Hi all,

First I want to say I've been a long time lurker/information gather here and this is my first post. I love this place btw. But on to the dilemma. I’m in the market for a new body and I'm trying to decide what to get. I’ve read all the reviews on here and other places and still cant decide. So I'm asking for help (hopefully from people who own a combination of any 2 out of the 3 cameras in question). I've owned a d50 and d70s and am looking for something a little more "professional". I’m looking for; something with nice IQ, fast AF, good noise levels at 400 and below, and pretty good reload times. I don’t care too much about printing anything over 8x10 so MP isn’t much of a factor. My price range is between $1000-$1500 for the body. Any comparisons you guys/girls have would be great.

Thanks!

Autofocus speed and flexibility: D2H
Resolution: not important given your intended print size
Batteries: D2H by a long shot; D200 next; D1X last
Image quality: they're all great at 400 and below
Sports (frame rate, rapid switch to portrait mode, etc., overall handling): D2H
Current flash technology, including CLS and iTTL: D2H and D200
Build quality: all are good; D1X and D2H would be my preferences

I could go on, but these are all great cameras. And we don't know what you shoot, so it's harder to provide a specific recommendation. The D1X is a fantastic imager. However, I would not get one today simply because the battery and flash systems are a little outdated for me.

My favorite is the D2H (assuming RAW capture, careful metering, and a good PP workflow).

If you get a D2H, find out if it has had the meter/AF board replaced.

Good luck.

D2h if you are got going to print over 8x10. That camera can handle 11x14's with out breaking a sweat. And the AF runs circles around the d70. The image quality even at 4mp is just like what you currently have.

Thanks all for the quick replys. I'm leaning towards the d2h.

Thanks

I have used the D1X, D70s like yours and the D200. I have heard a lot about the D2H but never used one.
I do not know the type of photography you do but should not be something critical, I think, since you state you do not go beyond 8x10.
The fastest camera there in AF and speed is the D2H; everybody knows that. Beyond ISO 400 most owners have complained of noise and some claim that even at 400 it is noisy. Since I have not used the camera I cannot issue an opinion.
The D1X, which I own, is an excellent professional camera with old technology. The images are beautiful. Flash and batteries could be very annoying due to the old technology. I have used the SB-28DX with mixed results. Batteries exhaust fast and require replacement to keep on shooting. Old technology as I said.
The D2H is known to have meter failures. Nikon replaces an electronic board to fix the problem to any owner for free. The D200 is very good and less heavy, eats up batteries and the files are huge. Not recommended if you are not going to enlarge.
These are some of the facts that could help you make your decision.
Good luck!
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.

I don't believe you'll be disappointed with any of them; they all have their own characteristics you'll like or otherwise too. The D200 is a good overall camera. You should look into. However you did state you're leaning towards the D2h, you'll enjoy it when it comes.

Cheers
Nik

Ive owned all 3 and offer the following:

D1X unique pixel design allows for a 10meg image in capture
D2h is more like a fine euro sports car, needs lots of attention and precision but excells over the other bodies when you provide them
D200 is the every mans camera, does everything pretty good.

Depending on your budget/shooting style, D1x will offer more room to get exotic glass
D200 will bring out the flaws in your consumer grade glass
D2h file size is the BEST, while D200 sucks, the avg. raw file is over 15megs.

good luck on your decision as they are all good machines.

I agree with everyone else; all three are excellant cameras. My question is then "How do you want to spend your money?"
D1x is probably the cheapest so you could use some extra money and get better glass with it.
D1h would probably cost a little more than the X because everyone still wants the H.
D200 you can buy new.
good luck
tom

In addition to what's been said, if possible try to test drive all of them. Take a memory card and take few shots in the store, play with the controls etc. Then go home and look at the files on your computer. When I decided to upgrade from the D70 I was seriously looking at the D2x but once I seen it I wasn't sure I'd like toting around that size a camera. It's performance and specs certainly were appealing but I was afraid I'd leave it behind too often and not get my moneys worth out it. For similar reasons my 70-200VR got left behind in favour of a smaller package. Just a few thoughts. Good luck.

The most important factor for me is build quality and in this respect the D200 is a disaster waiting to happen.
I destroyed one in 10 weeks (shutter) and I also do not like the 200's ergonomics.
The obvios chioce (as said) is the D2h I own 6 of them and they are bullit proof, we are averaging 1 million shutter releases on these bodies, with the record being over 2 million.
As for image quality, all are good but the better focus/ sensor/ exposure engine/ unbeivable flash perforance (the only thing Nikon does better than Canon) and smallish file size of the 2h make it, in my mind the best digital camera availble today.
We regularly print 24"X36" posters out of these remakable bodies.
I am always buying secondhand 2h's and think they are great value, the only thing that ever really goes is the shutter and it is a cheap repair and once done it is virtually a new camera.
Gav
Oh, the X factor at the moment is the iminent release of the 'new' nikon. Once this happens anal photogs all over the world will have to have it, so used D2hs and D2xs will be next to nothing (both better than the D2h) so if it's not urgent wait till the end of the year.
( I own or have owned D70/ D100/ D200/ D1h/ D2h/ D2hs/ D2xs bodies)

Gavin you must be tough on cameras. You destroyed a D200 shutter in just a few weeks? The ergonomics of the D200 is the closest you can get to their professional cameras. I use the D1X and had no problems adapting to the D200.
I am going to say that the D200 IS NOT a professional camera although it comes pretty close to be one. If a camera is going to receive the punishment you referred to I would not be in line to buy a D200.
I see that you use or have used many Nikon bodies, considering that they "do not do other things well besides flash." I am not trying to open a can of worms but if you are using Nikon bodies there must be a reason. Indeed you have become a D2H collector!
Many photographers were kind of skeptical when Nikon decided to go with only 4 megapixels with the D2H. I already said I have never used the camera but you confirm what I knew about those 4 megapixels.
The price of the D2H is going to fall considerably as Nikon introduces the new professional camera. I am actually in the market for a D2Hs although I do not need a fast camera. Its 4 megapixels will fit perfectly my amateur style of photography.

im in the same position as the OP. only, i cant decide between the D2H or D2Hs.
KEH has some D2H for cheap, but looking at the specs, the S version would be just that much sweeter, (it seems).

dmora wrote:
im in the same position as the OP. only, i cant decide between the D2H or D2Hs.
KEH has some D2H for cheap, but looking at the specs, the S version would be just that much sweeter, (it seems).

My view on this is that if you're an event shooter with a workflow that requires JPEG capture with little PP in order to facilitate rapid, same day file submissions to media sites, for example, then spend the extra cash on the D2Hs (or D2x, D200).

The H and Hs sensors are the same, but in-camera image processing for JPEGs is not (e.g., 12-bit versus 8-bit). If you're shooting RAW, it really doesn't matter unless the other, less significant upgrades, like buffer depth, are really important for what you do.

Ted

I have the D200 and D2H here are the pros and cons to a casual, hobbiest photographer.

D200 pros:
-Unmatched build quality from a smallish(vertical grip-less) SLR body.
-As someone else said, it does everything pretty well(jackof all trades).
-CLS control with built in flash controller.
-Still a current model, with new warranted bodies available.
-Has the dedicated controls usually only found on pro models(metering, focusing modes, ISO not buried in menus)
-The 10mp is more than enough resolution and sharpens up nicely from RAWs in Capture(See cons related)

D200 cons:
-Weak jpeg production, but as above the RAWs of the same image really come to life in Capture(night/day difference, much more so than my other Nikon bodies.
-Battery life is poor, yes you can add the flimsy vertical grip and double your battery life but that still gets you less than half of the shots of a single D2H battery. I turned off image review and just tap the play button when I need a quick chimp and battery life improved noticably though.
-10mp NEFs(even compressed) take up some serious disk and CF space(luckily those things keep getting more affordable). The large NEFs though also take longer to process, it's of course manageable but you'll feel a difference even with the fastest editing rig.

Thats pretty much the negatives. So if you want hi res shots, shoot RAW, and don' t mind large image files and packing extra batteries, you'll have no regrets with the D200.

D2H pros:
-Well it's a D2 series pro body, that should sum it up...
-At low ISO(400 or less), JPEG performance is pretty good, RAW is of course better.
-4.1mp goes a lot further than given credit.
-Multicam 2000 AF... Wow! The D200 isn't a slouch here, but the D2h simply "Snaps" into focus, even with screwdriven lenses.
-Battery life in fantastic, of course it's a $100+ battery also, but I only have one and am getting along fine.
-3.5mb compressed NEFs take up much less space and loading/editing is noticably faster.
-I shouldn't need to mention the 8fps ability, but I will anyway.
-Brighter viewfinder.
-The short viewfinder blackout is amazing. I mention this because I used to read others mention it, and didn't really see the big deal. When my D2H arrived, I mounted a lens and fired a couple shots indoors. The shutter noise and blackout were so short, I had to check the LCD to make sure I actually captured a shot. You really need to shoot a D2(something) body to understand this one.


D2H cons:
-It's a dog at high ISO, when shooting JPEG. With good noise reduction, NEFs even up to 3200 clean up nicely if exposed properly. But you have to know buying a D2H that getting good ISO 1600 & 3200 images is no slam dunk.
-For some shots, you just need more than 4.1mp, though there are alot of photogs that report dazzling 20x30 prints.
-No option of making the D2H, smaller or lighter. It's a brick to carry, but a pleasure to shoot.
-No onboard CLS control. You can add an SB800 or SU800 for that.
-Meter failure problem, Nikon fixes this for free on USA models.


I left the Canon camp for a D200 package, I love my Nikons now. Since getting the D2H, my D200 is getting bored. I don't want to get rid of it, but the thought of using it's value toward nice glass has crossed my mind.

I think that between these two, if you flip a coin and buy, you wouldn't regret your choice. I have never owned a D1x, but would give it a whirl if the price was right.

I've made 16x20" prints from my D2h for clients and they look fantastic. Don't let the MP fool you. It is a truly amazing camera. I also have a D70 and D2x and still reach for the D2h.

I often get asked why I shoot Nikon. Simple, when I got into digital Nikon was the only real game in town (I got the first D1h in Canada).
I also used F3's and 4's so liked and continue to like Nikon's ergonomics.
When Canon caught up and in some peoples mind overtook Nikon, I saw no compelling reason to switch, and I still don't.
So here is my critera, in order of importance to my business:
#1 useability. Nikon are the clear leader here.
#2 build quality. Both are equal, so no reson to switch.
#3 image quality. Both great, no reason to switch.
#4 file size. Nikon clear winner (D2h)
#5 focus speed. Canon just ahead.
#6 low light performance. Canon clear winner.
#7 Lense sharpness. no clear winner.
#8 flash perforance. Nikon clear winner
#9 exposure. Nikon just ahead.
#10 value. Nikon just ahead.
#11 service. both bad.
So at the end of the day for me Nikon is still my tool of choice, their ergonomics/ exposure and flash advantage overwelm Canon's better high ISO and slight AF speed advantages.
Gav

Edited by gavin on Aug 18, 2007 at 02:56 AM GMT

I bought a D1-X shortly after they made the scene. Loved the camera and got excellent results from it. Just before the D-200 came out, the shutter failed on the D1-X. I bought the D-200 to serve as backup while the D1-X was repaired.

That was over two years ago and I'm still using the D-200. Everything else has already been said about battery life, etc. but for $1500 you can buy the D-200 new which, to me, would be the deciding factor.

BTW, I've made 16x24 prints with the D-200 and have been well pleased.

Richard

I like to give my 2 cents worth so....
I own a D2H and a D70. I bought a D2H for sports but I tend to use it as an all-purpose camera when size and weight are not issues. I have contemplated selling it for a D200 but I don't see the point as I don't need the extra megapixels yet. However, if I only neeed one camera I would buy a D200 because it incorporates the best of the D70 and the D2h. I have tried out a D200 camera a few times I liked it. I didn't like the price!

Thank you all for your replys. The reason Im not looking at the d2x or d2hs is because I've factored the cost of glass as well. From all the replies it looks like the d2h is the one to get, or go canon

qris24 wrote:
Thank you all for your replys. The reason Im not looking at the d2x or d2hs is because I've factored the cost of glass as well. From all the replies it looks like the d2h is the one to get, or go canon
Glass is a whole other kettle of fish.
Don't think you need to go and spend a fortune on 'pro' glass.
If youv'e owned d70 and such you may well have a lense or 2 kickin around, if not don't sweat it.
Buy a secondhand D2h and then get a 18-200 ED VR (this is by far the best think Nikkor have built in years) and you are covered for most situations.
Or, get a 18-70 and the 70-300 ED VR (this is my 'go to' tool for my ski photogs) the 70-300 is pin sharp, small and focuses fast.
If wide angle is your game, aviod the 12-24 Nikkor and look at the Sigma 10-20, I returned my 12-24 after useing the Sigma.
And there is always seconhand Nikkor glass, it is far more available than Canon stuff.
Gav

I prefer to choice D2hs over D2h.

gavin wrote:
The most important factor for me is build quality and in this respect the D200 is a disaster waiting to happen.



How exactly is the D200 a disaster waiting to happen?? I'm not sure how you treat your gear but the D200 body & build is not exactly dog meat.

Steve

I have both the D2H and D200. I can't tell you which one to get, but I would sum it up this way in short, since others have already posted some great pros/cons and thoughts.

If you want the best AF system, amazing speed, fantastic battery life and a near-faultless control layout... go for the D2H. If you NEED humungous prints (you said you don't), and shoot for more detail than action/sports... get the D200.

I love my D200, I really do. The high ISO performance is very good, the images are honestly phenominal in detail and color, and the camera handles extremely well. What's more... the thing is "convertible" between a pro-size body with vertical grip and a smaller more compact travel cam.

But there's something about shooting with a D2H. It is the king at action/sports, my main photography focus. The keeper rate is near-perfect when I get home and sort through images, and the file size is a dream to work with. Shoot this baby RAW and you will be laughing. That CAM2000 AF system is something you won't believe until you experience it. It's that good.

Either way, you won't go wrong, but you need to determine if it's about large image detail or capturing action like no other that is your main focus to get the right body.

SSISteve wrote:
gavin wrote:
The most important factor for me is build quality and in this respect the D200 is a disaster waiting to happen.



How exactly is the D200 a disaster waiting to happen?? I'm not sure how you treat your gear but the D200 body & build is not exactly dog meat.

Steve


Steve, we absolutely abuse our tools!
Nikon Canada have told me if I ever buy a 'prosummer' camera again they will kill me.
I thought the D200 was worth a try but we killed both in about 10 weeks.
I will say the image quality is great, but the battery life (even with the vertical grip) is a disgrace, also not a very good focuser, so for sports which is my gig it's crap, but for portraits/ wedding ect it's the bomb.
Nikon did not warranty either camera because they have exceeded the aloweable shutter releases (one had 160,000 the other slightly more) for the 10 weeks I owend them.
For your interest I only count on 2 or 3 ski seasons out of a body and only 1 untill the shutter dies. We average half a million pics per body ( I employ 14 photogs and own 14 bodies) in a 5 month ski season.
Gav

I miss my D1x ... it got stolen I might pickup another in the future, but would rather get a used D2x first.