Who still uses discontinued Nikon SLR/DSLR bodies?

[jrizal]

Yeah well, I'd prefer getting an cheaper pro body over a cheap consumer body. I mean I'm seeing the D200 on ebay for under 400, but I may even consider the D100 which is around $150 range. Even the Nikon D2H is pretty cheap these days.

My only comment there is for you to check the condition of the cam especially shutter count.

 

[djacobox372]

My favorite performer is my 1940's speed graphic with a lens from WW2:

 

[gryffinwings]

My favorite performer is my 1940's speed graphic with a lens from WW2:

View attachment 9446

That's in pretty good shape for a 70 year old camera.

Yeah well, I'd prefer getting an cheaper pro body over a cheap consumer body. I mean I'm seeing the D200 on ebay for under 400, but I may even consider the D100 which is around $150 range. Even the Nikon D2H is pretty cheap these days.

My only comment there is for you to check the condition of the cam especially shutter count.

Yeah, I've been keeping an eye on them, either way from what I see, prices aren't bad at all for the D200s, not sure about the D100, if those are worth it.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I shoot weddings with a Contax 645 and two F100's. Neither of which are made anymore, and one of which is near impossible to fix if it broke.

 

[Josh66]

My favorite performer is my 1940's speed graphic with a lens from WW2:

View attachment 9446

That's in pretty good shape for a 70 year old camera.

They made stuff to last back then...

 

[lonewolfsx]

They made stuff to last back then...

They still do it seems... did you guys see the video of the EOS 7D being frozen and lit on fire and stuff? It still worked, not perfectly but still effective. Kind of incredible in a world where most consumer level electronics (I know the 7D is a "pro" body, but still) aren't designed to last longer than a few years in service.

As for the op's question, I still shoot with a Nikon N6006 my parents got in '95 along with the 105mm AF-D Micro (I still have all the boxes and receipts for this stuff!)... I also just recently sold off my Polaroid SLR 680 and stopped shooting instant film... it was mostly for kicks and funny refridgerator pictures, but the film packs cost $20 for 8 shots now at ImpossibleProject, and to be honest, more than $2 per picture is just not worth it for cheesy pictures that I can emulate just as well with a few minutes of photoshop and my digital SLR files.

 

[gryffinwings]

It's good too know that people are still using older gear. I myself want to use a Nikon D200 one day, because it looks like a great camera to shoot with. I also like the idea of smaller file sizes. The newer ones are getting really big on the pixel count, I personally would like them to focus on other things besides pixel count, such as dynamic range, ISO performance, and light sensitivity. Seriously the D3200 has 24 million pixels, I don't even know how big a file that is, if I was shooting RAW.Can you guys post pictures from these older cameras you use?

 

[Solarflare]

Well ... I wouldnt mind older cameras for chemical film, but for digital its a huge difference, digital cameras are still getting better very quickly. Once I no longer see such huge progress in this area, I might consider buying one of the really expensive cameras and stick with that for decades to come. But at the moment, nah.

P.s.: I still use my first digital camera, the small point-and-shoot Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX12, though. I think 7MPixel is enough for this kind of camera and an upgrade wont give me much of an upgrade in picture quality anyway.