Are you still using old technology to take digital pictures?

<p>Seems most posts are about newer cameras and newer technology. Just wondering how many of you are using older Nikon dSLR's? I'm still using my ancient D2H and D2X. I occasionally borrow my wife's D300s but always go back to my D2X. What camera are Photo.net users using?</p>

<p>This is probably best answered by looking at the range of cameras used to take the "Nikon Wednesday" pictures. Most contributers say which camera, lens etc. has been used.</p>

<p>d700 is a working camera, less frequently and when technically possible - d100 and d200 (due to their pleasing colour rendition at low iso). and there are also the f5 and the fm2, but that's personal :)</p>

<p>I'm still using my D300 with the Nikon battery grip and I love the camera. I'd go broke keeping up with buying the newest latest greatest every 18 months. I also recently picked up a mint F5. Beyond that I sometimes shoot with my 5 year old Leica M8.</p>

<p>Older, CCD technology has color renditions that some on other forums rather prefer. For example, older and now-discontinued Fuji DSLR bodies with Nikon lenses have a cult following.</p>

<p>I still use my IR converted D50 and D90. I donated my 'old' D80 to my partner for book 'scanning'.</p>

<p>D300 for DX Action, aka sport at a distance.....and D700 for FX Horse Eventing etc.<br>

D3200 for small walkaround. D5100 for nature and architecture. V1 for pocket use.</p>

<p>I would say use whatever camera (and lens, film, digital sensor ...) that gets you the images you desire. To me, those are merely tools that help me create (hopefully) good images. If an 8x10 view camera with sheet film is the best tool for you, so be it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm still using my ancient D2H and D2X. I occasionally borrow my wife's D300s but always go back to my D2X.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder why. I still own a D2X, but it gets in the way in all sorts of directions in my photography. That is why I haven't used it in a few years. I explained my reasoning back in 2009 and I reposted that a few days ago: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00bHVE</p>

Howard, I find your response regarding older Fuji bodies and Nikkor lenses interesting. Would you be kind enough to

explain in a bit more detail. and if you are aware of websites that would explain more please advise as well.

 

Thank you,

 

Doug

<p>About 10 years ago, Fuji had this Super CCD technology that has two sensors per photosite (per pixel), thus those Fuji DSLRs had excellent dynamic range at that time. For example, wedding photographers who need to capture the groom in black and the bride in white next to each other greatly benefit by high dynamic range. But that technology was superseded by the likes of Nikon D3, D700, etc. 5, 6 years ago.</p>

<p>My cameras are fairly new, but I sometimes use lenses from the 19th century.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I own a D100, D7000 and D600. However, last summer I purposely carried a D100 (and an older zoom) w/me on a trip to San Diego. While there I was able to capture dozens of 'printable' shots. Several are among my all-time favorites. Even though the D100 is not the equal to the newer bodies, I was very satisfied with the results. The camera is just a tool. </p>

<p><a href="http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2013/01/moving-through-space-and-time.html">Kirk Tuck</a>:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>I would have saved an enormous amount of time and money with no real impact on the quality of my images if I had just kept the original Nikon D2X that I worked with back in 2006 and the collection of lenses I had at that time. I've worked with a number of cameras since then, most with higher megapixel counts and supposedly better performance but my style of shooting followed a different path than what the designers of the newer cameras seemed to envision.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>My main camera is a D200. A friend recently gave me a D3100 that his work bought him for a project and then scrapped, letting him keep the camera, and since his digital system revolves around a Pentax K-5 with associated lenses, he has no use for it and gave it to me on indefinite loan. I shoot both cameras in RAW, and while the D200 is just as good at ISO 100, raising the ISO makes the D3100 quickly pull away, to the point that ISO 1600 on the D3100 looks better to me to ISO 400 on the D200. So, while I happily use a D200, I don't recommend that anyone buy into one. If you already have the gear, by all means use and enjoy it, but if you have the chance to choose which camera in which to invest your hard-earned money, definitely step up. You have to have a very compelling or niche reason to buy into something old. My D200 stays at home more and more these days, and my disappointments with the D3100 are relatively minor, although there are definite dealbreakers for me, but as an old college professor once loved to say, "Blessed are the flexible, for they shall never be bent out of shape." Overall, these digital cameras are tied to the semiconductor industry, and are obsoleted at a similar pace to other processor-driven items like computers. I could just as easily use a laptop from 2003 and then parade it around showing how well it allows me to write responses here on photo.net, but I'd be deluding myself to think that it was anything but obsolete, and that a newer computer would serve me a lot better with a lot less hassle.</p>

<p>I'm not convinced that a CCD vs CMOS produces a different color rendition, as from my understanding, they are just monochrome detectors with RGB arrays placed in front. I don't see a technical reason that anything physical would provide color differences between the two technologies.</p>

<p>And like Kent, I use relatively old lenses sometimes. I have a 24mm f/2.8 Ai, 55mm f/3.5 PC-micro (non-Ai, but I have an extension tube that's Ai, so I can use it for macro as long as it's larger magnification than 1:2), 135mm f/3.5, Tamron Adaptall 180mm Anniversary and 90mm, etc. I haven't used my old F body with them in a long long time, but they are pretty fun on digital.</p>

<p>Sam, just curious....but <em>why</em> did you take the D100 to San Diego? I assume you purchased the D7000 because it is a more <strong><em>capable</em></strong> tool? </p>

<p>If you'd taken the D7000, would you not have had <em><strong>more</strong></em> 'printable' shots? </p>

<p>However,if you were going to do some night photography in some more 'colorful' part of town, I'd risk the D100 too!</p>

<p>Given 2 minutes, I can make your D7000's images exhibit all the faults/limitations inherent with the D100's 2002 technology.... the other way round is not going to happen....ever.</p>

I carry a small bag with a D100, an N90

and two lenses everywhere. Two

reasons for this. Both provide very

good results for what I ask of them and

if they are lost or stolen I'm not out

much money. There are some things I

really like about the D200 and I keep 2

for most paying gigs. I've skipped the

next generation as there's been no

compelling reason to upgrade. Believe

it or not I still enjoy the D1x for a lot of

things. For film it's mostly F2 and F4s. I

have plenty of good, mostly older

Nikon glass.

 

Rick H.

<p>Digital cameras are becoming more and more like computers it seems. As soon as you take it out of the box, someone has made a "better" one. Of course, "better" is a very relative term. The fact that a camera is older does not mean it is not still capable of producing outstanding images. I still shoot my "dinosaur" 35mm and 120 film cameras about 75% of the time for my personal stuff. I guess it is that 'old dog, new tricks' thing. Of course your mileage may vary, but personally I really think people today get <em>way</em> too wrapped around the axle with megapixels and all the rest of that techie stuff and forget that the camera, be it the latest flavor of the month digital camera or a <em>Quaker Oats pinhole camera</em>, is in its most basic form, nothing more than a <em>recording device</em>. It is what the photographer does with that recording device that makes the image memorable. I have seen some really beautiful images made with a point and shoot camera and some really awful images made with the latest digital cameras.</p>

<p>Why do just think about DSLR? Some of us are still using the old technology to take pictures on film!<br /> I also use my F100 (film camera!), Mamiya RB67, even Zeiss Ikon Nettar (cca 1930), Hasselblad x-Pan, Horizon, all these are film cameras - besides my D300s.<br /> The uploaded picture was made with the F100 and Ai-S Nikkor 400mm f/3.5, I just don't remember the film, probably the Fuji Sensia 100.<br>

When I think about he costs of a new camera, a new compter, new software etc. I may look like the bird in the photo ;)</p><div></div>

<p>It's a MANUAL focus, not manula, stupid me...<br>

I just can't correct the caption, excuse me.</p><div></div>

<p>Not my day today... Just read the caption... Sorry.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is what the photographer does with that recording device that makes the image memorable.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's OK as an idea, but not all <em>recording devices</em> are created equal.</p>

<p>Not sure the Moon landings would have been quite so 'memorable' with a Quaker Oats Camera...:-)</p>

<p>You could argue the sheer awful quality of the 'video' of the guys on the Moon was what made it 'memorable'.... but there's no denying it would look a damn site better today. It's a point of perspective that can slide into Luddism unless tempered with reasoned thought.</p>

<p>If you need the new camera abilities, that's just fine. But if your personal <em>style</em> wouldn't benefit from them, that's just fine too. Each to their own.</p>

<p>Technological nostalgia isn't what it used to be.........!</p>

<p>Like a lot of people here I am awaiting the next generation DX body, if it ever comes. I presently shoot mainly with a d7000 but also do a lot of work with my old d300 with a battery grip. I still love those cameras dearly. A am also becoming more impressed with the iPhone 5.<br>

As for lenses I use a 50mm 1.4 prime and a 17-55 2.8.<br>

-O</p>

<p>As a hobbyist, I find old kit good enough unless shooting in bad light and for that I have a D5100. For everything else there's D2H (cool small files and best ergonomics) and lately D200(better resolution to ergonomics compromise).</p>

<p>Still using my D200. As a landscape photographer I'm primarily using it at ISO 100 and its great. Occasionally I try my hand at wildlife photography which often requires an ISO of 400 or higher. This is when the D200 IQ really starts to suffer. Like so many others, I'm looking forward to a D400.</p>

<p>I'm still using D70s. Currently waiting for D7000 replacement or D300 replacement. If nothing shows soon will go with a D7000.<br>

Due to Nikon's quality control issues, will likely let early adopters find the problems before making final decision for an upgrade body.</p>

<p>For all important projects I use a combo of D600/D800 and I could not be happier. But recently I had an offer for a mint D70s with less than 4k actuations for about $100. I purchased it as a personal revenge that back in 2005 I was unable to afford it :) Sometimes when I'm relaxed I take this D70s out. Despite its limitations it is a tool that can offer good pictures. On a personal side I like very much its shape... it stays better in my hands than D600 even its smaller. During this past new year eve I used exclusively my D70s paired with a SB910 and I was excited to play with the flash up to 1/500s, killing completely the ambient light... Later on I shared with some of my guests the results and for them it was hard to believe that I used a so outdated camera.</p>

<p>Regarding OP's question... old technology means as well lenses. Well, I have about 10 MF Nikkors, some 30+ yrs old and I am a big fan of using old glass on the top-notch bodies. Among other 55mm f/1.2 AI and 105mm f/2.5 P AI'd (Sonnar design) are high in my top.</p>