Older Professional Nikon DSLRs?

[Derrel]

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.

One thing is this: a few years ago, Nikon itself released some information on the D1h, stating that it used a sensor with 10 MILLION pixels...not 4.1 MP, but 10 million pixels, in the camera, and that is one reason the pixels are of such good quality. I am not confused about the up-sampling of 5.4 MP files from the D1x to create eventual 10 megapixel image files; this is a HARDWARE feature (sensor) in the D1h that Nikon revealed several years after the camera was made obsolete!!

The article is still somewhere on-line in Nikon's morass of web articles.

Secondly: "large pixels" act like "large buckets" when collecting the rain that is a photo stream...with the technology available when the D1h was made, the camera's electronics and its sensor were pretty much state-of-the-art for 35mm style CCD sensors. By using 10 million pixels and "binning" the data, Nikon devised a way to make the D1h's nominal 4.1 megapixel images actually quite good for their time! Why Nikon elected to reveal this information only well into the D2x era possibly has to do with the very ingrained idea that the final image output size is the way "megpixel count" was, and still is, determined; it's possible that Nikon did NOT wish to be thought of as using a low-MP count sensor and then using software-based interpolation to up-rezz the images, the way Fuji was doing with the S1 pro and S2 pro cameras, and the way Bibble Labs figured out to do with the D1x and its 5.4MP sensor...

Or maybe Nikon did not wish to publicly come out and say, "We've been using 10 million data points in the D1h" and binning (evaluating and combining) the pixels to make a killer 4.1 MP sensor...that would not have been a good idea to trumpet that publicly, until well,well after the technology was passe.

Let's put it this way: D1h files, shot in RAW uncompressed NEF mode, with proper white balance and proper exposure are VERY easy to work with, and at the per-pixel level, are very good. D1h files compare very favorably with any 6MP APS-C camera that I have seen.

 

[gryffinwings]

It really sounds like the Nikon D1H is the best bang for the buck, ultra budget Pro type DSLR.

 

[StandingBear1983]

In my opinion its a waste of money...the D5100 you have is a much more capable camera, and although it doesn't have weather sealing and mag alloy body, it has a hard plastic body (which is not so bad, plastic can be hard enough in most cases), it can stand a few bashes here and there, if you would buy the D3 its a different story...then i would agree because then there is a real difference between sensors.

Lets say if my "crappy" 5 year old Canon powershot 5is fell in a river in New Zealand while i was on a trek and nothing happened to it and its really a peace of plastic that i took to the limit with hard treks climbing\walking in rain\snow..nothing will happen to the D5100, just take minimal caution. and my P&S Canon 130SX fell 3 times from 2 meters high on the pavement, the plastic got a bit cracked but nothing happen to the camera.

I would stay with the D5100. generally speaking i would worry more about the lenses breaking then the body breaking if the camera took a hit or fell.

 

[bhop]

In my opinion its a waste of money...the D5100 you have is a much more capable camera, and although it doesn't have weather sealing and mag alloy body, it has a hard plastic body (which is not so bad, plastic can be hard enough in most cases), it can stand a few bashes here and there, if you would buy the D3 its a different story...then i would agree because then there is a real difference between sensors.

Lets say if my "crappy" 5 year old Canon powershot 5is fell in a river in New Zealand while i was on a trek and nothing happened to it and its really a peace of plastic that i took to the limit with hard treks climbing\walking in rain\snow..nothing will happen to the D5100, just take minimal caution. and my P&S Canon 130SX fell 3 times from 2 meters high on the pavement, the plastic got a bit cracked but nothing happen to the camera.

I would stay with the D5100. generally speaking i would worry more about the lenses breaking then the body breaking if the camera took a hit or fell.

but...

He mentioned he's in the navy, serving on a ship I assume. The weather sealing alone would be worth it IMO thanks to the humidity from the water, changing weather conditions, ocean spray, etc.

 

[StandingBear1983]

In my opinion its a waste of money...the D5100 you have is a much more capable camera, and although it doesn't have weather sealing and mag alloy body, it has a hard plastic body (which is not so bad, plastic can be hard enough in most cases), it can stand a few bashes here and there, if you would buy the D3 its a different story...then i would agree because then there is a real difference between sensors.

Lets say if my "crappy" 5 year old Canon powershot 5is fell in a river in New Zealand while i was on a trek and nothing happened to it and its really a peace of plastic that i took to the limit with hard treks climbing\walking in rain\snow..nothing will happen to the D5100, just take minimal caution. and my P&S Canon 130SX fell 3 times from 2 meters high on the pavement, the plastic got a bit cracked but nothing happen to the camera.

I would stay with the D5100. generally speaking i would worry more about the lenses breaking then the body breaking if the camera took a hit or fell.

but...

He mentioned he's in the navy, serving on a ship I assume. The weather sealing alone would be worth it IMO thanks to the humidity from the water, changing weather conditions, ocean spray, etc.

Yea I understood that...why not sell the D5100 and get a D7000? why go buy an ancient camera?

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Digital camera's are worthless after they've been replaced by newer models. That's just how it works. Nobody in their right mind would buy a D1,2, or anything from that era in their right mind unless they needed the build quality. a D3200 will be better than a D2x.


Get a medium format film camera if you want something different.

 

[gryffinwings]

While the Nikon D5100 is a good camera, and is definitely built as a solid camera for what you get, it's still a rather fragile camera, I experienced this first hand when my camera got drops accidently from about 2 feet up with lens still attached. AF unit needed replacing and everything else had to be readjusted because it had been knocked out of alignment, meaning my camera wasn't focusing properly and for some reason, most of my screen was blacked out except a top sliver of the picture. Fortunately my D5100 was covered by warrantee by Nikon, so I was all good.

This is one of the primary reasons I'm going with a D1H or whatever I find that is suitable for my needs. The only thing I'll be doing with it is shooting and I'll be shooting RAW every time because I post process my pictures, or rather learning to get better at it.

The second reason, I just can't afford to just go a buy an even more expensive camera than I already have, the D5100 was pretty much my budget limit and to be honest, the camera is pretty good and I don't think I'll be changing it.

 

[jake337]

There are quite a few good pictures in the links below as most owners of D1, D2, pro body Nikon were professionals. Being professionals, most understood photographic lighting is very important, among other things.

I would also like to add that a D2XS is still around $1500 and I would just save $4-500 more for a used D700.



Flickr: Nikon D2h users

Flickr: I still love my D2H

Flickr: D2X

Flickr: Nikon D2 Users

Flickr: My Nikon D2X

Flickr: NIKON D2XS

Flickr: Nikon D1x Users Group

Flickr: Nikon D1 Users Group

Flickr: Nikon D1H

 

[Robchaos]

If price & durability are an issue, and the D2x is too expensive, look into a D200. Almost the same feature set, still a good performer, and can be had for <$400. Weather sealed, 10.2 MP, fair ISO performance. All babble about what generation a camera is from aside, a good photograph is a good photograph. As long as you understand and learn how to work around the limitations of your equipment, (in this situation the limitation is high ISO handling) you will be fine.

 

[KmH]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ +1.

 

[gryffinwings]

Anything listed is pretty much to expensive for the time being and will be for quite a while. However, I think people need to realize is that we have been spoiled by Digital Camera Technology. I think, from what I'm seeing, a lot of people will think that the technology in the cameras will do a lot of the work for you, I personally am seeing that isn't correct. I think as long as you know what your doing and have good technique and work within the limitations of the camera, you can get excellent pictures. Film SLRs used to use low equivalent ISO film, I think 1600 was the highest, and if you weren't careful, the pictures pretty much sucked. I believe that a vast majority of pictures are taken at lower ISO levels, which in my opinion you have the highest levels of detail. I think the better pictures are a matter of getting the best sources of light, weather that is a good flash unit, the right lens, and proper preparation. I do not see what you can't get excellent pictures with a Nikon D1H.

 

[zamanakhan]

Anything listed is pretty much to expensive for the time being and will be for quite a while. However, I think people need to realize is that we have been spoiled by Digital Camera Technology. I think, from what I'm seeing, a lot of people will think that the technology in the cameras will do a lot of the work for you, I personally am seeing that isn't correct. I think as long as you know what your doing and have good technique and work within the limitations of the camera, you can get excellent pictures. Film SLRs used to use low equivalent ISO film, I think 1600 was the highest, and if you weren't careful, the pictures pretty much sucked. I believe that a vast majority of pictures are taken at lower ISO levels, which in my opinion you have the highest levels of detail. I think the better pictures are a matter of getting the best sources of light, weather that is a good flash unit, the right lens, and proper preparation. I do not see what you can't get excellent pictures with a Nikon D1H.

You sir have the correct idea, more people should think like this. You can certainly take beautiful pictures at 4-6mp especially at lower iso's, but the cheaper cameras let you shoot at higher iso's with better iq, so why not invest in that. The one thing that makes a big difference is the fact that you stated you are in the navy, having known this I would recommend one of the d2 series, d2h and x and hs are actually quite great at lower iso's possibly even better than the last gen consumer cams at low iso's. More importantly when I thought of build quality I was not thinking you would be putting it through mililtary paces, the d5000 series cameras are awful for that because of the hinged screen, specially consumer cams because you need LCD screen for everything. My advice would be to perhaps get a d2 series camera d1 were still in an infant stage forget them. Also pick up a fast 2.8 pro quality Af zoom not afs because i personally think afs are as reliable as Af, this would also offset the lower Iso rage, if the zoom is out of budget at least get a 50 1.8 and 18-55/ 55-200 kit. Any other scenario I have no problem recommending d3200 or d500 but being on tour I can certainly see you needing the better build quality. This is a photography forum and you are asking for advice on technology, while there is no doubt about it that todays consumer kick yesterday's prosumer cameras ass in image quality, ultimately the better picture is made by the moment captured not by what it is captured with.

 

[StandingBear1983]

If you don't have the cash anyway, you can simply shoot with the D5100 you already have until it drops dead, THEN buy a new or older camera that you want...until then save some cash, i bet the D5100 will stand very bad weather before it will die on you.

 

[djacobox372]

There are quite a few good pictures in the links below as most owners of D1, D2, pro body Nikon were professionals. Being professionals, most understood photographic lighting is very important, among other things.

I would also like to add that a D2XS is still around $1500 and I would just save $4-500 more for a used D700.

Wrong, the d2x sells for between $600-800 on ebay, some suckers pay more but anything over $650 is over paying.

 

[gryffinwings]

I think that I may hold off for a D2H instead. This camera has some seriously fast continuous shooting, which could be useful for some shots I'd like to take. So I think I will hold off for now. I think this would be a better solution than a D1H, and to be honest, it's only a couple of hundred dollars more. Also I don't plan on selling my D5100, I like it just fine. Also it's not going to hold up to bad weather, it's not weather sealed, but I do like it because it's small and easy to carry around, one reason I'm wanting to keep it. I'm really looking at having 2 cameras.