Anyone have a Nikon D2H?

[zoeb]

I'm thinking about getting one. I can't bring my self to spend 5k on the D2X. I have a D1H but it seems a little messed up in the different modes. Aperture mode only wants to read F16 and manual doesn't change the F stop either...but the shutter mode works. I guess I have a major repair coming.

Any help is greatly appreciated!
Thanks
Zoe

[FloridaPat]

1. Have you looked at the differences between the D2X and the D70?

The D70 is 1/5 the cost and does a lot of things nether of the other two can.

[Deja Q]

3. The D70 also has a HUGE problem with moire.

Rendering it a useless toy depending on the background. (some clothing items, backpacks, buildings at a distance, window/curtain reflections are all sources of moire and it's ugly as haliburton. $2000 net one year ago ($1000 net today, how nice) to get a "camera" that will screw up a image? It's not worth $500.

It's otherwise a D-SLR I once considered (until I realized that its 3000x2000 resolution pales compared to slide film's 6000x4000), all things considered, but the moire should have kept the unit off of the shelves.

[ET Awful]

5. Really? Odd, I've shot over 4,000 shots with my D70 and have NEVER

experienced a problem with moire. Not once. I've shot everything from buildings to people in plaid clothes, to birds and never had a problem with moire.

In fact, the only time I've ever seen moire on any image from this camera was when I intentionally tried to create it by shooting a TV with a weird interlaced pattern using flash.

Do you have a D70? Have you used a D70? Have you talked to numerous users of D70s? I know quite a few, not one has ever had a problem with moire.

Where do you get your information?

[CC]

11. I have both a D100 and

a back up D70 (hey one of the few women that will ask for electronics instead of jewelry). I have never had problems with either though will say I like the D100 better. I am still learning but have a friend that is into Cannon big time. His site is http://www.deandigital.com/ . He is pro and has earned enough to buy his second house in the Caribbean. He is also all digital. He uses a Cannon D20 now and only it. His site is worth checking out specially if you like cars. He is mainly a commercial and product photographer.

[zoeb]

7. I went to a local camera shop and fondled/played with the D2H/D2X

gosh, those are two sweet cameras. Both have more MPs and have the speed to photograph sports. The D70 seems really slow after using the D1H but certainly more affordable. I couldn't make up my mind so I came home empty handed. It seems I have a short of something in the D1H because now the darn thing is working in the aperture mode...go figure. I still need a backup I just can't decide what to get. The D2H is selling around 3400 and the D2X is selling about 4700...2 hundred cheaper than online. But I only make about 2k a year on sports photos so I can't see spending so much for a new camera.

:shrug:

[Deja Q]

2. My developer says they're indistinguishable from slide film... of course,

they're not about to lower the cost of the camera to something reasonable like $1000.

That's another problem with digital; all of this firmware and upgrading crap every other year; digital cameras are disposable toys, no matter what the cost. The next year's model will be better at exposure or this or that or the other thing. Film is consiant; where quality improvements come on the film itself. No need to buy a new body every year; which works that way to keep the companies in business and you broke because photography is even harder to break into than IT!

[FloridaPat]

4. No. I've had 2 photogray jobs this year with 0 professional experience

but with 25 years of IT experience, I can't even get an interview this year.

I've also had 4 photography interviews and 2 IT interviews. Today it's much easier to break into photography.

[ET Awful]

6. Except for the fact that more and more professionals are switching to

digital, you might have a point.

Odds are that within the next 5 years, you will see fewer and fewer companies producing film. Why? Because it's not worth it. The market is changing.

Film is consistent. Yup, it can only be used one time. You have to carry it around with you. It's fragile and easily damaged. I slight mistake in processing can ruin an entire roll. You have to pay for processing, or, in the alternatie, pay for expensive (and sometimes hazardous) chemicals and a darkroom in which to work.

Not only is digital much more versatile, but it offers features that can never be matched by film. The ability to review your image and re-shoot instantly in the event of problems can not be matched by film . . . unless you resort to testing composition using a polaroid of some sort prior to shooting with your main camera (an expensive proposition).

Pick up any print magazine today, odds are the cover and 90% of the shots inside are shot digitally.

Film had a long life, but it's a dying breed.

Buying a new body every other year? Nope, not anyone I know. I know people that shoot professionally using DSLR's they bought 4 years ago and make plenty of money doing it.

If you consider digital cameras to be "disposable toys" I suggest you contect the thousands of photographers that make money with them daily and the hundreds of publishers that purchase those photos and let them know, I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

Your old biases are illogical and ill-founded.

[TahitiNut]

8. That's because the "value proposition" works for them.

Using film, they go through many miles of film, gallons and gallons of chemicals, and reams and reams of paper before they have a production print. That's freaking expensive! And we're not even talking about infrastructure. Darkrooms. Waste disposal. Equipment like enlargers. (Yikes!)

The highest quality DSLR easily pays for itself in less than a year for the full-time pros, no matter how overpriced the DSLRs are. NOT the amateurs.

[ET Awful]

9. I'm not just referring to professional studio photographers or those

that process masses of prints.

I'm referring to typical freelance photographers as well. Your typical photographer shooting for a magazine doesn't process "reams" of photos. A photographer shooting in those conditions needs to shoot LOTS of pictures in order to get usable ones, professional, amateur or otherwise. If you're shooting live anything (from animals to action sports), you shoot lots of pictures.

Film isn't cheap. Good color slide film is pretty damned expensive on a shot by shot basis.

Of course, there's also the time factor. Shooting film doesn't give you usable shots for an event as it unfolds and isn't ready for publication immediately after.

With digital, you shoot an event, edit it on a laptop computer (in many cases while still at the event, this happens frequently with sports photography), and transmit the photos using wireless methods. The photos can appear in a morning edition on the East Coast for an event that occurred late at night on the West Coast.

Of course using your pricing argument, no amateur should invest in quality glass either. After all, they come out with new technology regularly (from new and better coatings, to faster focusing to image stabilization, to internal focusing, etc.). A good telephoto prime can cost $4,000 or more. It too is replaced by something better in short order, and much like DSLRs, the improvements are relatively minor.

In many cases, the technology developed for digital cameras appears later in film bodies as well (for instance Nikons new metering methods and focusing system appeared for the first time in a film body in their F6 released last year which by the way was initially priced at close to $3,000, not exactly a drastic difference in price between that and digital when you consider the savings in costs of film, etc. in the first year of ownership).

Then of course there's also the "bulk" factor. I can carry enough media to store over a thousand images of the highest quality in my shirt pocket. When travelling, I can transfer those same images to my laptop, and reuse the memory. I don't have to worry about transferring delicate film through airport x-ray machines (which we all know is a daunting proposition for irreplaceable images).

The benefits of digital far outweigh the imagined cost limitations.

The only reason I don't have a D2X is because I don't sell my images (perhaps someday, I haven't taken anything I consider sale worthy as yet). If I was making any money at all with my photos, I would gladly invest in such a piece of equipment. (And, in case you're wondering, pro-level DSLRs maintain their resale value fairly well for the most part).

[Schema Thing]

10. Good synopsis.