D1H, wow !!!

hoanginc · Apr 7, 2007

I have to say I'm very impressed with the image quality of this camera. The color reproduction is on par with my D70, except the low resolution of course but still it's a NICE piece of equipment. Yes the ergonomic is superb, extremely responsive, and the 5fps, love it!

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

:Guns:

lisantica · Apr 7, 2007

Yep! I share in your enthusiasm! I had 1 D1h and had to buy another one as a back-up to have in case it ever stopped working.
I'm finding out that they can take a LOT of use. Get a couple of spare batteries. Other than that, you're good to go!

Lisa

Zachs · Apr 7, 2007

try out the b/w tiff mode with hi-contrast. mmmm
here are some color shots from an egg hunt this past week

jonlee · Apr 8, 2007

How timely. I was just commenting how I've become a D1H fan. So far its complementing my D200 very well. AF abilities are almost as good as the d2h I owned for awhile, although the multi-cam 2000 module of the D2H seemed to be able to track better in low light. Turns my AF lenses faster than any other body. Its defintely faster than my D200. Build quality is on par with any Nikon Pro body. Noise on high ISO is the best of any Nikon body (save the D2Hs, which I've never had the pleasure to use yet). Fast at 5fps and a 40 jpg buffer. And small files to post process with. They are bargains at $400 - $500 used, if you can find a good deal on one.

Downsides: lower resolution (which may be sufficient depending on your needs), obsolete LCD display in terms of size and quality, doesn't support the wonderful i-TTL flash mode, hard to find one in good shape.

CAJames · Apr 8, 2007

jonlee said:
Downsides: lower resolution (which may be sufficient depending on your needs), obsolete LCD display in terms of size and quality, doesn't support the wonderful i-TTL flash mode, hard to find one in good shape.

The D1h was my first pro camera, and I truely loved it. I could live with all the above, but the batteries drove me nuts.

MParker · Apr 11, 2007

What is the approximate maximum realistic print size that can be achieved from this camera? Is 10x15 full frame a realistic goal?

Stephen Hopkins · Apr 11, 2007

I had some money left-over from a lens I sold and breifly thought about getting a D1h to play with... then I remembered how frustrating I got with the D1x I breifly had. White-balance was a nightmare under anything but natural lighting. AF was fast and accurate but I shoot jpg exclusively so the WB issues made it hard for me to integrate the D1x into my workflow.

If the right deal (one of those $400 ones) comes along I'll consider it but the WB issue will still be there in the back of my mind. If I do get one i'll probably pick up one of the inexpensive expodisc alternatives, an ExpoCap, generic equivalent, or ExpoAmigo (which seems to be the same material as the original ExpoDisc but in a 3" x 4" card).

Stephen Hopkins · Apr 11, 2007

Also... the D1x had a 10mp interpolation mode when RAW was developed in Nikon Capture... does the D1h have anything similar (to get to 4 or 5mp perhaps)?

TexIndian · Apr 11, 2007

The sensor puts out an image at 1,324 x 2,012 pixels. So a 10x15 print would have a resolution of roughly 135 ppi, assuming you didn't bump up the pixel count with one of the better algorithm programs out there. My memory fails me about the Capture interpolation. I'd have to snap a pic and run it through to be sure. I'll be doing that soon anyway, so I'll report back.

Everyone has their own opinions on this subject, but the basic image wouldn't give you the best resolution in the world compared to the 300 ppi count that is oftened referred to as 'ideal'. It's not terrible either, depending on what distance the prints will be viewed from. For a wall mounting that is viewed from several feet away, it would probably be fine. For one that is being viewed up close, it may not be satisfactory.

As a guideline, the very best billboards are printed at around 10-12 ppi. They look great at a distance, but they're just a bunch of dots up close.

I always shot in RAW, so WB was never really an issue for me.

AirTimid · Apr 11, 2007

With file sizes this small, it's kind of silly not to shoot raw then batch to jpeg. If WB is messed up, fix the raw file before the batch. Plus, the raw file would still use all your camera settings you had if you were to shoot Jpeg anyways. Only drawback is diskspace.

Stephen Hopkins · Apr 11, 2007

Time is the other drawback... I usually shoot football games on Saturday nights and send out files to parents the same night, they're usually in their inboxes when they wake up the next morning.

AirTimid · Apr 11, 2007

Batch to Jpeg doesn't take very long in NX unless you have noise reduction turned on. eeek!! Batching the WB change to Raw shouldn't take very long either. Not sure how many files you're dealing with, but it typically takes me about 30mins with 100-150 D1X images. I have a 2 year old p4 3ghz with 2gb ram.

Stephen Hopkins · Apr 11, 2007

If everything were going to be the same batch under the same lighting it might not take too long... but most nights I have atleast 3 and usually 4 different lighting conditions... inside gym before game, outside field level, outside concession area, and usually outside natural which changes constantly as the sun sets until the stadium lights come on. Also when I work from 7:30 - 4 and then go to the game from 5 - 11, another half-hour or more in front of the computer (Athlon 64 3000+, 1gb RAM, upgrades soon) is not a welcomed task.

I'm thinking if I do pick up a D1h (somebody show me a $400 deal as mentioned above) i'll just go with a manual/preset whitebalance solution and change it as the conditions change. This will change my process much less than shooting raw. In this case the D1h might actually SAVE me time at night, no resizing before sending files out.

ckdamascus · Apr 11, 2007

cameraguy21773 said:
Thanks John -
I was really thinking about upscaling using software. I like PSCS but there's Qimage, etc., etc. Still, there is a limit to the amount of interpolation one can do and I was wondering what experience D1H users had. I've thinking about one just for the fun of it even though I have (and love) a D2H.

Thanks again and ...

There is and there isn't. It's doubtful most of us have hit that limit at a practical level.

Bjorn's limit was at about 100x140 inches from a D1H. Still not big enough?

The actual image quality itself plays a much larger role in upsizing than raw megapixels. He used a 500mm lens and most likely his Sacthler super tripod.

My take on it is, you should try printing it out yourself and viewing the image at a normal distance where a Hu-Man eye can capture the entire image in it's field of view. Then see if you see any major differences.

Large megapixels are handy for fine details, but I don't look at bilboards looking for super fine micro details (maybe for a landscape picture where it's like those museum paintings).

CAJames · Apr 11, 2007

I've printed my D1h files 12x18 using Qimage for upsizing and am very happy with the results.

kavawava · Apr 11, 2007

I'm personally a big D2 series fan but when I just got a used D1X that all changed. I'm actually quite impressed with the film like feel of the camera, sound, and images, I wouldn't mind picking up a D1H in the near future; so far the D1X has been an amazing body to just walk around with without having to worry to much about scratching it up and the like. For a six or so year old camera it is really amazing, Bravo Nikon.

Luke_Miller · Apr 11, 2007

Stephen Hopkins said:
I'm thinking if I do pick up a D1h (somebody show me a $400 deal as mentioned above) i'll just go with a manual/preset whitebalance solution and change it as the conditions change. This will change my process much less than shooting raw. In this case the D1h might actually SAVE me time at night, no resizing before sending files out.

Of course with Lightroom you can tweak the white balance of jpegs. Just a thought.

I'm a big D1H fan. Even though I have a D2X and D2Hs - it is my D1H that is going on my european vactation.