D2H+D50 or D200?

[Valorin]

I need some advice from the good people here. I currently have a D50 and D2H both of which I love, but it can be cumbersome carrying two cameras. This means I have to have two sets of batteries and two sets of memory cards. I'm starting to wonder if I'm better off with a D200 instead, partially to cut down on weight. I'd consider a D2X since I adore the handling of my D2H, but I'm on a pretty strict budget.

Having a D50 and D2H is nice since the D50 has good resolution and low noise at high ISO's. The D2H is good at fast action and fast AF especially with non-AFS lenses. I don't find that changing lenses is a problem so having two bodies to avoid that isn't important to me. Also, considering that I mostly shoot landscapes maybe the AF isn't as important as resolution. I also tend to shoot macros, but I'm not sure of the importance of resolution for shooting them. To get an idea of my shooting style please visit my homepage.

I haven't been printing much so can anyone who prints landscapes with any of these cameras help with my decision? Consider that I intend to print mostly 8x10 and some 13x19.

 

[Gale]

Both cameras will print large
Just got get the hang if sizing etc.
Google for lots of info

 

[Kiwi Geoff]

Nice images, my view is keep it simple, go for the D200.

 

[davidzvi]

Or since color and range is very evident in your work, how about the D200 Fuji (the S5)?

 

[MParker]

I tend to use my D2H for tracking birds but on those occasions when I do shoot stationary subjects or landscapes I have no problem with printing nice 13x19 images. In all fairness to the D200, it will do most anything you ask of it. Still, it's not a D2H. The size and weight issue of lenses and bodies (a bonus to some, a feature to others) that concerns many does not concern me. I have always believed that, if the equipment I choose meets my needs, I'll live with the size and weight. I would never buy a body or lens because its small and light unless it had all the features I required otherwise. The same goes for lenses.

You have two very nice systems suited for very different uses. If I were the owner of a D50 and a D2H, I'd be thinking about adding a high MP body rather than replacing one of my existing two.

 

[Julien]

You have two very nice systems suited for very different uses. If I were the owner of a D50 and a D2H, I'd be thinking about adding a high MP body rather than replacing one of my existing two.

I have the same cameras and tend to agree with Mike on this one. I wouldn't let go of either my D50 or D2H. But I can understand that buying a 3rd camera on top of that means more spending :Ouch:

 

[agw0]

For 8*10 (and only occasional lager) prints, you probably won't notice much difference from the D200's higher resolution. However, consider that the higher resolution also allows for more cropping before printing, so this might be an advantage. Consider also, that this will be the case only, if your lenses and technique are up to the task, as the finer resolution (or resulting larger entlarement) is more critical of user errors and lens's shortcomings.

From most of the work in your portfolio (some very interesting work, btw), I think you probably won't notice much difference in AF (speed, accuracy) between the D200 and D2H, and neither in their fps rates. So even if you sell both your D50 and D2H, my guess would be, that you don't miss so much.

That said, I would recommend, if financially viable, and if you decide that you need the higher resolution, to just upgrate the D50 to a D200, and keep the D2H. That way, you at least keep the memory card problem under control, and have the best of two worlds - the D200's high resolution and the D2H's fast fps, better AF and smaller image files.

I currently have the D200, and find that it covers about 90% of my needs very good, and that the remaining 10% are manageable. I consider to eventually add a D2H(s) for it's faster fps and better AF (9 cross type sensors vs. 1), however, that is currently not a top priority for me.

 

[Valorin]

Thanks for the kind comments! I think the way I should proceed is to first buy a printer (Epson R1800?) so I can evaluate and tune prints from my current cameras for myself. Only then can I really see if I think I need the extra resolution. At that point there may be newer cameras available in my price range that I can consider, in addition to the D200, Fuji S5 Pro and D2X.

As for my lenses and technique, I'm pretty much set on my lens collection which I'm reasonably confident will hold up with higher resolution cameras (17-55 mostly). Most of the time use a good tripod and ballhead combination along with a remote release with mirror-lockup (at least on the D2H).

I really appreciate the insights.

 

[davidzvi]

As for printing, since you have a good amount of "monochrome" as you call it on your site, I would look more to the 2400. It is known for handling that better.

 

[agw0]

Thanks for the kind comments! I think the way I should proceed is to first buy a printer (Epson R1800?) so I can evaluate and tune prints from my current cameras for myself. Only then can I really see if I think I need the extra resolution. At that point there may be newer cameras available in my price range that I can consider, in addition to the D200, Fuji S5 Pro and D2X.
...

Very sound idea. If you plan to print lots of b&w, and don't mind loosing ink when switching between glossy and matte paper (or don't switch at all), by all means get the R2400. I have the R1800, and it's, to say the least, quite difficult to get perfect b&w results on that.

 

[ipsofacto]

D50 and D2H = perfect mix of speed, resolution, and high iso performance