# New to me Nikon D1...



## Stradawhovious (Feb 7, 2016)

It's been a long time since I posted here.  Hell, it's been a long time since I pressed a shutter.  Many of you won't remember me and those who do probably have only a vague memory of my shenanigans but that's ok.  My love of this hobby my have recently been rekindled by a Nikon body that's largely been obselete for well over a decade.

The Nikon D1.

I recently picked this bad boy up locally, with an antique Nikkor 80-200mm push pull zoom lens (that I will likely never use) for $75.  In 1999, when I was fresh out of trade school making $7.00 an hour, I was convinced I would never ever own this $5,500 professional camera.  Didn't stop me from dreaming about it though...

Fast forward to last week, I just then realized that this body now sells for less than a decent dinner at the local brewpub.

So now I own it.

Let me be clear.  This camera leaves an awful lot to be desired... 2.7MP, very poor low light performance evidenced by tons of noise and horizontal banding, tiny sensor, terrible and inconsistent color rendering, useless pic preview screen... the list goes on. 

What it DOES have going for it is that it's still a professional level camera. No, really, it is. Or was anyways... The viewfinder is wonderfully bright, the controls are all precise and where they need to be and this guy is built like a tank. Forget the endless options and menus of my D7000, this guy has one job.  Take pictures.  Every button and switch on it is geared towards this one goal with no unnecessary bells and whistles.  It allows me to focus on shooting in manual mode, relaxing and having a good time again.  So what if my pictures aren't absolutely perfect in image quality.  They aren't perfect in subject or composition either, so who cares.

Hopefully I will once again join the ranks of the casual shutterbug with this new purchace.  God knows I'm already looking at the Nikon D2X...

To those of you who remember me, I hope you're doing well and I hope to be a reasonably frequent poster here once again in the very near future.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 7, 2016)

Cool - new gear is always good, even if it's new old gear.  Good to see you back!


----------



## KmH (Feb 7, 2016)

Trade up to a D1X.


----------



## Solarflare (Feb 8, 2016)

Congrats ! Have fun.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Feb 8, 2016)

KmH said:


> Trade up to a D1X.



Nah,  the D1 was simply for nostalgic reasons.  When/if I upgrade it will probably be to a D2X.  Sure I'd like to get a FX or more recent pro body, but my level of talent and commitment/involvment don't justify it.  I'm just happy to have spent a portion of the weekend pressing the shutter button again.


----------



## goodguy (Feb 8, 2016)

Wow, interesting, I never heard of this camera, had to look it up before replying to your post, looks so cool and it does look like a tank.
From reading a quick Ken Rockwell review it looks like he has very little love to this camera but that doesn't matter one bit, the only important thing is that you are happy and having fun.

Enjoy your new toy and welcome back


----------



## Stradawhovious (Feb 8, 2016)

goodguy said:


> From reading a quick Ken Rockwell review it looks like he has very little love to this camera but that doesn't matter one bit, the only important thing is that you are happy and having fun.



Yeah, I'm kind of over allowing the opinions of others dictate what I end up with in my life.  I would much rather do my own research and decide what's best for me, although I do enjoy a good Ken Rockwell review.  He is quite right though...  this body is drastically outdated, and painfully obsolete.   Even the hilariously outdated DX1 is a far superior body in that it eliminates many of the shortcomings of the D1, and can be had for nearly the same price.  The good news is I knew this going into the purchase, so there were no surprises.  For me, even if this thing doesn't get more than 50 clicks on it in my hands, it's worth the $75 sitting in my office acting as a conversation piece.

After toying with it though, I think it will get far more use than that.  My kids and wife want to learn the mechanics of photography now too... and I think this would be the perfect tool due to its brilliant simplicity.  Aperture, shutter, ISO.  All right there, nothing else to get in the way.




tirediron said:


> Good to see you back!



You sure about that??


----------



## beachrat (Feb 8, 2016)

I guess the 80-200 is the f4.5?


----------



## Stradawhovious (Feb 8, 2016)

beachrat said:


> I guess the 80-200 is the f4.5?



That's the one, but it's the not the one Rockwell raves about, since it doesn't have the square rear element window.  I'm sure it's a fine lens.  I simply don't have time for a manual focus, manual aperture adjustment lens.

I'm lazy like that.


----------



## beachrat (Feb 8, 2016)

Rockwell is a raver.
The 2.8 woulda been a great score.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Feb 8, 2016)

beachrat said:


> Rockwell is a raver.
> The 2.8 woulda been a great score.



Yeah, it really would have been.  I would have almost felt bad if I got the D1 and a 2.8 80-200 lens for $75.

Almost.

But sadly, this f4.5 dinosaur will likely just collect dust in my closet.


----------



## beachrat (Feb 8, 2016)

I'm sure you would have lost a lot of sleep.


----------



## Dave442 (Feb 8, 2016)

Should be great fun to use in Manual and RAW.


----------



## wfooshee (Feb 9, 2016)

That thing could tell you something about the life expectancy of the top pro cameras, having been introduced in 1999.

I wonder if you can get a shutter count for it? Upload a RAW file to camerashuttercount.com and see if they can read it. If you're curious.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Feb 10, 2016)

wfooshee said:


> I wonder if you can get a shutter count for it? Upload a RAW file to camerashuttercount.com and see if they can read it. If you're curious.



No go.  The D1 series needs to be sent to Nikon for an actuation count.  It's in fantastic shape though.  Barely a nick or ding on the guy, so I'd have a hard time believing it was a journalist rig.


----------



## epatsellis (Feb 10, 2016)

The "early" digital bodies have their own charms. If you are technically competent, and really spend time with an early body, you'll discover some amazing things. I have several early ones, including a Fuji S2, S5, Nikon D1x, D2Hs, D2x, several D100's (now either IR or full spectrum modded), and a Kodak SLR/n.

They all have their (many) weaknesses, but the Kodak has amazingly accurate color rendition, the S2 has stunning OOC jpgs, and the D1x is the most "film looking" digital I've ever used, hands down.

I have a rather extensive collection of Nikkor lenses, from early non AI to some of the latest AiS, and I tend to fall back to the same few that I used with my F2 and F3 years ago, a 35 1.4, 55 1.2 and a 135 f2, though in all fairness any of the lenses, with the exception of a few less than stellar lenses (yeah, 43-86...I'm looking at you) that were marginal on film just won't cut it even on  a 6mp body. 

I'd seriously consider the advice about the D1x, though. If there was ever a camera made for shooting for B&W conversions, the D1x is it.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Feb 11, 2016)

epatsellis said:


> I'd seriously consider the advice about the D1x, though. If there was ever a camera made for shooting for B&W conversions, the D1x is it.



I'm not a big B&W guy, but I will consider it.  I'm actually VERY tempted by the D2X.  Any reason I shouldn't grab one of those?


----------



## nomathjobs (Feb 22, 2016)

Hi all - just joined having found this thread.  I too must confess - D1 fan here.  I started my love affair (shhh...don't tell my wife) about 2 years ago w/a visit to a local pawn shop where I found an unloved D1 and a 300/4.5 ED IF for the princely sum of $20.  I knew nearly nothing about the D1 (aside from what I could easily tell from looking at it and picking it up) but figured the 300 was easily worth the asking price (despite needing a CLA).  So I plunked down my $20 and off I went....the journey had started.

Confession: I suffer from GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome) and the D1 was another affliction.  Now several D1 bodies (four?  five?  lost count...), three D1x bodies, and a D1h thrown in for good measure - I just bought another D1h.  

To my one good eye yes - the D1 series are very 'film looking' and I'd go so far as to say that the D1/D1h look like Tri-X and the D1x looks like Plus-X shot B/W in camera, bumped contrast, exposure set to under expose 1/3 stop.

I just take snaps of my kids and delude myself into thinking I get an occasional nice shot of non-kid stuff.  Art?  Nah.  Craft?  Not even that. Just like using the old gear.  

Why so many?  My wife asks the same thing.  Rationalization: I like using them and if they break, they really can't be economically fixed (hence the spares).  The real reason?  So many of them look sad, unloved, and like they need a nice retirement home - I'm here to make their remaining years comfortable.

nomathjobs


----------



## Solarflare (Mar 1, 2016)

Stradawhovious said:


> I'm not a big B&W guy, but I will consider it.  I'm actually VERY tempted by the D2X.  Any reason I shouldn't grab one of those?


 Well ... not that I am aware off.

As far as I know, the D2x is the last Nikon that still had "non-optimized" pixels. That means no microlenses. This means the camera doesnt offer much in respect to high ISO, but at low ISO it has the pixel acuity of medium format cameras, since theres gaps between the individual pixels.

Or thats what at least the user (ex-moderator) donesteban on the german forum "DSLR-Forum.de" claims about the D2x. He uses a Pentax 645D now, which apparently offers the same properties.

The new Pentax 645z however has now microlenses. Offers a lot more high ISO performance, etc, of course, too.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Mar 1, 2016)

Solarflare said:


> As far as I know, the D2x is the last Nikon that still had "non-optimized" pixels. That means no microlenses. This means the camera doesnt offer much in respect to high ISO, but at low ISO it has the pixel acuity of medium format cameras, since theres gaps between the individual pixels.



I don't know what any of that means, but thanks so much for the reply!

I'd love to wait until the D3X is affordable, but that could be FOREVER.  The D3 is within grasp financially, but the D2X is in striking distance.  If I'm honest, I will be going to FX so the D2X probably won't be in the running.   The good news is, me being a barely passable photographer, I don't have to worry about needing an upgrade any time soon.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 1, 2016)

My wedding was shot on a D1 and D1x.  I was looking at the full sized images the other day and loled.


----------



## xenskhe (Mar 1, 2016)

Stradawhovious said:


> I'm actually VERY tempted by the D2X.  Any reason I shouldn't grab one of those?



D2Hs, with JFET/LBCAST sensor but no longer worth the silly asking prices for 100k/150k bodies imo.

Agree about the S2 images even better skin tones (colder) than the s3 . I had a couple S2 and both had back/front focus problems, and the little 2mm hex screw in the mirror box is very soft alloy. S3 seemed a better camera in terms of QC (remember the black death of S2 sensors back in the day :/ )


----------



## xenskhe (Mar 1, 2016)

D40x: the camera that refuses to become worthless


----------



## Stradawhovious (Mar 1, 2016)

Braineack said:


> My wedding was shot on a D1 and D1x.  I was looking at the full sized images the other day and loled.




I'm actually quite impressed with the D1 for what it is.  As a matter of fact, I look forward to taking some shots with it tonight!  I agree though, that any "fer serious" photography would command  less obsolete hardware.



xenskhe said:


> D40x: the camera that refuses to become worthless



I had one of those once.

Once.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 1, 2016)

the D1 shoots as good now as it ever did. 
personally, if your close to a D3 budget, i would hold out for that over a D2X. 
there are still pros using the 12mp D3 with fantastic results. 
OR,  go D3X and get 24mp! Derrel only has great things to say about his.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 1, 2016)

for what it was absolutely.


----------



## gsgary (Mar 1, 2016)

goodguy said:


> Wow, interesting, I never heard of this camera, had to look it up before replying to your post, looks so cool and it does look like a tank.
> From reading a quick Ken Rockwell review it looks like he has very little love to this camera but that doesn't matter one bit, the only important thing is that you are happy and having fun.
> 
> Enjoy your new toy and welcome back


You must be very new to photography if you don't know this camera

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel (Mar 1, 2016)

Midweek, inspired by this thread, I took a D1 battery and put it on the charger, and ran a refresh cycle on it...I was thinking about shooting it this past weekend, but other things came up.

Sometime after the D1 had become obsolete, around the time the D3x hit the streets in 2009, Nikon released some information that claimed the D1's 2.7 million pixel image files were actually made from 10.8 million pixels. In effect, the D1 took 10.8 million pixels' worth of information and performed what is commonly called oversampling, or pixel binning, to get the final image with good signal to noise performance. 

Here's a good link  the D1H a 10MP camera?[/QUOTE]


----------



## nomathjobs (Mar 13, 2016)

I dunno...I kind of like the way the D1/D1x/D1h look (but I'm old).  Yes, the batteries are a pain (I just Rx'd 2 sets of 18650, so I'll be converting at least one pack ASAP) - but for me, the pain is worth it.  I enjoy shooting my kid's baseball games w/the D1h too.

But maybe I've some sort of penchant for old, big, and clunky (hey...that describes me!).

Q: Is it OK to post links to images we've posted on flickr?  Not 'showing off' but maybe an image or 2 might help illustrate why I like the D1 series?

nomath


----------



## Stradawhovious (Mar 13, 2016)

nomathjobs said:


> Q: Is it OK to post links to images we've posted on flickr?  Not 'showing off' but maybe an image or 2 might help illustrate why I like the D1 series?
> 
> nomath



If they are YOUR images, you can post them up! I'd love to see what you've captured with your D1.

If they aren't your images it's ok to post links, but not the images themselves.


----------



## nomathjobs (Mar 13, 2016)

K,thanks!  Yes, these are mine.  I just started using flickr and (to be honest) I'm not all that great at 'workflow' (read that as "gee...not sure I find the images themselves, but I know I can find links)...and I'm lazy by nature...

So to be clear: 
1. Each of the images to which I'm linking is mine, despite the fact it is a link
2. The subject is my family (sorry, not 'art' just some snaps of my boys)
3. Try not to laugh too hard and if you comment/reply, try not to be too cruel - not art, just some snaps

Summertime: Summer Fun 2015 (color images are probably from an S3 Pro, not a D1 series)
Train ride: Train Ride - March 2015
Park: March 2015 (note please that the first 3 are from a D1 series, the rest are probably from a Fuji S3 Pro - I lost track)
MK Center: Feb 2016 - MK Cntr

I've an 11x14 of this one

DSC_0030 
and this one 
DSC_0046 
in the living room

OK.....I've now stuck my neck out here.....waaaaaaay out!  First time I've shared from flickr too.......be kind 

nomath


----------



## nomathjobs (Mar 13, 2016)

Sorry, should have added - Train Ride is a D1x IIRC


----------



## Stradawhovious (Mar 13, 2016)

Thanks for sharing!


----------

