NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: Fons Baerken on June 30, 2016, 20:12:14
-
Do you still use an "obsolete" camera?
And does it show?
My idea to instigate a thread on the use of former, out-of-date cameras with images to show, matter of course.
Do they still hold up with the latest greatest?
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7406/27480494342_fd436dc0e2_b.jpg)
D50 18-200mm vr f/3.5-5.6 G ED
-
I'm using "obsolete" camera on a daily basis. among these are Nikon D2H (documentary work for studio etc.), D200 (IR and multispectal), D300 (visible reference shots for my UV botanicals; combined with a Medical-Nikkor 120/4), D40X (IR), Panasonic models (GF, GH-2), and last but not the least my Fuji S3Pro and S5Pro for emulated colour IR applications.
My Nikon 1V1 cameras probably are about to become obsolete too if they aren't there already.
-
Sorry for being off-topic. Please delete.
-
Off-topic.
-
Please define obsolete.
Do you mean superseeded by newer and better cameras?
Or not up to the task anymore? In what respect?
-
The marketing departments probably imply obsolete means 'useless' or 'rubbish' thus you just have to buy their newest models ...
In practice, "obsolete" should refer to some photographic device you cannot get film/media/batteries/spare parts for and thus is limited in its functionality. If it breaks it has reached end-of-life state. This is of course more severe for digital than for filmbased gear, but even the latter can become obsolete over time.
-
Who are you calling obsolete? ;)
1965 NKT Nikon F with 1969 NKJ 20mm f3,5 Nikkor-UD and Ilford HP5+
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7325/27188460063_9d402f9246_b.jpg)
2007 D3 with the same 1969 NKJ 20mm f3,5 Nikkor-UD lens
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7422/26918785123_04ea97edb3_b.jpg)
-
The concept of 'obsolete' cameras is a true child of the digital era. I suggest we focus(sic) on digital gear in this thread from now on.
-
The concept of 'obsolete' cameras is a true child of the digital era. I suggest we focus(sic) on digital gear in this thread from now on.
Also, as rule of an interesting "game" Fons started, it would be more interesting to limit ourselves to the images "newly shot" with the "obsolete" cameras rather than posing "older" images shot with the cameras that were "current".
-
Following your suggestion, a favourite from my 'dystopia' series taken with the quaint Fuji S3Pro (UVIR) and the '73 version of the 15 mm f/5.6 Nikkor-QDC. The S3Pro is by far the most "obsoleted" camera still in regular use by me.
-
The concept of 'obsolete' cameras is a true child of the digital era. I suggest we focus(sic) on digital gear in this thread from now on.
Fair point. I should pick up my IR converted D70s :)
-
Fair point. I should pick up my IR converted D70s :)
That qualifies ...
-
I have obsolete cameras but can't use them b/c I don't know where to get the film (what is film ?? :P), where to get them develop ... so now they are just holding down the shelves
-
Yes indeed about cameras that are out of production and i think there are quite a few among us that still use them on a regularly if not on a daily basis.
Not everyone may care for the latest models, but can they still be serviced are parts still avalaible?
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7117/27701967660_0c79d8ab02_o.jpg)
The river Waal, a few days ago
D3 14-24/2.8
-
If a D300s is obsolete it's my backup which I occasionally use by choice.
-
I remember we have a member here who still loves and uses his D1....
I still got one of the D70s which I sometimes use when there is no other camera around....
The good thing about the unsupported old bodies is that you can get them used cheaply on Ebay....
-
Fons: a digital camera is much more dependent on the availability of spare parts and electronics than the old cameras of say the '60s. A simple thing as lack of suitable batteries can stop its use even though the camera might be fully functional. If the software support for the camera ceases or what software one uses at present no longer can be installed under new operating systems, you are out no matter what state the camera is in (or you are limited to jpgs, not RAW).
That being said, having old film cameras serviced demands a supply of spare parts that only can be met by skilled repair techs and scavenged and cannibalised cameras. Old camera maintenance won't be cheap.
-
The oldest of my two cameras is from 2014 so no obsolete cameras here.
While my lenses span multiple decades I like to keep my cameras up to date ;D
-
One out of many reasons people still use "obsolete" cameras.
(Fuji S5Pro, 35-135/3.5-4.5 Nikkor, both "obsolete")
-
More obsolete, or perhaps obscure (?), images follow. This is a recent capture with the humble D40X (IR), and the even humbler 35-135/3.5-4.5 Zoom-Nikkor. The low regard of the latter is reflected in its low second-hand price and it is not uncommon to see it sell way below USD 100,- on eBay. One step down the regard ladder one finds the Zoom-Nikkor 43-86 mm f/3.5, widely reputed to be a 'dog'. Well, such a reputation certainly helps keeping the prices down. I don't mind at all.
First image: Office building facade, (D40X, 35-135/3.5-4.5 Nikkor)
Second image: At the doctor's surgery, (D40X, 43-86/3.5 Nikkor)
-
Thank you Bjørn , i just bought a D3 with less than 8k clicks on in it updated the firmware, cleaned the sensor, got a spare battery, a 2nd hand L-bracket, did i do wise?
-
Very much so. The D3 was, and still is, a rugged work horse. Merely eight K clicks on the clock should provide you with a pro camera for years to come.
I replaced my D3 units with a factory in-box D3S as I got a phenomenal deal that actually provided the new camera for free by selling off the other D3. I did this because it proved futile to modify the D3 for UV and multispectral photography. I got a D600 instead for UV work and still had money left.
-
I keep my D3 although she is at 124.758 Klicks with the attached shot.
She is hopelessly outdated. The D600 beats her IQ-wise, the D500 in AF, HiISO, WB and fps. But I still need these two cameras, none is available that combines the D500 & D600 qualities yet.
-
Thank you Bjørn , i just bought a D3 with less than 8k clicks on in it updated the firmware, cleaned the sensor, got a spare battery, a 2nd hand L-bracket, did i do wise?
Fons, if the form factor is no problem then the D3 is still one of the nicest Nikon cameras money can buy. There are a few differences which should become obvious as soon as you start processing files from the camera.
I won't spoil too much, but to me the D3 files have a color quality and clarity that I have not yet seen in NEF files from other cameras.
As for durability, mine now developed a first bug after some 85k clicks
-
Question: Are there any (unmodified) D200 shooters here?
I'm asking because I always found the low ISO performance of the D200 CCD to be amazing. Much better then the D300 CMOS and at least different from the D3 output.
-
My youngest Nikon, the D800e, is already four years old and can already be called outdated :-[
I still use all the FX Nikons over here (D700, D800e, D3s) on a regular basis. There are shiny new D5's, D500's and D810's making eyes at me in the vitrines at the local Nikon dealer over here, until now I have been able to resist them.
-
There is a huge amount of current Leica M9 shooters out there, yes CCD sensor ;)
My D200 with IR internal filter is a workhorse too
-
All my D200 cameras have been modified one way or other. I think there have at least been five different units over the years. Some have been sold off, some given away. I have just two left.
The D200 had an excellent performance at low ISO, true. This is a winter scene at nightfall, shot with the D200 and the 300 mm f/2.8 AFS. From my initial review shooting with the D200.
-
I have always regretted selling the D200. Amazing color in those obsolete icicles :D
-
I have always regretted selling the D200. Amazing color in those obsolete icicles :D
I'm just combining the blue sky and the vestiges of lingering warm colours from the sunset. The icicles act as cylinder lenses and bring these colours together.
-
I still use my D40 quite a lot, for instance on trips where the going may get rough. For many purposes the image quality at low ISO is good enough, and my D40 has survived plenty of situations where other cameras died. In addition it's small and unobtrusive, especially if you use it with a manual prime lens. I recently got a second body from a friend who never used his - with 239 (!) clicks on the clock. And I bought a D40x used in very good shape for a ricidulously low price, well under € 100, including a plasticky 18-135 and an almost new 35mm/f 2.5 AIS.
I also use my D200 quite a bit. It's obviously best at low ISO, but up to ISO 800 is OK, I think.
-
The oldest of my two cameras is from 2014 so no obsolete cameras here.
My oldest camera is a Leica IIIf with the Elmar 50mm/F3.5. Only ever used for nostalgic purposes nowadays, although I must still have some slides from a trip to Norway in the 1990s somewhere. On that trip I only used the Leica, mainly to prove a point to some friends who thought you need modern gear to get good photographs.
Hermann
-
I always liked the NEF from the D70 and D70s much better than the NEF from the D200.
Tge D70-files are dough in my hands very resilient. The D200 files have a slightly better spatial resolution.
Tonality of skin and food is better with the D70. After a week's
test I bought a second D70 instead of the D200.
The D70 today can be had sub 100 Euro with low click rate.
-
The finder of the D70 is a true peephole, the D200 is far better in that respect. I have nothing else against the D70, it was a nice entry level camera for its time and earned me a lot of good money over the years. The D200 also has GPS support (for me a very important feature) and one can use non-CPU lenses with it. The latter of course is mostly moot these days as virtually all my manual lenses have been CPU-modified.
-
After I modified both D70ies with Katzeye screens the VF trouble was gone.
First D70 came in 2005 and went at 110.000 clicks. Second came 2006 and is still there at over 50.000.
The D3 made her backup in spring 2008. Huge leap forward in any aspect esp.ergonomics and VF and ISO.
Still good enough for professional portrait work and a fun to use.
price is so low now it does not pay to sell her. I try to seduce my son to photography with her.
Not easy. He is more into music and sports ;-)
-
Katzeye, alas, is out of business.
-
Yes I know. But with my bad eyes even I can easily focus
manually on the D500 VF. Times are a changing ...
-
Ricoh GRD III, nice close-up possibilities with 6mm @f/1.9
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7350/27740615640_1e6f992cbd_o.jpg)
Lily of the Nile 4 (https://flic.kr/p/JgkUyy) by Arend (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vermazeren/), on Flickr
-
OK, here are some recent pics (from the day before the Maastricht meeting) with my really obsolete D200 (defect shutter), sensor and main board put into the body of another obsolete D200 (lens was newer):
-
Excellently obsolete .... Who cares?
-
Question: Are there any (unmodified) D200 shooters here?
I'm asking because I always found the low ISO performance of the D200 CCD to be amazing. Much better then the D300 CMOS and at least different from the D3 output.
Yes, I use it. Works great with the Heligon btw.
-
I still use my D40 quite a lot, for instance on trips where the going may get rough. For many purposes the image quality at low ISO is good enough, and my D40 has survived plenty of situations where other cameras died. In addition it's small and unobtrusive, especially if you use it with a manual prime lens. I recently got a second body from a friend who never used his - with 239 (!) clicks on the clock. And I bought a D40x used in very good shape for a ricidulously low price, well under € 100, including a plasticky 18-135 and an almost new 35mm/f 2.5 AIS.
D40X has proved its toughness in the cold. D40 should behave the same way:
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,494.0.html
-
Question: Are there any (unmodified) D200 shooters here?
I'm asking because I always found the low ISO performance of the D200 CCD to be amazing. Much better then the D300 CMOS and at least different from the D3 output.
My D200 is unmodifed, actually it is the only DSLR I have with its original focusingscreen. I got it as a backup for the D300, and after short field testing, I found it just as good as D300. When need one of them, I take the nearest one. My main camera is D700, also considered obsolute by many.
If the definition of obsolute, is that the manufactor has replaced it with a newer model, I have not owned or used other than obsolute cameras since about 1990. If the definition of obsolute is something I do not use any longer, I don't use obsolute gear ;)
-
There are many models succeeding the Nikon D3 today, thus we might have difficulty in realising what a game-changer this camera was in the autumn of 2007. I got my sample later that year and enjoyed the excellent performance provided by the D3 through the dark and cold winter months.
A few snapshots from these early days with the D3, taken with another even more obsolete item, namely, the elusive 200-400 mm f/4 ED Zoom-Nikkor. A big, heavy, zoom design built to a standard of workmanship and finish miles above what any lens today can boast. Best of all, the optics are first-rate as well. A pity less than 500 units were produced in the mid '80s.
These images are taken late in the afternoon, either using the last sun rays, or the half-light prevailing after sunset. Exposures in the 1/10 to 1/20 sec range @400 mm are a breeze with a decent tripod supporting the massive 200-400.
-
Wow, these are great !!
The holy grail of obsoleteness can be the Nikon D600 with all those claims, the fast withdrawal and introduction of the D610. That makes the D600 somewhat underestimated in the publics view. However It's a very good camera IQ-wise, but I can't get used not be able to zoom in with a click in playback mode. Well, every camera has it's drawbacks ;)
-
Not entirely giving up the über-obsolete 200-400/4 ED yet. Here with the likewise obsolete D200, showing off in the darkness of winter just before New Year's Eve. Exposure 1/5 sec. Almost "fast" for this time of the year.
-
There are many models succeeding the Nikon D3 today, thus we might have difficulty in realising what a game-changer this camera was in the autumn of 2007. I got my sample later that year and enjoyed the excellent performance provided by the D3 through the dark and cold winter months.
A few snapshots from these early days with the D3, taken with another even more obsolete item, namely, the elusive 200-400 mm f/4 ED Zoom-Nikkor. A big, heavy, zoom design built to a standard of workmanship and finish miles above what any lens today can boast. Best of all, the optics are first-rate as well. A pity less than 500 units were produced in the mid '80s.
These images are taken late in the afternoon, either using the last sun rays, or the half-light prevailing after sunset. Exposures in the 1/10 to 1/20 sec range @400 mm are a breeze with a decent tripod supporting the massive 200-400.
Both images are exquisite! One common character of the older, obsolete cameras is that they capture the "atmosphere" better than the current high-res models.
When I saw a large prints (around 80cm on the long sides) of D800E, while I was amazed by the resolving power the camera provided, I felt the images rather sterile with lack of atmospheric feel.
The holy grail of obsoleteness can be the Nikon D600 with all those claims, the fast withdrawal and introduction of the D610. That makes the D600 somewhat underestimated in the publics view. However It's a very good camera IQ-wise, but I can't get used not be able to zoom in with a click in playback mode. Well, every camera has it's drawbacks ;)
Yet another holy grail would be D2H which was bashed so bitterly because of bad noise performance contrary to Nikon's advertisement of LBCAST sensor. While it was indeed noisy already at ISO400, its atmospheric rendition was worth cherishing.
-
The D3 was truly a game-changer indeed. My impression is that the D3 was much more popular among us Nikon gearheads compared to e.g. the D4 and the D5. The price over here was something like 3300 - 3400 Euros, today a D5 goes over 7K. Maybe that is the reason.
-
When I saw a large prints (around 80cm on the long sides) of D800E, while I was amazed by the resolving power the camera provided, I felt the images rather sterile with lack of atmospheric feel.
I think it also matters which lens is used. Many of the G-lenses do lack an atmospheric feel in my eyes.
-
An example with the Nikon D200 and the Rodenstock Apo Rodagon D 75/4
-
While we are apparently on a D200 track, I might submit a contribution of my own. Apart from the EXIF telling me this was captured with a D200 and the vintage 20 mm f/4 from late '70s, I have no idea how I managed the shot thus don't ask.
-
.
-
It'll be easy to fill up the thread with heaps of D200 images ...
D200 IR, 'dog' lens 43-86 mm f/3.5 Zoom-Nikkor.
-
D200 again, this time with the Noct-Nikkor and a warning message on a shop door.
-
.
-
After an insanely large amount of kicking and screaming, Nikon belatedly did the right thing with the D600 and fixed the shutter and oil leaks and gave the machine essentially a life time warranty. Probably a very high value for money machine if you can find a NOS sample and get Nikon to upgrade the shutter - if your sample actually needs its shutter upgraded at all, as not all units were affected - people seem to forget that point. The D610 is virtually just a D600 with the upgraded shutter plus one minor addition to the menu functions. The ultimate in "obsolete" cameras?
Wow, these are great !!
The holy grail of obsoleteness can be the Nikon D600 with all those claims, the fast withdrawal and introduction of the D610. That makes the D600 somewhat underestimated in the publics view. However It's a very good camera IQ-wise, but I can't get used not be able to zoom in with a click in playback mode. Well, every camera has it's drawbacks ;)
-
i do not want to use the term obsolete. instead, i call them "classic" :o :o :o
-
It'll be easy to fill up the thread with heaps of D200 images ...
D200 IR, 'dog' lens 43-86 mm f/3.5 Zoom-Nikkor.
I bought my father a 36-72/3.5 Series-E. The zoom was so loose and wobbly that I returned it the next day and bought a 43-86/3.5 AI, probably the last version. He loved it. I gave it to a high school after his death. I guess I should have kept it.
Dave
-
Still occasionally using using my D200, in addition to my other "obsolete" cameras, D40x IR-720nm, D5100, D7100 (the latter is my newest body and I guess also "obsolete" in term of having been superseded by a newer body, if not a classic).
This image from my D200 and 105mm f/4 AIS of a wood frog (captured for our Ph.D. student Don who is studying them) was selected over those I captured with my D5100, the latter was my newest body at that time:
(http://otoien.zenfolio.com/img/s5/v125/p1954553436.jpg)
Wood frogs stay frozen solid over the long winter months in Alaska, just to thaw and jump around as if nothing had happened in the spring.
-
I just bought a used D300S in order to have a newer camera.
-
D70 from an early Food Jobs (I was Novice then):
-
I just bought a used D300S in order to have a newer camera.
Does this mean my D300s isn't obsolete?
Dave
-
My D200 still works OK, but I don´t really use it due to IMO poor performance compared to the D700. I decided however to use it for some documentation work a month ago, as a kind of "ten year anniversary"! It did the job I suppose. Images were used in my report. But where it really loses compared to the D700 is images of soil profiles.
For me, the D200 became obsolete the same moment I got the D700 back in the summer of 2008, at the age of two (got it May 2006)!
The D700 on the other hand, 8 years old now, I do not think of as obsolete, and still use a lot, since it is very much "good enough" for what I do. But of course, when I want the best possible image, the D800E is a little (sometimes a lot) nicer, especially when printing large...
From now on my D200 will probably just be used for sensor cleaning training!
/Johan
-
For many, the sensor and AF system of the D3 was a game changer. Then along came the D700 with the same sensor and AF system at less than half the cost and what a game changer it proved to be.
I also purchased my D700 new in 2008 and still use it. It really did exceed my expectations. Athough I now have other weapons in my armoury, it is still a great all rounder. Superceded yes, but not obsolete IMHO. YMMV.
-
All my D200 cameras have been modified one way or other. I think there have at least been five different units over the years. Some have been sold off, some given away. I have just two left.
The D200 had an excellent performance at low ISO, true. This is a winter scene at nightfall, shot with the D200 and the 300 mm f/2.8 AFS. From my initial review shooting with the D200.
#1 that as well it's my backup camera my main obsolete is my D700, nothing wrong with what it puts out for me..
-
Currently I very often use my D700, after I had to give D750 to Nikon Service due to Shutter problems.
According to Nikon they still wait for spare parts from Japan. So this will be a longer "intermezzo".
The D700 RAWs need much less pp handling than those of the D750.
The D700 still does the job very well. Nevertheless somehow the D750 very quickly set it back to a back up role.
Picture from last weekend will follow shortly.
-
The River Waal image is almost a identical landscape to the region I live in at this time of year..
Beautiful Big Skies, Large expanses of water filling the flood plains, broken roads.
The elements when volatile will be brutal, best to keep a vehicle close by. Been caught out more than a few times when out with the dogs.
My D80 is a few years gone, so I will not be able to contribute a image, non production bodies would give more scope, coupled with non production lenses.
-
A few pics - camera/ lense details included in EXIFs & file names.
Just a bit of sharpening and playing with the "camera colour profiles" in LR:
-
D90; here with its kit lens i.e. 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6. Picture taken at ISO 3'200; 120mm f/5.3 1/40s
-
Do you still use an "obsolete" camera?
And does it show?
If you define obsolete as "no longer produced; out of date", every camera I own is obsolete, and every camera I use gives a different look to the shot.
I doubt that swapping a Nikon D810 for my D800 would make a lot of difference. On the other hand, I'd expect some improvement by replacing my V1 with a different EVIL camera, and the limits of my Coolpix 995 are clearly visible. As for film cameras, I suppose there are some incremental improvements in automation available, but I doubt any viewer would attribute any differences to the camera.
-
I am using cameras way longer than the manufacturers replacement cycles
My first digital SLR was the D200 (lens compatibility) is in the reserve now, would not make sense to sell it off, is a potential replacement for the other D200 that is modified for wide spectrum. Still waiting to test it against the D300 at low ISO whether i can confirm what was frequently posted here and in the old NG site.
The D700 is the one I have made the most shots with and kept its practical value for a long time, and still can do a lot of jobs. Its in the second line as I have got newer and better bodies now, but still giving use to it from time to time. I dont use it for action any more (as originally together with the D300 and MB-D10), as it lost itscompetitiveness.
The D300 was bought as companion for the D700 for Supertele body with crop factor and became a travel camera after the D800E had replaced it in its original field.
Both D700 and D300 are on standby for uses where there is higher risk and I dont want to take care that much.
-
I don't believe in obsolete.
Unless it can't be repaired or lack of available parts.
I had a Fuji Finepix point and shoot digital with a 2mp sensor (long dead) that produced some of the finest detailed close up images, its close to being obsolete due to the flash card Fuji designed for it..
I had two D200 bodies before I bought my D700, I kept one for my back up to me it's not at all obsolete it's like the Ford Ranger of cameras.
My feeling is If it produces an acceptable image it is still in the heard, I also believe 75% is in the lens quality and 25% the photographer holding the camera.
-
Confucious say: "The best camera is the one that you have with you."
(Well I don't know for sure that it was he that said so, but the quote has been around for a while!)
-
Another old wisdom is that a camera gets no worse, once a new model is launched. (Maybe not as old as Confusius, though. :) )
-
my 2004 Full Frame, 13.5mp, Kodak SLR/n really does an excellent job at base ISO. The people who designed it put a ton of effort to make digital look like film. It's a huge slow moving slug to work with, but then again.......so am I.
8)
(And for what it's worth....it's stamped "Made In USA.")
-
(And for what it's worth....it's stamped "Made In USA.")
On this forum which happens to be named after a Japanese company and has members spanning the globe, I'm not sure it's worth all that much :o
-
Autumn colors
Really went old school with this one
D1H with 1.4/50mm, Sandisk Extreme III 2GB CF
Uploaded with Sandisk Firewire Imagemate
Processed on a Macbook Core 2 Duo, in NX (the 1st version)
still works after all those years
http://www.pbase.com/image/164439813
(sorry, still failing to directly upload a picture despite using the 'Attach' option, really tried :-[ )
-
On this forum which happens to be named after a Japanese company and has members spanning the globe, I'm not sure it's worth all that much :o
Well, it has an 'F' mount hasn't it?
-
Sure, I was referencing the cameras place of origin though, not the camera itself.
-
Kodak was a big part of the digital camera revolution and had some amazing sensors, too bad it didn't work out for them!
-
Well, one of my "obsolete" cameras died yesterday ... A D40, that I still used quite a lot recently has developed a hotpixel dead in the centre, with a nice red line of pixels down to the bottom of the image.
Oh well, I now may have to ask around in the family if someone who's still got an old D40 lying around doesn't need it anymore. I still like the D40 quite a lot, especially for some quick shots for use on the net. Nice, small NEFs that don't need a lot of work.
Hermann
-
One of my old D2H's still works. Not used too often but still fun to use. Here with a K version of the 50/1.4.
Edit: Added a second pic from a dance show. The camera pushed to ISO 800 and pushed furter in pp to get details out.
-
Kodak was a big part of the digital camera revolution and had some amazing sensors, too bad it didn't work out for them!
Could be still in business. But mismanagement is able to kill even giants like Kodak was.
-
Well, one of my "obsolete" cameras died yesterday ... A D40, that I still used quite a lot recently has developed a hotpixel dead in the centre, with a nice red line of pixels down to the bottom of the image.
Oh well, I now may have to ask around in the family if someone who's still got an old D40 lying around doesn't need it anymore. I still like the D40 quite a lot, especially for some quick shots for use on the net. Nice, small NEFs that don't need a lot of work.
Hermann
Get a D40x. Very cheap on the second-hand market and highly capable small cameras. Image quality can be outstanding, clearly an improvement on the D40.
Few of my cameras have taken beating in the field as well as the D40x used for my UV photography for years. I still keep an IR-modified D40x as a spare camera in the car.
-
Could be still in business. But mismanagement is able to kill even giants like Kodak was.
Kodak didn't want digital cameras to kill off their film sales so they let other companies kill off their film sales (or so I read). Last I knew Kodak still made skins for touch screens and picante sauce. The Kodak failure having had an employee invent the Bayer filter (Bryce Bayer) should be in text books for as long as text books persist.
Dave Hartman who himself is obsolete
-
The good old D80 ( Image also posted in the Autumn theme) Same IQ as D200, but won't accept all lenses, and less setting options.
With the 50/1.8G
(http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=4361.0;attach=20219;image)
-
Kodak is a great example of how to set up a bunch of accountants in a small business - just give them a big business and wait........... :o
Kodak didn't want digital cameras to kill off their film sales so they let other companies kill off their film sales (or so I read). Last I knew Kodak still made skins for touch screen skins and picante sauce. The Kodak failure having had an employee invent the Bayer filter (Bryce Bayer) should be in text books for as long as text books persist.
Dave Hartman who himself is obsolete
-
On you tube there is a video from the Kodak museum, super interesting!
-
Still using my old cameras, and lenses.
This one from my garden this morning, D2Xs, AFI300 lens with fill light from a SB800.
-
Talk about taking a obsolete camera and putting it to use again..
https://youtu.be/M_kkJep4nUc?t=1
https://youtu.be/yzR4REsOPC0?t=2
-
My wife still uses our D50. The original 18-55 zoom died so I bought a 18-70 to use with it. Still takes great pictures. Looking to replace it with something smaller and with with more zoom range though...
-
I wish I'd kept my D50 Roland :(
This one is more down to the 105mm than the D50
(http://www.pbase.com/celidh/image/78599353/original.jpg)
Here the sensor isn't up to what I was attempting with such low light
(http://www.pbase.com/celidh/image/89067622/original.jpg)
For this, the sensor probably isn't as important as the subject matter!
(http://www.pbase.com/celidh/image/73164714/original.jpg)
-
I still use my D3 a lot and it has definitely been my favourite camera, from the digital age anyway.
Today I am going out with the D3 and a D500 so it still gets put in the bag on a daily basis.
Image attached was in Kenya with the D3 and 200-400.
-
Not entirely convinced everybody would designate a D3 'obsolete'. But if you say so .... :D
-
However, the Fuji S5Pro *is* obsolete. And in this case used with much older and very obsolete Nikkors: first example Zoom-Nikkor 200-600 mm f/9.5 @600 mm, distance 2 km. Second example, the lizard, taken with 35-135 mm f/3.5-4.5 Zoom-Nikkor AIS. As evidenced by the examples, I'm using the Fuji for false-colour emulated 'Infrared Ektachrome' captures, a purpose it serves well.
-
I agree Bjorn!!
I definitely do not class it as obsolete
However I get the feeling that a lot of people see a camera as old and useless as soon as a new model comes out!
Strange as I have never had a camera break down when a new model is introduced!
-
I still love that lizard & hasp shot - obsolete camera and lens doesn't matter to me at all.
-
I had a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 Century Graphic with a 101mm f/4.5 Ektar Commercial (something like that) lens. It even had a bobble! It was a nice camera. I had a 6x9 back for it. It was small and reasonably light and folded into a compact package. I'd like another one.
Dave
-
Hello everyone,
I join with you because I also use an obsolète camera (Fuji S5Pro) and besides it is the only camera (SLR) that I still own (in fact I have three)
I am convinced that there is no camera out of date!
A camera that gave good results ten years ago, always gives good results in 2016!
Just know these limits!
photo 1 avec le Nikkor AF-D 135/2 DC
photo 2 avec le Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
photo 3 avec le Micro-Nikkor 55mm Ai-S
-
You prove your points convincingly :D
The Anagallis is splendid.
-
Indeed, crisp and very nice light in those images!
-
Really good tonal and color quality in these shots!
-
Indeed, impressive light and colour.
-
Great portrait (also the expression).
-
I am using, nearly every day, a camera that was obsolete when hitting the shops, and that remained obsolete to this day : the Nikon Df.
When it was commercialized, there were comments saying it was a "lesser camera" compared to, say the D800. Inferior in every respect (resolution, frame rate, shutter speed, etc.). Of course, things have not improved.
Apparently, I love obsolescence.
-
The Df never was obsolete. It simply allowed or encouraged an alternative approach to photography. That never will be "obsolete".
-
The Df never was obsolete. It simply allowed or encouraged an alternative approach to photography. That never will be "obsolete".
I think you got my point.
-
Of course. The Df has been my main camera since November, 2013.
-
For me, May 2014. No GAS since then (concerning cameras, not lenses).
-
Same here. Almost no new cameras*. Only a small handful of lenses acquired later, mostly old vintage stuff. I do have virtually completed my project of CPU-modifying all my old lenses though.
* only upgraded Fuji S3 to S5 as the battery longevity of the former became abysmal. Plus I needed the camera to have GPS. And added D500 to replace an ailing D300. That hardly counts?
-
Take a new challenge. Want to chip my Summicron ? as it is, it is peeerfectly obsolete.
-
If it can be done, Erik will do it.
-
:) there is not even a diaphragm lever.
-
No problem. We have a strategy for that kind of lens. I'm using for example Leica and Olympus lenses on my camera, yet still able to enjoy the increased exposure accuracy by wide-open metering.
-
Well, I was very happy to find this thread (1st post @ nikongear, too), since i enjoy shooting obsolete cameras with old optics, even for work assignments. So i (kind of) contribute with 2 unprocessed, straight out-of-d2h shots with a recently acquired kiron 28mm/f2. Almost the same frame (handheld) with 2nd image focus on the spider web leftovers, for some primitive background blur evaluation. I don't post often, but I saw many great photos in this thread!! Keep up!
-
First - a belated Christmas and happy holidays to everyone!
Wanted to say: Many thanks to Fons for starting this thread, and to everyone who has contributed to this thread. The photos here are truly inspiring.
I consider myself a fledgling photographer with a lot to learn. However, it has been difficult to keep my head straight ever since I saw the reduced prices for the D500 / D810, or the inexpensive used D700's popping up all over, or the used D3S that seems within reach if only I can stretch the budget a little more compared to the D500, or why not a new D610 while I'm at it... you get the idea.
It is especially funny when I think that I never wanted to upgrade my camera in the first place. The best advice I would give to myself is that gear is secondary and if I can't produce good photos with what I currently have (a D7000 - is this an obsolete camera btw?), upgrading the camera would only help me produce bad photos at an elevated price. I have visited this thread several times to stay sane during these trying times. So once again, thanks everyone :-)
- Abhijit
-
Regardless of whether one is using a newer or older camera, don't forget the benefits of custom white balancing and exposure calibrations. In reasonable light, a well calibrated older camera with accurate colour balance and good exposure can usually do a better job than a newer machine whose exposure and colour balance are off.
Tools such as the Xrite Colorchecker Passport and the EXPOdisc help make the calibration processes easier and are not overly expensive.
(Sorry for the sermon - a lapsed scientist having his 0.02c worth. ;D )
-
Welcome, Replica...and thank you for the reminder that interesting and worthwhile images can be made with "technically underperforming" equipment of years gone past.
-
Welcome, Replica...and thank you for the reminder that interesting and worthwhile images can be made with "technically underperforming" equipment of years gone past.
Second that!
-
Welcome replica and Abhijit. On Christnas I was asked if my old equipment or my old photos get stale when I buy new equipmemt. My answer is:
There are still some pictures from the first films I took in 1983 with my Zenit 11 that was 150 German Marks including lens. I remember two melons on a marble windowsill in my grandparents house. I would still print that one big and hang it on my wall. My first exhibition was in 1989 iirc and I still love some of the pictures.
Equipment I sell when I do not use it any more. Currently I am just not motivated to do so. My D70 and D3 are still very capable cameras that profit a lot from good glass and good technique. Yet. With my D600 and D500 and X100T it is easier to produce the results I want.
-
The Df thread on this site inspired me to upgrade a few months ago from a D200 to a Df and add a few more AI and pre-AI lenses to my bag. This forum is the epitome of obsolescence.
-
my D3300 became obsolete at 810 clicks when the 3.5mm jack broke off in the mic socket ...no parts available....
-
Well….I just joined NG and at 50, I am very late to begin my journey in photography. Wish I had started much earlier, however, I am a few months in and digital scares the heck out of me. I am not particularly savvy with computers or software and have little experience. I began with a Nikkormat FTN and a few lenses shooting black & white. Sending out to the Darkroom in CA with so so results thus far. Mostly my kids and their activities and sports.
I just ordered a Nikon D2h from KEH. Why? Not sure except that I plan to use the 4 Nikkor lenses I already own. They are AI converted. I happened to come across Bjorn's old site by accident and read his D2h review and old lenses. Figured I would give it a go but I have to say, I love the simplicity of the Nikkormat.
So my first digital camera will be an obsolete one.
Cheers
PKS
-
The D2H was an excellent camera for its time and still capable of delivering fine results. I keep one around for shooting documentary stuff for studio work.
I feel confident you will enjoy the D2H.
-
Thanks Bjorn. I sure hope so. What is the best way to keep the D2h nearly as simple as a nikkormat? Perhaps a foolish idea? I have no plans for any AF lenses. I like to manually focus and hope to do so with my older lenses and the D2h. It should arrive sometime this week.
-
Nikkormat FTN is a good camera to start, at least it was my start too long years ago. In Principle you can use any digital body a bit like a nikkormat, just use manual lenses and M mode - with a Nikkormat you dont need to consider white-balance though.
-
I have enjoyed using the FTN. It is a fun and simple piece of equipment. The D2H came today. It is in excellent condition. 990 clicks on the shutter. So……White Balance. I do plan to shoot manual with manual lenses. I have no other lenses anyway. Did not need to consider that with BW film. Is there an optimal setting for white balance? Indoor vs outdoor? I really would like to keep everything to a minimum. Aperture, shutter, ASA and White Balance. Nothing more and focus on composition unless I am shooting my kids who never stop moving….
-
Use 'Auto' w/B and keep ISO settings below 800.
For the lenses, set camera either to M or A (using P or S modes will default to A with manual non-CPU lenses) and use it as any old Nikon in terms of finding a proper exposure.
Do note any lens should be AI/Ais or AI-modified in order to mount on the D2H.
-
Thanks Bjorn. The lenses are properly modified. I will start playing a bit this week using auto WB. I did notice that you can adjust the WB through the Kelvin button. Any advantage to that or does the AWB work just as well regardless of light?
Paul
-
Auto WB works just fine, will you be shooting Raw files or JPG files?
-
This is my first digital experience so I guess I will mess with both. I have no knowledge of post production but do have access to an old copy of capture NX2 I was given. However, I am not particularly savvy with computers.
-
Hi, PKS, welcome to NG (NikonGear)!
D2H was my first digital SLR camera, too, and I decided to purchase one after having read Bjørn's review in his classic website.
I enjoyed using D2H very much. It is a great camera whose responsiveness is still comparable to that of current higher-end DSLRs. On the other hand, it is a lot simpler to operate "thanks to" the fact that it doesn't have either live view or video functions. Hope you enjoy it!
-
This is my first digital experience so I guess I will mess with both. I have no knowledge of post production but do have access to an old copy of capture NX2 I was given. However, I am not particularly savvy with computers.
Capture NX-2 is a very nice but very complicated and very slow and instable program I did use for many years.
Currently Nikon offers a much nicer program called "Capture NX-D" that works much better for me, works also for newer cameras (should you one day decide to change to a fresh horse), is regularly updated and supports all Nikon DSLRs made to date, also your D2H.
You can download the program together with the very good browser program called "View NX-i" from the Nikon USA site here:
http://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/products/261/VCNXSP.html
Welcome to our forum!!!
-
Please let me know if I am no longer in the proper forum as I have further questions on this D2h and digital in general. The menus are a bit overwhelming….I have left everything alone for now. Adjusting only ISO, Shutter and Aperture as with my Nikkormat. What affect or impact on the image rendering happens when you change some of these in camera settings? Jpeg or Raw?
In addition, there seems to be an ERR after the first shutter actuation. After a bit of online research, the D2h is plagued with this issue. However, true to what has been reported, it goes away and stays away until you shut off the camera. I guess some owners have gone nearly a quarter of a million actuations with the issue.
Paul
-
You might launch a separate thread on the D2H, perhaps? Put it in the Camera board.
Menus are mainly used to set up the camera, so once it is functional the way you need, there will be a minimum of diving into menus. I may add this is a tell-tale sign of a 'pro' camera.
-
User of obsolete cameras will be interested to know that Kodak is going to bring Ektachrome back. http://www.kodakalaris.com/en-us/about/press-releases/2016/kodak-alaris-reintroduces-iconic-ektachrome-still-film
-
User of obsolete cameras will be interested to know that Kodak is going to bring Ektachrome back. http://www.kodakalaris.com/en-us/about/press-releases/2016/kodak-alaris-reintroduces-iconic-ektachrome-still-film
Thanks. There seems to be a stable niche marked evolving. Still have a FE2 sitting in a storage box.
-
User of obsolete cameras will be interested to know that Kodak is going to bring Ektachrome back. http://www.kodakalaris.com/en-us/about/press-releases/2016/kodak-alaris-reintroduces-iconic-ektachrome-still-film
Would prefer to get (an evolved) Kodachrome back, never was too impressed by Ektachrome, preferred Fuji
-
Oh no, not Kodachrome. A nightmarish film in all respects, bad colours, high contrast, almost impossible to scan properly. I'm pleased t see it go away, hopefully for ever.
Fuji films, except Velvia, scanned beautifully.
-
Oh no, not Kodachrome. A nightmarish film in all respects, bad colours, high contrast, almost impossible to scan properly. I'm pleased t see it go away, hopefully for ever.
Fuji films, except Velvia, scanned beautifully.
I know that you dont like it, I nevertheless liked the pastell like colours of the KM25. Indeed hard to scan
Agree on fuji and the exception of Velvia. Never understood why Velvia was so popular, awful greenish colour, preferred Sensia but Fuji made it worse in the subsequent versions
-
After Kodachrome was changed to make the chemistry more environmentally friendly I preferred Provia 100F. I never liked VelvIa. The contrast was pumped to give eye candy colors. If memory serves me Velvia greens were quite yellowish. Yuck!
Dave Hartman
-
I loved the color (especially that of foliage) of KM25 combined with Leica lenses, set to ISO40 or 64 film and shot at 1/60 second or faster. It didn't work as well with Nikkor lenses. My favorite Fuji film for Nikon was ASTIA set to ISO125. It looked like the KM25/Leica combo.
-
I like Velvia, and always have. Some folks like B&W, UV, and IR. I like vivid color, and they didn't make Velvia just for me. ;)
-
Velvia was my favorite and Agfa Scala was a very fine BW reversable
-
I love this camera :)
-
Velvia was my favorite and Agfa Scala was a very fine BW reversable
And Agfa Ultra too!
-
Velvia was my favorite and Agfa Scala was a very fine BW reversable
Velvia ISO 50 ;) I could amp it to 100 when I was shooting for the papers in a pinch. Didn't like it for large prints when pushed but on a small news paper print it was fine it made me money.
Ektachrome I didn't like the bluish tint it gave off, always had to use a warming filter on most things I was shooting back in the stone ages.
I loved the Kodak Technical Pan and Technidol for 120, stunning film for B&W..
-
Does the D3 count as "obsolete"? She is still my best JPEG ooc machine, although the RAWs are also very fine. OK, not as fine as the D600 RAWs.
-
The phrase obsolete is in quotes, so I think an D40x with Nikkor 50mm Q-C qualifies
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8589/16199418044_2965ff50fa_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qFufB7)7154_CapOne_DxO (https://flic.kr/p/qFufB7) by j h (https://www.flickr.com/photos/twoobeard1/), on Flickr
-
The D40x (and to a lesser degree, D40) constitutes one of Nikon's more hidden gems. It is a surprisingly capable camera and has proven itself more robust than far "higher-end" models of various brands. I say no more.
I think I'm down to just one or two units now, one of them modified for IR. I used to have one modified for UV that served me well for years, but finally had to give way for a D3200 as it didn't support GPS. In all other respects, it surely delivered quality results. As I have CPU-modified virtually all my F-mount lenses, they could be used on the various D40/D40X bodies unrestricted and with full metering.
The entire discussion of "obsolete" cameras is quite strange. I prefer to think of this as something providing diversity in the expressions you can achieve, much like swapping film types in the old days. There are of course some practical issues that can crop up, such as getting replacement batteries, but the blooming cottage industry of China et al. solves that easily.
-
I use the D3x in the studio because it color calibrates well (xrite) and at ISO 100-125 the image quality is great and it has the AA filter which like to have for fabrics. I have also a D810 but I use it more for landscape and general photography. I like to keep the D3X set up for studio so it has the shutter speed locked to 1/200s and everything is ready to go. I also like the way it handles with the vertical grip built in, very comfortable for predominantly vertical portrait shooting in the studio. I suppose D810 would give higher resolution but this is not something I need and it is not quite as comfortable to my hands. Many are always quick to point out how outdated the D3X is at high ISO and how expensive it was, but for this application it is perfect for me and over the years the cost is less an issue. I didn't pay the full original price for it as I bought it at a rather late stage. I think there may never be a direct replacement due to the popularity of the D8x0 but there is no reason for me not to continue using it until it stops working one day. I would not buy one today but as an older camera it still has a role to play.
-
Couldn't agree more. D3X is a superb camera. For nature and landscapes, low ISO settings in conjunction with a tripod is the usual approach anyway. I'll use mine until it gives up the ghost.
Admittedly, the D3X is weak on higher ISO numbers, just like the D2X in its time. Didn't prevent them being excellent units and the no-nonsense immaculate handling is a big plus in the final reckoning.
-
The phrase obsolete is in quotes, so I think an D40x with Nikkor 50mm Q-C qualifies
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8589/16199418044_2965ff50fa_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qFufB7)7154_CapOne_DxO (https://flic.kr/p/qFufB7) by j h (https://www.flickr.com/photos/twoobeard1/), on Flickr
50mm Q.C a medium format Nikkor?
-
Does the D3 count as "obsolete"? She is still my best JPEG ooc machine, although the RAWs are also very fine. OK, not as fine as the D600 RAWs.
Not sure the D3 will ever become obsolete. It even renders noise in a pleasant way.
Here with a not obsolete 1964 5cm f2 Nikkor-S
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/444/32988085216_73704087fb_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Sg3yrW)DSC_6383 (https://flic.kr/p/Sg3yrW) by b j (https://www.flickr.com/photos/132836932@N03/), on Flickr
-
So this keeps the D700 into the same category?
-
Bjørn and Christophe already mentioned the Fujifilm S5 Pro as an 'obsolete' camera. It is far from obsolete actually. I have been looking for the S5 pro for years, basically as a back up because the S5 can take all the Nikkor lenses.
The camera has been always pretty expensive, but since last year a number of them have come to the market including the lenses which makes it a very cheap alternative for a back up camera.
It's high dynamic range is still unique, especially regarding the blown out highlights which the S5 can recover including the real colours. That gives a lot of extra opportunities in difficult high dynamic light situations. Apart from white gowns and snow it is also very effective with studio and flash photography.
The camera and post-processing is a study on itself and I am still on the learning path there. I recently got a copy of the 'HyperUtility 3' and discovered it is essential in the post processing as it can be tweaked effectively and will create a richer 16 bit TIFF file than any other post-processing software I have tested. That TIFF file can be used in ACR and CC (or other post-processor) for further development. The dis-advantage - 'horror software' slow, complicated... but the results are very good.
Due to a strong AA filter the camera needs a) very good lenses and b) a good technique.
Two examples -- far from perfect but-- first with the 'obsolete' Angenieux 35-70/2.5 and second with Nikkor 17-35/2.8 were highlights were blown.
-
The D40x (and to a lesser degree, D40) constitutes one of Nikon's more hidden gems. It is a surprisingly capable camera and has proven itself more robust than far "higher-end" models of various brands. I say no more.
...
My Nikon era started (and ended) with a D40 and I really enjoyed using it. It is now being used by my sister who shot these last autumn - the milky look of the water is caused by nearby chalk cliffs, Møns Klint.
-
I'm not alone in enjoying older yet functional cameras, apparently.
Like John Geerts, the Fuji S5 Pro is an appealing alternative when you feel the urge of having access to something not clinical and digitally perfect.
It handles most lenses in F-mount, although the 'E' types cannot have their aperture controlled by the camera. However, there are work-arounds for such trifling issues.
Here is an example from last summer, taken with the Nikkor 300/4 PF using the S5 Pro in 'EIR' mode. I was confined to a seaside cabin for an entire week due to health issues in conjunction with really bad weather. Thus finding subjects reachable from inside became a challenge on its own.
-
Couldn't agree more. D3X is a superb camera. For nature and landscapes, low ISO settings in conjunction with a tripod is the usual approach anyway. I'll use mine until it gives up the ghost.
Admittedly, the D3X is weak on higher ISO numbers, just like the D2X in its time. Didn't prevent them being excellent units and the no-nonsense immaculate handling is a big plus in the final reckoning.
I will keep on shooting my D3X till it dies. I think it was Lloyd Chambers back in the day (IIRC) that ran some tests with his D3 vs D3X and came to the conclusion that D3X is a better 12 Mpix camera than D3. I didn't believe him, I thought it was just the honeymoon effect talking when he had just got a new D3X.
But I pretty soon changed my mind and currently I completely agree with him. Even at high ISO settings applying judiciously some noise reduction and then resampling the D3X image to 12 Mpix, it has less noise and more detail than D3. Even so, that shooting at "ISO 12,800" is possible with D3X. I do it with ISO 1600 and 3EV push, this way I have more highlight headroom than with one stop push at ISO 6400. This has to be done absolutely in 14 bit mode, the shadows are super ugly and green in 12 bit mode and one can't push the image at all. I believe it is the result of high read noise.
Not to say that D3X is a low light camera per se, or sports camera either, but it hides a mighty engine under its bonnet. For low light and action I use D3S and D4S, but have no problem shooting D3X at ISO 6400 or higher, if I know I can resample to smaller size.
The same cannot be said of the earlier generation. D2X resampled to 4 Mpix can't still compete head to head with my D2HS in high ISO settings.
-
my latest obsolete camera :o :o :o
-
Aha, the Nikon S2. Most popular of all the 'S' rangefinders. The early 5 cm f/2 Nikkor is a good match to it.
You do need to load the camera with film... You know, the CF card equivalent with only 20 or 36 exposures before its capacity is exhausted :D
-
Myself, although I own all the 'S' models apart from the extremely scarce two first models (1 and M), my first love with these models commenced with the black Nikon S3 I purchased in London, UK more than 45 years ago. Turned out it was a special black edition made for Associated Press (London) and probably only delivered in 4-5 units. I learned this from the 'S guru' Mr Robert Rotolini himself, who asked me to strip down the camera and provide pictures of all the internal details, type and colour of screws, etc. He offered me no less than 50 K $ for it and I politely declined.
I made an adapter to allow the use of 'F' lenses many decades before such adapters could be had for cheap over the internet. Lots of images shot with the nice 50 mm f/2 Nikkor HC. Also seen from the pictures is substituting a late series 'F' film advance lever for the original one to make it grate less on my thumb.
If I ever take up using old-fashioned film, these cameras would be my first choice.
-
nice rare camera :o :o :o can I share the images?
http://richardhaw.com/2017/03/04/repair-nikon-s2-front-overhaul/
I began playing around with the camera, gave it a front CLA ::)
I like the camera but the parallax difference is driving me nuts :'(
-
As long as the origin and author are kept intact, no problem.
Parallax? You'll get used to it. Or get one of the "newer" models with parallax correction in the finder.
-
As long as the origin and author are kept intact, no problem.
Parallax? You'll get used to it. Or get one of the "newer" models with parallax correction in the finder.
that's would only be the SP :o :o :o
and it is SPecially expensive ::)
thanks! I will link and credit, of course.
-
Then, score the Nikkor-W 35/1.8 and use the 50mm frames .. no more problems with parallax and probably a lot cheaper than getting a nice SP too. That 35 mm is scarily sharp, by the way. They did know how to make good lenses even in the '50s :D
-
I am aiming for a W-nikkor 3.5cm f/3.5 because they are cheaper. some people use Russian lenses and claim that they worked OK with the Nikon S. :o :o :o
Now, this is my annoying and temperamental F-501 ::)
the film advance motor is too weak to advance colour films but is totally fine with Kodak 400TX. it is a racist camera, it doesn't like coloured film. ::)
-
Since I was recently asked "Really? Your camera *only* has 12 megapixels?", I suppose my D700 is a trifle obsolete. Doesn't matter though. I have no plans to replace it.
Nutcracker - D700, Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 AiS @ f/2.8
SMinor - D700, Nikon PB-4 with Rodenstock APO Rodagon-D, 75mm f/4 @f/16
-
the D700 is still an awesome camera :o :o :o
-
This camera barely escaped recycling. Distortion is awful and quite frankly, I would say the lens stinks. Impossible to handhold too, after the fluids are drained :) Taken today, HP4+, developed one hour in rodinal, and scanned with D500.
-
The proverbial oat meal box, or a beer can?
Too meagre pixel count for contemporary tastes I'm afraid :D
-
It was a beer can Bjørn. Fun for the father and fun for the kids ;) 0,33 liter can fit 4x5 perfect. They are going out tonight to see if they can catch some star trails or at least the moon.
-
I really like this discussion.
Before I had my D800 I thought all DX cams are obsolete.
Two weeks ago I took out my "obsolete" D70 with a "obsolete" Nikkor 50 SC lens (chipped)
Files are small and I can shoot and shoot and shoot and yes, there are always some keepers.
Using the newest raw converters pulls out really good iq
-
The D70 has earned me more money over the years than almost any other camera.
-
If it works and produces good images "it Ain't obsolete".
I don't plan on being a Rock Star of the Photograph world anyway.
I am happy and grateful with what I have.
Went out yesterday for a short ride on my Motorcycle to Hernandez, NM and did some testing with the new 20mm Ai f4.. I am still up in the air on this lens. ???
Nothing tightens up till around f16?
This image was PPed a bit experimenting exposure stacking so it's not the true Raw file it's like four files using HDR Stacking.
I hand held these on a fence post keeping my Eye on the grid and a fixed spot while working through the shutter speed dial, didn't bring the tripod OOPS? :o
(http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk237/ramseypete/HERNANDEZ_zpsfjuotj7v.jpg)
-
Well said, Peter. While all of my parts don't function as they once did, and I'm closer to being obsolete than many others, I still work! However, I must say that I'm not exactly in demand. ;)
My old D200 is the newest Nikon around our joint.
-
Well said, Peter. While all of my parts don't function as they once did, and I'm closer to being obsolete than many others, I still work! However, I must say that I'm not exactly in demand. ;)
My old D200 is the newest Nikon around our joint.
Still have my D200 for a back up as well..
I am happy with the D700 I get to use my old lenses and have something to do waiting for that phone call for a Job interview, I have been waiting over a year now?
It does make one feel obsolete after getting laid off. :-\
I guess you can look at ones photographs as there visual interpretation of what they see of the world and what effects them?
The person may be obsolete as well as there equipment but the image that was made in the frame frozen in time will be around forever.
And that's why I love photography it's capturing something that will never be again and can never be repeated, it's the photographers vision of the moment.
I grew up on the west coast of Florida. When I was a kid in the late 60's my parents would take me with them to Tampa Airport to pick up or send off a relative and on the ride we passed this large field, Green grass surrounded by scrub oak and dotted with larger oak trees and Palmettos. This huge dead oak tree stood in the center of this field and it captivated me.
As the moods of the light and sky was ever changing the way it looked every time we went past this spot. Some time in the early morning Shrouded by fog, storm clouds over head during the summer afternoon monsoons and smoke from smudge pots burning in the nearby Orange orchards in early winter months with beams of sun breaking through and raining down on this tree.
When I started photography I was driving by then had an old KAWA Six Medium Format and a roll of Kodak 120 Technical Pan, I was determined to do something with this tree and make a record of it.
I got some good photographs and printed a few out.
Not long after that a real estate sign appears along the fence, by this time I was driving past this field every day going to work then one day I was stunned to see that they sold it and earth movers tearing the field and surrounding area keeping a few choice looking older live oaks. No doubt this is going to be another gated gulf club community for rich retirees with a cheesy pond and fountain in the foreground, sure enough it was!!!! >:(
Many years later I entered these photos into a local contest the theme was "remember our local heritage". This was funny as by now the old Florida Cracker Ranchers and Grove owners had long moved out and now was filled by people from New York, Jersey and Chicago, most of us moved down from the north with our parents when they retired. I was from Chicago originally!
But I was stunned to meet people that told me "When I was a kid my grand father, my sister, my Dad my Mom my friends Etc" would ride past this field".
So many people recognized this dead tree as a symbol of there childhood and how things are not the same it was truly humbling. I was awarded in the top five that day.
-
I'd like to have those fantastic clouds in your image available on demand.
-
I'd like to have those fantastic clouds in your image available on demand.
That HDR sure pulls every essence of them out of the sky, it also brings up on demand any crap stuck to your sensor that you thought you had completely cleaned off. :D
-
did some testing with the new 20mm Ai f4.. I am still up in the air on this lens. ???
Nothing tightens up till around f16?
My sample (a very late 20mm f/4 AI (serial 140xxx) is wide open pretty good. I had more sample's of the 20mm f/4 and have the impression that how later the serial number, the better the performance. At least version K vs AI.
Here at f/4 on the (obsolete) D800E ;) (On DX the performance is even better)
-
I am aiming for a W-nikkor 3.5cm f/3.5 because they are cheaper. some people use Russian lenses and claim that they worked OK with the Nikon S. :o :o :o
Compared with the F3.5 lens, The Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 is about the same price, and the same optical formula as a Summaron. It is much sharper than the Tessar formula 3.5cm F3.5. The F2.5 lens is as sharp as the F1.8, just slower.
For Parallax: you can add an external finder with a parallax adjustment. Also helps for other-than 50mm lenses.
The Helios-103 is a Planar formula lens, very good. 52.4mm F1.8. You need to move the optics module out by 1/2 turn in the mount. 5 minute job.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/610/21311469368_f207af964e_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ytdRn3)DSC00020 (https://flic.kr/p/ytdRn3) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
The Jupiter-12 3.5cm F2.8 is a good Biogon copy, especially those made by KMZ. BUT: you will find that the chrome bezel around the mount of the lens must be taken off and filed down, and that the optics must be moved out of the mount by ~0.5mm to focus correctly on the Nikon. The bezel will often scratch the nameplate of a Nikon camera, and the focus is not calibrated for the S-Mount. I modified a 1950s KMZ J-12 for the Nikon S2.
-
... did some testing with the new 20mm Ai f4.. I am still up in the air on this lens. ???
Nothing tightens up till around f16? ...
My copy of the 20/4 AI is pretty sharp, especially so in IR, almost from the get-go. However, not the easiest lens to focus, and there is a focus shift for IR as well.
-
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3871/32454786783_0442c37fc8_o.jpg)
Ruins Hemmen castle, a cut down beechtree suffering from fungus disease.
D3 -- 17-35mm f/2.8
-
1960 KMZ Jupiter-12 modified for Nikon S-Mount. This lens uses the same Shims as the more common Jupiter-8, this lens required the optics to be moved out in the mount to focus properly on the Nikon.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2858/32457682443_f86a4ebaf2_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Rsb7bx)Jupiter-12, Modified for Nikon (https://flic.kr/p/Rsb7bx) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
The rear cap for the J-12 - gives you an idea of how close the rear element sits to the film plane. It's huge. This lens will fit all the Nikon Rangefinders, but cannot be used on a Contax IIa or IIIa- is a close copy of the pre-war Biogon.
The Bezel around the mount comes off with three small screws, needs to be filed down in order not to scratch the Nikon Faceplate.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/644/33116691352_85dab769b1_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SspGz7)Jupiter-12, Modified for Nikon (https://flic.kr/p/SspGz7) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
File the extended portion of the bezel as far as you can go without taking the ridge off the end. You'll see what I;m talking about with the bezel removed.
-
My copy of the 20/4 AI is pretty sharp, especially so in IR, almost from the get-go. However, not the easiest lens to focus, and there is a focus shift for IR as well.
some say that the 20/3.5 is a lot better specially in the corners and at f/5.6 up :o :o :o
I do not own the 20/4 so I cannot compare between the 2.
However, I can say that the 20/3.5 is kind of hard to focus using the focus confirmation dot. If you rack your focus from minimum you will get a false OK but when you rack it from infinity and the dot lights up, you get it spot on. I would think that this is back focusing ::)
interesting that you mentioned this because I thought that I was the only one scratching my head about the focus thing
-
Compared with the F3.5 lens, The Nikkor 3.5cm F2.5 is about the same price, and the same optical formula as a Summaron. It is much sharper than the Tessar formula 3.5cm F3.5. The F2.5 lens is as sharp as the F1.8, just slower.
For Parallax: you can add an external finder with a parallax adjustment. Also helps for other-than 50mm lenses.
Thanks for the headsup on the f/2.5 :o :o :o the price is a little bit higher than the f/3.5 but there should be something redeeming about the f/3.5
I just got an external finder for the 3.5cm this lunch. I hope that I am not asking too much. Can you please confirm if the individual finders are actually showing more than the zoom-finder? I wear glasses and the tiny peephole of the zoom-finder drives me nuts. I tried one yesterday but I do not have it today for reference. Ric
As for the Russian lenses, I was advised to also look into those but I am going to concentrate on Nikkors. There are not many of them anyway. I just want a 35/50/85/105/135 kit. forget the expensive lenses on the wider range, I don't have much use for them at the moment.
-
I ended up with two Nikon MIOJ Variframe finders to match my MIOJ lens collection-
I never bought a vari-focal finder, did not like the peep-hole viewfinder with my very thick glasses. I ended up using a Kodak Retina finder for the 35mm lens, which also has a mask for 80mm. The latter is good for a 35/85 combination. Parallax adjustment is good enough. For the 135- I'll have to post a picture of the Argus finder that I use. The Argus is a bright-line finder, variable mask for 35 to 135, parallax adjusted.
Good enough for this shot with the 'C'ontax Nikkor 135/3.5 on the Nikon S2.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7517/16119001465_bae160840f_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/qyo6yn)Playground Portrait (https://flic.kr/p/qyo6yn) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
I modified the this S2 to focus correctly with lenses made for the Contax. Moved the mount out by 0.5mm using some high-quality metal washers and then calibrated the RF using a Zeiss 50mm F1.5 Sonnar. When bought, the S2 was in near-mint condition, but the mount was loose. Someone had CLA'd it and not put the shim back on one of the screws of the mount.
If you plan on using a number of different S-Mount lenses: buy an SP. The parallax-corrected, multi-color framelines for the 50/85/105/135 are a joy to use, the built in finder for the 28 and 35- have fixed parallax marks that are good enough. The prices on the 28/3.5 are way down, I picked one up for $300 in near-mint condition. Worth having.
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3734/33128713692_f48302d72a_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/SttjoQ)contax_jupiters (https://flic.kr/p/SttjoQ) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
Found a picture of my favorite external finder. Now That's a Finder! was $5 at a camera show, 20+ years ago. Great for eye-glass wearers.
-
Indeed that is a huge finder, looks more like an extra lens! maker?
-
The manufacturer is "Sandmar", which also made lenses for the Argus C3 and C44. Variable bright-line frames for 35 through to 135 lenses.
-
Thanks, very nice find :)
-
...interesting that you mentioned this because I thought that I was the only one scratching my head about the focus thing
It is an interesting issue. I hadn't heard about it until now. I've used my 20mm f/3.5 AIS on an F2A, FE, FE2, D700, and D7000. The film cameras were never an issue, and both digital cameras have three-dot manual focusing.
I like using this lens for up-close photos. Here's a pic of a small, wire sculpture using my "obsolete" D700 and my "obsolete" 20/3.5. This is a close focus as that old lens will allow. The pencil point is too close, and the back leg is too far, but the rest is fine. Taken at ISO 200, f/11, 1/15.
-
Do you consider D300 an obsolete camera ? It was my first DSLR and since 2012 a good workhorse...
here one of my first pictures with it. D300 + 2,8/70-200 VR (1)
Iso 200; f:8 @ 1/1600s ; EV-2/3 ; FL=98mm (jpeg fine)
I think not so bad against the sun / sunset (without protective filter, with sunshade).
-
It is an interesting issue. I hadn't heard about it until now. I've used my 20mm f/3.5 AIS on an F2A, FE, FE2, D700, and D7000. The film cameras were never an issue, and both digital cameras have three-dot manual focusing.
I like using this lens for up-close photos. Here's a pic of a small, wire sculpture using my "obsolete" D700 and my "obsolete" 20/3.5. This is a close focus as that old lens will allow. The pencil point is too close, and the back leg is too far, but the rest is fine. Taken at ISO 200, f/11, 1/15.
Very good sample image of the 20mm 3.5 up close!
This lens is fairly easy to modify for even more close focusing, down to 19 cm,,,
-
As I am the proud owner of one of Bjørns old workhorses I can show a picture taken this afternoon. Its the D40x as I have learned to like very much, especially in combination with the 105 mm f2,5 for IR. There is something about those "old" CCD's. But thats just me I guess :)
-
There is a reason I use D200 for [IR] and a Leica M9,,, CCD,,,
-
I have the Monochrom for the very same reason as well. I love the files from that camera :)
-
This is the first Infrared DCS series camera sold by Kodak, the DCS200ir.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5777/21525007985_2e963568e3_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/yN6hXk)kodak_front (https://flic.kr/p/yN6hXk) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
Bought ~1993, a long time ago! It still works, stored 50 images to an internal 80MByte SCSI drive. This is a rare camera, quickly replaced by the DCS420ir.
Not cameras- but Infrared Scopes.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7530/15555440774_4557977fbd_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pGzGAJ)c1_1 (https://flic.kr/p/pGzGAJ) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
The one on the left is a RCA Type C-1- a prototype, circa 1940. The one next to it was put into production and used in WW-II, a Type C-3.
Both still work, have the original electron tubes.
-
Leica M8, Orange filter to block Blue Light, custom Raw Processor written in Fortran.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7601/16826256047_1d2d7e8237_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rCSXGT)I1015897 (https://flic.kr/p/rCSXGT) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7618/17032220782_d496a6e4b3_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rX5zR1)I1015954 (https://flic.kr/p/rX5zR1) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8703/17047719145_bba36725ed_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/rYs1Ya)I1016007 (https://flic.kr/p/rYs1Ya) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5698/21338067009_66eaee854c_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/yvzaV4)m8_nikkor5cmF14 (https://flic.kr/p/yvzaV4) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
I have adapters to use S-Mount and Contax mount lenses with my Leicas.
The Leica M8 has a 5% IR leakage. Using "M8RAW2DNG" gives enough range to use the Blue channel as IR only using an Orange filter.
CCD's have much higher response in the IR compared with CMOS.
One of my custom Raw processors running...
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5453/30019282956_c375e84368_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/MJGEY5)Toughbooks (https://flic.kr/p/MJGEY5) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
converting M Monochrom 14-bit DNG to 16-bit DNG using a Gamma curve. The IR processor is like this as well, equalized Blue with green and red, then does a swap between red and blue channels. The Panasonic CF-52 has Native USB support under DOS, software uses PharLap extended DOS to use all of memory. This was fun. I'm a computer geek. Most of the code was written 30 years ago.
-
i have been interested with IR for quite some time already. At around October last year I found a good deal for a D200 for coversion to IR. It was like giving a new lease in life to a old but still excellent body. The articles here about which camera would be a good IR candidate helped a whole lot. Here is the first few ones taken with D200IR combined with a 20mm G lens.
-
The M8RAW2DNG conversion program you posted on the Leica Camera Forum, was what made me upgrade from the Leica M8.2 to Leica M9, when I saw the excellent uncompressed RAW files I knew the M9 full frame would be able to deliver CCD images of good enough quality for my use. Thank You!
-
Erik- Thankyou.
I bought the M9 a year after the M8, one of the main reasons was to get uncompressed DNG images. Hard to believe that Leica destroyed the output of the Kodak CCD with such an awful compression scheme.
-
I'm sorry, but is there a program to "un"-compress (not sure if that even is a word?) the CCD-files from the M Monochrom? And if there is where do I download it and is it compatible with OSX?
-
This lens is fairly easy to modify for even more close focusing, down to 19 cm,,,
19cm? Is this by addition of the K1 ring, or are you talking about something else? Because I'd love to be able to focus a bit closer.
-
I'm sorry, but is there a program to "un"-compress (not sure if that even is a word?) the CCD-files from the M Monochrom? And if there is where do I download it and is it compatible with OSX?
The M Monochrom DNG files store 14-bit (no compression used) pixels, the output from the A/D process. The A/D process is "linear". I wanted to add a Gamma Curve to the image, which meant stretching the 14-bit values to 16-bits as not to lose resolution.
https://www.leicaplace.com/threads/adding-a-gamma-curve-to-a-digital-image-thinking-out-loud-and-experiments.1188/
It was an outlet for a decade (1980s) worth of image processing code to be used on my favorite camera.
I do not know of another program that does this- but would be glad to share the lessons learned for parsing the M Monochrom files. This would require someone writing some code for OSX.
-
I have no idea how this works or what you are doing, but I can clearly see that you are able to get some extra contrast/density in the blacks using your program to apply curves or gamma correction to the files :) What I dont understand is how this could add those extra bits to the excisting linear light respons..? Or explained differently, how this differs from adding an s-curve to the image? But I would love to play with a program that could do it :)
-
Using curves in Photoshop which may need Linear Blending to avoid excessive color saturation, or LCH Master Brightness (Lightness, Chroma, Hue) in CaptureNX2 or CaptureNX-D does not change the end points of black and white so in that sense is not lousy but it does increase the mid tone contrast at the expense of shadow and highlight contrast. I bought Gray FX and Aldus Photostyler to gain the curves feature.
Compression of shadows and highlights has been a part of photography for more than a century. With B&W negatives the toe of the film compresses the shadows and the toe of the printing paper compresses the highlights to render mid tone contrast that looks natural to eye and mind.
In Nikon software the use of the Neutral and Flat Picture Controls along with Exposure Compensation and Active D-Lighting allows recovering considerable highlights. Other RAW conversion software has similar features and many camera makers offer their versions of Active D-Lighting by other names. Ansel Adams spoke of these days in an interview I read back in perhaps 1982. I thought of the stories of Moses looking from the mountain top in to the promised land.
Today's software allows extreme control of whatever the camera offers one in a RAW image file.
Dave Hartman
-
19cm? Is this by addition of the K1 ring, or are you talking about something else? Because I'd love to be able to focus a bit closer.
Erik does this by magic inside the lens itself. I have one of these 'enhanced' 20/3.5 units myself.
-
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7775/18261144226_0f9b0f5ffc_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/tPF8Yf)GAMMA (https://flic.kr/p/tPF8Yf) by fiftyonepointsix (https://www.flickr.com/photos/90768661@N02/), on Flickr
My rationale for mapping the 14 bits to 16 bits was to apply a curve without causing intensity values to get lumped together in the same bin. By scaling the 14-bit values to 16-bits, more intensity bins to apply the curve. I need to port some of this code to a modern compiler.
-
Ok, I think I understand. You are "stretching" the curve to avoid that two values appear as the same value and thus not end up with the same intensity after applying the sigmoid curve? I have a pretty steep learning curve as you might have noticed ;D I am more interested in the outcome between the four lines, than the "magic" behind it ;)
-
That is exactly correct- I'll check Lightroom and Photoshop output to see what they are doing.
-
19cm? Is this by addition of the K1 ring, or are you talking about something else? Because I'd love to be able to focus a bit closer.
The focusing helicoid allows for extra extension, so take the lens apart cut a bit off the end stop for close focusing, so the focus ring gets an added rotation, extend the guide for the aperture, out back together.
I think there must be images from our last meet up at JAs place, I did one of Bjørns lenses like this.
Here it is;
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5202.msg82269.html#msg82269 (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5202.msg82269.html#msg82269)
The stop is on the silver ring I'm holding onto, I'm cutting the guide,,,
-
Thought this might be the "right" thread to ask a question pertaining to old digital cameras. If not, please move my query where appropriate. I am pondering a purchase of a digital camera. Never owned one. I shot some "snaps" with film more than 20 years ago but have not touched it since. My neighbor has two "old" digital cameras for sale. I am ready to give it a try and see what its all about. He has a Nikon D2h and a D2xs. I have read a bit here on this forum in the last day or two. Not much on these models as I guess they are quite obsolete. A couple of Tokina lenses go with the sale. 16-50F2.8 and 50-135F2.8. One it seems has lower resolution at 4mp and one has 12mp. Not sure how this translates into real world shooting or for that matter, how the files are processed in the computer. I did try them out at his house but I am really not sure what it is I am differentiating?. Both feel great in the hands and amazingly responsive. Of course, I am comparing to a film experience many moons ago. He is offering a good price and I trust him so I will buy one of them. Thought on which way to lean and what if any are the major differences? Thank you.
Ken
-
My advice is the D2Xs. It was an excellent camera in its time and still can deliver high quality images. The 12MPix might not sound extensive by today's standards, but properly processed you can easily print double-page spreads from its files. I had one as my workhorse for several years before the arrival of the D3 and later D3s/D3X, and still keep a D2H for studio snaps to go on the web, plus a D2X that once in a while is with me as a spare body.
-
Thank you Bjorn. I asked simply because he knows little about these cameras. His daughter is the "pro" and has since moved on from the house and these models and left him to do what he wants with them. Incidentally, there is also a Nikon V1 to consider as well. I did not at first even look at it, however that model is an option as well. All seem to be in the "obsolete" category but will have no impact on my skill set as they will all outperform me.
Ken
-
Don't write off the 1V1. It is a little gem if you learn how to make it follow your intentions and not the other way around :D
I have several of them and use them quite often.
-
I agree on probably not just stepping over the 1V1. Widely useable, small, lightwight, good IQ.
I carry an AW1 version in my all day bag.
-
Perhaps I will see if he is willing to "package" a D2xs with the V1……I get to play with both :) Perhaps a better option than the D2h and the D2xs. He did by the way offer me those two D's in a "package" but seemed redundant to me.
Ken
-
Also on the V1….Lens options? He has some old Nikkors (105 f2.5 and 200 F4). I think you need an adaptor? Not sure how it all works but he does not have any other lens for the V1. I may consider it but need to do read some on the model.
-
If forced to select just a single lens for the 1 V1, that would be the 18.5 mm f/1.8 1 Nikkor CX. Add any the zoom lens such as 6.7-13/3.5-5.6 or one of the 10-30 mm versions and you are pretty well covered.
If you wish to use 'F' mount lenses, the FT-1 adapter by Nikon is the best, but it is not cheap and for basic functionality with manual lenses, probably an overkill anyway. In the latter case, you can get much simpler, and cheaper, adapters off eBay. Do note the focal lengths of the ordinary Nikkors with F mount are very long for the small format of the 1 Nikon cameras. Thus the native CX lenses would be the recommended starting point.
-
Very good sample image of the [AI] 20mm 3.5 up close!
This lens is fairly easy to modify for even more close focusing, down to 19 cm,,,
I'd like mine to focus closer, even if it's just 0.25m. There have been a few occasions when I found the 0.3m limit a bit too far.
-
Bjorn; how is the D2h with IR? I may want to mess a little with IR as well. There are lens filters I can get to start with as opposed to conversion? The reason I ask is I may end up with both the D2xs and the D2h. We have discovered the D2h has an error message after turning on or first shutter firing. So....the seller is essentially going to throw the D2h in for next to nothing. It does seem to be problem free after that first click. Still looking at the v1 but it is small and no "native" lens. Have not ruled it out but the D2xs I am buying for certain. Not sure yet on the D2h or the v1.
Ken
-
The D2H can do IR natively, but IR response is underwhelming to put the matter correctly. The D2X/XS incarnations cannot do IR at all unless you accept atrocious image quality.
Don't write off the 1V1 yet. A native 10-30 zoom lens for it is inexpensive.
-
Okay. Perhaps I will throw the D2h IR thought out the window for now. I have taken home both the D2xs and the D2h with the previously mentioned Tokina Lenses and have played with them taking pictures around the house and outside a bit. I cannot find much difference between the two just screwing around as such.
The V1….I cannot play with it other than hold it and look at the controls. Without a lens, it is hard to evaluate. I do find it small and not particularly comfortable in the hands. You are selling me on it of sorts so what is the catch. Is it simply the portability and ease of use as opposed to the D2xs? Image quality? Without any digital experience and being away from a camera for more than 20 years, it will probably take some time to catch up to the capability of theses devices if I get there at all.
The D2xs with essentially a 16-135 focal length ( I have read about the "crop factor" (which to date I do not understand yet) gives me a 24-200 if compared to standard 135 film?
If I was to go with a V1…You suggested a 18.5 and or a 10-30. What is the crop here and how does the perspective change?
-
Replacing the 4.1MP D2H with a 12MP D300s was a great relief to me. There is not much room to crop with the D2H. The dynamic range is limited. The auto white balance didn't work that well. The high ISO noise was poor. I never owned the D2Hs but what I saw on the net the D2Hs had improved high ISO noise. I wouldn't get the D2H myself. I sold mine in clean condition with smooth wear for $185.00 (USD). It was a huge relief to move to the D300s in every way except the focus screen and viewfinder wasn't as good for manual focus lenses. The dynamic range of the D2H is quite limited by noise.
I would not get the D2H for IR. You have to use a filter over the lens that is black and you don't have live view so the filter comes off every time to compose and focus. Then it goes back on to shoot.
Dave Hartman
-
First and foremost, we are trying to help not "sell on" anything here. All there is to say about the V1 is one should not overlook its potential for making photographs. It also does video if you so wish too. The 1 Nikon series is in general looked down on from people apparently never having tried to use them as cameras.
If you don't understand the concept of "crop factor", then don't waste more energy trying to come to grips with it. The "crop factor" is to put it mildly, a brain-dead concept. Focal length is focal length. End of story.
Perspective has nothing to do with format per se, only on the distance from camera to subject. Misunderstanding perspective is very common and when a term such as "wide-angle perspective" is mentioned, you can be sure whoever put that forward didn't understand the meaning of perspective.
What in the end is important is angle of view. Each format has its own range of focal lengths useful for that specific format to give the required variation of captured angle of view. A wide-angle lens on one format can act as a very narrow-angled optic on another.
-
Sorry Bjorn….poor choice of words I guess. I did not mean to imply you were trying to sell me anything. Without a lens to mess with on the V1, it is hard to make an evaluation. That said, I will pass on the D2h and ignore crop factors as well. Not much interest in video but perhaps I would use it at times.
David; Thank you for your response. Speaking of ISO or the last time I used a camera, it was ASA in the film days. I never did take pictures in the dark or very low light. It never worked well with film for me. I understand digital ISO can indeed make this process easier. Is there a significant difference in the rendering of "noise" or grain between the V1 and the D2xs?
Thanks for the replies and the help. Sorry again for the misunderstanding.
Ken
-
One thing that you may want to consider is size. Smaller cameras are easier to carry and therefore you are more likely to have them when needed. This can not be overstated.
I've used everything from tiny point and shoot cameras up to 4x5" and I think it is best to start small and get larger only when it is clear to you that you need/want to.
With older cameras the purchase price and sale price are nearly the same, so unless you break it, you can consider the camera to be free and the money you spent to just be a security deposit. Both cameras you are looking at are widely available in used condition for rather small amounts of money anyway.
Either of those cameras will have vastly better low light performance than film ever was capable of.
-
I purchased the D2xs and the two Tokina DX F2.8 lens. The size does not bother me at all. The V1 is still an option down the road. This will at least get me started in digital photography. Thank you very much for your help.
Ken
-
Now, we are as eager as yourself to see results !!
-
I purchased the D2xs and the two Tokina DX F2.8 lens. The size does not bother me at all. The V1 is still an option down the road. This will at least get me started in digital photography. Thank you very much for your help.
Ken
I bought my D2H on close out for $2,000.00 (USD). A D2X would have been served me better but I could not afford it. I think the price of the D2X and D2XS was $5,000.00 or a little more. I think you will like the D2XS.
Best,
Dave Hartman
-
I already exclusively use two obsolete digital cameras (Nikon D3 and D800) but worse I'm waiting for the Nikon F with it's FTN Photomic from 1968 I've just bought on ebay....
and I've a question for Bjørn ...even if I own eleven AI/AIS lenses do I really need a 1968 lens like a 50mm f/2.0 ... to match with the F chromed body...
-
Yes, you do.
On any Nikon F, having the proper period lenses makes all the difference. Or so I'm told :D
By the way, the earlier versions of the 50/2 are still quite capable performers. I have a couple of them of various vintage. The AI version sees use on a Df after being CPU-upgraded. Th pre-AI etc. is used with mirrorless systems via an adapter.
-
I still use film mainly because of its proven archival qualities. The choices of film have decreased and finding a place that will pull or push when developing the negatives is almost Zero. I have a Nikon Cool Scan so I am able to convert my film images to digital ones. I am looking for new software since the original software from Nikon only runs with Windows XP at this point. As for digital archiving, there will be few photographs taken today that will survive 150 years in digital form. So - digital is obsolete before the pictures are taken.
-
Yes, you do.
On any Nikon F, having the proper period lenses makes all the difference. Or so I'm told :D
By the way, the earlier versions of the 50/2 are still quite capable performers. I have a couple of them of various vintage. The AI version sees use on a Df after being CPU-upgraded. Th pre-AI etc. is used with mirrorless systems via an adapter.
Thanks for your advice Bjørn, finding a 50mm H will be my next quest... :D
-
As for digital archiving, there will be few photographs taken today that will survive 150 years in digital form. So - digital is obsolete before the pictures are taken.
As for humanity, there will be few people born today that will survive 150 years in physical form. So - people are obsolete before they are born.
I also have many digital photographs which have outlasted the objects, places, people and times they documented, so while permanence is not guaranteed, digital photos are holding up pretty well. So much easier to share as well.
This is just an idle comment, not a rebuttal or debate about which form of image storage is best. I actually like film a large amount.
-
I still use film mainly because of its proven archival qualities. The choices of film have decreased and finding a place that will pull or push when developing the negatives is almost Zero. I have a Nikon Cool Scan so I am able to convert my film images to digital ones. I am looking for new software since the original software from Nikon only runs with Windows XP at this point. As for digital archiving, there will be few photographs taken today that will survive 150 years in digital form. So - digital is obsolete before the pictures are taken.
If the people holding those old pics simply convert them to whatever medium is current at that 150 year from now time, then your statement is obviously not so. We've already seen many digital storage forms become obsolete, but they've been replaced with more modern digital methods, and I don't see that changing in the future. Those old pics aren't going anywhere with proper care, unless you think the world is coming to an end, in which case there will be a decrease in demand for the pics anyway.
-
Fons: a digital camera is much more dependent on the availability of spare parts and electronics than the old cameras of say the '60s. A simple thing as lack of suitable batteries can stop its use even though the camera might be fully functional. If the software support for the camera ceases or what software one uses at present no longer can be installed under new operating systems, you are out no matter what state the camera is in (or you are limited to jpgs, not RAW).
That being said, having old film cameras serviced demands a supply of spare parts that only can be met by skilled repair techs and scavenged and cannibalised cameras. Old camera maintenance won't be cheap.
Luckily, my Nikon D750 has a battery grip that allows the use of AA-size batteries - part of the reason why I chose that model instead of a used D3s which functionally would be top notch. The other part of the reason was supposed higher IQ from the D750 files.
Regarding the software support for the different RAW formats: There I feel rather safe and secure. I refuse to use activation crippled software or subscription based software - both of which would make the user's RAW conversion impossible when the software company ceases to support one's RAW format or activation/subscription is no longer available.
It is beyond me how people can accept such improper behavior as forcing us into dependency on activations or subscriptions in order to access our own data and images. My solution is the best - IMO - the use of Open Source software under Linux. I use UFRAW, RawTherapee and Darktable extensively under Linux.
- In my opinion, we should all respond to activation schemes and subscription schemes by migrating to Open Source software and tell others about this possibility and the advantages that go with Open Source and free software.
-
Luckily, my Nikon D750 has a battery grip that allows the use of AA-size batteries - part of the reason why I chose that model instead of a used D3s which functionally would be top notch. The other part of the reason was supposed higher IQ from the D750 files.
Regarding the software support for the different RAW formats: There I feel rather safe and secure. I refuse to use activation crippled software or subscription based software - both of which would make the user's RAW conversion impossible when the software company ceases to support one's RAW format or activation/subscription is no longer available.
It is beyond me how people can accept such improper behavior as forcing us into dependency on activations or subscriptions in order to access our own data and images. My solution is the best - IMO - the use of Open Source software under Linux. I use UFRAW, RawTherapee and Darktable extensively under Linux.
- In my opinion, we should all respond to activation schemes and subscription schemes by migrating to Open Source software and tell others about this possibility and the advantages that go with Open Source and free software.
Nobody is putting a gun to your head to "force" you to use any particular software, but I don't accept your definition that the solution you use is "the best", or that everyone should do as you do. Perhaps it's "the best" for you, but that is no indicator that it's the best for the next guy. Indeed, many folks regard the "free" versions to be worth everything you pay for them. I hope that you can accept that I like what I use, and that I chose out of my own free will, just as you did.
-
I still use film mainly because of its proven archival qualities. The choices of film have decreased and finding a place that will pull or push when developing the negatives is almost Zero. I have a Nikon Cool Scan so I am able to convert my film images to digital ones. I am looking for new software since the original software from Nikon only runs with Windows XP at this point. As for digital archiving, there will be few photographs taken today that will survive 150 years in digital form. So - digital is obsolete before the pictures are taken.
BM
I bought Vuescan which is a very useful and powerful software. It loads modern Coolscan Drivers which magically enables the Nikonscan software to work. I used Windows 7 Pro and now use clean install Windows 10 Pro.
Nikonscan still has the easiest DigitalICE implementation but I admit more and more I'm using Vuescan. It's a little hard to get used to but ends up being more powerful in the long run. I save files as dng raw and they can be used and manipulated any time including DigitalICE. The Coolscan is a bazillion times better in my hands than the mucking about with Epson flat scanners and focus issues.
JJ
-
BM
I bought Vuescan which is a very useful and powerful software. It loads modern Coolscan Drivers which magically enables the Nikonscan software to work. I used Windows 7 Pro and now use clean install Windows 10 Pro.
Nikonscan still has the easiest DigitalICE implementation but I admit more and more I'm using Vuescan. It's a little hard to get used to but ends up being more powerful in the long run. I save files as dng raw and they can be used and manipulated any time including DigitalICE. The Coolscan is a bazillion times better in my hands than the mucking about with Epson flat scanners and focus issues.
JJ
I liked my Minolta Dimage Scan Elite scanner a lot, but software became an issue with my Mac so I traded the scanner for an F3HP and 50mm f/1.4 ai, and the guy that got it used it just fine on his PC. We were both satisfied! ;D
-
I'm just about to take my D300 to Inner Mongolia.
Does that count as Obsolete yet?
-
You pass with flying colours, Colin :D
-
Thanks!
(It was that or my smartphone). ;)
-
Just did a photo assignment today using a D3 with 80-200 f2,8 AF-D. I spent the shoot wishing I had brought my 80-200 f4 Ai-S instead of the modern lens ;)
-
how is this for an obsolete camera :o :o :o
-
That was my first own camera :D
-
i only use obsolete camera's ;D
Here an example
-
Looks brand new! 8)
-
Daily users, all of these
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4220/34670321840_a32c844413_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UPGsME)DSC_0500 (https://flic.kr/p/UPGsME) by b j (https://www.flickr.com/photos/132836932@N03/), on Flickr
-
That's an impressive collection, Buddy! :o
-
Beautiful equipment
-
Thank you both. I had the F (on the left) with me in Maastricht.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7410/27521228770_24e368f230_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HVXuuj)DSC_1643-Edit (https://flic.kr/p/HVXuuj) by b j (https://www.flickr.com/photos/132836932@N03/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7325/27188460063_9d402f9246_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HqxXWP)DSC_1638-Edit-Edit (https://flic.kr/p/HqxXWP) by b j (https://www.flickr.com/photos/132836932@N03/), on Flickr
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7723/27188592873_580e661697_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/HqyDqD)DSC_1641-Edit (https://flic.kr/p/HqyDqD) by b j (https://www.flickr.com/photos/132836932@N03/), on Flickr
-
Just did a photo assignment today using a D3 with 80-200 f2,8 AF-D. I spent the shoot wishing I had brought my 80-200 f4 Ai-S instead of the modern lens ;)
There is a large sample variation with the 80-200/2.8 (apart from abused samples) The latest 80-200/2.8 lenses (serial numbers higher than 850.000) are much better, probably due to coatings as well. Also the tripod foot handles pretty good and is stable in the hand giving extra comfort while shooting.
-
As for myself I think i will; probably use an obsolete camera all my career. My first "real" camera was a Graflex Speed Graphic in the early 80's. My father was an Air force photographer and felt it best that I learn the most rudimentary process'. Then I used his Retina IIIc when I really started clicking and felt I had a modicum of talent. Then I scraped enough together to get an M-3 Leica with a collapsable Summicron. I really never could get enough going money wise then to buy more lenses because of the cost. Then i got a Serviced Rolleiflex 3.5 that I still use and i went into Nikon with an F3 and then an 8008. finally able to buy a lens library, my cameras grew. I use a d750 and I still shoot film in F and F2, and S2, but thats becoming rare. i wrote in this thread because I recently purchased a D1X and i have been having a Ball with it. I got some modern batteries and I shoot vintage glass on it but somehow for $85.00 it just seems right! Sad to think something built so well is useless. So I have made a pact with myself to exploit every capability this unit has. It came to me in almost mint condition and while i have attempted through EXIF to get the shutter count, I don't guess it really matters and from looking at it it can't be too high anyway. Its sort of paradox to my mirrorless Olympus cameras that are light in the field. While the camera is old tech I wonder if modern software doesn't compliment it to a degree. Capture NX-D still supports the 10 mp NEF interpolation.That surprised me. So Im off to capture the final gasp of Fall here in the Southeastern United States and the D1X will go along for the ride. A paperweight to some perhaps but I think ill keep her.
-
An interesting question in here.
I wonder in the years ahead just how well the future RAW file converters will support the RAW files from our current day (& of course earlier) cameras for what will certainly be by then legacy file formats and whether such future advances in image processing will thereby enable us to go back to our "old" RAW files and extract additional information out of them? Time will tell.
I do say "record in RAW and keep your RAW files secure" to then hopefully allow superior software to get more out of them in the future.
************************************
BTW, have a great trip to the South East.
..........................................................
..........................................................
While the camera is old tech I wonder if modern software doesn't compliment it to a degree. Capture NX-D still supports the 10 mp NEF interpolation.That surprised me. So Im off to capture the final gasp of Fall here in the Southeastern United States and the D1X will go along for the ride. A paperweight to some perhaps but I think ill keep her.
-
An interesting question in here.
I wonder in the years ahead just how well the future RAW file converters will support the RAW files from our current day....
My understanding is the Nikon NEF is at its heart a TIFF file and I'll guess that other RAW files from other makes are also. I would think a flat TIFF can be extracted easily from today's RAW files provided that the media can be read by future computers.
Dave Hartman
-
My understanding is the Nikon NEF is at its heart a TIFF file and I'll guess that other RAW files from other makes are also. I would think a flat TIFF can be extracted easily from today's RAW files provided that the media can be read by future computers.
Dave Hartman
I've also heard or read that RAW files are essentially TIFF in general. But the problem is that most files are compressed, lossily or losslessly. The compression algorithm would be proprietary and different according to the manufacturers. When/if the algorithms are no more supported by the RAW converters in the future, those compressed files won't be able to be decoded.
-
Anyone know what kind of compression Nikon uses with lossless NEF(s)?
-
Anyone know what kind of compression Nikon uses with lossless NEF(s)?
LZW, same as used in TIFF and many other applications since the 80's
The Nikon NEF file is a variation on the TIFF file format, fortunately current versions have been reverse engineered so there will always be away to convert it that doesn't rely on nikon software.
I do say "record in RAW and keep your RAW files secure" to then hopefully allow superior software to get more out of them in the future.
If you convert to a lossless format like compressed TIFF, the only information you might leave behind is propriety meta data in the file.
However its critical that you do the conversion correctly, so perhaps it's wise to keep an old copy of 'that precious image", rather than delete the original.
After all 10101010101 is always 10101010101
-
I just reactivated my Kodak Retinareflex III - my very first SLR... :-)
Hopefully posting some pictures soon.
Cheers,
Günther
-
LZW, same as used in TIFF and many other applications since the 80's
The Nikon NEF file is a variation on the TIFF file format, fortunately current versions have been reverse engineered so there will always be away to convert it that doesn't rely on nikon software.
If you convert to a lossless format like compressed TIFF, the only information you might leave behind is propriety meta data in the file.
However its critical that you do the conversion correctly, so perhaps it's wise to keep an old copy of 'that precious image", rather than delete the original.
After all 10101010101 is always 10101010101
If you convert to TIFF and throw away the NEF, even with the best conversions, you will loose the ability to adjust white balance, and exposure compensation besides all the setting in the develop section, including picture controls and noise reduction in in the different versions of CNX and ViewNX (and need 5x the storage space to retain the data in uncopressed TIFFs). So yes, better keep the NEFs. Metadata do matter, importing a TIFF is not the same, even if some metadata are retained. And one cannot take advantage of any alternative or future improvements in demosaicing algorithms with a TIFF as it is a done deal.
-
+1
I agree with all of this, but especially with: "And one cannot take advantage of any alternative or future improvements in demosaicing algorithms with a TIFF as it is a done deal.".
If you convert to TIFF and throw away the NEF, even with the best conversions, you will loose the ability to adjust white balance, and exposure compensation besides all the setting in the develop section, including picture controls and noise reduction in in the different versions of CNX and ViewNX (and need 5x the storage space to retain the data in uncopressed TIFFs). So yes, better keep the NEFs. Metadata do matter, importing a TIFF is not the same, even if some metadata are retained. And one cannot take advantage of any alternative or future improvements in demosaicing algorithms with a TIFF as it is a done deal.
-
Yesterday I bought a «used» D700 with only 870 exposures made with it 🙂. Looks and «feels» new (been stored due to health problems). A fast buy since the seller live in the same area/town. Nice price as well 🙂.
Even though I’ve got my D4s, I must say I’m a bit «in love» again; the size, sound of the shutter AND the D2X profiles 🙂.
I needed a second body and was thinking about a used D810 in the first place, but found that for my photography I don’t need that amount of MP. IQ- wise what the D700 offers is more than enough, for my usage.
D4s for wildlife/sport and D700 as a walkaround, for now. Actually, I’m considering selling my D4s and saving the money for later camera- investment.....
-
While all that's said above about TIFF is correct, there's one more thing to remember. TIFF itself is a container type, not encoding type. While NEF file uses the TIFF container, there is no demosaicked 8 or 16 bit bitmap data in a NEF, only the 12 or 14 bit un-demosaicked raw data plus JPEG preview plus metadata, all neatly wrapped in a TIFF container.
NEF always needs to be converted, TIFF extraction cannot be done since there's nothing to extract.
-
When at university in the late 60's and early 70's, as a physics major and then as a post graduate research student , we frequently had to use "obsolete" equipment due to funding issues and in some instances due to the fact that the exact equipment we needed simply didn't exist so we sometimes built new equipment or modified older so called obsolete equipment to achieve our ends. Part of the training was to calibrate such equipment against known standards in order to to achieve and maximise the resultant accuracy of such equipment.
I think that the same philosophy also applies to our cameras and lenses in achieving desireable photographic outcomes. There are many such examples of people on this site who have used "obsolete" cameras and lenses to this end:
* modification of non-Ai lenses and non-Nikon lenses, chipping of lenses, and adding new lens mounts via adapters or machining new mounts, e.g. the work of Erik, Bjørn /nfoto, and Dr Klaus Schmitt readily come to mind, and there are many many other examples here on this site
* converting DSLRs to see further into the UV, IR, or to have broadband spectral responses, e.g. see Thor Lidason's splendid IR images posted here recently and likewise those of Bob Friedman and many others here on this site
* modifying tripods, bellows, stands, electronics, and flashguns (often to do UV work)
* creation of panoramic heads, e.g. Seapy, or fittings for special purposes, e.g. Erik's fascinating special fittings made to allow a 6mm(?) fisheye lens to be more easily handled in the field.
* lastly the creation of colour profiles and the use of up to date RAW file processing can often drag more out of a raw file - for both obselete and current models of camera I must admit.
Photographers and people working in any of the technical spaces are pretty good at adapting or repurposing their tools to new uses or to extend their useful lifes. Nothing is entirely obsolete if placed in the right hands and with some imagination. Go back a 100 years and the obsolete gear of today still looks pretty good to me.
-
after many comments I'm getting more convinced that "obsolete" seems to have become a term abused by marketing
-
According to its detractors, the Df was obsolete on release, and so I am proudly still using my Df obsolete camera and its very obsolete AI lenses.
-
According to its detractors, the Df was obsolete on release, and so I am proudly still using my Df obsolete camera and its very obsolete AI lenses.
+1 ;)
-
After following the upgrade path in the film world, which culminated in the Canon Eos 3, I switched to digital, first with the Canon 10D, then 20D, then 5D, then after an unfortunate watercraft accident.. moved to the Nikon D700, then the D600, then the D810.. But the camera I secretly lusted after was the D3. So when everything got cheap enough.. I got a D2H, then a D2Xx and now FINALLY a D3s. Which is technically obsolete Bjorn, as parts for it are no longer available from Nikon. So once your shutter goes, the camera is basically dead. Obsolete does not mean useless, and I'm enjoying this trio of cameras more than any others I've owned before (save the D700.. still miss it!). At lower ISO's the D2's are simply fantastic.. and surprisingly the D2H is the better of the two. Apply a little sharpening, avoid printing more than A4 and you'll be fine. It blows out faster than newer cameras, but 4mp.. I could shoot for months before filling up my cards. However obsolecence for these cameras will come in another form.. media. How long will makers of CF cards continue making them once newer cameras are all onto SD, CF fast and other tech. Memory cards have a limited lifespan, measured in number of writes.. So eventually shutters will fail, and media will also fail. That is the true death-knell of these older cameras. Won't stop me using them of course.. Another untalked about advantage of these older cameras is that you're not so worried about losing or having them stolen, so you may push yourself more for example in street scenes. And if you want to do a 4k timelapse movie guess what.. the D2H is simply fantastic for that! I'd upload some pics but my technical incompetence when it comes to Online Forums is tragic.
-
I still miss my two D3's...they were real battle wagons.
-
I thought I was finished with this M/S but I ran out of 0.3mm shims so I wasn't able to shim the mount properly :o :o :o
it's super smooth now. This was released in 1950/1951 but I still enjoy using these.
-
I don't think any film cameras will be obsolete unless there is no film for them...
-
Akira, you have made the most intelligent, unbiassed comment on this topic. And even if all photo chemicals are unavailable, there will still be coffee and other home grown developing fluids!
-
well, fuji just killed Natura and Acros is on its way. :o :o :o
2 of my favourite films!
-
Akira, you have made the most intelligent, unbiassed comment on this topic. And even if all photo chemicals are unavailable, there will still be coffee and other home grown developing fluids!
And there is albumen prints. Long live chickens! :D
Seriously, I consider the films, especially color negatives and B&W ones, are important artistic "matière" like oil color, watercolor, sumi ink, etc. So, I don't want them gone forever.
well, fuji just killed Natura and Acros is on its way. :o :o :o
2 of my favourite films!
Yeah, that is sad. I went to Nisshin-Camera in Akihabara the other day, and realized they sell only up to three rolls of 36exp Natura per a customer.
-
My primary camera is a Fuji XT-1. I suppose this is obsolete now. Funnily, I can still make good pictures with it.
-
And there is albumen prints. Long live chickens! :D
Seriously, I consider the films, especially color negatives and B&W ones, are important artistic "matière" like oil color, watercolor, sumi ink, etc. So, I don't want them gone forever.
sometimes things that are gone see a cult-revival, like Polaroid films
-
Yes I do. :)
D2x on regular base. D1H & D1x once and a while.
-
In practice all of our cameras are obsolete from no later than the moment that they first reach the camera store shelves, for it is around this time that their successors start to be designed and developed - if not sooner.
(Ditto for just about all technology IMHO.)
-
Obsolete means "no longer in use or useful".
-
Obsolete means "no longer in use or useful".
Which, of course, is a contradiction in terms.
Better to think as something being discontinued from production and thus no longer readily available, usually because the manufacturers deem the new models being superior.
Amongst my cameras, the Df is still current although production might have ceased. The workhorse UV camera is D3200, which of course was discontinued years ago. My IR cameras, D5300, D200, and D40x, are all discontinued too. The Fuji S5Pro is so old people tend to forget it ever existed. Some might remember the Panasonic GH2, which I use for UV video.
-
Which, of course, is a contradiction in terms.
Not at all, it is the correct primary meaning of the term "obsolete".
"a : no longer in use or no longer useful
b : of a kind or style no longer current"
Better to think as something being discontinued from production and thus no longer readily available, usually because the manufacturers deem the new models being superior.
I think such usage began because people who think having the latest gear is necessary (or people who have financial gains to be made from others thinking that way) started calling discontinued products obsolete because they want to promote this kind of thinking. Probably for monetary gain, or their self-worth is tied to having the latest gear.
When the D3X for example cannot be used because no batteries are available that would make it work, or because no CF cards exists any more which would permit the files to be stored and transferred to computer, or if the file formats used are not readable by any software in current operating systems, then it would be obsolete.
I don't want to argue about semantics, really. But I reject the idea that discontinued products should be called obsolete, because it is misleading and leads to the kind of thinking which will destroy this planet, through unnecessary industrial production and consumption.
-
I have spent a couple of days admiring all the wonderful photographs in this thread. A lot of talent here. I have no such experience or talent but thought I would contribute with a D2h picture I grabbed at the end of a snow storm last winter. The lens was a 35mm F1.8. As of now, it is the only camera I have so it meets the obsolete requirements.
Paul
-
This thread is fun to look through! I really enjoyed the quote about a camera's performance not worsening due to the release of a newer model.
I had two cameras die this fall: a D70 and a Panasonic Lumix TZ5. I replaced the D70 with a D750. After reading through this thread, I just replaced the little Lumix with... a D200. ;D
I know it's a magnitude larger and heavier but I hope its rugged build will make it a good "bang around" camera that i'll be more apt to take out in the boat, etc. And at $100 USD, it was cheaper than a new point-and-shoot. I thought about how happy I had been with my D70 (my reluctant and tentative entry into digital) and decided that I could certainly be happy with images from a D200.
Long live the obsolete camera! (My "obsolete" F2S, F3HP and F4s are ready to try some new Ektachrome.) If my purchase experience is good with the D200, I'm thinking that I'll likely start looking for the next obsolete bargain to add to the camera shelf.
Stay sharp,
Bob
-
At the moment I have only my old D300S, after my D810 had a fatal accident involving seawater. The insurance money will go towards a D850 in the near future.
-
Maybe a D700 or a D800/D800E would be a good & economical place to start.
This thread is fun to look through! I really enjoyed the quote about a camera's performance not worsening due to the release of a newer model.
I had two cameras die this fall: a D70 and a Panasonic Lumix TZ5. I replaced the D70 with a D750. After reading through this thread, I just replaced the little Lumix with... a D200. ;D
I know it's a magnitude larger and heavier but I hope its rugged build will make it a good "bang around" camera that i'll be more apt to take out in the boat, etc. And at $100 USD, it was cheaper than a new point-and-shoot. I thought about how happy I had been with my D70 (my reluctant and tentative entry into digital) and decided that I could certainly be happy with images from a D200.
Long live the obsolete camera! (My "obsolete" F2S, F3HP and F4s are ready to try some new Ektachrome.) If my purchase experience is good with the D200, I'm thinking that I'll likely start looking for the next obsolete bargain to add to the camera shelf.
Stay sharp,
Bob
-
I really enjoyed the quote about a camera's performance not worsening due to the release of a newer model.
That's a fair point, especially when considering lenses but equally for those who can afford the newer cameras and can make good use of the features they bring, it makes sense for them to upgrade. Market forces dictate the price point of their 'discarded' cameras. In practice they can go for a song, enabling many, like myself to step further up the ladder and enjoy better sensors and improved features.
My D200's can still take superb images, my D3 is wonderful but I just acquired a D800 which is in a different league, an amazing camera for a very good price, they are out there, just need to get lucky occasionally, or scour the internet.
-
That's a fair point, especially when considering lenses but equally for those who can afford the newer cameras and can make good use of the features they bring, it makes sense for them to upgrade. Market forces dictate the price point of their 'discarded' cameras. In practice they can go for a song, enabling many, like myself to step further up the ladder and enjoy better sensors and improved features.
My D200's can still take superb images, my D3 is wonderful but I just acquired a D800 which is in a different league, an amazing camera for a very good price, they are out there, just need to get lucky occasionally, or scour the internet.
I am amazed by the capabilities my D750 brings. On the other hand, I'm just a hobbyist taking photos for fun and never really felt a need for anything past my F3HP. I moved to digital grudgingly and that first digital I bought, the D70, seemed satisfactory to me except for the DX sensor's crop factor effect on the lenses I had. The D750 was a real eye-opener and its capabilities will no doubt help improve my photography but I still love my "obsolete" cameras just as much. As I get older, I get more nostalgic, and that probably has a lot to do with it.
But for those more pragmatic than nostalgic, the current rush of technology allows those willing -or required by budget- to stay back a step or two access to some amazing technology at amazing prices. I guess rapid obsolescence can be a good thing!
Feeling a little obsolete myself,
Bob
-
Do you still use an "obsolete" camera?
What makes a camera "obsolete"?
-
This is the most ridiculous question I've ever heard, no offense. A camera that takes photographs is not obsolete. No offense, but, think about it.
-
This is the most ridiculous question I've ever heard, no offense. A camera that takes photographs is not obsolete. No offense, but, think about it.
Arthur, the word 'obsolete' is subjective, what might not be obsolete to you may well be obsolete to others, especially if the supplies to use in it (film or batteries) are no longer readily available. I have a Kodak TLR which I understand film is no longer available for, except by rewinding 120 film onto other reels, to me that's obsolete, but my D200's are by no means obsolete to me, they are a vital component of my photographic inventory.
-
You just contradicted yourself. but, ok.
-
You just contradicted yourself. but, ok.
Quite agressive for a newbie. You might be on the wrong forum.
-
Very.
-
My last entry in February topic was taken with a d700. Has a mirror and doesn´t do video. It must be obsolete. I can be bought nowadays in the second hand market in Spain for 300-400 euros. With grip :o
-
Second hand market in Spain. . . memories . . . , but do not remember cameras
Moderator edited for off topic content By Erik Lund
-
I use the D70s quite a bit. The files are so easy to work with - especially as I sometimes use Picasa for photo editing as its fast and easy - and that is stuck in the past too with no RAW support for newer cameras. With the D70s the results remain refreshing and beg to be printed.
-
Thank you, Eric, you are correct, I did get off topic, and had/ have no desire to do that. This forum is photography, nothing else, and i'd hate to see it change/suffer.
Ian, does Picasa support RAW with Df, or is the Df still considered to be one of the "newer" cameras? Digital cameras become old long before their time, unfortunately. I don't mind my Df being classed as old, but hopefully not seriously termed "obsolete." Which evokes the thought: if film were to make some miraculous comeback, would the obsolete cameras no longer be obsolete? I am slowly becoming comfortable with the digital world of my Df, and I do not think I would take my F2SB out of mothballs.
-
Unfortunately no is the answer Kenneth - Df is too new. But Picasa is also obsolete - yet I see so many people still using it. The tools it offers are decent and easy to use - which I important. I also have Adobe Photoshop, but its not as easy or fun.
I too use the Df, and I absolutely love what it does. I have large prints on my wall now which when I look at them bring the moment back to me, such as the airiness of a sheltered coastal path or the expressiveness of a boxer dogs face - like he is there now. Maybe the classic manual lenses have something to do with this, but the Df works so well with them that is another plus. It is the Nikon that really fired up my enthusiasm.
-
I have nothing but obsolete gear.
D2X
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40749559333_0bb0a1d705_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/255U9ic)20190427-_P2F8958e (https://flic.kr/p/255U9ic) by foppa2011 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62383894@N02/), on Flickr
D3S
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47999695178_27fd1432e7_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2g8yZ6m)20190602-_D3S2518b (https://flic.kr/p/2g8yZ6m) by foppa2011 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62383894@N02/), on Flickr
D3X
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48109865487_fc951d188e_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2giiCTr)20190622-_P3F7387e (https://flic.kr/p/2giiCTr) by foppa2011 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62383894@N02/), on Flickr
D1H
(https://live.staticflickr.com/1844/29201524167_c18c3e7d55_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/LurrLB)20180819-DSC_2187 (https://flic.kr/p/LurrLB) by foppa2011 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62383894@N02/), on Flickr
-
Nothing obsolete about the pictures!
-
Nothing obsolete about the pictures!
True!
-
Great stuff indeed.
Corrected an error of selling my D700's and got one back
-
My Df was probably only obsolescent last year, but if I understand Nikon's reported announcement that it has finished production of the Df series, then it is truly obsolete now, and this puts a little bit more shine on the camera- right up there with the Rangefinder series and the f2 series. It's like owning a pre-war Rolls Royce motor car.
-
I have 2 Nikon D70s. 1 is out of order. Very small LCD screen (don't care) and very small viewfinder, which is a bigger problem for me.
The camera is fine and really easy to use. I learned how to take pictures with a D70s. It is much less forgiving that today's DSLR when it comes to ISO noise and image cropping. If you stick a good lens on it and experiment with the settings it becomes a very pleasant camera to use. As I said, the viewfinder is the real issue I have with it.
-
By the time a "new" camera hits the marketplace it is obsolete, for its replacement is already being worked on. A sobering thought. ;D
-
Happy to anounce I'm back in the obsolete camera users club with a D800
-
I just today grabbed some candids with obsolete cameras (D3X, D4S).
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49473506071_7623d1f500_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2inNDHZ)20200201-_P3F8577b (https://flic.kr/p/2inNDHZ) by foppa2011 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62383894@N02/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49473725037_a168d4a154_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2inPLPg)20200201-_D4S0953b (https://flic.kr/p/2inPLPg) by foppa2011 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62383894@N02/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49473506266_b2cfe96909_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2inNDMm)20200201-_D4S0978c (https://flic.kr/p/2inNDMm) by foppa2011 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62383894@N02/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49473505936_24f97e437e_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2inNDFE)20200201-_D4S0942b (https://flic.kr/p/2inNDFE) by foppa2011 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62383894@N02/), on Flickr
-
Great stuff, Peter.
I picked up a completely obsolete Nikon D3s
-
Happy to anounce I'm back in the obsolete camera users club with a D800
Good to hear. Have fun with that wonderful camera.
-
Yes! I still use an obsolete camera. In fact, several. I also walk and occasionally cook over an open flame. ::)
-
I don't think of myself as using an obsolete camera most of the time, but I suppose that since both of my newest cameras were bought in 2014, perhaps it's time to rethink the meaning of "obsolete."
-
Peter, fantastic images.
John, you make that D3s sing.
I still like to use my first generation Fujifilm X100. Unmatched color rendering.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48215969697_ad341bc7c3_h.jpg)
-
I was going to start a new thread, but I guess it goes along well here....
I did a spring cleaning and organized my camera gear (if you call "organizing" tossing a bunch of stuff in a box and labeling it "Misc Camera Stuff"). I reboxed three cameras, the D70S, D300, and D750 now that I have the Z6. I kept the Df unboxed too. I have many lenses (80% AF-S or more recent) still on the shelves, some nice and some mediocre (if Nikon makes mediocre lenses).
Couple questions for me...
* Do I sell the D70s and D300 -- i think the sentimental value is greater than any remaining economic value, so I think I will keep
* What is the use case of the Z6 with the ZF adapter and the traditional lenses? When am i going to want to carry the adapter and lens -- say the 300f4 or 105f2.8 maybe?? Not the 24-120 F4.
* Do i sell the D750? I like it, maybe love it, but again when a I grabbing that vs. the Z ?
I do realize these are all my own personal decisions, but it's always helpful to hear from others with the same dilemna.
I was just in India with the Z6 and actually left it in my hotel room a lot for just my iPhone. Hmmm. A sign of my times? (Now it was very much a social event and i didn't want to have to worry about where my bag was or have to carry it around)
Rob.
-
Given your set of Nikons, I might be inclined to keep the D750 around, for 2 possible reasons:
1. If you have a lot of shooting you want to do in very bright daylight conditions (think beach, ocean, or snow), the optical finder can provide a pleasant relief from the relatively dim, fixed maximum brightness of the EVF in the otherwise snazzy new Z6.
2. It might be a candidate for IR conversion?
Also, it uses the same batteries as the Z6, which should remain current for many years.
Then again, if the size and bulk of the "big" cameras are proving to be a drag for some uses, maybe sell and look for a super-small but not-plasticky camera such as the new Fuifilm XT-100V or it's recent predecessors.
-
* What is the use case of the Z6 with the ZF adapter and the traditional lenses? When am i going to want to carry the adapter and lens -- say the 300f4 or 105f2.8 maybe?? Not the 24-120 F4.
* Do i sell the D750? I like it, maybe love it, but again when a I grabbing that vs. the Z ?
I use the adapter whenever I need a focal length and/or aperture which the Z lenses don't cover. The adapter is a bit of a drag when you find it was last used on a lens you have left at home... but generally it is quite useful in allowing a very wide range of lenses.
-
Given your set of Nikons, I might be inclined to keep the D750 around, for 2 possible reasons:
1. If you have a lot of shooting you want to do in very bright daylight conditions (think beach, ocean, or snow), the optical finder can provide a pleasant relief from the relatively dim, fixed maximum brightness of the EVF in the otherwise snazzy new Z6.
2. It might be a candidate for IR conversion?
Also, it uses the same batteries as the Z6, which should remain current for many years.
Then again, if the size and bulk of the "big" cameras are proving to be a drag for some uses, maybe sell and look for a super-small but not-plasticky camera such as the new Fuifilm XT-100V or it's recent predecessors.
Ha! I do have a Fuji X-100F and love it! You are right on the Optical viewfinder, sometimes that can't be beat!!
The adapter is a bit of a drag when you find it was last used on a lens you have left at home... but generally it is quite useful in allowing a very wide range of lenses.
HA HA! I have DONE that! I'm just not used to adapters, maybe I will.... "adapt" to it (pun intended)
-
The price of FTZ adapters is falling ~$US120 if you shop around in Melbourne.
Maybe have an FTZ adapter permanently attached to those F-Mount lenses that you frequently use on your Z-Mount bodies?
An extravagance? No, I think not - given some of the crappy adapters out there without the electronics or quality of fit of the FTZ that are commanding prices that are quite simply not commensurate with their low levels of quality.
-
I have only Nikon "obsolete" digital cameras. From the D70 (bought new in 2008), D300, D3200, D3, D3X and the Df, and I like them all! Not that they all are daily used, only the D3, D3X and Df. I have a lot of the "old" AI and AIS lenses which are often used with those cameras. With the Df I have prepared a camera case containing only pre-AI lenses for use. The lenses are the Micro-Nikkor 55 f/3.5, 28 f/3.5, 50 f/2, Nikkor-P-C Auto 105 f/2.5, Nikkor-Q Auto 135 f/2.8, Nikkor-H-C 85 f/1.8. Nikkor-Q-C Auto 135 f/3.5 and the Nikkor-Q 200 f/4. I'm just waiting for better weather conditions. To me there are no cameras to be called "obsolete". To you that have used the D70 with good Nikon lenses and a tripod: I really think that the D70 in most cases are good enough! Enjoy your photography with the equipment you have and take great images!
-
I have only Nikon "obsolete" digital cameras. From the D70 (bought new in 2008), D300, D3200, D3, D3X and the Df, and I like them all!
Besides no Nikon being obsolete I would not count the Df as "obsolete" it is still sold new and not listed out.
-
Maybe have an FTZ adapter permanently attached to those F-Mount lenses that you frequently use on your Z-Mount bodies?
I bought a second FTZ adapter for being permanently attached to my 10 mm f/5,6 OP-Fisheye while carrying it in the bag
(A bit off topic here nevertheless)
-
I wouldn't wantto call this one obsolete. I mean, it is not the latest model. It's not even mirrorless, but it has all th eimportant features. One can set Aperture and shutter speed. It has a dial to remind one of the ISO speed, and it even has a self-timer, and a mirror up function. That is like mirrorless, with a mirror!
Shot a roll of Velvia 100
(https://live.staticflickr.com/4272/34742765136_4a401f177b_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/UW6KE1)DSC_0092 (https://flic.kr/p/UW6KE1) by b j (https://www.flickr.com/photos/132836932@N03/), on Flickr
-
I enjoy this Obsolete Camera-conversation. So many nice pictures. It shows us, that there is not THAT much difference between a 10 year old camera and an entirely new camera. Thanks for some great contributions!
-
I enjoy this Obsolete Camera-conversation. So many nice pictures. It shows us, that there is not THAT much difference between a 10 year old camera and an entirely new camera. Thanks for some great contributions!
You are right, I compared some daylight photos from my D70 and D750 and after almost 14years not so much difference 8)
-
Currently reading a book about color, lines and patterns in photography. The lesson was to go shoot color but had to exclude nature and landscapes. After about 15m of wandering around, I ended up in the garage. The blower is two years old but still quite clean. Shot with D2h and 17-55 Lens. This is the only digital camera I own. For me, it is good enough.
-
.
KenP, the photo that you posted of your red snowblower is a beautiful example of the rich and vibrant colors one can get out of older CCD sensor cameras!
I've sold my Nikon D810 and D610 cameras and replaced them with D80 and D200 CCD cameras.
Why? I find that 10MP (megapixels) are largely sufficient for my work. Second, I greatly prefer the color that I get out of these older CCD sensor cameras.
Why do I think the color is better with these older CCD cameras? Not being an optical engineer I can only speculate. The height of CCD development for digital SLR cameras was 2006 - 2010. After that, most camera manufacturers made their new models with CMOS sensors.
What's the difference? Well, the inner workings of the sensors themselves are quite different. Some will claim that the inherent differences between CCD and CMOS alone do not account for the difference in color fidelity. However, in addition to the sensor itself changing, the CFA sitting on top of it also changed. I suspect the unique color profile I see in my D200 and D80 are largely controled by the CFA and the sensor working together. I have to believe that the CFA must have changed significantly during the CCD to CMOS transition.
Anyway, I have found that for whatever reason, I prefer the CCD colors from 2006 - 2010 vintage cameras over the more modern CMOS cameras. While the highest MP CCD camera Nikon made was 10MP, please be aware that Sony made three models (A350, A380, & A390) with 14MB CCD sensors. I own a Sony A350 and find the colors it produces are quite similar to the D200 and D80. All else being equal, I'm probably going to end up shooting more with the 14MP Sony than the 10MP Nikons just to get those extra MPs.
Do you see any difference in the color in the images taken with your CCD and CMOS sensors?
.
-
.
KenP, the photo that you posted of your red snowblower is a beautiful example of the rich and vibrant colors one can get out of older CCD sensor cameras!
I've sold my Nikon D810 and D610 cameras and replaced them with D80 and D200 CCD cameras.
Why? I find that 10MP (megapixels) are largely sufficient for my work. Second, I greatly prefer the color that I get out of these older CCD sensor cameras.
Why do I think the color is better with these older CCD cameras? Not being an optical engineer I can only speculate. The height of CCD development for digital SLR cameras was 2006 - 2010. After that, most camera manufacturers made their new models with CMOS sensors.
What's the difference? Well, the inner workings of the sensors themselves are quite different. Some will claim that the inherent differences between CCD and CMOS alone do not account for the difference in color fidelity. However, in addition to the sensor itself changing, the CFA sitting on top of it also changed. I suspect the unique color profile I see in my D200 and D80 are largely controled by the CFA and the sensor working together. I have to believe that the CFA must have changed significantly during the CCD to CMOS transition.
Anyway, I have found that for whatever reason, I prefer the CCD colors from 2006 - 2010 vintage cameras over the more modern CMOS cameras. While the highest MP CCD camera Nikon made was 10MP, please be aware that Sony made three models (A350, A380, & A390) with 14MB CCD sensors. I own a Sony A350 and find the colors it produces are quite similar to the D200 and D80. All else being equal, I'm probably going to end up shooting more with the 14MP Sony than the 10MP Nikons just to get those extra MPs.
.
Yeahbut, I recall that color rendition, and particularly with reds, from my D200 was dependent on which software I used for editing my NEFs. Nikon SW was best at the reds, but I much preferred the Adobe workflow. Plus, I don't miss CF cards after bending a pin on my expensive SanDisk Extreme IV card reader. :(
-
Interesting observations Bruce. I am not well versed enough nor do I have the experience in photography to discern the subtleties between sensors. In my short time with photography, I have used a Nikon D200 (stopped working), a Nikon D2x (sold) and a Nikon V1 (failed electronics). For whatever reason, I have become comfortable with the D2h. This is just a hobby when time allows for me. I have printed up to 13X19 on the D2h quite nicely. I try and fill the frame the best I can to avoid cropping as there is an obvious limit to 4mp. It is for the most part my color camera. I have an old Pentax screw mount Spotmatic to shoot black and white film for which I have just started exploring. Would like to process and print on my own at some point.
-
D300, impressed with the quality and reliability today with the flash and colors
D300, 35mm 1.8 dx
-
I have just ordered rechargeable AA batteries to be used in my Coolpix 990 (3.34 MP). I tought it could be fun to see what such an old outdated camera can do today.
When it was released it got fine reviews.
Regarding sensors it is a shame that Nikon does not have its own factory(or own a company making sensors) and development and not forced to use eg. Sony which makes their own cameras using same sensors. Now we know that Sony makes a 60MP sensor we can with about 100% probability guess that we see a 60 MP Nikon camera using same sensor. I think sensors like Foveon would be more successful if Nikon was behind as they have more money to invest than eg Sigma. Development is just too slow so they are always behind with speed, resolution, ISO performance etc. But I like the technology that is behind the Foveon sensor and the tonality in the images I have seen.
Maybe the reason I still use my old D5200 with Toshiba sensor.....which is a little bit unusual…….at least I think it is a Toshiba as the roumors seems to be reliable.
-
According to several sources, the D5200 and D7100 used the same Toshiba sensor, though the D7100 dropped the aa filter and the 5200 did not. Not sure why, since the 7100 gets along quite fine without it.
-
I have a recurrent fantasy , where I go into a camera store and say to the technician, "I have a Df here, with a 16mp sensor. What upgrades do you have?" And the technician says, "We can do 25, 40 or 50 mp for two hundred, three hundred and fifty or five hundred bucks respectively. Takes about a week, presently."
-
According to several sources, the D5200 and D7100 used the same Toshiba sensor, though the D7100 dropped the aa filter and the 5200 did not. Not sure why, since the 7100 gets along quite fine without it.
I think the AA filter in D5200 is relative weak but ensures I never see moiré artifacts in my images. I know a weeding photographer who used Nikon cameras without AA filter and he had from time to time problems with the white wedding dress that often showed moiré.
In the old days a Nikkormat could make same image quality as a F5. It all was depending on the film used and it was always fun when Fuji came out with a new film version. There was also a short period in the early digital days when there was something called "digital film". An digital "insert" you could put into a film camera. But that never was a success but a shame this development was stopped. For cameras with hinaged back it should be possible to make something that would work but price may be comparable with a new body or maybe the camera manufactures just want us to buy new cameras.
-
I think that this is the answer.
Leitz spent a lot of effort on one of their R series SLRs that had a digital back - not sure if it made it to market.
........................ or maybe the camera manufactures just want us to buy new cameras.
-
I have a recurrent fantasy , where I go into a camera store and say to the technician, "I have a Df here, with a 16mp sensor. What upgrades do you have?" And the technician says, "We can do 25, 40 or 50 mp for two hundred, three hundred and fifty or five hundred bucks respectively. Takes about a week, presently."
Dream on. The sensor is no as important to the camera as its entire internal ecosystem of electronics, processing power, and sheer ability to move data around at the highest speed possible. Thus changing a sensor will not improve anything if the other components cannot follow suit. An illustration of the well-know Law of the Minimum.
On a tangential note, I never saw the Df as being "obsolete". It is still able to churn out better images than I am able to let it make. I have used the Df since 2013, yet it still is my Nikon DSLR favourite.
-
It seems the MP count is not that important any more for still images but what is important is the quality of each pixel. So I guess the Df camera can make higher quality images than the latest 64 MP Samsung phone cameras. Does it make sense to have 64 MP in a phone camera? …..Samsung claims that they soon will go beyond 100 MP. It is very small sensors so hard to believe that they can produce "clean" images in low light conditions. So in the phone world there is a MP race going on. Nikon even go to lower MP for the DX sensor. From 24 to 21. And the D6 is a FX with only about 21 MP to have very high quality pr. pixel.
https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/10/1/20892995/64-megapixel-phone-camera-realme-xt-hands-on
I remember when Canon released a 11 MP DSLR and I looked at a A3 print from the cameras file it looked very good. Like medium format quality. Then I told myself that 11 MP is enough and when D2X was released I got one. But as development continued I could see that especially in high ISO performance the newer sensors was much better and with even higher pixel count. I think D2X is still very good today at its native ISO.
-
Birna, you are a fantasy slayer! And when you say," It is still able to churn out better images than I am able to let it make," I am reminded that "it" is for me, definitely my F2SB, forlornly sitting on the shelf, forsaken for my Df, my latest camera, my last camera, my dream become reality camera, all fantasies aside, truly a "Diamond as Big as the Ritz."
-
On a tangential note, I never saw the Df as being "obsolete". It is still able to churn out better images than I am able to let it make. I have used the Df since 2013, yet it still is my Nikon DSLR favourite.
Same here, except I bought it in 2014.
-
I took a Coolpix 990 with me for a short walk. It is 20 years old now and has a CCD sensor at 3.34 MP where about 3.1 MP are effective pixels.
I was surprised that it could still make pictures and long time since I have had a CF card in my hands.
I think it was considered a quite good compact camera when it was released. 3 MP was "something" at that time but MP's went quickly up after that.
-
April 15
When spring in April
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49776615678_11eea595ca_o.jpg)
Df - Nikkor-P Auto 105mm f/2.5
-
Very nice Fons. A very peaceful scene!
-
I was out again for a short walk and took again the obsolete 3 MP Coolpix 990 with me.
I wonder how it would compare with latest Huawei top model smartphones with Leica camera......
-
What makes an obsolete camera like the Coolpix 990 not too obsolete is that is uses standard AA rechargeable batteries so it is easy get new ones. The old original Nikon branded batteries are completely dead many years ago. I keep them just for fun. Maybe a collector will find them fun to have one day…..also the CF card is outdated.
With new cameras it is a pain that it seems a slightly different battery is developed every time and an spare one is not cheap.
Standard batteries exists in many form factors so should be plenty to select from. E.g. standard 9V type (8.4V rechargeable) exists.
We also have AAA and AAAA types. I know that Nikon have some extra communication with the battery but I think I could live without that.
The attached image is also shot with CP 990 :-) ...the real name seems to be E990.
-
Very nice Fons. A very peaceful scene!
Thank you Mike
-
The attached image is also shot with CP 990 :-) ...the real name seems to be E990.
Great pictures MEPER! Keep them coming!
I had the Coolpix 800 which I bought in Nagoya in 1999. I used it everyday at work for 2 years before trading it for the Coolpix 4500 which my friend still uses with his 950s on his Nikon microscopes for documentation.
I went for a walk today with another obsolete one - Lumix LX1 bought in Singapore. Fantastic lens, terrible usability but pictures not too bad for 8.4Mp and 16:9 mode native.
Shots from around my district - all in lockdown too
-
Yes, I will keep posting when I have something I like myself.
I know the Coolpix series of cameras with swivel lens was used by museums as it was a very practical camera and it had for its time a good macro function for documentation (with built-in flash). And also the interface for microscopes was used. Maybe still used today by some museums as they are probably not the fastest to get new equipment.
The first picture of the closed playground above has very saturated colors so I guess a "feature" of the camera?
We have similar close down as the D5200 images below shows (35/1.8 DX lens used).
-
…….but as you can see still some outdoor activities…….the playground below was not closed…..still obsolete D5200...…
Think I was playing with polarizer but I got problems with an "overexposed" look....then I set camera to -1 EV and everything looked as expected.
-
….and with 35/1.8 DX lens I have issues with back focus when I use viewfinder but with liveview focus is "spot-on".
Something I need to remember especially if I use large aperture. The D5200 has no "micro adjustment". Using lenses like 70-200 VR or 105 VR focus is "spot-on" using viewfinder. 35/1.8 DX is the only one I have with this issue......but don't know why.
-
A few images from yesterdays short walk with J5 and 18.5 mm. A very nice combination. A discontinued system so must be obsolete. The small sensor requires a good lens. I can see a clear difference between 10-30 images and 18.5 even that 10-30 has VR. 18.5 images looks a bit more "crisp". Next time I will experience with wide open shots using this lens.
The first image is just to show the time we live in...….a queue in front of a small shop (difficult light condition with interesting part in shadow). Rest is just what I found fun to shoot.
-
JJ Chan, I don't know the LX1, but I do know and still own the LC1, which shuffles along on just 5 MP. This is what "they" said back in 2004:
Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC1
Published Feb 13, 2004 | dpreview staff
Share
PMA 2004: Panasonic leaves it until the second day of PMA to launch its new DMC-LC1 Lumix camera. The 5-megapixel DMC-LC1 has a digital brain but the heart and soul of a finely crafted 35mm camera, right down to its controls. Zoom, focus and aperture are manually controlled by ring settings on the lens; shutter speed is controlled by a dial located on the top of the unit. The new DMC-LC1 incorporates a finely crafted, F2.0 - 2.4 Leica DC VARIO-SUMMICRON lens (13 elements in 10 groups) with zoom capability equivalent to 28 - 90mm on a 35mm camera. The Panasonic Lumix DMC-LC1 is scheduled for March, 2004 delivery. It will have a manufacturer's suggested retail price of $1,599.00
When I read the above words and the rest of the mini review and saw the pix, I knew I just had to have this camera. A year later I bought a lightly used copy, and it became my #1 camera until I bought my Df about ten years later. Now, in 2020, both are considered obsolete, but I care not except for the pride I have in possessing two ground-breaking examples of what for me are fine digital cameras.
-
Can't get much more obsolete than a Nikon D1X. My daughter shooting some waterfowl a week ago with her obsolete D5100.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49851669467_88449a7260_b.jpg)[/url]
20200503-DSC_2960b (https://flic.kr/p/2iXdQwx) by foppa2011 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62383894@N02/), on Flickr
The D4S has also been discontinued at least 5 years and just last week I learned the AFS 200/2VR II is also discontinued. Extremely obsolete stuff. Hopefully not categorized as toxic waste. This is from the last taekwondo competition before the lockdown. My daughter was very succesful and won the gold medal in adult female blue belt category, quite a shocker!! Here she's participating (in front) in under 13 pairs' patterns (poomsae) competition where she won the silver medal.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49633986922_43bf3c8216_b.jpg)[/url]
20200307-_D4S1442b (https://flic.kr/p/2iBZa6d) by foppa2011 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62383894@N02/), on Flickr
-
Can't get much more obsolete than a Nikon D1X. My daughter shooting some waterfowl.
The D4S has also been discontinued at least 5 years and just last week I learned the AFS 200/2VR II is also discontinued. Extremely obsolete stuff. Hopefully not categorized as toxic waste.
Well yeah, but if you liked their output before they were discontinued, why would you not like it now? I like it. ;)
-
If we talk about DSLR cmaeras, the D1H is almost as obsolete as you can get in the Nikonland. ;D
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49894504332_27b1255d54_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j21nQG)tramp1405b (https://flic.kr/p/2j21nQG) by foppa2011 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62383894@N02/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49893680208_71d18ec208_o.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2j1W9RE)tramp1405a (https://flic.kr/p/2j1W9RE) by foppa2011 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/62383894@N02/), on Flickr
-
I'm still using my D1x. shot with 180mm f/2.8 Ai-s ED..
-
D1x using 18-55mm DX G kit lens.
-
And the D2x with 35mm f1.8 G DX...
-
Peter, I have been using that very same combo and I like it a lot! Today, D2X with 80-200 2.8 ed
-
I'm still using my D1x. shot with 180mm f/2.8 Ai-s ED..
That is a pretty special image Peter
-
Using obsolete gear quite often, yes- mostly digital, but also some analog equipment
Obsolete in the sense of not being oppressively «modern» . Yes the «useful»features are present in my digital, but not configured for use
"clever and theoretically work saving" ,but in practice useless, bells and whistles remain unused, if not entirely missing, on my digital Olympus pen-F
Examples of pernicious features that remain unused when out snapping pictures: battery-sappingg and interference creating internet ,and bluetooth connections.
Also of limited utility, automatic distrortion correction of my perfectly distortionless Leitz, Nikon and Zeiss lenses. No EXIF- recording of aperture&c (which I would never have looked at) since the lenses are manual and chipless (apart from the Leitz less functional Rom-chip)..
In adittion, , not only unused, but missing, GPS- reminding me where I have been, in case I had left the map at home and had a severe case of dementia, also missing is 20 frames per second capability in case I would like to imitate muybridge and 8K videorecording. All this is conspicuously lacking even if I will never use it. My ancient Bolexes, Bealieus and Leicinas have rested in their drawers ever sice Kodachrome 2x8 and S-8 disappeared
I do without autofocus that get sharp tree twigs far in front of or behind the subject , so for film I still use the "obsolete" Leica R8 and its manual lenses.
I remain rewarded with unfocussed and malexposed snaps from when subjects complain about me focussing and fiddling with exposure controls and not taking the time to spotmeter thoroughly. Luckily, buildings and landscapes are patient.
Another outmoded device, one of my ancient Werras has only been excercized to judge its tessar and the Flektogon.
Recently I also recorded the local climate demos with a Voigtländer Prominent II dating from right before the first climate change worries were published (if you do not count professor Arrhenius over a hundred yesrs ago), both with Ilford XP with satisfactory results.
I have not yet excerzied my first edition ( narrow mount) Practica . While my complete series of Alpas remain safely stored, but in the past they were my usual very reliable picture taking devices.
The useless and expensive frills of the current camera crop can be dipensed with, as can the dim focussing screens and potentially unreliable and in the future unobtainable intyegrated cirquits in electronics that stabilized lenses, sensors and fancy exposure systems and autofocus requires.
Facing large bills when developing films once I gave up doing it myself, I have found that .Digital evices have a large economic advantage in use, – assuming that - time, - computers,- their software, -ots of storage and backup plus a 4k monitor comes free of charge
. My otherwise quite good MFT Olympus pen F is a kind of obsolesent machine in the sense that I am about to replace it because the Pen Fs center focussing enlargement and spot metering point keeps moving erratically when held firmly and using superglue to dissable the culpable button will make it impossible to set the stabilization.
The replacement ? A Nikon Z7, which is definitely full of expensive and unnecesary junk « features», but where the focus and meterfing point stay put.
-
The D800 is my newest camera. Then a D3S, then a D2X. Honestly, I could take the same photo with all three and couldn't easily be able to tell which photo was taken with which. The only give away would be DOF with the D2X depending on what aperture I shot at. The only advantage I see with the newest cameras vs the D3 era is shadow recovery. And it's not a deal breaker. I could give up my D800 and never miss it.
-
My soon to be obsolete Nikon D850 blows away my D800: metering, AF, viewfinder, etc. I really like loosing the AA filter and I don't have to use Color Moiré Reduction in post which I frequently need with the D800. I think loss of color moiré is due to the higher resolution of the D850 image sensor, 45MP v. 36MP. I'm sure I read this regarding moiré.
Long time D850 owners know what I've just learned in the last week.
Dave
-
Over Christmas I used Iford XP-2 in an obsolescent RetinaIIc (xenon 2,8) plus in a Praktica (Flektogon 20\2,8 & pancolar 80/1,8 plus the M43 optics plus a uselessly touch-screen focussing old Leica digital with jupiter 5071,5 and a leitz 35-70/4 and a zeiss 50/1,4 on my new z7. Apart from the nikon being far easier to focus (when the notoriously mobile the focus point stayed put), all the obsolescent stuff performed well when properly focussed.. Now that I have an M to Z adapter my obsolescent old M optics will be put to use. Unforunately I no langer have my SP, so none of that very small and handy equipment.
Conclusion: obsolescent stuff can be quite useful.
p.
-
The Fuji Finepix S2 Pro is a very obsolete camera. ;)
It contains two sets of batteries. 4 AA's and two CR123a. Furthermore the menu's are a bit weird, and the body feels 'plasticy' but is comfortable in the hand.
It takes only the chipped Nikon lenses, and will not meter manual lenses (as the S5 does)
The output needs to be valuated but the S2 does not have the same Dynamic range as the S3 and S5. The highlight recovery is not present. And the camera is very very slow.
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9746.0;attach=47289;image)
-
Nearly mint. (also posted in January 2021). The lens is the Nikkor AF-S 50/1.4
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=9784.0;attach=47360;image)
-
I have an old friend who loved that camera, despite its slowness and other quirks. He even enthusiastically described the "tractor lines" issue of the RAF files and how to solve the problem.
I briefly used the S2 and only remember how slow it was in operation. The build was reminding of a D100? I got the S3Pro (in the special UV/IR model) later and camera still was slow, but much quicker than the S2. The S5 I'm using on occasion now is almost a sprinter ace in comparison to those earlier siblings!!
-
I'm still using two D800 bodies and liking it. Favored lenses include the 70-200 FL; 28/1.8; 24/2.8 (! talking of old stuff); 60 2.8 AF-S macro; 300 PF, occasionally accompanied by a 1.4 converter; and 70-300 AF-P (thanks Nikon for upgrading the firmware on the D800 to work with this four years after the camera was discontinued).
What I'd like to have that the D800 doesn't have?
On-sensor PDAF......
A bigger buffer......
wider coverage of cross-type AF sensors.....
A quieter shutter......
A better designed hand grip......
A viewfinder and/or (preferably "and") Liveview/EVF that makes manual focusing "pop" a bit more.....
What most new cameras do not have that the D800 has?
Near-instant response to the shutter release. The lag time on the D800 is incredible, up there with the D5 and the best all-mechanical film cameras. I believe it has tested around 40 milliseconds. The D810 and series I z-bodies are noticeably slower. Even the D850 might be a hair behind. I've not tried a series II Z body.
What you notice missing from my wishlist?
Basically sensor performance; it's already so good that anything extra is just gravy. Or an excuse to do any kind of mass-production or non-critical job with a smaller file size in some way. The D800 is what finally weaned me off film for good.
Essentially the D800 is the digital F100 that I wanted. I am hoping, though, that the D850 has a DSLR successor in the pipeline, and that it addresses the on-sensor PDAF. I was quite surprised that on-sensor PDAF was missing from the D850 to be honest, even though the D850 checks all the other boxes on my wish list, and because of that, I decided to stick with the D800 for a while longer.
-
I have an old friend who loved that camera, despite its slowness and other quirks. He even enthusiastically described the "tractor lines" issue of the RAF files and how to solve the problem.
I briefly used the S2 and only remember how slow it was in operation. The build was reminding of a D100? I got the S3Pro (in the special UV/IR model) later and camera still was slow, but much quicker than the S2. The S5 I'm using on occasion now is almost a sprinter ace in comparison to those earlier siblings!!
The S5 is super fast indeed haha.
The S2 is especially very slow when you select the Tiff option with larger files (more than 40Mb). It takes more than a minute to write the image, and what is more frustrating, also more than a minute before the camera can read the image in display :) The write operation time of Raws (12mb) is not bad compared to the Tiff one.
-
Those old Fuji Finepix are't just obsolete, they seem prehistoric, compared to Fuji present offerings ,et al. My Df is comparatively space age futuristic! Well worth waiting for.
-
I briefly used the S2 and only remember how slow it was in operation.
I still have mine, and take it out every now and then - it really is like something out of the ark... Tediously slow, tiny screen and microdrives! Mine also creaks, as it was based on a plasticky body, which always used to annoy me. The D200 that replaced it was a completely different kettle of fish ;-)
-
It's all about image-quality in the end ... ;)
Not too bad with the S2 (50 1.4 ISO 100 and 1/15th)
(https://nikongear.net/revival/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1610.0;attach=47302;image)
-
I still have mine, and take it out every now and then - it really is like something out of the ark... Tediously slow, tiny screen and microdrives! Mine also creaks, as it was based on a plasticky body, which always used to annoy me. The D200 that replaced it was a completely different kettle of fish ;-)
The Body of the Fuji S2 was based on the Nikon F or N80.
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Nikon_F80_(N80) (http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Nikon_F80_(N80))
-
Considering obsolete = archived in Nikon USA speak, then
D810 is actually my main camera and do not consider parting with it (even if I have the D850)
Fuji S5 pro for a slower more contemplating shooting style where highlights recovery and vibrant colour are desired.
-
With this new kid Z Fc on he block, I guess many of us are going to be using an obsolete camera with its museum-like mechanical controls again. Some of us never quit. Blessed be the Nikon F, blessed be the Nikon df. Bring on the not yet born Nikon full frame Z df.
-
Considering obsolete = archived in Nikon USA speak, then
D810 is actually my main camera and do not consider parting with it (even if I have the D850)
Fuji S5 pro for a slower more contemplating shooting style where highlights recovery and vibrant colour are desired.
I'm trying to understand why you would use the Fuji S5 Pro where highlight recovery is needed. I would think the D810 has several stops more dynamic range so the need for highlight recovery would be reduced...
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20FinePix%20S5Pro,Nikon%20D810
While shooting with my D850 I set the Picture Control in camera to Auto. Then in Nikon Capture NX-D I set the picture control to Standard, Neutral and finally Flat progressively to reveal highlights. I believe other software has similar development presets so this method is not unique to Nikon software.
Perhaps if you started with a lower contrast RAW development preset you would find highlight recovery much easier with your D810 NEF files. Once diffused highlights are secured increasing color vibrance should be easy. If I'm reading the graph correctly at the link provided the D810 has more than 2.5 stops of additional dynamic range compared to the S5 Pro.
Dave
-
Looking purely at DR indeed there should be little reason to use something on top of D810.
What I cannot explain (due to my lack of knowledge) is that when I shoot, e.g. yellow flowers with my D810 vs the S5 (using an ETTR approach) I find that I can recover much more to my liking a nice saturated yellow with the S5 vs the D810.
Not sure if it has to do with the way channels are saturated or a film like shoulder on the S5 or something else.
On the other hand it could simply be me trying to rationalize why I keep another camera around :)
-
Looking purely at DR indeed there should be little reason to use something on top of D810.
Regarding the Z7 II and possibly the Z7 and D850...
[This looks like an important quote I left out...
"As we mentioned, the Z7 II's sensor is essentially the same as its predecessor; it uses a dual-gain design to minimize read noise above ISO 320, so that high ISO settings have lower visual noise." --DPReview]
"This also means that you can save four stops of highlight detail by shooting at ISO 400 instead of ISO 6400, with the same exposure settings, and brighten selectively – while protecting highlights – in post. You'll pay little to no extra image noise cost in doing so." --DPReview
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z7-ii-review
So I'm wondering what this means and need to do some experimenting.
Here is a link showing DR v. ISO of the D810 and Z7 II...
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D300S,Nikon%20D810,Nikon%20Z%207II
...notice that the Z7 II jumps ahead in DR at ISO 400. any ideas?
Dave