Nikon D2H or D1X still worth buying?

[chuckunderhill]

<p>Hi Everyone,<br /> <br /> I have a friend that just upgraded to a D3, and he has offered me his D1X or D2H before he dumps them on eBay. I do realize that both are a bit dated, but I currently shoot with a D1H some of the time, and I really love the camera. Both have under 20k on them, and have been well taken care of. He wanted around $300 for the D2H and $275 or so for the D1X. The price is very good compared to KEH, and pretty good compared to eBay. I can't afford a D3 or a D90. (Saving up for them, but not there yet) I guess I was wondering if folks in the"real world" are still shooting with the D2H or the D1X.<br /> <br /> At the moment, I am covering a couple of sporting events a month, and not a whole lot more then that. Still do a lot of other shooting in the meantime, which I pretty much cover with my Canon gear. I am thinking mostly alone the lines of street/documentary/photojournalism, verses portrait/glamour shooting.<br /> <br /> Thanks in advance for any thought, advice or suggestions, <br /> MrC</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i would not get a D1x even at that price. D2H is a slightly different story, mainly because of the frame rate which makes it a good sports camera if you can live with 4 mp. maybe you can borrow the camera for a weekend and see if it will suit your needs. the thing is, $300 isnt that far below what used d80's are going for these days.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>If you are mainly a Canon user, I'd say focus on building up your Canon system. When money is tight, getting these extra D1X or D2H merely sets you back farther from getting what you really need. Or if the D90 is what you want, the $300 you spend on the D2H puts you $300 farther away from the D90.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>D1x - No way...Someone locally has one listed on the rummage sale site - for $750.00! With 5 batteries! - and the thing is - you'd need all 5 of them... since the D1x is a clunker when it comes to battery life. They are probably about $500.00 over priced - based on ebay and keh. D1x - is awful on battery life, limited on other things and only getable as a historical reference piece.</p>

<p>D2h - Until the D3 came out - this was the essential Nikon Sports body. If you were serious about sports and shooting Nikon - the D2h was in your bag. Fast AF, Fast and large buffer - still a usable body for sports.</p>

<p>Problem with the D2h is that it became obselete the day the D300 was released... Better AF, Higher ISO's and more Mega Pixels.... the only thing the D300 doesn't have is the "Pro" build of the D2h.</p>

<p>If I were getting into Nikon - I'd save for a used D300s or D300 skipping the D1 and D2 series completely. If I where a serious collector - then I'd get both the D1x and D2h for COLLECTION PURPOSES only. Especially considering the D1x was $5300.00 (US) new...</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>D2h - Until the D3 came out - this was the essential Nikon Sports body. If you were serious about sports and shooting Nikon - the D2h was in your bag.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is exactly right, but David did not point out that prior to the introduction of the D3 in late 2007, some 90% of sports photographers used Canon; back then when you went to major sports events, you would see a sea of Canon white lenses. Merely a few months after the D3 was introduced, the observation in the 2008 Beijing summer Olympics was that about 50% of sports photographers shot Nikon with the D3 and another 50% used Canon.</p>

<p>So if you buy a D2H, most likely you'll find out (the hard way) why sports photographers preferred Canon before Nikon came out with the D3.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>If you're already invested in Canon gear and plan to stick with Canon, and if you don't already own any Nikkors or compatible third party lenses, neither the D1X or D2H would be useful in the long term. I got the D2H in 2005 because I already had several good Nikkors and wanted to retain compatibility.</p>

<p>While the D2H is useful within the limits others have described (the main limitation is the 4 mp resolution), you'd still need a compatible lens for photographing those occasional sporting events you described. There are some affordable Nikkors and third party lenses but if your budget is limited and you plan to stick with Canon, spending *any* money on a D2H and compatible lens would only put you farther away from your eventual goal.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you plan to migrate toward the Nikon system then, sure, the D2H could be a useful interim step. But be sure your efforts won't be thwarted by the 4 mp resolution. It's fine for web sized JPEGs and prints up to around 8x10 or so, but it's not even useful for some stock photography or other uses that demand around 12 mp or better native resolution without resampling.</p>

<p>I've been using the D2H since 2005 and am still generally satisfied with it, but my needs are very limited. I rarely print larger than 8x10. The main limitation I run into is that I do a lot of available light photography and the D2H has long since been surpassed at ISOs above 400.</p>

<p>Incidentally, if those sporting events you mentioned are indoor school sports, you'll probably find the D2H unsatisfactory. It's very noisy above ISO 800 and you'll need ISO 1600-6400 for best results with indoor school sports. The last time I photographed school sports with the D2H was around 2007 and it's no longer competitive even against the entry level dSLRs many parents show up with. But if you shoot only outdoor sports in daylight *and* can accept the 4 mp resolution, the D2H is good.</p>

[chuckunderhill]

<p>Thank you all for the replies. I am going to skip the D1X, even thou I have a bunch of batteries for it, since I already have the D1H. I am still considering the D2H, mostly because one of the things I DO shoot a lot of is Paintball, and while the 4MP isn't great, a $1200 or so camera getting slammed by paint traveling at 300 fps makes me really cringe. So far I have only shot with Film at paintball, so I wouldn't damage one of my DSLRs. I have however gone thru 2 A2E's over the last couple of years.<br>

So if everyone was shooting Canon.... what were that using? 1D Mark II? The Classic Canon 1D is only 4MP as well, isn't it?<br>

I do shoot both Nikon and Canon, I like both systems quite a bit, and for me, it is a bit of an ego thing. As in, "it isn't the Arrow, but the Indian". So as far as Nikon vs Canon gear, I have some of each, but my only real "pro" level lenses are a Canon 28-70 F/2.8, a Nikon 35-70 f/2.8, and a couple of f/1.4 lenses I picked up for each.<br>

I did also receive an email from a a working photojournalist who I knew actually was shooting with a D2H, and her opinion was that for under $250 it was an ok deal for the D2H, otherwise, it wasn't a decent deal. Hmmmmmm.<br>

Anyways, thank you all for the information.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Shun is right - I did neglect to mention that prior to the D3 - it was rare to find a Nikon shooter at a sporting event - but there were some -</p>

<p>I don't shoot Canon - so can't really comment on what their sport body was nor on the megapixels it supported.</p>

<p>Again - If I had a chance to buy a D2h with low usage for $250 - I'd jump on it - just to own one... but I've got a rack full of nikon lenses.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[shoppix]

<p>geez...invest in one system or the other! Ego be damned! A D90 has been around for couple of years now so why bother. Go for a used D300 or D700 if there are any and sticking with Nikon. If you are not selling your photos, $5000+ is lot of money to spend on a body, as nice as they are to have. Sell what you have and invest in nikon or canon.<br>

the price of those now 'ancient' nikon's is certainly attractive, but the technology is so much more advanced now, it doesn't make sense to me. An old Leica film camera I'd splurge on but would never find one in that price range!<br>

I do have a few old, really old, cameras --a 5x7, 4x5 and a kodak fold out, roll film . they were my grandfathers...I'm now 62! the 4x5 has red bellows and varnished wood on inside. Very nice.</p>

 

[richardsnow]

<p>Paintball is definitely rough on cameras if you're ill prepared. I played and photographed paintball for years, (this is how I got into sports photography and I've since gotten out). I shot a D70s with 80-400mm lens and got very good at it. I wish I could have purchased a D2H back then, but alas, it was way out of my budget.</p>

<p>For now, a D2H might be something worth investing in if you are shooting paintball a lot. Most players and organizations rarely want anything larger than a 5x7 or 8x10 so as long as you aren't doing a lot of cropping then you should be good with 4MP.</p>

<p>The thing is that I wouldn't spend more than a couple of hundred dollars on it. You'll likely trash it if you're shooting NPPL unless you get a good rubberized skin or underwater rig. (I had an underwater rig that had bad seals for my D70s and wrapped a big black leaf bag over the lens...it worked really well). The underwater rig, if purchased new will likely cost more than the camera.</p>

<p>Good luck<br>

<br />RS</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"So if everyone was shooting Canon.... what were that using? 1D Mark II? The Classic Canon 1D is only 4MP as well, isn't it?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D2H was introduced at a really tricky time. Canon had already dominated the pro sports/PJ market for awhile due to their innovations in the 35mm film EOS lineup. Canon had already taken the chance years earlier to ditch the old lens mount and do what was necessary to accommodate new technology; while Nikon dithered in the interest of backward compatibility. As a result Nikon didn't regain the lead (and it's been a slim and tentative lead) in SLRs until just fairly recently.</p>

<p>By the time the D2H was introduced - with class-leading autofocus and TTL flash - the 4 mp resolution was already obsolete. Canon quickly caught up with a comparable dSLR with somewhat higher resolution and better high ISO noise performance (I forget the specific model designation) Early reviewers like dpreview (whose reviews are usually among the best online) were perhaps a little too gentle on Nikon.</p>

<p>Nikon's follow up was the D2X which could have grabbed the lead but... Nikon compromised too much by "crippling" (in the perspective of the increasingly demanding market) the 12 mp maximum resolution by forcing a crop of the already cropped DX sensor for maximum frame rates.</p>

<p>Long story short, the D2H was a loser from the day it hit the market. But we only know that from the benefit of hindsight. I knew it was obsolete when I bought it at the fire sale prices Nikon authorized after trying to salvage the model with the D2Hs (which only reinforced the public's perception that Nikon was king of perpetually too-little-too-late). But it was good enough for my purposes then and, for the most part, still is. At ISO 1600-6400 converted to monochrome, it resembles the pushed b&w film I'm accustomed to, so it's not a step back in any way. But I'm not as demanding as most of today's photographers.</p>

<p>Anyway, the D2H remains a very good value on the used market, possibly the best value in a used Nikon dSLR for those who want maximum compatibility with their manual focus and "screwdriver" AF Nikkors. And if the D2X ever reaches that sweet spot in used market value, it'll be an equally good value in a 12 mp dSLR. The main advantage the D2-series holds over the "lesser" entry level and mid-range Nikon dSLRs is the excellent viewfinder and focusing screens for manual focusing. Other than the crop, the D2H finder is just as bright and crisp as the "E" grid screen in my F3HP, and both are suitable for low light manual focusing. If anything the D2H is a little better because of the adjustable diopter (my F3HP prism is buggered up and won't accept the threaded diopters).</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Shoot paint ball with your D1h avoid cropping and you can make great images with the D1h.</p>

[karel_van_den_fonteyne]

<p>I recently bought a D1x. Great camera. I first had doubts about the 6 Mpixel since I usually print up to A3 (12 x 16 inch). But after a few days testing and now using, I can assure the in-camera processing is super and I can print wihout problems on A3. I did a few macro shots and a portrait session and the results are greath. The speed of the camera combined to the feel and ergonomics is top and not outdated at all. Only the weight is a problem at the end of the day. But that also has something to do with the glass I use. <br>

The D1X has a firewire socket. So, no iPad upload possible to do a quick check on results. I used my Surface tablet and a cheap card reader. Works faster and at full file size. BTW, I never use an on camera display to check results. And with the small display on a D1x, looking at the results is like looking at a stamp.<br>

You certainly need a couple of spare battery packs since the camera speed reduces battery life. The 35 AFD focusses faster on this camera than a 35 AFS. This thing can focus a heavy 35-135 in a blink of an eye. What a tork the in-camera motor can deliver! And you can take 10 pictures (NEF setting) in a few seconds without waiting for a memory to buffer. A spare battey only costs 24 €.<br>

Combines this camera with fast Nikon prime lenses you can make super pictures.<br>

The only thing I want now is a D2x (but I can wait till second hand prices drop).</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>For future reference, I've become reconciled to my D2H after a two or three year long I-hate-us. Danged thing is glitchy but not worth repairing. However I discovered this year it can handle infrared very nicely with just filters, no need for internal modifications.</p>

<p>And it's been fun to experiment with for time lapse. The built in interval timer works well and the 4 meagerpickle files are small enough to handle in large batches even on a modest computer. And shooting raw it can approximate 4k video well enough for time lapse videos.</p>