D2H or D2X for sports?

[craig rainbolt]

I am about to buy a new camera for taking sports action photos. I am

trying to decide between the D2H or the D2X. Any suggestions when it

comes to noise at high ISO's and camera speed?

[bryan_lardizabal]

Obviously 12 MP may seem better than 4MP resolution but is the D2X worth the extra

$$?

 

I would make the decision on those criteria and if your needs warrant the higher cost

of the D2X which YES, most likely has less noise.

[amir_jahanshahi]

You might find this comparison of noise helpful:

 

http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/NikonD2HsNRtest.shtml

[lukedavis]

If I were you, I'd go for the D2X. While I haven't used the camera, from the samples posted on dpreview.com and elsewhere, I can tell you that the D2X is a better camera than the the D2H or D2Hs in all respects except for price. Even then, the D2X is a far better value than its competitor, the Canon 1Ds Mark II. Plus, you get a far amount more resolution at 8fps than you do with the D2H. That, and the D2X at high ISO's is much better than the D2H.

[lukedavis]

Whoops, gotta make a correction. Above, I said that D2X "is much better at high ISO's than the D2H," which is true, however, high ISO characteristics on the D2Hs (the updated model) are very similar to those of the D2X.

[bryan_lardizabal]

Test report on the D2X:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond2x/

[david_h._hartman]

Unless you need the extra speed of the D2Hs I would prefer the

D2X. If the file size is too big you can shoot with the high-speed

crop off and use medium file size which is 3,216x2,136 v. 2464x1632

for the D2Hs when set to large. I'm not sure if that speeds up

the camera.<br>

<br>

Are you healthy? I mean your wallet. If money is no object Id

get the D2X.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.<br>

<br>

Postscript: I bought a D2H on closeout because Im in poor

health. ;-)

[mark newcombe www.mcnphoto]

Sheesh Dave if your in poor health I must be dying.

[hudspeth]

My D2Hs came 3 weeks ago. Taking flying bird shots at 8 frames /sec is akin to sport photography. If you use fast primes or zooms you won't need to go into the noisy ISO 6400 area but if you do there are noise programs out there that will fix almost anything at an 8x10 size. The ability to shoot at 8 frames is due to the J-Fet ccd made by Nikon. The D2x uses the C-Mos sensor. The D2Hs turns on faster than you can press the shutter release. If you are making Murals get a film camera, but for Sports the D2Hs will be hard to beat.

[lex_jenkins]

Can you still find a new D2H at the sub-$2,000 closeout/blowout price? If not I'd cross it off my list because some folks seem to think their "like new" D2H is still worth $2,000. Just because new ones are in short supply doesn't mean a used D2H is worth the same money. I wouldn't pay more than $1,500 for a truly "like new" D2H, which means every single plastic bag and twist tie in the original box.

 

Also, if you buy a used D2H try to find one in the 2040xxx serial number range. Owners of earlier models have reported problems that needed to be fixed under warranty. Apparently these problems occurred early or not at all. Mine is a 2040xxx model and I've had no problems in three months of fairly heavy use.

 

That said, I can strongly recommend the D2H for action oriented photography, including fast moving wildlife. The native resolution is good enough for sizes ranging from 5.5"x8.3" prints at 300 dpi or 9.1"x13.8" at 180 dpi (this is a standard range depending on whether you print at home, a minilab or a service that produces books on demand from your files). A good resampling utility like PhotoZoom can easily double that without significant loss of quality.

 

The market for the D2H was photojournalists so maximum speed, not maximum image quality, was emphasized. If you expect to want or need fine prints larger than those allowed by the native resolution of the D2H you should consider the D2X.

 

As others have suggested, consider your budget. If you can't afford good lenses to go with the D2X, it may not be the wisest choice. I'd rather have a lower resolution camera with really good lenses than a top notch camera that blew my lens budget for a year or two. It makes a huge difference. My 50mm f/1.8D AF-Nikkor, 85mm f/2 AI-S Nikkor, 105mm f/2.5 AI Nikkor and 300mm f/4.5 ED AI Nikkor are probably my best lenses and are in an entirely different league above my other AI and AI-S Nikkors and midrange AF zooms. On a scale of 1-5 the 50/1.8, 85/2, 105/2.5 and 300/4.5 all rate between 4.5 to 5 while my best midrange zoom is a 3.5 to 4 in its sweet spot and my other lenses barely rate a 3.

 

A good dSLR can reveal every flaw. Lenses that have produced excellent results on film have been disappointing on my D2H. While I'm not sure that DX lenses are absolutely necessary for a dSLR, the latest optical designs with ED and aspherical elements should be considered a must if you're going to spend more than $1,000 for a camera.

 

As for high ISO noise, the limit for the D2H is for all practical purposes 1600. While sensor gain is improved at "3200" and "6400" settings, banding makes the images of questionable value. Programs like Noise Ninja can correct for noise at 1600 but I don't know of any program that can correct for banding.

 

I don't consider 1600 to be limiting. I can't think of any sporting events where faster film or sensor settings would be needed. The only time I've used film at or above 1600 are for theatre and nighttime street photography. Even when photographing Golden Gloves amateur boxing, which is usually poorly lighted, I haven't needed anything faster than ISO 800.

 

But, again, that's where budgeting for good fast lenses comes in.

[jlobb]

for sports?

 

buy the tool that is designed to do the job the best.

 

If you wanted to put a screw into a board, would you use a screwdriver or a hammer? Are they both gonna get that screw into the board? yeah. which one is gonna do it most effectivly? the screwdriver!

 

D2hs