LONG POST: Talk me back into shooting Nikon(D2Hs ?'s)

Discussion in 'Nikon DX DSLR' started by nineohtoo, Aug 16, 2008.

  1. nineohtoo

    nineohtoo

    85
    Jan 17, 2008
    SF Bay Area
    To make a long story short, I had a D50 that cost me about $150. I dropped it on a trip, and the command dial stopped working. I couldn't find a body replacement for $300 or less(my budget), and decided to go with an extremely cheap Canon 350D setup, and to pick up my go to lens in Canon mount(Sigma 30mm f1.4), along with a speedlight.

    Not that it hasn't been pleasant, but I do miss controls on my Nikon. I personally feel much more at home with one than with a Canon. The only thing I'll regret is having cheaper pro lenses, and more prime options, but considering my budget and that I don't shoot for money, I don't see that being too much of a loss. My main thing for me since I shoot concert photography is how the body handles high ISO, and I do prefer CMOS to CCD.

    With the D90 announcement, I've thought of going back to Nikon since I haven't sold my Nikon equip. I figure I can sell all my canon equip for the price of a D90 body. But when factoring costs, I kind of forgot about the D2Hs. Great high ISO quality, PRO build and features, and SMALL file sizes for quicker editing. If I shoot for money, most of my work will be web or magazine published, where the 4MP camera would be more than adequate.

    Thing is, I've never had the opportunity to use one. I had a D2H for a while, and despite liking it's quick FPS, I absolutely hated the image quality above ISO400, and the LCD quality for image reviewing. From what I've gathered, the D2Hs easily has a stop advantage. My other concern would of course be how good the LCD is on the D2Hs.

    So I guess what I need help with is, some reassurance that I can shoot ISO800/1600 comfortably, and that I can safely look at the images on my camera without a worry that they look horrible, or may look horrible when uploaded to my pc. My plans are using my Sigma 30mm f1.4(maybe some input from Sandro since I know he likes both) and probably a Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 down the line(I'm not impressed by bokeh of the 3rd party wide to normal zooms). Most of my shooting will be of live music in low lit clubs, but I'm slowly getting back into Strobist stuff, so I'll be using cactus triggers along with older Nikon flashes. Thanks everyone.
     
  2. jadog2

    jadog2

    125
    Dec 18, 2007
    SF
    Ben,
    Looking at your Flicker photo I think you will like what you get with the D2Hs.
    If you search on at least 3 top Nikon forums you will get a YES for every one of
    your questions:
    1. ISO 800/1600
    2. LCD
    3. Use with Sigma 30 1.4 & 17-55dx

    cheers,
    jason
     
  3. nineohtoo

    nineohtoo

    85
    Jan 17, 2008
    SF Bay Area
    Thanks guys. Another thing I've considered is a Canon 40D gripped, it will cost about the same. If I go w/o a grip I can use the money towards the Canon 17-55mm. And I gain more MP(I personally see this more as a disadvantage). But I do miss Nikon lol. And I can still keep my D50 as a glorified aperture priority point and shoot on the side lol. I think I'm cleaning more towards the D2Hs to simplify my post processing(and save me hdd space), give me my D50 as a kind of a backup.
     
  4. btg1

    btg1

    28
    Jun 20, 2008
    USA
    I don't have anything against Canon... they just don't fit well in my hand... they feel a bit like plastic (even the pro ones) and as you say the controls are...weird...
    So I would say switch back! You may have seen the other thread about Olympic shooters switching back to Nikon.. I think it is time :)
    I haven't personally owned the D2Hs but I have heard numerous reports that the 4MPs are plenty...
    If it were me, I would try to wait for the D90 and check it out first... waiting is hard though.... and the D2Hs is a Pro camera versus D90... hmmmm...
     
  5. JDann24

    JDann24

    663
    Dec 15, 2007
    Garland, Texas
    I tried Canon a while back and I just couldn't get used to it. I felt the controls way just plain weird. Its more of a personal preference on switching back to Nikon. I think just about everybody here will agree that the D2hs will be a great performer for your needs. I say go for it!
     
  6. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    one thing i really dig about the 40d is the sRAW file. i wish nikon had that goin on. other than that, u can have it, or any other canon for that matter:cool:
     
  7. nineohtoo

    nineohtoo

    85
    Jan 17, 2008
    SF Bay Area
    ^So are you telling me to go Canon?
     
  8. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    i've seen 40d's around here for 7-800 bucks. if u gotta good sample of the 30 1.4 in canon mount, why not?
    personally, the only cameras in nikon land i'm high on are the current FX gizmos. everything else is a compromise ...;-)
     
  9. Nikkor AIS

    Nikkor AIS

    Jun 5, 2008
    Alberta
    Iv got a D2H. I flirted with converting it to IR but for now Im still using it as a back up to my D3. The D2h is so solid and reliable that i cant see getting rid of it. I know it only 4 mega pixals but Iv made print 20-30 at 200 ISO and the client loved them. For the price of them camera's are going for on the used market buying one is a no brainer.

    Gregory
     
  10. jadog2

    jadog2

    125
    Dec 18, 2007
    SF
    Ben,
    If you like the look of the D2Hs files (to me: more life like vs. digital look; 3d and vibrant colors) then you may be more insterested in the Nikon D2Hs.
    Each person has their own tastes. Some on here love the files from the D200, while I sold mine because it didn't suite my fancey (although a nice cam!).

    As Nute said... every camera has a trade off (Both C & N). The only Trade off the New Nikon FX cameras have TO ME is the price tag. ;-)

    Good Luck,
    Jason
     
  11. fivegrand

    fivegrand Guest

    ???

    D2H ISO 800

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    I actually like the "look and feel" of my D2H images better than my D300 images in these conditions.