"Classic" Digital

Is there such a thing? Has the new tech been around long enough to start calling some early stuff classic? This is my 12 year old Nikon D300 photographing my 1982 Casio DW1000. Both classics in my opinion.

Yes. Time is moving faster than it used to.* Classic happens quickly these days.

 

*No, Yogi Berra did not say this.

Someone started a thread on the Nikon forum a while back about early Nikon digitals, with images from them.

 

I've amassed the range of first and second generation digital bodies-D1, D1H, D1X, D2H, D2X, D100, D200, D70-and have posted a few images taken specifically with the original D1 and some other cameras. One particular poster in that thread posts a lot of amazing images taken with a D2Hs, a feat I didn't think possible :)

 

I actually still put some decidedly obsolete cameras to real world use. The Fujifilm DSLRs have a look I love(especially for people) that I can't replicate in any Nikon. I have the full range of them, but the only one I use is the S5. The S3 delivers equivalent image quality, but the S5 is much nicer to use-the S3 is an N80 SLR with digital "guts" grafted onto it, while the S5 is more-or-less a D200 with a Fuji sensor and image processor. I have a love-hate relationship with my Kodak DCS 14/n and don't seem to be able to get everything out of it that it's capable of, but I've seen some amazing work from those cameras.

I would certainly apply the term classic to the D300, a solid, lovely camera that represented a true advance when it was introduced. I don't know about the Casio, still have one in a drawer with currently unwound Bulova and Omega mechanical watches. The early HP-35 and HP-45 calculators, with reverse Polish notation, definitely qualify

 

Classic digital stuff that I have experienced (suffered?) include the IBM 360 model 30, with disk drives like top-loading washing machines, Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) Linc-8, PDP-12, PDP-11 and VAX. My wife and I at one time owned an Osborne and a Mac SE-30.

Classic happens quickly these days

The first 20 years of Nikon film SLR development saw the Nikon F and F2, the next 20 got us to the F5; 20 years of Nikon DSLR development covered D1 to D5. 20 years of Nikon AF film cameras resulted in three (at most) generations of camera bodies; the same time span for DSLRs gave at least as many AF generations.

The early HP-35 and HP-45 calculators, with reverse Polish notation, definitely qualify

That's early 70s; I think the early eighties 11C does qualify too:) Fairly afraid to move to RPN - then I realized how much more comfortable it is than dealing with the algebraic ones. Unfortunately, my 15C bit the dust some 25 years ago.

Image created with the certainly classic D200.

Along with the Casio I just dug a Canon SD770 P&S out of the glove compartment. I know this camera has great potential at low ISO. As far as the Casio, I put it away when the cataracts got too far advanced and I couldn't read it anymore. Eyesight has been restored to near perfect now but I do miss that pre-surgery sepia toned hazy world where everything looked like an old photograph and everyone looked ten years younger.

Most definitely - at least w.r.t. technology. The earliest PC's (Apple Lisa and Macintosh II, the Commodore PET) and the earliest digital watches/cameras/mobile phones all count as 'classic' in my book. I agree with @The Shadow that 'classic' is a relative term. As the pace of technology development steadily increases (gradually or sometimes in leaps and bounds),the number of years between 'now' and 'classic' decreases 'Digital classic' is now perhaps 35-40 years ago. In another 20 years, it will perhaps include everything up until 15-60 ago.

My Canon 5D (mk I or "Classic"), the first "affordable"? FF DSLR is likely also a digital classic. I still use it and it takes decent photos. I generally view all digital cameras as disposable appliances that will become obsolete in a reasonably short amount of time.

I generally view all digital cameras as disposable appliances that will become obsolete in a reasonably short amount of time.

I agree.

Maybe everything utilizing a CCD could be considered "classic" by now? - I don't care. Oldest digital I own is a 2000 Coolpix 990 (still working) the more recent bigger ones that I vbought myself seem still "somewhat capable" cameras.

Wouldn't it take some distinguishable difference in use, to define a "classic"? I fail to see such between my M8 and latest and greatest M10 (which of course is superior and sports a slightly streamlined UI, but) is calling everything lacking an ISO dial "classic" really the way to go?

In actual fact, as opposed to the common opinion, many early -- I would say classic -- cameras have both enough pixels and oompf to still be usable shooters. Like their film cousins, they share the problem of finding new batteries, but the camera is still usable once you do.

I still plain to do an up-to-date report on this, and some other early digital cameras, but my health prevented it, and I have a huge backlog of cameras, film and digital.

 

By the way, any early digital with more than 5 MP, will cost you more on eBay than contemporary film cameras. I know because I have bought some. Film cameras of the period typically sell in prices that are equivalent to a pizza or two.

By the way, any early digital with more than 5 MP, will cost you more on eBay than contemporary film cameras. I know because I have bought some. Film cameras of the period typically sell in prices that are equivalent to a pizza or two.

 

Don't tell that to my F6 :)

 

With that said, I've dabbled a bit in Kodaks, albeit in Nikon rather than Canon mount. I've never made the leap to buy anything other a 14/n, as cameras like the DCS 620 still bring good money even with iffy batteries.

Don't tell that to my F6

 

I agree, there are exceptions and a few film cameras still have considerable resale value. However, I did say "of the period" and was showing that the DCS cameras were NOT disposable.

An example of a digital camera from the transition period from film to digital is my, ca 2000, Olympus C211, which could take both a digital photo and a Polaroid, and had an original list price of $800. I wrote about it in the Classic Manual Camera forum at, Oddball film/digital camera

 

I was hoping that someday it might be valued as a collector camera. However, checking eBay just now, I find a few listed with prices as low as $5 plus $12.60 for shipping. I only paid $9 plus shipping for the camera, so no big loss, and it is fun to play with.

Yes. Time is moving faster than it used to.* Classic happens quickly these days.

 

*No, Yogi Berra did not say this.

There is a great book on just this subject, "FASTER- The Acceleration of Just About Everything", by James Gleick.

 

Short quote from the dust jacket, "If one quality defines our modern, technocratic age, it is acceleration. We are making haste. Our computers, our movies, our sex lives, our prayers - they all run faster than ever before. And the more we fill our lives with time-saving devices and time-saving strategies, the more rushed we feel". And, by extension, our photography runs faster than ever before. No more of those 10 great photographs a year that Ansel Adams described, when we can take 10 photographs per second, although none of the 10 may be too great.

Edited April 8, 2019 by Glenn McCreery

My first digital camera was a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50, a "bridge camera," i.e., not a DSLR. The earliest use of it was on a cruise which included a stop at Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia. Here's one of the shots I took there, using an in-camera b&w shooting function. The color noise is pretty obvious.

 

 

All cameras are disposable. All of them. Unless of course you are a camera collector. That does not preclude the existence of classics, though. The classic digital cameras that I could use today:

 

- Older medium format backs (that did not require tethering)

- Leica M9 (some would add the M8, but I reject it)

- Fuji S3 and S5, maybe

 

I'm not sure why you'd use the D200 or 5D, as their modern equivalents are better. I know someone who uses a Sony A700, as he just likes it. Fair enough, but it's nothing special to me.

 

There is a great book on just this subject, "FASTER- The Acceleration of Just About Everything", by James Gleick.

I read that long ago. Great book. You can only make toast so fast. Also, instant coffee is no faster than brewed coffee. If you can't wait five seconds for coffee to brew, then you don't have time for coffee, instant or not.

I still have my D1-X and D-100 and they do pretty well. If the original D-1 had been my first digital experience I would never have gone further. I got stuck with a D-2h in the news business and it was truly horrid. Still like the 200 and 300, use them regularly.

 

Rick H.

"Yes. Time is moving faster than it used to.* Classic happens quickly these days."

Good point Shadow, the digital age and the neuronic speed up. I wonder if this is the consciousness analog to the effects of speed on time:) Just from what I've seen or used, I've tended to feel that the newer cameras just get better but I used to like the look some got with the Nikon D70. Tim Holte here on p.net and Ray as well, especially in b/w. I liked images, in terms of look, with the Nik D700 and 17-35, funny enough because it reminds me of film so much. Also I liked the first version of the Ricoh GRD jpg b/w just had a look right out of the camera and a great start for post. Just musings. Nice topic.

How about my 2004 Epson R-D1?

Just found my old Olympus C5060 from about 2003. Looks clean, no mold. If I can find the charger I'll give it a go.

My Canon 5D (mk I or "Classic"), the first "affordable"? FF DSLR is likely also a digital classic.

 

I think so too.

 

Additionally, the EOS 20D was a landmark and I think it is 'classic', now. It was quite a serious upgrade from the 10D.

 

The 20D (along with the 300D and 350D) introduced the EF-S Lens Mount and associated EF-S Lenses to Canon's EOS system.

 

 

WW

If the 5D qualified for the "classic" designation, what about the Nikon D700? It was Nikon's first "less than pro" FF(or rather FX) DSLR, although admittedly Nikon was late to full frame relative to Canon. The D700 is basically a D3 sensor in an F100/D200/D300 type body. The D3 sensor is actually still a respectable performer at ISO 6400, albeit it's a bit resolution handicapped at 12mp.

 

Personally, I had my D3s(which is still 12mp, but gives usable images up to 12,800) out this weekend for my mom's annual family Easter egg hunt. The D3s AF system(which is nothing to sneeze at) combined with the first gen 70-200 f/2.8 made a formidable combo for the most challenging action target known to man-a dozen kids under 12 :)

Leica Digilux 2.

I bought a full frame Sony Alpha 900 new over ten years ago and never regretted it, it's still my main camera for anything important. To me it's the culmination of the classic style of digital SLR before all the bells and whistles started to be added, like video, wi-fi, GPS, electronic viewfinders, live view etc. It has a superb 100% pentaprism finder and an intuitive user interface, and a solid metal build quality. It works with the classic Minolta lenses too. The only non-classic thing about it is that it's not labelled Minolta. Edited April 12, 2019 by John Seaman