Older Digital Cameras

[photoholiko]

I was looking at a photo color landscape and wildlife book last night, dated 2009. It showed the camera and setting info under each picture from older cameras, like the C20D, C40D, C5D, NK D200, NK D700, etc. I was amazed by the IQ and color shown on these photos, it didn't seem that today's camera were very much better.

It makes me want to go out and use my 20D and D200 again and see what I can do.

 

[Rene Gr]

Do it! The correct attitude is to go out and use what camera you have.

 

[Bob A L]

I pulled my old D200 out of the closet last year and was amazed enough, that it never went back and has remained in the active drawer ever since. In some cases I prefer it's photos to my newest cameras. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, although if you are one to use high iso settings you might not be happy. I just don't ever need high iso's.

 

[photoholiko]

Yes, though the number of cameras I have need to take terns.

 

[thinkinginimages]

My old Sony T5, a camera hardly bigger than a pack of playing cards, captured some nice images, with all of 5mp. This dates back to 2006.

 

[Ed B]

I was looking at a photo color landscape and wildlife book last night, dated 2009. It showed the camera and setting info under each picture from older cameras, like the C20D, C40D, C5D, NK D200, NK D700, etc. I was amazed by the IQ and color shown on these photos, it didn't seem that today's camera were very much better.

It makes me want to go out and use my 20D and D200 again and see what I can do.

Low light/high ISO along with other features like autofocus speeds, and increased megapixels have improved, greatly, over the years, but I agree with you that there hasn't been much of an improvement when it comes to basic image quality among the better cameras.

I do think image quality for small, fixed lens, zoom cameras was improved quite a bit with the introduction of the one-inch sensor, and better glass lenses, but even that depends a lot on lighting conditions.

With that said, my favorite camera is 10-years old, and I'd rate the image quality it's capable of right up there with the best cameras made today.


The first camera I bought when I decided to make the "switch" from film to digital was the brand-new Canon 10D. The camera is long gone, but I still have some great pictures taken with it, and with a good lens, at ISO 400 or below it was very good.

 

[robgendreau]

For those that have (or had) old cameras give the old images a run through newer software.

I've found that old sub 8MP images not only still look good, but can often be improved with today's better software. Not only that, but the applications that can upscale them, like Gigapixel, can make them useful for those scenarios where you do need a bigger image. Not always of course, but I've been surprised what I could do with even very small photos.

Even some of the old small sensor digital cameras can give a current smartphone a run for its money, especially with a decent longer lens. I've rescued several from the thrift store bargain bin and had a lot of fun with them.

 

[HappyMartin]

I no longer keep old cameras. I bought a Kodak DCS 460 for tens of thousands of dollars in 1998. About 5 years later I was offered $100 for it and didn’t have the heart to sell it for so little. I wish I had. It’s worth nothing and useless to me.
Nostalgia just isn’t what it used to be.

 

[photoholiko]

They had a Sony A77 in there as well.

 

[photoholiko]

A good example is the 5MP Olympus E1.

 

[Ed B]

I no longer keep old cameras. I bought a Kodak DCS 460 for tens of thousands of dollars in 1998. About 5 years later I was offered $100 for it and didn’t have the heart to sell it for so little. I wish I had. It’s worth nothing and useless to me.
Nostalgia just isn’t what it used to be.

Wow! That's a lot of money.

I don't know much about Kodak cameras, but it's interesting to look at their list of cameras and see that they made a 14mp full frame camera way back in 2002.

I don't know anything about it or what it cost, but I'd bet it was expensive.

The Canon 10D (APS sensor, 6 mega pixels) I bought way back in 2003 cost $1500.00, without a lens, so I can only imagine what the Kodak must have cost.




I guess, any digital camera we spend a lot of money on will be practically worthless in a few years.

They're fun while they last, though. Bragging rights and the impression that we have the best (until the next best thing comes along. )

 

[Brian Chichester]

I think digital stills cameras plateaued in quality a few years back - the advances recently have been in videography, autofocus features and computational photography.

My newest cameras, the E-P5 and the NEX-5T, are 9 years old and I don't feel they have fallen much behind what is currently available.

 

[richj20]

My first digital camera was Sony's F717 in 2004.

[ATTACH alt="It was the fourth generation of Sony's L-shaped 5x zoom split lens / body design. 5.0 megapixel 2/3" CCD sensor f/2 - 2.4 and 38-190 mm equiv. Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lens"]3102677[/ATTACH]
It was the fourth generation of Sony's L-shaped 5x zoom split lens / body design. 5.0 megapixel 2/3" CCD sensor f/2 - 2.4 and 38-190 mm equiv. Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lens

I had always been interested in nature photography, and In 2004 I began traveling to the Southern Sierra Nevada where I put the camera to good use.


I didn't print much - large prints wouldn't look good anyway, but for my web site, they were ideal.





[ATTACH alt="It had a "macro" capability for close focusing to a few cm. I used it extensively for flowers."]3102681[/ATTACH]
It had a "macro" capability for close focusing to a few cm. I used it extensively for flowers.

One of my favorites hangs as an 8x10 in my house.



--
Richard
http://www.rsjphoto.net/

 

[HappyMartin]

I no longer keep old cameras. I bought a Kodak DCS 460 for tens of thousands of dollars in 1998. About 5 years later I was offered $100 for it and didn’t have the heart to sell it for so little. I wish I had. It’s worth nothing and useless to me.
Nostalgia just isn’t what it used to be.

Wow! That's a lot of money.

I don't know much about Kodak cameras, but it's interesting to look at their list of cameras and see that they made a 14mp full frame camera way back in 2002.

I don't know anything about it or what it cost, but I'd bet it was expensive.

The Canon 10D (APS sensor, 6 mega pixels) I bought way back in 2003 cost $1500.00, without a lens, so I can only imagine what the Kodak must have cost.

I guess, any digital camera we spend a lot of money on will be practically worthless in a few years.

They're fun while they last, though. Bragging rights and the impression that we have the best (until the next best thing comes along. )

I don’t remember with certainty but I think it was around $20 000

 

[photoholiko]

We a had Kodak/Nikon at work, I don't remember which model but it cost $9,000. Back then, when I had money a few years later and consumer cameras started to show up, I bought an 2MP Epson 850Z, that camera can still compete with IQ of later ones. I don't remember how much it was but later I paid $1,200 for a 5MP Minolta Dimage-7. That was a love hate relationship.

 

[Ed B]

My first digital camera was Sony's F717 in 2004.

[ATTACH alt="It was the fourth generation of Sony's L-shaped 5x zoom split lens / body design. 5.0 megapixel 2/3" CCD sensor f/2 - 2.4 and 38-190 mm equiv. Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lens"]3102677[/ATTACH]
It was the fourth generation of Sony's L-shaped 5x zoom split lens / body design. 5.0 megapixel 2/3" CCD sensor f/2 - 2.4 and 38-190 mm equiv. Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar lens

I had always been interested in nature photography, and In 2004 I began traveling to the Southern Sierra Nevada where I put the camera to good use.


I didn't print much - large prints wouldn't look good anyway, but for my web site, they were ideal.





[ATTACH alt="It had a "macro" capability for close focusing to a few cm. I used it extensively for flowers."]3102681[/ATTACH]
It had a "macro" capability for close focusing to a few cm. I used it extensively for flowers.

One of my favorites hangs as an 8x10 in my house.

I think those pictures would make almost anyone happy.

 

[zerored]

Awhile back I was going through my collection digital images. I owned the first three Canon Rebel cameras. Except for dynamic range in some pictures the quality of many photographs are very close to what my two 5DS cameras give me. Some might argue about detail but for prints up to 11x14 it is not an issue for me.

 

[Ed B]

We a had Kodak/Nikon at work, I don't remember which model but it cost $9,000. Back then, when I had money a few years later and consumer cameras started to show up, I bought an 2MP Epson 850Z, that camera can still compete with IQ of later ones. I don't remember how much it was but later I paid $1,200 for a 5MP Minolta Dimage-7. That was a love hate relationship.

Yes, thank goodness that even though cameras are still expensive they've actually come down a lot, in price.

That's a good thing for a person like me, because my abilities certainly don't warrant spending a fortune. In the past, I've spent a lot of money on cameras that have probably been no better, in my hands, than much less expensive models.

No matter how much I spend, my pictures still fall right in the middle of the snapshot category.

 

[marcio_napoli]

Just this week I've grabbed a 22 mp back for my Hassy.

It has a 49 x 37 mm Kodak sensor, and for a long time I didn't pay any attention to it because I have a similar 22 mp Dalsa back.

Just 1 quick test at the store, and I knew I had to buy it the next day.



Lightly edited.



Look at the shadows at 100%, does it look like 2004 tech ?

Also, paid just under 1300 Euro for a massive 49 x 37 mm sensor, cheaper than most current "full frame" cameras. A great deal I think.

Best regards,

--

www.marcionapoli.fashion


Marcio Napoli _ fashion photographer . indie filmmaker
.
NEW video - Hasselblad street fashion shoot

.
check it out my You Tube channel:

.
Aliens (acclaimed short film_714 K views on YT):

.
Instagram:
@marcio_user

 

[RetCapt]

Nice to see this thread started, and the responses - at least thus far.

I have a number of older cameras, some even with small sensors, although these cameras were higher end and cost during their production. I make my own prints and anything to be printed is edited in PSE. My photography is scenic, so I have no need to use high ISO speeds. Even when doing night photography, I am intent on capturing the lit areas, and leaving the dark areas in shadow.

My printer goes to a maximum size of 13X19". Thus far, with a single exception, I limit my small sensor prints to 11X14". At that size, under the circumstances existent when I took the photographs, I can't differentiate between small sensor and APS-C prints. (Note: I have a full frame system, also old, but it has been parked since I started in with APS-C because there is less gear to carry with APS-C, with no loss in quality at my max print size).

When I have read posts condemning older or smaller as being incapable of high quality results, thus obsolete and useless relative what is currently available, I have commented that perhaps such photographers need to work on getting the most from their present cameras and post processing techniques before assuming that purchasing the latest and greatest would improve their output. Beyond a certain quality level of equipment, which has been achieved long ago (in my opinion), I think from there it is up to the photographer.

In some quarters this opinion has not been well received. I have been told by a couple that my standards are not high enough. These responses have been to what I have stated. I have, on a few occasions, contributed photographs to other unrelated threads, but I have not been told there that my standards are not high enough.

Such appears to be the level of discourse when the elephant in the room is GAS.