Nikon D2x or what?

[dshelby]

Hi,

I was hoping some pros would be able to help me with this decision. I currently have a Canon Digital Rebel XTi with the kit lens and the cheap-o Canon 70-200mm standard zoom. I have used this camera for my own general photography and a few portraits for friends and family with positive results. I want to get into doing more portraits, some weddings and some stock...

I have an opportunity to purchase a used Nikon D2x that was purchased in 2006 with a cheap-o 70-300mm Nikkor standard zoom for $2000.00.

My question to you is, would my money be better spent on some of the newer cameras from Nikon or Canon? I am open to either as I don't think to much of my current equipment would be used towards going pro. The new D3 or EOS 1DS would be out of my price range. How does the new Canon 5D Mark II / 50D stack up? or the D300 / D90? Would the newer technologies in cheaper cameras out perform the Nikon D2x? Thank you for time in reading this.

[Martin_Doudoroff]

What the heck is wrong with your XTi?

[David_Buzzard]

The D2x is my primary camera, and I really love it. It would be a huge jump over what you're using now. The D300 has basically the same chip in it, but the the body isn't as robust. I'm not sure if it's the 12MP or 10MP in the D90, but the body is a step below the D300.

Depending on how my bookings work out for the summer, I may update to the D3. However, I'd be quite content to to keep with my D2x for another year.

BTW - with the shift to FX frames in the D700 and D3, you can get great deals on the DX coded lenses. The D2x and 17-55mm f/2.8 is a killer combination.

David Buzzard

[dshelby]

After talking with many, I would probably benefit from getting better glass. Another limitation is that the XTI does not have a sync port to plug into some studios lights I am looking to purchase. Cameras such as the 50D, 40D and D2x have the necessary port.

[David_Buzzard]

One of the great things about Nikon is the ability to do multi-speedlight TTL set ups. I use the SU-800 controller, and SB-900 and 800 strobes, and that handles 99% of my studio needs. I have a full Norman strobe set up, but I hardly ever use it now.

David Buzzard

[Martin_Doudoroff]

It's always nice to have better glass, and glass is often—perhaps usually—a better and more lasting investment than body upgrades, especially with the exceedingly quick turnover in the DSLR market. If you're independently wealthy and money is no object, then by all means, buy whatever you fancy (can I recommend the new Leica S2?) If you're just getting your portraiture business off the ground and you need to actually make money, then I would encourage you to buy only what you need, when you need it (by which I do not mean buy it at the last second.) The camera does not make the photographer, and a pro body won't make you more commercially viable, per se, although it will certainly lighten your wallet. I guess what I'm saying is that I think you may be asking the wrong questions.

[Terry Zorich]

My answer the OP's question:
The Canon 5D Mark II would be my recommendation for a camera for portraits, weddings, and stock photography. A D2x doesn't even come close, in my opinion. Of course, going with a 5DM2 means you'll need to wait until one is available, spend a good deal more than with that used Nikon, and you won't be getting a telephoto zoom with the purchase. But you will be getting a camera that's lighter and easier to handle; which has better image quality; is usable (even GOOD) at ISO settings higher than 800; which has a full-frame sensor; and which has a lot more pixels.

Even considering the price difference, the 5D would be the much better choice.

As for Martin's question about what's wrong with an XTi? Well, the most important answer is that you cannot PRESENT yourself as a professional if you're using an XTi or the like. Period. (Note that I am not claiming that competent shooters could not make excellent images with XTi's; they certainly could.)