Is a used D1 worth it?

[charlie_garcia]

Im a 22 year old college student who would like to go digital on a

budget. Used D1's are going for well under a thousand bucks on

ebay. some of them are in really good shape. I do not have more than

a thousand dollars to spend and i want a professional level camera.

The old D1 seems to be my only option. i do not care for the new D70

or the D100 and the D1h or D2h are too much money. Ive seen many

PJ's still using D1's in the field. Is a D1 worth it or should i

wait for people to start getting rid of their D1H's?

[ellis_vener_photography]

Well what is it you want to do? That will determine the value of it to you. The

answer is basically yes a D1 in great shape for under a grand is probably a

great deal as long as you are satisfied with it's limitations. I think a D1H or a

D1X is technically a better camera of course. But just by the specs so is a

D100 or a D70.

[elliot]

Is it possible to consider the D1 a "professional level" camera when it is 2 megapixels, in the age of 6 and 8 + megapixel cameras?

[ShunCheung]

Right, today 6MP is the minimum for any DSLR. The D1 still has better AF, but the D100 and likely D70 will give you better resolution and therefore better images.

 

As it has been discussed a number of times recently, since there is no film and processing cost, people tend to shoot a lot of images with DSLRs. Therefore, any used D1 is likely to have been fired many, may times. I would verify that the shutter and mirror mechanism are still working fine. If broken, any D1 would probably fall into the "not worthwhile to fix" category now.

[charlie_garcia]

Im not really all that concerned with resolution. if i want resolution ill shoot Velvia, scan the slides and get better results than ANY digital SLR. From what ive read the D1 and D1H are extremely similar, the later just being faster, the pixel count is about the same. I need speed more than anything else and from what i understand the D1 is alot like the F5, same meter, same AF mechanism, ect. And it is a professional level camera, pros are still using it in the field like i stated before. Im not really too concerned with pixel count like every other digital kook is, i dont plan on making posters. Megapixels dont make a camera.

[jamespaulsarte]

The question is, why do you feel you need a D1 in the first place? If it's because of money... then you can get a D70 when it comes out, and probably be more impressed with it afterwards. If it's because you're already in the Nikon system, than ANY digital cam that takes Nikon lenses will work. If you don't care for megapixels like the rest of the so-called 'digital kooks', then buy anything and be happy. What do you need our input for?

[jamespaulsarte]

BTW, I forgot to mention... by your last post it seems you've already made up your mind, and are just trying to justify a 1000 dollar purchase on an obsolete camera. I'm not trying to bust your balls, but if you really abide and believe in the mentality you have regarding digital, resolutions, etc.. than don't bother waiting. Go get yourself a 4 or 5 mp point and shoot and be done with it. The only advantage a D1 might offer over something like a PS, is build quality and the ability to take a wide range of Nikkor lenses. Other than that, you're probably going to waste your money.

[dan_brown4]

If you are planning on producing output of 8x10 inches, I think 3

megapixles is the lower limit on resolution. Just my opinion, but

any less and it tends to show in the final product. If you're mainly

thinking of internet presentations, then 2MP is probably fine.

 

I guess one factor with the D1 is that is looks like a pro-camera

to other people. But, a D100 with an 20-200/2.8 does too. Just a

thought.

 

For a real budget approach, you might watch ebay for a clean

used Canon D30, that would get you 3MP on a budget.

[discpad]

Charlie,

 

In a word: No. Maybe $500, but that's about it.

[lukedavis]

IMO, if you get a D1 now, you'll regret having spent that money in a few years. As it is, that camera is already obsolete. If you want the best deal, buying a D1 is not the way to go; you'll actually save more money by investing in a more expensive and more modern digital camera (a new D70, used D1x or D1H) instead of compromising now for a camera past its prime.

[shafeeq_sinnamohideen2]

If you do a lot of sports, macro work, or want to hold on to your MF lenses, a D1 could be more useful than a D70/D100. Otherwise, the only additional "professional" features of the D1 are its extra sturdiness, better finder and focusing screens. For this you get half the resolution, an obsolete UI and a big heavy camera to lug around.

 

Is the image quality of the D1 the same as the D1H ?

[charlie_garcia]

I guess my question is whats the extra thousand bucks going to get me if i were to get get a D1H rather than a D1? Is it worth it? Like I said before a D70 or D100 is out of the quetion.

[charlie_garcia]

Oh yea I almost forgot ill be using this camera mainly for sports and PJ. Thats the whole reason why for me the D70 and D100 are out of the question. I've used the D100 and its too slow.

[Karim Ghantous]

Charlie wrote: "I guess my question is whats the extra thousand bucks going to get me if i were to get get a D1H rather than a D1"

 

According to dpreview.com,

 

"Capable of shooting at a maximum of 5 frames per second for up to 40 frames the D1H is clearly aimed at sports and current affairs journalists who need high frame rates and good buffer size."

 

Have a look here:

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1h/

 

I think the worst thing about the D1 is the quality of the noise at high ISO sensitivities. It's not 'grainy' noise like film but pattern or 'interference' noise like a TV picture interrupted by another electrical device. It still kicks high megapixel, small-sensor compact digitals though.

[dan_brown4]

"Oh yea I almost forgot ill be using this camera mainly for sports and PJ. Thats the whole

reason why for me the D70 and D100 are out of the question. I've used the D100 and its

too slow."

 

I don't understand, too slow at what?

[lukedavis]

If you're going to be doing PJ stuff, then definitely wait for the prices on the D1H to come down. You'll be happy you did.

[klix]

<i>D1's are going for well under a thousand bucks on ebay. some of them are in really good shape</i>

<p><p>

I quickly went through some of the ebay listings -- the ones I saw were around $800, which is not that much of a bargain compared to a BRAND NEW D70 at $999. Yes, you get a Multi-CAM 1300 AF module vs. the D70's slower Multi-CAM 900 and you arguably get a more robust body, but you also get a DSLR with UNKNOWN AMOUNT OF USAGE -- the body mught look nice, but I can almost guarantee that shutter's been through a lot of cycles.

<p><p>

I myself don't mind buying used equipment, but a DSLR body is one that I would NOT buy UNLESS a NEW USA model.

<p><p>

But... it's your money.

 

 

 

 

 

<p><p>

[charlie_garcia]

the D100 is way too slow FPS wise. i shoot alot of sequences and id rather get the shot with a lower image quality than miss it altogether with the D100 or D70. i went from a slow 2.5 fps N65 to an F100 and MB-15 at 5fps and the difference is incredible, the F5's 8 fps is just crazy. and i saw a D1 on ebay last week and its buy it now price was $625 and the thing was mint. it didnt last but a couple of hours on there. they're out there you just gotta find them.

[discpad]

Charlie,

 

I feel your pain -- I shoot IndyCar and NCTS professionally. Spend the money and get a D2h and be done with it...

[david_clark10]

I had both a D1 and D100 (only just sold the D1). I think what a few people are getting at is, although the D1 gets you from A to B better/quicker than the D100 it has limitations when it gets there ie the resolution. I found that profesionally fewer and fewer places (media wise ie papers) accept the quality from the D1 output even on Raw. I was quite often having good images turned down because they couldn't crop or blow the photos up, big enough without serious pixelation. Magazines won't even touch the D1 for file size now. A used D100 won't be much more on ebay and will be so worth it, if your having to shot a 36exp in 9secs or whatever the F5 does then get one, at the end of the day the buffer will still limit you on any Dslr's my advice get a D100 and improve you timing!

[ShunCheung]

Charlie does have a point. I have had a D100 for a year and half, and for action photography such as sports, its AF is too slow. In situations where my F5 and F100 (both have the Multi CAM 1300 AF module) can handle easily, I often get out-of-foucus images from the D100 (Multi CAM 900). Regardless of how many mega pixel a camera has, out of focus images are pretty useless in most cases. And the D70 usese the same AF module as the D100.

 

Still, even with a better AF module, I wonder whether it is a good idea to get a D1 now in 2004. If you are merely shooting for a student newspaper, maybe it is ok. Otherwise, the D2H is the real option now but of course at a much higher cost.

[shafeeq_sinnamohideen2]

If its AF speed you need then maybe a D70 and AFS lens might be a better investment than a D1H.

 

If its FPS you need then you need the D1. Whether you need the D1H depends on how long and frequent your sequences are. For most college sports I suspect the extra buffer isn't worth it. Then again, once you get good at timing, the FPS rarely matters. (The only times I remember hearing a pro at a football game blasting away with his F5 were during fumbles)

 

The D1 series uses the CCD as electronic shutter above 1/250s, so perhaps shutter wear issues won't cause all the problems they can on a film camera, but it does seem safe to assume that a hard used pro camera has an unknown amount of life left in it. (and no warranty recourse) If you're planning on replacing it in a couple of years anyway, then maybe this doesn't matter.

 

It seems like given the used market, you won't lose much by buying a D1 now and trading up to a D1H later if you find it inadequate instead of buying a D1H now.

[dan_brown4]

I'm probably being crotchety on this point, but I don't buy into the

concept of needing a really high FPS rate to capture the decisive

moment. Heck shoot 1 megabit mini DV and be done with it. Or,

practice pressing the shutter button at the proper instant.

 

I've shot NASCAR from the turns using a 3 FPS Contax Aria with

MF zoom lenses and got the shots. If you can't get the images

with a D100 and AFS Nikkors, your problem isn't the camera, you

need more practice.

 

OK, sorry but I felt I needed to say it.

 

Flame away if you like.

[discpad]

Yeah, Dan:

 

You can shoot the taxicabs doing their circle jerk at 3FPS... But when it comes to IndyCars (I shoot NCTS & IRL professionally), then you need a higher frame rate to capture flying carbon fibre frags!

 

Pussies race NASCAR & F1...

 

REAL men (+ Sarah) race on the high wire of Indy cars!

[phil_sedgwick]

I shoot motorsports - open wheel (Indy) cars mostly - for a number of mags and mfgs. I use a D1, D100 and an few film cameras thrown in for fun.

 

What it is going to come down to is what is the final usage and what do your editors expect. I've had D1 images run as posters, full page and even the lead image (double page) in the photo issue of Racer Magazine. If your editors and press folks know what they are doing, the camera will produce (assuming of course, you shoot full frame, not just press and pray and crop a bunch later).

 

I'm in the process of replacing my D1 and am going through some of the questions that you are. Is the speed of the D2h (D1 in your case) worth giving up file size to the D100 ? Some times. But 3 million in focus pixels will out sell 6 million out of focus ones

every time and the focus speed on the D1 still kicks the D100s rear. If it gets a little dark, then the D1 really shines.

 

Flash sync is also as issue and one that a lot of non working folks miss. The D1 syncs to 1/500 and that is great IF you do a lot of outdoor people shoots. The D100 is at 1/180th. I might keep my D1 arounf just because of the sync speed.

 

Folks have raised some good points about the D1 being a workhorse and you not knowing what you are getting. There is some truth to that - My D1 was bought to work and work it did. It's been all over the world, Fed-Exed to jobs when I couldn't get there and worked hard. It's also been well cared for by Nikon service on a regular basis, as I expect most 'working' D1s have been.

 

So, yes the camera is still viable if you shoot well and your editors know how to use the files. If they don't, you may need to learn a little about preping your images. That's nothing new.