D2h vs. D2Hs comparison is up

Hi guys,

I finally had the time to put together the composites for the D2h/D2Hs comparison late Friday night, then had a session all day yesterday and couldn't get here to tell you. Sorry about that. Anyway, I hope the information is of use to you:

http://www.digital-images.net/Gallery/D2Hs_D2h/d2hs_d2h.html

There is an improvement in tonal gradations in the shadow regions, plus the noise character is more granular and it's reduced significantly in the ISO 400-1600 range. The images are easier to process successfully in Neat Image to reduce the noise that is present, plus I suppose you will see the improvement in color...

Anyway, have at it!

Ron

 

Yep... the D2h is definitely no slouch, and as you know I am rather fond of the camera. I switched to get the split histograms and consistent menus, etc., as well as to check out the improvements (and they are significant), but only you can decide if the improvements are worth making a switch yourself.

I'd say that if you shoot at ISO 200 most of the time, it's not worth switching. If you need higher-ISO capabilities the results are definitely worthwhile... the extra histogram information makes it far easier to evaluate exposure in difficult color-balance situations in the field. With this information, you don't have to understand color composition as much to get the right exposure. That will make a massive improvement in exposures for people who haven't taken the time to train themselves as to how different colors are composed and how that can affect exposure of the R, G and B channels.

Ron

 

Any time, Jeff :^)

 

Hi Paul,

Give this a shot:

http://www.trapagon.com/temp/6CL_CH_H_D2x.set

I'll hop on over there now...

Ron