Nikon D2H owners, a call to arms...

[john_.]

I am a D100 owner, I know I know, a virtual dinosaur. And I shot some

pics today with a D2H and must say I was very impressed, I am

thinking of getting one in the future and was wondering what people's

impressions of them are, pros/cons , has anyone blown up images

beyond 13x19 and if so, where they satisfactory?

[leicaglow]

I have had great luck with D50 enlargements to 11x14, but only using RAW format, low ISO settings, and Nikon 4 Capture software. I'm hoping my D200 will also be an improvement. I'd guess you would be marginally satisfied, but you might want to go with a D200 or D2x.

[john schroeder]

I have gone as large as 24x36 with my D70 with acceptable results. The images was shot in RAW, up-sized using Fred Miranda's resize pro plug-in, and then sharpened as needed. If you get right on top of it you can see some jaggies but at three feet or greater distance it's clean.

[Ed_Ingold]

I've done a few 16x20 prints from a D2h, with reasonably good results by up-sampling before sharpening. The biggest problem is noise in the shadows, which can get ugly when you use sharpening (also a necessity). I used the noise reduction tool in Photoshop. Noise Ninja may be better - I don't have it.

 

The D2h is obviously challenged in the MP issue. In practice, it is nearly as sharp as a D1x, and has better color. The D1x has better noise characteristics and a few more pixels. If you look forward to bigger prints, save up for a D2x.

[Karim Ghantous]

I haven't made large prints from any digital image however I'd say that based on what I know there should be a way to get way bigger than 13x19 with the D2H's 4Mpx image. I'm appealing not on the basis of experience but of common sense.

 

And perhaps there is a way to selectively sharpen an image so that the darker areas don't get sharpened. Apparently sharpening should be based on luminance (brightness) and not chrominance (colour).

[2yellowdogs]

John,<br>

I recently made exactly the same move you're considering - D100 to D2H. I did this primarly for shooting sports (can't imagine a better sports camera), but use it as my main camera as well. As many have reported (see http://www.planetneil.com/nikon/d2h-4mpx.html) The D2H's 4 megapixels compare very favorably with the D100's 6mp. However, shadow noise can be an issue if underexposed or shootng JPEG.</p>

 

I've only had my D2H for a month, so haven't done the kinds of enlargements you're describing. However, my advice would be to shoot RAW and invest in Noise Ninja or Neat Image for those times when the noise does creep in. </p>

 

DZ

[michael_bradtke]

16X20 with my D2h is not a big deal.

 

I Shoot RAW and make sure I get it right in camera. I use Photokit sharpener and noiseware when I need it.

 

BTW these prints are not hanging on my walls they are hanging on my clients walls.

 

Rent one and give it a try. You might just fall in love with it. I also have a D100 and all it does is sit in the bag just in case.

 

Michael

[csuzor]

My d2h workflow is raw -> photoshop raw convert to 6mp or 11mp without sharpening in aRGB @ 16bits-> layers for levels / curves / hue-sat, and shadow/highlight -> NoiseNinja (only if necessary) -> high-pass hard-light 50% sharpening (portraits) or smartsharpen (landscape/architecture) -> convert to jpg for online print

 

This gives good prints up to A3 size (12x16). Not as sharp as I would like it, though, hence I want to get the d2x later.

 

They key thing about noise and sharpening, is to never sharpen while there is still too much visible noise.

 

I wouldn't trade my d2h against anything except a d2x. It's robust, fast, accurate, and feels great.

[lex_jenkins]

Upsizing photos can make flaws more prominent. Fortunately there are several good tools for fixing the problems.

 

D2H images can be a bit noisy between ISO 400-800 and very noisy above 800. I generally use Noise Ninja, modifying the settings slightly from the camera specific profiles. Neat Image is very good at reducing luminance noise but I'm having trouble getting effective reduction of red splotches due to chroma noise. The Imaging Factory makes an excellent plug-in that's at least as effective as Noise Ninja and Neat Image.

 

At Hi-1 ("3200") and Hi-2 ("6400") gain is boosted enough to help in really awful lighting but banding can be a problem. So far there's no noise reduction utilty that can fix this problem.

 

Paint Shop Pro X includes some excellent tools for knocking out purple fringing, chromatic aberration, JPEG artifacts and other flaws. PSPX can't handle Nikon NEFs worth a damn, tho', but otherwise it's a promising package. I'm hoping Corel improves RAW support soon. Meanwhile you can use the freebie Nikon Editor that comes with Nikon View/Browser to convert the NEFs to TIFFs.

 

While I've been using the D2H for less than a year and am learning something new every week, I've noticed a couple of characteristics that I feel comfortable making generalizations about:

 

1. The quality of upsized photos depends tremendously on the resampling algorithm. The bicubic methods provided with Photoshop Elements 3 (and, presumably, the full versions of Photoshop) work very well. So does Smart Sizing with PSPX. Ditto Lanczos, Bell and Mitchell algorithms in Irfanview.

 

2. But even with the best resampling algorithms the image itself is a major factor. Some types of images can withstand upsizing by several hundred percent. Others barely tolerate doubling the size. I wish I could predict which would respond well but I never know until I try 'em. In general, tho', photos with well defined features, such as a great horned owl, seem to tolerate upsizing well while human skin can look artificial.

 

Printing is another factor. The local Fuji Frontier minilabs I've tried struggle to generate a decent print from D2H images upsized more than 150%-200%. For high quality enlargements I'll have to find a really competent pro lab.

[rick_waldroup3]

I'll chime in about the build quality of the D2H. Built solid, reminds me of the build quality of the Nikon F2's- built like a tank. I use mine everyday for my work and it keeps on going with no problems at all. And I am not gentle on my cameras. I use them to make money. It has a nice big monitor, is super fast, and extremely reliable. I am about ready to purchase another one as a backup. I would reccomend this camera to anyone who makes a living with photography. After I purchased mine a couple of years ago I understood immediately why a lot of photojournalists swear by this camera.

[conwaygroup]

John, I have both the D-100 and D2Hs. The D-100 has spent a lot of time on the shelf since the D2Hs purchase last July. Can't say enough about the camera. I was debating between the D2X and the D2H and decided that in addition to buying the X camera, I would also need to invest heavily in a new computer to handle those big files as well as a new printer. I have an Epson R1800 and it produces some great 13x19 prints from the scrawny 4MP files of the D2Hs. "Getting it right in the camera" is the best strategy you can have if your looking for enlagements seeing as post processing of your images will likely impact your enlarged image in some way.

The D2Hs is a rugged dependable piece of equipment that will serve you well. I shoot alot of otdoors and put the camera through some pretty rough conditions and it has never let me down. Glad I made the choice I did.

As for noise, I haven't had problems unless I am at or over ISO800 in dark conditions without flash. Any camera will show noise in those conditions.

The attached photos show a 13x42 panorama of a glacier at Mount Edith Cavell in Jasper Natl. Park, Canada and the other is of my son shot in a dimly lit room with just a flash attached. Both courtesy of the D2Hs.

Good Luck

John<div></div>

[conwaygroup]

Here is the portrait shot.<div></div>