MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
I know very well this camera has been out for 20 years, and that it's not particularly loved. But considering you can pick it up nowadays for very little money, I was wondering if that would be a camera worth buying for someone coming in into the hobby.
But before going on a very usual camera review, I’m going to separate two kind of users for that one. The regular user, that just wants the best value for their money, and the user that doesn’t care about bang for buck, viability and is just here for the curiosity of what that camera is. In a nutshell, the first intends to use the camera as any other camera, the second is a part of the digicam movement.
So let’s give this camera a go taking the point of view of both users, to see if that camera is even remotely good to buy or not.
1) Specifications
So, the Nikon D2H is a flagship camera that was released in 2003. It’s equipped with an APS-C sensor of 4 megapixels working with an ISO range that goes from 200 to 1600, and can be extended to 6400.
It shoots 8 frames per second and has an 11 points auto focus system with various modes (wide, single point, zone and extended zone. No 3D tracking in this camera, not enough points to do it).
It’s using the Nikon F mount with every feature that you’re expected to see in a high end body using that lens mount: 100% coverage viewfinder, internal focus motor for screw drive lenses, Aperture Index ring around the lens mount to still be compatible with older mechanical lenses.
Being a flagship camera, it has an integrated battery grip with a very large battery inside giving it a long battery life. Build quality is excellent and it’s fully weather resistant.
Being from 2003, this camera does not offer any live view capabilities. It’s also equipped with a very low resolution and not-that-sharp back screen that is only good to check composition or focus as it is very color inaccurate.
I think that’s about all there is to it?
2) Regular user
The copy that I personally bought is a pretty well used camera, and it shows. It’s been used in various environments and has therefore lost its grip tapes that were replaced with cloth gaffer tape. Makes the camera look cool and all, but it also devalued the price of that camera as it is not in its original state.
I got that camera for about 100€, but if you really look at it, the battery that I got with it was pretty much dead, so I ended up getting a replacement for about 30 bucks, that’s 130€ for a working camera.
You could say that 130 is not a very high price for a camera that is in the end, a pretty fast shooting flagship camera, and I would agree with you. The problem is that when it’s cheap, it’s generally because there is a reason. Reason generally is that you need to make a big compromise to justify the price. And here, that compromise is image quality.
Don’t get me wrong, I like the output of that camera. We’re gonna talk about it in a minute talking the digicam enthusiast perspective. However, for someone wanting the best out of their camera, there is obvious problems that the D2H has and needs to be addressed.
The first one is obviously the lack of resolution. 4MP is not that low of a resolution, it’s still a lot higher to what you’d see in the previous generation like the Nikon D1 or D1H. But still, it’s really pushing it. Thankfully, most people are not using more than a 1080p screen nowadays, which is still about half the resolution that the D2H can display. For online use, and in particular for Instagram, there is no real resolution downside of using the D2H as 4MP is still enough for most uses.
Same goes for photojournalism or casual sports, as those images would not be printed big, or in a more resolved thing than an online article or a news paper.
Where the resolution starts to be a problem however, is when you start to look at things like nature photography, street and landscape photography. Granted, the camera was not designed at all for those kind of utilization, however it is worth noting that the lack of resolution will prevent you from getting super detailed images, which is generally what people want in those kind of photography genres.
The lack of cropping room is also a problem for this, and it’s especially present in things like wildlife photography, thing that the D2H was made for, which is not a good look.
So resolution is a bit of a problem, however for most uses, the resolution is absolutely okay, especially for the price you’re paying for it.
No, the most compromises have been made in every other aspects of image quality besides color.
The first one, is obviously noise. This is not a CCD sensor, nor is it a CMOS. It’s a JFET sensor, and the only one ever made at that. It was able to match the competitor of the time which was using a larger CCD sensor of the same resolution, and in that it was a win, but for 2023 standards, it’s not good enough.
To put some numbers on that, I would say that the last “clean” ISO is around ISO 400, which is only one stop above base ISO (which starts at 200). ISO 800 is usable, but definitely noisy, and ISO 1600 is a value that I would only use in emergency. Forget about the extended ISO of 3200 (Hi.1) and 6400 (Hi.2) as those are absolutely unusable. The only instance I would use them is for things like black and white images that would be printed super small in a monochromatic newspaper. Any other use for those is just a waste of disk space as there is more noise than image in those pictures (also very obvious color banding created by the silicon binning of the sensor itself).
ISO 400 underexposed 2 stops then pushed 2 stops in Lightroom. Noise is here but it's still pretty workable
ISO 1600 underexposed 2 stops then pushed 2 stops in Lightroom. Though usable, this is not really a setting I'd want to use, and I would prefer to avoid this setting. Still, for black and white it can be enough.
ISO 6400 (Hi. 2) underexposed 2 stops then pushed 2 stops in Lightroom. As I said, this is close to being waste of disk space at this point. You basically have to nail exposure and have no adjustments possible. Maybe for black and white super low resolution (like for a newspaper or something like that) otherwise I'd really avoid any extended ISO value.
On top of that, the dynamic range of the sensor is pretty bad, with shadows showing a strong amount of noise the moment you try to lift them, and highlights being clipped very easily. If you were to shoot this camera, I would completely forget about JPEG, I would take every small bit of DR I can get, so RAW only as each image needs a bit of processing to look good.
As far as I know, the image quality is the only compromise you would really have to do as all the rest is either okay, or very good. For a 2003 camera, the menu system is a breeze to go though and not that different from later Nikon cameras. The visuals are a bit different (mostly when it comes to the colors) but the menu itself is laid out the same way, so pretty good for a 20 year old camera. Also, the camera controls themselves are very modern and in the right place for about anything. I would have complained about the placement of the ISO, quality and white balance buttons, but it turns out that unlike other digital cameras I use, I change the ISO a lot less often, I barely touch the white balance (as the automatic does a very good job already (except in artificial lighting but that's an issue with every camera of that era) with the external WB sensor on top of the camera), and as I said before I never touch the quality setting as I only shoot RAW with this.
The control layout is almost identical to the successor Nikon D3, and most of it was kept as-is until the D6. Pretty good ergonomic design from the get go in my opinion.
The auto focus could be described as a wonderful tool if you know how to use it. For general types of photography, it works very well. It’s snappy, fast and accurate and I never once had to complain about it. It’s biggest weakness compared to systems like the D700’s 51 point AF system (or any other modern AF system for that matter) is that there is no tracking features. I personally just use either zone focusing, or single point and try to keep my subject within the focus points I have selected.
It’s a pretty tricky situation though, as the speed of the auto focus is so fast that sometimes, the focus jumps to the background if you don’t track your subject perfectly for sports or wildlife. So as I said, no tracking means that you have to do the tracking yourself. It works, but you have to be up to par to the system. It’s as reliant on the auto focus system as it is in your own ability to keep the subject where you want it to be in the viewfinder.
It’s probably the most powerful yet least fool proof auto focus system I’ve seen so far in those old Nikon bodies.
Shooting speed is kind of the same story. By default, the camera shoots 5 frames per second in CL mode, and 8 in CH mode. CL can be adjusted from 3 to 7 in the menus, but I recommend keeping it at 5, as 3 is generally too slow, and if you wanna shoot 7fps, just go in CH and shoot 8 at that point.
Even with 8 frames per second shooting the camera is totally able to keep your subject in focus, but there is a little caveat: the D2H (and D2X) shutter unit had some problems, and could destroy itself if you shoot 8fps for too long. Of course, as most shutter problems are, it was not a very wide spread issue, but it can still occur if you crank it up to 11 for too long, especially as those bodies are more than 20 years old at this point. Overall though, the camera is still very usable, and if you made me using it blind and told me later that it was a 20 year old auto focus system I would not have believed you.
So, in the end, is the D2H a good investment for someone that wants to produce images with it? Well, for a lot of people, I would say no, as for this kind of money, you could get a camera with way better image quality, even if that meant making sacrifices in ergonomics and build quality (and also shooting speed and auto focus capabilities).
However, for fast action, it’s not that bad of a camera if you can deal with the image quality compromises. The only instance where this camera would make sense is like if you don’t have a lot of money for a second emergency camera body of let’s say a D700 or D3 camera setup.
It can also be a main camera body for anyone starting out with no budget. For about 80 bucks, you could get a pretty decent 55-200 f/4-5.6 DX lens that gives you at the long end a 300mm equivalent, with image stabilization and pretty accurate auto focus. So for about 200 bucks, you can have a camera that shoots 8 frames per second, with a very decent range for sports, and a rugged body and ergonomics. The lack of refinement of the auto focus system is also a very good starting point for someone learning.
So, who is the D2H for? In a nutshell, people wanting to shoot sports or photojournalism, with no budget and that are not afraid to learn and carry around a 1.2kg camera body.
Alright, so that was good and all, but what are the other options? Are they better? How reliable are D2H cameras on the second hand market?
This is where the biggest problem lie to be honest. I’ve gone searching for D2H cameras even though I already have one, because the heavily depreciated price of a well used camera can’t represent how all the other D2H on the market are priced.
Took a look at MPB Europe first, and was pretty disappointed: They sold no D2H at all. The only one that was closely related to it was the D2X, but this one is a totally different camera, with different capabilities. But you know what? Close enough. Price was around 250 bucks however, and at this price I’m pretty damn sure that there is better options, even full frame ones.
I went then on Ebay, and granted there was some D2H there, but they were all overpriced above 200€, which is way too much. Then I took a look at the french equivalent of Craig’s list (since I live in France) and I was able to find one in really good condition for about 130€! But it was the only one, and the next cheapest one I could find was priced at 180, then most of them were around 200€.
At those prices, I can’t recommend the D2H, even if it has features that seems to be pretty nice on the surface. For around the same price, if you’re starting out, you could get something like a Nikon D90, or with a few bucks more you could get yourself a Nikon D7000, which not only has a way better sensor than the D90 (and obviously the D2H), but also has a substantially better auto focus system with 3D tracking, that both the D90 and D2H lacks (they have the same AF system). On top of that, it has double card slots. The only problem that you’ll run into with the D7000 is the fact that is has a slower burst speed than the D2H, and it has a smaller buffer as well of only 10 shots in RAW. However, you can match the D2H buffer or even go over it by shooting JPEG (and I would shoot JPEG in the D7000, thing I wouldn’t do with the D2H at all, for dynamic range reasons).
There is also the case of the Nikon D300, which can be had around the 100€ mark (I picked up one for 60€, I still can't process how cheap that camera can be), and has an even better auto focus system, similar to the D3 and D700. On top of that, you can add a grip to it later on and get the same 8fps shooting, all while having 12MP of resolution and way better dynamic range and lower noise levels.
And I’ve not even started to talk about Canon equivalents like the original EOS 7D that has similar burst rates, and a MUCH better sensor at a similar price.
All in all, the D2H seems to be a very tough sell for anyone that just want to use it as a “real” working camera.
But now as I said, we need to get over to the other side of the coin while talking about older cameras: the camera nerd, aka the digicam shooter.
3) Digicam shooter and approach
Old early 2000s digicam shooters know one thing: color and image rendition reigns supreme, and noise, dynamic range is not important at all (at least not that much). All that matters is that the images have some sort of flavour to it, something special that makes you want to shoot this camera over some other similarly old cameras in your collection.
They also know how tricky it can be to get those older cameras working: Older batteries that are not made anymore and don’t hold charge very well (Nikon D1 series, anyone?), weird media formats that have been discontinued and require extensive searches on ebay to try to find either an old adapter or a USB cable that is compatible to unload your pictures.
Some people enjoy the process, but it’s also a pain for most people that blow up significant amounts of money on cameras that they can’t unload the images from.
And lastly, for digicam shooters, there is one thing that will always get their attention: weird, experimental stuff, cameras that were made without really a strong plan on how to make it a profitable and critical success.
And all I can say is that the D2H is basically the perfect camera for all the things I just talked about:
- the colors out of this camera are nothing short of amazing, with that strong nostalgic vibe and a very special way to render noise and colors. I’ve shot this camera for a straight month just because I loved how the images looked and I didn’t care about the lack of technical specs.
ISO 200 @f/5.6 on a Tokina AT-X Pro 80-200 f/2.8 lens
ISO 200 @f/5.6 on a Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX lens
ISO 400 @f/1.8 on a Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX lens
- It’s super easy to use, no weird ergonomics, very simple design and interface. The media is stored on a very standard for the time CF card (that you can still buy today), and in my camera I’m even using a CF to SD adapter that allows me to use my very old SD cards without a problem. And even if you don’t have a CF card reader, you can unload all the files with a mini-USB cable connected to a computer, or even a phone (did that several times, works wonderfully). As far as the battery is concerned the D2H was the very first flagship camera to use Lithium-Ion batteries, and Nikon kept the battery format in their later models like the D3, D3S, D3X and the grips compatible with the D700, D300 and D300S. So it’s super easy to get replacement, 3rd party batteries and even chargers for it. I was able to get a memory card, connect it to my phone and get a brand new battery for a 20 year old camera and use it like it was new, that’s nothing short of amazing in that space.
- And lastly, the D2H is indeed a very experimental camera that used the only JFET sensor ever put into a production camera. It was originally made to put up a fight with the larger APS-H sensor in the Canon EOS 1D released 2 years before, and it was indeed able to match its image quality at most ISOs. It was a technology made by Nikon and as such no other camera used JFET sensors, and Nikon themselves dropped the technology when they switched to CMOS shortly after, putting a CMOS 12MP sensor in the D2X. The D2X, Canon EOS 1DS and 1D mk II cameras effectively killed the D2H as it was pointless, and as such, there is very little D2H available on the used market making this camera kind of a unicorn. Not only because of the weird sensor it has, but also because not a lot of them got into the hands of users, that generally preferred to go Canon or get a D2X as soon as it was released in 2005.
So looking at this from the point of view of a camera nerd that likes to shoot digicams and can 100% go over the compromises you have to do while shooting it, all the while getting gorgeous images with amazing skin tones and colors…
I would say that for those people the D2H is super worth it, even if you have to drop 150 bucks on it. Maybe even a little more for people that can appreciate how special that sensor and that camera are.
Okay, that’s about all I had to say about the Nikon D2H! Hope that wasn't too polarizing for fans (or haters!) of that old boy.
I give it a rating of 2.5/5 for the simple reason that if you're part of the users that actively search for unicorn cameras like this, it's basically the perfect fit. But if you're here for the performance, and trying to get a good value as maybe a starter camera, this is one of the worst picks you can get.
But before going on a very usual camera review, I’m going to separate two kind of users for that one. The regular user, that just wants the best value for their money, and the user that doesn’t care about bang for buck, viability and is just here for the curiosity of what that camera is. In a nutshell, the first intends to use the camera as any other camera, the second is a part of the digicam movement.
So let’s give this camera a go taking the point of view of both users, to see if that camera is even remotely good to buy or not.
1) Specifications
So, the Nikon D2H is a flagship camera that was released in 2003. It’s equipped with an APS-C sensor of 4 megapixels working with an ISO range that goes from 200 to 1600, and can be extended to 6400.
It shoots 8 frames per second and has an 11 points auto focus system with various modes (wide, single point, zone and extended zone. No 3D tracking in this camera, not enough points to do it).
It’s using the Nikon F mount with every feature that you’re expected to see in a high end body using that lens mount: 100% coverage viewfinder, internal focus motor for screw drive lenses, Aperture Index ring around the lens mount to still be compatible with older mechanical lenses.
Being a flagship camera, it has an integrated battery grip with a very large battery inside giving it a long battery life. Build quality is excellent and it’s fully weather resistant.
Being from 2003, this camera does not offer any live view capabilities. It’s also equipped with a very low resolution and not-that-sharp back screen that is only good to check composition or focus as it is very color inaccurate.
I think that’s about all there is to it?
2) Regular user
The copy that I personally bought is a pretty well used camera, and it shows. It’s been used in various environments and has therefore lost its grip tapes that were replaced with cloth gaffer tape. Makes the camera look cool and all, but it also devalued the price of that camera as it is not in its original state.
I got that camera for about 100€, but if you really look at it, the battery that I got with it was pretty much dead, so I ended up getting a replacement for about 30 bucks, that’s 130€ for a working camera.
You could say that 130 is not a very high price for a camera that is in the end, a pretty fast shooting flagship camera, and I would agree with you. The problem is that when it’s cheap, it’s generally because there is a reason. Reason generally is that you need to make a big compromise to justify the price. And here, that compromise is image quality.
Don’t get me wrong, I like the output of that camera. We’re gonna talk about it in a minute talking the digicam enthusiast perspective. However, for someone wanting the best out of their camera, there is obvious problems that the D2H has and needs to be addressed.
The first one is obviously the lack of resolution. 4MP is not that low of a resolution, it’s still a lot higher to what you’d see in the previous generation like the Nikon D1 or D1H. But still, it’s really pushing it. Thankfully, most people are not using more than a 1080p screen nowadays, which is still about half the resolution that the D2H can display. For online use, and in particular for Instagram, there is no real resolution downside of using the D2H as 4MP is still enough for most uses.
Same goes for photojournalism or casual sports, as those images would not be printed big, or in a more resolved thing than an online article or a news paper.
Where the resolution starts to be a problem however, is when you start to look at things like nature photography, street and landscape photography. Granted, the camera was not designed at all for those kind of utilization, however it is worth noting that the lack of resolution will prevent you from getting super detailed images, which is generally what people want in those kind of photography genres.
The lack of cropping room is also a problem for this, and it’s especially present in things like wildlife photography, thing that the D2H was made for, which is not a good look.
So resolution is a bit of a problem, however for most uses, the resolution is absolutely okay, especially for the price you’re paying for it.
No, the most compromises have been made in every other aspects of image quality besides color.
The first one, is obviously noise. This is not a CCD sensor, nor is it a CMOS. It’s a JFET sensor, and the only one ever made at that. It was able to match the competitor of the time which was using a larger CCD sensor of the same resolution, and in that it was a win, but for 2023 standards, it’s not good enough.
To put some numbers on that, I would say that the last “clean” ISO is around ISO 400, which is only one stop above base ISO (which starts at 200). ISO 800 is usable, but definitely noisy, and ISO 1600 is a value that I would only use in emergency. Forget about the extended ISO of 3200 (Hi.1) and 6400 (Hi.2) as those are absolutely unusable. The only instance I would use them is for things like black and white images that would be printed super small in a monochromatic newspaper. Any other use for those is just a waste of disk space as there is more noise than image in those pictures (also very obvious color banding created by the silicon binning of the sensor itself).
ISO 400 underexposed 2 stops then pushed 2 stops in Lightroom. Noise is here but it's still pretty workable
ISO 1600 underexposed 2 stops then pushed 2 stops in Lightroom. Though usable, this is not really a setting I'd want to use, and I would prefer to avoid this setting. Still, for black and white it can be enough.
ISO 6400 (Hi. 2) underexposed 2 stops then pushed 2 stops in Lightroom. As I said, this is close to being waste of disk space at this point. You basically have to nail exposure and have no adjustments possible. Maybe for black and white super low resolution (like for a newspaper or something like that) otherwise I'd really avoid any extended ISO value.
On top of that, the dynamic range of the sensor is pretty bad, with shadows showing a strong amount of noise the moment you try to lift them, and highlights being clipped very easily. If you were to shoot this camera, I would completely forget about JPEG, I would take every small bit of DR I can get, so RAW only as each image needs a bit of processing to look good.
As far as I know, the image quality is the only compromise you would really have to do as all the rest is either okay, or very good. For a 2003 camera, the menu system is a breeze to go though and not that different from later Nikon cameras. The visuals are a bit different (mostly when it comes to the colors) but the menu itself is laid out the same way, so pretty good for a 20 year old camera. Also, the camera controls themselves are very modern and in the right place for about anything. I would have complained about the placement of the ISO, quality and white balance buttons, but it turns out that unlike other digital cameras I use, I change the ISO a lot less often, I barely touch the white balance (as the automatic does a very good job already (except in artificial lighting but that's an issue with every camera of that era) with the external WB sensor on top of the camera), and as I said before I never touch the quality setting as I only shoot RAW with this.
The control layout is almost identical to the successor Nikon D3, and most of it was kept as-is until the D6. Pretty good ergonomic design from the get go in my opinion.
The auto focus could be described as a wonderful tool if you know how to use it. For general types of photography, it works very well. It’s snappy, fast and accurate and I never once had to complain about it. It’s biggest weakness compared to systems like the D700’s 51 point AF system (or any other modern AF system for that matter) is that there is no tracking features. I personally just use either zone focusing, or single point and try to keep my subject within the focus points I have selected.
It’s a pretty tricky situation though, as the speed of the auto focus is so fast that sometimes, the focus jumps to the background if you don’t track your subject perfectly for sports or wildlife. So as I said, no tracking means that you have to do the tracking yourself. It works, but you have to be up to par to the system. It’s as reliant on the auto focus system as it is in your own ability to keep the subject where you want it to be in the viewfinder.
It’s probably the most powerful yet least fool proof auto focus system I’ve seen so far in those old Nikon bodies.
Shooting speed is kind of the same story. By default, the camera shoots 5 frames per second in CL mode, and 8 in CH mode. CL can be adjusted from 3 to 7 in the menus, but I recommend keeping it at 5, as 3 is generally too slow, and if you wanna shoot 7fps, just go in CH and shoot 8 at that point.
Even with 8 frames per second shooting the camera is totally able to keep your subject in focus, but there is a little caveat: the D2H (and D2X) shutter unit had some problems, and could destroy itself if you shoot 8fps for too long. Of course, as most shutter problems are, it was not a very wide spread issue, but it can still occur if you crank it up to 11 for too long, especially as those bodies are more than 20 years old at this point. Overall though, the camera is still very usable, and if you made me using it blind and told me later that it was a 20 year old auto focus system I would not have believed you.
So, in the end, is the D2H a good investment for someone that wants to produce images with it? Well, for a lot of people, I would say no, as for this kind of money, you could get a camera with way better image quality, even if that meant making sacrifices in ergonomics and build quality (and also shooting speed and auto focus capabilities).
However, for fast action, it’s not that bad of a camera if you can deal with the image quality compromises. The only instance where this camera would make sense is like if you don’t have a lot of money for a second emergency camera body of let’s say a D700 or D3 camera setup.
It can also be a main camera body for anyone starting out with no budget. For about 80 bucks, you could get a pretty decent 55-200 f/4-5.6 DX lens that gives you at the long end a 300mm equivalent, with image stabilization and pretty accurate auto focus. So for about 200 bucks, you can have a camera that shoots 8 frames per second, with a very decent range for sports, and a rugged body and ergonomics. The lack of refinement of the auto focus system is also a very good starting point for someone learning.
So, who is the D2H for? In a nutshell, people wanting to shoot sports or photojournalism, with no budget and that are not afraid to learn and carry around a 1.2kg camera body.
Alright, so that was good and all, but what are the other options? Are they better? How reliable are D2H cameras on the second hand market?
This is where the biggest problem lie to be honest. I’ve gone searching for D2H cameras even though I already have one, because the heavily depreciated price of a well used camera can’t represent how all the other D2H on the market are priced.
Took a look at MPB Europe first, and was pretty disappointed: They sold no D2H at all. The only one that was closely related to it was the D2X, but this one is a totally different camera, with different capabilities. But you know what? Close enough. Price was around 250 bucks however, and at this price I’m pretty damn sure that there is better options, even full frame ones.
I went then on Ebay, and granted there was some D2H there, but they were all overpriced above 200€, which is way too much. Then I took a look at the french equivalent of Craig’s list (since I live in France) and I was able to find one in really good condition for about 130€! But it was the only one, and the next cheapest one I could find was priced at 180, then most of them were around 200€.
At those prices, I can’t recommend the D2H, even if it has features that seems to be pretty nice on the surface. For around the same price, if you’re starting out, you could get something like a Nikon D90, or with a few bucks more you could get yourself a Nikon D7000, which not only has a way better sensor than the D90 (and obviously the D2H), but also has a substantially better auto focus system with 3D tracking, that both the D90 and D2H lacks (they have the same AF system). On top of that, it has double card slots. The only problem that you’ll run into with the D7000 is the fact that is has a slower burst speed than the D2H, and it has a smaller buffer as well of only 10 shots in RAW. However, you can match the D2H buffer or even go over it by shooting JPEG (and I would shoot JPEG in the D7000, thing I wouldn’t do with the D2H at all, for dynamic range reasons).
There is also the case of the Nikon D300, which can be had around the 100€ mark (I picked up one for 60€, I still can't process how cheap that camera can be), and has an even better auto focus system, similar to the D3 and D700. On top of that, you can add a grip to it later on and get the same 8fps shooting, all while having 12MP of resolution and way better dynamic range and lower noise levels.
And I’ve not even started to talk about Canon equivalents like the original EOS 7D that has similar burst rates, and a MUCH better sensor at a similar price.
All in all, the D2H seems to be a very tough sell for anyone that just want to use it as a “real” working camera.
But now as I said, we need to get over to the other side of the coin while talking about older cameras: the camera nerd, aka the digicam shooter.
3) Digicam shooter and approach
Old early 2000s digicam shooters know one thing: color and image rendition reigns supreme, and noise, dynamic range is not important at all (at least not that much). All that matters is that the images have some sort of flavour to it, something special that makes you want to shoot this camera over some other similarly old cameras in your collection.
They also know how tricky it can be to get those older cameras working: Older batteries that are not made anymore and don’t hold charge very well (Nikon D1 series, anyone?), weird media formats that have been discontinued and require extensive searches on ebay to try to find either an old adapter or a USB cable that is compatible to unload your pictures.
Some people enjoy the process, but it’s also a pain for most people that blow up significant amounts of money on cameras that they can’t unload the images from.
And lastly, for digicam shooters, there is one thing that will always get their attention: weird, experimental stuff, cameras that were made without really a strong plan on how to make it a profitable and critical success.
And all I can say is that the D2H is basically the perfect camera for all the things I just talked about:
- the colors out of this camera are nothing short of amazing, with that strong nostalgic vibe and a very special way to render noise and colors. I’ve shot this camera for a straight month just because I loved how the images looked and I didn’t care about the lack of technical specs.
ISO 200 @f/5.6 on a Tokina AT-X Pro 80-200 f/2.8 lens
ISO 200 @f/5.6 on a Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX lens
ISO 400 @f/1.8 on a Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G DX lens
- It’s super easy to use, no weird ergonomics, very simple design and interface. The media is stored on a very standard for the time CF card (that you can still buy today), and in my camera I’m even using a CF to SD adapter that allows me to use my very old SD cards without a problem. And even if you don’t have a CF card reader, you can unload all the files with a mini-USB cable connected to a computer, or even a phone (did that several times, works wonderfully). As far as the battery is concerned the D2H was the very first flagship camera to use Lithium-Ion batteries, and Nikon kept the battery format in their later models like the D3, D3S, D3X and the grips compatible with the D700, D300 and D300S. So it’s super easy to get replacement, 3rd party batteries and even chargers for it. I was able to get a memory card, connect it to my phone and get a brand new battery for a 20 year old camera and use it like it was new, that’s nothing short of amazing in that space.
- And lastly, the D2H is indeed a very experimental camera that used the only JFET sensor ever put into a production camera. It was originally made to put up a fight with the larger APS-H sensor in the Canon EOS 1D released 2 years before, and it was indeed able to match its image quality at most ISOs. It was a technology made by Nikon and as such no other camera used JFET sensors, and Nikon themselves dropped the technology when they switched to CMOS shortly after, putting a CMOS 12MP sensor in the D2X. The D2X, Canon EOS 1DS and 1D mk II cameras effectively killed the D2H as it was pointless, and as such, there is very little D2H available on the used market making this camera kind of a unicorn. Not only because of the weird sensor it has, but also because not a lot of them got into the hands of users, that generally preferred to go Canon or get a D2X as soon as it was released in 2005.
So looking at this from the point of view of a camera nerd that likes to shoot digicams and can 100% go over the compromises you have to do while shooting it, all the while getting gorgeous images with amazing skin tones and colors…
I would say that for those people the D2H is super worth it, even if you have to drop 150 bucks on it. Maybe even a little more for people that can appreciate how special that sensor and that camera are.
Okay, that’s about all I had to say about the Nikon D2H! Hope that wasn't too polarizing for fans (or haters!) of that old boy.
I give it a rating of 2.5/5 for the simple reason that if you're part of the users that actively search for unicorn cameras like this, it's basically the perfect fit. But if you're here for the performance, and trying to get a good value as maybe a starter camera, this is one of the worst picks you can get.
), I know that it's not going to break, that if I get water on it it's going to shrug it off and that in the worst case scenario i can even use it as a mean for self defense. Not that the D300's body wouldn't be solid enough, but I definitely put more trust into a flagship camera.
