Upgrading to D2x

[StandingBear1983]

what about a new D7100? is it that much more expensive then a D2x? - or i would go for a D300s if not for the D7100, all those have all metal bodies, nothing will happen to either of them if you bash a skateboard into them or they fall on the pavement...something will happen most likely to the lens but not the body...but that's in any camera you get.

 

[djacobox372]

Friend has one shoots photos for transworld skateboarding and his is fine.. 8 fps at 7mp.. Im not using it for what most people would, it will always have a fish eye and in dangers way shooting skateboarding. I picked one up very cheap locally today and really really enjoy it. btw D2x was announced in 2004 and released in 2005 so technically 8 years This camera will be very nice and affordable and is still cheap enough where a flying skateboarding hitting it wouldnt make me too sick to my stomach.

But it's still not an upgrade to the D3200.

It is if you're shooting sports, 8fps >>>> 4fps

 

[Ballistics]

No it isn't. It's a mere matter of preference.

 

[KmH]

or i would go for a D300s if not for the D7100, all those have all metal bodies,

The D7100 does not have an all metal chassis, like the D300s has.
The D7100 only has a metal top and back plate, while the front and bottom of the D7100 chassis are plastic.

You can scroll down and see the D7100 chassis here - D7100 Nikon Digital Camera| Digital SLR Camera from Nikon

Here is the D300s - http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/d300s/en/reliability/

The metal chassis is mainly for heat dissipation and the blocking of RF interference.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

I haven't read any of the reply posts, but this is coming from someone that has owned a D2X. The D2X is certainly not an upgrade to your D3200. In my own opinion... I would hold onto the 3200. You say it won't make you sick to your stomach if a skateboard hits it, but the D2X and D3200 are in the same price ball park.

Please don't take this offensively, but you'd be absolutely crazy to drop the 3200 for a D2X... and once again... this is coming from a guy who owned a D2X, and just sold it about a month ago after owning it for about 2 years.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Friend has one shoots photos for transworld skateboarding and his is fine.. 8 fps at 7mp.. Im not using it for what most people would, it will always have a fish eye and in dangers way shooting skateboarding. I picked one up very cheap locally today and really really enjoy it. btw D2x was announced in 2004 and released in 2005 so technically 8 years This camera will be very nice and affordable and is still cheap enough where a flying skateboarding hitting it wouldnt make me too sick to my stomach.

But it's still not an upgrade to the D3200.

It is if you're shooting sports, 8fps >>>> 4fps

This isn't Pro baseball or football he is shooting. He isn't catching a man running 20 mph and catching a ball doing 60mph... He isn't catching a 160mph ball come off of a ball bat, or a 99mph fastball.

You're talking about kids doing 10 mph on a board with wheels on it... the D3200 is every bit of capable of capturing shots that he wants...

Shot with a D5000 (4 frames per second continuous shooting):

 

[MK3Brent]

OP just wants a big looking camera.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

OP just wants a big looking camera.

I agree with that 100%. It seems he wants the "full frame" look without the guts. The D3200 is over twice the camera as the D2X.

If he wants a big looking camera, he should look into canon's line up. All of them are huge.

Snapsort shows over a 40% image quality increase in the D3200 over the D2X. The D3200 has more dynamic range, and MUCH better high ISO performance. This is simply a no brainer. To go with the D2X is simply absurd.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon_D2X

 

[Derrel]

I cannot agree that a low-cost D2x is "absurd"...the D3200 has the worst viewfinder a person could ever be saddled with....dim, an utterly crappy image, due to its cheapie pentamirror based el-cheapo finder...the D3200 also is handicapped with a laggy shutter, very slow mirror return, slow latency...in general, the D3200 is a bargain-basement, cheapy body. The D2x on the other hand has the best APS-C viewfinder of ANY crop-body ever made. Large image, bright, high-contrast image, crisp, and clear finder image. It was a $5,000 body with no expense spared in manufacture. It also offers 2.0x crop mode with the push of a button. It also focused wit AF and AF-D lenses, and meters with manual focus lenses. It has a deep buffer. And the battery life is simply un-fricking-believable.

As recently as yesterday, Thom Hogan said that at base ISO, he thinks the D2x is STILL a better imager than the D7000...the color the D2x produces is almost unrivalled..it was so good that Nikon was forced by popular demand to produce "Nikon D2x color profiles" for D3-series owners....

As Thom wrote, just yesterday, "#7 D7000 versus #10 D2xA bit of a surprise, actually, as at base ISO I'd judge the D2x to still be better, and it's certainly fielding a far better team of features. But the newer D7000 wins 81 to 19 (%). Faux Bobby: "My wife thinks I'm outdated sometimes. What the hell am I going to say to her? I just nod my head and keep right on. Same with some teams and their coaches."
That so defines the D2x. Those of you still shooting it at base ISO know what he's saying. There's something very nice about D2x images shot that way. Lots of acuity, good (but not great) dynamic range, some kind of micro contrast clarity that we lost with some of the newer sensors, and Nikon's most tweaked color of any DSLR camera (so much so that they had to come up with D2x Picture Controls to please the D3 crowd). Used right, the D2x just keeps going, like faux Bobby. But the newer D7000 managed to beat it. Doesn't matter, the D2x walked off the court proud and will keep playing with anyone who wants an outdoor game."

The D7000 did beat the D2x in the opinion polls that Thom is conducting as part of his "March Madness" columns.

I still have my D2x...it's an instantly responsive body, and the wide-area AF covers almost the entire frame...the AF system in the D2x is much,much more-capable than that in the D3200 (and I like it better than the AF in my D3x). The D3200 is, imho, kind of a crap body. Sure, it does high ISO better than a D2x, but it's a slug, and the finder image is utter $h!+.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

I cannot agree that a low-cost D2x is "absurd"...the D3200 has the worst viewfinder a person could ever be saddled with....dim, an utterly crappy image, due to its cheapie pentamirror based el-cheapo finder...the D3200 also is handicapped with a laggy shutter, very slow mirror return, slow latency...in general, the D3200 is a bargain-basement, cheapy body. The D2x on the other hand has the best APS-C viewfinder of ANY crop-body ever made. Large image, bright, high-contrast image, crisp, and clear finder image. It was a $5,000 body with no expense spared in manufacture. It also offers 2.0x crop mode with the push of a button. It also focused wit AF and AF-D lenses, and meters with manual focus lenses. It has a deep buffer. And the battery life is simply un-fricking-believable.

As recently as yesterday, Thom Hogan said that at base ISO, he thinks the D2x is STILL a better imager than the D7000...the color the D2x produces is almost unrivalled..it was so good that Nikon was forced by popular demand to produce "Nikon D2x color profiles" for D3-series owners....

As Thom wrote, just yesterday, "#7 D7000 versus #10 D2xA bit of a surprise, actually, as at base ISO I'd judge the D2x to still be better, and it's certainly fielding a far better team of features. But the newer D7000 wins 81 to 19 (%). Faux Bobby: "My wife thinks I'm outdated sometimes. What the hell am I going to say to her? I just nod my head and keep right on. Same with some teams and their coaches."
That so defines the D2x. Those of you still shooting it at base ISO know what he's saying. There's something very nice about D2x images shot that way. Lots of acuity, good (but not great) dynamic range, some kind of micro contrast clarity that we lost with some of the newer sensors, and Nikon's most tweaked color of any DSLR camera (so much so that they had to come up with D2x Picture Controls to please the D3 crowd). Used right, the D2x just keeps going, like faux Bobby. But the newer D7000 managed to beat it. Doesn't matter, the D2x walked off the court proud and will keep playing with anyone who wants an outdoor game."

The D7000 did beat the D2x in the opinion polls that Thom is conducting as part of his "March Madness" columns.

I still have my D2x...it's an instantly responsive body, and the wide-area AF covers almost the entire frame...the AF system in the D2x is much,much more-capable than that in the D3200 (and I like it better than the AF in my D3x). The D3200 is, imho, kind of a crap body. Sure, it does high ISO better than a D2x, but it's a slug, and the finder image is utter $h!+.

LOL, you can try to compare the D2X with the D7000 all you want. I will tell you that any day of the week, the D7000 walks all over the D2X. Like I said. I've owned both. I'll also say this... both shooting in RAW at base ISO... the D2X doesn't hold a candle to the D7000 on the same glass. You can pull as many websites of other people talking about it all you want... However, I'm talking from 100% absolute experience in using the two camera systems.

The D7000 has been an absolute DREAM compared to anything I have owned thus far. That's not really saying much, because the best camera I have owned before the D7000 was the D2X... However, it's not even in the same ball park as the D7000. Not even close. My D5000's IQ at base ISO is just as good as the D2X.

The only two set backs I can find to this day with the D7000 are the over lubrication issues (I've had to send mine to Nikon twice so far to have the sensor cleaned because of the grease getting all over it), and the back focus problems (which really isn't a problem at all, considering manual calibration on each lens is easy, and the camera automatically loads each calibration when you change the lens.) So, it boils down to the over lubrication problems. That's the only flaw I've had so far with it.

Going beyond the base ISO... the D7000's high ISO performance is absolutely amazing IMO. Snapsort shows somewhere in the low 1000's, but I shoot mine at 1600 ISO regularly with very minimal noise. As said before, this camera by far exceeds my expectations of it.



However, that's not even the comparison at hand. The comparison was over the D3200. Regardless of "Dim" viewfinder issues. This guy claims he's shooting skaters, which would be in broad daylight anyway. So a dim viewfinder wouldn't even be a slight problem in the first place. You're talking dynamic range, the D3200 is capable of capturing near 2.5 f-stops MORE dynamic range than the D2X, wich is going to be a PHENOMENAL luxury when shooting mid day skaters, because of the vast array of harsh lighting situations and large amounts of shadows. It's got a much stronger color depth, and will perform in high ISO situations over an f-stop more, which is crucial if you ever need it.

It's slow because it is a DX Camera with no focus motor. Of course it's going to be dog piss slow. Hell, the D2X had a MUCH faster AF than my D7000 ever will. However, unless I'm shooting high speed sports, that's not really going to matter anyway. Yes, you are right, with the D3200, there are going to be times he misses shots due to the fact that the D3200 will not focus in time. However, for the most part, It will not be an issue. They aren't speeding up on him. I also know that a slow focus system is very capable of capturing skateboarding shots with ease (Hence the reason I posted a picture I had taken with my D5000 above, which is MUCH slower to focus than the D3200.)


All in all, as said before, you can try and disagree if you want, that still doesn't change the fact that the D2X is a lesser camera than the D3200. If I had someone offer to trade me a D3200 for my D2X before I sold it... you better believe I would have been on that bandwagon.

 

[MitchStrp]

Keeping the d3200 never said I was getting rid of it and the D2x is not for me.. I picked it up off a buddy instead of ordering first to see if I liked it and its not mobile like I thought and not as sharp as I wanted. With that being said I think I am going to hold off on buying a new body invest in some better glass and enhance my skills before going up to the next body and hopefully when I am ready and the wallet agrees it will be a full frame but it will be a while.. thanks so much guys for looking out for me ha. Means a lot, the TPF is were its at for information and advice!

 

[Derrel]

Yeah...you're more familiar with Nikon cameras than Thom Hogan. Hilarious. The D3200 is a toy Nikon. I am fully aware of the differences between a flagship Nikon like a D2x or even a D1h, and a beginner-level, $549 camera like a D3200, or even a high-end entry-level body like the D7000.

 

[MitchStrp]

Yeah...you're more familiar with Nikon cameras than Thom Hogan. Hilarious. The D3200 is a toy Nikon. I am fully aware of the differences between a flagship Nikon like a D2x or even a D1h, and a beginner-level, $549 camera like a D3200, or even a high-end entry-level body like the D7000.

Just trying to take some photos homie, we are all students of this hobby and sarcasm to make someone feel less superior is unwanted here. after 17,909 post.. you would think you would have caught on.

 

[Mach0]

Just trying to take some photos homie, we are all students of this hobby and sarcasm to make someone feel less superior is unwanted here. after 17,909 post.. you would think you would have caught on.

I think he is replying to Aaron.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Yeah...you're more familiar with Nikon cameras than Thom Hogan. Hilarious. The D3200 is a toy Nikon. I am fully aware of the differences between a flagship Nikon like a D2x or even a D1h, and a beginner-level, $549 camera like a D3200, or even a high-end entry-level body like the D7000.

Derrel, I respect you a lot, and you have a TON of photographic knowledge. I'm not attempting to degrade or insult your intelligence by any means. I know that you're aware of the differences in Nikon models.

My point is, you brought some guru's opinion into this conversation and startin waiving it around as if it carried the same weight as fact.


I don't care what his opinion is. I've used both cameras at base ISO.... and I can tell you from experience, that his opinion is wrong. Best of all, you wouldn't know, because you have only used one of the two camera systems. Where as, I have used both. Which is my direct point. Until you have owned and shot with both, you're really in no position to be comparing the two. Because, see, I have seen the difference in quality with my own eyes... you have simply read someone's review about it.


Trying to compare the D2X to the D7000 isn't even a slight comparison, they are in two separate leagues, and the D2X doesn't hold a candle. That's 99.9999999999999999999% of the reason I sold it in the first place. After purchasing my D7000, there was no use in keeping the D2X around.