100 Landmark Cameras

<blockquote>

<p>The D90. Who cares about video.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It changed the camera in what it could actually do - as such, the D90 is a landmark. The fact that most people here do not care is not significant (we're a niche audience); high-end cameras now simply can do more. It changes enough.<br>

<br /> I have no use for video either, and as a feature for me it ranks up there with Auto-HDR-multi-exposure-stitching-in-camera: stuff I ignore. But the point of a list as this one is not about what you or I like, find important or use - but what came out <em>first</em> (hence the D3, not the D700, for example - mass adoptation always follows if the idea is good enough), and changed the landposts. Some landmark products sold in very low quantities, yet they're the landmark: the first, the original implementation; the real pioneers.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>mass adoptation always follows if the idea is good enough</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Point taken, but that line of thinking would bump the Nikon D1 off the list in favour of the Kodak DCS.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The fact that used D700s sell for virtually the same price as new D600s suggests that video is not important to many of us, not even as important as build quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That price comparison is not even a fact to begin with.</p>

<p>Check KEH's D700 used prices. It varies from a high of $1599 to $1299: <a href="http://www.keh.com/search?store=camera&brand=Brand&category=Class&k=Nikon%20D700&s=1&bcode=Brand&ccode=Class&grade=Grade&sprice=0&eprice=0&r=SE&e">http://www.keh.com/search?store=camera&brand=Brand&category=Class&k=Nikon%20D700&s=1&bcode=Brand&ccode=Class&grade=Grade&sprice=0&eprice=0&r=SE&e</a><br>

Private transaction prices are lower than that range.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, a new D600 is $1996.95 at KEH:<br>

<a href="http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Digital-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-DN029991291110?r=FE">http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Digital-Camera-Bodies/1/sku-DN029991291110?r=FE</a><br>

Other mail order prices from trustworthy sources such as B&H, etc. are the same as KEH's.</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with the D600's build quality, which is essentially identical to that on the D7000 and D7100. They all have weather sealing and a partical metal frame. I used a D7000 for over two years (and still own it). I took it to the equator and tropics, used it in the rain a few times .... There are no problems.</p>

<p>The one weakness the D600 has is the AF module does not cover the FX frame as well as any other FX Nikon DSLR. And Nikon manages to keep the D600's price low by manufacturing it in Thailand. All other FX bodies are made in Japan and we are paying for the higher labor cost.</p>

<p>BTW, the first full-35mm-frame DSLR is neither the Canon 1DS (version 1) nor the Kodak DCS 14n, both of which were introduced at the Photokina in September, 2002 (again, the Photokina is held in even years only).</p>

<p>The first "full frame" DSLR was the Contax N, which was announced in year 2000 but suffered a lot of delays (read: disaster). It was finally available in the spring of 2002, so it still predates the Canon and Kodak. It was 6MP @ $8000, at a time when Canon, Fuji, and Nikon introduced 6MP, APS-C DSLRs at $2000 or so. Needless to say, the Contax N was a commercial disaster: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contax_N_Digital</p>

<p>Yes, the Vest Pocket Kodak was important. It folded super small, was very light (aluminum), took a big negative (4 x 6.5cm), and was the "contraband" soldier's camera of record during World War I. It was the first camera that let soldiers take their own pictures in the field, even if it was against the rules, and it was widely used.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That price comparison is not even a fact to begin with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Refurbed ones are less than $1599, so my comparison is not that far off.<br /> <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/915771-REF/nikon_25488b_d600_digital_camera_body.html">link</a></p>

<p>And Ebay has New D600s for just $100 more.</p>

<p>To this list I would add the Kodak 'Pocket Instamatic' that used the 110 film cartridge. For me that was the predecessor to the Blackberry I use today. Also, the Polaroid Swinger, because it was called 'Swinger'! I have only owned 7 of those on the list (four if you take into consideration I'm on my 3rd D700).</p>

<p>I tried to invite the list blogger to join our discussion but he is completely insulated from any approach. <br>

Part of his bio states, 'Known in some circles as the most amazing man in the universe'...<br>

I don't see how we can argue with those credentials.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I am a bit surprised that the D3 is not listed.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That was my first reaction, too, Shun. That was a major shift for Nikon users. The D700 and D3s were derivative products of this first foray into full-frame by Nikon. The low-light capabilities of those cameras also broke new ground as to what was possible.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Sony Mavica.<br><br>Some here seem to think that being able to shoot video with a stills camera was a landmark creating invention. Shows they don't know history and where stills digital originated. We have come full circle.<br>If we forget history (heard on the radio lately that vinyl sound recordings - the old record - were popular - knew that - because they give a much better sound then digital recordings and CDs. Clearly people who know the terrible noise that you had to cope with trying to listen to what was recorded on vinyl are few and far between. That, or most forgot about it), we're bound to go round in circles for ever and ever. And it has appears that we do: remove a feature, and sell that as something new everyone must have. Add that feature again later, and sell it as something new everyone must have.<br><br>Anyway: Sony Mavica.<br><br><br>There really aren't any landmark Nikons. the F, F2 and F3 in particular were quite good, and thus popular, cameras, but had nothing that would make them Landmark Cameras. And the rest of them is just that: the rest of them.

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Some here seem to think that being able to shoot video with a stills camera was a landmark creating invention. Shows they don't know history and where stills digital originated."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually the Sony Mavica is an analog system. It captures video stills and stores it on magnetic disc. Those cameras do not record continuous video. I know because I have two of them: MVC-5000 and MVC-C1. Below is my MVC-5000</p>

<p>Nevertheless I concur that the Sony Mavica is a landmark camera in a big way. <br>

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00R/00RUaK-88495584.jpg" alt="" width="620" height="412" /></p>

<p>The Sigma SD9 deserves an honorable mention if not an inclusion on the list. It's the first camera to incorporate the Foveon X3 sensor. </p>

Indeed, Michael, the Mavica wasn't yet digital. Shows how advanced the thing was.<br>The historical note, what apparently many don't (or no longer) know, is that 'digital photography' started life as 'still video'.<br>Video capture with present day digital cameras? No landmark moment. Back to the roots. It all began with picking a single frame from a video stream. Now series of single frames can be captured as video streams. What progress... stunning! ;-)

<p>Phil, I didn't mean to exclude all digital cameras, just digital Nikons, for the reason than none of them have really been innovative landmarks - well, maybe the D90. Kodak's DCS14 camera's I would include, but since they offered both Canon and Nikon versions, that wouldn't count as a true Nikon in my view. And the iPhone4? Really? As if there wasn't an entire generation of previous Windows Mobile and other smartphones/PDAs with built-in cameras. I think someone's been believing too much advertising hype.</p>

<p>I also take the view that although Contax may have been first to market with a full-frame digital camera, its low impact on the professional scene should count against it. A landmark camera should be game-changing, not sit on the sidelines awaiting substitution!</p>

<p>However, if we started right back with Niepce, Daguerre and Fox-Talbot, I suspect we'd very quickly have reached 100 very significant landmarks before we even got halfway through the C20th.</p>

<p>No Ermanox. No Spotmatic. A couple of redundant Leicas (keep the II and M3, cut the III and M4). Too many dSLRs. Only one AF film SLR (how about an EOS-1, or an F5 as the template for all subsequent Nikons?) and only one AF film compact (I'd be tempted to throw in a Yashica T4 or something). Swap the RTS-III for the original RTS. Swap the M9 for an M8 (warts and all). What's the Lubitel doing there?</p>

<p>As for the Mavica, here is a "late flash" on it from <em>Popular Photography</em>, October, 1981</p><div></div>

<p>The D3 and D800 are/were game changers. They belong on the list. Everything else is subjective.</p>

<p>I would have chosen the D70 over the D90. The D70 broke a price/performance barrier and gave many of us our first serious taste of digital capture.</p>

<p>What the D100 and D300 are doing on the list is anyone's guess. Snooze!</p>

<p>Phil-</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fact that used D700s sell for virtually the same price as new D600s suggests that video is not important to many of us, not even as important as build quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun-</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That price comparison is not even a fact to begin with.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Refurbed d600's are $1600 at the Nikon store and refurbed d700's are $2000. <a href="http://shop.nikonusa.com/store/nikonusa/en_US/list/ThemeID.27720500/categoryID.43896500">Link</a></p>

<p>Rodeo Joe<br /> Re: "I'll kick off with the 1932 Contax I as first camera to use a vertically-running metal focal plane shutter. Squeak, squeak!"<br /> It seems to me the first camera to use what we think of when we use the expression "vertically-running metal focal plane shutter" was the Konica F in 1960. This shutter reached 1/2000s and synched at 1/125, no mean feat for 1960. That shutter was metallic "structurally", whereas the Contax's shutter slats were activated by straps mounted on a drum. That mechanism was very similar to Leica-type shutters, just tilted 90 degrees. Just because it had metal slats mounted on the straps does not make it a "metal shutter" IMHO. <br /> Coming back to the list, I would include the Konica F. It was barely noticed when it came out and only some 1500 units were made, but its Hi-Synchro shutter laid the groundwork on which Copal developed (with financing from Konica and Mamiya) the Copal Square shutter. <br /> Just my 2c.</p>

<p>No F-3HP ? Please.</p>