| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Nikon D2hs
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
 |
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 2:41 AM on 07.29.05 |
->> I've read lots of articles, tests, and news releases saying what the differences are between the Nikon D2h and the newer D2hs. What I haven't found, is any write-ups from someone who's bought a D2hs, and compared the results to those from the D2h.
I've recently gotten a D2hs to replace my D2h. I'll be finding out this weekend how much better it is.
In the meantime, has anyone else used both models enough to say if the claimed improvements are really that noticeable?
I very much like the new menu sustem. It's supposed to have less noise at higher ISO settings, but that's something I won't be trying until tomorrow night.
Last question - I used to go to the Sports Illustrated site http://www.siphoto.com to find the recommended settings for the D2h. Anyone posted settings yet for the D2hs? |
|
Amy Katherine Dragoo, Photographer
 |
Coatesville | PA | USA | Posted: 3:43 PM on 08.01.05 |
->> I have both a 2H and an Hs.The noise reduction is significant. I shot at the Thomas & Mack Center in Vegas with black bunting, low light, dark dirt and no stobes. The difference between cameras with the same settings was very apparent.
I also think the color is much better on the Hs. I shot a studio job recently and the color was spot on. Where as I was not as impressed with the 2H in relativly the same lighting situation.
Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions.
Amy |
|
Gary Jones, Photographer
|
Rocklin | CA | United States | Posted: 3:31 PM on 08.02.05 |
| ->> I have used the D2H for over a year and have had my D2Hs for about a month. I haven't shot any indoor sports yet so haven't gone above 1000 ISO. But the mid-ISO range is much improved over the D2H. That is, in the 600 ISO range I don't have to use Noise Ninja, and therefore have sharper images. Bringing out shadow details with Photoshop has better results because of this. I'm looking forward to HS football under stadium lights this fall and then basketball for the higher ISO situations. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 1:53 AM on 08.10.05 |
->> I'm not even sure why I'm posting this here. Maybe it's because I'm frustrated, or maybe it's because I just have a lot of bad luck. .....I got one of the early D2h cameras, and it was back and forth to Nikon to fix problems. They finally sent me a new D2h, and while I was overseas, the camera's computer went on strike, and I came home to find a fully manual (only) camera, no exposure setting, no focussing, nothing. So, back to Nikon, and they sent me a D2hs this time. (Actually, I'd rather have had them give me a credit towards a D2x, and have me pay the difference, but for my purposes, a D2hs "should" be just fine, or so I thought/think... maybe.)
My particular D2hs had one of the un-documented features more suitable for Alaska than Miami... a built-in hand warmer. The camera got nice and toasty warm, not to the point where it hurt, but certainly to where it was noticeably hot. Unfortunately, this also meant the batteries died after 200 shots, not 2000. It even drained the batteries when it was turned off. I really needed it for an event this past weekend, and used it anyway, simply removing the battery when the camera wasn't in use.
It seemed to work OK, so I left my backup D70 in the bag, and did all my shooting with the D2hs. I got home, and yikes, I've got the strangest looking set of photos imaginable. They give the impression of one of those old manually adjustable televisions, where you could turn up the color intensity so much it's almost like a comic book, and the contrast too - by the time I adjusted the camera so the highlights warning wasn't flashing, I noticed all the dark areas had turned to pitch black. Besides all this, out of 1200 images, I think maybe a dozen or so look "sharp". The rest look like someone took them with a box brownie. So, it's back off to Nikon.
For a while, I was thinking there must be some kind of "effects" setting, to create these special effects deliberately, but I couldn't find it in the book, and the Nikon tech support people said the camera needed to come back, there was nothing I could do to adjust it. I sent them two random photos, and they discussed them, then told me that the photos were blurry (which I knew anyway).
I'd be ready to give up on digital alltogether, if it weren't for how much I like the photos I get out of my little Canon Pro1. I know it's not Nikon that is not good, as so many people are getting wonderful photos from their D series cameras. That leave either me that's at fault, or me that just has the strangest luck to get three camera bodies in a row that don't work.
I wish I lived in New York - I'd go to the repair facility, and not leave until the camera took "good photos". As I see it, it's up to me to do all the composition, and select the right settings, and all the creative stuff, but the camera has to function properly too! Oh well....
Here's one example photo... http://www.sgrid.com/2005/august/glc/GLC-10.jpg
This one was better than most, but it's not what things looked like when I pressed the shutter release button. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 1:55 AM on 08.10.05 |
| ->> (My brain can't put the pieces together - maybe if it's getting too warm, something is messed up inside, and that explains the blurry images and strange colors, but that still wouldn't explain why the batteries should die if the camera is turned off... ) |
|
Andrew Malana, Photographer
|
Tokyo | JP | Japan | Posted: 3:06 AM on 08.10.05 |
->> Michael...perhaps you can post a 'typical' bad image you say you are getting from your camera. We can all take a look and try to help you as much as possible.
As for the 'blurry' images, maybe you are not applying enough unsharp mask filtering in post processing to get the true results??
Just some thoughts to help you out. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 8:45 AM on 08.10.05 |
->> Andrew, thanks. The one sample image is posted above. It's not one of the throw-away images, but it still shows all the exaggerated color. As to sharpening, by the time I put lots of sharpening back in, using Photoshop, I get pictures that "look" decently sharp, but my friend's D2x (and his D100) produce much sharper images even without adding the sharpening.
I'll accept that it might be difficult to get sharp action photos of moving subjects, but taking an ordinary "snapshot" without having to track any movement shouldn't require any special skills, luck, or processing, right? It should just automatically be as "sharp" as the camera and lens are capable of, and looking at the image on your computer monitor should show you how "sharp" it is. If I can't get those images sharp, worrying about action photos is useless... that's what is so frustrating to me right now. (Maybe the whole problem is coming from whatever is over-doing the colors, and all this will be fixed when I get the camera back from Nikon service.) |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 11:51 PM on 08.13.05 |
| ->> Oops.... me bad. While the other problems with my D2hs are real, and it really did need to get fixed, the problem with exaggerated colors was a non-issue. I spent most of this morning trying to calibrate my monitor, and after doing that, the strange color problems vanished. Now I feel rather foolish for having posted all that info, without checking things out on another computer. |
|
Marc Browning, Photographer
|
Wichita | KS | | Posted: 1:04 PM on 08.14.05 |
->> Hi Mike I to have a D2h and & D2Hs I totally HATE my D2Hs's and will be sending them back to Nikon. I seem to have the same focus problem as they focus fine on still subject, but can't focus on moving thing's. Not at all like my D2h.
With my D2h I can follow a baseball player running to home plate at full speed, while taking 30 pictures at 8fps and will only miss 1 or 2 pictures from focus errors.With the D2Hs I tried the same thing and had only 3 good pictures. I have found out I get better results shooting raws,Them converting them but that a pain for shooting motocross as I normally shoot about 1500 to 2000 shots at a race. But I don't have the trouble with the color thing like you do. I've gone back to shooting my D2h till Nikon can fix the focus on these 2 camera's. I'm real close to making the change to Canon, Not what I really would like to do. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 2:19 PM on 08.14.05 |
->> Marc, right now I'm more confused than anything else. The color problem was my fault, not the camera, so that's not an issue for me. My friend has a D2x, and his camera seemed to do very good at focusing on moving objects. I tried it, and got mixed results. I'm not sure right now if the camera is better/worse/same as my D2h cameras... I need to do some more shooting with it.
Regarding your comments, how would the image format (jpg or raw) effect the sharpness? I don't understand that, but if it worked for you, I'll try it as well.
The metering system in the D2hs seemed much better than that on the D2h; the camera's automatic settings were almost always spot-on.
Maybe as a test, since you still have both cameras, you could shoot similar images with each camera, at all the different auto-focus settings, and see if they all react as you describe, or if it's maybe just one or two. I'd love to find a good technical article that describes exactly HOW the camera knows what to focus on initially, which probably has a lot to do with the focus of the following shots - is the focus tracking really following the right thing? How 'big' does the main object need to be in your viewfinder, such that the camera concentrates on it, and not the background?
As for me, I like everything else about these cameras too much to even consider a switch to Canon. I do have a Canon Pro1, and like it a lot, but for my "work" cameras I'm going to stick with Nikon... in many ways, I wish I had waited for the D2x, but for me that's not a reasonable choice. |
|
Marc Browning, Photographer
|
Wichita | KS | | Posted: 3:16 PM on 08.14.05 |
| ->> I've done the testing and this is how I found out the focus wasn't as good as my D2H. I do like it's noise at ISO 400 to 1250 better.I think the noise is better with a D1H at 1600 or 3200. I think the D2Hs over compresses the files, If you look at the file size out of the D2H there about 1.6 to 2.2 megs. The D2Hs files are 1.3 to 1.8 most of the time, and yes I have the file setting at quality priority not size priority. Just my 2 cents. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 6:57 PM on 08.18.05 |
->> Well, my camera is back from Nikon, and all seems well again. I'll find out about the focusing tomorrow, when I shoot another race. In the meantime, everything seems to work as intended.
Marc, I shot two photos off my balcony - nothing fancy, just a test to see that the camera really takes piccys again. Both are at "Fine" and "Large settings - the file sizes are 2538 and 2612k. If you were getting 1.3 to 1.8 meg files, what settings were you using? |
|
Marc Browning, Photographer
|
Wichita | KS | | Posted: 7:07 PM on 08.18.05 |
| ->> My are at large fine all so I just checked it. I don't know why mine are so small. I'm waiting for sometime to send in my camera and see what Nikon has to say/ Must be nice to get yours back so soon. Last time I sent mine in it was 5 weeks to get it back. Must be a California thing. I do wish you luck. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 8:00 PM on 08.18.05 |
->> Suggestion - take the same photo at each setting. Then compare file sizes. Something seems strange.
When you open the files, are they as "large" as the setting you selected would make them? That number of pixels should be fixed. Maybe you'll find that when you think the camera is on "L" it isn't.
Then try using all the different quality settings. For similar images, my D2hs produces the following:
jpg FINE - 2400k
tiff - 12,450k
nef compressed - 3,900k
If you were getting 2-meg images on jpg FINE and Large, and are getting 1.6 meg files out of your D2hs, something somewhere is very confusabobbled.... Are you using Mac or PC? One of us has something very strange going on.
Should I email you one of my 2.2meg files, so you can see how large your computer thinks it is? |
|
Marc Browning, Photographer
|
Wichita | KS | | Posted: 8:15 PM on 08.18.05 |
->> I just shot a Tiff(12442k),Jpeg(2003K),NEF uncompressed(6705k) and compressed NEF(4159k) I'll put the picture on my site in about 10 min.(the full sized jpeg.The picture link will be on the bottom center of the second page.
I'm useing PC,XP useing Photomecanhic V4.3.7 |
|
Marc Browning, Photographer
|
Wichita | KS | | Posted: 8:33 PM on 08.18.05 |
| ->> sorry for the delay i'm haveing trouble with my server. |
|
Marc Browning, Photographer
|
Wichita | KS | | Posted: 8:38 PM on 08.18.05 |
->> I'll have to email you the picture
pixturethis@cox.net |
|
Dave Amorde, Photographer
|
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 8:41 PM on 08.18.05 |
| ->> The D2Hs shouldn't "over compress", but you should see comparably smaller files from the D2Hs over the D2H because of the lower noise. More noise = more color transitions = larger JPEGs. |
|
Marc Browning, Photographer
|
Wichita | KS | | Posted: 8:55 PM on 08.18.05 |
| ->> I just took two if the same pictures one with the D2H(1.8meg) the other with D2Hs (2.0 meg) go figure now it takes a larger file!!! |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 9:26 PM on 08.18.05 |
->> Most of my mistakes with my cameras have been my fault. Then I come here, and try to figure out a way to not look as silly as I feel. I usually give up, and just say I goofed.
I don't know about your photos, but you might have the same problem I do, when I "think" I've done something one way, but the camera isn't really doing it, as I didn't give it all the necessary information. For example, I'm sure I entered the "image comment", but I'm not sure I ever told the camera to attach it to all my images. So, I might be blaming the camera for something that's just "operator error".
If you're consistently getting larger files now, it might be that while you thougth the camera was in "L" mode, maybe it wasn't. I think you can retrieve all that data from the exif information. Get a program that retrieves ALL the exif data. My recommendation - Opanda's IExif which you can download from somewhere or other - that's how I got it.
You can mail me one of your photos - mikem@rc-racing.com if you want, or I can email you one of mine. It sounds though like we're both getting roughly the same file size.
I'll be very, VERY happy with my D2hs if it focuses the way I expect it to, and just keeps working as it is right now for the next several years. I really, *really*, *REALLY*, do NOT want to send it back to Nikonland yet again. I'd rather just take pictures with it. |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 9:30 PM on 08.18.05 |
->> Dave - why in the world would lower noise result in larger or smaller files? Since jpg works by comparing one pixel with another, and if they're the same, it "saves" file space, I'd assume that a "noisy" photo would have a larger file size, if anything, not a smaller one. A noise photo would have more pixels that are "different" and therefore take more file space to give their settings.
I'm not really concerned with this, but I'm curious as to how you relate noise to file size. |
|
Marc Browning, Photographer
|
Wichita | KS | | Posted: 9:39 PM on 08.18.05 |
| ->> Thanks for your help. |
|
Dave Amorde, Photographer
|
Lake Forest | CA | USA | Posted: 10:49 PM on 08.18.05 |
| ->> Ahem - Michael, please re-read my post. D2Hs has lower noise. D2Hs therefore produces smaller files. My point was that the D2Hs doesn't "over compress". |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 10:20 AM on 08.22.05 |
->> Oops, sorry Dave. I somehow read that wrong, but now that I go back to it, it's clear as day. Me bad.
I don't know if my files are actually any smaller, but now that I've got a functioning camera back from Nikon, I can easily say I'm *real* pleased with it. Set on "P" mode (and also on "S" mode) the exposure, focus, color... everything is as good as I've ever gotten. When I do my part right, the camera does too. Not only that, but noise at high ISO speeds seems to be greatly reduced over what I got before with the D2h. If it keeps working the way it does now, I think I've finally got the camera that I tried to buy so long ago.
I'd also like to thank Nikon for getting it back to me in just about a week. I read about people being frustrated with Nikon service, but all of my experiences have been positive. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|