D1X still looks good to me

Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
227
Location
Texas
These were taken with My D1X, with a Sigma 30 1.4 @ 1.4:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
3,937
Location
Chicago
Never used one myself, but the pics you posted look good. Even my D40 makes nice 11x14 prints at low ISO setting. Nothing wrong with low ISO either. I used Kodachrome 25 for decades.
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
10,290
Location
Holyoke, MA USA
The D1X has a badly-deserved reputation for noise....it aint all that bad after the PP converts NEFs into large-size TIFFs. And that is at iso800...I've even used it at the high iso level on occassion.

At 125 or 160 iso this camera takes very little guff from the D3.
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
10,290
Location
Holyoke, MA USA
Can you tell which of these is the D300 and which is the D1X? Without checking the EDIF, of course.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


***************************

Not even a hint?
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
5,050
Location
Miami, Florida, USA.
The D1X is a great camera. Its technology is outdated but technology does not take pictures, we do that. In my humble opinion, it is one of the best first generation color cameras made by Nikon.
I ended up giving away mine, only because I could not tolerate the battery performance.
By the way, from those two files I cannot tell which is which either.

William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
1,520
Location
Orlando, FL
The top one is the D1 - actually not too hard to spot. The reduced resolution and the reduced color bandwidth is visible even with the small sizes posted. To my eye, D1X photos (like many cameras from that era) have a certain "blocked up" look to colors that, coupled with the low resolution, give images a "thick" look that comes across much less transparent than newer cameras.

Look at the McDonald's sign on the front of the building - the white letters have a distinct "glow" to the highlights on the D300 image that the D1 image doesn't. THe yellow on the flags pops better too. The red brickwork with the white mortar on the front corner is better resolved on the D300 and appears more "delicate".

These kind of differences are one of the things that struck me when I got the D700 compared to even the original D300. It was the sense of "luminosity" and transparency.

Sorry, Harry - I personally don't think the camera holds up that well. It was quite the bee's knees at the time, though.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
227
Location
Texas
cant tell the difference Harry! Btw, I used to own a D300. I miss it, but the D1X still does the job, and does it good. Thanks all!
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
227
Location
Texas
The top one is the D1 - actually not too hard to spot. The reduced resolution and the reduced color bandwidth is visible even with the small sizes posted. To my eye, D1X photos (like many cameras from that era) have a certain "blocked up" look to colors that, coupled with the low resolution, give images a "thick" look that comes across much less transparent than newer cameras.

Look at the McDonald's sign on the front of the building - the white letters have a distinct "glow" to the highlights on the D300 image that the D1 image doesn't. THe yellow on the flags pops better too. The red brickwork with the white mortar on the front corner is better resolved on the D300 and appears more "delicate".

These kind of differences are one of the things that struck me when I got the D700 compared to even the original D300. It was the sense of "luminosity" and transparency.

Sorry, Harry - I personally don't think the camera holds up that well. It was quite the bee's knees at the time, though.
Your right, the D1X image has more of a "film like" look to it. I prefer that than the "sterile" look of later cameras, just my opinion.
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
10,290
Location
Holyoke, MA USA
The top one is the D1 - actually not too hard to spot. The reduced resolution and the reduced color bandwidth is visible even with the small sizes posted. To my eye, D1X photos (like many cameras from that era) have a certain "blocked up" look to colors that, coupled with the low resolution, give images a "thick" look that comes across much less transparent than newer cameras.

Look at the McDonald's sign on the front of the building - the white letters have a distinct "glow" to the highlights on the D300 image that the D1 image doesn't. THe yellow on the flags pops better too. The red brickwork with the white mortar on the front corner is better resolved on the D300 and appears more "delicate".

These kind of differences are one of the things that struck me when I got the D700 compared to even the original D300. It was the sense of "luminosity" and transparency.

Sorry, Harry - I personally don't think the camera holds up that well. It was quite the bee's knees at the time, though.
You've got good eyes, Keith, and know what to look for, but in all honesty I don't think those small differences make much difference in the overall quality of the capture...at any size short of enormous. They are so trivial IMO that I use the two cameras interchangeably with no qualms whatsoever for general purpose shooting.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
1,520
Location
Orlando, FL
You've got good eyes, Keith, and know what to look for, but in all honesty I don't think those small differences make much difference in the overall quality of the capture...at any size short of enormous. They are so trivial IMO that I use the two cameras interchangeably with no qualms whatsoever for general purpose shooting.
All that really matters is if you're happy. I was just rising to the challenge :smile:
 
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
930
Location
Sacramento, CA
The thing that tipped me off to the D1X shot is the noticeably reduced dynamic range, although it's not as bad as it could be.

I was using my D2X and D300s side-by-side recently, and noticed that I was having to shoot a lot of high-contrast stuff with the D300s because the detail in shadows and highlights just completely vanished with the D2X. (And I was shooting auto racing, so there was a ton of contrast and no way to shoot around it.) I'd be afraid to see how the D1 would perform in such a situation.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2010
Messages
317
Location
Green Valley,Az
This is a perfect example of why I don't understand digital photography. The two MacDonalds images are equal in my old eyes. I don't really understand tems like 'blocked up' and 'thick' and 'glow' when applied to Photographs. In old film prints you could take a loupe and examine the grain structure and make a physical evaluation such as it might be. But I see images displayed on these forums that I can't percieve the differences or deficiencies that exist in them. Therefore I am quite satisfied with the images from a D1x as opposed to a D3 made with the same lense. Guess i'm not much of a critic of the work presented. It must be something you are born with to be able to percieve these minute differences in images. Quite frankly I'm glad i'm not gifted with it as I enjoy looking so much more.
 
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
2,434
Location
Bournemouth, UK
The top one is the D1 - actually not too hard to spot. The reduced resolution and the reduced color bandwidth is visible even with the small sizes posted. To my eye, D1X photos (like many cameras from that era) have a certain "blocked up" look to colors that, coupled with the low resolution, give images a "thick" look that comes across much less transparent than newer cameras.

Look at the McDonald's sign on the front of the building - the white letters have a distinct "glow" to the highlights on the D300 image that the D1 image doesn't. THe yellow on the flags pops better too. The red brickwork with the white mortar on the front corner is better resolved on the D300 and appears more "delicate".

These kind of differences are one of the things that struck me when I got the D700 compared to even the original D300. It was the sense of "luminosity" and transparency.

Sorry, Harry - I personally don't think the camera holds up that well. It was quite the bee's knees at the time, though.
it is interesting, where you say 'thick' I would say 'muddy', the colours on the second are more distinct,. but I don't see any resolution differences, downsizing IMO means we can't really tell how much detail there was in the first place (since the started from different size images the downsize cannot be applied equally to give a valid comparision) 'quality' can really only be judged when looking at intended output

I would say though that the first image could be made to look like the second (or vice versa) with small amount of tweaking and also the exposures look to be a little different, plus outside lighting can change from second to second

personally to me it shows that most (dSLR) cameras are totally capable to capture light / colour etc, what makes the difference it not having the latest camera but knowing where to point it :smile:
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
708
Location
WV
I can tell the two apart, but it seems that the D1X image could have used about a half stop more exposure. If you look at the reflections in the front windows you can tell the D300 images shows more detail. Remember that Capture NX2 can render quasi 10mp images from raw files taken with the D1X, so if this shot isn't processed so, it could be helped a little. All that being said, The D1X won't win an IQ contest with the D300, but it holds its own well for near decade old camera.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
227
Location
Texas
Well said KLRAY. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks they don't need the "latest and greatest" to take good photos.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
1,520
Location
Orlando, FL
Well said KLRAY. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks they need the "latest and greatest" to take good photos.
I'm guessing you had a typo there :smile:

Look, I agree that what matters is if you (and your client if you are shooting professionally) are satisfied with the result. I was staying out of this until Harry put up the two McDonalds photos challenging folks to pick which was the D1X, then I couldn't resist. But the objective truth is that the D1X (and most digital cameras of that era) have some serious limitations as far as IQ due to the technology available (at reasonable cost) at the time.

My only point is that there is a big difference between "good enough" and "as good as". Photography is, in the end, a subjective endeavor. When someone puts up a photo taken with obsolete technology and says "I'm still getting good results with a D1X", I'm fine with that. I accept that the photo, assuming good composition, exposure, etc, might be a very good photograph - absolutely nothing wrong there. Where I feel compelled to offer a dissenting opinion is where is starts to cross into direct comparisons on the technology. You can certainly take good photographs with old tech (film :wink:) but I think we need to realize technology progresses and the files coming out of a modern camera like a D300/700 are superior to a D1X, D100, etc.

Don't confuse that with the notion that "good" photographs can't be made with a D1x or even a Kodak Brownie with Tri-X. That wasn't what I was trying to say.

And for the record, I am still impressed with D2x images within the ISO limitations. Those actually hold up very well compared to the new stuff. For me, that was the turning point where the "digital vs film" argument became moot.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom