 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005What happened to the 1 and 2 meg pro DSLRs?
Remember the Kodaks, Nikons and Canons that sported that many pixels, and cost something like $10,000-$25,000 each? I'm wondering if people ever sell on the used market, or are they just gathering dust? -Rich > Remember the Kodaks, Nikons and Canons that sported > that many pixels, and cost something like $10,000-$25,000 each? > I'm wondering if people ever sell on the used market, or are > they just gathering dust? > -Rich Do you ever check eBay? ;-)  SignatureNigel_H > Remember the Kodaks, Nikons and Canons that sported > that many pixels, and cost something like $10,000-$25,000 each? > I'm wondering if people ever sell on the used market, or are > they just gathering dust? > -Rich Check Ebay. Nikon D1s (2.6 MP) are selling for somewhere between $350 and $1200. >> Remember the Kodaks, Nikons and Canons that sported >> that many pixels, and cost something like $10,000-$25,000 each? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Check Ebay. Nikon D1s (2.6 MP) are selling for somewhere between $350 > and $1200. Who on earth is buying them..?! >>> Remember the Kodaks, Nikons and Canons that sported >>> that many pixels, and cost something like $10,000-$25,000 each? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Who on earth is buying them..?! Well ... While my main camera bag has a D70 and an N90 in it, I walk around all day with a Coolpix 2200 (2MB) in my jacket pocket. It's certainly no competition for the DSLRs but the 2 MP images print up incredibly respectably 4x5 (4x6) prints and the color is similarly great. If the price dropped to even $250, I'd consider buying one for my wife to carry around while I'm shooting the more expensive cameras since she complains that I never photograph what she sees and wouldn't consider spending much money for a companion camera for herself [which she had and often enjoyed decades ago when we shot Minolta]. It's still Nikon and it's still the same lenses I'm using so it sounds quite plausible to watch for a price drop. Norm > >> Remember the Kodaks, Nikons and Canons that sported > >> that many pixels, and cost something like $10,000-$25,000 each? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Who on earth is buying them..?! Some mighty fine photos have come out of those cameras. At 350 or 450 bucks, they might make an ideal back-up camera for the newer Nikons, and they also might make good cameras to place in situations where they're used as more or less disposable auto firing, or remoted fired, cameras, where destruction or major damage is a possibility. It's one helluva lot more economical than having a 5K body wiped out. <snip> > Some mighty fine photos have come out of those cameras. At 350 or 450 > bucks, they might make an ideal back-up camera for the newer Nikons, > and they also might make good cameras to place in situations where > they're used as more or less disposable auto firing, or remoted fired, > cameras, where destruction or major damage is a possibility. <snip> I like the sound of that!! <grin> >>> Remember the Kodaks, Nikons and Canons that sported >>> that many pixels, and cost something like $10,000-$25,000 each? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Who on earth is buying them..?! They are more than good enough for 99% of PJ work. For newspaper work, any more than 2.7 MP is overkill. ;-) > They are more than good enough for 99% of PJ work. > > For newspaper work, any more than 2.7 MP is overkill. > > ;-) Most of these cameras were huge, heavy battery hogs and VERY slow. We had a Fujix 505 (same camera as the Nikon E2N) at work that we paid $15,000 dollars for new. 1.2 megapixels. A turd of a camera when it was new and less than a doorstop now. >> They are more than good enough for 99% of PJ work. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >dollars for new. 1.2 megapixels. A turd of a camera when it was new and >less than a doorstop now. Should keep it for the Digital Camera Museum! >> They are more than good enough for 99% of PJ work. >> >> For newspaper work, any more than 2.7 MP is overkill. [ ... ] >Most of these cameras were huge, heavy battery hogs and VERY slow. Well ... I have a couple of NC2000e/c cameras. They started live as Nikon N90s film cameras, to which Kodak fitted a digital back (and lots of circuitry below the original base of the camera). The weight was staggering. :-) This was designed for the AP, to let their photographers use the Nikon glass that they already had, but to shoot digital. Only 1.3 MP images -- saved in a RAW format only in the camera. Needed a special plug in for PhotoShop to convert it to anything else. (Though the unix "dcraw" program will *almost* do it. It seems to exchange color channels for whatever reason. :-) The batteries were non-interchangeable, and had to be charged in the camera. Battery life between charges was minimal compared to my Nikon D70. However -- *slow* it was not. ISO from 200 to 1600, autofocus was what the N90s gave (quite quick), switch it on as you are lifting it to your eyes, and it is ready to shoot by the time you get the subject framed. Yes -- write time to the PCMCIA hard disks was slower than a Lexar 1GB 80X CF card, but those weren't available back then. > We had a >Fujix 505 (same camera as the Nikon E2N) at work that we paid $15,000 >dollars for new. 1.2 megapixels. A turd of a camera when it was new and >less than a doorstop now. The NC2000e/c could be converted back to the N90s film camera with a replacement camera back, so it is not just a doorstop in any case. Some of them had a focusing screen with a black border showing the crop factor -- others blanked out the outer area of the finder screen. I prefer the former, as it gives me a clue what is about to come into the field of view. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- >>> They are more than good enough for 99% of PJ work. >>> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > Enjoy, > DoN. Don, This raises an obvious question. What if you have an N90s camera? Can you get one of these backs - cheap - ? What is the crop factor? > This raises an obvious question. What if you have an N90s camera? > Can you get one of these backs - cheap - ? Yes, they come up for auction on ebay on a regular basis. > What is the crop factor? Varies with the model. I belive the 1.6 Mpx - 2 Mpx models had a crop factor of 2.6x, while the 6 Mpx versions had a crop factor of 1.3x. I own and still sometimes use, one of the latter. You can see an image of it here: http://folk.uio.no/gisle/photo/dcs460.html As you can see the digital back adds some bulk to the Nikon. I've always considered the N90s as one of the best bodies produced by Nikon, and the Kodak digital back lets me shoot digital with it. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This raises an obvious question. What if you have an N90s camera? >> Can you get one of these backs - cheap - ? > >Yes, they come up for auction on ebay on a regular basis. I got my first one at a hamfest, for what appeared to be a very good price compared to the new price -- about $700, after I had seen them being sold for $14.4k earlier and passed on the option. This was about the time that the AP dumped the lot, having moved up to more modern (and higher resolution) cameras. I got a second one from eBay (N90 not N90s body, FWIW) for around $200.00. >> What is the crop factor? > >Varies with the model. I belive the 1.6 Mpx - 2 Mpx models had a >crop factor of 2.6x, while the 6 Mpx versions had a crop factor >of 1.3x. I own and still sometimes use, one of the latter. From the PDF file of the manual, in order of crop factor: Camera Crop MP ----------------------------- DCS 460 1.3 6.23 NC2000e 1.65 1.28 DCS-410 2.6 1.54 DCS-420 2.6 1.54 Of those the NC2000e was made specifically for the AP, and as a result had a couple of extra features: 1) It had a microphone and button in the back to allow voice annotation of the images 2) It had provisions for connecting to a cell phone, so you could submit your images to the office from wherever you were. >You can see an image of it here: > http://folk.uio.no/gisle/photo/dcs460.html [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I've always considered the N90s as one of the best bodies produced by >Nikon, and the Kodak digital back lets me shoot digital with it. I've never used it with film, but I certainly liked the camera body as used in the NC2000e. Someday, I need to get a standard back for one of mine and try it with film. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.