<|-- removed generator --> The Online Photographer: The Prettiest Image Files

« Exposures Aren't Free | Main | Honor, Ethics, Character, and Cameras (Blog Notes for the Week) »

Thursday, 21 July 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Nikon Coolpix 4500 4MP camera. My first 'serious' digital camera (if you don't count the Kodak 640x480 clip-on for the Palm Pilot). Absolutely gorgeous color rendition of grass and sky where even today's cameras tend to turn the grass yellow and blow out the sky.

Great to see so many comments and wonderful photographs here. Other folks reminded me also of my Fuji F31fd, a camera I thought so highly of, I bought two of them. What a terrific little compact camera; it's performance at high ISO was astonishing for the time.

Singapore at night at ISO 2000 with the F31 fd

I also forgot about my beloved little Fuji X10, which was the "gateway drug" to the Fuji X system for me. I literally bumped into the display at a Costco for this camera, and bought it on the spot. What a wonderful surprise. I took this little dynamo on a trip to Lake Tahoe and Canyonlands and Arches National Park in October 2012, along with my Canon pro system, and was shocked to find the images from the Fuji X10 were better than my Canon 1D MkII. The X10 had a terrific IBIS system and the shot at Deadhorse Canyon below was taken handheld while I was making images using the tripod with the Canon.

Lake Tahoe

Deadhorse Point

Arches

Finally, while the 'ole "warhorse" X-Pro1 has been dissed left, right and center for slow AF, wonky RAW files, blah, blah, blah, there is no doubt that in the hands of a capable photographer, it is still capable of astonishing image quality. It was first camera I that used that reminded me of the magical image quality of the original 12 megapixel Canon EOS 5D

I will always have a place in my heart for my very first digital camera, the 4MP Pentax Optio 43WR. I felt it was near perfection in the palm of my hand. Too bad is didn't capture RAW.

Nikon D1X, shooting raw. Has a color palette and a grain or 'bite' that reminds me of my favourite slide film, the late lamented Fujichrome Astia. Not much good above 400 ISO, but then neither was Fujichrome ;).

I pull this beast out a few times a year, whenever I know I'll be shooting outdoors in good light. Gorgeous results. And Lightroom can import the RAW as 10 megapixel, instead of the 5 MP JPEGs.

The D1X was the camera that convinced National Geographic that hey, maybe this digital stuff is good enough for the magazine:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/multi_pageff3f.html?cid=7-6450-6561

Olympus E-1 with its fabulous Kodak sensor (I think essentially the same sensor technology used in some early digital Leica and Hasselblad cameras too).





Made the mistake of selling a previous E-1. I've kept the one I bought to replace it, and it's staying - with the 14-54 making a great all purpose combo in the worst of British weather conditions. It absolutely sings with the 11-22 too, and as per image from London Triathlon above, not too shabby with the 50-200.

One *more* vote for the venerable Leica Digilux 2. Yes, the sensor can be noisy at 400, the RAW buffer is miniscule, and the EVF can be challenging....BUT it is such a versatile camera, that looks and *feels* the way a manual camera should feel.

It's enough that the camera looks good - but then you download the files, and even the jpegs are awesome. There is a spirit and character to those pictures, and the lens punches far above its weight.

I think when I wax nostalgic for "old" digital cameras, it is for the best that the older sensors produced forgetting the camera limitations that drove me batty. I had an Epson RD-1, which reportedly had the same sensor as the Nikon D100. When it worked: magic! But the RF system had "backlash" in it and high ISO files weren't great. Still, I have thought about buying an old D100 just to see if I could reproduce the best IQ I got out of the Epson. Current price at KEH for the D100 was about $109 -- practically free. My own digital progression was:

1. Sony something cam. Used until it stopped working, then threw it away.
2. Canon Digi-Rebel. Sold to finance the purchase of:
3. Epson RD-1. Sold to finance purchase of (actually the sales tax on):
4. Leica M8, Canon 5D. Sold to finance the purchase of:
4. Leica M9, Nikon D3 . . . and there I have stopped for a good long while, adding an Oplypus OM-D, a Fuji X-Pro1 and a Sony Alpha 6000 along the way.

The first camera on that list that made me really, really happy with the IQ was the Nikon D3, which really isn't all that old. I still use it all the time and it just occupies a sweet spot of IQ, file size and dependability. The M9 beats it on pure IQ, I suppose, but there is so much more to a good picture than resolution.

I'll second Stephen Scharf's comments on the Fujifilm X10; what a fantastic camera and sensor combo. I gave mine to a young photographer friend and bought an X20 and if my friend wasn't doing such great work with it, I'd regret saying goodbye to it.

Like the original X100, it produced wonderfully deep files that looked good in color and monochorme.

Palomino HB Shaving, May 03, 2012

Palomino Blackwing 602 Shavings, May 08, 2012

(Yes, I'm a huge fan of David Rees.)

Pete, NSOC DuTeau Subaru Meet, August 18, 2012

Trendwood Park Hikers, February 04, 2012 (Version 2)

1. The Leica Digilux 2 had a fantastic lens/sensor pairing. ISO 200 and 400 were pretty bad, but at base ISO the results were terrific.
2. Epson R-D1 - same 6MP sensor as the Nikon D40 I think, but paired with M mount lenses: beautiful.
3. The Sigma DP2 original - very film-like and limpid rendering.
Pity Leica didn't update the D2 and Epson the R-D1....

Nikon D80.

I agree with the sentiment that the X100 produces wonderful files. I'm not just saying that because mine won't break, and it seems silly to replace a perfectly good camera. :-)

I yearn for the Xpro2. But my Canon 1D4 also keeps on plugging along. Silly reliable cameras!!

Fourthing or fifthing the X100 recommend. I have so many prints, so many favorite digital images, with a color that makes me so happy in a way I can't really describe. I loved my original 5D but after I got the x100, I could barely tolerate the colors out of the 5D.

I thought the Nikon P5100 produced results that were better than they had any right to be, with its tiny sensor and zoom lens.


+1 for the 2004 8MP Oly C-8080 WZ. It was an odd looking little camera but the files were very nice. I'm sure much of the love comes from it being was my first digital and the fact that I have blocked it's miserable speed performance from my memory.

Fuji X-Trans files are pretty special (I came into Fuji already in the X-Trans era, so I don't know if I'd like their earlier files better). The 16 MP X-Trans files have always beaten any comparable resolution file, at least to my eye. They pulled a successful transition to 24 MP, too - the X-Pro 2 is by no means old, but it's a gem - by far the best APS-C files I've seen (at least in part due to the wide range of absolutely superb APS-C specific lenses). it holds up against full frame files beautifully except in one specific situation.

In order to beat the X-Pro 2, you need:
A full-frame camera with a resolution advantage (the X-Pro 2 will hang RIGHT in there with 24 MP FF in any situation, while it can be beaten by 36+ )
A very good lens - all of Canon, Nikon and Sony have quite a few primes and a few zooms that are that good, but many of the less expensive zooms ARE NOT).
Superb technique - either a sturdy tripod or a shutter speed that is above the "shutter shock range", plus careful focus and exposure. If it's on a tripod, using a remote release and mirror up (if applicable) is a good idea.
If you do all of these things, yes, you can produce a file with more detail (and perhaps slightly more dynamic rangel than the X-Pro 2 can give you (it'll take some Photoshop or Lightroom work to get the color as good).
A good X-Pro 2 file will print 24x36" easily, so add a 44" printer to the list of what you need to really appreciate the 36+ MP file.

Soon we will be able to get an app for our phones to take those low res, low dynamic range images, like those made by those big "old school" dedicated cameras that you held with both hands, and then had to wire them up to a computer to transfer the images. Reminiscent of the time when photography was somehow more "authentic" than it is today.

Having had a few more days to review my photos, I find that the prettiest image files from "digital" are from Portra 400 fed through a Noritsu! Something about the color balance from mixed lighting and the saturation of just the right (for me) colors.

Canon EOS10D. My first DSLR and first digital camera of any kind...sold off Nikon film gear to get it. Walked in to buy a D100 and walked out a Canon believer. I loved the feel of that camera in my hands and it was bulletproof...flogged that camera as a daily p/j until the 5D and then still preferred the 10D until demand dictated larger files. That camera, with a 50mm attached, survived snowstorms, downpours and even a quick submerging and kept on going. Still have it but the shutter button is getting tired and cranky.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Portals




Stats


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007