Is the D2x twice as good as the D200? I am trying to decide on what camera to make the jump to digital with (D2x vs D200). There was a recent post from somone that sent a note to Nikon asking how the D2x was better than the D200... The response was:
-higher resolution -better shutter build -better auto white balance -longer battery life -less shutter lag -voice memo -more AF sensors -high speed crop
One thing that was not included was how the D200 was better than the D2X (I am trying to be objective about this basing this on the Bjorn review):
-higher viewfinder magnification (.94x d200 vs .86x D2x) -brighter LCD -built in flash -lower noise over 100-800 ISO -better menu system readiblity -higher in-camera image buffer -smaller size
Current cost of the D2C is about $4500 - $500 rebate = $4000. Cost of the D200 is $1700. So you could have TWO D200's (answers the durabitly question in my mind) AND put $600 in your pocket vs a D2X.
So my question is, if you were going to buy ONE camera for your needs TODAY would you still get the D2X? If so why? I would especially like to here from people that might have both. Thanks for your response.
He who sleeps in continual noise is wakened by silence - William Dean Howells
Basing your decision on 'imagined' data could really make one look foolish... does WMD ring a bell??? You can go to any forum on any camera and find 'imagined' problems. With that logic, you would never buy a camera of any kind. Some problems are real and do affect a small percentage of cameras of every kind, but I think an informed decision is better than one that may or may not be imagined.
To answer the original question: I would D2X again today. The D200 is a great camera and takes great pictures, but the D2X is a better camera. The D2X just looks and feels more solid to me. Everything about it from the battery to the shutter to the extra megapixels to the ... Yes, its worth the extra 2k, at least IMHO.
Saying one is better then the other or not worth the price difference can be VERY subjective and really depends on the type of shooting situation the photographer is usually in.
Do you need the better autofocus performance of the D2X when you typically only shoot static situations or conversely, if you are typically shooting fast action, would the the autofocus speed of the D200 be sufficient? Would the D200 be a better choice if you are primarily hiking because of the smaller size? Will you be spending all your money on the D2X and perhaps have very little to spend on quality lenses? There have been actual posts on here from people asking what a good cheap lens choice because they spent all their money on the D2X and had very little money to buy lenses. There are so many variables in the equation that it boils down to what preferences or needs the given photographer has whether one is better to get then the other. Ultimately both can give great photos.
Personally, if money was not a factor, I could very well see me owning both because both could be considered the ideal camera depending on the shooting situation.
i've never shot nor even handled a D200, and from what i've read about it (banding issue aside) it sounds like a thoroughly impressive machine, but i love, adore, and cherish my D2x too much to take any other 35mm-style camera over it. i'd snap up a D200 in a second for a backup, but i don't believe it could ever replace its big Sister in my heart or my bag.
I own a D2X, and I have to be honest and say I thought about the price tag after the D200 came out. Hindsight you know! My brother bought a D200 and I have played with it a few times, and I like it. I like it enough to say I will sell my D70 and get the D200, but I will not sell my D2X even if I were to get a premium price for it.
My D2X rocks, and I would buy it again. But I am looking forward to the D200 as a second body to team up with it.
I have both. I shoot a LOT of surf/kiteboard/snowkite/skiing photos and as much as possible - landscape.
For fast action I prefer the D2X. It focuses faster. I use Focus Lock - don't want a bunch of out of focus motor driven shots - and sometimes the D200 just can't figure it out fasssst enough for me when I want to motor drive shots of a surfer hitting the lip or a skier going off a jump.... or a windsurfer doing a 360...
For large files - the D2X.
Feel in my hands - D2X
For light weight (mountaineering, heli skiing, rock climbing) the D200 is my weapon of choice. And files still large enough to market.
I said in an earlier forum I'd keep my D70 for these excursions - but 6.1 vs. 10.2 makes a huge difference in the paycheck - so - sold the D70. Bought the D200.
If I didn't need the D2X - and especially if I didn't have any good lenses, I would probably buy the D200 -
Getting back on track here - It's been said before - it really gets down to how and what you intend to shoot, then ultimately - what you intend to do with those shots. And probably the most important - how much can you spend.... not just for the body - but those lenses you'll need.... 'cause you won't want to put cheap glass on either of these bodies. and CF cards - (about 49 shots/G goes pretty fast) and on and on and on. Don't forget a GOOD tripod and ball head or?
And the bottom line is - the D200 really is a sweet camera.
"No matter how slow the film, Spirit always stands still long enough for the photographer it has chosen" Minor White
I am in the same boat trying to choose between the D200 and the D2X. I currently have the D100 and the D2Hs. I really like the feel of the D2Hs and appreciate the vertical shutter release. I am looking to use the D200 or the D2X for more detailed work such as landscapes and highly cropped images and use my D2Hs primarily for sports which I do alot of. One issue for me that makes the D2X a better choice than the D200 is that the settings are very similar between the D2Hs and the D2X making going from one camera to the other much easier. Hence I am leaning toward the D2X even though the price is considerably more.
Not the same problem as you have, but I plan to get another body to go along with my D2h. I added up the list of additional stuff I'd have to buy - and worse, carry around - to make the D200 equivalent, and I was surprised at how long the list was:
- mbd200 - more batteries (as near as I can tell the d2x gets 3x as many shots per charge) - a different charger (obviously not an additional $) - a different QR plate for the mdb - a different QR plate for the body itself - an adaptor for the DR-6 - DR-6
This is something like $800 more than I'd have to add to a D2x, rather a lot to add on to a $1700 body. When the D2x I'd be reusing the same items as I already have for the D2h.
Judging by how often I put my fingers in the slightly wrong place when I pick up the D100 now, I'd rather have the control layout be the SAME rather than merely "close."
_____ Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member
My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!
I've had a chance to shoot with a D200. While the body is light and solid, it still feels like a toy next to my D2H. Also, it is very difficult to go from the viewfinder of a D2 camera to a D200/D70/D50 viewfinder. I would get the D2X.
Very interesting observation, as I too am looking for a second body to my D2H.
I'm well aware of the issues when using two different bodies, if I'll buy D200. I do like the idea of having a smaller body for a walk-around-always-with-me camera, but your post got me thinking!
I never looked at the additional cost I'll be spending on top of D200 and the added weight. I have to reconsider this.
Since I was also considering to get the D2Hs (got to wait and save some $$$), that may be the answer for me. D2X would be a dream to own, but is out of my price range and my current PC probably couldn't handle the workflow of the D2X.
Thanks for your post.
p.s. Sorry to seawolf, as this isn't related to your original post, but I'll add my two cents: Having used D100 in past and currently using D2H I would strongly recommend getting D2X, if it's in your price range. Once you use the D2 body it is very hard to look back.
I mainly shoot adventure sports, travel and automotive sports.
I have used all the cameras in question here plus a few others.
I have settled on the D200 for now and am extremely happy with it. I have no banding and am getting fairly good battery performance (still not as good as my old D2’s although pretty close to the D70).
For me the weight, size and fact that it’s files satisfies the editorial and stock clients are what make it attractive to me.
If I shot mainly for news print then yes, I would much prefer a D2HS just as if I shot for a HQ sports magazine I would probably prefer a D2X.
All the camera’s have their place.
If I needed more resolution the D2X really dose not offer anything more or at least enough for me to want to use/buy it for those few times I need more resolution. For those times I will stick to renting a Phase One back.
With what I shoot I do run into fast action regularly. Yes the D2’s MC-2000 has its edge over the D200’s MC-1000. At the same time both these cameras are light years ahead of the F3’s manual focus. Oh did I mention there are many great fast actions shots taken with the F3 along with just about every other note worthy camera out there if it have awesome AF or no AF.
I think a lot of us are taking all these automations such as AF for granted and forgetting about what we use to have even 10 years ago. Personally, I try not to forget about those older camera’s that are way behind what we have now. That way when I get in a jam with my camera I can get by with out missing shots.
Thanks for that info Hedley (I received your e-mail also)
I checked your recent posts and it seemed like you had a similar dilemma with adding a second body to your D2H. I saw, that you replaced your D70 with D2Hs.
I'm still not sure which way I'll swing, but for MY BUDGET it's either:
* D200 + much lower outright cost than D2Hs (or D2X); more MPs; smaller body for carry around camera and somewhat less intimidating in certain situations, - additional costs and weight with all accessories needed (as Brian noted above); smaller VF; different ergonomics than my D2H may be a problem when using both cameras during event,
* D2Hs + LOW noise; same ergonomics and all accessories shared with my D2H, - higher cost (I don't want to buy it new and find out in two weeks, that the price was lowered by 1K), so I may still wait and see, if Nikon lowers the price soon; only 4MPs (perfect for what I print now, but will need more to grow professionally).
I'll wait untill I feel more sure about my decision.
". . . make the jump to digital . . ." I assume you have a set of lenses. What do you have for a film body? I had the F100. The D100 wasn't good enough (focus speed, feel, controls). The D2H had everything except resolution.
I chose the D2X before the D200 came out. I doubt I'd ever go for less than the X. A D200 is tempting for the climbing trips (Snake Dike in Yosemite is a long access). The X's handling is soooo nice I'll cary the extra weight. When the climb is too serious for a D2X I go with nothing.
Here's my deciding factor: Look at what you are shooting now and make sure you don't step backward in controls or handling. You'll just end up buying a second body.
I have both...and they are two different cameras. If you need professional quality and ruggedness..go for the D2x. I've had some focus issues with it, but Nikon Service has come through for me. Speaking of focus issues...I just may be that the D2x owner is just a tad more discerning and demanding when it comes to critical performance...not your average casual photographer.
The only real disappointment with the D2x is the noise at higher ISO's. And yes, there is noise, and yes, it can be objectionable.
The D200 is definitely a fun camera...it is light and compact, and delivers a quality image. However, I do suspect that there may be a noise reduction algorithm employed when processing in-camera jpegs in order to accomplish this. (only my own conjecture though)
The only drawback to the D200 (that I can come up with) is battery life (carry a spare or two) and the unfortunate placement of "Quality" button. I have indadvertantly changed the quality settings to jpeg basic on more than one occasion. First few times this happened, I went internally ballistic. Jpeg Basic is Basically #####...
I use the D200 when the convenience of smaller size and weight are important, and when lightning fast focus acquisition is not the prime priority.
(~;----Bob Gallagher----;~) When 'Iris' Eyes are Smilin'
(~;----Bob Gallagher----;~) "Never let your Artistic License expire"
I have both and I really love both, but they are not the same beast. If you are just taking pictures the D2X is the best camera in the world I think. I like the the speed and position of the AF sensors much more than the D200. I wish they had swapped review and the bracketing buttoms on the D200 so they were the same as the D2X.
The D200 with the 18-200DX AF lense is really small and light and I tend to take it more when I'm asking myself if I want to take a camera. Add, the built in flash and it's ALMOST a D2X in a much more compact and lighter package. You do have to take off, or at least reverse, the lense hood if you use the flash since it's much lower than a D2X/SB-800 combination. I also don't get why people then add the MB-D200 battery/verticle release. If you want a D2X, buy a D2X. Don't try to turn the D200 into a D2X. The MB-D200 make the L brackets wobblely. And you have lost the advantage of the D200 lightness/compactness. I have a RSS L bracket on order for the D200 WITHOUT the MB-D200. I also orderedn a RSS Arca Swiss foot for the 200-400 F4 AS-S VR.
I REALLY love both of these cameras. I live in Bangkok and my girlfriend and I went to Singapore for 3 days last weekend. I took ONLY the D200/18-200 and no tripod since I didn't have the L Bracket yet. Honestly, I missed the Gitzo G1228-LVL more than the D2X. I picked up a 120GB and a 40GB PD70X, some more 4GB Sandisk Extreme III CF cards and a couple of extra batteries for the D200. I had 4GB CF full with a combo of RAW and JPEG Fine and the PD70X backed up all 4 GB in just over 7 minutes. When I got back home I plugged the PD70X into the USB and it's as fast as my internal hard drives for viewing my images.
I'm an engineer by training and I HATE most of the stuff out there. There is a lot of bad engineering and a lot of products that are more about making money off you than meeting YOUR needs. I like my IPOD's, but HATE iTunes. I have everything from the Nano to the 60GB Video Ipod. They are the best solution for portable music, but I can't say I think Ipods are close to perfect. Just better than most of the junk I buy just because while it sucks, it's the best in it's area.
About the only think I think is about perfect is my Nikon gear. And, I am VERY hard to please. I can't see anyone buying a D2X OR a D200 and not being happy with it. But, they each have advantages and disadvantages.
And, even here, I've read about a new sensors that will have several F stops more dynamic range that will be out in 2 or 3 years. But, I have almost 8,000 shutter actuations on my D2X already, and I can't take those picture in the future.
So, like the others have said, figure out what you want to do with a camera and what you want in a camera and what you can afford to spend. Both will make you happy.
D2X -- The meaning of life. D2X & D200 -- Having it all.
I do not have the D200 but I do love my D2X and use both the 8 meg for sports and the 12.2 meg format for almost everythng else. That flexability (2 cameras in one) is enough for me to stay with the D2X, and my neck continues to thank me too. Bruce
I began another thread "Went in for the D200 and came out with a D2x" Since that purchase last week, I am still comfortable with my choice. I need precision and speed. Technically the D2X does it for me. I have over 2000 acutations in about 3 days on diverse assignments.(Macro, Low ligting long exposures , action, food, fashion, editorial) Only problems were user error coming from a D100. I could not afford to have a D200 as my workhorse,with the battery shortage situation, banding potential, and other issues. I will buy a D200 later as a backup. the extra weight and size is no problem, even with my neck injury. I use the high speed crop function for my equine sports work. FANTASTIC!!!!! Talk about long life battery! My reasoning why put off the enevitable, get the right one the first time and save money in end...Get a D2X!
BTW... I find myself working less in CS2, even in jpg!
Best thing is it makes me do great work! I only own three lenses! 70-200mmv 18.35mm 24-75mm . Even with that limitations there is nothing I cannot do. Eventually I will get more, primes etc. But for now it's all I need. And I shoot EVERYTHING you can imagine for my magazine.
BTW I would post some images, but everytime I get an error message? Dont have the time to figure out why .... any suggestions? I make them small with in parameters, but no upload. This is the only forum I have this trouble with...sigh My greatness will just have to continue to be in my imaginatiion for the time being LOL Meg
Equipment is only an ends to the means, whereas seeing is everything
I also agree with Megan. I purchased a D2X at the end of last year rather than a D200 (and I had the chance to pick one up thanks to NPS priority), and haven't regretted the decision for a moment. Everyone I know who also shoots sports and bought a D200 agrees that the D200 focusing is just not up to the same standard as the D2X. When you couple that with the battery issues, and the fact that the D2X uses the same battery system as the D2H (which I used previously), the D2X becomes an easy choice.
In fact, I've been so happy that instead of purchasing a D200 as a backup, I'm going to purchase another D2X.
I'm slowing trying to build my business and starting to dump all the cheaper stuff. I got a 70-200vr last year and thinking about a 17-55 lense. I have a D100 and a D70s. But I feel its time to get a better "pro" camera. I thought the D200 would work. I even had one that went back and I'm still unsure about that camera.
So I really think I should just find a way to do the D2X.
Of course D2X is better than D200. If you can afford one and want the best, D2X is the only choice. I think more than 90% of D2X user will satisfied with theirs.
But I think the original poster here needs to know whether D200 is enough, so he can get one with some money left. Or he still have to buy D2X. The kind of question that actually only he can answered. Because D2X or D200 is really about your needs, your wants, and your budget.
Without thinking, D2X is the answer. But if you need lighter camera, or cheaper price, or no need very fast AF, D200 might be the answer.
Pinky Mirror Nikonians@Jakarta,Indonesia-- it's near Bali, if you don't know where it is
My reason for upgrading from D100 straight to the D2X bypassing the D200 is of course technical advantages.
Repairability issues, pro body vs consumer body. Weight of camera is moot for me vs. study construction, seals from moisture and dust. I shoot equine events so I'm talin' serious dust here! My primary lense is the 70-200mm VR and a full Quantum Flash unit with bracket. Talk about poundage! AND I have a spinal cord injury & constant pain... and still like the D2X size. I walk around events with no mono or tripod for hours and dont have a problem. (BTW I'm 46 not some young kid LOL )
Shutter life is double the D200. I felt the D2X would in the long run last longer, be updated easier and save me from losing money because the D200 was a temporary unit until I finally bought the D2X. I sold a perfectly good D100 while it still had value. When I can afford a second body, it will be the D2X. Many will argue that you can just repurchase a new D200 every year if need be and that's true. I wanted the performance of the D2X, fps among others. Right now BH is selling the D2X for $3900 after $500 rebate that ends March 31.
I bought a D2x over a D200 a week ago, actually. My reasons?
1) D200 problems, real or percieved. Part of the reason for me to upgrade from the D100 is to get closer to not having the camera get in the way of my taking the picture. I saw a shot of the moon from the D200 here on a Nikonians board that convinced me in no time that I didn't want to deal with it.
2) Amazingly sharp images. I didn't know about this before I bought it, but I am utterly amazed now. In depth reviews of the D200 show that without sharpening, the D200's images come out very soft. I have sharpening turned off on my D2x and I am astounded at the clarity.
3) Focus speed. Does the D200 have focus priority for continuous mode? If not, that's a great feature, imho.
4) The only way I can see the sensor getting any better is to reduce the noise... If they do that, maybe I'll want the D3 line. Otherwise, the D2x already has all the resolution and features I need.