Best of three, D10, D100, D1x

[leheiner]

If you were not a sports photographer or journalist and had three choices for a digital Slr, including camera and lens issues, would it be the Canon 10D, Nikon D100 or the Nikon D1x? There is a $1500 price issue on the Nikon D1x, which needs to be considered. Another issue is, is the Nikon D1x better than the other two and if so why?

Lonny

[mikesmith]

The D1x is a pro camera in terms of build, so should last longer in rough use. The D100 (I own one) feels a bit flimsy, but its images are great. I don't know about the 10D.

My opinion: Unless you need a war-worthy camera, don't buy a "pro" camera. The technology changes so fast that trade-in or resale values are very low, so it becomes a very expensive proposition if you always want the latest thing. On the other hand, if you're a working photog shooting lots and lots of images, the added cost is offset by greater reliability. The images will be the same.

Mike Smith
http://www.pbase.com/mikesmith

[cslr_challenge]

By "D10" do you mean Canon 10D?

Do you have lenses for either? That may play a part.

The 10D sensor is a little better than the Nikon as far as dynamic range. However, good images can certainly be made with the Nikon cameras.

I personally did not like the Nikon D100 (have no personal experience with the D1x). You may find you have to "babysit" the sensor (AWB is not so great). But many feel it is an adequate camera.

For a 10D example, feel free to view http://www.bohne.com/canon10d.jpg

Sorry, I have no friends or acquaintances that use a D100 or D1x that I could point you to.

Best of luck,
Steve

[rkfoxman]

Since we are not talking about journalism you can safely drop D1X out of equation: no reason to spent extra bucs here (IMHO). D1X is really meant for a pro journo with its solid metal body and rugged construction.

Between D100 and 10D pick the one you have a better feel for. Picture quality is about the same. D100 makes softer images, though I wouldn't fault Nikon for it. Canon simply applies "stronger" sharpening algorithms. Resultly, you can sharpen Nikon images in the post-production (Photoshop.)

I, for one, prefer Nikon bodies (ergonomically speaking). Others like Canons. Go figure Lastly, I would recommend checking out new Nikon D70. It's almost on the same level with both 10D and D100 (in fact, it looks superior in some aspects to D100) and it price is somewhere around $1000. What really goes for Nikon is its new 18-70 lens (28-105 in 35mm conversion) which is inexpensive and likely to be quite good. Canon doesn't have a lens like that yet (though I am sure they will soon.)

[ray645]

Late reply I know, sorry

One thing about the Nikon D1x veiwfinder, it is much brighter than the D100 also most "PRO" cameras will have a larger buffer, so your not spending more time waiting for photos to write than shooting them

I keep reading that when a new model DSLR comes out it renders the older ones obsolete, absolutely false, it will still give you the same quality as it always did regardless of what the new one can do

But I buy gear to use, not for resale value, so I would feel better about a solid well built camera like the D1x vs a $1500 plastic model even at 2x the price, its nice to be able to go shoot without having to worry if you camera can handle it or not

Same reason I have been so very pleased with my F100, if they came out with an F101 I would not feel my camera needed replacing

[birdman101]

I own a D100 and a D1x. To me there is a huge difference between the two.
The D1x has a pro feel and pro features. The extra cost will pay for itself because I plan on taking photos with this camera for the next fews years no matter what new camera comes along.

[daisy77]

I, for one, prefer Nikon bodies (ergonomically speaking). Others like Canons. Go figure Lastly, I would recommend checking out new Nikon D70. It's almost on the same level with both 10D and D100 (in fact, it looks superior in some aspects to D100) and it price is somewhere around $1000. What really goes for Nikon is its new 18-70 lens (28-105 in 35mm conversion) which is inexpensive and likely to be quite good. Canon doesn't have a lens like that yet (though I am sure they will soon.)

rkfoxman...i am under the impression that the d70 is not on the market until march or april...do you know of somewhere where it could be "checked out" physically? everything i've read about this camera is pretty positive. i spoke with a guy at B and H last week who was reluctant to comment on a camera he hadn't used yet (he uses the d100 but recommended the fuji s2) but did seem to think highly of the new nikon entry into digital slr.

[texindian]

I have a D1X, D1H, and F5. I'm not a professional photographer but I obviously spend most of my discretionary cash on cameras and gear. The D1X is superb in my opinion. It has extremely low noise, even when you crank the ISO up to 1600 or 3200. It's 5.47 megapixels allow for large prints that rival silver prints, at least on an Epson 2200. And it has features to cover almost any situation that may arise.

Canon is another brand that is very popular and highly praised by owners. I don't want to start a side-debate on this, but Canon has switched its entire line to CMOS sensors while the rest of the industry uses CCD sensors for quality cameras. CMOS has its advantages over CCD technology, but until very recently its inherent noisiness has kept it out of the mainstream. Canon obviously feels it has this problem licked, and its CMOS sensors now offer higher pixel numbers than the Nikon counterparts. I know Canon users who swear by the new sensors, but I also sneak a peek into Canon forums from time to time and see where they are discussing noise-control issues. Guess it's like the old debates between Ford, Mopar, and Chevy muscle cars - depends on which one you have.

One other note: Nikon now has the D2H on the market, and has also introduced a new series of Speedlights to match the "iTTL' and "CLS" technology of this new camera. They have discontinued the older Speedlights. This only means one thing: A D2X is soon to be announced.

[ray645]

Well I recently mad the jump, I searched through stores and threads soaking up as much info as I could....

What did I learn? pixels are not created equal, I bought the D2h (the lowest pixel count going in a current DSLR) Im thrilled with my 8x10's!

My advice would be to get some RAW files from the models you are thinking about (UNTOUCHED) print them the best you can and then decide

BTW I keep the Bronica ETRSi, DSLR's still cant get the BIG print like it can (Yet anyway)

[ugot2bkdng]

What did I learn? pixels are not created equal, I bought the D2h

Hmmm, interesting. What criterion did you use to make your selection? $3K seems like a lot of money for a 4 mega pixel body unless you are a sports photographer that needs the fps.

I prefer lower noise and more pixels myself.

[ray645]

"Hmmm, interesting. What criterion did you use to make your selection? $3K seems like a lot of money for a 4 mega pixel body unless you are a sports photographer that needs the fps."

"I prefer lower noise and more pixels myself."

Well I started by reading posts on Photo.net I soon realized 90% of them where either defending a product they bought or putting down the one they didnt but mostly just spreading second hand info without ever using the equipment in question

(I really only considered Nikon because I already had some fine lenses)

I got lucky because I had access to a D1x and a Canon DSLR someone else was nice enough to mail me (I dont have high speed internet acc) a CD with RAW files from the D100 and D2h and a sample version of Capture 4

I played around in PS and capture 4 had many images printed at the my local pro lab and Ritz to get a real feel for what I had compared them to both my medium format (Bronica) and 35mm (F100) optical prints (getting rare) and scanned/printed 8x10's

Things I was looking at

1) Range of tones
2) Accurate color
2) sharpness
3) clean image (Noise,grain or both for scanned film)

Well to my surprise the D2h print came back better than the D1x and D100 every time, the Bronica and F100 where both bested at 8x10 due to inconsistent scanning and type of film being scanned

I have only owned the D2h for 4 months....

So far have had NO trouble with noise its clearly better than the film grain Id get with higher ISO's and my F100

I am thrilled with its reproduction of colors including flesh tones (I get the REAL color, If I want to alter it I can latter in RAW)

Its built great, this is very important to me I buy cameras to shoot with not worry about or have to baby it (The best shoots always seem to present themselves when your camera is safely tucked in its bag or at home because the weather is bad

Battery life is just GREAT, I can get over 1000 shots per charge (This was huge for me!!!, It also doesnt seem to lose its charge when it is not being used either, (my DV camcorder does)

The large viewfinder another big improvement, If I cant see It wont matter how many pixels I have!

I could go on and on, but for me the D2h is a great tool for general photography of all types, a medium format is better in a studio but suck in the street, an 8x10 veiw camera rocks for landscape work but thats about it, a Leica range finder would be very cool for street work but I could not use it for wildlife......I get great 8x10's using the D2h for all this and never worry about if the camera can take the abuse+ killer speed as a bonus (when you need it you need it, I was shooting with my friend using a Canon and had to stop and wait for the files to write to the card! I dont think I could get used to that)

Now having said all that B&W film still blows digital away (but it will cost you), film is the only choice for long timed exposures, Drum scanned fine grained film is better for really large prints but pricey and is slow to work with in PS due to the file size, the latitude of print film is far greater than digital (I use Fuji print film in my Bronica for this when I can)

The D2h gives me almost everything my F100 did plus much more.

[texindian]

Congrats on the new D2H, Ray. That's on my list as soon as I sell my D1H.

I'm like you re: the durability of a camera. Some might say I abuse my D1's by stuffing them quickly into a bag full of 'stuff' without any real babying, but I still don't have any dings you can see without a magnifying glass. That textured exterior is TOUGH. Enjoy!

[dsanders6]

I now own a D1 and an S1, which i bought after they had enough depreciation in them. The S1 I paid 800 and the D1 I traded a nikon coolpix 995 and $500. Since I rarely print they cover my needs for now. But look at what I put into them and look back at what they originally sold for. I'm waiting for the prices to comedown or the technology to take a major leap. If I need prints from what I'm shooting I'll fall back on my F100 or M645.

[ray645]

I now own a D1 and an S1, which i bought after they had enough depreciation in them. The S1 I paid 800 and the D1 I traded a nikon coolpix 995 and $500. Since I rarely print they cover my needs for now. But look at what I put into them and look back at what they originally sold for. I'm waiting for the prices to comedown or the technology to take a major leap. If I need prints from what I'm shooting I'll fall back on my F100 or M645.

I printed a couple 8x10's from the D1 and think they look pretty good!

Ya I guess if you had to print something the F100 and medium format might get you a decent print

I love my D2h BUT I dont think I would want to lay a 11x14 from it next to one from the 645!

For me I get more out of the DSLR than 35mm since GOOD printing is getting rare and/or expensive but I cant replace my Bronica yet, as long as I can buy Ilford Pan F 50 I doubt I ever will!