Used D2x vs D300

[imagesbyjudd]

Just curious, I'm seeing the D2x and 2xs being sold for anywhere from 1800 to 2500 on the used market. But after doing some reading it looks like a new d300 at 1800 retail offers a lot more bang for the buck. and of course for about twice the used d2xs you can go to the d3 which has twice the rated life of the 300.

So are we kind of seeing what has happend to used computers, a year or two out of the box the real value may be around 20% of the original retail. which is telling me the only thing holding some value is the glass.

I plan to upgrade soon and I don't mind used gear as long as I have a real idea of the value. Leaning to the 300, and if I can come up with the extra scratch would love the d3. But at first glance the d2xs sounded interesting.

Any thoughts?

[jcon]

When I was upgrading from my D50 I narrowed it down to 2 cameras, the D200 and D2Xs. I chose the D200, mainly because I was very turned off by the ISO performance or lack there of from the D2Xs, the price tag it came with just didnt seem like it was that much better than the D200. So if its between the D300 and D2Xs, Id take the D300 hands down.

If you can save for the D3, Id do that, its the best youll find right now.

[tcadwall]

No one knows your usage better than you, but for me - it would be the D300.

Look at the features and specs for both cameras carefully and figure out what you need more. It is a no-brainer for me, but heck I have only snapped about 14k images in the last 18months - I definitely don't need the 2x life at the cost of the things that I could use more on the D300 like High ISO performance.

Feature / spec comparison of "current" Nikon cameras. (http://www.bythom.com/currentdslr.htm)

[Fiasco]

I would roll with the D300, hands down. The amount of features packed into that thing make it more of a bargain than a D2XS these days.

[XaiLo]

I really wanted the D3 but... I believe I'll grab the D300 and wait for the next iteration of the D3. While the D2x/s are indeed excellent cameras I can't think of a good reason to pick one up over a D300 which is next generation, I would have choosen the D200 over the D2's. D300 hands down.

[BLWNHR]

The local newspaper here is sponsored by Nikon. A friend has a D300 and all the photog's at the paper are very jealous of his D300 over their D2-series cameras. I would go with the D300+grip.

[Dread Pirate Roberts]

I don't see the price drop as pessimistically as you indicate.

For example I've been watching used D200's being sold for around $1,000 USD. I'm seeing new ones being sold in shops at around $1,400 USD. Now I recognise owners of the D200 paid much more than $1,400 at the time they bought their cameras.

My point is there doesn't seem to be much point buying second hand when you can buy new for often 30-40% more. Sure it's still older technology but you get "to be the first" and the advantages of a warranty and known history.

I certainly agree with you about the frightening rate of obsolescence of bodies though.

IMO get the D300.