Camera Labs

I'm tired too, but what I find worst is your tone, it is hostile, you jump to conclusions, you don't take the time to ask when you're unsure what I meant (which you do admit, you were confused as to what I meant).

That's just not nice.

_________________
Olympus shooter and a calm voice of reason.

you really must not think about giving it away to a family member or friend and thinking of getting a good image. used a d100 (from 2002, as old I think?) and you really have to change all the setting by yourself, there arent auto modes , excecly I like:)

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies

To be fair, on P mode with auto ISO, auto white balance, autofocus, all your missing out on from auto mode is flash or not, which most non-photographers know when or not it is needed.

Ps I realise this camera doesnt have a built in flash

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

Okay, theres a AWB, but dont expect good looking pictures (indeed, on the D100). I had to shoot RAW or use the Custom WB for getting the colors I wanted. Auto ISO? Maybe there's one on the D100, not seen;)

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies

Ok sorry Im not sure if these cameras mentioned have auto ISO, but I know the newer ones do. Also I think AWB does a great job to be fair

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

I checked it: The D100 has auto ISO, but it sucks.
And, really, the AWB is the worst ever seen.
200st post

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies

Is that "It sucks" from experience, or read from an internet review, because that means completely different things from each source

We beg to differ on AWB as well Im afraid, even on the cheapest and oldest point and shoots AWB seems to be fine generally for me

But anyway, lets keep this thread specifically for the D2H as to not confuse readers

_________________
Nikon D5000 and D300 with 12-24mm, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4, 60mm f2.8 Macro, 18-200mm, 17-55mm f2.8 (all Nikon)

The auto ISO implementation hardly works in aperture priority, but it works great in shutter priority.

But, I concur with what's previously said, don't expect good pictures when you hand the cam to a relative. Autofocus on the back AF button, full depression of the shutter button, they knock the AF point around, don't bump the ISO when needed, hit the side shutter.....

Yeah you can "idiot proof" it but that takes time. You'd be better off whipping out your cell phone.

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

The Nikon D2h camera was used by top professional photographers and photojournalists, who's work was printed and published in major newspapers and magazines around the world for years.

Four megapixels were apparently enough megapixels to be printed in those publications and I don't believe newspapers and magazines have increased in size since then. In fact, many newspapers and magazines have got smaller.

I'm not saying that we don't need or want more megapixels but to say or argue that 4 megapixels "isn't enough" or is a drawback is a fallacy. What isn't it enough for? Clearly it's been demonstrated in major publications that 4 megapixels is plenty.

_________________
Nikon D700 | 20mm f2.8 | 28mm f2.8 | 50mm f1.8 | 70-300 f4-5.6 | SB800 | flickr | serial photography

3 years ago I made a photo with a very compact camera (just search on Google: Traveler dc 5080) with 5MP.
I made a big print with it. 75x50 cm? It could be larger too.
Now, compact cameras have 14 MP, should there be people those print photos at 2 meters? I mean of course holiday photographers, not amatures or pros.

_________________
Ruben

Panasonic DMC-FZ18, Panasonic DMC-FZ28, Canon G5, Canon 350D, Canon 50D + BG-E2N
Tamron 17-50 2.8, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM,
Canon 18-55 II plus lots of Minolta MD/M42 lenses and bodies

4 megapixels isn't enough for a large 300DPI print. It's mathematical.

In the old days you wouldn't print digital pictures at 300DPI because you just couldn't, thus there wasn't a demand for such thing. With new cameras with higher resolution you can.

Is this capability really useful? That's what the purchaser needs to decide for him or herself.

Ultimately your argument is invalid. People using black and white film cameras got their pictures printed on magazines and major publications. If it was good enough for them then why isn't it good enough for us now?

Obviously things have been changing since the early days of film photography and the vast majority of the phototgraphy market is demanding color pictures and high resolution images.

Again, you could buy a film camera and take black and white pictures if you want. It's up to the buyer to decide what they do and don't want.

My point is that most people need something more than 4MP to make business out of photography. Clients demand high resolution photos, microstock sites pay more for higher resolution images and many magazines ask for 300DPI files. (with 4mp that means your pictures will only be 8x5cm).

To sum up: Times have changed.

4 megapixels IS and WAS enough for large print. Look at newspapers and magazines from 7 years ago. The evidence is there. The Nikon D2h and even the D1 (2.74 megapixels) was used by professional photographers, who's images were printed and published. You appear to be forgetting that there's a "resize" tool in photoshop and an "unsharp mask" to sharpen images up. To say "there wasn't a demand for such thing" is just wrong and a frankly ridiculous thing to say. Photographs for billboards were shot on D2h cameras.

And ultimately your argument for black and white is invalid. People still do shoot and publish black and white images now. I see black and white images in magazines, newspapers and galleries all the time So it is good enough for us now. As is colour.

You might want to have a read of this:

"Some claim the maximum size a sharp 35 mm slide, low ISO film can be enlarged and still retain quality is somewhere between 11x14 and 16x20 inches. Others divide a digital camera's largest pixel dimension by the 'standard' 300 dpi and come up with a maximum possible print size. "Maximum possible" can be a very deceiving term in itself, because the quality of an enlarged image is very subjective"

http://www.grafphoto.com/articles/printdogma.html

Actually, now I'm thinking about it, considering that many print publications have not only decreased in physical size but the number of print publications have also have reduced in numbers that the need for uber-megapixels is even less of a necessity these days than 7 years ago. Who needs 24 megapixels when more likely than not, the image is going to be viewed on a screen? That said, I'm not likely to give up my D700 but certainly not for reasons of megapixels. Given the opportunity to pick up an old D1 or D2h, I'd jump at it.

_________________
Nikon D700 | 20mm f2.8 | 28mm f2.8 | 50mm f1.8 | 70-300 f4-5.6 | SB800 | flickr | serial photography

Then why do you have a 12MP camera?.

Because that's how many megapixels came with the camera. I don't print. It could have 6 megapixels for all I care. I have a D700 because it's the most capable camera in it's class and because it shoots clean images at high ISOs.

_________________
Nikon D700 | 20mm f2.8 | 28mm f2.8 | 50mm f1.8 | 70-300 f4-5.6 | SB800 | flickr | serial photography

Exactly, you don't print so you don't care about MP.

Someone who is thinking of printing would want a higher resolution camera over the D2H.

My point all along.

And why do you need better ISO performance? Pro photographers did alright with the D2H.