Anyone using older digital cameras ?

[peterm1]

Link don't copy. I does work.

DSC08696 by Steve Cramb, on Flickr

EDIT - BBCode

Incidentally I suspect the problem is that if you are embedding an image in a post it must have a very very specific wording in order for the linking to work properly. If you dont know what that wording is you are bound to get it wrong most of the time. That is one reason to use an external image storage site that provides you with the specific wording needed to make the embedding work without you knowing anything other than how to copy and paste. This makes it very easy.

And by the way to avoid any doubt. Using this method you do NOT have to use the RFF box for adding attachments into a post. Just copy the link from the site where the image is stored then paste straight after the text message that you are typing in RFF and it works. Possibly this is where you are going wrong too if you think you MUST use the RFF image attachment box - you dont.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Fujifilm S5 Pro Nikkor 50/1.2 Ai-s

Halleluia! I learned how to post a photo!

 

[TXForester]

Canon 10D, and just picked up a 20D from a friend for the cost of shipping.

Newer, but old by digital standards are my Panasonic GF2, and Canon G15 and T3.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

This is a marvelous picture

 

[peterm1]

Although they have a CCD sensor these older cameras can make nice images. Shot with a Panasonic L1 which I think is now a decade old. Shot using an Olympus 35mm f3.5 macro lens.

Bolero by Life in Shadows, on Flickr

 

[Larry Cloetta]

I have wondered about their sensors. Are they as good as they were reputed to be? I loved the idea of having specific sensor sites to capture info on bright areas of the image to improve dynamic range. I presume later Fuji sensors are even better given the technology we have now. But the earlier Fuji range did have a great reputation especially for portraits / skin tones and dynamic range.

Just saw this. Everybody has an opinion, but, for me, yes, I'd say they (the proprietary Super CCD sensor Fuji used up through the S5Pro) was every bit as good as it was reputed to be--or better. You can do an internet search and dig up a lot of details, but the dynamic range was a couple of stops better than anything else at the time, and wasn't equaled or bettered until fairly recently.
But, it was much more than dynamic range. There was never anything I could ever do with a RAW file from the D800E, no matter how I processed it, which could equal the color fidelity and depth from the old Fuji sensor. It was also more than just the difference between CCD and CMOS 'look'.
Many people just used jpegs out of the camera as there were many ways these could be configured, and they were beautiful, and easy. Skin tones, perhaps equaled--and I'm not sure about that--but never surpassed IMO.
But, the real secret of the camera were the RAW files. If you used the right RAW converter, they were really, really rich files, easier to work with without falling apart than a lot of more modern cameras with twice the resolution. Fuji's RAW converter worked well, but they quit updating it a long time ago, so pretty useless now. ACR is okay, but doesn't really get everything out of the files that is there. Most people say to use RPP for best results. Learning curve, (kind of big learning curve) but well worth it. That's only way to go, IMO. And, it's free.

Lots of downsides, of course, one had to be willing to live with. Stone age LCD so you never realize how great the files are until you download them. Keep ISO at 400 or below, base ISO the best. Jpeg options are many and confusing, at first. 8X10 print at 300ppi is about as big as you can go. If you're willing to live with that ( I am) it's still a wonderful camera today. In some ways, maybe most ways, I prefer the files from the Super CCD sensor to those from my RX1-which creates superb files, and the D800E I had. My only Leica digital experience was a week with an M-E, so good possibility I wasn't maximizing those, but I preferred the Fuji files from the S5 Pro. Too bad it's a crop sensor that doesn't produce huge files, but, most of the time, they are plenty big enough.
My ideal camera would have a full frame version of this sensor, with maybe 18MP.
For the qualities I look for in a photo, the new Fuji sensors are a significant step backward, very different from the SuperCCD. But, if the market dictates high MP counts and high ISO capability in place of the visual qualities of the old sensor, I guess they had no choice.

YMMV

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Fujifilm S5 Pro Nikkor 50/1.2

 

[jsrockit]

I'm not sure that the image quality is constantly advancing except for pixel peeping. My old Nikon D50 took wonderful digital files. They were just size limited.

Well, that and dynamic range, high ISO is what is advancing. It is significant vs. CCD sensors.

 

[Pioneer]

Lately the digital SLR I use the most is my Pentax *ist DS because it uses an SC card and still works with my older flash units. I like the old Pentax *ist digital SLRs because they are very light and compact. I have three or four so I can jump back and forth whenever the mood strikes.

I find that the RAW files from these cameras contain great data and the newer editing programs like Lightroom and Photoshop can make even better use of the information than they used to do.

The 6mp files produce great 8x10 prints and can even be expanded to 13x19 in many cases, though I usually prefer 10mp or more if this is my intent. I find that the biggest limitation comes when I need to crop, so I try to frame my photographs as well as I can in the first place. Believe it or not, when I figured this out I found that my photographs printed out much better. These small files just don't handle cropping very well.

 

[Hannes]

Upgraded from D70s to D300 2 Years ago. I'm shooting in RAW. What I can get out of the images from D300 is still sufficiant for me. Maybe I'll upgrade to a used D700 next X-Mas.

Hannes

 

[Addy101]

Very early gen (6mp D100 etc) cameras don't hold up very well - but their successors, the D200 and newer are just fine for most uses. I traded a rarely used lens for a Pentax K10D and kit lens to learn on, and have been surprised by it's image quality.

That must have been the D100, because the Sony 6mp sensor that was in the D100 was great. A lot of folk around here loved it in the RD1 and I enjoyed it in the Konica-Minolta Dynax 7D. The 7D is a great camera, here is a picture with that old camera:

KM Dynax 7D | Minolta 24-85/3.5-4.5 | 24mm | f/8 | 1/500s | 200iso

 

[rogue_designer]

That must have been the D100, because the Sony 6mp sensor that was in the D100 was great.

It was great. For its time, and in good light. But as a professional tool, it was far too limited. Low light performance was terrible past 800. Color balance was iffy at best. It took another generation to get past that.

 

[dee]

Most interesting replies , thank you.

I guess that the Sony A290 cannot be considered that old , but the it's just a modified A380 from 2008 .
I just liked the files and colours from my Leica Digilux 3 / L1 and those of the A290.
So much so that I indulged in a mint A390 for the flip screen .
I had no idea of why I preferred the colours , to the A35 , but the response to CCD sensors is fascinating .
Of course , professionally , the low light ability of modern cameras is essential , but for a snap shooter like me , ISO 100 is generally perfectly acceptable - though the L! seems fine at ISO 400 .

Thanks
dee

 

[Scrambler]

You are welcome.

The cameras we have been quoting normally don't go down to 100 ISO - usually 200, with the Pentax decent to 800 and dodgy after that - highest, seriously iffy output at 3200 ISO.

 

[lynnb]

The oldest digital camera I still use (although not often) is the Nikon Coolpix E4500. Small 4Mp CCD sensor, agonisingly slow AF, but.. for macro work, it's still hard to beat. You can fill the frame with a photo of your little fingernail. It will record TIFF. The colour is excellent. The swivel body design is great for macro work. Pretty much everything else about it is from the dinosaur age, but for what it does best (macro), it's still a great camera.

 

[jamin-b]

I just bought a like new pentax *ist ds for ~$50 in order to make additional use of the kids mount leases I have assembled for film cameras. I am quite pleased with the IQ, battery convenience, automation with A lenses, relatively small body and nice viewfinder. This was my consolation prize for being unconvinced - as yet - that purchasing a Nikon Df makes sense for me.

 

[slm]

I've used Minolta/Sony SLRs and DSLRs for many years, mainly with Minolta lenses. My first serious DSLR was the Minolta Maxxum 7D (AKA, Dynax7), a 6MP camera with simple, efficient ergonomics. I hold on to this camera for its ease of use and fine image quality for web presentation and 8x10 prints. The Sony A-mount and E-mount cameras have gone a long way beyond the Minoltas, but I still like using the Maxxum 7D.

Another Maxxum 7D user here, as well as a Sony A700 (which is an older camera too I guess). My 7D occasionally has weird artifacts in an image, like a small chunk is entirely missing from the image (a pure white oddly shaped spot).

 

[mynikonf2]

Quality Lasts

Quality Lasts

Still using my 2001 D1H (2.74 mp), which continues to perform flawlessly after all these years, and a 2006 D200 (10.2 mp). As a "daily carry" digital I would use a 2004 D70s (6.1 mp) until it was loaned to someone. When it was returned "because it would not turn on," I discovered that it had been dropped and was not worth the cost to repair.

Now I have to admit to eyeing the D300s & the full frame Df & D3s but for now I'll continue to shoot what I have, besides, I really prefer film.

 

[robert blu]

The only digital I own and still use is the Leica x1 more than 5 years old which for me is not "very" old but you know, in the digital world it means ages...

My wife still use her Nikon D-5100...which sometimes I borrow...

robert

 

[dee]

Forgot - the circa 2000 Canon G2 is still going strong but has a curious pixelated effect to the files !