Nikon D1 vs D1H

<p>Hi, someone stole my digital camera the other day and I need a new one. I had a POS samsumg point and shoot and I plan to get a DSLR to use with all of my nikon lenses.<br>

Ive basically decided that I should get a D1 or a D1H because of the affordability and the ability to AF with non AF-s lenses ( I had the D40 on my list but its off for that reason).<br>

Now my question is, whats the differences between the two and is the D1H a huge improvement or just a minor upgrade.<br>

The D1H is almost twice as much as the D1 so im leaning towards the D1 but since I was too young to remember when they came out i need a bit of help from everyone who remembers these cameras.</p>

<p>The D1X is way better than either. The D1-series had terrible battery life, but no biggie.</p>

<p>I used a D1X in college and it was a fantastic tool to shoot with. Great RAW image quality and I loved that body.</p>

<p>Nic,<br>

firstly, in what way is it better<br>

secondly, i cant seem to find one that works and is even close to the price of the other two</p>

<p>The D1x has twice the resolution as the D1 and D1H. It gives up some sensitivity of the CCD, native ISO is 125. The D1 is 200. Some minor improvements include the ability to shoot even if set to playback. Some improvements on the controls.</p>

<p>Remember that the D1 and D1h are 2.7MPixel cameras, which should be fine up to 8x10.</p>

<p>Galen,</p>

<p>I'm probably going to get massacred for this post, but it's my opinion. I don't think you should be looking at a D1-anything.</p>

<p>First off, what is your budget? If it's under $500 but more than $250 (which is likely if you were eyeing the D40), I heavily advise you to look at the D50 or D70. You can likely find a good used kit (or body only, I see you have some lenses) within the stated range. The D1 and D1H are completely obsolete by today's standards. Granted, the D50 and D70 are both discontinued as well, but even they are modern when compared to the D1 series. Both of them will focus non-AF-S lenses, as is your concern in your post. For a bit more (around $700) you can get a new D80 body that will last for years with no problem. Like the D50/70, the D80 will focus any AF lens.</p>

<p>Second off, what is the purpose of your shooting? For what reasons would you desire a ridiculously heavy and bulky camera?</p>

<p>The D1 series is circa 2001 - 2002.</p>

<p>I'm just wondering why you are heavily looking at the D1 series when the cameras I just mentioned are leaps and bounds ahead of the D1-series in 90% of all aspects of a camera (the D1-series likely is more durable and has better weathersealing than the rest) likely for around the same price.</p>

<p>--Ryan</p>

<p>Ryan, I'll start the massacre...</p>

<p>The RAW files a native ISO's on the D1 cameras will rock any jpegs from the said cameras.</p>

<p>I'm speaking from a professional photog's point of view, but I prefer the large, full body. For my line of work, the durability is important and for many, those D1 cameras produced fantastic image quality for their time and for his price range, it's a viable option.</p>

<p>Nic writes [The RAW files a native ISO's on the D1 cameras will rock any jpegs from the said cameras.]</p>

<p>Sorry, no way. I'll put up a jpeg from my D50 against the old D1 I used to shoot with any day. (Plus the D1 is INSANELY harder to use the menus on.) The D1 series' day has come and gone... WAY gone... A D40, D50, D60 will be way better in a lot of ways. If you need the kinds of "pro" features a D1 has, and you can only afford a D1... you ain't a pro...</p>

<p>If durability is the most important thing, then I can see the D1 being an option. It was not mentioned in the OP. </p>

<p>What else gives the D1 a leg up over the D50/70/80? The D50/70/80 all have RAW as well. Is there a vast difference between NEF's from the D1 and NEF's from the others? I have to admit, I am not familiar with the D1 series at all. Like Galen, I was young on their release, and I wasn't all that into photography 7-8 years ago either.</p>

<p>Also, at least from my POV, Galen's primary issue is focusing with non-AFS lenses. It's why he discounted the D40 (but it does show he was considering it, suggesting durability may not be a factor).</p>

<p>Well, I did not mean to start a fight, nor offend. The OP stated that he has Nikon glass and wants a DSLR. I thought the D50/70/80 may prove to be more viable options in terms of ergonomics, versatility, technology, metering, resolution, etc. It's certainly something to look at, IMHO.</p>

<p>Galen, if you are really set on either the D1 or D1H, the D1H is probably the better bet based on speed, from what I can see.</p>

<p> </p>

 

<p>I need to agree with Ryan and Peter here. Really the only thing a D1 can beat over a D40/50/70/80 is how many buttons it has. I guess you could make an argument for FPS, but metering and focus speed will lose to just about any newer model.</p>

<p>If DSLR and focus with non AF-S lenses are really the only two requirements, "a friend of mine" is selling his D70S for $250, I can pass along a message if you're interested. Lots of people are dropping last-gen cameras for the D90 it seems; I see D40s on craigs list daily for like 3-400 with a lens.</p>

 

 

<p>I have a D1h. From what I can recall of the differences between the D1 and D1h:<br>

D1h has an easier to use menu system than the D1. I believe the D1 menus used numeric codes so you had to carry the manual or a reference card to change settings. The D1h menus are text based.<br>

D1 had problems with colour balance -- I think people reported getting too much magenta in their photos. This was fixed in the D1h.<br>

D1h had a bigger buffer so you could fire off more shots on continuous before filling the buffer. I shoot mine like I shoot film (i.e. 1 shot at a time) so I don't know offhand how many shots it would take to fill the buffer.<br>

Yes, both are obsolete, but then so am I, so I'll keep using mine!</p>

<p>Both the D70 and the D50 can use the older AF lenses and can shoot raw. I use a D50 as a backup to my D300. The D1s are first generation DSLRS. As someone else point out, you have to translate their menus--they aren't exactly user friendly. IMO a D1 is only a good deal if someone gives you one for free.</p>

<p>Don't even consider the D1, get the D1H<br>

Better IQ ( D1: banding, magenta colour cast), better menu ( an actual menu rather then cryptic codes you then have to try and remember what they stand for), better high ISO, better buffer, better write speed<br>

Yes, it's only the second generation of the professional D series, but the built, AF and above mentioned qualities still make it a quite desirable camera.<br>

Despite having a D3, D2X and D70S I still intend to have mine repaired (freak problem with the card reading unit in the body) after I recover from my recent buying of a number of SB800's and SB600's (I love CLS)<br>

Had a D1X too, but the slow fps (I shoot much sports) and disappointing high ISO (worse then the D2X) made the decision to sell it easy when I bought a D2X<br>

Dont believe scare stories about bad battery life, get the Battery Barn units and you will easily get 500+ shots per battery</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I own a D1h and love the small file size and the fact that it autofocuses with any autofocus lens and will meter with any Ai mount lens . However the fact that it only has 2.7 mpixels means you are very limited in how much you can crop an image . For a budget of $500 to about $700 you could get a D2h or even a D200 , both of which can use just about any Nikon lens also .</p>

<p>Yeah, I'd go with the D2H any day over any of the discussed cameras.</p>

<p>I'm also speaking from my full-time line of work as a newspaper photog, so things like durability and balance size to big lenses is important. I'd hate to shoot a D50 with a 300 f/2.8, so unwieldy...</p>

<p>Yeah the D70/D70s cameras I did prefer over the D1's come to think of it. Super clean ISO, though our college newsroom copy of the D1H had fantastic 1600.</p>

<p>Thanks for so many responses.<br>

I think you have all convinced me that its probably worth it to buy the D1H over the D1.<br>

To those who ask what i will using it for, basically, to take photos to put on my computer. If I want high quality i get out my film camera. Im planning on buying the D3X when it is $150 but until then ill save my $7850 and buy some film. (I also have a darkroom in my basement and I find film faster cheaper and less annoying than digital). I sell things on ebay, occasionally I want to take a picture for Facebook, or to make a CD of my artwork like drawings, painting or of furniture ive made. I just finished applying to college and used my old camera for this purpose, thankfully or I would have bought a new one already. Basically, i might use it for real photography and might take it as a backup if I was to shoot something really important, but I cant really afford anything that would come close to the quality that I want.<br>

I was hoping to spend between 100 and 180. On the low end would be nice so that I dont go broke, and have no gas for my car, but im not going to let 40 bucks get in the way of getting the superior camera.<br>

I am glad that someone answered a question I had but did not ask. I will also use this camera with AI lenses. Also, im used to the F4 (which is the 35mm camera I currently use) so I have a very strong arm and dont mind the bulk of the camera. I always joke "I hope i dont drop this camera [f4] on the tile floor because tile is pricey."<br>

I dont mind having another brick, to go along with my other brick in my bag. It builds character and knowing that my gear can stand up to just about anything helps me never miss a good shot because I never leave my bag at home. So having a camera thats big and tough is not a problem either.</p>

<p> </p>

I've said before that if the D1 had been my introduction to digital I'd have given up digital on the spot. The D1H is a much better unit no matter how you look at it. If you can save a few more dollars you will be happier with a D1X. Since you are using an F4 anyway, one of the two best cameras Nikon ever made, you won't be bothered by size and weight but it may take a bit of getting used to. Rick H.

<p>The settings on the D1 are harder than on the D1h or D1x but unless you change them a lot, you can just set them once and forget it. My D1 is set for raw shooting and the only things I change are the metering mode, ISO and focusing point and each of those have their own dedicated external buttons.<br>

That said, the D1h and D1x are better for high ISOs. You can go up to 1600 with the D1 only if you expose it exactly right, otherwise 400 is the safest limit.</p>

<p>If all you can afford is either a D1 or D1H for less than $200, you might as well not buy any DSLR and stick with film for now. I would save up for a DSLR that was introduced after the "Stone Age of digital."</p>

<p>the d1h and the d1x may be stone age...but for the money they are a total bargain.<br>

even in jpeg mode the both cameras are fantastic,the build quality is a sensation and they just keep going.<br>

as long as you have the spare battery.<br>

the menus and the monitors are not that slick but that sensor is special.<br>

the pictures out of these things with a decent lens is just lovely,mine recently cost £120 sterling.<br>

these cameras really do make you think about the bullshit megapixel race,for an early generation piece of kit these are still very usuable...8fps for 125 quid sounds and looks good to me.</p>