of a small part of this image at 100% size:
http://www.sgrid.com/2008/march/homestead-test-6.jpg
Maybe after many many hundreds of wasted images trying to pan with an r/c car and get the car sharp, with wheels and ground blurry, I'm finally getting to where my batting average is a bit more reasonable. Usually nothing is sharp, and I just dump it with all the hundreds of other images I'm not satisfied with.
I know why I got the D3 (full frame sensor, higher ISO, larger screen, and a zillion other reasons) but truthfully, I probably could have done just about everything I want with the D2x.
Rightly or wrongly, I still think that if possible, it's "better" to have a "pro body", whether it be Nikon or Canon. I know I could have saved a lot by going for the D300 instead of the D3, but I keep thinking that overall, the D2 or D3 series are "better" cameras.
Debra - I'm pretty sure that Nikon will indeed release a D3x in a year or so, and that it will be "slower" than the D3 sports camera, but have many more megapixels. However, I'm not sure if I really need any more megapixels. The largest I ever post a digital image is 800 pixels wide, and the largest of my printed images in magazines is never more than a two-page spread. Please send me an email in a month or so as to whether you're still using your D2x or if the D3 has replaced it. I can't think of any logical reason why I might ever prefer using the D2x over the D3.... but there must be some that I haven't considered yet. |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 2:25 PM on 03.27.08 |
->> Marc,
what is the "no power syndrome" at 20,00o frames?
Is this something common with the D300? |
|
Marc Gold, Photographer
|
Reston | Va | usa | Posted: 11:37 AM on 03.28.08 |
->> Debra,
The "no power syndrome" the d300 and previously the d200, when using the battery grip, would with no warning, right in the middle of a burst or shoot, would flash no power or low battery. The camera would be dead. This is totally random, it has been talked about here. All over many camera forum's.
My d200 started acting up after about 15000 shots, it would just go off, turn the power switch on and off, it works, sometime later off again.
Well now the d300 has started 2 due the same thing. In feburary, we were shooting Hockey 3 days a week, 70-200 was glued to the d300 and it started to go off, no warning. Low battery signal flashing. Shut camera off - on it works. On a brand new camera this should not happen, so I sent to melville, I am NPS, I know the head off service, they send the camera back it's WORSE, cannot even turn it on. So back again, just came back yesterday. This weekend will use for a baseball tournament in Richmond, we will see what happens.
I love the d300 and may buy another, but the power issue is a problem.
Let me add, It is so random, I do not think Nikon knows what causes it. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|