Nikon D2H Officially Announced

[efusco]

Geez Julio...what a troll statement that is.

Too little of what? 4MP isn't enough for your PJ needs? Or is it the 1/250th flash sync (a legitimate step backward from the D1h). Probably the only 2 legitimate complaints one could have about the camera. If you need more than 4MP then you probably need to wait on the D2x.

 

Yes, I was frustrated too that the newest was a long time coming, but this is a truely innovative, well thought out well designed full featured pro camera. There are more features than my F5 has even with the Multi-function back (those features are built into the camera now). If you already made the leap to Canon then I can understand some sour grapes, but don't bash the camera itself, it's a fine fine tool that will more than satisfy the needs of most PJs.

 

BTW, Thom Hogan seems all excited about the intervalometer--is that just the battery status or something else I should know about?

[carl smith]

It may be sufficient for all, some or just the current crop who don't think there could be better, but the nature of digital technology is such that it continues to push forward. Wouldn't it be great to one day capture 20mp at 8fps? Some may appreciate the room for cropping and chopping.

 

It's not so much that everyone will need more than 4mp (although surely they will eventually or some do now), but its a matter of progress. There weren't many complaints against the 1D, but there were those who used the D1x or the 1Ds instead to get higher resolution at the sacrifice of framerate. I'm sorry to see Nikon didn't allow an obvious evolution allowing technology to advance.

 

The new sensor may be great but as others have stated "too little" of an improvement over the D1h, and not enough different than the Canon 1D. Now that Nikon has a Wifi, who knows Canon may want to play catch up and add their own adapter for it. Particularly with digital, until the market and the technology cools down and matures, playing leapfrog is going to be a necessity otherwise someone can and will fall behind quickly.

[chuck]

"What would you have Nikon do to the 28 - 70 AFS to update it? Surely not VR? " --- conni<p>

 

I was hoping for a little more zoom range on either side so I can use it as the only lens. VR is useful, but not essential. I suppose that in Nikon's mind, 17-55 f/2.8 takes the place of any 28-70 update that they may have planned at one time.

[douglas_green1]

Whew! It looks like they heard the complaints regarding AI/AIS non-chipped lens support, and actually got it right:

 

It will meter in basic Matrix and Spot and Center-weighted mode, and It will provide electronic RF focus support for lenses f5.6 or faster.

 

It will provide aperture readout in the finder if you program the camera with the lens's maximum aperture.

 

I don't think we could have hoped for any more, other than for the D100's successor to provide the same level of support.

[raul_lithgo]

This URL will point you to a "first impression' article by a photographer who has been using the D2h for a few weeks before this announcement. http://www.letsgodigital.be/webpages/firstlook/nikon/slr/D2H_UK1.html

[joe heiliger houston, tx]

"playing leapfrog is going to be a necessity otherwise someone can and will fall behind quickly." -- Carl

 

What do you mean "will fall" behind? Seems Nikon is having a very hard time keeping abreast the Canon tide. I hope the D1x is astounding... for nikon's sake.

[ilkka_nissila]

What does it all matter? All these petty differences will be something to laugh about in ten years, when the dust has settled and there are yet again several major SLR makers.

[carl smith]

Quite right Ilkka.

[Jim_Tardio]

I don't see how Nikon can call the 17-55/2.8 "light & compact"...at 26.6 ounces and 4.4 inches long.

<p>

I though DX lenses were supposed to be smaller and lighter because they covered a smaller frame.

[upscan]

Evan: I like your style and respect your opinions though evidently we disagree on some things, let us see...

"Too little of what? 4MP isn't enough for your PJ needs?"

 

A camera that would represent a jump big enough to warrant expending several grand would do better than 4MP. With such meager increments as Nikon offers in the D2H users would need a slew of cameras, one each for every slightly different application. Evidently there are those that do only PJ who will thank Nikon for every crumb but not every one is so one track minded or so rich as to be happy to drop a few grand every time that Nikon comes up with so minor an increment. More than 4MP would have been a reasonable target but Nikon were not able to deliver now: planned obsolecense?

 

"Or is it the 1/250th flash sync (a legitimate step backward from the D1h). Probably the only 2 legitimate complaints one could have about the camera". -The flash sync is functionally not a big deal but it only means that Nikon could again not deliver a technical advancement. Nikon is either not spending enough in research or its marketers have become complacent knowing that there is a loyal following out there that will buy whatever Nikon dishes out. If you do not believe me just see in this same thread the what this guy has to say: "I think the G lenses are great. I have never used any of them and I love them" (!!!!!)

 

"Yes, I was frustrated too that the newest was a long time coming, but this is a truely innovative, well thought out well designed full featured pro camera. There are more features than my F5 has even with the Multi-function back (those features are built into the camera now). If you already made the leap to Canon then I can understand some sour grapes, but don't bash the camera itself, it's a fine fine tool that will more than satisfy the needs of most PJs."

 

Evan, matrix metering and all that stuff is old hat and as for the F5 it already has matrix metering and tons of features; The fact that it took Nikon so long to build these same features in a digicam is no compliment to its maker. Yes additional features are cute but do they justify such a big additional investment?.

 

Evan, on purely practical terms I do agree with you that the D2H will be a very usable tool for one purpose: PJ. That said, does it offer enough to warrant a big expense to someone that already has a D1H or a D1X and has a wider range of uses for it? that is the question.

 

My feel is that Nikon's marketing direction is off track as when for example they launched new lenses designed for the small sensors (that was easy) instead of focusing their research on larger sensors as Canon did, -that is more difficult. Users who buy these half-measure lenses will in the not too distant future change them for the real thing at big expense. The reality is that in digital Nikon has been underwhelming. They and appear stuck with small incrementals. Let us hope they have something afoot to remedy the problem. Users need the competition.

 

BTW, Thom Hogan seems all excited about the intervalometer--is that just the battery status or something else I should know about?

[david_bradley1]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>

I don't see how Nikon can call the 17-55/2.8 "light & compact"...at 26.6 ounces and 4.4 inches long.

I though DX lenses were supposed to be smaller and lighter because they covered a smaller frame.

</I></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was wondering the same thing: was the "smaller and lighter" promise of the DX turning out to be true? So I looked up the specs and compared them using the specs at <A TARGET="_new" HREF="http://www.nikonusa.com">www.nikonusa.com</A>. (Hey, it ain't brain surgury.)

<P>

<CENTER>

<TABLE BORDER=1>

<TR><TD></TD><TD>AFS 28-70mm/2.8</TD><TD>AFS 17-55mm/2.8 DX</TD><TD>conclusion</TD><TR>

<TR><TD>effective focal length (35mm)</TD><TD>28-70mm</TD><TD>25.5-82.5mm</TD><TD>DX has wider range</TD></TR>

<TR><TD>size (inches)</TD><TD>3.5 X 4.9</TD><TD>3.4 X 4.4</TD><TD>DX is smaller</TD></TR>

<TR><TD>weight (oz)</TD><TD>31.3</TD><TD>26.6</TD><TD>DX is 4.7 oz lighter</TD></TR>

<TR><TD>Filter size (mm)</TD><TD>77</TD><TD>77</TD><TD>same</TD></TR>

</TABLE>

</CENTER>

<P>

Conclusions: the DX lens has a wider zoom range, is smaller, and is lighter. The DX isn't <I>small</I> by most 35mm standards, but it is smaller than the equivalent non-DX lens.

<P>

In constast the new 10.5mm DX fisheye is larger and heavier than its non-DX equivalent, the 16mm fisheye. This is disappointing, but perhaps was necessary because of the special needs of digital sensors when use with wide angle lenses. There is no non-DX equivalent to the 12-24mm/f4 (the non-DX is f2.8 instead of f4) so no comparison is possible there.

[efusco]

Julio,

Thanks for the reasoned response, certainly a better way to forward your valid opinion than your first post. I'll briefly respond to a few points you bring up. I think it's clear that this isn't everything everyone would have hoped for, but do feel it will be perfect for certain PJ and sports uses.

 

<p><i>A camera that would represent a jump big enough to warrant expending several grand would do better than 4MP. With such meager increments as Nikon offers in the D2H users would need a slew of cameras, one each for every slightly different application.</i>

 

<p>At a price point below the 1D (obviously it's direct competitor) and to achieve the buffer capacity, frame rate and quality I suspect the 4MP was a compromise and also suspect that a lot of thought went into picking that resolution. You look at it as an incremental improvement, but I wonder if the "H" series cameras might stay in the 4MP range for a long time with improvements focused in other areas. If it's adequate to do the job and compromises would have had to be made to have a higher resolution then it's the best resolution for the tool. Puting a 16 pound head on a claw hammer works against the tool's purpose, likewise, puting a claw on a 16 lb sledge isn't helpful either. I won't begrudge you the fact that 6MP would have been nice to see, but would the PJs begin complaining that the buffer capacity is only 25 frames--3 seconds of 8fps shooting...or maybe the frame rate couldn't be as high. The designs are a matter of balancing features and quality and I think this product seems to have been made wisely within the apparent restrictions.

 

<p><i>The flash sync is functionally not a big deal but it only means that Nikon could again not deliver a technical advancement. Nikon is either not spending enough in research or its marketers have become complacent knowing that there is a loyal following out there that will buy whatever Nikon dishes out.</i>

 

<p>I suppose one could interpret it that way. And perhaps it's true, they couldn't get the shutter lag fast enough or the black-out short enough with an electronic shutter. I do not know enough about the technical aspect of digital cameras to make as bold a statement as you do one way or the other on the technical over or under achievments of this camera. I don't think working pros care that much about the name on the camera, they want a tool to do their job with. If sales suck for the D2h and sky rocket for the 1D then we'll know something...or if they all just keep shooting with their D1h.

 

<p><i>Evan, matrix metering and all that stuff is old hat and as for the F5 it already has matrix metering and tons of features; The fact that it took Nikon so long to build these same features in a digicam is no compliment to its maker. Yes additional features are cute but do they justify such a big additional investment?.</i>

 

<p>We apparently don't see eye to eye on this at all. I think there are a huge number of improvements and advancements in SLR features if not in digital technology to make this camera very appealing. You put the SLR features of this camera on a film body and I'm going to give serious consideration to upgrading from my F5...not everyone would, but I'm enchanted enough with the AF improvements, command and subcommand dials on the vertical grip and backward lens compatibility alone to consider it.

 

<p><i>Evan, on purely practical terms I do agree with you that the D2H will be a very usable tool for one purpose: PJ. That said, does it offer enough to warrant a big expense to someone that already has a D1H or a D1X and has a wider range of uses for it? that is the question.</i>

 

<p>That's a pretty personal issue. I think it would for me if I were a PJ or sports guy. It darn near meets my needs/desires as it and I'm not a PJ or sports guy! I think the price is very reasonable for the product.

 

<p><i>My feel is that Nikon's marketing direction is off track as when for example they launched new lenses designed for the small sensors (that was easy) instead of focusing their research on larger sensors as Canon did, -that is more difficult. Users who buy these half-measure lenses will in the not too distant future change them for the real thing at big expense. The reality is that in digital Nikon has been underwhelming. They and appear stuck with small incrementals. Let us hope they have something afoot to remedy the problem. Users need the competition.</i>

 

<p>These points may or may not be valid. I think time will tell. What if they felt that the sensor size vs noise/resolution/etc. issue was a non-issue or would become a non-issue (in otherwords that small sensors could be produced that had as high a resolution as a full frame (within reason) without loss of quality. And at the same time realized that trying to make a FF sensor on the current F-mount would always have problems with chromatic aberation and light fall-off. The compromise here may (I'm completely speculation for illustrative purposes) have been between changing the mount completely to make it big enough to avoid the problems of FF or to stick with the F-mount and smaller sensor and work the system around that. How much noise would we be hearing if they tried to change from F-mounts? I can't even imagine. Again, I'm not a technical guy, I believe compromises must be made...I be even Canon has had to once or twice. The ones so far, by Nikon, are within reason in my opinion.

 

<p>So much for my brief response. I've been considering starting a thread to get input about people's perfect D2x--basing it on the body features of the D2h and what you'd want to see in the "X" body to make it worth while...say at $4000 list. I want ISO 50 & 100, maybe dropping the highest end if need be, but they should be able to maintain the range. I want 8-10 MP. I'd like Full Frame, but have accepted that it isn't likely to happen unless Nikon is holding some more sensor 'cards' close to their chest. I'd take a frame rate of 4 fps and buffer capacity around 15 images. Be nice if the GPS was in there. wireless...give or take, don't really care and probably wouldn't by the adapter. I'd like ProphotoRGB color space and maybe 16 bits.

 

<p>What would make it worth that to you (or anyone else).

[eos 10 fan]

Grab your grain of salt... this is from an EOS user ;) <p>

 

AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor <b>200-400mm f/4</b>G IF-ED <br>

!W!O!W! - I want one, but at close to USD$9,000 <br>

I think I'll have to give it a pass. <p>

 

Javier: "Better and cheaper than the 1D" <br>

I'm no digi cognoscenti, but other than the Wi-Fi I'm having a hard time seeing 'better' in the DP Review comparo table. The street price of USD$3500 vs. $4000 is a 12.5% difference - and $500 is not to be dismissed - but it is probably not the deciding factor when comparing the two. The 1.5x vs. the 1.3x mag factor is an interesting point when you consider the sensors are basically the same size & capacity.<p>

 

Shun: You raise several interesting points. <br>

I think you nailed it when you said: <br>

"Keep in mind that this camera is intended for news, sports, and PJ type work." This seems to be a very well designed body for its targetted market - those who are crafting 20" x 30" fine art prints should look elsewhere - although I have read that for double page mag spreads more than 4MP would be useful. <br>

The different sensor mag factors (1x, 1.3x & 1.6x) offered by Canon vs. Nikon's consistent 1.5x is, I think, something driven by the marketing side rather than the engineering side. Let's not forget that Kodak did not develop the 1x mag factor Pro14n in a vacuum. The 1D is almost 2 years old now; it will be interesting to see how Canon responds when they introduce the 1D's replacement. <br>

I'm having a little trouble with your statement: "Canon still cannot come up with any DX-equivalent lenses." Canon makes many different lenses for many different formats so it is probably more a case of 'Canon has choosen not to come up with any DX-equivalent lenses.' The variety of mag factors no doubt playsa part in this decision also. Canon is still smarting from the lashing it took more than 15 years ago when they dropped the FD line for EOS. Unlike Nikon, Canon decided to stay with full frame lenses even during the dubious days of APS. <p>

 

Jemini: "Both Nikon and Canon didn't have a 400/4 VR/IS lens" <br>

Canon offers a 400mm f/4 DO IS USM for ~USD$7000. <p>

 

Evan: "The intervalometer--is that just the battery status or something else?" <br>

An intervalometer is an interval shooting function that allows users to take a sequence of photographs over extended periods of time. The camera can take a set number frames at set intervals. <p>

 

--

[umd]

<i>Javier: "Better and cheaper than the 1D"

I'm no digi cognoscenti, but other than the Wi-Fi I'm having a hard time seeing 'better' in the DP Review comparo table. The street price of USD$3500 vs. $4000 is a 12.5% difference - and $500 is not to be dismissed - but it is probably not the deciding factor when comparing the two.</i><br><br>

 

Hm, I can see something better, like:

 

- Really wide angles usable with it.

- Still better, D type flash system (even better with the SB-800).

- A bit lighter body.

- Clever location of AF sensors and operation down to -1 EV.

- Bigger and better rear LCD.

- Bigger (2 times) buffer.

- 6400 ISO.

- Built in intervalometer.

- Slighly less viewfinder blackout.

- And 1.6 crop is an advantage imo.

[upscan]

Evan: I take my hat off to you, your response is a good example for what these forums should be about and thanks for your detailed and well reasoned response. You raise one technical issue, the Nikon mount. Indeed the small mount must have been a problem for Nikon all the way, however having managed to design optics that can illuminate a full 35 mm frame what would the problem be having the same optics illuminate a full frame sensor assuming you own one? My own guess is that the mount was not the real obstacle, rather, Nikon marketing thought they could get by on the cheap by staying with the small sensors and do all the cartwheels on the lenses. Your attitude to Nikon is kinder and more generous than mine on that score. The question is whether Nikon deserves the benefit of the doubt. Time will tell. One thing is sure, Nikon should pay attention to Canon's onslaught on the Digital and optical fronts as their laurels seem frayed. Canon of course is a larger company with more resources to invest on Research, that means Nikon will have to play smarter and keep a closer watch on what their customers want. To date I see no convincing sign they are doing that. All that said, your reasoning behind the compromises made on the D2H was realistic and convincing. On that score you are a pragmatist. I enjoyed your discourse.

[larry n.]

Julio,

 

From your effervescent praise of the full-frame sensor, we assume you have at least one, if not two, Canon EOS-1Ds bodies. Now, having paid $8,000 per camera shouldn't you be out taking pictures with them, instead of raking Nikon over the coals for not producing what most of us do not need and cannot afford?

[upscan]

Naji: You make two assumptions, one that I own Canon EOS-DS1, the other that most of 'us', (as you call it) do not need a full frame sensor. I do not own Canon DS1s nor for that matter any Canon SLR. In fact I own Nikon equipmet, ...for the time being. Next, if by "us" you mean you and your circle of friends I can not dispute your statement. Full frame for everyone, not just "us" means that regular SLR lenses retain their optical equivalency, saving the need to buy additional shorter lenses or else half-frame lenses as Nikon proposes. That is not an assumption but a technical fact.

 

Naji, the problems of the world are created by people that make false assumptions. You might at least agree to that.

[larry n.]

Julio, I did not mean to insult you in any way, but when you said "the problems of the world are created by people that make false assumptions", I can only agree with you, to a point. HALF the problems of the world are created by people that make false assumptions. The other half are created by people who don't understand irony.

 

Anyhow, who ever said the Canon makes a "full frame" sensor? My Mamiya medium format camera, now that has a full-frame sensor.

 

Really, there is nothing magical about 35mm. The format was a compromise that made sense in the film world. Why should it translate to the digital world?

 

I have no idea what the ideal compromise for the digital world is at the moment, or what it will be in the future. But let's not assume that the 35mm "full-frame" is the ideal compromise.

 

Even though I had my doubts, at the moment, I have to admit that Nikon might be on the right track.

 

And if you disagree, don't get bitter about it...just go with one of the competitors. There are at least 3 digital cameras with 35mm sensors available. Heck, you can even spend $20,000 on a medium format digital back if it floats your boat.

[carl smith]

You two can argue about it but personally I'm expecting a split, where the 4/3 is the 35mm equivalent in the future (small but capable) with lots of the littler things for point and shoots. With the 35mm chassis being an almost-medium format, and medium being almost-large format and anything digital in large format will be ludicrous format.

 

Who agrees?

 

Discuss...

[Carl Stone]

"You raise one technical issue, the Nikon mount. Indeed the small mount must have

been a problem for Nikon all the way, however having managed to design optics that

can illuminate a full 35 mm frame what would the problem be having the same optics

illuminate a full frame sensor assuming you own one?"

 

Julio, here's a slight problem for 'ya. Canon's full frame 1Ds doesn't do wide worth

snot! The problem is in the full frame sensor, and the way that light strikes it, so take

a break. Nikon is doing fine, in spite of what you think. Let's see, $8000.00 for a

camera that screws up wide angles? I don't think so.

[ilkka_nissila]

Carl, have you used the 1Ds with wide angles? Michael Reichmann says it doesn't have any problems film cameras don't have with wide angles. Show us the problems (picture examples), and I'll adjust my views if they look more credible than your words.

[carl smith]

I was going to say, I thought that was the whole thing everyone was happy about with it was that it could do wide angle and do it well. A number of sites have tested this and it performs just as well as film.

[upscan]

Norman: Prior to Digital Nikon must have sold millions of lenses for 35 mm SLRs. Whether 35mm is or is not an ideal compromise is not the issue. By virtue of the millions of lenses and cameras in the 35 mm format 35 mm is a standard. It befits manufacturers to strive to accomodate their customer base as that benefits everyone and I do not see digital as offering manufacturers an alibi for ignoring a standard when the real reason is that the easy road offers the opportunity for obsolescing and replacing. Norman, your earlier sarcastic post is understandable from people that have a strong emotional commitment to equipment (designer) labels. In the end I do not think such emmotional attachments benefit users, they only benefit manufacturers. Too much rah, rah, rah only makes them lazy and uncompetitive. That applies to all, Nikon as well as Canon even though in this thread, any negative comment for Nikon is suspected to come from Canon cheerleaders. Pity!

[Carl Stone]

"Carl, have you used the 1Ds with wide angles? Michael Reichmann says it doesn't

have any problems film cameras don't have with wide angles. Show us the problems

(picture examples), and I'll adjust my views if they look more credible than your

words."

 

Ilkka, No I haven't used the 1Ds, my remarks were based on information from

Professonal Photographer magazine in the UK. The mag claimed that the 1Ds is

severly troubled by wide angles, the very reason that folks want a full frame sensor

for. They also said that Leica uses a small sensors for the same reason, and that

Nikon and Olympus have chosen the small sensor to avoid the problem. You really

have to ask if the "full size" sensor is so good, why isn't everyone using it? Surely,

nobody thinks that it's some sort of conspiracy.

[ilkka_nissila]

It's not a conspiracy. Most companies are not using full-frame sensors because the cameras would end up wildly expensive. I'm sure Canon's 10D (1.6x crop) outsells the 1Ds by a factor of ten or more. Few people are going to pay for full frame right now, as we all know that the cameras will get much better (a 5-second delay for the menu to appear on the 1Ds - think about it!) and cheaper after a few years. It's just bad investment at this time unless you're a landscape photographer with lots of 35 mm EF glass.

 

Neither the Kodak 14n nor the 1Ds has problems with quality wide angles, according to the reviews that I've read (including sample pictures). Vignetting on the 1Ds is similar to that seen on a film camera, at least when using top of the line wide angles. It may be different with cheap lenses.