Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2004 · D2H - Why the big split?

Bill De
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · D2H - Why the big split?

Hi all,

I really debated about posting this question. But, after all, these are discussion forums.

So... I am... and here it goes...

I am one of the bystanders... waiting on the D2X with great anticipation... and watching the D2H with great interest. I currently own a D100, and recently sold my D1X (it's a long story). Coming from a D1X user point of view... my most important needs/wishes are: excellent image quality, high resolution sensor (8MP or more), low noise at high ISOs, good flash performance, good battery performance, and fast focus as well as excellent tracking. I do not need a fast frame rate, nor am I even interested in it. Thus, the D2H is not a current interest for me. However, I do find myself at times wondering about getting one as a prelude to getting a D2X.

However, as I read through the many initial posts of new D2H owners, I find myself confused about very large split of praise and complaints. The noise issue seems to be a very big issue. I thought the initial reports were exaggerated, but I hear more and more professional photographers complain about it. One interesting perspective that I have heard a couple places now is that a majority of photographers that have purchased the D2H, did so not for demanding sports/PJ work which it was aimed at... but rather for general/studio/creative/snapshot photography. I do see a lot of awesome images, however, I would assume most images are from more controlled conditions and at the best (read: lowest) ISO... and therefore, pictures are being posted that are not from demanding situations. It has been noted several places that the D2H is very picky about exposure, and will produce excessive noise when used over the base ISO 200 if not used very carefully. If so, $3000+ is a lot to spend to have to babysit your camera in order to get acceptable results. Heck, my D100 is an excellent high ISO performer and I've used it successfully at indoor sports events and for natural light portraits. My D1X worked better for sports, but my D100 surprised me a lot.

Here is a very interesting thread over at DPReview that I found to be a little disconcerting:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=8023086
I choose not to jump in over there due to the more unfriendly atmosphere.

Also, to make matters worse (for me that is), a friend and professional photographer who just purchased the D2H is wanting to sell it. He is a 20+ year pro and veteran D1X/D1H user. He purchased one of the first D2h's available. He has tried it at several sporting events, and told me that he could not get the performance he needed out of it when going over ISO 400. It made me stop and think when he said he was going to continue using his D1X and D1H for all sports events. And he felt that the D2H only matched performance of his D1X for studio/wedding work. He experimented with an indoor available light portrait using his D1X and then took the same picture with his D2H. I'd have to admit that they both were very similar from the screen and a large print. His take on it was the D1X was a little less noisy, although quality of the D2H was very good except for noise. But, neither was a clear winner.

He offered me his almost brand new D2H for $2500.........

After I recovered, I told him that it was tempting, but I was unconvinced that the D2H would fill my needs... as well as unconvinced that the noise issue would actually not be an issue.

To bring my book to a close......

I would love to hear some opinions and thoughts about what I have just shared. Although I don't have any specific questions, I do feel a little concerned about all the complaints about noise. I guess it makes me wonder about the D2X which I am trying to patiently wait for.

Mar 17, 2004 at 06:00 PM

sdai
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · D2H - Why the big split?

I'm simply curious ... what did your young pro friend mean that he could not get the performance he needed out of it when going over ISO 400? ... also D2H only matched performance of his D1X for studio/wedding work sounds good to me ... I'm not so sure what your specifics are but if this another "D2H noise issue" thread again ... then there isn't really too much to talk about

Since now no one hears anything about the D2X, then I assume it's far from "exists" ... why worry? Just get out and shoot some pictures or have a beer, Bill

Mar 17, 2004 at 06:53 PM

jmcfadden
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · D2H - Why the big split?

Bill

if the guy is a friend then rent it from him , this whole thing is an internet "tempest in a tea cup" if you ask me, and i think you just did, the dynamic range this camera handles and captures is greater than any nikon I have shot, consequently it "reaches" down further, clip the shadows like every other nikon and presto the noise is not there , the noise I am seeing is a totally randow type noise not the gross track or pattern type, find other reasons not to buy this camera , if there are any , from where i sit man this thing rocks

look at John Cote's shots here:

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/74228

or Simon will step in and give you more to think about

Mar 17, 2004 at 07:09 PM

aheron
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · D2H - Why the big split?

jmcfadden wrote:
from where i sit man this thing rocks
J

I'm sittin in the same place J

Al.

Mar 17, 2004 at 07:21 PM

Bill De
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · D2H - Why the big split?

sdai wrote:
I'm simply curious ... what did your young pro friend mean that "he could not get the performance he needed out of it when going over ISO 400"? ...

I believe that he meant that he was disappointed with the noise above ISO 400. He did mention using ISO 800 and 1600 and he felt it left a lot to be desired. He said that he would have to use noise reduction software more aggressively than with his D1H.

I was a little concerned after hearing this.

Mar 17, 2004 at 09:01 PM

Bill De
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · D2H - Why the big split?

jmcfadden wrote:
if the guy is a friend then rent it from him , this whole thing is an internet "tempest in a tea cup" if you ask me, and i think you just did, the dynamic range this camera handles and captures is greater than any nikon I have shot, consequently it "reaches" down further, clip the shadows like every other nikon and presto the noise is not there , the noise I am seeing is a totally randow type noise not the gross track or pattern type, find other reasons not to buy this camera , if there are any...Show more →

Very impressive pics!

But, for every positive post such as yours, I see other posts that are the exact opposite... when it comes to noise. Why? This is what I find confusing. Why the big gaps? Sometimes I wish it was like the "old" days... no internet... just the photography magazines. At least with the magazines... every camera was perfect.

Not because of what any of you have said, but I have a feeling I should not have brought this up... sort of like I'm in a bar and just insulted the "big guy's" girlfriend... and now everyone is staring at me. :worried:

Those initial complaints about noise is the main reason that I've kept my distance from wanting this camera. Well, the "only 4MP" issue might be a close second. I don't see the dust settling yet like some issues do. There are just still too many complaints out there. Even those that say Nikon realizes there is a problem.

I know this has been brought up before. But, just because it has been brought up before, doesn't mean that the opinions stop there and won't change as time goes by. I was just hoping for some more up-to-date opinions on why this is so... not to just beat a dead horse. I'm sure this may be a very important concern for some photographers thinking about a D2H... and if not, it's important to me. If it wasn't for the noise issue, I might buy one to give it a try. But, with all the complaints... I don't know. If you read consumer reports about a washing machine that had a lot of complaints, how would that affect your impression of that machine? Yes, they could be unfounded. But, wouldn't you give them some thought?

Mar 17, 2004 at 09:36 PM

Stripper
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · D2H - Why the big split?

Bill,

This is sort of a tired old discussion. I will first thank John Mc. for showing off some of my low light pictures.

I don't think this camera is for everybody. I wasn't sure it was for me for a while. I still don't think the camera is as perfect as it can be. I will even say this (at the risk of my life on the Nikon forum). I think that the Canon 1D does a little bit better in the low light...for now. I have a feeling, from what I have seen, that the new Canon 1D-II will either be noisey or soft at high ISOs.

We are, after-all talking about a pretty new camera (D2H) with its initial firmware. For all that, I really love the camera. Mine is a later copy than your friend's. I think mine makes a better high ISO image than the early version I shot with. Mine makes perfectly acceptable/publishable images at ISO 800.

Like I said, this cam is not for everyone. It is for me. I would like to compliment it with a D2X. Hey, I loved my D100. While a lot of people on DP Review were bashing that camera, a lot of us here were making very nice and very big images with that crummy little "prosumer" camera. I guess there are 2 sides to everything. I remember more than a few people who weren't happy with their Canon 1Ds. I guess it all just depends on your point of view.

Good luck.

Mar 17, 2004 at 09:38 PM

Bill De
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · D2H - Why the big split?

Stripper wrote:
This is sort of a tired old discussion.
Yes, I realize this, and appoligize. Like I said above, I was hoping for some more current opinions.

I didn't realize that an earlier version might have performed worse than a later version. That is a consideration.

And now that you mention it, I do remember everyone bashing the D100 as I was taking some awesome pics with mine. I guess I had forgotten all that. Maybe it is that type of thing all over again... and I'm falling for it?

Anyway, I think the best thing for me is to sit this one out (the D2H) and take a "wait and see" approach. I have too many doubts to make a $3000 investment in a D2H at this time (unless I find a better deal... doubt it).

One thing that really... really worries me. That is if the D2X... if it ever is released... will go through this same thing. I might as well shoot myself.

That is the one camera I'm waiting for!!!

Sorry again for mentioning all this.

Edited by Bill De on Mar 17, 2004 at 09:59 PM GMT

Mar 17, 2004 at 09:58 PM

Sectarian
Offline
• • •
[X]

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · D2H - Why the big split?

Wow what a bunch of hubbub for a fairly tired topic.

Anyone who wants to know how much noise is in a D2h file, relative to other cameras, need only go to one of the major camera review sites. It's all there, with charts and graphs to boot.

I don't have a D2h, it's not my kind of camera. I used to shoot a D1x and sold it for a slower, less robust camera...the Fuji S2... and I couldn't be happier.

Now that we know I'm not qualified to offer my opinion, here it is:

The D2h is a 4MP camera. It has average noise for a DSLR at each of its ISO settings, which start at 200. The noise itself is not objectionalble, but if you are looking for a noise free image, look elsewhere (i.e. Canon).

he D2h is immensely capable on the "camera" side of things...instant everything, great focus, wireless link, great flash system, etc. The D2h gets the picture.

If you are the type who sweats whether they are getting enough detail with a 6MP camera, the D2h may not be right for you. It is worth noting that there has never been a pro-level 6MP camera...to wit - D1x=5.25MP, D1h= 2.6MP, D2h=4MP, 1D=4MP, 1Ds=11MP, 1Dmk2=8MP - all the 6MP cams have been prosumer bodies. What does that tell us? When Camera makers build a "pro" body, they don't pay much attention to the megapixel wars.

I think the D2h could...and should...have been a 6 megapixel camera. Nikon made a choice though, they decided pixel count doesn't matter. Love it or leave it alone.

Mark

Mar 17, 2004 at 09:59 PM

clew
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · D2H - Why the big split?

Bill,

there were definitely noise problems with a few of the very early D2hs that rolled off the line. Basically, they were shooting ISO 1250 when they reported they were shooting ISO 800. This caused a great hysteria which has yet to die down. It would be worth borrowing or renting the camera from your friend, taking it to a local pro store, shooting some comparative images with a brand new d2h. see how it stacks up. if you don't see any noticeable difference, then it is probably a later version with the ISO stuff corrected.

I've been shooting with mine for a month now and I absolutely love it. i get great images at ISO 800 all the time and do not find it necessary to use neat image. Granted, i have never used the S2 or edited 10D (insert rude canon comment here) files so i don't have much to compare to. But all in all, if i had to do it over again, i'd buy the d2h.

Mar 17, 2004 at 10:53 PM

genghis45
Offline
• • • • •
[X]

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · D2H - Why the big split?

Bill De wrote:
I believe that he meant that he was disappointed with the noise above ISO 400. He did mention using ISO 800 and 1600 and he felt it left a lot to be desired. He said that he would have to use noise reduction software more aggressively than with his D1H.

I was a little concerned after hearing this.

********************************************************************************

DISCLAIMER: The following opinion is one from a non-user of the D2x.

Bill, here's what I glean from all the chatter about the D2h. I'd have to conclude that the D2h is an excellent performer with regard to noiselessness, at the base ISO. Beyond the base ISO, I'd have to conclude that it is either the equivalent or slightly more noisy than the D1x or D1h, at higher ISOs. From my point of view, I would have no problem buying this camera, as I shoot at base ISO only, anyway. My only qualm with the D2h is perhaps, purely psychological---and I suspect that a lot of photographers feel this way, for better or worse:

I'm reluctant to move from a 5.3 megapixel camera, to a lower megapixel Nikon DSLR.

From where I sit, my D1Xs provide me with superlatve color rendition that is neutral, accurate and malleable in post-processing---and preditcable performance, when it comes to sharpness. What more could I want---except maybe, more of the same? I'm not convinced that the D2h can do that for me. I'll wait and see what the D2x shakes out to be, and even then---I won't give up my D1Xs. The D1Xs are just too good as cameras, that give me what I want.

Scott

Mar 18, 2004 at 06:14 AM

clew
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · D2H - Why the big split?

What more could I want---except maybe, more of the same? I'm not convinced that the D2h can do that for me. I'll wait and see what the D2x shakes out to be, and even then---I won't give up my D1Xs. The D1Xs are just too good as cameras, that give me what I want.

Scott

more battery life (way more), better flash (i-TTL), better autofocus, better buffer and write speeds, wi-fi, equivalent enlargement capability, MORE IMAGES PER CARD

and better ergonomics...

just a few to get you started.

sure do like your 10.5!!!

Mar 18, 2004 at 11:44 AM

rob_r
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · D2H - Why the big split?

Stripper wrote:
While a lot of people on DP Review were bashing that camera, a lot of us here were making very nice and very big images with that crummy little "prosumer" camera.

.

that's what i like about this forum... less bashing...]

dpreview had a guy who whinged for ages about the d2h not having enough pixels. Time & time again ppl tried to politely point out where he was going wrong, that it was not meant as the last word in resolution, meant as a PJ camera, time & time again he came back with the same mantra. ppl's patience ended up snapping.
that said, a lot of posters in dpreview jump to early to accuse of trolling and it gets very nasty with no need (hey guys, sometimes ppl's first language isn't english, for instance!)

Mar 18, 2004 at 11:57 AM

genghis45
Offline
• • • • •
[X]

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · D2H - Why the big split?

clew wrote:
more battery life (way more), better flash (i-TTL), better autofocus, better buffer and write speeds, wi-fi, equivalent enlargement capability, MORE IMAGES PER CARD

and better ergonomics...

just a few to get you started.

sure do like your 10.5!!!

*************************************************************************************

Chris, the only attribute you cite that I'm in complete agreement with, is better battery life---for sure. Autofocus? What's that? I focus manually, exclusively, I've never even tried the autofocus on my D1Xs. Ergonomics? I think that my D1Xs handle perfectly in my hands. I couldn't imagine better. Then again, since I expose and focus manually---my button pushing is kept to a bare minimum. I might feel differently if I auto'd everything.

Scott

Mar 19, 2004 at 04:23 AM

gigo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · D2H - Why the big split?

i have yet to see some images from the d2h at high iso (1000+) at full size... i did however see some canon 1dm2 samples at iso 1600 and 3200 and they are fantastic - they can be found here:

;http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos1dm2/download/iso1600.jpg

and

;http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos1dm2/download/iso3200.jpg

can a nikon d2h owner post some high iso shots (actually links or crops would be better) so that i can compare - i am curious to know what the technology is like out there - as far as i know it's better than film noise wise.

thanks

ps: thanks all for being civil - this forum beats the wild-animal atmosphere over at the other forum ;-)

Mar 19, 2004 at 05:13 AM

Sectarian
Offline
• • •
[X]

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · D2H - Why the big split?

gigo wrote:
i have yet to see some images from the d2h at high iso (1000+) at full size... i did however see some canon 1dm2 samples at iso 1600 and 3200 and they are fantastic - they can be found here:

;http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos1dm2/download/iso1600.jpg

and

;http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos1dm2/download/iso3200.jpg

can a nikon d2h owner post some high iso shots (actually links or crops would be better) so that i can compare - i am curious to know what the technology is like out there - as far as i know it's better than film noise wise.

thanks

ps: thanks all for being civil - this forum beats the wild-animal atmosphere over at...Show more →

Those examples are pretty darned noisy...I think the Canon 10D does a better job than that at ISO 1600, even my Fuji S2 keeps up. Actually I'm quite surprised at how much noise there is in those images.

BTW it is a simple fact that images from a modern DSLR have much less noise than 35mm negative film of the same ISO. The same is not necessarily true for transparencies, but then again with slide film one loses the dynamic range "headroom" than is the supposed advantage of film

Mark

Mar 19, 2004 at 05:20 AM

genghis45
Offline
• • • • •
[X]

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · D2H - Why the big split?

Sectarian wrote:
Those examples are pretty darned noisy...I think the Canon 10D does a better job than that at ISO 1600, even my Fuji S2 keeps up. Actually I'm quite surprised at how much noise there is in those images.

BTW it is a simple fact that images from a modern DSLR have much less noise than 35mm negative film of the same ISO. The same is not necessarily true for transparencies, but then again with slide film one loses the dynamic range "headroom" than is the supposed advantage of film

Mark

***************************************************************************

Mark, you're right. The noise is those samples aren't acceptable, by any standard.

Scott

Mar 19, 2004 at 05:51 AM

gigo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · D2H - Why the big split?

fine - what about some non-canon samples ?

Mar 19, 2004 at 06:03 AM

Stripper
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · D2H - Why the big split?

Those Canon shots are interesting. I will try to set up some shots like that with the D2H soon to see how it does. What is interesting to me is that, even though the are still noisy, it appears to me that somewhere in the process there was some noise reduction done. I say this, because there appears to be very little edge sharpness. I will have to admit that I find the images pretty good and do not really mind the softness or the noisyness too much, but I do see a trade of going on.

I think Nikon will come out with new firmware which will deal with some of the Chroma noise I see with my D2H. I hope they can figure out how to do it without softening all of my hard edges.

Mar 19, 2004 at 08:03 AM

Wingspar
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · D2H - Why the big split?

Bill De wrote:
And now that you mention it, I do remember everyone bashing the D100 as I was taking some awesome pics with mine. I guess I had forgotten all that. Maybe it is that type of thing all over again... and I'm falling for it?

Sounds like you just answered all your own questions.

Mar 19, 2004 at 10:34 AM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Nikon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.