Is Nikon suffering from demencia or am I
 

I don't understand Nikons "flagship" 4 megapixel D2H at 3200 bucks street. I know it's fast but am I not see something here? The consumers chops are always busted for playing the resolution numbers game but 4 megapixels at 3200 $$ in a digital SLR, I don't get it.

The reason for the high price is because of the Nikon name, for the most part.

It's the fastest DSLR on Earth- from AF to FPS- if you need the fastest- this is it.......

...plain and simple- being at the top of the professional SLR game usually commands premium pricing- and the Nikon D2H's price of $3200 really isn't too bad considering the regular film F5 was around $2500

..the biggest problem with that D2H is that it really doesn't offer better image quality to that of the Canon EOS 1D of which is it's direct competitor- the Nikon sports a bigger internal buffer for a 40 burst shoot sequence but all in all- the Canon 1D although 2 years old is aging quite well showcasing just how far ahead Canon really is in the imaging industry......cheers to Canon- keep up the work......if you keep building we'll keep buyin'


Nuff said!

Re: Is Nikon suffering from demencia or am I
 

<<<-- Originally posted by Don Parrish : I don't understand Nikons "flagship" 4 megapixel D2H at 3200 bucks street. I know it's fast but am I not see something here? The consumers chops are always busted for playing the resolution numbers game but 4 megapixels at 3200 $$ in a digital SLR, I don't get it. -->>>

What don't you get? The camera isn't targeted towards mom and pop that want snaps of their kids in the pool. It's for working photojournalists, sports shooters, etc. 4mp is plenty for their intended purposes. It seems simple to me, you have cameras that are targeted toward pros and cameras targeted toward consumers. Until you find a p&s digital that has the AF speed and frame rate of a D2H or 1D, I guess that's just the way it goes.

I agree with Matt. This cam is designed for "photojournalists, sports shooters." (Plus it's a Nikon.)

I own a Nikon, a FM2T. It's one of the best SLR manual cams ever made---not THE best, but right up there with a F2. But if I were a working professional on the road, a photojournalist or sports shooter, I'd go with D2H, or something similar from Canon.

The part I didnt get was the 4 megapixels. Correct me if I am wrong but the D2H is a new release. I guess the reduced pixel count was what pushed the speed up. Some point and shoots are 5 megapixels now, it just seems that 4 was a movement in the wrong direction marketing wise. I can see the camera has a use because it is fast, that answered my question. I just seems that it is late to introduce 4 megapixels as a new camera, (and some reviews say the LBCAST sensor is noisy).

This cam is designed for photojournalists, sports shooters. The pics can be sent straight to the news orgs for web and newspaper publication. What part of this do you not understand? (The web and newspapers don't require high resolution.)

Frank, I think his issue is with it only being a 4 MP camera when you can get something like a 6 MP Canon 10d for half the price, that's already a year old. (regardless of speed)

Don, I see where you are coming from. I'm surprised that they'd release a new camera with a megapixel rating that's about where technology was two years ago. Unless that's the biggest chip they could use to still maintain the super high speed.

Back to Frank. Journalists and sports shooters only need 4 megapixels? I thought these guys always had to have the biggest most expensive toy. ;)

It depends. They go for the right cam for the job. I've been following these Nikons and Canons over on the http://www.nikonians.org forums. I do agree with you, though. We all want more pixels for higher resolution, but in the end, we ask ourselves, "Where's the LUX?"

Donny, Dylan, PJ's also have to be concerned with transmittal time. Large files take longer to upload to FTP sites etc. The large files that a 10D, D100 or especially 1Ds, will take much longer to upload than the 4mp files from the D2H.

The manufactures also have to look at the write times of CF cards and how large a buffer is practical. Large files will fill up a buffer faster, and use more space, meaning less pictures.

So basically match your file size to your use. Large files are overkill for a front page shot on the morning paper. The D2H will show no loss of quality up to and including 11x14's. Depending on the shot may be sufficient up to 13x19 (largest current desktop printer).

Frank Jeff Steve Matt and Dylan thanks. I understand now, this camera has a unique place in digital SLR land.

Sign up for a free membership at www.nikonians.org, to get to read about the D2H in this new newsletter:

Doesn't the Nikon D2H sports cam have a very large CCD? (Meaning larger pixels?)

I just looked at my buddy's new Canon EOS 10D---wow! He also bought 3 lenses for it, one of them being a EF 70---200mm 1:4. I must say, the quality is nice, especially with that 70---200mm lens. I noticed the focussing to be extremely fast.

PS: the Canon is a pro black, in color. :-))

Frank,

the size of the CCD doesn't actually correlate to the size of the pixels, it usually is a reflection on the light sensitivity to light- larger CCD arrays usually mean better light sensitivity and usually less multiplier effect- but this too can be fudged depending on distance to end element of the lens......there are allot of factors and there are engineers dedictaed to this aspect alone of CCD engineering, but the CCD size definitely isn't a factor in pixel size. Another benefit of large CCD arrays are enhanced tonal range without noise......hope this helps to clear the confusion on this aspect.

>"...but the CCD size definitely isn't a factor in pixel size...."<

Well, they'd either have to be larger or spaced out more. One or the other. With video cams, the less/larger pixels and larger CCD size seems to bring down the lux requirement. Just compare the DVL9500 with the DVL9800 (and DV2000). I realize these are 1 CCD video cams but CCDs are CCDs. The DVL9500 and DVL9800 have the same CCD size, but the 9800 has about 2X the pixels. Result, poorer low light with the 9800's increased pixels.

Here's a good "how a camera works" article, with a good CCD section:

http://www.apogeephoto.com/sept2001/...ms092001.shtml Here's an interesting excerpt: