Reading mode: Light Dark

Hello my name is Jason and I'm a pixel counter...

Go to last post
J

Jason T

Member
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
Azusa, CA, US
I've lurked here for a couple of months and read with great anticipation, all the latest D100 news. But the D1H owners are making my life and decision difficult.

I do have a D100 on preorder but the D1H would probably be the better camera for what I do. I enjoy shooting at local club races so speed is an issue. Also, I would like to take my new camera with me on mountain bike rides because the scenery is just too nice not to shoot. That makes durability a factor.

The D1H wasn't even on the radar until the deep discounts lately have made it almost affordable. But, $1000 dollars more and half the resolution... I'm having a hard time with that.

A few more things, I'm not a pro and I don't print bigger than an occasional A4.

Should I just get over the resolution. How?

Jason
 
Hello Jason (nice subject :-)

One way to test the pixel "addiction", is to buy a D100, then bring it with you on a mountain bike ride, crash and look if the D100 could handle it. If it's broken, buy a D1h :-)

Seriously, One point where D1h/x is better than D100 is the sealings. The biggest problem (as I can see it) for the D100 will be water. The outer shell on the D100 is plastic (or composite material), and this can actually sustain more punches than metal (just look at crashhelmets). Whether the D100 is made by such material I don't know, but don't be fooled by the plastic housing, and draw any conclusion in the direction that the D100 is more fragile for bumps than D1h/x. Of course the D1x/h owners will disagree with me, but I can handle that ;-)
Geir Atle
Jason T said:
I've lurked here for a couple of months and read with great
anticipation, all the latest D100 news. But the D1H owners are
making my life and decision difficult.

I do have a D100 on preorder but the D1H would probably be the
better camera for what I do. I enjoy shooting at local club races
so speed is an issue. Also, I would like to take my new camera
with me on mountain bike rides because the scenery is just too nice
not to shoot. That makes durability a factor.

The D1H wasn't even on the radar until the deep discounts lately
have made it almost affordable. But, $1000 dollars more and half
the resolution... I'm having a hard time with that.

A few more things, I'm not a pro and I don't print bigger than an
occasional A4.

Should I just get over the resolution. How?

Jason
Click to expand...
 
Jason...

Pixel counting is definately a condition which should have it's own twelve step group...

Anyway, if it were me, I'd go for the D1h. If you're shooting sports and only printing to A3 you will love the high speed and huge buffer. You'll need it. And the prints will knock you out.

Oh...and the autofocus just rips with the AFS lenses. Don't cheap out on your glass.
--
jdoyle
 
I have heard that the D100 is actually pretty durable, so I think your bigger issue will be the speed.

I shoot motorsports as well and was thinking of waiting for a D100, but I decided to go with the H because I did not want to ever be in the position to miss a shot because of the camera buffer being filled and not being ready. Moose Peterson has just received a production model of the D100 and on another board he says that he can acheive the 3fps rate up to the six frame buffer, it then takes about 3-4 seconds before the camera can shoot again. Well, for me, this is too slow for motorsports, stuff can happen too fast. It might be ok most of the time, but like I said before, I dont want to miss something because I am waiting for the buffer to empty.

This will never happen with an H and its 40 frame buffer.

As far as pixels go, I havent done any big prinitng with mine yet, but I can tell you the pictures are turning out awesome. I dont see where this would be an issue unless you are trying to print something that is just huge and even then I know you can use software like Genuine Fractals to make this possible as well. I have seen 8x10 prints from the H and they are awesome. The size and quality of the CCD means that the info collected is very good, way better than a 3mp consumer camera. I have been really pleased and have been convinced that the pixel count of the H is not an issue.

I am extremely pleased with my purchase and from what I have read so far with about the D100, glad I didnt wait for it. I could never have gotten a picture like this without the speed. BTW,this is a probably about a 50% crop.



--
http://www.motorsportvortex.com
 
Thanks guys for your thoughts.

You are all absolutely right but after much thought this weekend I am going to stay with the D100. This will be my first digital camera but with the state of digital at this point, undoubtedly not my last. I'm sure I will be on the list for the inevitable D*. H later. I'll use the D100 as a learning tool. Who knows, the digital world may take my photography in a whole new direction. I'm very excited.

BTW, I'll invest the difference in better glass (undecided which at this point).

Thanks again.

Jason
 
Jason, have you read this thread
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=2857323 ?

Look at the pictures, they are taken with a D1h, but that is not what I want you to notice. You can make these photos with a D100 as well. These racing cars are fast, but focusing speed is no problem (even with the D100), because the photographer used manual focus. The only thing you miss with a D100 is the frame buffer (and 2 frames pr. second).

Just look after your camera when it's raining/high moisture, and you will be fine with a D100. I totally agree with spending the saved money on good glass instead.
Geir Atle
Jason T said:
Thanks guys for your thoughts.

You are all absolutely right but after much thought this weekend I
am going to stay with the D100. This will be my first digital
camera but with the state of digital at this point, undoubtedly not
my last. I'm sure I will be on the list for the inevitable D*. H
later. I'll use the D100 as a learning tool. Who knows, the
digital world may take my photography in a whole new direction.
I'm very excited.

BTW, I'll invest the difference in better glass (undecided which at
this point).

Thanks again.

Jason
Click to expand...
 
I definitely did see that thread. That is actually one of the threads that started all of this. Fantastic shots! I actually was hoping to compensate for some camera limitations with pre-focus.

I'm just speculating but my guess is Louis Klemantaski (my hero) didn't have 5fps. Although I'm not Louis Klemantaski. Hey, that makes a great sig!!!

Jason
Geir Atle Ward said:
Jason, have you read this thread
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=2857323 ?
Look at the pictures, they are taken with a D1h, but that is not
what I want you to notice. You can make these photos with a D100 as
well. These racing cars are fast, but focusing speed is no problem
(even with the D100), because the photographer used manual focus.
The only thing you miss with a D100 is the frame buffer (and 2
frames pr. second).
Just look after your camera when it's raining/high moisture, and
you will be fine with a D100. I totally agree with spending the
saved money on good glass instead.
Geir Atle
Click to expand...
 
Jason- Just wanted to add one point. Twice the pixels does not equal twice the resolution. Rather, I believe, it means 25% more resolution. So is it pixel counting or resolution counting that matters most?...Peter
Jason T said:
I'm just speculating but my guess is Louis Klemantaski (my hero)
didn't have 5fps. Although I'm not Louis Klemantaski. Hey, that
makes a great sig!!!

Jason
Geir Atle Ward said:
Jason, have you read this thread
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=2857323 ?
Look at the pictures, they are taken with a D1h, but that is not
what I want you to notice. You can make these photos with a D100 as
well. These racing cars are fast, but focusing speed is no problem
(even with the D100), because the photographer used manual focus.
The only thing you miss with a D100 is the frame buffer (and 2
frames pr. second).
Just look after your camera when it's raining/high moisture, and
you will be fine with a D100. I totally agree with spending the
saved money on good glass instead.
Geir Atle
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Not quite. Resolution increases by the square root of increase in pixel count. So, doubling the pixel count increases the resolution by sqrt(2) = 1.41 = 41% increase in resolution. So, to double the resolution one needs to increase the pixel count by a factor of 4.

-Gilbert
--
http://www.gilbertmabel.com
Peter said:
Jason T said:
I'm just speculating but my guess is Louis Klemantaski (my hero)
didn't have 5fps. Although I'm not Louis Klemantaski. Hey, that
makes a great sig!!!

Jason
Geir Atle Ward said:
Jason, have you read this thread
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=2857323 ?
Look at the pictures, they are taken with a D1h, but that is not
what I want you to notice. You can make these photos with a D100 as
well. These racing cars are fast, but focusing speed is no problem
(even with the D100), because the photographer used manual focus.
The only thing you miss with a D100 is the frame buffer (and 2
frames pr. second).
Just look after your camera when it's raining/high moisture, and
you will be fine with a D100. I totally agree with spending the
saved money on good glass instead.
Geir Atle
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Gilbert said:
-Gilbert
--
http://www.gilbertmabel.com
Peter said:
Jason T said:
I'm just speculating but my guess is Louis Klemantaski (my hero)
didn't have 5fps. Although I'm not Louis Klemantaski. Hey, that
makes a great sig!!!

Jason
Geir Atle Ward said:
Jason, have you read this thread
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=2857323 ?
Look at the pictures, they are taken with a D1h, but that is not
what I want you to notice. You can make these photos with a D100 as
well. These racing cars are fast, but focusing speed is no problem
(even with the D100), because the photographer used manual focus.
The only thing you miss with a D100 is the frame buffer (and 2
frames pr. second).
Just look after your camera when it's raining/high moisture, and
you will be fine with a D100. I totally agree with spending the
saved money on good glass instead.
Geir Atle
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I read something about that over at The Luminous Landscape. I guess I have a pixel addiction but based on the wrong assumption of how pixel count affects resolution.

Based on this info my apprehension over the D1H holds even less water. This morning I thought I had my mind made up but you Peter, and Gilbert are making me second guess myself again. ;-) The D1H is $1000 dollars more though, and that is a chunk of cash. Glass will suffer. Man, I hate this!

I'm left with this:
D100 and great glass - Probably the 28-70 AFS and a 300 f4

D1H and good glass - I do already have the 80-200 ED non-AFS. I would add a decent wide zoom. Forget 300 f4.

I don't mean to sound like a flake. I do tend to over analyze big purchases.

Jason
Gilbert said:
-Gilbert
--
http://www.gilbertmabel.com
Peter said:
Jason- Just wanted to add one point. Twice the pixels does not
equal twice the resolution. Rather, I believe, it means 25% more
resolution. So is it pixel counting or resolution counting that
matters most?...Peter
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
...you will probably never use the D1H while biking unless you are some kind of masochist. It's a huge and heavy monster. Just wearing it around your neck is a challenge for long periods. I had a D1 for a couple of month last summer and I took it mountain biking only once due to its extreme weight. It's not something you throw into the side pouch of your camelbak--you need a fully structured daypack for this thing!
 
Point taken. It is something I have given thought to as well. Imagine when I decide to take the 300 AFS along with the D1H!

Yes I'm joking.

As you probably know group rides and photography don't go together. You end up with angry co-riders. The point is, when I lug the D1H (D100)along for a ride the whole purpose for that ride will be photography and I will plan the ride accordingly. It definitely won't be along for every ride.

Plus, the extra weight will make me faster down hill. ;-)

Jason
Steven Lyons said:
...you will probably never use the D1H while biking unless you are
some kind of masochist. It's a huge and heavy monster. Just wearing
it around your neck is a challenge for long periods. I had a D1 for
a couple of month last summer and I took it mountain biking only
once due to its extreme weight. It's not something you throw into
the side pouch of your camelbak--you need a fully structured
daypack for this thing!
Click to expand...
 
Hello!

I just got my first 12x18" print from one my d1h photos. needless to say it looks absolutely fantastic at arm's length.

Anything bigger than is OK as long as the viewing distance is further than arm's length. Number of pixels are not what you'd worry about if you had this camera. You'd worry about a number of other things, none of which are fixed in the D100.

I feel, though, that in both cases, the cameras will be way too large and heavy for you to take biking.. get a Coolpix instead?

I like hiking, and I never take my camera gear if I am going with other people as even when walking I slow them down too much.
  • Andrew
 
Jason T said:
I'm left with this:
D100 and great glass - Probably the 28-70 AFS and a 300 f4
D1H and good glass - I do already have the 80-200 ED non-AFS. I
would add a decent wide zoom. Forget 300 f4.
Click to expand...
Jason T said:
I don't mean to sound like a flake. I do tend to over analyze big
purchases.
Click to expand...
The 17-35 and 18-35 are both pretty good; plus the 1.4x teleconverter would give you a cheap 300 f4 out of the 80-200!

(The 300 f4 is really a great lens, though. i just wish they will bring out a 400 f4!)
  • Andrew
 
Andrew,

One thing to think about is the digital cameras multiplyer, so that 80-200 you have really goes out to about the same as a 300 would with film. I have the D1H and the 80-200 AF-S and a 400, and I have found that with the multiplied crop of the D1 that I can use the 80-200 for almost anything. I shot all weekend at Lime Rock for the Trans Am a few weeks ago and never went bigger than the 80-200, so your thought of forgetting the 300 f/4 is not a bad idea. If it was that lens made the difference between the D1 or the D100 I would definately give up the lens and go for the camera. Thats what i did as a matter of fact.

Also for your smaller zoom, I dont know what you are gonna use it for, but I got the Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4 which is a non AF-S lens and it works really well and is less than $600 easy. It does a real good job and does not cost nearly the price of the AF-S lenses. Since it will more likely be used for non action type stuff you should be able to get away with the little bit slower focusing. The only disadvantage is if you need the wider angle than the 24mm, but if you dont, this is a great lens. It is great for pit shots.

Anyway, hope this helps and I really think you will be happier with the D1H. Remember, it is easier to save another grand and get the lens you wanted than it is to save $4000 when you decide that you really wanted the D1H.

You also said something in a earlier post about the state of digital today this wont be your last camera. Well that is true and undoubtedly digital will get better, but someone told me once when I was trying to decide whether to wait or not. "If the camera is good enough for you now, why will it not still be good enough even if they come out with a better one?" This made me think that there is no reason to wait if the camera is good enough now, and it certainly is by the amount of high quality images all over the place coming out of these cameras. After all, if an old FM2 is still good enough to use now that we have the F5, why would a D1H not be good enough even if they have a D3 super H?
Andrew Snow said:
Andrew Snow said:
I'm left with this:
D100 and great glass - Probably the 28-70 AFS and a 300 f4
D1H and good glass - I do already have the 80-200 ED non-AFS. I
would add a decent wide zoom. Forget 300 f4.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Jim Sykes
http://www.motorsportvortex.com
 
i use my cameras a lot during strenuous outdoor activity, i've settled on Nikon for this purpose (after brief stints with Pentax, Minolta, and Canon -- in that order). i greatly prefer a light camera to a heavy one -- and all my Nikons have held up well despite a lot of abuse. i find a light camera takes less abuse as i manage it easier than a heavier camera that swings around more.

i carry the cameras over one shoulder and across my chest so they are not free to bang around when on a bike or rock climbing or the like. i tried to go with a D1 for awhile but the weight was impossible to deal with for any reasonable period.

my advice, get the D100. if you go with a D1h, my guess is you'll leave it at home more than you're happy with and it doesn't do you any good there. even for the 'plastic' D100, i'd trust the Nikon workmanship to hold up to anything but the worst spills. i know their other cameras do.

(actually, my advice is an F100 or N90s but i'm assuming you aren't interested in film? i beat the heck outta these cameras and have no worries about how they hold up.)

...dav
 
Jason,

I currently own a D1H and ride mountains bikes quite a bit. For weight difference according to Phil's reviews the D1H weighs 2.5lbs w/o battery and the D100 weighs 1.5lbs w/o battery. I don't know about you but that 1lbs of difference in weight doesn't affect my riding abilities too much. In addition having the 5 fps with 27 shot buffer for .NEF was important to me; nothing makes me more upset than to miss a shot because I was waiting on the card to finish processing. Not that would happen with the D100 but it sounds like you have a higher chance of that happening compared to the D1H. Another point to consider, I do not blow my pics up to poster size but on occasion when you can not get quite close enough to the subject to fill your frame your ability to crop in photoshop can be reduced since the extra resolution is not there with the D1H. Don't get me wrong the D1H still has crop ability just not that of the D1X or assumedly the D100. I have not had this problem very often but it is something to consider. Another point I will say about the D1H is that for long exposures as with most current digitals after about 6 to 8 seconds there is quite a bit of noise(hot pixels). Of course you can use the dark frame subtraction in photoshop but the D100 has software built in. I believe and correct me if I am wrong but hasn't there been some D100 samples out showing a 25 sec. exposure that had virtually no hot pixels. Don't quote me on that one though but I thought I saw it somewhere. One less fix in photoshop. Finally, I shoot in .NEF format on the D1H this creates a file size of about 4Mb; I can put 262 shots on a 1Gb card where on a D1X you can put around half that amount. I would bet the .NEF file for the D100 is even larger than the D1X or around the same size. You will need more memory cards which if shooting a IBM Microdrive cost around $250 a piece even more if shooting compact flash cards. So with a D1H you can see the potential to save on memory card cost depending on how many pictures you might would want the ability to take in the "field". Cost up front goes to D100 but potential savings on cards bring some balance back into the picture. I am not trying to encourage you in either way just think of the pros and cons; these will be your deciding factors. They were for me.

Thanks,
Michael
Andrew Snow said:
Hello!

I just got my first 12x18" print from one my d1h photos. needless
to say it looks absolutely fantastic at arm's length.

Anything bigger than is OK as long as the viewing distance is
further than arm's length. Number of pixels are not what you'd
worry about if you had this camera. You'd worry about a number of
other things, none of which are fixed in the D100.

I feel, though, that in both cases, the cameras will be way too
large and heavy for you to take biking.. get a Coolpix instead?

I like hiking, and I never take my camera gear if I am going with
other people as even when walking I slow them down too much.
  • Andrew
Click to expand...
 
Just for anyone's interest, here's a pic i took recently in a very dark forest

300mm AF-S f/4 at f/11 for 13 seconds. no dark frame subtraction done, just a quick bit of noise reduction in photoshop to get rid of some hot pixels. Even if you don't go out of your way to get rid of noise, you can still get useable photos.


  • Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Selling my xt4 for something compact? It is collecting dust recently.
Replies
5
Views
848
Jacques Cornell
Jacques Cornell
A
NOLa weekend + x100v
Replies
6
Views
1K
athensGA
A
M
Upgrading from XT-20 to ?? X-T5/Z6iii or third option?
Replies
16
Views
4K
Ruedon
R
Truman Prevatt
GFX100RF - a review of RAW samples
Replies
14
Views
4K
barkleytom
B
Batdude
I'm REALLY Upset At Fujifilm Right Now
5 6 7
Replies
137
Views
284
Bill Ferris
Bill Ferris

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