 |
 | 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 / Digital Photo / November 2007When did the first consumer level digital cameras hit the market?
When did the first consumer level digital cameras hit the market? I was sort of a late arrival in digital world. My fist digital picture is dated May 18, 1999 and was taken with a Kodak DC-265. I was never very happy with that camera, but I used it for about 2 years. It never came close to replacing my film camera. Gary  SignatureGary Edstrom <gedstrom@pacbell.net> Visit my Midway Island home page at http://gbe.dynip.com/Midway I am Yoda of Borg. Futile is Resistance. Assimilate you, I will! The above tagline is number 212 in a series of 549. Collect them all! > When did the first consumer level digital cameras hit the market? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Gary This might be some help http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/timeline.asp?start=1996 Logitech had their Photoman out much earlier but it was pricey and took bad b/w photos. I remember in 1997 the company I worked at debated whether to get the 0.8MP Olympus D-500L or go for the high resolution one at 1.3MP, we went for the 0.8 MP one. You could buy a good DSLR and lens for what we paid for a 0.8 MP camera back then. Scott > I remember in 1997 the company I worked at debated whether to get the > 0.8MP Olympus D-500L or go for the high resolution one at 1.3MP, we went > for the 0.8 MP one. You could buy a good DSLR and lens for what we paid > for a 0.8 MP camera back then. Ah, the Oly D-500L. At the time I remember being amazed at the quality and I was very proud in my choice. Unfortunately we loaned it out a few too many times and someone must have dropped it and I still remember how mad I was when I found out. But our next one was a Oly D40 and that one lasted for years until I gave it to one of my kids! Doh! >> I remember in 1997 the company I worked at debated whether to get the >> 0.8MP Olympus D-500L or go for the high resolution one at 1.3MP, we went [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >when I found out. But our next one was a Oly D40 and that one lasted for >years until I gave it to one of my kids! Doh! To promote D-620L (and D-400) the following year, Oly gave them out to those of us covering COMDEX (an event I miss), and I remember thinking it was pretty fun and handy, although I used images from my film SLR in my coverage of the event, not the Oly. I nonetheless kept and used the D-620L until I replaced it with a C-2500L, one of my favorite cameras ever. I likewise added a D40Z later, which I still keep in the glove box of my car and use from time to time. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) > When did the first consumer level digital cameras hit the market? I believe it was 1996 when Apple introduced the QuickTake 100. >> When did the first consumer level digital cameras hit the market? >I believe it was 1996 when Apple introduced the QuickTake 100. The QuickTake 100 came out in 1994. It was a truly awful camera photographically: no focus adjustment, 640x480 images with colour artifacts. Fixed FL lens, optical tunnel finder, but no image preview or review. There was a built-in flash. It had enough memory for 8 of these "high res" images, or 32 images in "low res" 320x240 mode. Memory was soldered in, so you couldn't add more, and you couldn't remove it to install a blank card. Nor could you get the data via an external card reader - you had to connect it to a serial port on your computer to transfer the data. The Mac's serial ports were capable of 1 Mbps (or so) at that time (they were also used for Localtalk networking), so it didn't take that long to download all 8 images. But a later version (the 150) supported Windows, and used the PC serial port. Transfers were much slower via it. Images were stored in a proprietary compressed format; you needed a special QuickTime codec to decode it. I've still got some images from it around, but think "bad 640x480 cellphone camera" and you'll have the general idea. It was $1000 US when it appeared. Despite the price and image quality, people apparently bought lots of them. Dave > The QuickTake 100 came out in 1994. It was a truly awful camera > photographically: no focus adjustment, 640x480 images with colour > artifacts. Fixed FL lens, optical tunnel finder, but no image preview > or review. There was a built-in flash. Yup...pretty basic. > It had enough memory for 8 of these "high res" images, or 32 images in > "low res" 320x240 mode. Memory was soldered in, so you couldn't add [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > images. But a later version (the 150) supported Windows, and used the > PC serial port. Transfers were much slower via it. And it looked like a pair of binoculars. > Images were stored in a proprietary compressed format; you needed a > special QuickTime codec to decode it. I've still got some images from > it around, but think "bad 640x480 cellphone camera" and you'll have the > general idea. My RAZR takes better pictures. But I still have a QuickTake 150 around here somewhere. Used to have a QuickTake 200 and sold it on eBay. Nothing to do with your question, but my first digital camera was a 1.2MP Kodak DC240. I sold it after a couple of weeks and stuck with film. Although is wasn't the reason for selling it, but it used batteries like they were going out of fashion! I don't know the date as there is no EXIF, but must have been around 1999. As Scott said, maybe the Logitech Fotoman was the first, which was very early 90's. > When did the first consumer level digital cameras hit the market? > > I was sort of a late arrival in digital world. My fist digital picture > is dated May 18, 1999 and was taken with a Kodak DC-265. I was never > very happy with that camera, but I used it for about 2 years. It never > came close to replacing my film camera. >Nothing to do with your question, but my first digital camera was a 1.2MP >Kodak DC240. I sold it after a couple of weeks and stuck with film. >Although is wasn't the reason for selling it, but it used batteries like >they were going out of fashion! ... You must have been using alkalines. NiCd would probably have made a huge difference. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) 1990 Logitech and I think Ricoh. The Spider Just like in the early days of my film photography, I made a couple of mistakes that I have always been sorry for. Back in my film days starting in 1974, I used a polarizer on most of my outdoor pictures. The pictures looked fine as long as I was only projecting them on a screen, but when I started to digitize them, I realized what a big mistake it was using the polarizer so much. So many of my outdoor pictures look completely unnatural. Back when I started digital photography, I didn't know about the EXIF header and didn't know that the camera was storing the date & time in an information block, so I had the camera imprint the date-time in the lower-right corner of every picture. It sure spoils the picture! Gary >When did the first consumer level digital cameras hit the market? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Gary SignatureGary Edstrom <gedstrom@pacbell.net> Visit my Midway Island home page at http://gbe.dynip.com/Midway Sign at nudist colony - "Clothed for the winter." The above tagline is number 376 in a series of 549. Collect them all! > Back when I started digital photography, I didn't know about the EXIF > header and didn't know that the camera was storing the date & time in an > information block, so I had the camera imprint the date-time in the > lower-right corner of every picture. It sure spoils the picture! It just so happens that I read your post a few minutes after I'd finished enlightening my nephew on the subject. Quite a coincidence. He thought there was something wrong with his SD card and asked me to check it with my computer. The card contained pictures of his 5-month old son, with the date stamped on each shot. He thought the date stamps made the pictures look real amateurish, but wanted to keep a record of the date they were taken. >> Back when I started digital photography, I didn't know about the EXIF >> header and didn't know that the camera was storing the date & time in an [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > shot. He thought the date stamps made the pictures look real > amateurish, but wanted to keep a record of the date they were taken. Having the camera add the data to the image is not needed, you can use a program like IrfanView to add the date in batch mode, keeping the originals date free. Scott > mianil...@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Back when I started digital photography, I didn't know about the EXIF [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Scott My nephew didn't really want to make the date visible on each picture. He disliked it very much in fact. He just wanted to be able to check back on the date in the future, but didn't know that such a thing as the EXIF data exists - just like Gary before he was enlightened and, I suspect, a lot of casual snapshooters. >My nephew didn't really want to make the date visible on each >picture. He disliked it very much in fact. He just wanted to be >able to check back on the date in the future, but didn't know >that such a thing as the EXIF data exists - just like Gary before >he was enlightened and, I suspect, a lot of casual snapshooters. Even today! SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) > When did the first consumer level digital cameras hit the market? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Gary I still have a cheap and nasty Kodak "DC20" here. Cost was about US$200 in 1997 (I bought it in LA). This had fixed lens, internal memory for 8 or 12 shots (resolution 493 x 373) optical viewfinder, no LCD, and only a series of blinking led lights on the back to indicate how many shots were left. It used one CR123 lithium battery, and the cost of batteries with short battery life probably exceeded the cost per shot of 35mm film. A full resolution sample image from the camera is here: http://i14.tinypic.com/81u0qqa.jpg There were better consumer level compact cameras available then, IIRC Casio had 640x480 model with a rear LCD at about double the price of the Kodak. To put it in perspective, I had a "top of range" laptop at the same time, with 800x600 active matrix LCD, 16mb ram, ~500mb HD. It cost more than US$3,000. > When did the first consumer level digital cameras hit the market? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Gary Really! I still have my DC210+ which I bought refurbished. I loved that camera. Pulled it out a couple of months ago to do a little gig at the local library where they didn't need much resolution on some snapshots they printed out for Haloween - worked great. I now have a P850 which is my main camera. 1994 Epson PhotoPC. 230k sensor. Really crappy pictures. But it worked and I loved digital photos. Even started printing them on my Photosmart Printer. It was awesome lol SignatureL8tr.... Steve M. >> When did the first consumer level digital cameras hit the market? >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > they printed out for Haloween - worked great. I now have a P850 which is > my main camera. > When did the first consumer level digital cameras hit the market? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Gary I bought an Epson Photo PC in early 1996. 640x480 resolution, no LCD screen, but better than the casio QV10 or whatever it was that had a much lower resolution, but did have a screen. I think I paid $500 for this toy. Look what you can get for $500 now! Years before that, at work, we bought a Canon. It was very expensive, had 640x480 resolution and acessories including a film reader. It saved files to a mini floppy disk format. John I would consider the Nikon Coolpix 900 (March 1998) the first digital consumer-level camera which was versatile by taking advantage of what digital could offer. It was 1280 x 960 pixels, and had both optical and LCD viewfinders. The lens was superb, and allowed great macros. The twist in the format was the separation of taking and viewing sections, with a swivel lens assembly. This made the camera very versatile, and offered something no film camera could. The next generation, the Nikon Coolpix 990, did upgrade to 3.2MB (and can provide 10 x 8-inch A4 sized prints), and removed many of the quirks of the 900. I still have both the Nikon 900 and 990 - batteries removed for safe storage. Cheers, David > I would consider the Nikon Coolpix 900 (March 1998) the first digital > consumer-level camera which was versatile by taking advantage of what [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Coolpix 990, did upgrade to 3.2MB (and can provide 10 x 8-inch A4 sized > prints), and removed many of the quirks of the 900. you skipped the 950 :) > In article <GVd3j.54471$c_1.54111@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, David J > Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > you skipped the 950 :) Yes. I didn't mention a whole range of cameras which came after the 900, and those which came after the 990. My view is that the 990 was the peak of that range, but of course the 950 was a step along the way. Cheers, David > > you skipped the 950 :) > > Yes. I didn't mention a whole range of cameras which came after the 900, > and those which came after the 990. My view is that the 990 was the peak > of that range, but of course the 950 was a step along the way. agreed, the 990 and slightly improved 995 were the peak. >>> you skipped the 950 :) >> Yes. I didn't mention a whole range of cameras which came after the 900, >> and those which came after the 990. My view is that the 990 was the peak >> of that range, but of course the 950 was a step along the way. > > agreed, the 990 and slightly improved 995 were the peak. I had a Nikon 995, great camera for the time and made better looking 4x6 prints then I was getting from film. But it fell short on 8x10 prints, they looked ok but that was all. Still I took a lot of photos with it from 2001 to 2004. Scott >> In article <MIe3j.54486$c_1.35932@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, David >> J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Scott I've seen and made some A4 prints (297 x 210mm) from a 990 and they're fine at our normal viewing distance. But expecations differ. Cheers, David > I had a Nikon 995, great camera for the time and made better looking 4x6 > prints then I was getting from film. But it fell short on 8x10 prints, > they looked ok but that was all. But if you look at it from the scientifically determined optimum distance of 1.5m it should be fine :) >> I had a Nikon 995, great camera for the time and made better looking 4x6 >> prints then I was getting from film. But it fell short on 8x10 prints, >> they looked ok but that was all. > > But if you look at it from the scientifically determined optimum > distance of 1.5m it should be fine :) When I was thinking about replacing the 995 with a camera that had more pixels I did a test by shooting a scene at zoomed most of the way out, then re-shot the center zoomed in by about a factor of two. I then scale the two photos to match, pasted the two together and make a 8 x 10 print, you could sure tell the center was far sharper then the rest of the image. What got me looking at this was my 4x6 inch prints looked very sharp, but the 8x10 not so much. In fact a careful view of the 4x6 inch prints showed there was not much more detail that could be seen in the same image printed as an 8 x 10. Scott >> > you skipped the 950 :) >> >> Yes. I didn't mention a whole range of cameras which came after the 900, >> and those which came after the 990. My view is that the 990 was the peak >> of that range, but of course the 950 was a step along the way. >agreed, the 990 and slightly improved 995 were the peak. Yup. Still have mine, with the batteries out. Signature--- Paul J. Gans > When did the first consumer level digital cameras hit the market? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I am Yoda of Borg. Futile is Resistance. Assimilate you, I will! > The above tagline is number 212 in a series of 549. Collect them all! I lost a lucrative contract photographing a meeting to the VP of the company with a Sony Mavica in 1998. I used to shoot slides on a Leica M2 for them to document the meeting then process the slide film in the bathtub in my hotel room for the last morning meeting. Was fun paid well, I thought it was funny with the VP running around with his pockets filled with floppy disks. He got the last laugh. My first digital was a Fuji 1400 I bought for my wife after she lost and old Olympus Stylus. This camera had amazingly accurate color, and not a bad lens, just with 1.3mp the files would fall apart above 5x7, I even tried Genuine Fractals on them. Still have the camera and for 4x6 snaps you can tell the difference between the photos reduced from my D200 files and the Fuji's but they are surprisingly close. Tom In article <94ba78e3-62fb-4746-be5d-655ca80eb980@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > I lost a lucrative contract photographing a meeting to the VP of the > company with a Sony Mavica in 1998. I used to shoot slides on a Leica [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 4x6 snaps you can tell the difference between the photos reduced from > my D200 files and the Fuji's but they are surprisingly close. Must have been a bitch to keep temperatures within the close specs required for slide processing. > Must have been a bitch to keep temperatures within the close specs > required for slide processing. I t depends on the process. I used Ferraniacolor until 3M took them over and improved the film so that the quality was completely ruined. I used some plastic bowls half full of water at the correct temp. each one with an aquarium thermometer in it; all the solutions stayed in the bowls until needed and the film had a first rinse at the working temp. All worked well and I have about a thousand slides that have lasted for 40 years or so. SignatureNeil reverse ra and delete l Linux user 335851 > I t depends on the process. I used Ferraniacolor until 3M took them > over and improved the film so that the quality was completely ruined. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > All worked well and I have about a thousand slides that have lasted > for 40 years or so. I only processed Ektachrome when clients needed it in a hurry. I didn't mind doing it, but the temperature specs were much more strict than C-41 (which I also did). On 11/28/07 12:32 PM, in article 281120071032456581%rag@nospam.techline.com, >> I t depends on the process. I used Ferraniacolor until 3M took them >> over and improved the film so that the quality was completely ruined. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > mind doing it, but the temperature specs were much more strict than > C-41 (which I also did). The mot fun with E-3 processing (early Infrared Ektachrome) was in the middle of the processing. The film was physically "reversed" by opening the container, unspooling the film, and turning on bright lights for the reversal process, then trying to get the wet film back on the ElNikor stainless steel reels. Seeesh! > The mot fun with E-3 processing (early Infrared Ektachrome) was in the > middle of the processing. The film was physically "reversed" by opening the > container, unspooling the film, and turning on bright lights for the > reversal process, then trying to get the wet film back on the ElNikor > stainless steel reels. Seeesh! I remember, but think I only did that once. And I made a mistake. I didn't do C-41...I just did R-4 chemistry for printing negatives. Jeez...it was so long ago and I don't miss spending 3 or so hours every night in the darkroom. On 11/28/07 1:44 PM, in article 281120071144568260%rag@nospam.techline.com, >> The mot fun with E-3 processing (early Infrared Ektachrome) was in the >> middle of the processing. The film was physically "reversed" by opening the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > printing negatives. Jeez...it was so long ago and I don't miss spending > 3 or so hours every night in the darkroom. I miss my brown fingernails.... >My first digital was a Fuji 1400 I bought for my wife after she lost >and old Olympus Stylus. This camera had amazingly accurate color, and >not a bad lens, just with 1.3mp the files would fall apart above 5x7, I had one of those too, and I generally agree, although I got some pretty good 8x10 prints when I took the time to shoot carefully. SignatureBest regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) > When did the first consumer level digital cameras hit the market? > > I was sort of a late arrival in digital world. My fist digital picture > is dated May 18, 1999 and was taken with a Kodak DC-265. I was never > very happy with that camera, but I used it for about 2 years. It never > came close to replacing my film camera. My first digital camera was Casio QV-10 It came out about 1995 about 0.3 mpixel in high res mode. It had enough memory to save 95 images, just about the same number that a good fresh set of 4 AA batteries would last. The QV-10 was one of the first mass produced digital camera's There were a few digital cameras before the QV-10 most relatively low resolution. I had a friend with a digital SLR that was a regular SLR with a digital back. It was a one off that cost him about $10K that was 93/94 it had 240,000 pixels. w.. |
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
|
©2008 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.