Nikon D2H?

306dean

306dean

Suspended / Banned
Messages
341
Name
Dean
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm looking to get back into photography after selling my D70s a couple of years ago. I'm looking to get some kit together on a fairly small budget & considering a D2H. I don't want a new entry level body as I found that they are just too small.

What're your thoughts or suggestions.

Looking at spending £250ish on a body.

Thanks

Dean
 
I really like the D2 series of cameras to hold and use but am I right in saying that the D2H is only 4mp? I'm not one to get too caught up in the whole mega pixel thing but I'd guess you might be limited to A3 prints at the most. I realise this was enough at the time but I guess expectations change over time so it seems a bit limited these days. It's a shame that D2X's are above budget. Have you considered a D200?
 
I would love to stretch the budget to a D2X, I haven't considered the D200 as I expected it to be over budget. Tbh I can't see me having prints any bigger than A3 if at all.
 
306dean said:
I would love to stretch the budget to a D2X, I haven't considered the D200 as I expected it to be over budget. Tbh I can't see me having prints any bigger than A3 if at all.
Click to expand...

D200's seem to go for as little as £200 these days, in fact mine only cost me £170 but it did need new rubber grips which actually ended up costing more than the difference that buying a good one in the first place would have cost me, oops. You'd certainly get a good one within your budget. Would be good to hear from D2H owners though, it seems to have fallen off the radar a bit of late.
 
Last edited:
Hi

if I remember rightly, D2H was sold for speed, as a fast camera, but it was ultimately eclipsed by the D2X in popularity. Sensor size was not at the forefront of Nikon's thinking by the look of it.

I did own a D200, fine camera, but where I wanted more autofocus speed, it was limited.

Ended up in D3 land, where I still reside.
 
If you can live with the 4mp then the D2h is a good camera and can produce some amazing results from its 4mp.
 
D2H or D2HS are good older 'pro' size cameras and can still produce some great images at reasonable size. Definitely value for money at the price generally available.
 
In relation to the 4.1mp, my thoughts were that as it was a 'pro' body it would produce similar results to my previous d70s....am I correct?
 
gad-westy said:
I really like the D2 series of cameras to hold and use but am I right in saying that the D2H is only 4mp? I'm not one to get too caught up in the whole mega pixel thing but I'd guess you might be limited to A3 prints at the most.
Click to expand...

You wish!.. you'll not get close to an A3 print with 4MP... not an acceptable one anyway.

306dean said:
In relation to the 4.1mp, my thoughts were that as it was a 'pro' body it would produce similar results to my previous d70s....am I correct?
Click to expand...

No. 4MP is 4MP Assuming you are using the same lenses, it will be the same results in terms of sharpness etc. Other factors may change such as ISO performance, dynamic range, colour rendition et al.. but 4MP is 4MP as they both have the same sized sensor.
 
Last edited:
Depends what you're shooting, but I think I'd be going the D200 route with your budget.
 
The D2h is a good camera - ace build, lightning quick, good tone rendition - and it will produce decent A3 prints, although close inspection will reveal its lower megapixel count.

306dean said:
So I really should be looking at a D200 or D2X
Click to expand...

D2x if you can stretch to it.

The D200 is a great camera - again, great build quality and the button layout is excellent, basically the forefather of the D300.... 10mp does a lot. I used one for quite a while for work and it did the job.

.....But the D2x is another world though; amazing handling that you really appreciate when shooting in a hurry, especially the reach you still have to rear button when in vertical mode. It's 12.7mp and does an A3 beautifully. Okay, ISO 800 is fine and ISO 1600 (Hi1) is also fine with good use of NR software, but at ISO100/200/400 it is brilliant.... seems to retain such detail in the shots and the dynamic range is good also. The best portrait camera I've ever used, the skin tones are beautiful at lower ISOs. Plus, they are built to last.

There's one for sale for under £400 in the classifieds...;)
 
306dean said:
In relation to the 4.1mp, my thoughts were that as it was a 'pro' body it would produce similar results to my previous d70s....am I correct?
Click to expand...

The 'pro' body is going to have superior weatherproofing to the D70 and if you are like me and like to feel 'a real camera' in your hands then it will be the best choice for you.
The D2H is capable of taking some very good photos so don't let 4MP fool you - sure it isn't going to give you the detail of a D800 but it doesn't sound like that's what you want.
Size and weatherproofing are the overall benefits of the camera with a bonus of some very good picture ability.
 
To be honest I was more than happy with what the D70 produced, I'm not going to be shooting professionaly, I love the larger heavier camera. I guess I'm just going to have to see what I can afford/find at the time. I just don't want to be disappointed if I picked up a D2h
 
306dean said:
To be honest I was more than happy with what the D70 produced, I'm not going to be shooting professionaly, I love the larger heavier camera. I guess I'm just going to have to see what I can afford/find at the time. I just don't want to be disappointed if I picked up a D2h
Click to expand...

Someone on here (can't remember who) used to shoot a lot with a D2h and he really rated it, even with its humble megapixel count.... I'll try to do a search to find some posts by him :)

EDIT: it was AWP... but he's now banned :lol:

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=323786&highlight=d2h
 
Last edited:
specialman said:
- and it will produce decent A3 prints, although close inspection will reveal its lower megapixel count.
Click to expand...

All I can say is my definition fo decent is not the same as yours then. Natively, off camera it can't even manage A4. It's quite a stretch to A3 for 4MP.
 
That was a good deal!
 
Pookeyhead said:
All I can say is my definition fo decent is not the same as yours then. Natively, off camera it can't even manage A4. It's quite a stretch to A3 for 4MP.
Click to expand...

All I'll say is viewing distance counts for a lot...
 
specialman said:
All I'll say is viewing distance counts for a lot...
Click to expand...


And all I can say is... how are you going to stop people going closer than you deem appropriate and realising it's actually awful?

Sorry, but anyone who spends even just a few hundred pounds on a 4MP camera wants their bumps felt IMO, no matter how well it handles and operates.

Get the D200.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Sorry, but anyone who spends even just a few hundred pounds on a 4MP camera wants their bumps felt IMO, no matter how well it handles and operates.
Click to expand...

Nonsense! Entirely depends on what you want and how you intend to use it.
 
specialman said:
All I'll say is viewing distance counts for a lot...
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more:lol:

I've owned all the D series over the years the D2h was my main camera for a couple of years. Blinding bit of kit and its amazing what size prints you can get from a 4mp sensor.
 
gramps said:
Nonsense! Entirely depends on what you want and how you intend to use it.
Click to expand...

When the same price, or less can get you a D200, I'd say it's not nonsense at all. As for prints, well.. it seems my idea of acceptable isn't yours and we'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
Well I know which I would prefer but I'll leave the o/p to do his own research.
Nonsense wasn't polite ... I apologise :)
 
gramps said:
Well I know which I would prefer but I'll leave the o/p to do his own research.
Nonsense wasn't polite ... I apologise :)
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it :)
 
I used a D2H and a D2Hs for a few years for work. Even when they were current, I thought the D2Hs okay at most things and the D2H I avoided using. Quick focussing yes but the image quality tumbled quickly for noise.

At the time the D200 came out it was really rated for its noise qualities primarily because the D2H was so poor. So have a scout around for one with a grip. Also question if you need an 8 fps camera more than one which you can confidently crop into the image in pp afterwards.
 
Pookeyhead said:
And all I can say is... how are you going to stop people going closer than you deem appropriate and realising it's actually awful?......
Click to expand...

You won't. But look close enough at most things and you'll be able to pick holes in it. You're talking as a photographer, not as a general viewer who may not have as much interest in the fine detail aspect of a print.

I shot with a 6mp Canon D60 for ages, doing magazine work. That was pap as far as modern tech goes, but there were no arguments from anyone about what it produced. There's a massive contradiction with magazines anyway - we're encouraging people to look closely by putting 10pt text on a page, yet expecting them to view the image from the correct distance. It's never going to happen, but in 12 years of doing magazines I don't think I can recall any complaints about IQ from a reader. About font size yes, but never the image....
 
Magazines aren't A3, and a whole range of defects are hidden in low quality offset printing, so yes, you can get away with murder there, but a high quality inkjet print will be very unforgiving of a 4mp image.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Magazines aren't A3, and a whole range of defects are hidden in low quality offset printing, so yes, you can get away with murder there, but a high quality inkjet print will be very unforgiving of a 4mp image.
Click to expand...

Last time I looked, a DPS was A3......

You're not getting the point.... but I'm not going to labour it.
 
specialman said:
Last time I looked, a DPS was A3......
Click to expand...

Fair point.

However, we both clearly have different requirements from our print output. I had to think very hard about whether I was prepared to accept the DOWNGRADE in quality to start using the D800 over medium format film and my Phase One back because I was sick of A) Processing costs, and B) the weight and awkwardness of using the PhaseOne system outside of the studio.

I think you can see why I wouldn't accept 4mp for a web cam, let alone a viable professional camera.

Each to their own an' all that.

I still insist the D200 is a vastly superior camera for the money.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Fair point.

However, we both clearly have different requirements from our print output. I had to think very hard about whether I was prepared to accept the DOWNGRADE in quality to start using the D800 over medium format film and my Phase One back because I was sick of A) Processing costs, and B) the weight and awkwardness of using the PhaseOne system outside of the studio....
Click to expand...

Personally, I totally accept the limitations of offset printing and the poor paper stock we use at my place. A great image will be just that - a great image, regardless of output - but I know that those great images will never 'sing' when printed on regular paper stock. All I can do at my end is provide files that are as good as they can be in terms of processing and size.

I can remember the move from film to the D60 - it wasn't pleasant, as the D60 was a pig of a camera... slow, clunky, lacking in refinement. The files were pants looking back on them but I quickly came to realise what digital could allow me to do in terms of efficiency and like you, the running costs were a world part in favour of digital. At the time I was still shooting on Bronicas and I could never fully settle on digital because of that massive gulf in quality between a MF neg or slide, and the digital file of a DSLR. I bit the bullet; got rid of the Bronicas and just accepted that digital was a way forward that would eventually pay off. Fast forward a few years and when I got a 40D, I knew 35mm film was a route I would never go back to and for what I shoot, I knew that MF just couldn't compete in terms of flexibility.

If I was studio-based and I knew clients required high, high quality output then I would maybe miss 5x4" and MF, but I've just adapted to working as I do. I can see where you're coming from - MF digital is still another world compared to standard consumer-grade DSLR but as you hint, the benefits of something like a D800 must offset that difference somewhat in terms of how you can work and what lenses (etc) you can use....

Pookeyhead said:
I still insist the D200 is a vastly superior camera for the money.
Click to expand...

For the money, getting as close to modern level as possible, I agree.

OP - Apologies for taking this OT... :)
 
Last edited:
Been into London camera exchange in notts, they have a D70s body for £110....do I just pick up this & a battery grip........I just love the build quality of the pro bodies. Had a play with a Canon 1d mk ii aswell which made me think, I never got on with canons in the past, however the 1d was a different kettle of fish.
 
i was really tempted by a D2HS a year or so ago as a camera to use for shooting RC racing. the pics would only ever be used for online galleries or facebook so the 4mp wasn't an issue. i already had a D2Xs & had a long think about it & just decided all it really gave me was a bit more fps & smaller images. for the most part i could just use my existing camera in high speed crop mode where needed which would prob be enough so i fought the urge & stayed with what i already had.
since then i've bought a D3 so i was just pulled in another direction :lol:

as the others have said as long as you don't need to go too far above base ISO a D200 or D2X would be more than enough. there is something really good about the CCD sensor in the D200 :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top