As some may have read on his site, Ken Rockwell suggests "dumping" the D2Xs now if you have one. What is the feeling of D2Xs owners on that? I have one, along with my D200's, and really like the D2Xs. I see no reason to "dump" it since I have so many nice DX lenses and I get great images with the camera. Your thoughts, please. Cheers, Bill P.
Can you give an address where Ken says to "dump" the D2Xs? I know he is taken with the D3, but I didn't see where he said to get rid of the D2Xs . And, he doesn't recommend the D300 over the D200. Just curious.
tthorin.... I can't locate the link now, but it was in the context of the new D3 making the D2Xs obsolete. His suggestion was to "dump" it while you can get some bucks for it. Like several have said, first of all it is Ken saying it and secondly, many of us really like using the D2Xs and the images it gives. Me, I plan on keeping mine, but admit I have a D300 on order. Cheers, Bill P.
There is reality, and then there is Ken's reality. The kernel of truth is that it is probably a fair bet that the resale value of the D2Xs will plummet once D300s are readily available.
If you are like me and only have one D2Xs, then you'd better hang on to it unless you can live without a camera for a few months.
Digital cameras are not real estate investments-- they don't appreciate in value over the years.
If you have the means to shoot without a D2X, then this is probably the best time to sell them and get over $3k for it. I imagine it will be hard to sell a D2X for much more than the cost of a D300 + grip combo in a couple of months.
Jason P. Odell Colorado Nikonian Author, The Photographer's Guide to Capture NX Now includes Supplement One
I do not have a D2Xs and never ever held one in my hand. It is a professional camera and it should fit the bill of any photographer who feels comfortable using ISO-100-800. I am afraid, since I know Ken through his writing style over the years,that what he really meant was that the technology of the D300 is much more modern than that of the D2Xs. Obviously, I see no reasons for anyone owning the D2Xs to "dump" the camera. I use a D1X, a camera that is already 6 years old in technology. I use it because I get from it the files I like. Technology never took pictures for me! The new cameras promise to be excellent technological tools but it does not mean any other camera cannot do the job. I read, I listen, I pay attention but I do what I have to do. William Rodriguez Miami, Florida.
The D300 is the D2x killer. It has a pro AF and rated for 150k activation. And, the body is weather resistant enough for normal use. Plus live view and superb monitor etc.
Who actually listens to Rockwell int he first place. Almost anyone here could write a better web site if they wanted to and they wouldn't;t have banners all over their site asking for "donations". But if Rockwell has a point, it is that surely the resale value of the D2X will go down once the D3 is readily available. So if you have a D2X and don't need it until you can get your hands on a D3, then yes, now is the best time (remaining) to sell. But how many D2X owners didn't already know this? Ken has an amazing grasp of the obvious (sometimes). But he has zero subtlety/
I would also suggest dumping the D2Xs ASAP. Any D2Xs under 1000 actuations is worth 1000usd tops. I will gladly take one or two from any poor soul needing the money who wishes to stand in line for 6-8 monthes waiting for a D300/D3
>I would also suggest dumping the D2Xs ASAP. Any D2Xs under >1000 actuations is worth 1000usd tops. I will gladly take >one or two from any poor soul needing the money who wishes >to stand in line for 6-8 monthes waiting for a D300/D3 >
Put me on the list of people that would also be interested in a D2Xs that has under 1000 actuations for under a $1000!! Unfortunately, being second on this list is too far down. I will guess that we will see, maybe... perphaps... likely... could be as many as ZERO of said such deals
I think Ken missed his calling... maybe someone should have introduced him to comedy at an earlier age?
Rockwell's point, of course, is that as the D3 is delivered, more and more D2X/D2Xs owners will list their camera bodies for sale on Ebay and Nikonians.org, driving down the price. He certainly is not suggesting that owners sell their D2X/s bodies for the D3.
No words, D3 will be the best camera ever seen so far. But what is so wrong with D2XS everybody needs dump it? Yes I want to sell one of my new D2XS, but look at what this camera is capable to do! For some reason I took this image of the Moon above the night Brooklyn. Lens 70-200 VR + TC14EII (not fully extended), wide open, 1/30sec, ISO 800, AWB, handheld. Two crops: 150% and 500%. Direct JPEG from the camera - nothing else done. So could somebody show me any sign of noise/grain? Yes, the resolution of 12 MP sensor isn't enough for 6 meters big image - crop of 500%. But again - where is the noise when image is exposed correctly? So I am sorry for my words, but I don't understand some histerical posts - yesterday D2XS was the best camera ever and today I need to dump it? Dimitri.
While we are all ridding ourselves of this now useless camera, I think we should all show real conviction and delete all the images we took with it from our hard drives and backup storage. They must surely also now be obsolete. I can just see all the pros running around trying to retake all their high-value stock photos everytime Nikon and Canon release a new top of the range model
Does anybody actually listen to Rockwell? I'm on the D3 list and will sell a D2Xs once I get the D3 in hand. I don't need 2 backup cameras; however, I will keep the camera or give to photo student before I sell it for $1000.
The D2Xs I'm selling has less than 5K actuations and is less than a year old. Personally, I don't think it will be hard to sell. D2's are great cameras.
JR, I'm in exactly the same situation as you except I have two D2X bodies rather than D2Xs. I'll be keeping one of them for at least a while. If the D300 looks like it will meet my needs as my DX-format body and backup to the D3, I'll eventually sell the second D2X and replace it with the D300 -- mostly to have a smaller body available. But I'll happily continue shooting with the D2X in the mean time. It's a great camera, and its demise has been reported prematurely.
My view of that is: I agree. Those inclined to have a D3 or D300 I say dump it. I mean put it this way, why ramble with a D300 or D3, they don't even look at themselves before they speak.
I mean do you wait til its like $2000 or $1500 before you dump it or do you keep a D1x, D2x, D3 all in your glass cabinet.
One can keep the camera until you have the D3 in your arms but then financially its going to struggle but you do have access to a camera.
What I think funny: Mr Rockwell has said D1/D2 are too big and he won't get it. Now D3 ok its FF now he's in reservation.
Also Mr Hogan, has a webpage saying a 6MP camera is good/great for A3 prints yet himself has a D200/D2x and D3/D300 eventually. He also talks about Mr Rowell how he had lightweight cameras and lenses and he agrees but then he goes out and takes all kgs with him. If one were to look at his webpage of lenses suggestions it doesn't even suggest those lenses. If you look at his camera bag article, it displays all the heavy equip.
I say lol .....
For the poster. Since I still use film, I have committed myself not to double up on lenses so I won't get DX at all. I can wait 5yrs or more for a used D3 or such. I had a D70 since 2004 and have not itch to get a new one. If I was just using digital I probably wouldn't get DX as well just b/c I think eventually in 10yrs or more APS will be fazed out .. maybe or maybe not, but that's what I think. Yeah, I don't have a real WA lens but I am only a hobbyist, I can make do for 5yrs or just improvise with what equip I have. If need be I will take another 5yrs-8yrs from now after doing my 2004 D70.
I don't think that the general statement "Dump your D2X now" can really apply to all of the people it was directed at (i.e. those D2X owners planning to buy a D3, or indeed D300). So the real answer must require asking a few more questions. (1) How long will it realistically be before you can get a D3 / D300. (2) In light of (1) will you miss out on taking many quality pictures if you sell now? (3) What will be the difference in resale value between selling now and selling when the D3 and D300 are generally available?
If the difference in dollars guessed in (3) outweighs the personal or monetary value of (2) then sell now, if not then sell later.
Since I've talked economics here, I'll add a pun - just my 2c
Rockwell said a while ago that the Full frame sensor was "obsolete"...of couse this guys is making money for every comment he does...remember that he gets pay when you purchase something through the links he has on his web... Don't believe him, have you seen any photograph of him? only the ones that he has for years on his web. The D2x or any camera will give you the results you want if you know and learn how to use them
If you are a pro or semi-pro then the D2x should have already paid for itself. If you are not, then it will cost you to own the latest, greatest camera.
In either case a D3 is not neccessary to continue photgraphy.
For the record I ordered a D3 the day after it was announced in Japan, and already have the money to pay for it so both my D2x and D2hs are staying with me. They've paid for themselves several times over.
Bill North Wisdom cannot be given, it must be gathered...
A great opportunity to have an extra body for another lens. I will not sell my D2Xs(at least not in the forseeable future) For me it is worth more in the bag with a permanent lens attached then the $2000 to $3000 it may bring. My D200's are a different story. Both will probably go. Replaced with a D300 and D3X when it comes out.
Yes, well Ken obviously doesn’t shoot sports with his D40 or 5D, which is what he says is all you need. He also doesn’t shoot half of what I shoot, and I take it personally that he would have the nerve to assume he knows my needs, or anyone else’s needs, as a photographer based on what he shoots in his own little world. Yes, I want to see him use his coveted little 18-200 for some night football games on his D40! Low end focus mechanism, slow lens, no light. Now THAT would be impressive! In some locations, I can barely get 1/80 with my D2x or D200 at iso 1600, and 200mm f2.0 lens @ f2.0. I do like some of his landscape work. But when I start seeing stellar sports shots, and wedding photos on his site, then maybe I will consider him as a valuable resource for the type of photography reviews I am interested in. So far, that isn’t even CLOSE to being the case.
Yes, KR has a high website visibility, but is this due to his reputation and amazing photography? Or his web expertise and/or knowledge of the Google search engine?
Funny how his name always elicits emotion from posters! Including me!
I do not do any significant action photography so my comments are from the perspective of slower photography. (I sometimes have AF tracking problems when shooting fast subjects with my D2Xs; I am sure it's my incompetence.)
It seems that the D2X is soon to be relegated to a spare part for most. For my D2Xs, its most glorious time is yet to come. If it goes according to plan, the D2X will accompany me in a week's time to one of the most inhospitable places on the planet. In those conditions, it does not make a difference whether you have a D2X or a D3X. Your body (or at least my body) will by far be the limiting factor of photography in the marginal environment, not the difference in sensor size or ISO noise. All these technicalities will have become incredibly trivial when you are surrounded by the utter grandeur and immense forces of nature.