Nikon D1X or S2

[scotgasch]

I am having a bit of a problem choosing between the s2-6.1 mp
or the D1x 5.47mp. I mainly shoot in the studio, weddings, and location portraits with some commercial work. I have read almost every review on the two and the price difference is a big issue but I can come up with the dough for the nikon, but is it worth it?

[memobug]

In a word, for your application, no. The s2 was designed for exactly the shooting environment you're talking about. The d1x is getting long in the tooth. You can make it work, but if you are a masochist, it will help.

If want great jpegs out of the camera, wonderful high ISO response, excellent fleshtones and overall better image quality, get the S2. If you want a camera you can drop on your foot, break your toes, and pick it up and keep shooting, get the Nikon, but plan to spend a lot of time in PhotoShop.

I had the D1 (non X) and sold it to buy the S2. The flash response was unreliable and the colors were weird. I took a lot of great pictures, but very few of them were of people in color. Nikon improved a lot with the D1x, but it was too little, too late for me.

Drop by http://www.digitalphotographers.net (a wedding & portrait site) and visit the s2 forum. Then visit the nikon forum, and read the posts by the 2 guys typing to each other.

I am a little surprised that you aren't comparing D100 with S2, that seems like a more realistic comparison.

Regards,

Matt

[ali]

I know of other people who sold their D1 and D1x for the S2 because of the portability and price differences. But they use medium format in their work.

[scotgasch]

Well, I compared the s2 to the d1x because IMHO the d100 does not come close to the s2 in quality or features i need and I was assuming the higher end d1x would.