# Nikon D2x for studio and wedding shoots ?



## Michaelcr01 (Mar 10, 2011)

Hey !

Im looking at investing some money into some new equipment, I was mainly looking at newer cameras (Nikon D7000 etc etc), But stumbled across the D2x second hand for £700 body only, Which got me thinking, After using a D3x a few weeks ago (was a good friends camera), I fell in love with the camera, I love large heavy camera bodies, And the functionality was amazing, Although i can't afford £4000 for one haha.

Would the nikon d2x be a good solid reliable choice for studio photography and wedding photography ? I'll be looking at spending the main bulk of the money on the glass of course, Something like a Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G lens, And perhaps a few f/1.4 nikon primes.

Michael.


----------



## Formatted (Mar 10, 2011)

> Would the nikon d2x be a good solid reliable choice for studio photography and wedding photography ?



Wedding photography.. Ugh, your going to need 3 bodies, flashes, extra lenses etc. Wedding photography isn't something you can jump into, if your lenses, camera or flash breaks your going to be liable.

The question you should really be asking is: Is the D2x better value for money than the D7000?


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 10, 2011)

You don't absolutely need 3 bodies to to shoot a wedding. I agree it's not something you can just "jump in to" without prior experience. But I am still quite drunk, so my opinion may change after I sober up a bit.


----------



## Formatted (Mar 10, 2011)

> You don't absolutely need 3 bodies to to shoot a wedding.



Fine do it with 2 and just have professional indemnity insurance..


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 10, 2011)

Nope, it's not the alcohol. You're just ignorant. You (well, maybe not YOU specifically) can handle a wedding with two bodies, however insurance is never a bad thing.


----------



## Formatted (Mar 10, 2011)

> You (well, maybe not YOU specifically) can handle a wedding with two bodies



I don't do weddings nor do I even do portraits, so your right I am ignorant. But from books I've read, its always good to have a back-up, your going to need 2 bodies so why not have a 3rd....


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Mar 10, 2011)

Weddings are low light situations, and the D2x only goes up to ISO 800. It is not uncommon for us to shoot weddings at ISO 1600 for the entire ceremony. In my opinion, if you have the money, spring for the D7000 as it will perform better in low light situations.


----------



## cnutco (Mar 10, 2011)

ChristopherCoy said:


> *D2x only goes up to ISO 800*


 
This for the D2x = FAIL

Not saying that it can't be done, but why put yourself in that situation, right?


----------



## gsgary (Mar 10, 2011)

Formatted said:


> > You don't absolutely need 3 bodies to to shoot a wedding.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine do it with 2 and just have professional indemnity insurance..



Your starting to sound like a bloody Yank


----------



## Formatted (Mar 10, 2011)

> Your starting to sound like a bloody Yank



Bloody well better not. Oh well maybe a month and half in NZ will cool me down!


----------



## ghache (Mar 10, 2011)

1000's of wedding has been shot with d2x's.......but there is so much more options out there with better iso performance. even a d90 would be better to shoot a wedding than a d2x


----------



## KmH (Mar 10, 2011)

The D3 has a full frame image sensor, the D2x has a smaller APS-C size image sensor, so the 2 cameras are not really directly comparable.

The D3 has the more advanced Multi-CAM 3500, 51 focus point, auto focus module, the D2x has the Multi-CAM 2000 11 focus point, auto focus module, again not comparable.

The D2x would work just fine for studio or weddings, but it's a generation back from the D3.

The D3 revolutionized ISO performance for professional grade cameras. Don't expect a D2x to be as capable.


----------



## Garbz (Mar 10, 2011)

ChristopherCoy said:


> Weddings are low light situations, and the D2x only goes up to ISO 800. It is not uncommon for us to shoot weddings at ISO 1600 for the entire ceremony. In my opinion, if you have the money, spring for the D7000 as it will perform better in low light situations.


 
You're right. There's no way that the D2x which was Nikon's flagship camera for 5 years, and was used heavily by wedding photographers all over the world for many years more is suitable for weddings at all. It is much better to get a cheap plastic consumer DSLR to do the job.

Oh and the best professional indemnity insurance in the  world.


----------



## djacobox372 (Mar 10, 2011)

The handling of the d2x is great, but it's image quality and iso peformance is far below the similarly priced D7000.


----------



## RockstarPhotography (Mar 10, 2011)

Garbz said:


> ChristopherCoy said:
> 
> 
> > Weddings are low light situations, and the D2x only goes up to ISO 800. It is not uncommon for us to shoot weddings at ISO 1600 for the entire ceremony. In my opinion, if you have the money, spring for the D7000 as it will perform better in low light situations.
> ...



Wedding photographers also shot with film for how many years?????.......Its not about if the camera is capable or not.  New technology.  Just cause you won a race with a car 5 years ago does not mean you should race it today.


----------



## Garbz (Mar 11, 2011)

You're right. It's about the reliability of a camera and its fit for purpose. But by all means go and tell the judge during your lawsuit that you bought a small plastic consumer camera for your profession rather than a professional body and that's the reason you missed the shot. 

Also there's nothing wrong with film for a wedding. I've seen plenty of film based wedding albums that easily out class the digital albums of people who have no clue. Film lost out because of the high cost.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 11, 2011)

If you're shooting at ISO 100, the 12MP from the D2x is incredible, it will outresolve a D3/s/700 (trust me, i did a side-by-side comparison). But if you go any higher than base ISO, anything that uses Nikon's 12, 14, or 16mp cmos sensors FF or DX will blow it away. Nikon's CCD's just went to crap at anything above base. 

That said, a D2x would be a dynamite daylight camera. Shooting at ISO 100 with some fast primes, you're golden. Otherwise, anything in nikon's current line up would be a better solution :/

And I agree with ChristopherCoy, lighting can really suck, entire ceremonies can be shot at ISO 1600, hell the last wedding I shot, I shot a big chunk of the formals at ISO 3200 and f/1.4 (on a D700)!! Reasons like that are why the D2x isn't really a good choice for available light journalism. If you're doing landscapes or shooting in the studio, where you can sit at ISO 100, go for it. It will give you bomb results. Just know that the D2x really only goes up to ISO 800, 1600 is almost unusable.


----------



## VeteranNPhotographer (Nov 8, 2012)

2 comparable bodies are definitely a must for a wedding, although 3 would be preferable. Also an Indemnity clause and insurance are important to make sure you don't loose your house. The D2x was a solid camera for its day but I agree with those above, that the next generation of cameras have much more advanced sensors. A D90, a D300 and a D7000 would be better in practically every way than a D2x for weddings. Better color and noise performance is important when shooting in a dark church. If I were going to make a suggestion, try to pick up a D700. Probably can pick one up for about $1600 American (Sorry not sure how that relates to Pounds at the moment) You get the full frame perspective, very nice noise performance, and a bigger camera with nicer controls (this is just my opinion as I really like the 2 auto focus AF on and AF/AE-L buttons on the back of the 300 and 700) than what the D7000 and D90 have. Hope this helps.


----------



## VeteranNPhotographer (Nov 8, 2012)

Sorry Didn't realize how old this one was.


----------

