Nikon D2X: Hello All, I have the chance to grab a used Nikon D2X for around $600. I find myself gravitating towards shooting sports and would like the fast fps. Opinions, please.

vinceinjax Loc: Jacksonville, FL

Hello All,

I have the chance to grab a used Nikon D2X for around $600. I find myself gravitating towards shooting sports and would like the fast fps.

Opinions, please.

BebuLamar

The D2X has 5fps so it's OK but not all that fast.

vinceinjax Loc: Jacksonville, FL

BebuLamar wrote:

The D2X has 5fps so it's OK but not all that fast.

The specs say 8 fps...is that with lower resolutions?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

vinceinjax wrote:

Hello All,

I have the chance to grab a used Nikon D2X for around $600. I find myself gravitating towards shooting sports and would like the fast fps.

Opinions, please.

At ISO 200 the D2X can take some very nice images.

At ISO 400 it suffers and at ISO 800 you'll wish you had sprung for even so much as a D3300 instead. The D3300 looks better at ISO 3200 than the D2X does at ISO 400. It also has twice as many pixels and costs less brand new than your used D2X.

The best advice I can give is don't look at any used Nikon previous to the D3 as anything other than a very nice papeweight.

vinceinjax Loc: Jacksonville, FL

Apaflo wrote:

At ISO 200 the D2X can take some very nice images.

At ISO 400 it suffers and at ISO 800 you'll wish you had sprung for even so much as a D3300 instead. The D3300 looks better at ISO 3200 than the D2X does at ISO 400. It also has twice as many pixels and costs less brand new than your used D2X.

The best advice I can give is don't look at any used Nikon previous to the D3 as anything other than a very nice papeweight.

Thanks for that advice...what do you think an acceptable shutter speed for sports is?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

vinceinjax wrote:

The specs say 8 fps...is that with lower resolutions?

Page 194 of the User Manual says:

"Shooting speed can be set to values between 1 and 7 frames per second (fps); the default value is 3 fps. Regardless of the setting chosen, the maximum speed when Hi-speed Crop is Off is 4 fps (p41). The frame advance rate may drop at slow shutter speeds."

Page 41 discusses setting Hi-speed Crop. With Hi-speed Crop turned off the D2X produces a 12.21MP image, with it on the image is 6.87MP.

This was a significant difference at the time the D2X was introduced. It was intended to be a sports/photojournalist camera, which meant the frame rate was very important. The camera uses a 12-bit Analog to Digital Converter, even though that meant having only about 8 stops of useful dynamic range, which would have been improved with a 14-bit ADC. But a 14-bit ADC with better noise in those days was slower too. Nikon went for the speed, with the 12-bit ADC and just barely acceptable dynamic range.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

vinceinjax wrote:

Thanks for that advice...what do you think an acceptable shutter speed for sports is?

That depends on how fast things move, how much light you have, and how much DOF you need. Not to mention what ISO can be used.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Although the D2X was a great camera at the time of introduction I would not spend my money today in one of them.
Modern technology is superior and firing rate of 5 FPS is not unusual with modern cameras, including amateur ones. The new AF of modern cameras are also superior.
I have heard and cannot prove it that like the D2H the infamous Err error is a possibility. That means that upon shooting the first frame the Err sign shows up requiring to fire again to correct it. Repairs are very expensive and the camera is getting close to the point where parts will be scarce.
Noise is a serious problem beginning at ISO 800.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I disagree, my D2X can take just as nice a photograph as my D800, but not as high resolution or ISO settings. It is the person behind the camera that makes the difference.

Apaflo wrote:

At ISO 200 the D2X can take some very nice images.

At ISO 400 it suffers and at ISO 800 you'll wish you had sprung for even so much as a D3300 instead. The D3300 looks better at ISO 3200 than the D2X does at ISO 400. It also has twice as many pixels and costs less brand new than your used D2X.

The best advice I can give is don't look at any used Nikon previous to the D3 as anything other than a very nice papeweight.

BebuLamar

D2X wasn't the sport camera at that time. Nikon had the D2H for that.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Brucej67 wrote:

I disagree, my D2X can take just as nice a photograph as my D800, but not as high resolution or ISO settings. It is the person behind the camera that makes the difference.

As I said, at ISO 200 a D2X will take some very nice pictures.

But realistically, there is no way it can take "just as nice a photograph has my D800". Things like higher resolution are nicer, and lower noise is nicer. Same with higher ISO.

But the big thing, really, is the dynamic range of a D800 is vastly nicer.

So it is not just as nice. And the person behind the camera can only make the difference if they are aware of the capabilities of the tools they use.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

As with all equipment " And the person behind the camera can only make the difference if they are aware of the capabilities of the tools they use.". I find my D2X works great with my Nikon 80-400mm G lens and the Sigma 180mm macro, but so does my D7100.

Apaflo wrote:

As I said, at ISO 200 a D2X will take some very ni... (show quote)

Taken with the D2X

(Download)

Taken with the D2X

(Download)

photo8greg Loc: Maryland

:thumbup:

BebuLamar

The D2X is simply doesn't have the high fps like the OP wanted but however it's a decent camera.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

That it is considering it is 10 years old (came out in 2005 when I got mine).

BebuLamar wrote:

The D2X is simply doesn't have the high fps like the OP wanted but however it's a decent camera.