So a friend of mine who mostly does studio work bought his wife a D90 when it came out. He started using it over his old D2 (something). When the D2 died he got a used D700 to use.

Yes +1 jeri the camera is completely obsolete. Its not like the film era when you can pick up an F100 and not worry about anything! The D2X usually fetches around $500 here in Korea and can jump to $700 if it is new, but why would you buy one? The D300 and even D200 made huge jumps on the D2X unless you want a pro body. I'd rather have a nice used F100 if I had the extra cash lying around for a body. Just my thoughts chaddwebphotography, but don't pay very much for it if you decide to purchase it.

Personally, I wouldn't pay anything to get a D2x- as already mentioned, the fundamental technology is a bit old and superceded by many other cheaper cameras. However, I only say that because I don't need the high end build quality, weather sealing frame rates, autofocus or integrated grip. I suspect if you really needed that and you didn't care too much about image quality (ie. you just care about getting the shot or not) and were on a shoe string budget, then I guess a D2x might make sense.

TaoTeJared said:
D300 surpassed the D2x in almost all respects. At this point it is a 6-8 year old tech and not worth $100 unless you plan on attaching it to a balloon and sending over a volcano. There is no reason to drop that far behind current standards.

Agreed- I'm not sure why one wouldn't go for a D90. Other than build quality and frame rate, you're not really giving up anything at all, plus it's much cheaper.

They usually go for $1,200 - being that is is barely used, not unusual. I really can't figure out why. In a month it will be 4 pro bodies behind the current state of Nikons.

so the d2xs actually went for 1600 USD, auction ended. nice sale by that guy.

D300 surpassed the D2x in almost all respects. At this point it is a 6-8 year old tech and not worth $100 unless you plan on attaching it to a balloon and sending over a volcano. There is no reason to drop that far behind current standards.

I guess the guy never used it, I like the body and If i was in the market for a camera Ide probably go for it, even over a d7000. Its very rare to find one of these in this good shape.

Ive been investing on nice clothes this holiday season aside from a Gitzo tripod, so im passing on it.

Anyways Im curious if the d2x has alot of grain at ISO 400-800? I barely pass these ISO on my D300s if i can get the shot with them. It is nice that I have the chance to go further, and the layout of the controls is to my liking. But the D2x is also nice i think.

120 shots? really? seems odd.

I dont have a d2x, i do have the previous model, a d2h. Im still surprised by the low shot count, because even now, I occasionally use my d2h as a backup.

I'm no professional. And mine has around 8,000 shots.

In good light, or even ok light, i still get some good shots from it (in comparison to the d300). I would imagine the d2x with its equivalent MP would be very close to the d300 except for the ISO. For the price quoted, I think its worth it. (assuming you like the body, which of course is bigger than the d300)

I have never sold it, because for the amount i could realistically get for it (400-700, on a good day), id rather keep it as a backup.

theres one on ebay for 1200 at the moment, ending soon, with only 120 shots..i wonder how well it would perform now days compared to the other Nikon cameras out..any thoughts? I know its an old sensor and ISO 800...is the IQ really far behind though? compared to DX only. thoughts....

Ones sometimes come in at B&H for $899.

There is one on eBay for $1400 Buy it now. The d2x is extremely similar to the D300 as far as spec's go, but you get a better built body, and provided the battery is still good, then you get more shot's per charge. Other wise I would consider a D300 with a grip with enel4 batteries.

How much would you pay for a D2x that has never left a studio and has around 20k shutter count?