D2hs and D2h, a more fair test

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Scott Sherman, Apr 1, 2005.

  1. Okay, I have mentioned variations of this several times in different posts but have not gotten much feed back. So I will try one more time and if no one cares I will quietly go off into the west whistling a lonesome tune, beaten and defeated.

    The real question, I think is what can be expected as an optimum image out of the two cameras and after all post production tweaking how far apart will this optimum image be.

    If you start with an image of the same subject in same light exposed optimally, D2hs with noise reduction on high, D2h processed through Noise Ninja, Can the D2hs produce a final image better than is possible with the D2h expecially in raw?


    That's the test I am interested in and I would bet dollars to donuts a whole lot of D2h users and undecided potetial buyers are wondering
     
  2. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  3. Paul,
    It is a pleasure to meet you. I just recieved my D2h from B&H about three hours ago. I promptly charged the battery and now I have had the battery in the camera which came to life about an hour ago. The first thing i did was to upgrade the firmeware to 2.01. I am at work so I don't have any lenses to test it. (frustrating)

    I have been like a new father at the maternity ward in the hospital. Looking to see if it has ten toes and ten fingers (so to speak). Since the D2hs was made widely available the same day i recieved my D2h, I suppose I can not help but wonder if I should have held out for the newer model with all the bells and whistles. I am starting to see a growing number of samples which all give glowing testimonials of the noise in comparison with the D2h.

    While I was waiting for the battery to charge, I went to DPR. There was a poster who put two pictures inn his post. One of a D2h and the other of a D2hs at 800 and 1600 iso. the D2hs was far superior as you might expect and everyone is now wondering if they should sell to trade up.

    Well, I loaded his image of the D2h at 800 iso (the bad one) and ran it through a trial version of Noise Ninja. I should say, I have never used NN before and know nothing of the nuances of it. I just downloaded a D2h profile and clicked on it to apply it to his image.

    The final result is (in my opinion) as good and perhaps a bit superior to his D2hs in camera corrected image. So now I am as happy as a rabbit in clover with my D2h.

    I did not want to load his images here since they are not mine to use. However I am providing a link to the thread if you want to see what I am talking about,.

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=12895134

    The initial poster has links to his PBase image comparison. After you click on his images, go to my second post for a link to my NN corrected image to see how it compares to his D2hs. I did not perform any other correction of any kind beside NN.
     
  4. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  5. My little test was hastily done, so I suppose it may be a bit skewed.

    It did however convince me that MY D2h is a keeper. I will go now and purchase a working copy of Noise Ninja as it appears that noise will be an issue to contend with. But not one that can't be over come. Lets see
    NN $79, D2h $1995...

    D2hs $3500...

    Tough choice...NOT!!!.
     
  6. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    I'll pick up a D2HS for review next week and own the D2H, so will produce the relevant comparisons in the not very distant future.
     
  7. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  8. Scott...

    Enjoy your d2h....it's a great piece of equipment...and capable of creating some incredible images.... it's up to us to use your eyes and minds in order to create those images...
    I use the D1x and a D2h and each has it's strengths... the d2h is a joy to use... the metering... colors and focus are superb... once you understand that getting the perfect exposure is critical in getting the most out of that camera... the images will floor you...
    best wishes,
     
  9. The D2H is like a premature baby that came out screaming. It has it's faults and quirks, but a swift spank in the butt via photoshop, will fix things up!

    Seriously, The D2H is a tweakers camera forcing the user to learn the camera and it's idiosyncracies. Nikon cameras do that to you I think. Like the D100 and it's tendancy to underexpose. People saw that as a fault, but once you adjust your digital workflow to compensate for the weakness, the images look great. For some reason, I'm not too fond of the D70. Images always come out too perfect and too clean. This may be weird, but I feel I need to do a little tweaking to my images or it just doesn't feel right. My only gripe about the D2H is the red channel. It just seems dirty in the way it captures warm tones and you really need to be careful.

    Oh by the way, didn't you say you are a jpeg shooter? Same here, even though many people say shoot normal to no sharpness, a handful of D2H jpeg shooters shoot on high, which totally enhances the noise issue. It's so enhanced, it almost gives the images an almost film like quality which looks cool. If you swing by sportsshooter.com, some of the D2H shooters have adopted the technique.

    Have fun!
     
  10. tweber

    tweber

    372
    Feb 12, 2005
    St. Louis
    Scott here's my guess

    Okay, this is just based on deduction. I sold my D2H and got the D2X. If you skip the whole resolution thing, what absolutely jumps off the page is the new matrix metering and the white balance on the D2X.

    As many have said, you have to work to learn to nail the exposure on the D2H. Once you do that, you're in darn good shape. Whatever they've done to the D2X, it's just friggin amazing what you get by way of white balance and exposure without all of the effort. I figure the main difference with the D2Hs is they've incorportated the new ASIC/metering/WB technology from the D2X into the D2Hs. Now, mind you, this is my simplistic non-technologically informed analysis. But, if that's what they've done, I'm guessing you're saved all that effort of nailing the perfect exposure and WB with the new camera.

    So, the result may eventually be similar, but the effort to get there may be minimized for the $1,500 difference in price.

    Tom
     
  11. I haven't seen the D2Hs yet (and probably wont since I have the D2x) but I have come tio appreciate whata great camera the D2H is. The D2H has pushed me to be a much better photgraspher technically, I realaly was clueless about exposure and WB before I got it and the first two months where a bit tough... But my wife instantly noticed the great colors coming from it, she doesnt care if it is exactly in focus and if the metering is dead on. I can say by the end of February when I sold it I was very familar with it and the shots that came out of it where the best I have ever taken from any camera.

    So the summary is if you are a good photographer, you will love the D2h and as for the 4 MP I have blow up prints to 18x12 and many others have gone larger and they look awesome.

    Btw I use Neatimage personally, I liked it better the NN but it might just be me.

    As for the D2x, another round of learning has begun :)
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
best 1600 and 3200 ISO amongst d2h d2hs d2x d200 General Discussion Sep 27, 2008
D2Hs Noise performance compared to D2h General Discussion Jul 12, 2005
D2H vs D2Hs General Discussion Jun 19, 2005
D2h vs D2hs General Discussion Mar 28, 2005
D2Hs vs. D2h General Discussion Feb 18, 2005