Older Professional Nikon DSLRs?

[gryffinwings]

I already have a Nikon D5100, but I've been thinking about getting myself an older Professional DSLR, looking at anything from a Nikon D1, D1H, D1X, and the D2H (If I can afford it). I know that the batteries can suck, but I'd be getting aftermarket ones to cure that issue. Now does anyone here have any experience with any of these cameras? I don't want any here-say or anything, theories are okay, but please no random guesses. I've already heard that pixels don't matter too much, except in picture size. The good thing I know is that my current DX lens I have are completely compatible as far as I know.

 

[KmH]

I loved my 5.2 MP D1X's. They gave me yeoman service. The D1x has a fairly unique image sensor, and could actually deliver 10.4 MP images. I sold my last D1X to a gentleman in England about 2 years ago. About 3 months after he got it, the image sensor died and had to be replaced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D1X#D1H_and_D1X

Online reviws are still available for all those cameras - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1x/

Nikon's D3 was the first Pro grade Nikon DSLR that had a full sized image sensor. All previous Pro grade Nikon DSLR's had APS-C size image sensors, so yes all your DX lenses are compatible.

 

[bhop]

What kind of information are you looking for?

 

[gryffinwings]

I'm looking for anything not in current reviews, opinions, first hand experience with these cameras, stuff like that.

 

[Derrel]

I shot the D1h for many newspaper sports assignments back when it was current. It had good color, and small files that were EASY to download, review, and upload. I liked the color it gave. My earlier D1 was not nearly as good,color-wise, and was a very unrefined design.The D1h had better custom functions, and the D2x was a nice camera back in 2005 and 2006. The D2x has a MUCH better, more-capable AF system than the entire D1 series had.The D2x shoots pretty well.

The battery system of the D2 series was in a word, extraordinary. Better than any battery before it, with extreme life. As in seven years to the day, and still going, with one more click before replacement is needed. (As in I bought the D2x May 3,2005, and today is May 3, 2012.) The D2x has an APS-C sensor that is excellent at ISO 100, and declines with each additional ISO boost, with ISO 800 requiring Noise Reduction. The D2x and D2Xs were the best APS-C bodies ever built, by any manufacturer.

The D2 series bodies sell pretty cheaply these days.

The D4 has a much lower-capacity, weaker battery.

 

[zamanakhan]

pixels may not matter but iso performance does!!! i would take a brand new d3200 over a d2h or d1 ANY DAY. Everyone states that 12, 16, 36 mp is too much and nobody needs more than 6, but when they state this they forget that iso performance is more important than mp's. This was the argument most nikonians used against canon as well, remember?

These cameras are certainly built like tanks but remember:
1. the older pro camers are all DX so save your money and get pro lenses instead, they will outlast even current generation slrs
2. finding batteries and accesories are gonna be a problem, not to mention they dont last as long
3. Some of these max out at iso 1600... that is max out, so 1600 will look like iso 25,000 on a d5100.
4. These are heavy bricks of cameras, with crappy lcd displays which means you will have to rely on histograms 100% and no live view, also no video mode
5. AF modules are not as good as current cameras either, a d7000 has a better af system than most of these older ones.
6. the only one of these i would take is the nikon d2x but at 1300+ used i would rather have a brand new d7000, hell you can add a battery grip to that order as well
7. If you want good iq, have money to burn and want extreme build quality shoot for a nikon d3. That is a pro camera i would have no problem getting.
8. having a warranty is better than having a used camera with no chance of taking it back.

 

[bhop]

There are only really a few benefits you'd get with the cameras you listed.

-Build quality.
-Better viewfinder
-Fast AF (I disagree with zamanakhan's point#5 above, pro level af is amazing)
-ergonomics

That's about it really at this point. Coming from the d5100, you most likely won't be happy with the IQ on those cameras, unless you literally never go above 400iso. If that's the case, then go for it, but if you really want a better shooting experience, get a d300, put a grip on it and you've pretty much got a similar feeling camera. Sure it's not quite the pro level, but the controls are all the same and the sensor quality annihilates the ones you've listed.

 

[Mach0]

There are only really a few benefits you'd get with the cameras you listed.

-Build quality.
-Better viewfinder
-Fast AF (I disagree with zamanakhan's point#5 above, pro level af is amazing)
-ergonomics

That's about it really at this point. Coming from the d5100, you most likely won't be happy with the IQ on those cameras, unless you literally never go above 400iso. If that's the case, then go for it, but if you really want a better shooting experience, get a d300, put a grip on it and you've pretty much got a similar feeling camera. Sure it's not quite the pro level, but the controls are all the same and the sensor quality annihilates the ones you've listed.

X2

 

[zamanakhan]

There are only really a few benefits you'd get with the cameras you listed. -Build quality.-Better viewfinder-Fast AF (I disagree with zamanakhan's point#5 above, pro level af is amazing)-ergonomicsThat's about it really at this point. Coming from the d5100, you most likely won't be happy with the IQ on those cameras, unless you literally never go above 400iso. If that's the case, then go for it, but if you really want a better shooting experience, get a d300, put a grip on it and you've pretty much got a similar feeling camera. Sure it's not quite the pro level, but the controls are all the same and the sensor quality annihilates the ones you've listed.

You know what, you are absolutely right if it was an Af lens. With afs, the motors built into prosumer cameras are not as powerful but if you have an afs lens it's all the same along as your using cross type sensors. Current generation pro cameras have kick ass af but that is current gen, not 3 gens older.And I would also recommend the d300 with grip, it's a solid camera.

 

[gryffinwings]

I was thinking about getting one for when I eventually go out on deployments (I'm in the Navy). That way, it's less likely to get stolen and I won't have to worry about it as much because it can take the abuse, my D5100 can't.

Besides, I've seen some pretty good pictures from a D2H. Such as these from this thread:
Post your favorite Nikon D2H/D2HS shots HERE! - FM Forums

 

[bhop]

I was thinking about getting one for when I eventually go out on deployments (I'm in the Navy). That way, it's less likely to get stolen and I won't have to worry about it as much because it can take the abuse, my D5100 can't.

Besides, I've seen some pretty good pictures from a D2H. Such as these from this thread:
Post your favorite Nikon D2H/D2HS shots HERE! - FM Forums

With this new info, i'd say those are good reasons to get one. D2H is old, but tough and weather sealed. I still think you won't be happy with the iso limits compared to the d5100, but if you're not a high iso noise snob then i'm sure the d2h would work well.

 

[KmH]

Thieves often don't know the value of what they are stealing, until they try to convert the stolen item to cash.

The theft is often a matter of availability than planning.

 

[djacobox372]

The D2X is the oldest pro-dslr that would even approach the image quality of your d5100, and it would still lose. Although if someone offered me both cameras, I'd probably take the D2x.

The D2H and d1x aren't worth the $$, but the D1h can be fun for the $$ (seen them sell for as little as $125). Don't let the low MP of the d1h fool you, it uses far less aggressive interpolation then most other DSLRS and hence it's comparable to 5-6mp alternatives. The D1h also has acceptable iso performance--better then my d200, but not as good as a d300 or d5100. Just make sure you get a new battery with it. Of course your d5100 will blow it away in almost every area besides build quality/weather proofing.

 

[greybeard]

Digital cameras are like laptop computers and are a part of an emerging technology. The absolute best laptop sold back in 02 won't even work today. Digital cameras are not quite as bad but I think you get my point.

 

[gryffinwings]

The D2X is the oldest pro-dslr that would even approach the image quality of your d5100, and it would still lose. Although if someone offered me both cameras, I'd probably take the D2x.

The D2H and d1x aren't worth the $$, but the D1h can be fun for the $$ (seen them sell for as little as $125). Don't let the low MP of the d1h fool you, it uses far less aggressive interpolation then most other DSLRS and hence it's comparable to 5-6mp alternatives. The D1h also has acceptable iso performance--better then my d200, but not as good as a d300 or d5100. Just make sure you get a new battery with it. Of course your d5100 will blow it away in almost every area besides build quality/weather proofing.

Can you explain this in more depth?

Don't let the low MP of the d1h fool you, it uses far less aggressive interpolation then most other DSLRS and hence it's comparable to 5-6mp alternatives.