I love my D2H (warning largish pictures, not really its a D2H)

Yes thats right I said it. I know you people are out there, thats right, D2H users.

I had an interesting experience today. I shot a youth soccer tournament today for a few hours. Just for fun, no pay or anything. Not having to worry about deadlines is nice, and I even got to talk with a few photographers. Some professional, most not.

During one of the games I got drawn into a conversation with a parent about equipment. I hate talking about equipment. At least not on the internet

Anyways, he was shooting a D200 with what I think was a 70-300 VR. Thats fine, good for him, a decent setup for soccer.

He asked me what I was shooting with, and I responded. "A 24-70 2.8 on a D50 and a 80-200 2.8 on a D2H." At this he scoffed.

He assumed that I wasn't getting any good pictures because of the limited resolution of my cameras. I said "What limited resolution?"

We exchanged a few other comments, then I left. Before I did, we exchanged e-mails, and just a few hours ago, he sent me some pictures. I won't post the pictures as I do not have permission, nor do I wish to ask for it. Needless to say, I was unimpressed. Large files with the kids filling maybe 40% of the frame, highlights blown all over, and many of the shots he sent me were obviously taken when he jammed down the shutter for 7-10 frames.

I sent him some pictures I took.















Yes, they are all in black and white, and no it isn't because the D2H does colors poorly.

I realize that these are not SI quality, but I was again impressed by the D2H, and irked by the naivety of the other photographer.

Comments?

Either the pictures or what happened.

Regard,
Rory

I have both cameras, the D2h and D200. You have to know what you are doing when using the D2h, and if exposed properly, I like the looks of it far better than my D200.
--
I have more gear than talent

The D2H is a little temperamental on occasion. But I agree, it produces excellent results when managed well.

Your shots are very nice. I am sure they look better that the ones from the D200 seeing as how many other factors play into it, the largest of which is the person behind the camera Not to mention that for most uses you dont need more than a couple of megapixels.

I always hate it when people see my D200 and immediately asks how many megapixels it is. I usually reply with a short lecture about all the other important things in a DSLR and how you cant compare resolution between compacts and DSLR's even though they have the same MP count

Usually when someone asks me how many megapixels the my D2H is, I say 14. Of course the people that usually ask me this question often have no idea what megapixels really are, or that my D2H has 4 quality megapixels.

Rory

Anyone else have comments or a similar story to share?

I've never even attempted sports pics, so I maybe out of line saying this: The pics are a bit too soft for my liking. I do like the composition & framing/cropping.

I had a D200 and often wished that I had a D2Hs to go along with it (I shoot with a 5D now). Charlie here uses both (D200 & D2Hs) to great effect. Check him out:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/geimov/

IMHO, Pixel-count doesn't matter, unless you crop quite a bit (as I tend to do). I think it all comes to preparation and technique.
--
Sabesh
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sabesh/

I started out shooting my kids' sports with a film DLSR and a slide scanner almost 10 years age, then moved to a D100, then bought a D2H during the "fire sale" just before the D2Hs was released. The improvement in frame rate and AF speed and accuracy more than made up for the lower resolution, and I was soon able to capture moments I had never imagined.

My lenses have also improved from a Sigma 70-200 at first to a Bigma (50-500), and now I primarily shoot soccer with a 200-400 on a D2Xs (which in HSCM, at nearly 7 MP and with the additional 1.33x "crop factor," gives great detail, even at the far end of the field).

But I still use my D2H with an 80-200 for the near action. I've had a bit of trouble getting the colors to look the same on the two cameras (even with the same temperature WB settings -- if you're interested, see http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=24730322 ), but it's been fun and worth the effort to try to sort this out, and I think I'm getting there with some relatively simple adjustments in postprocessing.

Here are a few D2H examples from our high school team's game yesterday:











I have to admit the D3 looks awfully tempting (for sports and for low light performance and other indoor shooting), but for those of us who don't earn a living at photogaphy, it may not be an immediate necessity...
--
Jim Kaye

'I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.' -- Ansel Adams, 1981

A few of these pics are 50+ percent crops, so some softness is expected. I was still quite pleased with the results though.

rodrisco said:

Yes thats right I said it. I know you people are out there, thats
right, D2H users.

Click to expand...

Hi, I'm Chris (group answers; hi Chris) and I shoot a D2H. Actually, two of them. Am I am proud of it. I love that camera.

rodrisco said:

Yes, they are all in black and white, and no it isn't because the D2H
does colors poorly.

Click to expand...

Actually, I love the D2H colors.

rodrisco said:

I realize that these are not SI quality, but I was again impressed by
the D2H, and irked by the naivety of the other photographer.

Comments?

Click to expand...

I like the epressions in your shots. You did a good job of getting the faces as well as the ball.

As for the other photographer, he is sadly caught up in the pixel chase and cannot judge a camera other than how many pixels it has. I want the D3. Not for the number of pixels, but the noise contol, the even more advanced focus system and the speed at which I can be ready for the next shot.

--
Chris, Broussard, LA

bikinchris said:

bikinchris said:

Yes, they are all in black and white, and no it isn't because the D2H
does colors poorly.

Click to expand...

Actually, I love the D2H colors.

Click to expand...

My bad, I worded that incorrectly, I had meant to say, they are in black in white because I want them to be, not because the D2H handled them poorly, which it did not. The D2H actually has some great color rendition which I attribute to the LBCAST senson.

esp. after I got it back from nikon. I had to send it in for the meter repair and it seems like it is almost a totally different camera! I love the soccer pics. Here are a few of mine, wich have been cropped, from my D2H. PP in Ps Cs2. People are always surprised when they find out that it is only 4mp, but that smaller file size makes storage and processing go smoother, IMO. Thanks for looking.
James

Taken a few hours ago:

Nikon D2h ,Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR
1/2500s f/4.0 at 400.0mm iso250



And earlier this summer:
Nikon D2h ,Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR
1/4000s f/4.0 at 290.0mm iso320



Nikon D2h ,Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR
1/1250s f/4.0 at 400.0mm iso400



Too bad it's only 4 MPs and the resolution is so bad with cropped photos:
Cropped shot of wild pheasant:
Nikon D2h ,Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S VR
1/80s f/6.3 at 400.0mm iso200



I plan on getting a D3, but no way I'll give up my D2H (unless someone wants to trade me for a D2Hs.

Best Regards,
RB

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

And reach for it first for most sports.

When you get it right the image will knock your socks off

A D3 would be nice for high ISO stuff but I still get great images from this

http://www.imagesportnz.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=27677&g2_serialNumber=3

http://www.imagesportnz.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=27671&g2_serialNumber=3

I never had a better camera than this (coming from Nikon´s F film line).
Instant and accurate focus, vivid colors, THE action tool for serious amateurs.
No way to be replaced by D300 and/or D3.
Cheers,
Klaus

rodrisco said:

He asked me what I was shooting with, and I responded. "A 24-70 2.8
on a D50 and a 80-200 2.8 on a D2H." At this he scoffed.

He assumed that I wasn't getting any good pictures because of the
limited resolution of my cameras. I said "What limited resolution?"

Click to expand...

Hey, I tried a D200 for a bit. It was much harder to focus than my D2H. I'll take 4 Million focused photosites over 12 million unfocused ones anyway.

I love mine to bits,and you should also love yours.

But still a little tempted by the d300.....

some d2h shots........























--
http://www.kkm.smugmug.com

And it turned out great! People at the office are amazed that it is only 4mp.



Here is the larger size.

Yes, despite marketing and true improvements, D2H is still a magnificent camera. I use mine for weddings and many different publications; no one has ever complained about lack of detail, clarity, or resolution. It's more pictures they want, not more pixels.

Lee