jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I hate to say it, but you would be better off selling it on ebay and looking for something newer. The D3xxx series will be usable and cheaper. D5xxx is a step up. Buying refurbished is better than buying used, but probably more expensive. Getting the body and lens together will make life easier. Memory cards and batteries are easy to find for newer cameras. It would be interesting to see how many shutter actuations your D1 has, but you would need a memory card - and maybe a lens - to do that.

D3000 recent sales -
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xnikon+d3000.TRS0&_nkw=nikon+d3000&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_osacat=0&_odkw=nikon+d100&LH_Complete=1&rt=nc&LH_Sold=1

D3500 -
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313.TR2.TRC0.A0.H0.Xnikon+d3500.TRS0&_nkw=nikon+d3500&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_osacat=0&_odkw=nikon+d3000&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&LH_TitleDesc=0

D5200 -
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xnikon+d5200.TRS0&_nkw=nikon+d5200&_sacat=0&LH_TitleDesc=0&_osacat=0&_odkw=nikon+d3500&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&LH_TitleDesc=0

D1 -
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=nikon+d100&_sacat=0&rt=nc&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

There are many lenses that you could buy for the D100. I think that a very good lens for it at a most reasonable price in the second hand market would be the Nikon 18-70 f3.5-4.5 AF-S.
Let me tell you right now that the D100 has been an excellent camera but it has a strong low pass filter on top of the sensor. You are going to notice that the images come out with blur BUT they come back to life with the right amount of sharpening.
I love the colors out of that camera.

JRowe

Hi Laydee, I have some D100 gear gathering dust that I will be happy to send to you. If you send me a private message we can work out addresses by email. Jsolie

jims203 Loc: Connecticut

I bought that camera when it first came out with a Nikon 28-105 macro. 3.5 and it still works great with all my newer Nikon bodies.
Lense $350 when new.

sv3noKin51E

Here you go LayDee, this is a good place to start;
https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d100.htm
Good Luck, and happy shooting!sv

AzShooter1 Loc: Surprise, Az.

Get yourself a Nikon 50 mm lens and learn to shoot that. You will have to move in and out of the subject instead of relying on zoom lenses just like photographers use to do. The 50s are cheap but are great lenses.

I still have my D100, along with my D300 and D800e. It's a good backup camera. A little slower than the new cameras but still takes great photos.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Just read that review. It is interesting once you get past the extended editorial at the beginning. Unfortunately, KR only linked to the the Nikon site for specs and technical information, and those pages seem to have been removed.

So...you have seen lots of suggestions here, many of which didn't have anything to do with getting your D100 to the point that you could try it out and use it. My suggestion is to concentrate on finding a reasonably priced lens and getting your battery charged and ready to use. I had the 18-70mm lens suggested just above and found it very serviceable. My brother is still enjoying it today. You could also get a 35mm fixed focal length lens (this is the standard lens for this camera) and do a lot of good photography.

The manual for this camera is still available for download from NikonUSA's website (I just downloaded it). The battery is still available from Nikon and at camera stores.

There is nothing wrong with using an older camera body. That is especially true for one like the D100, which, despite preconceptions, operates fairly fast and is very intuitively easy to figure out. It may not be as good at producing huge prints, and it may be a little bit limited in low light situations. But it should do well for you. If it sparks an interest, you can always revise your equipment collection later.

Please let me know via PM if I can help you in any way as you get started.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

The D100 is a perfectly good camera to start with. In its day it was considered a professional camera. It was designed especially for lenses of its day. So the 18-70, would be my choice. For mid range, the 24-120 vr is better than its reputation and it is a full frame lens which gives you vr and as well as range (originally kitted to the D700). For distance the 70-300 non vr, or the 70-210 f4. Each of these lenses will cost between $50 to $150 in good shape. I've taken very good shots with it and I still carry it my glove box for emergency purposes. Most lenses manufacture after these listed lenses will probably out perform the camera, but will work just fine on the D100. Enjoy your new camera.

4merShooter

In my humble opinion, let's not rush into things too quickly about outdated cameras. From Laydee's initial post, I believe that she MAY be new to digital photography, or at least DSLRs after stepping up from a point-and-shoot. If this is her first DSLR, why not hold onto the D100 being it's already been purchased? It may have been surpassed by more advanced cameras, but she can use it for an intro to get a feel to DSLRs and decide where to go next once she knows more about things. Any lenses purchased should be able to be used with a newer camera purchased later if she continues with Nikon gear or buys an adapter to use them with Canon or whatever.

I say this because my most recent camera is a D200 and it most likely will be my final one. Being on a fixed income and having three chronic diseases, drugs and food are more important than photography gear is. Just getting back into shooting after some encouragement from friends and family and a recent post here, I've learned even more to be content with what I have available. It might even prompt me to be more skillful because of the limitations, but only time will tell that. If I can take good photos with outdated gear, I believe I'll get more of a boost from that than from spending money that I don't have on the latest-and-greatest camera or even a refurbished one that's more recent.

Brian

BebuLamar

The D100 is a fine camera but since the OP doesn't have a charger or a lens. The battery is possibly bad. To get all of those is rather not easy for the OP or inexpensive compared to a used but newer kit complete.

sv3noKin51E

Brian, Agreed:) We've used many fine models. I remember after September 11th, some young fighter pilots had complained to the SecDef about the ancient F16's they were having to fly; Rumsfeld grinned, looked at the pilot and replied something to the effect that if the relatively young F16 was so old, what would the young pllot say about his age and capabilities?

Any tool or camera is as good as the enthusiasm/skill applied by the persons who still enjoy using it. When the D100 was new (and selling like new hotcakes for $2K) it was hardly a cheap box camera. I'd have loved a D100, compared with any prior generations, even my trusty FE or FE2. I learned on dad's 1/2 frame, post WWII 35m in a leather case; no flash, no light meters, menus, dials or batteries, and thought it was a great camera (wish I still had it). Ever new and better cameras eclipse previous models, but it's silly for anyone to poo-poo everything that came before. Anyone who follows used Nikon markets understands the thriving market for D200/D300 bodies in good condition. (KR says to pass it for a D70. If you can buy whatever you want at anytime, that's fine, and if not, no reason to detract from what others have. It's difficult to locate a D100 that's looks and operates as they used to; they saw hard service since it was announced in 2002, a mere 16 years ago. (Anything I posted wasn't meant as snarky re the D100). They're older and scarce; a D200 or 300 brings between $100 to $300 depending on quality, yet Adorama still sells quite a few. I haven't seen a D100 listed for long time but would've been glad to add it to our bag. A D100 with a $50 lens (what we old guys fondly/fondly call a cheapskate lens), with a $17-$20 set of lion batteries and charger, either Powerextra or Kastar from Amazon work fine with our bodies, so don't turn your noses up. That should be something OP can be proud to use. I may be an old crip but am happy to make do, and if the D100 was all we had, it would make many perfectly exposed photos. Take heart and enjoy your D100. Any AF/AF-D through G lenses should work fine with the D100. Here's the link to KR's Nikon lens compatibility chart; scroll down down to the D100 on the left side chart then read to the right. Peace, sv.

https://kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

4merShooter

Thinking about it, I should have read KR's article before replying. Still...
Is Ken Rockwell saying to pass on the D100 or D200 for the D70? If the D100, I can understand because of the iTTL flash system as opposed to TTL on the D100. But with the D200 having iTTL AND a magnesium-alloy weather-sealed body, I would question his logic. When I bought my D100, both my friend who owns a D70 and the clerk at the camera store tried to steer me to that camera. They pointed to the lower price and a few things that I can't remember. But physical problems were starting to set in, and the D100 felt more comfortable in my hands and was a bit heavier. That's a drawback for most, but it works in my case.

I started with the kit lens and added the 50mm 1.8 D and a Tamron 19-35mm. I got really good pics using those lenses. I used to take portraits and did a good bit of shooting for my church, but other things too. I added a sample from the D100 taken in 2006.

Brian

(Download)

sv3noKin51E

Brian That's a great ship shot! Lots of people put Tamron down, but we have several Tamrons that are very good; as with some Nikkors some are better than others. Tamron keeps making them better all the time and they're still giving Nikon fits with original and new versions of the SP150-600mm. The math is $10K to $1K, or 10 to 1, but after using it, the quality is there, so I'd take those odds. We usually have a 35-70mm macro on the D200, and lately I've been keeping a version of the H300 on the D300.

KRs review and updates re the D100/200 and D70 bodies is enough to keep one guessing. Not to be critical of Ken, as some are; many of KR's original reviews were and always will be valid for life the original models long after they are officially retired. His original reviews and many of his updates are clearly aging. If these great old cameras still work for anyone as well as the original review indicates, then it means they're still doing a good job. Ken's logic, or what he states at various times would seem to defies even Mr. Spock's vaunted logic. As Ken updates his older reviews and guides, NEW starts appears in bold, sometimes accompanied by more recent dates added at the top of the page. Many people would probably ignore all of that to get to the meat and potato in the review/guide. It's good Ken has plenty of links so we can hop from one segment to the other, or it might be confusing. KR usually writes that the previous body was retired/replaced by model xx, and (either) that the new (now old) D70 eclipses it, it's obsolete and that's what he would recommend. Then there are other times when new models appear, KR lists the good/not so good points of the replacement, then reaffirms why the older body is still the best. It would make a political spin-meister's head spin trying to keep track of it. For a very long time, the D700 was at the top of the heap according to KR, and it has D300 and D3. For my 2 cents worth, it's great KR has had the career he's had -we should all be so fortunate- since he's owned and used the best Nikon gear, and now spends his spare time and money running the site, sharing and opinion with everyone, freely. There is knowledge that also comes from industry insiders and or pros, that many shooters wouldn't otherwise hear about. No one has to donate to help his growing family, or help him keep the site running.

It's tough to determine that he's really dissing a great camera for another new Nikon, but that's marketing, and also technical progress. When he regularly upgrades and/or buys a new camera, and shoots as much as KR can, he's in a position to know and to write about it. Anytime he writes something, Nikon sells another camera; if someone clicks on his affiliate link to buy gear, it's helps him, and that also helps Nikon sell more gear, without him actually having to be on the dole as a paid spokesperson. He has a huge following so when KR says something, a lot of people listen. (I loved my classic Thunderbird but Ford would never make a penny if I told anyone how great I thought it was or how much I loved mine).

When KR wrote that update, it clearly seemed he believed that the D70 is superior to the D200/100, but look;
https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70.htm
Just past the introduction, he says the D70 is the 2nd best camera he's ever owned (when?) compared to the D200, then later says; forget the obsolete D100. Ken can buy as many new bodies and lenses as he wants or needs, so if you're happy with yours, you're the one who needs to be happy with what you have. Even though it's 2018, it makes you wonder, if Ken might someday want to update the updates, or just tidy up the top of the page? Today, a D70 in very good condition listed for $70 on Adorama, and if Adorama says it's in very good condition, it's probably worth that, if you want one, as you'd have a 30 day trial/work out since Adorama has a 90-day warranty. We love the D40 (newer than the D70 and an entry-level unit, so the D70 would likely be as good if not better than the D200, but you have to own one to really know. By the timeline block, the D100/D200/D300 lifespans were all longer than the D70, and a lot of them still keep going. The D100's price was kept artificially high forever, as the camera industry tends to do.

This wasn't snarky, and a bit tongue in cheek; I'm not knocking Ken. It's his one man show and for what it's worth, more power to him; he does a good job putting all of that information up, and our photo world keeps on revolving. Some don't like his style, but it's not a gossip column. If you're after information, he has a lot of it, and since he's a popular guy, his style is obviously entertaining someone out there. As long as he's happy, then lets all be happy:) Hope this is helpful; any more ships to share? sv

4merShooter

Thanks for the compliment on the photo, sv. I do appreciate it!

I only have the one Tamron lens. One lens doesn't qualify me to be a judge of their entire lineup, but I can say that it has served me well and I have been very happy with its performance.

I have seen some of Rockwell's reviews in the past. He can be very informative, but he sometimes comes off (in my opinion) like he seems to think he knows more than he does. I think that's more feeling than it is fact. His info is very helpful, and I will say that he's done his research or testing. What can I say? He seems to be a good example of the quote, "Do what you love and you'll never work a day". The quote isn't realistic but it seems to do well for him.

Brian

sv3noKin51E

Brian, You're welcome, never tire of seeing ships and planes. Thankfully, we don't see ads or other gunk that gets through normal browsers, making it far easier to read. It was a bit sad when browsing in text mode went the way of the do-do, as it was during the days of dial-up access, in the era before broadband became more available. Others have wondered about KR's musings or that he thinks he knows more than he does (had an ex who said that quite a bit). Some have written after reading one of his reviews, that KR's lost his marbles, which is the down-side of being published, or just a sign of how many have spent reading his site, and are taking him and themselves much too seriously. The more vicious are likely trolls but sometimes people get riled over the silliest things. We've all been there, and he probably sees and writes his world as he's used to living it, and has made a good living over the years. I didn't realize for a while that KR's pages have 3rd party ads that he doesn't claim. There's so much to read everywhere, that it's good when the brain helps filter non-relevant clutter. Others with more polished sites than his write a great deal but don't catch nearly as much flak for some reason.

Never read too much into what KR writes, and it's not like being in the same room where we could ask him (just ask any ex what they mean by whatever, and context never has time come into the follow-on conversation. Public personality isn't for the faint at heart. I'm amused by some of KR's style; personalities on the web seldom get too close to their readership. Don't know anyone who knows KR personally, but wouldn't mind going to one of the seminars he's done. I try to catch events when B&H or Adorama streams the more interesting topics. KR's info is specific enough that it's in sync with our gear, and some of my ideas. It might not be dissimilar to the old story, of putting 1000 monkeys in a room with enough typewriters, eventually they'll deliver a best-seller, not that we photographers are monkeys.

KR mentioned his wife doesn't care for him pointing a cameras in her direction, but his kids clearly like his lens. Mine could grin on cue at age 4 ago. Most people are different in print. In photography as in musical performances, when clients or audiences are happy, not only do you get compensated fairly well for your craft, a 3 hour show seems to go by in 10 minutes. Fun work is always good work, so doing what you love doesn't get any better. That's as realistic as life gets. Any work with the public takes some good away from takes a great deal of self confidence, and you should have in your blood. KR seems to have put his heart into his site and writing. Who knows? He's probably just another shy and humble photographer in real life like the rest of us. Peace, sv