The last photo my D2X may have taken

[boxofrocks]

Some of you read the story about why you need a backup I posted earlier in the week. For grins, I went back and looked at the the last shot I took before my D2X went Tango Uniform on me. Again.

While the shot may not be technically perfect, there's nothing to suggest any camera malfunction. I wonder why a workhorse like the D2X is in for a second failure after so few actuations (only 16,040--some of the exif was stripped when I resized). I've taken pretty good care of it.

I really don't have D3 kind of money in my budget, and Santa told me to go pound sand. I hope it's not too expensive to fix. My suspicion is it's a relatively simple repair, maybe just a spring on the aperture actuation lever.

Fingers crossed.

[jeffkohn]

This post would have been more interesting if you'd actually included the picture.

Depending on the repair cost you may want to consider a D300. It's not D3 when it comes to high ISO, but it's better than the D2x and has some nice additional features.

[LoungeLizard]

Originally Posted by boxofrocks

Santa told me to go pound sand.

Guess that answers the "naughty or nice" question!

Good luck. We all forget that these are sensitive electronic AND mechanical systems.

[boxofrocks]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

This post would have been more interesting if you'd actually included the picture.

fixed.

[Joe_Lorenzini]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

This post would have been more interesting if you'd actually included the picture.

Depending on the repair cost you may want to consider a D300. It's not D3 when it comes to high ISO, but it's better than the D2x and has some nice additional features.

I'd never considered this statement and don't know enough about the D300 to dispute it but do you really think this is true?

[boxofrocks]

It might be better at high ISO, but I'm not sure how many other ways.

[Detonate]

That is the exact questions that has been running through my head since the announcement of both.

I don't really want a D3, it just doesn't offer enough of an improvement for me to justify the cost. However, D2x's seem to be selling for about the cost of a D300. I was thinking about switching over to that until a D3x or the like comes around.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Joe_Lorenzini

I'd never considered this statement and don't know enough about the D300 to dispute it but do you really think this is true?

My impressions so far is that the D300 has about a 1-stop noise advantage over the D2x, maybe slightly more. Some are saying 1.5-2 stops but I think they're seeing NR improvements from Nikon more than actual sensor performance. I convert with ACR using no NR, so I'm just judging the actual sensor.

There's also about a 1/3 to 1/2 stop increase in dynamic range, at least on the highlight side, plus I've found I can recover more details with the Exposure slider on D300 shots.

Add to that the faster frame rate (with MB-D10), the big, high-res LCD with LiveView, and the new AF module and I think the D300 is a definite improvement in performance over D2x. (I count the LCD and LiveView as a performance factor because it's going to make critical focusing much easier, especially with my 85 PC Micro and Schneider 28 PC). There are also little things like lossless NEF compression, UDMA support, etc.

Where the D2x still has an advantage is in handling and build quality. The D300 + grip is not as solid as a D2x and just doesn't feel as good in my hands. Part of it may be familiarity, but I just find that with the D2x my hands fall into place naturally and the controls are exactly where the should be. The D300 doesn't feel that way to me yet, but hopefully it will get better with time and even if it doesn't I still feel it's the right move for me.

I'm not saying upgrading from a D2x to a D300 is the right move for everybody, but if the repair bill for a busted D2x is very high it definitely changes the equation IMHO.

[boxofrocks]

I'm getting a D300 today. I think I'm helping Wil shoot a wedding with it tonight (just as a favor), so I'll see what the real world experience looks like. When I get it home I'll take some side by side hi ISO shots for comparison.

The focus system seems to be superior to the D2X on paper--maybe it will be a good sports camera (not as good as the D3, but...?). D3 next year, maybe.

[Joe_Lorenzini]

Hey Jeff,

Have you gotten a chance to mess with the low light focusing of the D300? IMHO, the D200 suffers due to lack of focus lock in low light situations (like ballrooms, churches or dim field lighting). I'm hoping with the increased focus tools in the D300 that it'll be closer to the D2X in reliability.

_/oe

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

My impressions so far is that the D300 has about a 1-stop noise advantage over the D2x, maybe slightly more. Some are saying 1.5-2 stops but I think they're seeing NR improvements from Nikon more than actual sensor performance. I convert with ACR using no NR, so I'm just judging the actual sensor.

There's also about a 1/3 to 1/2 stop increase in dynamic range, at least on the highlight side, plus I've found I can recover more details with the Exposure slider on D300 shots.

Add to that the faster frame rate (with MB-D10), the big, high-res LCD with LiveView, and the new AF module and I think the D300 is a definite improvement in performance over D2x. (I count the LCD and LiveView as a performance factor because it's going to make critical focusing much easier, especially with my 85 PC Micro and Schneider 28 PC). There are also little things like lossless NEF compression, UDMA support, etc.

Where the D2x still has an advantage is in handling and build quality. The D300 + grip is not as solid as a D2x and just doesn't feel as good in my hands. Part of it may be familiarity, but I just find that with the D2x my hands fall into place naturally and the controls are exactly where the should be. The D300 doesn't feel that way to me yet, but hopefully it will get better with time and even if it doesn't I still feel it's the right move for me.

I'm not saying upgrading from a D2x to a D300 is the right move for everybody, but if the repair bill for a busted D2x is very high it definitely changes the equation IMHO.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Joe_Lorenzini

Hey Jeff,

Have you gotten a chance to mess with the low light focusing of the D300? IMHO, the D200 suffers due to lack of focus lock in low light situations (like ballrooms, churches or dim field lighting). I'm hoping with the increased focus tools in the D300 that it'll be closer to the D2X in reliability.

_/oe

I've never used a D200, but I'm pretty confident the D300 is a big step up from that camera in terms of AF, as it has the pro-level AF implemention unlike the D200. It's too early to say for sure, as I've not used the D300 extensively yet; but my initial impression is that the D300 AF is better than the D2x. Weather permitting (and if I can drag my butt out of bed early enough), I'm going to try to get over to the zoo this weekend to put the 3D tracking through its paces.