Reading mode: Light Dark

Upgrade to D2Hs?

Go to last post
J

JD_Bodine

Active member
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Location
Rapid City, SD, US
I plan on purchasing a D2Hs in a couple of months. I currently use my D70 for sports, I know the D2Hs will be perfect for what I do. But, I eventually I want to branch into portrait/glamour photography. Are there any drawbacks for this type of work with the D2Hs? I tried the search feature and it's not working at the moment and many of the posts are D200 or D2Xs. I also looked on PBase, but there aren't many glamour type post for the D2hs, but many more for the D200/D2Xs.

Thanks for any input...
--
Jeffrey King
Tools: Nikon D70
  • Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.3-5.6 (kit lens)
  • Nikkor 50mm f/1.8
  • Nikkor 85mm f/1.8
  • Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG HSM
 
Jeff,

While I try to use my Hs whenever possible, I've run into resistance from magazine editors when trying to sell smaller-sized files. I've found the D2x is a better tool for controlled studio shoots. If you're not shooting commercially, though, the Hs should be adequate for glamour.

Gordon
 
I'm a little torn as I use a D2Hs but after trying out a D2x, I feel that if you can afford it, the 2x outdates the 2Hs because of the ability to CROP. If you don't need 8 FPS and can 'settle' for 5, a 12 MP shot gives a lot of room to crop. And a new 2Hs costs as much as a good condition 2x.

The other consideration is file size and output: a 4 MP RAW file is a lot easier to handle than a 10 MP file and the 2Hs prints up to 8x10 are fantastic (I haven't tried anything bigger).

So it depends on a bunch of things.

Hope this helps.

CJ
:)
 
I agree fully with Carl.

Although I'm 100% in favor of the D2hs, you have to realize that you can only do so much with 4 megapix.

We shoot personal photos (glamour of sorts) that will wind up mostly on the web or on cd/dvd.

Many claim that you can print huge prints with the D2hs. Technically, you can print huge prints with any camera, but you get the point.. Quality is often subjective, and to put it plainly, I wouldn't think of doing professional print-work with the D2hs. Have we printed portraits with the D2hs? You bet! But we don't print sizes larger than 8x12 for our commercial work.

Point blank.. If you're anticipating commercial grade print work (regardless what you're shooting) Go with the D2xs as a minimum. Fashion shots coupled with Prints, is where medium format cameras dominate. (Example: Hassy with 22-39mp digital back).

Now, that said... If you're shooting for a professional web site (fashion, corporate 'skin' sites, editorials/blogs, etc..) or weddings, then the D2hs is not only excellent, but the best in the Nikon line-up for such work (pre D2xs that is).

The D2xs with its upgraded buffer and reportedly better colours, sounds like a winner for print work.

My humble 2cents

Teila K. Day
D2hs shooter
 
I guess I should clarify that my portrait/glamour work would be a learning process, at the moment I don't anticipate trying to sell my shots. I wanted to branch out to have something to do in between sports. I plan on buying a lighting system also, so I would be giving my best effort. The X is nice, but I have had a hard enough time convincing the wife to upgrade from my D70. My one concern was the versatility of the Hs, once I upgrade I don't want to do it again for quite some time.

I don't have a local camera store to rent either of the bodies to make an informed choice on what FPS would suit me best.
--
Jeffrey King
Tools: Nikon D70
  • Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.3-5.6 (kit lens)
  • Nikkor 50mm f/1.8
  • Nikkor 85mm f/1.8
  • Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG HSM
 
I doubt if I ever have to print larger than 8x12. I guess I'm trying to get the most out of my money. It seems that the Hs would satisfy what I am trying to do.

Jeffrey King
Tools: Nikon D70
  • Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.3-5.6 (kit lens)
  • Nikkor 50mm f/1.8
  • Nikkor 85mm f/1.8
  • Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 EX DG HSM
 
I must say that I'm extremely pleased with the responses here; I figured everyone would say what junk the D2Hs is. Personally, I have a D2H and plan on upgrading to the low noise Hs soon. I absolutely love the camera.

I know that all of you that are responding are better photogs than I am; I can see it in the samples. I only shoot landscape, macro, and mechanical subjects. But I will interject that while I understand that clients in commercial prints lean towards large megapixel files, I think that this is because they have been poisoned (for want of a better word) by shooters who are submitting large files and have interjected their opinion of what is required into their submissions. Having said that, I have displayed nature pics where a 2mp crop from a D2H frame has been displayed at 16 X 20" right next to guys shooting Canon equipment and Nikon D2X and D2Xs at the same size with no crop. I've used Genuine Fractals and CS2's Bicubic mode, and when the software work is done right, you really can't tell the difference in my opinion. I know the large-file shooters can't tell the difference when they looked at my displays. For all they knew, I was shooting with a D2X.

I agree, get the D2X or Xs if you can swing it. But if you can't, I'd stick with the Hs. The downside on getting the Hs is of course like one guy said; you end up cropping the subject so tightly that you can crop yourself into a corner with the Hs. And then there's the issue that I'll bring up; to crop an image further or to enlarge to a size greater than 11 X 14 (in my experience, this represents the largest D2H image that you can print without using software for greater interpolation), you need to accomplish greater-than-normal post-procesing thru expensive software. So to eliminate these two conundrums, it will be wisest to move towards the D2X or Xs, much as I hate to say it.

'Course, I'd absolutely love to see the ASIC processing engine and the LBCAST sensor of the D2Hs moved to 12.8mp and marketed as a Nikon full-frame DSLR, but that's a rosy pipe dream of mine.

Best of luck with this. Hope I didn't offend anyone.

Kev
 
JD_Bodine said:
I doubt if I ever have to print larger than 8x12. I guess I'm
trying to get the most out of my money. It seems that the Hs would
satisfy what I am trying to do.
Click to expand...
Sports, and you don't anticipate printing larger than 8x12... then the D2hs is right up your alley. The D200 can't compete with the D2hs' high (sustained) frame rate, and hefty buffer (especially when shooting raw), and superiour focusing capability. Colour is good right out of the camera.

I'd say you're on the right track with the D2hs! Sure you can't wait long enough to see what Nikon has in the works?

Teila K. Day
 
...I print up to 11x14 and the images are presentation quality. Beyond that, the 4MP starts to break down. SInce I rarely need to go beyond 11x14, the D2Hs has been a winner for me with everything else it brings to the table...

--
http://www.carlmphotography.com

'I'd knock on wood for good luck, but it just gives me a headache!!!'
 
moeny you produce when doing sports [now] and how you define 'eventually.' It also depends on what lenses you currently own and do you plan on purchasing more.

Though the D2h has many merrits, unless you have some long lenses [as many pros who own the camera do] the lack of cropping ability, of the 4mp file, will end up costing you more due to the need for longer lenses. You many find the features of the camrea very nice, but the files a bit restricting.

The D2xs, besides having a larger files size [3x bigger], also has a high-speed crop mode which changes the 1.5 lens multiplier to 2x. Yes, it reduces the size of the file to 6.8, but that's still 50% larger than the D2hs.

As far as noise, yes the D2h was the nikon king. But frankly, my D200 takes cleaner images. I believe this is the real sleeper of your choices. At 5 frames/sec and a 10mp file, you can have both speed and a larger files and low noise.

If enventually means a year or two, I would definately opt for the D200 as something better [from Nikon] will absolutely be out by then.

Good luck
--
Rick

We all know what it can't do. Show me what you can do with it.
 
Hammer_61 said:
I know that all of you that are responding are better photogs than
I am; I can see it in the samples. I only shoot landscape, macro,
and mechanical subjects. But I will interject that while I
understand that clients in commercial prints lean towards large
megapixel files, I think that this is because they have been
poisoned (for want of a better word) by shooters who are submitting
large files and have interjected their opinion of what is required
into their submissions. Having said that, I have displayed nature
pics where a 2mp crop from a D2H frame has been displayed at 16 X
20" right next to guys shooting Canon equipment and Nikon D2X and
D2Xs at the same size with no crop. I've used Genuine Fractals and
CS2's Bicubic mode, and when the software work is done right, you
really can't tell the difference in my opinion. I know the
large-file shooters can't tell the difference when they looked at
my displays. For all they knew, I was shooting with a D2X.
Click to expand...
Hay, I am 98% with you, but... When I print 16x20 from my D2H, also using GF, I can see where detail has been lost which I would imagine would be sharp with a 10~16MP file. With that said, my clients that order 16x20 and larger simply LOVE the prints and never notice that there could be more detail because GF keeps everything nice and smooth!

There was another poster, Terry, I believe, that said 8x10 was the largest you could go with the 4MP image. Have you ever tried GF? If not, give it a try, I think you will be impressed.
Hammer_61 said:
I agree, get the D2X or Xs if you can swing it. But if you can't,
I'd stick with the Hs. The downside on getting the Hs is of course
like one guy said; you end up cropping the subject so tightly that
you can crop yourself into a corner with the Hs. And then there's
the issue that I'll bring up; to crop an image further or to
enlarge to a size greater than 11 X 14 (in my experience, this
represents the largest D2H image that you can print without using
software for greater interpolation), you need to accomplish
greater-than-normal post-procesing thru expensive software.
Click to expand...
Again, I would agree 98% of the way;) I have one 11x14 print that I did not use GF and it looks GREAT, but it is also a studio shot and RAZOR sharp to begin with. On the other hand, I have compared a straght 8x10 to a GF 20x24 and the GF 20x24 looks smoother/clearner to me then then straight 8x10. I now use GF on everything 8x10 and larger.

--
Sam
http://www.miltonstreet.com
http://www.sportsshooter.com/scarleton
http://photos.miltonstreet.com/
 
I use the D2HS -- it is a very easy camera to live with in terms of shooting photos and processing them (although making me mad right now because it had to go in for repair for the second time). But think about the D200 too. It has a tremendously strong IR cutout in its low pass filter, and that gives you added security with skin tones -- Bjorn Rorslett's review made that point strongly. And it satiates the megapixel fetishists among clients such as stock agencies that are happy with the quality of D2HS files UNTIL they look at the EXIF data and see what camera it's from.

Also -- this is a small issue but it might be significant if you travel -- if you use the D200 with a D70 as a backup, you can standardize on batteries and chargers around the EN-EL3e.
 
Hi, Sam, thanks for your response.

The one way that I've best found to emulate the large mp cameras is to add some noise in PS back to the image once it's been thru bicubic or GF. Not a lot, just a really tiny bit, and it seems to remove the slight softness I've sometimes seen post-enlarging. This has a tendency to directly emulate the noise found in the larger mp-count cameras, IMO, and noise actually adds sharpness, definition, and contrast from my limited experience.

Try it and see what you think. You might agree, or might not, but it is interesting to see the difference.

Regards,
Kev
 
Daniel Bliss said:
I use the D2HS -- it is a very easy camera to live with in terms of
shooting photos and processing them (although making me mad right
now because it had to go in for repair for the second time).
Click to expand...
Hey! Me too! Second time. Meter died this time, had DNA in the pentaprism last time.

Cheers!
Kev
 
LVPG said:
The D2xs, besides having a larger files size [3x bigger], also has
a high-speed crop mode which changes the 1.5 lens multiplier to 2x.
Yes, it reduces the size of the file to 6.8, but that's still 50%
larger than the D2hs.
Click to expand...
I was thinking that a 6+ mp shot is less than 20% larger than a 4mp shot. Thats what it comes out to when I compare our D2hs prints to those from our D100.

Teila K. Day
 
If you are shooting sport, no doubt the D2Hs is your camera. But how are you going to present the glamour photos? When I last worked in a studio, the photographer shot fashion and sub R rated glamour. The fashoin would go into some local magazines and they barely tolerated the 6mp Kodak DCS760. The "glamour" and portrait shots were very often printed at 16x20 and higher (my job). The 6mp would make it cleanly to 16x20, using GF and PS bicubic (Fred Miranda's stepping action). Certain photos would be nice at 20x30 (selected only). I would say if you anticipate doing glamour for magazines you need at least the D200 (no perceptable shutter lag, faster than my Canon F1AE) if not the D2Xs, same if you are printing large. As been said before web or pics 8x10 to 11x14 the D2Hs should be fine.

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top