$$$ for a D2Hs mint cond.?

Daniel Bliss said:

?

AF accuracy on the D2H and D2HS, both of which I used, had its own quirks.

More serious was the LBCAST sensor, which, while I loved the color saturation, had quite narrow dynamic range and behaved very strangely due to IR interference with black nylon or with any subject with slightly dodgy skin (e.g. veiny facial skin that therefore gets us back to that IR problem again, or someone profusely overheated from exercise).

As far as I am concerned the D300 almost completely replaces the D2HS. Better AF overall, a bigger viewfinder image (comfortably the biggest of any APS-C/DX crop sensor body), less noise, more dynamic range, more usable resolution even at high ISO, and very nearly as much speed.

Click to expand...

The D300 basically replaced the D2hs AND the D2x, for all but special circumstances. There are a lot of advantages shooting the pro body design. I like being able to quickly do a white balance, etc., by just pushing buttons on the back of the camera, etc.. The D2hs was also the fastest raw shooting Nikon until recently when the D3s hit market. It can shoot fast, and long before starting to stutter.

So if you shoot a lot of raw, fast, and looooong.. then the D2hs might be a better buy over the D300- but only if you do that, OR if you need a camera to shoot exclusively for web blogs/online news.. and in that case, I'd rather shoot the D2hs hands down.

.. for everthing else, the D300 is a better camera AND a better buy.

I love shooting the D2hs, but there comes a time when you just have to buy (and use) what makes the best sense for your intended use.

I generally would not recommend bothering with the older camera bodies, and instead would recommend getting a D300 at the least.

I have to say this though.. I don' know how much the D2hs is worth today, but you'll be able to make a buck with it- can still produce more than its monetary worth on nearly every shoot, so in that respect its still viable.. but... so much easier using a newer body, newer technology, and better high iso performance

http://www.pbase.com/image/96087014
--
Teila K. Day

capanikon said:

I've been using a D2h since 2007. It's not much different from the D2hs, aside from a slight reduction in noise in JPEGs at the higher ISO settings.

Click to expand...

Actually.. there is a lot different between the two.

Viewing screen, RGB histogram, D2hs has a much larger buffer over the D2h, high iso is considerably better in raw and jpg (the D2hs and D2h are not the same when shooting raw), metering, white balance, and some other things that I can't remember.

capanikon said:

The main problem with both the D2h and D2hs is their heightened sensitivity to infrared light, which causes slight color problems.

Click to expand...

You are correct though- the newer cameras offer better colour, etc..

--
Teila K. Day

Teila Day said:

Daniel Bliss said:

?

AF accuracy on the D2H and D2HS, both of which I used, had its own quirks.

More serious was the LBCAST sensor, which, while I loved the color saturation, had quite narrow dynamic range and behaved very strangely due to IR interference with black nylon or with any subject with slightly dodgy skin (e.g. veiny facial skin that therefore gets us back to that IR problem again, or someone profusely overheated from exercise).

As far as I am concerned the D300 almost completely replaces the D2HS. Better AF overall, a bigger viewfinder image (comfortably the biggest of any APS-C/DX crop sensor body), less noise, more dynamic range, more usable resolution even at high ISO, and very nearly as much speed.

Click to expand...

The D300 basically replaced the D2hs AND the D2x, for all but special circumstances. There are a lot of advantages shooting the pro body design. I like being able to quickly do a white balance, etc., by just pushing buttons on the back of the camera, etc.. The D2hs was also the fastest raw shooting Nikon until recently when the D3s hit market. It can shoot fast, and long before starting to stutter.

So if you shoot a lot of raw, fast, and looooong.. then the D2hs might be a better buy over the D300- but only if you do that, OR if you need a camera to shoot exclusively for web blogs/online news.. and in that case, I'd rather shoot the D2hs hands down.

Click to expand...

Funny, When I shot D300's I shot hard and fast in RAW and the Quality I was getting and the capabilities of the D300 were more than sufficient.

I honestly don't understand what you're saying!! And I have shot both!!

Teila Day said:

.. for everthing else, the D300 is a better camera AND a better buy.

I love shooting the D2hs, but there comes a time when you just have to buy (and use) what makes the best sense for your intended use.

Click to expand...

There you go!!

Teila Day said:

I generally would not recommend bothering with the older camera bodies, and instead would recommend getting a D300 at the least.

Click to expand...

That is my point too!! the chances of Nikon supporting the D2 series much longer is not such a certainty anymore. It breaks and you might be SOL, and maybe a 2+Month parts hold might be what you will get,

Teila Day said:

I have to say this though.. I don' know how much the D2hs is worth today, but you'll be able to make a buck with it- can still produce more than its monetary worth on nearly every shoot, so in that respect its still viable.. but... so much easier using a newer body, newer technology, and better high iso performance

Click to expand...

I can attest to that too.

Thanks all.

So, I'll take everyone's word that the low light performance is better with the D300. I just did not know that. I assumed that only 4mp on the same size chip as the D300 would easily attain lower noise.

That's actually good news! I'm glad I posted here before buying, too.

And I do understand that many in this forum are tired of all the posts about high ISO performance, but taking flashless photos in dim, indoor (and natural) light seems to be my favorite thing.

The D700 is the obvious choice, I know.

yunfat said:

Yamil R. Sued said:

But your assessment of the D2Hs doesn't agree with many of my fellow Sports Shooters that left Nikon due to the D2H/D2Hs results, and came back when the D3 and the D300 came into play.

Click to expand...

Sports shooters have to get it right in camera, because they are on deadline. No sports shooters I know even touch their RAW files (as with most PJ's), which is why they had no inclination to "massage" the best results from the LBCAST sensor. The D2h jpg engine is not one of the best, especially for what you are describing. Hence, your poor results.

Click to expand...

Hence, the D2H is NOT Perfect!! BTW, I shot tons of RAW Files with the Four D2H's I had, and guess what?/ They weren't any better in NEF either!!

yunfat said:

In all honesty, a sports shooter is about the least informed person about RAW handling of almost any professional shooter.

Click to expand...

WRONG!!!!! Very Very WRONG!!!

Are you one?? Have you shot a major event with any of us???

How in the world can you say something without knowing what we do??

I guess this is another post worthy of me posting at Sportsshooter.com for their amusement!

yunfat said:

With a sensor that has special needs, wasting that time means wasting money. LBCAST for them (and apparently you) had to be curse.

Click to expand...

Because it did!! Who do you think it's gone now???

yunfat said:

I shoot available light portraiture, outdoors, with no flash... for me, the IR leakage is a blessing, I can get more out of skintone than I can with a stronger IR filter. It makes my models just shine, I can say without reservation that no CMOS sensor comes close, and I have compared almost all of them extensively (except the D3X).

Click to expand...

HUH??

That is not how I've been teaching portraiture for the past 20+ years.....

yunfat said:

When the D3/D300 came out a new JPG engine allowed PJ/s to get more to their editors faster, and the high ISO was a blessing, so yeah, those cameras are (mostly better) for that type of work.

Click to expand...

For ANY type of work!! I do it all!!

yunfat said:

It depends on what you shoot.

Click to expand...

yes and how you use your gear and if you can tell the difference!!

Kelton Sweet said:

Thanks all.

So, I'll take everyone's word that the low light performance is better with the D300. I just did not know that. I assumed that only 4mp on the same size chip as the D300 would easily attain lower noise.

That's actually good news! I'm glad I posted here before buying, too.

And I do understand that many in this forum are tired of all the posts about high ISO performance, but taking flashless photos in dim, indoor (and natural) light seems to be my favorite thing.

The D700 is the obvious choice, I know.

Click to expand...

and the D300 is a close second!!

I have used both the D700 and the D300.

I can safely go to 1600 with super clean files on the D300.

Yamil R. Sued said:

Yamil R. Sued50621 said:

So if you shoot a lot of raw, fast, and looooong.. then the D2hs might be a better buy over the D300- but only if you do that, OR if you need a camera to shoot exclusively for web blogs/online news.. and in that case, I'd rather shoot the D2hs hands down.

Click to expand...

Funny, When I shot D300's I shot hard and fast in RAW and the Quality I was getting and the capabilities of the D300 were more than sufficient.

I honestly don't understand what you're saying!! And I have shot both!!

Click to expand...

I've shot both a lot as well.

What I was saying is that the D2hs will shoot consistently longer and faster RAW frames than a D300 with grip. No matter how hard you try, you cannot even come close to shooting 40 raw frames at 8fps with the D300, which is a comparatively easy task for the D2hs.

My point is simply, if you're shooting action shots (raw) and your primary concern is being able to shoot raw for a lot of frames, then you have two cameras in the Nikon lineup that will offer you that performance. The D3s and the D2hs (the D3 with the buffer upgrade makes a great raw shooter as well).
--
Teila K. Day

I still have my D2h. It's the oldest in my arsenal (5 yrs). I also shoot with D200, D300 and D700. My experiance in shooting hummingbirds this is how I rate them comparatively. Below is totally subjective and granted the D2hs is suppose to have better color and higher ISO.

AF

1st D700 and D300 with slight edge to D700 ( probably due to of 1.5 X FOV and lens selection for D300)

3rd D2H
4th D200

Colors
1st D700
2nd D300 These top 2 are very close
3rd D200
4th D2h IR Bleed causes more post process

Low light
1. D700 (4000 to 5000)
2. D300 (2000 to 2500)
3. D200 (800)
4. D2h (400)

If you fill the frame with the D2h you can get good enlargements if processed carefully. But you can't crop much with 4.1 mp. I still use my D2h for taking pictures at my church if flash is used.

Example of D2h from early days.



--
http://www.pbase.com/stilllearning/inbox

Yamil R. Sued said:

yunfat said:

Yamil R. Sued said:

But your assessment of the D2Hs doesn't agree with many of my fellow Sports Shooters that left Nikon due to the D2H/D2Hs results, and came back when the D3 and the D300 came into play.

Click to expand...

Sports shooters have to get it right in camera, because they are on deadline. No sports shooters I know even touch their RAW files (as with most PJ's), which is why they had no inclination to "massage" the best results from the LBCAST sensor. The D2h jpg engine is not one of the best, especially for what you are describing. Hence, your poor results.

Click to expand...

Hence, the D2H is NOT Perfect!! BTW, I shot tons of RAW Files with the Four D2H's I had, and guess what?/ They weren't any better in NEF either!!

Yamil R. Sued50621 said:

In all honesty, a sports shooter is about the least informed person about RAW handling of almost any professional shooter.

Click to expand...

WRONG!!!!! Very Very WRONG!!!

Are you one?? Have you shot a major event with any of us???

How in the world can you say something without knowing what we do??

I guess this is another post worthy of me posting at Sportsshooter.com for their amusement!

Click to expand...

I am here for your amusement, because sometimes the truth can be very funny.

Just remember, you know nothing about me, and you should watch your condescending tone. Here is my press pass for the Miami Heat in 2004, that year, I sold a lot of Shaquille O'Neal pictures (he's an NBA player, that's the male version of the WNBA, which you seem to like to shoot). That's Adrianna Lima and Allessandra Ambrosia under each arm, BTW.



Could you post this to Sports Shooter as well, if you are going to mock me? Perhaps the Miami Getty guys while chime in and tell you who I am.

Kelton Sweet said:

Thanks all.

So, I'll take everyone's word that the low light performance is better with the D300. I just did not know that. I assumed that only 4mp on the same size chip as the D300 would easily attain lower noise.

Click to expand...

I figure there's a lot more that determine noise levels than just megapixel counts. Like if you look at how they're spacing image sensor microlenses now ...



(this image happens to illustrate a Canon sensor, but I'm sure Nikon is doing the same sort of thing)

And I bet there are other factors as well.

Personally, the relatively high noise levels of the D2h don't bother me that much. What bugs me more about the D2h more than anything is the color and IR contamination. If noise levels were the only "problem" on the D2h I'd be quite content with it.

That's the real advantage of newer Nikon cameras ... better color. Lower noise levels are just a bonus!

ALSO ... regarding noise levels ... just for fun download a 10-mp ISO 1600 Nikon D200 image from dpreview's sample page, (or a 12mp ISO 1600 D2x sample image) ... then downsample the image to the same resolution as a D2h(s) image (2464x1632 pixels) and compare them to an ISO 1600 D2h(s) image.

I think you'll be surprised. I tried it with a D2x image and I thought the D2x image, downsampled, looked superior to the D2h image.

Here are some 100% cropped test shots from a D2h, D2x and D300 (courtesy of imaging-resource.com )





The D2x has lower noise than the D2h when the D2x image is downsampled to the D2h's resolution.

The D300 has less noise than the D2x.

The D300's color is the punchiest of the three. You can see why some photographers prefer to set their D90/D300/D3/D700 to a "D2x color mode" to tone down colors a bit.

The D2x image happens to be a bit underexposed here.

yunfat said:

Yamil R. Sued said:

yunfat said:

Yamil R. Sued said:

But your assessment of the D2Hs doesn't agree with many of my fellow Sports Shooters that left Nikon due to the D2H/D2Hs results, and came back when the D3 and the D300 came into play.

Click to expand...

Sports shooters have to get it right in camera, because they are on deadline. No sports shooters I know even touch their RAW files (as with most PJ's), which is why they had no inclination to "massage" the best results from the LBCAST sensor. The D2h jpg engine is not one of the best, especially for what you are describing. Hence, your poor results.

Click to expand...

Hence, the D2H is NOT Perfect!! BTW, I shot tons of RAW Files with the Four D2H's I had, and guess what?/ They weren't any better in NEF either!!

yunfat said:

In all honesty, a sports shooter is about the least informed person about RAW handling of almost any professional shooter.

Click to expand...

WRONG!!!!! Very Very WRONG!!!

Are you one?? Have you shot a major event with any of us???

How in the world can you say something without knowing what we do??

I guess this is another post worthy of me posting at Sportsshooter.com for their amusement!

Click to expand...

I am here for your amusement, because sometimes the truth can be very funny.

Just remember, you know nothing about me, and you should watch your condescending tone. Here is my press pass for the Miami Heat in 2004, that year, I sold a lot of Shaquille O'Neal pictures (he's an NBA player, that's the male version of the WNBA, which you seem to like to shoot). That's Adrianna Lima and Allessandra Ambrosia under each arm, BTW.



Could you post this to Sports Shooter as well, if you are going to mock me? Perhaps the Miami Getty guys while chime in and tell you who I am.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't care, I don't shoot Sports for Agencies or magazines, no money!!

I shoot for Corporate Entities, where the cash is

Here's me for your amusement with a 10x10 poster I did for S&W Flashlights for the SHOT Show

Teila Day said:

Yamil R. Sued said:

Teila Day said:

So if you shoot a lot of raw, fast, and looooong.. then the D2hs might be a better buy over the D300- but only if you do that, OR if you need a camera to shoot exclusively for web blogs/online news.. and in that case, I'd rather shoot the D2hs hands down.

Click to expand...

Funny, When I shot D300's I shot hard and fast in RAW and the Quality I was getting and the capabilities of the D300 were more than sufficient.

I honestly don't understand what you're saying!! And I have shot both!!

Click to expand...

I've shot both a lot as well.

What I was saying is that the D2hs will shoot consistently longer and faster RAW frames than a D300 with grip. No matter how hard you try, you cannot even come close to shooting 40 raw frames at 8fps with the D300, which is a comparatively easy task for the D2hs.

My point is simply, if you're shooting action shots (raw) and your primary concern is being able to shoot raw for a lot of frames, then you have two cameras in the Nikon lineup that will offer you that performance. The D3s and the D2hs (the D3 with the buffer upgrade makes a great raw shooter as well).
--
Teila K. Day

Click to expand...

Yes, you are right, I had Four D2H's, but.....

I want more in a camera than to shoot lots of RAW Files!!

The OP wanted low light, High ISO performance, the D2Hs is not it!!

Yamil R. Sued said:

I honestly don't care, I don't shoot Sports for Agencies or magazines, no money!!

Click to expand...

You represented yourself as a sports and events photojournalist, here is what you said:

"Are you one?? Have you shot a major event with any of us???
How in the world can you say something without knowing what we do?? "

Now, you "shoot for corporate entities". Sounds like you wear a lot of hats. That is a complete departure from what you said. A gun show is not an event a PJ would cover, to be honest, neither is a WNBA game. Check wireimage or the AP, no gun shows, no WNBA games. Are these what you call major events?

Yamil R. Sued50621 said:

I shoot for Corporate Entities, where the cash is

Click to expand...

Good for you, the world needs more guns. Especially more flashlights for guns.

Yamil R. Sued50621 said:

Here's me for your amusement with a 10x10 poster I did for S&W Flashlights for the SHOT Show

Click to expand...

Is the SHOT show another "major event"? I've never heard of it.

yunfat said:

Yamil R. Sued said:

I honestly don't care, I don't shoot Sports for Agencies or magazines, no money!!

Click to expand...

You represented yourself as a sports and events photojournalist, here is what you said:

"Are you one?? Have you shot a major event with any of us???
How in the world can you say something without knowing what we do?? "

Now, you "shoot for corporate entities". Sounds like you wear a lot of hats.

Click to expand...

Yes!! and that is why I don't have to shoot a game and Upload on deadline for $200!!

yunfat said:

That is a complete departure from what you said. A gun show is not an event a PJ would cover, to be honest, neither is a WNBA game. Check wireimage or the AP, no gun shows, no WNBA games. Are these what you call major events?

Click to expand...

Here the USSN last year!!



Seven out of the twelve Months of the Glock calendar this year are my Images!!

This pays a WHOLE LOT MORE than any NBA, NFL or ANY SPORT out there!!

TRUST me!! A WHOLE LOT MORE!!!

I'm not into this for the Glory, I'm in this for the Cheddar!!

yunfat said:

yunfat said:

I shoot for Corporate Entities, where the cash is

Click to expand...

Good for you, the world needs more guns. Especially more flashlights for guns.

Click to expand...

Yes they do!! When S&W calls, I'm there!!

Today, I'm shooting their Catalog Cover and on the 28th I go to the USPSA Natioinals!!

yunfat said:

yunfat said:

Here's me for your amusement with a 10x10 poster I did for S&W Flashlights for the SHOT Show

Click to expand...

Is the SHOT show another "major event"? I've never heard of it.

Click to expand...

Because you are not into the Shooting Industry!! Ask anyone who is, The Las Vegas Conventin Center is not big enough to hold it!!

Yamil R. Sued said:

I'm not into this for the Glory, I'm in this for the Cheddar!!

Click to expand...

If cheddar is what you want, you should add some supermodels to your portfolio, or some famous people, or a "major" event... I have a feeling you don't have a single shot of any of those things, because you need "credentials" instead of "cheddar".



Thanks for sharing the info on the Glock calendar, I'm off to pick one up now.

yunfat said:

Yamil R. Sued said:

I'm not into this for the Glory, I'm in this for the Cheddar!!

Click to expand...

If cheddar is what you want, you should add some supermodels to your portfolio, or some famous people, or a "major" event... I have a feeling you don't have a single shot of any of those things, because you need "credentials" instead of "cheddar".

Click to expand...

Guess what?? I have!!

How's Ted Nugent?? I do mostly country Music folks. Been there, done that!!

I don't need to shoot Snooty Folks!! CEO's are easier to deal with!!

And I don't need credentials!! They call me and fly me to their offices, Feed me and give me money!! I rather have the Cheddar thane hte credentials!! Again, I'm not into this for the Glory of "look, I shot someone famous" I'm into this for the money!! I've been doing this for 25 years now, I have done the fashion, Celebrities and that stuff!! don't need it, I need the money to put my kids through college!!

yunfat said:

Thanks for sharing the info on the Glock calendar, I'm off to pick one up now.

Click to expand...

I can send you one, they are gone now!! I can send you the Catalog covers I did last year too!!

And I didn't need credentials to shoot those either!! They called me, sent me designs, product and money!! And I didn't have to leave the house. Now that IS what Commercial Photography is like!! No Uploading to wires and crap like that.

FWIW, I did a Mini Clothing shoot, no super models for a Cerberus Division, got my Commercial day rate and I was done by 1PM. Again, Corporate work is much better than Celebrities, Super Models or High maintenance folks!!

$500.

Personally, I wouldn't spend more than $500 for a D2hs today, but I realize that many people don't want to give up their D2hs for that price.

The D2h seems to have bottomed at around $500 too, and rightfully so, the camera does a lot of things right despite its quirks.

The D2h made me quit using my D200 entirely. Granted, the D200 had arguably superior IQ, but as a hobbyist, the intangible factor of "joy" in photography comes into play.

The result? The D200 was NOT FUN to shoot. The D2h is STILL A JOY to shoot. In fact, I shoot the D2h over my D2x most of the time because I"m not worried about filling drives and drives with 12MP NEFs.

If you are a pro (making money), you should get the D90, D300, D700, or D3(x)(s). When your lively hood depends on it, you need the BEST, and who cares if the camera isn't a "joy" to shoot with.

When it came down to the D2x or D300, I purposely chose the D2x, even though it has inferior high ISO. Why? Because I knew the D2x would be a "joy" to shoot with (it is), and I knew I would despise the D300. Why? That crappy rectangular viewfinder carryover from the D200.

Ironically, I can see myself owning a D3, or even a D3x. I can see the D2x being sold to fund the new 3 series camera. But I can't see myself selling the D2h. The speed, feel, and SMALL 4MP NEF files (shoot the D2h as a point and shoot in NEF mode without a seconds thought!) make this camera a viable choice for the future for hobbyists and even certain professional applications.

How does this relate to the D2hs? Well the D2hs is better than the D2h in almost every way, so I say get one. But I wouldn't spend much more than $500 for it.

you'd be silly not to consider the D300.

Even though I love my D2h and D2x combination because it "feels" right and it is "fun" to shoot (being an amateur means I can place these intangibles high on my priority list), I've had to realize that I'm limited to basically ISO 1600 with careful post processing and excellent original exposure . I'm not sure the D2hs will get you much more than 1600 ISO "careful post processing with good exposure" (as opposed to excellent).

The D300 should easily give you much more flexibility in the high-ISO department.

I've had to limit my high-ISO ability at the expense of shooting pleasure, at least until I can get the D3.

Yamil R. Sued said:

How's Ted Nugent?? I do mostly country Music folks. Been there, done that!!

Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.

That is not how I've been teaching portraiture for the past 20+ years.....

20 years and no famous people other than Ted Nugent and some C&W stars? Really? You just made my day.

Yamil R. Sued50621 said:

And I don't need credentials!!

Click to expand...

Not for Ted Nugent, no.

Yamil R. Sued50621 said:

Corporate work is much better than Celebrities, Super Models...

Click to expand...

How do you know if you haven't shot either a celebrity or a Super Model? Just show me one photo you took of someone as internationally recognized as Giselle and I will humbly concede your point.

I apologize to the OP and the forums for this diversion, I just don't like it when someone calls my post nonsense.