Used D2Hs?

[luca_m.]

<p>I am not in a rush by any means, but I have started keeping my eyes open for a possible upgrade (currently I own a D40). So far, the D90 and the D200 have been the two models I was looking at, trying to keep an open mind towards a new and a not-so-new upgrade paths.<br>

I wonder if I should expand my horizon to include a D2H in the mix. I recently saw a D2Hs (not sure is the "s" changes things much) selling for a little under $1000 Canadian (~$800 US). Would you consider buying a D2H today, why, why not, at what price...</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I'd skip 6 pizzas and 20 lattes, add the difference to the pot, and get a D300. Much better AF system, resolution, and far better high ISO performance. Yeah, the grip costs another handful if you really need the extra frame rate, but there's no rush there, necessarily. I presume, since you were at least considering the D90 and D200, that the "H" in the D2H wasn't a major part of your thinking?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I have a D2H. Unless you have a very specific need for something like the D2H, you should consider the D90 or D300. Those offer much better photo quality compared with the D2H.</p>

<p>The D2H was primarily conceived as a photojournalist's workhorse. It has fairly low resolution by current standards (only 4 mp) and is too noisy above ISO 400 for anything approaching "fine art" photography without resorting to noise reduction. Maximum print size at native resolution is around 5x8 at 300 dpi, 8x12 at 200 dpi. If you have to crop you're pretty much stuck with snapshot sizes or JPEGs suitable for web display only. An example of this specific drawback is having to tease out the catchlights and fine nuances of color in a subject's eyes - there just isn't enough data in anything but closeups. When I've photographed birds, for example, and need to tweak the eyes to avoid loss of brilliance due to JPEG compression I have to work at the pixel level, one pixel at a time, with a fine brush, because in some photos the eye is made up of only a dozen or so pixels. It's a headache for this type of exacting work.</p>

<p>Another drawback is the tendency toward a magenta cast in skin tones under some artificial light (and sometimes very unpleasant greenish shadows), giving people an unflattering "meat skin" look. It's not bad, some folks don't even notice, but it's far inferior to later models.</p>

<p>On the plus side, the D2H is reliable, very fast (AF and framerates), has a bright viewfinder that's good enough for manual focusing even in dim light and doesn't get in my way with any fussiness. It's still plenty good enough for most PJ print photography, altho' it would lag behind the D300, D700 and D3/D3X for low light indoor sports photography. No particular problems with daylight photography either.</p>

<p>The D2H still suits my original purposes for a dSLR, mostly candid and casual photography, high in volume, with quality a lesser consideration. It continues to fill that role nicely after 4 years.</p>

<p>But for anything above around $500 you can get much better photo quality than the D2H or D2Hs. Personally, if it were my money, I'd get the D300 or D90 if I could live with the handful of limitations in the latter.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I have a D2h and have seen the results from the D300. By all means, save up your pennies and get the D300. For the moment I'm using a D2h as a backup for a D2x, which has lower noise and much better color (but not as good as a D300).</p>

<p>The D2h (or hs) has poor performance in low light, color shifts due to excessive infrared sensitivity, noisy high-ISO performance and low resolution. You see softness in a 12x18 inch print. Even the D90 is better than a D2h. At a minimum, you would need an hot mirror filter to get good blacks and neutral shadows.</p>

[luca_m.]

<p>Hi Matt, I am not even sure what the H means actually. :-) The ad I read stated that this camera used to sell for $4000, so I'm guessing this is (or used to be) a <em>pro</em> body? The new D300 is more than a few pizzas out of my budget, I am afraid, and I don't see many used ones getting sold. :-) I spent a lot on lenses, and I don't regret that one bit. I'm actually very happy with the images I am getting with the D40 and I am still learning to use it to its potential. It's a terrific value, and it is beating my expectations. I just miss having a few more buttons on the camera (instead of having to open a menu), and the ISO performance could be better, as you mentioned. Better / faster AF would be nice, and down the road I'd like to be able to use older lenses too.</p>

[luca_m.]

<p>Hi Les and Edward, thanks for replying. I am starting to get the idea that I should leave that D2Hs alone. :-) A bright viewfinder would be much appreciated with macro work, but it does not sound like a good match overall. Thanks again.<br>

Luca</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>When the D2H went on its $2000 fire sale at the end of 2004, I decided against getting one because I didn't think 4MP was sufficient. The problem was that if I got a D2H, every image it captures would be limited to 4MP with no exceptions. 4MP is ok in many situations but not in a lot others. Now 4+ years later, the standards have only gone up since.</p>

[mick_costa]

<p>I won't tell you which way you should go. The D2Hs is a bit different than the D2H (lots of info online about the differences). I picked up a used D2Hs a few months ago and couldn't be happier. My reasons?<br>

- I take lots of pictures of my kids' sports activities and wanted the high speed shutter<br>

- AF is wonderful, specially tracking my daughter playing lacrosse<br>

- I actually find it to be good up to ISO 1600 when I do some noise reduction (Noise Ninja). I am not doing critical work at 1600, but for low light basketball with a 50mm f/1.8 lens, it does pretty well.<br>

- I don't do a lot of cropping and will be surprised if I ever print anything larger than 8x10. So 4MP is OK with me.<br>

In camera years, this is an *old* camera and I would guess that most people would want something newer. Also, the D2*'s are Pro cameras and are heavy! Doesn't bother me (I took mine to Disney), but it is much heavier than the D90/D60/.. cameras. I used it with a 70-300 VR yesterday and it's a load. Of course, I wonder if after using one of these, whether I'd be happy going to a non-pro camera. Knowing me, I'll keep the D2Hs until the D3 prices come down a lot.</p>

 

[craig_morton]

<p>Like Mick, I also purchased a used D2H as a low cost alternative instead of upgrading my D50 with a D300/700. Over the past 18 mos. I was shooting local high school sports for a local weekly rag (until they closed up shop after 97 years of business, but thats another story) and I quickly grew tired of missing the money shot with the D50's 2.5/fps. To be sure, the low-noise performance of the D300 is far superior for indoor gym lighting but I did the math and it didn't add up (IMO)...Here's the rub, I found my D2H copy for 375 bucks on ebay with only 14,000 shutter actuations--combine that with a 60 bucks for NoiseNinja and I have a very capable system for sports and chasing around my two kids. So for newsprint and sharing photos on the web the D2H has been a perfect fit. And all for about 25% the cost of what a new D300 was a year ago. Due to small file size, instead of viewing this as a drawback, I actually like the challege of having to "fill the frame" with a strong composition. And when dealing with 250-300 images after shooting an hour of basketball, the 4mp file size is very convenient in post processing too. So like so many other "should I get this or that" questions on this and other forums, your end answer will ultimately depend on why you are even considering an upgrade in the first place--and what type of photography you do. If indeed your priority is to tap into new technology and bank on all-around better IQ, you will have to ask yourself will spending 4x more money, make you a 4x better photographer, or give you IQ that is 4x better? <br>

The D2H also gets along quite famously with the SB-800 which I received as a gift last December. As such, I have found myself having more fun experiementing with flash photography---whereas before I never did too much with my D50's pop-up. The results may surprise you--especially if, like me, you haven't had much experience using a pro body and flash.<br>

One word of caution: If this is your first "pro" body you will get used to changing exposure metering/autofocus and host of other settings"on the fly" with the individual controls on the body---and you'll get spoiled by the convenience and you might find yourself reaching for the D2H--even on snapshot days-- when you discover that your D40 feels like a cheap childs toy in your hands compared to the 3+ pound magnesium beast that is the D2H.<br>

Someday I'll will own either a D300/D700, but it will likely be when the D400/D800's are introduced and the prices drop in half. Thats just how I roll. For now, the D2H is an affordable way for me to poke along the learning curve and develop my skills with a pro body.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I probably overstated my suggestions to avoid the D2H, but only because not everyone fits the niche for which the D2H is ideally suited.</p>

<p>Like Mick and Craig, the D2H suits my particular niche photography perfectly: mostly candid, casual stuff, casual events, school and family events, hundreds of photos per session, often in miserable lighting where most AF struggles but the D2H glides along happily. And I'm willing to spend a little time with noise reduction software to handle the occasional problem above ISO 400. (Most good noise reduction software can handle batch operations and even read EXIF data for optimized settings, so it's really not that much extra work for large numbers of photos per session. Noiseware is slightly better than Noise Ninja in this regard.)</p>

<p>The only times I'm aware of the limitations are when I attempt anything approaching "fine art" photography, which I can't blame the D2H for since I never bought it for that niche.</p>

<p>But I feel obligated to ensure that folks considering those bargain D2H bodies on the used market are fully informed that it is a niche camera, excellent within its range and an unsurpassed value on the used market within that narrow range. But it's not ideally suited to the photographer who wants maximum image quality. Even the humble D50 would give the D2H a run for the money in photos of landscapes, flowers and posed photos of people. But I wouldn't wanna try to manually focus a camera like a D50 with my AI and AI-S Nikkors under moonlight, while I can do that with the D2H due to its excellent viewfinder.</p>

[Richard Williams]

<p>Get the d2H/Hs ONLY if you absolutely need the AF and framerate and can't run to the D300. In many respects the D2H is inferior to the D40, let alone the D90 or D200. The low resolution of the D2H was one of the main reasons why anyone who wanted a fast camera a few years back was buying Canon instead. If you're not in a rush, you could wait to see what happens to D300 prices when its inevitable successor is announced (which we reasonably might expect to happen this year, if the D300's production life is similar to the D200's).</p>

[conwaygroup]

<p>The D2hs was and still is a very capable camera. It has some drawbacks as you have read in the comments above. It has some positives which have been mentioned as well. As always, the camera is a tool and a craftsman not only picks a tool out of his bag, he picks out the right tool for the specific job.<br>

By the way, once you get your hands on a pro body it is hard to let go.</p>

<div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I'm still using my D1H only 2.75mp.<br>

If you want a faster body than your D40 that has better lens compatibitly with most of the available Nikkors and you can live with the size and weight of the D2h and the 4mp image size then it is a good body. I will oneday pick up a used D2Hs once they are cheap enough and I find one locally.</p>

[h._cremers]

<p>Cameras like the D40 only give the D2H a run for its money in case the number of megapixels is important. For aspects like handling, ruggedness, speed, accuracy, longevity, etc. the D2H beats the "consumer" level cameras.<br>

You need to decide whether you need the megapixels by looking at what you (like to) shoot. A D90 or similar could very well fit the bill for you.<br>

I also have the D300 and i use that more often now than the D2H. It indeed is way better in the high ISO department. For sports though, i still like to use the D2H. It also balances much better with the longer lenses.<br>

Most important, i think the "drawbacks" of the D2H (only 4 Mpix) have made me a better photographer. You have to consider all aspects at capture time, not during post production.<br>

Good luck in choosing, the D2H and D300 are great cameras, so are many others.</p>