D200 v. D2X

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by kombi45@yahoo.com, May 14, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Minimally lower resolution, up to ISO 1600 v. D2X's "Hi-1 and Hi-2",
    doesn't shoot in TIFF, D2X can, similar metering, identical flash sync
    speed, quicker start-up time, faster shutter lag, no vertical grip
    supplied, CCD sensor v. CMOS in D2X, no audio recording on D200, but
    who uses it? So what's the allure of the D2X at more than twice the
    price??
    , May 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bill Guest

    wrote:

    >Minimally lower resolution, up to ISO 1600 v. D2X's "Hi-1 and Hi-2",
    >doesn't shoot in TIFF, D2X can, similar metering, identical flash sync
    >speed, quicker start-up time, faster shutter lag, no vertical grip
    >supplied, CCD sensor v. CMOS in D2X, no audio recording on D200, but
    >who uses it? So what's the allure of the D2X at more than twice the
    >price??


    A friend of mine was wondering the same thing and bought the D200 on
    Friday.

    I had a chance to use it yesterday along with his new 17-55 f/2.8 and
    it's an impressive camera...made me consider turning to the dark side.

    :)
    Bill, May 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Cynicor Guest

    Bill wrote:
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Minimally lower resolution, up to ISO 1600 v. D2X's "Hi-1 and Hi-2",
    >> doesn't shoot in TIFF, D2X can, similar metering, identical flash sync
    >> speed, quicker start-up time, faster shutter lag, no vertical grip
    >> supplied, CCD sensor v. CMOS in D2X, no audio recording on D200, but
    >> who uses it? So what's the allure of the D2X at more than twice the
    >> price??

    >
    > A friend of mine was wondering the same thing and bought the D200 on
    > Friday.
    >
    > I had a chance to use it yesterday along with his new 17-55 f/2.8 and
    > it's an impressive camera...made me consider turning to the dark side.


    Suggestion to anyone looking at the D2X: Take the money and buy two D200's.
    Cynicor, May 15, 2006
    #3
  4. Don Wiss Guest

    On 14 May 2006 13:28:41 -0700, wrote:

    >Minimally lower resolution, up to ISO 1600 v. D2X's "Hi-1 and Hi-2",


    On the D200 after 1600 it has H0.3, H0.7, and H1.0.

    Don <www.donwiss.com/pictures/> (e-mail link at page bottoms).
    Don Wiss, May 15, 2006
    #4
  5. cjcampbell Guest

    wrote:
    > Minimally lower resolution, up to ISO 1600 v. D2X's "Hi-1 and Hi-2",
    > doesn't shoot in TIFF, D2X can, similar metering, identical flash sync
    > speed, quicker start-up time, faster shutter lag, no vertical grip
    > supplied, CCD sensor v. CMOS in D2X, no audio recording on D200, but
    > who uses it? So what's the allure of the D2X at more than twice the
    > price??


    Thom Hogan in his review of the D200 spends much of the review showing
    how the difference between the D200 and D2x is minimal. Then he has
    this to say:

    "Second, we have the D2x wannabees: serious shooters who really want a
    D2x but either can't afford one or don't want to pay so much extra for
    what appears to be a few added features. Don't delude yourself into
    thinking that the D200 is the equivalent to a D2x. It isn't. It may
    come close in many ways, but if you were to ask me which I prefer to
    shoot with from an image quality standpoint, my unqualified answer
    would be the D2x at ISO values up to 400. There's an intangible quality
    to the D2x images that I'm not able to reproduce with my D200. At ISO
    100 the D2x image looks "less digital" and has higher acuity. Then
    there's the AF system and viewfinder: the D2x wins both those areas
    hands down, at least if you take the time to master the two AF systems.
    Battery life also factors in: I shoot for days without changing
    batteries with my D2x, but hours with my D200. The one shining gem in
    the D200's pocket: the built-in flash, which works wonderfully for
    wireless flash control, where you'd need to carry another full flash
    unit (or an SU-800) with the D2x."

    In other words, he seems to think that if you need a D2x, nothing else
    will do. Despite a feature set that rivals the D2x, in the end the CMOS
    sensor seems to him to give a more pleasing picture.
    cjcampbell, May 15, 2006
    #5
  6. tlianza Guest

    Buy the best camera you can afford with three lenses: A wide angle, fixed
    aperture zoom, a moderate range, fixed aperture zoom and long range, fast
    telephoto zoom. Don't agonize over the body, it gets obsolete very quickly.
    The lenses are like a good dog: good friends for years.

    I own a D2x. From my point of view, the D2x is the most natural digital,
    and probably the best digital camera I have ever used. The image quality is
    very good and the controls are just great. The ability to change white
    balance and ISO without hitting a menu are important to me. The viewfinder
    info is wonderful and the camera is very rugged. DP review hit the nail on
    the head in their review. They are two different cameras, most people don't
    need the d2x and the d200 is a great camera (if you can get one).

    I am still not a fan of auto focus, but the D2x certainly has the most
    comprehensive choices (once again, without a menu selection) that I have
    used. I've been shooting with Nikon for almost 40 years, and I just took
    the D2x out of the box and started using it. The only thing I needed the
    manual for was the wifi attachment and the gps interface. It is a great
    camera with a lot of computing power attached. The DX series of lenses
    combined with this body produce beautiful results at very large sizes.

    For comparison, I also own the following other digital cameras: Olympus
    E-1, Nikon D100, Leica DMR and Epson RD-1. If someone asked me to rank them
    in order it would be D2X, LeicaDMR, Epson RD-1, Nikon D100 and Olympus E-1.

    I keep the olympus because it is a very rugged camera and it can take the
    Leica lenses with an adapter. I use it in the desert. It's at the bottom of
    the list because of it's user interface, the image quality is quite good
    inspite of being "only" 5 mega pixels.

    The D100 sees very little use now that I own the D2X, but with proper post
    processing, it is extremely useful. The problem is that many of the
    essential adjustments require a trip thru the menu. The batteries seem to
    last forever.

    The Epson RD-1 produces the best jpeg images of the bunch, and is easy to
    carry. I can take this camera in a small bag with four lenses and a leica
    M7 backup body with film. If i'm going by plane, shooting in an urban
    environment, I'll take the Epson. It works very well in raw, and I've made
    many 11X17 inch (no crop) images with it. It handles just like a film range
    finder, and you can rotate the LCD into the body, so you don't have to use
    it for any preview. This is a great digital for someone who owns Leica
    Range finders.

    The Leica DMR probably has the best image quality in Raw, but it's user
    interface is not as good as the D2x, in my opinion. It is a niche camera,
    no doubt, but it is an excellent camera with out many of the bells and
    whistles.

    --
    Tom Lianza
    Director of Display and Capture Technologies
    GretagMacbeth LLC
    3 Industrial Drive
    Unit 7&8
    Windham, NH 03087
    603.681.0315 x232 Tel
    603.681.0316 Fax


    "cjcampbell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > wrote:
    >> Minimally lower resolution, up to ISO 1600 v. D2X's "Hi-1 and Hi-2",
    >> doesn't shoot in TIFF, D2X can, similar metering, identical flash sync
    >> speed, quicker start-up time, faster shutter lag, no vertical grip
    >> supplied, CCD sensor v. CMOS in D2X, no audio recording on D200, but
    >> who uses it? So what's the allure of the D2X at more than twice the
    >> price??

    >
    > Thom Hogan in his review of the D200 spends much of the review showing
    > how the difference between the D200 and D2x is minimal. Then he has
    > this to say:
    >
    > "Second, we have the D2x wannabees: serious shooters who really want a
    > D2x but either can't afford one or don't want to pay so much extra for
    > what appears to be a few added features. Don't delude yourself into
    > thinking that the D200 is the equivalent to a D2x. It isn't. It may
    > come close in many ways, but if you were to ask me which I prefer to
    > shoot with from an image quality standpoint, my unqualified answer
    > would be the D2x at ISO values up to 400. There's an intangible quality
    > to the D2x images that I'm not able to reproduce with my D200. At ISO
    > 100 the D2x image looks "less digital" and has higher acuity. Then
    > there's the AF system and viewfinder: the D2x wins both those areas
    > hands down, at least if you take the time to master the two AF systems.
    > Battery life also factors in: I shoot for days without changing
    > batteries with my D2x, but hours with my D200. The one shining gem in
    > the D200's pocket: the built-in flash, which works wonderfully for
    > wireless flash control, where you'd need to carry another full flash
    > unit (or an SU-800) with the D2x."
    >
    > In other words, he seems to think that if you need a D2x, nothing else
    > will do. Despite a feature set that rivals the D2x, in the end the CMOS
    > sensor seems to him to give a more pleasing picture.
    >
    tlianza, May 15, 2006
    #6
  7. JR Guest

    In article <>,
    Cynicor <> wrote:

    > Bill wrote:
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >> Minimally lower resolution, up to ISO 1600 v. D2X's "Hi-1 and Hi-2",
    > >> doesn't shoot in TIFF, D2X can, similar metering, identical flash sync
    > >> speed, quicker start-up time, faster shutter lag, no vertical grip
    > >> supplied, CCD sensor v. CMOS in D2X, no audio recording on D200, but
    > >> who uses it? So what's the allure of the D2X at more than twice the
    > >> price??

    > >
    > > A friend of mine was wondering the same thing and bought the D200 on
    > > Friday.
    > >
    > > I had a chance to use it yesterday along with his new 17-55 f/2.8 and
    > > it's an impressive camera...made me consider turning to the dark side.

    >
    > Suggestion to anyone looking at the D2X: Take the money and buy two D200's.


    UNLESS you need the resolution, speed, AF system, battery life, buffer
    size, viewfinder, handling, weather sealing, build quality, lack of
    banding in your images, etc....I have a D2x and a D200 would not work
    for me.

    JR
    JR, May 16, 2006
    #7
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mr Lance Free

    Any news on a possible release date of nikon's D2X?

    Mr Lance Free, May 1, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    372
    Mr Lance Free
    May 1, 2004
  2. Anonymous

    D2X and D200

    Anonymous, Jul 27, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    377
    Michael Benveniste
    Jul 28, 2004
  3. Michael Benveniste

    Purported D2X Flyer

    Michael Benveniste, Sep 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    757
    Anonymous
    Sep 20, 2004
  4. ThomasH
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    798
    Philip Homburg
    Nov 2, 2005
  5. Bill K

    D2X v D200

    Bill K, Jun 9, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    28
    Views:
    846
    cjcampbell
    Jun 12, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page