All the cameras I own are OLD - even the digital ones!

[Darthfeeble]

That and just how much better is the Nikon today than the Nikon of five or even ten years ago? Certainly there are improvements but the image just isn't that much better to spend the sort of dollars they are asking. I bought a Z7 when they first came out, I was shooting Fuji at the time and thought that full frame and nearly fifty megapixels would make a huge difference over 24 and crop sensor, but it hasn't really, not even in print. The good news is that frees me to play in the old and film world. I think I've bought my last digital camera. I'll still shoot primarily digital but my resources are going to the stuff of dreams of my younger daze.

 

[raid]

I mainly use the M10, so it is a current camera. I also use the M9 and the M8.
If needed, I also use the Olympus E-P2 and E-PL. Old? The film cameras are of course much older.
As long as I am happy with it all, it is OK.

 

[The Spastic Image]

That and just how much better is the Nikon today than the Nikon of five or even ten years ago? Certainly there are improvements but the image just isn't that much better to spend the sort of dollars they are asking. I bought a Z7 when they first came out, I was shooting Fuji at the time and thought that full frame and nearly fifty megapixels would make a huge difference over 24 and crop sensor, but it hasn't really, not even in print. The good news is that frees me to play in the old and film world. I think I've bought my last digital camera. I'll still shoot primarily digital but my resources are going to the stuff of dreams of my younger daze.

Last new Nikons I cared for were the F3, the FM2, and FE2.

 

[hendriphile]

My newest and also only digital camera is a late-production Canon EOS 1D Mk II N from 2007. I'm happy with its IQ which is (probably unintentionally) reminiscent of film, and not being a pro I don't have to meet any megapixel requirements... and it feels good & solid.

 

[mfunnell]

That and just how much better is the Nikon today than the Nikon of five or even ten years ago? Certainly there are improvements but the image just isn't that much better to spend the sort of dollars they are asking. I bought a Z7 when they first came out, I was shooting Fuji at the time and thought that full frame and nearly fifty megapixels would make a huge difference over 24 and crop sensor, but it hasn't really, not even in print. The good news is that frees me to play in the old and film world. I think I've bought my last digital camera. I'll still shoot primarily digital but my resources are going to the stuff of dreams of my younger daze.

I can't really comment on Nikons per se since I've shot (almost) exclusively with Canons when using DSLRs. But given that the DSLR is now (essentially) dead, pretty much all non-Pentax DSLRs are going to be 5 years old (or more). My Canon 5D mark IV (which I bought a couple of years ago, just so I could get one before they became unavailable) was released in 2016 and it's now almost 2024 so .. well .. time flies!

Because I raised this issue of "old digital cameras" I thought I'd go further back than the 8 old digitals I mentioned in my original post. I dragged out my Canon 300D (aka 'Digital Rebel') and my Canon 30D - thinking to bring one of them with me to Canberra to exercise as a bit of camera nostalgia. Just before driving off from Sydney I took a few shots with the 300D and the original 18-55mm kit lens it came with, and the 30D with a later-version kit lens (which includes IS).

I'd first thought I'd bring the 300D along since that's the most retro of my retro-digitals (all my older ones have died, except for one which was stolen). But, in using both of them I reminded myself just how much better the 30D is than the 300D - significantly faster and more responsive in use, along with a larger/better rear screen, being the big tech advantages, with 'pro-sumer' rather than 'consumer' controls making up most of the rest.

Comparing the RAW files from similar test shots from each, side by side, I saw a distinct (but not huge) advantage to the 30D files as well. More "room to manoeuvre" in post-processing if you like. (I think the later kit lens is also better than the original kit lens.) All-in-all, I decided that using the 300D, in these more modern times, would be "a bit too nasty" so brought the 30D with me instead.

Judging by this, the three years between the Canon 10D and 30D (note: the 300D is essentially a "cut down" 10D) produced significant-enough changes in usability and some degree of image quality. It wasn't really until my Canon 7D mark II (2014) that I saw truly (for me) significant improvements over that 30D (I bought one as quickly as I physically could - and have always been glad I did that).

Whether 'more modern' cameras than that provide further significant improvements (over, say, the 7-8 years since the 5D4 came out) is something I can't say. I've not used any camera more recent than that, and my preference for optical finders / prejudice against EVFs means I'm unlikely to do that any time soon unless someone can show me some compelling capability my existing cameras don't provide. (Those won't include video features - I'm not that much interested in video. If others are, that's fine with me. But it's not for me and doubt it will be.)

...Mike

P.S. I've attached a quick snap from my 30D and kit lens, taken when riding my bike today.

 

[Darthfeeble]

I used Nikon only because it's sitting in front of me, same applies to any brand. I shoot mostly with a 12mp X100 converted to IR, an M10 at 24mp and my favorite an Epson R-D1x at 6 mp. Perhaps because I enjoy shooting them more than the Z7 it seems I take better pictures with them. That said I suppose if one were to judge by image clarity those from the Nikon would be better but I like the other cameras better and it seem to show in the results to my thinking anyway.

 

[Archiver]

I'd first thought I'd bring the 300D along since that's the most retro of my retro-digitals (all my older ones have died, except for one which was stolen). But, in using both of them I reminded myself just how much better the 30D is than the 300D - significantly faster and more responsive in use, along with a larger/better rear screen, being the big tech advantages, with 'pro-sumer' rather than 'consumer' controls making up most of the rest.

Comparing the RAW files from similar test shots from each, side by side, I saw a distinct (but not huge) advantage to the 30D files as well. More "room to manoeuvre" in post-processing if you like. (I think the later kit lens is also better than the original kit lens.) All-in-all, I decided that using the 300D, in these more modern times, would be "a bit too nasty" so brought the 30D with me instead.

The 30D was the first DSLR I ever owned, but I shot with a 400D for a few months before, using jpeg only. Those were the days when I still relied on auto everything, and didn't really understand exposure, ISO or shutter speed. Despite this, I managed to get some decent images from the 30D with the 17-55 f2.8, and later with the 35/1.4. When I got the 5D Mark II a couple of years later, I felt like I had graduated, as I had gathered more understanding of the exposure triangle, and the 5D II felt a lot less forgiving than the 30D. Oddly, the 5D II had a lot of cross hatching and noise where the 30D did not, something discovered by others, too.

Whether 'more modern' cameras than that provide further significant improvements (over, say, the 7-8 years since the 5D4 came out) is something I can't say. I've not used any camera more recent than that, and my preference for optical finders / prejudice against EVFs means I'm unlikely to do that any time soon unless someone can show me some compelling capability my existing cameras don't provide. (Those won't include video features - I'm not that much interested in video. If others are, that's fine with me. But it's not for me and doubt it will be.)

The Leica M9 from 2009 was my last full frame camera until the Panasonic S5, which I purchased in 2021. Now this was a huge step up in dynamic range, shadow/highlight recovery, high ISO performance and noise control. But from what I understand, S5 image quality is about the same as the Nikon Z6 from 2018, and image quality hasn't really advanced much further since then.

 

[mfunnell]

When I got the 5D Mark II a couple of years later, I felt like I had graduated, as I had gathered more understanding of the exposure triangle, and the 5D II felt a lot less forgiving than the 30D. Oddly, the 5D II had a lot of cross hatching and noise where the 30D did not, something discovered by others, too.

I think this was characteristic of Canon's sensor technology of the time. I had a 50D (the APS-C contemporary of the 5D mark ii) which had the same problems - you had to work much harder to get any real advantage from the higher pixel-counts they gave you over their predecessors. The detail was there - you just needed to work at it during both capture and post-processing (and work really hard on targeted noise control when trying to bring out shadow detail).

While I can't know for sure, I suspect marketing pushed engineering a bit too hard there - tech released before it was really ready, and with a higher megapixel count than it could really support. But that's just guessing. Those things don't seem to happen so much nowadays, with the technology being more mature.

...Mike

 

[DownUnder]

I would second the X-E2 and 18/2 but with the proviso that the X-E3 isn't that much more and an even better camera

My only criticism of the Fuji XE range (= those models after the XE2) is that its successors were not manufactured in Japan. This is a particular obsession/fixation with me. I've long found the quality control of "Made In Japan" cameras to be nothing short of truly excellent. The XE2S, XE3 and XE4 were made elsewhere in Asia. I've heard from users and shops that the XE4 in particular (made in Indonesia, otherwise one of my favorite countries to explore) has poor QC, and many cameras have had to be recalled for warranty servicing or even replaced.

On the other hand a close friend has an XE4 with the 'signature' Fujinon 27/2.8, and he loves it. I've used this camera and I found the ergonomics on my XE2 suit me better. An entirely personal preference. I have battery packs for all my Nikon DSLRs but I rarely use these as they add too much weight. My Fuji XE2 I like without a grip. The XE4 (my friend's camera) works best for me with the optional Fuji grip, which cost him AUD $150. Yuk.

I alternate between using my partner's Nikon D90 with its 18-55 kit lens or my XE2 with the 18/2.0 for my casual photo-taking. Either gives me results I like. I reckon a fair few cameras would suit me if I had the time to try them all - and the spare dosh to buy them. So it all boils down to one's personal preferences.

We are fortunate to live in an era where so much good used camera gear is available at affordable prices.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

The biggest improvements in digital have been the electronic viewfinders and realtime focusing aids. First lens I used on the Z5 was the Canon 50mm F0.95. Fast and easy to focus with the 3.6MDot finder and focus peaking. I can use more lenses on it than on any other camera owned. Do I need more than 24MPixels: no. Do I need a Zf? I like my Df. Do I need a newer RF camera than the M9 and M240- no. Do I need another 1930s Sonnar? No- but they are likely going to retain more value than any of the Digital cameras on the market today.

 

[Dogman]

I decided to go full on digital with this picture:



Not that it's my "Moonrise over Hernandez" masterpiece but it is 1/2 of a horizontal frame from an 8mp Canon 30D shot in 2008. I've printed it 13x19 before and it still looks good at normal viewing distance. No, you can't put your nose against it and find it faultless. But it's still good enough to display over the sofa if you're so inclined.

The biggest improvements in digital image quality was achieved long ago. We've even gone through a series of refinements. I use a Nikon D700 or D3 a lot. Twelve megapixels. I like the look. I also have a Nikon D800. And a D810. Thirty-six megapixels. Pictures look medium format to me. The look is great if you want the resolution of medium format. But I've always preferred 35mm's look to larger formats and the D700 and D3 have that 35mm look to my eyes. My Fuji cameras are APS-C, smaller format than 135 format. They are 16mp and 24mp. I like their look as well but the 24mp bodies are on the edge of becoming too refined.

For my purposes, recent improvements in digital cameras haven't been much benefit. But I'm not in the target audience for new cameras so my preferences aren't on camera companies' radar.


.............................

 

[Archiver]

The biggest improvements in digital image quality was achieved long ago. We've even gone through a series of refinements. I use a Nikon D700 or D3 a lot. Twelve megapixels. I like the look. I also have a Nikon D800. And a D810. Thirty-six megapixels. Pictures look medium format to me. The look is great if you want the resolution of medium format. But I've always preferred 35mm's look to larger formats and the D700 and D3 have that 35mm look to my eyes. My Fuji cameras are APS-C, smaller format than 135 format. They are 16mp and 24mp. I like their look as well but the 24mp bodies are on the edge of becoming too refined.

For my purposes, recent improvements in digital cameras haven't been much benefit. But I'm not in the target audience for new cameras so my preferences aren't on camera companies' radar.
.............................

For better or worse, I am in the target market for the latest and greatest, but at a mid range budget. Cameras like the Panasonic S5 II X and G9 II are in my area because gathering high quality stills and footage with accurate autofocus is increasingly important for my work. I don't have the budget for something like the Sony A9 III, as awesome as that would probably be, but I intend to upgrade my m43 kit with the G9 II next year.

 

[Keith]

I would still be happily using my D700 if it hadn't had a shutter failure. Unbelievable really ... 15000 actuations and the shutter started doing some weird things and and flashed up an error. Took it to Anderson's in Brisbane who said it would need a new shutter and mirror mechanism and quoted considerably more than what the camera was worth. I eBay'd it as a parts camera. That still sticks in my throat a bit considering the reputation Nikon carries for reliability! 😶

 

[Archiver]

I would still be happily using my D700 if it hadn't had a shutter failure. Unbelievable really ... 15000 actuations and the shutter started doing some weird things and and flashed up an error. Took it to Anderson's in Brisbane who said it would need a new shutter and mirror mechanism and quoted considerably more than what the camera was worth. I eBay'd it as a parts camera. That still sticks in my throat a bit considering the reputation Nikon carries for reliability! 😶

That's crazy. Nikon shutters are supposedly indestructible.

 

[splitimageview]

Exceptions prove the rule. 😎

 

[Keith]

That's crazy. Nikon shutters are supposedly indestructible.

So I read somewhere! 🤣

 

[Sonnar Brian]

Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong- only a question of time. The original Nikon F4 shutters self-destructed, my favorite camera salesman at Penn camera told me to give it a year for Nikon to work the bugs out. Nikon D600 disaster? It happens.

Someday my pair of Nikon SP's may need work on their titanium foil shutters. But, I'm not too worried- I they will most likely outlast me.

 

[DownUnder]

I would still be happily using my D700 if it hadn't had a shutter failure. Unbelievable really ... 15000 actuations and the shutter started doing some weird things and and flashed up an error. Took it to Anderson's in Brisbane who said it would need a new shutter and mirror mechanism and quoted considerably more than what the camera was worth. I eBay'd it as a parts camera. That still sticks in my throat a bit considering the reputation Nikon carries for reliability! 😶

Most unfortunate. In your situation (and assuming you bought your D700 new), I would have contacted Nikon in Australia and discussed the problem with them before dumping it. A friend in Malaysia recently had the shutter in his now elderly D700 replaced by a repair shop in Singapore, and told me he paid about AUD $250 for this. Not so bad. Aussie prices would be much higher, of course, like everything else in our sad economy now is.

My oldest D700 has 135,000 'actuations' and still gives me the goods. My second one, bought heavily discounted in 2019, has 9,000 and is kept mostly in my cabinet at home, to be used as a backup. I bought my first one new when they were released, and paid a premium price (= a small fortune in Australia) for it, so it's unique and very special to me - the first ever new camera I bought since 1966 when I acquired my Rolleiflex 3.5E2, and even that one was a 'demo', so not exactly virginal-new.

If (or rather when) my numero uno D700 pops off, I will shelf-queen it and go with my numero duo. My two D800s were a luxury purchase, bought secondhand at reasonable prices. For my own image-making I have little use for 36 MP , the D700s'12 MP is as good as it gets for my needs. I do sell an occasional architecture shot to book publishers and they all seem to want small color engravings, so the D800s give me that much extra clout with my sales. Otherwise I reckon I would have bought a Nikon Df, the DSLR I've been most comfortable with using as it works (for me anyway) so much like one of my Nikkormats, as easy and even as simple as they get.

We also have a venerable ancient Nikon D90, which gets used regularly with the kit lens. I've sold images I took with it, so it holds its own as a usable 'shooter' for general photography, best on sunny days and amazingly good with landscapes in the harsh Australian glare. Using a polariser does help...

We all have our druthers when it comes to cameras, so one person's Nikon is really as good as another's Canon, Olympus, Pentax, or you name the brand., excepting (my personal opinion entirely here) Sony, their cameras seem entirely adequate for most uses but sadly their after-sale service is frankly, from my past experience with all their products, entirely crappo. Then there is Leica, but that's a faraway parallel universe for most of us. I do have a Leica iig from the 1950s which goes on and on, seemingly indestructible even with the passing of many decades. Admittedly it's a film camera and I acquired it from its original owner, which may explain its longevity. So no complaints there.

 

[Dogman]

My first new used D700 only had a little over 200 clicks on it and it looked showroom fresh. I fell in love with the D700 because of that camera and I became paranoid about not having it. So I started buying all those I found at low affordable prices that were in good shape. I ended up with four of them. Then I did the same thing with the D3. The fact that both these models were selling for peanuts had a lot to do with my decision to buy multiples. It's now harder to find low mileage models in really great condition. It will only get even harder as time goes by.

 

[Keith]

Interestingly even though I had a negative experience with my D700 it hasn't changed my attitude towards Nikon cameras/products hence my purchase of a well used D4 that has given me no issues and continues to impress me I'll add. For some reason I have never picked up a Canon DSLR that I liked but I can't really say why!

I think the cameras I value most in my relatively meager digicam collection would be my two Merrills ... DP2M and DP3M. They have capabilities well beyond their appearance ... slow to use with appalling battery life but I love them both. I bought a new SD1M based on my experiences with those DPMs but have never bonded with it ... I expected it to be far better than it subsequently turned out to be! It probably has less than a thousand shutter actuations in ten years ... the squinty finder and very average AF are too much of a challenge for my aging eyes!