D2HS Test

[Peter Forsell]

Inspired by Bob Friedman's D5 and D4 samples, I did the same thing with a 11 years old D2HS. I thought it might be interesting to cast a look that far to the past. I wasn't as methodological, as Mr Friedman. These shots are for fun only and shouldn't be scientifically scrutinized. And we have a rainy day here too.

I still do have the oldies D1H and D3S to complement the five generations of Nikon "pro sports" cameras. I also have all the "pro studio" versions too: D1X, D2X and D3X. Maybe for another rainy day. The stubborn and prejudiced man that I am, I'll skip the D5 and go with the D5S in 2 years. It has been a successful method thus far, always getting the S or X version of everything instead of the first edition.

Anyway, I digress, here are the images at full stop ISO settings. The last two ones are pure digital push, we could call them Hi-3 and Hi-4. To my eyes the ISO 6400 of D2HS looks like ISO 200k of my D4S. Perhaps D5 can go half a stop higher than that,  something like ISO 320k.

Please no hate mail, these are for fun only. Mods can delete these if considered too stupid for NG.

[richardHaw]

those were the days. i remember that i was overjoyed when the D90 came out and ISO1600 was very usable.

[Frank Fremerey]

When the D2H came out I thought: well that is the end of the development.
8 fps just as the F5 could do and 40 JPEGs buffer. What more does one need
for great sports photos? 4 Megapixels is a lot of pixels! I never thought the D5
with 200 frames in 14 Bit RAW and 21 MP resolution would ever come.

At that time Terabytes were for professional data centers only.

What a development!!!!

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I still keep an old D2H for studio work and this is my camera of choice for product shots to be posted to the web. I see no reason to replace it with something more new-fangled.

The image quality of D2H was outstanding and I have had double-page spreads printed in magazines from it. It also handled very well, was robustly built, and batteries just went on for ever.

A major reason I opted for the D2X as the main camera of that time wasn't the 12 MPix sensor, but its support for GPS devices. For some inscrutable reason Nikon removed this feature from D2H to re-introduce it in D2HS. So maybe I wasn't alone in being annoyed by Nikon's decisions for the D2-series.

[Thomas G]

Not being in the digital game at that time I considers this useful historic oldtimer information. One gets an impression on the development since. Thanks!

[jd1566]

I've searched on NikonGear but don't seem to find any comparisons between D2H and D2Hs iso noise comparison (RAW File)..  Obviously these cameras came out when the net and blogs and forums were in their infancy.. and very few photographers seem to have bought the D2Hs!  So if anyone would like to weigh in on this subject I would be very curious to know about this comparison.  D2H cameras are an absolute bargain on Ebay at the moment at around $100 (obviously condintion unknown...).. But for younger photographers they would be an excellent way of getting into DSLR photography (before we all move to Mirrorless.. ;-)

So, Raw noise comparison anyone!? 

And if they Raw noise is the same, then did Nikon ever do a Firmware update á la D2xs where the majority of the software improvements from the D2Hs were added to the D2H?

Thanks again

[MFloyd]

I didn't know that the D2HS was delivered with a steam iron 😜 Very nice, very interesting. Documents the (big) evolution of DSLRs.

[Peter Forsell]

I've searched on NikonGear but don't seem to find any comparisons between D2H and D2Hs iso noise comparison (RAW File)..  Obviously these cameras came out when the net and blogs and forums were in their infancy.. and very few photographers seem to have bought the D2Hs!  So if anyone would like to weigh in on this subject I would be very curious to know about this comparison.  D2H cameras are an absolute bargain on Ebay at the moment at around $100 (obviously condintion unknown...).. But for younger photographers they would be an excellent way of getting into DSLR photography (before we all move to Mirrorless.. ;-)

So, Raw noise comparison anyone!? 

And if they Raw noise is the same, then did Nikon ever do a Firmware update á la D2xs where the majority of the software improvements from the D2Hs were added to the D2H?

Thanks again

Raw noise is not the same. I co-operated with Bill Claff by supplying the various raw files for his measurements. Go see photonstophotos.net for his results and curves. I can give the short version here.

There is about half a stop advantage to D2HS in raw. We don't know why/how, but the sensor most likely remained exactly the same. The cause for the difference can be things like better quality components (amplifiers, AD converters, perhaps hand picked sensors), perhaps better heat/interference shielding to the components and maybe Nikon was able to tweak the timing and rate of the components. For example running the AD converters at a little lower clock frequency can lower the noise.

This is all guesswork, but plausible and not very expensive for Nikon to pull off.

I can't run them side by side anymore, because the D2H developed the dreaded first shot ERR syndrome. I sold it to a hobbyist who was building something that required a DSLR that needn't be perfect. I think I charged him 70 euros.
I still have the D2HS though.

It is funny how places like Fred Miranda is still full of posts where adult men shout mouths frothing that D2HS has 2 stops advantage in high ISO noise. Talk about confirmation bias. But the difference is real, albeit only 0.5 stops.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The D2Hs is better as it offers the support for GPS that Nikon removed from the D2H ... Only reason I still am interested in swapping my H. The performance of the H is adequate if you know what you are doing.