"Good Enough" isn't good enough

[John Ricard]

We live in a society where French Fries are Super Sized, cars have the ability to go 120mp while the speed limit is 65mph, Satelitte dishes have 300 channels, your stereo plays louder than you would ever want to hear it, your video camera has a 200x digital zoom, your ipod holds thousands of songs and your $40 blender has 20 settings from "stir" to "puree". But somehow, when it comes to my camera I'm supposed to buy what is "good enough"?

I don't recall Nikon ever trying to sell us "good enough" in the past. The F5 ads told us it was "imported from the future". We heard about the world's faster shutter and innovative color RGB metering. Nikon gave us 8fps when only a handful of us needed to burn through a roll of film in 5 or 6 seconds. They gave us a top shutter speed of 1/8,000 of a second, which I never even used one time.

But now, we're supposed tospend $3,000 on something that is merely good enough. Sorry, but for my money I want Overkill. That's why I did not buy a D2h and if the Nikon D2x comes it at a similarly low megapixel count, I wont' be buying that either.

 

[SunTzu178151]

We live in a society where French Fries are Super Sized, cars have
the ability to go 120mp while the speed limit is 65mph, Satelitte
dishes have 300 channels, your stereo plays louder than you would
ever want to hear it, your video camera has a 200x digital zoom,
your ipod holds thousands of songs and your $40 blender has 20
settings from "stir" to "puree". But somehow, when it comes to my
camera I'm supposed to buy what is "good enough"?

I don't recall Nikon ever trying to sell us "good enough" in the
past. The F5 ads told us it was "imported from the future". We
heard about the world's faster shutter and innovative color RGB
metering. Nikon gave us 8fps when only a handful of us needed to
burn through a roll of film in 5 or 6 seconds. They gave us a top
shutter speed of 1/8,000 of a second, which I never even used one
time.

But now, we're supposed tospend $3,000 on something that is merely
good enough. Sorry, but for my money I want Overkill. That's why
I did not buy a D2h and if the Nikon D2x comes it at a similarly
low megapixel count, I wont' be buying that either.

--
Regards,
Tom

 

[Marije Booman]

We live in a society where French Fries are Super Sized, cars have
the ability to go 120mp while the speed limit is 65mph, Satelitte
dishes have 300 channels, your stereo plays louder than you would
ever want to hear it, your video camera has a 200x digital zoom,
your ipod holds thousands of songs and your $40 blender has 20
settings from "stir" to "puree". But somehow, when it comes to my
camera I'm supposed to buy what is "good enough"?

If you want overkill you can always get 2 cameras, or 3?

One will suffice for me, the D2h offers every feature you discussed about the F5 having, while you never used them anyway.

By the way, I also don't have that stuff you're talking about, hate big cars and McDonalds. My tv has 20 channels and my stereo, well okay my stero can go really loud.

Cheers,

Sander Meurs
------------------------------------
'...fools rush in, where fools have been before...'

 

[Loansharkx]

Then go and chase the megapixels. I think Kodak has your camera. The 14 megapixel model should be right up your alley. Don't worry about what any other features the camera may have or what it's designed for... it's about megapixels.

 

[DRodey]

I'm glad to hear that.........now I can go get another D2h and not have to worry about you getting it before I do.

You just have no idea what you are missing. It is a great camera. I am sorry that you didn't try it yourself and instead chose to listen to others that may not have a clue.

It is always up to the person behind the camera to make the image anyway. A million dollar camera will never make one a better photographer.

We live in a society where French Fries are Super Sized, cars have
the ability to go 120mp while the speed limit is 65mph, Satelitte
dishes have 300 channels, your stereo plays louder than you would
ever want to hear it, your video camera has a 200x digital zoom,
your ipod holds thousands of songs and your $40 blender has 20
settings from "stir" to "puree". But somehow, when it comes to my
camera I'm supposed to buy what is "good enough"?

I don't recall Nikon ever trying to sell us "good enough" in the
past. The F5 ads told us it was "imported from the future". We
heard about the world's faster shutter and innovative color RGB
metering. Nikon gave us 8fps when only a handful of us needed to
burn through a roll of film in 5 or 6 seconds. They gave us a top
shutter speed of 1/8,000 of a second, which I never even used one
time.

But now, we're supposed tospend $3,000 on something that is merely
good enough. Sorry, but for my money I want Overkill. That's why
I did not buy a D2h and if the Nikon D2x comes it at a similarly
low megapixel count, I wont' be buying that either.

--
http://www.Rodenroth.com

 

[AdWiser88638]

Hi John

I'd like to buy a D2H even if I'm not a sports shooter. All those improved features and better handling is a good enough reason for me.

Do not forget that although an improvement, Canon's 8 megapixels aren't in fact the double of resolution! In a similar way going from 6mp to 8mp or even 10mps isn't good enough to justify an upgrade merely because of the increased resolution. Real jumps would be 4mp-12mp or 6mp- 16mp.
My two cents.

--
------------------------
regards,
AdWiser

 

[HAE]

See ... We were all pleased with the D2H feature set when it was introduced. There is no reason to get disappointed just because Canon introduced an 8MP 8 fps model. The disappointed reponse we have been getting is more like a knee jerk reaction than a logical response. Those of us who whished better res. for the D2H, hoped for 6MP not 8 because of file size suitability realted to spots, photojournalism uses. And back then we also expected that Canon will somehow up the resolution of the 1D in the replacement. Now let us slow down and try to remember what the D2H brought with it:

• A new AF system. While this could be better or worse than the one in the 1D2 in terms of speed and accuracy, the difference is likely small. At least the D2H has the AF sensors where you need them

• The industry's most advanced, versatile, and best performing flash system. CLS/i-ttl is miles beyond what any other manufacturer have.

• The most responsive and fastest performance of any DSLR( and may be SLR). The D2H, turn-on to shoot, shutter lag and viewfinder blackout times are the best there is , 1D2 included

• The industry's fastest flash card write times. It is still to be seen if the 1D2 can match those

• Wireless transmitter. You do not get that with the 1D2 (at least yet)

• The first Nikon sensor. While the sensor disappoints in noise performance at moderate to high ISOs (as well as some IR problems). It has a leading performance in some areas: 1) Extremely low long exposure noise and the greatly decreased need to run dark frame noise subtraction apparently due to the low dark current noise of the sensor. At the time the D2H was tested it seemed to be the industry leader in this area. Imaging resource found long exposure noise of the D2H at ISO 200 to be 1/3 that of the old 1D and significantly lower at higher ISO numbers. 2) Fast operation. The D2H uses 2 read-out channels for 4 MP at 8 fps. The 1D2 uses eight read-out channels for 8MP at 8fps. Unless Canon delibrately has this arrangmenet for some noise-related perforamce issue, LBCAST seems to have an inherent advantage at speed. 3) LBCAST or new Nikon algorithms also seem to produce gorgeous high-acutance images.

• A camera that has, according to most reviewers, one of the most easy to use, intuiative and enjoyable operation

• A totally new body.

• A new sophsticated white balance mechanism. We will still have to see if the 1D2 performs better.

In addition to the color matrix meter, you are not gonna get most of the above with Canon bodies. It seems that Nikon did a lot of work and innovation in the development of the D2H. Canon's brilliance and most definitive strength point at this time is in their mature and high-performance sensor technology, which helps them develop new products quickly. I believe it is Canon's low noise sensors that is the main seduction of the 1D2 not the high pixel count. Had the D2H shown competitive noise performance, the $1000-$1500 price difference would be enough to offset the pixel count difference. Canon and Nikon also seem to have different strategies. Canon intends the 1D2 as a swiss army knife pro DSLR and not just a sports or photojournalist one. So here is it all, and it is a free market. You like Canon's 8MP or think the 1D2 will be better than the D2H in noise performance, vote with your money. If you like Nikon's functionality, save yourself the price difference. As for me, I can not afford either one, but I really wish Nikon can close the noise performance gap as I think this is the main issue that will lose Nikon's potential sales on the D2H and will make them look unable to keep up with Canon.

 

[HAE]

The new battery system. Moose Peterson managed to get a record 6121 on one charge http://www.moose395.net/gear/d2h.html

See ... We were all pleased with the D2H feature set when it was
introduced. There is no reason to get disappointed just because
Canon introduced an 8MP 8 fps model. The disappointed reponse we
have been getting is more like a knee jerk reaction than a logical
response. Those of us who whished better res. for the D2H, hoped
for 6MP not 8 because of file size suitability realted to spots,
photojournalism uses. And back then we also expected that Canon
will somehow up the resolution of the 1D in the replacement. Now
let us slow down and try to remember what the D2H brought with it:

• A new AF system. While this could be better or worse than the one

in the 1D2 in terms of speed and accuracy, the difference is likely
small. At least the D2H has the AF sensors where you need them

• The industry's most advanced, versatile, and best performing

flash system. CLS/i-ttl is miles beyond what any other manufacturer
have.

• The most responsive and fastest performance of any DSLR( and may

be SLR). The D2H, turn-on to shoot, shutter lag and viewfinder
blackout times are the best there is , 1D2 included

• The industry's fastest flash card write times. It is still to be

seen if the 1D2 can match those

• Wireless transmitter. You do not get that with the 1D2 (at least

yet)

• The first Nikon sensor. While the sensor disappoints in noise

performance at moderate to high ISOs (as well as some IR problems).
It has a leading performance in some areas: 1) Extremely low long
exposure noise and the greatly decreased need to run dark frame
noise subtraction apparently due to the low dark current noise of
the sensor. At the time the D2H was tested it seemed to be the
industry leader in this area. Imaging resource found long exposure
noise of the D2H at ISO 200 to be 1/3 that of the old 1D and
significantly lower at higher ISO numbers. 2) Fast operation. The
D2H uses 2 read-out channels for 4 MP at 8 fps. The 1D2 uses eight
read-out channels for 8MP at 8fps. Unless Canon delibrately has
this arrangmenet for some noise-related perforamce issue, LBCAST
seems to have an inherent advantage at speed. 3) LBCAST or new
Nikon algorithms also seem to produce gorgeous high-acutance images.

• A camera that has, according to most reviewers, one of the most

easy to use, intuiative and enjoyable operation

• A totally new body.

• A new sophsticated white balance mechanism. We will still have to

see if the 1D2 performs better.

In addition to the color matrix meter, you are not gonna get most
of the above with Canon bodies. It seems that Nikon did a lot of
work and innovation in the development of the D2H. Canon's
brilliance and most definitive strength point at this time is in
their mature and high-performance sensor technology, which helps
them develop new products quickly. I believe it is Canon's low
noise sensors that is the main seduction of the 1D2 not the high
pixel count. Had the D2H shown competitive noise performance, the
$1000-$1500 price difference would be enough to offset the pixel
count difference. Canon and Nikon also seem to have different
strategies. Canon intends the 1D2 as a swiss army knife pro DSLR
and not just a sports or photojournalist one. So here is it all,
and it is a free market. You like Canon's 8MP or think the 1D2 will
be better than the D2H in noise performance, vote with your money.
If you like Nikon's functionality, save yourself the price
difference. As for me, I can not afford either one, but I really
wish Nikon can close the noise performance gap as I think this is
the main issue that will lose Nikon's potential sales on the D2H
and will make them look unable to keep up with Canon.

 

[Yossi Kramer]

If the D2H was 8fps and the 1DMKII was 4? Weren't we laughing our head off at Canon? And the Canon people would have told us what we read here...LOL...

I love Nikon, but frankly, I would have been much happier if it was the above situation.

We live in a society where French Fries are Super Sized, cars have
the ability to go 120mp while the speed limit is 65mph, Satelitte
dishes have 300 channels, your stereo plays louder than you would
ever want to hear it, your video camera has a 200x digital zoom,
your ipod holds thousands of songs and your $40 blender has 20
settings from "stir" to "puree". But somehow, when it comes to my
camera I'm supposed to buy what is "good enough"?

I don't recall Nikon ever trying to sell us "good enough" in the
past. The F5 ads told us it was "imported from the future". We
heard about the world's faster shutter and innovative color RGB
metering. Nikon gave us 8fps when only a handful of us needed to
burn through a roll of film in 5 or 6 seconds. They gave us a top
shutter speed of 1/8,000 of a second, which I never even used one
time.

But now, we're supposed tospend $3,000 on something that is merely
good enough. Sorry, but for my money I want Overkill. That's why
I did not buy a D2h and if the Nikon D2x comes it at a similarly
low megapixel count, I wont' be buying that either.

--
D100, CP4500, CP3100, Sony DSC-F717, Sony V1; FE, N70, F75
23 Nikkors, 4 aliens, 5x TCs

 

[Unnamed33]

If it makes you feel any better you can always stick a 22MP sticker on the outside of your Nikon, I'm selling them at $5 a pop. Does great at keeping the green monster away ;-)

Cheers
mips

We live in a society where French Fries are Super Sized, cars have
the ability to go 120mp while the speed limit is 65mph, Satelitte
dishes have 300 channels, your stereo plays louder than you would
ever want to hear it, your video camera has a 200x digital zoom,
your ipod holds thousands of songs and your $40 blender has 20
settings from "stir" to "puree". But somehow, when it comes to my
camera I'm supposed to buy what is "good enough"?

I don't recall Nikon ever trying to sell us "good enough" in the
past. The F5 ads told us it was "imported from the future". We
heard about the world's faster shutter and innovative color RGB
metering. Nikon gave us 8fps when only a handful of us needed to
burn through a roll of film in 5 or 6 seconds. They gave us a top
shutter speed of 1/8,000 of a second, which I never even used one
time.

But now, we're supposed tospend $3,000 on something that is merely
good enough. Sorry, but for my money I want Overkill. That's why
I did not buy a D2h and if the Nikon D2x comes it at a similarly
low megapixel count, I wont' be buying that either.

 

[SunTzu178151]

...I see the two companies as being very different. I don't expect Nikon to make my current choice obsolete every 6 months. Technology leaps are sometimes done just for the "gear heads" among us, and the technology alone doesn't do it for me. Like so many have said, Nikon would rather take calculated steps that may be a bit more tentative than some others. I don't expect them to just bump up pixels for the hell of it.

We live in a society where French Fries are Super Sized, cars have
the ability to go 120mp while the speed limit is 65mph, Satelitte
dishes have 300 channels, your stereo plays louder than you would
ever want to hear it, your video camera has a 200x digital zoom,
your ipod holds thousands of songs and your $40 blender has 20
settings from "stir" to "puree". But somehow, when it comes to my
camera I'm supposed to buy what is "good enough"?

I don't recall Nikon ever trying to sell us "good enough" in the
past. The F5 ads told us it was "imported from the future". We
heard about the world's faster shutter and innovative color RGB
metering. Nikon gave us 8fps when only a handful of us needed to
burn through a roll of film in 5 or 6 seconds. They gave us a top
shutter speed of 1/8,000 of a second, which I never even used one
time.

But now, we're supposed tospend $3,000 on something that is merely
good enough. Sorry, but for my money I want Overkill. That's why
I did not buy a D2h and if the Nikon D2x comes it at a similarly
low megapixel count, I wont' be buying that either.

--
D100, CP4500, CP3100, Sony DSC-F717, Sony V1; FE, N70, F75
23 Nikkors, 4 aliens, 5x TCs

--
Regards,
Tom

 

[John Ricard]

How is it that everybody is so pleased with all the D2h improvements, but if someone points out that its lacking in megapixels (compared to the Canon equivalent) the people say, "megapixels won't make you a better photographer," or "you don't need more megapixels" or something to that effect.

Well if that's the case, then why did YOU buy a D2h? Why not just stay with a D1h?

Couldn't I argue that 8fps won't make you a better photographer, that a new flash system wasn't necessary, that a color meter is useless for those of us who shoot in the studio primarily, that a new sensor won't make you a better photographer and that improved battery life isn't the be all and end all of photography?

People are quick to point out how great the features of the D2h are, as if this will somehow aid them in their photography, but if you mention (the lack of) megapixels, they say, "Oh, its the photographer and not the camera." It just seems to me that if camera features don't matter, then you might as well stay with the D1h.

See ... We were all pleased with the D2H feature set when it was
introduced. There is no reason to get disappointed just because
Canon introduced an 8MP 8 fps model. The disappointed reponse we
have been getting is more like a knee jerk reaction than a logical
response. Those of us who whished better res. for the D2H, hoped
for 6MP not 8 because of file size suitability realted to spots,
photojournalism uses. And back then we also expected that Canon
will somehow up the resolution of the 1D in the replacement. Now
let us slow down and try to remember what the D2H brought with it:

• A new AF system. While this could be better or worse than the one

in the 1D2 in terms of speed and accuracy, the difference is likely
small. At least the D2H has the AF sensors where you need them

• The industry's most advanced, versatile, and best performing

flash system. CLS/i-ttl is miles beyond what any other manufacturer
have.

• The most responsive and fastest performance of any DSLR( and may

be SLR). The D2H, turn-on to shoot, shutter lag and viewfinder
blackout times are the best there is , 1D2 included

• The industry's fastest flash card write times. It is still to be

seen if the 1D2 can match those

• Wireless transmitter. You do not get that with the 1D2 (at least

yet)

• The first Nikon sensor. While the sensor disappoints in noise

performance at moderate to high ISOs (as well as some IR problems).
It has a leading performance in some areas: 1) Extremely low long
exposure noise and the greatly decreased need to run dark frame
noise subtraction apparently due to the low dark current noise of
the sensor. At the time the D2H was tested it seemed to be the
industry leader in this area. Imaging resource found long exposure
noise of the D2H at ISO 200 to be 1/3 that of the old 1D and
significantly lower at higher ISO numbers. 2) Fast operation. The
D2H uses 2 read-out channels for 4 MP at 8 fps. The 1D2 uses eight
read-out channels for 8MP at 8fps. Unless Canon delibrately has
this arrangmenet for some noise-related perforamce issue, LBCAST
seems to have an inherent advantage at speed. 3) LBCAST or new
Nikon algorithms also seem to produce gorgeous high-acutance images.

• A camera that has, according to most reviewers, one of the most

easy to use, intuiative and enjoyable operation

• A totally new body.

• A new sophsticated white balance mechanism. We will still have to

see if the 1D2 performs better.

In addition to the color matrix meter, you are not gonna get most
of the above with Canon bodies. It seems that Nikon did a lot of
work and innovation in the development of the D2H. Canon's
brilliance and most definitive strength point at this time is in
their mature and high-performance sensor technology, which helps
them develop new products quickly. I believe it is Canon's low
noise sensors that is the main seduction of the 1D2 not the high
pixel count. Had the D2H shown competitive noise performance, the
$1000-$1500 price difference would be enough to offset the pixel
count difference. Canon and Nikon also seem to have different
strategies. Canon intends the 1D2 as a swiss army knife pro DSLR
and not just a sports or photojournalist one. So here is it all,
and it is a free market. You like Canon's 8MP or think the 1D2 will
be better than the D2H in noise performance, vote with your money.
If you like Nikon's functionality, save yourself the price
difference. As for me, I can not afford either one, but I really
wish Nikon can close the noise performance gap as I think this is
the main issue that will lose Nikon's potential sales on the D2H
and will make them look unable to keep up with Canon.

--
http://www.kaya.tv

 

[John Ricard]

As far as I know the D2h uses 4 million pixels to create an image. The Canon camera uses 8 million pixels to create an image. That is double the number of "dots" making up the image from one camera to another.

I know it's not double the "size" in terms of area, but it is indeed 2x as many dots making up the image.

Hi John

I'd like to buy a D2H even if I'm not a sports shooter. All those
improved features and better handling is a good enough reason for
me.
Do not forget that although an improvement, Canon's 8 megapixels
aren't in fact the double of resolution! In a similar way going
from 6mp to 8mp or even 10mps isn't good enough to justify an
upgrade merely because of the increased resolution. Real jumps
would be 4mp-12mp or 6mp- 16mp.
My two cents.

--
------------------------
regards,
AdWiser

--
http://www.kaya.tv

 

[LarryK]

We live in a society where French Fries are Super Sized, cars have
the ability to go 120mp while the speed limit is 65mph, Satelitte
dishes have 300 channels, your stereo plays louder than you would
ever want to hear it, your video camera has a 200x digital zoom,
your ipod holds thousands of songs and your $40 blender has 20
settings from "stir" to "puree". But somehow, when it comes to my
camera I'm supposed to buy what is "good enough"?

Of course you forget to point out that that the fries will make you fat and clog your arteries, the car will be stuck in 5mph rush hour traffic, the 300 channels are mostly junk, most music these days is better left played as quietly as possible (or not at all), a 200X digital zoom allows you to view 5x4 badly interpolated pixels, your ipod's battery will be dying soon and cost more to replace than it's worth, and the 20 speeds on your blender inevitably bog down to the same one.

Why would you confuse products like the D2h with the mass market analogies above. Just wait for the D2X if you need more pixels. I hate waiting as much as the next guy, but so far, I don't see any practical alternatives, and it never pays to buy professional grade products because of consumer grade hype.

Larry

 

[Lee Saxon]

--
Lee Saxon

 

[Lee Saxon]

Somehow you people managed to use condescending tones to convince everyone that it's wrong to care about megapixels or criticize Nikon and you're going to hell if you do either. I'm not that dumb, unfortunately. Nikon decided to multiply # of pixels in the D1h by 1.5x or a little less to get the 4mp D2h at a time when EVERY dSLR (at least that I know of) is 6mp or higher. Fine you sports guys can tell me you only work for newspapers and you never want to make a sports poster ever if you want. I know some people need the resolution so let me ask a question:

After waiting 3 years, Nikon releases a D2x with 8.8mp (1.5x D1x) in a time when Canon has had 11mp (by then they'll probably have already replaced this camera and gone higher btw) and Kodak has had 14mp for quite a long time. Are you gonna be happy? Are you gonna pay $5000 for it? You probably shouldn't.

--
Lee Saxon

 

[HAE]

How is it that everybody is so pleased with all the D2h
improvements, but if someone points out that its lacking in
megapixels (compared to the Canon equivalent) the people say,
"megapixels won't make you a better photographer," or "you don't
need more megapixels" or something to that effect.

Well if that's the case, then why did YOU buy a D2h? Why not just
stay with a D1h?

Couldn't I argue that 8fps won't make you a better photographer,
that a new flash system wasn't necessary, that a color meter is
useless for those of us who shoot in the studio primarily, that a
new sensor won't make you a better photographer and that improved
battery life isn't the be all and end all of photography?

People are quick to point out how great the features of the D2h
are, as if this will somehow aid them in their photography, but if
you mention (the lack of) megapixels, they say, "Oh, its the
photographer and not the camera." It just seems to me that if
camera features don't matter, then you might as well stay with the
D1h.

In both camps there are people who will always get on the defensive when either Nikon or Canon leapfrogs the other and start defending their adopted brand by emphasizing its strengths and belittling the other manufacturer's achievement. I believe the opinions of those who litter the forum with posts belittling one brand when there adopted brand seems to have a better product and those who belittle one brand's achievment in defense of their adopted brand are entirely worthless. I like the phrase Michael Johnston used to described those brand-bigots ... "Amateur photographers who are professional shoppers". None of the "state of the art" features in either camera will make one a better photographer, though many of them will help make taking the photos one visualizes easier. Putting talent aside, it all boils down to personal needs, personal preferences and the amount of money you are willing to spend. I think that for 99% of amateurs and most pros, any of the two brands has more than one needs. Is the D2H state of the art? Yes, in the aspects in mentioned. Is the 1D2 state of the art? Yes in pixel count vs speed and likely in noise performance. None of them is likely perfect.

 

[SunTzu178151]

...you would have seen some "poster sized" prints from that anemic Nikon 4meg sensor.

Somehow you people managed to use condescending tones to convince
everyone that it's wrong to care about megapixels or criticize
Nikon and you're going to hell if you do either. I'm not that dumb,
unfortunately. Nikon decided to multiply # of pixels in the D1h by
1.5x or a little less to get the 4mp D2h at a time when EVERY dSLR
(at least that I know of) is 6mp or higher. Fine you sports guys
can tell me you only work for newspapers and you never want to make
a sports poster ever if you want. I know some people need the
resolution so let me ask a question:

After waiting 3 years, Nikon releases a D2x with 8.8mp (1.5x D1x)
in a time when Canon has had 11mp (by then they'll probably have
already replaced this camera and gone higher btw) and Kodak has had
14mp for quite a long time. Are you gonna be happy? Are you gonna
pay $5000 for it? You probably shouldn't.

--
Lee Saxon

--
Regards,
Tom

 

[ulysis]

I think you already have it in F5 and Nikon LS8000 scanner.

You get better dynamic range, better autofocus, white balance (in analog it's not hard to get), and better speed, build and everything. And on top of that the depreciation isn't as much as in DSLR's. You probably get better MP than the current offering. And no DX lens issue either.

I am not being sarcastic but if you really care about the image you get this probably is a better solution than any DSLR offered today.

We live in a society where French Fries are Super Sized, cars have
the ability to go 120mp while the speed limit is 65mph, Satelitte
dishes have 300 channels, your stereo plays louder than you would
ever want to hear it, your video camera has a 200x digital zoom,
your ipod holds thousands of songs and your $40 blender has 20
settings from "stir" to "puree". But somehow, when it comes to my
camera I'm supposed to buy what is "good enough"?

I don't recall Nikon ever trying to sell us "good enough" in the
past. The F5 ads told us it was "imported from the future". We
heard about the world's faster shutter and innovative color RGB
metering. Nikon gave us 8fps when only a handful of us needed to
burn through a roll of film in 5 or 6 seconds. They gave us a top
shutter speed of 1/8,000 of a second, which I never even used one
time.

But now, we're supposed tospend $3,000 on something that is merely
good enough. Sorry, but for my money I want Overkill. That's why
I did not buy a D2h and if the Nikon D2x comes it at a similarly
low megapixel count, I wont' be buying that either.

--
Only when you loose everything you are free to do anything.

 

[DavidMillier]

Silly argument,surely.

If each of the pixels in the 8MP are as good as each of the pixels in the 4MP then with twice the pixels you can print exactly twice the size for the same quality e.g A3 from the 8MP=A4 from the 4MP.

Surely that's worth having!

Hi John

I'd like to buy a D2H even if I'm not a sports shooter. All those
improved features and better handling is a good enough reason for
me.
Do not forget that although an improvement, Canon's 8 megapixels
aren't in fact the double of resolution! In a similar way going
from 6mp to 8mp or even 10mps isn't good enough to justify an
upgrade merely because of the increased resolution. Real jumps
would be 4mp-12mp or 6mp- 16mp.
My two cents.

--
------------------------
regards,
AdWiser