The shots that come out of that "Half camera" will knock the socks off the D2Xs every time.
My main camera is a D300 with the grip and I bought a D2XS as a backup body. It's just older technology and the shots are not anywhere as nice. Got rid of it after about 3 months because although it was quick, if the light wasn't perfect, it struggled. (compared to the d300)
The d300 with the grip shoots at 8fps and if you can't catch action with 8fps you're doing something wrong.
Just my opinion of course.
AWP was talking about the D300S and it's video option.
However, looking at the older D300, undoubtedly, the D300 (whether gripped or not) is a tasty option, especially when it took over from the D200 and showed just what could be done in one jump up the generation ladder.
It's the same as going D2 > D3; the jump is massive, although we're not comparing like-for-like because of the difference in sensor type (i.e. DX against FX).
On paper (and most likely in real world use) the D300 has some massive advantages - better high ISO performance being a big one - the D2x/D2Xs has a lower base ISO (100 as opposed to the D300's ISO 200 or its expanded ISO100 option), plus it sports better ergonomics (for me anyway) because of the built-in grip; gripped bodies are taller than the all-in-one designs.
I would argue that you will see no difference between shots at lower ISOs, say 200 and 400, and there will only be a visible difference from a standard viewing position (i.e. not pixel peeping at 100% on a computer screen) when you're shooting at 1600 when the D2's Hi1 option (equivalent to 1600) is kicking out clumpy noise.
It's interesting to note how Nikon have obviously looked at technological shortcomings on the D2x and recified them on the D300, a lower-level pro body. Obviously the technology was more available three years on; getting 8fps without having to resort to a crop mode, more AF points, UDMA compatability. But then you look at the D3 and compared to the D300, it was a light year ahead. Look at it now; that D3 technology has filtered down to the D700 - and probably little bits to the D7000 - and no doubt will be included (and then some) in the D400 when it comes along.
At the rate it's going, we have interesting times ahead, although in respect to the high-end models, I can't see a massive turnaround of models like there will be lower down the ranks where the technology of the past few years can benefit more consumer oriented models.
The thing is, for the majority of work that I undertake for magazines, the D2x will produce grade-A results that will reproduce brilliantly. I'll have to move up soon to take advantage of the high iSO capabilities of something like a D700 or a D3, but aside from that feature (and an improved AF system - and a pop-up flash on the D700) there will be little those cameras can offer my photography other than keeping up with the times.
And people who have tried both tell me there's some pixie dust in the D3 that makes it way better than the D700.
