DSLR upgrade time: D2x vs. D3

jefff100

Hello All,
　
　
I'm considering an upgrade. My current DSLR body is a D100; I'd like higher resolution, and better low light performance. I shot film for years, and still have my F3, as well as an F100 so all my lenses are full frame lenses; hence the D3 has obvious appeal there; but the price tag is a stiff one. The D700 is an alternative. I may end up selling off my 35mm gear as well as my Bronica ETR system as I'm not really using any of it anymore. For years I waxed nostalgic about getting all artistic with my film cameras and wet chemistry processing in the basement; however it never happens.
　
　
Anyway: considering D3 vs. the 2x.
However I look at both cameras being similar in resolution (12.n megapixel);
the full frame D3 has significantly lower pixel density than the D2x.
From that perspective it would seem that the D2x will yield higher detail.
　
　
Is this an issue to consider? I recently had the opportunity to toy with a friend's D3, I love the huge image in the viewfinder; but I don't know if its worth $2k more than the price of a good used D2x.
　
　
I know the D3x is out there, but its price tag is stratospheric, I can't even consider this.
　
　
Also, can someone define the differences in the D2x and the D2Xs?
I pulled up the spec charts side by side on DPReview and they look identical.
　
　
Thanks
　
　
　
　
Jeff

ziggy53

The D2X/D2Xs and D3 are completely different animals. The detail you achieve on either can be high at base ISO, but the D3/D700 will hold more detail at high-ISOs. Better lenses also make more difference than the camera body, so it's not unusual to have a system with much more invested in lenses than bodies.

What sort of photography do you want to pursue?

Qarik

Jeff, the D3 and the D2x can not even be mentioned in the same breath. They just simply are not comparable. The D3 is a rather new flagship SLR from nikon and the D2x is at least couple of generations behind in many respects just inferior.

If you want full frame and the price of the D3 turns you off then the D700 is your best bet. Many consider the D700 the perfect DSLR.

StevenSzabo

as was already mentioned, the D3 and D2x are totally differnet beasts. I wouldn't even consider the D2x if the D700/D3 are feasible for you. The D700 is basically the D3 sensor in a smaller body(although actually if you ad the grip it becomes bigger than the D3), minus dual card slots, the bigger buffer, the 11 fps, and I believe(but am not 100% certain on this one) that the D3 gets a slightly stronger focus motor, leading to faster focusing...

Also, if you manage to shoot a D3 and find yourself feeling like you're not getting detail I just don't know what to tell ya I've never shot with a D3, but I just got my D3s last week and I have to say that every shot I take with it amazes the hell outta me.

jefff100

I know that the D2x and the D3 are different beasts. But yes, I can compare them! Certainly, the D3 compares favorably in terms of ISO resolution abilities, ease of use with the big viewfinder etc, focus performance etc. The D3 also have features I'm not interested in such as Hi-Def. video. The D700 is about a 1000. less than the D3 after buying the additional grip (which I would inevitably do anyway). The D3 seems to be a much tighter, more robustly built package than the D700, offers better WX protection. I would think that this would be a common trait of the single digit Nikon bodies.

Currently, the D2x compares very favorably in the price department !

Both have 12 mega-pixel CMOS sensors, but I notice that the D2x is packing those pixels in tighter, or are they smaller pixels? When I was shooting 645 format, Plus-x film was the same grain pattern, no matter if I had 220 roll film or a 35mm canister, it was just cut to a different pattern; the film was the same.

I see a pixel density listing on specification charts, but I haven't seen too many people talk about this. Also - what is the bit depth of these A/D processors? I.E. how many digital bits per byte? This will certainly make a major impact in image quality.

No, I'm not a professional photographer. Photos of animals, plants, structures etc. Like to take the occasional off day and go for a hike for a photographic expedition. Occasional wedding / event coverage for co-workers, friends and family. I'd much rather work an event for free than than have to sit in a chair in a suit and "pretend" to be having a good time drinking cheap beer. I like to tour on a M/C, but lately that has been the realm of my Canon G7.

thanks all for your iput !

www.jeffroberts.smugmug.com

StevenSzabo

the D3 does not have video as far as I know. The D3s does, but it's about your standard level of functionality in terms of DSLR Video...meaning in my mind it's a gimmick at best, I tried it out at the world cup speed skating at the olympic oval here over the weekend and can honestly say I don't think I'll ever use it again.

All the pro bodies have features I will never use, and random features that are more of a novelty to most people. but they're still fun to have. 11 fps in 14 bit color on the D3s is fun to mess around with, and I can see how some people could use it, but for me it just means more shots to go through at the end of the day.

The pixel density and bit depth questions are out of my realm of knowledge.

ziggy53

jefff100 wrote:

... Both have 12 mega-pixel CMOS sensors, but I notice that the D2x is packing those pixels in tighter, or are they smaller pixels? When I was shooting 645 format, Plus-x film was the same grain pattern, no matter if I had 220 roll film or a 35mm canister, it was just cut to a different pattern; the film was the same.

I see a pixel density listing on specification charts, but I haven't seen too many people talk about this. Also - what is the bit depth of these A/D processors? I.E. how many digital bits per byte? This will certainly make a major impact in image quality.

...

Jeff, you are trying to equate film and digital and, while I understand what you are going through, you just cannot use that logic successfully.

Please trust me as the owner of a whole bunch of digital SLRs that pixel count and pixel density are among the last things you want to consider in order to understand digital image quality. If you use your current logic then a digicam with a pixel density of 40+ MP/cm² would be better than any dSLR.

The truth is that there are many elements and many technologies which all factor into the final image quality. The particular measure I prefer use is similar to what DXO Labs uses, and that is how RAW files compare from camera to camera, especially considering an 8" x 10" print.

Fortunately they have a comparative database of specific measurements from which to choose different cameras:

http://www.dxomark.com/

Use their "Compare Cameras" tool to select different cameras and then use the different tabs to select different criteria, and finally select the "Print" tab to see how the different cameras measure up in an 8" x 10" print.

For instance, comparing the Nikon D700 with the Canon 5D MKII, both full-frame sensors in a similar price range, they are neck-and-neck in every category except "Color Sensitivity", where the Nikon excells. (Of course Color Sensitivity is pretty easy to compensate for in the RAW converter so that measure only affects the "standard" settings for the converter used.) Ultimately the Canon also has almost twice the pixels and can produce more detail at base ISO. (But not as much more detail as you might think.) In the end, the 2 cameras produce a "DxOMark Sensor" measurement of within 1.5 points of each other and, since 5 points equates to 1/3rd of a stop, that means that the 2 cameras are within measurable limits of each other. Either can produce incredible images and at prices not much more than the entry level dSLR from either company 7 years ago. (Specifically the Nikon D100 and Canon D60.)

Image quality alone does not make a camera and in this case the Nikon D700 also has an arguably superior AF module, but the Canon has a very good AF module (just not as good as the Nikon.)

Again, I mentioned previously that lenses will make more of a difference than camera, so do plan on a considerable investment in lenses, and lighting makes more of a difference than either lenses or camera, so make sure you do your due diligence with flashes and flash modifiers.

Cygnus Studios

jefff100 wrote:

I know that the D2x and the D3 are different beasts. But yes, I can compare them!
Currently, the D2x compares very favorably in the price department !

It sounds as if you had made up your mind prior to asking the question. It also sounds like you want someone to come along and tell you that the D2x is as good as the D3. The simple truth is, that it is not. The D2x is a good camera, and if you want one, buy it.

Harryb

Currently I have a D3, D300 and a D2X. The only time the D2X is used is when I have a visiting shooter whose main body is not working or when I take a student out who needs a DSLR body.

The IQ on the 2X is excellent. I would give it a slight edge over the D300's IQ. However I would not use the D2X at an ISO over 400. The D3's IQ is better than the D2x.

If your choice was between the D300 and the 2X and if you were going to shoot at low ISOs then the 2X would be a good value for you.

If your choise is between a D3/D700 v. the 2x then its no contest. Go for the D3 or D700.

jefff100

Thanks for your comments
Thanks all.... sorry if my questions are misconstrued.

I know, and have always known that the D3 is a better camera.
I was just trying to get a mental grip on the aspects of the camera body
that significantly impact the image quality.

The D2x is something that I could acquire soon, within a month; and would
give me a marked improvement over my D100. I can really see the shortcomings of the D100 body in low light conditions, and when I crop an image etc. I never shoot RAW files because its too slow. The D3 is something that would be a long time coming before I could justify nearly a nearly 4k investment. Realistically, I would be able to buy a D3 when the D4 comes out.

My friend who's D3 I used over the weekend is a freelance F/J; and is justified through is work. His equipment, while still a significant expense; is a tax deduction for him. For me, this is an expensive hobby (and I have several expensive hobbies).

Ziggy - thanks also for the link to the link to the dxomark website. I hadn't
seen that before, quite interesting.

best regards,
Jeff

Mitchell

I still haven't seen where you have indicated what type of shooting you like to do. While you may gloss over this fact, it really is an important factor when you look at the present Nikon lineup.

For portraits or low light shooting, you should strongly consider one of the full frame choices (D700 or D3). The image quality and low light performance of these bodies is clearly superior to the D2X and will blow away your D100.

If you shoot sports or birds and need reach, you will be disappointed to lose the crop factor found in your DX body. If this is your game, you should strongly consider the D300. Great image quality in what is now Nikon's best DX body.

There are fantastic deals on lightly used bodies out there right now. I recently bought a barely used D700 for $2000. Lightly used D300 can be found around $1000 with the recent release of the D300s.

I now own a D2Xs, D200, D700 and a few D70s. For most sports and birding I still reach for my D2Xs. Low light work or portraits, I now reach for my D700.