Bob, The UK magazine Practical Photography, ran a test of the D200 in the current (February) issue and compared them very favourably. Briefly, both capable of excellent A3 prints. D200 had less noise at 800ASA and above D200 battery performance not as good as D2X and D200 autofocus not as good at locking onto low contrast subjects as D2X. Hope this is of some interest. Jim
Acutally, Bjorn's review includes pictures that show the D2X has better noise performance than the D200 at ISO 1600. I thought this was interesting because all I hear/read about is the poor noise performance of the D2X (which by the way, I don't see in my pictures) at high ISO.
YES! The D2x is much taller and shiny comapared to the D200 also the D2x is about $3,000 dollars more give or take. But what comparing the two i often said here that i prefer the AF failure of the D2x to the "banding" problem with the D200. however, it can be debated taht the "banding" pattern is somewhat *arty* when you print out the pics.
Also the little eye holey thing on the D200 is smaller then the D2x. Plus you have to spend another 5 million dollars to get an extra battery grippy thing for the D200 Which basicly everyone wants anyway so Nikon figures the cost of the D200 is not *really* the cost because once you buy the eye hole adapter, and the battery pack they already got you pretty darn near the D2x anyhow. So when you figure to upgrade the D2x will be replaced by the D2xs and then the D2x will drop to about 2700 of which you will sell your D200 (with proof of banding repair of course) and then take the 1200 and put it towards that D2x you should have bought in the first place and just had the AF system fixed.
Hope that puts things in a laughable perspective. Lol
Remember Nikon or Canon are business companies ! so No camera is perfect, because they need us to upgrade...upgrade..and who get money ? of course ! Nikon or Canon - perfect is only in yourself. If you think you happy with your camera -> means your camera is perfect !
I still use D2H; for another D2H is not perfect camera, but for me ! I love it - same to you folks ! D2X, D200 or any D family - every single one have some minor problems, but do not worry, let see cameras' output - giving a beautiful photo is A+
I'm waiting (one month now) on the D200 to arrive now. I haven't even held or seen one yet. A couple days ago a guy handed me his D-2x and let me play with it for a while. My goodness! all those sensors being cross..it's an awesome camera. I focuses so fast and even in the dark. If I could afford the D-2x, I'd go that way. I'm envious of those that have one. I showed it to my wife and she asked where we put the wheels on it cause we'd have to drive it too.
lol! thats true. Lucky for me i live in a city and my transportation costs are $76 a month to go anywhere at anytime for 30 days. That big car payment, gas, insurance, repairs and all of that stuff has turned into stuff like 2 d2x's and all sorts of glass that i was "sweating" when i lived the suburban life. But i am laughing at your post cause you could buy a used car for the cost of that camera. Only the camera deprecites faster and the car has a real warranty.
If I was physically able to do so, I would start doing this for a living but I'm not..but..I dearly enjoy photography. If I could afford one, I'd have one. I also don't believe that it would be impossible for one to make one's living using the D200 either. The term 'pro' has become a 'catchy sales slogan' of late. I'm sure that there's those out there that could take much better photos with the D200 than some would with the D2x..heck, for that matter, the D50 they could. All of Nikon's DSLR cameras are quite capable of turning out beautiful photographs. We're all susceptible to 'gadget envy' and that is what it is to many. Don't get me wrong, one only has to put that camera up to their face to see it's quality as it effortlessly locks itself into focus. It's one sweet machine.
Andy, I totally agree with you. It appears that the hobby people and non-pros are focusing on the price of the D2x. For me when it came out the price point meant nothing to me. Nothing. I am a working photographer, all i needed to see was the results and the camera paid for itself in two small jobs for me. Very astute ovservation. I was concerned that i wasnt getting ripped off, but basically i knew the camera was about 5k. So fine. I went to B&H and got one and then to Adorama for the other. Okay? Right?
I don't condemn the hobbyist or others who are simply window shopping long enough for the price to come down--but if you use Nikon long enough a price drop generally means new technology. By that time you have let the D2x advantage pass you on. And as a Pro, (not the marketing term) I cant let that time lapse-maybe 2 years-- when i have clients.
Also, FYI and an interesting anecdote. I shot a wedding PJ style in Manhattan about 1 month ago. Duirng the meeting when i was collecting a deposit the groom looked at me and said. "i Have a good friend who is really into photography, do you have a D2x? You said you are using the latest equiptment." I smiled and brought him into the back of my studio and showed him my cameras. That job alone nearly paid for the D2x? Is it worth it???? question answered for us professionals.