Cheap Nikon D1 anyone,,,,,few hours left

MyPix · 01-01-2006, 13:15

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7574847425&rd=1&sspage name=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1

is it cheap ??

MyPix

CT · 01-01-2006, 13:40

A lot could happen before the bidding ends, but it's cheap I suppose for a pro build camera. The problem is it's 2.74 megapixels, being introduced in 1999, and that resolution is blown away by pretty well everything now. It would be a bargain though as a second camera or even a first SLR - any lenses you bought would still fit when you upgraded the body.

Early cameras will devalue massively due to the pixel increase war which has gone on for a few years but is possibly nearing the end now.

The original Canon 1Ds was 6K body only for 11 mill pixels. The 2nd hand prices must be really hit now with a new 5D at under 2 grand and 12 mill pixels?

11 million pixels used to be a jaw dropper - now it's *shrug*

Arkady · 01-01-2006, 17:12

Ah, but for £900 you could have a minty-fresh D1x.

Buy my bl00dy camera someone!!!

MyPix · 01-01-2006, 18:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arkady

Ah, but for £900 you could have a minty-fresh D1x.

Buy my bl00dy camera someone!!!

for that money i can get a return ticket to Sydney and have some spending money ,

MyPix

Venomator · 01-01-2006, 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyPix

for that money i can get a return ticket to Sydney and have some spending money ,

MyPix

Aahh - but then you gotta come back and it's only memories !

My £900 (plus a little bit) got me a D200 ... for as long as I want it and, hopefully it will provide some lasting memories !

MyPix · 01-01-2006, 18:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Venomator

Aahh - but then you gotta come back and it's only memories !

My £900 (plus a little bit) got me a D200 ... for as long as I want it and, hopefully it will provide some lasting memories !

but i already have lots of pix i took last time i was there on my D70 ,

which is perfectly adequate for my current needs

MyPix

Venomator · 01-01-2006, 18:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyPix

but i already have lots of pix i took last time i was there on my D70 , which is perfectly adequate for my current needs

MyPix

(Sorry again !)

Cannot argue with that on two counts ... D70s was my intro to dSLR & you use a Nikon !

Ps - great album photo ... self ?

MyPix · 01-01-2006, 18:46

Yes.....Tis I,

the good wifey took it on Tangalooma beach , Moreton Island of the East coast of Australia in March this year

MyPix

Jonny · 01-01-2006, 23:40

2.7mp? Ouch.

What size prints would that get you? I can't imagine that you'll get any decent sized prints from that

MyPix · 02-01-2006, 10:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonny

2.7mp? Ouch.

What size prints would that get you? I can't imagine that you'll get any decent sized prints from that

u luddite....lol

think about it.....a 3mp sensor gives equivalent image quality to 35mm film, the 2.7 could easily be used to print A4 pictures and above,

and when you think a lot of us started out with vga ,xvga , 1.3mp , 2 mp and 2.5mp quality cameras, and were perfectly happy with them till the next big thing came along..
also the build quality of this unit and all the ' pro ' features still makes this camera a better buy then some ' budget ' slr models,

and someone thought it was worth £400 !!

i dont know what kit you use, but does my 6 meg D70 need to be thrown away cuz there are now 12 or 18 meg camera's about.....i think not

MyPix

Arkady · 02-01-2006, 12:07

The D1 is rubbish compared to newer cameras, even if you discount the sensor dimensions.
The colour is really horrible and skin tones look pale and magenta.
Remember this was a camera designed for journalists and with the daily newspaper market particularly in mind. Reproduction was never going to be a deciding factor, only speed of use.
At the time is was brilliant because there was nothing else available.
Nikon reasoned (rightly) that pros would buy the system of whoever got a decent camera out first - the old Kodak thing was based on an F5, so plenty of Pros already used Nikkor lenses.
It would then be too expensive to re-equip all the Press and Agency photographers with the (much better) Canons that were due to be rolled out the following year.
Most independent photographers waited, but the big organisations went ahead and bought the Nikon.

We used them in Hereford until the D1H and D1x became available and then scrapped them all. No-one even wanted to take one home with them, they were that bad compared to the new ones.

MyPix · 02-01-2006, 16:10

i suppose this is where i'm going wrong....

i'm looking at it from the bottom up, as in i have little to no disposable income for my ' Hobby ' .

If ur a pro ( whatever the background ) and you have to have the latest equipment at whatever the cost, then everything that came before will be rubbish,

however, my D70 is the only new bit of camera kit i have bought in 12 years, the last thing being a new Nikon F601 body,

and i make do with other peeps cast-offs for the rest of my equipment, its the only way i can afford to do it

MyPix

Jonny · 02-01-2006, 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyPix

u luddite....lol

think about it.....a 3mp sensor gives equivalent image quality to 35mm film, the 2.7 could easily be used to print A4 pictures and above,

and when you think a lot of us started out with vga ,xvga , 1.3mp , 2 mp and 2.5mp quality cameras, and were perfectly happy with them till the next big thing came along..
also the build quality of this unit and all the ' pro ' features still makes this camera a better buy then some ' budget ' slr models,

and someone thought it was worth £400 !!

i dont know what kit you use, but does my 6 meg D70 need to be thrown away cuz there are now 12 or 18 meg camera's about.....i think not

MyPix

I started off with a 2mp camera, and to be quite honest i was appalled at the quality. I really hated using it.

MyPix · 02-01-2006, 16:47

so why did you buy it......

MyPix

CT · 02-01-2006, 17:31

I was in love with digicams from the outset and bought one straight away when they came out at less than 1mp. The quality was awful for anything but snap size prints, and I had a series of compacts after that all gradually getting better but not quite hacking it as I wanted them to.

Anyone who bought a very early DSLR wanted their bumps feeling IMO when you could buy a compact with a built in zoom which would be as good if not better. Everyone wanted the DSLR to replace film SLR quality, but they simply didn't - although the convenience of the new technology couldn't be denied, there was a serious trade off in quality for all that convenience.

It wasn't until the 10D (in Canon terms) that the digital SLR really came of age, but I couldn't afford one at the time, so hung on to my film cameras and contented myself with those supported by a digi compact.

Modern DSLRs are fantastic, but cameras like the D1 represent very early attempts and bear little relationship to what we have today.

MyPix · 02-01-2006, 18:03

i fully agree, and in 10 years we may look back and say the same thing about the state of the art kit we ( some of you ) use now,

but just cuz its older dont mean its beyond use,

onward and upwards as they say,

MyPix

***Dave*** · 02-01-2006, 19:29

2 Megapixels used to be great when they 1st came out & even on cheap compacts can produce reasonable results. The following shot was taken with an £80 2 Megapixel compact, with minimal post processing (as I didn't understand PS at the time

)

More megapixels may improve clarity of shot, but won't change the photographer

01-01-2006, 13:15	#1 (permalink)
MyPix Forum Regular Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gloucester UK Posts: 745	Cheap Nikon D1 anyone,,,,,few hours left http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7574847425&rd=1&sspage name=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&rd=1 is it cheap ?? MyPix

01-01-2006, 13:40	#2 (permalink)
CT Feet under the table Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: West Mids UK Posts: 3,500	A lot could happen before the bidding ends, but it's cheap I suppose for a pro build camera. The problem is it's 2.74 megapixels, being introduced in 1999, and that resolution is blown away by pretty well everything now. It would be a bargain though as a second camera or even a first SLR - any lenses you bought would still fit when you upgraded the body. Early cameras will devalue massively due to the pixel increase war which has gone on for a few years but is possibly nearing the end now. The original Canon 1Ds was 6K body only for 11 mill pixels. The 2nd hand prices must be really hit now with a new 5D at under 2 grand and 12 mill pixels? 11 million pixels used to be a jaw dropper - now it's shrug __________________ Canon 1DMk2N/ EF 50mm 1.4/ EF 17-40L/ EF180L Macro/ EF100-400L Canon 20D /17-85 EF-S 580EX Flashgun/ Gitzo Explorer

02-01-2006, 12:07	#11 (permalink)
Arkady Forum Regular Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aldershot, Hampshire Posts: 1,198	The D1 is rubbish compared to newer cameras, even if you discount the sensor dimensions. The colour is really horrible and skin tones look pale and magenta. Remember this was a camera designed for journalists and with the daily newspaper market particularly in mind. Reproduction was never going to be a deciding factor, only speed of use. At the time is was brilliant because there was nothing else available. Nikon reasoned (rightly) that pros would buy the system of whoever got a decent camera out first - the old Kodak thing was based on an F5, so plenty of Pros already used Nikkor lenses. It would then be too expensive to re-equip all the Press and Agency photographers with the (much better) Canons that were due to be rolled out the following year. Most independent photographers waited, but the big organisations went ahead and bought the Nikon. We used them in Hereford until the D1H and D1x became available and then scrapped them all. No-one even wanted to take one home with them, they were that bad compared to the new ones. __________________ "When I hold a camera, I Know no fear..." Alfred Eisenstadt Nikon D2x Bodies x2 14mm f/2.8 Sigma; 17-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 28-80mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 24-85mm f/2.8-4 Nikkor; 80-200mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 300mm f/2.8 Nikkor; 600mm f/4 Nikkor SB-800 Flash x2

01-01-2006, 17:12	#3 (permalink)
Arkady Forum Regular Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aldershot, Hampshire Posts: 1,198	Ah, but for £900 you could have a minty-fresh D1x. Buy my bl00dy camera someone!!!

01-01-2006, 18:46	#8 (permalink)
MyPix Forum Regular Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gloucester UK Posts: 745	Yes.....Tis I, the good wifey took it on Tangalooma beach , Moreton Island of the East coast of Australia in March this year MyPix

01-01-2006, 23:40	#9 (permalink)
Jonny Getting Comfy Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 160	2.7mp? Ouch. What size prints would that get you? I can't imagine that you'll get any decent sized prints from that

02-01-2006, 16:10	#12 (permalink)
MyPix Forum Regular Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gloucester UK Posts: 745	i suppose this is where i'm going wrong.... i'm looking at it from the bottom up, as in i have little to no disposable income for my ' Hobby ' . If ur a pro ( whatever the background ) and you have to have the latest equipment at whatever the cost, then everything that came before will be rubbish, however, my D70 is the only new bit of camera kit i have bought in 12 years, the last thing being a new Nikon F601 body, and i make do with other peeps cast-offs for the rest of my equipment, its the only way i can afford to do it MyPix

02-01-2006, 16:47	#14 (permalink)
MyPix Forum Regular Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gloucester UK Posts: 745	so why did you buy it...... MyPix

02-01-2006, 17:31	#15 (permalink)
CT Feet under the table Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: West Mids UK Posts: 3,500	I was in love with digicams from the outset and bought one straight away when they came out at less than 1mp. The quality was awful for anything but snap size prints, and I had a series of compacts after that all gradually getting better but not quite hacking it as I wanted them to. Anyone who bought a very early DSLR wanted their bumps feeling IMO when you could buy a compact with a built in zoom which would be as good if not better. Everyone wanted the DSLR to replace film SLR quality, but they simply didn't - although the convenience of the new technology couldn't be denied, there was a serious trade off in quality for all that convenience. It wasn't until the 10D (in Canon terms) that the digital SLR really came of age, but I couldn't afford one at the time, so hung on to my film cameras and contented myself with those supported by a digi compact. Modern DSLRs are fantastic, but cameras like the D1 represent very early attempts and bear little relationship to what we have today.

02-01-2006, 18:03	#16 (permalink)
MyPix Forum Regular Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gloucester UK Posts: 745	i fully agree, and in 10 years we may look back and say the same thing about the state of the art kit we ( some of you ) use now, but just cuz its older dont mean its beyond use, onward and upwards as they say, MyPix

02-01-2006, 19:29	#17 (permalink)
*Dave* Pixalo Crew Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 14,892	2 Megapixels used to be great when they 1st came out & even on cheap compacts can produce reasonable results. The following shot was taken with an £80 2 Megapixel compact, with minimal post processing (as I didn't understand PS at the time ) More megapixels may improve clarity of shot, but won't change the photographer

02-01-2006, 22:35	#18 (permalink)
Arkady Forum Regular Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Aldershot, Hampshire Posts: 1,198