what the heck is a D2H good for? isn't 4 megapixels limiting?

it's not jsut about the megapixels
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Nikon/nikon_d2h.asp
he's taken some awesome photos with that camera
it's not a cheap camera by any means

it's a great camera. 4mp isn't limiting at all. I actually perfer that for shooting RAW things cause the files aren't 20MB each. they are only 6MB and are much easier to work with. actually 90% of the pictures on this site from April 05 until this past february were taken with that camera. the only time that 4mp is limiting is when you want to crop images. so make sure you frame it right.

some of my issues with the D2H
(* means they fixed the issues in the D2Hs)

1) "magenta cast" this causes sun-tanned skin with a flash to look orange *
2) noisey shadows which is dramatic when under-exposed. (made better in D2Hs)
3) chromatic noise at HIGH-ISOs
4) auto-wb un-usable in non-sunlight *
5) lying LCD *

um... I'm sure there are more things I just can't think of them.

if I could change my D2H for a D2Hs with out loosing much $$, I would do it in a heartbeat. the D2Hs is the camera they should have released. it's got the D2X's image processing asic in it.

....cropping is kind of a good thing to be able to do.

I do all my photography with my Sony f707, because I can't afford a nikon right now. I tend to get around the Sony's vulnerability to digital noise by simply reducing the size of my pics until the noise beecomes invisible. I gather that Nikons are less prone to noise, but I don't know from personal experience. The noisey shadows that you mentioned are usually the only real problem area though.

what the hell is a lying lcd?

you look at the LCD and the colors are wrong.

I went from a sony to nikons. I had a camera that was basically a predecessor to the F707 and going from that to a nikon.. it's like going from a disposible to a high class film camera. you will take the worst pictures, but they will be so awesome. Think of your f707 as watching regular cable on a shitty TV and a DSLR as going to your buddies house and watching some movies on his 52" plasma with HD-cable.

anyhow, I would kind of advise against the D2H. honestly. it's a terrible first DSLR. if you can blow $3200 for a D2Hs.. maybe.. but I highly recommend just getting a D50 with a kit lens and a 50mm f/1.8. that will run you about $650-ish. OR wait a month and get a D80 with a nice lens for a little over $999.

this speaks in strange language. I think that I'd rather have my picture taken than take the photo. This shit is too hard to understand! Kudos to you guys

heh?

I mean all the camera jargon... it's like a foreign language!

it's Leigh from Maine, Rev

I kinda like this board now..hehe

oh, got it.

uh...okay

Rev knows what I mean

I used my D2H for about 6 shots tonight.

I keep looking at the D50, which i can't exactly afford right now, and I wonder if 6 mp will be enough for me. I kinda wonder if I should make the jump right up to a D200.

Here's a picture that kinda shows off some of the shortcomings of my Sony...

Like, my hands turned all red for some reason, and the shadowy areas are all grainy and shit.

I could take a picture better than that with film... what's the big deal about digital?

I guess I'm too old school, sorry

boredtonight said:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

also convenience

there is a D80 coming out. it will be amost a complete D200 in a cheaper body. don't get all bonery on MegaPixels. the comparison on your 707 isn't even fair. my 4mp D2H takes better pictures that even a 10MP 1"/1 1/8" or 2/3" cameras even when I only shoot at 2mp. I have a 12mp (d2x), 2 6mp (d70/d100), and a 4mp (d2h) and I rarely shoot more than 2mp cause they are too hard to work with.
(I have a 14mp camera coming too)

the_reverend said:

wha?

the "film" area that the image is taken on.

the F707 havs a 2/3" sensor (8.80 x 6.60 mm)
the D2H has a lbcast 23.7 x 15.5 mm (Nikon DX)

the "area" that the light hits is about the same size as the canon 10D in that picture. the camera that I have coming friday actually covers 35mm.

anyhow, if you think about it, you have 5mp packed into that little area. that means they interact with each other and heat each other, cause noise, etc.. cause the pixel density is so large. they are also very small pixels (compared to the DSLRs).

your actually issue from your picture above is
1) DR - dynamic range or the difference in the exposure value (Ev) between the light and dark areas. film has more stops of useable DR than digital.
2) IQ - image quality
3) noise.

the "noise" in the areas above are from underexposure in the shadows,

this is impressive shit

I still don't get it, but I'm impressed nevertheless

I'm still not sure exactly how to read that sentence I quoted before. I've heard something about nikons having hexagonal pixels or hexagonal sensors or something. What's the deal with that?


edit: reread your post

Rev, i think you need to start charging $ for the questions asked. J/k

someone's got hex pixels. I thought it was sony and since most of nikon's consumer CCDs/CMOSs come from sony, I wouldn't doubt it. the sensor on the D2H is a lbcast sensor so I'm not sure what the shape of the pixels are.

a few of the cool sensor things in the industry have been rectangle pixels, hex pixels, RBGY 4-color sensors (I think sony did this), foveon, 4-channel sensors (D200), and 2-layered sensors (D1X).