New to me Nikon D1...

epatsellis · Feb 10, 2016

The "early" digital bodies have their own charms. If you are technically competent, and really spend time with an early body, you'll discover some amazing things. I have several early ones, including a Fuji S2, S5, Nikon D1x, D2Hs, D2x, several D100's (now either IR or full spectrum modded), and a Kodak SLR/n.

They all have their (many) weaknesses, but the Kodak has amazingly accurate color rendition, the S2 has stunning OOC jpgs, and the D1x is the most "film looking" digital I've ever used, hands down.

I have a rather extensive collection of Nikkor lenses, from early non AI to some of the latest AiS, and I tend to fall back to the same few that I used with my F2 and F3 years ago, a 35 1.4, 55 1.2 and a 135 f2, though in all fairness any of the lenses, with the exception of a few less than stellar lenses (yeah, 43-86...I'm looking at you) that were marginal on film just won't cut it even on a 6mp body.

I'd seriously consider the advice about the D1x, though. If there was ever a camera made for shooting for B&W conversions, the D1x is it.

Stradawhovious · Feb 11, 2016

epatsellis said:
I'd seriously consider the advice about the D1x, though. If there was ever a camera made for shooting for B&W conversions, the D1x is it.

I'm not a big B&W guy, but I will consider it. I'm actually VERY tempted by the D2X. Any reason I shouldn't grab one of those?

nomathjobs · Feb 22, 2016

Hi all - just joined having found this thread. I too must confess - D1 fan here. I started my love affair (shhh...don't tell my wife) about 2 years ago w/a visit to a local pawn shop where I found an unloved D1 and a 300/4.5 ED IF for the princely sum of $20. I knew nearly nothing about the D1 (aside from what I could easily tell from looking at it and picking it up) but figured the 300 was easily worth the asking price (despite needing a CLA). So I plunked down my $20 and off I went....the journey had started.

Confession: I suffer from GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) and the D1 was another affliction. Now several D1 bodies (four? five? lost count...), three D1x bodies, and a D1h thrown in for good measure - I just bought another D1h.

To my one good eye yes - the D1 series are very 'film looking' and I'd go so far as to say that the D1/D1h look like Tri-X and the D1x looks like Plus-X shot B/W in camera, bumped contrast, exposure set to under expose 1/3 stop.

I just take snaps of my kids and delude myself into thinking I get an occasional nice shot of non-kid stuff. Art? Nah. Craft? Not even that. Just like using the old gear.

Why so many? My wife asks the same thing. Rationalization: I like using them and if they break, they really can't be economically fixed (hence the spares). The real reason? So many of them look sad, unloved, and like they need a nice retirement home - I'm here to make their remaining years comfortable.

nomathjobs

Solarflare · Mar 1, 2016

Stradawhovious said:
I'm not a big B&W guy, but I will consider it. I'm actually VERY tempted by the D2X. Any reason I shouldn't grab one of those?

Well ... not that I am aware off.

As far as I know, the D2x is the last Nikon that still had "non-optimized" pixels. That means no microlenses. This means the camera doesnt offer much in respect to high ISO, but at low ISO it has the pixel acuity of medium format cameras, since theres gaps between the individual pixels.

Or thats what at least the user (ex-moderator) donesteban on the german forum "DSLR-Forum.de" claims about the D2x. He uses a Pentax 645D now, which apparently offers the same properties.

The new Pentax 645z however has now microlenses. Offers a lot more high ISO performance, etc, of course, too.

Stradawhovious · Mar 1, 2016

Solarflare said:
As far as I know, the D2x is the last Nikon that still had "non-optimized" pixels. That means no microlenses. This means the camera doesnt offer much in respect to high ISO, but at low ISO it has the pixel acuity of medium format cameras, since theres gaps between the individual pixels.

I don't know what any of that means, but thanks so much for the reply!

I'd love to wait until the D3X is affordable, but that could be FOREVER. The D3 is within grasp financially, but the D2X is in striking distance. If I'm honest, I will be going to FX so the D2X probably won't be in the running. The good news is, me being a barely passable photographer, I don't have to worry about needing an upgrade any time soon.

Braineack · Mar 1, 2016

My wedding was shot on a D1 and D1x. I was looking at the full sized images the other day and loled.

xenskhe · Mar 1, 2016

Stradawhovious said:
I'm actually VERY tempted by the D2X. Any reason I shouldn't grab one of those?

D2Hs, with JFET/LBCAST sensor but no longer worth the silly asking prices for 100k/150k bodies imo.

Agree about the S2 images even better skin tones (colder) than the s3 . I had a couple S2 and both had back/front focus problems, and the little 2mm hex screw in the mirror box is very soft alloy. S3 seemed a better camera in terms of QC (remember the black death of S2 sensors back in the day :/ )

xenskhe · Mar 1, 2016

D40x: the camera that refuses to become worthless

Stradawhovious · Mar 1, 2016

Braineack said:
My wedding was shot on a D1 and D1x. I was looking at the full sized images the other day and loled.

I'm actually quite impressed with the D1 for what it is. As a matter of fact, I look forward to taking some shots with it tonight! I agree though, that any "fer serious" photography would command less obsolete hardware.

xenskhe said:
D40x: the camera that refuses to become worthless

I had one of those once.

Once.

pixmedic · Mar 1, 2016

the D1 shoots as good now as it ever did.
personally, if your close to a D3 budget, i would hold out for that over a D2X.
there are still pros using the 12mp D3 with fantastic results.
OR, go D3X and get 24mp! Derrel only has great things to say about his.

Braineack · Mar 1, 2016

for what it was absolutely.

gsgary · Mar 1, 2016

goodguy said:
Wow, interesting, I never heard of this camera, had to look it up before replying to your post, looks so cool and it does look like a tank.
From reading a quick Ken Rockwell review it looks like he has very little love to this camera but that doesn't matter one bit, the only important thing is that you are happy and having fun.

Enjoy your new toy and welcome back

You must be very new to photography if you don't know this camera

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Derrel · Mar 1, 2016

Midweek, inspired by this thread, I took a D1 battery and put it on the charger, and ran a refresh cycle on it...I was thinking about shooting it this past weekend, but other things came up.

Sometime after the D1 had become obsolete, around the time the D3x hit the streets in 2009, Nikon released some information that claimed the D1's 2.7 million pixel image files were actually made from 10.8 million pixels. In effect, the D1 took 10.8 million pixels' worth of information and performed what is commonly called oversampling, or pixel binning, to get the final image with good signal to noise performance.

Here's a good link the D1H a 10MP camera?[/QUOTE]

nomathjobs · Mar 13, 2016

I dunno...I kind of like the way the D1/D1x/D1h look (but I'm old). Yes, the batteries are a pain (I just Rx'd 2 sets of 18650, so I'll be converting at least one pack ASAP) - but for me, the pain is worth it. I enjoy shooting my kid's baseball games w/the D1h too.

But maybe I've some sort of penchant for old, big, and clunky (hey...that describes me!).

Q: Is it OK to post links to images we've posted on flickr? Not 'showing off' but maybe an image or 2 might help illustrate why I like the D1 series?

nomath

Stradawhovious · Mar 13, 2016

nomathjobs said:
Q: Is it OK to post links to images we've posted on flickr? Not 'showing off' but maybe an image or 2 might help illustrate why I like the D1 series?

nomath

If they are YOUR images, you can post them up! I'd love to see what you've captured with your D1.

If they aren't your images it's ok to post links, but not the images themselves.