# Upgrading to D2x



## MitchStrp (Mar 14, 2013)

With that being said will my lenses fit just fine? (Nikon 3200) Im in the midst of a ton of research and before figured I could cut out a few searches through google by asking my fellow TPF nerds. I plan on keeping the other body if I can and if both lenses fit then it would be ideal! Thanks guys!!


----------



## MitchStrp (Mar 14, 2013)

So what ive read is the D3200 is 23.7x 15.4 and the D2x is 23.6 x 15.6 so is it close enough to fit?


----------



## tirediron (Mar 14, 2013)

They're both DX bodies, the sensor sizes vary by fractions of a mm in each dimension, but it's not going to affect anything!


----------



## MitchStrp (Mar 14, 2013)

awesome!! Thank you so much!!


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 14, 2013)

Is that really an upgrade?


----------



## Garbz (Mar 15, 2013)

Erm what are you after in the upgrade? If all you want is a reliable metal body then by all means go for it. If image quality is any consideration then don't do it. The D3200 has a much better image quality than the D2x which is no surprise given that it's !!!!9!!!! years old.


----------



## orb9220 (Mar 15, 2013)

Yep agreed unless you can specify exactly why a D2x? 
As a used D90 or D300(s) for pro build with metering of older Ai or Ai-s faster & beefier AF would go further than a D2x.
.


----------



## shadowlands (Mar 15, 2013)

I have a D300, but I still want to grab a D2h or D2x one day... I know about the noise and all, but I held one and it's a beautiful beast!!!
Always looking to score a deal.


----------



## Patrice (Mar 15, 2013)

OP, you want a D2x then go for it. Nice camera and very nice images at base ISO.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 15, 2013)

Patrice said:


> OP, you want a D2x then go for it. Nice camera and very nice images at base ISO.



Yeah, we wouldn't want to point him in the right direction or anything.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 15, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Patrice said:
> 
> 
> > OP, you want a D2x then go for it. Nice camera and very nice images at base ISO.
> ...



Oh, come on, I shot my Contax llla the other day and it worked fine.

I wouldn't mind having a D2x either, it'd look good next to the F3HP (that still takes great photos).


----------



## MitchStrp (Mar 15, 2013)

Friend has one shoots photos for transworld skateboarding and his is fine.. 8 fps at 7mp.. Im not using it for what most people would, it will always have a fish eye and in dangers way shooting skateboarding. I picked one up very cheap locally today and really really enjoy it. btw D2x was announced in 2004 and released in 2005 so technically 8 years  This camera will be very nice and affordable and is still cheap enough where a flying skateboarding hitting it wouldnt make me too sick to my stomach.


----------



## djacobox372 (Mar 21, 2013)

MitchStrp said:


> Friend has one shoots photos for transworld skateboarding and his is fine.. 8 fps at 7mp.. Im not using it for what most people would, it will always have a fish eye and in dangers way shooting skateboarding. I picked one up very cheap locally today and really really enjoy it. btw D2x was announced in 2004 and released in 2005 so technically 8 years  This camera will be very nice and affordable and is still cheap enough where a flying skateboarding hitting it wouldnt make me too sick to my stomach.



Understand, you may also consider a D300 with a grip and some strong AA--shoots just as fast as a d2x (when gripped with AAs), has better IQ, costs a little less, and sports a larger LCD


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 21, 2013)

MitchStrp said:


> Friend has one shoots photos for transworld skateboarding and his is fine.. 8 fps at 7mp.. Im not using it for what most people would, it will always have a fish eye and in dangers way shooting skateboarding. I picked one up very cheap locally today and really really enjoy it. btw D2x was announced in 2004 and released in 2005 so technically 8 years  This camera will be very nice and affordable and is still cheap enough where a flying skateboarding hitting it wouldnt make me too sick to my stomach.



But it's still not an upgrade to the D3200.


----------



## desmondlewissmith (Mar 21, 2013)

Did you buy it already?  I'm selling mine in the next couple days.


----------



## StandingBear1983 (Mar 22, 2013)

what about a new D7100? is it that much more expensive then a D2x? - or i would go for a D300s if not for the D7100, all those have all metal bodies, nothing will happen to either of them if you bash a skateboard into them or they fall on the pavement...something will happen most likely to the lens but not the body...but that's in any camera you get.


----------



## djacobox372 (Mar 23, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> MitchStrp said:
> 
> 
> > Friend has one shoots photos for transworld skateboarding and his is fine.. 8 fps at 7mp.. Im not using it for what most people would, it will always have a fish eye and in dangers way shooting skateboarding. I picked one up very cheap locally today and really really enjoy it. btw D2x was announced in 2004 and released in 2005 so technically 8 years  This camera will be very nice and affordable and is still cheap enough where a flying skateboarding hitting it wouldnt make me too sick to my stomach.
> ...



It is if you're shooting sports, 8fps >>>> 4fps


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 23, 2013)

No it isn't. It's a mere matter of preference.


----------



## KmH (Mar 23, 2013)

StandingBear1983 said:


> or i would go for a D300s if not for the D7100, all those have all metal bodies,


The D7100 does not have an all metal chassis, like the D300s has.
The D7100 only has a metal top and back plate, while the front and bottom of the D7100 chassis are plastic.

You can scroll down and see the D7100 chassis here - D7100 Nikon Digital Camera| Digital SLR Camera from Nikon

Here is the D300s - http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/d300s/en/reliability/

The metal chassis is mainly for heat dissipation and the blocking of RF interference.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 23, 2013)

I haven't read any of the reply posts, but this is coming from someone that has owned a D2X. The D2X is certainly not an upgrade to your D3200. In my own opinion... I would hold onto the 3200. You say it won't make you sick to your stomach if a skateboard hits it, but the D2X and D3200 are in the same price ball park.

Please don't take this offensively, but you'd be absolutely crazy to drop the 3200 for a D2X... and once again... this is coming from a guy who owned a D2X, and just sold it about a month ago after owning it for about 2 years.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 23, 2013)

djacobox372 said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > MitchStrp said:
> ...




This isn't Pro baseball or football he is shooting. He isn't catching a man running 20 mph and catching a ball doing 60mph... He isn't catching a 160mph ball come off of a ball bat, or a 99mph fastball. 

You're talking about kids doing 10 mph on a board with wheels on it... the D3200 is every bit of capable of capturing shots that he wants...

Shot with a D5000 (4 frames per second continuous shooting):


----------



## MK3Brent (Mar 23, 2013)

OP just wants a big looking camera.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 23, 2013)

MK3Brent said:


> OP just wants a big looking camera.



I agree with that 100%. It seems he wants the "full frame" look without the guts. The D3200 is over twice the camera as the D2X. 

If he wants a big looking camera, he should look into canon's line up. All of them are huge.

Snapsort shows over a 40% image quality increase in the D3200 over the D2X. The D3200 has more dynamic range, and MUCH better high ISO performance. This is simply a no brainer. To go with the D2X is simply absurd.

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon_D2X


----------



## Derrel (Mar 23, 2013)

I cannot agree that a low-cost D2x is "absurd"...the D3200 has the worst viewfinder a person could ever be saddled with....dim, an utterly crappy image, due to its cheapie pentamirror based el-cheapo finder...the D3200 also is handicapped with a laggy shutter, very slow mirror return, slow latency...in general, the D3200 is a bargain-basement, cheapy body. The D2x on the other hand has *the best APS-C viewfinder of ANY crop-body ever made*. Large image, bright, high-contrast image, crisp, and clear finder image. It was a $5,000 body with no expense spared in manufacture. It also offers 2.0x crop mode with the push of a button. It also focused wit AF and AF-D lenses, and meters with manual focus lenses. It has a deep buffer. And the battery life is simply un-fricking-believable.

As recently as yesterday, Thom Hogan said that at base ISO, he thinks the D2x is STILL a better imager than the D7000...the color the D2x produces is almost unrivalled..it was so good that Nikon was forced by popular demand to produce "Nikon D2x color profiles" for D3-series owners....

As Thom wrote, just yesterday, "_#7 D7000 versus #10 D2x_A bit of a surprise, actually, as at base ISO I'd judge the D2x to still be better, and it's certainly fielding a far better team of features. But the newer D7000 wins 81 to 19 (%). Faux Bobby: "_My wife thinks I'm outdated sometimes. What the hell am I going to say to her? I just nod my head and keep right on_. _Same with some teams and their coaches._"
That so defines the D2x. Those of you still shooting it at base ISO know what he's saying. There's something very nice about D2x images shot that way. Lots of acuity, good (but not great) dynamic range, some kind of micro contrast clarity that we lost with some of the newer sensors, and Nikon's most tweaked color of any DSLR camera (so much so that they had to come up with D2x Picture Controls to please the D3 crowd). Used right, the D2x just keeps going, like faux Bobby. But the newer D7000 managed to beat it. Doesn't matter, the D2x walked off the court proud and will keep playing with anyone who wants an outdoor game."

The D7000 did beat the D2x in the opinion polls that Thom is conducting as part of his "March Madness" columns.

I still have my D2x...it's an instantly responsive body, and the wide-area AF covers almost the entire frame...the AF system in the D2x is much,much more-capable than that in the D3200 (and I like it better than the AF in my D3x). The D3200 is, imho, kind of a crap body. Sure, it does high ISO better than a D2x, but it's a slug, and the finder image is utter $h!+.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 23, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I cannot agree that a low-cost D2x is "absurd"...the D3200 has the worst viewfinder a person could ever be saddled with....dim, an utterly crappy image, due to its cheapie pentamirror based el-cheapo finder...the D3200 also is handicapped with a laggy shutter, very slow mirror return, slow latency...in general, the D3200 is a bargain-basement, cheapy body. The D2x on the other hand has *the best APS-C viewfinder of ANY crop-body ever made*. Large image, bright, high-contrast image, crisp, and clear finder image. It was a $5,000 body with no expense spared in manufacture. It also offers 2.0x crop mode with the push of a button. It also focused wit AF and AF-D lenses, and meters with manual focus lenses. It has a deep buffer. And the battery life is simply un-fricking-believable.
> 
> As recently as yesterday, Thom Hogan said that at base ISO, he thinks the D2x is STILL a better imager than the D7000...the color the D2x produces is almost unrivalled..it was so good that Nikon was forced by popular demand to produce "Nikon D2x color profiles" for D3-series owners....
> 
> ...



LOL, you can try to compare the D2X with the D7000 all you want. I will tell you that any day of the week, the D7000 walks all over the D2X. Like I said. I've owned both. I'll also say this... both shooting in RAW at base ISO... the D2X doesn't hold a candle to the D7000 on the same glass. You can pull as many websites of other people talking about it all you want... However, I'm talking from 100% absolute experience in using the two camera systems. 

The D7000 has been an absolute DREAM compared to anything I have owned thus far. That's not really saying much, because the best camera I have owned before the D7000 was the D2X... However, it's not even in the same ball park as the D7000. Not even close. My D5000's IQ at base ISO is just as good as the D2X.

The only two set backs I can find to this day with the D7000 are the over lubrication issues (I've had to send mine to Nikon twice so far to have the sensor cleaned because of the grease getting all over it), and the back focus problems (which really isn't a problem at all, considering manual calibration on each lens is easy, and the camera automatically loads each calibration when you change the lens.) So, it boils down to the over lubrication problems. That's the only flaw I've had so far with it.

Going beyond the base ISO... the D7000's high ISO performance is absolutely amazing IMO. Snapsort shows somewhere in the low 1000's, but I shoot mine at 1600 ISO regularly with very minimal noise. As said before, this camera by far exceeds my expectations of it.



However, that's not even the comparison at hand. The comparison was over the D3200. Regardless of "Dim" viewfinder issues. This guy claims he's shooting skaters, which would be in broad daylight anyway. So a dim viewfinder wouldn't even be a slight problem in the first place. You're talking dynamic range, the D3200 is capable of capturing near 2.5 f-stops MORE dynamic range than the D2X, wich is going to be a PHENOMENAL luxury when shooting mid day skaters, because of the vast array of harsh lighting situations and large amounts of shadows. It's got a much stronger color depth, and will perform in high ISO situations over an f-stop more, which is crucial if you ever need it.

It's slow because it is a DX Camera with no focus motor. Of course it's going to be dog piss slow. Hell, the D2X had a MUCH faster AF than my D7000 ever will. However, unless I'm shooting high speed sports, that's not really going to matter anyway. Yes, you are right, with the D3200, there are going to be times he misses shots due to the fact that the D3200 will not focus in time. However, for the most part, It will not be an issue. They aren't speeding up on him. I also know that a slow focus system is very capable of capturing skateboarding shots with ease (Hence the reason I posted a picture I had taken with my D5000 above, which is MUCH slower to focus than the D3200.)


All in all, as said before, you can try and disagree if you want, that still doesn't change the fact that the D2X is a lesser camera than the D3200. If I had someone offer to trade me a D3200 for my D2X before I sold it... you better believe I would have been on that bandwagon.


----------



## MitchStrp (Mar 24, 2013)

Keeping the d3200 never said I was getting rid of it and the D2x is not for me.. I picked it up off a buddy instead of ordering first to see if I liked it and its not mobile like I thought and not as sharp as I wanted. With that being said I think I am going to hold off on buying a new body invest in some better glass and enhance my skills before going up to the next body and hopefully when I am ready and the wallet agrees it will be a full frame but it will be a while.. thanks so much guys for looking out for me ha. Means a lot, the TPF is were its at for information and advice!


----------



## Derrel (Mar 24, 2013)

Yeah...you're more familiar with Nikon cameras than Thom Hogan. Hilarious. The D3200 is a toy Nikon. I am fully aware of the differences between a flagship Nikon like a D2x or even a D1h, and a beginner-level, $549 camera like a D3200, or even a high-end entry-level body like the D7000.


----------



## MitchStrp (Mar 24, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Yeah...you're more familiar with Nikon cameras than Thom Hogan. Hilarious. The D3200 is a toy Nikon. I am fully aware of the differences between a flagship Nikon like a D2x or even a D1h, and a beginner-level, $549 camera like a D3200, or even a high-end entry-level body like the D7000.



Just trying to take some photos homie, we are all students of this hobby and sarcasm to make someone feel less superior is unwanted here. after 17,909 post.. you would think you would have caught on.


----------



## Mach0 (Mar 24, 2013)

MitchStrp said:


> Just trying to take some photos homie, we are all students of this hobby and sarcasm to make someone feel less superior is unwanted here. after 17,909 post.. you would think you would have caught on.



I think he is replying to Aaron.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 24, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Yeah...you're more familiar with Nikon cameras than Thom Hogan. Hilarious. The D3200 is a toy Nikon. I am fully aware of the differences between a flagship Nikon like a D2x or even a D1h, and a beginner-level, $549 camera like a D3200, or even a high-end entry-level body like the D7000.



Derrel, I respect you a lot, and you have a TON of photographic knowledge. I'm not attempting to degrade or insult your intelligence by any means. I know that you're aware of the differences in Nikon models.

My point is, you brought some guru's *opinion* into this conversation and startin waiving it around as if it carried the same weight as fact.


I don't care what his opinion is. I've used both cameras at base ISO.... and I can tell you from _*experience*_, that his opinion is wrong. Best of all, you wouldn't know, because you have only used _*one*_ of the two camera systems. Where as, I have used *both.* Which is my direct point. Until you have owned and shot with both, you're really in no position to be comparing the two. Because, see, I have seen the difference in quality with my own eyes... you have simply read someone's review about it.


Trying to compare the D2X to the D7000 isn't even a slight comparison, they are in two separate leagues, and the D2X doesn't hold a candle. That's 99.9999999999999999999% of the reason I sold it in the first place. After purchasing my D7000, there was _*no use*_ in keeping the D2X around.


----------



## Spesh (Mar 24, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah...you're more familiar with Nikon cameras than Thom Hogan. Hilarious. The D3200 is a toy Nikon. I am fully aware of the differences between a flagship Nikon like a D2x or even a D1h, and a beginner-level, $549 camera like a D3200, or even a high-end entry-level body like the D7000.
> ...



I have owned the D2X and D7000 too, but I disagree with you.

The D7000 was only really better at high ISO. At base ISO, I actually think that straight from the camera, the D2X produced slightly nicer files. Add in the build quality, ergonomics, battery life, 8fps in crop mode and it could be a very useful camera for the OP's requirements. Personally though I would rather have a D300s were I in the same position.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 24, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah...you're more familiar with Nikon cameras than Thom Hogan. Hilarious. The D3200 is a toy Nikon. I am fully aware of the differences between a flagship Nikon like a D2x or even a D1h, and a beginner-level, $549 camera like a D3200, or even a high-end entry-level body like the D7000.
> ...



Dag nab it!  The world is flat and I'm standing in the center of it!!!

I don't care what some guy named Galileo says.




Not to get into s pixxing contest but I've seen Thom Hogan's work and have done for years.

If there is a difference of opinion between a photographer who's been shooting a couple of years and Mr. Hogan
I would strongly suggest that the newby reconsider his/her methodology.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 24, 2013)

DxO has the D3200 blowing the D2x out of the water in all categories.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 24, 2013)

Spesh said:


> I have owned the D2X and D7000 too, but I disagree with you.
> The D7000 was only really better at high ISO. At base ISO, I actually think that straight from the camera, the D2X produced slightly nicer files. Add in the build quality, ergonomics, battery life, 8fps in crop mode and it could be a very useful camera for the OP's requirements. Personally though I would rather have a D300s were I in the same position.



You are welcome to your opinion. However, remember that, it's simply your opinion. You can't convince me something other than how I think if I have seen what I think with my own eyes. You can try and argue your point with a brick wall, the same as Darrel. WHo knows, maybe the focus alignment was off on my D2X... However, the D7K made my D2X look like a D50.



Mike_E said:


> If there is a difference of opinion between a photographer who's been shooting a couple of years and Mr. Hogan
> I would strongly suggest that the newby reconsider his/her methodology.



A "Couple" of years? Try 7. Going on 8. I'm far from new to photography.



Ballistics said:


> DxO has the D3200 blowing the D2x out of the water in all categories.



Agreed. Agreed. agreed. And once said before, will say again: If someone would have offered me a D3200 trade for my D2X, I would have smiled while handing it over.


----------



## Spesh (Mar 24, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Spesh said:
> 
> 
> > I have owned the D2X and D7000 too, but I disagree with you.
> ...



Your view is just an opinion as well and being such, it is no more (or less) valid than mine. All I said was that I disagreed with you.

You have made it perfectly clear that you are completely closed minded on the issue. So far be it from me to try to change your mind.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 24, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> DxO has the D3200 blowing the D2x out of the water in all categories.




'All categories' is irrelevant, the scope of this discussion is limited and doesn't include test patterns.

Look, the D3200 is a nice little camera and there is no need to defend it.  It's just that what the D2x does well it _still_ does very well- regardless of it's age.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 24, 2013)

Spesh said:


> Your view is just an opinion as well and being such, it is no more (or less) valid than mine. All I said was that I disagreed with you.
> 
> You have made it perfectly clear that you are completely closed minded on the issue. So far be it from me to try to change your mind.




I think you have missed my point. The only reason I am closed minded on this issue, is because I actively see the difference every single day. Until you can show me documented proof that it's different, my opinion still stands as fact, because I have already proved it to myself. It's not about being closed minded, it's about not talking out of your ass and expecting someone to believe it. If I still had my D2X, I'd be more than happy to give you a live demonstration.

So, if you want to change someone's mind (Hence the reason you even bothered posting in the first place), prove it. That's all.

See, because not only have I seen it, all benchmark scores located on both sets of equipment *EVERYWHERE* you look, also *CONFIRM* what I and Ballistics are saying. There is no documented proof anywhere to support what you are saying, except for some Joe Schmoe's review and opinion on the matter, which stands *ZERO* ground. I don't care how famous or rich the guy is.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 24, 2013)

Mike_E said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > DxO has the D3200 blowing the D2x out of the water in all categories.
> ...



And I agree with that 100%. It is an OUTSTANDING camera to be over 10 years old.

However, that doesn't change the fact that new entry dSLR's are better. Bottom line. The D2X has definitely passed the cost over time test. It will even beat the D3200 at that game, given that the D3200 will be outdated in as little as 3 years. However, You can bet that in 10 years, Entry level dSLR's will be surpassing the D3X and D4. That's just how technology works. To pretend like this doesn't happen is simply being naive.


----------



## Spesh (Mar 24, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> I think you have missed my point. The only reason I am closed minded on this issue, is because I actively see the difference every single day. Until you can show me documented proof that it's different, my opinion still stands as fact, because I have already proved it to myself. It's not about being closed minded, it's about not talking out of your ass and expecting someone to believe it. If I still had my D2X, I'd be more than happy to give you a live demonstration.
> 
> So, if you want to change someone's mind (Hence the reason you even bothered posting in the first place), prove it. That's all.



Sorry, but I couldn't help but laugh when I read this.

Like I said before, I wasn't trying to change your mind. I was merely stating a different opinion to that of yours, for the benefit of the OP. You seem to have an elevated view of yourself, in that your opinion is the only one that can be fact.

What a load of nonsense!


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 24, 2013)

Spesh said:


> You seem to have an elevated view of yourself, in that your opinion is the only one that can be fact.
> 
> What a load of nonsense!



What a ridiculous comment. I never said that only mine can be facts. I said that if you want to prove me different on something that I already have proof on, then you're going to need to provide more than just some words over the internet from some guy you think is a photographical God.



Want my proof? Here you go:

http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon-D3200-vs-Nikon_D2X
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D3200-Review/Sensor-performance
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Nikon/D2X
http://snapsort.com/compare/Nikon_D2X-vs-Nikon_D7000
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Database/Nikon/D7000

I have yet to see any of you provide any proof behind what you're saying. Yet, Ballistics and I have provided proof time and time again.


----------



## Spesh (Mar 24, 2013)

Your failure to understand anything I've written is mind boggling.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 24, 2013)

Spesh said:


> Your failure to understand anything I've written is mind boggling.




What's mind boggling is your inflammatory and aggressive approach to disagree with someone and then trying to insult their intelligence when they
are clearly speaking their point and then try to twist the information given.



> You seem to have an elevated view of yourself, in that your opinion is the only one that can be fact.



Yeah, I'm not seeing that anywhere. Why get personal?  If your point is that you agree to disagree, then just leave it at that.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 24, 2013)

Mike_E said:


> Ballistics said:
> 
> 
> > DxO has the D3200 blowing the D2x out of the water in all categories.
> ...



It's irrelevant now, considering that the OP isn't going from the D3200 to the D2x suddenly. But initially, the idea was that the D2x is an upgrade to the D3200, and it's just not the case. 
The D2x doing well for its age was never really my concern.


----------



## Spesh (Mar 24, 2013)

Ballistics said:


> Spesh said:
> 
> 
> > Your failure to understand anything I've written is mind boggling.
> ...


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 24, 2013)

Spesh said:


> Your failure to understand anything I've written is mind boggling.



_What's mind boggling, is that you have successfully built a delusional paradigm that you weren't trying to sway my opinion by disagreeing. However, everyone who has read this thread so far knows that is utter crap._

If you don't care what I think, and you don't care to change my mind, why would you bother taking the time out to tell me that, not only do you disagree, but _*then go on to explain WHY you disagree*_? That answer is simple, because *you wanted to sway my opinion by backing darrel that he had someone else attempting to confirm that the information coming from him was true. *

Not a single thing that you have said thus far, has carried any weight what-so-ever. When explaining how and why I got to my observation, not only do I have personal experience with both cameras, I still own one of them, and got rid of the other one only about 4 weeks ago. So, my memory is 100% refreshed on the comparison of these two models. Yours, not so much. Not only have I given my personal refreshed testimony that the D2X is water under the bridge compared to both the D7000 and the D3200,_ I have given you link after link of benchmark scores confirming exactly what I said._ 

All any of you or your little nut swinging buddies have said are "Joe Schmoe said that at base ISO, the D2X is much better." However, both a personal testimony of less than a month ago and all benchmarks that exist for the cameras counteract everything that is coming out of your mouth. 
_
I can hand you a cup of water, and you can try and convince me that it isn't water in that cup all you want to, then make an irrelevant argument having nothing to do with the cup of water, then complain that your mind is boggled that I have not understood anything you have written, *but that still doesn't change the fact that*_ _*the substance in the damn cup IS WATER*_...

Stop running around the conversation at hand. If you haven't noticed, none of the others have continued with the conversation, because most of them are smart enough to realize that nothing they have said carries any weight. You should follow suit.

--------------------------------------

Here's my ending clause:

The D2X isn't a crappy camera. However, that doesn't mean that it's not on the way out the door, because technology is getting better, and the entry levels are already surpassing it, and soon they will eat it alive.

If you want to buy an old camera with a sensor in it with low capability compared to new technology, based solely on the fact that it has a super fast and accurate autofocus system, by all means, then buy a D2X.

However, if you want to have a more capable camera, and are willing to sacrifice and have a dog slow autofocus system, for twice the capability in your sensor, then I'd say the slow focus sacrifice is well worth the trade. It's every bit of twice the camera as the D2X. Hell, a more accurate comparison would have been the D7000 vs the D3200. At least then you would be within the ball park.


----------



## Spesh (Mar 24, 2013)

Look, all I said is that in my opinion the D2X produced slightly more pleasing files (to me) than the D7000, which I sold last week. I then went on to state the significant number of areas where a D2X could be advantageous for the OPs specific requirements (namely buffer, frame rate, build quality etc)

Nowhere have I tried to change your opinion. Infact I even stated that I was just offering a different point of view for the benefit of the OP.

It is you that has made things personal and you that have taken my comments to heart. If you happen to think D2X is crap, then good for you. But your opinion is no more valid than mine.

All I asked is that you understood and respected that. But you just weren't capable of doing so without feeling personally insulted. Shame!


----------



## gryffinwings (Mar 27, 2013)

KmH said:


> StandingBear1983 said:
> 
> 
> > or i would go for a D300s if not for the D7100, all those have all metal bodies,
> ...



I'm going to have to correct some incorrect information, yes I know it's ken rockwell, but the technical information is from what I can tell correct, the D7100 does in fact have a mostly metal body.:




Nikon D7100 Review


----------



## KmH (Mar 27, 2013)

That photo shows the top and back plates.

The bottom and front of the D7000, D7100, and D600 are plastic. A _mostly_ metal chassis isn't an _all _metal chassis.

Also forum rules prohibit posting photos we don't own rights to. The photo you have posted is obviously owned by KenRockwell.com
We are allowed to post links to photos we don't own rights to, which is what I did.


----------



## Ballistics (Mar 27, 2013)

I was going to ask why you didn't just delete it, but then I noticed that you weren't purple. What happened to your moderator status?


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

gryffinwings said:


> yes I know it's ken rockwell, but the technical information is from what I can tell correct.



I never have understood why so many people give Ken such a hard time. He has simply put his own disclaimer on his website to relinquish himself from any possibility of a lawsuit from the data he has put there, and people just automatically discredit everything he says.

Ken Rockwell is a very experienced photographer. He has a TON of experience with a versatile selection of various Nikon models. His opinion is no different in weight than some of these other "head honcho" gurus that all of the other forum members use that don't have disclaimers on their blogs, reviews and websites. 

He's also more reputable than most of us.

I read his site often and really like some of the information he puts out.


----------

