Nikon D100 bargain or not?


dazzaman 13 631 England
27 Jun 2007 5:54PM
just seen a nikon d100 with charger 4 batteries the battery grip. and loads more of bits thrown in. mint cond. ive got a nikon d50 at the mo. which is 6 mega pixels, would i be gaining much over my own d50, if i bought this camera.and is the d100 any good.
the price is 375 for the lot.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

strawman 15 22.1k 16 United Kingdom
27 Jun 2007 6:06PM
The thing is the D100 could be broken, or near the end of its service life. Also it must be at least a generation of sensor technology behind.

I would offer 200 or keep your existing camera.

Image quality wise your existing camera may be better.
dazzaman 13 631 England
27 Jun 2007 6:22PM
thanks strawman

daz
User_Removed 15 17.9k 8 Norway
27 Jun 2007 6:23PM
The D100 was/is a great camera. As a Nikon user, I support John's comments re. the generation gap - and the fact that, technically, your D50 is ahead of the D100. Just keep in mind that it's the 'togger' - and not the camera - that makes an image...

Wink Smile
Doclassie 14 1.1k England
27 Jun 2007 7:04PM
If you've got the money, why not flog your D50 as well and buy a D80. Cracking camera.

The only real benefit you'd have over your D50 with a D100 is build quality and the vertical grip...
cameracat 15 8.6k 61 Norfolk Island
27 Jun 2007 7:38PM
Another way of looking at the comparison is this, When the D70 hit the streets, A lot of reviews made great noise about the fact that the D70 was a better camera in a number of areas.

Andy Rouse reviewed the D70, And came up with same conclusion, The very few minor differences, That where not image quality based, Where in his opinion not worth having, So he gave the D70 a Big thumbs up.

Also the D100 has been around a long long time, The technology has changed so much, That whilst they are Or where a great camera, They are also outclassed by much cheaper newer models of today Sad Such is the way of technology.

IF you feel you need to upgrade, I'd save your pennies, And as has been suggested look toward a D80 Or if your feeling really adventurous the D200......You will not regret either. Smile

EDIT; The only way that the D100 deal might be worth considering is if it came with a couple of classy lens at the same price ( As if Smile Smile )
Graysta 14 1.1k England
27 Jun 2007 8:37PM
Only my opinion. But if Nikon had kept the development pace that made D100 such a good camera they might now have a competitor for the 1ds mk11 instead of producing amcams that under mine serious kit. This is only my opinion as a Nikon user.

Graham
User_Removed 15 17.9k 8 Norway
27 Jun 2007 9:19PM

Quote:they might now have a competitor for the 1ds mk11 instead of producing amcams that under mine serious kit.


??????????????????????
27 Jun 2007 10:33PM
Whilst I cannot disagree with any of the previous comments regarding relative age and sensor technology, I have to say that the D100 is still a quality camera in terms of its build and handling, particularly when fitted with the MB D100 grip.

Whilst I am in the fortunate position to now also have a D200, I still love using my D100 which always provides consistent results, and handles great.

regards

steve B
Graysta 14 1.1k England
27 Jun 2007 10:42PM
Mike.I would just like them to develop a great flagship as the other models seem to offer fantastic value for money to what seems to be an aged top spec.

Graham
Leif 14 777
28 Jun 2007 6:05PM
The D100 will have a few useful things such as a metal body (more robust) and MLU (I assume, and very important IMO), but as said above, it is older technology. It looks very expensive to me. And of course it might fail the day after you buy it, and repairs would cost a fair bit. Sell your D50, and get a D200 if you really need the D100 qualities.
dazzaman 13 631 England
28 Jun 2007 8:43PM
thanks guys

darren
Z_Driver 14 5
1 Jul 2007 9:23AM
I owned a D100 as my first DSLR and have some experience with a D50. I have since upgraded to a D80.

I would first like to say the D100 is a fine camera with great build quality. It is a no frills camera geared toward the semi-pro. The D100 is so well laid out in terms of ease of use.

Here are my cons. The buffer with RAW images is so small and so slow. It is six images in RAW and takes about one minute the clear. This is the main reason I got out of the D100. The D50 is significantly faster at processing RAW's. Another con was hot pixels. I would get hot pixels with shutter speeds of only one second. This was a big downside to me as I love long exposures.

Compared to the D50 lacking many of the features of the D100 I still feel it is not worth it. I can still remember when my D100 was king but things have changed.

I will now compare the D100 to my D80. The D80 crushes the D100 is almost every category except handling. I really do not like my D80's approach to a DSLR. I do not like the scene modes and lack of on body controls. It seems Nikon hid every control I use in menus. The D80 feels like a toy compared to the D100 but the D80's end results far outperform the D100.

I am currently trying to replace the D80 with a D200. I sold my D100 for $300 USD to a family friend six months ago with a few extras (CF card and cable release) and no lenses included. I only miss the camera from a sentimental standpoint.

In a nutshell the D50 will yield superior results over the D100.


Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.