| 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 vs D3
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
 |
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 10:35 AM on 02.01.08 |
->> I completely understand that the D3 is the prefered body for low light conditions, and its full frame sensor makes it attractive to a lot of shooters, but how do the two compare for daylight sports coverage, spot news and stock studio work?
Since the classified ads seem to have several D2's showing up at reasonable prices, would I be doing myself a disservice by picking one up for primarily studio and controlled lighting conditions? |
|
Ed Wolfstein, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Burlington | VT | USA | Posted: 10:44 AM on 02.01.08 |
->> Hi Kevin.
You might want to consider a D300 over a D2X.
My 2 cents...
Cheers!
- Ed. |
|
Daniel Brayack, Photographer
|
Charleston | WV | USA | Posted: 10:52 AM on 02.01.08 |
->> Kevin, I was thinking the same thing as Ed...I was just emailing a friend talking about a back-up body....D2x or hmmm D300....that's a tough call!
A D2x at 1500-2000 is still a mind blowing camera. |
|
Lee Love, Photographer
|
Herndon | VA | US | Posted: 10:59 AM on 02.01.08 |
->> I agree with Daniel, the D2x is a LOT of camera and especially for under 2k. While I am sure the D300 is a good camera done' forget the D2x was Nikon's flagship camera and is built like a tank.
I would not hesitate to pick up a D2x for your application. |
|
Marc Browning, Photographer
|
Wichita | KS | | Posted: 11:10 AM on 02.01.08 |
| ->> For what there selling for, I'd go with the D2X much better built, plus the files are still stunning. I've use a D300 & would still use my D2X, that's why I'm not selling my 2 D2X's that I still have. One with 185,000 shots on it. |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 11:24 AM on 02.01.08 |
->> I LOVE my D2X!
It's the camera I chose over all the other ones I have that seem to collect dust-and it has over 278,000 actuations.
Debbie |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 11:25 AM on 02.01.08 |
| ->> In a CONTROLLED environments I'd go with the D2x for all the reasons already stated. |
|
Scott Rovak, Photographer
|
St. Louis | MO | USA | Posted: 11:32 AM on 02.01.08 |
| ->> I now use the D3 & D300 and sold my D2X but it is a wonderful camera for daylight and studio use. For the price you would be getting a tremendous tool built for professionals. |
|
Jason Orth, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Lincoln | NE | USA | Posted: 3:56 PM on 02.01.08 |
->> Scott Kelby's review of the D300 and his take on it vs. the D2x may be of some value.
http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2007/archives/811
And, yeah I'm having the same dilemma. The D2x would be great in the dusty environments I shoot in but.... |
|
Kevin Johnston, Photographer
|
Oden | MI | USA | Posted: 8:21 AM on 02.02.08 |
->> Thanks for the link Jason. I shoot in the snow and around water a lot so the durability of the D-300 is my main concern with it. Since most of that shooting takes place in daylight I am thinking the D2x might be a good selection.
Of course since subjects are all moving if the D-300's auto focus is better ... hmmm. Its never an easy choice. |
|
Fj Hughes, Photographer, Assistant
|
Baltimore | MD | USA | Posted: 9:29 AM on 02.02.08 |
->> Let me start by saying that I love my D300. That is something I couldn't say about my D200.
As mentioned above, my main concern is the general durability of the camera. The D2x and D3 just feel so robust in your hands. I wish that Nikon would make a camera with the features of the D300 and a similar construction to the D2x/D3. I have always been frustrated by the price points of Nikon cameras. I don't why they do not make a mid-price($2,500 to $3,500) professional camera. The jump from $1,700 to $5,000 is a big one. Maybe they should have kept the D200 where it was and made the D300 this camera. I'm just sayin'.:-) |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 9:54 AM on 02.02.08 |
| ->> Fj I couldn't agree more. The D300 should have been the D3h built into a D2/D3 frame. They could have lost the grip and just priced the D3h at the same price point more or less (more I'm sure). Once everything is considered for me the choice is to go to the D3 just based on my D2 / D200 experiences. |
|
Jock Fistick, Photographer
|
Brussels | Belgium | | Posted: 11:59 AM on 02.02.08 |
->> This is funny - I'm trying to sell my D2x so I can buy another D3 - so Kevin let's talk :-)
But if I were in your shoes I would look at it this way - concerning the D300 - for about the same amount of money you would be getting newer technology - a new in-warranty camera with zero shutter actuations - better image quality / lower noise - better AF - plus all the nice little improvements - larger LCD screen (it is really nice) better menus - self cleaning sensor (which I wish my D3 had) and the list goes on. Now, if the prices drop another $500 on the D2x - I might change my tune as it is still a very solid camera. |
|
Drew Broadley, Photographer
|
Wellington | NZ | New Zealand | Posted: 6:52 PM on 02.03.08 |
->> "As mentioned above, my main concern is the general durability of the camera. The D2x and D3 just feel so robust in your hands. I wish that Nikon would make a camera with the features of the D300 and a similar construction to the D2x/D3."
D3H anyone ? :) |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 7:20 PM on 02.03.08 |
->> Drew said "D3H anyone ? :)"
I think that's what Eric was saying (2 post above yours)
Still, for $2000 (with the grip) the D300 is one heckuva value.
(on another note) I shot a basketball tournament yesterday and over the 12 hours of shooting I did notice 8-10 other people in the stands and on the sidelines with D300's...I also noticed that they all day slow 4-5.6 glass as well. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 10:46 PM on 02.03.08 |
->> Yeah Delane that was what I was driving at.
I think that Nikon still needs to address the pj market with a drop it in the mud spray it with cheap champaign and keep on shooting kind of machine. I just don't think that the D300 is in the same league as a true D2/D3 body.
I agree that $2k for the combo is a good price point and even a great price point for a backup but I would go $2,500-$3K for the D300 guts in the D3 body.
My D2Xs had the shutter replaced around 110K clicks and now has 304,000+. My D200 had the shutter replaced at 35K clicks, had ALL the circuits, and guts minus the shutter replaced about six months ago and has started shooting black frames again and is also doing the ever popular low batt / shutdown even with fresh batteries.
The D200 is a nice camera but not if you are going to pound on it in the field. I just can't help but feel that the D300 may suffer from the same 'little brother' short comings. |
|
Kristopher Wilson, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Liverpool | NY | USA | Posted: 11:55 PM on 02.03.08 |
->> I asked Anne Cahill (Joe McNally's wife and Nikon rep) the same question at a workshop for Syracuse photo students late last year. She told me that I couldn't go wrong with either one, but if she was faced with the choice, she would go with the D300 simply because of the new technology pumped into it.
I had a hard time believing that since I had spent the past two-plus years shooting with the D2X, but the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. Just because a particular model was king of the hill in the past doesn't mean a newer lower-level model can't outperform it. After all, it's not the new cameras that push the prices of the older ones down, it's the technology in them. And the new generation of technology used for the D3 is the same that was applied to the D300.
New model, new and more advanced technology, and the same size sensor; unless you're planning on taking the camera out and punishing it, I would have no qualms about going with the D300, and that's not just me saying that. |
|
Derrick den Hollander, Photographer
|
Melbourne | VIC | AUSTRALIA | Posted: 3:01 AM on 02.04.08 |
->> I had the same quandry - it boiled down to shooting at 8fps in crop mode and low res of the D2xs, to shooting 8fps at full res with the D300. There are lots of other advantages to the D300, like it's better low light performance (the list kind of goes on) so for me the D300 was the right choice.
I love the D2xs, but I just found shooting at low res and undermarginal lighting getting very noisy pictures that I could'nrt pull the trigger on one.
The D3 is the benchmark, and it is a joy to use, but I do miss the 1.5 multiplication factor - and the price. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|