D2xs vs D300

FieralDS · Aug 9, 2010

Well it appears my D70 is about to hit the dust and it's time to look for an upgrade. I was looking through some stats regarding other Nikon cameras (I'm only looking at nikon cameras, so no other suggestions please.) Both the D300 (not the D300s) and the D2xs are in similar price ranges. The D2xs is obviously the older of the 2 and has been known to have some noise problems at higher ISOs, but is a full frame camera. The D300 is newer, but a non Full frame camera. Both shoot at 12.3 Megapixels. I was wondering what the opinion is of those who have had experience with the models, (preferably with both).

The other option is to wait a long time (potentialy 9 months+) in order for the price of the D700 to go down and purchase one. I'd love to wait till the D700x comes out (the 24.5 Megapixel sensor is very VERY tempting to wait for. I'm thinking of getting the D300/D2xs in order to hold me off till it is released and i have enough money for it).

Currently i'm leaning towards the D2xs because it is a full frame body, which (if i am not mistaken) will allow me to purchase lenses that will work well on a d700x body.

With all of this in mind, what are ya'll suggestions?

Thanks!
-DJ

shaunly · Aug 9, 2010

Not sure where you got your info, but the D2xs is NOT a FF sensor. It's the 1.5x crop sensor. The D3 was Nikon's first FF sensor.

shaunly · Aug 9, 2010

Nikon D2X Review: 1. Introduction: Digital Photography Review

FieralDS · Aug 9, 2010

Oh, Thank you for the info. So the D3 series and the D700 are the only full frame bodies that Nikon carries? Also, isn't the D2xs still an F mount lens type?

FieralDS · Aug 9, 2010

Also, would you reccomend the D2Xs or the D300?

Derrel · Aug 10, 2010

Depends what you want the camera to be "best at". The D2x has a better viewfinder than the D300--sharper,clearer, probably the best crop-body viewfinder ever made by Nikon. It was a $5,000 body. The D2x handles very fast...response times are excellent, AF in wide-area multi-spot can track moving subjects quite well. The D2x can autofocus almost anywhere in the frame, quite well.

D300 is a $1700-class body. It's nice, but it's not a pro flagship camera, but it does have a lot of nice features. Overall, the better sensor is in the D300. The better "body" is the D2x.

FieralDS · Aug 10, 2010

Derrel said:
Depends what you want the camera to be "best at". The D2x has a better viewfinder than the D300--sharper,clearer, probably the best crop-body viewfinder ever made by Nikon. It was a $5,000 body. The D2x handles very fast...response times are excellent, AF in wide-area multi-spot can track moving subjects quite well. The D2x can autofocus almost anywhere in the frame, quite well.

D300 is a $1700-class body. It's nice, but it's not a pro flagship camera, but it does have a lot of nice features. Overall, the better sensor is in the D300. The better "body" is the D2x.

Would you say the biggest difference in the sensors is the amount of noise at higher ISO levels?

I typically shoot at low ISO. I'm always in bright environments. Most of my photography is done outdoors during the day, so i don't worry as much about noise at higher ISOs

Sw1tchFX · Aug 10, 2010

If you're not going to go over ISO 400, the D2x is a great camera.

But except for the body characteristics, the D300 is better in every way.

Do yourself a solid and go for the D300, or D90+good lenses.

djacobox372 · Aug 10, 2010

D300 has the better sensor, better battery life, better screen, better resolution, better iso performance, shoots just as fast, has similar build quality yet weighs a lot less.

FieralDS · Aug 11, 2010

but also costs more. Haha. I see what you guys mean. I'll prolly end up going with a D300 and get a MB-D10 Grip. It will end up costing me about $300 more, but it will prolly yield better results. All of this is acting as a sort of intermission as I wait for Nikon's D700x, or whatever they will call it when it releases. That as really been all its come down to now. Price. I Can get a D2x for close to 700 with under 50,000 actuations, or i can get a D300 for about $1000 but has far less actuations.

djacobox372 · Aug 12, 2010

FieralDS said:
but also costs more. Haha. I see what you guys mean. I'll prolly end up going with a D300 and get a MB-D10 Grip. It will end up costing me about $300 more, but it will prolly yield better results. All of this is acting as a sort of intermission as I wait for Nikon's D700x, or whatever they will call it when it releases. That as really been all its come down to now. Price. I Can get a D2x for close to 700 with under 50,000 actuations, or i can get a D300 for about $1000 but has far less actuations.

No, the last I checked (a couple minutes ago) the price for a used d300 is about the same as a used d2x, if anything it's easier to find a used d300 for <$1000.

If you want to save $$ as you save up for a full-frame, consider a d200. It performs similarly to a d2x but can be had for around $450 used.

shaunly · Aug 12, 2010

djacobox372 said:
FieralDS said:

but also costs more. Haha. I see what you guys mean. I'll prolly end up going with a D300 and get a MB-D10 Grip. It will end up costing me about $300 more, but it will prolly yield better results. All of this is acting as a sort of intermission as I wait for Nikon's D700x, or whatever they will call it when it releases. That as really been all its come down to now. Price. I Can get a D2x for close to 700 with under 50,000 actuations, or i can get a D300 for about $1000 but has far less actuations.

Click to expand...

No, the last I checked (a couple minutes ago) the price for a used d300 is about the same as a used d2x, if anything it's easier to find a used d300 for <$1000.

If you want to save $$ as you save up for a full-frame, consider a d200. It performs similarly to a d2x but can be had for around $450 used.

If you're planning on going full frame then my as well save your money and just stick with your d70

MrLogic · Aug 13, 2010

If 99% or more of your images are taken at ISO 100, then get the D2Xs or D2X.

I upgraded from the D90 (which is at least as good as the D300 as far as image quality goes) and image quality is markedly better, but ONLY at ISO 100. Dynamic range may be somewhat lower, but it just looks better, and I *think* it "holds" more detail, too.

ISO 200 does NOT have that same quality to it.

FieralDS · Aug 13, 2010

So after a bit of prowling, reading reviews, and scouring the internet for deals, I settled on a relatively new (as far as d300's go) D300 with an MB-D10 grip for under $900. It has been well taken care of and maintained, and the shutter count is sub 15k if i do remember correctly.