18 replies to this topic

[mule_patterson]

The following auctions well represents the declining prices for Nikon's flagship body - the D2x - and its younger brother the D200. These bodies represent an amazing value for stellar performers. Built to last, these warhorses are affected by digital economics nonetheless.

Nikon D2x: $2200 BIN
This one has only 3500 shutter actuations.

D2x at Henry's: $2,177.75
This one has 15,000+ shutter actuations

Used D200 bodies are being auctioned at an average of $1400 BIN with little responses, and are bidding vigorously on the under $1000 offerings. My guess is they will bring from $900 to $1000 on average for the better bodies (low shutter actuations).

I reiterate my perspective that digital SLR's are little more than lease items with short lives economically. A strategic buy/sell schedule is necessary to remain in technological nirvana. You will otherwise own aging technology and dwindling asset values.

Carpe diem - coppa Nikon!

Mule

[DigitalDarrell]

Mule, I agree with you ... mostly! The camera technology is proceeding at a blazing pace. It is a marketing scheme to make lots of money for a manufacturer, and there is nothing bad in that, in itself. However, now that DSLR cameras have reached the 10-12 megapixel range, the image quality exceeds what is needed to make a very large print, close to or equaling medium format film. So, one can do as I am doing now, and not get excited and spend lots of money for the absolute latest thing out. My D2X is still able to make images exceeding anything I ever shot with film, and still sells well on stock agencies. I can still use the D2X to make extremely nice images to hang on the wall, with 16x20 inch images looking like 4x6's of old in sharpness and quality. It has now reached the happy point that buying like-new cameras on eBay will give you very powerful technology, at an INCREDIBLE price. I paid nearly $6000 USD for my D2X, just to have one of the first ones in the country. I'll not do that again! If one bought a D2Xs for $2000, one would still be buying better and faster technology for professional image taking compared to the D300. You would have to use a real pro-level camera for several days to understand why I say that. I'm sure you won't agree with that statement, since you are slobbering (NAS in the extreme) worse than I have ever seen you slobber over a camera, for the D300. I saw you pass out twice (swooning) just reading the new December issue of PC Photo, with the D300 and D3 on the cover! So, being the extremely level-headed guy I am today , I do not plan on purchasing another camera body until about 2008-2009, when my stock sales will have provided enough income to warrant the purchase of newer technology without taking away from the family income to do so. Am I being stoic and stodgy in my older age? I'm honestly more excited about new lens acquisitions than camera bodies. My D2X and D200 will surely keep on working for another year or two. The new Nikons will have less noise, and slightly more dynamic range, but will provide nothing I cannot accomplish with my D2X using careful imaging techniques. Image size and quality is no longer the issue. Plus, having a nice buddy like you, with a new D300, will allow me to play with the new toys. It'll be like when your kids have kids. You can have a great time with the grandkids, but the mama gets to change the poopy diapers.

[mule_patterson]

I agree with you mostly too, DD. However, I think the jury is still out on the performance comparison between the D300 and D2x. You may be right but I won't be convinced until I hold the D300 and see what it can do. With the same sensor, a new AF and metering similar to the D3, it's no longer a semi-pro model - Nikon refers to the D300 as a 'compact professional DSLR'. The wait won't be much longer - release date is November 23rd and then it all breaks loose from there! I've been too busy working to maintain a decent case of NAS but in the next few weeks I'll be calling Brad Berger and putting some cash on the table if need be to get one sooner than later. Mule

[Luis V.]

With all due respect, I'll take the D2X over the D300. No question there. It's simply a matter of ergonomics. It's not like the AF system in the D2X does not work. For me the build, balance, shutter mechanism and ergonomics outweigh a change in the AF system. I'm with Darrell. I won't go to the D300, it would be a step backward. Now I will go to a new D3. I won't do it now becuase I feel the D3 is not the high res unit. It's clearly the high speed option. When the D3 version is released with the 16 to 20MP sensor (my guess) I will make the move to that. At my current rate the D2X will be at about 60,000 actuations by the middlle of next year and it will be 3 years old. I think that's plenty for the $2,500 I lose in value. (I purchased at $4,500) The D3 value will be better b/c I will only spend $3000 for it assuming I get $2,000 for the D2x. Just my opinion..... I don't see the D3 as the only pro body Nikon will produce.

[DigitalDarrell]

The sensor on the D2x is not the same sensor on the D300. They have different MP specs. D2x is slightly larger. Having used everything from entry-level to full bore professional, I'll go pro every time. In Mule's case, he is upgrading from the D200, gaining two MP, better AF, plus 100% viewfinder. If I didn't have the D2X, I would upgrade to a D300 too, just for the MP and better noise control. However, since I do have a D2x, I have little interest in a D300. I am saving for a D3X, like you Luis. Once you've used a pro camera, it is really hard to tolerate the loss of speed in anything else. I'll be interested in seeing just how fast the D300 is in comparison. If it could close ranks with the D2X, I am sure it would cost a heck of a lot more than $1700 USD. There's a reason that the D2X and D3 costs so much. It's a package. They don't charge $3000 USD more money because the camera is 1/2 inch taller, you know. Of course, Mule, you will be buying a significantly better camera, when you buy the D300 compared to your D200. I just am of the opinion that a D2Xs at $2000 is an AMAZING deal, and should not be overlooked! I were Mule, I would immediately buy a slightly used D2Xs, and never look back, instead of a D300. We argue about things like this all the time.

[mule_patterson]

Have either of you guys actually held a D300 yet? If not, your comments are premature and, as yet, unfounded.

I am primarily interested in what image quality differences there really are between a D300 and D2x. The D2x has a longer shutter life and fps rate are higher, voice annotation and other features as well. Build quality should be better too. The file size difference is insignificant obviously. But the D300 is not a copy of the previous body - it is more like a D2x than a D200. 100% viewfinder. D2x sensor. Pro AF.

DX sensor technology may be facing an end-of-run in the near future for high end models - and that is affecting my attitude toward the D300 even now. I want the cleanest images possible and noise is Enemy #1 in digital photography equipment. When will Nikon offer a full frame sensor body for say, $3000? Next year? A D400 perhaps? Essentially offering D3 capability for half the price? This is Nikon's way. It will be here sooner than we think.

As I have mentioned several times to you, Darrell, I would lose control of certain voluntary bodily functions if I could acquire a D3 - the posted 3200 ISO noise results alone make the camera worth it for shooting clean images under the widest light conditions to date - and leaves all previous camera technologies far behind. Five grand for the next 3-5 years of shooting that level of photography is well worth it.

I look forward to more lively discussions on this new lineup of Nikons - keep it coming!

Mule

[Dave Whiteley]

Darrell and Luis, if you keep trading in your cameras every few years the supposed difference in shutter life between a D2X and a D300 does not matter one iota because you never reach that limit, so that advantage is only theoretical. If you are not an action photographer minute differences in how fast the camera works do not matter either. In staged studio shots speed of autofocus is generally not relevant either. In top end movie work on action films they still use a Focus Puller who uses a tape measure to set focus for close ups, hardly worrying about autofocus speed are they, even for action shots? Dave Whiteley

[Luis V.]

OK. No I don't get to the shutter MTBF numbers. However, the reason it's a concern to me is not b/c I'm going to hit the limit. It's b/c at 60K I'll be near 40% of the camera shutter life on the D300 but it will be at only 20% of the D3. I prefer the latter. It's simply more reliability. Now, I am not an action photographer, but the added speed is nice to have. Just b/c I don't shoot it all the time does not mean I never shoot it. There are shots I shoot on-location that needs the high frame rate. For example, when I shoot a flowing dress or a flowing hair in the wind. There is a huge delta between 5 fps or 8 fps or 11 fps. As for the AF speed in studio work.... while it's not a big deal for family portraits, it's key when shooting a moving 2 year old. It's also a great thing to have for models. I have to have precision, fast focus for that. So in the end, you'd be surprised how much fast focus helps in the studio. In the end, as I mentioned before, the main issue for me with the pro bodies is the ergonomics. The balance, the size in my hands, rugged nature of the body, etc. And as for the move to the new body, remember that it's an investment to me. If I get better image quality, it's worth it. I don't change my body ever 18 months. By the time I get to the D3 I will have had the D2X three years.

[Dave Whiteley]

Regarding the size of the body and handle-ability though Luis, pro camera bodies grew when they built in the motordrive. The traditional pro camera body was like the old F2 without a motordrive, and with modern miniaturisation I think you will see pro bodies including motordrive and hopefully new technology batteries shrink back to F2 size, which is about the size of the D300 when it comes out. I cannot see pro bodies staying at their present bulky size for very much longer. What is the betting the D3X will be smaller than the D2X? Dave Whiteley

[Dennis]

sorry for the slightly straying off topic here, but how does one find out how meny time I flicked the shutter? I have the D200, and can not for the life of me find it in the menues or the manuel. I see that can be good information.

[TheRasmuss]

sorry for the slightly straying off topic here, but how does one find out how meny time I flicked the shutter? I have the D200, and can not for the life of me find it in the menues or the manuel. I see that can be good information.

Me thinks you need a extif reader to do that, I think I saw some posts about it here on the forum before.

I'm afraid to check my D1x as I'm sure it has done it's mission and then some.

[TheRasmuss]

Regarding the size of the body and handle-ability though Luis, pro camera bodies grew when they built in the motordrive. The traditional pro camera body was like the old F2 without a motordrive, and with modern miniaturisation I think you will see pro bodies including motordrive and hopefully new technology batteries shrink back to F2 size, which is about the size of the D300 when it comes out.

I cannot see pro bodies staying at their present bulky size for very much longer. What is the betting the D3X will be smaller than the D2X?

Dave Whiteley

I've seen you complain about it before, but I just don't see the problem with the size, as a matter of fact if NIkon did switch the sport camera to a smaller body I'd sell all my Nikon stuff(now that's something you won't hear me say often ).

The smaller size of the D200/300 is ok for people with small hands and women. Add a battery pack to them, they get bigger then the D2/3 and the handeling can not be compared at all. As I see it, if you want a smaller camera go for the D200/300. Altough the D300 feels better then the D200, with and without the vertical grip, it can not be compared to the D2/3. IMO neither of the cameras feel as good as the F100.

Have you ever handled a D2 Dave?

[Dave Whiteley]

Dennis,

This freeware EXIF reader is supposed to give you that information as well as everything else to be found on the last image you took:-

http://www.opanda.co...exif/index.html

Fredrik,

No I have not handled a D2, but had the classic F2 that ran far longer as a professional camera and was used by far more professionals than modern Nikon's are, because in those days Canon was not the majority professionals choice. The F2 was of a similar size to my D200, so was the size that made Nikon's professional reputation. In fact I am not sure that the D200 is not slightly heavier than the old F2, at least it feels it!

I have long fingers that is why I prefer the D200 over say a D40-D50. However when it comes to hand holding a camera I find the width of the camera is generally more important than it's depth (and D2 and D200 are about same width I think?). I manage OK with the D200 using the long and heavy 70mm-180mm Micro Nikkor crouching in ungainly positions to focus on insects with minimal depth of field, which is far more demanding in camera holding than general photography, as Arlon will probably confirm. In any case, whatever lens is fitted, one hand is usually under the lens rather than both hands on the camera?

I suppose it's a matter of what we all have got used to, but I still think both Canon and Nikon professional cameras, and all the rest, will gradually shrink in size as more and more modern technology becomes embodied. In a cold country like yours Fredrick I can understand a larger camera would be handy for glove wearers, but I still feel it is the cameras width that matters more than it's depth.

Dave Whiteley

[Dave Whiteley]

Fredrik,

As to what stupid and unwieldy sizes pro cameras got with all their bolt-on's see this Canon:-

http://www.mir.com.m...speed/index.htm

Dave Whiteley

[Neil Rothschild]

An important benefit of the D300 vs D2X is the ability to shoot 8fps (with the grip) onto the entire sensor, not just a cropped area. Aside from the additional resolution, it provides a true "large" viewfinder. I've never shot a D2X but I've always been concerned about the potential difficulty of framing moving subjects such as birds in flight in the D2X's cropped viewfinder (at 8fps). Strictly from that point of view, I'm not sure that the D2H (which I know well) isn't a better solution for certain subjects. For me, framing a bird in flight is probably THE MOST challenging aspect of that type of shooting. I've engaged in some pretty vicious debates over this issue of the utility of the D2X cropped sensor. Although without the benefit of field experience with that camera, I seriously doubt that many shooters, including those that advocate the D2X high speed crop mode, would ever consider buying a $5K body that had a viewfinder area the size of the D2X cropped area. A big viewfinder is an important feature. I'm not saying that the D2X's HSCM wasn't a good solution in it's day to the problem of moving too much data too quickly, but the D300 does solve that grand compromise. it is a HUGE step forward IMO. I agree with Luis that the difference between 8fps and 5fps is huge, and you have to shoot 8fps, while having a true NEED for 8fps, to appreciate the difference. With the current D3/D300 lineup, the D3 takes a step backwards (relative to the D2X) in terms of "reach", which can also be a problem with wildlife shooting or any other subject where you simply cannot afford or cannot carry a long enough lens, or a long enough lens simply is not made. "Reach", to me, is all about how many pixels span my subject when I can't get close enough. What I'm trying to say here is that, ergonomics aside, and price no object, the fully equipped modern photographer might need the feature set of a D300 for certain shooting even if he also has a D3. OTOH, I lose a lot of images too, to too slow shutter speeds and there the D3 should win hands down. If I were a hypothetical professional wildlife photographer, making serious money from my images, I would have to own both bodies. I would use one or the other depending on which edge of the envelope I was shooting. I think the difficulty of pushing those edges (in very different directions) transcends minor differences in feel and handling of the two body formats. Neil

[TheRasmuss]

Fredrik,

As to what stupid and unwieldy sizes pro cameras got with all their bolt-on's see this Canon:-

http://www.mir.com.m...speed/index.htm

Dave Whiteley

lol, I'm not sure if it's possible to shot with that camera in the vertical position, and it beats any of the early kodak dslr's.

For my kind of shooting I use the camera in the vertical position 90% of the time.

I'm not sure why I just can't seem to get sharp pictures with the D200 on slow shutter speeds. With my lost D2H and my D1X ir I have no problems getting sharp images down to 1/10th of a second, with the D200 I see camera shake in a lot of pictures even @ 1/60sec. The D1X is a slower camera, but I still get sharp pictures below 1/30sec. I've tried pretty much all the custom settings on the D200 to be able to get the same shots, but I just can't seem to get it.

Me switching to canon won't happen I'm planing to keep the D3 until it dies And I won't sell any of my precious Nikkor glass.(unless you give me a offer that I cant refuse )

[TheRasmuss]

Neil, Do you know the buffer on the D300? I feel the size of the buffer is as important as the FPS speed. Not sure I've seen Nikon saying the size of the buffer. I find this very weird. Nikon has always had problems with marketing, but not stating the Buffer size on the D3 even is just to bad(they did state around 60 .Jpg in FX). You should have seen the face of the Nikon dude when I asked him what the D3's buffer in DX mode was, he grabbed the D3 flyer and started looking I told him it wasn't on it he, replyed well thats strange As I recall the DX size buffer on the D3 is about 35 shots. Sorry for going copletely off topic

[Neil Rothschild]

Rasmuss, I agree that buffer size is important, and the write speed (which is supposed to be very fast with the new UDMAA or whatever new fangled flash cards) can also be critical. I ran into buffer write problems with my jousting work, where I only had about 20 seconds between bursts to get as much data written as possible. I don't know anything about that spec on the new bodies. With megapixels increasing and frame rate increasing, something might have to give. Neil

[James_Karney]

Nikon USA and the manual are both silent on the actual budfer size. With my camera in 14-bit uncompressed RAW or basic jpeg the r value indicating available shots in the buffer is 12. I cranked off 14 full RAW before it stopped, and a few seconds later was able to shoot six more. That was with a SanDisk Extreme IV 4GB card in the slot and a 3/4 fresh battery. The files are 24MB each. Actually did sligthly better with a RAW/basic JPEG Qual setting. Might be something in the way the processing is handled if the shooter specs out the jpeg Hope that helps, Jim