Question about a D2H and megapixels

[Ysbl]

I found a used Nikon D2H for $550, and I was planning to pick it up. It only has 4.1 megapixels, though. I don't plan on making huge prints. Hypothectically, if the same camera had 5 megapixles, and 10 megapixels, and both shots were viewed at 1024x768, would they look almost the same?

 

[KmH]

I found a used Nikon D2H for $550, and I was planning to pick it up. It only has 4.1 megapixels, though. I don't plan on making huge prints. Hypothectically, if the same camera had 5 megapixles, and 10 megapixels, and both shots were viewed at 1024x768, would they look almost the same?

MP is not the central issue, but it would depend on how the image got to 1024x768 since the D2H doesn't output images at that size.

1024x768 is a still fairly common computer screen aspect ratio (1:1.33) but it's a very odd-ball photo print aspect ratio.

The D2H delivers a native image at 2464 x 1632 pixels (1:1.51 aspect ratio and a very common photo print aspect ratio).

Every D2H photo would need to be cropped to a 1:1.33 aspect ratio to fit 1024 x 768.


For printing, at 2464 by 1632 you could have an uncropped D2H photo printed at

• 24.64 inches by 16.32 inches at 100 PPI (Pixels-Per-Inch)
• 12.32 inches by 8.16 inches at 200 PPI
• 8.21 inches by 5.47 inches at 300 PPI

 

[Ysbl]

I wasn't clear enough. I don't have a 1024 monitor, nor do I plan to print images that size. I wanted to know if the rez is below what the max that the D2H puts out, would it look the same compared to a image the same size but at a higher MP rating.

 

[Derrel]

At 1028 pixels on the long dimension, the images from the original Nikon D1 or the D1h look quite good on-screen. Those have 2.7 MP sensors. The output size of 1028x is quite small, and it's quite a bit of a down-size from 10,6,or even 4.1 megapixels...if you down-rez d-slr captures down to 1028 pixels on the longest dimension, they ALL look pretty good, and there's not much advantage to a high-MP camera capture at that small output/viewing size. On a printed page, with anywhere between an 80- to 130-line screen, even a 2.7MP camera is enough for a double-truck in a magazine like Sports Illustrated...the halftone screen kills resolution quite handily, so it's pretty hard to see much in a screen printed magazine or newspaper page.

 

[Ysbl]

I was given a choice between the D80 and the D2H. The D80 has a higher megapixel rating, but the D2H is more solidly built, better quality, and feels better in my hands. The biggest my photos would get would be to get cropped to 1600*900, so I think that the D2H is the way to go.

 

[rpm]

id take the D80. there are a lot more changes involved than build and MP...

 

[Derrel]

The D2h has a much stronger AF system than the D80. The 11-area, 4-AF mode system of the D2-series cameras is really good for action photography if you know how to use it. It has pretty amazing coverage of the entire frame, and using the Group Dynamic AF approach, the D2-series bodies can pull focus on some very,very tricky targets quite reliably.

 

[rpm]

are you sure thats not the D2Hs tho? in regards to the AF system. I remembering reading once when i was looking at used cameras to for myself, that the changes implemented to the revision model were quite substantial over the original D2H.

 

[Derrel]

Same AF system in D2h and D2Hs. The D2h (the original models) did have the dead meter syndrome,however, so that's something to watch out for.

 

[rpm]

there were some additional refinements making it faster. but you are right. they have the same base AF system. but the D80 does also have an 11 point autofocus system but it uses the 1000 AF module not the 2000. but id rate the refinements done over the course of 2 years would be worth the D80...if the choice is open to him.

hope you enjoy your purchase either way. but also at 550USD id also consider looking for a D200 as it wouldnt be a substantial stretch from there if not same price point in the used market...

 

[Derrel]

Yes, this same idea , the D2h at around $500-$550 came up the other day on a dPreview thread I happened to see...it's a tough call I think for some people...the thing is, the D2 series Nikons are simply better "cameras" than the D80...the D80 is a low-level body, whereas the D2h was a flagship camera, with significantly faster firing rate, shorter shutter lag time, faster mirror return time, shorter latency times overall,robust build,etc. The D2 series bodies were made absolutely as good as Nikon could make them,and the overall, overriding feature they have is speed. Speed in every aspect of operation. Shooting. Viewing. Reviewing. And the viewfinder image is better as well. The D80 has a better sensor in it, but it is in many ways, a beginner's camera. So, the choice kind of depends on what the criteria are for the camera. Better overall camera in total is the D2h. The better sensor is the D80, but the D80 is inferior in just about every other way.

 

[rpm]

i had the same call. had a D60 (i bought it new). sold it for a D200 (used). the better camera always wins...but at 500-600usd. im sure you can nab a more 'recent' prosumer-maybe pro body after looking around a bit more...

 

[skieur]

I wasn't clear enough. I don't have a 1024 monitor, nor do I plan to print images that size. I wanted to know if the rez is below what the max that the D2H puts out, would it look the same compared to a image the same size but at a higher MP rating.

The short answer according to lab evaluation is that the 10 megapixel camera shot would be 20% better than the 5 megapixel shot.

skieur