D2H, S3 or D70s? Oh my aching head.

[dennis lee]

This digital question is so troublesome....

 

I'm still using my old F3P with primarily a very old 50 1.4, which is becoming

so old it is developing a quality unto itself. It's getting harder to focus though

and becoming a bit soft and flary in "un-perfect light."

 

I'm a stay at home dad now (former photojournalist and fishing/ferry captain),

but sub-contract to shooting weddings and Bar(t) Mitzvah's quite a bit along

with shooting a few of my own every year. I also do a cartload of work for two

of my son's pre-shcools. Not to mention shooting personnal stuff on a daily

basis.

 

I saw the local camera store take in a D2H and S3 on trade two days ago. I've

been looking at the D70S and don't really care for it's "amatuerish qualities"

too much; specifically the viewfinder, and the little pictures for exposure mode.

That really bugs me.

 

I'm sure these two trade-ins will be on the shelf soon, I have a wedding

coming up the beginning of September. I'd like to shoot at least half of it

digital.

 

Of course finances are tight, one alternative is to hold off on a body, buy

lenses and maybe rent a body for the wedding. Problem with that is lack of

familiarity with the digital workflow.

 

Oh my aching head.

[nick_w.]

Dennis,

 

As a former photo-j, do yourself a favor and find a used D2H. Shoot in RAW and be happy.

Remember though, you're not just investing in a camera. You'll probably also need

memory cards, new strobes, a beefier computer, PhotoShop, back-up solutions (DVDs,

harddrives, RAID, etc.) and a lot of time learning the little quirks to making your digital

prints sing.

 

Also, don't let people scare you away from the D2H with all of this nonsense about

unusable pics at high ISOs. Shooting in RAW and using a cheap program called Noise

Ninja, reserved for the worst of the lot, will nullify anybody's argument that the D2H isn't

worth it.

[bryan_lardizabal]

My choice would be the D2h if you can afford it - otherwise the D70 or D70s is an

excellent camera at a lower price. D2h is a faster focusing camera and has better

viewfinder & build quality.

[dennis lee]

Thanks Nick, I guess my primary concern with the D2H is the file size. Around

4 MB right? Shooting speed is not that much of and issue for me, which is

why I think maybe the user S3 would be a better choice.

 

I just picked up the CS2 suite, wow, love it. My background stuff is all pretty

much up to date, comp, hard drives etc., (been doing video too) I just need to

figure this camera thing out. Wish I could afford the D2x.

 

Will the D2H allow me to make beautiful 11x14's if necessary?

[markp]

"Will the D2H allow me to make beautiful 11x14's if necessary?"

 

<p>Dennis:

 

<p>Check out this article related to D2H printing by nature photographer Mark Graf:

 

<p><a href="http://www.grafphoto.com/articles/printdogma.html" >Printing Dogmas</a>

[greg s]

dpreview forum thread discussing D2X vs S3:

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=14220716

[Jerry_]

...and as we approach the Christmas 'gift' season, any bets on the D3X or the D55 hitting the market in early December?

[Rick Waller]

"Will the D2H allow me to make beautiful 11x14's if necessary"

 

Absolutely. I agree wholeheartedly with Nick and the others. I use a D2h for sports and landscape photography and it is an excellent camera. The 4.2 mp's? Ignore that - it isn't the size but the quality (to paraphrase the old line...). The only disadvantage to relatively small mp's is if you need to reach in deep to a frame and crop out a very small portion of the shot. In those cases, more IS better, but if you frame the shot properly the first time, you won't often have the need to zoom in on the image.

[anand_raghavan1]

"This digital question is so troublesome...."

 

I know, there's a simple solution.

 

"I'd like to shoot at least half of it digital."

 

For the other half, get the S3. I mean the rangefinder!

 

Sorry Dennis, I'm just joking. Don't take it seriously. It's just that when I saw the tile, I didn't recognize the S3 (not being in the know on DSLRs) and thought you meant the RF. Stupid me. But I couldn't resist suggesting it.

[dmitriyk]

<i>...and as we approach the Christmas 'gift' season, any bets on the D3X or the D55 hitting the market in early December?</i><br>

<br>

Absolutely, positively not going to happen. The time span between the D1x and the D2x was roughly four years.<br>

<br>

A replacement for the D100, however, seems likely. But it also seemed likely last December.

[gan_esh]

I don't shoot digital, but have many mates who do.

 

Megapixel count isn't everything. Pixel Quality, Pixel Density and Pixel Size have a significant effect on picture quality. That's why a D1X makes better quality prints than a D70 or canon 20d.

 

Having said that, I'd pick the S3. The only drawback is its dodgy LCD screen. From the pics I've seen, it has the most film-like qualities of the 3 you mentioned.

 

But what do I know. I shoot film.

 

Cheers!

[craig_bridge]

How large you can easily print any digital image is a function of how much information the image contains with respect to the sensor capabilities. A clean image captured on a D1 can easily be printed 16x20 while a busy background capture on a D1x requires some extra effort to get a good 11x14. The D2H falls between these. One of the worst things to deal with is a fine regular pattern like a striped shirt (1/16 inch alternating blue and white). Show up in one of these and drive the digital photographer with less than a D2X crazy!

[david_h._hartman]

D2H v. S3 and D70s? With a photojournalism background and as a

Nikon F3P user you will likely hate the S3 and D70s

viewfinder. The D2Hs auto focus is surprisingly good in

very poor lighting conditions. Its clearly better than the

F5 and F100. Those cameras based on the Multi-CAM900 AF module

are sorely lacking here. If you are going to buy an AF camera buy

one that delivers on the promise.

[mark newcombe www.mcnphoto]

D2H and enjoy a pro camera, no probs with enlargements you describe.

 

If you buy 2nd hand down load opanda and check out how many actuatuions.

 

Regards

Mark

[dennis lee]

Thanks for your help, I'm going down to buy the F2H today. Wish me luck.

 

Dennis

[jay_blocksom]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>dennis lee, jul 15, 2005; 12:17 p.m.</B>

<br>

This digital question is so troublesome....

<br>

<br>

I'm still using my old F3P with primarily a very old 50 1.4, which is becoming so old it is developing a quality unto itself. It's getting harder to focus though and becoming a bit soft and flary in "un-perfect light."

<br>

<br>

I'm a stay at home dad now (former photojournalist and fishing/ferry captain), but sub-contract to shooting weddings and Bar(t) Mitzvah's quite a bit along with shooting a few of my own every year. I also do a cartload of work for two of my son's pre-shcools. Not to mention shooting personnal stuff on a daily basis.

<br>

<br>

I saw the local camera store take in a D2H and S3 on trade two days ago. I've been looking at the D70S and don't really care for it's "amatuerish qualities" too much; specifically the viewfinder, and the little pictures for exposure mode. That really bugs me.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I have a somewhat different take on this than most of the respondents so far.  So if it's not too late (which it might be, in light of your comment below about buying the D2H today), I'd strongly suggest you consider the Fuji S3, if the price is right.  The rationale is as follows:

<br>

<br>

These two particular bodes are about as far apart as two ostensibly "similar" DSLRs could be, in terms of the markets they're aimed at and the types of photography they're optimized for.  Unfortunately, given your stated background and interests, you have one foot in each "camp"; so you need to make a decision...

<br>

<br>

The D2h was and is a "Photojournalist Special".  It's optimized for fast action, "get the shot NOW!", high-FPS continuous shooting, etc., with all that implies -- including the fact that the finer points of "ultimate image quality" are a lower priority than with Nikon's D-whatever-x series.  Yeah, I know...  All the D2h loyalists will be jumping all over this comment; but the fact remains:  It's designed for an application where "Fine Art" just doesn't enter the equation -- and 4.1MP goes only so far, no matter how good the other aspects of the camera.  The fact that the D2h can sometimes be successfully pressed into this sort of service is a huge testament to it's overall quality; but it's still a misapplication of the camera, and a less-than-ideal match-up.

<br>

<br>

The Fuji S3 Pro, OTOH, is anything but a sports/PJ piece, due simply to it's relatively "slow" handling.  And the comments regarding its viewfinder and overall "feel" have some merit.  But in the specific context of portrait/wedding photography and similar, it's also something of a "poor man's D2x":  You have the potential for MUCH higher resolution (vis-a-vis the D2h), when needed; but more importantly, you have the potential for *superb* dynamic range at 6MP -- which can be a real crucial issue when one of the main subjects of the shot is a white-on-white wedding gown, and the other is a black-on-black tux.  In *that* scenario, even the most ardent D2h-supporter would have to recognize the superiority of the S3.

<br>

<br>

So, like I said above, you have a decision to make...  I highly doubt *either* of these cameras will completely satisfy *all* of your photographic "wish list" items; so it becomes a matter of which one more closely meets more of your needs -- and since, per your story, it's weddings and similar that are paying the bills, *that* is the area I think you ought to concentrate on, at least for now.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

I'm sure these two trade-ins will be on the shelf soon, I have a wedding coming up the beginning of September. I'd like to shoot at least half of it digital.

<br>

<br>

Of course finances are tight, one alternative is to hold off on a body, buy lenses and maybe rent a body for the wedding. Problem with that is lack of familiarity with the digital workflow.

<br>

<br>

Oh my aching head.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

If, as it would seem, this is your first foray into digital photography, you would be well-advised to make the move now, so as to give yourself time to get up to speed on the *very* different workflow involved.  This is not to imply that an all-digital workflow is more difficult or onerous than an all-chemical or hybrid chemical/digital workflow, just that it is undeniably *different*, and you'll likely need some time to wrap your head around it.

<br>

<br>

[david_h._hartman]

<em>It's designed for an application where "Fine

Art" just doesn't enter the equation -- and 4.1MP goes only

so far, no matter how good the other aspects of the camera.

--Jay Blocksom<br>

</em><br>

4.1MP will do a lot more than most think. Compared to 6.1MP there

really isnt much different. Compared to 12.4MP there is a

substantial difference. The S3 has a trick up its sleeve.

It has two sensors per pixel on its image sensor. In theory this

should make a substantial difference in the dynamic range and

color quality. I only have experience with the D2H and its 4.1MP

so I dont know. To me the D2H is something like Tri-X. If

you try to crop too much the image falls apart. With care you can

get a lot out of those 4.1MP.<br>

<br>

This probably will not help with your aching head. I think you

should give strong consideration to the D2X if this is a business

decision as it appears to be. Remember its a legitimate

business expense and a tax write off. This will help take some of

the bite out of the price. It will serve you well for a number of

years. <br>

<br>

Whatever camera you buy get a Mack extended warranty or similar

and keep the F3 for backup or personal use.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[jay_blocksom]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>David H. Hartman, jul 16, 2005; 03:47 p.m.</B>

<br>

4.1MP will do a lot more than most think.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Agreed.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

Compared to 6.1MP there really isn?t much different.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Agreed, *IF* all other things are essentially equal.  But in this particular case, all other things are NOT essentially equal.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

The S3 has a trick up it?s sleeve. It has two sensors per pixel on its image sensor. In theory this should make a substantial difference in the dynamic range and color quality.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

And that's why.

<br>

<br>

While I would not expect this, in and of itself, to make for Earth-shattering differences in print quality given "typical" general-purpose shooting, Dennis specifically mentioned wedding photography as the primary "serious" application for the new camera.  For that application, the combination of ~25% greater resolution *plus* significantly greater dynamic range should make a noticeable difference, especially if he prints large.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

I only have experience with the D2H and its 4.1MP so I don?t know. To me the D2H is something like Tri-X. If you try to crop too much the image falls apart. With care you can get a lot out of those 4.1MP.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

But the key words there are "with care" and "can"; which is really just another way of saying that, *if* all goes exactly right, it holds up surprisingly well when misapplied to this sort of usage -- which, notably, is not the same thing as "ideally suited".

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

This probably will not help with your aching head. I think you should give strong consideration to the D2X if this is a business decision as it appears to be. Remember it?s a legitimate business expense and a tax write off. This will help take some of the bite out of the price. It will serve you well for a number of years.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I suspect that would put a too-painfully-large crimp in his budget.  And even if he *can* make that stretch, it's likely that he would be better off going with the used S3 (presumably at about 1/3 the cost, since it can be bought new for less than half what a D2x would run), and putting at least half the difference into new/better lenses and whatever other gear he might need to support both the business itself and the digital workflow (the other half of the difference can stay in the bank, for "contingencies").

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

Whatever camera you buy get a Mack extended warranty or similar and keep the F3 for backup or personal use.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Probably good ideas, both.

<br>

<br>

[dennis lee]

David, Jay, thank you both very much.

 

Here's the bottom line. I saw two cameras come into the store and assumed

they would both come back out. Well, they didn't. The S3 apparently found

another destiny and the D2H came out when I asked about it. Very clean,

box, and everything to go with it. I talked to one of my old newpaper buddies

back in CA and the entire staff are using the D2H with the 2.8 ED IF zooms.

 

We talked about the file sizes, and the output print quality. He too agreed that

11x14 is do-able. Although perhaps not optimum in all circumstances.

 

The problem is that it just felt and looked like to good a camera to pass up.

So, I bought it this morning. The shop also had a mint 18-70 3.5-4.5 G lens

with hood (not a surprise) so I took that too as a starter lens to get the feel for

AF etc., with the 1GB Lexar card I had the package out the door for $1909.

 

Not a fabulous deal but fair I think. I have to say it's like having a brand new

rig here. Really clean.

 

Anyway, I might have gone for the S3 had it been available, but it wasn't, and

without having handled it I don't really know what I missed. In my favor, I

shoot nothing but 400 film and push my luck way too far with it. As a full frame

shooter for 25 years now, crops aren't a huge concern. I picked up the

camera this morning and have been playing with it all day. The files look

pretty good, but I haven't been able to make any prints yet as we're away from

home so I don't have a printer at my disposal. Let's see what the local camera

store can do now eh?

 

So, I'm in the game. I may shoot the portraits and important stuff on film for my

upcoming wedding, and use the D2H for party and such. So far it feels good,

now I really wish it were a D2x. Anyway, again many thanks to you guys for

your considerations and to everyone else who posted here too.

 

Here's one of my first digital pictures of my son and wife.<div></div>

[jay_blocksom]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I><B>dennis lee, jul 17, 2005; 01:18 a.m.</B>

<br>

David, Jay, thank you both very much.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

You're quite welcome, I'm sure.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

Here's the bottom line. I saw two cameras come into the store and assumed they would both come back out. Well, they didn't. The S3 apparently found another destiny

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Somebody probably grabbed it *FAST*, because they recognized a rare bargain (these things don't come around on the used gear market nearly as often as Nikon DSLRs).

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

and the D2H came out when I asked about it. Very clean, box, and everything to go with it.

<br>

<br>

I talked to one of my old newpaper buddies back in CA and the entire staff are using the D2H with the 2.8 ED IF zooms.

<br>

<br>

We talked about the file sizes, and the output print quality. He too agreed that 11x14 is do-able. Although perhaps not optimum in all circumstances.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

None of that is at all surprising.  As I noted earlier, the D2h *is* a "Photojournalist Special"; so I would very much expect your "old newspaper buddies" to use them, and love them.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

The problem is that it just felt and looked like to good a camera to pass up. So, I bought it this morning. The shop also had a mint 18-70 3.5-4.5 G lens with hood (not a surprise) so I took that too as a starter lens to get the feel for AF etc., with the 1GB Lexar card I had the package out the door for $1909.

<br>

<br>

Not a fabulous deal but fair I think. I have to say it's like having a brand new rig here. Really clean.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Sounds very nice.  And I suspect you're right -- that's probably a fair deal, if the thing is as nice and complete as you say, but not really a bargain (I'm figuring $85-100 for one of the "better" Lexar CF cards, and perhaps $150 or so for a used 18-70mm D70 "kit" lens; making the D2h itself net out at around $1,600 or so, depending on the Sales Tax rate in your state).  I'm sure you will be happy with it, overall; just understand that it's not as well-suited to weddings and portraits as the S3 would have been.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

Anyway, I might have gone for the S3 had it been available, but it wasn't, and without having handled it I don't really know what I missed. In my favor, I shoot nothing but 400 film and push my luck way too far with it. As a full frame shooter for 25 years now, crops aren't a huge concern.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Given that, I think you're going to be very pleasantly surprised at what the lack of grain can do for your images.

<br>

<br>

Have fun!

<br>

<br>

[dennis lee]

Thanks Jay,

 

I already am having a ton of fun. I need to make some prints to see where I

really am here. I wish I understood the CS2 Bridge a little better.

 

I paid $300 for the lens, absolutely mint with hood and caps. About $50-$60

more than what I've seen on ebay, and $109 for the card, $15 more than B&H.

 

For getting it through a store where I could play with it and so on and so forth,

along with the promise of buy back if I'm not happy with it in a couple weeks, I

think it's more than a fair deal. You know, I'll gladly pay the premium for the

rare opportunitty of an actual hands on, walk out the door with it purchase.

And like I say, it's so clean, mint really, that it makes me a little uncomfortable.

 

Thanks again, I'm sure I'll be around with more questions and comments.

 

Dennis