Reason to buy D2X instead of D200?

Discussion in 'Nikon DX DSLR' started by Jeff Mims, Dec 4, 2005.

  1. Jeff Mims

    Jeff Mims

    May 25, 2005
    Mississippi
    I've not read of one unhappy DX2 owner. It, is...from every review I've read (including end users) a superb camera. The D200 looks to be a superb camera, at a substantially lower price.
    So is there a reason to spend $4500+ on the DX2 or wait on the D200?
    Do you guys take the approach that the DX2 is a pro camera, meant for many years of pro/advanced amatuer use? In that, it will not always be the leading edge tech camera, but that's rarely important with serious users. The serious users need a camera that will meet their needs, and do so for considerable time. In that respect the DX2 could be expected to provide many years of service.
    I don't have to have the latest, cutting edge tech. I do want a camera that can provide a few years of service. Meaning, both reliablity and being technologically advanced enough. Best way I know to compare is to computers. I try to buy computers that or more than I need at the time, but will meet my needs for several years. So the next month after I buy a computer, and a newer faster, more memory/HD comes out, I don't run out and upgrade. I have a Dell that is more than 5 years old, and I only upgraded because of the max out of memory (512).
    With that in mind, the DX2 looks like a good investment. It's been market proven. It's also $3000 more than the D200.
    I read Ken Rockwells commentary...err..review:smile: And he thinks there is no reason to buy a DX2 now that the D200 is out. So do you guys concur?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 9, 2005
  2. Steve S

    Steve S

    Feb 1, 2005
    SE Florida
    It's not out yet,

    and it hasn't been publicly field tested. Will it fits your needs as well as a D2X? Only you can decide that. As you must know,Nikon had to leave out a number of things vs the 2X, to keep it at a competetive price.
     
  3. jfrancis

    jfrancis

    May 8, 2005
    Orlando, FL
    I think the D200 will likely fill most peoples' needs for several years to come, and so if there are no "must-have" features that pull you towards the D2x, the D200 will probably be a good choice. And actually, there have been quite a few unhappy D2x owners - at least initially - because of alleged focus issues. A number of these may have been solved by the recent firmware upgrade. I didn't think I had a problem before, but my D2x's focus is definitely sharper now.
     
  4. I'm supposing (all anybody can do thus far) that it will be analogous to a D100 v. D1X comparison.
    The D100 captures were, of course, quite similar to D1X shots, yet many pros and serious amateurs found it appropriate to spend considerably more on the D1X.
    Wait, handle both, decide for yourself. Asking us is, in reality, unlikely to be of much help in your eventual decision.

    I'd be quite likely to buy a Hummer over a Jeep. I love my D2X. Maybe someday I'll wish I'd waited for the D200 considering the fact that My D2H was serving me perfectly adequately. Ultimately it doesn't really matter when your photos are viewed, provided you do your part. Our technology, thanks god, has taken us to a point where the camera does not matter 95% of the time for 95% of shooters.

    BTY....you referred to the D2X as an "investment". I wish. :biggrin:
     
  5. twig

    twig

    745
    May 23, 2005
    you didnt mention what camera you have now.
     
  6. My friend, what's a a DX2? I've never heard of that before? Is it supposed to be better than a D2X? :tongue:
     
  7. I wish the D2X was so amazingly awesome that I didn't want for more. If I could only have one camera, it would be a toss up between the D2X and the 5D.

    But with the D200 on the horizon, I sure think I would wait and see what early adopters and reviewers have to say.

    It's all relative of course. Most all current DSLRs are incredible compared to what we had not many years ago.
     
  8. strobel

    strobel

    428
    Apr 30, 2005
    Algonquin, IL

    It's the adult version!
     
  9. Jeff Mims

    Jeff Mims

    May 25, 2005
    Mississippi
    Well I was using the word investment while thinking of the high cost. Maybe not the best description. Yet, it is an investment that can pay off in a lot of ways besides financial. If one is happy using the camera, and can trust the camera...that is a good return on an investment.
    When DVDs first hit the market, I bought a Sony 7000 player. At the time, there weren't many players out there..and none less than $500. The Sony was $999.00. The return I got from my investment was many...many...hours of use viewing DVDs. Never had a problem with the player, still have it..still works. So I bought something, that I couldn't sell for a profit now, but it really brought satisfaction to me and my family.
    That's what I was thinking, but expressed poorly, when I said investment in regards to the DX2. I could say investment in regards to the D50, but I was also considering that nearly 5k for a camera body isn't just peanuts.
    I've had Leica M6...and thought it was super expensive at 3k (body/lens)..but boy did I enjoy using that camera. (I don't focus all that well with the Leica any more, and have been AF for years). There was nothing magic about the camera, but I felt comfortable with it..knew it to be reliable, and trusted it. Made a lot of nice (subjectively speaking) photographs with it.

    I don't *have* to have a DX2, but there are many features I like about it. Now the D200 comes along, and has several of the same features..though less over all. I'm wondering does the DX2 have enough to justify $3000 for me. I know you guys can't answer that question (what's best for me) I'm just trying to find out what some of you may be thinking.
     
  10. Jeff Mims

    Jeff Mims

    May 25, 2005
    Mississippi
    Ahh yes..I recall some complaints about focus issues now, more so over at Nikonians (is that site still up?) than here. Of course, I realize that forum posters are a minority and might not represent a significant percentage either way (bad DX2 or great DX2) but it does seem like the DX2 has been an enormously successful camera.
    The people who've had no focusing issues seem very pleased with their DX2.

    There's just something about a product that you buy, and are just extremely pleased with. Whether camera, auto, DVD player or whatever. There are just some products that are just pleasurable to use.
     
  11. I got my D2X in August. 2 reasons.

    1: No waiting. By the time the D200 is readily available in the UK (if the D70 was anything to go by) I will have been shooting for 6-9 months with the D2X.

    2: Once I had the thought that I might get one rather than wait, it was irresistible.

    The D2X price has dropped now in the UK by £200 to £300 since I bought. I regard this as a very fair price to have paid for the last 3 months of pleasure.
     
  12. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  13. Steve S

    Steve S

    Feb 1, 2005
    SE Florida
    The "new" Cam 1000 is untested

    For some, the focus speed of a camera is going to be the deal maker/breaker. For others, is won't make a bit of difference. If you're a birder or a sports shooter, this issue is going to be an important one. So, Jeff, what do you most like taking pics of?
     
  14. Jeff Mims

    Jeff Mims

    May 25, 2005
    Mississippi
    I have a D70 at present, first DSLR...but not first camera. Not to bore you endlessly:smile: but:
    I've never been a full time pro. I have been a weekend warrior type, paid work for weddings, portraiture. I've experience with medium format cameras (Hassy & Mamiya) and both Canon and Nikon 35mm SLRs, along with a Leica M6. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm a great photographer...just that I have some experience.
    In 35mm film days, I preferred using the pro level body, with lower level backup and good glass. For example...F4/8008 combo...later..EOS1/630/A2.
    It's not snob issue with me, I just liked the pro level cameras, for a variety of reasons.
    When digital came along I was in the EOS system. I was determined to stay with film. My daughter wanted a digital camera for a birthday...and the rest is history. I was actually a little overwhelmed at the time, and kind of burned out with results I was getting from film. I didn't want to shoot slides all the time, and local print labs were mediocre at best.I sold all my equipment and took a break.
    When I went digital,I started with digicams...and went from there My first DSLR was a Nikon D70. I didn't want to start off with a huge investment in one system over the other in digital. I went with the D70 cause it was cheaper than the Canon 20D. I enjoyed the D70 so much, I couldn't see any reason to even try the Canon. Not knocking Canon..I was just happy with what I had.
    Now I'm at the point I want to build a nicer system, because I'm serious about photography again. I was about to start back doing some paid work this past June, but a family tragedy kind of put things on hold for a few months.
    Anyway, I realize neither the D200 or the DX2 will make me a better photographer, but I do want the features they have over the D70.
    I apologize for the lengthy response, but thought it might give you some perspective. In short, I'm neither the second coming of Ansel Adams or a complete neophyte. Just somewhere in the middle, but mainly I've rediscovered the joy and fun of photography..and want to squeeze every last bit of pleasure out of it.
     

  15. OK..now we are thinking alike.

    Investment in:

    quality of life.
    memories.
    family/friend photo favors.

    Believe me, I'm with you.

    I'm no pro.
    My camera is an investment in my joy of living.

    When I had my D100 I always wanted a D1X.
    I have a D2X and find it very unlikely that I'll be remorseful about my "investment"....ever.

    Wait. Handle both. If it's budget-able I suspect you'll want a D2X even though the D200 is more camera than you or I need. Heck, in reality my D100 was everything I needed for 99% of shooting.

    Live. Invest in that life. I do.
     
  16. bpetterson

    bpetterson Guest

    I got one of the first D2X delivered.
    It has performed very very well.
    With the firmware upgrade even better.
    You do need proglass for best performance.
    So if you can afford it, get it.

    I am getting the D200 cause it is smaller, lighter and has an onboard flash. Also if you cover the Nikon name with gaffers tape, you may not be a target.
     
  17. Jeff, I have a D200 on order, initial plan is to replace my D70 with the D200. This will give me much better compatibility with my D2H control-wise. Now, for me, this will also give me a chance to test this against my D2H for focus speed, tracking aquisition and noise issues at higher ISO's. The trick, for me, is to decide which features are "different" that make a difference to what I shoot. My primary subjects are "moving targets", birds, animals and athletes, as opposed to static subjects. My list of "differences" is as follows:

    Price - no contest, D200 wins hands down, but then so does the D50, so this only becomes a factor if all of the technical differences have been resolved.

    FPS Rate - D200, 5fps at its fastest, D2x, 5fps "normal", 8fps HSC. This is a feature that I really wish the D200 had, but I can see why this was left out, if for no other reason than to be a differentiator. I can effectively do the HSC in post process with cropping, and after shooting at 5fps vs. 8fps last week I don't think this is going to be much of an issue for me personally. For me, I give the D2X the slight edge.

    File size - D2X is bigger than the D200 which is bigger than my D70 and my D2H. Sucks for storage and processing, but the difference between the two is not enough to matter to me. Even-steven.

    Body size and build - Of course with the D200 everything is still a bit of an unknown, but going on reports form people I have heard, such as Peter Bendheim, I don't think build will be an issue for me. I shot N90's for years and the build was just fine. Having the ability to add the grip is a plus, as this means I can leave it off when I want a "smaller package". So, I suspect the D2X has slightly better build, shutter is rated a bit higher, but the D200 counters with a smaller package and the ability to add the grip. Once again, for me, a tie.

    Native ISO range - D2X 100-800 plus 1600 & 3200, D200 100-1600 plus 3200. Given my experience with using Auto-ISO on my D2H I like the fact that my range will now be 100-1600, giving me the extra incremental stops between 800 and 1600 which help me currently a lot on my D2H. Nod goes to the D200 on this one for me.

    The Great MP Race - 12mp vs 10mp. On paper the D2X is the clear winner, but I know what I can do with the measly 4mp from my D2H, so I don't see this as a big deal either, see above "File Size".

    CCD vs. CMOS - I wish I were a fly on Nikon's wall to understand this better. Is it the old issue that noise is easier to control with CCD? Heck, I don't know, but if the image is fine, I'm not sure I care. And the power issue has certainly been resolved. One more tie, no won wins.

    Batteries - Nikon, Nikon, quite making new ones! For me, the nod here goes to the D200. Not because of capacity, but because with the grip I can use AA's in a pinch if I suddenly have no juice left in my batteries. With luck I'll never be so dumb, but it is nice to have the option. Nod to the D200.

    High ISO Noise - Now to be entirely truthfull, for what I shoot with youth sports I have not yet found an ISO 1600 that couldn't be fixed satisfactorily for the purpose, so the noise is not such a big deal to me. I have shot with Jim Thiel's D2X at up to ISO 1600 with good results in side-by-side with my D2H. So, who will win in the tests? I don't know, but initial results I have seen seem to give a slight nod to the D200, but those of course have not yet been systematic. For me, this is a wash, I know that regardless I have ways to deal with this is post.

    AF - CAM1000 vs. CAM2000. Spec wise the D2X wins with more flexibility of focus points, etc., but I generally shoot with the center anyway, and the new "wide" feature of the D200 may be of use. Won't know till I have one. The other question is how "fast" and how well will tracking work. First reports from folks like Peter are encouraging, at least with AFS lenses, and given that everything I need to focus fast is either AFS or HSM I am fairly confident this will be OK. No clear advantage seen yet for either.

    So, for me at the end of the day, the real issue is going to be the AF. From all reports this seems to be much closer to D2(H)X speed than D70, and I hope to know for sure in another month or so, as my D200 hopefully will arrive this month. First one replaces the D70, the question will be if I can buy a second to replace the D2H.

    What I haven't seen in this thread is what features of the D2X that the D200 does not have that are important to folks. Certainly, and perhaps for the next few months as well, availability is without a doubt Number One on the list.

    So, this is my thought process and meager analysis, which will most likely change tremendously once I have one in my hands. For all, I'd sure like to know if you see any holes in my thought process. I'd rather spend $3000 on "correct" upgrade rather than $1000 on a compromise I won't be happy with.
     
  18. Roman, I have seen this stated over and over on many different forums and what I am looking for is why this true? The only "thing" I have seen to date is that the D2X looks more "professional" which when you add the grip to the D200 is a difference that just disappears, as the D200 is suddenly "bigger". Not to pick on you, but this is a comment that I continually see. Were it a simple case of one being "pro" and one "amateur" then I doubt that you would have ever seen pro's shooting N90's and f100's either.

    Again, this is not "pick on you", you just happened to be the one I responded to :wink:
     
  19. Jeff Mims

    Jeff Mims

    May 25, 2005
    Mississippi
    Not much to argue with there. I've always used pro bodies, however...they didn't cost more than the D200. (35mm FILM bodies that is). Almost 5k is a lot of $$$ for me.
    Your most compelling reason for getting a D200 : Putting the $$$ saved into the best glass you can get. No flaw with that argument.:smile:

    The DX2 has not been discontinued..nor will be in the next few weeks. So I figure I'll at least try out the D200. I didn't major in math, but I seem to remember that $1700 is less than $4500. OTOH, money isn't everything. It's not a good deal if it's not what you wanted. I've been real happy with the D70, and have wanted a DX2 nearly this entire year. However, maybe the D200 will be what I want. No way to tell until I try one. I'm on about 3 dealers lists, and if I don't like it, I'm sure dealers will be happy to get it back.

    BTW, Berger Bros is one of the dealers...I'm somewhere at 115. :frown:
    Don't know where I am on the other two..yet.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Is there any reason why I can't use an 8 GB card in the D40? Nikon DX DSLR Nov 13, 2010
Scene modes? -Reasoning for default ISO? Nikon DX DSLR Apr 21, 2010
Upgraded to a D90, any reason to...... Nikon DX DSLR Apr 19, 2009
One reason I buy locally ($300 savings) Nikon DX DSLR Apr 15, 2008
Three good reasons not to buy the D3 Nikon DX DSLR Mar 18, 2008