D2H still a viable option?

[Jonathan_P]

I've been photographing events over the past several months with a couple of D80s. They're great cameras, but I've gotten to the point where they're holding me back. The autofocus system in particular just doesn't deliver when I need candid shots in bad light. I have had to throw out a lot of images that could have been great because the autofocus just couldn't get a good lock.

I've found some very good deals on a D2H and D2Hs. Unfortunately, I can't really afford the D2Hs right now. The D2H is in my price range.

I'm wondering if anyone here thinks the D2H would still be a good option for event work (weddings, parties, etc.)? The megapixel count doesn't concern me too much. If anything, I often wish my D80's files were smaller.

I've heard bad things about the how the D2H renders skin tones. I've also heard that the infrared filter is too weak, and the lack of an RGB histogram seems like it could be limiting.

But ~$1000 for a mint camera with CAM2000 is awfully tempting. Can this camera still deliver, or is my money best saved (or spent elsewhere)?

 

[Kim Letkeman]

I'm sure you'll receive plenty of advice to save it for the D300. But I'm pretty pleased with the D2Hs I bought earlier this summer. I shot my first wedding in 20 years with it (and a D70s) and really enjoyed it. I shoot exclusively RAW with it because the files are so small.

As for skin tones ... I'm color blind, so I have to set WB in ACR4 and sometimes even adjust that with Skintune.

Here are a few D2Hs shots from that wedding, note that the lighting was pretty difficult during the ceremony and reception:



















--
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Teila Day]

Howdy!

I would strongly advise against anyone purchasing a D2H, D2hs, D2x or D2xs, not only at this present time, but even 6 months ago (unless you really needed another body to do paid work with).

The price point of the D300 is just too good to saddle yourself up with a body costing over $1,0000 when you could have a better camera paid for, plus money left over if you did just one or two weddings or events.

I absolutely LOVE the D2hs. I shoot the heII out of mine and definitely won't be selling it any time in the near future. It's that good... but would I pay over $1,000 for it today? With the D300 coming out this winter? Not no, but HECK no! I just wouldn't make good purchase sense.

If I honestly needed another body, I'd rent one or two any time I had a job to do, and simply get the D300 when it debuts in a couple of months. If you hold your cards and learn to wait for the best deal (in this case the best deal will be generally to purchase a new body due to the price points).. you'll most likely reap the best benefit.

Exception:: If you're shooting fast action, don't need the increased resolution now or in the near future.. and shoot primarily in RAW.. then the D2hs just can't be beat (probably not even by the D300). It shoots, buffers and writes RAW files so darn fast, that you have to hold the shutter down for long periods over and over again just to give the buffer a work out. Currently no other camera in the Nikon line can come close to its RAW shooting performance.

So... if you come across a D2hs selling for $600.. then thats a different story! D2h?

For all practical purposes, start saving up for the D3 or D300. Why wrestle with White balance, bad skin tones, meter failure, any and all other ills associated with the D2H (which by the way is an excellent camera in good light... just excellent!

Purchase smart.. keep your wallet in your pocket until later this winter

Teila K. Day

 

[Jonathan_P]

Thanks for your input Kim.

Waiting for the D300 isn't really an option. I need better autofocus right now, but I don't need (and don't want) bigger files.

 

[mfletch]

I've been photographing events over the past several months with a
couple of D80s. They're great cameras, but I've gotten to the point
where they're holding me back. The autofocus system in particular
just doesn't deliver when I need candid shots in bad light. I have
had to throw out a lot of images that could have been great because
the autofocus just couldn't get a good lock.

I've found some very good deals on a D2H and D2Hs. Unfortunately, I
can't really afford the D2Hs right now. The D2H is in my price range.

I'm wondering if anyone here thinks the D2H would still be a good
option for event work (weddings, parties, etc.)? The megapixel count
doesn't concern me too much. If anything, I often wish my D80's files
were smaller.

I've heard bad things about the how the D2H renders skin tones. I've
also heard that the infrared filter is too weak, and the lack of an
RGB histogram seems like it could be limiting.

But ~$1000 for a mint camera with CAM2000 is awfully tempting. Can
this camera still deliver, or is my money best saved (or spent
elsewhere)?

It can still deliver as good as it ever did. Since picking up a D2H a couple months ago, my D200 is sitting on a shelf. I can't make myself sell the D200, because sometimes the extra resolution, slightly better high ISO, built in flash with commander, etc come in handy. But over all the D2H is a pleasure to shoot and the handling of a true Nikon pro body is something you can get spoiled to quickly. Honestly the AF of the D200 seems to deliver very well for candids, portraits and such. The CAM2000 really shines at it's tracking ability in AF-C. You simply have to try it to understand the difference. As far as the 4.1mp issue... I have come to appreciate the NEF's being 1/3 the size of the D200 NEF, with negligible difference in detail. I paid $1100 for a NM body, with 40,000 actuations, fresh from Nikon El Segundo with new meter and a clean bill of health. It isn't worth any less to me since the announcement of the D300.

 

[yph05]

The D2H is a very powerful tool if it is on the right hands and used correctly.

Exposure needs to be taken with care and WB can be fixed with post processing... Its true that it WB can be fooled with florescent lights, but under good daylight or controlled situation, it is a very good camera.

I've used it in many weddings and portrait shoots, not much of a hassle I had with it. It is just as responsive as I wanted it to be. AF with CAM-2000 is heavenly good, with f2.8 or f1.4 lenses...

But, if you are working with high ISO, you need to pay extra caution on your exposures, the D2H does not like high ISO. The D2Hs does a better job in this area.

All in all, if you could reach out for a D2Hs right now, you will enjoy it for a long time until you get your hands on a D3...
--
--------------------------
Yi-P
http://www.gallery.yiphphotography.com

 

[Raul]

Kind regards

Raul

 

[FredJamesPhotography]

No offense Tiela and this is not a put down to you but there are sooooooo many fools out there since the intro of the first 2020 auto film camera.
Just look at the history.

Nikon and everyone else comes out with a new auto everything camera and then they make what they said was so great...........even greater.

I been there and had done so many test for example I had a F4 when it first came out and I wanted to go to Lieca. I took a 350.00 Fm2 with a 100.00 auto focus lens (on a manual body) and took test shots against a 2500.00 M6 with a summicron lens at the price of 1600.00 for a straight 50mm.

Guess what??? no big difference, I brought my 2 Lieca bodies and lens back and stuck with my Nikon equipment. If I wanted to impress people or get better quality I would shoot with my medium format equipment.

Well I shot weddings and whoever wanted better spent more and whoever couldnt see the difference went with 35mm (or they couldnt afford the better)

Then digital came out and it was not as good as film and no close to medium but it was cool and when I started getting better ressults from my "PRO" lab with digital compared to medium. I was shocked and Pi$$ed but hey what ya gonna do ? I just said I will jump in on the digital band wagon and see what happens.

I researched and watched and saw the first few D cameras go by and when they had the fire sale on the D2H I bought 3. They have served me well and made me some good money. Life was easy except for the huge learnning curve, I am still learnning and will for some time.

When it comes to weddings and events we are already using equipment that "Far" exceeds most of us Pro shooters abilities.

My pictures are not as good as they could be.............Buy a new camera, its bigger, better and faster and has a full frame, Big deal on full frame. So many of us had full frame film camera's and never said WOW I have a full frame camera, isnt that cool. We still make 8x10,s and we still shoot weddings and we still look at here since the older cameras like a D70 made pictures that we said OMG thats a beauty. and the d100 and the D1 etc etc made some great shots and a few pro's got 20,000.00 to shoot a wedding with a D1 or D2H , should they call thouse brides back and give them a partial refund cause they have better equipment now. Those pictures looked great then and they will look great with anything they shoot with.

I can buy 3 D3 camera's right now and I can bet you I can get them before anyone else besides the Ken Rockwell's who switched to Canon and cause of full frame and now loves the new Nikon again . Does that mean his Canon is no good now.

Most of us are modest people earnning a living and the camera companies hold back to get more of our money with the new model.

I can go on and on with this subject but I said it before with old post that they still don't have TTL flash even close to perfect yet and they been saying it is for the last 20 years.

The poster mentioned he is shooting events and weddings and since I'm sure like most of us this is a job and a hobby so a D2H (Nikon's Flagship) is a great choice

I still use my Olympus E20 for vacation and party shots and when I get something new I will use my D2H for my fun camera but right now it makes me money and is a joy to use.

here's some with my Old Olympus E20 followed by some D2H Just remember it's not the equipment as much as knowing how to use it and I learn and improve each time I use it.

Tiela this is more a rant on the camera companies and not directed towards you .

I say buy the D2H , enjoy the heck out of it and use it as a backup which we all need if you buy a D3 for way less when the new D4 comes out and people go crazy for it cause it has a TTL flash that reall works right, LOL

Keep in mind I shoot people at events mostly and for product and magazine 200meg camera's or D15Hspd%^^ s will probably work better, Heck remember alot of people used 8x10 film equipment for some of that stuff

excuse my many typo's, Fred

E20



E20



E20



E20



D2h



D2h



D2h



D2h



D2h



D2h



D2h



D2h



D2H



D2h



D2h

 

[Teila Day]

No offense taken, not in the least- You know I'm always up for a decent conversation even if points of view vary. Thats just what mature folks do
I do think we basically see eye to eye on the issue.

Don't get me wrong.. I don't mean to get on the bandwagon over the D300 just because its new. You might recall past posts of mine over the last year or so where I've steadily recommended that people hold their cards and purchase the newer bodies due to their shooting profile/needs. I absolutely agree with you that a camera doesn't get obsolete just because new ones come out... I preach that quite regular here. However, my purchase strategy virtually always includes (1) having room to grow. (2) being able to tackle my current and future needs.

As I said, the D2H is a heII of a camera! However, I would not feel comfortable shooting it at 1200 iso (or more) in a horribly lit sanctuary with dark wood backgrounds... Like I had to do (using the D2hs) several weeks ago.. not by choice.

When I make a recommendation, I think of a multitude of situations that reasonably could very well affect the OP. The D2H is a great camera, and so is the D2hs... the D3/D300 is just better than both- and if the OP has the financial means to get either, then I'd strongly recommend such. Sooner or later, the OP will shoot at or near 1600 iso at a paid event/wedding and not because he wants to. I woud rather the OP encounter flash restrictions, malfunctions or any other reasons to have to shoot at a high iso and no flash, with the newer bodies , over our tried and true friends.. the D2H and or Hs.

Shooting RAW quickly is one of the first things I look for in a camera body, since I've learned how valuable it can be to my style of shooting. The D2H and Hs are fast in this regard! However every other body in the Nikon line is considerably slower... so, if the OP was shooting NASCAR or horse racing, I'd say without a doubt the D2H/hs will be excellent.. however, if the OP is shooting indoor boxing or volleyball, with really dim light and is seated the 2nd-5th seating row, the D3 with a 70-200vr, 200vr f/2, or 300vr would make great combinations; The d300 a close 2nd..

Cameras, lenses... pure tools. I know exactly what you mean about Leica! I think Canon, Nikon, etc.. make much better digital bodies, and that Leica is mostly riding on their slim design and name-sake vs. stellar digital products. I could say the same about some Zeiss lenses as I'm still waiting for people to show me the big difference between zeiss and the best Nikon can put forth (chuckle).

I shoot a lot at night, no flash. 1600 iso with the D2hs is very respectable, but still too noisy (at 1600iso outdoors and no flash) for what I'm often trying to capture. The D3 no doubt would have a much better handle on the noise; doesn't make me love my D2hs any less of course.

One simply has to measure the pros/cons surrounding a particular lens/camera body and make his or her mind up as to whether making the purchase is truly 'worth it' or not. * I use a spreadsheet and estimate how much a lens/camera is likely to generate in dollars... and make a decision based on mostly hard data.... I've never had a purchase regret.. ever.

The OP might want to go shooting in the city or town at night (no flash) at 1,000 iso or higher... and pay attention to:

1. how fast the camera focuses and maintains focus

2. how vr can help/hinder

3. the resultant noise from iso 1250-1600 (or higher)

4. how much of a 'real-life' difference a fast, constant aperture lens will make while shooting at night/no flash.

5. what kind of shutterspeeds can be obtained? Do you find yourself shooting at the upper end of the iso scale.... or can you get decent shutterspeeds at 600-800 iso? ... fast enough shutter to freeze people walking at 200mm?????

The whole shutterspeed/high iso relationship is often the real nitty gritty as to what camera will make muster. Perhaps the OP should do some simple tests to get familiar with his/her own style of shooting (learning what his actual needs are) before settling on any particular camera body.

Have a good night folks

Respectfully (tipping hat)

Teila K. Day

 

[Carl Maiorino]

...I have the D200 and the D2Hs and it is difficult to choose the D200 over it (there is little, if anything, in the specs of the D300 that would cause me to choose the D300 over the D2Hs). For events, parties, etc, anytime you have to shoot AND process large volumes of images (300 or more), the smaller files are a blessing. The D200 RAW files choked my workflow this summer with all the team sports I shoot...the D2Hs saved the day (as always) with smaller image files that sacrificed nothing in terms of quality. It's a shame that the camera manufacturers don't think anything less than 10MP is professionally viable...apparently alot of working pros don't agree with them as I know many D2H/D2Hs pros who will not give them up, even after seeing the specs on the D3. I still see alot of pro shooters with the original Canon 1D (4MP) as well. Virtually every working pro I know who uses the original D2H as well as the D2Hs (more than you realize) are happy with it still.

The D300 will be a great camera for more serious commercial work requiring larger files for publication, but for event photography, the D2H/D2Hs will remain the better choice. Good luck with whatever you decide.
--
http://www.carlmphotography.com

'I'd knock on wood for good luck, but it just gives me a headache!!!'

 

[JK5700]

I have a D200 and shoot mostly birds and wildlife. Long lenses are therefore my territory. I have been toying with getting either a D2Hs or a D2X to get faster focussing with my 80-400VR and 200-400VR lenses. The D2X's two times cropping mode is also attarctive.

The way I see it, the D3 is of no use to me. The D300 is a better D200. It seems to me that my best option is a used D2Xs so that I can get CAM2000, stronger motor for the 80-400VR and the two times multiplier effect.

What are your thoughts?

 

[sting]

The price point of the D300 is just too good to saddle yourself up
with a body costing over $1,0000 when you could have a better camera
paid for, plus money left over if you did just one or two weddings or
events.

On paper, I agree. In fact, the D300 seems to have the major "pro" body features that it's almost too close to a D3 : top of the line autofocus, high frame rate. Although I'll spring for the D3, I feel like I'm paying a few extra grand just for the sensor.

I know you're really down on the D2H, but I have a ton of great pictures with that camera. I saved my money for a MAJOR upgrade, which is the D3 and not the D2Hs. I remember a Nikon statement regarding fixing all of the D2H meter failures for free , warranty or not, on the D2H. Delusion ?

Purchase smart.. keep your wallet in your pocket until later this
winter

I disagree. He's talking about a major upgrade by moving to a D2 class camera for much less money than a D300. An equivalent delayed/used savings argument can be made by purchasing a used D2H today and buying a used D3 or D300 in a couple of years.

 

[FredJamesPhotography]

The high ISO is the only reason I would say would make a person wanna get the newer camera aside from if thyen needed the higher megs for thier kind of work.

Your work would be about the same eitherway. Your women would look just as sexy as they do now and if anything you would have to tone down the extra sharpness. For people the equipment available is doing great as your work with the D2Hs shows. The one flaw theat I see but understand is that is you do a large group you will suffer most but then again I shot large groups with my medium format and still felt it suffered. I use to use just my RZ67 for those shots.

In todays craze with weddings, Photojournalism style is more sought after and that requires a skill and a tool to do it right. just like carpenters that have the latest new Dewalt this and Millawkee that , I love seeing some old (or young) europeon guy build something with very little as far as newer tools and his work is so great if not better.

If you gave Ansel Adams a Old topcon 35mm film camera (remeber those anyone ?) and gave him one lens, He would of went to the mountains and thought about it and came back with some shots we would all go crazy over.

I look at realestate and think how the houses got crazy. One I can remember was 30 grand 15 years ago then went to 65 grand 10 years ago and sold 110 grand 5 years ago and they tried selling it for 450 grand for the last year and someone offered them 270 grand this year and they took it. Eitherway each owner made out but if it sold for 450 grand that last owner would of been in trouble. All along that house never ever changed, It was just a house on a nice Lake with great views.

The same with our camera's. They still are pictures and the pictures we take are of the same trees the same mountains and of the same type people. We should be able to take an old film camera and do the same . I agree higher ISO would be a blessing and a few more megs at times would not hurt but for 5 grand knowing they are holding something back and could of put it in now but want you to upgrade in 2 years is a bunch of C_ _ P.

I still wish they would just get TTL flash to work right (at least most of the times)

Tiela, Love your work and nice to hear from ya, Fred

 

[davegt]

Of course it is!

 

[Wapiti]

I use my D2hs exclusively for wildlife. Here is an example of an image with considerable contrast in the feathers of the bird.



--
Bill
Occasionally, a blind hog finds an acorn

 

[Wapiti]

I failed to mention that my images are used only for my personal enjoyment, however, the D2hs certainly meets my standards.
--
Bill
Occasionally, a blind hog finds an acorn

 

[Kim Letkeman]

Thanks for your input Kim.

Waiting for the D300 isn't really an option. I need better autofocus
right now, but I don't need (and don't want) bigger files.

Totally agree ... the D2H sells regularly on eBay for a grand. When shooting RAW (that's all I do), there is no difference in image quality to the D2Hs, so this makes it a great buy.

And what Teila and others seem to be ignoring is the total lack of high ISO samples on the net ... there has to be a reason. The hyperbole surrounding the D300 is nothing but hysterical optimism IMO until the samples and reviews come out. Now ... if you had the bucks for a D3, that would be a different thing.

Don't forget that several pros have confirmed that the D300 feels pretty much like a D200 (slightly better actually) while the D3 feels like a D2. I read that to say that there is still a difference in the feel of the D300 versus a D2. You should pick the D200 up and then A D2 to see how your hands feel with them.

And don't forget that the D300 has the same central AF sensor cluster as the D200, while the D2 series has them nice and spread out. Your personal style determines how you feel about that for composition purposes.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Kim Letkeman]

... but the D300 does not have the advantage of large pixels in crop mode. And the new jpeg processing chip does nothing for RAW shooters ...

I'd bet the D3 at 5mp will give nice RAW file sizes and incredible high ISO.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Kim Letkeman]

It's not a bad cam for that if you have the lenses to get close.





--
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Lord of the Badgers]

Well I'll weigh in.

Been thinking about this same subject in a way. I need another body, partly to kickstart taking photos for money at long last.

Before the d3 was announced, I was considering either the d2hs or x.

I've gone from d3 to d300 to d200 (2nd) to s5 to d2x/s & back again in my thinking.

D300 - Yeah it's "interesting", but I too think it's more about it's focussing & that grip than anything else. I don't think the hi ISO will be as stellar as it's big bro by any means

Today I went into a shop, looked at getting a d80 to tide me over, purely as a backup. QUICKLY i realised my folly - it's too different to the d200 - and in a tight spot (wedding) that's not ideal.

Noticed that they had a d2hs. So i picked that up. £1800 they had it on for (brand new) which i'm sure isn't cheap, but immediately, you KNOW you can't beat that d2 series body. You feel instantly at home with it. Sensors aside - that body rocks.

Tried to be sensible (the d300 is £1300 before any discounts.. hmm... ) but it's just not what I need to be honest.

D3... £3399, but I'd also need a std zoom.. the 17-55 would be a compromise, plus it's got a dodgy element (which I NEED to fix). So I'd have to factor in the 28 -70 or 24-70. Sounds like near £5000

For me that's just silly money, unless I am prepared to push meself a lot harder to get more paid work next year.

So then there's the d2x/s - I have a book about wedding photography which is dead informative, by people who do it for a liviing. THey use D2x or h's - I didn't notice any text where they informed the reader that these cameras were not as good as xxxx - the most one got was that the nikon bodies rarely if at all broke down.

2300 or so for a new d2xs, or 1800, say for a d2hs. Or wait for the d3 effect to take hold (discounts, people selling off d2 bodies).

Honestly, I sympathise.. it's a tough decision - but I'd say be true to what you WANT & NEED, not let yourself be swayed by the latest & greatest & also forum opinion.

However - I still don't know what's best for me!!

--
I am Badger, hear me snuffle!
----------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/lord_of_the_badgers/