Nikon D200 or Nikon D2X - which one?

[lordsmurf]

Any shooters out there?

I can grab a D200 kit (lens, battery grip) for $2000 or the D2X body for $4000
Not sure which way I'd like to go. It needs to be a full upgrade to a Nikon D1.

Price is not a factor, just camera quality.

The D200 may have better low light control, but not sure how significant the difference is.
Low light quality is why I want to move off the D1, ISO 800+ is unusable quality.
Even 400 ISO pushes acceptability sometimes on the D1.

Higher res will be good too. The D1 is more than adequate, but I may need large prints (tabloid + sized).

On the other hand, the D2X is more durable body like F5/D1/D2.

That D200 battery grip is sort of flimsy lightweight.
Then again, AA batteries instead of the EN-EL recharge packs.

Lens is not a factor either, have plenty. But I'd grab the kit just because it's a nice Nikkor and really not all the much extra to grab it.

Will not be making this purchase for several months (if it can be done at all).

Have any thoughts to share?

[Conquest10]

The D200 has often been reffered to as a mini-D2X. I don't know, I personally prefer to have a vertical grip. The D2X has it built-in. Another thing the D2X is better at is the AF system. I would think that would make its low-light performance better.

Does Nikon have the equivalent of Canon's ST-E2? Its meant as a trigger for flashes but is also very useful in low-light. It emits an IR focus assist light that can help the camera focus in pitch-black.

[lordsmurf]

I may just go after the D2Hs instead.

It has the high ISO quality I want (better than D200 or D2X apparently, according to other shooters), and the super-mega-super-duper pixel dimensions are not going to be needed anyway, I'm not going to be shooting for high-res slick magazines or wall posters.

[Conquest10]

Another wise choice. 4 megapixels is enough, I say. I don't doubt the high ISO perfoemance either mainly because they are not squeezing 10-12 megapixels into the same size chip. And 40 continous RAW shots or 50 JPEG... nice.

[lordsmurf]

And 40 continous RAW shots or 50 JPEG... nice.

Several shooters say this is a bit of a stretch by Nikon, you're actually looking for numbers in the mid to high 30s at best for NEF shooting (the buffer sort of stalls, supposedly, before you ever hit the Nikon-stated max of 40 for RAW). But that's still a lot better than the D1 was. Whether or not it's true, I won't know until I try one.

I may rent one if I can find a place nearby, give it day or so worth of abuse, compare to D1.

[hech54]

I'm just now getting into .nef shooting with my D70. It's my personal opinion that it is tough to get a bad shot in .nef....unless your shot is completely out of focus or something...
I'm not a pro mind you...just a hobbyist following my son around with my D70 taking shots for the grandparents overseas..