Nikon D2H

[Airrace2]

Hello,

Just wondering if anyone out there has been able to purchase a Nikon D2H.

Also wanted to alert fellow photographers that I am selling my Nikon 300mm 2.8 AF ED (hardcase & accessories). If anyone out there is interested in photos let me know before I list it on Ebay.

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: Nikon D2H

Originally posted by Airrace2
Hello,

Just wondering if anyone out there has been able to purchase a Nikon D2H.

Also wanted to alert fellow photographers that I am selling my Nikon 300mm 2.8 AF ED (hardcase & accessories). If anyone out there is interested in photos let me know before I list it on Ebay.

Airrace2,

I've been watching this body for a while... I've not gotten one, I was quite lathered to get one though... However, after watching the early user reports, I'm steering far away from it, at least, for now.

It appears to have some really great features but also, has some significant image issues. Mainly, what I can see as an issue is digital noise.

Anyway, that's my observation, not first hand (can't afford to buy something I can't use) from looking at images produced by others.

I'm probably selling, at least, my D1 body.. perhaps, my entire Nikon kit.. I have not yet made the decision, but I *might* make the switch to Canon.. I might also just do a D1X, in which case, I'd keep all the Nikon gear, sans the D1, if I can get enough out of it to make it worth selling that is..

Wayne

[Race 29]

Hey, I'm selling my Almost restored Karman Ghia.
Sorry, I thought this was the Classifieds

Seriously though, how much would it cost to get started with some pro photo gear? Are the cameras you guy are talking about digital? I have a pretty good 35mm, but the digital stuf I've been seeing lately seems way better quality.

Race 29

[AAFO_WSagar]

Originally posted by Race 29
Seriously though, how much would it cost to get started with some pro photo gear? Are the cameras you guy are talking about digital? I have a pretty good 35mm, but the digital stuf I've been seeing lately seems way better quality

Way loaded question Race Two Nine..

I think for the most part, we're "all" talking about digital SLR's..

How much to get in? That's the loaded part of the question..

When I got in, (early) it was WAY more spendy than it is now. I spent the princly sum of $5000. for my Nikon D1 (body only) a grand for my Sigma 50-500. Both have served me well and continue to do so..

Right now, you can get a D1H, which is the same chip (basically) as the D1, only upgraded this and that on software and feature end for a little less than $3000. Or a Nikon D100 for something over $1500-1600

Lenses run a grand or better for a decent zoom of high enough magnification to bring in the shots...

Then you need a flash, some flash cards, perhaps a mobile storage device to download cards to in the field..

Software to process images... it goes on and on...

I don't even want to add up what I've got into my total setup, including cards, readers, cables, software, lenses, storage.. etc etc..

Wanna buy some nice used stuff

Wayne

[T. Adams]

The Dark Side

Wayne, you have almost seen the light!! Come out of the cave and join the people with the big white lenses.



I also have read a lot about this camera. Not because I want to switch from Canon, but just interested in what it will do. I agree with a more than a few people who have said it took Nikon 2 years to match the Canon 1D, that was released way back in September 2001. The 1D is still 2 years later the sports journalist camera to have. It does need an update though. Two years in digital between upgrades is a long time.

Not fanning any Nikon, Canon flames, what ever you choose will work just fine, I just happen to like Canon.

Race 29, about cost, it is not cheap. Wayne mentions some of the stuff you need. I still shoot all film, with 2 bodies (Elan IIe, and EOS 3), and 4 lenses with 2 converters. 2 of the lenses and the EOS 3 were bought used, and I still have a little over $5K invested in this stuff. What the heck, it's only money, right.

[Race 29]

Guys, this is some great info! I never look at the photography magazines, so I really don't know what's out there. I've been using 35mm for so long. I don't have my dark room equipment anymore, so it's a pain to get it developed when I know there's a better way. With digital I can talk my wife into........I mean, I can take much better pictures of air racing!!

Wayne, I really wasn't trying to load any questions. I'm really looking to upgrade. I don't know if I'm ready for what you have though. If we were talking air racing, your used stuff would be Dago or the Bear. My stuff would be a Piper Cub. Currently I'm using a Minolta 3xi. Decent camera, with lots of auto this and that. But time to upgrade to camera 2.0

Race 29

[Airrace7]

Has anyone used or had any luck with the new Pentax digital cameras?

I was looking at purchasing the Pentax *ist D Digital model?

[T. Adams]

Pentax

Check out this review here. Not real favorable. I have read all kinds of stuff on digital, so I know what I'm getting into when I finally take the plunge. I think most will agree that sticking with Nikon or Canon is by far the best way to go. There are other brands that will let you use Nikon glass. The body is one thing, but Nikon, and Canon glass are by far the best lenses you can buy for SLR's.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax-istd.shtml

[Kilo Hotel]

Originally posted by Race 29
...I'm really looking to upgrade. I don't know if I'm ready for what you have though. If we were talking air racing, your used stuff would be Dago or the Bear. My stuff would be a Piper Cub. Currently I'm using a Minolta 3xi. Decent camera, with lots of auto this and that. But time to upgrade to camera 2.0

Race 29

Race 29, the advice to stick with Canon or Nikon is probably good advice. Sadly, Olympus seems to have missed the mark with their E-1 "all-digital" SLR, which implements the new 4/3 System standard backed by Kodak and Oly. That's too bad, since they were able to start with a clean slate and design a new SLR/detachable lens system that's digital from the ground up, smaller and lighter (which somewhere down the road might mean 'cheaper', too) than the 35mm-style digital SLRs we've been discussing so far. There's a good comparison of imager chips sizes and a discussion of the implications on the first page of the E-1 review on dpreview.com:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/

Speaking of 35mm-style digital SLRs, the new 'consumer' digital SLR from Canon, the 300D (a.k.a. 'Digital Rebel') is worth a look. Its MSRP is $899, or $999 with a 'starter' zoom lens; it's basically a plastic-body Canon 10D that's been slightly defeatured in firmware. It has the same imager and processing core as the 10D: pretty darn good gear. It's not the pro photojournalist's dream camera, but the imaging engine is top notch and the price point sets a new low for digital SLRs. Since digital camera technology's changing so fast these days, it makes some kind of sense to spend as little as possible on the camera body (which will be obsolete in a year or two) and invest in the glass (a mature technology) instead. Unless the 4/3 System standard catches on in a big way, of course, but that's far from a given.

Finally, don't miss the other camera reviews and the forum discussions on dpreview.com: lots of top notch info to be found there.

[bearfan1]

Canon Rebel

Thanks for the info Steve. I have a friend that is seriously looking at the Canon Rebel, and asked me what I thought. I really didn't know what to tell him, but did tell him that the subject of cameras gets discussed with some regularity here.

He's looking for a decent digital camera in that price range and that megapixals range. And he wants some versatility with his lense options. I would imagine that some lense brands are better then other brands. ?? He's doesn't shoot photos that much but has been looking at digital cameras lately.

Anyone else with any thoughts on the Rebel?

Duane

[wingman]

Digital ???

Also on the excellent Luminous Landscape website listed above is a very good discussion of the " digital vs film " question. I still have not made the jump to digital and do not plan to do so soon. I love what I get with slides and a good scanner, and the cost of a really good film camera body AND a really good scanner is still less than the cost of the comparable digital body alone. Plus, with the digital body you still need extra memory, a laptop or something to store your images in when on the road, etc. etc. etc.

If you're not doing news for publication tomorrow, why do you need digital???

JMHO... Neal

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: Digital ???

Originally posted by wingman
If you're not doing news for publication tomorrow, why do you need digital???

One word Neal....

Dinosaur

[wingman]

Dinosaur ???

Actually, my friend, you're not the first to use the "D" word to describe me. After all, I'm the guy who didn't get a computer til Windows 95 (the first intuitive way to operate one of these things) came out, and who didn't get an autofocus camera til 7 or 8 years after they first became available, and who did not get an inkjet printer til a truly professional quality archival one became available, etc. I'm a notorious late adapter, in techie terms. I like to wait til a technology matures before jumping on it.

Besides, just before Reno I bought a new Nikon F100 (wonderful machine!) for about $1100. Any digital with the same build quality and incredible features would depreciate more than that as you walked out the camera shop door!

Neal

[AAFO_WSagar]

Re: Dinosaur ???

Originally posted by wingman
Actually, my friend, you're not the first to use the "D" word to describe me.

HA!...

I'll not try to convince you, we've had this discussion in person far too often

There are, I'm sure, long lists that could be made in favor of, or against, either image device.

As you know, I did jump in early with Digital SLR's... Partly because I simply needed a better body than the N70 that I'd just bought, partly because of being very disappointed with even the best labs consistancy of processing images.

Nothing like having your best, hard fought shots, ruined by a careless move at the lab..

But then, probably nothing like losing your images due to some sort of electronic glitch... (which we know, I had at Reno at a very bad time.. ) so it goes I guess...

Monatarily, I think a good argument could be reached that the depreciation rate of the digital body could be offset by the film not bought and processed.

Image quality and avaliablity wise, I let the lack of grain and flexibility of having images when needed speak for themselves... That and.. did I mention that I HATE running a scanner????

Neal, lie next to the pod.. sleep my friend, be absorbed... you will be one of us..

Hope you're not getting snowed in up there!!

Wayner

[T. Adams]

Why digital??

Read this, very good editorial on the subject.

http://www.photofocus.com/zine7/argument.html