Nikon D1H digital camera

Isn't this camera a little out of date? Why would someone pay $4300 for a 2.6 megapixel camera when you can get a camera with 6 million pixels for half that price? Maybe its a very well built and solid camera, but I find the number of pixels to be a big limitation.

Fredrik,
www.worldsphotos.com

Ummm, because if you miss the decisive moment, all 6 million of those pixels are wasted? This camera is about the most obvious 'PJs only' camera ever -- the purpose is to quickly catch the important image, quickly get it to the service bureau, and quickly get paid. A half-page newspaper spread or quarter-page magazine shot doesn't need 6 million pixels to be indistinguishable from film -- so many of these guys shoot (or at least USED TO shoot) high-speed film that I doubt they'd need 1 megapixel for most of their work. They're all about workflow and not screwing around with unnecessary steps on an assignment. Besides, with the volume of work a professional news or editorial photographer does, on the off chance their camera isn't actually the property of their employer, they go ahead and invest in the thing to speed up their workflow, and it pays for itself in development and processing in 3-6 months anyways. This is not the case for amateurs. So naturally the amateur-market (<$2000, let's say) digicams have large numbers of megapixels and horrific lag times (3-7 SECONDS, dozens of times slower than the expensive pro models) and are useless for capturing action (or even un-posed people shots). Every so often you get lucky, but that just doesn't cut it for pros who are paid to be lucky. Who wants to see a bunch of sharp, colorful images of uninteresting moments when they hire a photographer?!? The point is to get the good stuff -- f/8 and be there, the world isn't going to wait for you!

The fast, expensive ($2500 and up) digital cameras today are marketed to pros who would not use them *at all* if the shutter didn't pop within a couple hundred milliseconds after they depressed the release. That takes some significant engineering, which costs money, and it's faster to move less data around (given the same processor speeds, interconnects, etc.) so the fastest pro digicams unsurprisingly have less pixels stored per shot. The consumer digicams market their megapixels and conveniently omit any discussion of lag time, which is the hard part to compete on (but, IMHO, the important quantity). Another notable number is the flash sync speed -- 1/500th of a second, great for getting serviceable pictures in daylight. Amateurs get to wait for good light -- pros usually don't, especially not PJs. You get the idea by now I'm sure -- you're not the target market (AFAICT).

So anyways, that's why megapixels are irrelevant to some people. It's like if I bragged about how much my pickup truck can tow and wondered why anyone would buy a wimpy little Porsche that couldn't even tow Grandpa's pontoon boat to the Shore. No one would be very impressed by the arguments against the Porsche... it's a tool for a very different job. (eg. picking up bimbos and/or going fast) Likewise the pros who I have spoken with that use digital cameras for their jobs care about the speed of workflow, not the sheer number of pixels. That's why the D1H, D30, and similar digital cameras sell well to pros, and why 35mm film is rapidly disappearing from workaday photojournalism.

Nice comments !

Don´t forget that more pixels use more memory and limit the numbers of pics per card.

José Roberto Wagner

I think you forget about (for example) the Canon D60 here. It has 6 million pixels and a lagtime of 100 miliseconds, which is shorter than many traditional SLR's. And the price? Around $2000. With such a camera around I see no need on spending almost the double on a 2.6 megapixelcamera. And I also doubt it has a shorter lagtime. The worst thing with digital SLR's (in my opinion) is that a wide-angle lens suddenly gets a normal perspective.

Fredrik,
www.worldsphotos.com

True enough... the D30 in particular opened up a new market segment when it was introduced. AFAIK it was around $3000 so that's why I chose $2500 as a low pricepoint. The D1H is overpriced, like all Nikon stuff, but it's also overbuilt like the F5 it's based on, and its flash sync speed worth an extra stop or two (obviously not something to spend $2000 extra on, but nice anyhow). A friend of mine who does this for a living has a D30 and LOVES IT. In fact, most of my observations were ripped straight out of a conversation with him! I don't know how widely available the D60 is but it's probably already making my dummy numbers look dated.

I got the impression that you were comparing cameras like the Coolpix or Powershot series, with the D30, D60, and D1 cameras. That's not a fair comparison, which is what I took issue with.

Hopefully the D100/D60 price wars and the eventual arrival of Contax's purported full-size sensor will lead to a reasonably-cheap (~$2000, or maybe ~$1000 within a few years) 35mm SLR body with a 36x24mm full-size sensor and a lens mount so we can put our nice ultra-wide-angle lenses on it and just take pictures the way we see things with a film SLR. That will be very enjoyable, I think.

I for one, will not miss film, except for infrared and black-and-white hobby projects. But as an amateur I can't justify spending thousands on a device that, especially with the current technology, doesn't really do what I want it to. It seems like you feel the same way, and I don't blame you one bit. I don't make my living from getting grab shots of newsworthy events, and I pay for my own equipment, so I too see the higher-end cameras as outrageously expensive. But the newspapers here in DC and up in NYC seem to feel otherwise :-).

I, for one, will not escape film until cameras are 16 megapixels or higher with the same speed/specs as this one and under $1,000.

What I am saying is that this is a technology suited only for the photojournalist under deadline. Amatuers, even serious ones, should wait until the technology matures and the inevitable occurs -- it becomes affordable.

Frederick writes: Isn't this camera a little out of date? Why would someone pay $4300 for a 2.6 megapixel camera when you can get a camera with 6 million pixels for half that price? <p> No, not out of date -- close but not yet. Resolution is only one aspect. The D1H has better build quality, lower noise at high ISO settings (fully usable at 1600, and can push to 6400), smaller focal length multiplier (good for wide angles), and the price is actually $3580 not $4300 (at least until the end of June). A comparison between the D60 and D1H is tricky because they're still very different cameras. I think the D1H's closer competition might actually be the EOS-1D, but even then you're talking $5500 and some high-ISO noise problems. It may be "only" 2.62 MP, but it's a fantastic 2.62 MP! So many digicams come close to being perfect (within their megapixel ratings) yet always seem to have a couple big shortcomings. For example, the D1X (5.47 MP) would be great for me if it weren't for high ISO noise and interpolation (it's really a 3.95 MP camera with stretched pixels). But I'm trying hard to find flaws (not just "inconveniences") with the D1H and it's tough -- again, if you can live with 2.62 MP. Personally I think that within its MP rating, the D1H is close to the perfect product for its application.

What I've found is that 2 to 3 MP can often do quite well with good lenses and functionality around it. The low MP figures might be getting a bad reputation because they're usually associated with a very cheapened camera/lens.

That said, for some applications there is no substitute for resolution.

I am a Canon user but have to say that to compare this camera to a D60 is ridiculous. I have used a D30 for almost two years and cannot believe how bad the autofocus is, and from what I can tell from comments on various forums it hasn't improved much in the D60. In an auditorium I would routinely miss shots of people moving on stage because the camera wouldn't focus, and that's with good L series zooms. I think this camera is a very good choice for PJ's and others that want speed and do not have to make prints bigger than 8x10.

...and the D1H just came down to $3300 at B&H (D1X down to $4200). Wonder what Nikon's got coming down the road...

No Nikon vs Canon wars here...

Lets put it this way: Look at the price difference between an F5 and an Elan7. Is it surprising that this camera costs over $1000 more? Apples to apples...the F5 is a professional spec camera, the Elan 7 is not. Compare the D1H to the EOS 1D for a fair comparison.

Yes the D1H/D1X are based on an F5, not the F100 as the reviewer states. They have the 3D *colour* matrix metering capability of the F5.

Imagine a film camera with a 5 fps motor drive, an assistant, and a second body all in one. The D1H camera can capture up to 40 frames in buffer at 5fps, and continually downloads them to the memory card. No lag, no film changing, no rewinding...amazing! Keep blasting away until you fill the card.

Its my understanding that the D1X is not a worthwhile investment, although I have not had the opportunity to compare both cameras side by side. The extra resolution is only added in the horizontal direction, the vertical is "interpolated".

As said above the D1h captures 40 frames at 5 fps or so and downloads constantly to the card, try that with a d60.. Look at the sports pages of your daily newspaper, This is where cameras such as the d1h and the 1d shine, you need to be fast, you need to be able to hold the shutter down from when that guy goes up for the ball, till the moment he crashes to the ground. You NEED the FPS to get the shot.

A d100, or d30/d60 wont do that.

You need the AF speed, which the D100, d30, d60 dont have. You need to be able to use the camera EVERY DAY. In all weather, you need to be able to drop it, bang it, swing it to get your other body into play when the action gets closer. Go to your local camera store, Pick up a d30/d60 in one hand, and a 1d in the other. A d1x/d1h in one and a d100 in the other. Try the AF speed. hold the shutter down on Hi.

Proffesionals who make their living from their gear, need gear that suits what they are doing. And they (or their employer) pays for that in the price of their gear, which they recoup through the images, and the speed at which those images can make it to publication. Sure one day when storage, and technology advances, we will all shoot with inexpensive 16mp+ cameras, however their will remain a STRONG difference between the PRO gear, and those created for amateurs. As there always has been. And for good reason.

I use the D1h every day, and I think disregarding its capabilities because of its 2.94 MP sensor isn't the best idea.

My colleagues mostly use the d1x. In fact, d1x's 3000 pixels across the long dimension is the required size for nearly every wire service I have encountered. 3000x2000 (approximately) is the standard image size wireservices distribute to every newspaper and magazine.

However, the d1h sensor is only 2000 pixels across. Consequently, I have to upsize the file before filing.

Sounds horrendous doesn't it? Upsizing, interpolation, etc. In reality, it doesn't matter at all for commercial purposes. Here's the key. I shoot the raw format, crop, and upsize the jpg output with an image editor that uses lanczos interpolation. Qimage for example.

Nobody has ever seen any quality differences (on a technical basis anyway) between what I submit and the fellas with their d1x's or canon 1d's. In fact, they compliment mine. The newsdesk has called me and asked why my stuff looks so good all the time. (Ok, one call, but at least it came from someone I didn't know.) Low light work at concerts has been particularly noticed.

As a result, I saved $1000 on the camera (vs a d1x), have amazing low light performance (better than D1x or 1d), and have a riproaring fast camera.

Maybe if someone shot the raw format in a d1x, their output could beat mine. However, they would have to deal with a much lower frame burst rate than they have now and enormous file storage requirements. They would even have to use an extremely athletic workstation to process their files. Processing the d1x 8 meg raw file will bring many mighty machines to their knees.

All in all, I think the D1h is the best value and performer of the bunch.

All the cameras about have egregious faults though. You have all read about how terrible TTL flash is on all these cameras. For example, do not ever use ttl flash unconcernedly on someone in a white shirt or suit. These cameras will underexpose that scene so fast. The results are TERRIBLE, almost unusable.

The ambient light meters are horrendous too. Don't believe all that talk about 1005 metering points, and matrix whatever. You cannot shoot in program mode on these cameras if you expect a correct fleshtone to appear in the picture. Sky, a sunlit window, white wall, all of these will screw you in ways you don't expect. Film cameras have somewhat figured out how to handle these situations. Digital is a long way from home.

It mystifies me that in nearly every review of these cameras, the writer always praises the meter. The meter's awful. Ask many photojournalists and you'll hear that they don't trust the meters at all.

The only way to reliably bring back a properly exposed assignment is to use manual mode and check the LCD often. In situations where the light changes rapidly, I do shift to an auto mode, but I check exposures even more frequently.

Because of this fault though, the D1x/h batteries are entirely inappropriate. The only way I shoot now is with a Turbo plugged into my H. That solves the problem.

You can now purchase the d1/h in Australia, at the major photographic retailers in Melbourne for $5100AU - $2550US. Cf $4800 for the D100. If i had the money, for my needs the d1/h would be the camera I would go with. I have used both, and the speed of operation of the d1/h, as well as build quality, which is supremely better than the d100, would prove to be a much wiser investment, in terms of durability + probably resale value.

I've used the Nikon D1 for one and a half years and the D1H for the past eight monthes while working for a 14,000 circulation newspaper as a part-time press photographer.

I would like to re-affirm the comments made by Mr. Luc, they are accurate, and I agree with them after working with these cameras. However, I have never had a problem submitting my pix to AP because of the rez, but I have only done that as a member, never as a stringer or staffer.

One thing I would like to point out is that on the D1H, selecting the autofocus mode was moved to a menu option, as opposed to a button command on the original D1. This makes the switching of autofocus modes much slower and also less intuitive. Also, on the D1 you had the choice of 3 AF modes before you had to resort to Custom Functions. On the D1H, only two modes are readily available, all others hidden in CF.

The D1H is more what you would expect a digital camera to be like. The D1 on the other hand was made to operate like a film camera, with none of the shooting functions placed in a menu system. Personally, I feel more comfortable shooting with a D1 because of this.

As to the meter problem, it is highly annoying, however, at work we routinely set the camera to underexpose, and then use levels and curves in photoshop to compensate. As my boss says, shooting digital is more akin to shooting slides than negative film. You can save an underexposed image, but an overexposed one is lost.

As to the flash problems, it is best to bounce light whenever possible, or you should plan on lugging a monolight with you. We do both at work, usually taking the monolight with us if we know we're going to be shooting in a gym or other dark scary place, otherwise we'll get dark scary images. We even shoot sports this way, especially wrestling. Nikon needs to correct the flash issue, because once you start depending on a monolight, the 5fps dissappear.

The D1 and D1H are also sealed against moisture like the F5. This, along with their ruggedness, has enabled me to get once in a lifetime photos in conditions that I doubt any other camera would've sufficed. One instince was an eagle bequest on a day that suddenly turned frigid and snowy/sleetly like only a day in Wisconsin can. The cameras held up, and the photo was selected to run in the Week in Pictures section of msnbc.com for the week of April 22. You can still see the photo there if you like. The camera performance was amazing, I think I probably would've given out before they would've.

All in all, the D1H is a niche camera, for press photographers like myself. It should only be used in situations where communicating ideas and stories quickly are more important than the actual quality of the image.

I don't have any experience with anything but Nikon, but as a photo journalist in the Air Force I can attest that the D1-H does a great job in the field. Most of the recent photography you see shot in Iraq and Afghanistan by Air Force Combat Photographers were shot with the D1-H or the D1-X. I guess it all depends what you need your camera for. But in a wartime situation, the D1-H is perfect because of its speed and its robust housing, which can take quite a bit of abuse. I like it so much I bought one of my own and I enjoy it tremendously.

Had my D1H since 2000 and am now using it more and more. Love the TRI-X like look to B&W conversions of files from this camera. IMHO this is a better camera than my D2X whoose images just don't have the same look or quality of images from the D1H. D1H images are sharp at the NORMAL in camera setting and will easily give an excellent 16 x 12 print. My D2X has to be set at HIGH sharpening to achieve only modest sharpness and the the sharpening artifacts destroy the look of the image. High ISO on the D1H is far superior to both the D2H and D2X. Floodlit soccer at 3200 ASA on the D1H is a no brainer - try this on a D2H or D2X and you will end up with unusable noisy images. My conclusion is FOR ME the D1H is the best digi camera I own, closely followed by the D1X and D2H with the D2X miles behind and basically the most expensive paperweight I ever bought!!

I just LOVE my D1H also! I too have had it since 2000 and was just starting a hunt for new compatible lenses instead of upgrading to the newer "better" diggy SLR's that are now available.... just can't seem to part with this camera! lol

i also have had the D1H for a few years now. i just can not imagine myself using another camera, if this camera ever decides to bite the dust, i will try to find another. Long live the D1H !