PDA

View Full Version : Nikon D2H and new lenses!


Moxiemike
Jul 22, 2003, 08:06 AM
http://www.nikonusa.com/templates/main.jsp?cat=1&grp=2&content=/fileuploads/slr_0703/slr_0703.html

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0307/03072204nikond2h.asp

This to me is looking like TRUE innovation in Digital Photography! As opposed to crunching out another bunch of megapixels and a refresh of a tired AF system (canon?) it looks like the boys at Nikon have really done their homework.

The WiFi (airport in our world) connection is totally compelling. I think that this could have HUGE potential (and if they end up on a 802.11g system with their higher megapixel cameras...lookout!).

Imagine Being able to use rendezvous or something to see your machine at home. Log in through you D2H/D2x/D200 and be able to shoot w/o worry, using the Flash card as the buffer while it uploads...... oh man!

Anyway. Check out this camera. It's a pro-level cam, and it lists for only $3500! The prices on these things are going down, and when Nikon releases the D2X with WiFi and an 8 or 10 MP sensor, Canon will be back to the drawing board. :)

haha

m

yzeater
Jul 22, 2003, 08:53 AM
The only question is the speed. 12 megabits/sec is kinda slow if you're transferring a half gig of photos, right?

Mr. Anderson
Jul 22, 2003, 09:04 AM
Its got a nice bunch of options - but at 4 megapixel its not that great for the price unless you actually need the 8 continuous frames a second and wireless connection.

If I payed that much for a camera, I'd want at least 12 Megapixel and I'd be happy without the wireless.

D

Moxiemike
Jul 22, 2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Its got a nice bunch of options - but at 4 megapixel its not that great for the price unless you actually need the 8 continuous frames a second and wireless connection.

If I payed that much for a camera, I'd want at least 12 Megapixel and I'd be happy without the wireless.

D

What you're missing is that this was released to time with the 2004 olympics. They focused development on this machine to get it to market. This is a camera geared towards the sports photographer.

And at $3500, this is a great cam for the sports/photojournalist.

As far as comparisons:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh6/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=238988&is=REG

And the 1d sells like hotcakes!

They're gonna have a D2X and a D200 which will have the big megapixel, though seriously, 6 is about equivalent to a true 35mm scan.

Me? I'd rather have a good image than a 12mp sensor that's noisy and lacks definition like Kodaks.

cgc
Jul 22, 2003, 10:14 AM
The true innovation was done by Canon with their "tired AF system" (USM) that Nikon and Sigma have both copied. Along with another "tired" Canon innovation called "image stabilization," again copied by Nikon (VR) and Sigma (OS). Canon again innovated by going with a much improved CMOS image sensor rather than the tired rehashing of a CCD.

Nikon and Canon both make great systems, enjoy each's virtues. I will admit that, although the Wi-Fi may not be very fast, it is a good idea and will prove useful (and Canon may very well borrow that idea).

This is a good camera, well-suited for sports photography. Of course, without a good AF system (eg. the stolen Canon technology) it would still have the gnarly Nikon AF system and be doing 1 picture every second :)

Kwyjibo
Jul 22, 2003, 11:19 AM
the wireless is very cool especially since you can stat a network on your laptop and have it basically act as a big flash card for you.

AngryAngel
Jul 22, 2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by cgc
The true innovation was done by Canon with their "tired AF system" (USM) that Nikon and Sigma have both copied.

The other poster was referring to the AF sensor, not the means of AF-ing the lens. Canon has not released a dramatically improved AF sensor for digital, just moved the film sensors over (and the D10 has a slightly tweeked sensor). The EOS D30 had an ancient sensor from the original Elan, I believe.

The D2H has the first 11-point sensor in any Nikon. It can also matrix meter with manual lenses, the first digital Nikon SLR to do this, the only other Pro Nikon to do this is the F4. Canon sacrificed a lot moving to a new mount with the EOS system, but Nikon is still keeping people with large MF lens collections happy. How many digital cameras can use those awesome Canon FD long telephotos?

Canon again innovated by going with a much improved CMOS image sensor rather than the tired rehashing of a CCD.
You do know that Nikon has developed their own new ultra-fast CMOS-like sensor type for the D2H, don't you? It is very unusual for a camera manufacturer to develope a new TYPE of sensor. I don't think Canon has done this.


Of course, without a good AF system (eg. the stolen Canon technology) it would still have the gnarly Nikon AF system and be doing 1 picture every second :)

You do know many sports photographers still use manual pre-focussing, and back in the day they got 10+fps from specialized Canon F-1s and Nikon F2's without any AF?

Having said all this, I agree that Nikon is a conservative company that gets it wrong quite often (they originally decided against lens-motor AF, after starting out with it in the F3AF; they are being very slow releasing AFS and VR lenses).

For technology Canon is better, I agree. I think the best part of this news is the return of matrix with manual lenses, the cool new flash system (after a shakey start in Digital TTL flash, strange since their Film TTL flash is was good), the external colour temp meter (which also detects the strobing of fluorescent lights), and the awesome lenses (3.2x f2.8 constant zoom and the return of the 200-400mm f4 zoom, now with AFS and VR).

cgc
Jul 22, 2003, 06:12 PM
As far as the Canon AF sensors go, I have an EOS 3 and the sensors are awesome. I can autofocus down to f/8. I believe almost no other camera can AF at f/8, period. I find it hard to believe Canon didn't bring these sensors to their digital line (I have no experience with Canon's digitals).

I think it's safe to say that "Canon innovates while Nikon perfects cameras." I still think Canon has the absolute best lineup of lenses for SLRs. Can't go wrong with either though.

acj
Jul 22, 2003, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Moxiemike

They're gonna have a D2X and a D200 which will have the big megapixel, though seriously, 6 is about equivalent to a true 35mm scan.

Me? I'd rather have a good image than a 12mp sensor that's noisy and lacks definition like Kodaks.

I've scanned about 4000 images at 55MB (18 MP) and worked with several higher res drum scans. I also work with the 11MP Canon 1DS and the 6MP 10D. The 1DS has more resolution than the 55MB scans, and maybe a very small amount more than a good drum scan. So I would say the sharpest color film (arguably ProviaF 100) could be said to have about 10MP. Also the Canon 1Ds is silky smoth noise free, better than any film.

That said, the market for the D2H is entirely different.

acj
Jul 22, 2003, 07:24 PM
Fujifilm Had it (or provided a prototype) first. And it was integrated, not a big ugly add-on.

What I want is an ipod sized hard drive in the camera.

The new sensor is inovative indeed.

The big sharp screen is very nice too.

As is the smaller battery.

If they could only do more than 11 focus points! 45 is so very nice. Believe me it's useful.

Worst thing: The dust problem is not solved through hardware! Curse them!

The software has some interesting features I have wished for: vignette control (does it read lens/aperture and give the perfect adjustment!?), and rectilinear fisheye conversion.

It looks like it will be most of what the 1D is not.

cgc
Jul 22, 2003, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by acj
I've scanned about 4000 images at 55MB (18 MP) and worked with several higher res drum scans. I also work with the 11MP Canon 1DS and the 6MP 10D. The 1DS has more resolution than the 55MB scans, and maybe a very small amount more than a good drum scan. So I would say the sharpest color film (arguably ProviaF 100) could be said to have about 10MP. Also the Canon 1Ds is silky smoth noise free, better than any film.

That said, the market for the D2H is entirely different.

I have heard many people say many things about how many megapixels print film compares to. The consensus is that nobody knew. I would say that current digital SLRs are equivelent to 35mm film for most amateur uses. In fact, I know for a fact that a popular photography magazine accepted a 4MP image for its cover! With that said, i do believe that digital photography is still not quite there. Here is my list of things I need before I convert to digital:

1. No shutter lag (think Nikon may have got this)
2. In-camera, solid-state storage that is so fast I can take 4 pictures-per-second until the storage medium fills up (and that better be in the GB range).
3. Some way of simulating different types of films at picture taking time...not in Photoshop(e.g. vibrant colors, accentuate greens, grainy, you get the idea)
4. Long battery life
5. Super bright LCD

All of this for under $1500. This list keeps geting shorter. Soon...very soon...

MisterMe
Jul 22, 2003, 10:04 PM
Originally posted by cgc
I have heard many people say many things about how many megapixels print film compares to. The consensus is that nobody knew. I would say that current digital SLRs are equivelent to 35mm film for most amateur uses....The number I hear is 8 Mpixels for 35 mm film. However, most professional D-SLR pictures are somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 Mpixels, and they look great. For the picture book A Day in the Life of Africa, some of the photos were shot using 4 Mpixel Olympus point-and-shoot cameras. Their quality is indistinguishable from the quality of those shot using higher resolution Olympus cameras like the E-20. For the pros, just about any dificiency in the camera is corrected in Photoshop.

acj
Jul 22, 2003, 10:10 PM
cgc: Sure, 4 MP images get published all the time. I still say ProviaF is about 10MP. Just from my experience, though, which is limited but fairly substantial nontheless. See alaskaphotographics.com.

#1: I think you can knock shutter lag off your list

#2 With the D2H you can get more pictures than a roll of film, however you could probably change rolls faster than the buffer flush.

#3 You can do this, however I would never give up processing in Adobe's Camera Raw. It blows the flexibility of film away, so why would I want to simulate film?

#4 Right on, this is pathetic.

#5 The Canon 10D is pretty darn good, even in sunlight. Better than the 1DS.

acj
Jul 22, 2003, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by MisterMe
The number I hear is 8 Mpixels for 35 mm film. However, most professional D-SLR pictures are somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 Mpixels, and they look great. For the picture book A Day in the Life of Africa, some of the photos were shot using 4 Mpixel Olympus point-and-shoot cameras. Their quality is indistinguishable from the quality of those shot using higher resolution Olympus cameras like the E-20. For the pros, just about any dificiency in the camera is corrected in Photoshop.

Some PHD (Push Here, Dummy) cameras are darn sharp! The SLR is required for many situations for other reasons than publishing quality.

As for photoshop, I can't quite agree with you from a pros perspective. It's hard to use it to make a 2-page spread look not-digital if it's a 4MP camera. Also can't sharpen a really bad image, can't change depth of field, etc.

cgc
Jul 22, 2003, 11:03 PM
People say that they can do so much in Photoshop but who really has the time to alter every image? Having different types of films and knowing how to use them can save tons of time over Photoshopping images. If I do need to fix an image, I can scan it in and Photoshop it, but it is not something I would enjoy doing on a regular basis.

MattG
Jul 22, 2003, 11:12 PM
$3500 for a 4mp camera is insane, 8fps or no 8fps. For $3500 they should have at least thrown a better chip in there.

Nikon, figures.

acj
Jul 22, 2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by MattG
$3500 for a 4mp camera is insane, 8fps or no 8fps. For $3500 they should have at least thrown a better chip in there.

Nikon, figures.

It beats the competition in features and price. Some need 8 FPS, along with the weather sealing, large buffer, vast assortment of lenses, and killer autofocus. Some of the potential customers would pay it off with 2 assignments.

acj
Jul 22, 2003, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by cgc
People say that they can do so much in Photoshop but who really has the time to alter every image? Having different types of films and knowing how to use them can save tons of time over Photoshopping images. If I do need to fix an image, I can scan it in and Photoshop it, but it is not something I would enjoy doing on a regular basis.

Well, I do. We strive to make every image as close to perfect as possible, and it pays off.

Compare the quality of our stuff at alaskaphotographics.com with our competitor, alaskastock.com. Many of their images are dark because they don't touch them up. They bulk scan with film. Sometimes you can't even tell what the picture is of.

LethalWolfe
Jul 22, 2003, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by MattG
$3500 for a 4mp camera is insane, 8fps or no 8fps. For $3500 they should have at least thrown a better chip in there.

Nikon, figures.

Judgeing a camera soley by it's pixel count is like judgeing a computer soley on it's clock speed.


Lethal

Bear
Jul 23, 2003, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by MattG
$3500 for a 4mp camera is insane, 8fps or no 8fps. For $3500 they should have at least thrown a better chip in there.

Nikon, figures.
Define better?

It is a better chip in a lot of ways. It just doesn't have the resolution you are looking for. Wait for the D2X then.

The D2H was meant for photo journalists and sports photography. The D2X (when announced) should be what you are looking for. And at a price significantly lower than the Canon 1Ds.

cgc
Jul 23, 2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by acj
Well, I do. We strive to make every image as close to perfect as possible, and it pays off.

Compare the quality of our stuff at alaskaphotographics.com with our competitor, alaskastock.com. Many of their images are dark because they don't touch them up. They bulk scan with film. Sometimes you can't even tell what the picture is of.

I still believe that a good photographer should not have to touch up many pictures. Granted, I have to touch up a few of mine because I am merely an amateur, but for professionals (and this expensive camera is geared towards pros) time is money and fixing lots of pictures costs too much.

I'll check your site out when I get home.

acj
Jul 23, 2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by cgc
I still believe that a good photographer should not have to touch up many pictures. Granted, I have to touch up a few of mine because I am merely an amateur, but for professionals (and this expensive camera is geared towards pros) time is money and fixing lots of pictures costs too much.

I'll check your site out when I get home.

I have learned that quite the opposite is true. The extra time pays off. When we sell our own photo instead of our comptetitor and stock agency, we get 100%, not 40% or 0% if they sell someone elses photo.

Consider a search for "bears" on alaskastock vs. our site. Side by side, our pictures pop out more even though they have a greater selection.

Their pictures will require work by someone before they our published, ours may not.

Also consider that National Geographic has never published a single photo without doing some work. They never change the content, but they do plenty of dodging, burning, contrast conrol, sharpening, lightening, darkening, etc.

With some work, digital images have the latitude to do something that chromes never could always do: Show the scene as it looked.

Considering the time it takes to take the photo, edit down to the best few, tranfer to the computer, post it to the site, caption it, a little photoshop work is not that big of a deal.

Lastly, yes, perfect photos should not need touching up, but consider that Point and shoot digital cameras use a compressed (and often regected by publishers) sRGB color space for snapier colors, they make adjustments after the photo is taken, and they sharpen the images. This often produces a great final product, but when the automatic settings mess up, they cannot be undone like the pro cameras with a real color space and 12 bits of raw data per color.

Lanbrown
Jul 23, 2003, 02:25 PM
What about that Nikon abandoned Firewire on this camera?

Moxiemike
Jul 23, 2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Lanbrown
What about that Nikon abandoned Firewire on this camera?

USb 2.0/..... hate to say, if Macs had USB 2.0 (and i know they do now....) then there's no reason for firewire on a 4mp cam. files will be quick enough over USB. :)

AngryAngel
Jul 23, 2003, 03:02 PM
I'm not sure about now, but back when the D1 came out, a whole load of UK photo jouranlists used the PowerBook G3 (bronze keyboard) for reviewing and sending back to base.

There isn't an Apple Laptop with USB2.

I suppose the wireless thingy gets around this, but that thing is pretty bulky.

Moxiemike
Jul 23, 2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by AngryAngel
I'm not sure about now, but back when the D1 came out, a whole load of UK photo jouranlists used the PowerBook G3 (bronze keyboard) for reviewing and sending back to base.

There isn't an Apple Laptop with USB2.

I suppose the wireless thingy gets around this, but that thing is pretty bulky.

USB 2 is backward compatible champ

cgc
Jul 23, 2003, 09:08 PM
I have to agree that YOU may be actually just as productive Photoshopping images, but isn't this simply because your end product is online (digital)? I doubt a print photographer does much manipulation to their pictures. I am not trying to argue with you, I am very interested and you seem to have insight.

By the time I'm ready to sell my EOS 3 my dream digital SLR will be available (and it WILL simulate different types of films, somehow---this request was posted on photo.net and many people have agreed). Thanks for the interesting information/perspective.

acj
Jul 23, 2003, 09:20 PM
Yeah, I didn't want it to get to sounding too much like an argument, but it started to anyway.


Some more insight though (as if you haven't had enough): Print photographers often just pay someone else to do essentially in the darkroom what I do on the computer. For our print sales, we basically print the file we already adjusted, and prefer that output to an unadjusted one.

As for the dream DSLR simulating films, I am sure it will happen, perhaps finally by name. Currently there are just parameters to adjust, but the effect is about the same. The 1D and 1DS do this. They have a setting recomended for portraits, comparable to reala or some other portrait film. There is a setting for high saturation and enhanced greens, like Velvia, and others too.

h'biki
Jul 23, 2003, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by MattG
$3500 for a 4mp camera is insane, 8fps or no 8fps. For $3500 they should have at least thrown a better chip in there.

Nikon, figures.

Yeah, they know that image quality comes down to lenses. 4MP is decent for most purposes.

Pixel-count is important, but you can have the greatest sensor in the world, but put a **** lens on there (say a sigma :) and its going to be soft and full of aberrations.

h'biki
Jul 23, 2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by cgc
I have to agree that YOU may be actually just as productive Photoshopping images, but isn't this simply because your end product is online (digital)? I doubt a print photographer does much manipulation to their pictures. I am not trying to argue with you, I am very interested and you seem to have insight.


I think it comes down to the individual photographer.

Pick up a copy of IDN's Imagemaker's issue, and there's quite a few photographers profiled in there who do extensive work in photoshop even if they shoot film.

A scan of a medium-format neg is just mind-boggling with what you can tweak/

Lanbrown
Jul 24, 2003, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
USb 2.0/..... hate to say, if Macs had USB 2.0 (and i know they do now....) then there's no reason for firewire on a 4mp cam. files will be quick enough over USB. :)

What about when the D2X comes out, it will have USB as well and will be closer to 10MP.

Going to the D2H will not be a seamless migration since they abandoned Firewire, that is the point. The D1H had it, the D2H does not. Maybe they should have borrowed something from Apple, and offered USB and Firewire on the same port, you just use a different cable.

If the D2X does not have Firewire, I will keep my D1X. They probably switched to USB because people complained that it wasn't USB and yet they donít even own one. USB is a host-based setup where Firewire is not. That by itself will cause some problems.

AngryAngel
Jul 24, 2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
USB 2 is backward compatible champ

I can really see all the photographers at half time of a huge sporting event, needing to flick through a 512MB card's worth of images on a big laptop LCD to find those few great images that they need to transmit via mobile phone... and having to wait 10 minutes to transfer at ~800k per second.

Meanwhile their Canon 1D using competitor has downloaded their shots in a couple of minutes, and is already sending the best ones down the line.

People neededing the speed of the D2H, and owning Apple laptops will be made to think twice.

SPRNTRL
Jan 8, 2004, 02:29 AM
If you are spending upwards of $3000 on a digital slr, and own a laptop without USB2, but have firewire (probably a mac), you could buy a firewire card reader. At less than $100, if you need the speed of firewire vs usb 1.1, go buy one and quit complaining about the d2h not haing firwire.

Nikon AF > Canon AF on the film SLR's so i don't know what you are talking about above.

4mp is good for a single page of published material. Use Photoshop to 3x the resolution, not 12mp but much improved from 4mp. Plus, for the people needing to shoot sequences, and using the entire sequence, ie Skateboarding Magazines, this camera is great, since the frames are not going to each be 1 page, but rather 10-12 frames over 1-2 pages.

In my opinion, the 1.5x focal length multiplier is more of an issue than the 4mp. What am i supposed to do with my fisheye on this camera? I see that both canon an nikon have released 12/13mm fisheyes specifically for the digital slr's.