D200 vs D2x

Alex.. again great photo & great Blue.. have u use the d2x for this photo??

For me it is important that the camera ca lock in moving subjects in low light & contast conditions. I am one off the very few people do this type of photography and I can only say that on the end you just whant a camera that can do this..

If you go with a model only to save money on the end you will lose...

Becauce off this i just wait to see the d200 working unterwater.

BTw Alex in WA in low light & contast conditions ahve you see big difference between the d70s & d2x?

Lambis

I don't believe Herb was jumping in to say "Canon is better." He was merely responding to some incorrect conjecture by Lambis comparing the D200 to the Canon 5D.

Sorry Herb, my bad.

I know, we can have all sorts of "arguments" about it, but the D2X is the first sensor I have seen that matches or exceedes the quality I see in the Fuji.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With much better blue water rendition!

I think that the differences between image quality of the 200/2x are software oriented. Much like the 100/1x. Although the chips are very different, I expect that identical results can be achieved by post processing. That said, camera mfrs tend to "detune" their semi-pro camera's out of camera images, so if you are like me and want optimal sharpness and saturation out of camera - the D2x may have an edge. With Aperture and other innovative RAW processors coming to market, this may be irrelevant soon.

Hey Herb,

Whats a Canon?

Ha ha private joke to newer members...

I also went for the D2x and with hindsight I would have waited for the D200 - more bang for the buck.

BTW Thom Hogan believes the D3H will be released at photokina and he is not often wrong.

Hi Folks,

Just got my D200 yesterday, all i need is a housing! I've tested it out on low contrast subjects, and it is a huge improvement over the D70 with firmware update 2.0 (Check the Nikon Website if you havent got this yet, its an awesome free upgrade.) I played around with a D2x, which i had my heart set on, but Alex and Luiz gave me two very different opinions on the argument, and i sided for D200 based on Cash, and that the 105mm AFS macro HAS to be on the way soon!

I have just been trying it out shooting planes landing behind the Sun from my hotel room (not clean windows!) and the results were good, and the focus tracking very good and fast with my 70-200VR with the 2x converter, which was a real pain with my D70.

I figured that if i get the D200 over the D2x i can finally afford a subal GS viewfinder!

Simon

BTW Thom Hogan believes the D3H will be released at photokina and he is not often wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He was wrong about the D200, he said this name wasn't going to be used, it was going to be named D90 instead, and it was going to be announced during 2005's PMA.

I'd just like to say that no amount of hanging out in a booth is going to get you in the water, nor will it give you an opinion about whether one camera is better than another (that you can back up with product, I mean).

Just my 2 cents. Make a decision, and get in the water!

lol Eric! If you are at Mac World on business, and have finished the "work" part early day two, then day three becomes personal time!

If I could afford the camera this instant, then you are right, I would buy one or the other and find out underwater. As I still have a few months to wait, I have the luxury of over-researching this!

He was wrong about the D200, he said this name wasn't going to be used, it was going to be named D90 instead, and it was going to be announced during 2005's PMA.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are right -I asked Nikon today about the photokina release and they almost fell off the chair laughing.

If you don't like the color rendition or saturation coming out of your camera, then the onous (is that how you spell it?) is on you to buy a Gretag chart, photograph it in controlled lighting conditions, and follow the lengthy calibration procedure for the CS2 RAW converter. All sensors record color "properly." If you want to calibrate the sensor, you can get it exact. Craig showed me how to do this w/ my Kodak and it worked really well.

Cheers

James

Where is Craig?

I just got caught up reading the thread.

To me the most important aspect of your rig, at least underwater is the

lenses you use. Get the best you can and as Eric suggested and I concur, get in the water and start

shooting!. Use cheap optiques with either one of these cameras and the best results will not be there. The proof in quality lies large printing (24 x 30 or larger). as much as all the other features mentioned here.

I want images that once in my library can be, at any time enlarged greatly while retaining all the elements I saw when I initially create the image.

I am confident I will earn the difference in price between the two if I continue make a living with my camera. If you are not shooting all the time then the D200 is a better choice.

As I mentioned before, lighting,mood and an eye for capturing the moment are more important than the difference between these two cameras. The question is can you make them dance for you!

1- Get a D200 with better optiques and use the change for a spare body

or

2- If you have it (Mulla, $$) spend it on the D2x. with the best lenses off course.

It is true, as Kasey suggested that I seldom compare slrs openly.

I had my D100 for over two years, then the Kodaks for about 2 as well, so it is time to move on again... Since I am in the industry it is also important to show and work with the latest, as long as it is the best for me as a professional. I love my Kodaks and they have served me well.

One thing that has remained constant over the last 25 years are my lenses. I continue to use my 16mm manual lens even with the latest digital. It is a supperb piece of glass. Nikon allows this

As the mount has never changed.

Since I use my camera more on land than I do underwater I want what feels right as well.

My vote goes for the D2x for 99 reasons.

If I was not making a living at this ....then the D200 would be my choice.

Now go and get wet!

A bit off the main topic but interesting. I was looking at the info the D200 via http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond200 where there is a Lens compatibility chart. Item 7 caught my eye.

"Compatible with AF-I Nikkor lenses and with all AF-S lenses except DX ED 12-24 mm f/4G and AF-S series ED 17-35 mm f/2.8D, DX 17-55 mm f/2.8G, ED 24-85 mm f/3.5-4.5G, VR ED 24-120 mm f/3.5-5.6G, and ED 28-70 mm f/2.8D."

Now if I am reading this correctly the DX ED 12-24 mm f/4G which would seem to be a fine lens for UW and other WA uses is not compatible. Now I could understand this to a certain degree but this lens and one other are both DX lens which are suppose to be specifically for dSLRs. I find this strange.

Any one else notice this??

Allen

Allen - Not to worry.. that refers to item #7, which refers to use of the teleconverter, so you can't use the 12-24 with a teleconverter - which, of course, doesn't make any sense anyway.

Cp

Herb, specs on paper don't make the difference......consider USC and Texas.....      

 

Karl

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry about this late and off topic reply. I've been skiing.

I was an undergrad at UCLA and am alway happy to see somebody beat U$C. Where's Texas.