# Nikon D100



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 23, 2012)

I'm buying one of these bodies as a backup body/weekend shooter. I'm mostly interested in the fact that this body is VERY cheap and comes with an internal focus motor. Anyway, you all's thoughts on the body? Every where i have read puts the image quality in comparison to the D40 and D60.


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Jul 24, 2012)

Yup thats what I have heard also, It has the same relationship to the D1 that the D200 has to the D2 ..  Very similar sensors and internals  that generate raw files that are not much smaller in size than big brother.  These days though as cheap as a D1X is you would have to be getting that D100 really really cheap to make it a worth while purchase. I was on KEH the other day and they had D1X bodies for way way under $300 and I know sometimes you see them on CL for $250 or less. The only reason I have not bought a D1X is that I am not sure it would not be a step up in image quality from my D40. I know the camera would be a big step up in ruggedness and quality but image quality I am uncertain.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Jul 24, 2012)

SamSpade1941 said:


> Yyou would have to be getting that D100 really really cheap to make it a worth while purchase.



$150.00 for the body, a 50mm 1.8D, 55-200 AF-S, 2 batteries, & a bag. I figured I would buy it, sell the bag and lenses and get my money back, as I already have a 50mm 1.8G, 55-200mm AF-S, & bag.


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Jul 24, 2012)

Well then you would really in the end run be getting the body for free after you sell the lenses might as well go for it assuming the camera has no issues.


----------



## eric1971 (Jul 25, 2012)

Sounds like a no brainer.  However, if you plan to use the camera, I would resell everything and put the money toward a  D90.  These days you can pick up nice used ones for $500 or less.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 25, 2012)

I think a used D70 or D70s for $175 is a much better camera. The D100 shot JPEGs that were very poor...dark...muddy... and SOFT. The D70 and D70s are significantly newer and better imagers. And cost only around $25 more. AND they have the in-body AF motor you want. PLUS, much better sensors. The D100's in-camera JPEG files need a LOT of post work to make them presentable; the D70 and D70s have a much better,more-sophisticated JPEG engine in them.

EDIT: I mis-rread the original post...$150 for the camera AND the 2 lenses and bag is a good price. A very low price. Still, I'm not enamored of the D100's images.


----------



## artsygirl (Jul 28, 2012)

I don't make a living off of my pictures. Most pros I've seen would opt for the much more expensive D1x or Canon EOS-1D as their primary DSLR, but wouldn't hesitate to have a D100 in their bag as a backup. If you're a very serious amateur or have professional aspirations, look no further than Nikon's new D100.


----------



## KmH (Jul 28, 2012)

The D100 isn't new. It was introduced just over 10 years ago in Feb. 2002.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 28, 2012)

artsygirl said:


> I don't make a living off of my pictures. Most pros I've seen would opt for the much more expensive D1x or Canon EOS-1D as their primary DSLR, but wouldn't hesitate to have a D100 in their bag as a backup. If you're a very serious amateur or have professional aspirations, look no further than Nikon's new D100.



Amazon.com: Brendan Getchel's review of Nikon D100 6MP Digital SLR Camera

Artsygirl? AKA Brendan Getchel?


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Jul 28, 2012)

I am thinking someone is in a technology vacuum the D100 is not a bad camera but there have been newer cameras since that time with much better sensors. You might want to do some more research ArtsyGirl pros really are not shooting the D1 series anymore or using the D100 as a back up.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 28, 2012)

SamSpade1941 said:
			
		

> I am thinking someone is in a technology vacuum the D100 is not a bad camera but there have been newer cameras since that time with much better sensors. You might want to do some more research ArtsyGirl pros really are not shooting the D1 series anymore or using the D100 as a back up.



Refer to my post.


----------



## SamSpade1941 (Jul 28, 2012)

thanks tyler.


----------



## Tee (Jul 28, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Amazon.com: Brendan Getchel's review of Nikon D100 6MP Digital SLR Camera
> 
> Artsygirl? AKA Brendan Getchel?



It's been 10 years. Maybe Brendan is now called Brenda?


----------



## jake337 (Jul 30, 2012)

shahhelan said:


> The D100 enters that new segment of the digital camera market which was created when Canon released the EOS-D30. It's the middle ground between the high end $1,000 prosumer digital cameras and professional D-SLR's.
> The D100 has a six megapixel sensor, a body loosely based on the F80 , a Nikon F mount and a set of features which make it an extremely attractive and capable proposition.





????????

Were is all this spam coming from.....


----------



## Wyldrabbit (Nov 14, 2016)

I just bought a D100 myself. It came with a lens,battery,card & charger. The D100 has surpassed my expectations.  I believe I made an excellent choice, and I paid such a small amount for it, $120- with free shipping from Ebay, I have no real reason to purchase anything better. I am not a pro, obviously. But I would recommend it to any one who wants something more than what a PAS or even the newer simple cameras can deliver.  It even feels worthy, unlike many of the newer model digitals put out for consumers.  If  you get one that has not been used to death, you are looking at a camera that will last for many years.... and if it dies.. sell it for parts and buy another.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 14, 2016)

Welcome to TPF - just a point of order; this thread is almost 4 1/2 years old.  Perhaps a "This is me" thread in the "Welcomes & Introductions" forum?


----------

