Using older digital cameras

stevbike · 07-07-2011, 09:35 AM

I am just posting to see if people on this forum are still using older digital cameras or not. About two years ago, I bought am old Sony Mavica camera and find I like to use it every once in a while. I like the look of the lo res pictures. It is nice to see something other then high tech images created by the newer cameras that are out now. I get a kick out of seeing a old floppy disk being used the recording medium. I also make use of my old Fuji MX700 as well. It is nice to compare just how far we have come in some ways. It is nice to see how a camera can be used a a paint brush of sorts. You can use different camera types to gain different looks if you are into this at all.

K-9 · 07-07-2011, 09:46 AM

To me, those early digital cameras were so bad, even the cheapest 35mm throw away film cameras could get better results.

eddie1960 · 07-07-2011, 10:25 AM

the oldest i have now is either my ds or my oly e 300 both of which are light years ahead of the really old stuff. If i want to go old i revert to film

**ChrisPlatt** · 07-07-2011, 10:25 AM

My biggest criticisms of digital cameras is their complexity of operation and lack of control standardization.
Manufacturers who should know better from previous experience making film cameras still haven't learned.

Some early digital cameras were considerably simpler in operation than todays models.
Too bad the image quality (i.e. resolution) was so poor...

Chris

Nesster · 07-07-2011, 10:43 AM

The only reason I don't use the oldest of the old: batteries. The battery life is horrendous and even a new battery (expensive) doesn't have good life. This would be a Minolta p&s and a Canon p&s.

I however still use my two Fuji F-10's, introduced in 2005.

**MJL** · 07-07-2011, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by stevbike

I am just posting to see if people on this forum are still using older digital cameras or not. About two years ago, I bought am old Sony Mavica camera and find I like to use it every once in a while. I like the look of the lo res pictures. It is nice to see something other then high tech images created by the newer cameras that are out now. I get a kick out of seeing a old floppy disk being used the recording medium. I also make use of my old Fuji MX700 as well. It is nice to compare just how far we have come in some ways. It is nice to see how a camera can be used a a paint brush of sorts. You can use different camera types to gain different looks if you are into this at all.

My first digital camera was a 5-MP Sony DSC-F707 with Zeiss 9.7-48.5mm lens in 2000. The whole outfit with Wide Angle Converter & hood cost me more than a K5 + DA15! It went through few major surgeries but is still good enough for some of my publication works. People are often amazed by the "mere" 5MP image quality. The only drawback is its' response time - focus, flash, review etc. and limited ISO (400 max) and White Balance (4).

eddie1960 · 07-07-2011, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by MJL

My first digital camera was a 5-MP Sony DSC-F707 with Zeiss 9.7-48.5mm lens in 2000. The whole outfit with Wide Angle Converter & hood cost me more than a K5 + DA15! It went through few major surgeries but is still good enough for some of my publication works. People are often amazed by the "mere" 5MP image quality. The only drawback is its' response time - focus, flash, review etc. and limited ISO (400 max) and White Balance (4).

that was a good camera for the time frame (I sold a lot of those) they kept that design (with upgraded sensors etc) for quite a while
it's not like there were a ton of DSLR to look at then (and what existed was crazy expensive)

redrockcoulee · 07-07-2011, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by MJL

My first digital camera was a 5-MP Sony DSC-F707 with Zeiss 9.7-48.5mm lens in 2000. The whole outfit with Wide Angle Converter & hood cost me more than a K5 + DA15! It went through few major surgeries but is still good enough for some of my publication works. People are often amazed by the "mere" 5MP image quality. The only drawback is its' response time - focus, flash, review etc. and limited ISO (400 max) and White Balance (4).

That is the camera I still use at work most of the time. I inherieted it from my predessor and the biggest drawback I find with it is the actual size of it, much too large to be convient, if I wanted a large camera I would use the D200.

By the way I never use the full resolution as it is way too much for my purposes, which is mainly emailing (and we have a small max size of emails) or putting into a database. They say garbage in garbage out and some times that is exactly what I do shoot, garbage, mostly garbage not put in the correct place.

thazooo · 07-07-2011, 11:34 AM

My 1st. Digi and still use it today, HP C315. 2MP and circa 2000. Best part it has a viewfinder so I don't have to hold it at arms length :-) I leave it in Idiot Mode and get fine 4x6 prints. For the price I paid for it in 2000 you can buy a used K20D now.

RioRico · 07-07-2011, 02:42 PM

My first digicam was the 2000-era 1.1mpx Sony DSC-P20 with a fixed 6/4.5 lens (FF FOV equiv= 42mm). It still works. I still use it, although it devours AA rechargeables. A splendid camera suitable for many uses: Tape a square mask around the lens and it becomes Holga-ish. Set it to TWILIGHT for a slow exposure , then toss it into the air for artsy swirls. (Be sure to catch it, or make sure it lands someplace soft!) Set it to B&W for nice grayscale, or shoot in TEXT mode for litho-like 2-bit color -- all black or all white, nothing else. It has big fat juicy pixels -- density is ~6 mpx/cm2 vs ~4 for the K20D and >40 for most modern P&S's -- so there's about zero noise at ISO 100. Or set it to SOLARIZE for LOTS of noise and jaggies.

My next, and still the champ, is the 2002-era 5mpx Sony DSC-V1. I am on my third copy, having worn out (ie broken) the first two. The first cost more in 2003 than a new Kr kit today! But with its NightShot (infrared), 4x Zeiss optics (7-28/2.8-4, equiv= 34-136mm), full exposure control, and Leica-like feel, it's still always in my pocket. Pixel density is ~14 mpx/cm2 and it's noisy above ISO 100, QUITE noisy in NightShot (ISO ~2500), but that just lends drama, eh? No TEXT nor B&W moes but it's a great workhorse. All it needs are RAW output and less noise.

**boriscleto** · 07-07-2011, 03:12 PM

My first Digicam was an Epson PhotoPC that I bought used in 1999. 1MB of memory allowed it to store all of 16 640x480 pics. Fixed focus 35mm equivalent lens and no LCD. My avatar was taken with that camera. Keep in mind that this thing is bigger than my K-x and weighs as much as the K-x without a lens.

That was replaced with a 1.3MP Polaroid about a year later. That camera saw almost no use. There was no Mac driver and the Window$ driver only worked with Win98 or earlier.

I didn't really get into digital photography until 2002 when I bought a Kodak DX3600. I used that until it died in 2006. That led to two Panasonic bridge cameras. I still keep the FZ-5 in the car.

JeffJS · 07-07-2011, 03:25 PM

I still use my Fuji DS300 once in awhile.

There ain't no 'chimping' with this camera...

My First - a set on Flickr

Blue · 07-07-2011, 07:40 PM

Does a *istD count.

cscurrier · 07-07-2011, 08:13 PM

My first, and technically only(I tend to steal my friends' cameras when I need digital), DSLR is an Olympus C-2500L. Still have it, still works. I occasionally use it for some "macro" photos, which I always enjoyed from this camera, along with the desaturated colors. It's a 2.5 MP fixed lens camera, 9.2-28mm with only two aperture choices, 2.8 and 3.9 (I believe...?)

I always figured I'd keep it for the day I have kids and they grow up, I can hand it over and say, "look at this ol' dinosaur." I've had it for about 8 years now... and I think the biggest accomplishment by Olympus is that the AA rechargeable batteries that came with it, I've continued to use those bad boys throughout all 8 years in various devices, and they still work today. I just used them in my friend's istDL last week for a solid 5 hour shoot!

cscurrier · 07-07-2011, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Blue

Does a *istD count.

And yes... I think it does... I think.

07-07-2011, 09:35 AM	#1
stevbike Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Newbury, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 268	Using older digital cameras I am just posting to see if people on this forum are still using older digital cameras or not. About two years ago, I bought am old Sony Mavica camera and find I like to use it every once in a while. I like the look of the lo res pictures. It is nice to see something other then high tech images created by the newer cameras that are out now. I get a kick out of seeing a old floppy disk being used the recording medium. I also make use of my old Fuji MX700 as well. It is nice to compare just how far we have come in some ways. It is nice to see how a camera can be used a a paint brush of sorts. You can use different camera types to gain different looks if you are into this at all.

07-07-2011, 10:52 AM	#6
MJL Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: The Canadian WetCoast Photos: Albums Posts: 384	How about a Sony from 2000? Originally posted by stevbike I am just posting to see if people on this forum are still using older digital cameras or not. About two years ago, I bought am old Sony Mavica camera and find I like to use it every once in a while. I like the look of the lo res pictures. It is nice to see something other then high tech images created by the newer cameras that are out now. I get a kick out of seeing a old floppy disk being used the recording medium. I also make use of my old Fuji MX700 as well. It is nice to compare just how far we have come in some ways. It is nice to see how a camera can be used a a paint brush of sorts. You can use different camera types to gain different looks if you are into this at all. My first digital camera was a 5-MP Sony DSC-F707 with Zeiss 9.7-48.5mm lens in 2000. The whole outfit with Wide Angle Converter & hood cost me more than a K5 + DA15! It went through few major surgeries but is still good enough for some of my publication works. People are often amazed by the "mere" 5MP image quality. The only drawback is its' response time - focus, flash, review etc. and limited ISO (400 max) and White Balance (4). Last edited by MJL; 07-07-2011 at 10:59 AM.

07-07-2011, 03:12 PM	#11
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	My first Digicam was an Epson PhotoPC that I bought used in 1999. 1MB of memory allowed it to store all of 16 640x480 pics. Fixed focus 35mm equivalent lens and no LCD. My avatar was taken with that camera. Keep in mind that this thing is bigger than my K-x and weighs as much as the K-x without a lens. That was replaced with a 1.3MP Polaroid about a year later. That camera saw almost no use. There was no Mac driver and the Window$ driver only worked with Win98 or earlier. I didn't really get into digital photography until 2002 when I bought a Kodak DX3600. I used that until it died in 2006. That led to two Panasonic bridge cameras. I still keep the FZ-5 in the car. Last edited by boriscleto; 07-07-2011 at 03:21 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Older vintage camera straps on newer Digital SLR?	Abstract	Pentax Camera and Field Accessories	13	01-10-2011 05:39 PM
Digital Back For Film Cameras	nanhi	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	33	07-19-2010 12:55 PM
3D Stereoscopic Digital Cameras	MrPetkus	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	2	05-28-2010 05:49 AM
digital cameras with old flashes	cyberjunkie	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	03-06-2010 12:26 AM
why are there no digital backs for 35mm cameras?	Egg Salad	General Talk	56	02-05-2010 05:40 PM

07-07-2011, 09:46 AM	#2
K-9 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: USA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,971	To me, those early digital cameras were so bad, even the cheapest 35mm throw away film cameras could get better results.

07-07-2011, 10:25 AM	#3
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	the oldest i have now is either my ds or my oly e 300 both of which are light years ahead of the really old stuff. If i want to go old i revert to film

07-07-2011, 10:25 AM	#4
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,692	My biggest criticisms of digital cameras is their complexity of operation and lack of control standardization. Manufacturers who should know better from previous experience making film cameras still haven't learned. Some early digital cameras were considerably simpler in operation than todays models. Too bad the image quality (i.e. resolution) was so poor... Chris

07-07-2011, 10:43 AM	#5
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	The only reason I don't use the oldest of the old: batteries. The battery life is horrendous and even a new battery (expensive) doesn't have good life. This would be a Minolta p&s and a Canon p&s. I however still use my two Fuji F-10's, introduced in 2005.

07-07-2011, 11:12 AM	#7
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by MJL My first digital camera was a 5-MP Sony DSC-F707 with Zeiss 9.7-48.5mm lens in 2000. The whole outfit with Wide Angle Converter & hood cost me more than a K5 + DA15! It went through few major surgeries but is still good enough for some of my publication works. People are often amazed by the "mere" 5MP image quality. The only drawback is its' response time - focus, flash, review etc. and limited ISO (400 max) and White Balance (4). that was a good camera for the time frame (I sold a lot of those) they kept that design (with upgraded sensors etc) for quite a while it's not like there were a ton of DSLR to look at then (and what existed was crazy expensive)

07-07-2011, 11:18 AM	#8
redrockcoulee Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Medicine Hat Posts: 2,306	Originally posted by MJL My first digital camera was a 5-MP Sony DSC-F707 with Zeiss 9.7-48.5mm lens in 2000. The whole outfit with Wide Angle Converter & hood cost me more than a K5 + DA15! It went through few major surgeries but is still good enough for some of my publication works. People are often amazed by the "mere" 5MP image quality. The only drawback is its' response time - focus, flash, review etc. and limited ISO (400 max) and White Balance (4). That is the camera I still use at work most of the time. I inherieted it from my predessor and the biggest drawback I find with it is the actual size of it, much too large to be convient, if I wanted a large camera I would use the D200. By the way I never use the full resolution as it is way too much for my purposes, which is mainly emailing (and we have a small max size of emails) or putting into a database. They say garbage in garbage out and some times that is exactly what I do shoot, garbage, mostly garbage not put in the correct place.

07-07-2011, 11:34 AM	#9
thazooo Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Mississippi, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 854	My 1st. Digi and still use it today, HP C315. 2MP and circa 2000. Best part it has a viewfinder so I don't have to hold it at arms length :-) I leave it in Idiot Mode and get fine 4x6 prints. For the price I paid for it in 2000 you can buy a used K20D now.

07-07-2011, 02:42 PM	#10
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	My first digicam was the 2000-era 1.1mpx Sony DSC-P20 with a fixed 6/4.5 lens (FF FOV equiv= 42mm). It still works. I still use it, although it devours AA rechargeables. A splendid camera suitable for many uses: Tape a square mask around the lens and it becomes Holga-ish. Set it to TWILIGHT for a slow exposure , then toss it into the air for artsy swirls. (Be sure to catch it, or make sure it lands someplace soft!) Set it to B&W for nice grayscale, or shoot in TEXT mode for litho-like 2-bit color -- all black or all white, nothing else. It has big fat juicy pixels -- density is ~6 mpx/cm2 vs ~4 for the K20D and >40 for most modern P&S's -- so there's about zero noise at ISO 100. Or set it to SOLARIZE for LOTS of noise and jaggies. My next, and still the champ, is the 2002-era 5mpx Sony DSC-V1. I am on my third copy, having worn out (ie broken) the first two. The first cost more in 2003 than a new Kr kit today! But with its NightShot (infrared), 4x Zeiss optics (7-28/2.8-4, equiv= 34-136mm), full exposure control, and Leica-like feel, it's still always in my pocket. Pixel density is ~14 mpx/cm2 and it's noisy above ISO 100, QUITE noisy in NightShot (ISO ~2500), but that just lends drama, eh? No TEXT nor B&W moes but it's a great workhorse. All it needs are RAW output and less noise.

07-07-2011, 03:25 PM	#12
JeffJS Inactive Account Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Michigan, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,484	I still use my Fuji DS300 once in awhile. There ain't no 'chimping' with this camera... My First - a set on Flickr

07-07-2011, 07:40 PM	#13
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Does a *istD count.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-07-2011, 08:13 PM	#14
cscurrier Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Bellingham, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 280	My first, and technically only(I tend to steal my friends' cameras when I need digital), DSLR is an Olympus C-2500L. Still have it, still works. I occasionally use it for some "macro" photos, which I always enjoyed from this camera, along with the desaturated colors. It's a 2.5 MP fixed lens camera, 9.2-28mm with only two aperture choices, 2.8 and 3.9 (I believe...?) I always figured I'd keep it for the day I have kids and they grow up, I can hand it over and say, "look at this ol' dinosaur." I've had it for about 8 years now... and I think the biggest accomplishment by Olympus is that the AA rechargeable batteries that came with it, I've continued to use those bad boys throughout all 8 years in various devices, and they still work today. I just used them in my friend's istDL last week for a solid 5 hour shoot!

07-07-2011, 08:15 PM	#15
cscurrier Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Bellingham, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 280	Originally posted by Blue Does a *istD count. And yes... I think it does... I think.