20 Years of digital cameras compared

[x-ray]

Last year a client requested an image from a shoot I did in 2000 on my first generation Nikon D1. I found the raw file and processed it through Lightroom and was stunned at how good it looked. This got me to thinking that some of the issues with color from the early cameras may have been in part to raw file processing software. In the early days of digital photography color management and good software didn't exist.

I put together samples from some of my commercial assignments spanning 20 years. Take a look and see what you think. The camera is identified in the sample.

The Nikon D1, D1x, Canon 1D, Leica M9 and Hasselblad CFV39 are all CCD chips and the rest are CMOS. Comparing original images confirms in my eye the CCD chip excels.

Over the generations, as you'd expect file sizes have grown from the D1 with a 2.75 APS CCD to todays cameras. Two of the major improvements has been low noise at high ISO and dynamic range. Large sensors made a world of difference too. Color improved but to a lesser degree.

I'll have to post in multiple posts due to the number of images.

Take a look.

 

[x-ray]

D1x

D1x

Dix Nikon ---

 

[x-ray]

D1x

D1x

Dix Nikon APS CCD chip about 5mp.

 

[x-ray]

D1x

D1x

Dix Nikon APS CCD chip about 5mp.

 

[x-ray]

1Ds Canon

1Ds Canon

Here's the Caonon 1Ds - beautiful camera

 

[x-ray]

1DsII

1DsII

Now the 1DsII Canon

 

[Bill Clark]

Well that goes to show you that it isn’t just about equipment with photography. To me, it’s more about the person making the photographs.

Wonderful images.

 

[x-ray]

Nikon D800

Nikon D800

Now the Nikon D800

 

[x-ray]

Nikon Df

Nikon Df

Now the Nikon Df

 

[x-ray]

Leica M9

Leica M9

Now the Leica M9

 

[x-ray]

Hasselblad CFV39

Hasselblad CFV39

And finally the Hasselblad CFV39 back

 

[Ccoppola82]

I actually grabbed a canon 5d mint for $80 and I did a quick comparison of that, the 6d, and the Eos R and most people liked the 5d images better.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Russian photo club web site has long thread for CCD cameras images. I was looking at it today. Nikon D200 and Fuji S5 Pro were leaders. Some of close up images are better than current cameras. And just slightly weaker on landscapes. Portraits are totally on-pair, IMO. Better than M9, IMHO. But it comes with typical old FF DSLR bulk and weight. Which I could bare with for only short amount of time now.

From M9 time, I had 5D for years, it was CMOS sensor, but images are better than 5D MKII and RP. IMO.

I'm keeping eye on GRdIV now. Funky CCD camera. Hipsters are all over it still : ) .

BTW, I'm still using LR 4.4 from 2007 and have absolutely no problems with it. Tried LR 6.0 after getting it for free with M-E, but it was crashing and never really worked well. I deleted it as waste of time and disk space.

 

[x-ray]

Give these old cameras good light and they shine.

I’m at the end of my career in commercial photography and have no plans to get newer cameras. I have a D800 and Df and use the Df 70% of the time. I still take care of 4 clients and those two cameras are all I need. If I went to a newer camera I’d have to upgrade my entire computer system and monitor plus all the software and I have no plans to do that. I’m running a fully loaded dual quad core Mac Pro 2009. In reality more pixels wouldn’t do anything for my clients or me other than slow me down. I process my raw files in Lightroom 6.14 and do any retouching and tweaks in Photoshop 4. That’s everything I need.

When I actually retire I’ll keep my Df and primes and ditch the rest. For my personal work I shoot B&W film on the same gear I was using over 50 years ago, Leica M’s and Nikon F and my view cameras.

What my samples prove to me is every camera was capable of producing first rate images. More pixels doesn’t equate to better images for most people. Better dynamic range was a big step forward as was low higher ISO noise although I rarely boost the ISO over 400. It’s all about taking the same care that you take when shooting film. There’s no substitute for doing everything right when you shoot the image.

 

[Ccoppola82]

Give these old cameras good light and they shine.

There’s no substitute for doing everything right when you shoot the image.

I have found that limitation pushes creativity forward and a certain cohesiveness is often found by limiting oneself. Much the same way as in oil painting, I would bet that far more meaningful works were made with a simple palette of 5 pigments than paintings done with 30 pigments.

 

[DougK]

Some of those old cameras were pretty amazing. My first digital camera was a Minolta Dimage 7i and it was a macro photography machine. Great times with that camera until the sensor failed; only 5 MP but at the time that was pretty darn good (and still good enough for an 8x10).

 

[B-9]

I still have and shoot a original D1.

It’s fun and familiar. Great examples btw!

 

[x-ray]

I’ll have to post some images from a first gen Rebel and my old G10 canons. They’re remarkable.

 

[szekiat]

I have gone through the same journey as you. Its funny I don't recall moaning about the lack of pixels or indeed the lack of full frame back then. I was just glad to be able to submit work on the go (via the wifi/ethernet of whichever venue I was shooting at!). I don't miss the high iso abilities of my d1h and 1d though. Back then, press800 was much better than digital. Today, my fuji can shoot at iso12800 and look cleaner than provia 100x

 

[gavinlg]

Imagine if you'd shot all those files as jpegs!
I would agree that raw processing improvements have gone a long way in keeping older digital cameras and old files fresh.