«

okay, so i decided i'm going to get a dslr. the problem is, i'm not going to
buy new. i may not like the medium, so i'm not shelling out big, at first.

the two options i am down to are:

a used Nikon D100, or used D1

i have older nikon glass (AIS) so i know the d100 won't meter fo these, but
the d1 will. my main concern with the d1 is the megapixel size. 2.7???

is that even useable nowadays? i mean, i might want an occasional 8x12, even
with a little cropping. is that asking way too much from this camera? even
though the D100 is only 6 mp, i could imagine that its enlargement
capabilities are greater.

please feel free to post pros and cons for both.

thanks....

"joe mama" <> writes:
> i have older nikon glass (AIS) so i know the d100 won't meter fo these, but
> the d1 will. my main concern with the d1 is the megapixel size. 2.7???
>
> is that even useable nowadays? i mean, i might want an occasional 8x12,

Pixels were pixels when the D1 came out and pixels are still pixels.

Professionals made 11x17 and bigger with 2.7 megapixel D1 shots.
And one of the first quality consumer digicams was the Coolpix 900,
which was 1.3 megapixels. Professionals praised the 8x10's that it made.
This myth of needing 5+ megapixels for an 8x12 is pure marketing hype.

However, in other respects, the D1 is a kludgy tank by today's
standards, its user interface had weirdness, and many units had color
problems with purple, or banding problems. You might look for a D1H
which was sort of an upgraded D1.

I don't see much point to a D100 since you can get a D70 for about the
same price. Neither one of them will meter with your AIS lenses
though.

Paul Rubin wrote:
> "joe mama" <> writes:
>>i have older nikon glass (AIS) so i know the d100 won't meter fo these, but
>>the d1 will. my main concern with the d1 is the megapixel size. 2.7???
>>
>>is that even useable nowadays? i mean, i might want an occasional 8x12,
>
> Pixels were pixels when the D1 came out and pixels are still pixels.
>
> Professionals made 11x17 and bigger with 2.7 megapixel D1 shots.
> And one of the first quality consumer digicams was the Coolpix 900,
> which was 1.3 megapixels. Professionals praised the 8x10's that it made.
> This myth of needing 5+ megapixels for an 8x12 is pure marketing hype.

Well, it's true that 20x30cm (8x12 inches) with eg 4mp looks fine from
some distance, but whether or not it is acceptable depends on the
person. I'd suggest (to the OP) to download some images from the
internet (eg from camera tests) at various resolutions and print them
out at the size he's interested in. Or downsize a 10mp one to various
sizes, but then he must know what he's doing to avoid creating artifacts.

Listening to people's opinions on this will just confuse the issue, as
everybody has different definitions of "acceptable". Eg at the nikon
forum at dpreview one will find out that the 4mp D2h produces better
prints than the 10mp D200 at eg 11x17 inches (well some also insist
20x30 inches looks great). Elsewhere, one hears that at 8x12 inches, the
resolution difference between the Nikon D200 (10mp) and Canon 5D (12mp)
is huge (even at ISO 100). Clearly, something is fishy here.

To reiterate: print out and see for yourself, but make sure you process
everything equally well.


>
> However, in other respects, the D1 is a kludgy tank by today's
> standards, its user interface had weirdness, and many units had color
> problems with purple, or banding problems. You might look for a D1H
> which was sort of an upgraded D1.
>
> I don't see much point to a D100 since you can get a D70 for about the
> same price. Neither one of them will meter with your AIS lenses
> though.

"Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
news:...

> Professionals made 11x17 and bigger with 2.7 megapixel D1 shots.
> And one of the first quality consumer digicams was the Coolpix 900,
> which was 1.3 megapixels. Professionals praised the 8x10's that it made.
> This myth of needing 5+ megapixels for an 8x12 is pure marketing hype.
>
>

A 2.3 MP camera can produce a 4 x 6 at 300 dpi. To produce an 8 x 10 while
maintaining 300 dpi would require over 7 MP.

Sure you can do an 8 x 10 with a Coolpix 900's 1.3 MP, and it will look okay
from a few feet away, but it will not have the resolution of a 7 MP camera.

As for those "pros" that were making 11 x 17 prints from D1s, about how
many of them are still doing that? How many "pros" continue to ise the D1
as their main camera anymore?

"Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
news:...
> "joe mama" <> writes:
>> i have older nikon glass (AIS) so i know the d100 won't meter fo these,
>> but
>> the d1 will. my main concern with the d1 is the megapixel size. 2.7???
>>
>> is that even useable nowadays? i mean, i might want an occasional 8x12,
>
> Pixels were pixels when the D1 came out and pixels are still pixels.
>
> Professionals made 11x17 and bigger with 2.7 megapixel D1 shots.
> And one of the first quality consumer digicams was the Coolpix 900,
> which was 1.3 megapixels. Professionals praised the 8x10's that it made.
> This myth of needing 5+ megapixels for an 8x12 is pure marketing hype.
>
> However, in other respects, the D1 is a kludgy tank by today's
> standards, its user interface had weirdness, and many units had color
> problems with purple, or banding problems. You might look for a D1H
> which was sort of an upgraded D1.
>
> I don't see much point to a D100 since you can get a D70 for about the
> same price. Neither one of them will meter with your AIS lenses
> though.

Hi.

The D80, D70, D50 & D100 will not meter with AI lenses. That may or may not
be a major problem depending on how you work.

You can check the Histogram immediately after taking a shot, so you would
know whether the exposure was accurate or not.

If you tend to take your time over your shooting, then this is not a
problem.

The new D200 will meter with AIs, but is of course considerably more
expensive, and probably won't be available second hand for some time yet.

Roy G