Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 22, 2003, 4:18 AM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 84
Default

Actually, it doesn't have "everything that the D100 has and much more". Notably, the D100 is a 6 megapixel camera -- substantially more than the D2h.

The reason for this is that the D2h is a very specialized camera for a particular purpose. It is designed to satisfy the special needs of sports photographers and others who need a very fast camera but don't need the highest resolution. The resolution is kept down so that the buffer can clear quicker allowing the user to take a series of shots of rapid action as is often needed when photographing sports. To this end, it has a smallish image, a VERY fast autofocus system and a big buffer. If that is what you need, get the D2h. If image resolution is of high importance to you, the D100 may serve you better.

Just another point of view...




Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemyers
Both the people at B&H Photovideo and the person I spoke to at Nikon earlier today said that a large shipment of D2h cameras is expected to be shipped out in very early November. So, if you're waiting for one, maybe your wait is almost over.

I've gone round and round on this... I've got a D2h on order, but I've been wondering if a D100 would be good enough, for less money, and less weight. I remember when I used to use my F4 for lots of things, then got an N90 because it was lighter. I think I did better with the F4 though.

I suspect I'm not going to like the weight of the D2h, but it seems to have everything the D100 has, and much more.
tedj101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 22, 2003, 10:12 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 137
Default

You're probably right, but I don't see it that way.

To me, the D2h provides the functions that I've learned to expect from decent cameras for the past 20, 30, or maybe even more - years. To me, I want the camera to do what I want it to do, when I want it to do it. When I move the camera up to my eye and press the button, I want that image captured right NOW. My old Leica and Nikon cameras did that way back in the 1960's. If the exposure was set wrong, or I didn't focus right, then it was my fault, but when I pressed the button, the camera went "click".

The D100 and D2h seem to have a lot of functions to work the way I just described, with lots of stuff happening in the background to allow it to do the best job of getting a "good" image. I think the D100 is plenty good enough for me, but I'd hate to spend all that money and then wish I'd spent a bit more.....


Resolution - I've got an Olympus e-10. It's got a wonderful lens, but only 4:1 zoom. I need that high-resolution image so I can crop down to a small part of the image, and get something that I still think is pleasing. With the Nikon cameras I can use my collection of lenses, so I won't have to crop that much - I can zoom in closer. I've made 24" x 36" prints from the shots from the e-10, and they impressed me as being better than my 16 x 20 prints from my Nikon film camera, so 4 megapixels is probably plenty good enough for me. The D100 might be better, but then if I think that way, I should wait for the D2x.....


The biggest reason I think I should get the D100 over the D2h is weight. That's why I got a Nikon N90 to use a lot of the time rather than my F4.... but while the weight was nicer, the F4 gave me better pictures. I may never need or use much of what the D2h comes with. Lots of high-tech stuff that probably won't help me that much, but it looks like a real solid base to work from. Other than the cost (and the weight) I can't think of any reasons to not go for the D2h. If I was wealthy, I'd get both.


To me, the camera is nothing more than a tool. It's the person behind the camera that allows great images to be made. I'm trying to think of which "tool" is going to do the most for me. I've got Nikon lenses, so I'm already decided on Nikon. The D100 will do most of what I want. The D2h will do that much more. I've just got to consider what I "lose" by getting the D2h over the D100. Answers so far are lots of money, and a bit less resolution.

If the D2h cost a grand more than it does, there'd be no comparison. I'd already have gotten the D100. Gee, I wish I could read more reports from people actually USING one of them, and see what they liked... and didnt'.
mikemyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 23, 2003, 3:46 AM   #13
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 84
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemyers
You're probably right, but I don't see it that way.

If the D2h cost a grand more than it does, there'd be no comparison. I'd already have gotten the D100. Gee, I wish I could read more reports from people actually USING one of them, and see what they liked... and didnt'.
Oh, I actually use one of them. I bought the D100. Of course, the D2h didn't exist when I bought mine. I bought the D100 over the D1x of the time. Price was a factor (but not determinative -- I could buy either without a strain). I found the switch to digital (real digital -- as opposed to point-n-shoot) more challenging than I would have imagined. In retrospect, I have no regrets about buying the D100 over the D1x. I haven't really begun to push the envelope of the D100.

Regards,
<TED>
tedj101 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:49 PM.