Re: Nikon D2H vs. Kodak digital camera

[andrew fildes <afildes@netlink.com.au>]

It's all about speed - Nikon produced two versions of the D1 as I 
remember - a high resolution one and a fast one for photojournalists 
at half the megapixels. For a journo, the number of pix you can shoot 
and the delay between shots are far more important, given that the 
results will be used at a relatively small size with a 65-100 
halftone screen over them. Even with my 'no-lag' 4MP didge, if I 
shoot at full res. I only get 20 shots on a 256meg card and wait what 
seems like an eternity for the last shot to load. I suspect most 
settle for a faster approach and damn the res.
What worries me about the small sensor issue is that the next step in 
digital photography is likely to be the reduction of this speed 
problem. Those like Oly who go the small sensor route may find 
themselves overtaken by a new generation of full frame or even 
oversize fast chips and if the new lenses are optimised for 4/3 and 
can't migrate to a new large chip body......the horror!
AndrewF


> I am considering purchasing my first digital camera and will be using it for
> photojournalism purposes. I just read about the new Nikon D2H (I'm a Nikon
> user) which sounds great, but I was concerned about it only having 4.26 pixels
> (or something). I know that the Kodak which uses Nikon lenses is around 13-14
> megapixels. Wouldn't the Kodak one give you higher quality images? I 
> really know
> nothing about digital, but I don't want to have to turn around and buy
> another one in a year or so because of the lack of image quality. 
> Thanks for any
> help.
>
> Leslie Spurlock