Carl Stone Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 I just read a new review of the D2H, and I found it an interesting read. I will surprise some of you, I know it did that to me: <A HREF="http://www.photo-miracles.com/D2H">http://www.photo-miracles.com/D2H</A> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck___3 Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 The fundamental issue that is of interest to me is: "Will Nikon bring out a X version of D-2 soon enough and with enough pixels so that I would feel justified buying it over of waiting for successor to EOS-1Ds?" <p> My new years wish was for Nikon to bring out a 16-20Mpixel D-2X in the first half of the year, at roughly the same price point as D-2H. If they do, it would convince me to stay faithful to Nikon. If not, my heart, not to memtion my eyes, would wonder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 If you must have the latest DSLR tech. then the only sensible thing to do is maintain a collection of both Nikkor and Canon lenses. My personal opinion is that those who are not shooting for publication are still better off with film and those who are shooting for publication don�t have a choice. I like tech toys so I want a D2H but I have other priorities such as lust for glass so I can�t have a D2H. I put an extra large stocking on the mantle this year and used two nails so it wouldn�t fall ;) I didn�t even get a lump of coal. Life is hard, then you die, Dave. Seriously, I saw a friend switch from Nikon to Leica six times in six months, F2As to M4 (that�s six trades total ending with Leica). I once traded a complete Pentax 6x7 system at considerable loss for something I had to have. It can become a search for the Holy Grail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis_vener_photography Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Chuck:<P>Doing 16 to 20 megapixels is already do-able in either the current Nikon digital format or 24 x 36mm-- you just make the pixels smaller. Of course you then start to lose resolution and introduce some other nasty problems but if that is what you want then keep waiting.<P> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 <I>"My personal opinion is that those who are not shooting for publication are still better off with film and those who are shooting for publication don�t have a choice. "</I> - Dave <P> Would it mean that stock photographers such as <a href="http://www.premaphotos.co.uk">Ken Preston Mafham</a> who has about 75,000 slides on file would find it difficult to publish, going forward, their photographs on slides in the digital era? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Stone Posted January 8, 2004 Author Share Posted January 8, 2004 I'll stay with film, and get more glass. There is still no fast super wide for digital, but plenty of them for film. IMO, a 12-24 f/4 isn't fast. Besides, this gives me a good excuse not to spend thousands to get a DSLR plus a slow wide lens. It was a surprise to see how fast that D2H operates, which is way faster than I operate. And the biggest surprise is that ISO noise isn't gone at all, it's still there. We were mislead about noise. Of course it's a damn fine camera, and is a benchmark in some ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Yes, the trick of the LBCAST sensor is that it gives pure colours and clean long exposures. What I believe Dave meant is that if you shoot for publication you still have to shoot slides in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Arnab, I really don�t know much of anything about stock photography. Maybe Ellis or someone else knows. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 "If they do, it would convince me to stay faithful to Nikon. If not, my heart, not to memtion my eyes, would wonder."<p> Forget about Nikon or Canon, what do you plan to do to dispel the suspicion that you are an idiot for being so eager to pay for 10-14 unused Mpixels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamiew Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 The comment about slow glass (i.e. f4 vs. 2,8). That's one stop so who cares. Digital is still great up to ISO 400. As for stock photos, I know for sure the 1Ds and the KOdak 14mp camera are acceptable to pretty much everyone. I am sure the 4mp D2H will not be, but then again it is not designed for that market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 "As for stock photos, I know for sure the 1Ds and the KOdak 14mp camera are acceptable to pretty much everyone. I am sure the 4mp D2H will not be, but then again it is not designed for that market." That is fine, I agree. I have no doubt that hi-res digital original images are already well accepted by the stock photo industry. To be precise, I was asking how much is the likelihood that stock photographers who have built a large collection of slides over a number of years will find it difficult to market film images (maybe for publication) in the foreseeable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Stone Posted January 8, 2004 Author Share Posted January 8, 2004 "To be precise, I was asking how much is the likelihood that stock photographers who have built a large collection of slides over a number of years will find it difficult to market film images (maybe for publication) in the foreseeable future." I think that question requires a crystal ball and some gypsy ancestry, in order to properly address it. But there nothing mystical about the fact that digital is making headway. We have already seen it's use by National Geographic, barriers will fall, it's only a matter of time. None of that effects me as a basic film shooter, because I will likely never be published, since I don't make any efforts to do so. For me, it's a hobby, and it will stay that way. "What I believe Dave meant is that if you shoot for publication you still have to shoot slides in most cases." I agree, but I think his remark about " a search for the holy grail" is even more on the mark. Most people can enjoy a good photo irrespective of it's origin, film or digital, Nikon or Canon. Only the nitpickers care about this stuff, nobody else gives it a thought. Of course I still think that it's all about the finished image, and less about the specific equipment used to make it. I think that good glass is the road to travel, and has more impact on the photo than the camera, all things being equal. If I was able to make good images last year with my F100, then I'll still be able to do so next year, when the newest camera hits the market. Having said that, I can get into the sheer enjoyment of the equipment as much as the next guy, I just doubt that it makes a lot of difference in my images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 <em>"What I believe Dave meant is that if you shoot for publication you still have to shoot slides in most cases." --Ilkka Nissila<br> </em><br> Actually I think the reverse, in some cases both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Really? I guess it depends on where you want to publish. Which photography books have been done with digital capture? Which magazines only accept digital? Which stock agencies only accept digital? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamiew Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 To answer the question of the difficulty in marketing film images. If (when) it does happen get a good film scanner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astcell Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 I tried owning Canon and Nikon. It is worse than alimony to two ex wives! I got the D2H yesterday and LOVE it. When I print at 24"x36" with my D100 it looks great, and I can tweak the same quality out of my Nikon 990 (pon paper). The 4.1MP may be smaller than 6.1MP however the Internet is where the pics will end up. I will not spend 8 grand on a body alone, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now