Camera advice?

[Emyers]

I am guilty of being a lurker. I love reading all the advice you guys have. It seems ya'll, are an endless wealth of knowledge.
I am currently shooting with a Nikon D3000. I am looking to upgrade. I've really had my heart set on a Nikon D700. It seems, however that everytime I save up the cash to buy it something happens and no more cash.So here is my question.
I came across a Nikon D2X on craigslist. They are asking $900.
My question is this. If everything is as "Mint" as they say Is the D2X worth dropping the money on? How does it compare to the D700?

I did search to see if there was any discussions about the D2x but I couldn't find anything. Thanks in advance!
Erin

[d2creative]

Erin, what are you looking to gain from the upgrade? What's not working for you now (camera wise) that you feel needs improvement?

[Tom]

I wouldn't bother with the D2x. In about two weeks, Nikon will be releasing their new versions of the D3s and D700. I would wait until then. The used D700 market should take a big hit and you can swoop in at the right time.

[venchka]

I have no experience with Nikon in this century.
However, I do have experience with full frame cameras going back to the Land Before Time. If it were my $900, I would put it someplace safe (where I couldn't get to it) and be on the lookout for an affordable D700.
YMMV.
Good luck.

Tom stole my idea. Grinning.

[rfortson]

What is it that you want from your new camera? What does the D3000 not do for you?

The D2X is much better constructed and will have better controls, but it's pretty long in the tooth. Image quality won't be that much better (if at all) just due to the advances on sensor technology. The sensor size is the same size, plus you're limited to ISO800.

For $900, I'd stretch a bit and get a D7000, or a used D300. Or, just keep saving for the D700. Any of these cameras would be much more capable (in my opinion) than a D2X.

[Redneck]

The D2X was introduced in 2004. It's a DX sensor camera with maximum ISO sensitivity of 800. There's no comparison to the D700, really.
If you want to drop this kind of money then I'd recommend you get either a used D300s or a brand new D7000. They are both more superior than the D2X.

[Emyers]

My first camera was a Vtg Minolta Xg-m 35mm Slr Film camera some one gave me when I was 15. When I decided to make the jump into Digital photography I researched and based on my budget and wants at the time decided that I wanted a Nikon D90 instead I recieved my Nikon D3000 as a christmas gift in 2009.
I by no means think that I have learned all there is to learn with my D3000. In some ways I feel like I have outgrown it, I understand that I am possibly just frustrated and need to experament more. But mostly it doesn't seem to have the image quality I long for. I want something that is versatile and and capture a good crisp image In great light or in poor lighting situations. With My d3000 I seem to pick up a lot of noise in the shadow areas of decently lit scenarios at 400 ISO.

[Tom]

I by no means think that I have learned all there is to learn with my D3000. In some ways I feel like I have outgrown it, I understand that I am possibly just frustrated and need to experament more. But mostly it doesn't seem to have the image quality I long for. I want something that is versatile and and capture a good crisp image In great light or in poor lighting situations. With My d3000 I seem to pick up a lot of noise in the shadow areas of decently lit scenarios at 400 ISO.

A good lens will probably do you better than a new camera.

[Emyers]

I have 3 lenses right now, 2 of which came with the camera.
Af-s Nikkor 18-55mm
Af-s Nikkor 55-200mm
Af Nikkor 50mm

I will say that I noticed a large difference in The 50mm lens compared to the 18-55 lens.
I do mostly portrait work (my kids and friends). The rest of what I photograph is kinda random I do try to expand my comfort zone.

I am definately open to suggestions.

[d2creative]

If noise is a concern, then definitely hold off and pick up a used D700.
I'll probably have mine for sale eventually if the replacement looks worthwhile.
I've been more than happy with it. It's used mostly for commercial use and have not longed for anything more since I've had it. So I'm curious as to what they will improve on.

[Redneck]

Yes, regarding low light capabilities the D700 is probably the best choice in a considerable budget range. If you can live with half the low light performance of a D700 than you should look at the D300 or D7000.

[Emyers]

I did consider the D300. It has caused me a lot of mental conflict. It produces a quality that is significantly better than my D3000. My problem is I can't decide if the difference of cost and quality between the D300 and the d700 is worth settling or saving. (does that make sense?)

[Redneck]

Originally Posted by Emyers

I did consider the D300. It has caused me a lot of mental conflict. It produces a quality that is significantly better than my D3000. My problem is I can't decide if the difference of cost and quality between the D300 and the d700 is worth settling or saving. (does that make sense?)

Yeah, it makes sense, most of us suffer from it. :)

To me the main (and most important) difference between D300 and D700 is that the D700 handles low light twice as good. I could shoot the D300 up to ISO 1600 without producing noticeable noise. With the D700 you can easily go to ISO 3200 or ISO 4000 without breaking a sweat.

So if you want to decide which one to get you need to answer how important is working at low light for you? Think about high school football, basketball, wedding ceremonies and receptions.
If you're a landscape or macro shooter with tripod then you probably won't need high ISO performance because you don't depend on fast shutter speeds.

[Emyers]

I think that I am going to think about all this pretty deeply. For the immediate time being I will wait and see what happens. If Nikon is soon to release a new version of the D700 maybe I can have enough cash saved up for a used D700 by the time that comes into play.
In the mean time perhaps some patience with my D3000 will do me some good. I really appreciate all of your input. It has helped a lot.

[crbeveri]

Originally Posted by Emyers

I think that I am going to think about all this pretty deeply. For the immediate time being I will wait and see what happens. If Nikon is soon to release a new version of the D700 maybe I can have enough cash saved up for a used D700 by the time that comes into play.
In the mean time perhaps some patience with my D3000 will do me some good. I really appreciate all of your input. It has helped a lot.

This is a good choice. Both Nikon and Canon will be announcing the release of their next bodies here in a few weeks/ upcoming month or so.

Also the D700 is a great body and is FF which is really nice. Tom, however, makes a great point that if you want better IQ also consider better glass. You have 3 lenses 2 of which are kit lenses. Go get some G glass and see how the IQ is compared to the kit lenses. When I upgraded from a rebel to a 50D it was b/c I needed something that could handle higher ISO better. Then I went from a 50D to a 1D3 b/c I needed the FPS for sports. However through all this I always upgraded my glass before hand as the glass can carry from body to body.

Give it some thinking, pick up or rent some G glass and then see where you stand. Either way, the D300s or D700 are great bodies and I have shot and have friends who shoot both.