[fureshi]

congrats on the purchase! nikons and canons both make great cameras. i recently purchased a d50 and for the price and what i can do, i'm in love with it. i used to be a canon person, having owned a early model eos but this time, i decided to try nikon. also, the price for the kit with 18-55mm lens was too hard to turn down compared to the 350d or 20d. the noise level is also lower than the d70s and the fact that it takes SD cards sealed the deal. it meant that i had to buy one less memory format. i've had the camera for a month now and i've taken at least 2000 shots already.

as for the debate between film and digital, i've been able to take several shots of the same thing, trying different angles, aperture settings, etc. i wouldn't be as willing to try if i had to pay for all of that film and the processing. it's making me a better photographer and as others have mentioned, you're always learning. trying all of these things is allowing me to learn faster. this is something that i wasn't able to explore with as much on my old film camera.

in addition to the camera, i also got the nikkor 28-200mm lens for traveling and i have to say i'm quite happy with it. it has its flaws, like barrel distortion at low focal lengths but it has a much better feel to it than the tamron lens. there's a heft and build quality to it that the tamron lacks...also probably because it has more lens elements in it. otherwise, i really like it. it's not the acclaimed 70-200mm vr lens but i'm happy so far.

 

[chadbang]

I run a newspaper and we have four Nikon DH2s cameras and they are absolute junk. I want to kill our (former) chief photographer for saddling us with these cameras to the tune of $12k. The exposure has gone awry in three of them, two of them focus poorly. Except for the fact that they're fast, they're just attrocious, undependable cameras. Our stringers all use Canons and their image quality makes our in-house cameras look sick. I'm ill about purchasing Nikons.

 

[skyline889]

The D70s is a great camera, I personally love it. But you definitely want to read the manual and figure out all the details of the camera, right now you aren't taking anywhere near the full advantage that a DSLR offers.

 

[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang I run a newspaper and we have four Nikon DH2s cameras and they are absolute junk. I want to kill our (former) chief photographer for saddling us with these cameras to the tune of $12k. The exposure has gone awry in three of them, two of them focus poorly. Except for the fact that they're fast, they're just attrocious, undependable cameras. Our stringers all use Canons and their image quality makes our in-house cameras look sick. I'm ill about purchasing Nikons.

I thought D2Hs was designed for sports photography (read: commercial, heavy duty use)? I don't own one, but this is quite surprising.
So how many shots have you gotten from them in approximately how long time before they start to fail?

See this is one of the reasons why I hesitate to buy mid-end DSLRs. As I mentioned before, realiability and durability over a long period of time are still yet to be proved - unlike film SLRs.

Speaking of which, my brother just bought a D200, I'm going there on weekend and check the camera out. I hope it's durable.

 

[mneuwiueyagaobcf]

Congrats on the D50! It's an awesome tool.

I got into photography mid last year and now shoot canon DSLR (350D) and Nikon film (FM3A). I started off with with the zooms 10-22,18-55, 24-105 but found that my creativeness and results were much better with primes. The 18-55mm kit lens was great because it allowed me to find out which range and what type of shooter I am. So before buying any other lens I recommend the 18-55mm kits to find your focal length preference. Anyway now I only have two (fixed) lenses - a Canon EF 35mm1.4 L and a Zeiss 50mm 1.4 ZF.

However whenever I travel overseas with the main goal being a holiday (not photography) I get a zoom for conveniance. I can then sell the zoom for what I paid for it on ebay when I get back home.

 

[JahJahBinks]

Zeiss makes some of the finest lenses on earth.

 

[wali]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang I run a newspaper and we have four Nikon DH2s cameras and they are absolute junk. I want to kill our (former) chief photographer for saddling us with these cameras to the tune of $12k. The exposure has gone awry in three of them, two of them focus poorly. Except for the fact that they're fast, they're just attrocious, undependable cameras. Our stringers all use Canons and their image quality makes our in-house cameras look sick. I'm ill about purchasing Nikons.

I read your post thinking you were sincere, but then i came to this sentence, "Our stringers all use Canons and their image quality makes our in-house cameras look sick."

 

[dj_mocok]

Wali:

Huh? Don't get it... so is he working for Canon or something? What did you mean? Sorry I just woke up, my brain is still half sleeping.

 

[chadbang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok I thought D2Hs was designed for sports photography (read: commercial, heavy duty use)? I don't own one, but this is quite surprising. So how many shots have you gotten from them in approximately how long time before they start to fail? See this is one of the reasons why I hesitate to buy mid-end DSLRs. As I mentioned before, realiability and durability over a long period of time are still yet to be proved - unlike film SLRs. Speaking of which, my brother just bought a D200, I'm going there on weekend and check the camera out. I hope it's durable.

Yes, for sports. That's why they are a sad 4 mega pixel in this day and age. Will do 8 FPS, but otherwise completely unremarkable. They all started going bad about eight months into use. Two are now back at Nikon under warranty as of today.

No I don't work for Canon. But Canon has managed to package reasonable speed, say 4 or 5 fps with 7 and 8 megapixels. They destroy our Nikons when it comes to almost everything. Our two sports stringers photos are gorgeous. Our own photographers pale.

 

[Whorehay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang I run a newspaper and we have four Nikon DH2s cameras and they are absolute junk. I want to kill our (former) chief photographer for saddling us with these cameras to the tune of $12k. The exposure has gone awry in three of them, two of them focus poorly. Except for the fact that they're fast, they're just attrocious, undependable cameras. Our stringers all use Canons and their image quality makes our in-house cameras look sick. I'm ill about purchasing Nikons.

D2Hs is MADE for newspapers.

Maybe you just have horrible luck, but most people who have a D2H/D2Hs are extremely happy with them. The 4MP is more than fine for newspapers, and it gives a much more managable workflow compared to say the 8MP of the 1D Mark II.

Those problems should not be happening though, especially with the exposure. There are a lot of custom functions with focusing with these cameras, especially with sports. Sports Illustrated has a good page on what settings they use for which cameras when shooting.

I like the look of the D2H a lot, but that's just me. I agree, the 1D has a cleaner design, but it's ergonomics are all screwed up. Canon should learn something from Nikon here.

If you think Nikon's are a piece of junk though, I would be glad to take one of them and test it out for you.

 

[chadbang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whorehay D2Hs is MADE for newspapers. Maybe you just have horrible luck, but most people who have a D2H/D2Hs are extremely happy with them. The 4MP is more than fine for newspapers, and it gives a much more managable workflow compared to say the 8MP of the 1D Mark II. Those problems should not be happening though, especially with the exposure. There are a lot of custom functions with focusing with these cameras, especially with sports. Sports Illustrated has a good page on what settings they use for which cameras when shooting. I like the look of the D2H a lot, but that's just me. I agree, the 1D has a cleaner design, but it's ergonomics are all screwed up. Canon should learn something from Nikon here. If you think Nikon's are a piece of junk though, I would be glad to take one of them and test it out for you.

Interesting about the custom focusing. THAT's a highly likely suspect. But I do think the exposure has gone south on most of them.

Could you direct me to the Sport Illustrated page?

 

[dj_mocok]

I don't know how things work in newspaper. But if it's only for prints like news article, I think I agree 4MP is good enough?

I also think that the high fps of D2Hs is somewhat the reason why it's only 4MP?
Maybe the technology in the camera itself was only fast enough to write as fast as that only if it's 4MP. Maybe if they made it 8MPs or such, the consequences would be lower fps?
That's why I think they are designed that way in order to cater the needs of sports photographers.

But maybe now as the technology improves, the speed and resolution can go hand in hand? I'm not sure the exact difference of fps, resolution, and fps limit/res. of newer generation of Nikon. (eg. D2X or D200)

Chadbang:
Do you happen to have sample of pictures from both Canon and Nikon that you were talking about, so we can have a look how different they are?

If they were taken by different cameramen, is there any chance that it's also the operator factor not camera factor?

 

[seeberg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok I also think that the high fps of D2Hs is somewhat the reason why it's only 4MP? Maybe the technology in the camera itself is only fast enough to write as fast as that only if it's 4MP. Maybe if they made it 8MPs or such, the consequences would be lower fps? --------- But maybe now as the technology improves, the speed and resolution can go hand in hand? I'm not sure the exact difference of fps, resolution, and fps limit/res. of newer generation of Nikon. (eg. D2X or D200)

It's certainly possible that having a lower resolution sensor can be significantly faster than a higher resolution one, since it would have to "take in more of every shot every time" so to speak, but I could very well be wrong. However, my last camera, a Minolta Z1 could take bursts of ten in one second at 1.3 megapixels, though it had a physical 3.2 mp sensor size. It had a 5 second post shot shutter lag with that feature though, as I remember

BTW, I believe it is very possible to attain higher speeds in high-res CCD's, but personally I'd stick with something like 6.1 megapixels and see how far it could be pushed. If 2.5-3 fps is possible with entry level DSLR's like the D50, Rebel XT, and Pentax *ist/K- D models, then I imagine that framerates will only increase with increasing sensor and shutter mechanism efficency, so long as popular demand for higher resolution sensors don't immediately go up (what cellphone needs a 22 megapxel camera by 2025, anyway

).

Speaking of the new Pentaxes, does anyone have any take on their new K100D? It's supposed to have the least expensive in body anti shake system in a DSLR on the market when it comes out, I'd consider selling off the D50 kit to get that body with an aftermarket 18-200mm lens instead of the 18-55 with the kit, thus eliminating most of my gear needs as well, but I'm unsure of this at the moment.

,
Abe

 

[dj_mocok]

I think Nikon is the only one who got answers why it's only 4MP.

But don't forget that this camera cost so much less compared to something like Canon 1DSMark2 as well. They might very well had the technology that time, but probably considering the price of making such a good performer, they thought that it's better to make it more "affordable".

Just my opinion of course.

 

[Arainach]

It's only 4MP because the camera came out in early 2005 and went for quality over quantity - its 4.1MP sensor produces better pictures than most 8MP or 10MP sensors. It's also specifically designed for the Newspaper environment.

Look, Photography is 90% Photographer, 10% Equipment. Ansel Adams could get better shots with a Point-and-Shoot than most of us could ever get with the most expensive DSLR out there. If there are flaws in your photos, the first place to look is at who's controlling the Camera. Cameras are like computers - in the end, they can only do what we tell them to.