Nikon D1, Would you buy one today?

[dougjgreen]

I understand the motivation to have bought a D1. As I mentioned, I own a Kodak DCS-760 - which was a $12,000 pro camera upon introduction, and can be gotten for $300-400 nowadays. It's basically a 6 MP Kodak sensor and a big battery pack embedded into the guts of a Nikon F5. However, I believe that, practically speaking, the D1 is really most interesting as a digital photography history lesson at this stage, not as a practical camera compared to even a very basic low end DSLR from a few years ago, like the D50. My only point was that, IMHO, a D1 was one generation before these cameras became good enough to supercede film for many purposes other than photojournalism, and that, had the OP gone back one less generation, to a D1x or a DCS-760, they'd have gotten something which, while still impractical in the field due to bulk and inefficient batteries compared to something newer, they'd still be getting image quality that's viable today - the D1's resolution is simply nowhere near as good as the cheapest point and shoot. Whereas a D1x or DCS-760 can produce very viable 5-6 MP images and with decent noise performance at as high as 400 ISO, which makes them more than just historical curiosities. A D1 can produce nice web images, and blowups that can be viewed at a distance, but that's really all. Close inspection of an 8x10 blowup from a D1 won't pass muster, while close inspection of a D1x or DCS-760 image will, even today.

[Dirk]

Same with me , i do not want to spend a entire salary on the latest gadgets , but rather be a MC HAMMER that hip hopps behind every major trend ..

in the old days i was like "wow the latest ...... wow need it want it have to have it .. now i am a bit more relaxed , first i'll wait that all che "child deases "in the product have beeen fixed orthat the product has proven it self good and a lot value for the euro.. and than i look to buy it when i still want it after reading tests and reviews second hand..

[Douglas]

Would you buy a computer with a 266mhz processor and windows 98 on it? Sure, it was great at its time.

Thats how I would feel about buying a D1. If I were to buy a 10 year old camera, it would be another N90s or possibly an F5

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by JimmyH

I think that the D1 should always do what it always did, like other 'vintage' equipment, and can still produce acceptable images. I might buy it, if for no other reason than to own a camera I could not afford when first issued.

I have a D50 and love it, since being infected with NAS will likely pick up other DSLR bodies, and perhaps a the D1.

If I pace myself I will progress at the same speed as the DSLR industry, spending only 25% of the original price, but remaining forever 5-10 years behind everyone...

I don't take issue with this at all, for someone on a tight budget - although I personally believe that the sweet spot in the value curve for DSLRs is around 2-3 years behind the market, just after cameras have been replaced with their successors, is when they are the best values. Right now, that makes a Nikon D80 at under $500 for the body a sweet deal - and it's a better camera in most ways than any current $500 body. Similarly a Nikon D200 for $700. For the low end, be prepared to jump on < $300 D40 kits including lens if it gets phased out by a replacement after the PMA show.

I contend that at ANY price point in the market, the best bang for the buck is a camera that's around 2.5 years old that has just been replaced by something newer. Generally, the newer camera will be 10-20% better, but cost 30-40% more.

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by Douglas

Would you buy a computer with a 266mhz processor and windows 98 on it? Sure, it was great at its time.

Thats how I would feel about buying a D1. If I were to buy a 10 year old camera, it would be another N90s or possibly an F5

No, but I'd certainly buy a low end PC running Windows XP for less than half the price rather than a high end one running Vista and hogging memory. Then I'd upgrade the RAM in the low end by quadrupling it, and I'd have a better machine in the real world for running apps, at a fraction of the cost.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by dougjgreen

No, but I'd certainly buy a low end PC running Windows XP for less than half the price rather than a high end one running Vista and hogging memory. Then I'd upgrade the RAM in the low end by quadrupling it, and I'd have a better machine in the real world for running apps, at a fraction of the cost.

Right. But a D1 is more equivilent to the machine I mentioned then say a low end 1 or 2ghz machine that you can upgrade. You cant upgrade a D1. What you see is what you get.

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by Douglas

Right. But a D1 is more equivilent to the machine I mentioned then say a low end 1 or 2ghz machine that you can upgrade. You cant upgrade a D1. What you see is what you get.

That's sort of my point. You can get really good value by dropping down 1 generation. But when you drop down 4-5 generations or more, you get a museum piece, best used to teach history.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by dougjgreen

That's sort of my point. You can get really good value by dropping down 1 generation. But when you drop down 4-5 generations or more, you get a museum piece, best used to teach history.

Exactly. Where a D2, D200, D50/70/80 are not top of the line, they are still more then capable of doing the job as well as a D90/300 (I wont put them on the same level as a D3 or D700 due to the different sensors).

I just cant say the same about the D1/D100 who are on par with the D90's video capabilities. Both being first generation and being more "ooh ahh" then truly functional.

[dougjgreen]

Originally Posted by Douglas

Exactly. Where a D2, D200, D50/70/80 are not top of the line, they are still more then capable of doing the job as well as a D90/300 (I wont put them on the same level as a D3 or D700 due to the different sensors).

I just cant say the same about the D1/D100 who are on par with the D90's video capabilities. Both being first generation and being more "ooh ahh" then truly functional.

Of those, a D70 is getting pretty obsolete. It's 2.5 generations old (counting the step to the D70s as a half). The others (aside from the D100 and D1) are all less than 2 generations old.

[Douglas]

Originally Posted by dougjgreen

Of those, a D70 is getting pretty obsolete. It's 2.5 generations old (counting the step to the D70s as a half). The others (aside from the D100 and D1) are all less than 2 generations old.

Yeah. And if the D50 wasnt a freak and probably ahead of its time, then that would probably be close to being an artifact.