- Messages
- 8,193
- Name
- Pat MacInnes
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Although I keep telling myself (and you lot) that I am happy with my D200, there's a slight nagging feeling within that a new body will A) help me be a bit more productive on the bank, and B) appease the materialist demons within that are crying out for a new purchase. 
I currently run a D200 that I will be keeping as a second body, no doubt about that; it's a great piece of kit and has plenty of life left in it. It's gripped too, which suits me because I have large hands, which leads me onto wanting a D2x.
I like the feel of them, like the IQ from them and I like the weatherproofing they offer, a big deal for me seeing as I spend all of my time shooting outdoors. Plus, for around £800 these days they look like good value.
The D3 and its subsequent variants are far too pricey for me, as is a D700 - plus they are all FX which means some of my lenses are a bit redundant. Plus, a DX sensor allows me to get a bit more from my 80-200mm, which is one reason I want to remain DX. I have no probs staying DX results-wise.
I've recently used a D300s and I really have to admit that it's an amazing piece of kit. However, I don't need the video function, which is why a used D300 plus grip is appealing; for under or around £900 I should be able to get one. However, how do you think it fares against a D2x or D2Xs with its built-in grip, similar sensor, better weatherproofing?
I am fully aware that the D300 goes miles beyond what the D2 range can on the high ISO front but for me, as long as it goes to 800 and is still printable I'm happy. I mainly shoot at 400 and as long as that's good, like it is on my D200, then that's the main thing.
Have I made any glaring ommisions and shortfalls from tech spec of the D2X/XS that I should be made aware of by former/current D2 users?
I know it's not exactly comparing apples with apples but it's what I can afford....
I currently run a D200 that I will be keeping as a second body, no doubt about that; it's a great piece of kit and has plenty of life left in it. It's gripped too, which suits me because I have large hands, which leads me onto wanting a D2x.
I like the feel of them, like the IQ from them and I like the weatherproofing they offer, a big deal for me seeing as I spend all of my time shooting outdoors. Plus, for around £800 these days they look like good value.
The D3 and its subsequent variants are far too pricey for me, as is a D700 - plus they are all FX which means some of my lenses are a bit redundant. Plus, a DX sensor allows me to get a bit more from my 80-200mm, which is one reason I want to remain DX. I have no probs staying DX results-wise.
I've recently used a D300s and I really have to admit that it's an amazing piece of kit. However, I don't need the video function, which is why a used D300 plus grip is appealing; for under or around £900 I should be able to get one. However, how do you think it fares against a D2x or D2Xs with its built-in grip, similar sensor, better weatherproofing?
I am fully aware that the D300 goes miles beyond what the D2 range can on the high ISO front but for me, as long as it goes to 800 and is still printable I'm happy. I mainly shoot at 400 and as long as that's good, like it is on my D200, then that's the main thing.
Have I made any glaring ommisions and shortfalls from tech spec of the D2X/XS that I should be made aware of by former/current D2 users?
I know it's not exactly comparing apples with apples but it's what I can afford....
