Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Older Professional DSLRs?
- Thread starter gryffinwings
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So do I, and 5 Nikkor Ai-S lenses to go with it! I have to admit, however, I am looking for a used (good condition) d700 now
My reasons for a D1H or similar camera:
While the Nikon D5100 is a good camera, and is definitely built as a solid camera for what you get, it's still a rather fragile camera, I experienced this first hand when my camera got drops accidently from about 2 feet up with lens still attached. AF unit needed replacing and everything else had to be readjusted because it had been knocked out of alignment, meaning my camera wasn't focusing properly and for some reason, most of my screen was blacked out except a top sliver of the picture. Fortunately my D5100 was covered by warrantee by Nikon, so I was all good.
This is one of the primary reasons I'm going with a D1H or whatever I find that is suitable for my needs. The only thing I'll be doing with it is shooting and I'll be shooting RAW every time because I post process my pictures, or rather learning to get better at it.
The second reason, I just can't afford to just go a buy an even more expensive camera than I already have, the D5100 was pretty much my budget limit and to be honest, the camera is pretty good and I don't think I'll be changing it.
Also I'm in the navy, I go on deployments, I'd rather not ruin my baby.
While the Nikon D5100 is a good camera, and is definitely built as a solid camera for what you get, it's still a rather fragile camera, I experienced this first hand when my camera got drops accidently from about 2 feet up with lens still attached. AF unit needed replacing and everything else had to be readjusted because it had been knocked out of alignment, meaning my camera wasn't focusing properly and for some reason, most of my screen was blacked out except a top sliver of the picture. Fortunately my D5100 was covered by warrantee by Nikon, so I was all good.
This is one of the primary reasons I'm going with a D1H or whatever I find that is suitable for my needs. The only thing I'll be doing with it is shooting and I'll be shooting RAW every time because I post process my pictures, or rather learning to get better at it.
The second reason, I just can't afford to just go a buy an even more expensive camera than I already have, the D5100 was pretty much my budget limit and to be honest, the camera is pretty good and I don't think I'll be changing it.
Also I'm in the navy, I go on deployments, I'd rather not ruin my baby.
then rather look for a D90 or D300 (not the S). a D1H, a D200, all these cameras will pale in comparison to the sensor (namely iso performance and if you go too far back MP count) of your 5100. at most go 1 gen back otherwise you might regret it. the D300 is build like a tank and since its not the S model its likely to be cheaper.
Those cameras are still way to expensive, either way as far as I'm concerned, as long as you know the limitations and shoot within them there shouldn't be an reason why you can't shoot great pictures. Film was limited as well. However, I think people need to realize is that we have been spoiled by Digital Camera Technology. I think, from what I'm seeing, a lot of people will think that the technology in the cameras will do a lot of the work for you, I personally am seeing that isn't correct. I think as long as you know what your doing and have good technique and work within the limitations of the camera, you can get excellent pictures. Film SLRs used to use low equivalent ISO film, I think 1600 was the highest, and if you weren't careful, the pictures pretty much sucked. I believe that a vast majority of pictures are taken at lower ISO levels, which in my opinion you have the highest levels of detail. I think the better pictures are a matter of getting the best sources of light, weather that is a good flash unit, the right lens, and proper preparation. I do not see what you can't get excellent pictures with a Nikon D1H.
Last edited:
no one said you couldn't. it is about how you use your camera and what skills you can bring to the table; no one ever said digital made things easier or that it was impossible to take excellent pictures with an older camera.
but you said it right within the limitations of the camera. even film users once must have hit a wall that they couldn't go beyond till the advent of digital photography or rather when the digital bodies surpassed what the film bodies could achieve (iso wise). D1H is a camera where you'll hit a wall sooner than you'd want if you are now comfortable with the 'limits' of your D5100. also you'd be surprised how many pictures are taken that you might see online that wasn't achieved with the base iso...
me personally i love using natural light as often and as much as i can (i dont do the high fashion-glamour photography have yet to dabble there) and with street and candids a flash doesn't provide me with what i want (i admit though i want to explore low-key and with that id need a few) but for the look i want right now. poor iso performance deterred me from shooting at night (in the streets with city lights) or in low light with my D200...limitations exist and it goes beyond what you can bring to the table at times esp when you're after a feel or look to the image at times...
Last edited:
Me too. It was my first 'proper' digital camera, and few days go by without it being used. I'm aware that it's not getting any younger (just like me
), but I'm also aware that it's still very capable of producing decent pix (just like me )...
Me too. It was my first 'proper' digital camera, and few days go by without it being used. I'm aware that it's not getting any younger (just like me
Im always happy with the quality of mine
Non HDR:
9 Stop HDR (Auto-bracket, no tripod)
Iceland in HDR by simbojono, on Flickr
Im always happy with the quality of mine
Non HDR:
![url]](/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F%5Burl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fsimeonjones%2F5653504898%2F%5D%5Burl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Ffarm6.staticflickr.com%2F5307%2F5653504898_c80864324d.jpg%5DImage%5B%2Furl%5D%5B%2Furl%5D&hash=1d85cdc917f893606d6eedfc486c01b1)
9 Stop HDR (Auto-bracket, no tripod)
[url=http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5225/5662223770_dd1cb0bf0e.jpg]Image[/url]
Iceland in HDR by simbojono, on Flickr
What camera were you using and how did you do a 9 stop HDR?
D200 set up to autobracket 4 stops over and under the correct exposure.
So when I hold the button down on my D200 when set up it will create a correct exposure, then start from 4 stops over exposed, and work its way through each shot until it reaches for stops under..... I think the whole process takes just under a second, so as long as I've got time, I can stand firm and get my shot.
The images are then used to create the HDR in photoshop.
But the point is its still on a D200
while i must say i like your image. i think that is a bad example of 'still on a D200'; bracketing feature aside which not all cameras will give you a 9 stop/increment option. there's also the problem about the environment you're in. any camera can handle shooting in that lighting comfortably.
ive owned a D200 (my first camera was a D60) so im not trying to say the D200 is bad. i loved it esp coming from a D60 but that statement doesnt come close to addressing the camera's limitation nor whether or not they're easily mitigated whilst using the camera. which i know they can be with a tripod/flash combo but it all has to do with the look you're after as well and whether those options allow you to attain that look...
edit: but from my understanding of this whole thread is you're looking for a camera that will 'survive' your naval deployments; the money you'll spend getting a new camera is probably better spent on a lens or a flash. you can easily mitigate the lack of the d5100's weather sealing by getting one of those rain proof glove accessories (not sure what they're called exactly). as for the build apart from giving it a nice weighty and solid feel (the metal-allow construction)...but anything that will cause the 5100 to get seriously damaged or crack open (i.e. not cosmetic) will also require a trip to Nikon for fixing with a pro-body for id say 8/10 instances. so be careful have it round your neck plus a glove-thingy and you should be fine.
btw whats it like being in the navy?
Last edited:
Well its not a case of 'still on a d200', i posted the images up to show that visually theres not actually a huge amount of difference between newer and slightly older cameras. And if you read what i said on the post all ive said is 'im always happy with the quality of mine'
TBH if i was looking for a 'professional camera' which is a slightly older model id be looking at buying a medium format and a digital back of about 16mp or something, but I cant imagine that will suit the OP.
The navy is a lot of things, lots of different types of jobs that can in fact do different types of jobs inside them. You can be stationed on a ship, land or an air crew, etc. Go to many different ports of call in the Navy. There's a lot going on, which is why I think I'd like to have a D1H as a secondary camera, considering I can get some more learning on it then my D5100, but also at the same time get good pictures and still use my lens that I have bought.
Anyways, it's a lot to describe the Navy, I'd have to write a book to describe it.
Heck of a deal you got there!
OP, as already said, you probably shouldn't go for an older camera. I think you are really underestimating how far each successive camera body has come. Look at the D3200 for example. That could have been labeled a D2 and it would have sold out real quick. Digital photography is advancing at an amazing pace. Unless you were trading to say a D3, D700, or D300, which are all old by today's standards, I would keep your D5000. If you really want an upgrade, perhaps the D7X00 series would suit you.
he's not looking to upgrade per-se. what he wants is something more durable for the rougher conditions he might experience during his deployment. however that is actually an option no one put forward...considered selling your D5100 + the extra money you were going to put into a D200-D1H etc get a D300 used from a reliable reseller or a refurbed camera?
I think that I may hold off for a D2H instead. This camera has some seriously fast continuous shooting, which could be useful for some shots I'd like to take. So I think I will hold off for now. I think this would be a better solution than a D1H, and to be honest, it's only a couple of hundred dollars more.
Also I don't plan on selling my D5100, I like it just fine. Also it's not going to hold up to bad weather, it's not weather sealed, but I do like it because it's small and easy to carry around, one reason I'm wanting to keep it. I'm really looking at having 2 cameras.
Also I don't plan on selling my D5100, I like it just fine. Also it's not going to hold up to bad weather, it's not weather sealed, but I do like it because it's small and easy to carry around, one reason I'm wanting to keep it. I'm really looking at having 2 cameras.
D2?? LOL! The 3200 is a consumer camera. Not useful to someone who needs a pro body and pro features.
Perhaps the D3200 would be slightly lacking in the feature department, but look at it spec wise. Overall the D3200 should beat any D2 model.
Ummmm... right... the D2H camera can shoot 8 FPS and has a 40 frame buffer, I doubt the D3200 can do that. I'm not making huge pictures. You have less control most likely with a D3200, D2H has more manual controls to work with, can use older lens if I so desire to buy them. I don't think that the D2H is bad, considering all my pictures are going to be post processed in Aperture 2. So I think I will be fine.
No, any D2 is not bad at all, I am just saying you might not like it as much as you would expect. Just because it was pro several years ago, doesn't mean it still is today. Yes, the D2H has more fps and access to more lenses, but that is really it for major stuff. Control wise it should also be slightly more useful, but again, at what cost. It most certainly has lower image quality, through a worse sensor, worse ISO performance, worse battery life, a larger an thus less practical body, etc. And as for the cited buffer, I took around 35 JPG "machine gun" shots before in a row on a D3000, and it didn't seem to be stopping any time soon. I would assume it should be the same or even better two generations later. After reading more through your posts I guess I cant really help you much, as I cant think of anything to suit your needs. For example, you want something durable, but I don't think dropping any camera would work out real well. I dont know of anything that is at the same time cheap, durable, and has good IQ.
Slightly lacking? Someone who needs a pro body and pro features won't even consider a D3200.
I am under the impression the OP doesn't really need the features, so I think the comparison is valid in this case. For example, he says in reference to the D1 that he can "still use my lens that I have bought." He doesn't need the extra lens capability the D2 offers, since the lenses he wants to use work without a body AF motor. Again, I don't think the D2 is a good deal for him, as besides being rainproof?, what does it offer? Durability is questionable at best. Also, think beyond just dropping it. Many of the old bodies have a huge amount of actuations, meaning a new shutter may have to be purchased soon. He cant walk to a service center in Fallujah and get a repair, meaning he might miss out on some shots until he gets home. Then we have the lack of an auto cleaning sensor that is going to quickly get dirty in a combat environment, and now the allure of it is gone.
Last edited: