Nikon D2Hs Preview

For those who want higher megapixels there is the D2x, it also has a 6MP hi-fps shooting mode so it was very logical for Nikon not to compete with itself and keep the thing at 4MP, make D2hs and D2x enoughly distinct products. The aim of that release is obviously production oriented, for making D2h and x share as many common parts as possible.

If we should listen to all the complaining and trolling on the net by the school teenagers Nikon is a sinking ship for 15 years, because they didn't have eye controlled focus, didn't have mlu, didn't have enough focusing points, didn't have motors in each of their lenses, didn't have diffractive optics technology, because they are slow at doing things etc etc. Hey at least they seem slow in sinking too.

It has been a usual thing to listen to a chorus of complainers after every Nikon announcement about what ISN'T the product, what CAN'T it do, why isn't it full frame and how much better Canon is doing things. Then it wouldn't be very out of context to talk about what Canon is doing right now in this PMA, since even the author of the preview considers things from Canon point of view beforehand.

Anybody heard the interesting Canon development? 60mm/2.8 EF-S (SUBFRAME) lens, which is only for subframe bodies with 1.6x magnification factor, incompatible with full frame and 1.3x bodies, not a cheapo kit lens, not satisfies the wide angle need of subframe bodies but something else (middle range, macro)? Wasn't Canon believing that subframe lenses were only needed for wide angle coverage (quoting Mr. Bob Atkins)? What will happen to full frame bodies in future then? What will happen to 1.3x bodies then? Wasn't the EF mount and its flawless compatibility best side of Canon system? Isn't it at the moment worse than Nikon's AF system? Whose future plans look clearer, Canon or Nikon? Who is following who? Everybody sure that Canon won't screw anyone? Again? Are there two competitive companies or is there a monopoly?

I think Nikon is doing extremely well with their new D2X coming out shortly. It seems to be in many ways superior to the high-end Canons, allowing similar detail (and better colour accuracy as is usual for Nikons) in a smaller, lighter, and cheaper package with remarkably good ergonomics. This is the time to move to Nikon in my opinion.

But hey, move to Canon and I will take care of those nice high-end Nikon lenses on the second hand shelves. Just let me know if you want to sell your 14/2.8, 17-35, 70-200 VR, or 85/2.8 PC Micro. I will be delighted to relieve you of your poor investment ;-).

How large do photojournalists enlarge their prints to, if they do print them? 4x5? 5x7? 8x10? I really don't see prints for news going to 20x30", unless you're a photojournalist shooting for the fine arts market.

Did you say "sinking ship"? I was wondering if you have read the last financial statement for 2004? They have more than tripled their numbers. I don't think Canon has done that in 2004.

It's my opinion. You either agree with me or your wrong (wink).

Enough all ready! How many megapixels do you need? With a good lens I can easily print 12x18 prints with the D70 or Rebel. When the last time a newspaper or magazine was needed anything that large, remember "Life" magazine? Nikon does need a full frame sensor but I just don't see anything to gain with higher megapixels in cameras designed for reportage. Better buffering, wireless connectivity, durability, and increased dynamic range are more important in today?s SLR's. When it comes to P.S. cameras the industry needs slower model turnout and longer product life. This technology is mature enough to let manufactures focus on more important things like shutter lag, simpler user interfaces and buffer lag. Introducing new models every six months is insane. I would also like to see Nikon, Canon, Minolta, and Pentax to stop pushing their wares to Wal-Mart, and Cost-Co. Let Kodak sell to the discount merchants and let the camera stores sell cameras. I also wish online retails were required to also have a brick and mortar location before camera manufactures would sell them cameras for internet sale. (RANT!)

Personally, I'll take speed and responsiveness over megapixels, any day of the week, and this is from a Canon (20D) user!

I appreciate Nikon gives something consistent in each DSRL generation. So the D2X is a real improvement over D1X, which was a real improvement over D1. In the same way the much desired D100 replacement will be a real improvement, not like what Canon did with the D60 - 10D - 20D which show some increase in performance, but no big step forwards, and these models get outdated every 10 months or so. Do you relly think that there is that whole lot of a difference between the 20D and the 'old' D100 in the produced images? Enough to throw away the old for the new? As a side note, I think such a 'Preview' full of personal conclusions and far away from an objective report of the facts, should simply be DELETED as it offers almost zero information and will only generate the usual flame war. Marco

Canon is a much larger company that Nikon, and can release all sorts of stuff in a steady stream. The D2H is designed for photojournalists. If you're not one, don't buy it or complain about it. You can berate a hammer for not being a good screwdriver, but your sanity is in question. I agree that offering reckless speculation about Nikon in this article is peculiar for a professional review. That kind of stuff belongs in Blogs and endless, meaningless contests of Nikon vs Canon.

Canon is a much larger company that Nikon, and can release all sorts of stuff in a steady stream. The D2H is designed for photojournalists. If you're not one, don't buy it or complain about it. You can berate a hammer for not being a good screwdriver, but your sanity is in question. I agree that offering reckless speculation about Nikon in this article is peculiar for a professional review. That kind of stuff belongs in Blogs and endless, meaningless contests of Nikon vs Canon.

Canon is a much larger company that Nikon, and can release all sorts of stuff in a steady stream. The D2H is designed for photojournalists. If you're not one, don't buy it or complain about it. You can berate a hammer for not being a good screwdriver, but your sanity is in question. I agree that offering reckless speculation about Nikon in this article is peculiar for a professional review. That kind of stuff belongs in Blogs and endless, meaningless contests of Nikon vs Canon.

Canon is a much larger company that Nikon, and can release all sorts of stuff in a steady stream. The D2H is designed for photojournalists. If you're not one, don't buy it or complain about it. You can berate a hammer for not being a good screwdriver, but your sanity is in question. I agree that offering reckless speculation about Nikon in this article is peculiar for a professional review. That kind of stuff belongs in Blogs and endless, meaningless contests of Nikon vs Canon.

Canon is a much larger company that Nikon, and can release all sorts of stuff in a steady stream. The D2H is designed for photojournalists. If you're not one, don't buy it or complain about it. You can berate a hammer for not being a good screwdriver, but your sanity is in question. I agree that offering reckless speculation about Nikon in this article is peculiar for a professional review. That kind of stuff belongs in Blogs and endless, meaningless contests of Nikon vs Canon.

Whoa! Take it easy on that enter key Russ. (Smile) I wouldn't say Nikon is falling behind either. I do feel they are focusing on the consumer market rather than the pro market. Of course that's where the money is. Nikon Coolpix cameras beat the current PowerShot cameras when it comes to image quality and ease of use. The SD200 and SD400 are faster. Of course this can all change very quickly. I have not used the new SD400, SD500, A520, or the A510. I am looking forward to the New Rebel. I looks like they have addressed many of the short cummings of the current model. I think it is going to be an outstanding camera. I will add that all the Canon vs. Nikon bickering is entertaining but in the end the most advanced camera won't make you a great photographer. The best photographer I know uses a Spotmatic with a broken meter.

The discussion Nikon vs. Canon is looking like the Apple vs. Windows discussions. The "sinking ship" Nikon and "Apple will be out of business soon". While both are posting very good results.

And furthermore: why does everyone wants to have full frame? The only reason I can see is if you have a wide angle lens. But it's cheaper buying a new lens than go for an full frame DSLR. And if full frame is about quality, why limit yourself to only 24x36mm.

But this is only my opinion.... :-)

While pondering Nikon's alleged sinking ship, I couldn't help but think how delighted I've been with my D70 and Nikkors. It's funny how people lust after features because "they're there"... But a few months before that lust set in they were delighted with their purchase.

I'd love a full frame sensor, and a magnesium weatherpoof body, and cleaner ISO noise... But I haven't yet been in a situation which made me regret my current Nikon.

I'm holding confidence in Nikon having a solid (but secret) roadmap which caters to needs rather than dabbling in wants. Either way it will be interesting to see what comes next.

Reasons to desire a full-frame are obvious: wide angles, larger and higher quality viewfinders, and higher image quality. If a full-frame costs $8000, it is a lot cheaper than spending $30000 on a medium format digital kit which has nowhere near the angle of view coverage of existing lenses for 35 mm film. That's why it is desireable.

However, I'll prefer a 5k DX format camera over a 8k full-frame because Nikon doesn't make a full-frame and because I don't have 8k. And from early reports, the D2X is every bit as good as the full-frames.

Just for the record, I've been a Nikon shooter for over 30 years and have no plans to change.

The "tone" of this preview is not necessarily something I totally agree with, but it does reflect the majority of opinions being expressed in various Nikon forums. It's offered here mainly as a news item.

You many want to read Thom Hogan's comments on the same subject.

The above should read you "may" want to read Thom Hogan's comments.

I am glad that digital photography is still at its infant stage. It will only get better!

All I can say is that it was Canon and not Nikon who was behind and so needed to catch up... at least in terms of the entry level DSLR. The Digital rebel which was 2 sec startup time, 1/200 sec flash sync and lots of godd features disabled by software - was far behind D70. In fact D70 is comparable with the Canon 20D camera... so now we can say that with new Digital Rebel XT Canon is able to catch up Nikon in terms of entry level DSLR. Now you can start counting days till the time Nikon will come out with a solid entry level DSLR which is more capable camera than D70.

6 MP or 8 MP does not make any difference - please read the magapixel myth at kenrockwell.com

Suhas, I trust that 8 mepaxels don't make *much* difference under *many* circumstances -- however, I do believe the KenRockwell.com article you mention is written for idiots, IMHO.

Current Canon lineup:

Digital Rebel --> Digital Rebel XT --> EOS 20D --> EOS 1D MkII --> EOS 1DS Mk II

Current Nikon Lineup

D70 --> D2h --> D2hs --> D2x. and the last two are not available yet.

If you still have not realized what I mean, then I take back all I said, and this link is perhaps just right for you.

I can't believe how personally people are taking this canon vs nikon thing it's just like the apple vs windows crap of a few years back. It's your talent you should worry about because you can't buy that...

I have worked as a photojournalist since the mid 1990s at five different newspapers and the truth is 4 megapixels is all you need for newsprint. Newsprint is "axle grease on toilet paper." Photos are often a mere 90 lines per inch or so, and since your digital image file needs to be 1.5 to 2 times that resolution, your photos only need to be 180 dpi or so. In short, the 2.65 megapixels that the original Nikon D1 features is plenty for a photo that spans a full six-columns of newsprint. 4 megapixels from the D2h is that much more useful.

There are drawbacks to a camera with more megapixels: (1) you need larger storage cards (or you must shoot fewer images and use a smaller card) (2) you need a larger server back at the office to store the larger files (3) larger files take more time to work with on the computer (4) If you're transmitting a photo from the field, a large image (4, 6, 8, 12 megapixels or so) will need to be downsized before transmitting if you're using a slow Internet connection.

And for the Web versions of a newspaper, heck. Photos are typically 100 to 600 pixels wide. Need I say more?

There are other areas in which Nikon has improved their DSLR lineup. The main difference between the D1(h) and D2h(s) is battery life. The D1(h) didn't take long to drain a fully charged battery, but the D100 and D2 last MUCH MUCH longer. I've used the D100 for days before needing to recharge it.

In my opinion, the megapixel race in the newspaper world effectively ended in 1999. Nikon knows their photo-j customers well and has met their needs perfectly. Magazines are a different story.

For Powel

Since all u're concerned with is affordable black body then u'll be much better served by having two black 350D bodies ($1798) plus the lenses you mentioned.. comes out to be $5088

i'm sure u'll be willing to spend $8 more for better ISO 1600 noise performance :)

Christopher - what you say is true - but all PJs need good higher quality images than newspapers print in case they win a prize or get it printed in a book :-)

I use Canon 1D MkII. It is one hell of a tool. I am sure that Nikon D2H is on hell of a tool too. At his level it is not about the camera make. These pro bodies are fast and reliable enough for the highest standard of today.
As a Canon user I wish the race between Canon and Nikon is not over yet. For both the Canon and Nikon users the race is good as it will push the development. Having said this, I do not like to see a camera make bring out new bodies with only minor and secondary improvements over the predecessor. It will just devalue the models and do no good for the owners. Basically there is no grand difference between D60 to 20D. It is a bit like take the money and run.
I congratulate Nikon and all the Nikon photogs for this new marvellous piece of tool. See you at the vantage point. Let's shoot many marvellous shots and have a beer afterwards.

"What, me worry?" -- Thus sayeth Alfred E. Newman.

I just ordered a D2H at the steeply discounted price. As far as I'm concerned the only real mistake Nikon made in anticipation of the PMA was cutting the price so steeply before the D2Hs was even available to order, let alone buy. They could have milked the D2H price a bit longer if they'd really wanted to.

Nikon's biggest miscalculation appears to have been with the Coolpix 8400 and, possibly, the 8800. I agree with Jim in this respect.

Was there ever even a market for fancy P&S digicams with such high MSRP's? Apparently not. Some of the less reputable retailers claim they'll sell the 8400 for $150. That's a pretty drastic discount from the $900 MSRP, especially for a recently introduced model. B&H still lists it at the MSRP but also advertises a $100 Nikon rebate and hints that they'll discount the price even more if the camera is bought along with other purchases.

The 8400 sounded like a good idea: A high end P&S digicam with a midrange zoom that starts at 24mm, the widest on the market. But the ordinary consumers (not "serious" photographers like we'ins) nowadays want superzooms, 300mm guns that can reach out and touch the grade school auditorium stage from the back row. They don't care if the lens is a slowpoke at the long end - they're all going to use full blast direct flash anyway.

The only market for the 8400 was among "serious" photographers, folks who could appreciate the significance of a wider than average lens on a cramped sensor. The fact that we responded with enthusiastic disinterest indicates that either Nikon seriously overestimated the demand for such a specialized P&S or the lens is so badly flawed at the wide end that the entire purpose of the camera was defeated. I'd be interested in such a camera, especially at a significantly discounted price, but only if the lens is free of barrel distortion, field curvature and coma at the 24mm end.

Just my opinion. Worth what it cost you - about 30 seconds to read, 15 seconds to ponder and another 15 to fume over.

This comment appears to be a little dated considering the other users input, but I would like to add my two cents.

I just opened a portrait studio and use a Contax 645 with a used MegaVision S3 digital back tethered to an Apple computer for my in-studio work. The sensor size on the S3 is 24x36 and it is rated at 6 mega pixels. So far I have been quit happy with the performance. Total cost for the camera, digital back, Apple computer and an extra lens: $8949.00.

My backup camera (which i seem to use more than my Contax) is a Nikon D70. My lens selection consists of an AF-S NIKKOR 17-55 f2.8 and a AF-S VR NIKKOR 70-200 f2.8.

With that said, I was able to capture a fine image of my niece that I enlarged to a 30x40 with the help of Photoshop 7.0 and a high end Dell computer. Total cost for the Nikon D70, both lenses, Photoshop 7.0 and the Dell: $6299.00.

Now considering that the cost for a Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II with no lenses, no computer, no software, etc. is $7,999.00, I can buy two D2X body's for the cost of one Canon.

If all I sold was 30x40's and/or a majority of wide angle images, then yes I would seriously consider a EOS 1Ds Mark II. Until then I'll shoot with a Nikon.

I'm surprised that the editors of PHOTO.NET would accept such a preview as it is little more than a rant.

I wish there was more to "preview". But that's the point...there just isn't much to be said. I can make up some stuff if it makes anyone feel better.

Actually 4 MP is IDEAL for the intended customer of this camera...photojournalists. Newspaper and magazine photographers do not need a higher resolution. In fact, more resolution means bigger image files which reduce the fps when taking them, and increase the the time of uploading images to editors a continent away. Slow response in these areas can be FATAL (job wise) when you have daily deadlines like a newspaper photographer. 4MP is being faily generous in fact...giving you extra image size where you can crop the picture down w/out having to sacrifice image quality. I pity the photojournalist who has a 10-12-? MP image and has to upload 20-30-40-??? of them over satelllite phone ( 2400-4800 baud MAX) from a truly remote location.

We still need a real review of the D2HS on this site. This is an editorial on Nikon's [lack of] strategy in the newspaper market, not a camera review.

I've actually found mine does its job very well indeed -- although it should also be pointed out that the D2HS is what Nikon SHOULD have released in the fall of 2003 rather than the beta version that was the D2H.

Hopefully Nikon now has a 6 or 8 MP version in the pipeline. We're finally getting to the point where ordinary computers can handle that sort of file size in large volume.

Please feel free to write a review, Daniel, since you use the camera. And I don't mean that in any sarcastic way. A good review would be helpful.

This brief article was just meant as a PREVIEW, as clearly stated in the title. And not once was there any mention that the D2Hs was an inferior product. I accurately reported that the camera was an improvement over the D2H and would be welcomed by its intended market...and it has been.

I also stated that, "Nikon probably have the rest of this year to annouce some new products". With the benefit of time we see that the D200 was indeed released later that same year, and has been a big seller for Nikon. It has provided some stiff competition for Canon .

Hopefully we'll see Nikon introduce a full-frame this year (2007), and level the digital playing field further.

Happy New Year and happy shooting to all.

I'm new to the world of serious photography. I was shooting weddings all last season and loved it, although it's not what I really want to be doing with photography. We primarily used the D-70 and the D2Hs. Honestly I preferred the D70 over the D2Hs. I understand that speed is important when doing the photojournalistic style. But I'm on a limited budget and want one camera to do it all (until I can afford a series). I'm hearing the great debate of pixels versus speed. Which reasonably priced camera can I find to handle the fast paced action of weddings as well as the posed artistic stuff as is my true love? Not to mention, wedding shots do need to get blown up rather large at times.