# Nikon D2X in 2014



## jonslui (Jul 24, 2014)

Hey photo forum! 

I'm making my first foray into the DSLR world from point and shoot cameras and had originally purchased a Pentax k30 from KEH at $420 but due to an inventory error they no longer had the camera and cancelled my order and gave me a refund. After hearing the news I was browsing around and found a Nikon D2X body at around $432 and was thinking about picking it up...

MY QUESTIONS
-What are your thoughts about where it is at currently compared to entry-level dslrs? - I know it's around 9 years old, but at the time was an amazing camera so I was curious where it stand now (My price range is between $400-500 so only compared to camera I may buy around this range please)
-Also,  If I get this camera body would you recommend getting a bargain 50mm lens or something similar from KEH? I would only have around $60 remaining.

Thank you very much  
Jon


----------



## Braineack (Jul 24, 2014)

what are you going to be shooting?


----------



## jonslui (Jul 24, 2014)

Everything except sports most likely, but not at a very high level at least initially (my first real camera) - This will be my first DSLR so I will be taking it to college and really shooting some of everything to try to get a handle on photography but I'm not expecting to be printing many images unless there are some that I really love.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2014)

I bought a D2x in May of 2005 when it was brand-new. Payed a nickel under five thousand dollars for it. Still have it. It is my "thrasher" camera. SO far, I have had ONE, single battery for it...and it still works! The battery life of the specific battery Nikon equipped this camera with is one of the best batteries ever designed for a camera...it can easily shoot all day long. The camera uses a sophisticated battery monitoring system that shows pictures shot, battery % remaining, and ALSO shows the "life cycle stage" of the battery. The charger is sophisticated too, and periodically calls for "*calibration*" of the battery, perhaps once a year or so I would say...very rarely does it call for calibration, and it does it automatically on the charger, OR you can press the CALIBRATION button and do a calibration at any time. So, basically, this camera uses a battery that is much bigger and more-capable and more-advanced than entry-level cameras.

In terms of how it stacks up; the pentaprism and viewfinder system are the BEST EVER in ANY APS-C d-slr ever made. By any manufacturer. Period. The D3200 and D5300 and so on have crappy viewfinders with pentapmirrors, and are very economical designs. The D2x is the ne plus ultra of the APS-C d-slr world in terms of body build. It has an exceptionally FAST lock time, and mirror return time. The focus is a wide-area system that is, in many ways, better than the one in the D3x, for action work and moving targets, and is basically capable of focusing anywhere in the frame; I honestly think that the D2x has a BETTER AF system than the 51-point system on FX in the D3x, which is what I currently shoot.

The camera is STILL wonderful at Base ISO, up to 160 ISO, under studio flash conditions, or good bright daylight. It handles AMAZINGLY well. The AF system is NOT weak, like the one in the D200 was...this is an amazing camera body. The sensor is the weakest point...it really is a fine camera body, and it handles wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better than any entry-level camera. It is a good example of an amazing camera body with a sensor that's not that good. Sure, buy a 50mm lens for it, why not.

I shot two to three sports assignments every week with the D2x for two years for a newspaper chain here that owns 18 local area papers. The FOCUSING system's AF area mode selector is more-sophisticated (a 4-mode switch!) than in the D3 series, and doubly so compared to the D4 series. The AF system in the D2x is very user-configurable, with the 4-mode switch; using its wide-area, group dynamic AF, it can lock on to off-center targets FAR better than the full-frame Nikons can, due to the way the AF areas in the smaller DX frame are grouped. Nikon has been dumbing down their AF systems' AF area mode selection choices with each new generation since the D2x. The D2x was the high-water mark for APS-C Nikon bodies in terms of focusing for action targets with the 4-mode system allowing you to really make it do what you'd want it to do.


----------



## jonslui (Jul 24, 2014)

Thanks for your input Derrel! I did a lot of researching on the K30 before I initially ordered it and saw it had the pentaprism as well so that is a huge plus! The long, long battery life sounds great as well! So despite the sensor which is not up to the same level as current entry level cameras you would still recommend it over a different entry level? 
Random question: Do you have any experience with Bargain rated camera bodies on KEH? I've been reading about experiences online and they all seem positive, I suppose I could always return it if it was too damaged though.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 24, 2014)

People get trapped in the mindset that older cameras are 'no good any more'.  Nothing could be further from the truth; the D2x is still as good as it ever was; yes, newere cameras have better sensors, higher resolution and more sophisticated gizmos, but not all that long ago, the D2x was Nikon's flagship pro body, and it will still do a bang-up job.  Would I rather have a D2x or a D3200?  The D2x every time thankyewverymuch!


----------



## jonslui (Jul 24, 2014)

That's exactly what I was thinking! If the camera was good enough for professionals back then, there's no way it wouldn't be way more than enough for me! Thank you for your input tirediron


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2014)

I'll tell you what. The D2x is STILL very close to state of the art in terms of lock time and mirror return time and battery life and handling. The difference between it and a cheap body camera is that everything about the D2x is high-end. The build, the finder image, the sheer speed of response. The camera can be configured a lot of ways, but the menus are simpler than in the D3x or even the newer consumer cameras. The D2x is simply a very "fast-handling" and "fast,sure-footed,dependable focusing" camera; the focusing system in the D2x is capable of tracking fast action reliably and it can use older screw-drive lenses too, which entry level Nikons cannot. It's difficult to describe what a true flagship Nikon body handles like. KEH bargain is supposedly good; they are known for conservative rating on all used stuff. I cannot tell you what the better camera is for you. The D2x and the Canon 5D classic were the two cameras I owned since 2005, and 206, and shot until 2012,exclusively. I owned them together at the same time; One had a FABULOUS body and ALL sub-systems were first rate (D2x), and the other was a crappy $389 EOS Elan class body with shoddy sub-systems, weak AF module, but a FABULOUS sensor. I used the Canon for slow,deliberate work, the Nikon for fast,demanding situations.

The thing with the D2x: it could focus a consumer speed f/3.5~5.6 lens in crappy light, fast, and reliably; the 5D would not focus lock with the 24-105 f/4-L in better light, but would stutter...the focusing capabilities of the D2x are had to overstate, in terms of focusing anywhere, any time, in any light. I have recently started using a new "old" Fuji S5 Pro, which has an 11-area AF system, the one from the Nikon D200. Wow...it is so much less dependable than the D2x system. No comparison on the finder image. It really is an interesting dilemma, old pro workhorse versus newer lower-tier camera. There are shooting situations where the better body would be helpful,and situations where higher sensor quality would be beneficial. Let's say for something like surfing or waterski competitions or baseball: D2x alllll day long!!! Low-light at twilight: not the D2x.


----------



## jonslui (Jul 24, 2014)

The D2X definitely sounds like the camera I'm going to end up getting. While being able to shoot in low light would be nice I think the other aspects outweigh this, as I will most likely be taking most of my photos during the day. Thank you very much Derrel!


----------



## gsgary (Jul 24, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I'll tell you what. The D2x is STILL very close to state of the art in terms of lock time and mirror return time and battery life and handling. The difference between it and a cheap body camera is that everything about the D2x is high-end. The build, the finder image, the sheer speed of response. The camera can be configured a lot of ways, but the menus are simpler than in the D3x or even the newer consumer cameras. The D2x is simply a very "fast-handling" and "fast,sure-footed,dependable focusing" camera; the focusing system in the D2x is capable of tracking fast action reliably and it can use older screw-drive lenses too, which entry level Nikons cannot. It's difficult to describe what a true flagship Nikon body handles like. KEH bargain is supposedly good; they are known for conservative rating on all used stuff. I cannot tell you what the better camera is for you. The D2x and the Canon 5D classic were the two cameras I owned since 2005, and 206, and shot until 2012,exclusively. I owned them together at the same time; One had a FABULOUS body and ALL sub-systems were first rate (D2x), and the other was a crappy $389 EOS Elan class body with shoddy sub-systems, weak AF module, but a FABULOUS sensor. I used the Canon for slow,deliberate work, the Nikon for fast,demanding situations.
> 
> The thing with the D2x: it could focus a consumer speed f/3.5~5.6 lens in crappy light, fast, and reliably; the 5D would not focus lock with the 24-105 f/4-L in better light, but would stutter...the focusing capabilities of the D2x are had to overstate, in terms of focusing anywhere, any time, in any light. I have recently started using a new "old" Fuji S5 Pro, which has an 11-area AF system, the one from the Nikon D200. Wow...it is so much less dependable than the D2x system. No comparison on the finder image. It really is an interesting dilemma, old pro workhorse versus newer lower-tier camera. There are shooting situations where the better body would be helpful,and situations where higher sensor quality would be beneficial. Let's say for something like surfing or waterski competitions or baseball: D2x alllll day long!!! Low-light at twilight: not the D2x.



But the 5D will get noise free images Nikon could not do that until they used Sony sensors


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2014)

[    click on the link to really see it! DSC5743_fornewsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com    ] This is the D2x shot in daylight at ISO 500, on a file shot for newsprint. Feel free to download this, and go PRINT IT OUT. Seriously, make a print of this small image.

Here it is at ISO 640 under overcast skies, at 1/2000 second at f/3.5 with a superb lens, also sharpened hard, for printing on newsprint. Make a print of this.





[    _DSC5643_for newsprint.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com    ]


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2014)

gsgary said:
			
		

> But the 5D will get noise free images Nikon could not do that until they used Sony sensors



Yes, that was basically the exact right case!!! The 5D Classic had/has about the SAME image quality as the original Nikon D3 and D700, up to ISO 3,200. The 5D Classic made me many thousands of images that were really good quality. It has a very flat performance curve from baseline ISO up to 1600 ISO...the 5D sensor was, at the time it was made, simply un-beatable. It has a really lovely "look" to it's images, the 5D classic. There's something about the big pixels on FF that is very nice. The 5D was wayyyyyy ahead of its time. I think under studio flash, the 5D classic's images still to this day look amazingly good. The 5D classic had a MUCH better sensor than the D2x had, in a cheezy body. it as sort of a 50/50 deal, one being better than the other at some things!


----------



## gsgary (Jul 24, 2014)

I wasn't saying the D2x is bad because it's not


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2014)

gsgary said:


> I wasn't saying the D2x is bad because it's not



No, I know what you were saying was the bald truth: the Canon 5D will get noise-free images at ISO levels where the D2x can NOT cut the mustard at higher ISO levels. The problem with the D2x was not just the noise, but that at the higher ISO levels the dynamic range narrowed, and the color got progressively weaker. The DxO Mark sensor test graphs show this pretty clearly. The 5D had a really "flat" performance level, which is good, at ISO went up and up. The D2x was, as I have read, designed as a STUDIO camera, and in that role, it's actually very good. At LOW ISO, the D2x had fabulous color; Nikon even released the "D2x color profile" for the newer D3 models because Nikon shooters loved the D2x color look so much. Nikon's sports/action cameras of that era were actually the D2h and the iteration, the D2Hs.


----------



## jonslui (Jul 24, 2014)

One more quick question - how was the size/weight of the D2x? It wasn't too much of a hassle to carry around from place to place?


----------



## tirediron (Jul 24, 2014)

jonslui said:


> One more quick question - how was the size/weight of the D2x? It wasn't too much of a hassle to carry around from place to place?


Not at all; the Mamiya RZ 67, now that's a hassle....


----------

