Are you still using old technology to take digital pictures?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by mark_stephan|2, Jan 30, 2013.

  1. 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?
     
  2. 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.
     
  3. 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 :)
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. I still use my IR converted D50 and D90. I donated my 'old' D80 to my partner for book 'scanning'.
    D300 for DX Action, aka sport at a distance.....and D700 for FX Horse Eventing etc.
    D3200 for small walkaround. D5100 for nature and architecture. V1 for pocket use.
     
  7. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Moderator

    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.
    I'm still using my ancient D2H and D2X. I occasionally borrow my wife's D300s but always go back to my D2X.​
    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
     
  8. 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
     
  9. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Moderator

    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.
     
  10. My cameras are fairly new, but I sometimes use lenses from the 19th century.
    Kent in SD
     
  11. 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.
     
  12. Kirk Tuck:
    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.
     
  13. 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.
    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.
    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.
     
  14. Sam, just curious....but why did you take the D100 to San Diego? I assume you purchased the D7000 because it is a more capable tool?
    If you'd taken the D7000, would you not have had more 'printable' shots?
    However,if you were going to do some night photography in some more 'colorful' part of town, I'd risk the D100 too!
    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.
     
  15. 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.
     
  16. 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 way 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 Quaker Oats pinhole camera, is in its most basic form, nothing more than a recording device. 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.
     
  17. Why do just think about DSLR? Some of us are still using the old technology to take pictures on film!
    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.
    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.
    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 ;)
    00bIWj-517059584.jpg
     
  18. It's a MANUAL focus, not manula, stupid me...
    I just can't correct the caption, excuse me.
    00bIWo-517061584.jpg
     
  19. Not my day today... Just read the caption... Sorry.
     
  20. It is what the photographer does with that recording device that makes the image memorable.​
    That's OK as an idea, but not all recording devices are created equal.
    Not sure the Moon landings would have been quite so 'memorable' with a Quaker Oats Camera...:)
    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.
    If you need the new camera abilities, that's just fine. But if your personal style wouldn't benefit from them, that's just fine too. Each to their own.
    Technological nostalgia isn't what it used to be.........!
     
  21. 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.
    As for lenses I use a 50mm 1.4 prime and a 17-55 2.8.
    -O
     
  22. 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).
     
  23. 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.
     
  24. I'm still using D70s. Currently waiting for D7000 replacement or D300 replacement. If nothing shows soon will go with a D7000.
    Due to Nikon's quality control issues, will likely let early adopters find the problems before making final decision for an upgrade body.
     
  25. 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.
    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.
     
  26. I have my D70 that's IR converted. That should qualify.
    And I'm still using my D300 a lot.
    Lil
     
  27. Uhmm... I am still using a Nikon FM.
     
  28. So under ten years old is ancient now?!
     
  29. I find the term "old technology" a misnomer. I mean, there's nothing fundementally different in the older dslr's.
     
  30. Miha, I assume you meant mamal focus lens? It seems to work well, the mamal is in perfect focus ;-)
    ___
    While I can certainly appreciate the look that older gear can create (my most used lenses are all Ai/AiS of decent vintage), I do not find this is equally valid for digital cameras. Looking back at RAW files of my D50, it just really is lacking quite a bit in dynamic range. I am not into photo with huge dynamic range, but the D50 is the other end. Otherwise, a really nice camera, back when I bought it. But technology does march on, and not always for the worse.
    That's not knocking the D50, as said, a fine camera but after peeking down the viewfinder of my D80, I never really missed the D50.I liked the D80 (as one of the few, I managed OK with its matrix meter, I believe), but happily sold it off too. I really loved my D300, and I believe it is one of the finest DX cameras Nikon made. But the D700 feels just as right in my hand, and I like its output even better. Fact is, I liked them all because they did what I want, and did that well.
    They're all tools. And yes, regularly better tools come out on the market. But where a (useless!!) digital-versus-film discussion feels a bit like "CD-versus-Vinyl" (both having their own distinct pros and cons), I find old-digital versus new-digital a bit like "MP3-versus-CD". I have to think long and hard in which way the MP3 would yield me better quality and more pleasure, to come up blank.
    All this within the reasonable limitations of budget, handling and desired features, of course. But with that in mind, get the newest model you can afford. There is nothing sentimentally nice about the viewfinder of a D50 or the slow operation of a D100.
     
  31. Still enjoy the D2H that I bought AFTER my D700. Not because I didn't like the D700 (I do, very much), but out of curiosity. And I do like the 'look' of that sensor and definitely like the feel of the body and the mechanics. Fun to shoot and therefore much used. Small filesize makes PP a breeze too. I'm not a pro though and for the few paid gigs I do once in a while I take the D700.

    Funny, I feel my girlfriends V1 reminds me a lot of the D2H. Both critisized for their 'too small' sensor / 'too low MP', too 'bad hi-ISO'.... and both praised for their speed and responsiveness.
    Reason why I bought one for myself at the B&H close out superdeal :)
    00bIZU-517091584.jpg
     
  32. >>>Just wondering how many of you are using older Nikon dSLR's?<<< Do we have a figure yet?
     
  33. I sold the 6yr old bought D2h after 3yr ownership, didn't use it much, my main dSLR is a D70 since 2004 (new). I don't shoot high ISO and mostly I only print so big so I don't see much benefit in upgrading (even lenses just something that is decent esp the older primes), I'll do that when it doesn't work anymore. More recently I have shot more with my F100, my most enjoyable camera is a FM2N. The F100 is just a bit easier to use re: the meter and knowing ahead of myself (with its ruler) of the adjustment when I spot meter. I may use more of the FM2N once I get a handheld meter b/c my next camera is likely to be a Hasselblad 500 CM.
    I'm drawn to film and the mechanics b/c I'm more involved in the process from operating a more "mechanical" camera to the slower process of film, not just shooting slower but you are more involved with the store you bought the film and the lab you regularly use to have them developed. You anticipate for the results. It's like baking, you cannot taste and adjust the recipe. It may be more work than picking a loaf at the bakery or the supermarket but ... It's about the challenge and things fall into place. For color I prefer slide film b/c with digital or color neg film you still have to post process it and depending what software/hardware you have it may be different. While slides are the same and can be seen without any additional tools. The Hasselblad V is more of a vintage approach than the SLRs. There is also less online noise as you see with SLRs, brand X Y Z release product and user A B C voice theirs ... LOL.
    Re: dSLR, not sure what I get when the D70 breaks. Probably DX, have a few DX lenses lying around. My biggest regret was getting a 18-200 which over here mint ones are half price.
     
  34. From my count the last/current regular image post, there were 7 users who posted with maybe "older" cameras. That is assuming the D700, D90 and F6 are current as of now. So things older than that. Maybe least half of those were digital, ie D80, D70 etc.
     
  35. Re: dSLR, not sure what I get when the D70 breaks. Probably DX, have a few DX lenses lying around.​

    I had the same dilemma. My Nikon D100 which I bought ten years ago is broken. I was trying to decide between a Pentax K20D or a Nikon D3100 when I found a used but in great condition D3200 for a good price. So now my ratio of film to digital cameras is 60:2 in favour of film.
    I will use the D3200 with the 18-70 AF-S lens I already have and some of my manual focus Nikkors.
     
  36. Going back to the original question by Mark (nice nostalgic troll there! well done), I suppose it is inevitable that not everyone frequenting photo.net sells or shelves the older gear as soon as the new generation gets introduced!
    I've been using old lenses (pre-AI/AI/AIS) for over 20 years now, and still use them on my newest camera. Also the 400/3.5 Miha! But the oldest lenses only get the 'special ops' assignments now (macro-combinations, stitching, 'dangerous' cities). And the film camera's are shelved/retired now, probably for good. D200 is mostly for stitching and 'dangerous' cities now. D300 is still more than fine (as DX goes). And D800 is wonderfully new.
     
  37. Gup

    Gup Gup

    I am on my third D700, but the D2x remains my favourite. I just love to hold it, especially with a heavy lens. The balance just seems right to me. Whatever it may give up in IQ performance to the newer models it more than makes up for in ergonomic excellence to my hands and style. If I need more dynamic range, I just bracket a bit on my tripod and then combine the images. If I need speed, I can choose crop mode and shoot at 8 fps. If I need to shoot in the dark I use a flash.
    I would, no doubt, feel completely different if I owned a D3x or D4, but I don't. I see good used D2x bodies going for $700 +- and I can't imagine better value for the buck. I"ve shot many weddings, paid events, charity events, parties and Christmas celebrations with the D2x and will again.
    00bIb9-517109584.jpg
     
  38. "...V1 reminds me a lot of the D2H."​
    Ditto. Really enjoying the V1 I received as a Christmas gift. It's perfect for the same stuff I got the D2H for in 2005 - mostly candids and personal documentary photography. All in a package a fraction of the size and weight of the D2H.
    The AF and shutter response are just as fast as the D2H. Shot-to-shot speed lags a bit in the V1 but I seldom used the D2H for more than two or three shot bursts anyway. The vaguely descriptive "Image Quality" is very similar between the two - although the V1 doesn't suffer from the D2H's wonky colors due to near IR sensitivity, or jaggies from aliasing. The V1 also has that solid, brick-like build quality. I just wish Nikon had retained the standard CLS flash capability in the 1 series, more like the Coolpix P7700.
    My oldest "old tech" digicam that still sees occasional use would be my umpteen year old Olympus D-360L. Slug-slow and only 1.2 meagerpickles, but a good beater. Ditto the Olympus C3040Z, still a very good camera mainly hindered by the SmartMedia cards.
     
  39. Douglas: I was thinking of the Fuji and Nikon DX forums on dpreview.com and this one might get you started:
    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50677203
     
  40. I still use my D200s for all kinds of shooting, along with a pair of D5100s. I am aware of how each fits into my game and everything has it's place. In a while I want to add a D5200 but the D200s will stay, especially when using studio lights.
     
  41. Are you still using old technology to take digital pictures?
    Lol, i still use OLD technology to take Analog pics... medium format (6x6) Rollei SL66 .... Best device for Macro i own...
     
  42. I considered several upgrades to my D90 including a D800 and finally bought a D700. I had 6 non-ai lenses adapted and find myself using the 24mm 2.8, 55mm 2.8 manual lenses the most. I use the 70-300 VR for wildlife and the 85mm 1.8 for people but mostly i shoot landscapes.
     
  43. I use a D70 as a backup for my D300 when I do Santa Photos in a mall each year. Both take the same Nikon AC adapter. The 300 adapts exposures better since I shoot under a big skylight in the roof. I just gave my old D70s to my son for family pictures with an old Sigma 28-80. He is very happy with it. D7000 is my main working camera.
     
  44. I think some sensors in older cameras, if they are still working well, are worth shooting with. I've always liked the Sony 6mp sensor *everybody* released a body using. I keep my Pentax K100D around for that very reason. I also really like the look from Canon's 8mp sensor in the 20D and 30D so both those cameras are still in my inventory. I look back fondly on images I made with a Nikon D50 that I sold, but think, isn't that the 6mp Sony senor? My eldest Nikon came to me just a year or two ago - a refurbished D3000. That one is going nowhere as I love using it with pre-AI lenses.
     
  45. My D3s is 3 years old -- but since it was discontinued by Nikon, I guess it is now considered 'old technology'. :) I still use all of my old lens and accessories that I bought in the 90s for a Nikon SLR -- and I wouldn't part with them. They are incredible with the 'new' digital camera. Sure, I've bought a few new lenses also, but for the most part I tend to grab the old lenses quite a bit.
     
  46. I really should get a digital Nikon some day. My Nikons are all film, including an SP and S3 (2000). My most modern Nikon is the F4.
     
  47. Alex S. [​IMG][​IMG], Feb 04, 2013; 06:13 a.m.
    I really should get a digital Nikon some day. My Nikons are all film, including an SP and S3 (2000). My most modern Nikon is the F4.​
    If you're happy with your images, film or digital, it makes no difference. I think a lot of people spend way too much time debating the merits of the latest and greatest Nikon and too little time shooting.
    But hey, they look hip. :)
     
  48. Yes I use old technology to take digital pictures. I still love my D200, although I use only the lo ISOs. And some software would not even support it. It feels more solid and have more features than my D7000. But the oldest technology is still film cameras. I use film then scan them with a Nikon Coolscan to go digital midstream in the workflow. In this way, it is full frame, large pixel count and gives digital pictures.
    The latest Plutak OpticFilm 120 can even do 120 film scan at $2000 (Still have to see the reviews). That is cheaper than many advanced modern DSLR.
     
  49. a refurbished D3000. That one is going nowhere as I love using it with pre-AI lenses.​



    Any problems doing that? I keep reading mixed reports. Some say you can't mount pre AI lenses on a D3000?D3100/D3200 and others say you can because they do. As these cameras don't have AI tabs, I can't see a problem.
     
  50. Steve Smith [​IMG], Feb 05, 2013; 03:25 p.m.
    a refurbished D3000. That one is going nowhere as I love using it with pre-AI lenses.​



    Any problems doing that? I keep reading mixed reports. Some say you can't mount pre AI lenses on a D3000?D3100/D3200 and others say you can because they do. As these cameras don't have AI tabs, I can't see a problem.​
    Well, there's no metering at all, and obviously no AF, but I haven't had an issue. All the pre-AI lenses I have used on it worked fine.
    00bK0M-518235584.jpg
     

Share This Page