D2h or D2hs

<b>

To D2h or D2hs is the question</b><p>

<p>I've recently been offered a brand new D2hs for $2,900.00

<p>my question to the D2h and D2hs owners out there is the

<p>following:

<p> is the D2hs worth the extra $,1300.00

<p>compared to a used D2h in very good condition for around

<p>$1,600.00?

<p>Are the few enhancements on the D2hs worth the

<p>extra $$?

<p>Thanks for you input!

 

<p><p>Danny

Why not spend another $1,000 and get a D2X or a $1,ooo less and get a D200? Maybe you have some good reasons, I don't know.

I waited until the specs for the D2Hs were available before deciding. The D2Hs didn't seem to offer enough over the D2H to matter for my purposes so I got the D2H. No regrets after nearly a year.

 

Frankly, before I'd spend that kinda money on a D2Hs I'd seriously consider the EOS 1D Mark IIN. Sure, it's a bit pricey, but as high powered action oriented cameras go, it seems pretty attractive.

 

Otherwise, if you're pretty well invested in Nikon lenses, the D2X or D200 might be preferable. I don't know how good the D200 autofocusing is but 5 fps is still pretty fast.

 

Rumors keep popping up about a higher mp version of the D2H(s) - presumably a D3H. We'll see. If Nikon does continue to produce such a camera for journalists and sports photographers it'll need to be fully competitive with the Mark IIN.

<p>A D2x would be nice but it would be more expensive in the long run,

<p>the files are much bigger, I would have to upgrade my PC, get

<p>high capacity CF cards, etc. Also the buffer on the D2hs allows

<p>for more frames to be caputered.

<p>A D200 is not a camera for sports or action, which is the whole

<p>reason why I'm considering such a camera. I currently have a

<p>D100, and seriously doubt that the Autofocusing CAM on the

<p>D200 is comparable to a D2h or D2hs.

 

<p>Danny

$3000 is a lot of money to spend for a 4.1MP camera. The D2hs is supposed to have the same image processing as the D2x, which is a substantial improvement over the D2h. The D2h has excessive noise shadows and at high ISO. A D2hs might be justified if you shoot sports and outdoor events for a living, but a D2x would do the same job in the high-speed crop mode.

 

A D2x is not that much more than the D2hs, and is a bargain considering the enormous performance difference. True, you would probably need to buy about 8GB of memory cards (4x2G or 2x4G), which would give you 400 RAW images. But then, CF cards don't wear out. Alternately, you might save some money and get a D200, once the dust settles on the banding problem.

 

The most expensive thing you can buy is one that doesn't meet your needs (or expectations). You will not be happy using the D2h(s) for landscapes or portraits, primarily because of the limited resolution compared to what the competition can provide.

First buy the camera the meets your needs and photographic goals.

 

My Opinion:

The statement that $3000 is alot of money for a 4.1 mp pixel camera is pure silliness.

 

Thats like saying "Gee why are you buying a 35mm camera , the negatives are so small, when a Hasselblad gives you 6x6 negatives or better yet get a large format 8x10 camera." Pure silliness ( I choose this word for policital correctness only) :)

 

If your goal is to obtain fast action photos with an AF thats understands action and responds accordingly - Get either the D2h or the D2hs. End of story. No second thoughts, no other option in the Nikon line. The 4.1mp pixels of the D2h that are in focus and sharp are better than 6.0 mp that are out of focus on D70 for example.

 

I have both the D2h and the D2hs. My reasoning behind the D2hs was probably one that you may not need-- faster wireless transmission of images. To me this is a big deal.

 

Both cameras excel in spades at doing what they are designed to do. The D2hs has some additional features that may be important to you - they are to me. For example bigger buffer and faster speed.

 

Personally If I didnt need the enhanced features I reccomend you go with the D2h. So long as the D2h has been checked out and has had the metering upgrade performed. Nikon may not honor the upgrade/fix from a secondary owner.

 

Both are great cameras , both allow you to capture great images, both allow to be free in how you interpert the action around you. Both allow you to do your job with excellence.

 

 

 

Disclaimer : I own the D2x and the D2h and the D2hs.

Loren, "My Opinion: The statement that $3000 is alot of money for a 4.1 mp pixel camera is pure silliness." Nikon hopes there are a lot of buyers out their that agree with your opinion. What ever works for someone, what ever they believe in is what they should buy.

I would definitely look for a deal on a used one, the resale on these has got to be headed

seriously down. I'd also consider a new D200 plus a cheap used F5 to use for the times

the D200 couldn't get the action you are seeking.

Danny,

 

You can read a pair of excellent reviews of the D2H and D2Hs by highly acclaimed sports

and wildlife photographer Michael Webber at the following link.

 

http://www.imagepower.de/equipm.htm

 

I think this should answer all of your questions.

 

--Scott

I'd get a D2x instead a D2hs. Or an used D2h for only $1600. Or like someone said, go the Canon way.

Loren said, "Thats like saying "Gee why are you buying a 35mm camera , the negatives are so small, when a Hasselblad gives you 6x6 negatives or better yet get a large format 8x10 camera"

 

The D2x is exactly the same size and weight as the D2h/hs. It takes the same memory cards, has the same features (plus some), same lenses - and so forth. More significantly, it can take 6.8MP images at 8 fps - a 50% improvement on the D2h/hs. The D2x does increase the cropping factor to 2x in this mode, which is an advantage for shooting action sports. You don't see many wide-angle lenses on the sidelines, do you.

 

A D2h was a bargain at $2000, but not, IMO, at $3500, compared to a D2x.

 

No one (other than you) thinks a 35mm camera vs Hasselblad is analogous to a D2h vs a D2x. An Hasselblad may give better pictures (most of the time - I have both) but is a different animal for a different mission.

 

Who's being silly?

Danny, don't discount the D200 yet as a contender for action photography. While I haven't yet read a review from an experienced action photographer who has tested it specifically for suitability in shooting sports, etc., it does have a new AF mechanism that is supposed to be an improvement over the D50, D70 and D70s. It may turn out to be plenty good enough for action. And, as I said earlier, 5 fps is nothing to sneeze at. While I appreciate the 8 fps maximum framerate of my D2H, I don't always rely on it. I often still shoot one frame at a time, relying on good timing to get the shot. On paper the shutter response appears to be comparable to the F5, D2H and other Nikons so I'm betting the D200 will be capable as an action shooter.

 

However, I'd still prefer the D2H, D2Hs and D2X body style for the full set of controls for vertical shooting. My right wrist isn't very flexible so the D2H is much more comfortable for me to use in vertical mode than my F3HP/MD-4 and FM2N/MD-12.

<blockquote> The 4.1mp pixels of the D2h that are in focus and sharp are better than 6.0 mp that are out of focus on D70 for example. </blockquote>'Zackly.