D2Xs vs. D3 or D3x-What would you do?

So, I am asking for help

I have had a D2Xs for a little over 2 years & love it. I am looking to move up (I am only an amateur) but have been reading about the D3 & the D3x. My areas of interest are landscapes, people, children, buildings and architecture mainly.

I have been told by a good friend who is a professional photographer & has been using a D2X for as long as it has been out & loves it. He has told me that to move to a D3 or a D3x is really not a move up & I should keep my D2Xs.

I am about to meet a professional photographer tomorrow who wants to sell me a used D3x for $6,000. Canadian with approximately 20,000 actuations or I can get a new D3 for a little less than $5,000. Canadian. We will be meeting at Nikon Canada where he will give his camera to Nikon & ask for a report as to the condition of the camera. I can then make a decision as to whether I should buy or not.

If you were in my shoes, what would you do?

consider the D3x, but not the D3. The D3 seems pricey, or was the D3 new?

What kind of glass do you own? My budget is smaller than most, and although I lust for a D3 and/or D3x, I won't purchase one until they hit about $900-1400 USD. That is going to take awhile.

Right now, the D2x is awesome. I feel like all I miss is the large viewfinder and high ISO. In the meantime, tighten up your lens collection and enjoy the D2x!

For $6000 USD, I would finish restoring my BMW 635csi. There is a lot you can do for $6000!

Right now I have the following lenses:

1. Nikon 14 - 24mm 2.8

2. Nikon 24 - 70mm 2.8

3. Nikon 105mm Macro 2.8

4, Nikon 70 - 300 4 - 5.6

5. Sigma 50mm 1.4

What you gain with the D3/D3x is a wider perspective if you get the 14-24mm lenses. You get the ability to shoot at ISO 4000 without worrying about noise as compared to ISO 640 with the D2Xs. You get a second CF card slot, the 5:4 cropping, and a number of other features that are likely to be of no real additional value over your present camera.

The friend who advised you to hold onto your present camera was giving good advice. Not only would you need to buy the D3/D3x but also a 14-24mm f2.8 and 24-70mm f2.8 lens to get the benefit of these two FF cameras. So revise your budget to include $3500 for the two lenses in doing your mental math.

mrpevets said:

Right now I have the following lenses:

1. Nikon 14 - 24mm 2.8

2. Nikon 24 - 70mm 2.8

3. Nikon 105mm Macro 2.8

4, Nikon 70 - 300 4 - 5.6

5. Sigma 50mm 1.4

Click to expand...

Hi there, I agree with the other poster, the price difference between the D3 and the D3x is too small. Depends on if and how much 6000 will hurt you. If they will, I'd look for a used D2x. It is a very sharp camera with pro body, the D3x is state of the art, and 3 or the lenses you have are probably sharp enough to use all those pixels, but the 70-300 is not, the Sigma I don't know.

As long as you don't absolutely need higher than ISO 800 (I hardly ever do), the D2x is good. 24MP is not necessary in most cases, only larger than A2 prints would really require such resolution.

--
regards,
Bernie

Is this the guy from Toronto Craigslist with a Montreal phone #?

I don't know the guy but if you are going to Nikon Canada - kiss your warranty good bye - warranties are not transferrable - especially if Nikon Canada finds out you purchased it used.

What about your D2xs that you don't like? Is the focus system too slow for you, do you need high iso, do you need duo card slots, do you need to print big?

If the answer is no to the above questions - why are you upgrading?

I can't believe this - THREE people who replied in this thread obviously didn't carefully read the original posting and made suggestions contrary to facts clearly stated by the OP. People ! Please READ before you write !

Mrpevets: where do you think the D2xs is letting you down ? The D3 will provide you with MUCH better high ISO performance (with less noise.) The D3x will provide you with greater resolution which landscape photographers can appreciate - but do you print your photographs very large or sell your photos to agencies that REQUIRE the highest resolution ?

If not the added resolution of the D3x may not make much of a difference.

One added bonus of the D3 or D3x is that they have full frame sensors - so your field of view will become significantly wider. Your 14-24 lens will become significantly wider which will be a benefit for architecture photos.

One advantage of the D3/x is the great cam 3500 focus system. I find the 3D 51 point auto focus system very useful in tracking erraticly moving subjects - useful for keeping focus on moving kids.

If these factors are not significant to you then the change from the D2xs is indeed not a significant improvement.

Spending time learning more about photography and looking at great photographs and asking yourself what the photographer is doing to make those photos so good would probably be a better investment for you.

In what way is your D2xs not performing well enough for you ?

--
Bill,

http://www.pbase.com/billmcintyre

Yes, this is the guy from Montreal! How did you know?

The only thing that I do not like in my D2Sx is the speed of focusing. That is my main reason that I am considering changing.

I have both those lenses!

IMO, the only lens that I am missing now is the 70 - 200mm 2.8 & thought that I should wait for the new one (but if I stay with a DX camera, then I guess that I can get the old 70 - 200 2.8)

Thanks for putting all my info into that last post, Perfect Poms!

The big 2 items that I am missing now, IMO, is a FX sensor & the speed of focusing.

I have just purchased a new printer, the Epson 4880, & will be starting to print my pictures in the next few weeks.

Now, with this further update on my situation, would you still suggest to keep my D2Xs?

I think that your last suggestion "spending more time learning photography & looking at great photographs and asking myself what is the photographer doing to make these pictures so good" may be time well spent by me at this time.

Thank you for putting everything into a better perspective.

About the 70 - 200 lens? Which one would you get at this time, the one that has been out for a number of years or the one that should be released very soon?

Thanks for your help & look forward to your next reply

Steve

1. What do you intend to do with the output (in short...how large to you intend to print?) I see you are getting a 17" wide printer. I have D2X prints that are 40" x 60". So 12MP should be more than enough

With that said, all 3 cameras are great for what you intend on shooting and the sizes you want to print based on your printer purchase.

D2X is horrable with noise, but a very competent camera. My use is Landscape only so low ISO dosnt hurt me much.

You said you like to shoot children as well, this can lead you to higher ISO situations and rules out of the D2X territory, and starts to creep out of the D3X territory.

For landscape work the D3X would give you better printing at your maximum size on your new printer.

I would say though that the D3 would be the best of all worlds based on the equipment you already have. 12MP is more than enough to print large landscapes, the ISO is better than just about any camera on the planet right now. Frames per second and focus abilities will help you capture speedy children. FF will give you better DOF control for portrait work.

My vote is the do it all machine...the D3. It seems to best fit all your chosen subjects and give you the least problems.

The rest is all up to you. It's a hell of a camera so spend your time shooting and learning it and your craft of photography.

Roman

--

One of dem Nik...Nike.....er....um... Fhoto Boxes...wit dat der flashy things....and a stick to rest it on.

These are the tools of mastery of all things.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

mrpevets said:

interest are landscapes, ...

Click to expand...

D3x

--
Kindest regards,
Stany
http://www.fotografie.fr/
http://www.fotografie.fr/fotoforum/index.php

I prefer one really good picture in a day over 10 bad ones in a second...

he goes on to describe other shooting needs...not just landscape.

If all he said was landscape I would have reccomended the D3X only as well.

He has other considrations.

Roman
--

One of dem Nik...Nike.....er....um... Fhoto Boxes...wit dat der flashy things....and a stick to rest it on.

These are the tools of mastery of all things.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

I have all three. I havent bothered to read other posts but all I can say is this:

If you shoot professionally for clients, agencies, rights-controlled-stock, etc, by all means, the D3X would be the camera to go for. Thats what Im using it for.

For you ( who I get the impression ) is shooting perhaps on not too a serious level, pardon if Im wrong but no! a move from a D2X to a D3 is not all that a viable move. Sure you get a slight better DR and it certainly is a lot better at high ISOs ( if you need that), well.

Another consideration is ofcourse the D700, same MPs, same DR, etc and a lot cheaper. Think about it, otherwise I woulodnt move.

D3X: are you aware of that you will have to muscle up your computers, softwares and with a few exeptions you will need Nikons top notch optics. The cam is just the beginning.

good luck Fred

mrpevets said:

(I am only an amateur) but have been reading about the D3 & the D3x. My areas of interest are landscapes, people, children, buildings and architecture mainly.

Click to expand...

If you don't need the pro attributes of the D3, (which I would guess you don't) then consider the D700. FF like the D3 but for $2200 or so. Then with the extra $$ some car work or a new lens. Main difference between D3 and D700 is 5fps or 8fps with battery pac against 9fps for the D3 and a 100% viewfinder against the D700's 95%
Will

He posted what he was considering...so I never thought about the D700....DUH on me!

I second Fred's vote on the D700.

D3 without the cost.

Roman
--

One of dem Nik...Nike.....er....um... Fhoto Boxes...wit dat der flashy things....and a stick to rest it on.

These are the tools of mastery of all things.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

I'd wait till next week, see this site why:
http://nikonrumors.com/

--

153957 Photography
http://arne.delaat.net/

Time-Lapse and Photography

mrpevets said:

So, I am asking for help

I have had a D2Xs for a little over 2 years & love it. I am looking to move up (I am only an amateur) but have been reading about the D3 & the D3x. My areas of interest are landscapes, people, children, buildings and architecture mainly.

I have been told by a good friend who is a professional photographer & has been using a D2X for as long as it has been out & loves it. He has told me that to move to a D3 or a D3x is really not a move up & I should keep my D2Xs.

Click to expand...

Your friend has probably never seen what the 14-24 view looks like on the FX body.

mrpevets said:

I am about to meet a professional photographer tomorrow who wants to sell me a used D3x for $6,000. Canadian with approximately 20,000 actuations or I can get a new D3 for a little less than $5,000. Canadian. We will be meeting at Nikon Canada where he will give his camera to Nikon & ask for a report as to the condition of the camera. I can then make a decision as to whether I should buy or not.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty good deal.

mrpevets said:

If you were in my shoes, what would you do?

Click to expand...

First, let me reply with this article:

http://www.bythom.com/upgradepath.htm

A D3X would do fine for some of your uses and be a little bit of overkill for others. Landscapes, yes. People and children, no you don't really need the resolution. Buildings and architecture, yes if you need to print big.

You can always turn down the resolution. Since you don't need the speed of the D3, the D3X will not hold you back for the real fast stuff like sports.

--
Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does.
Chris, Broussard, LA

RomanJohnston said:

RomanJohnston said:

RomanJohnston said:

landscape,people, children, buildings and architecture mainly.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

RomanJohnston said:

RomanJohnston wrote:

he goes on to describe other shooting needs...not just landscape. If all he said was landscape I would have reccomended the D3X only as well.
He has other considrations. Roman

Click to expand...

D3X works great for all he was metioning, among which landscape, and TMHO for landscape D3X is king in Nikon land... If he would have mentioned sports or music shows, there was D3 as a better option...

--
Kindest regards,
Stany
http://www.fotografie.fr/
http://www.fotografie.fr/fotoforum/index.php

I prefer one really good picture in a day over 10 bad ones in a second...

If the OP doesn't need to print big, +1 for D700.

One can buy D700 + 14-24 + 24-70 for the same $$ compared to a D3x body alone.

RomanJohnston said:

He posted what he was considering...so I never thought about the D700....DUH on me!

I second Fred's vote on the D700.

D3 without the cost.

Roman
--

One of dem Nik...Nike.....er....um... Fhoto Boxes...wit dat der flashy things....and a stick to rest it on.

These are the tools of mastery of all things.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

Click to expand...