The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by M0T0XGUY

What exactly is the D2Hs?

A nikon pro camera. It was superseded by the d2x, d2xs, and d3.
Still, if you can find one for 800$, hm............. not bad!

[dj_mocok]

Originally Posted by nineohtoo

Thanks to the damn canon thread, I think I'm gonna go back to Nikon. Anyone want to help me find a D2Hs(must be S)? Gonna unload all my Canon stuff asap lol.

What happened with the Canon thread?

[Poohblah]

Originally Posted by nineohtoo

Thanks to the damn canon thread, I think I'm gonna go back to Nikon. Anyone want to help me find a D2Hs(must be S)? Gonna unload all my Canon stuff asap lol.

easy. KEH Camera: Nikon Digital - Camera Bodies - D2HS 4.10 M/P BODY ONLY (CF CARD ) DIGITAL SLR INTERCHANGEABLE LENS CAMERA
the non-S version is a good $400-500 cheaper though. for $900 +/- you could also get a D200, which would be a better choice (IMHO) unless you need the speed of the D2Hs.

[Poohblah]

Originally Posted by Towert7

A nikon pro camera. It was superseded by the d2x, d2xs, and d3.

not really. the D2H/s was a camera that was placed in the lineup alongside the D2X/s. the D2H/s was a fast camera for sports while the D2X/s was a heavy hitter photojournalism camera. nikon and canon have always run a similar lineup with their flagship models - every generation, there would be one fast body and one high resolution body.

[nineohtoo]

D2H has a crappy LCD, and is one stop worse than the D2Hs.

There was someone who asked why Canon over Nikon, and I gave pros and cons to both, with one of them being Nikon's latest gen has better high ISO, with D50, D2Hs and D2Xs having exceptionally good high ISO(like Canon's CMOS models). D2Hs and D2X prices hover around $1000 now, which puts it barely above what a D90 body would cost(what I wanted to buy). D2Hs have good high ISO, excellent AF speed and tracking, smaller file sizes(faster PP), and pro build. Remembering that, I decided I should get one one.

Upon further reading on 40D, D2Hs, D2X, and show photography, I think my real issue is that the clubs I shoot in have nearly no light. Now I'm beginning to think that I should use my money towards a 17-55mm 2.8, and work towards getting photo passes in better venues.

I am one indecisive mofo lol. I think I see a 40D in my near future though. I'm gonna want the bigger LCD also.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by nineohtoo

D2H has a crappy LCD, and is one stop worse than the D2Hs.

There was someone who asked why Canon over Nikon, and I gave pros and cons to both, with one of them being Nikon's latest gen has better high ISO, with D50, D2Hs and D2Xs having exceptionally good high ISO(like Canon's CMOS models). D2Hs and D2X prices hover around $1000 now, which puts it barely above what a D90 body would cost(what I wanted to buy). D2Hs have good high ISO, excellent AF speed and tracking, smaller file sizes(faster PP), and pro build. Remembering that, I decided I should get one one.

Upon further reading on 40D, D2Hs, D2X, and show photography, I think my real issue is that the clubs I shoot in have nearly no light. Now I'm beginning to think that I should use my money towards a 17-55mm 2.8, and work towards getting photo passes in better venues.

I am one indecisive mofo lol. I think I see a 40D in my near future though. I'm gonna want the bigger LCD also.

Depending on what you call "nearly no light", 2.8 is going to be slow, especially! if you don't use a flash. Even at ISO 1600.
One night I stumbled upon a nice event, and it had decent lighting. I was stuck with my 60mm F/2.8 lens, and even at ISO1600 most results were not pretty.


Best advice I can give:
Don't rush into something. You even see that you're all up in the air and don't really know what you want. Take the time to find out what you want! 1000$ is a lot of money to spend only to realize that you didn't make a smart choice.

[Poohblah]

Originally Posted by nineohtoo

D2H has a crappy LCD, and is one stop worse than the D2Hs.

There was someone who asked why Canon over Nikon, and I gave pros and cons to both, with one of them being Nikon's latest gen has better high ISO, with D50, D2Hs and D2Xs having exceptionally good high ISO(like Canon's CMOS models). D2Hs and D2X prices hover around $1000 now, which puts it barely above what a D90 body would cost(what I wanted to buy). D2Hs have good high ISO, excellent AF speed and tracking, smaller file sizes(faster PP), and pro build. Remembering that, I decided I should get one one.

Upon further reading on 40D, D2Hs, D2X, and show photography, I think my real issue is that the clubs I shoot in have nearly no light. Now I'm beginning to think that I should use my money towards a 17-55mm 2.8, and work towards getting photo passes in better venues.

I am one indecisive mofo lol. I think I see a 40D in my near future though. I'm gonna want the bigger LCD also.

if you already have a bunch of canon stuff, stick with canon. i assume you have a 50mm f/1.8 already? fast glass will help your lighting situation much better than a new body, or system for that matter.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by Poohblah

if you already have a bunch of canon stuff, stick with canon. i assume you have a 50mm f/1.8 already? fast glass will help your lighting situation much better than a new body, or system for that matter.

Yea, but if you can crank the D90 up to ISO3200 with perfectly usable results like the D300, that's nice! That's a stop or two faster than I could get with my current nikon, and couple that with a fast lens......... oh yea baby! That's hot!

[nineohtoo]

I'll be more specific with my case. I have exactly the same stuff in Canon and Nikon. My D50 broke, and I couldn't get a cheap replacement($400+ for a D50?) so I bought a 350D. Both my cameras have a sigma 30mm 1.4, and a basic speed light(SB-600/420EX). I've yet to sell my Nikon stuff since switching over to Canon, in hopes of a good D90. I need clean high ISOs and better auto focus.

I shoot everyday stuff with friends, and walking around. When I'm walking around I don't really care if what lens I'm using, or if I'm using digital or film(I've got a 35mm rangefinder, med format camera, and holga that I enjoy using).

I take my photography seriously when I enter local San Francisco night clubs and lounges. I refuse to use flash in these instances because I don't want to annoy fellow fans, or the artists. This forces me to shoot with ISO 1600 at f1.4-2 on my Sigma 30mm. This lens is really the only lens I need. The normal view is perfect at the foot of the stages I'm at, and since it's normal view, its perfect for when I'm around and about with friends.

My concern as of recently is, that the bodies I've used thus far are holding me back with light sensitivity, and autofocus speed/tracking. Hence why I wanted a D90. But after factoring the price and possible limitations. I figured I could get a better camera out of Nikon's last generation of Pro bodies(D2Hs/D2X), OR Canon's last generation prosumer crop body(40D). The D90 would still be a crippled D300 at best, and right now we really don't know what features are gonna be missing. We know its gonna be around 12mp, and there's the possibility of it still being CCD based. That won't be much of an upgrade from a D90. Yeah, I can wait it out, but it's still gonna be just a consumer body, and that's why I optioned the other previously mentioned bodies.

However after a lot of thought, I'm beginning to think the venues I'm at just aren't lit enough period. Upon inspecting pics of others from similar shows, I've seen people needing to use flash because their 2.8 zooms aren't cutting it. So like in my previous post, I suggested what I should do is work to get photo passes in better venues where light isn't much of a problem, and get a wide to short tele 2.8 zoom for the new found range I'd have. Then I'll get a 40D :P

If it helps you guys any, my pics are on flickr.com/nineohtoo or on the slideshow on myspace.com/shotsfromthepit. Flickr search the local camera friendly locale: Pop Scene, Bottom of The Hill and Cafe Du Nord. Camera friendly, but probably poorly lit to prevent good pictures LOL.

[Poohblah]

The D90 would still be a crippled D300 at best, and right now we really don't know what features are gonna be missing.

true. we could extrapolate based on previous iterations that the D90 won't couple with AI lenses etc., but that is just guesswork.

IMO i think that you should either go for the D300 or the 40D. the 40D is a little bit cheaper but the D300 is a little bit faster.

if you're willing to stick with nikon i have a sigma 24-70 f/2.8 that i think i might sell soon, although it's not quite as wide as a 17-55 f/2.8.