Anyone still using Nikon D1? redux

<p>Through internet surfing, I discovered that the price of used Nikon D1's has dropped to around $100. This for a camera that started off at $5500! So I bought it. It should arrive tomorrow. I hope that buying it isn't a mistake.</p>

<p>There are lots of reviews, articles and postings about this camera, mostly from around 1999 when the camera was introduced. At that time, the D1 was the only "affordable" (ha!) professional digital camera. It is credited with ushering in an era of digital photography. Now that there are lots of DSLR's, is it still useful? Does any member of photo.net still use it?</p>

<p>By way of context, I am an advanced amateur photographer. My stable of cameras includes small-medium-large format (film 2" x 3", 6cm x 9cm) folding cameras, 35mm film SLRs Nikon F and F3HP, and Nikon digital D300. I have a bunch of Nikon lenses. I hope that the D1 will be stripped down and more intuitive than the D300. I like the idea that it is in the line of "professional" cameras as opposed to "pro-sumer" cameras.</p>

<p>The place that sold me the D1 tried to talk me out of it, saying that 2 1/2 MP isn't enough, and that it is difficult to obtain replacement batteries. It doesn't have a flash, but I hate the D300 flash setup. They tried to sell me a D200 instead.</p>

<p>Any comments on my buying a D1 at this time?</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>I never used the D1, but I do indeed still use the D1x and D1H (as well as D200) for photojournalism.<br /> They're nicely made cameras, mechanically as good (better in some ways, like metal gears rather than plastic in the sequencing unit) as a D3 or D4.</p>

<p><br /> Batts are easy to find on ebay, and don't cost that much.</p>

<p><br /> The AF is faster and probably more accurate than the D200, and the 5 sensors take up relatively large areas, which can be nice. The viewfinder is also excellent (but you have to get the Dk-17m for it to be so).</p>

<p><br /> There are enough differences between the D1 and the later two models that I can't comment directly on the D1, but the H and X aren't bad for PJ shooting unless you're doing low light PJ stuff or want good auto flash or modern features. Otherwise, the older cams still can get the job done.</p>

<p>I don't know if anyone is "still using" a D1, but maybe some folks are making use of one.</p>

<p>Rockwell did a write-up on one of the D1 models fairly recently. He found a supplier for a decent battery (biggest drawback) and posted some perfectly good photos made with one.</p>

<p>Ok, you ask, this is my answer.<br /> Sincerely, the D1 is a paperweight. But I think you already know it. Personally, the "proffessional" and "prosumer" camera concept (in the way most people understand it) means nothing to me.<br /> The resolution was too small even when it was released... I used it a couple times and discarded it. The price was insane at that time. Computers are now faster&better, but I wonder if the D1 is still supported... probably not.<br /> Anyway, for $100, it is a nice camera to have, I bet you will use it a couple times before leaving it as a interesting decoration in your bookcase (it really is!).</p>

<p>I heard there was a color or WB issue with the D1 but that could be overcome with post processing the RAW file ... I think sure, if you like those cameras and it is cheap, why not they still meet *some* purpose. I went from a D70 to D600, I still have uses with the the D70 - family/friends snaps and even propped on a tripod is where it excels in and given that many people don't print much larger than 8x12 or 16x12. It does need a bit more work in post thou. I've now sold a lens and got my D70 DX down t the min - 10-20, kit and a 35. Quite a nifty setup for me which I prefer light, for you it's the other end.</p>

I hate to be negative but had the

D1been my intro to digital I'd have run

away screaming and would still be

using film only. I still use my D1X as it

still does a lot of things well. The D1

not so much. Even for $100 you can do

better.

 

Rick H.

<p>Danek, I still have a D1 but don't use it. Its an interesting camera and for $100 why not own a piece of history. I believe it was the first digital camera to go to space and to shoot the superbowl. The D1 does have a color cast that can be corrected in post, but right out of the camera reds are bad, and therefore skintones are not so good. It may be the sharpest digital camera I have ever experienced. There is something about D1 photos, you can pick them out from a mile away. I have described them as almost 3D although I don't think that is quite right. You will see for yourself. If you get black frames it is because the battery is too old, replace the battery and that problem goes away.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I hope that the D1 will be stripped down and more intuitive than the D300.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Reading your post I was with you until this. Sorry not a chance. To properly use the camera you have to basically memorize a large batch of settings or travel with a cheat sheet. The menu on the D300 is not just more advanced, it is a whole different experience. Nikon did not have a usable menu worked out yet in 1999.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for your responses, A., Eric, Jose, Ray, Rick and Phil:</p>

<p>It looks like the responses varied from approval to refusal, right? It doesn't look like a cult, as, say, a Nikon F, F3 or F5 or a Leica M3.</p>

<p>I was wondering about how opinions have changed since the D1's introduction. When it was introduced, it was the only feasible DSLR. Kind of like George Washington's presidency. Not only did he have to figure out how to handle things, but he had to consider that what he did would set a precedent for future presidents. So the D1 blazed a trail. In the intervening 12 years, a lot of digital cameras were introduced and, in terms of features, the D1 doesn't compare well with these other cameras. But still, I don't need a lot of these features.</p>

<p>A. Valero: You recommend the Dk-17m. I wear eyeglasses so this magnifier might be a problem. Can you recommend another eyepiece for eyeglass wearers? What do you mean by "PJ?"</p>

<p>Eric: Can you provide a link to Rockwell's write-up? I can't find it.</p>

<p>Ray: Don't assume that I like complicated camera with bells and whistles. I picked up a Nikon FG-20 at a yard sale for $20. It was simpler than my F3 and I liked that, but felt that three Nikon SLR film cameras was too many. I get great pleasure out of my F3 and F. I enjoy using my folding cameras. They are about as basic as you can get. They have movement but I don't use that feature.</p>

<p>Also, I want to use the D1 as a backup, especially if the D300 is in the repair shop. I recently dropped the D300 on a concrete sidewalk and it was damaged. It has a few dents and the paint was scraped off at a few spots. I want pictures of this damage. The F3 with extension rings came to the rescue. If I had the D1, I could use it to take pictures of the damage. The D300 seems to work fine but I wonder if maybe I should have it checked out. Any suggestions?</p>

<p>Rick: What else would you suggest for $100.?</p>

<p>Phil: I've never been fond of menus. Back when I programmed computers, I fought against using menus for user interfaces. I still prefer command lines. Yes, part of the appeal is to own a piece of history. That's why I have a Nikon F, F3 and Century Graphic.</p>

<p>Well, if they're now $100, I'm quite tempted to get one myself. But only for historical reasons. I did vote the D1 very highly on Thom Hogan's "Nikon's best DSLR" poll - but my biggest criterion was "biggest leap over the state of the art". I have an F5, which is a pretty good representative in the "simplified, slow feedback, everything in menus, big body" category - I got it partly as a backup to my D700, though it did some good service with Kodak HIE for a while. I did recently note a D70 with charger and battery being sold at a dealer for £100 - that's a little tempting for an IR conversion. Using them for practical reasons? Not so much, though I'm lucky enough* that I've been able to keep my D700 as a back-up to my D800, so I don't need one of these to be practical. I was considering a Kodak DCS-14n for a while when the D700 was all I had.<br />

<br />

If you want a simple camera, is something like a D40 out of the question? (And yes, command lines are the way. I'm sympathetic to GUIs, but the X Window System was a great leap forward because it let you have multiple text consoles on the screen at once...)</p>

<p>I guess it wasn't part of his full page on the D1, but a little bit down this page he talks about a replacement battery. I falsely remembered that he posted a few photos.</p>

<p>I can't post a direct Rockwell link, but put this at the end of the main page address:</p>

<p>/tech/2011-09.htm</p>

 

<p>For $100 a D1 still is a nice camera to play around with.</p>

<p>I have owned and used it. and still have a D1H I use from time to time.</p>

<p>Of course by nowadays standards the cryptic menu, slow buffer emptying when full and at times magenta color cast are a pain and now doubt for some ' critics' 'unacceptable' but keep in mind what could be bought at the time of introduction, and what costs (Kodak DCS 460 at $28,000 anyone?) even if you had to buy Capture to proces your NEF's ( but how much was that to todays cost of CS, Lightroom etc.?)</p>

<p>The AF is still pretty good, it still handles well even compared to modern bodies (which basically is a tribute to Nikon for being ' conservative' of better consequent in the handling and layout of their professional bodies over the years), and the higher flash synch is still unrivalled.</p>

<p>Sure, 'only' 2,7 MP, and lots of noise over ISO 800, but still more then usable pictures at low ISO, even despite only at smaller prints (remember Digital Fractals?), but in B/W a lovely grain reminiscent of pushed Tri-X (I know, I know that's like swearing in a church for all the 'I want no noise at IS0 25600' shooters of cats and beercans).</p>

<p>I still have a copy of the Nikon Pro issue in which the camera was introduced lying around, and boy, were we (and Nikon) exited back then.</p>

<p>IMO if you don't want to spent big bucks but still want a camera with pro AF and built, and despite the size and weight for just playing around and still be able to shoot a surprisingly good picture every now and then, it could be a $100 well spent (although personally I would get at least a D1H, as I have)</p>

<p>My two cents, based on actually having owned and used the camera.</p>

<p>Danek:<br /> I think the analogy with buying old film cameras is misleading. My 1952 vintage Rolleicord can use today's state of the art film which is vastly improved over the films made at the time it was produced. Even more - today I can scan, digitally manipulate and print from film in a way which was not available back then. Nikon D1 is at the dead end of it's technology - there is nothing that can be improved there. While the body might be still decent for it's set of controls, the "film" - sensor of D1 in primitive by today's standards and there is no way to make it any better. Disclaimer: I did not use D1 but I had and used a pair of D2h cameras.</p>

<p>MM would it be worth the effort and money to convert one to "full Spectrum"or infrared ?</p>

<p>CPM - I'd probably sooner go there with a D70, which has a bit less historical interest, costs about the same, is known to be easy to disassemble and has a better sensor. And, in fact, I may choose to do so when I'm next feeling unduly rich. I'd love a D1, but only because I remember the stir they produced when launched (shortly after I got an Agfa ePhoto1680).</p>

<p>Thx Andrew,<br /> <br /> Bjorn Rorslett has some article on IR & UV using a D1, but it's not clear to me wether this is a converted cam or not.. :<br /> <a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/false_IR_D1.html">http://www.naturfotograf.com/false_IR_D1.html</a></p>

<p>The D1 arrived and I love it! It might be that I find it comfortable because its very similar to the D300. After all, the D300 is a descendant of the D1. Now I need to get a CompactFlash card.</p>

<p>It appears from these postings that the D1 is viewed with reverance, at least by some photographers, such as Andrew, Paul and Phil.</p>

<p>As to Thomas' comment on buying old film cameras, this thread includes several different issues. I wrote about the film cameras to address a different issue than Thomas raises. I brought up old film cameras in response to Ray's comment, "Quite a nifty setup for me which I prefer light, for you it's the other end." I wanted to show that I don't like only heavy, complicated cameras. My first real camera was a Voigtlander Avus folding camera. I did sneak off and use my father's SLR, the brand of which I don't remember. The Minolta SRT-101, which was my camera for many years, was simpler and lighter then the Nikon F, my favorite SLR. The Nikon F has many more features than the Minolta, but I ignore many of them. Also, I wanted to show what I meant by "classic" and "legacy" cameras.</p>

<p>Thomas seems to be writing about advances in camera technology. Yes, cameras have evolved from view cameras using wet plates. Some of these changes, such as view cameras to rangerfinder cameras and TLR's to SLR's and from wet plates to cut film to rollfilm to digital have been abrupt, and some, such as improvements in lenses, have been gradual. But how can you determine which changes are significant and which aren't? Actually, Thomas' argument that his 1952 Rolleicord can use today's state of the art film serves to show how significant the D1 was! Just as the Nikon F marked the beginning of the SLR era as advanced over rangefinder cameras, so the D1 marked the beginning of the digital era as advanced over film cameras. And, what do you mean, "Nikon D1 is at the dead end of it's technology - there is nothing that can be improved there. While the body might be still decent for it's set of controls, the "film" - sensor of D1 in primitive by today's standards and there is no way to make it any better." ? What about the succession of S-SLR's that followed in the D1 footprint? Turning to view cameras for a moment, they are essentially the same as they were 50, maybe 75 years ago. Does that mean they were at the dead end of their technology?</p>

<p>Interesting.</p>

<p><em>"But how can you determine which changes are significant and which aren't?"</em><br /> <br /> Both image quality and simplicity of use. If there is only one of these, the improvement is not complete. Economy, environmental friendliness, etc. are other factors.</p>

<p>A digital camera is essentially a sensor, while a film camera is just a dark box... that contains a "sensor" that can be upgraded-improved.</p>

<p>The "sensor" (film) used one or half a century ago are not the same as the one we use today. The cameras could be the same, but the media and processes have been highly upgraded. A digital camera like the D1 is what it is, nothing can be upgraded (for the manufacturers pleasure!).</p>

<p>Anyway, as mentioned above, a D1 is a nice camera. It is also a collectible item; if still in working condition, double enjoyment :)</p>

<p>That's an interesting way to look at it. Couldn't Nikon make a DSLR with interchangeable sensor? That would be consistent with their policy of interchangeable prisms, focusing screens and, of course, lenses. If they did this, as they develop (ha ha) more accurate sensors, you could just pop in the more accurate sensor, thus upgrading it. Also, their development of DSLR cameras doesn't follow their policy of introducting a professional camera line every 10 years - F, F2, F3, etc.</p>

<p>Jose, you write "The "sensor" (film) used one or half a century ago are not the same as the one we use today. The cameras could be the same, but the media and processes have been highly upgraded." In what ways have the media and processes been upgraded? I'm still using a 9cm x 12cm Voigtlander Avus, early 1930's. My parents bought it used in about 1949 and I appropriated it around 1960. It has been used with 9x12 film packs, cut film, an obscure-size film and, for the past 12 years, 120 film. How has the film changed during this period?</p>

<p>I'm glad to hear the D1 is collectible, but that status is not reflected in the market value. As I wrote, its available, from reputable sources, for $100. Anyway, I enjoy using and handling it.</p>

<p>Some early processes were highly dangerous to the photographers (collodion, mercury... ). Developing processes has been improved gradually, although many of the chemicals used fifty years ago were still carcinogenic. Even hydroquinone, which probably is the most use developer today is "partially" dangerous in this respect. With the advent of digital photography, I`m afraid research and development has stopped dramatically... without digital, I`m pretty sure we`d have turned now to environmental safe chemicals. XTOL is maybe the first top quality, "environmental friendly" developer massively used. There are many others... due to the lack of offer we currently suffer, I`m now making my own developers, using the latest hydroquinone free recipes. Right now, I don`t need hydroquinone.</p>

<p>About film manufacturing, I`m not an expert in this topic but check that the size of film has been gradually reduced. I bet it is due to technological advances in lens manufacturing but also in film quality. My pics from the seventies are not as nice and color-perfect as are my latest ones. When I see small format photos at vintage photography exhibitions, I use to be surprised on how bad the contrast, exposure and image quality should have been... Kappa, HBC, etc.</p>

<p>Don`t know others but although I dislike to use tabular films, in my experience it`s true that they are technically better (fine grain, sharpness) than the ones I have used most, like the classic Agfa 25, 100 and 400 films.</p>

<p>About "upgradable" sensors... I don`t know if it could be possible. I think we really are under a "planned obsolescence" policy, so our mind is in accordance. For sure the camera body can be successfully used by many amateurs today. Do you really need more than 5 frames per second? A more complex AF system? A different body ergonomics? I bet that many cameras used today doesn`t have an AF system that is much better or faster than the one on the F5. But the resolution is far from current standards; with such low ammount of pixels, there is little room for processing, also the color issues, and I think this camera is no longer supported by Nikon software (I may be wrong).</p>

<p>I think it`s in the car world (no clue on this) where a model needs to be thirty years old to be considered collectible. In 17 years, your D1 will be one of them... :) (don`t know how old are you, but believe me, time flies! :D)</p>

<p>Danek:<br /> I do not dispute D1's place in history of development of cameras. My comment was addressing your suggestion to use D1 as a backup for your D300 and it's usability now and in the future. It would be interesting to see (and maybe you can answer this question) if images from D1 have a distinctive "look" which could make images made with it unique. I have no intention to spoil your excitement - enjoy your new camera!<br /> Cheers!</p>

<p>Interesting feature: on automatic exposure, S or P, it can pick apertures, e.g. f/10, different than the standard ones. I don't know of any other AE camera that does this.</p>

<p>I can't answer Thomas' inquiry, "if images from D1 have a distinctive "look" which could make images made with it unique" since I still don't have the media card. However, Phil wrote, "It may be the sharpest digital camera I have ever experienced. There is something about D1 photos, you can pick them out from a mile away." I'm curious to know what he means.</p>

<p>A 1976 comment concerning the Volkswagen Golf is appropriate. The owner, a veterinary student, told me that it was an engineering marvel, but not user-friendly. Features could be understood as designed to work, but not intuitive. He said when you adjust the temperature, you risk burning your hand. So it is with the D1. A lot of features, such as the F-mount, method of lens removal and installation, mirror-up, and depth-of-field preview were standard. It shared a lot of design features with the F3 and, of course, D300. The menu, on the other hand, appears to have been jerry-rigged. Three different LCD screens + the viewfinder! It covers all bases* and is interesting from an engineering point of view, but is not intuitive. </p>

<p>*One aspect is different from the D300 and I don't like it. On the D300, I can automatically focus on one object, then compose and shoot, without refocusing. On the D1, whatever I do, it refocuses when I press the shutter release. :-( The only way I've figured out to do this is hold the AF-L/AE-L button. Any ideas?</p>

<p>Damn! I dropped the AF lens. Now the focusing is stiff, so stiff that automatic focusing can't overcome the stiffness. So, automatic focusing doesn't work. :-(</p>

<p>A while back, my D2Hs was stolen. I did not have much $s to replace it, so I researched what was the best bang for the buck for indoor high ISO sports shooting. Found a few posts indicating that a D1x might do the trick, so I found one for something around $350 or maybe a little less. Remember, this was before D3 or D700 cameras were mainstream.</p>

<p>I got lucky. The D1x I wound up with had the buffer upgrade. Shooting NEFs with manual white balance (essential), the camera produced decent results, notably better than a D1h I compared it to, and better (in low light) than D2x (never a good low light machine) I compared it to later. Pretty sure the D1x would compare favorably (at ISO 1600+) to the D2H and D200 cameras, as well.</p>

<p>The D3 generation is of course greatly better, but I still think the D1x was an amazing camera for its time that could hold its own (using NEF and MWB) against the next generation. I still have it, but the batteries I have are weak as of last week.</p>

 

<p>Danek:</p>

<p>PJ is photojournalism. I used the D1x again today in that capacity. The eyepiece Dk-17m can be used with an additional eyecup. There is no problem shooting with glasses, anymore than when the eyecup is normally used. I personally do not shoot with glasses, but it's workable; I used to.</p>

<p>Robert:</p>

<p>The D1H is noticeably cleaner at high ISO (by high, we're talking ISO 1600, not high by today's standard) than both the D1x and D200. I think Nikon derailed a bit in this regard with the D2/D200 generation. It wasn't until the D3 generation that they made serious improvements over their older models. Under some low light circumstances, the D1H can actually be clean at ISO 1600 without noise reduction. Therefore, the 2.7MP goes further. I have seen similar performance out of the D1x in those situations. I would put the D3/D700 at roughly 3 stops better than the D1H, and roughly 4 stops better than the D200, when comparing ISO 1600 on those cameras to HI-1 (12,800) on the D3 or D700 for an 8x12 inch print.</p>

<p>I use one with old manual Nikkors. It does indeed produce a unique look straight out of camera. My feeling is that because film was the benchmark to beat on 2001, the technicians created a film look almost without thinking there could be any alternative.<br /><br />Modern digital aims to beat whatever was the standard last week and that's why I find modern digital can increasingly have a certain unreal, almost CGI look to it. We dont need to see things super sharp and in immense detail, the D1X reminds us that an image is more than the sum of its pixels.<br /><br />And at just £130 for a body right now, well try one and see!</p>