Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

As stated the D2X has it's limitations:
1. D2X - Take out in rain or at the shore.
2. D7000 and D710 - Crop frame enhancement for FX lens.
3. D610 - FF for shooting family with young kids who are not careful with my equipment.
4. D800 - Love the high ISO up to 6400 this camera gives me.
5. D810 - stunning IQ especially with the 300mm 2.8.
6. D4 - professional grade great for sports or any action shots and also better dynamic range than the rest of them.
7. Sony RX-100 - great pocket camera when I am not carrying a DSLR.
This is my reasoning for my cameras.

Lupane Loc: Gainsville, Ga.

:thumbup:

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The D4 is vastly better.


I'm not sure what you mean? Longer reach?

I do find this somewhat appealing. I've never seriously considered a D7100, but I've printed D7100 images for others and find the resolution to be just astounding! The D800/D810 resolves 103 lp/mm and the D7100 is 128 lp/mm.

But, alas, the qualities of the more rugged and faster shooting D4 appeal to me far more than that extra sharpness of the D7100. (Obviously a personal choice.)


I gave up worrying about that years ago. I'm concerned if they basically are in full time possession, but not if it's only for short periods. Teaching them to be careful is part of the task. I haven't had a camera damaged yet, and at the drop of a hint I let every kid give it a go! (The pictures are fascinating too.)


Neither of these comments make a lick of sense. Those two shine at lower ISO values where they have huge dynamic range advantage over everything else. The D4 is (slightly) better at ISO 6400 and above, plus is it better in many other ways, as you state below.

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#D810,D800,D4


But not better dynamic range at low ISO's than the D800/D810, and arguably not enough better at higher ISO's either. The real advantage is the rugged build and the extra bells and whistles of a fully professional body. The faster frame rate of course is primary among those qualities.


Certainly interesting. But it doesn't make the D2X, logically, anything other than a very nice paperweight.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Brucej67 wrote:
As stated the D2X has it's limitations:
1. D2X - Take out in rain or at the shore.

The D4 is vastly better. Answer it better be, but there is a difference between $600 and $6,000.


Brucej67 wrote:
2. D7000 and D710 - Crop frame enhancement for FX lens.

I'm not sure what you mean? Longer reach?

I do find this somewhat appealing. I've never seriously considered a D7100, but I've printed D7100 images for others and find the resolution to be just astounding! The D800/D810 resolves 103 lp/mm and the D7100 is 128 lp/mm.

Answer: My 80-400mm G lens on the D7100 gives a crop factor 1.5 of 120-600mm or at crop factor1.5X1.3 160-800mm.

But, alas, the qualities of the more rugged and faster shooting D4 appeal to me far more than that extra sharpness of the D7100. (Obviously a personal choice.)


Brucej67 wrote:
3. D610 - FF for shooting family with young kids who are not careful with my equipment.

Answer: My Grandkids are small, but this is a great FF camera when you are not afraid to get it mucked up.

I gave up worrying about that years ago. I'm concerned if they basically are in full time possession, but not if it's only for short periods. Teaching them to be careful is part of the task. I haven't had a camera damaged yet, and at the drop of a hint I let every kid give it a go! (The pictures are fascinating too.)


Brucej67 wrote:
4. D800 - Love the high ISO up to 6400 this camera gives me. Answer: See photo
5. D810 - stunning IQ especially with the 300mm 2.8. Answer: Yes the D710 has great IQ especially with FF lenses, but the D810 has better IQ. The D4 can be shot at ISO over 200,000, however anything above 51,000 has to much noise.

Neither of these comments make a lick of sense. Those two shine at lower ISO values where they have huge dynamic range advantage over everything else. The D4 is (slightly) better at ISO 6400 and above, plus is it better in many other ways, as you state below.

http://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/Charts/PDR.htm#D810,D800,D4 Answer: Don't believe in statistics from the lab take them out and test them yourself.


Brucej67 wrote:
6. D4 - professional grade great for sports or any action shots and also better dynamic range than the rest of them.

But not better dynamic range at low ISO's than the D800/D810, and arguably not enough better at higher ISO's either. The real advantage is the rugged build and the extra bells and whistles of a fully professional body. The faster frame rate of course is primary among those qualities. Answer: Absolutely better dynamic range and even got better with the D4s.


Brucej67 wrote:
7. Sony RX-100 - great pocket camera when I am not carrying a DSLR.
This is my reasoning for my cameras. Answer: This camera is past its prime, but still takes fantastic photos as per the second photo.

Certainly interesting. But it doesn't make the D2X, logically, anything other than a very nice paperweight. Answer: Obviously the D2x is not for you.

This photo was taken with the D800 and 24-70mm ISO 6400 10pm at night.

(Download)

Taken before a storm at sundown with the Sony RX-100.

(Download)

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The D2X was a great performer when introduced but it did not change the choice of professional wedding photographers that were looking for low noise in their low light shots so Canon was their choice. That began to change with the D3.
Yes, at base ISO and good light the D2X is an excellent performer but so are modern amateur cameras with better technology. As you begin to go beyond ISO 400 in many cases and surely beyond ISO 800 in most cases, the image deteriorates due to ugly noise.
Why settle in 2015 for a camera that only performs at its best in good light at base ISO?
If yours has not shown the Err error yet be ready because it could anytime now if it has more than 20k actuations.
I was quoted $350 to repair my D2H and I do not expect anyone to pay me more than $200 for my camera if I sell it.
The D200 had similar colors to the D2H and although not spectacular at ISO 1600 the files were reasonably good and easily cleaned with a noise reduction software.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The point was that you already have a D4. I'm not suggesting than anyone buy one, just that if you have one it would seem foolish not to use it. Unless you are just having fun using an old paperweight as a camera, in which case why not! Just don't claim it's the right one to use for any technical reason.


Which does not at all change the resolution! It is still 103 lp/mm for the D800 and D810, and 128 lp/mm for the D7100. The only difference is how many pixels you get on the subject, and cropping reduces that number.


Looking at the pictures show nothing! Is that image better, or is it worse, than it would have been if shot with a D4?


That is the kind of thinking that is producing the problems with what you say. I agree that just finding something being said on the Internet is meaningless. But those graphs, and there are others that are just as carefully prepared (and they all agree), were made by Bill Claff. It isn't as if they are wrong...

But it is a fact that if your "test them yourself" results in different findings... you can absolutely be sure that Claff isn't wrong, and you are! The point is that you (and I, and most of us) simply do not have the equipment and probably don't have the know how to make those tests.


You test that yourself, eh?

Look at the graphs showing what the actual numbers are. Claff, DXOMARK and others get essentially the same results. So does everyone that knows how to test those cameras. The D800 and D810 get seriously better dynamic range at ISO 100 that a D4 or D4S. The D4 and D4S are virtually identical at low ISO values, and the D4S is perceptibly (with careful measurements, but barely enough to be visible) at higher ISO values. For example at ISO 12800 Claff measured a difference of 0.21 stops.

Compare that to the difference at the best dynamic range for the D4S (at ISO 80) and the D810 (at ISO 63), where the D810 is 1.14 stops better than the D4S. That is truly significant.


I shot tens of thousands of images with a D2X, and enjoyed every minute of using it. It took about 10 seconds after seeing examples of NEF files to pre-order a D3 when it was announced. I probably shot half a dozen shots with the D2X after the D3 was acquired. I gave the D2X to someone who thought they would like to try it, and it has been a shelf every since. The D3, and the D3S that followed it have also been donated to aspiring photographers, except those have literally inspired each young photographer to significant levels neither would have managed otherwise!

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

The result is that we agree to disagree and have moved way of topic of the original OP discussion.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Bruce, nothing wrong shooting with a camera that has old technology, in my case I do that often.
When I go to my most "modern" camera which is a D7000 and I see that technology allows me to simplify my photography it is hard to go back as much as I like my old cameras.

photo8greg Loc: Maryland

There should be a contest who can take the most award winning image with the most primitive camera,mine is my Fuji S3.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I like shooting with the D2X (and I know it has it's limits), but I don't shoot that often with it. My most used camera currently is my D800 and D810 most of the time. When I am doing BIF I use my FF lens and the D7100 or D7000 for the addition of the crop factor. I use my D4 when I have a job to shoot. That said I wouldn't give up my D2X.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I wouldn't give up my F5, Mamiya 645 or my Pentax Spotmatic either. I still use the first two (the Pentax is all but dead), but for myself, not work. I still wouldn't pay $ 600 for a D2X at this time. YMMV.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Probably not when you can get an entry level Nikon for the price, but in 2005 the D2X cost me $5,000.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Yeah, I'd be very happy if I could get even half of what I paid when I sold a used camera.