LScottPht@aol.com writes: > 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. Those two cameras fill very different niches. The D2H is the photojournalists' model; it's a D1H with increased resoultion, and no doubt other improvements. It's optimized for fast shooting, low light, and such. The Kodak DCS 14n is, from the reports I've gotten from people who *finally* received one, a very good studio camera. It's *not* good for low light, or for fast shooting. The Kodak is certainly much higher resolution -- but resolution is not everything, by any means. The noise levels in various conditions (brightness and exposure time) will differ considerably (in favor of the D2h for long exposures or low light levels). There seem to be a lot of people online bad-mouthing the DCS 14n, but the people who've actually bought them and are using them in their intended environments are, so far as I can tell, very happy. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <dd-b@dd-b.net>, <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <noguns-nomoney.com> <www.dd-b.net/carry/> Photos: <dd-b.lighthunters.net> Snapshots: <www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera mailing lists: <dragaera.info/>
