D1 and H and X

The site managers have admonished me how to use upper case and lower case (don't use upper case they say). I was further admonished generally to be polite, not to be outspoken, etc. etc. Maybe the site censors would like to edit my message to conform to their idea of a nice message.

The D1 came out at much over $5k, sank (finally) to $3500, and was quickly replaced with D1 H and X which came in at $4500 and around $5500. The new models were pitched as having a new algorithm.

What was wrong with the original algorithm? Have you noticed that these high-priced electronic gadgets after introduction are followed by models which are claimed to be great innovations and successes but which in fact merely cure some of the defects in the original product?

If you were unfortunate enough to fall for the original pitch and buy the less than well-engineered product, you are now confronted with the choice of keeping your defective/obsolete product, or replacing it all over again. The manufacturers NEVER offer a trade in or other consideration for your patronage the first time.

I thought, naively of course, Nikon would be exempt from this. Not so. With all its great name, Nikon dropped the D1 within a year and a half or so of its introduction, and now is treating its customers in the same way that any other electronic retailer (say, Palm, for example) is.

Boy am I glad I didn't buy the Nikon sales pitch a year and a half ago!

--E Brooks

Today's Fords are miles ahead (no pun intended) of yesteyear's model T. Should Ford apoloigize in the form of some kind of upgrade for past customers?

The D1 is no less usable than the computer you are now using. Yet, tomorrows computer will be superior to your current model. The D1H and X cameras will, no doubt, be better than the D1. It's called progress.

There are many pros earning a living with their D1's. They have positive proof the D1 is far less than defective or obsolete. Finally, while your comments were directed at Nikon, the same things could be said of every other digital camera manufacturer. When was the last time Canon offered a trade in? Maybe the D30 is such a perfect camera that Canon will never replace it. Yeah, right.

I strongly suspect the only reason for your post is to start a war of words. Nice job.

Steve

E Brooks said:

The site managers have admonished me how to use upper case and
lower case (don't use upper case they say). I was further
admonished generally to be polite, not to be outspoken, etc. etc.
Maybe the site censors would like to edit my message to conform to
their idea of a nice message.

The D1 came out at much over $5k, sank (finally) to $3500, and was
quickly replaced with D1 H and X which came in at $4500 and around
$5500. The new models were pitched as having a new algorithm.

What was wrong with the original algorithm? Have you noticed that
these high-priced electronic gadgets after introduction are
followed by models which are claimed to be great innovations and
successes but which in fact merely cure some of the defects in the
original product?

If you were unfortunate enough to fall for the original pitch and
buy the less than well-engineered product, you are now confronted
with the choice of keeping your defective/obsolete product, or
replacing it all over again. The manufacturers NEVER offer a trade
in or other consideration for your patronage the first time.

I thought, naively of course, Nikon would be exempt from this. Not
so. With all its great name, Nikon dropped the D1 within a year and
a half or so of its introduction, and now is treating its customers
in the same way that any other electronic retailer (say, Palm, for
example) is.

Boy am I glad I didn't buy the Nikon sales pitch a year and a half
ago!

--
E Brooks

Click to expand...

I spoke out vehemently over the D1 its chips and other problems. I was flamed, toasted, roasted killfiled and banned.

All I can do now is ;-))))

I hope someone remembers - I sure do.
Thanks.

This whole D1 obsolence stuff is real internet crap. There's tons of pros out their (including myself) using this great machine every day for a living and producing first class work. Is it a perfect camera? No. I don't know of one at all, ever. (Well, the old Canon F1 from 30 years was pretty damn close.) There have been stories about "bad color". It doesn't have bad color. It's EXCELLENT color. It was Nikon's refusal to supply a profile for it that hurt. Now that the color is understood, there is no problem. Problems with the flash? Guess I should throw the 5,000 or so pictures I've shot with flash away, even though they are perfectly exposed, since a few people don't like the flash. A piece of rubber wears off? Big deal. I havn't seen a camera yet that's totally resistant to hard wear and tear. Show me real lapses of craftsmanship,.

Folks, the machine shoots nearly 5 frames per second for 21 frames, the APS-sized sensor grabs a better image than machines twice its price, its built like a tank, and it completely revolutionized the pro digital arena. If Nikon didn't come out with something new, there'd be people griping that they were just resting on their laurels. Give it a rest.

M

E Brooks said:

The site managers have admonished me how to use upper case and
lower case (don't use upper case they say). I was further
admonished generally to be polite, not to be outspoken, etc. etc.
Maybe the site censors would like to edit my message to conform to
their idea of a nice message.

The D1 came out at much over $5k, sank (finally) to $3500, and was
quickly replaced with D1 H and X which came in at $4500 and around
$5500. The new models were pitched as having a new algorithm.

What was wrong with the original algorithm? Have you noticed that
these high-priced electronic gadgets after introduction are
followed by models which are claimed to be great innovations and
successes but which in fact merely cure some of the defects in the
original product?

If you were unfortunate enough to fall for the original pitch and
buy the less than well-engineered product, you are now confronted
with the choice of keeping your defective/obsolete product, or
replacing it all over again. The manufacturers NEVER offer a trade
in or other consideration for your patronage the first time.

I thought, naively of course, Nikon would be exempt from this. Not
so. With all its great name, Nikon dropped the D1 within a year and
a half or so of its introduction, and now is treating its customers
in the same way that any other electronic retailer (say, Palm, for
example) is.

Boy am I glad I didn't buy the Nikon sales pitch a year and a half
ago!

--
E Brooks

Click to expand...

Michael,

I agree, If anyone has a problem with Nikon and it's pursuits to improve upon a great feat, let them start their own camera mfg. business.

Bic....(; O)

Michael said:

Folks, the machine shoots nearly 5 frames per second for 21 frames,
the APS-sized sensor grabs a better image than machines twice its
price, its built like a tank, and it completely revolutionized the
pro digital arena. If Nikon didn't come out with something new,
there'd be people griping that they were just resting on their
laurels. Give it a rest.

M

E Brooks said:

The site managers have admonished me how to use upper case and
lower case (don't use upper case they say). I was further
admonished generally to be polite, not to be outspoken, etc. etc.
Maybe the site censors would like to edit my message to conform to
their idea of a nice message.

The D1 came out at much over $5k, sank (finally) to $3500, and was
quickly replaced with D1 H and X which came in at $4500 and around
$5500. The new models were pitched as having a new algorithm.

What was wrong with the original algorithm? Have you noticed that
these high-priced electronic gadgets after introduction are
followed by models which are claimed to be great innovations and
successes but which in fact merely cure some of the defects in the
original product?

If you were unfortunate enough to fall for the original pitch and
buy the less than well-engineered product, you are now confronted
with the choice of keeping your defective/obsolete product, or
replacing it all over again. The manufacturers NEVER offer a trade
in or other consideration for your patronage the first time.

I thought, naively of course, Nikon would be exempt from this. Not
so. With all its great name, Nikon dropped the D1 within a year and
a half or so of its introduction, and now is treating its customers
in the same way that any other electronic retailer (say, Palm, for
example) is.

Boy am I glad I didn't buy the Nikon sales pitch a year and a half
ago!

--
E Brooks

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

E Brooks said:

The D1 came out at much over $5k, sank (finally) to $3500, and was
quickly replaced with D1 H and X which came in at $4500 and around
$5500. The new models were pitched as having a new algorithm.

What was wrong with the original algorithm? Have you noticed that
these high-priced electronic gadgets after introduction are
followed by models which are claimed to be great innovations and
successes but which in fact merely cure some of the defects in the
original product?

If you were unfortunate enough to fall for the original pitch and
buy the less than well-engineered product, you are now confronted
with the choice of keeping your defective/obsolete product, or
replacing it all over again. The manufacturers NEVER offer a trade
in or other consideration for your patronage the first time.

I thought, naively of course, Nikon would be exempt from this. Not
so. With all its great name, Nikon dropped the D1 within a year and
a half or so of its introduction, and now is treating its customers
in the same way that any other electronic retailer (say, Palm, for
example) is.

Boy am I glad I didn't buy the Nikon sales pitch a year and a half
ago!

Click to expand...

I can understand, and to a certain extent sympathize with your point of view. Those of us who started with film cameras spent a lot of money on cameras and lenses, but the more expensive ones were generally reliable and served us well for at least a few years. We sort of expect the same companies, now offering digital cameras to do as well by us.

But digital technology is changing at an unprecedented rate, and it all depends on what you need. For people who needed the latest and best at the time the D1 came out, and were in a position to make money with it, it was a good investment, even if far from perfect.

I was not one of those; film was working just fine for me, and I know that the first model of ANYTHING is always full of bugs and problems to be solved, usually because no real world users have had any significant input into the design process before everything is pretty much finalized for production. I didn't like to be the quality control department for poorly tested and integrated technology. So I waited. and will continue to wait, sticking with film until at least the 2nd generation (the D1X or D1H) of pro digital SLR's are available and enough photographers like me have started using them so that some credible evaluations are available. For most things, I like to be on the "trailing edge" of technology.

In the meantime, I've just picked up a Nikon Coolpix 950 at a price which lets me start playing around with digital imaging, getting my workflow organized and generally exploring the possibilities. I will upgrade to a pro-level SLR, as soon as I am convinced that it will pay for itself doing what I need a camera for.

But for those who really needed it, and were willing to put up with the problems, the original D1 and even the first expensive Kodaks, were worth it.

It all depends on what you need.

Charles

E Brooks said:

What was wrong with the original algorithm? Have you noticed that
these high-priced electronic gadgets after introduction are
followed by models which are claimed to be great innovations and
successes but which in fact merely cure some of the defects in the
original product?

Click to expand...

Shortly before I got a D1 I sold an Alpa 9d, which had served me flawlessly since 1966. Over the course of a few years I bought and sold a Nikon F5, which could have served me flawlessly for 35 years had I kept it. Neither of these cameras had a market value of 1/2 the D1 at the time it was introduced. Yet the D1 will be effectively obsolete after 3-4 years, while still taking the same pictures.

It is not the D1 camera (a combination F5/F100 body) that will be obsolete. It is the image acquisition and recording circuitry. The technical life of the camera could be decades, but the electronics will be obsolete in a few years. Fuji economized by packaging their S1 electronics into a cheap, virtually throw-away consumer body. As a result, their camera is much cheaper, much more expendable, but much less usable across the spectrum of professional applications.

The D1 was a revolutionary camera, effectively equalling or exceeding the capabilities of the Kodak DCS 620 at a much lower price point. Nothing remotely like the D1 existed for $5500 before and there still isn't really that much. Kodak, with the most nearly comparable pro digital, could only try to compete by slashing prices (until they invented the DCS 620x).

The D1x and D1h are not in any way revolutionary cameras. They are incremental improvements on the D1. In some areas, like the user interface to the camera controls, they are vastly improved. In others, like image quality, we expect significant, but more modest improvements for the D1h and, of course, the greatly increased resolution of the D1x in exchange for ccd sensitivity.

The D1 did not have design defects, so much as it had certain areas of relatively weak design. The most serious of these had to do with unnecessary electrical noise in the very sensitive ccd readout circuits. This did not make the camera unusable. It simply meant that the camera, as a system, failed to achieve the performance one would have expected from its individual components. The new cameras come much closer to achieving the full potential of the D1 concept.

But the D1x and D1h will soon (in a couple of years) be replaced by more improved models. Whether these will be a significant or even a revolutionary improvement is, of course, impossible to say. Everyone who needs the newest and "best" or simply wants it, will keep trading up. That is their privilege. The fact that you don't think it is a good expenditure of money reflects your values, but cannot be put forth as a valid criticism of the values of others. They derive some tangible or intangible benefit from the upgrade that you would not. So what?

If these "early adopters" were not out there absorbing the R&D costs of bringing products like the D1 to market and of upgrading its performance, there would never be an "ultimate" camera developed for you to buy.

...Dan

I've not heard many negatives about the D1. Surely as professionals we buy equipment when we can see it will make us a profit. If not, why buy it? When we buy a computer or software (photoshop being a perfect example) we know that it will be upgaded and "obsolete" in a very short period of time. We must calculate that into the equation when making a purchasing decision. Luckily we can usually survive for a relatively long time using this "obselete" equipment or software until something comes that will be such an advance that it will be cost effective to upgade. I can see the problem if one simply upgrades to keep up with the Jones' but this is not how good business decisions are made. I'm currently looking at the profitability of purchasing a D1x even though I expect that this model will be updated before too long. With this technology you cannot keep ahead of the game! It is not up to Nikon or any other company to be responsible for the business desicions we make. Ian

I agree and am constantly surprised by how many people don't seem to get it.

Leonard

Ian said:

I've not heard many negatives about the D1. Surely as professionals
we buy equipment when we can see it will make us a profit. If not,
why buy it? When we buy a computer or software (photoshop being a
perfect example) we know that it will be upgaded and "obsolete" in
a very short period of time. We must calculate that into the
equation when making a purchasing decision. Luckily we can usually
survive for a relatively long time using this "obselete" equipment
or software until something comes that will be such an advance that
it will be cost effective to upgade. I can see the problem if one
simply upgrades to keep up with the Jones' but this is not how good
business decisions are made. I'm currently looking at the
profitability of purchasing a D1x even though I expect that this
model will be updated before too long. With this technology you
cannot keep ahead of the game! It is not up to Nikon or any other
company to be responsible for the business desicions we make. Ian

Click to expand...

To E. Brooks.

I agree with you, the camera manufacturer's philosophy and marketing strategies has changed drasticly in the last 10 or so years. When I first bought my F1 ( Canon ) a long time ogo... I did so because I wanted a camera that would last me a life time. It was "the perfect" camera. In 25- 30 years it underwent very " little" improvement. The first roll of K25 was as well exposed as the last one. I did not have to concern myself about noise, unless I wanted to shoot pused 400 ISO.
The promis of "now" has melted our circutry during y2k...

In my oppinion Kodak, Nikon and Canon ( Epson ) HP are all taking the 'Now" generation for a ride. For the last 30 years the quest was for how fine of a grain film can we have. How much detail can be recorded by the lens and film combination. How big can a 35 film be enlarged. Etc...

In 2001, these are no longer the issue...Detail can not be created or printed for that matter. It ia no longer necessary. We have Nikon who is able to tell prospective buyers that their image sensore is capable capturing 4000 pixcels but interpolates it down to 3000 and it is good?????while in another direction it interpolates up to reach a 5.5 MP count ??????

The D1 was in developments for nearly ten years for news coverage. It excells at it. The problem is when these new cameras are used for other picture taking activity. The Kodak 620x is so noisy that it could not be used at any ISO setting for critical portrature for example.
I love digital photography and printing... but please
Tony

leonard said:

Leonard

Ian said:

I've not heard many negatives about the D1. Surely as professionals
we buy equipment when we can see it will make us a profit. If not,
why buy it? When we buy a computer or software (photoshop being a
perfect example) we know that it will be upgaded and "obsolete" in
a very short period of time. We must calculate that into the
equation when making a purchasing decision. Luckily we can usually
survive for a relatively long time using this "obselete" equipment
or software until something comes that will be such an advance that
it will be cost effective to upgade. I can see the problem if one
simply upgrades to keep up with the Jones' but this is not how good
business decisions are made. I'm currently looking at the
profitability of purchasing a D1x even though I expect that this
model will be updated before too long. With this technology you
cannot keep ahead of the game! It is not up to Nikon or any other
company to be responsible for the business desicions we make. Ian

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I just purchased a F100 and have read the review by Bjørn Rørslett http://www.foto.no/nikon/index2_PC.html on the Nikon D1x (looks pretty good so far). I hope my D1x will be arriving soon!

My Nikon 950 died of overuse (zoom motor died and it is not worth fixing). I have taken thousands of pictures with digital cameras and an old Pentax SLR. We all are very lucky to be living at this time things are really coming together. I have been in a precision instrumentation industry and I know the pit falls. I would hate to make traditional SLR cameras not alone digital cameras. I am surprised at the high quality of the goods we are getting! As far as upgrading existing systems, it is very difficult for manufactures to do this. There are too many issues that make it impossible for them to make a profit on upgrading systems (and making a profit is why they are in business). To create a platform that supports upgrades is extremely difficult and costly and usually the customers want a packaging change anyway. Try to be reasonable folks the semi conductor industry that I was in was notoriously unaccommodating at least Nikon has their ears open!

J.H.W.