For PMA, Nikon announced the D2Hs which is a Pro level D-SLR shooting 4MP @ 8fps. Seriously how can they release a 4MP "Pro" D-SLR with a straight face in 2005?

Comparing the D2Hs to the 1D Mark II or the D2Hs to the D2H and it just doesn't seem all that much different from the D2H. Where's the higher MP count? Or a higher frame rate? I'm not really sure what Nikon is thinking on this one. The D2H sells for $2000 and the D2Hs is suppose to go for $3500.

This makes me curious to see what Nikon is going to do with the D200.

 

I think the problem is that now, for $1500 less than the D2Hs, you can buy a perfectly good D2H that, like you say, isn't that different. The D2H is a great camera that produces, IMO, 4 MP images that are superior to the D100's 6 MP pictures. I've worked with a borrowed D2H and, now that I see that the D2Hs is, at least apparently, no particularly big deal, I'm tempted to save the $1500 and get a D2H. I guess I'll have to see how people like it to know for sure, though. I'm also interested in seeing what the D200 is going to be like.

There's an interesting discussion of this over on SportsShooter.

Mark

 

Some of the comments over on the sports shooter site I found insightful:
- The D2H/D2Hs at 4 MP already having more resolution than newspapers wanted.
- not wanting to eat into the D2X with a higher MP offering

Most of the comments still lead me to believe that the D2H is a damn fine offering for it's intended use, but I'm still left with trying to figure out a convincing case for a $1500 premium for a D2Hs.

The thing that strikes me is that even if the D2H/D2Hs already have 4 MP and pictures need to be resized for print, you'd think from a pure marketing standpoint Nikon would be looking to up the MP count. Not that MP are everything, but it still is a unit of measure the market does react to (justified or not).

I imagine it'll get even harder when a D200 gets released (assuming something close to the 20D with 8MP and 5 FPS). Granted it won't be as quick as the D2H, but the the pricing should be quite close.

What I'd like to see Nikon offer is a convincing response to the 1Ds Mark II. Honestly, even if it cost $10k or $12k it would be nice to know Nikon placed a priority on the full D-SLR Range.

I can accept that Nikon is behind the curve on releasing new cameras compared to Canon. What I do find hard to accept is when it appears Nikon is abandoning ground.

 

We actually bought 2 D2H bodies last month when we couldn't get another D1X in here. And oddly enough - we haven't stopped using them, smaller file size & all. It is a very intuitive camera, much better laid out than the D1X. BUT - I have to agree with you Dave about Nikon abandoning ground. I still see the D2Hs as too little, too late...and it's going to further infuriate already irate D2H owners that missed the price cut on the D2H, and now this.

I will be very curious to get the D2X in my hands.