D2x -> D3 are You happy?

[stubbsy]

No surprise given the current tantalising price that I'm looking at selling my D2x and moving to a D3. The big plus for me is low noise at higher ISO's, but against that both cameras are pixel wise the same 12 megapixel which means the D2x is actually a higher resolution (smaller area, same pixel count). In my research I found the following interesting comments from Bjorn Rorslett which directly address that:

What you can do with DX can largely also be done with FX. Sometimes the one, sometimes the other format will have the upper hand. Until Nikon comes up with a higher-resolving FX camera to team up as a companion to the D3, the DX system has the edge in sheer basic resolution. As always this has a flip side with it so while a D2X or D300 outresolves a D3, you either get more image graininess("noise"), or a more restricted coverage from the same vantage point of the camera. If you on the other hand set up the systems so as to provide the same field of view from a given distance, the DX format is given the bad cards because it will have lower detail magnification and thus need the bigger secondary magnification, both of which aspects will potentially adversely impact the final outcome. As always, the underlying factors will determine what you end up with and as a photographer, you have to learn how to play the game to your own advantage... So, does the arrival of FX make the smaller DX suddenly obsolete? In an earlier review, I gave the D2X a healthy recommendation as being the flagship of the Nikon DLSRs at that time. Now, nearly three years later, the D2X continues to deliver excellent image quality provided you pair it with top-performing glass. As far as DX is concerned, the D300 continues where the D2X bites the dust in terms of noise performance So these two combine quite nicely. With the D3, I haven't yet decided whether an FX/DX combination is the most appropriate for me as the basic workhorse setup. Two D3 cameras alone will not be optimal for me, but D3 + D300, or D3 + D2X might be. I need to use these combinations over a longer period of time to finally arrive at a decision... On the horizon one can predict with some degree of certainty there will be a stablemate to the D3 with an elevated pixel count for those admittedly few occasions in which the current D3 won't cut it. When such a camera arrives, I'll add it to my D3 outfit to complete the "FX" kit.

So, to that small number of you who've made the switch - how does the D3 compare to what you were getting from your D2x in terms of image quality?

[sirhc55]

Peter, I would wait for the next iteration. You have a very capable camera in the D2X and I must say that since getting the D300 I’m more than pleased that I held back on the D3.

[Mj]

Peter, I would ask simply... what does the D2x not do for you that the D3 will? Lower noise is the only thing that readily comes to mind and this might not be critical to your photography. I've just moved from d70 to D300 so I'm not part of the small group that your seeking to confer with, however I'm with Chris... I'd be waiting for at least the next round of body updates as I'm not sure you'd get a value for money enhancement at this stage.

Michael.

[Glen]

Stubbsy, I am clearly not answering your question nor can I, but I would have to seriously consider the 3rd option of a D3X

[big pix]

I have held off buying the D3 as my results from the D2xs at low ISO are of a greater quality than what my clients will ever use. I also use the D300 but only when I need high ISO with a little flash fill sometimes, but I am shooting available light a lot more than I ever did when using film. When on location the first camera I choose is always the D2xs. The other reason I also stayed with the cropped sensor was the investment in glass that I have, so I guess that I am going to wait and see what Nikon comes up with in the way of new bodies. I can always buy a new set of len's for a new body.......

[Bob G]

I moved from D2x to D3 and I am happy. Pic quality is superior in many situations,however, if you were a birder or wanted to do big crops to your pics then, adsvice might be a little different. Buy a D3 and keep the D2x - best of both worlds.

[JordanP]

If you want more than 12mp and you are happy to wait then hold off for a D3x. I have not owned a D2x and only used one on rare occasions - but I did covet its features. I do own a D300 and a D3, and while I can say the D300 is magic, there is still a world of difference when it comes to noise between the two. Other features like FX, duel CF cards and improved handling of dynamic range are big factors for me, not sure if they are for you. FX is not only your field of view but also impacts (in a small way) your depth of field. With what I do with my cameras I have more issue being too close to capture what I want rather than not being able to walk close enough so for this FX is appreciated. Again for me personally, more than 12mp is an unnecessary use of space at the moment - and packing more pixels into an fx sensor may only lessen the low noise experience I'm currently enjoying.

All that said - if you are going to want a D3x for image size then I would be waiting for that.

Cheers,

[Slider]

D200 -->> D300 Very Very Happy
D300 -- >> D3 Holy Full Frame Batman..Brilliant.

Despite what many people say regarding upgrades the D300 over the D200 was very worthwhile given the amazing high ISO performance and the incredible flexibility that one feature provides to your creativity and low light options. Other features such as Live View open new possibilities, especially for macro (one of my passions as you know) with exceptional focusing capabilities. Additional features such as enhanced dynamic range and active D-Lighting further improve the final result.

Now take that and add a full size sensor and as many well respected commentators like to say images that have "that indefinable special something" , not to mention 11 FPS and enter the D3. No my DX lenses no longer have the same appeal but my FX lenses have come to life in a new way altogether. Oh, and did I mention very usable images at ISO 6400 and more!!!

Given that our good friend Mr. Poon has them available for sub 5K it is almost a no brainer, compared to the release price.

Wait for a D3x for a heap more money or a touted D10 for less. Who knows, but in answer to your original question. Yes, happy

[Raskill]

Just to further this thread (and take it slightly OT), but what would be the benefit of FX over DX for say, motorsports? I won't be going anywhere near FX for sometime, but just curious.

[chrisk]

well, i'd imagine for low light shooting you can shoot at 6400 to keep your shutter speed up and not lose much IQ.

[Matt. K]

Peter
It won't make you a better photographer but it will make you happy...for awhile. I've been researching the topic over the last week or so and it seems only if you do lots of low light photography is the upgrade worth it. Have you considered...kep the D2X and buy a D300 for backup and poor light?

[stubbsy]

Have you considered...kep the D2X and buy a D300 for backup and poor light?

Sure have Matt - the D300 is under consideration too although the big move for me is for low light performance. While the D300 is a low noise D2x in many ways it doesn't have the noise characteristics of the D3 due to the D3's larger sensor size (see technical commentary on that below). As for two bodies - I'd sell the D2x if I bought a new body - no point having two.

a full frame sensor with, say, 12MP, will always have lower noise and thus inherently higher image quality than a full frame sensor with 21MP. Similarly a sensor of any given pixel count that's full frame will have lower noise than a 1.5X or 1.6X crop sensor

[stubbsy]

Just to further this thread (and take it slightly OT), but what would be the benefit of FX over DX for say, motorsports? I won't be going anywhere near FX for sometime, but just curious.

Alan

None really per se - the benefit the D3 has for sport photographers isn't in being FX, so much as it's speed (9 fps), fast image pipeline, large buffer and the two CF slots

[gstark]

Peter,

What are the features that the D3 has that you find irresistible? And why is that so?

The primary features, for me, would be high ISO performance and full frame capabilities. The hires LCD is nice too.

Do you need the high ISO performance? What are your alternatives in that realm?

I recall that you're not an old filum shooter, and thus you might not have an appreciation for what FF actually is. This is very much an intangible quality, but when you shoot with something like a 15mm into a big viewfinder ....

The resolution issue is a sticky one: the D300 has higher res, and I fully expect the D3x to have higher res, but lower high ISO performance, than the D3. I see the x as being a true potential replacement for entry into the MF class; is that what you're going to be seeking?

What is the largest size that you print to? While the D3 doesn't have (relatively) a whole lot of pixels, they are amongst the most beautiful, fattest pixels around.

Ok ... we've dealt with need and justification.

Having dealt with those important issues, were I to have the funds available, that discussion would then be consigned to the bin, and I would buy one, just because I could, and because I wanted one. At the end of the day; that is what drives my decision-making processes.

Desire.

[stubbsy]

Gary

Interesting questions:

The issue for me, ABOVE ALL ELSE, is improved noise characteristics at higher ISO. I find maybe 20% of my shooting is in low light (especially indoors) where I am never happy with the ISO/noise tradeoff I need to make on the D2x even with fast glass like the 17-35 or 28-70. As for alternatives - I've already moved to faster glass (better, but still not good enough). I guess the D300 is an alternative too, but setting $ aside (a big set aside) the D3 is better still in that area.

Resolution isn't such an issue for me - I've decided for what I do and print 12Mp is more than enough - so no need to hang out for a D3x for that (D2x, D3 and D300 all satisfy those needs).

FF is a really hard one for me and can't be done viscerally (never shot film) so I can only do theoretically - I look at my base lenses (10.5 DX fisheye, 17-35, 28-70 and to a lesser extent the 70-200) and see two issues:
- 10.5 replacement - there is a Sigma and a Nikkor 16mm fisheye, but availability is an issue I guess
- I have a hole in the ultra wide end with FF (my 17-35 moves up to what my 28-70 was in a mathematical sense) so perhaps down the track I'd look at the Nikkor 14-24 /2.8 when I see the real impact

Finally $ - well I have both that and the desire, but if I purchased every time the two coincided I'd never have the $ eh.

But if I'm talking doillars my up front costs nudge 6K with camera, L bracket, replacement for 10.5 lens and even more if I need a lens below the 17-35. Of course some of that would be offset by selling the D2x, 10.5 FE and my 12-24DX

[Matt. K]

Peter
Gary makes a very good point re the full frame vs DX. I would seriously borrow or hire a D3 and try your lenses on it before making a commitment. You may not like the full frame conversion of your optics. It might just not feel right for you....so check it out before diving in.

[Benny2707]

Peter
Gary makes a very good point re the full frame vs DX. I would seriously borrow or hire a D3 and try your lenses on it before making a commitment. You may not like the full frame conversion of your optics. It might just not feel right for you....so check it out before diving in.

Great post, I'm also in the cusp at investing in a D3 and will seriously look to borrow/steal/hire one for a day to see how my current glass performs on it before outlaying the hard earned.

[digitor]

- I have a hole in the ultra wide end with FF (my 17-35 moves up to what my 28-70 was in a mathematical sense) so perhaps down the track I'd look at the Nikkor 14-24 /2.8 when I see the real impact

I think you've got this the wrong way round - you would get a bigger field of view. 17mm on a FF is quite wide, it would look like an 11 or 12mm on a DX camera.

You could also cut the hood off your 10.5, apparently it will cover FF if you butcher it this way.

Cheers

[Oneputt]

Peter I made the change and have not regretted it. I switched for the high ISO performance, but mainly for the full frame. I have not regretted my decision as it is an awesome camera, and I really cannot fault it.

[Reschsmooth]

Peter, I can't add a lot to this discussion, but comparing the 17-35 on my DX D200 compared to Nikon F (with its 100% viewfinder), at 17, the field of view is amazing. As you know, this lens has very low distortion at the wide end, and on a full frame DSLR, would be magical.

[Dprime]

I recently went from a D2Xs to a D3, but my situation was a little different as it was from an insurance claim as some of you may know.

My impressions from the D3 after about 3 weeks is its bloody amazing. In my opinion, its leaps and bounds ahead of the D2xs. I know some people here have mentioned that the low noise is mainly the big advantage to the D3, but to me its the little things that count as well that make this camera so much more convenient then my old D2xs. (dual CF cards, FX/DX mode, faster frame rate @ full frame, bigger LCD etc). I also think the camera itself is a lot better build quality and just generally feels like a better camera in your hands. Its nice having a big bright view finder aswell.

BUT at the end of the day, if I still had a working D2xs, I probably wouldn't be upgrading to the D3 unless (as Gary already mentioned),
-funds were available &
-desire!

Its alot of money to pay just for desire, (and being able to shoot to 6400iso without blinking an eye!) but you wont be disapointed at the end of the day.

Brett

[big pix]

I am still very happy with the quality that I am getting from my 2 bodies, D2Xs & D300, great for shooting birds and wildlife as the extra length with tele lens is an advantage and the main reason I stayed with DX bodies...... Now then, as the cost of a FX body is now quite reasonable, and the price of the D3 has also come down it may be time for a rethink. I have a number of FF lens along with a 24 PC shift lens, so for this lens alone I am seriously thinking of getting a FX camera body to add to my ever growing kit........ but which FX body?....... or wait till Xmas as there is a rumor of another body.......

[stubbsy]

Well I thought it best I update this post on what I've done. Ultimately I decided to get the D300. My decision was based solely on bang for buck. Ultimately I decided that the price differential between the D300 and the D3 was large whereas the performance differential was small (setting aside full frmae issues). Full frame had some appeal, but at the end of the day this still didn't justify the price premium. My thinking was that in a year or two this price gap will have narrowed and I'd think about FF then.

So far I'm more than happy with the D300 and it's giving me the ISO improvement for low light shots I was after.

[big pix]

Peter, I am surprised that you did not hold off for a few more months, as the rumor of another FF body, which I beleive will happen before Xmas, and the release of the FF D700, should move prices a bit more south........

....... must admit that the D300 is a great bit of kit....... but I am holding out till Xmas, never know what Santa will bring me

[ozboyerp]

God Day,

Well I had the D2x then move to the D3 just because of insurance getting me the new one.

If you can afford it, well, the colors are better on the D3, but the D2x is very good, so if $$$ is no matter

Go and get it! But in 3-6 months time a new toy will come around.

[gstark]

God Day,

World youth day, actually.

[ozboyerp]

This was pretty subtile...

Good one...