Help: D1H or D2H Recommendations

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by chris c, Nov 29, 2004.

  1. My brother in law is making the splash into digital SLR's. The
    question has come up and I would welcome opinions.

    He can get a Nikon USA New D1H from Cameta Camera for $1250 or go up
    to the D2H for $2900.

    Is the D2H that much better? He is going to shot landscapes, kids
    sports etc and will be using pro glass. This is not something that he
    can pay off by selling his work.

    He asked me my opinion and frankly I don't have one as I shoot Leica
    now. But would be interested in educated feedback about the merits of
    the D2H over the D1H and if the cost is justifiable...

  2. Landscapes? With a 2 or 4mp camera? He'd have better luck using a compact camera.

    The fact of the matter is, landscapes generally need wide-angle lenses and ALWAYS need tons of resolution. A 4mp camera will not cut it.

    He'd be better off investing in a Canon 1Ds, 1D2, 1Ds2 or most economically a 20D. All of those cameras have at least 8mp, which is twice the D2h and 3-4 times the D1h.
  3. WHy not get a D70? ^mb and only $899( $100 rebate)....only thing is that he will have to settle for 3fps instead of 5 ot 8 liek the Dh type. And he gets a built-in flash with the D70.
  4. If your brother in law has Nikon pro glass then there's no sense in telling him to buy a
    Canon body.

    I would recommend the D2H over the D1H because the D2H has MUCH MUCH better
    battery life and it has roughly twice the megapixels. Although if he does a lot of hiking for
    landscape work, consider the D70 or the D100, which are much smaller and lighter AND
    are 6 megapixel cameras. The drawbacks of those cameras are crappier viewfinders and
    slower fps.

    I don't agree that 4 megapixels isn't good enough for landscape work. If you shoot in RAW
    and make sure your exposures are dead on, then you should be able to make great prints.

    BTW I own a D100 and a D2H.

    Good luck
  5. At the moment he does not own any glass so the Canon is an option. What appears to be driving this though is the availability of the D1H @ $1200.

    As for wht not go with the D70? He likes the big body style of the D1/D2.

    Is any of the options worth paying extra for? Or the question may be best asked:

    Is spending $1200 on a D1H a wise move? I hesitate to use the word investment....
  6. what exactly constitutes * pro glass*?

    maybe your brother ought to do the research instead of you doing it for him considering one camera cost $1700 than the other.And he DOESN'T have any glass at all.
  7. Its my brother in law. Pro Glass would be 17-35 afs 2.8/ 70-200 afs 2.8 and he is doing his own research. Now if you have something constructive to add would love to hear it.
  8. <<Now if you have something constructive to add would love to hear it.>>

  9. keep working at it... your really showing your depth...
  10. I recommend a third alternative: --the Nikon D1X --over either the D1H or the D2H for
    the landscape work. It will most likely do exactly what he wants it to do for the kids sports
    thing as well. As this moment in time I don't see much point in getting a D1H.
  11. I have a D2H and love the camera, I have seen 4ft prints made from my camera, and have been able to view them up close, they look great.
    Although he might want to wait to see what the D2X will cost when it is out in stores-I wonder if the D2H price will drop at that point.
  12. I agree with Ellis. If he's not happy with the D70 or the D100, the D1X at least affords some better resolution. For landscapes resolution really is important in many cases since a lot of people look for the detail in the scene. Some don't think even the 1Ds or Kodak 14.5 mp cameras are enough; but they'll certainly do a lot of landscape photography more justice than a 4mp SLR, as good as the D2h is. I think you can get by with the 5-6mp range like the D1X and the D70/D100 although resolution is important IMO for landscape photography. It sucks printing a picture to find no detail in the trees where there should be.
  13. Go here:

    It's a review of the D1, to the D1H then the D1X cameras by one guy who bought them all. It shows the good and the bad. He has pictures from them too.

    Try for lots of reviews on the cameras you're looking at. As someone said, the D2H bosts twice the mega-pixels, and probably is more advanced at many things.

    If you want to be able to use older MF lenses, this may be your only digital choices.
  14. Weren't the D1H and D2H designed for sports photographers who desired high shooting rates with little need for enlargements beyond magazine page size? It seems like he is considering the wrong tool for his needs, regardless of how great the price may seem. I guess I also made the wrong assumption that the D1H was no longer available after the D2H came out. Personally, I'd be a little leary of buying "old" digital technology, since an argument can be made that the "new" technology is old as soon as it's released in this rapidly changing arena.
  15. Given the choise between the D2h or the D1h I would go with the D2h.

    I use both and can tell you that the D2h is worlds apart from the D1h.

    I can cover an entire event in one battery on the D2h ( 1500 images) where the D1h requires 3-4 batteries depending upon lens and the amount I preview images.

    The D2h buffer is ideal for sports, I have never had an occasion where I was waiting for the camera to catch up when I shoot raw images. The D1h is good but nowhere near the D2h.

    I use the d2h with my 80-200 2.8 and the D1h with the 300 2.8. This seems to allow me the best control for each camera.

    The image output of the D1h is suitable for my magazine and web work without question. The D2h will give even beter images.

    The D2h gives me the kind of response I need for the type of shooting that I do ( rock concerts, BMX, MotorSports) The ocassional landscapes I shoot I do get decent images that I enlarge to 11x16 without issues

    If the budget is for a D2h and he was more serious about landscapes then get the D1h and a D70 or a d100. If he was more serious about sports than get the D2h.
  16. If he's not adverse to Canon, why not try seeking out a 1D (I doubt you'd find it new). That way you get an older (and therefore cheaper) body, but not at the expense of resolution (as with getting the D1H) or frame rate.

  17. Weren't the D1H and D2H designed for sports photographers who desired high shooting rates with little need for enlargements beyond magazine page size?​

    Exactly. This is a choice between tweedledum and tweedledumber.
    Chris, have your brother in law do some research for himself. These two choices are idiotic.
  18. The question really revolves around buying the D1H for $1200.00. It is apparent that the answer to that question is NO.

    As for what to buy I am sure he will make that decision based primarily on his financial where with all. If it where me I would go tend towards the Canon D1 Mark II
  19. For landscapes, I'd consider a used Fuji S2. Not only is resolution important, but so is
    exposure latitude, and at ISO 100 nothing beats that body ... except for the new, as yet
    unreleased $2500 S3.
  20. I'd think the D2H would be great for shooting kid's sports, but a D70 would be better for landscapes.

    Avoid any camera with the Multi-CAM 900 AF module for sports. They are terrible. The cameras with this module include the D100, D70, Fuji S1, S2 and S3.

    A solution for both applications would be the D2X which is expected to be on sale in January 2005. Can he afford it and/or wait this long?
  21. Sounds like he is being driven by the availability of cheap D1H. Forget the D1H or any other camera. What vision does your brother in law aspire to capture with his photography? What is the one in a million shot that he has in his mind that he wants to take? What image has he seen that he wishes he had taken? Now, what equipment would be best for taking that shot? - Sports camera?, Photojournal camera?, medium format film? etc.etc.

Share This Page