D300 or D2x

Hutchison Haines

Hutchison Haines

Suspended / Banned
Messages
55
Name
Graeme
Edit My Images
No
Hi Again,

I have a circa £500 budget for a second body. I already have a D300.

This is mainly for sports and weddings, some events and live music type stuff occasionally.

What would be more worthwhile? I consider the D300 as the better idea, reasons are because I already have one, and it's newer than a D2x.

However something is telling me that a D2x may not be a bad choice.

Please convince me to get the D300 - or if you think thats wrong please justify my thoughts.
 
D300 without a doubt, the D2X is a step backwards. Ideally a second body will produce the same output as your main, helps a great deal as far as editing consistency goes.
 
I've had both (well a D2xs but pretty much the same) and, though I think the D2X is a truly wonderful camera, for your stated usage I think the D300 is the better choice. The D300 is a fair bit better in low light and has a much better auto focus system. Where the D2X excels is in 'controlled' conditions stuff where low iso is the order of the day. In that sort of usage I'd actually rate the IQ as better than the D700 I now have and those pro gripped bodies are a joy to use as well. Trouble is, that some of the D300's features, primarily the AF system just make the D2X feel a little old hat. It's a real shame that Nikon ditched the DX gripped body format as a modern D2 with a D7000 sensor would be a wonderful thing.
 
I faced the same choice a couple of years ago. I decided on the D2x. I struggled with it for over a year before I sold it on. I couldn't get to grips with the poor high iso performance, useless at weddings if that's your interest. I also found that it had very poor dynamic range. Blown skies were a common feature of many photos that I took with it. I can't comment on a D300 because I've not used one. I feel that a D2x is just too old technology. There are newer, better performing options out there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top