Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumen Miner
What is the D2Xs marketed as the equivilant in canon.... (I know they are not as good, just wondering, amateur, semi pro, pro  ) |
Wow. Where did you hear "they're not as good" Mitchell?
If you've found a Nikon D2X going for less than a Canon 400D - please let me know!!!
As new, the D2X was worth ten times (literally) what a 400D could be had for brand new.
The D2X is was released in direct competition to Canon's EOS-1D Mark II, and stiff competition amongst top pros is what it gave. It's a superb camera - absolutely professional quality - in a totally different eschelon to the 400D. Please don't automatically make assumptions that Canon are somehow generally "better" than Nikon because it's a lot more complex than that. They are the two brands at the top of the tree, and in many ways are the equivalent of each other. They've both been around since the earlier half of the 20th century, and Nikon started and won the pro race with the Nikon F in 1959. This was their first SLR and it took the professional world by storm - and really made its name in the ultra-tough correspondent arena in the Vietnam era. Leica lost its shirt over this camera. Canon played, and was sick of playing for many years, second fiddle to the F-series Nikons with their own "Flex" (first Canon SLR in 1959) and subsequent FX-series in the mid 60's. I still have my late 60's Nikon F Photomic and would never part with it. I still to this day think that Nikons are more solid, and feel better in my hand than any Canon - but others will say exactly the same of Canon. They're both brilliantly engineered. To counter that though, I've had three Canon cameras totally fail on me over time - two mechanically and one electronically, while all three of my Nikon bodies have never once had a problem - ever. There will be others who will, predictably, disagree! LOL!
Both Nikon and Canon have their professional lovers and detractors - each the same, and they are constantly leap-frogging each other in some particular technology. Some say that Canon are caught up in the "pixel race", and consider that a marketable trait - whereas Nikon never really entered that race and preferred to think that lower pixel densities led to better noise performance. It's all very subjective and anyone arguing a point for one brand will meet equal resistance from someone in regards to the other. Nikons recent cameras (D300, and full-frame D700, D3, etc) are testament to this in many ways. Don't get me wrong though - I have a heap of respect for the high-end Canons too - I'd love a 1D-MkII, III or 5D MkII. They're top notch in anyones book. Some prefer Canons landscape treatment, whilst others (like me) much prefer Nikons faithful colour. Horses for courses, like anything.
Given that, the D2X is now an old camera - released in Jan 2005 or thereabouts for around $10,000. It's high ISO performance probably isn't up to the modern cameras in terms of its usefulness for astro work, but it's still one of the best terrestrial cameras in the world. It's new replacement, the D3X has just been released recently and it's a $12,500 dollar camera.
As good as it is, it's probably not the camera for you though. If you had a bunch of Nikon lenses you'd want one for terrestrial use - brilliant! I'd certainly have one in a heartbeat to go with my 13 Nikkor Ai lenses. For astro work, I'd be looking for a consmer-level Canon camera like a 400D or 450D and a kit lens or two. Comparatively cheap, and admittedly a better choice for what you want of it here for astro. More people use them because they do perform better in low-light, high ISO ranges than older Nikons did, and consequently there's more software, hardware (clip-in filters, etc) and astronomy-related support than there was for Nikon. I run a 350D myself for the bulk of my astro work - so go figure. I still prefer my entry-level Nikon D40 for shots of the Moon though - hands down gives me a better picture than my Canon.
Seriously - where did you see a D2X for near 400D prices? I want!