Nikon D2Hs Vs Canon 5D

Bundybear · 25-03-2007, 13:53

I recently started work for a local paper as sports photographer, and have always been a canon man.....well boy when I first started taking pics....and they have three Nikon D2Hs SLR's for use. After using the nikon I was extremely impressed at the 8 fps that this beast has.

I currently own an old 300D that has served me well and am looking at upgrading very very soon (Bundybear has permisson from his wife

) and was looking at a 5D till I used this Nikon D2Hs. At 8fps the nikon seems a far more superior piece of machinery then the 3fps 5D....? thoughts

Does anyone have any thoughts on which they deem to be a better sports camera?
And secondly has anyone heard any whispers about an upgrade on the 5D and any specs in relation to an increase in fps?

JMitchell · 25-03-2007, 14:02

Talk to Rob Barron, he has a D2Hs, but I know I would choose the NIkon, it's a very good camera, albeit with 4.1 mp, but 4.1 incredibly high quality mega pixels. The 5D just doesn't match its with its price....

***Steve*** · 25-03-2007, 14:45

Rob Barron uses Canon not Nikon, but you can still talk to him if you like

I will add that you are not comparring like for like...if you want Canon's camera that's aimed at Sports Photographers you should be looking at the 1D MKIII which has only just been released. It has 10fps and a much higher MP rating than the Nikon your describe plus is completely weather sealed as well. The 5D is a full frame camera aimed at photographers who do either landscape or wedding photography primarily (although its also a very good all rounder) but its certainly not aimed at pro sports photographers.

HTH

***Dave*** · 25-03-2007, 15:06

Think JM meant P-E.

The D2Hs is perfect for Sports photography , especially if shots are only going to be produced at paper/maagazine size. It's according to how much you are paying though vs the likes of Canon ID MKII (8.5fps) & the newer models ?

Liam O'Neill · 25-03-2007, 17:36

The Nikon won't take Canon's telephoto lenses, the ones so beloved of Sports Photographers, if the sidelines of every major sporting event are to be believed.

You say they have 3 D2H's, and so likely lenses for them too. Given that these lenses are on the expensive side, the fact getting your own Nikon would let you use them might be the most important thing for you to think about. There may also be some value to their Nikon experience.

JMitchell · 25-03-2007, 17:41

Ooops, well you know what I mean, apologies to Ian, for thinking he would go to level of shooting C**non. Yes, look at the C**non1D-MKIII, 10fps, cool no? But do not rule out the D2Hs, the C**non hasn't proved itself yet....
Yes, speak to P-E, he defninitely has a D2Hs

Jack M

(Mods: Please tell me if I am being too anti C**non, I will stop on request if I am offending anyone)

***Dave*** · 25-03-2007, 17:48

Well JM, you've shot yourself in the foot again, as P-E shoots with a Canon 1d MKII as his main camera

Like most on here, Ian has no biased one way or the other for Canon or Nikon, as both excellent brands

**Dabhand16** · 25-03-2007, 18:14

To put us all out of our misery, would anyone using a D2Hs please make yourself known?

P-E · 25-03-2007, 18:55

I used to own a D2Hs (I've still got a D2H).

As already mentioned I don't think it can be compared with the Canon 5D when it comes to using it for sports........it really needs to be the D2Hs V the Canon 1DMKII/I imo.

I found the D2Hs to be a cracking camera even though it is only 4.1mp.

***Dave*** · 25-03-2007, 19:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by P-E

As already mentioned I don't think it can be compared with the Canon 5D when it comes to using it for sports........it really needs to be the D2Hs V the Canon 1DMKII/I imo.

So don't keep us in suspense, you've owned D2Hs & now the IDMKII .... so what's your conclusion of pro's & cons

P-E · 25-03-2007, 19:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

So don't keep us in suspense, you've owned D2Hs & now the IDMKII .... so what's your conclusion of pro's & cons

Both great cameras imo

The D2Hs had a tendency to slightly under expose (not as much as a D100 I had) but I remember testing both the 1DMKII & D2Hs in a dimly lit room.......the 1DMKII would hunt more than the D2Hs before locking on to a static subject.

I much prefer the high ISO that comes out of the 1DMKII although the D2Hs was a big improvement over the D2H when it comes to this.

I've always said that I felt the need for a couple of extra fingers when using the 1DMKII to change WB etc.

JMitchell · 25-03-2007, 20:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave

Well JM, you've shot yourself in the foot again, as P-E shoots with a Canon 1d MKII as his main camera

Like most on here, Ian has no biased one way or the other for Canon or Nikon, as both excellent brands

GAH! Well all I can say is good luck to the TS, and I wish I could afford even half of one, let alone both!