Any opinions on the Nikon D1?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It is a good camera and it is worth about half what you will pay. ;-D

If you have to ask then this camera is not for you.

Google is your friend as is www.dpreview.com


"AW" <alon.wolman@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BAuRd.35850$uc.13128@trnddc03...
> Can someone tell me if this is a good camera and what it is worth? Thanks.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks. Yes, I'm quite a newbie to cameras but I might be able to get one of
those cameras for a good price (perhaps around $400) and I want to know if
it has any flaws or things that make it a camera I should avoid buying for
any reason. I'm not sure if I really need the extra MP, since I need smaller
pics anyway that are practical for use on the internet. Should I snatch this
one up?


"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:%OuRd.166406$K7.98996@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> They are old (5-6 years) now and only 2.74MP, expect to pay US$500-700
> secondhand and well used.
>
> "AW" <alon.wolman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:BAuRd.35850$uc.13128@trnddc03...
> > Can someone tell me if this is a good camera and what it is worth?
Thanks.
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

No, it does not appear to include a lens. How much will a decent all-purpose
lens cost, maybe used, that will be probably used for mainly close-up,
indoor pics? Thanks.

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:rivRd.95358$0u.20393@fed1read04...
>
> "AW" <alon.wolman@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:MfvRd.41811$uc.6053@trnddc04...
> > Thanks. Yes, I'm quite a newbie to cameras but I might be able to get
one of
> > those cameras for a good price (perhaps around $400) and I want to know
if
> > it has any flaws or things that make it a camera I should avoid buying
for
> > any reason. I'm not sure if I really need the extra MP, since I need
smaller
> > pics anyway that are practical for use on the internet. Should I snatch
this
> > one up?
>
> Does it come with a lens that suits your needs?
> -Or is it just the body with no lens?
> If no lens, then pe prepaired to pony up additional cash for a camera that
is severely
> low-resolution by today's standards.
>
> > "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:%OuRd.166406$K7.98996@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> They are old (5-6 years) now and only 2.74MP, expect to pay US$500-700
> >> secondhand and well used.
> >>
> >> "AW" <alon.wolman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> news:BAuRd.35850$uc.13128@trnddc03...
> >> > Can someone tell me if this is a good camera and what it is worth?
> > Thanks.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I hate to disappoint you, I tried this same trick late last year. I tried to
get a Nikon D100 on the cheap, I thought for sure given the D70's
introduction the D100 could be had for $650-700, after all the very
comparable-to-it Canon EOS10D had dropped down to that range and the better
D70 was right at $1000. But in fact, good freaking luck; the D100 sells for
at least $800 used, commonly $900. It's ridiculous.

I agree with the others, you will pay an inordinate amount of money for it
considering the low resolution it has by today's standards. Yes it has a
very tough build as it's based on the Nikon F5, but resolution-wise heck the
cheap models like the Canon Digital Rebel or Nikon's own D70 would far
surpass it in image quality.

A Nikon D1x would be much better, and they have dropped in price a lot from
what they used to cost. They have 5.7 megapixels if I recall (practically 6)
and the same tough body, that's a better bet. Or, the Canon EOS10D can be
had for $700 or so, or the Canon Digital Rebel can be had sometimes used at
Fred Miranda's buy/sell form (http://www.fredmiranda.com) for $600 or so,
sometimes with the 18-55 lens.

I do like Nikons for real, but it is amazing how much their older cameras
(the D1x excepted) cost. It just doesn't compute to me.

LRH

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

There is an automatic mode I can use, right? And can I buy a 'macro lens'
seperately? Also, if i can post pics on ebay hosted from a different site, I
can use higher res pics...

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:Q7ydnTAyLbveO4vfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
>
> "AW" <alon.wolman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:JlvRd.41812$uc.3431@trnddc04...
> > No, it does not appear to include a lens. How much will a decent
> > all-purpose
> > lens cost, maybe used, that will be probably used for mainly close-up,
> > indoor pics? Thanks.
> >
> > "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> > news:rivRd.95358$0u.20393@fed1read04...
> >>
> >> "AW" <alon.wolman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:MfvRd.41811$uc.6053@trnddc04...
> >> > Thanks. Yes, I'm quite a newbie to cameras but I might be able to get
> > one of
> >> > those cameras for a good price (perhaps around $400) and I want to
know
> > if
> >> > it has any flaws or things that make it a camera I should avoid
buying
> > for
> >> > any reason. I'm not sure if I really need the extra MP, since I need
> > smaller
> >> > pics anyway that are practical for use on the internet. Should I
snatch
> > this
> >> > one up?
> >>
> >> Does it come with a lens that suits your needs?
> >> -Or is it just the body with no lens?
> >> If no lens, then pe prepaired to pony up additional cash for a camera
> >> that
> > is severely
> >> low-resolution by today's standards.
> >>
> >> > "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:%OuRd.166406$K7.98996@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >> >> They are old (5-6 years) now and only 2.74MP, expect to pay
US$500-700
> >> >> secondhand and well used.
> >> >>
> >> >> "AW" <alon.wolman@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:BAuRd.35850$uc.13128@trnddc03...
> >> >> > Can someone tell me if this is a good camera and what it is worth?
> >> > Thanks.
> >> >> >
>
> Just a thought: If you are buying this camera for shooting items for
eBay,
> you would probably be much happier with a simple point and shoot digital
> that has a macro function. No extra lenses and settings to deal with, and
> in many cases you can post the original pics from the camera without any
> extra work. You don't need much more than a 640x480 image.
>
>