These cameras have also value in the sense of fun! Holy shit it feels amazing to shoot these cameras! The build quality, the feeling and the sound the shutter makes are surely worth a mere €100.
I completely agree ! The only reason I still shoot this camera a lot if because it feels so good in the hand and I have just so damn fun with it. Even on the image quality side, I know I have limitations, and working around those limitations is a fun process for me :)
Last thing, keep in mind that images taken on the Nikon D2H, D200, and some Canons from back then (2004 Summer Olympics) all still self for $150-$500 with the max resolution being around 8mp, but most are 4mp, 5mp, and 6mp in 2023 on Getty Images. Someone might have a Z9 or Hasselblad XD and get a fraction of that per mp. $500 for 4mp vs $500 for 45mp. What matters most, isn't the camera body or the gear, but the moment, and the story being told. I went through a bunch of images. Guy's were shooting the D200 at 5.5mp for the Olympics and those images still hold up today.
Subbed and comment for the algo. Hopefully your channel grows. Keep in mind for the old bodies that you may review. Try pulling up the images that were caught on them from that era by professionals. The Nikon D2h was thee flagship camera of the 2004 Olympics. Back then I never recall looking at Sport Illustrated or anything Olympics related and thinking to myself, that's poor quality. Cameras like this are built for JPEG, fast pace action, and ease of use. Those photographer's weren't fumbling with settings. They set to either A, or S and shot without reviewing. When a CF card was full, they swapped, and sent them off to be corrected. The only corrections needed usually were a slight crop and straightening. Those guy's usually got thee shot without a need to crop at all.
This is still a great press/sports shooter. It had a JFET/LBCAST sensor which competed with Canon 1D's lower noise CMOS sensor at the time. So a bit noisier. For the price it now competes with cheap D200/D300 so I would only get it out of curiosity and fun to own a $5000 camera for next to nothing. Your English is the best I've heard from a French speaker. Cheers.
Thank you! That means a lot. As for the rest, I agree. The D300 being in a similar price bracket renders the D2H completely obsolete. It's simply a better, more practical camera with much more modern performance. The D2H is generally nothing more than a curiosity nowadays, though if you already have it, it's still able to put out usable images. I sure do love those that I got with it !
I mean the reason I specified the D300 is because price is similar, and for the same amount of money you get a much better AF system, more resolution and the potential to go to the same burst sppeds. In comparison, the D200 doesn't any vertical grip option that could boost up that, so it's stuck at 5fps shooting. Also it has teh same autofocus system as the D2H, with not much more dynamic range or any lower noise levels, only more resolution. It's substantially cheaper and one of the best cameras you can get for the money for sure, but it's not exactly the pricepoint I was targeting in this video, and the camera would end up being a little worse because of the lack of faster than 5fps shooting. Would definitely be worth picking up for the colors and the sensor itself (though there is also the D80 that is basically the same thing, just cheaper)
@@uncertainrelease the D200 is for the look imo. It's one of the very few digital cameras ever made that render like film SOOC. As for the D2H, you'd only buy it for the look it gives SOOC. Ai makes resolution a non issue as with all low mp cameras. 4mp is enough resolution for anything. Noise reduction software also makes noise irrelevant today as long as it's not mushy. If it's noisy and the image is still sharp, noise is irrelevant. The limiting factor at that point is the editor experience and skill level in noise reduction. You'd need f1.2 lenses with this camera for low light, and I'd suggest a tripod. Cameras like this, I just look at like they're film camera's in terms of usage and approach.
like everyone else I suppose. I'm taking the approach of someone looking at the D2H with the 2023 perspective, with all the modern camera technology around. Is it that hard to understand?
The only problem I have with old cameras is the storage cards. If I'm buying old, budget cameras don't hold up very well, and professional cameras used CFExpress or other types. I live in India, and I can only find SD Cards - everywhere. I _could_ find one shop near me that sold CF Express cards, but they were like 3 times the price.
Ah, yeah that is an issue. In the D2H specifically though, I'm using a CF to SD adapter that I go online for around 10$. I don't know if that's a solution that would be viable for you? Some cameras that I have are so old though, that they just refused to work with that adapter (like my D1X) and I had to go search for a 2003 1GB CF card to be able to shoot with it
just a matter of tweaking... image quality is the same, shooting speed is the same, autofocus is the same. Might have slightly better high ISO, but not enough to make much of a difference. Most of the difference are the menu system.
These cameras have also value in the sense of fun! Holy shit it feels amazing to shoot these cameras! The build quality, the feeling and the sound the shutter makes are surely worth a mere €100.
I completely agree ! The only reason I still shoot this camera a lot if because it feels so good in the hand and I have just so damn fun with it.
Even on the image quality side, I know I have limitations, and working around those limitations is a fun process for me :)
Last thing, keep in mind that images taken on the Nikon D2H, D200, and some Canons from back then (2004 Summer Olympics) all still self for $150-$500 with the max resolution being around 8mp, but most are 4mp, 5mp, and 6mp in 2023 on Getty Images. Someone might have a Z9 or Hasselblad XD and get a fraction of that per mp. $500 for 4mp vs $500 for 45mp. What matters most, isn't the camera body or the gear, but the moment, and the story being told.
I went through a bunch of images. Guy's were shooting the D200 at 5.5mp for the Olympics and those images still hold up today.
I own a D2HS, its not an easy camera in lowlight, but I still like to shoot with it sometimes, to try to make the best of it
Subbed and comment for the algo. Hopefully your channel grows.
Keep in mind for the old bodies that you may review. Try pulling up the images that were caught on them from that era by professionals. The Nikon D2h was thee flagship camera of the 2004 Olympics.
Back then I never recall looking at Sport Illustrated or anything Olympics related and thinking to myself, that's poor quality.
Cameras like this are built for JPEG, fast pace action, and ease of use. Those photographer's weren't fumbling with settings. They set to either A, or S and shot without reviewing. When a CF card was full, they swapped, and sent them off to be corrected. The only corrections needed usually were a slight crop and straightening. Those guy's usually got thee shot without a need to crop at all.
This is still a great press/sports shooter.
It had a JFET/LBCAST sensor which competed with Canon 1D's lower noise CMOS sensor at the time. So a bit noisier.
For the price it now competes with cheap D200/D300 so I would only get it out of curiosity and fun to own a $5000 camera for next to nothing.
Your English is the best I've heard from a French speaker.
Cheers.
Thank you! That means a lot.
As for the rest, I agree. The D300 being in a similar price bracket renders the D2H completely obsolete. It's simply a better, more practical camera with much more modern performance.
The D2H is generally nothing more than a curiosity nowadays, though if you already have it, it's still able to put out usable images. I sure do love those that I got with it !
i think a better to the d2h than the d300 would be the d200 for the ccd goodness
I mean the reason I specified the D300 is because price is similar, and for the same amount of money you get a much better AF system, more resolution and the potential to go to the same burst sppeds.
In comparison, the D200 doesn't any vertical grip option that could boost up that, so it's stuck at 5fps shooting. Also it has teh same autofocus system as the D2H, with not much more dynamic range or any lower noise levels, only more resolution.
It's substantially cheaper and one of the best cameras you can get for the money for sure, but it's not exactly the pricepoint I was targeting in this video, and the camera would end up being a little worse because of the lack of faster than 5fps shooting. Would definitely be worth picking up for the colors and the sensor itself (though there is also the D80 that is basically the same thing, just cheaper)
@@uncertainrelease the D200 is for the look imo. It's one of the very few digital cameras ever made that render like film SOOC.
As for the D2H, you'd only buy it for the look it gives SOOC.
Ai makes resolution a non issue as with all low mp cameras. 4mp is enough resolution for anything. Noise reduction software also makes noise irrelevant today as long as it's not mushy. If it's noisy and the image is still sharp, noise is irrelevant. The limiting factor at that point is the editor experience and skill level in noise reduction.
You'd need f1.2 lenses with this camera for low light, and I'd suggest a tripod.
Cameras like this, I just look at like they're film camera's in terms of usage and approach.
I use a D2H professionally even in 2024
nice videos as usual, i was wondering if you were french ? since ur using lbc
yup !
You were French? What are you now and how much did the operation cost???
How would you have managed before digital?
like everyone else I suppose.
I'm taking the approach of someone looking at the D2H with the 2023 perspective, with all the modern camera technology around. Is it that hard to understand?
The only problem I have with old cameras is the storage cards. If I'm buying old, budget cameras don't hold up very well, and professional cameras used CFExpress or other types. I live in India, and I can only find SD Cards - everywhere. I _could_ find one shop near me that sold CF Express cards, but they were like 3 times the price.
Ah, yeah that is an issue. In the D2H specifically though, I'm using a CF to SD adapter that I go online for around 10$. I don't know if that's a solution that would be viable for you?
Some cameras that I have are so old though, that they just refused to work with that adapter (like my D1X) and I had to go search for a 2003 1GB CF card to be able to shoot with it
I have to shoot RAW...minor editing and can print 16x20 inch beautifully....with speedlight...or really bright day...
The D2Hs is a little better though.
just a matter of tweaking... image quality is the same, shooting speed is the same, autofocus is the same. Might have slightly better high ISO, but not enough to make much of a difference.
Most of the difference are the menu system.