D70, as an amateur, it let me jump to the digital arena from a F100, F90s and N8008.

Now using my brand new d7k, missing how light the D70 is

Hi PAG,
That article is only looking at a very specialised type of image taking, in this case astrophotgraphy and all the issues associated with it.

Broxibear, the quote that jumped out at me was "Using the latest generations of Sony sensors, Nikon seems to have caught up to Canon, but for the most part, Canon cameras still have lower read noise than Nikons."

I don't know about the entire lineup, but I've got a D90 and do bird photography. Literally side by side with a Canon 7D, which is a semi-pro camera, I destroyed it when it came to noise.

Since then I've reviewed a LOT of bird photos as I try to teach myself more on how to get good images. When I see a very noisy photo, I now assume it is a non-Mark series Canon and I'm almost always right when I look at the technicals. From 7D on down, Canon seems to be clean as long as you stay at ISO400 and below.

Of course they may be talking only about higher end Canons in that article.

hands down the D3

has changed my life since acquired. . .while the D4 and other iterations (D3s, D700) are/will be stout, the D3 started it all. . .

I would say for the DX line, the D90. . .

I saw some of that show about stargazing spraynpray, here's something you might find interesting about why they favour Canon... http://www.astropix.com/HTML/I_ASTROP/NIK_CAN.HTM

Although I don't have one, The D3 and variants gets my vote too for the reasons stated by Super and PB. If they had been quicker, they may have really turned the tables on Canon for market share.

We just had a program on the telly about 'stargazing' in the UK and every one of the cameras was a Canon. I thought noise would have been more important than anything else with those long exposures.....

For me the D70s
my first DSLR
and led my to return to professional photography

D3 is my vote, because the reality is that the release of the D3 saved Nikon from losing the pro market to Canon.

So who won? The suspense is killing me, lol.

I'll vote for the D3. Before the D3 you rarely saw a Nikon at sporting events. All you'd see were white lenses and Canon shoulder straps. I would sometimes see a small group of D2X's or D200's every know and then but Canon was the overwhelming favorite. When the D3 came out it quickly changed things around. Now you see a pretty even match of Canons and Nikons. If it wasn't for Canon's 5D and 5DmkII I think Nikon would have totally crushed Canon in the later part of this past decade.

I've thought about this a lot because I really don't know enough about the last 10 years of Nikon history. That being said, I cast my vote for the D3(s).

As someone looking to get back into photography and take it further than I ever had before, I was faced with a decision between a new Nikon and a new Canon. If I hadn't researched and read about what people were saying about the D3s, I wouldn't have felt confident buying into the Nikon line at the D300 level.

I knew that if I wanted to grow, I had a great machine to grow into, and whatever money I spent on glass and the time I spent with it would not go to waste.

Forgetting about the time line, the D1 still wasn't as important as Nikon had hoped. It wasn't really the first digital camera from Nikon. It was based on the F5. It only had a 2mp sensor, cost several thousand dollars, and used a very awkward color space. Nikon quickly replaced it less than a year later with the D1X. So it didn't "define the industry". I don't understand what you mean by it "showed the light" but I'm pretty sure it didn't do that either. The D1X was going in the right direction but it's image quality wasn't enough to convience film shooters to "switch".

Yes the D90 was a "game changer" but only because it was the first. The canon 5Dmk2 quickly stole the show a few weeks later with bigger and better video specs. Even today the 5Dmk2 is still sitting at the top of the HD video throne. The addition of liveview to SLRs is really where the "profound impact" started. When Olympus introduced that feature in an SLR everyone else ran to catch up. You could hack a liveview camera to record video long before the D90. However the D90 makes this list more for it's image quality as a still camera and it's bang for the buck in addition to being the first Nikon to record video.

My point was with the exception of the D90, none of Nikon cameras in last 10 years redefined what a camera is and does. I think D90 can stand tall next to D1 in terms of showing the light. All the others are great cameras but not defining. No P/S from Nikon has defined the way the industry goes the way the sleak slim Canon PS did and the iPod does now. No DSLR other than D90 fundamentally changed the capability of a camera. For me the real question is between the D1 and the D90 which has a more profound impact on how the DSLR will be used in next 20 to 50 years.

The Man From Mandrem said:
With the D1 a year earlier, how can one claim any of these other cameras are THE significant one? I think the question is wrong.

The post clearly says "The Last 10 Years". The D1 came out in the summer of 1999.

I got a PM asking why the D100 wasnt included. Well the D100 started the semi-pro category. Actually we could debate whether it was the F100, but thats not the point. The image sensor from the D100 did go on to great success with the D70/D40. But it was still pricey and didnt really turn people onto digital photography like the other nominees did. The D100 was still competing against film cameras and its image quality just wasnt quite there yet. I'm not saying the D100 wasnt a great camera its just that it really doesnt stand out like the others.

The Man From Mandrem said:
With the D1 a year earlier, how can one claim any of these other cameras are THE significant one? I think the question is wrong.

I think the idea was to do with the end of the decade...10 years gone...new decade starts ?

With the D1 a year earlier, how can one claim any of these other cameras are THE significant one? I think the question is wrong.

D70 for sure.

NikoDoby said:
D90 2? (iDunno and Squamish you guys listed flickr and google stats but didn't say if the D90 was your pick)

Count me in the D3 camp.

iDunno said:
+1 vote for the D70

it was the coolpix 8400 for me :)

Mine was the CP 5400. Great Lil camera!

My Vote goes to the D40 :-) D3/D3s is a close second for me.

D700.

IMHO, what truly defines a company is their "family sedan", not their flagship, not their subcompact.

The D700 was the cresting of the summit in the path to 35mm's replacement by digital.

+1 vote for the D70

Pierre said:
However the Coolpix 8800 is the one that got me hooked to Nikon...

it was the coolpix 8400 for me :)

To me that would be the D700 because it is my first serious DSLR. However the Coolpix 8800 is the one that got me hooked to Nikon.... Mmmm!, Nah, I still vote for the D700.

We are picking the most important Nikon of the last 10 years. Not the most widely used or best selling. Those stats will change yearly based on popularity and the more expensive Pro gear will never be able to compete in that regard.

Here are the running total votes so far:

D3 5
D40 4
D700 1
D70 1
990 1
D300 1
F6 1
D90 2? (iDunno and Squamish you guys listed flickr and google stats but didn't say if the D90 was your pick)

Now remember there's already a "winner" but we want to know which camera would be the forum's "pick". I'll let this thread run a bit longer before announcing "The Most Important Nikon of the Past 10 Years"

iDunno said:
The the D90 is the top DSLR on Flickr... that counts for something right?
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/

It means their demographics overlap. ;)

The the D90 is the top DSLR on Flickr... that counts for something right?
http://www.flickr.com/cameras/

According to google hits the answer is the D90:

f6 229000 d3-2,320,000 , d700-6,600,000, d40-5,320,000, d90-10,600,000, d7000-3,010,000