Older Digital Cameras

Great shot from a great camera and obviously a pretty darn good photographer also.

Bob A L said:

Don't know if down the line the "gotta have the latest greatest FF mirrorless or nothing" folks will back off and decide maybe that is not really the case or not. But it seems more and more folks are realizing that "great enough" happened long ago with digital cameras and finding they can be quite content with stuff that's been out there for years.

Click to expand...

well i am another one with all the old cameras, but i know that the new ones are superior in many ways.

for many of us, the old stuff is just fun and don't worry about it. if it fails, there are a bunch more at the Big Box for pennies.

recently i thought about trading in a few oldies, but after seeing the value of one of my old Bridge cameras at $39, it seemed there was no point in trading it in. same with the DSLR's, not much motivation to trade up when the trade in $ are so low.

so the mirrorless revolution has been a blessing, plenty of EF lenses out there and if you have a few spare peanuts to spend, we just carry on. :-D

Bob A L said:

I still have a 16x20 print hanging on the wall from my 2.7 mp Nikon D1h and it still looks great. Actually still have the D1h still also, but batteries have all gone to battery heaven so it's dead for now. I'm glad that I kept most of my previous digital cameras as now in retirement if I get a bad itch for a new camera I just go back in the spare bedroom closet and pick out a new/old one and satisfy the urge. And in the last couple of years ended up pulling one out of the closet that surprised me enough that they never went back to the closet and are being actively used today. And left me wondering "why did I replace this?"

Click to expand...

why? well to have some fun with something else. does the newer one make better results? if so, then there you are.

Ed B said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree. I think cameras have improved in every possible way, but that doesn't take away from the quality of older cameras. An image printed on a page is normally not large enough to require high resolution, and it is possible to capture an image in focus even with an older camera that doesn't focus as well or shoot as fast as a current model. There have been discussions focused on a person not needing more than 6MP, or not needing more than 12MP. Neither of these is an absolute rule though because some people might need to print larger, or some people might need to crop a lot. Take a 6MP file and start cropping a lot and you can quickly degrade the image. I still own a functioning D70s and a functioning D300 but I don't really want to go back to using either one, I like my D750 and D810.

Barlowephoto said:

Like another poster to this thread, I too bought one of the twist body Sony's. The F717, followed by the F828. One beautiful feature was built in Infra-Red with a push of a button. No modification to the sensor is needed.





Jeff Barlowe, Long Island NY former prof @ SUATC Farmingdale

Click to expand...

Decided to go back in time and read the dpreview of this camera published Jan 10, 2004.

Sony Cybershot DSC-F828 Review: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

Kind of fun to read this old review with knowledge of current technology! And it could be fun to play with - except that it offers nothing that I don't already have including IR capability. So, I'm telling myself that I don't really need another toy to play with.

I have a D100 (introduced in 2002!) that still works well. Had to buy some new batteries for it earlier this year, but it keeps on clicking along.

Image quality is not bad at all, just feels low-res today at only 6MP. Exposure range is lower than current tech, so you have to be a lot more intentional about preserving highlights or shadows (expose in the middle and clip them both!) nor do you want to crop. I find the D100's images have lower noise than the D200, by at least a stop, if not more.

The D100 shoots and feels as if Nikon was trying to keep one foot in the film era and one foot in the digital realm. In comparison, the D200 feels fully digital and very much like all the models that came after.

After using the D100, you can really appreciate the advancements we have seen in digital imaging and storage media over the last 20 years. But it still captures fine images!




ISO 1600

Very nice photo. I have loved trains since I was little and still always watch them when they go by. One of my favorite places for trains is in Cass, WV which has a number of Shay locomotives.

But the way, I just picked up an S9100 at a local thrift store for $6. I really like this camera, the performance is so smooth and quick and the photos are very nice. I posted a few photos over at the Coolpix forum:

Absolutely!

I don't have the G2 but I do have a couple of G6 cameras. I still take them out.

Wonderful photos!

I picked up one of these last year for $22. I find the swivel body much easier to use than swivel screens because my shooting hand remains in a more natural position, more comfortable. And I really like the photos it can produce.

I haven't tried infrared with it but will soon.

For some reason I have a "thing" for cameras that were not popular or that "no real photographer" would ever use.

A while back I spotted a used Sharp VE-CG30U that had a Canon lens. I had to have it and it was cheap. Lots of nice features on this 3MP big bulky thing. Sharp also released a 4MP version at the same time.









I was looking around at some old Vivitar cameras and spotted a ViviCam 4000. Checking out the manual, I think this must be the most advanced compact Vivitar (Premier) released. It has a larger CCD, AEB as well as Auto Gamma Bracketing, full manual control. Lots of features you wouldn't think would be on.... a Vivitar!









My first one died. Bought a replacement quickly.

Wonderful!

photoholiko said:

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.etter photos with the R3

Click to expand...

Great topic. My 5D has much lower DR and the sensor being 12 MP meant it was more certain about any pixel's true color, sacrificing resolution I most often don't need. The newfound dynamic range gives a lot more option and often results in everything being discernible. I am sure I made better pictures with the 5D, although I make better recording with the A7RIII.

Do we think people make better paintings today that pencils have become better graduated, cheaper, with better papers?

My D2Xs delivers the most amazing colours. I consider buying a D700 as well, to have a full frame alternative.

My main cameras are Panasonic MFT, but it's hard to beat those older Nikons when it comes to pure photography enjoyment.

Bob A L said:

Loving this thread. Good to see so many people agreeing that digital cameras have been pretty mature for a long time with primarily bells and whistles and unnecessary extra pixels added through the years. And I'm not sure that CCD sensors were as bad as we were led to believe. I think it was the super high iso mentality that boosted the CMOS sensor surge. CCD's do have a distinct different look compared to CMOS.

Click to expand...

Capturing great images do not need technically advanced cameras in most cases. I think it is easy to forget that most of the advancement the last 10-15 years are for more or less for niche applications. And making image capturing more convenient for certain applications.

But on the other hand it has made the cameras more complex with much more setting that have to be optimized and more function that have to be understood. So going back to simpler less complex cameras can be rewarding.

I think this is also one reason for the appeal of using old film cameras. Which have everything except the absolute necessary stripped off compared to modern digital cameras.

zakk9 said:

My D2Xs delivers the most amazing colours. I consider buying a D700 as well, to have a full frame alternative.

My main cameras are Panasonic MFT, but it's hard to beat those older Nikons when it comes to pure photography enjoyment.

Click to expand...

i'd love a D700, don't see many for sale around these parts unfortunately

Agree on the great part of folks moving to mirrorless. I can't believe how much super stuff is showing up for sale. If I were not satisfied with what I have, I would be on a buying spree I'm sure. And it is tempting anyway, some things out there from years ago that I wanted, but could not afford that are tempting me now. But have seen nothing new that even quips my interest for years.

Bob A L said:

Agree on the great part of folks moving to mirrorless. I can't believe how much super stuff is showing up for sale. If I were not satisfied with what I have, I would be on a buying spree I'm sure. And it is tempting anyway, some things out there from years ago that I wanted, but could not afford that are tempting me now. But have seen nothing new that even quips my interest for years.

Click to expand...

yep, when i see old time pro cameras going for one hundred or so, gets me thinking.

lately i have been looking at a canon 7D, a great old pro camera built tough with fast focus. currently i use a canon T3i and occasionally a canon xs. would it make a difference if i traded in the canon T3i for a canon 7D?

it might. but it might also satisfy my curiosity about the differences between consumer cameras and pro cameras. if the results i get would be dramatic, then maybe i need to take the leap.

there seems to be a lot of disagreement about what gear can do for the average person. some say it makes little difference except for those with a high degree of skill; i tend to agree with that.

Couple weeks ago fire up my E1 for first time in 11 years. Also still have lots of photos from my first DSLR in 2003 Canon D30 In good light they are ok but no where as good as say my stolen Olympus E1m Mk2 or my temp Nikon D5100




E1

























Canon D30

























--
WWW: http://www.arekhalusko.com
For up to date photos
IG https://www.instagram.com/arek.halusko/
Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/arekeych/

That might be really neat. It could be any brand or form factor, just as long as it was (some to be determined criteria) - x years old, max xx mp, or just some basic guideline. Bet they wouldn't do it though, would be bad for the manufacturers that only want us to talk about the latest and greatest. But just the latest and greatest leaves out a big chunk of members around here.

Hike Pics,

Bummer about the dirt spec on the sensor. I don't recall of anyone posting having such a problem with a fixed lens camera. I will be most interested on your contemplated cleaning access. I know the original owner of my S9100 was very diligent about keeping the camera in its pouch, and I am the same way about keeping it in its case, hoping to avoid that.

Enjoyed your photos, especially the two dogs in kayaks shot, because we so love our dogs.

So, herewith a shot of our Golden Retriever, Levi. Before he came to us, Levi was a service dog whose owner became terminally ill. Her wish was that Levi go to a home where he could be just a dog, as that is not the life a service dog is privileged to lead.

Because of this he had not been exposed to water in a recreational sense. One spring day we walked down to our local lake. It was a very calm day, the lake was full (which it certainly is not now), and I wanted some photos of the nearby snowcapped peaks reflected on the water. My bride was nearby with Levi. He spotted a stick floating on the water and waded out to retrieve it. As he waded out his feet ran out of ground so he started paddling, thus discovering that he could swim.

I got this shot when he was coming in to inform us of his wonderful discovery. This was strictly a grab shot, but we are very pleased with it. We have a print on the refrigerator. I was especially satisfied with the camera because it nailed the focus instantly and there was no shutter lag (that I could discern). I did some cropping because Levi was not centered, but I think the image still holds up.

Swimming is now one of Levi's favorite activities, along with, unfortunately, hunting skunks.

I picked up another pocket camera the other day, a Fuji XP70, and I'm waiting for a new battery to arrive. The original one doesn't hold much of a charge. Fair enough after 8 years.

I have a "thing" about rugged pocket cameras. I do a bit of storm chasing and don't want to take a good camera out in crazy weather or other bad conditions.

I think that's the fun part of all this. With an old digital camera the expectations are a bit lower. You have to think a bit more because you can't rely on some magically high ISO. They work a bit slower and the autofocus may need a bit of help finding a target to lock onto. You may have to be a bit more deliberate.

Here's a thought. I'm sure there's a few of us here old enough to have owned/handled a Rollei 35 (like me).

Imagine a digital Rollei 35. A straight across, all manual, translation from analog to digital right down to the collapsible lens.

Now that would be something. I doubt it would catch on, though.