Today I had an opportunity to use a D2X and a 400. 2.8VR  I was shooting the same eagle and this guy let me put my card in his  cam. He ruined my life. I want a  longer lens for sure now. Mine is taken at a sightly  different POV, but you can see the dif. Mind you my setting were much different. Have a compare. Sold me for sure. Exif data is on them

Then the D200 and my 70-200VR  2.8 ED

Yep - but is it £4000 better ? :D

:lol: Onslow...

Yes Douglas,  I see a very big diferency !!!!

Looks like he slapped  a TC on that expensive 400mm...because the exif shows 650mm (or 975mm/35mm equivalent).

.....and yes, Onslow is right.....that's a $9000 chunk of glass!  Pretty sweet though, no question.

That is right...in Canada the lens would be about $9500, and the D2X is $6000. That is not really the lens I want. This is more for me...AF-S Nikkor 600mm f/4D IF-ED II
I would not change to the D2X, because  even this guy said it was not  as good as he thought.
My D200 is fine. After all it is the glass which counts mainly.
The way I see it right now, is I could have had that same POV, and then cropped it tight and come up with quite similar results if my settings had been the same.
A little walk closer will save me all this money.
But the seed is panted now and as  I see it , there are certain material  things are nice when we can enjoy them, later it is too late.
My uncle blows way more on golf each year...can you imagine?

@dBgrafix....Curious...exactly what didn't he like about the D2X.....or D2XS?

Knowing the nature of birds such as these you will turn up with you 600MM prime and he will immediately swoop out the tree and land on a fence post not 10 feet in front of you, you will be left wishing you had brought your 70-200 from the car 

We did not get into much discussion about it, but I just remember him saying he was not happy with the clarity of a lot of his images. I imagine he would have tried it with different lenses too, for that conclusion. Sorry There was not a lot of time to  get talking.

Haha  You are more than likely 99% right Richard. You see I  saw this eagle prepping to fly out of the tree, and  I quickly changed setting, while this guy  had to lug his  massive gear  around. I got the shot...he was still trying to  zero in on him. LOL.
 And I bet he would have not had time for a full frame with both wings.

Beautiful images. Wow if only i had money to spend. Dream i suppose:)
Chris

Some things to keep in mind about the first 2 images up there:
1 - The D2X has the ability to "crop" the image by choosinga smaller MP format. Just like the D200, the D2X has a 1.5x magnification factor, BUT when you choose 6MP on the D2X it is actually using a smaller (cropped) portion of the sensor - only 6MP of it instead of the full 12MP, at which point it becomes an even greater magnification - I think it's actually 2x (making the 400mm equivelant to 800mm!).
2 - In the 2nd shot, the exposure was for the shadows, which makes any middle tone to lighter tones go fairly light - reducing the richness of the image you see in the first shot. Had you been on the other side of the branch/sun/eagle (the sun behind you), and forced to expose for the highlights (like the 1st shot), the sky would have been a rich blue, the foliage a rich green, etc.

I hear people saying they don't like the D2x as much as they thought they would because of noise in shadows - I guess when you pack more pixels into the saem area something's gotta give, huh?

I STILL want one... >:-(

-Lew ;-)

-Lew....now that was an interesting read