D200 and D2h

Hi,

 

I'm down to these two cameras and have a hard time deciding. I know all about

the technical specs, so no need to go too much into these details.

 

I just want to know, for those of you that have had any experience with both

cameras, which would you choose?

 

I have the chance to pick up a good D2h (not D2Hs) for about 1600CAD, so it

could spend more money into glass.

 

This is exclusively for PJ, documentary and some sports photography.

 

Also, can Nikon upgrade my D2h to a D2Hs or am I dreaming?

 

What are your opinions.

 

Thank you.

 

Radu D.

I have both cameras, and use both of them alot. For sports, the D2H is the only way to go. The D2H auto focus is much better. I save my D200 for my nature photography, such as scenics, macro, etc..

The D2H cannot be "upgraded" into a D2Hs. If you buy a used D2H, please note this service advisory: http://www.nikonusa.com/email_images/nikonusa/service_advisory/

Thanks Shun.

 

Appreciated.

My experience with the D200 is limited but I use the D2H daily at work. When it's operating

in ISO 200 or 400 conditions, it's a fantastic camera. It really struggles in many many ways

when lighting is anything less than ideal. (Many of use revert to our D1H's for low light...)

Also, the D2H in-camera jpg's seem kinda funky to me - way long on yellow. I shoot raw.

I've worked on D200 jpgs at low and high ISO. Noise and color are nicely controlled, as is the

camera's size and weight.

 

For an all-around camera, I'd choose the D200. -B

Thanks,

 

Also, which lens would you consider - 17-35 AFS or 17-55 DX ?

 

I've heard good reviews for the 17-55, but leaning more towards the 17-35 for PJ documentary work.

Radu, I added a 17-55 DX for my DSLRs although I already had (and still have) a 17-35mm AF-S. I rarely use the 17-35 any more. Unless you also need to use this lens on a film body (or you plan to use it on a hyperthetical future FF DSLR), I recommend the 17-55; its extra range is useful for PJ type work.

I use the D2h, D2hS, D200 and D2x in my concert/extreme sports photo buisness.

 

For action shots like I need to get, in the environments that I work in, the D200 is nowhere close to being adequate. It is used primarilly for crowd shots. ( non-money shots) I bought it because I am a camera geek - what can I say :)

 

Mega pixels for me mean squat, zilch, nada, zip. What really means something to me is the cameras abilty to perform in extreme situations, stop action in the environments that I use it, work with as little light as possible AND get me saleable images. The D2h and D2hs do this without a hitch all the time without question. Never fails - Kind of like my PowerBook - they just work!

 

Once you know how to use the camera properly the noise becomes a non issue.

 

Regarding the D2h service advisory: I have sent problem D2h in to Nikon to get repaired - they repaired them no problem - FREE! - total down time of the camera was less than 10 calendar days. ( of course my backups have backups so it wasnt an issue)

 

Spend money on glass!(it does not depreciate very fast) Get fast glass! - my primary lens is the 28-70 2.8 followed closely by the 50 1.4 and 85 1.4. The 80-200 2.8 lives permanatly on one of my cameras.

 

If you have the money the 200 2.0 is one real nice lens and it is perfect for shots from the press line. Team it up with the D2h and you got a real quality tool for getting sports shots.

 

The D200 has been a disapointment in many areas for me, thankfully I didnt buy too many of them. ( it a great camera - just not for what I shoot and what I need) The D2H family is fully qualified to give my editors enough MP to print out two page spreads and life size posters.

 

The D2X - I am really only using because there are a few editors who require large MP images. But the D2x in only a backup camera. ( FWIW - I also use large format cameras for some of my shots - a 5x7 negative scanned has alot of mp ;))

 

Every person who works for me has D2h or D2hs as their primary camera. (16mp of fuzzy dont sell as good as 4mp of razor sharp)

Thanks a lot Loren, that's really the advice I was looking for.

 

I really have to go and handle a D2h, then...the rest is history.

Loren,

 

What about dynamic range, did you see any difference between the D2h and D200 - does the D200 hold more DR?

Dynamic Range:

 

Okay interesting question. First let me state for the record that the vast majority of my action shots occur in real ugly nasty lighting situations. Sometimes I actually can use available Sun to light my photos, but it is rare. I use flash for my exteme sports shots ( skateboarding, Snow boarding, BMX ) to stop action and for drama. My concert shots very rarely will see a flash used. (it ruins the effect)

 

For those shots that occur in harsh light ( camera settings as equal as can be) - the usable dynamic range of the D200 stinks when compared to the D2h/s. This is in part due to the pixel increase and the D200's inability to process low light images in the same fashion as the D2h/s (sensor type issues)

 

The increase in pixel count on the D200 means that each pixel has more potential noise problems in low light / high ISO settings as compared to the D2h/s. (based on real world side by side shooting).

 

The D200 realized dynamic range when compared to the D2h/s when shooting in Sunny 16 conditions is quite a bit different but not necessarily better. The skin tone rendition of the D2h/s are near perfect. The D200 is not there yet, but is makes up for it in the fact that there are more data collection units (pixels) giving you much more lattitude to tweak a NEF file during post-production.

 

The vast majority of the images that come off of my D2h and D2hs - I send directly to my editors electronically without the need for any post work on my end. (granted I set my camera up to help this). The D2x is similar in this area and I really like it and its better than the D2h/s in some lighting conditions. Cant say that about the D200 though.

 

The D200 does not have this type of gracefullness. However, that being said the D200 works real well in non-artifical light without alot of correction so long as the predominate colors complement its sensor strength. Which is why I use it for crowd shots and non-people specific shots under harsh light.

 

In the D2h and D2hs the sensor has been tweaked specifically to address the issue of properly capturing the full range of tones present in skin. Darker tones render equally as well as lighter tones (exposure adjusted of course) in the D2h and D2hs or the D2x.

 

The D200 give a much broader range when used with flash - however you really have to make sure that you are using the latest Nikon flash with the D200 to get the full range of capabilities with the D200 sensor.

 

The D200 would probably be a better wedding camera than the D2h/s because the predominant tones are not skin type but rather black and white and your light is controlled. In concert shots and sports shots the concentration is on the performer and not the environment or the clothing like in a wedding. Also in a wedding most of your shots would be flash based so you have more control over the light and how it works with a camera. Concert dont give you that flexibility and some sports don either.

 

Ergonomics:

 

Ergomomically the D2h and D2hs fit the hand better than the D200 and the extra powerpack with a large lens. The ergonomics of the D2h and D2hs have to be experienced to be appreciated.

 

My traditional D2h/s setup is D2h/wi-fi adapter/28-70 2.8 lens. This combo while large fits well for me. Some of my Gals who have smaller hands fore-go the wi-fi adapter, but they still like the feel and control provided. I usually am carrying one D2h/s with the 28-70 2.8 and one D2h/s with the 80-200 2.8. Both with wi-fi and have no problems with control.

Thanks very much Loren, that's very much appreciated.

 

Regards,

 

And one last thing, how's the noise of the D2h compared with the D2Hs (or D200 for that matter?)

 

Radu D.

Noise of D2h compared to D2hS

 

The noise of the D2h at high ISO 1600 and up is ever sooo slightly better than the D2h. However it is not a issue that makes me choose one over the other. Its a really an non issue to me.

 

The noise of the D2h and the D2hs at the high ISO ( 1600+) is predicatable and can be dealt with. The D2h and the D2hs operate very much like a fine slide film -- deliberate thought to exposure, but when you nail the exposure the image IS!

 

The amount of digital noise at ISO 1600 is equal what a traditional film at 800 ISO would produce in grain. Like I mentioned in an earlier post , I use the WI-FI attachment and combined with some special software to send the cataloged images directly to my server for publication to the editors.

 

During the set changes the images that I just took minutes prior are show on the overhead jumbo-tron monitors - minor cropping and watermarking are the only post processing done on them.

 

Any offensive noise would at that point be quite noticable and everybody would see. However I do not hesitate to do this at all with the D2h or the D2hs.

Loren,

 

One last question, I promise. I've looked through the viewfinder of the D200 and thought it was okay, (nothing like my F3 - of course).

 

Now, I know that the D2h and D200 are both DX formats, but is the D2h viewfinder significantly better? I mean, brighter and so on?

 

Thanks again,

 

Radu D.

Is the D200 viewfinder better than than D2h?

 

In a word YES!.

 

The D200 viewfinder cannot compare to theD2h.

 

The viewfinder of the D2h is clearer , sharper and 100% of view. Very much like the F3 ( I own 3 ). If you have followed some of my posts you'll see that viewfinder quality too me is one of the key factors that determine whether a camera finds a permanent usage with me.

 

The only problem that the D2h viewfinder has in my eyes is thats it not removable. I require 100% view on my viewfinders becasue I compose in the viewfinder and I dont like to crop. The D2h gives me a bright images for manual focusing of very fast lenses , like my 50 1.2 , in dim light where DOF is measured in inches. The D200 can only dream of this power. Like I said earlier I have a d200 because I am a camera geek, not because I love or are enamored with the D200 cameras functions.

 

Best advice I can give you is to hold a D2h in your hand - but have your credit card handy. You'll want to but a nice bag for the camera. :)

after rereading my last post I seem to be contradicting myself. Sorry.

 

To clarify:

 

The viewfinder on the D2h and D2hs is a huge improvement over what is considered a viewfinder on the D200. This assessment is based on how I use the camera and in the conditions I use them. ( Low light, action , fast AF and Fast MF lenses, require 100% view)

 

To repeat:

 

The D200 viewfinder is average and is designed for the holiday shooter and the D2h and D2hs viewfinders are designed for what a professional needs to make money.

 

I think thats clear now ! :)