LScottPht@aol.com wrote/replied to: >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, I was just checking Nikon digital cameras, and the D1X appears to be what you'd likely want. And since it's been out awhile, the chances are you can get a good deal on one. Unless there's a reason why the D2H would be a better camera, I think the D1X would better serve you with it's higher res, but slightly slower fps. And the D100, while quite cheap and providing high res, just isn't as weather proof or as rugged as you'll need. Here's a review of the new D2H: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/nikond2h/ And a relevant quote from it: "The D2H raises the bar even further, it has a brand new Nikon designed 4.1 million pixel 'JFET sensor' and is capable of capturing eight frames per second for up to 40 frames (five seconds of continuous shooting at 8 fps). The D2H also adds a whole lot more including a new eleven area AF module (Multi-Cam 2000), 38 ms shutter lag and just 80 ms viewfinder blackout, a new ambient external WB sensor, an orientation sensor, RAW + JPEG format, a huge 2.5" 211,000 pixel LCD monitor, a new lightweight Lithium-Ion battery (with detailed in-camera readout) and USB 2.0. The other 'big news' about the D2H system is the new WT-1 802.11b wireless transmission add-on which allows you to FTP images back to a server as you shoot them*." And here's the review of the D1X: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1x/ Hope this helps. Jim Davis Nature Photography http://www.kjsl.com/~jbdavis/
