1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

D2Hs vs. D2h

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Iliah, Feb 18, 2005.

  1. Iliah


    Jan 29, 2005
    May be the same as D1 to D1h - same resolution, but really great improvement in noise, banding, colour, buffer, ease of menu system and so on. We will see :) 
  2. it probably is but...

    I do think that Nikon did miss the boat on this one, we are now so used with the D2H's that we can fix most things that it doesn't do well. And since the public consensus is that it should have been 8 MB - it should have. I know it is just perception, but that is the way people have reacted on this.

    Sorry for being so frank but what in the world did the development team and Nikon think about when they conceived this camera?
  3. Iliah


    Jan 29, 2005
    Andreas, I'm pretty sure we will have D3h; meanwhile, as you know - sharp optics makes a world of difference. In long-term I prefer my lenses to be good/expensive, and cameras on a cheaper side. I'm happy to change cameras, and not so happy to replace lenses. 4 sharp noise-free megapixels are quite a lot. People say Nikon is not listening to the market? But we are yet to see it's near-future "consumer-oriented" offerings. That is where their R&D money come from :)  And finally - let's see those 4 megapixels from D2Hs.
  4. yes I know

    4 MP does really well. It's not that - it's market perception. My sad prediciton is no matter how well it does picture wise (exception if it can do superb VERY low noise ISO3200 out of the camera) people will still put it up against the 1D MkII and say that it is not enough. It is not about logic it is about perception. The perception is that Nikon is behind and at that moment you dont release another 4 mp DSLR, unless it has clear superiority of some kind.

    I have done a lot of big time global marketing in my life. If I would have been Nikon Marketing I would have introduced this camera in a month from now on it's own, and with incredible sample shots to prove my point.

    Right now it distracts and discourages from the all important D2X introduction.

  5. I'm curious why Nikon released the D2Hs. From what I read there is not too much difference from the D2H but maybe I am wrong and not seeing as the Nikonias see is.

    I know I like how fast it shoots. It would have been nice to see an 8 mxp from it though.

  6. marek

    marek Guest

    From a MFG & design perspective it makes sense. You,
    a) get updated tech available today in the D2x into your other pro body
    b) gain associated cost / production benefits due to commonality to D2x and F6 (I doubt any of the new components are significant;y differently priced to the D2h ones)

    Nikon has done this in the past with the F801 & F801s (8008 for ppl in the US) as well as F90 & F90s if not for oher film cameras as well. How the market reacts is a different thing altogether. I'm sure 8mp would have been preferrable but it's not to be. We will have to wait for the D3 or D3h for that.
  7. Iliah


    Jan 29, 2005

    I love 4mpix. They are quite handy. They allow me not to fill my cards and hard drives too fast. Transfer times via wireless are quite reasonable. Sharpness, print size, etc - fine for many applications. Easy, very manageable workflow under PJ deadlines, allowing not to retreat to JPEGs.

    Some other cameras suggest 2 times more megapixels only to provide reasonable JPEGs, comparable to sharp 4mpix RAW :) . But in terms of dynamic range JPEGs are not as good as RAW; and if things in JPEGs (like white balance, or contrast) are to be fixed.... I prefer small NEFs.

    If D2hs camera is improved compared to D2h, as per things I (wishfully) read between the li(n) es, I will happily get it to replace D2h.
  8. Re: it probably is but...

    The way I see it, Nikon is similar to Fuji's S2 and S3. Not hardly any change but even so, Nikon will have buyers wanting the D2Hs camera so let them enjoy. The one reason I did not upgrade to the S3 was because the camera is not much different than the S2 so that made me make my move to the D2X. I truly believe this will be a nice camera even if there are no pictures for it. The camera probably will speak for itself once it's here. 8)

  9. Re: it probably is but...

    Yes I'm sure it will be a nice camera, and I'm sure the people who buy it will enjoy it. I just don't think this was a very good introduction from a marketing perspective.
    Right now Nikon in the general photographers mind is seen as being behind, the D2X is supposed to solve that problem, then it is not a good idea from a marketing perspective to distract from this introduction, and it is not a good idea to introduce a camera that has pretty much the same specs on paper, that will not help the image situation at all. They could have waited 2-4 weeks then introduced it for instance in a low key way at a PJ venue with plenty of testimonials and samples on how good this camera really is and with pros standing up saying that this is a super camera and this is what they really need. The case is not hard to make, bigger buffer, more pics on cards, news services very seldom needs more den 72dpi anyway (they could have backed that up with quotes from executives at news orgs) etc. etc.

    Nikon makes wonderful world class camera equipment, I love my D2H and lenses, but their marketing department comes across as amateurish. (in my former job I used to work with global marketing for 13 years)

    sorry for the rambling I will be quiet now.

  10. I believe that the logic behind the D2hs is that there are a lot of folks both pro and hobby who like to shoot just jpeg or are very jpeg oriented. The majority of major fixes are to the way D2h processes jpeg files. The sensor is the same and the focus is the same and have yet to see a major difference between 3d matrix color and the II version. The D1x and the D2x which have the I and II versions both take very well balanced images with similar exposure. If the file size was the same, it would be hard to justify the D2x for D1x shooters.

    If you shoot primarily jpeg and like the managable size of the D2h, then the hs version my be your camera. If you shoot raw all the time, the D2h is probably a better buy for you.

    That is my 2 pennies worth. Still waiting for a hands on D2hs experience. Does anyone have a link to a site with D2hs user pictures or experience?
  11. DAVE VAN


    Feb 22, 2005
    New Jersey
    I am in manufacturing myself. I believe Nikon did a smart thing by releasing a slightly upgraded D2Hs. Most of the cost is in designing and manufacturing the tooling for the body, etc. By saving on the cost of the tooling on the new model they saved a bunch on the per piece cost. The new electronic circuits are relatively cheap to design and manufacture. Plus this camera is using the same Nikon manufactured sensor. Nikon is saving money by using this item. There must be a tremendous profit margin in these cameras. Look at the price drop on the D2H, and I am sure they still made a good profit percentage on the $1995.00 price. My job is to price and design electro-mechanical assemblies, and I am sure there isn't more than $500.00 cost in manufacturing one of these cameras, especially in the volume's that we are talking here, 100,000's of thousands. I see the D2Hs as a temporary model until a new major design is implemented. Nikon will not have to sell many units of this camera to recoup there investment.
    Just my opinion on the issue :oops: 
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.