Accepting older digital DSLR compromises ?

[Range-rover]

The Digilux 3 is OK to ISO 400 , but the M8 is better at 320

The stripped out , Sony A290 , bought to use a Minolta 35-70 f4 , is a dinosaur even though the sensor dates from 2008 , and I stick to ISO 100/200 and the Pentax K10D is fine up to ISO 400 .
I admit to cheating with a Sony a35 which is fine at 800 , but I am unsure about the EVF.

The fact remains that I am fine with theses limitations , whereas many seem to be chasing absolute low light potential and faster
lenses.

Maybe I am a dinosaur !!

dee

Like I said above I have older stuff as well, and I go sometimes
around ISO 800 and that's it so I understand how you feel but
it's still great stuff and the pictures still come out great.

 

[btgc]

High ISOs, large apertures and very short shutter times are overrated, mostly. They are great when one can't use them. Then there are some cases when these are really needed. Other than that people need some holy grail to pursue.

 

[TXForester]

Sure. My current budget keeps me in older crop-sensor cameras. I have to use old manual lenses if I want something faster than f5.6. Since I rarely need to go above ISO 400 the old equipment works just fine. I'm happy with images from a Canon 10D and 1100D. An inexpensive AF confirmation adapter lets me use a few faster Zuiko primes and a 70-210/3.5 Vivitar Series 1.

 

[Dwig]

Sure. My current budget keeps me in older crop-sensor cameras. I have to use old manual lenses if I want something faster than f5.6. Since I rarely need to go above ISO 400 the old equipment works just fine. ....

That's pretty much what I feel.

While truly "antique" digital cameras aren't particularly useful for anything other than perhaps a "Lomo-like" look intentionally using their poor technical quality, using "elderly" digital cameras is quite practical if your shooting style and needs don't challenge their ability.

For my personal "art", I need very good quality prints up to ~13x19 (the largest I can print at home), but don't need ISOs higher than 200. My elderly Panasonic G-1 delivers excellent 13x19s at ISO 100-200. For my shooting I don't actually need better.

 

[Addy101]

As Goethe said: "in die beschränkung zeigt sich der meister" - I like limitations as they improve my photography.

You seem still to be uncertain about your A290. We can't help you with that. You don't have to go to Canon to get better low light high ISO results, the Sony A380 and A550 have the 14mp sensor and they are much better then the 10mp of the A290. The results are comparable to the Canon EOS 500S Ko.Fe. mentioned. You can get the 16mp sensor from your A35 in the A580 - but that one is a little bit more expensive but you probably can pay for it by selling your A35/A290 combination.

 

[Bill Clark]

I still use a Canon 20D that I bought in 2004! It is a back up camera now but I exercise it every so often.

I used it in low level light situations and it worked just fine even when I had it set at 1600 ISO. Sure, some new cameras are around that can be set at a higher ISO but, for me, I would rarely need that feature.

Funny how the photographs I make look the same even if I use a new camera.

Just maybe a lot of photos made has a lot to do with the person making them!

 

[JeffNYC]

I've been using my Nikon D300 since I bought it in 2008. So far I haven't had a reason to replace it. It's a working camera, doing archival work at my shop, and it does the job it has to do just fine. If I want to take it out the best EI for it before things really fall apart parallels film, which was enough for decades, so I'm happy.The only reason I might get a new one is if we decide to start shooting video at concerts.

Does anyone still remember when predictions were that 6Mp was enough for anything anyone would need to do and the Mp war was over, and 3200 was an ultra-fast film hardly anyone used?

The Nikon D300 body (considered to be the last Nikon Pro DX dslr) IMHO, has a solid feel.

 

[sevo]

They made cameras which do 12800 not 800 around 2009 and in 2005 cameras were giving ISO 1600 suitable for 8x10 prints.

Back then, we may have thought so, but we had different benchmarks - the D90/D300 at 3200 was better than pushed Superia 1600 or T-Max 3200. But by current standards it is terribly noisy, as we now perceive it relative to cameras whose 6400 noise is lower than the 800 from the D90...

 

[kuzano]

A near perfect match for your low ISO camera is the Olympus E-1 with it's superb Kodak 5.1 MP sensor.... Low count models that work perfectly can be found in large numbers on eBay, for about $100. In fact, it had a VERY sharp, fast focus 14-54 HG lens (matching SHG) for another $150. So camera and lens can be had for $250.

The colors from the particular Kodak sensor were stupendous, and you could lock it into 100 ISO.

It's still a contender for great shots from a very low cost camera. I've printed nice shots to 11x14, and a couple larger.

Also saves to Jpeg, RAW and TIFF.

 

[dee]

I have seen results from the E-1 and the 300 which are stunning .
However , the 14mp A290 sensor has been praised by one photographer for it's colours and dynamic range , which at ISO 100 with a Minolta 35-70 f4 lens suit me perfectly.
So I shall keep on being alternative I guess !!
dee

 

[Kent]

When I shot with an EOS 350D (around 2005), I thought: "That is all I'll ever need".
When I shot with an EOS 40D (around 2007), I thought: "That is all I'll ever need".
When I shot with an EOS 5D (around 2009), I thought: "Now, with a full frame sensor, that is all I'll ever need."

Then I got a SONY NEX-7 and though: "That is all I'll ever need".
But I got a Leica M8, because I wanted a digital rangefinder.

After some time I sold my Canon gear and all the Sony stuff and went down the Fuji-X-road. Then I though: "That is all I'll ever need".

But I sometimes missed the SLR-feeling and as Fuji has taken me into adoring retro-style digital cameras, I bought a Nikon Df and now I am absolutely convinced that: "That is all I'll ever need". 😉

Joking aside, I still have an EOS 10D and a Pentax K100D sitting here on my shelves, and I think those are still pretty usable cameras - their IQ is about as good as I get from the b&w films I develop on my own - but I am happy to have a camera like the Df which can do more than I can use.

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Did I imagine it or have I really got a lot of slides dating back to the 1950's and negatives from the late 1940's that I took?

FWIW, slide film was 25ASA or 50ASA in those days and the lenses I could afford were f/6.3 and f/3.5 at widest. Eventually I settled on a medium to fast B&W film rated at 125ASA and I managed. Using the funny 16 rule that meant outdoor shots at a 125th at f/16, or a 2,000th at f/4 and all stops in between; not that I had a 2,000th available.

I guess other people started taking photographs only about 5 years ago... And I guess the Leica M4 with the Summicron wouldn't have been any use.

Regards, David

 

[giellaleafapmu]

I personally like old digital cameras only for my own fun and only when they offer something which is not available in modern cameras (or can be had for huge money only). I use exactly three such cameras: Oly E1 (CCD in a fully sealed body), Fuji IS Pro (it was created as a forensic camera and has their Super CCD without any IR or UV filter) and the Nikon D2H (as far as I know the only camera with JFET-LBCAST sensor).

GLF

 

[jsrockit]

I guess other people started taking photographs only about 5 years ago... And I guess the Leica M4 with the Summicron wouldn't have been any use.

It's not that at all...and I think you know that. It's about new technology allowing you to get the photographs, handheld, that in the past would have taken a tripod to achieve.

 

[eric rose]

I mainly use a Nikon D700 or a Panasonic GX7, but my trusty old Nikon D70s still makes wonderful images. I've blown them up to 11x14 and they sing. Having shot for many years (beginning in the 60's) with KC25 and KC64, all the new wiz bang stuff is nice but not one hundred percent necessary to get the image I want.

 

[Vics]

I'm currently shooting Sony a200 with Minolta 35-70 f4 and I like it a a lot, but I recently bought a DT 18-55 SAM to keep from changing lenses so much. I thought this was $185 well spent to see if I could enjoy shooting digital, and I do.
Here's one with the Minolta zoom at iso 200.
DSC00744.jpg by Vic Stewart, on Flickr

 

[Pioneer]

I love the film like renditions of my Pentax *ist D so I use it quite often. The capabilities of the newer versions of Photoshop also have helped bring out even more of what the RAW file has captured so you can get even better results today then you did when it first came out.

I am also using it for my own work. I understand that I am usually limited to 5x7 and 8x10 output and that is the type of print I am visioning when I use that camera. If I want something bigger then I go out with a different camera. There is absolutely nothing wrong with 16x20 prints, but neither is there anything wrong with smaller prints.

There are other limitations involved with these cameras but the world is full of limitations. We learn to work within them and to make the best of those limitations. In the end I believe that we are better for it. YMMV.

 

[kxl]

It depends on the compromise:

My first DSLR was a Nikon D70, which did not meter with AIS lenses.

My next DSLR was a D200, which metered with AIS lenses but was not ideal in low light situations.

My next DSLR was a D700, which was king of the night, but.... well, no 'buts' here. I could have stuck with this one if it weren't for the occasional need for large prints.

Today, I shoot with a D800e.

 

[Addy101]

I'm currently shooting Sony a200 with Minolta 35-70 f4 and I like it a a lot, but I recently bought a DT 18-55 SAM to keep from changing lenses so much. I thought this was $185 well spent to see if I could enjoy shooting digital, and I do.

That US$185,- is the camera, right? I thought at first it was just the 18-55.... The A200 has the same sensor as the A100, and I really liked the results from my A100 with the same sensor. It just is a low ISO camera, ISO 100 is great, 200 is good, 400 acceptable, 800 can be used. Who cares? I seldom go over 400 anyway.

 

[Spanik]

I tought so as well. Used 64 and 200 iso slides for years. So when I got a Sigma DP1m I tought that the 200 iso limit wouldn't bother me. But it does.

You see, once you can go higher you discover that you can get shots you couldn't get with that 200 iso. I was always limited to point of views where I could find some support for the camera because no tripod or no flash allowed. Getting rid of that limitation was a real plus. So why would I now accept a camera that can go no higher than 200 if there are cameras that have no issue going to 1600-3200?