Do you still use an "obsolete" camera?

[Hermann]

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.

[Hermann]

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

[Frank Fremerey]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[Frank Fremerey]

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 ;-)

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Katzeye, alas, is out of business.

[Frank Fremerey]

Yes I know. But with my bad eyes even I can easily focus
manually on the D500 VF. Times are a changing ...

[ArendV]

Ricoh GRD III, nice close-up possibilities with 6mm @f/1.9


Lily of the Nile 4 by Arend, on Flickr

[Alaun]

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):

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Excellently obsolete .... Who cares?

[John Geerts]

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.

[Akira]

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

[Asle F]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[John Geerts]

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