Because of the D200 that was announced when the D2X was available in stores, I waited and bought the D200 instead of the D2X, but next summer, in 2006, the D2Xs was there, the D2X was hard to find, and GAS was too strong.
At the time, the D2Xs (and D2X) were quite revolutionary. It turns out most of the D2Xs improvements over the D2X were made available to the D2X with a simple firmware upgrade. Therefore, both cameras are now basically the same. The automatic viewfinder masking in high-speed crop mode and the slightly better LCD (doesn't mean it's good) are the main differences. Even If I'll refer here to the D2Xs, it applies to the D2X as well.
So, what is it like shooting this professional dinosaur in the era of 50MP-high-dynamic-range-low-noise-gazillion-axis-stabilized-fast-AF-with-insane-count-of-AF-sensors-cameras?
First thing to consider is price. I checked on MPB: you can buy one in really good condition and 50K clics for less than $250 at the time of writing, but they can be hard to find. For $250 you get a hell of a camera, with a few caveats that weren't really relevant in 2006, and still aren't today in my opinion in this price range.
Like all the single digit Nikon, it's built like a tank, weather sealed, and the ergonomics are perfect. One button is one function, and you can program a few of them. It's a rugged shooting machine. I used to call it my heavy machine gun camera. It actually sounds like one when I shoot 8FPS in crop mode. The caveat here is weight. Mine weighs 2.8lbs with the battery, add a 600mm f/5.6 AI-s and you're carrying almost 10lbs of glass and magnesium. A cheaper and more modern option like the tamron 150-600 will still weigh 7lbs.
The viewfinder is nothing but superb. I still think it's one of the biggest and brightest APSC viewfinder, with a LOT of information, including if you're shooting in black and white, image quality (helpful if you switched to JPEG and forgot to set it back to RAW), and even white balance.
It has the voice memo option, and that is an option I almost can't live without: it is just so practical. The audio notes are available in lightroom in the metadata panel-> exifs-> audio file.
It's an APSC camera with "only" 12MP, which is enough for 20x30 prints and even bigger. The caveat here is frame rate: 5fps was just good at the time. BUT you had the fast crop mode, turning the camera into a 7MP 2X crop mode capable of 8FPS. The caveat here being obviously the 7MP crop, but at the same time, it was perfect for shooting distant small subjects fast action. And those 7MP still allowed 11x14 prints. Of course, if you only post your photos on social media, the pixel count or ISO are quite irrelevant since your photos will be downsized to less than 2MP, which will get rid of any noise, focus errors, and allow some crazy cropping if you want to.
What is more important in my opinion is responsiveness and overall speed. Even by today's standard, the D2Xs is fast. No startup delay, shutter delay is nonexistent, AF is fast, operations are fast, changing settings is fast, thanks to the dedicated buttons and dials, knowing what's going on with the camera settings is fast, thanks to the 2 small LCD screens telling you all you need to know. Once you've set up a few options like RAW in the menu, you'll likely never have to go there again.
Talking of the AF, it works well even in low contrast situations, and is indeed fast, but you have only 11 AF sensors (or 9 in high speed crop mode), therefore you can quite forget about real time AF tracking, and focus and recompose is the way to go when shooting static subjects. Unlike later models, where it could have been really useful, the D2Xs offers group tracking: 5 sensors are combined in a lozenge shape and used to AF. It's like having a bigger sensor and works well on birds in flight. Much better than the dynamic area AF AKA "AF tracking".
It's worth noting there is no fine AF tuning option. That never really was an issue for me.
The image quality is good. The strong CFA might take away some low light performance (low light performance is not great anyway, and wasn't great at the time), but the color rendering is just great, especially at 100ISO. With a 50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 you have a perfect portrait camera, with one of the best skin tones rendering ever.
Dynamic range is 11Evs at 100ISO but goes down to only 8 at 800ISO and a miserable 6Evs at the maximum 3200ISO. The D2Xs is definitely not a low light camera. Not because of noise, which is not a real issue anymore with the latest DXO deep prime denoising engine and Topaz Denoise AI, but because of the very limited dynamic range and the very low max ISO. That is not an issue in itself because the best quality prints have a DR of 8Evs, but you have to be more conscious of your exposure settings. On top of that, the D2Xs has a very bad tendency to burn highlights. Most of the time I shoot at -0.7Evs, and when I shoot a white bird I go up to -2Evs to make sure I keep details in the feathers.
Recovering the shadows is no big deal, and the noise emerging from these pushed shadows is well managed with deep prime and topaz denoise. But still, 8EVs of DR at 800ISO requires the photographer to know what he is doing. You won't fix it in post.
There was an internet war when the D300 came out: this camera (which by the way never convinced me) was supposed to offer better DR and ISO noise. Turns out, when the D2Xs says you're shooting at 200ISO, you're really shooting at 200ISO, same with all the ISO settings. The D300/D300s doesn't. There is almost a 1 fstop difference in ISo displayed. Shooting f/1.8 1/200s 800ISO on the D2XS results in the same EV as shooting f/1.8 1/125 800ISO on the D300/D300s. Therefore, the D#)) supposed ISO noise improvement is not that great, and the DR improvement is barely 1Ev. Of course, the D300 AF is better, slightly faster and has more AF sensors. But at the time that wasn't enough to convince me when I already got the D3.
Today, you can buy the D300s for $250 or less in good condition with low clics. Image quality is quite similar, AF is better, frame rate without grip and the batteries/charger from the D2Xs is 7FPS @12MP or 8FPS with that grip; it has liveview if you care about that and can shoot some crappy 720p videos. On paper it sounds like a better choice, but I really never liked it. Still don't. When the image quality is so close for the same price, I value the shooting experience.
Shooting RAW, I don't really care about the jpeg engine, but the D2Xs is an exception: not for the longest bursts or fastest editing, but for the # custom response curve that allow me to emulate the Tri-X and Fuji Neopan.
The automatic white balance is OK in natural light, it's the absolute best with snow even today but can struggle in artificial light. You can use custom white balance using the external sensor to get the light balance for the light source or the internal sensor to get white balance of the subject. You also have an option to do white balance bracketing.
Being a pro Nikon, you can attach whatever F-mount lens, with the exception of a very few exotic old lenses that you'll never buy anyways and the latest AF-P lenses.
There is a lot more to say: you have an excellent interval timer, a very crappy auto ISO setting of very limited usability, 2 bank of 4 programmable settings sets,you can shoot tiff instead of jpeg to get the best out of the internal image processing engine, the battery life is still 10 time better than the best current mirrorless camera (I still get almost 4.000 shots out of one battery when I don't use the read LCD to chimp).
Not all is perfect in this 16 years old camera, especially the low light capabilities and the rear LCD that isn't sharp and suffers from color shifting, but overall, it is a really lovable and enjoyable old pro camera that is definitely still relevant today as long as you don't plan to print murals or crop like crazy or shoot in the dark fast moving subjects. ISO noise isn't an issue anymore and limited dynamic range isn't really an issue either if you know how to expose.
My thinking always was: being conscious of the hardware limitation and finding creative ways to use them, to overcome them, makes you a better photographer.
You may also like
Shooting the Sony Alpha 700 in 2022
I really never was really interested in Sony after they bought Minolta and started their "own" line of DSLRs. 15 years later, I buy a pristine Alpha A700 for peanuts and I quite like the Minolta DNA.
Shooting the Nikon D70 in 2022
2004... Jesus, time passes quite fast. I won't review that Nikon D70, the specs sheets and reviews are everywhere on the internet. Only 3 figures are significant anyway: 6.1 megapixel CCD sensor, 1\/8000th second max shutter speed and 1\/500th second x-sync. I decided to buy and shoot this camera again with the Nikkor 18-135. For 20 bucks, what could go wrong?
Shooting the Sony Alpha 77 mk II in 2022
I wrote about the A77. But what about the noticeably more expensive used A77m2? You’ll have to pay $600 to $800 to buy a used one in good condition. Is it worth it? The A77m2 came a few years after the A77. in my opinion, the improvements are mostly marketing stunts. Despite a lot more AF sensors, a so-called new AF system, better video and a bigger buffer, I keep thinking the A77m2 used isn’t a very good deal.
Sony alpha A200: a Nikon D80 with IBIS
After Sony bought the Minolta photography department, they released the A100 in mid 2006, the A700 in mid 2007, and the A200/A300/A350 in early 2008. Two years after the Nikon D80, we find the same SONY ICX493AQA CCD sensor (wich is basically a slower ICX483AQA that was in the Nikon D200 released 3 years earlier) in what is basically a Minolta body with Sony branding imitating a Nikon D80..
Sony RX100 m3: all you need from 24 to 70mm
I got this little camera for $200 a couple years ago and didn't write about it yet.
Fun with the DXO ONE
Shooting the Nikon D200 in 2022
The D200 is a camera I always loved. At the time it came out, it was a hell of a camera for the price Nikon asked. Shooting it in 2019 is still a pleasant experience. 2005 specs? that's outdated, nobody wants that. Photos taken with that camera will be ugly, especially compared to the Sony A9 ($4500), the Nikon D850 ($3000) or the Canon 5D mark whatever ($2700). Or will it not?
Shooting the Sony A77 in 2022
If you have some A-mount lenses and want an APSC DSLR that can take them natively, you don’t have many options. Especially if you can’t / don’t want to spend a lot of money.
Olympus OM-D E-M5
August 2018 I bought that little camera for $150. Definitely a bargain considering it was sold boxed, in a not too bad condition, with less than 6.000 clicks, and included two batteries and charger, a 12-50mm F/3.5-6.3 zoom lens, a 45mm F/1.8 prime lens, the tiny Olympus flash, a couple filters (ND1000 and CPL) and a (slow) 64GB SD card that I just trew away and replaced with a Sandisk Extreme Pro.
Shooting the Minolta Maxxum / Dynax 7D in 2022
The short lived most advanced Minolta DSLR was released in late 2004. It became later the foundation for Sony's A-mount cameras. It featured the first in body stabilization in a DSLR, a 6MP CCD sensor and loads of controls. This camera is a photographer's delight. The body feels right, the controls are great and natural: coming from a film SLR, you just feel at home with the Minolta 7D. And You can use all the now often cheap quality Minolta lenses, as well as the more expensive Sony A-Mount lenses.