Digital - new classic?

<p>Dycam Model 1 (the first trully digital camera ever) was sold on eBay <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=19028887694110">10 minutes ago for $382</a>. Considering its worthless technical characteristics, these cameras became a collectible-only items.<br>

Do you think there is a new "digital classic collectible" trend coming in?</p>

<p>Sure. They'll make great paper weights.</p>

<p>While I think that there are some digital cameras that'll make interesting collectibles, the ones that played some significant role in the development of digital cameras as a whole, most of the others are destined to be landfill items. I can see where a lot of people would like to believe that their old digitals might be collectible in order to justify the large amounts of money spent on them at the time, but unfortunately I don't know that that'll be the case. I found an 'old' Olympus digital compact camera at Goodwill last summer, a D-200L for around $8, the first in what was to become the Olympus Camedia line of compact digitals I believe. It was (is) in perfect working order but takes pictures of ridiculously low resolution (a tiny fraction of the resolution of the <em>monitor</em> on my 30D) and is not compatible with anything I own that would allow me to view those same bad images. I only bought it because it was another development in the long line of the Olympus camera family (and I have a pretty sizeable Olympus collection), not because it was a cool digital camera I couldn't live without. I wonder if old digitals won't have even less appeal than APS cameras...at least you can still get prints made from those.</p>

<p>We'll some day surely have a "classic digital cameras" forum here. As for "landfill items," I'd just remind you that many of our participants are shooting film cameras here that could easily, by rational calculations, belong to that class.<br /> Ask not for whom the bell tolls...</p>

<p>[sony Mavica 1981]</p><div></div>

<p>Agree with Gene. As for film cameras that could be considered landfill items.It doesn't apply to those that are still workable. I have been using two cameras designed for 130 and 124 roll film, just by using sheetfilm.<br>

But, with digitals, it would be a show piece and nothing more. Electronic gadgets change too quickly.</p>

<p>I happen to own the nearly perfect digital camera -- the <strong>Mnolta A2</strong>. It, like the Barnack Leica, was the product of many generations of improvements from a superb basic design, which could have carried them for many more years of development.<br>

Unfortunately, the company went belly-up, and SONY chose not to contnue the line. Service on it is less than totally satisfactory, and I presume with disappear altogether soon.</p>

<p>Ive got my dad's old Olympus digi. As with Andy's getting data on and off of it is nearly impossible because Olympus chose to use a weird proprietary memory format and typically on digital cameras the very first thing to break is the USB plug that allow you to get data off of the camera via a cord. Camera is plugged into computer, someone trips over the cord, camera and cord are pulled to the ground where the camera hits the ground ON the cord and a few hundred dollars in camera equipment is rendered useless. You would think that they would make that stupid USB port much more durable considering that it's basically the single most imoprtant part of the device.</p>

<p>Another funny part of the camera is the adapter that allows you to put your memory card into something that looks like a 3 1/2" floppy disk and your computer reads the data in the worlds slowest and most bizarre form of data transfer. I'm sure at the time it was considered genious, but since the adapter requires exepensive batteries to run and many new computers don't even HAVE a floppy drive, it's junk. And that is what will primarily kill all of these great gadets. </p>

<p>Backwards compatibility is swiftly becoming a dream of the past, and I think in the very near future there will be a BIG movement away from many of the current media types and when that happens there will be an entire generation of worthless cameras/MP3 players etc.</p>

<p>I suppose different people have different ideas of what constitute the criteria for being a 'classic'. For some, it may be design, even though the object is no longer useable. For others, it will be design still coupled with useability. There aren't many hard and fast rules, and I suspect there shouldn't be.</p>

<p>It does seem to me, however, that the rate of change of digital technology is far higher than it ever was for film, and I wonder if this rapid rate of evolution would allow time for some examples of digital photography to settle down and earn their stripes as classics. My view is probably coloured by the fact that I only keep cameras that are useable. I have a Box Brownie that has been in use for over seventy years (not by me, admittedly), and simple as it is, I think it has the essentials of a classic.</p>

<p>Most of my digital cameras are merely functional, although I have a fondness for my Canon G9, not least because in many ways, it handles like a film compact (a comparison I wouldn't push too hard, of course). I have an old Epson 750z, a mere 1.3 Mpx, which is capable of images that are, pictorially speaking, a match for many more sophisticated and more modern digitals, but ergonomically it is poor, and it won't work with CF cards larger than 16M. Where do you find these today? It's perhaps my first example of the equivalent of a film camera whose film format has become obsolete. It's hard for me to imagine any digital camera of the current age, or earlier, that will have a design life with anything like the span of an old Brownie.</p>

<p>I'd like to think that a digital classic will be revealed in time. Good design transcends technology.</p>

<p> </p>

"As I recall", The original Mavica's were "still-frame Video". The image was stored as Analog Video on a special floppy, not as a digital frame. A frame grabber was used to display the image. The true Digital cameras which stored a digitized image on some medium, typically hard drives, made there appearance in the late 80s and early 90s. PCMCIA flash cards in digital cameras started in the early 90s.

 

There were custom made "cameras" (electro-Optic sensors) in the late 70s and early 80s that stored digital images. They were big.

<p><em>"[sony Mavica 1981]"</em></p>

<p>The early Sony Mavica cameras were analog - electronic cameras operating in the analog domain recording highband video on magnetic disks and required a dedicated player (or from its on-camera video output) to a television for playback. Image printing was usually through a dye-sub printer with video inputs producing Polaroid-sized prints.They were in common use in the medical industry.</p>

<p>I have two complete working systems, one based on the Sony MVC-5000, 2-CCD SLR, the other a MVC-C1. They produce images of a unique look and a joy to use albeit impractical. Will they be prized in the future? Who knows, but owning a unique piece of history is always interesting. </p>

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

Circa 1991, Sony MVC-5000 Video Still 2-CCD SLR, popular PJ camera during Gulf War 1. Nikon FM + MD11 for scale.</p>

<p>By the way, the MVC-5000 was a $7,000 camera and the lens $5,000 (1991 dollars). Plus accessories. It, and its big brother (MVC-7000, 3 CCD SLR) were the D3X of its time.</p>

<p>Let me know when they're 40-50 years old how these digital "classics" are doing and then I'll be impressed.</p>

<p>I'd image most old digital cameras are about as collectible as old computers are. The very early and rare ones do bring decent prices, but most of them are worth only their weight in scrap value.</p>

<p>

An Apple I may be worth $15,000, but you'd probably have to pay someone to take an Apple II away.

<p><em>"Dycam Model 1 (the first trully digital camera ever) was sold on eBay 10 minutes ago for $382 . Considering its worthless technical characteristics, these cameras became a collectible-only items.<br /> Do you think there is a new "digital classic collectible" trend coming in?"</em></p>

<p>The fact that it was sold meant someone was interested in collecting it, and the number of bids might indicate how collectible it is. I think folks who do collect these things tend to do it for its historical or personal significance. It would be rather unwise as a financial investment for its potential future value.</p>

<p>One problem with "high tech collectibles" is that if they ever break, they probably can't be fixed. While someone might machine up a new cam for a mechanical camera, nobody is going to make you a replacement ASIC (application specific integrated circuit) chip for one that fails or a replacement sensor if that dies.</p>

<p>Good point, Bob, but what is one to do when just about everything is high tech. these days? On a bigger scale, electronics in every facet of industrial, commercial and military use from the humble cash registers to Gen-x Night Vision equipment suffer the same fate. It's technology's cruel reality. <br /> <br /> I think it would be a real shame to dismiss obsolete electronics as paper weights. Product life span has progressively been shortened from years to months, and we're only a few decades into the Technology Age in human history. There is a unique opportunity to preserve a small part of modern photography history which I believe is worthwhile for future generations even if an object becomes non-functional. Just the other day, I was marvelling at the wealth of knowledgeable old-timers share with newcomers on (essentially) obsolete technology. Where will we be in a few decades when these folks will no longer be around to answer questions? As first generation digital photographers, I think we have a responsibility to preserve providing it's within our means and interests.</p>

<p>I have an electrical engineering background, so I am always interested in the various ways that technology evolves over time. I am doing some research on "classic" digital cameras and would appreciate any suggestions on where to look. In particular, I am interested in pre-1991 cameras that stored in digital format, especially on removable media.<br>

The Dycam is a great "classic" device, but had to be connected to a computer for downloading images. The Sony Mavica's all had removable media, but, as noted above, stored in analog form. Was there a true digital camera that stored on removable media back then (pre-1991)?<br>

Brian Sweeney, in his post above, mentions earlier prototypes. Do you have any information on those? Thanks very much to all.</p>