# Nikon D2Xs VS Nikon D300



## nikonkev

This is a really general thread, but I'm curious to see what your personal opinions are on this matter.

With the release of the D300, which retails at $1869.95 CAD* and which some claim can do 70-80% of what the D3 can, would there still be a demand for the D2Xs, which retails for double the price at $3649.95 CAD*?

* Prices taken from Nikon Canada's website.

I'm interested to know why you, personally, would choose the D2Xs over the D300 or vice versa, strongly taking the prices into consideration. I know I can go and read the specs and do a comparison, but I want to know first-hand why the consumer would choose what they choose - the major issues and concerns - so I can get an average sense of what each camera stands for, if that makes any sense. Is there any function on either camera you can or cannot live without?

If this topic seems childish to you, don't post


----------



## Sw1tchFX

D300 easy. It's pretty much everything the D2X is and more for half the price.


----------



## nikonkev

There has got to be more than just that. Otherwise, consumers would be crazy to even think about buying a D2Xs now. Nikon might as well take the D2Xs off their retailer's shelves.

There have got to be consumers that still value the D2Xs - I'm wanting to know why. I know that price justification isn't even in the picture anymore because, comparatively speaking, the D300 gives oustanding performance (as people say, above and beyond the D2Xs). There has got to be something else.


----------



## photogincollege

To me the d300 is going to autofocus faster and more accuratly, have better noise control and shoot at the same rate, if im shooting in low light situations which i like to do i know the d300 is gonna provide, also that 2000 almost could be put into some awesome lenses.


----------



## photogincollege

I just thought about it and the only thing im not sure about is build quality comparison, maybe the d2xs is built tougher, other then that id say that any consumer really would be crazy to even think about buying the d2xs


----------



## Garbz

Would you rather take a Toyota Landcruiser or a Lexus RX330 into the desert?

Both cameras are designed for very different markets and can not be compared on the basis of image quality and features alone. There are plenty of professional photographers who'd rather have the significantly higher quality build, life expectancy, and durability of the professional grade camera, although admittedly the D300 does blur the lines here slightly.


----------



## jstuedle

The D2 can take more punishment and has better weather sealing. The D300 will take pix with a higher IQ and is lighter. You choose what is more important to you.


----------



## nikonkev

Thanks. I still can't, personally, justify the doubling in price differences between the two, just mainly because of the body build and it's weather-withstanding abilities. I've done more research on other forums, since I've posted here, and everyone has been saying that the D2Xs isn't worth it anymore.

D300 gives higher ISO capabilities with way less noise than the D2Xs. Hopefully there won't be a problem with the crosshairs within the 50 AF-points being concentrated solely in the centre area.

Anyway, going to wait it out until next year some time before I buy the D300, in case there are firmware, or worse... hardware problems and glitches, which I hope they'll fix.

Thanks for the input.

Garbz: You are right, they are designed for different markets, but with the D300's capabilities now, which surpasses the D2Xs in many ways, it's right up there with it, how would you differentiate between these two markets now? Comparing two "different" vehicle makes here is a little unparallel, imo. But, I see where you're getting at.


----------



## Garbz

The point is still the same. The D300 is up and beyond in terms of output capability, but it's still not the same. It's like the difference between a sigma and a nikon lens. Image quality depends on the specific lens but for the most parts Nikon lenses will be more likely to withstand a fall, and less likely to jam, and you pay for that premium. (and I know this isn't always the case but it makes for a crude comparison)

With that in mind is the D2X still worth it? Well I guarantee many newspapers will stay with buying D2x and D2h until a comparable D3 series body reaches the market. The simple fact is the D2X does take fantastic pictures and will continue to feed an industry where reliability is more important than image quality. Much the same way as outback tour guides here in Australia are much more likely to drive a 10 year old Toyota Landcruiser rather than a spunky new Lexus. These type of people need peace of mind and not functionality.


----------



## nikonkev

Retailers have said it will be nonsensical for consumers to purchase a D2Xs anymore, unless it's all about "looking cool" with it. It will be discontinued because there simply will be no "market" for it.


----------



## Garbz

Of course. We're not talking consumers here 

It will be discontinued so it doesn't eat into the D3's market share. Don't be tricked into thinking things get discontinued because there's no market share for them. They only drop back to special order items. The same thing happened with the 4th generation Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-S, it was discontinued when the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S came out because it ate into it's market share. The 3rd generation 80-200mm f/2.8 AF unit is still available.

Regardless of how much companies talk about passing value onto the consumers the reality is they still won't go along with something that affects it's bottom line, but if a product is not very popular there's nothing to lose by keeping it on the shelf as every unit sold will still go towards recovering R&D costs. Now if a Pro decides to buy a D2x instead of a D3 on the other hand, that's a massive hit to the company.


----------



## Antithesis

I assume a lot of pro's that need a rugged pro-body will be buying D3's obviously, making the D2X kind of obsolete. For sheer comparison though, I think any Photojournalist would rather have a heavy-duty, weather sealed D2X in any harsh environment than the d300. I'm sure there will be a lot of high level pro's using D2X's as backup bodies too.


----------



## JeffE

At Calumet's Digital Days in Chicago last Friday I was able to test both D3 and D300. They let me put my card in and play a bit. lucky I was early as I heard the next day they did not allow that to be done with the D3 as it is a Pre production model. Anyway I ran through all the ISO's from 200~6400 on both cameras. Not a scientific test as I couldn't use a tripod nor get the same subjects for all my frames.

Bottom line is Both cameras looked excellent up to 3200. The D3 with some daylight looked AMAZING even at 6400. Getting a bit grainy & some noise - not bad though - when pointed into the store with Tungsten light only and deep shadows.

Yesterday I was at a friend's studio testing his new D300 compared to my D2x. The D300 at 3200 (availble Tungsten from a softbox) looked better- and damn acceptable- than the D2X at 1600. At 800 there was a tad bit more noise on the D2x. But fine really. At 800 & below I'd use either one.

At 200 with strobe I have to say I liked the skin tones better on my D2x with similar corrections & same light - but a slight Color Balance layer pulling -4 on Red (towards Cyan) and -8 Blue (towards yellow) made the 2 files nearly identical. I'll bet I can tweak the color in camera or upload a custom profile to to correct this pretty easy.

So I had to think a while as to what I would miss on the D2x. Compared to my D200 - the D2x has faster focus, especially in low light. Slightly faster motor. Better battery life. And the Crop mode- I use this a lot.

But I think these things have been either evened out or improved on the D300. I'm selling the D200 to a friend and will soon put the D2x up for sale. If I was a sports shooter and not needing over 800 much (but you do don't you?) I still might keep the D2X for it's stronger build & motor. I shoot people & architecture.

D3 I'd like eventually. But that opens another can of worms - More Lenses. I'd want the 14~24 for architecture and want to replace the 28~70 for the 24~70. That is equivalent to the 17~55 now in working focal lengths. My work horse.

So, I'd need to carry both sets of lenses - DX and FX. More expense, more weight, larger bag..... i will eventually - just not now.


----------



## Sultan AlZaabi

to easy to choose

*Nikon D300* is batter 10 times from the *Nikon D2Xs*


----------



## Garbz

Sultan AlZaabi said:


> to easy to choose
> 
> *Nikon D300* is batter 10 times from the *Nikon D2Xs*



A wonderfully opinionated statement form someone who neither through things through from any angle other than his own, nor bothered to read the thread. GG :roll:


----------

