The D2H was an overpriced lousy camera to begin with

[Rob280165]

Thats right, folks. The D2H is basically a digital P&S thrust
inside an F5 body.
In fact I will even say that there are point and shoot digicams
that have better image quality and of course far better resolution.

Nikon was taking a real beating from Canon and they had to take
this desperate step. The question is what took them so long ?

But somehow even $1999.99 seems too high for this camera.

Tim you talk a lot of old bo* ocks.
--

Rob.

 

[mapleaf]

Show me your pictures and prove that you are above-average!

Mapleaf

Mapleaf

Thats right, folks. The D2H is basically a digital P&S thrust
inside an F5 body.
In fact I will even say that there are point and shoot digicams
that have better image quality and of course far better resolution.

Nikon was taking a real beating from Canon and they had to take
this desperate step. The question is what took them so long ?

But somehow even $1999.99 seems too high for this camera.

 

[mapleaf]

muskiemouth,

The problem with Nikon is lagging behind in electronics design. If the perception is due to marketing, Nikon is not doing good marketing either. The fiasco with D2H is with the sensor that Nikon proudly designed by themselves. Can you show any current dSLR with worse sensor than D2H?

Mapleaf

Mapleaf

Thats right, folks. The D2H is basically a digital P&S thrust
inside an F5 body.
In fact I will even say that there are point and shoot digicams
that have better image quality and of course far better resolution.

Nikon was taking a real beating from Canon and they had to take
this desperate step. The question is what took them so long ?

But somehow even $1999.99 seems too high for this camera.

 

[Backdoctor]

after taking a session with Ron Reznick, hangin out here for a year I can only say if you are looking for shots right out of the box that do not need any PP'ing, then you need to go to a P&S where the in camera brain does the thinking. It is my opinion that dslr's, and specifically when shooting in raw, require some processing. I have seen many straight from the box shots of Yves that are incredible, but when it comes to photography he is the exception. How much PPing thats needed is based on your ability to nail the exposure, WB and other issues, not so much the cameras fault.

Look at the shots Ron Reznick posts. The D2H is an incredible camera. Does it have it's quirks or flaws? Sure, all cameras do.

I dont understand why you would say what you do about it with your limited personal experience. I have handled it, and have decided to wait for the D200/90 to come out before I upgrade. I may buy a D2H, but will wait for the D100 replacement.

But,

I have also looked at many straight-from-the-camera images at
different ISOs. The proof is in the pudding, right ?

In a year, you'll be lucky to get $1K for the POS.

I find the gnashing of teeth over this VERY 'devaluation' amusing.
The ONLY thing certain about the DSLR business is hugh price drops.
Wake up and smell the refried beans, homey.

IMHO, this is the best news to be had.

JohnG

Thats right, folks. The D2H is basically a digital P&S thrust
inside an F5 body.
In fact I will even say that there are point and shoot digicams
that have better image quality and of course far better resolution.

Nikon was taking a real beating from Canon and they had to take
this desperate step. The question is what took them so long ?

But somehow even $1999.99 seems too high for this camera.

--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter
Egret Stalker #4, WSSA #29

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor

--
Harris

PBase/DPReview/NTF supporter
Egret Stalker #4, WSSA #29

http://www.pbase.com/backdoctor

 

[believer11]

d2h=p&s in an f5 body, is that so bad?

i mean last i checked the f5 body was a piece of engineering genius, a body so rugged and built to last. to have this as a chassis for a digital camera is surely not a bad thing?

and whats wrong with 4MP? it seems weird that people are hardwired to believe that 4MP somehow devalues a camera just because there is one that is twice as much? i think you have fallen into canon's trick to overload you with MP.

anyway, i will take a p&s in an f5 body anyday of the week.

--
shing

 

[Classic Man]

overhyped lousy human being to begin with. In fact I will even say
that there are sewer rats out there that have better cognitive
quality and of course far better looks.

But somehow even $1999.99 seems too much to pay Tim to clean
toilets at the Zoo.

OK, you don't agree with him.

But that is one of the most foul-mouthed responses I've seen in a while.

"Civility" happens to be one of the first rules of these Forums.

An apology is in order.

 

[muskiemouth]

Your whole post was a bunch of silly jargon you picked up "reading reviews". It's complete nonsence, the average I was reffering to was your intelligence.

Mapleaf

Mapleaf

Thats right, folks. The D2H is basically a digital P&S thrust
inside an F5 body.
In fact I will even say that there are point and shoot digicams
that have better image quality and of course far better resolution.

Nikon was taking a real beating from Canon and they had to take
this desperate step. The question is what took them so long ?

But somehow even $1999.99 seems too high for this camera.

 

[Memphisto]

no txt

 

[muskiemouth]

Worse in what respect. I have seem thousands of pictures taken with the D2H, I have one, look at Yves posts. I would rank the D2H "sensor" very high wrt most others when it comes to outdoor photography. I also have a D70/D100 and had a D1x. Most folks that have actually owned and used those cameras would say that the D2H images are much better. I'm not talking about reading reviews here. Indoors under non ideal lighting conditions more more refined approach is required to get good high iso results.

Stop reading reviews and figure out somthing for yourself. That cr@p on pixel size is pure antiquated garbage and is a perfect example of your mis-informed views. The FF stuff you wrote is just plain laughable, straight from some review I imagine. I could go on forever, but your kind are too plentiful in this world.

Mapleaf

Mapleaf

Thats right, folks. The D2H is basically a digital P&S thrust
inside an F5 body.
In fact I will even say that there are point and shoot digicams
that have better image quality and of course far better resolution.

Nikon was taking a real beating from Canon and they had to take
this desperate step. The question is what took them so long ?

But somehow even $1999.99 seems too high for this camera.

 

[Anthony Medici]

I would have never known otherwise. I guess I should throw away the 27,000 images I took with this piece of junk. I never realized just how bad they were.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

 

[muskiemouth]

He's the expert, he looked at one at a store once, probably read a couple of reviews also.

I would have never known otherwise. I guess I should throw away the
27,000 images I took with this piece of junk. I never realized just
how bad they were.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

 

[Nickle S.]

d2h=p&s in an f5 body, is that so bad?

i mean last i checked the f5 body was a piece of engineering
genius, a body so rugged and built to last. to have this as a
chassis for a digital camera is surely not a bad thing?

and whats wrong with 4MP? it seems weird that people are hardwired
to believe that 4MP somehow devalues a camera just because there is
one that is twice as much? i think you have fallen into canon's
trick to overload you with MP.

anyway, i will take a p&s in an f5 body anyday of the week.

I'll try to be objective.

I agree that 4 MP in the hands of a top-notch digital photographer can produce stunning images, and the D2H is no exception to this thinking. But you have to admit, the color shift and noise out-of-the-box requires some extracurricular software and manipulation to correct these traits. I don't see a 1DMK2, 1DsMK2, D100, D70 or a 20D needing extra tweaking like the D2H does; heck, try to find unacceptable noise and warped skin tones on an S2 - you won't.

How can you explain the fact that Nikon went with the CMOS in the D2X and not the LBCAST? The D2H is a FINE D-SLR, and if it's doing the job for you, why worry about the D2X, or any other D-SLR for that matter? Nikon is still a force in photography, and I'm pretty sure we won't be seeing a charity ball to keep it afloat. BUT, and that's a big butt, Nikon made a business decision to put LBCAST on the back burner if not in the scrap heap. The speed, low power consumption and lower cost of the CMOS chip is what the big companies are drawn to right now, so I feel that Nikon just made a very well thought out decision with the D2X sensor - they just were NOT able to tweak the LBCAST enough to measure up to the SONY CMOS. Period. Time to move on.

If I owned a D2H right now, I'd REALLY be interested in seeing what the D2X can do.
Nicholas

 

[Memphisto]

(...) but unfortunately, he's forgotten that they're for taking photos..

--
Greets
Michael

 

[mapleaf]

muskiemouth,

See: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.aspforum=1021&message=11444209

God bless you!

Mapleaf

Stop reading reviews and figure out somthing for yourself. That
cr@p on pixel size is pure antiquated garbage and is a perfect
example of your mis-informed views. The FF stuff you wrote is just
plain laughable, straight from some review I imagine. I could go on
forever, but your kind are too plentiful in this world.

Mapleaf

Mapleaf

Thats right, folks. The D2H is basically a digital P&S thrust
inside an F5 body.
In fact I will even say that there are point and shoot digicams
that have better image quality and of course far better resolution.

Nikon was taking a real beating from Canon and they had to take
this desperate step. The question is what took them so long ?

But somehow even $1999.99 seems too high for this camera.

 

[muskiemouth]

See:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.aspforum=1021&message=11444209

God bless you!

Mapleaf

Stop reading reviews and figure out somthing for yourself. That
cr@p on pixel size is pure antiquated garbage and is a perfect
example of your mis-informed views. The FF stuff you wrote is just
plain laughable, straight from some review I imagine. I could go on
forever, but your kind are too plentiful in this world.

Mapleaf

Mapleaf

Thats right, folks. The D2H is basically a digital P&S thrust
inside an F5 body.
In fact I will even say that there are point and shoot digicams
that have better image quality and of course far better resolution.

Nikon was taking a real beating from Canon and they had to take
this desperate step. The question is what took them so long ?

But somehow even $1999.99 seems too high for this camera.

 

[muskiemouth]

overhyped lousy human being to begin with. In fact I will even say
that there are sewer rats out there that have better cognitive
quality and of course far better looks.

But somehow even $1999.99 seems too much to pay Tim to clean
toilets at the Zoo.

OK, you don't agree with him.

But that is one of the most foul-mouthed responses I've seen in a
while.

"Civility" happens to be one of the first rules of these Forums.

An apology is in order.

OK.

I'm sorry sewer rats are smarter and better looking than Tim Chakravorty.

 

[Tim Chakravorty]

Are you retarted ? When have I have claimed to be an expert ? I have said several times my judgement of the camera is based solely on image comparison between the D2H and its competitors.

I would have never known otherwise. I guess I should throw away the
27,000 images I took with this piece of junk. I never realized just
how bad they were.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m

 

[mapleaf]

Try again
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=11444209

BTW, Ives's picture are beautiful. But people like you give Nikon forum a bad taste.

Mapleaf

See:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.aspforum=1021&message=11444209

God bless you!

Mapleaf

Stop reading reviews and figure out somthing for yourself. That
cr@p on pixel size is pure antiquated garbage and is a perfect
example of your mis-informed views. The FF stuff you wrote is just
plain laughable, straight from some review I imagine. I could go on
forever, but your kind are too plentiful in this world.

Mapleaf

Mapleaf

Thats right, folks. The D2H is basically a digital P&S thrust
inside an F5 body.
In fact I will even say that there are point and shoot digicams
that have better image quality and of course far better resolution.

Nikon was taking a real beating from Canon and they had to take
this desperate step. The question is what took them so long ?

But somehow even $1999.99 seems too high for this camera.

 

[DVDmike]

2) My comment comes at a time when their 'investment' just plummeted.

The D2H is a black sheep in Nikon's pro lineup, and Nikon just
admitted it. Heck, even the "lowly" D100 is holding its value, then
whats with the D2H ??

A D-SLR is NOT an investment. It is simply a tool. It is not an "investment" any more that a carpenter's hammer is one. The D2H is as good now as when it was priced higher. It has been discontinued, for what, we do not know yet, and that is the reason for the low price, to clear shelves before the new model arrives.

I doubt the D100 will hold its value if there are enough new D2H's left to adjust the D100 used market price. I own two D100's and one D2H. The D2H is clearly a superior camera. That is not to say that I cannot sometimes get a better image from the D100 than with the D2H. But all things being equal, the D2H is superior to the D100 except for total resolution. When I can take only one camera, it is always my D2H.

 

[Tim Chakravorty]

Go convince yourself that the images out of your camera must be as good as those out of the 1DMkII..just because you paid 3.5 grand for it, if that makes you feel any better.

Nikon has finally spoken the truth about the real value of the D2H because people vote with their pocket books. Nikon had to , they didn't have a choice because they were getting creamed.

Its a tough pill to swallow for the likes of you, but swallow you must.

I would have never known otherwise. I guess I should throw away the
27,000 images I took with this piece of junk. I never realized just
how bad they were.

--
Tony

http://homepage.mac.com/a5m http://www.pbase.com/a5m