# IF you could... Would you?



## Holly (May 19, 2006)

IF you could afford a camera like the Nikon D2x would you get it??  I was browsing online today for another camera and I came across this one.. ITS way out of my price range.> Its also the price where Id have to go IN store to test this bad boy out MYSELF... 

SO those of you who are loving your Nikons.. Would you LOVE a camera like this?


----------



## Big Mike (May 19, 2006)

Most of us "on-line photography forum junkies" are gear heads.  That is, we like to talk about the best and latest gear...and of course, if we could own the best...then we would love to, whether we need it or not.

I'm sure the D2X is a fantastic camera...but it's made for the rigors of professional use.  It's a tool for someone who's livelihood depends on their camera.  I don't know too much about Nikon cameras, but Canon's pro series cameras are built like tanks and are sealed against dust & rain.  I assume that Nikon is similar.   Now is that something that you would pay for?  

Remember, that won't necessarily make your photos any better.  "It's the photographer, not the camera"  

A skilled, experienced photographer could most likely take better photos with a point & shoot, than you or I could with a D2X.


----------



## duncanp (May 19, 2006)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> Most of us "on-line photography forum junkies" are gear heads. That is, we like to talk about the best and latest gear...and of course, if we could own the best...then we would love to, whether we need it or not.
> 
> I'm sure the D2X is a fantastic camera...but it's made for the rigors of professional use. It's a tool for someone who's livelihood depends on their camera. I don't know too much about Nikon cameras, but Canon's pro series cameras are built like tanks and are sealed against dust & rain. I assume that Nikon is similar. Now is that something that you would pay for?
> 
> ...


 


true...


----------



## tasman (May 19, 2006)

Yes, if money was not an issue I would. I shoot mostly film with my Nikon F100 and it cost me a lot of money two years ago. It is a great camera and I love it. If I was to by a new digital today it would be the Nikon D70, more in my price range and keeping with the features of the F100.


----------



## Holly (May 19, 2006)

O would I get it???  WEll it all depends I Guess.. RIght now NO.. Im just beginning... This camera is way to expensive for someone like*ME* who doesnt have a clue in the world about *serious* Photography...  Let alone a camera such as that.. I was just browsing, saw it and got curious is all... 

I Agree... Its the photographer NOT the camera.. Its all in the practice...


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 19, 2006)

God I love being a minority... rofl

The film camera I shoot I built and the digital I shoot ebay stuff with cost fifty bucks.  However being a minority has it's advantages.  Give me a while and I'll think of one. 

This


----------



## lostprophet (May 19, 2006)

I did, but not a Nikon. I went for the Canon


----------



## bigfatbadger (May 19, 2006)

No, I couldn't use the bloody thing if I tried. I struggle with my D50!

The money's better spent on lenses and , erm, stuff


----------



## Oldfireguy (May 19, 2006)

I shoot with a D2X and love it.  Would I do it again?  Yep!


----------



## DepthAfield (May 19, 2006)

If within by budget, would I buy a new Nikon D2X?

Likely not.  Its a fine piece of gear, no question about that  But its too heavy for my flavor of photography.  I would instead purchase a D200 and spend the remainder of cash on some fast, quality glass.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (May 19, 2006)

No I wouldn't. I want my next digital to be full frame or medium format.


----------



## usayit (May 19, 2006)

I've moved from the D30..  to D60.. the to the 10D.. and now the 1d mark II.  All of those cameras were bought used and resold to gather funds for the next.  Each decision was based on something about the current camera that either hindered or annoyed me and the next resolved.  So am I going to the 1d markIIn, 5D, or 1ds mark II???  Nope.. there's nothing about the 1d mark II that I'm unhappy with... therefor I would get the D2x nor another canon DSLR even if I could afford to.  

Then again... unlimited funds in the bank can easily change one's mindset on expenditure.

Money is best spend on the lenses anyways.


----------



## benhasajeep (May 19, 2006)

If money was no object I would probably get a D200 in the Nikon flavor or 5D in the Canon flavor.  Then pick up a digitial back for my medium format cameras.  I have a Nikon D50 and Canon 20D.  Happy with both but still learning them.


----------



## Tkraz (May 19, 2006)

Big Mike said:
			
		

> Most of us "on-line photography forum junkies" are gear heads.  That is, we like to talk about the best and latest gear...and of course, if we could own the best...then we would love to, whether we need it or not.
> 
> I'm sure the D2X is a fantastic camera...but it's made for the rigors of professional use.  It's a tool for someone who's livelihood depends on their camera.  I don't know too much about Nikon cameras, but Canon's pro series cameras are built like tanks and are sealed against dust & rain.  I assume that Nikon is similar.   Now is that something that you would pay for?
> 
> ...



I agree with you up to a point there, however there are just some basic facts about a camera like that, that even if you didnt know anything other than a basic SLR like the equivalent of a 350D, youd still get something out of it.

Striving to buy one of the Canon equivalent of this one, and to be honest I wouldnt call myself an out and out proffessional, but there are restrictions on my 350D that I wouldnt have with such a thing in my job.


----------



## Big Mike (May 19, 2006)

That's true, especially of digital cameras.  Higher end (and/or newer models) have better sensor technology, better electronics, better firmware etc.  But in most scenarios that I can think of, a good photographer can do just about any thing they would need to do...with an entry level DSLR.

However, I bought the 20D over the Rebel XT because I liked it better...even though the image quality is very, very similar with those two cameras.


----------



## Tkraz (May 19, 2006)

Well Id slightly differ there.

The higher model canons have a much faster fps rate than the 300D.

Something which is near essential with sports photography. Along with a higher film speed setting.

Just being a picky git to be perfectly honest as I do see your point, but there are some exceptions is all


----------



## Torus34 (May 19, 2006)

To answer your question:

I can afford just about any camera under, say, $US10K without breaking a financial sweat.

I prefer to use my exposure meter and manual 35mm and 6x6cm rigs and B&W film.

I seriously doubt that going to more expensive gear would make any noticeable difference in the impact of my final prints, or in my pleasure in making them.


----------



## bigfatbadger (May 19, 2006)

Torus34 said:
			
		

> To answer your question:
> 
> I can afford just about any camera under, say, $US10K without breaking a financial sweat.
> 
> ...



Would you like to buy me one?


----------



## DepthAfield (May 19, 2006)

Torus34 said:
			
		

> To answer your question:
> 
> I can afford just about any camera under, say, $US10K without breaking a financial sweat...



Really?  Would you consider adopting a 46 year old?


----------



## Don Simon (May 19, 2006)

Holly said:
			
		

> IF you could afford a camera like the Nikon D2x would you get it??


 
If I could comfortably afford it, I might get one. Of course if I could comfortably afford it, I would also get an FM3A, a bunch of medium format kits, a small island, and then give a large amount to charity to make me feel less guilty about it 

Seriously, it would be very nice to have if you had a wide range of top-quality lenses to go with it, in addition to professional software and printing equipment, but unless you have those things I can't help feeling you wouldn't be doing it justice and wouldn't be getting your money's worth. Also you still couldn't use it as your one and only camera - are there _any_ cameras that fit that description? IMO sometimes you'd want something you can put in your pocket or comfortably operate with one hand.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 19, 2006)

I have to come down with torus... 
I have had two people and one company offer to loan or give me a dslr... 

I kindly refused all offeres.  Why, I am familier with my film.  I have a new hobby ripping up and building cameras, but most of all the pictures look different.  Probably not better or worse just different and I dont like change.  Im old so sue me, or better yet dont waste your time all I have are old film cameras we all know they are worthless.


----------



## Don Simon (May 19, 2006)

mysteryscribe said:
			
		

> Im old so sue me, or better yet dont waste your time all I have are old film cameras we all know they are worthless.


 
Worthless? Try telling the folks on Ebay that! :mrgreen: Prices for old film cameras seem to have shot up astronomically, now that even people who know nothing about the camera they found in their attic can Google, copy and paste a bunch of info into Ebay and watch it sell for a few hundred. People are so intent on snapping these things up, you'd think they weren't making them any more... oops... and then the cost of film doesn't look much cheaper to me, while the cost of processing appears to have gone up well beyond inflation. 

Sorry, just thought I should have a counter-rant there  don't worry, I love film and won't stop using it until there's none left on the planet, but unfortunately I'm not as firm in my principles as yourself, so if quality digital imaging was affordable to me I'd take it up - not as a replacement for film, but to use alongside it; more formats and media are always good IMO... I don't suppose those people you mentioned will give their DSLRs to me instead?


----------



## JohnMF (May 19, 2006)

i would buy two


----------



## thebeginning (May 20, 2006)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> No I wouldn't. I want my next digital to be full frame or medium format.



ditto.  the d2x is a fantastic camera, but if I had 5k to spend on a camera I'd buy a 5d and some nice glass or wait for the 1dsMarkIII and use it for that.


----------



## jwkwd (May 20, 2006)

I would think hard about it. But since I shoot film, I would have to upgrade lenses so I get the most out it's features. Then deal with memory cards and software, and cables and chargers and.......So I guess my answer is no.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 20, 2006)

I know about the price of vintage film cameras.  I began chopping them for the lens five years ago and my first donar lens camer was $4 plus $7 shipping.  Now that same camera is 35 plus shipping.

I build on polaroid frames, the old roll film with the good glass have jumped three or four times their value five years ago.  Even the 80 series that is almost pure nothing is starting to climb.  NObody is using them, and they have minimal display value, in the condition most are in, but climb in price they do.

As for digital, I actually bought a couple of high end digis just before I closed the business.  I was just trying them out for my son in law who took over from me.  I convinced him to sell  his med format and buy digital three years ago.  He loves the nikon d200 and the 100 before it.  So Im not anti digital just for me it isn't an option I am shooting pure retro.  

But if i need a picture for ebay, I sure as heck dont load a film holder and process a black and white negative then tint it.  Heck no I take the old fifty buck five mega pix and shoot the darn thing.  That is after I put the monocle on the camera so it can shoot a decent close up.

No I totally think that for a working studio pro a digital is the only way to go.  I can feel that and still think my retro makes better period and black and white prints.  A retro camera shouldn't shoot like a digital and the pictures shouldn't look like they came from a computer even if they do.  Besides I look great in a double breasted suit and panama hat.


----------



## mysteryscribe (May 20, 2006)

One more thing I really dont like about digital at the moment. It really is about the equipment, the stuff that the camera makers shove off on the public. When it was film you bought a camera... Say a mamiya rb and if there was a change, it was to the film. To make a better picture, you maybe bought a new lens or changed the film brand. You didnt have to go buy a ten thousand dollar camera. At least not as often as you bought a car. Actually more often. That's because it hasn't shaken out probably, but I bet you it keeps on as long as people are, in great numbers, willing to trade up trade up trade up.

But as my wife keeps saying. money not spent has no value....whatever that means.

When it gets to the bottom line, all this is about the roof not the hammer.


----------

