Hi,
One of the things about the DSLR to this point is that they have been changing rapidly. I refer to this as the 'beginning-time' for things technical.
The usual progression is for things technical to go through an early period of rapid development, and then settle out to where incremental upgrades are what occur.
I think we hit the end of the 'beginning-time' for the DSLR with the D2X in the case of Nikon (and the SLR series for Kodak, and the 1Ds mk-I for Canon).
There was quite a change from the E2/E3 series to the D1, and then another from the D1 to the D1X (although the D1H was incremental), with yet another jump from the D1H to the D2H and the D1X to the D2X.
Anyway, I have this feeling that perhaps ther original D1 might also fit into the moniker 'vintage'.
Thoughts?
Should we include the D1 as well?
-
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Should we include the D1 as well?
Amateur Photographer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer
Professional Electronics Development Engineer
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 4:12 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Norway
- Contact:
Re: Should we include the D1 as well?
I agree.Stan Disbrow wrote:Anyway, I have this feeling that perhaps ther original D1 might also fit into the moniker 'vintage'.
Thoughts?
Even though the original D1 was Nikon's first "real" digital SLR (and still a capable camera), most people will probably agree that it's bit outdated.
Some faithful users may have a hard time admitting that it's "vintage", but it's certainly discontinued and an important part of DSLR history.
Jarle
-
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:33 pm
- Location: Raleigh, NC USA
Re: Should we include the D1 as well?
Absolutely. The E2 does not handle well at all. It's obvious, to me anyway, that it was meant as a studio camera. Well, that's how I've used my E2 ever since I picked up that very first D1.Webmaster wrote: Even though the original D1 was Nikon's first "real" digital SLR (and still a capable camera), most people will probably agree that it's bit outdated.
The D1 is *very* capable. Yes, 2.75 MP is a tad low by current thinking, but it does upres well enough to make a very nice 8x10" print. Yes, 4.5 fps is a bit low by the current thinking of 8 fps, but it serves even for shooting auto racing. Heck, the motordrives for my old FE and FA bodies were only 3 fps, so there!
This brings us to a *major* difference between a DSLR and a computer. The software keeps changing on a computer, such that before long one needs so many hardware upgrades that it's best to just start over with a new machine. Not so a DSLR. It will work just as well today, or tomorrow, as it did the day it was produced.
The D1, or E2 for that matter, take the same quality shots today as they did in 2000. Actually, with raw files, one can make use of processing improvements and produce *better* images today than they could then. Although one might just need that new computer to run the new post-processing SW under that new OS.
Come to think about it, since we're thinking of the D1 as 'vintage' now, I'd best head off to ebay and grab another one for the collection while they're still selling in the $500 range. Once the word gets out that the D1 is a vintage collector's item, I'll have to pay more for one!
Stan
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 4:12 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Norway
- Contact:
Re: Should we include the D1 as well?
Don't worry. D1 prices will continue to drop. In another year or two you'll be able to get one for a few hundred dollars. At least that's my plan..Stan Disbrow wrote:I'd best head off to ebay and grab another one for the collection while they're still selling in the $500 range. Once the word gets out that the D1 is a vintage collector's item, I'll have to pay more for one!
Jarle
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1029
- Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 4:12 pm
- antispam: No
- Location: Norway
- Contact:
Re: Nikon D1
Hi Kiu,NIKON KIU wrote:I think we should include D1,otherwise it may be the 3 of us forever!
You're probably right! Not too many E-users around anymore. Probably never has been. I'm still trying to figure out how many such cameras were made. I'll soon post my findings (no big surprises I'm afraid) in another thread.
Jarle
D1
I am no. 4 using a Nikon D1. It is a very good camera with enough pixels as no newspaper I am working for is printing pictures in more than 300 dpi. It accepts nearly all AI/S-Nikkors and is quick enough.
Regards,
Nico
P.S. My Nikon D1 has #5000009. I estimate total production at 35.000/40.000 units, given the # I've seen.
Regards,
Nico
P.S. My Nikon D1 has #5000009. I estimate total production at 35.000/40.000 units, given the # I've seen.
-
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 1:30 pm
I bought Nikon D1x's for work when they first came out and bought a like-new in-the-box D1 for home just last month, about 1/10th of its original price. The D70 just feels like a toy and the 2.75MPixels is fine for an 8x10. The other Nikons that I use on a regular basis include the F2AS, SP, S3, and S2.
No doubt that the D1 is a landmark camera. I took about 100 shots with it at a group picnic this weekend, and they were all "keepers".
I have "played" with my D1 in the IR using Wratten 88a and 87c filters. You lose about 8 F-Stops, but it does a good job compared to more "recent" cameras.
No doubt that the D1 is a landmark camera. I took about 100 shots with it at a group picnic this weekend, and they were all "keepers".
I have "played" with my D1 in the IR using Wratten 88a and 87c filters. You lose about 8 F-Stops, but it does a good job compared to more "recent" cameras.