Who Still Buys the D1 line

[frank_gary]

<p>I was looking at Keh earlier and was surprised at the price of the old Nikon D1 bodies. For example a D1X in excellent+ condition costs only $20 less than an excellent F5. Now of course those aren't quite the same condition but do seem to be the same "grade" of camera (pro). Even a used D40 costs a $100 less. This makes me think that there must be some class of shooter out there who actively wants these D1 cameras but I can't figure out who it would be. <br>

My best guess is someone who needed a rugged body more than a quality image at a low price (perhaps web posting only), or a teaching setup who need lots of the same bodies that again will hold up to student abuse/give them a pro level camera "layout". So who would be buying these cameras over the other used options, is there something about these pro bodies that I'm just missing?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I might consider a D1X if it was cheap enough and I planned to use it mostly indoors off a power supply and tethered to a computer. Could be useful for generating stock photos for web use, a home portrait studio, still lifes, etc. I've seen some maximum resolution JPEGs online from the D1X that still look very good by any standards, as long as you stick with the base ISO and use good lighting techniques, lenses, etc.</p>

<p>Otherwise, if I wanted the most economical pro quality Nikon dSLR around, I'd get a D2H. After more than five years I'm still basically satisfied with mine. Most of my favorite Nikkors are manual focus and the stock D2H screen is good enough for accurate manual focus. And the screwdriver AF is very spritely with AF Nikkors (non-SWM or AFS types).</p>

<p>But keep in mind the main limitations:</p>

<ul>

<li>Chroma noise visible even at ISO 400 (ugly blotchy colors in shadows in portraits, must use NR to control);</li>

<li>4 mp resolution, little or no room for cropping;</li>

<li>Heavy and bulky;</li>

<li>Wonky color cast in black fabrics and some skin tones under some artificial light, due to excessive near IR sensitivity. No problems at all in daylight, however.</li>

<li>Occasional operational bugs, which Nikon *might* still fix under warranty for the original owner. So far the only problem with mine is the first shutter release after the camera has been off for awhile will capture the photo normally, but there's a blinking <em>Err</em> message that requires a second shutter release press to clear. After that it continues working correctly until the next power-down cycle. Mildly annoying, but not a major problem yet.</li>

</ul>

[ryan_k]

<p>Well you've got me. I read up on the D1, and a 1.5 crop factor, 2.7 mp and some of the other features just make this an undesirable camera given the current other options new or used. </p>

<p>If I was going to force myself into an archaic digital camera with a pro build, i would buy a canon 1D for just about 50-60 dollars more.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I read up on the D1..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The D1 is archaic and worth considering only as a curiosity. The D1H and D1X are in a whole 'nuther class above the D1. While some folks would also consider the D1H and D1X archaic, they are functional dSLRs within their limitations. But I wouldn't choose either now as a primary dSLR. A good used D40, D50, etc., would be far more functional for most photographers.</p>

[btmuir]

<p>I was using a D1x u until recently for it's high sync speed.</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I collect classic cameras. I'd love a D1 for my collection, but they're still too expensive. I'm sure that other collectors want them too.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> I still have one of my D1Xs, and use it ocassionally. It makes a decent 11x14, has wonderful color, and if you connect flash through the PC socket, truly high, full-blast, synch speeds like 1/4000th (not the low GN FP mode), which is sometimes very useful to me, allowing fill-flash of large areas at amazing distances, all with simple, potato-masher EFU (I still have acouple of big Sunpaks and Metzes).This has been very useful to me on a couple of projects.</p>

<p> Would I recommend someone buy a D1? Absolutely not (other than to a collector). D1X? Not as an only DSLR for anyone. It seems to be getting heavier through the years (everything else got lighter).</p>

 

[frank_gary]

<p>The flash sync makes sense to me. It had just seemed strange that it would sell for more than something like the D40 (not that its great by today's standards just would think trickle down would make it an equal). And it seems that prices on the bay are much better and make the whole thing make sense. </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>D1h is actually a rather good dSLR as is the D1x. The D1h/x will AF will all of the older AF Nikkors very quickly and offers metering with Ai/s manual focus lenses. I would choose either of those bodies over a D40/x, D60, D3000, D5000 just for the compatibilty with the older AF lenses. My D1h is faster and more responsive than my D80 and for some reason the viewfinder is better with MF lenses for focusing. The D1h may only be 2.7 MP but 8x10 inch prints still look great.<br>

To look at it another way the D1 series was really the digital F5. The build quality makes entry level cameras look like toys and the AF was the fasted Nikon had at the time. The D1h will shoot 27 RAW files at 5 fps you won't get that kind of performance from a D40 or any of the other entry level camera, even a D200 won't do that.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>1. The D1 now are not expensive at all. In fact the D1, D1h, D1x are so cheap now and the D40 are so expensive. You can get an excellent D1 for around 5% the original price, but a used D40 costs as least 50% its new price, that's a ripoff</p>

<p>2. It's easy to figure out that not many people want to buy a D1, but not having many customers doesn't mean it has to be cheap. Not having many buyers doesn't mean it's not good either, for example the K1000 has always attracted more customers than the KX (the used price is higher too)</p>

<p>3. There are many good things that you don't even understand what is good about it. It's like many people look at a million-dollar Picasso's and don't see any thing good about it. That's fine, I'm not gonna buy any Picasso's either, not many people do anyway</p>

[scott_leibow]

<p>I just sold my D1x this past weekend on eBay, i was surprised how many different people were bidding on it.</p>

<p>i used it faithfully until i got my D3 and it was a workhorse. it never failed me</p>

<p>All of the comments above are correct when it comes to the limitations of the camera, but as someone said, it still takes a image good enough to print a fine 11x14. way more than most people even have the capabilities of printing at home. I have a friend who bought one recently since he was stepping up from a point and shoot and loves it. </p>

<p>one huge drawback i found was that Nikon stopped supporting the firmware and only a 2Gb (or smaller) CF card can be used, anything larger and the camera will not fire.</p>

[carlos_rodriguez3]

<p>You all would be surprised to know there are 200+ pictures made with a Nikon D1 uploaded just yesterday to Flickr<br>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d1/">http://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d1/</a><br>

And some of them look great!!</p>

[ryan_sipat]

<p>If battery life is a negative for you, they have a li ion conversion write up somewhere on the D1X group on flickr. They may have one on the D1 group, but im not too sure.</p>

[sammy_d1]

<p>I have responded to this kind of post a number of times, and on a number of different boards. I STILL shoot a D1x. It has a deadly fast and accurate focusing mechanism, and produces wonderful colors and skin tones. The body is easy to work with, and has a great viewfinder. There is no comparison between the handling of a professional body, and a semi-pro with an attached grip. </p>

<p>When shot RAW, it gives a 10 megapixel picture that can be printed quite large. I rarely shoot high ISO (800), but when I do, I use Neat Image, and the results are good as long as I exposed it corectly. On screen, pixel peeping, you can see some noise, but in prints it doesn't show. </p>

<p>I looked very hard at this new generation of bodies, and they really are wonderful. But for my needs, the D1x still provides me with great pictures. "On paper", it doesn't look like much of a camera, but when you actually put it to use, it shines. </p>

 

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Well it seems a shame to let this thread die without at least one shot from a D1 series camera. So here is one.</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>And one more.</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Something a bit more natural.</p><div></div>

[frank_gary]

<p>I would like to thank everyone who responded to this thread. Reading your replies has been very informative. I had always heard that the IQ was only good enough for reporters and the like (who were mostly concerned with turnaround) but yall's pictures have shown me that that is certainly not the case. It also sounds like all the things that make this camera worth having are very close to the list of things that currently drive me crazy about my D80 (heck sounds like it might even be a step up). From what has been said I think the answer to my question is ME if I were shooting more stuff where hitting my buffer was a problem.<br>

Sammy, I am quite confused by your statement that it is a 10 MP camera when shot RAW. Is this something special about the way it handles RAW files, are all RAW files higher MP. I'm quite ignorant about this. If that is the case I think I might start trolling the bay for one cuz it would have everything but batteries over the D80 then. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>The D1X is a 5MP DSLR, period, full stop.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"...I am quite confused by your statement that it is a 10 MP camera when shot RAW."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I'm recalling correctly, that's a trick offered in some older Nikon software. It enabled automatically up-sampling D1X files from the native resolution to 10 mp. It wasn't a true 10 mp.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I had always heard that the IQ was only good enough for reporters and the like..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd say that's a fair assessment of the D1H and D2H, since photojournalists were the target market for those models. That's specifically why I got the D2H - for PJ and documentary stuff. But the D1X was in a higher class in terms of native resolution. And, judging from the maximum resolution JPEGs I've seen online, an out-of-the-camera JPEG at the base ISO from a D1X beats what I can produce with my D2H. Not just in terms of resolution size, since the D1X is a higher rez camera. But I see better true, fine detail in D1X photos than I can get with the D2H. The place to compare is in extremely fine detail such as hair and certain fabrics. Even at maximum resolution the D2H will tend to render fine hairs with obvious jaggies from aliasing, whereas the D1X looks more natural. And the D2H tended to produce moire in certain fabric patterns, while the D1X seemed able to handle both fine detail and moire more gracefully. It's been awhile since I read the various expert analyses of the D1X (years ago), but it appears Nikon chose a good compromise in the anti-aliasing filter, image processing and other factors. Beats anything I can produce from the D2H in rendering very fine details such as hair. D2H in camera JPEGs look "sharper" but it's an illusion that becomes evident when examining fine details such as hair, bridal veils, etc.</p>

<p>I've seen some stunningly detailed yet natural looking photos from the D1X, straight from camera JPEGs. You can search for D1X images on Flickr using their tagging and cluster options to weed out unrelated hits. Plenty of examples for pixel peeping.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>The D1 seriers sensors is rather strange in the D1 and D1h they gang four pixels together to make one big pixel. The sensor is really around 10 mp. In the D1x they gang two pixels together so the camera has more resolution along the horzontal axis compared to the vertical. When the RAW processor is set to produce 10 mp images from the D1x files it uses all of the horizontal pixels and interpolateds the vertical pixel to produce an image containing 10 mp but it does not contail the same resolution as a regular 10mp sensor. Very nice images can be produced from the D1x though.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>At 2.7MP, the D1 and D1H are mainly for reporters. Shortly after the original D1 was introduced, my wife and I went to Photo + Expo in New York City in October/November, 1999. At the Nikon booth, the rep was showing off the D1. He had captured a picture of a great egret (a bird with a long bill) and printed that to like 16x24, hanging on the wall. Pixelization was crazy as the bill looked like a mini staircase in that image upon closer inspection. Nikon also had images captured by the D1 from the 1999 baseball World Series that had just been completed at that time.<br>

<br>

Even though 35mm film such as Velvia have some limitations printing to 16x24, clearly that could do a much better job than the D1 could back in 1999. To this day I still don't understand why Nikon showed an obvious drawback for the D1 at their booth.</p>

<p>For web (news) display and newspapers, the D1 and D1H are perfectly fine, especially when there is plenty of light. Stuart Moxham's three image samples are good examples.</p>

 

[sammy_d1]

<blockquote>I am quite confused by your statement that it is a 10 MP camera when shot RAW. Is this something special about the way it handles RAW files, are all RAW files higher MP</blockquote>

<p>There are many articles on the Internet concerning the unique sensor on the D1x. As was stated above, they are rectangular in shape, and processing RAW pictures interpolates in one direction. The result is not quite as good as a native 10 megapixel sensor, but much better than the nominal 5.3 megapixel JPG that comes out of the camera. When pixel peeping, you can see some loss of resolution in one axis. It has never bothered me. It gives great pictures, and I use it almost daily. </p>

<p>If you decide to give one a try, get one with the buffer upgrade. It gives you a 14 RAW and 21 JPG buffer, rather than a 6 RAWand 9 JPG. The rear screen is quite small by today's standards, but you will learn to trust the camera rather than trying to analyze every picture on the screen. A great benefit to trying one out is that you won't lose money if you don't like it. You can sell it for about what you bought it for. You may get hooked on pro bodies, and opt for a much more expensive upgrade, however. </p>

<p>The batteries are an issue. The NiMH won't hold a charge over a few weeks, and shooting in the cold kills the charge very quickly. Normally, I get ~350 shots with a battery (give or take). I use an aftermarket battery that I got for about $25. I replaced the end caps on all my aftermarket batteries with OEM caps taken from Nikon batteries. They fit better, and last longer. </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>The D1h will make pretty nice 8x10 inch print without staircasing and it is not so easy with portraits or other subjects that don't need lots of fine detail to see the difference between my D1h and my D80 at 8x10 inches. I've mangaged to mix up D80 and D1h prints. 16x24 is likely too big for the 2.7mp D1/h but I rekon a simple subject large in the frame like a Rubiks Cube would probably still print quite well at 16x20.</p><div></div>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>As this thread still seems to be alive. Here is another D1h shot. This was one of the 8x10 prints 1 though came from the D80.</p>