D2x vs. D90

F3T · Nov 1, 2009

Your input is valuable. I'm in a whirl.
I have an D2x and a D700.

One DX lens: 10fish and a trunk of older FX's starting with 15/3.5, 16/2.8fish, 20, 24,28PC and not,35PC, 50,85,100,180, bla bla bla... some AF's, some very long 400, 800,1000

I find myself lately grabbing more the 700 than the D2, though I like a lot more the D2's ergonomics. I wish I had the money for D3 instead of D700.

Now my whzz is: is it really worth upgrading to D90 (for my very longs) or should I stick to FX and save for D3x or the new D800??
Any zap useful!
Thanx!

Peter Mueller · Nov 1, 2009

I have the D700 and have handled the D2X and D90 on several occasions. If you prefer the ergonomics of the D2X so much over that of the D700 that you use the D2X more than the D700 even though the D700 gives better pictures in almost any situation, then you will not be happy with the D90.

F3T · Nov 1, 2009

I meant I'm using more the D700 for it's IQ in spite I prefer D2x's ergonomix.

But for my long lenses is it really worth upgrading to D90 for it's better IQ compared to D2x?
My idea is using DX format for really long teles and FX for the rest.
So again, is D90 so much better than D2x that is worth an upgrade?
That is because now I don't have yet the money for an D3x.
Thanx!

Peter Mueller said:
I have the D700 and have handled the D2X and D90 on several occasions. If you prefer the ergonomics of the D2X so much over that of the D700 that you use the D2X more than the D700 even though the D700 gives better pictures in almost any situation, then you will not be happy with the D90.

RoscoT · Nov 1, 2009

Just a couple of thoughts. If you want to keep a dx body for long lenses, and budget is a consideration, think about a lightly used D300. There is some discussion as to whether the D90 has better IQ. Some say yes, some think Nikon is just applying more NR. What it comes down to, is they are virtually identical.

A D300 will get you a better AF system, faster handling, pro build quality, and with the grip, handle very similarly to the D2X. There is also the added benefit that the grip also fits your D700, they use the same battery, in fact, they handle virtually identically. You will have a very short learning curve.

You can add a Katz Eye focus screen, and have a really nice MF body.

Hlope this helps a bit.
--
Rosco
My Advise is always free. So take it at it's face value

http://www.ahgphoto.com

DeeFifty · Nov 1, 2009

F3T said:
I find myself lately grabbing more the 700 than the D2, though I like a lot more the D2's ergonomics. I wish I had the money for D3 instead of D700.

Now my whzz is: is it really worth upgrading to D90 (for my very longs) or should I stick to FX and save for D3x or the new D800??

I don't see any great advantage in a D90 over a D2x. You maybe gain a small increase in high iso performance. The resolution and AF are the same.

If you like the handling of a bigger body it seems a backward step to buy a D90. It's a lower spec model. Newer isn't always better.

Fearless_Photog · Nov 1, 2009

I currently own a D2X, D300 and D90, and I have to say while the IQ of the D90 is excellent, I would not recommend it for long telephoto use, especially if you're using teleconverters.

It's AF is simply not in the same category as that of the D2X or D300. My D300 was out of action for a while after an accident, and I ended up using the D2X exclusively for wildlife, reserving the D90 for when I really needed it's low light performance. The D90's AF would slow to a crawl with the 1.7x TC attached, while the AF of the D2X or D300 would barely notice the difference. In addition to that, the small body of the D90 just doesn't feel as secure and balanced with a 300mm as the larger bodies. Not that I'm worried it will break, but there's just not as much to hold on to.

I imagine you can probably find a used D300 for not that much more than the price of a new D90, so I'd go with that.

Fearless_Photog · Nov 1, 2009

DeeFifty said:
I don't see any great advantage in a D90 over a D2x. You maybe gain a small increase in high iso performance. The resolution and AF are the same.

The AF isn't even close to the same, and no one who's used both of these cameras would come to that conclusion. The D90's CAM1000 system is shared with the D200, but has custom less options on the D90, for example no option for focus priority or release priority. The D2X's CAM2000 system is only used on the D2 bodies and the F6, it has 9 cross type points instead of 1, it's much much faster to initially lock on a subject, performs much better in low light, and has more custom options. Not to mention a rectangular frame coverage, rather than the diamond pattern of the D90.

westpix · Nov 1, 2009

I may just keep my d2x. I am about to jump into a d700. But the body is pro and almost bullet proof. Yes it sucks in iso area but crystal clear for what I use it for.

I shoot nature also 200-400 with 1.4 tela with no issue. The 700 will be nice also with a grip just to balance the small body.

Fearless_Photog · Nov 1, 2009

Yeah at this point I have no intention of ever selling my D2X, it's a great body which feels like it will last forever, the majority of my best pictures have been made with it, and I'd also get nowhere near what I paid for it anymore. The fact that I own the 17-55mm f/2.8 is also a good reason to hang onto it since the D2X and that lens are a perfect walk around pair.

DeeFifty · Nov 1, 2009

Fearless_Photog said:
The AF isn't even close to the same, and no one who's used both of these cameras would come to that conclusion. The D90's CAM1000 system is shared with the D200, but has custom less options on the D90, for example no option for focus priority or release priority. The D2X's CAM2000 system is only used on the D2 bodies and the F6, it has 9 cross type points instead of 1, it's much much faster to initially lock on a subject, performs much better in low light, and has more custom options. Not to mention a rectangular frame coverage, rather than the diamond pattern of the D90.

You are correct that I have not used the D90. I knew that it shares an AF module with another Nikon body, however I mistakenly thought that it was the D2x instead of the D200. Your point only serves to re-inforce the theme of my earlier post, i.e that there is no logic behind 'downgrading' from a D2x to a D90.

tmascolo · Nov 1, 2009

Hello,

Hope you are well.

Huge difference, that nobody has mentioned yet, is that you won't be able to meter with your manual focus lenses on the D90 body, that also means the D90 built in flash is neutered with those lenses also.

As far as overall functionality even going from a D1x to a D90 is a step backwards in my opinion, going from a D2x to a D90 makes even less sense.

--
Later,

Tony

nikkortin · Nov 1, 2009

If I were you, I would buy a D300 over a D90. D300 has better AF, better meter and a much sturdier body. IQ is about the same as D90 because they share the same CMOS sensor. Longer/heavier lenses just don't feel right on a D90.

CM_laptop · Nov 1, 2009

tmascolo said:
Hello,

Hope you are well.

Huge difference, that nobody has mentioned yet,

That's 'cos it is not a big deal at all.

tmascolo said:
is that you won't be able to meter with your manual focus lenses on the D90 body, that also means the D90 built in flash is neutered with those lenses also.

Big deal....(not!)

Judging correct exposure is easier; we're in the digital age, remember?

The built-in flash will work in manual mode with manual lenses; an hotshoe flash such as the SB-800 or the SB-900 will also work in Auto mode. Set the aperture on the lens; set the aperture on the flash in Auto; fire away. What's the big deal?

tmascolo said:
As far as overall functionality even going from a D1x to a D90 is a step backwards in my opinion, going from a D2x to a D90 makes even less sense.

Horses for courses.....or horses for fools & princes alike. I can shoot (& have) a major event with any of these cameras.

--

ʞɔǝu ɹnoʎ ɹoɟ pɐq sı ʇı....sʎɐs ʇxǝʇ sıɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ ǝǝs oʇ ƃuıʎɹʇ ɯoɹɟ uıɐɹɟǝɹ ǝsɐǝld

Rich Rosen · Nov 1, 2009

Save for the newer cameras. You have a very good kit right now. which works together. The d90 will not work with some of your older lenses. The D700 that you have has many features of the current D3's Do you have the grip for D700? If not, its addition may improve its handling. I am not a great lover of the D300. While I own a D90 which I consider as my second ( not back up) body, and I love it , I would definitely not consider it to be an upgrade over the D2X which I've also owned. With new cameras on the horizon and the best "studio camera" currently out there (D3X); I would wait until I could afford either one of those cameras. I would also consider the new D3S as an viable move.

RossWM · Nov 1, 2009

Upgrade or downgrade? Depends on how you look at it.

I used to have both a D700 and a D3; but I use the D700 over 80% of the time. To me, these two cameras have exactly the same IQ; and the very slightly more responsive AF and shutter response of the D3 is not worth of the extra weight to carry around on my shoulders (not to mention the useful sensor cleaner and built-in flash of the D700). I sold the D3 a few months ago.

I still think a D700 with a pro lens like the 24-70 or the 70-200 on is still on the heavy side. You know what? I almost bought a D90 w/kit lens yesterday! I am now only looking around to see if there's a good deal for just a new D90 body.

Looks like the compact D90 is a very capable camera with a good sensor and a useful crop factor for teles. I doublt the IQ will be very far behind to my D700 and it's sure ahead of the D2x (according to DXO reports). If you need faster frame rate and faster AF, perhaps the D300s is your choice. To me the clever D90 appears to be a good walk around tool for my purposes.

spectra · Nov 2, 2009

CM_laptop said:
tmascolo said:

Hello,

Hope you are well.

Huge difference, that nobody has mentioned yet,

Click to expand...

That's 'cos it is not a big deal at all.

CM_laptop said:

is that you won't be able to meter with your manual focus lenses on the D90 body, that also means the D90 built in flash is neutered with those lenses also.

Click to expand...

Big deal....(not!)

Maybe not for you but it IS a big deal for some. This is one of the primary reasons why I sold my D90. IQ was great but it had SOOOOO many other limitations such as this example.

CM_laptop said:
Judging correct exposure is easier; we're in the digital age, remember?

Who wants to "Judge" correct exposure. I want accurate matrix exposure metering with ALL my lenses not just a few.

CM_laptop said:
The built-in flash will work in manual mode with manual lenses; an hotshoe flash such as the SB-800 or the SB-900 will also work in Auto mode. Set the aperture on the lens; set the aperture on the flash in Auto; fire away. What's the big deal?

You DONT get iTTL balanced fill flash or get to use Nikon CLS. Again a big deal for some photogs.

CM_laptop said:
CM_laptop said:

As far as overall functionality even going from a D1x to a D90 is a step backwards in my opinion, going from a D2x to a D90 makes even less sense.

Click to expand...

Horses for courses.....or horses for fools & princes alike.

What does this sentence even mean?

CM_laptop said:
CM_laptop said:

I can shoot (& have) a major event with any of these cameras.

Click to expand...

So what?

CM_laptop said:
--

ʞɔǝu ɹnoʎ ɹoɟ pɐq sı ʇı....sʎɐs ʇxǝʇ sıɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ ǝǝs oʇ ƃuıʎɹʇ ɯoɹɟ uıɐɹɟǝɹ ǝsɐǝld

--
Spectras Photos:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/spectrapix/sets/72157594150842281/detail/?page=1

jetstream · Nov 2, 2009

One thing to keep in mind:

While the D2X may be one of the worst Nikon cam at high ISO, is has the very best low iso... Nothing beats D2X at ISO 100, possibly because of its very weak AA filter, or maybe its sensor was optimized for low ISO, I just don't know but it's the low ISO king

Osku · Nov 2, 2009

RoscoT said:
Just a couple of thoughts. If you want to keep a dx body for long lenses, and budget is a consideration, think about a lightly used D300. There is some discussion as to whether the D90 has better IQ. Some say yes, some think Nikon is just applying more NR. What it comes down to, is they are virtually identical.

A D300 will get you a better AF system, faster handling, pro build quality, and with the grip, handle very similarly to the D2X. There is also the added benefit that the grip also fits your D700, they use the same battery, in fact, they handle virtually identically. You will have a very short learning curve.

You can add a Katz Eye focus screen, and have a really nice MF body.

Hlope this helps a bit.
--
Rosco
My Advise is always free. So take it at it's face value
http://www.ahgphoto.com

--
Osku

tmascolo · Nov 2, 2009

Hello Spectra,

Hope you are well.

Was not even going to respond to this guys post, however you said it all well.

Thanks!!

I still think the D90 is a good camera, and would complement a D2x. However, I would not sell a D2x and get a D90 as its replacement . I think I was a little unclear on that point.

A D300, on the other hand, is a different beast and can be a for a D2x, as others have said in this thread.

--
Later,

Tony

xjassa · Nov 2, 2009

Not being able to meter with AI/AIs lenses is a huge deal to many. It is just as important as having an on-board focus screw for the older AF and AF-D glass.

Like the previous poster, I would never consider selling my old D1x (which I did for a D200) for a D90 or even the D90's successor.

"Histogram" metering is a tedious process at best, and when overall IQ is concerned with best exposure that pretty much means you can't use your AI/AIS glass for action and candid work in mixed lighting. You could probably get away with a D90 on landscape and macro work with "histogram metering" however.

D2x vs. D90

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts