Nikon D2Hs 4.1 MP?

jamesino · Jan 6, 2008

I know the megapixel value of a camera isn't too important in determining the quality of a camera. But isn't 4.1MP just a little too low for a $3,000 professional camera?

Mav · Jan 6, 2008

It's a high speed 8 frames per second sports camera trading off megapixels for the speed, and cleaner high ISO. But anyways, the Canon 1D MkIIn and MkIII made the D2Hs look pretty stupid, and agencies have been requesting larger files than what the D2Hs puts out, which is why a lot of D2Hs shooters had to switch to Canon last year.

The D3 gets Nikon back in the running, but for sports I still think the 1D MkIII is better. With the 1.3x crop it'll get sports shooters a little closer to the action for the same focal length lens, while still having the quality needed up at 3200/6400 iso.

Sw1tchFX · Jan 6, 2008

jamesino said:
I know the megapixel value of a camera isn't too important in determining the quality of a camera. But isn't 4.1MP just a little too low for a $3,000 professional camera?

Doesn't 12MP seem a bit high for a $200 point-n-shoot?

The D1 when it was released had 'only' about 2.

JerryPH · Jan 7, 2008

You are trying to compare a camera that is 2-3 generations back against current technology.

Though the D2Hs may have only around 4 MP, its still a better camera than any P&S in existance. BTW, you can pick up a D2Hs for way less than 3Gs nowadays. I've seen them on eBay for ~$1100.

Mav · Jan 7, 2008

JerryPH said:
You are trying to compare a camera that is 2-3 generations back against current technology.

That may be true, but the problem is that it's still a current camera in Nikon's lineup. That just goes to show how far behind the times Nikon's pro lineup has fallen. JMO here, but prior to the D3, any professional starting a new system would be crazy to actually go with Nikon compared to what Canon has to offer at the same or similar price points.

jstuedle · Jan 7, 2008

Sw1tchFX said:
Doesn't 12MP seem a bit high for a $200 point-n-shoot?

The D1 when it was released had 'only' about 2.

Yea, 2.47 (i think, don't feel like finding the manual) as was the D1H. Have them both. At the time they were both earth shattering in color and quality. Remember the D1 came out in 1999 and was 5K, as opposed to the Kodak 25K DSLR's built on the F5. The D2H was brought out before the D2X and did a very good job. The image quality was better than my D1X at almost 6 MP.

Alex_B · Jan 7, 2008

the D3X will be an interesting camera i suppose ... ok, not really related to this thread

but i am curious what it will be like.

keith204 · Jan 7, 2008

A buddy of mine has the D2H. He recently bought the D300, but won't give up the D2H. He shoots in raw all the time, and I've seen some amazing pictures come from that camera.

It is crazy Nikon's still selling that new though.

JerryPH · Jan 7, 2008

Mav said:
JMO here, but prior to the D3, any professional starting a new system would be crazy to actually go with Nikon compared to what Canon has to offer at the same or similar price points.

Yes, that definately makes all D200s and D2xs useless as they will now all instantly stop taking good pics... lol

I am being sarcastic, but I obviously disagree. I doubt I am alone too... all the Nikon users (pro and amateur) that are not D3 owners will likely as well.

Personally, I am ecstatic with my D200... and I can even take a picture thats in focus now and then!

dipstick · Jan 7, 2008

Sw1tchFX said:
Doesn't 12MP seem a bit high for a $200 point-n-shoot?

The D1 when it was released had 'only' about 2.

Sure the new cameras are nice and better than the old ones, but somehow we managed to make double spreads from the good ol D1s as well. When I pull out an "old" magazine from the D1 era, no one ever says "hey, that looks like it's shot with a first generation dslr!"

We didn't even have raw back then...

Joves · Jan 7, 2008

dipstick said:
Sure the new cameras are nice and better than the old ones, but somehow we managed to make double spreads from the good ol D1s as well. When I pull out an "old" magazine from the D1 era, no one ever says "hey, that looks like it's shot with a first generation dslr!"

We didn't even have raw back then...

It is terrible to remember things like that. Makes me feel old especially since it wasnt all that long ago.

RKW3 · Jan 7, 2008

What's the max size print a 2mp camera can get you anyways?

Tommy · Jan 7, 2008

There is a lot more to a camera than just MP. I can shoot a whole game of D2Hs pics and upload them in a fraction of the time I can send the same pics from my D300.

Also, i'm not sure exactly what to attribute it to but the D2Hs pics have a certain quality to them.

On a side note, i have a 20x30 print from my D2hs hanging on the wall in my living room that looks incredible.

MP isn't everything.

The camera is very capable, it just depends on what you want to do. If you are shooting stock, it won't work very well but for new paper work it's awesome.

dpolston · Jan 7, 2008

I think that the D2H shooters were (and are) more likely to shoot faster and harder than people would think. I have heard (I wish I could speak from first hand knowledge) that if you're going for durability, that's the camera but you are not likely to print large prints from it (i.e. newspaper photographers, sports p'togs, military). Portrait guys would want the larger files because they need larger prints. Chances are, they don't need to crawl through a foxhole to take billboard size shots.

BTW... I have printed a 60" by 120" print from my D200. I doubt I could pull that off with a D2Hs. (I'd love to own one of those btw. I'm not too proud to accept hand me downs... JOHN!) =o)

schumionbike · Jan 8, 2008

dpolston said:
BTW... I have printed a 60" by 120" print from my D200. I doubt I could pull that off with a D2Hs. (I'd love to own one of those btw. I'm not too proud to accept hand me downs... JOHN!) =o)

What was your PPI when your printed that? I mean did you do a lot of resizing or basically just crop the image and print?