OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Not quite the action sports shots the OP wants.

Royalruler Loc: Rancho Cucamonga

I shoot a lot of Sports, I had a D2x, it was good till the D3s came out, I had to sell the D2X and get the D3s. Now it is about time to move up again. The low light places I get into demand it.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

No it is not and I probably would not take that camera for sports, I would probably use my D4, but the D2X takes excellent photographs in the right hands. I am probably not the person to do sports. The D2X might be good for wrestling but not for racing.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

The D2X was the high resolution model in the D2 lineup. When it was introduced, it was quite the camera, attracting lots of followers. It was NOT a sports camera. That was the D2H. I just sold two of those for about $250 each, so I would not pay $ 600 for a D2X at this point in time. A D3, which I did use for sports, would be a much better choice. YMMV.

photo8greg Loc: Maryland

I have this camera and it proforms great not that fast though for sports.

vinceinjax Loc: Jacksonville, FL

So here's the thing...I'm seriously gravitating towards shooting sports. With the youth soccer, little league, and high school sports events, I figure I can stay busy. I currently own a D5000 which was my first purchase. I got it used from Adorama at a great price ($169).

Question 1: I've read that more megapixels does not necessarily mean better images. Will the D3300 give me improved image quality over the D5000?

Question 2: Will the D3300 let me shoot 5 fps in RAW?

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Something to be aware of... event photography, which is what this is, in poorly illuminated gymnasiums can be very trying for even the best equipment. So be prepared for that fact that you are necessarily making some large compromises! There will be fewer problems with the outdoor sports though.


The D3300 can shoot at a maximum frame rate of 5 fps, while your D5000 is limited to 4 fps. You won't see a difference.

The D5000 has 12.9 MP and the D3300 has 24.2 MP. If you post images to the web, or otherwise view them on a computer monitor, there just will not be any difference. If you want to print them at 16x20 the differences will start to show up, and at 24x30 will be significant. That applies to full sized images... and if you like to crop them the difference is greater the more you crop!

Here is a set of graphs that you will find interesting:

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#D2X,D3300,D5200

The bottom line is that the higher up vertically the graph is at any given horzontal location (ISO), the better the camera is. That line way down below everything else is a D2X. The brown line is the D5000, and green line is the D3300. The top line is a D5200 (which is almost identical to the graph for a D7100).

Each of the newer cameras is at least somewhat better than the older D5000. Not by any huge margin though. If you have to shoot at an ISO above 200 but below about 2000, they are pretty close. At ISO 200 the D5200 is significantly better. As the ISO is raised above 2000 the D5000 loses ground (with more visible noise).

At ISO 6400 you have to absolutely nail the exposure just to get a useful image, and noise cannot be avoided. Even a small difference between those lines will result in better images for the camera that has higher dynamic range.

Just to give you some perspective, click on the D4S. The difference is what $6000 will buy.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The D2X as I said was a nice camera at the time of introduction. It is a very capable camera at base ISO and certainly will take beautiful pictures with pastel colors. At usual enlargements nobody will be able to tell the difference between the D2X and a D800 but if enlargements beyond 13x19 are made the difference, using the same lens, will be noticeable in the details. Obviously, the larger the size of enlargement the more evident it will be.
The person behind the camera is most important Bruce if not limited by his or her gear. We can do nice pictures with a p&s but a D800 will do better.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Look at this chart http://photographyicon.com/enlarge/ on print size vs resolution, it is not that great and how many times do you print at the extreme ends. I have seen massive blown up prints that were taken at 6mp that through software manipulation came out great at poster size prints.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

IMHO, the big difference between cameras is light sensitivity and tonal range which is constantly improving, along with a myriad of other features which may or may not have an impact. There is much software around to upsize photos and clear up noise, and this also gets better with time. I have some amazing results, at least to me, shot with my D1H, yet it is not a camera that I would go to today! Given a decent camera, of any brand, the person behind it is a critical component in getting a great shot. Here, experience counts. Shoot, shoot, and shoot again!

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Bruce, I do not usually engage in conversations that I know will not lead to anything. If you are still convinced that the D2X is a great camera considering the times, so be it.
In my case if I had to choose between a D2X and a D800 I believe I have made my decision clear.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

A great chart, which shows exactly why the D800 is preferred over the D2X, even when an image can be made at ISO 200 where the D2X does fine.

Unfortunately not all scenes can be shot at ISO 200, and at ISO 800 the D2X turns into a total dud.

Note that massive blowups from 6 MP images may be fine, but if made from a 36 MP image they would have been super fine.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I am not saying you are wrong in choosing the D800 over the D2X (heck I own both and more), what I am saying is that the D2X is still a good camera despite it's limitations. Just think of the great photographers in history who didn't even have what the D2X has and still managed to get great photographs, so anything is possible with the right mindset.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I don't dispute your reasoning, and you will notice I have both the D800 and D810 (as well as a few others) and if I had to purchase the D2X at $5,000 (original price in 2005) I wouldn't. I would buy the D700 over the D2X, however for its limitations the D2X still produces fine photographs if you can live within the confines of its shortcomings. Now I didn't mean my remarks to be argumentative and I am not touting myself as an authority, these are just my humble opinions.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Virtually all of the "great photographers in history" did use the best camera they could get. I.e., none of them went for the equivalent of a more than 10 year old D2X.

And "anything" is not possible, regardless of mindset. You can't make silk from a sow's ear. In today's world the D2X is a sow's ear. (And we might note the list of cameras you own demonstrates that you don't think a D2X is generally suitable, otherwise that would be the only model you own.)