(Update: I posted the above link to share Thom's opinions, an opinion I find valuable. This was not meant to stir up the discussion between D100, D1H and D2H but merely to present the ideas of a single consistant user of Nikon equipment. Ken Rockwell has discrepancies in his testing methods and does not update his reviews to correct potential issues; Mr. Hogan does just see the posts on the 18-35, 20-35, and 17-35 lenses. Thom Hogan is a registered member here, but Nikonians and bythom.com are not related in any way.)
Find out more about me on the Moderator Page "The important things in life are simple; the simple things are hard."
1. and concluded that Nikon is probably right because of the speed of the camera. 2. price is lower than expected but not as aggresive as he would have liked. This is the list price at announcment, it will end up on the shelves at well below this price.
Well, count me in as one of those who's saying "THANK YOU NIKON" for giving me EVERYTHING that I need in a digital camera. As someone who shoots sports, action, and news, this baby is SWEET-SWEET-SWEET! Just being able to transmit directly to the sales kiosk (events) or newsroom uplink is worth the money. THANK YOU NIKON! 8 FPS? love it. 11 segment Autofocus? I'm drooling. THANK YOU NIKON! Primary foreground autofocus? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This is a sportshooter's wet dream! 200-400/f4 VR? IT ROCKS!!!!!!
i'm glad to see someone's happy about the D2H's specs. the only think i would have liked would be the minimum 6MP D100 CCD. but nikon's screwing things up again. i just hate when companies put out something that has good features, then puts out a new model without the good features of the previous model. arrrrgg!
From the specs listed, the only things keeping me away from putting the camera on my wish list are:
1) 4MP. I'm used to 6MP and I think that it gives me a better cropping factor for action shots that I may not frame correctly. If I were a better photographer, I would agree that 4MP are probably enough for most action shots that I sell. I'd almost have to ask, "Why not 6MP?" Surely it could not add much to the cost? I do not agree with Thom's assessment that for quickshooters it would eat up too much space because we could always lower the resolution if we were worried about space. Let the photographer decide the resolution, not the model and proposed market.
2) $3500 - I'm sure its worth every penny to most shooters, but when I think that I can get two D100's for about the same price, I'd like to see it for less. A street of $2500 and I'm in line now, $3000 and I will probably wait to see what a D2X will do and its price.
3) USB2. USB2 is great except that I do not have it. I've got at least 3 firewire ports on every PC I own. This is not a huge issue since you can buy a firewire external reader. I've tried adding a USB2 PCI card to my main system but it is incompatible with other hardware.
1) Given the new sensor, I'd bet that the images are more than capable of being cropped if needed. Let's wait until we see sample images though. Many PJ's and sports shooters though are quite happy with the D1H or even the orignal D1.
2) The buy two D100's. Obviously this isn't the camera for you. Most people seem quite happy with the low price of the D2H.
3) You can buy a USB2 card for dirt cheap you know. In what way would it be incompatible?
1) Sounds fair, I can wait. 2) Exactly, at this stage, I probably don't really need it and I'd rather have a second D100 to avoid lens changes in the field than have to sell my existing D100 to help pay for the D2H. For me, at this stage, it’s just too expensive. I agree that for many others it’s well worth it. I don't drive a Roles Royce either. That doesn't mean that I don't want one or that they are not great cars though. If I can get enough work to make up for the $1000 difference in my dream price, it will be worth it to buy the D2H 3) Tried an Adaptec USB card and I use Adaptec SCSI and Firewire cards in my systems and the USB card is NOT compatible, per Adaptec. I tried two of them, in fact, thinking that I just got a defective card before Adaptec support told me that the card would not work with. This is "likely" an Adaptec only issue, but like I said, I made a decision a long time ago to go firewire and it would be nice to have it on camera. I'll likely be purchasing a firewire external reader soon, so this is a minor issue for me.
>3) Tried an Adaptec USB card and I use Adaptec SCSI and >Firewire cards in my systems and the USB card is NOT >compatible, per Adaptec. I tried two of them, in fact, >thinking that I just got a defective card before Adaptec >support told me that the card would not work with. This is >"likely" an Adaptec only issue, but like I said, I made a >decision a long time ago to go firewire and it would be nice >to have it on camera. I'll likely be purchasing a firewire >external reader soon, so this is a minor issue for me.
I'm using an ADAPTEC FIREWIRE/USB 2 PCI CARD (AUA 3121) combo card on Windows XP Pro and do not have any compatibility issues.
That is great for you, but try and add another 3 port adaptec 1394 card to your machine. It will not work and this is according to adaptec. I need more than the one firewire port that the combo card has. I've got 4 devices plugged in right now to 1394 divices and I thought that adding the combo card would not only give me usb2 but another needed 1394 port and this is the exact card that I tried twice. Perhaps, Adaptec has updated the drivers for XP by now and you can have both cards in the same system, but unless you want to send me your card to try it, I'm sticking with all things firewire.
I don't think the math works for 6 megapixels and 8 fps for 40 frames. Especially not at the asking price. This is a high speed action camera with ample resolution for pj use. If you want 10+ megapixels I'm betting the D2X will be announced in the fall. It won't have the speed and it will be more expensive.
If you have any experience with a D1 vs. a D100, you know that resolution isn't everything. We'll have to see what the new chip technology delivers, but high quality pixels can trump resolution. If the D2H can deliver high quality images at the high ISOs that go with the high speed, there will be few compaints about the number of pixels. I think it's foolish to make any image quality judgements based only on the megapixel specs.
It should cost about two D100s for the D2H. Folks don't complain that an F5 or F100 cost twice or more the price of an N80.
USB2 leaves me scratching my head. I think it's a cost-saving measure rather than a choice driven by technology. Then again, I've always found a cardreader to be superior to hooking up the camera directly and those who really want connectivity will be thrilled by wireless.
USB2 (Real USB2 or is it the USB1.1 that was renamed to USB2?) I see why USB was chosen. Unless you're a Mac user you're most likely on USB. Sad thing is most PJ are on Mac, as are most newspapers. Personally I prefer Mac, but IEEE1394 has not found as welcomed on the PC as they are on the Mac. Since I use a CF card reader, IEEE or USB really does not matter.
Aaron J. Heiner Team Coast Guard Photographer US Department of Homeland Security
But one thing that should make you happy, and I was thriiled to hear...the wireless adaptor is 802.11b which should talk nice to all mac's with a built in airport card! I know .11b is available on PC's too, but have you ever tried to configure a .11b network card on a PC?
I'm just waiting for the aftermarket strap on satellite uplink booster to wear on my head.
I can shoot image, xfer to ftp on home server, run a program that collects file and burns contents to cd, makes a beep, wife comes in and takes cd out and writes 'pics from somewhere' on it and files it in the cupboard.
When I get home all my images are already archived.
One aspect of the megapixel debate is a perception from your customer base. If you deal with the public as I do, they have been ingrained that more mexapixels is better. And since consumer cameras are all over the place at 4mp and prosumer camera's are out there like the Sony 717 with 5MP, when my potential customer asks me about my gear the first question is always "you are shooting digital, how many megapixels is your camera?” It used to be whenever I said 6, as in my D100; the expression was "WOW!” Now it’s just, "OK" or Good". If I were to tell them 4mp, I think that I might have to do some selling on my camera than I otherwise would. MP is the hot consumer digital camera spec. We all know that it’s only a piece of the puzzle to obtaining great pictures. But since the public has a certain perception that 4mp is a "good" resolution for home use, it could make it harder to make the initial sale to some. Perception is 9/10ths of reality.
Well put. I use to encounter this when I sold cameras at Circuit City. (Nothing beats trying to teach an 80 year old man who can't find the power switch on his 286 how toshoot digital to send pix of the grandkids, except a migraine!) The downside to selling digital camera is all the buzz words something that was really there in film.
Aaron J. Heiner Team Coast Guard Photographer US Department of Homeland Security
The people who need 8 frames per second and a pro build body won't be quite the ignorant herd that you're used to. Wait for the D2H to offer the well-heeled but megapixel mindset buyer. This camera isn't targeted at your average consumer, nor was the D1H. This camera isn't Nikon's upgrade path for D100 owners despite the confused protestations that suggest otherwise.
I realize that the buyers of the D2H camera won't be ignorant over the megapixel myth. At $3500 price point, most potential buyers are serious photographers. But what I was talking about were the buyers of the services of the people who buy the camera. These are the people that have to be sold that you have the right equipment to do the job in order to get the job in the first place. Regardless of the reality, they will undoubtedly assume that a 4MP camera is outdated for a professional. If I sold my D100 to help finance a D2H, I could see myself loosing some business opportunities to a D100 shooter simply over the mexapixel myth. When consumers buy services from a professional, they often want to know that the equipment the pro uses is truly professional and beyond specs of the average hobbyist as one determining factor in their vender selection.
For the sports action stuff that I work on, the 4MP issue may not be an issue at all because I sell prints after the fact. No one cares about MP's when they see a large sized beautiful print of their loved one. But for other type of gigs where I'm selling my services in advance, it will likely be an issue. My first encounter with a potential customer is often over the phone. I may not ever have the opportunity to show the customer any prints if they were to think that my equipment is not what they feel is "professional".
Consumers are used to shopping for products, in large part, by their technical specifications. There is a large percentage of the population that, for example, feels that they are missing out on something if they don't have a 3GHZ P4 with 1.5GB DDR RAM and a 200GB hard drive, even though the only thing that they do on their PC is surf the net, some word processing and maybe balance their checkbook. Our consumer culture is now ingrained into buying the "highest" (name your technical spec) number for the lowest cost. Selling your expensive photography services using a 4MP camera is therefore a challenge when some other guy with an inferior camera touts his 6MP (now, 8MP? next year) camera over my 4MP D2H.
I agree that Nikon is targeting a certain market space with the D2H and there will likely be more new models to cover other segments. But for the small shop who must cross markets to survive and who can't afford to have a dedicated camera per function, the D2H may not be the camera for them. So be it. But what is frustrating for those of us in this boat is that the D2H is (likely) VERY VERY close to being the perfect camera for us, pending more investigation of course.
>>If I sold my D100 to help finance a D2H, I could see myself loosing some business opportunities to a D100 shooter simply over the mexapixel myth.<<
Really? If you have to sell your D100 to finance a D2H you probably don't need the D2H. If your assignment is to get out and capture that defining moment of high speed action then with just the D100 you simply don't have a tool for the job. It doesn't sound like 8 fps for 40 frames is mission-critical for you.
>>When consumers buy services from a professional, they often want to know that the equipment the pro uses is truly professional and beyond specs of the average hobbyist as one determining factor in their vender selection.<<
This mindset is something a professional learns to deal with and it's a perpetual issue. Shoot 35mm? The client wants medium format. Shoot medium format? Nothing but 4x5 will do. If you can't sell the concept that you use the best tools for the job and that you do a great job, you might lose some work based on your equipment. With any pro it's confidence, service, and results that impress clients.
>>There is a large percentage of the population that, for example, feels that they are missing out on something if they don't have a 3GHZ P4 with 1.5GB DDR RAM...<<
You apparently don't sell computers. Only a small percentage of people buy computers on the bleeding edge, much to the chagrin of the personal computer industry. To the contrary, most folks see little reason to move up and that has resulted in a very stagnant high tech market. But that's beside the point...
>>Selling your expensive photography services using a 4MP camera is therefore a challenge when some other guy with an inferior camera touts his 6MP (now, 8MP? next year) camera over my 4MP D2H.<<
And ever will it be thus. The successful guy will be the one with the convincing images, attitude, skills and reputation.
>>But what is frustrating for those of us in this boat is that the D2H is (likely) VERY VERY close to being the perfect camera for us, pending more investigation of course.<<
You've (nearly) come to that conclusion without even seeing an image from the new camera. That sounds a lot like that hypothetical client's attitude. Why not see what the D2H can really deliver before you convince yourself that it's not a viable option for you?
If megapixels really drives your business, hock the D100 and a kidney and get a Kodak 14n. It won't work worth a damn except in the studio or at low ISO in bright light and it might be fast enough to catch the action at sundial race, but you'll definitely be able to sell yourself as having the DSLR with the most pixels.
If a client asks me what equipment I use, I just tell them Nikon, I've a range of cameras and lenses and pick which one is best suited to the circumstances. I have done a few weddings now and one person did ask me how many mp my digital camera was and I told him it was not relevant in pro equipment and challenged him to pick out the digital images from the film images in the portfolio. He laughed because of course you can't do it.
My first ever published pictures were taken with an Olympus compact using free film from a postal processing service. The editor was more than happy.
BJ, obviously I am not smart enough to get my point across to you. I could go on debating everything you said in your last post point by point. While I usually do not shy away from a good debate, I think that you have very subtly moved from discussing the issue to being moderately argumentative. Therefore, I'll drop the issue.