Talk:Nikon D1

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nikon D1 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Photography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

10.8 million pixels?

(in truth it was a 10.8 megapixel sensor "I guess that it's now safe to reveal that the D1 image sensor, with specifications noting a pixel count of 2.7-million pixels, actually had a pixel count of 10.8-million pixels.The technical reason for an actual pixel count four times greater than that indicated publicly lies in the need to achieve high sensitivity and a good signal-to-noise ratio" as stated by the camera designer SHIBAZAKI, Kiyoshige in this online interview)

^above was posted by an anonymous poster. It's a direct quote from an interview on Nikon's website, so it appears legitimate, although I'm not entirely sure if it actually means 10 million photo sites (i.e. one for red, green, blue), in which case almost every digital camera has at least 3x the recorded pixels. Some insight from someone who knows more would be appreciated. -Tejastheory 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the arrangement of the D1 (and the D1X/D1H) was such that the photosites were ganged together; rather than having 2.7 million large pixels, the sensor had a greater number of smaller pixels that were sampled in blocks (I think the D1X had the same sensor, but the pixel sample block arrangement was different). Have a read of this article at Lone Star Digital. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenses

This article in part reads like a eulogy due to the tenses used.

The Nikon D1 is a digital single-lens reflex camera introduced on 15 June 1999. It featured 2.74 megapixel image resolution, 4.5 frames per second continuous shooting and accepted the full range of Nikon F-mount lenses.

So it should either be "The Nikon D1 was a digital…" or "It features 2.74 … and accepts the full range …"

Invenio (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)tc[reply]

Wikipedia has this problem in spades. The D1 should really be in the past tense, because it was discontinued a long time and belongs to history; however, one group of Wikipedia editors argue that, if something still exists, it should be in the present tense. I can understand this reasoning when applied to e.g. songs, but it seems odd with consumer electronics. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CF memory card 2GB limit

I have been advised by a professional photographer that

The maximum capacity of CF card that the D1X can address is 2GB.
This is limited by hardware.

I suggest noting the 2GB limit for the D1x (and presumably the D1h) in the info box.

Does anyone know whether higher capacity CF cards work in the D1x (although limited to 2GB)? GilesW (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. D1X does not work with cards more than 2GB. GilesW (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the reason for the limit is that the D1 uses 16-bit FAT16, rather than 32-bit FAT32, addressing. ← ZScarpia 12:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]