Folks, don't believe the hate, these Nikon D2Hs are spectacular!!!

[IpseLux]

After not much debating, I picked up one of these Nikon D2Hs for little more than a dime and a song and I couldn’t be happier.
Wow, what a great camera!!!
Not perfect. No Picture Control settings. No Black and White JPEGS. Can’t zoom in on the flip phone like display on back.
Memory card is from the days of the dinosaurs. But all in all, what a spectacular camera.
So why the Internet hate???
I imagine most of it comes from folks who never shot film, before DSLRs, just when the D2H came out.
Film had limited ISO, and particularly color, had terrible low light response. You were lucky to push color to 800 ISO. 3200 monochrome was dull and flat. And slide, required a tripod, and flash. Google the great Eliot Porter shooting birds with Kodachrome 25 on his view camera for a sense of the challenge….
Focusing was by hand. And eye. And if you were smart, demanded prudent planning ahead.
24 or 36 exposures was it!
And it was intended to be printed. You had to wait to see if it turned out,
Many consider the D2H’s 4MP image vastly limited…. Really?
It prints a 4”X6” perfectly, and from my tests today, will do beautifully with a 8”X12”. A nice 2” border mat framed would look perfect on any wall.
Can’t really crop? That’s no different than shooting slides back in the day. The shot was either great or it wasn’t. The mounted slide proved it.
As for the limited in camera JPEG adjustments, these shoot RAW and JPEGS, so if digital manipulation is your thing, knock yourself out. You can do it.
As for me, I’m cool with just two color settings: landscape and portraits. There is minimal WB and hue adjustments, but I’m fine with out then right now.
Compared to the modern prosumer cameras Nikon offers, this one definitely feels and is professional. It’s a tank.
The autofocus and 10fps with buffer is legendary. I’ve not gone over it yet. It’s quite in depth….
There is time.
For now, matrix metering, and as a glorious point and shoot with a normal lens: heaven.
Here’s two shots from my earlier walk at the park.
Folks, if interested in owning a pro-grade Nikon DSLR, I think these are spectacular. Much more similar to shooting film back in the day, than today’s point and shoot and the camera does everything for you offerings.
There’s joy in life’s imperfections.
Without them, there wouldn’t be beauty in the world.
Kind regards from East Tennessee!
Peace.

(Metadata might be off on these. The internal battery needs replacing and the clock is off.)

 

[mshchem]

That's NASA grade hardware! 4 megapixel is more than plenty for 8x10s. Put that baby on a tripod with a 400 2.8, Holy Cow!

 

[_T_]

I remember when these were released. Seemed so futuristic at the time. I couldn’t afford one as I was still a student but by the time I had saved up to go digital the landscape was already totally different only a couple years later. I ended up with a canon rebel xti that I still have and is still working to this day. A far cry from this piece of high performance machinery though.

The photo studio I worked at switched to digital with the canon 1d mark ii and we would make unconscionably large prints from that thing. 24x36 sometimes. And people were willing to pay for them all day so those 8MP couldn’t have looked too bad

 

[benveniste]

So why the Internet hate???
I imagine most of it comes from folks who never shot film, before DSLRs, just when the D2H came out.

(Metadata might be off on these. The internal battery needs replacing and the clock is off.)

Part of the "hate" was based on comparisons with the EOS-1D. The D2h offered the same resolution, but with a smaller sensor and the Canon had been on the market over 2 years. About 4 months after Nikon released the D2h, Canon released the Canon EOS-1D Mark II, which was an 8 megapixel camera with similar frames per second and burst capability.

Another part was also megapixel related -- the D100 had a 6 megapixel sensor, and many photographers wanted an upgrade to the D1x instead.

I never used a D2h or D2x. For 4x6 snaps, I used a Coolpix 995, (which I still have). My criteria to shift to a DSLR was based on the Canon 30D -- 8 megapixels at $1500. When the D200 was announced I placed my order and never regretted waiting.

 

[IpseLux]

I remember when these were released. Seemed so futuristic at the time. I couldn’t afford one as I was still a student but by the time I had saved up to go digital the landscape was already totally different only a couple years later. I ended up with a canon rebel xti that I still have and is still working to this day. A far cry from this piece of high performance machinery though.

The photo studio I worked at switched to digital with the canon 1d mark ii and we would make unconscionably large prints from that thing. 24x36 sometimes. And people were willing to pay for them all day so those 8MP couldn’t have looked too bad

Yes. I remember salivating over these too. These photo ads of the past were better than any comic book, or magazine ever….
The great thing, many of these wonderful machines and lenses are still available, well cared for and tremendously affordable today.
Thanks for chiming in T! Kind regards.

 

[IpseLux]

Part of the "hate" was based on comparisons with the EOS-1D. The D2h offered the same resolution, but with a smaller sensor and the Canon had been on the market over 2 years. About 4 months after Nikon released the D2h, Canon released the Canon EOS-1D Mark II, which was an 8 megapixel camera with similar frames per second and burst capability.

Another part was also megapixel related -- the D100 had a 6 megapixel sensor, and many photographers wanted an upgrade to the D1x instead.

I never used a D2h or D2x. For 4x6 snaps, I used a Coolpix 995, (which I still have). My criteria to shift to a DSLR was based on the Canon 30D -- 8 megapixels at $1500. When the D200 was announced I placed my order and never regretted waiting.

Yes. I started with a Canon film camera. An A1. At the time I thought the Canon F1 was the greatest film camera in the world.
But when they switched lenses for their autofocus, and later digitalis, I went to Nikon.
I’m still shooting Nippon Kogaku Nikkors from back in the day, on my Df.
8 MP sounds plenty.
Great cameras worked then, and work now.
Kind regards

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Back in the day around the time that camera was introduced Canon had already far eclipsed it IIRC. Of course it doesn't hold a candle to what is available now, but if you are enjoying it then that is all that matters, and it sounds like you are enjoying it. My point and shoot back then-ish was a small Minolta 4mp and the images still look good today as long as there was enough light of course. I was using a Canon 10D for making moolah which is a 6mp camera. I remember walking into a reception and seeing the bridal portrait I had shot a few weeks before at something like 800 ISO blown up to 14ish inches. I cringed when I saw it. Then I walked up to it and it looked pretty good... The most important thing with images is if they are good. A lot of the technical stuff is just internet b.s. and most people that argue online about specs really never take pictures and wouldn't know a good one if it smacked them in the face. Just ignore it all and enjoy the camera....

 

[IpseLux]

That's NASA grade hardware! 4 megapixel is more than plenty for 8x10s. Put that baby on a tripod with a 400 2.8, Holy Cow!

Yes. With the small sensor, a trusty old Nikon ED AF Nikkor 80-200mm 1:2.8 D will get me close. It’s been a good friend.
Shy one stop. But spectacular resolution….
Thanks for chimming in M.
Kind regards.

 

[IpseLux]

Back in the day around the time that camera was introduced Canon had already far eclipsed it IIRC. Of course it doesn't hold a candle to what is available now, but if you are enjoying it then that is all that matters, and it sounds like you are enjoying it. My point and shoot back then-ish was a small Minolta 4mp and the images still look good today as long as there was enough light of course. I was using a Canon 10D for making moolah which is a 6mp camera. I remember walking into a reception and seeing the bridal portrait I had shot a few weeks before at something like 800 ISO blown up to 14ish inches. I cringed when I saw it. Then I walked up to it and it looked pretty good... The most important thing with images is if they are good. A lot of the technical stuff is just internet b.s. and most people that argue online about specs really never take pictures and wouldn't know a good one if it smacked them in the face. Just ignore it all and enjoy the camera....

Yes. Your story brought to mind a wedding picture I took for a friend. With film. The wedding kiss.
At her wake, this was one of two images that were at the church for her.
Good photos matter.
Making them matters. And it is satisfying and worth while.
Be well P. Kind regards.

 

[mshchem]

Yes. With the small sensor, a trusty old Nikon ED AF Nikkor 80-200mm 1:2.8 D will get me close. It’s been a good friend.
Shy one stop. But spectacular resolution….
Thanks for chimming in M.
Kind regards.

I'm not sure if NASA has brought all the DSLRs back from station. I know Artemis II used a couple D5 cameras along with GoPro. Next trip I would love to see a Hasselblad with a 70mm magazine loaded with Ektachrome

 

[MattKing]

I'm not sure if NASA has brought all the DSLRs back from station. I know Artemis II used a couple D5 cameras along with GoPro. Next trip I would love to see a Hasselblad with a 70mm magazine loaded with Ektachrome

But you would have to cross process the film to be truly authentic .....

 

[mshchem]

But you would have to cross process the film to be truly authentic .....

APOLLO 11, FROM ASC WEBSITE. I don't know what E-2A process is? Sounds like some of the 16mm was processed in E4. Could be 2A skipped reversal exposure??

https://theasc.com/articles/flashback-photographing-apollo-11

When the historic film was delivered to our laboratory, all was in readiness. The 16-35-70mm Ektachrome SO-368 color film exposed on the moon — a total of 785' — was placed in the High Speed Equipment Company processor using the Kodak ME-2A 75 chemistry. This unit, extensively modified by NASA, essentially is two machines employing a single set of chemical tanks. It is capable of processing 16mm, 35mm and 70mm film footage simultaneously or separately at a rate of 35' per minute.


The 16mm Ektachrome SO-168 motion-picture film returned from the moon was processed by a similar piece of equipment using the Kodak M E-4 elevated temperature chemistry, at a rate of 90'-100' per minute.

 

[MattKing]

Somewhere in the midst of his many posts @Photo Engineer explained why they used a non-standard process.

 

[mshchem]

I want Kodak to make me up 70mm Ektachrome

 

[L Gebhardt]

I had the D100, which I think was the same sensor size. My biggest issue with it when I bought it was the lack of true good wide angle lenses. Eventually a few decent options arrived so now you have choices.

 

[George Mann]

I still use my D2x as my reference digital camera. It's base ISO image quality blows all of my other digital cameras including my D3300 into the weeds!

 

[IpseLux]

APOLLO 11, FROM ASC WEBSITE. I don't know what E-2A process is? Sounds like some of the 16mm was processed in E4. Could be 2A skipped reversal exposure??

https://theasc.com/articles/flashback-photographing-apollo-11

When the historic film was delivered to our laboratory, all was in readiness. The 16-35-70mm Ektachrome SO-368 color film exposed on the moon — a total of 785' — was placed in the High Speed Equipment Company processor using the Kodak ME-2A 75 chemistry. This unit, extensively modified by NASA, essentially is two machines employing a single set of chemical tanks. It is capable of processing 16mm, 35mm and 70mm film footage simultaneously or separately at a rate of 35' per minute.


The 16mm Ektachrome SO-168 motion-picture film returned from the moon was processed by a similar piece of equipment using the Kodak M E-4 elevated temperature chemistry, at a rate of 90'-100' per minute.

Tarantino should make a film about this! I’d go see it.
Nice

APOLLO 11, FROM ASC WEBSITE. I don't know what E-2A process is? Sounds like some of the 16mm was processed in E4. Could be 2A skipped reversal exposure??

https://theasc.com/articles/flashback-photographing-apollo-11

When the historic film was delivered to our laboratory, all was in readiness. The 16-35-70mm Ektachrome SO-368 color film exposed on the moon — a total of 785' — was placed in the High Speed Equipment Company processor using the Kodak ME-2A 75 chemistry. This unit, extensively modified by NASA, essentially is two machines employing a single set of chemical tanks. It is capable of processing 16mm, 35mm and 70mm film footage simultaneously or separately at a rate of 35' per minute.


The 16mm Ektachrome SO-168 motion-picture film returned from the moon was processed by a similar piece of equipment using the Kodak M E-4 elevated temperature chemistry, at a rate of 90'-100' per minute.

That make a great film….
Nice story.

 

[mshchem]

Tarantino should make a film about this! I’d go see it.
Nice


That make a great film….
Nice story.

Maybe, a Spielberg epic where the people on the ground are the story not the flyboys.