The D2H makes our jobs harder, there is no question about it. The
lowlight performance is awful. Concerts at smaller venues/bars are
particularly painful. Night spot news is very difficult. Poorly
lit high school sports stadiums are difficult. If I shot this kind
of stuff on a regular basis, I would have been forced to move to a
Canon MkII a long time ago.
I get by with my D2H because I'm very good at photoshop and can
clean up images fairly quickly. If I was a shooter that did not
have a great deal of post-production skill/experience, the D2H
would be insanely frustrating. Nikon might as well bundle
Photoshop CS with the D2H, because you won't be able to get
consistently good images from the camera without it. (I say this
knowing that the above sentence will now be quoted a dozen times
with "ducks-right-out-of-the-camera" samples showing how this is
not true.)
I absolutely hate Canon ergonomics. I also don't like the soft
images I see coming out of their bodies. (I say this knowing that
the above sentence will now be quoted a dozen times with
"ducks-right-out-of-the-camera" samples showing how this is also
not true.) I can compensate for the softness in photoshop, but the
ergo is something that I've tried and failed to get used to.
But I am becoming resigned to the fact that I will probably have to
switch to Canon sometime in the next year or so. The D2X, although
promising, does not fix Nikon's lineup. It fills a big hole that
has existed for nearly two years. The switchable 1.5/2x thing is a
cute trick, but with a rated top-end speed of ISO 800, the D2X will
not fill the needs of photojournalists. For most of my indoor PJ
assignments, I
start at ISO 800. I desperately need a clean
1600. I am hopeful that Nikon will do some sort of sensor upgrade
on the D2H, but I have no knowledge of this and it's only wishful
thinking.
I've done the math many times on what a switch to Canon would cost
me. The number comes in somewhere between $10,000 and $15,000,
depending on how optimistic I am about the value of my used gear.
The cost includes replacing three Nikon bodies (2 D2H, 1 D100) with
Canon equivalents (2 MkII, 1 Rebel OR 1DS), and swapping out the
lenses. I'm guessing that this is a fairly consistent number for
most shooters at my level.
In 2005 I am going to have to spend somewhere between $5,000 and
$10,000 on DSLR bodies. If I stay with Nikon, I will spend $5,000
on a D2X, and $1,000 - $2,000 on a sensor upgrade for my D2H's if
Nikon is wise enough to go this route. If I go with Canon, I spend
$10,000 and can be shooting at 8MP
minimum all the way across the
board, with 11MP in the studio...more if I invest in whatever the
1DSmkII will be.
Wow, it's been awhile since I went through the math again, and it
surprises me how much easier the decision to make this switch is
getting. At this point, without an announced or even rumored
sensor upgrade for the D2H, it makes more sense to switch to Canon
in 2005.
I can't tell you how much I hate this.
Dave
I am one of the few full-time working professionals still shooting
Nikon and I must say that the d2x was an admirable attempt at
shoring up the Nikon base. Unfortunately, most professionals have
made the switch and Nikon is fast becoming the choice of amateurs
and price-conscious consumers.
At every venue I am overwhelmed by the white lenses. I work in NYC
and almost every major agency has switched, first because of the
1d/1ds and the terrific system(IS, 8fps etc) then the mk2 was the
nail in the coffin. Getty, NY times, ap, us news, time.....
i have 2 d2h's and as a pro the limitations of this camera are
frustratingly clear. low megapixel, hi noise if you shoot above
640. working at night is a nightmare especially if you
accidentally underexpose 1/3 stop.
Please comment if you are a full-time working professional, not a
software engineer who shoots birds as a hobby and loves the noise
characteristics of the d2h.
