- Messages
- 286
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Another D2X or a D300?
They both seem to go for around £800 second hand. I had d2x from week of release and ended up selling it when I dipped out of photography for a bit a couple of years ago. I know it extremely well and it was perfect for my needs. Im looking to replace my d2h with something at the moment and Im unsure whether to go back to a d2x or go with a d300 (and maybe a grip). For the record I dont use the d2h for anything fast, I use it because Im used to the body, it was cheap and I like the small files at raw. The things I like about the d300 are the higher res screen, the potentially better iso noise and the 'newness' of it. Id imagine pictures may look slightly better than from the d2x purely due to the fact that its newer and I guess employs a better sensor/ processing methods, however on the other hand I find it tough to believe that it could be considerably better, given its a dxxx compared to a dxx. I'd never use live view, dlighting or whatever else, and I always shoot only in raw and at low iso's, but thats mostly because of previous limitations with lots of noise at high iso. Ive been shooting with larger d1/d2 cameras for years and the last 'smaller' one I had was a d100 about 6(?) years ago (and even that was gripped after a month) so it might be a bit of a change to go smaller. For the record I mostly shoot portrature so nothing fast.
Any suggestions on what I should get? Am I just being a bit silly thinking the d300 would be noticably better because its slightly newer? I like the idea of buying into a current camera body, but if the only significant advantage im gonna get is a higher res screen and slightly better iso noise at the cost of a weaker body, lack of buttons and prior knowledge to the cameras operation and limitations - is it worth it?
thanks guys
They both seem to go for around £800 second hand. I had d2x from week of release and ended up selling it when I dipped out of photography for a bit a couple of years ago. I know it extremely well and it was perfect for my needs. Im looking to replace my d2h with something at the moment and Im unsure whether to go back to a d2x or go with a d300 (and maybe a grip). For the record I dont use the d2h for anything fast, I use it because Im used to the body, it was cheap and I like the small files at raw. The things I like about the d300 are the higher res screen, the potentially better iso noise and the 'newness' of it. Id imagine pictures may look slightly better than from the d2x purely due to the fact that its newer and I guess employs a better sensor/ processing methods, however on the other hand I find it tough to believe that it could be considerably better, given its a dxxx compared to a dxx. I'd never use live view, dlighting or whatever else, and I always shoot only in raw and at low iso's, but thats mostly because of previous limitations with lots of noise at high iso. Ive been shooting with larger d1/d2 cameras for years and the last 'smaller' one I had was a d100 about 6(?) years ago (and even that was gripped after a month) so it might be a bit of a change to go smaller. For the record I mostly shoot portrature so nothing fast.
Any suggestions on what I should get? Am I just being a bit silly thinking the d300 would be noticably better because its slightly newer? I like the idea of buying into a current camera body, but if the only significant advantage im gonna get is a higher res screen and slightly better iso noise at the cost of a weaker body, lack of buttons and prior knowledge to the cameras operation and limitations - is it worth it?
thanks guys
