Would you buy a D100 now?

No, I already own one. Great camera. I decided to pass on the D200 and, like you, am entertaining the idea of opting for a D2X. If I go that route, I'll keep the trusty old D100 for a backup body. At the prices you can find D100s these days, it's hard to imagine going wrong using one as your "interim solution".

I have used a D100 for 3 1/2 years and like it just fine. I used a D70s for a week, perhaps I didn't use it long enough to get the settings fine tuned but didn't see any better image quality nor was it easier to PP the files. BUT, it does have some features that have been mentioned, that would make me consider it over the D100. Having said that, I would get a D200 because it is dust and water sealed. That may not be important to you but every time I get caught in the rain I worry about the D100 going up in smoke, of course the price for the D200 is more than double these days.

Regards
RB
--
http://www.pbase.com/rebond

I've taken and seen some fantastic images with the D100 I had bought a D70 once and returned it immediatly because it did'nt compare to the D100 features and feel, I just bought a D200 that I recommend highly, anyway I bought a second D100 that I hardly used with a new SB80DX that I will put on ebay next week.
Good luck
Roger
--
Roger104

I thought that you were talking about the D200, too. You mixed references to both cameras in the same sentence, with the name D200 closest.

(quote)They are not too much money now the D200 is out and it seems like a good camera (can't believe there is no pc socket though!!) and it could be a good back up when I get the D2X.

I can understand the confusion.

By the way, I used to retouch photos by a guy who had a D100. It seemed like a pretty good camera in the right hands. Unfortunately, though, the retouching I did was for a guy with the wrong hands.

Tim

Thanks everyone for you views and advice.

I have thought hard and decided to go for a D100. I think the D2H/D2Hs would have been a good option but I couldn't find one within my budget. Even on ebay!!

I also felt that, even though i'm sure the quality of picture it takes is better than the D100, when enlarging a 4MP photo to it's maximum size it wouldn't look as good as a 6MP photo. Am I wrong?

I have seen some great looking photos taken with the D100 on this site and others and am sure it will do me proud until I get my D2X, and then it should make a great back up.

I don't feel i've entered the stone age as someone said in this thread. If I have I wonder where I was for the past few years when I was using my E20? And I'm still using my F5!!! It's not about the latest toys, it's about the beautiful and inspiring photographs you produce.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Julian

You did not make a mistake. I have had d70 for 2 years and last year purchased a old d1h. The D1h is head and shoulders above the D70, but that's a different story. Anyway, this year I had the itch and a few bucks and being as my d70 hasn't had bglod yet, I don't really trust it and the D1h is just too big to carry around unless you are just going somewhere to take pictures I narrowed it down to d100 or d50. I finally decided on d100 and couldn't be happier. I had been led to believe that d70 was basically the equal of d100 all this time. - Wrong - you can feel and hear the difference when using it. Some of my screw drive lenses (28-200 in particular) are very noisy on my d70 and very quiet on d1h. I have now found out that they are quiet on the d100 also. For my uses there appears to be very little difference in pict quality between the two - d70 maybe slightly sharper - d100 slightly smoother (less noise) - sort of a tradeoff. Once my d70 finally succumbs to bglod and I get it fixed, then I will have full confidence in it again. Not just sure which I will use most then. Have to decide where each one shines I suppose. But the d100 does feel like much better build to me.

Don't worry, in 4 years you'll hear how the D200 is a dinosaur and you should opt for the D??? Getting the D100 and making your investment in Nikon glass with the money saved is a great way to start taking great photos. Don't skimp on the glass if you can, that's where the biggest differentiation in your photos will be found.

--
http://www.pbase.com/rebond

Since you have decided on the D100, here are 1690 images shot with

my D100. If you use good glass and post process your image properly, you won't be sorry.

http://www.pbase.com/ronnie_14187

--
http://www.pbase.com/ronnie_14187

It's less about the subject and more about the composition & light- Ronnie Gaubert.

Good choice. These are mostly done with a D100:

http://www.pbase.com/mybigboy

--
People want the best stuff and they want you to give it to 'em.

I couldn't agree more! It's much nicer build quality and rememer, someday the D200 will be old! Just because there is something newer takes nothing away from the D100. I wonder if any camera out there can match it's battery life?

MrLylie said:

I would get a D100 - I recantly Got a D100 for next to nothing, and
I love the camera. my brother and a friend of mine both have the
D70s, but seems to "consumer" type to me, ,like you mentioned. The
D100 is an amazing camera, yes it might be 4 years old now, but
still takes amazing pictures.

I would still go for a D100 over the D70/70s anytime, feels more
like a "pro" body than the D70s

The setup of the D100 is very nice, but yeah.
GO for D100, even a second hand one would be good.

Hope you make the right decision for you.

Regards
Duran
--
dont forget 2dream...

Click to expand...

--

'When trying to make art, don't make the camera do all the work.' from CBS Videographer Darryl Barton at NPPA boot camp.

I 3rd that. I love my D100. I have a D2Hs and a D100 and i still use the old D100 quite often. The 1 disadvantage is that he flash for D100 is nothing compared to iTTL on the newer bodies.

--
Tommy
http://www.tlmartin.com

Thanks again guys.

My D100 should turn up today so I'll let you know how I get on.

I know what you mean by getting good lenses too. I couldn't afford the nikon lenses I wanted as they cost over £900 (I shall hopefully get that level of lens when I get my D2X) so I got a Tamron AF 28-75mm f2.8 XR Di. Anyone know if thats any good? I've also got a Nikon 50mm f1.8 and an old sigma 75 -300mm that cost me £60 second hand!!!

By the way, whats "bglod"?

Julian

D100 with MB D100 grip might be what you are looking for. Superb value for money. Used D2h might be a better option, though more expensive? I'd prefer either of these to a D70.

Hi BB

You should not be disappointed. The out-of-camera shots may well look a little flat and under-saturated at first - this is very much the D100 "style". I prefer to think of the camera's conservatism as leaving the decision to me. The D70 has more instant "pop" to its images but less latitude for post process, which can be annoying if you like subtle treatment of colour. There is also the issue of reliability.

We have three D100's in the family, in use between my wife and duaghter - both pros. Between they they have racked up over quarter of a million exposures, one of them has passed the 150,000 mark in three years and suffered several drops, one a lens breaker. Just keeps motoring along.

We actually nipped in and bought the third one late last year as the price fell off a cliff, and I consider them an exceptional bargain.

We have D2Hs as well. Obviously, it is far faster, but we have no plans to sell the D100s. And yes, you can stretch D100 images further.

Both reward good glass though - my own view is that a D50 with Nikkor ED glass will produce better results than a D2x with Yingtongiddleyepo kit-level lens.

"bglod" ia an acronym for "blinking green light of death", a disturbingly common D70 failure. The D100, in our experience, does not know how to break.

Regards
Ewen Cameron
Kent, UK

how does the D2Hs compare? I'm thinking of upgrading this summer to D200 (and grip) or D2Hs for faster focus and bigger buffer. Any views??

Thanks Ewen. It's good to know all that.
Now I cant wait to get home and try it out.
Guess I'll have to wait while the two battries charge first!!!

Do you know if you can get the twin charger anywhere cheaper that £200 which seems a crazy price?

Julian

Julian, I don't think you will need a twin charger - at least, we never have even with very heavy use and heavy AF zooms. (our record, I think, was 920 images in a day at a large wedding last year). The batteries charge very quickly - rarely more than 30 to 40 minutes even after a heavy day's use. Our old F5 packs take hours! (we do have a twin charger for that one)

Better to put the money toward the lens budget ;-)

If you need any inspiration and have not already seen them, take a glance at Ronnie Gaubert's phenomenal D100 images here;

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=17890612

Enjoy!

Regards

Ewen

Hi Andy

I put up a post on our choice between a D200 and a D2Hs, which you might like to read first, here;

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=17843650

Apart from the speed, which we had expected, the image quality of the D2Hs has startled us. Super clean, very rich colour with a slight slant to the blue versus the D100's slight magenta tilt, and no detectable noise even at 1640. The "big pixel" effect is real. We also love the "no compromise" build and handling, the walk in and lie down viewfinder, the telepathic AF system and built-in, rather than bolt-on, battery. My wife said after just a few takes "this is the digital F5" (high praise from her)

But it does lack in very finest detail. Less than you might anticipate (to be frank the D200 doesn't actually render much more real detail than the D100), but a definite difference which may be an issue for some.

Eventually I suspect we will get a high megapixel body to compliment it (not replace it - neither the 2x or 200 come close for sports), but it would be more likely to be a D2x. In the meantime, the D100 is more than adequate when we need the pixels

We're going to try the 2Hs out on studio work shortly, I'll be interested to see how it does.

I really think it comes down to the type of work you do. The ladies do a high proportion of reportage and photojournalism, where speed is everything. Daughter is currently doing four European cities, 700 shot days, on her D100 and large files are a pain in the b*m.

The clincher was being offered a new ex-display D2Hs body with full warranty for 1500 quid. Strap still in sealed bag even. Deal done....

The chap I was corresponding with in that thread was undertaking the same comparison, and my advice to him was that, if we had to choose just one body, and on anything even remotely resembling a "budget", it would be the D200. It does most things very well, nothing badly (quality control apart - banding and colour fringing seem to be problems), and is very reasonably priced. We paid 1500 for our first D100 three years ago!

I'd recommend Grays of Westminster as knowledgable, helpful and the kind of folk you want to have bought from if you get a bad one. Keep in mind that almost every Nikon dSLR release has been bug riddled in the early days so swap-outability is an issue. Prices good too - usualy a few quid above the very cheapest, but worth it. 10 minutes walk from Victoria (the classic Nikon museum is worth the trip alone)

My day job is in the markets too - small world, isn't it!

I hope this helps

Regards

Ewen Cameron
Kent, UK

I have used the D100 for the past 3 1/2 years.

Awesome piece of gear, I carry it with me as my main backup and still get some great shots with it. It is a rugged camera and can withstand more than I have put it through in the deserts of Pak & Afghan.

I looked at the D70 & 70s but they do not have the same feel and feel cheaper than the 100.

As far as a good back up yu can't go wrong for the price & going from the 100 to the 2x is not that big of a learning curve (IMHO).

J
--
If I wake up breathing it's going to be a great day.