So, I spend a day with Paul, MontyDog, in the UK with his brand-spankin-new D2X. Then I find out that my buddy here at home, Jim Thiel, now has a brand-spankin-new-D2X as well. First off, jealousy, big time :wink: Then I start thinking again of advantages/disadvantages vs. "upgrade" costs from my D2H. Given that I shoot a fair bit of night and indoor sports I can't ignore ISO, but then there is that grand amount of pixels as well as HSC. Now, if I had a rich Uncle, no problem at all, but I am considering what a logical progression might be. I always figure that a $1,000-$1,500 USD upgrade every couple of years is reasonable, so here is my thinking. Sell my D2H, nominally $1,500 Sell my Sigma 120-300 f2.8, nominally $1,500 This leaves me with a $1,500 or so upgrade cost. 70-200 VR in HSC gives me 140-400 f2.8, instead of 180-450 in non-HSC with the Sigma, so I trade 50mm for VR, I think I can live with that, although a 240-600 f2.8 in HSC is awfully tempting as well. But given that I want to keep the upgrade cost in the $1,500 or so range, I don't see a way to keep both. My kids are both grown, so I don't have the option of selling them anymore either.... :wink: Given what the HSC does for me bird and animal wise, makes sense to me as well with the 500mm. Somebody save me, poke holes in my logic before I dig the hole so deep I can't get out........
If you're looking for any calm voices of reason to talk you out of it, you've come to the wrong place. Seriously I say go for it. As you point out with HSC mode you won't really miss the 120-300
Although I'm a big fan of HSC and saw the potential of it since the first press release, I'm not sure I would buy D2x if I know I'll be using HSC more than half of the time. I personally think it would be better to have longer lens and D2h rather than shorter lens and D2x with HSC. With HSC you gain 2.7 Mpixel over D2h but then you lost the clean high ISO. --ricardo
Bill You dont want my help here :evil: Seriosuly though sound sliek you have a nice transition plan in place I say roll with it
You have the shovel. But why dig? You do not have enuf reason to get D2X. Consider the D2Xs-In the meantime you might find some great glass at a bargain. Birger
Chris and Jeff, thanks for the "push toward the cliff" :lol: One of the things that started me down this path was the use of HSC with the 70-200 and the ability to hand-hold for a football game rather than use the monopod with the 120-300. Trying to balance that with the ISO issues, this is already making my brain hurt.
Ricardo, given that I currently own, and use most often for birds, a Sigma 500mm f4.5 HSM with a Nikon TC-14E, going with even longer glass is not only a much larger $$ investment but they are much more unwieldly to use as well. Which is why I thought the HSC would be useful for me. But you do bring up the other very important point which is ISO from 800 and above. I have not, yet, done a thorough study of the differences between the D2H and the D2X in this regard, but I have been told that my particular D2H seems to do a better job than many at the higher ISO's. Do you have an opinion on how much difference there is between the D2H and the D2X at, say, 1000-1250 ISO? I am hoping to do some side-by-side in the next week or two myself. Thanks,
Thanks, Mike, but as Birger points out below, is that enough reason? Wish to heck I knew, I think this may end up hinging on the ISO thing for me.
Birger, a dose of reality, thanks. That is exactly what I am trying to decide. Do I have enough reason on both a technical as well as an "I WANT one" :wink: level. What do you mena by D2Xs, have you heard something going on? As to the "great glass", I'm not sure there is anything I want glass-wise, unless somebody wanted to hand me a 200-400 VR or a Sigma 300-800 for $1,000 :lol: :lol: , fat chance of that happening eh. I do appreciate the reality check, however, which is exactly why I'm asking here. Thanks,
Bill, From what I have read, there is a BIG difference between the d2h, d2hs and d2x in noise at high ISO's Funny that you specifically mention ISO 1000 and 1250, the d2x HAS NO ISO 1000 or 1250, it goes only ina full step from iso 800 then 1600. The d2x is reportedly worse than the d2h with noise. As you know from indoor shooting and night events, the d2h isn;t the best at iso 1600, the d2x is worse. The d2hs is BETTER than the d2h, substantially better, http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD2HsNRtest.shtml HEre is a bit on noise with the d2x, it is reported worse than the d70 (which is better than the d2h if you are still following along) http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?id=1448&cid=15&pg=12
Bill; I have two D2H and one D2X. Both models are great cameras. You shoot sports in somewhat low light as well as eagles in better light. My feeling is that the D2H can shoot at a faster speed for the ISO. You can even slightly over expose to get the best picture. With the D2X you get better color in my thinking. However for low light sports, as you increase the ISO you must marketly increase the shutter speed unless you are using a wimberley to get a sharp picture. Camera or operator shake you know. I interjected the D2Xs because That may have higher quality ISO ratings. What I am waiting for is the D200 because of the onboard flash and compactness. Last month on the spur of the moment, I got one of the first Epson 4800 printers in the US. When it arrived and I saw the size of it, I thought well I goofed. However let me say, that printer is so perfect. The colors are so pure. Each machine is calibrated so that any 4800 will match any other 4800. You can print until the ink runs out of a cartridge-- then just pop in another cartridge and the printer starts up again with no interruption of the print. Birger
Bill Looking at your reasoning and your shooting requirements, I WOULD NOT move up to a D2X and I shoot one myself. Your requirements in my opinion are crying out for a HS. I've shot a tad with an HS...extensively with an H and an X. There is no comparison relative to noise in low light situations. The HS absolutely wins in my opinion. Another thing that you are looking at totally incorrectly is the ability to shoot the X with the 70-200 handheld. The X shows every single tremor due to the resolution and I honestly think that it's best used mounted unless you're using something like a 50 mm lens. I've had occasion to shoot it handheld with a 70-200, a 200-400 and a 500, both with and without a TC and I will tell you that my acceptable yield of "critically sharp" images pales in comparison to what I used to achieve with the H body. It isn't even close. Mounted on a tripod, I love the thing....but late in the evening or early in the morning I'd rather have an HS. You can shoot at slower shutter speeds and not see all of the shake issues (the resolution doesn't show them as badly) and if you need to pump up the ISO on the HS to 800, from what I've seen...it's a clean as some if my 320 shots on the X. The HSC isn't the be all to end all. I find it useful if I'm shooting smaller critters which will allow me more shots per card, but if you think that it's really gonna turn the long end of a 70-200 into a smashing success of a 400, you're wrong. Another thing that you might take note of is that there are reports all over the place with folks having less than stellar success with the 70-200 on the X body. Just some more fat to chew on....
Birger, thanks for the input, well reasoned and it helps a lot. Have you heard that an "s" version of the D2X is on the way or is this just speculation?
D2Hs Reasoning The D2Hs reasoning is: A) Updated metering to match the D2X as well as menu updates. B) Considerably cleaner Hi ISO noise profiles than the D2H.
Re: Bill Well, Jim, I just can't believe that you would just come right out and tell me my thinking is "incorrect" and that I'm "wrong", I think I'll have to go to the corner and pout for a while..............OK, I'm back now, and all I have to say is a Big Thank You for pointing this out :wink: :lol: I really had not thought about that, and while I am pretty darned steady, I think this is another case where a "test" would be in order. Do you think this is an issue simply of the number of MP's vs. lens resolution or some other strange electronic issue going on? I do find it surprising that we did not see this with 35mm, given that we hear so much about resolution of film vs. digital. Darned good points, and yes, much more fat to chew on, like I need any more of that :lol: :lol: :lol: So, now we have the bunch of folks who want me to make the jump just so they can see me spend more money. Then we have you and Birger who just shove me up against the wall and beat sense into me. Then there is good old Paul, heck, I'm not sure WHOSE side he is on :lol: Seriously, though, this is exactly why I brought this up, and I thank each and every one of you for your thoughts and opinions, it really does help a bunch.
