Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nikon noobi" data-source="post: 103152" data-attributes="member: 12433">Thanks for your reply aco16&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> ,Yes , I totally agree, iv been going back and forth about that exact thought.&nbsp; The d2h appeals to me because it was built to a professional grade (albeit 2003),&nbsp; iv read review after review about how out of date the d2h is , but then when I google images &quot;d2h&nbsp; photography &quot; I see some amazing photos. Them I hear people rave about the colour rendering and how amazing&nbsp; it is , also how having less mp's gives you Less noise at low light, on top of that I really don't have time for post production right now, so I'm assuming that less detail means less editing required ? as far as a/f go's , over the holiday brake my daughter went on her very first pony ride (2 years old) , the d60 just couldn't nail it. I hate the fact that I missed out on capturing that moment because some&quot;newer&quot; pice of tech couldn't handle it .&nbsp; . , and the very last reason I like the 2dh is that I quickly started to notice&nbsp; after getting my first dslr, other peoples cameras, .&nbsp; . . Having a d60 banging on your chest seems a laugh when you see dudes with d300/7000/etc I guess having a big d2h would satisfy my male neanderthal brain&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; (I said it) But . . . Did I not nail the photo because of a/f ? Maybe it's just my total inexperience? Is 4&nbsp; mp going to be less to edit than ten?&nbsp; Will I feel like a macho macho man? Please help, there's a mans ego on the line&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="nikon noobi, post: 103152, member: 12433"] Thanks for your reply aco16 :-) , Yes , I totally agree, iv been going back and forth about that exact thought. The d2h appeals to me because it was built to a professional grade (albeit 2003), iv read review after review about how out of date the d2h is , but then when I google images "d2h photography " I see some amazing photos. Them I hear people rave about the colour rendering and how amazing it is , also how having less mp's gives you Less noise at low light, on top of that I really don't have time for post production right now, so I'm assuming that less detail means less editing required ? as far as a/f go's , over the holiday brake my daughter went on her very first pony ride (2 years old) , the d60 just couldn't nail it. I hate the fact that I missed out on capturing that moment because some"newer" pice of tech couldn't handle it . . , and the very last reason I like the 2dh is that I quickly started to notice after getting my first dslr, other peoples cameras, . . . Having a d60 banging on your chest seems a laugh when you see dudes with d300/7000/etc I guess having a big d2h would satisfy my male neanderthal brain :-) (I said it) But . . . Did I not nail the photo because of a/f ? Maybe it's just my total inexperience? Is 4 mp going to be less to edit than ten? Will I feel like a macho macho man? Please help, there's a mans ego on the line :-) [/QUOTE]

Verification