Who still uses discontinued Nikon DSLR Bodies?

[nishnishant]

<p>I bought the D40X and less than an year later they discontinued it and replaced it with the D60. Later I got a D80 and 6 months later the D90 was out and the D80 was slowly discontinued. A mathematician would say that I have a tendency to purchase soon-to-be-obsoleted models.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>The D200 is well made does everything I need. When the D300 is available used for $600 I'll get one.</p>

[marco_gonzalez1]

<p>Great answers on here. It's great to hear what people still shoot with. I posted this to see if anybody else gets frowned upon for having "ancient" equipment. I don't have any need to upgrade from my d1h or d40. Every good photographer should know how to make the best out of any camera. In the end it comes down to personal taste. I don't care that my camera was made in 2001 or in the 1960s. I actually want to find an old TLR. I love that there are still some real photographers that care about the art and not the latest gear.<br>

Thanks to all,</p>

[peter_k4]

<p>Sonja, I don't "need" 5fps. I occasionally shoot sports for my university newspaper. And even if I didn't, I prefer it as just a general use thing. If i'm in a high energy situation taking photos of my friends and everyone is moving I find it often advantageous to fire off 2 or 3 frames before anyone even knows I've taken a single photo. I've used a D80 before, the 3fps doesn't quite have that highly responsive "fast photo taking" feel I get from the D200 at 5fps.<br>

Perhaps the predecessor to the D700 will be 5fps, the D200 was afterall, with the D2x being 5. I also want it to be 5 fps in 14 bit though, if it's not that, then I'm waiting.<br>

I would also like a 100% viewfinder and a wider focal point grid layout. I'll most likely be waiting until the D800 series because of this.<br>

My sentiments are the same as Michael though, if I can buy a used D300 for $600, as I did my D200 and sell the D200 for 350-400, I'll be laughing!</p>

[sonja_greene]

<p>Oh, I can't blame you there Peter :-)</p>

[bmm]

<p>I'm still with my original D80 and have been spending my $$ on good prime glass.</p>

<p>At some point I will go FX and enjoy the extra performance, but it is not an urgent priority for me as I am still finding myself learning something every day with the gear I have.</p>

[lahuasteca]

<p>Still use the D80, purchased new 3 yrs. ago. No immediately plans to change. Also, still pull out the FE2 and MF primes on occasion.<br>

Gene Paull,<br /> Brownsville, Texas</p>

 

[emiliogtz]

<p>Shooting with a D40 and a D2x. My favorite own photographs, I shot them with AI lenses, my AF 50mm 1.8, my N8008, my N90s and my F4. Don't get me wrong, digital makes me lazy. I'm working on it.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I used two F2 bodies for over 30 years, traded them in 3+ years ago for two D70s bodies. I'm pleasantly surprised of the quality at 1600 ISO. But, in shooting low light concerts, and every so often sports, I know I will like the D300 as replacement in the near future.</p>

[steve m smith]

<p>I have abandoned digital to go back to film but my wife has claimed my Nikon D100 as hers now (well, she did pay for it!).</p>

[jimitav]

<p>I am using a Nikon D2x and D80 for my work and an F4 and FE10 for everything else!</p>

[jonathan_maloney]

<p>The thing with digital technology is that it appears to grow obsolete as soon as the next model appears on the shelves. Marketing and Ad-men make sure that users should feel compelled to upgrade to the latest model or they risk falling behind. Now this isn't old by any means, but its been so far shoveled down our throats that for some people it's hard to break with tradition. It's probably only the top 3% of the pros out there who actually benefit from having 1-2 extra fps, or the extra 3-4MP, not including the prosumers, hobbyists or consumers.<br>

Now this is just my experience and is in no way a tale of right or wrong, but almost two years ago now I sold my D60 and following that, my D200, when I found myself stopping by every camera store I passed by, fogging up the display glass with my breath as I gazed and asked for the prices of every new DX / FX body / lens or accessory that came out, after poring for hours through the Photo.net / DPreview forums and reviews. <br>

That, coupled with the fact I'd taken over 15,000 photos of which not a single one stood out in memory - or to put it in more specific terms - <em>I couldn't tell a story about a single image </em> - because I'd take ten or twenty of the same shot, or regularly shoot hundreds of pictures in an hour or two. They'd all simple become a blur, and probably a very mediocre blur at that. The second thing I realised was, it just wasn't very much fun anymore.<br>

The next day I sold my D200, my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, my Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8, and my Nikon 18-200mm VR and 18-55mm VR and went back to film, and I've never looked back since.<br>

One of my favourites right now is my trusty Nikon F2A with 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.8.<br>

Long live old (and ugly) cameras!) :)</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>I have a D300 and a D70. I bought the D300 for a spesific reason, but would not have upgraded if it was not for that reason. I'd rather "invest" in better lenses, but I'm not a Pro, of course.....</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Main camera is a D70 and my other is a D2h just bought a few months ago.</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>I am asked all the time 'what is a good camera?' by people who see me with big cameras with big battery packs attached and long, big zoom lenses with petal lens shades.<br>

My answer:<br>

If you give a good photographer any decent camera from the mid '60s on, if he shoots single lens reflex, and it only cost USD 50 for that camera or $100 with lens, that photographer can take (on film) stunning images that rival the best anyone could take - it's just that digital offers certain advantages and is somewhat different.<br>

Primary differences for me are 1. you don't have to buy film and processing (or do it yourself) so my first D70 paid for itself in four to eight weeks over my many film cameras. 2. you can switch controls - especially ISO in an instant, if your lighting changes as you move about, say from indoors to out, etc.<br>

There are other differences, of course, and film is not equal to digital and digital is not equal to film. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.<br>

People ask me 'what brand?' and 'what model' several times a day, when shooting and my answer generally is 'any brand' though I prefer Nikon but a Canon shooter could do just as well (I'm just very familiar with Nikon and feel their higher level cameras are very user friendly and interchangeable for me. I tell them, the first serious and expensive lens you get probably will determine the camera you stay with.<br>

I also tell them that no matter what, it's 'THE PHOTO' not the equipment.<br>

A common statement I hear is 'OH, you must be a superb photographer because you have such wonderful equipment.' (gushing but using poor evaluative skills) <br>

Then I respond about having a $50 -35 year old film camera and taking virtually the 'same images' but maybe far fewer, and with more expense and effort, but if you have the money and like 'film' it's the way to go.<br>

And if you want to save processing money and have flexibility (and do lots of computer work, downloading and even simply removing 'digital dullness' which is present in almost every photo,(according to Shutterbug magazine), then you must invest time rather than go to the photo finisher.<br>

(pluses and minuses I tell them and it's a personal choice - I won't invalidate anyone's choice if it works for them.)<br>

Well, then, I am asked, Nikon or Canon, or something else?<br>

A. Either. They both work wonderfully,and the advantage primarily is there is lots of compatible equipment out there on the used market and not 'orphaned' - but many other brands are wonderful and as good, better or nearly as good (or if you have megabucks and want STUNNING optical quality, then Leica and maybe Hasselblad, etc., among many others (no e-mails please -- everyone has favorites and Nikon lenses are not always the BEST, but they work well, are supported, and (the older ones and the better ones) tend to last a long time - longer than the owner's life in many instances.<br>

(and there are bad or cheap lenses in both camera lines).<br>

So, in response to the 'you must take wonderful photos because of your wonderful equipment' comment, I tell them also that when I had no money not so long ago, I took the same photos (good or bad) and the issue was one of 'comfort, reliability, personal utility and productivity.<br>

In addition, I tell them that cameras (digital for sure) seem to depreciate very rapidly. And if someone has a good camera that looks 'pro' - well they might be like some doctors who earn megabucks I've met who are selling on Craig's List their equipment, hardly used and kept in box like their surgical instruments and about as sterile.<br>

Same, I say, for some of the photos I've seen from those cameras which have so little use. NO knock on physicians for some are fabulous photographers, but others just buy expensive equipment and have no idea of how to compose a good photo.<br>

Buy what you need now in a camera and what you think you will need, but no more, I tell them when they seek advice (sometimes hourly when I'm shooting).<br>

About lenses, however, the better ones seem to last forever, so get to know which are 'good' and which are not so well regarded, and if you buy a real 'good' lens buy it because you will use it, and remember that its 'investment' properties are greatly secondary - you can drop it or be in a dust storm and it will depreciate VERY rapidly and keeping it locked in a closet behind the shoe rack is not good use of an expensive lens.<br>

That being said, almost any photo I've taken could have been taken with almost any equipment EXCEPT some of my low-light zoom tele Vibration Reduction shots, which were really made possible by good equipment - especially larger apertures, zooms which are good to excellent and vibration reduction (or whatever other name the manufacturer calls it -- e.g. O.S., I.S. and so forth)<br>

I am sure with a good enough lead time to learn equipment, I could be a Canon, Pentax, Sony or other shooter, and if I'd started with any good brand, would swear by it.<br>

So, I don't really swear by anything.<br>

If you want to shoot with a D2H, that may be perfect for you, all things considered and those big fat pixels may be perfect, along with the huge number of files they can rip off. I shot some of my best work on a D70, and issues were 1. small viewfinder, 2, noise at higher ISO, and non compatibility with AI and AIS lenses. I am sure if I picked up my best friend's D70 (my old D70), I could shortly resume using it to full capacity.<br>

THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THE IMAGE and cameras and lenses are 'tools' - some are more comfortable (and productive) with one than another.<br>

That's all that matters in my view.<br>

(when I write of 'my equipment - it's in a 'trust' and 'made available' to me) (legal ftn for the record).<br>

The above being 'said', I shoot now with several D300s (older models but newly purchased - my 7th, 8th and 9th, the others having 'moved on' and if I can get a D700 or two at MY PRICE' then they may join the list. <br>

(I have HD video cameras for video that auto-focus, and don't want to use a 'still camera' to take videos, though on a safari as a tourist that might be wonderful utility, or in many tourist-related activities, or even blogging, or some sorts of photojournalism)<br>

But the D300s have fallen in price, while their 'image quality has not.<br>

I'm sure there will be a D400, but probably not in my camera bag unless it's high ISO image quality is fabulous.<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

[marc_henry1]

<blockquote>

<p>I would love to have a digital camera. Just make it a Nikon FMD! Somehow I know I am not the only one who feels this way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Charles, I love the idea of an FMD, I would pay for one of those. They are so compact and light plus I enjoy having to think my way through an exposure without A or S mode.</p>

[vincent_p]

<p>Hi Marco - I think you've received more than enough replies on discontinued bodies. I use one too. My thot on the matter ? Let the gearheads be. Let them chase the latest models and let us concentrate on making great pics. Actually I'm happy with them chasing new models because I bought some cameras and lenses from these fellas who "upgraded" and saved me some $$$....ha ha<br>

And if the comment is from a non-photographer, it doesn't affect me as the comment did not come from someone who knows what he is talking about.<br>

Cheers.</p>

[john_cox7]

<p>Reading the above posts regarding a FMD; I presume the talk is of a FM series camera with a digital back?</p>

<p>If so, then I pose this question: Is it possible to attach a digital back to a FM series camera?</p>

<p> The hinged back of the FM series is removable for the attachment of the MF-12 and MF-16 data backs. So therefore, is it possible to attach a digital back, via a set of Hasselblad back mounting rails, to the hinged back on a FM series camera; as most independantly manufactured digital backs for medium format cameras use the Hasselblad back rail mount connection? <br>

If so, then you have the option of digital backs up to about 39 MP as is currently available for medium format; albeit, they are expensive.</p>

 

[ken_thalheimer]

<p>I have to agree with Steven Louis about people minding their own business. You use what you like. Along with the D300, I still use the slow D100 & I still have 2 F-100's. I know some folks who have a need to be trendy. Every time a manufacturer comes out with a new camera, they have to get one & sell the previous one they've had for only a short time</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>"Count me in for an FMD!" . . . . Count me too!</p>

<p>Some of you guys touched my most sensitive feeling. Yes. I like to have a D-FM2 or D-FE2. I like to have a small, solid, simple camera. like those FMs and FEs I have. I have and using them occasionally, because as some of you mentioned, I like the feeling of those little jewels. And God forgive me, and all Nikon owners, I discovered even more beautiful camera, bought a Olympus OM-1 with 50/1.8/winder, from an old couple, for 50 Dollar, like brand new. This camera is really a jewel. I have most of my film Nikons, back to Nikkormat, I just shoot 2 rolls of b/w film with this solid tank, but the OM-1 I liked so mach, I bought an other OM-2, both OMs has a winder on it and still smaller then my D40 with the battery grip. For the OMs I both a 21, 28, 35, 135 Zuiko very cheep, except the 21mm.($360 the rest around 50) It is a joy to get out and shot with them. I feel guilty, having my D300 & D700 in the camera case, leaving them home and walking around with a FM or a OM. The only hassle to day is to get developed the film, and scan them. Using Velvia, I get beautiful images to enjoy them, first on the light table, then to scan them to get to the big monitor. I hate those buttons all over on todays cameras. The real joy of photography for me is to manipulate the camera, aparture/shuter/film speed. I hate when I see people with 3-4000 dollar equipment, and using them as a P&S cameras. Never mind those, using the lens hood in revers on the lens. </p>

 

[ragc]

F, D50, N75 here...no regrets.

[ted_raper1]

<p>8008s, D80, D200, Fuji E900, Fuji S6000. Every one discontinued, and like Rafael not one single regret. I have a friend who absolutely MUST have the very latest stereo gear and yeah, it sounds great. Me, I use a 5 year old Sony portable system which sounds just as good to me as his multi-many-dollar-replaced every 6 months-gear. My attitude about technology is I find what works for me and use it until it dies. Sure, if I had money to burn I'd go right out and get the very latest stuff (cameras, not stereo gear), but I seriously doubt my photographs would improve that much.</p>

[mark_loader]

<p>Are we all just saying that it's the GLASS that counts? Sounds like it. First guy I noticed on Flickr to knock me out was Globalindex and he used a humble D50. Probably still does.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>Being utterly honest, the insidious problem with digital is that you will always wonder, "If I had <strong>that</strong> camera would I have captured a better image?" or "If I use <strong>this old</strong> camera, will I regret later that I didn't use <strong>that</strong> camera?" Add that on top the normal inclination to want to keep up with the Jones'es, general gear lust, and the want of status symbols and it can be pretty hard to combat. When I bought my Fuji S5 it ate at me for a year that maybe I should have bought the D300. Now that I have a D300 (and S5) I wonder if I should have a D700. And that doesn't even include the S2 and D80 I've owned previous to my current cameras.</p>

<p>The thing is if I look at it objectively - I like the "obsolete" 6 mp S5 images better than the D300. In some instances I like the output I used to get from the S2 more than the S5 (though for people the S5 is amazing). When I had the S2 and bought the "more advanced" D80, I ended up using the S2 more. This is all despite looking at pictures taken from the "other" camera in each case and thinking, "Wow, look at the images <strong>they</strong> are getting. If I only had <strong>that</strong> camera!"</p>

<p>Again, it's insidious. And it doesn't help with places like DPReview where people post to a camera forum how they've given up on the body you're using and are <strong>soooo</strong> happy with the newfangled body <strong>you</strong> don't have. You must be pathetic for not picking up your own (obscenely priced) $8k camera (I spend a lot of camera $$$, but it seems there is no limit to many people, which I still haven't figured out)!</p>

<p>Intellectually speaking you know it's crap, but in our society you really are emotionally programmed to never be satisfied and at least in my case I duly oblige. I fight it, but it is pernicious and I think digital caters very well to the inclination.</p>

<p>Here's the thing - I had a N8008S and F3 for 15+ years and while I may have lusted at the shear beauty of other cameras, I never felt so compelled to change as digital. I was happy with both cameras from the day I bought them, to the day I effectively retired them. Zero complaints and no desire for more features.</p>

<p>Why? Because it was only the film, glass, and art that mattered. It was obvious then. With enough care and a solid prime a K1000 could produce the same quality as an F5.</p>

<p>With digital it isn't as clear. Yes, you can take great pictures with a D1, but it isn't a level playing field. With film a 35mm frame was a 35mm frame. With digital there's total mps, DR, and NR and yes I'm sorry to say a D300 does probably on average produce a more usable (or even salable) image than the D1. The D700 does probably produce a better image than the D300 too. And as with film, given the choice between an older film that has ugly grain characteristics and lower longevity and one that has nice grain and permanency, you want the later. The difference is, you can't just switch film, you have to replace the whole $1,000+ ($2,000+, $5,000+, $8,000+) body and frankly it bites.<br>

Still, going back to my pseudo-quote, "Wow, look at the images <strong>they</strong> are getting. If I only had <strong>that</strong> camera!" That statement of course woefully neglects the fact that you simply may lack either the time, opportunity, or (in may case) talent to capture the quality images they are getting. However sadly it's always easier to focus on the equipment than the art. The treadmill rolls and you forget there's anything else around than the endless rails in front of you.</p>

<p>It's frankly neurotic and while not proud of it, I honestly struggle with this daily.</p>

[jannekaakinen]

<p>Add me to the vast crowd who uses discontinued bodies! Currently I actually use only discontinued bodies and love them all so much that I even might get snobby about using only discontinued bodies! :)<br /> I have the few gen old D50 (wonderful and "small" carry-around-camera) and Fuji S5 Pro (a camera that actually made me a better photographer, made me take more pics and think more about light and color in my photos than before) which was just discontinued, and they both give me as good results as my skills allow me to squeeze out of them! At work I use D80, D60 and D40's when photographing with kids and youngsters. And the photos they take are quite often just stunning. And a great photo can never be obsoleted!</p>

<p>Long live the "obsoleted" bodies and the photos we take with them!</p>