Just ordered Nikon D2Xs

[iammagi36]

I think it best that you do some reading online. This information is repeated many times over the internet instead of having us all repeat this here. Grab a mug of coffee, do a google for Nikon D3 and enjoy reading.

The biggest news is that the D3 has industry leading INCREDIBLE high ISO noise control (amongst other things like incredible FPS rates, etc...). If you need to ask what ISO noise is or how it is important, I will be frank... you do not need the D3.

Also do not expect to get any kind of discount on a D3. It is so revolutionary and just newly released that there are people that have been on waiting lists at least 3-6 months BEFORE the camera was even released and they did not even know exactly what the manufacturer suggested prices would be!

Low noise at high iso to me means I can use available light in more situations which is good because I hate using a flash. Am I right?

 

[RyanLilly]

I know that you have just had a lot of info and opinions thrown at you, but Ill ad just one more.

Basically, The D300 will out perform the D2x with a smaller price tag.

And the D3 is the best thing since sliced bread.

So, in terms of the absolute greatest camera the D2x is in third place.

You may have a large budget, but keep in mind that lenses that are of matched quality to the any of the cameras discussed will cost in the ~$1000-$2000 range.

 

[JodieO]

Low noise at high iso to me means I can use available light in more situations which is good because I hate using a flash. Am I right?

Exactly.

 

[JerryPH]

Just to play devil's advocat for some fun...

Is a larger LCD really that important

If you have to ask, for you perhaps no, but for someone that wears strong glasses, and no longer needs to see distorted images in the viewfinder or press their glasses up against it, that is a recepie for a happy camper.

is sensor cleaning really that important

I personally do not think any of them work well anyways... but the next time you see a spec on your pics and have to spend money and time cleaning it when a press of a button may do it for you for free and immediately... well it has just paid for itself. I feel this is more one of those "features" that is neither good nor bad.

who cares about live previews Id rather look through my viewfinder

That is you, bue any photojournalist that needs to shoot above his head will be thankfully using this feature. I wish my D200 had this feature, I often needed it to get that pic in a parade blocked by people or obstacles in front of me that were avoidable by shooting overhead. On the D200, this is impossible to do reliably... its one big guess.

and a 51 point autofcus seems overkill, my D200 has 11 and thats enought for me.

A quote from a D200 user that had a chance to use a D300 for a day, thanks to Nikon: "I did not think the 51 point autofocus was a big improvement... but in fact it made my 11 point system on the D200 feel lethargic and about as fast in comparison as my D200 is to my 1990 P&S..."

There is a lot more to the 51 point setup than just having 51 points. It is focus accuracy as well as a blinding speed difference to acheive focus. If you have ever taken a pic of anything that moves, you would appreciate this.

Yeah the D300 may shoot 8FPS which is nice but I dont think any of the things listed would put it in the same category as the D3

It is not in the same class... else it would be a lot more expensive, or the D3 a lot cheaper. The D3 is a professional level camera for people that KNOW how to take advantage of it.

I still feel the D300 is more inline with the D200, better but more in line.

The D300 is the evolution of the Dx00 line based on the improvements it has over the D200, thats true... but in the same breath, it easily outperforms the D2x line quite handily in several areas, it is that much better.

The D3 is very much a revolutionary camera. It has gone over and above any improvements not just over a D2x, but it has set new industry standards in the process. There are so many changes and improvements that one cannot compare the 2 quite so easily anymore.

Consider the D300 as the new pro-sumer line or top end dSLR for the masses.

The D3 is for professionals and it deserves the best glass out there and just like a highly tuned race car, it demands an experienced hand to get the most out of it.

Can anyone use a D3? Sure, but the effect would be similar to putting a grandmother into a formula race car... not very spectacular... lol.

Concerning the flash... like it or not, there are times that you MUST use one to get the shot. Having this camera is NOT a guarantee that you no longer need one, it does mean that your lower light shots come out a lot cleaner and with less digital artifacts. Oh... the D3 comes with NO flash at all, not even to use as a commander. That I think is a mistake, one that doesn't exist on the D200 or D300... which both have an integrated flash that can be used as a trigger up to 3 compeltely different sets of off-camera strobes for the Nikon CLS system. As to how effective CLS is... well, thats a topic for another thread.

My next camera shall be of the FX line (D3 or D4), and I get to sell my D200 and all the lenses but two becuase they are in the DX format.

 

[Coldow91]

I would no buy from 1 way photo

http://www.resellerratings.com/store/1_Way_Photo

 

[Snyder]

If you didn't already have the D2X which one would you choose?

Let me just put it this way I have a D3 on order.

 

[itoncool]

If I don't have any DSLR now, then I still put the D200 as an option to buy for the price consideration but absolutely not the D2x(s), because with the price over D300 and 99% for sure Technical Knock Out in first round, it's a definite not an option to go today.
D3 is another league, it's my first option, I don't mind with the price...

BUT, if you already purchased D2Xs, and you couldn't return it, then you should be happy for that because it's maybe not a wise buy today but it's still a darn great camera...

 

[Keith Gebhardt]

for somthing as simple as interior or exterior shots in houses.. im sure a d40x or d80 would have been more then suitable. i say a d200>d2x>d300>d3 are way advanced for somthing as simple as getting a picture of a bedroom.

and as far as lenses. id simply get a nice wide angle lense. nikkors 50mm f/1.8 would be great. and it would only set you back about $115

 

[D-50]

50mm is not ecen close to wide angle, you'll need something close to 10mm for interior real estate shooting.

Also Jerry PH when I see a dust spec in a photo it takes about a second to clone it out in photoshop. Also when holding a camera at arms length above your head good luck getting a decent view of the screen. I am very confident in my ability to blindly aim a camera in that type of situation. Put it this way if your holgind a camera in that situation the shot has a 50/50 chance of being decent with or without live view. I just thinik the D300 is indeed a better camera than the D200 but in consideration to the original topic of this thread should not be put into the same class or consideration as the D3. Aside from "D" and "3" they really have little in common. Ohn yeah they are both made by Nikon

 

[JerryPH]

Also Jerry PH when I see a dust spec in a photo it takes about a second to clone it out in photoshop.

Thats all well and good if you only take one shot. I take a good 500-600 on any given weekend and average 30-50 per day if I pick up the camera even for an hour. That becomes a royal and unecessary pain in the long run. A lot of wasted time that could be solved addressing the issue instead of fixing it in each picture!

Put it this way if your holgind a camera in that situation the shot has a 50/50 chance of being decent with or without live view.

... and if you are a photojournalist, that means you get a 50/50 chance of being paid for the work.

Like I said, you have opinions based on how you work and play... but its hardly the definitive way that everyone else works, thats all I was trying to say.

I just thinik the D300 is indeed a better camera than the D200 but in consideration to the original topic of this thread should not be put into the same class or consideration as the D3.

Again, that depends on the person. I agree that they are different classes of cameras, but as to the choice of which to buy D3 or D300, that has to depend on what each person wants... often a lot more than what they need. If everyone bought only what they needed, I bet that 50% of us here would be using P&S cameras... becuase we do not *need* anything more.

Want... well, thats another game all together.

 

[Tiberius]

I just thinik the D300 is indeed a better camera than the D200 but in consideration to the original topic of this thread should not be put into the same class or consideration as the D3. Aside from "D" and "3" they really have little in common. Ohn yeah they are both made by Nikon

And once again the entire conversation goes over your head. No one has said the D300 is in the same league as the D3; we've said that it's in the same league as (and in fact is superior to) the D2X.

 

[Neuner]

Being that I sell homes I will be using the camera for photographing interiors of houses so I figure I'll need something with a wide angle. Perhaps with a zoom.

As a current buyer, I get very frustrated and disappointed when pictures make the rooms and yard look bigger than what they really are. I've talked to several other buyers and real estate agents and they've told me that most people who see images of a home that make the house look bigger are greatly disappointed when they walk in the front door. They're minds are then set negatively for the rest of the walk-through no matter how wonderful the house is. I'd therefore recommend not getting too-wide of a lens.

I know from trying to sell my home that you want to include everything in the pic but this translates to a not-to-scale type photo. Instead what I've done is highlight certain features that were appealing and draw interest to the home encouraging a walk-through leaving some features un-covered. Now, when buyers come and see these hidden features they are surprised and it sets a positive attitude.

For photos of my home I used the wide end of my zoom lens which is 24mm. I have the D80 so you have to consider the 1.6x crop. I wish I had a slightly wider lens so I didn't have to squish myself back into corners.

 

[iammagi36]

As a current buyer, I get very frustrated and disappointed when pictures make the rooms and yard look bigger than what they really are. I've talked to several other buyers and real estate agents and they've told me that most people who see images of a home that make the house look bigger are greatly disappointed when they walk in the front door. They're minds are then set negatively for the rest of the walk-through no matter how wonderful the house is. I'd therefore recommend not getting too-wide of a lens.

I know from trying to sell my home that you want to include everything in the pic but this translates to a not-to-scale type photo. Instead what I've done is highlight certain features that were appealing and draw interest to the home encouraging a walk-through leaving some features un-covered. Now, when buyers come and see these hidden features they are surprised and it sets a positive attitude.

For photos of my home I used the wide end of my zoom lens which is 24mm. I have the D80 so you have to consider the 1.6x crop. I wish I had a slightly wider lens so I didn't have to squish myself back into corners.

I've done over 1500 real estate transactions and for the past few year have trained Realtors and real extate offices. I know that whatever gets someone out to see the property is a good thing. Sure a small amount of people may not buy if they come out and it doesn't meet their expectations but if they don't come out to see it at all you have zero chance they will buy it.

I would need a shorter lens for things like virual tours and tiny spaces like bathrooms. I'm not looking to make a small room look big. All listings have room dimentions in my area anyway.

Would a 17mm zoom lens be good? And being that I'm getting the D3 how does that change things? Do I need to convert people's answers to my format when asking focal length questions?

 

[iammagi36]

Instead what I've done is highlight certain features that were appealing and draw interest to the home encouraging a walk-through leaving some features un-covered. Now, when buyers come and see these hidden features they are surprised and it sets a positive attitude.
quote]

Although when it comes to service oriented aspects of business I believe in under promising and over delivering, but when it comes to selling a home it's a numbers game. The more showings, the more offers. It's definitely not a good idea to hold anything back. You never know what little feature might strike someone's fancy. I even like to give them potential remodeling and upgrade ideas just to get their creative juices flowing.

 

[Neuner]

Although when it comes to service oriented aspects of business I believe in under promising and over delivering, but when it comes to selling a home it's a numbers game. The more showings, the more offers. It's definitely not a good idea to hold anything back. You never know what little feature might strike someone's fancy. I even like to give them potential remodeling and upgrade ideas just to get their creative juices flowing.

Whatever works for you is fine. I'm just giving you my experience as a buyer and seller. With the bad market in our area we've had 14 showings in 10 days and we are priced higher than average. The real estate agents that bring clients are impressed with the quantity of showings. 90% of the buyers said they thought the pictures did a wonderful job showing an incredible home, but once they viewed the home they said it didn't do it justice. We have 3 coming back for a second showing. It only takes 1 for a signed contract. More showings=less $/hr if you figure salary wise. I work efficiently.