SportsShooter.com - Affordable solution or inexpensive disaster? (D2H vs D300)

	Portage \| MI \| USA \| Posted: 4:19 PM on 04.14.08
	->> Before I got the D300, my D2h was my "workhorse". If you will rarely shoot over ISO 800, then there isn't a great deal of downside to going with the more economical D2h other than resolution. I loved using the D2h, and other than the meter board that died and Nikon replaced for free, it's been a great camera to use.

Kristopher Wilson, Photographer, Student/Intern

Liverpool | NY | USA | Posted: 4:19 PM on 04.14.08

->> D300. No question. Not a day goes by that I don't want to chuck my govt. issued D2H into the nearest lake. I threw it out of my car once, but the Earth rejected it, so I've been stuck with it since.

Of course, the speed is fine with the D2H, but do FPS really matter when the images come out looking like, well, you know. One guy in our class went out and bought a D300 because he finally got fed up with the atrocious image quality of our D2Hs.

Then again, don't just take it from me. Anne Cahill, Nikon rep and Joe McNally's wife told us point blank that she would buy a D300 over a D2Xs (much less a D2H) without thinking twice about it. The technology is more advanced, and the image quality is just as good, if not better (depending on who you ask).

Besides, if someone says their D2H is only "slightly loved", that just means they can count on one hand how many times it's been used as a projectile.

Thomas Boydston, Photographer, Student/Intern

Conroe | Tx | United States | Posted: 4:27 PM on 04.14.08

->> Slightly loved is my phrasing, Kristopher.

What's so bad about the image quality? I hear frustration and angst with the body, but any specific examples? Poor WB? Tone? I've seen tons of great photos come from the camera, so it's hard for me to know your exact complaint.

I'll probably be shooting at 1600 a lot for sports (bad high school arenas), and I know the ISO isn't stellar, but for newsprint does it matter that much? The D2H ISO 1600 can't be worse than the D200 at 3200- oi.

Thanks for the quick feedback guys!

Michael Myers, Photographer

Miami Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 4:29 PM on 04.14.08

->> Once Nikon got my D2h problems sorted out, I thought the D2hs I ended up with was great. The D300 is probably a better camera in many ways as it's newer and more advanced, but both cameras have their advantages and disadvantages.

If you know and trust the people selling you a used camera, the D2h should be just fine. On the other hand, more megapixels means you can crop the image more if you need to.

Given the choices you listed originally, I'd probably go for the D2h. When/if you want to sell it, you can probably get as much for it a year from now as you'll pay for it, and you can move to the D300 once it's been out for a while, any bugs are worked out, and the price has come down.

Brian Leddy, Photographer

	Gallup \| NM \| United States \| Posted: 4:44 PM on 04.14.08
	->> I use a couple of D2H cameras for work. I won't go over 1000 ISO with them, the image quality, for me, is not good enough, even for newsprint. Other than that I've loved using them, they have always served me well. Everything about the camera, except the image quality, is great. Sounds like, as a college student, one of these cameras would be great for you.

Chris Peterson, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Columbia Falls \| MT \| USA \| Posted: 6:40 PM on 04.14.08
	->> D2H files suck. Plain and simple. The camera is garbage. White balance is awful even if you use the "pre" function. Black density stinks. Color gamut is crap. Plus the file size is 3x smaller. Nikon didn't make a good digital camera until the D2x and D200 series... My 2 cents.

Patrick Smith, Student/Intern, Photographer

Towson | MD | USA | Posted: 8:15 PM on 04.14.08

->> As a student (and freelancer), I have a D2Xs and a D300, and my hand grabs the 300 every time I go on assignment. Whether it's a portrait, (lit or not), a day sporting event or a dark, night sporting event. It just out performs the D2Xs in every way, shape and form.

The only reason I am really holding onto the pristine D2Xs is because of the durability. I know if something was to happen to my D300, I have a reliable back up (and second body) that can with stand the daily abuse of a PJ.

Now that I think about it, I liked the files on my old D200’s over my D2Xs, but the reliability aspect comes to mind again, although my very first D200 went through all sorts of mishaps and survived them all.

If anything, I'd get a D200 rather than a D2H or D2X in my opinion.

Mike Ullery, Photographer, Photo Editor

Piqua | OH | USA | Posted: 8:32 PM on 04.14.08

->> Once again, I see that a lot of folks are forgetting that $$$ can be an issue.

I will state again that there is nothing wrong with D2H image quality when the exposure is on the money. Yeah, I like my images from the D200 and D3 better but the question was that for the money, is the D2H a good camera. I agree with not shooting over ISO 800 but under normal conditions the camera is fine.

Patrick's suggestion of a used D200 might be another option.

Kristopher Wilson, Photographer, Student/Intern

Liverpool | NY | USA | Posted: 8:32 PM on 04.14.08

->> Images from the D300 at 3200 look better than from the D2H at 800. The noise levels in the D2H are just unbearable in my opinion, newsprint or not. Some people don't mind ridiculous amounts of noise so much as long as the sharpness and image content are preserved. If that's your concern, then by all means go with the D2H. But in my experience, you can capture the exact same content and image sharpness with the D300 with better color, more accurate white balance and tons less noise with a wider effective range of ISO settings.

If you're shooting in arenas, stadiums, etc. that have atrocious lighting, I highly, highly suggest you do yourself a favor by getting the D300. The image quality at higher ISO settings blow the D2H out of the water. It's not even close.

The D2H will limit you in some respects; the D300 won't.

I guess in my opinion, the real question is do you want a tool that will produce images that only look good in newsprint? If so, the D2H will work just fine. But if you want better quality images (which still look good in newsprint), then your only choice of the two is the D300.

Once again, this is only my opinion, but I know for a fact it's an opinion I share with many others.

I would suggest, if possible, try to do some test shoots with both if you haven't already. Push them to the extremes in regards to their settings. After all, I and everyone else out here can throw advice and suggestions your way, but nothing we say can really compare to what you can see with your own two eyes if you try them out.

Scott Varley, Photographer

Torrance | CA | USA | Posted: 8:54 PM on 04.14.08

->> I've used a D2h and D2hs cameras for many years. Both are good cameras and the D2hs being a much better than the D2h. I would dread shooting at 1600 or higher. 1200 ISO was the max I would be comfortable shooting at.
Two weeks ago I bought a D300 and grip from Roberts Imaging (for a couple hundred less than your $2200 estimate - Call Jody and request a Sportshooter price).
Now that I have the D300, D2h and D2hs in my bag I will never use the D2h again and will only use the D2hs only when I have to. The D300 blows away the D2 cameras. The metering and exposures are spot on. Autofocus is excellent. I thought my lenses were bad since my pictures were no longer tack sharp anymore. It was the camera's AF, not the lenses. AF is fast and crisp. Files are now 35mb instead of 11mb giving me room to crop and still hold details. I've shot at 3200 for a couple of jobs and even though there is noise in the images, it's clean and crisp. I'll have no problems shooting above 1600 on the D300. I haven't shot an assignment at 6400 yet, but if I need to, I'll have that option. Color saturation is much better on the D300 (even at high ISOs). The one thing that the D300 doesn't have that I miss from the D2 is the voice recorder. Other than that, I'm still getting over 2,000 frames per battery charge with the EN-EL4 battery in the grip.
If you've got $2000 to spend, it's a no brainer. Buy the D300 instead of 4 year old technology found in the D2h.

Jeffery Jones, Photographer, Photo Editor

Gallup | NM | USA | Posted: 8:58 PM on 04.14.08

->> With the purchase of my D200 and D80 cameras for personal use at work, my company issued D2h took a haitus from me and was a second body for one of the other photogs at the paper. When he quit I took it back, and there are times when it is my go to camera - the AF is superior to the D200. The speed/fps is also a huge plus.

People complain about the noise in a D2h - that the files suck. Well, yes and no. With the smaller file size of 4.1 MP you can shoot RAW/NEF (compressed) files with this camera and get more than 500 images onto a 4 GB card. When images are opened in Adobe Camera Raw 4.4 (Lightroom 2.0 Beta uses this) they look fairly good. A lot of the problems with the D2H come down to how precisely people can nail their exposures. If people rely on having to use Photoshop to "fix" their every image, then this camera is not a good choice.

I recently shot the Arizona and New Mexico high school basketball state tournaments (http://tinyurl.com/3kajcx) with my D2H bodies. I cranked them up to ISO 1600 and shot. I hoped to recover something decent with Noise Ninja, but NN is not aggresive enough. I looked at some other options that night in my hotel room and found Imagenomic's Noiseware Pro. It gave GREAT results from the D2H @ 1600.

Having the benefit of experience, and still paying student loans, if you can manage to do what you need at this point with the cheaper camera, then by all means get it. Just remember to include about $75 in your budget for noise reduction software.

Thomas Boydston, Photographer, Student/Intern

	Conroe \| Tx \| United States \| Posted: 10:14 PM on 04.14.08
	->> Jeffery, do you not have any high(er) resolution versions of that photo? In such small sizes, the noise issue looks fine to me.

Walter Calahan, Photographer

	Westminster \| MD \| USA \| Posted: 10:43 PM on 04.14.08
	->> If your work is for newspaper publication, get the D2H or D2HS. You don't need the huge files the D300 makes. If you are shooting for a 4-color magazine, in situations where you need a high ISO without noise, get the D300. Try to avoid shooting only jpegs with the D2H. Shooting RAW on a D2H will help you in cleaning up the noise in post-production.

Robert Hanashiro, Photographer

	Los Angeles \| CA \| \| Posted: 11:36 PM on 04.14.08
	->> D300. Hands down. Buying new instead of used. Better low light/high ISO performance. Better image quality. Better AF performance. Smaller, lighter. And most of all: Up to date technology. Just my opinion.

Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer

Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 1:14 AM on 04.15.08

->> I was like Geoff, the D2H was my workhorse. I really liked the camera, warts and all...awesome color, noise manageable if you expose correctly.

But now it just collects dust while I take my two D300s out to every gig. The D2H sometimes winds up as a remote camera now.

Oh, and about the whole "new vs used" thing...my 3-year-old D2H has been in for repair twice...once for the meter death recall, once for a blown shutter @ 45K clicks.

Will Lester, Photographer

	Ontario \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 1:27 AM on 04.15.08
	->> Just purchased the D300 with the grip and have been using both the D2h and D2HS for years. Scott and Bert are dead on here, the D300 blows both camera's away in all aspects!!!

Jeff Stanton, Photographer

Princeton | IN | USA | Posted: 1:49 AM on 04.15.08

->> I've used the D2H and D2Hs and if you have a little extra cash, try to find a good used D2Hs. Whoever said the D2Hs was not any good must have had a bad unit. I loved the one I had. The low light capability at 1600 is much better than the D2H. I used the noise reduction on the D2Hs and it worked very well and the images will produce well in a newspaper.

It goes without saying, but I will say it: if you come up with the necessary cash, you will not regret the D300. I love it!

Michael Fischer, Photographer

Spencer | Ia | USA | Posted: 7:33 AM on 04.15.08

->> The D300 and the D3 are the reasons I switched BACK to Nikon from Canon. Not the D2H (which I owned before I switched) or the D2Hs.

It's sorta like why you use Nikon lenses instead of a second tier lens manufacturer. Both produce good results on bright sunny days. It's when conditions aren't perfect that the better lens and the better camera technology come through.

If it was a second body, I'd say save the money if you need to.

My D300 is my backup, but it gets used more than any backup I've owned over the last 10 years. Image quality and AF are just unbelievable....

Good luck.

Bryan Hulse, Photographer

Highlands Ranch | Co | USA | Posted: 10:01 AM on 04.15.08

->> I don't have a D2h. But I have had my trusty D2x for several years and have always loved it.
Now that I have the D3, I don't use the D2x much. Yes, the D3 shoots better at hi iso. But the AF system is fantastic! I use the 51 point 3D quite a bit and it is like cheating!
Since the D300 has the same AF system, I would choose the D300 just on AF alone.
I also have a D200 and have never liked that camera. The AF sucks, and the metering gives me fits.

Woody Marshall, Photo Editor, Photographer

Macon | GA | USA | Posted: 1:32 PM on 04.15.08

->> We are issued a D2h and D2hs here at The Telegraph. The D2h is a lens holder for me most of the time. There's a reason the D2h is less expensive. We have a D3 and D300 on loan from Nikon at the moment that we are trying out for a little while. The D300 is a much better camera than a D2h. With the grip it's just as fast as a D2h. D300 focus and high ISO is much better than the D2h. If you can't cost justify the D300, find a D2hs. A D2hs can't cost that much more than a D2h and it's a better file than the D2h all around.

You should be able to get a D300 for $1699 or less. The grip is like $250. Call Jody Grober or Christy Pope at Robert's Distributors for a quote before you make a decision. The only thing I would miss on a D300 is the voice recorder.

Dave Doonan, Photographer

	Kingston \| TN \| USA \| Posted: 2:39 PM on 04.15.08
	->> Woody, I am in the market for a D300, where can I get one for $1699? I will call Roberts ASAP

Melissa Golden, Photographer

	Northern \| VA \| USA \| Posted: 3:09 PM on 04.15.08
	->> This is your business. Always buy the best gear you can afford. The D2H is a disaster of a camera but the D300 (and D3) have gone a long way toward salvaging Nikon's reputation. That should tell you something right there. Don't skimp on your livelihood. If you want to cut financial corners, eat less.

John Howley, Photographer

Circleville | OH | USA | Posted: 3:13 PM on 04.15.08

->> I've put my new D300 through the paces at the ohio high school boys basketball championships and the McDonald's All-American games. The only problem I had was that sometimes it seemed just a bit slower focusing and firing than my D2H.

While I would normally say go with new over used, financial considerations are important. The comment someone had about being able to sell the D2H in a year or so for about what you paid for it is probably true. So you could get that and some other needed equipment now. You'd be able to get some good work out of it and save up to buy a D300 or even a D3 at some point in the future.

You'll be happier with your images from the D300 but you won't be sad with what you would get from the D2H.

Kirby Yau, Photographer, Assistant

	San Diego \| CA \| USA \| Posted: 3:36 PM on 04.15.08
	->> D300 over the D2h. I had the D2h and don't miss it at all. I've had the d300 for almost a month now and I have no complaints. -K

Steve Saunders, Photographer, Photo Editor

	Dublin \| IE \| Ireland \| Posted: 4:00 PM on 04.15.08
	->> The D300 is much more useable at high-ISO than the D2H. The D2H is built tougher, but the D300 isn't far off and the better high-ISO clinches it for me. Other things like Live-View, bigger LCD that you can actually use to assess colour and sharpness, higher frame rate etc. are just nice bonuses IMHO.

Rob Edwards, Photographer

Peru | IN | United States | Posted: 4:14 PM on 04.15.08

->> I've got a D2Hs and a D300, as I love the D2Hs, the D300 is a far better camera than the D2Hs. If you can, go with the D300. I had a D100 as a second body, really was not sure about purchasing the D300, I'm glad I did. I have found that I shoot with the D300 more now instead of the D2Hs. I'm thinking about buying another D300. Money is always the root of the problem. If you can swing it go with the D300. Just my two cents.

Thomas Boydston, Photographer, Student/Intern

	Conroe \| Tx \| United States \| Posted: 5:40 PM on 04.15.08
	->> Well, my D200 fiasco (Broken SB-800? thread) is pointing me towards the D2H. According to NikonUSA.com the D300 is roughly the same build as the D200 in terms of durability, and that not what I'm in the market for at present. Thanks very much guys! I really appreciate the speedy replies and informed suggestions. Bests, Thomas

Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer

	New York \| NY \| USA \| Posted: 5:58 PM on 04.15.08
	->> I STILL love my D2X, going going going at over 300k actuations! Yes, I do love the D3-the dust magnet- but so far, it's my "special" camera for when I know I need the higher ISO. I don't think I'll ever get the D300 (but stranger things have happened)-I hated the 200 so much and it just makes me skeptical-even after hearing all the rave reviews.

Return to --> Message Board Main Index