Lots of D2H for sale...

Discussion in 'Nikon DX DSLR' started by Nubster, Oct 5, 2008.

  1. Nubster

    Nubster

    446
    Mar 31, 2008
    Romney, WV
    Haven't been on for awhile. Just noticed the Sale section flooded with D2H bodies. Prices seem good. I have always been interested in this camera. I love the stuff that comes out of them. So for the $600-700 price tags they are carrying now, is this still a good buy? I have a D200 now. Would these two cameras compliment each other or should I stick with the D200 or would the D2H be an upgrade from the D200?
     
  2. mam8368

    mam8368 Guest

    About 4 months ago I purchased a used D2H from KEH Camera. I also shoot mainly with a D200. I do believe the two cameras do compliment each other. I purchased the D2H for the sole purpose of being a back up camera, but instead I use it as a supplimental 2nd camera at weddings. By having two cameras with different lenses attatched, I am able to get two different "styles" of images without having to constantly be switching out lenses on my D-200. For the money, they are great cameras and lots of fun to use, especially if you appreciate SPEED! I do not recommend using ISO settings over 400 ISO, unless you want the "grainy look". In my opinion, I would say "go for it". I think you'll be happy with it, but keep your D-200. That's a great camera too!
     
  3. Nubster

    Nubster

    446
    Mar 31, 2008
    Romney, WV
    Yeah, I hear that. The D2Hs seems to be holding higher value so that is why I was really looking at the D2h for about $400 less. But I will do some more research before making any decisions. Thanks both for the input.
     
  4. jStat

    jStat

    Dec 11, 2007
    Janesville, WI
    This camera is why I'm trying to trade my D80 towards one...
     
  5. 73Z1

    73Z1

    Sep 15, 2008
    Sacramento
    Like mam8368, I bought a new D200 and later picked up a used D2H. I think they compliment each other extremely well. I also intended the D2H to be my backup camera and my speed camera for shooting my nephews playing little league baseball. In general however, I find that prefer using the D2H over the D200. The D2H feels so much better to use, and is much more fun to use than the D200. The D2H auto-focus is significantly better than the D200. The D2H images if correctly exposed, are fantastic.

    I compared them sid-by-side and the JPGs from the D2H do tend to show ever so slightly noise more than the D200 at ISO 800 and above. I've been shooting football lately and I now shoot them all in RAW and convert to JPG. Using raw, I'm very happy with the images at ISO 1250 and below. The D2H raw files are less than half the size of the D200 raw files, so I get a LOT more on the CF card and they look great. (Plus the battery lasts more than twice as long as that of the D200). Noise isn't an issue at all at ISO 1250 and below if you shoot raw and add some slight noise reduction to the conversion steps.

    IMHO there are 2 big issues with the D2H. The first is the relatively high contrast even at low contrast settings. If you get the exposure correct to begin with, it produces outstanding images with extremely low noise, great color, contrast, and detail. If you are off by too much, then the higher base contrast makes the raw images a bit harder to work with than the D200 raw images. Even so, I tend to grab the D2H over the D200, unless I really need the megapixels or want much softer soft color transitions.

    The second big issue with the D2H is that it will spoil your hands. I would have already bought a D700, except I'm so spoiled by the D2H feel that I'm looking to get a used D3 instead.

    If you decide to pick up a D2H, then I agree with awp, there are several good reasons to consider a D2Hs over the D2H. The LCD is better and more accurate, the JPGs out of the camera are supposed ot be great up to ISO 1600, and the RAW images are supposed to be slightly better, although I've read posts from several D2H/D2Hs owners that the raw output is the same. Either way, the D2H(s) is a bargain at current prices.

    I'd recommend getting a DK-17M magnifier for the viwefinder. It runs about $32 (shipping included) from Adorama and it makes the already excellent viewfinder superb.
     
  6. Penguin

    Penguin

    52
    Sep 10, 2008
    Canada
    The ONLY reason I would be getting rid of mine, is if someone offered me an FX nikon for a sweet price..maybe.
    Great handling camera. Sweet little 4mp camera with 8fps to boot.
     
  7. Are you guys seriously talking about the D2H and not the D2Hs? Because the D2H was perhaps the biggest tarnish on Nikon DSLR history. That camera created the mass exodus to Canon and had it not been for the D3, Nikon would seriously be in the red. I had two D2H bodies and hated it!

    The D2Hs is a far better camera, with superior files out of camera. The D2H requires post processing to clean those noisy images.
     
  8. I think it depends on what you are going to shoot. The d2h was my sports camera for a couple of years and it was terrific at that job up to an iso of 800- over that, at least for me, the wheels started to come off. I now shoot with a d3. I sometimes miss the "extra reach" I had with the smaller sensor of the d2h. (I know the zoom factor isn't real, but it sure seems to be) At low iso I really don't think my pictures are any better than with the d2h, but over iso 400 and certainly over 800 the d3 wins hands down. If I was shooting daytime sports with good lighting the d2h could be a great tool.
    Gary
     
  9. Julien

    Julien

    Jul 28, 2006
    Paris, France
    I guess I must be using a D2Hs camouflaged as a D2H because I'm not seeing those noisy images. Sure I rarely use 800, and only used 1000 a few times but they turned out OK. I'm pretty satisfied considering the old technology.

    Now once I get my D700 in hand things might change, though I'm happy with the small file size of the D2H's photos as well as the 200 ISO.
     
  10. Seriously though, for a good year before the D2X/D200 I was getting spanked by Canon shooters using the 1Dm2. I would have to revert to using a D70 to have cleaner files.

    Y'all got short term memories. Here's a sportshooter article that chronicled the noise issue.

    http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1078

    Quote from article:

    "Another image quality disappointment is the noise. I realize others have had great experiences in this area. I have not. While in some situations the image noise above 500 ISO is equal or better than the D1H, in many others the noise is worse. It isn't so much the amount of noise, but the quality of it. In some situations the noise has a clumpy red or purple look to it, which was quite noticeable at Lakers games. Some people feel that this may be an infrared problem. Do I need to dig through my attic looking for my old NC2000 Hot Mirror filters? I hope not."


    I'd definitely look for a D2Hs first and foremost.
     
  11. Alex Ratson

    Alex Ratson Guest

    It all comes down to what you are currently accustom to. If you have never fully used Nikons 3 new gems you will probably find that the D2H is not that much worse at higher ISO's and it definitely has a AF advantage over the D200.
    The D2H is ok at high ISO (for it thats 400 and up) IF you do not have much black's or shadows AND nail exposure/white balance. If any of these are off... your hooped! Especially if you have just test driven a brand spanking new Nikon or have an editor that has lived in a cave for the last decade. I honestly would take Fuji NPZ pushed a stop over a slightly underexposed D2H file any day of the week.
    I have shot with multiple D2H's and D2Hs's. The S is the way to go out of the two as it is by far the best high ISO camera from the past generation of Nikon's.
    If I were you and had a D200 plus $6/700 I'd sell the 200 and buy a D300 which will really give you an upgrade in every way with no resolution loss.
    If your are a working photographer I would absolutely advice against the D2H.
    I continue to dread days that I am asked to pull up an old file photo that is shot with the D2H (or even the X) that was shot above ISO 400, especially when it is going to run larger 1/2 page or larger.
     
  12. My pair dont.
     
  13. Peter LaMorte

    Peter LaMorte

    19
    Oct 13, 2008
    Colorado
    John,
    What features does the 2Dh have that is making you want it? I'm in the market for a D80, so I'm curious what makes it better than the D80.
    Peter
     
  14. From my point, the d2h wins in every department.
     
  15. Don't remind me of those days. The photo agency I used to work with gave me grief regarding my D2H files. Especially when everyone else was shooting with the 1Dm2. When I finally got my D2X/D200, I was able to hold my head up high again!
     
  16. Nikkor AIS

    Nikkor AIS

    Jun 5, 2008
    Alberta
    I'll say one thing about the D2h it just plain works. My "fancy D3 has died twice but the D2h keeps going , and going...OO True, it's not A D3 at ISO 3200 but for the price and 8FPS it is the "master blaster" :biggrin: Use fast glass and your in 4 megapixal heaven.:Love:I wish I had a D2Hs for comparison. Still the D2H one of Nikon's best ever IMO

    OO
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 15, 2008
  17. Julien

    Julien

    Jul 28, 2006
    Paris, France
    Even though the D80 is newer they play in a whole different league. On the one hand we have a pro body and on the other a consumer camera … totally different customers are aimed here. Not to sound offensive at all but if you have to ask then the D2H clearly isn't for you.
     
  18. You've never heard of the D2H broken meter issue?

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=14337872
     
  19. jStat

    jStat

    Dec 11, 2007
    Janesville, WI
    The meter issue is the one catch I'd have to consider.

    Honestly, for what I do with my D80, I could do with a D2H or D2Hs. That is, use primarily in great light and as a backup.

    Honestly, the fps has the D80 trumped, as well as the faster AF(It may be older, but it's still a pro body). The 4.1MP max res is a bit of a concern, but not when I can get upwards of 700 RAW(guess-timate) shots on a 4GB card:wink: