Nikon D1X, a current review

<p>I came across this link to a current review of an older Nikon D1X with references to the Kodak DCS line of digital cameras. It's a good read with information from someone who actually uses one still. This review is often funny and to the point, very readable. The only item in the review that I don't agree with is the batteries, they're pretty easy to come by plus Nikon still services them. <br>

http://women-and-dreams.blogspot.com/2009/07/nikon-d1x-biglips-is-king.html<br>

I often wish there were more reviews of the older cameras compared to the newer ones from people who actually use them. Sometimes just because it's not the newest or the latest doesn't mean that's it's over the hill. I'll bet there a lot of photographers out there who still use and like the older cameras. It fills their needs for a camera, be it film or digital. Something to be said for knowing where all the buttons are and how to use them for the different situations as they come up, plus most of the time they're paid for. At least that's my thoughts. Hopefully you will enjoy the review.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

I recently picked up a cherry low use example with buffer upgrade for $380.00 usd and use it for high speed sync work.</p>

<p>I would say that the Nikon D1X is very much over the hill, even a bottom of the line consumer dslr has better IQ and probably some p&s cameras.</p>

<p>Film cameras are a different ballgame however.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D2h, which came out in 2003, used a novel "JFET LBCAST" sensor. This stood for "Junge Frauen, erotische Tod / Let's Beat Communist and Socialist Tendencies" and was made out of roses that had been trampled on by horses which had been doused by women wearing blouses, and kept in houses, where they were soused with whiskey by a house-proud town mouse.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>best thing i've read in a while.</p>

<p>"house proud town mouse" must be a british colloquialism because I remember that reference in a Pink Floyd tune.</p>

<p>the author of that review also has an interesting take on the odd rectangular sensor in the D1x and the interpolation it uses to get to 10 mb.</p>

<p>I would be cautious of any reviewer that thought the Kodak DCS stuff was still use-able.EVen that Full-frame 14N or whatever it was called, the last one they made. I used it. Terrible. No power saving, bad battery life, long start-up, horrible buffer. GREAT photos, unbelievably bad use-ability.</p>

<p>As far as a D1x, yes, it is old and over the hill. Even a D70 or D50 beats it in almost every way, and THEY'RE old and over the hill...</p>

<p>Wow ! How quickly they're relegated to the scrap heap. This camera was still available & modern in 2004 !</p>

<p>Great cameras. I still use a D1H. It does everything I really need from a camera. I may probably pick up a D1X one day. I did not find that the D70 beat the D1H in almost every way. The D70 may win in theory on image quality but the reallity with was that with 8x10 prints there was nothing in it. The D1h is faster, has a better view finder, it meters with MF lenses and is overal a better made camera. The only place for me where the D70 is a clear winner is battery life but it is also better than the D200 and D80 in that respect.</p>

<p>Still, there are some VERY good pictures on this site (photo.net is not only a forum site ;) taken with those "over the hill" camera's. It's not the camera, it's the brains behind it that can use a camera to unleash creativity. I fall into this trap when being lazy or uninspired. I think my gear isn't good enough, but most of the time, I'm not good enough ( I'm talking as an amateur here :)</p>

<p>With the prices that entry level cameras or cameras exiting the inventory can be bought at on special offers, there is not so much incentive in looking for yesteryear's cameras in 2nd hand condition, especially since film will beat the old cameras in terms of image quality. Other than that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the cameras, they're just not economically attractive for general use anymore.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Still, there are some VERY good pictures on this site (photo.net is not only a forum site ;) taken with those "over the hill" camera's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Web jpgs are a great equalizer!</p>

<p>Plenty of the pros made a big prints with that camera. It was a great camera at its peak.</p>

<p>I still use one for a remote (NEF at ISO 125) where I don't want a $1300 body to get killed.</p>

 

<p>"Web jpgs are a great equalizer!"<br>

<em>Yes, </em><br>

<em>how <em>many people</em> can <em>see "actual 300 <strong>dpi</strong> </em> (<strong>dots</strong> <strong>per inch</strong> )</em> <em><em> print"? </em> </em><br>

<em><em>and how many of them would see web<strong> </strong> jpgs?</em> </em></p>

 

<p>I still shoot a D1x, by choice. It renders beautiful colors, and the focusing is very fast and accurate. It is a very responsive body, and as long as I shoot within its limitations (avoiding high ISO), I doubt anyone can can see the difference in prints. </p>

<p>Those who think one of the newer consumer DSLRs produce better pictures are correct in one respect: the sensor is better. Unfortunately, the camera body has to put the sensor to work, and that is where the consumer cameras fall behind. The D1x body has features I regularly need and use that are not available on the other lower end cameras, especially focusing speed and accuracy. </p>

<p>I tried using a D50 to shoot an outside graduation, and was frustrated at the lack of features. The older cameras did not stop producing great pictures just because something new came along. </p>

<p>But at the price paid for a NEW D1x in say 2003 , if (For quality needs) you made a <strong>replacement</strong> purchase for a NEW Nikon D3x in 2009, doing the math, it seems that a Nikon F6 <strong>(Shooting carefully)</strong> would have been a big bargain. Sensor costs vs. Film, develop & scan...</p>

<p>We're not even talking about the clear quality advantage you would have had for all those years while sensors were trying to catch up. Additionally, you'd even have the original true <strong>RAW</strong> slides or negatives that you can re-scan 20 years from now...</p>

<p>"This review is often funny and to the point, very readable."</p>

<p>I love you most of all.</p>

<p>For a lark I submitted half a dozen of the shots I took with the D1x to Alamy, who require 48mb .JPGs (roughly 5200 pixels on the long side). They all passed Alamy's quality control, and I'm sure they would make very good prints. The problem is that the same pictures taken in the same conditions with a Nikon D40 would be no worse. The D1x ultimately has nothing really wrong with it that makes it deficient, it's just that almost everything that has come after is at least as good, and in some cases better.</p>

<p>My ultimate aim is to see if Alamy will accept shots taken with my DCS 460, an older six megapixel model from 1995, perhaps the first ever six megapixel camera that was sold to the public. Compared to the D1x it has a slightly higher resolution and the files don't have the "stretched pixel" look, but in most other respects - noise and colour in particular - the image quality is not as good. After comparing the two cameras for a while I have come to the conclusion that, assuming the photographer has done his job with the composition, subject, and lighting, a high capture resolution is less important than good colour, good tonality, and low noise. The DCS 460's colour is always wonky and even in good light the sensor is noisy and has trouble with subtle colour gradients.</p>

<p>"I would be cautious of any reviewer that thought the Kodak DCS stuff was still use-able."</p>

<p>So would I - at least in a professional context. The simple fact that they are no longer serviced and presumably no longer serviceable makes them too risky to use if you absolutely need to get results. From what I have read, it was tricky getting the DCS cameras fixed back in the day, because the body had to be sent back to Kodak who would then send it back to Nikon who would then send it back to Kodak etc. Nowadays there's no chance. And I am still unsure as to the accuracy and usability of flash with the mid-period professional bodies. They still relied on off-the-film TTL even though the cameras had no film.</p>

<p>I am currently toying with a DCS 460, and my Nikon SB-24 seems to give generally accurate results if I apply two stops of negative exposure compensation, but I haven't used the two of them in a range of circumstances, and the lack of an LCD screen makes it very hard to do the whole Strobist thing. The lack of a screen does however give me renewed respect for the ancient pioneers of photography who used film, back in the distant past. They were hard men, and women, working in a hard age. A heavyweight age.</p>

<p>The thought of carrying a DCS 760 with a Nikon SB-25 and a bracket and a big zoom lens for more than an hour gives me the creeps. But imagine the looks you would get! People would assume you were a real hardcore professional.</p>

<p>As I write these words there's a DCS 760M on eBay. It's a monochrome model. The sensor has a weak infrared filter and some cover glass and nothing else on top of it - no Bayer matrix, no anti-aliasing filter. Perhaps alone of all the pre-full frame DCS cameras it is genuinely desirable and novel nowadays. But is it $5,000 desirable?</p>

<p>"Additionally, you'd even have the original true <strong>RAW</strong> slides or negatives that you can re-scan 20 years from now..."</p>

<p>Whilst writing about the DCS 460 I have been pondering as to why the camera seemed not to have any impact on the world. The DCS 420 / NC2000E has a certain presence on the internet and was apparently both popular and influential with photojournalists, but the early six megapixel models vanished without a trace. Assuming that that huge price ($30,000 +) was not a factor for e.g. the National Geographic or Playboy, I can only assume that they suffered from an "uncanny valley" effect whereby the image quality was similar to but not quite up to the standards and flexibility and speed of film and thus ended up looking back in comparison. And it can't have been much fun processing and storing six megapixel files using a circa 1996 laptop.</p>

<p>Hey Ashley,<br>

I'm not really seeing a stretched pixel look that a few are alluding to.</p>

<p>Care to elaborate or maybe what situations this anomaly would most likely rear it's ugly head ? ? ?<br>

I usually process through ACR to the inflated 10 pixel output.</p>

<p>A camera can be good in its own right, even though it has been replaced. I have never understood why so many consumers fall into the marketing trap that wants to make us believe that a replacement per definition makes the older model a paper weight. Yes, today's cameras have better sensors, but the D1H/X are still equally good as they were when launched. It is not like they suddenly started to take bad and useless photos because the D2-range replaced them.</p>

<p>And as far as comparing them to consumer cameras; the D1-range is weather sealed. That alone makes it a much better choise than most of the con-/prosumer models made today. The ability to meter with older Nikkor lenses, the bright viewfinder, the built-like-a-brick build quality - there are other aspects of quality than image quality alone. A camera is a tool, and even though all modern cameras can outpixel yesteryear's procameras, they cannot outperform them in all aspects.</p>

<p>Would you rather bring that "novel" D5000 or the "over-the-hill" D1H/X in pouring rain?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, today's cameras have better sensors, but the D1H/X are still equally good as they were when launched.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And that was exactly why I never bought the D1X or D1H back at the beginning of this decade when they were new cameras. For one thing they were expensive, and for that kind of quality, I might as well continue to shoot film, which was exactly what I did.</p>

<p>I did buy a D100 in 2002 mainly to learn about digital. My main SLRs remained as film SLRs until the D2X came along.</p>

<p>Good review and quite amusingly written,although one or two inaccuracies have crept in. Batteries are in absolute plentiful supply and readily available from China,USA,UK & elsewhere at between USD15-20 - a fraction of the original price. The Uniross labelled pack is even better than Nikon's original EN-4. If you are handy with a soldering iron it is fairly simple to convert a "dead" battery pack into a high capacity Li-Ion, which easily gives one 600-800 shots depending on conditions/lcd usage.<br>

Around a dozen or so D1X's have passed through my hands in the last 2/3 years with the prices paid steadily declining on Ebay, though they seemed to have stabilized over the past 6 months. I never buy tatty well used specimens as there seem to be plenty of mint/boxed ones around usually having been owned by well heeled over enthusiastic amateurs who found the D1X to be too much camera - not just it's complexity, but its sheer size and weight! Rubbers are always pristine and the undersides free of "professional" bumps and scrapes..<br>

It may be a bit of a dinosaur in some respects but it still delivers that lovely creamy tonality in portrait work when coupled with a top end Nikkor such as the 85mm f1.4. My D80 was always a distant second best for studio shoots.</p>

<p>"...there seem to be plenty of mint/boxed ones around usually having been owned by well heeled over enthusiastic amateurs who found the D1X to be too much camera..."</p>

<p>Good point. I observed this in local camera shops. Some enthusiasts enjoy upgrading to every new model. On a few occasions I saw guys bringing in barely used D1X, D2H and D2X models to upgrade to whatever was new. Same with various Canons, tho' I wasn't familiar enough with that lineup to spot which models they were trading in - also barely used.</p>

<p>My D1x was fully boxed and barely used, I couldn't see any signs of use when I got it.</p>

<p>The seller said that the guy he got it from, bought it right before the D2x came out and he quickly <em>upgraded </em> when it did.</p>

<p>The thing has so much torque in the focus drive motor it sometimes worries me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The thing has so much torque in the focus drive motor...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know what you mean. Before getting the D2H the only AF Nikons I'd tried were low end models like the N6006 and N70. They could handle typical midrange zooms well enough that AF speed wasn't an issue. I'm still comfortable using my old N6006 with a midrange zoom even for action photography. But those drives are fairly slow.</p>

<p>The first time I tried the 80-200/2.8D AF Nikkor on the D2H I was surprised. It can spin those heavy internal elements so quickly you can feel the jolt and chatter - it's even visible through the viewfinder. When tracking motion at close to middle distances (such as basketball players from the sideline) the chatter of the AF Nikkor elements shifting back and forth quickly can be a little distracting, at least at first. Huge difference from the AF-S Nikkors, with barely perceptible movement of the internal elements.</p>

<p>I recently bought a D1x. I have several cameras but was attracted to the D1x by the reflection of craftmanship that goes with the camera. I will receive the camera next week, looking forward to it. </p>

<p>After using the camera a few weeks some + and - point:<br>

* Very good ergonomics and handlig. Buttons are were you expect them, everything is made to take pictures.<br>

* Super build quality<br>

* Super fast, especilly with AF-D lenses. Faster than with EF-S lenses, unless you use pro EF-S. Fast start-up and fast action camera. Faster than most 2014 camera models.<br>

* Mpixel count is ok up to 30x40 cm print<br>

* Bad battery system, 150 x TIFF, 100 x Raw on 1 charge, even with a new battery. But the battery only costs 30 € incl shipping<br>

* No Raw+JPeg save mode<br>

* Only up to 2Gbyte card.<br>

* Cheap but still almost expensive as a Nikon 3000 series.<br>

* Heavy to carry around all day<br>

* Good viewfinder, even with glasses<br>

* Super focus system, even in the dark it works fine</p>

<p>Even with all the - remarks, I love this camera.<br>

* Nice colours</p>