How Soon We Forget!

[Dylan777]

Well, after playing with some A7S 12mp RAW files, I've concluded that it's lacking resolution, just a bit. For today's highres displays (like 4K) 16mp would have been much better .

I'm about to jump on a7s wagon because of low, 12MP

 

[madmailman]

I'm pretty sure I paid about $1000 for my first digital camera. A whopping 2mp (CCD) Kodac DC280. Took some pretty good pictures with it too, as long as my subject was no faster than a limping snail.

 

[nc0b]

My first digital was a Kodak 0.8 MP point and shoot that ran on AA cells. 25 shots and the batteries were pretty well dead. The image wasn't even good enough to use in an annual radio review book I wrote for. Later the origin DSLR Rebel came along at $900 for the body only. At that point digital images were good enough for publication, and the Nikon F2 went back on the shelf.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I was a late comer. I stuck with film (Canon A2E) up until I got seduced by the dark side (Digital) when I got my 30D. 8 massive megapickles!!!

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

I recently read a letter to the editor of a Paris-published photo-magazine. The writer related that his Canon 20D had recently died and that he missed it terribly. It made great images for him for all those years.

Then there's the story about a motorcycle race photographer who used an old 1Ds 4mpixel and could print _incredible_ B+ size images. Here's a link to his story -
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/i-think-its-imp.html
[Scroll down to the image of the racer]

Both these stories reminded me it's not about how much DR or how many pixels something might have. It's how you use whatever you have that counts... and to think that Canon has for many years enabled this kind of creativity... it's amazing...

 

[the blackfox]

yo ,i progressed from a 0.8mp digicam think it might have been a fuji? but lost to memory now ,processed using a windows freebie p/p program from a magazine .if my memory is correct it didn't even have a review screen,soon replaced with a 2-0mp ricoh i think with built in memory ,then a ricoh i500 that was long and thin and 3.0mp but took c/f cards with an incredible 1 cm close focus lens ..
next came a mega leap with a sony can't remember the model number but it was dslr size ,non detachable zoom lens and at 8mp had the printing shop asking what the hell it was .it had a body that was multi angle to .super camera that put me on track for a legion of both nikon and canon DSLR bodies and lenses in the following years .

during the intervening years as i progressed i went from problem laden windows computers and j-pegs to my first i-mac and then through various p/p programs till now shooting entirely in RAW and processing on CS6 on a huge desktop i-mac with more power than the ones used for the moon landings ,wonder what the next 20 years will bring

 

[ecka]

Well, after playing with some A7S 12mp RAW files, I've concluded that it's lacking resolution, just a bit. For today's highres displays (like 4K) 16mp would have been much better .

I'm about to jump on a7s wagon because of low, 12MP

Good for you

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi blackfox.
I really hope you have more computing power than than used for the moon landings, all you need for that is a toaster with computer controlled timer if you mean the computer that landed on the moon!
I remember my uncle arriving in England from the USA with the first model of Texas Instruments calculator and proudly proclaiming it was more powerful than the computer that took man to the moon! ;D

Quote from Computer Weekly.
http://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Apollo-11-The-computers-that-put-man-on-the-moon
Quote
The so-called Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) used a real time operating system, which enabled astronauts to enter simple commands by typing in pairs of nouns and verbs, to control the spacecraft. It was more basic than the electronics in modern toasters that have computer controlled stop/start/defrost buttons. It had approximately 64Kbyte of memory and operated at 0.043MHz.
End quote.

To clarify, it had 2kbytes ram 64kbytes rom
As for the ground based main frames used I lost interest in working out how many of those would equal your Mac! ;D

Cheers, Graham.

and processing on CS6 on a huge desktop i-mac with more power than the ones used for the moon landings ,wonder what the next 20 years will bring

 

[dash2k8]

I recently read a letter to the editor of a Paris-published photo-magazine. The writer related that his Canon 20D had recently died and that he missed it terribly. It made great images for him for all those years.

Then there's the story about a motorcycle race photographer who used an old 1Ds 4mpixel and could print _incredible_ B+ size images. Here's a link to his story -
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/i-think-its-imp.html
[Scroll down to the image of the racer]

Both these stories reminded me it's not about how much DR or how many pixels something might have. It's how you use whatever you have that counts... and to think that Canon has for many years enabled this kind of creativity... it's amazing...

I totally approve your point, but at the same time we have to be realistic. Most people couldn't make a living with 2MP-cameras. The wonderful stories are the exception, as it were. I do believe, though, that these things help put things in perspective: it's not about the gear, it's about what goes on between the ears. The gear just helps us bridge that creative gap more easily.

I like to remind myself that Ansel Adams didn't have a single megapixel and didn't do too poorly.

 

[Joe M]

I haven't forgotten. The cameras are simply tools and the better the tool, the easier it is for me to get my job done. For those who think it's all about the person behind the camera, well, that's partly true. The thing is, you'd likely rather use a 5D3 to do the job as opposed to a 10D (or at least I sure do for what I shoot). Yes, you can get the shot but it will likely look nicer and will be immensely easier to get it with some tools rather than others. So no, when I'm in places and circumstances wherein it is now easier for me to get my shot (and it looks better too), I don't at the time think "wow, this is much less work and a little more fun" but there have been times afterwards that I have.

 

[benperrin]

I haven't forgotten. The cameras are simply tools and the better the tool, the easier it is for me to get my job done. For those who think it's all about the person behind the camera, well, that's partly true. The thing is, you'd likely rather use a 5D3 to do the job as opposed to a 10D (or at least I sure do for what I shoot). Yes, you can get the shot but it will likely look nicer and will be immensely easier to get it with some tools rather than others. So no, when I'm in places and circumstances wherein it is now easier for me to get my shot (and it looks better too), I don't at the time think "wow, this is much less work and a little more fun" but there have been times afterwards that I have.

+1

Great response!

 

[FTb-n]

Photography is a great hobby (or profession) for those of us who not only enjoy the art of capturing that moment in time, but also marvel at the technological advances and fine craftsmanship that went into the development of our tools.

For decades, the film-based Leica M-series was a marvel in design and craftsmanship. So was the Hasselblad. I still appreciate the craftsmanship that went into the Canon F1, FTb-n, and the Canonet GIII's -- and the little Rollie 35's with the collapsible lens. I still think that old Argus C3 is unique marvel in its simplicity and tank-meets-Brownie design. The big thing in my early career was to push-process ASA 400 Tri-X film to ASA 1,200. Shooting at 1,200 was FAST and way cool.

But, now, with a 7D or a 5D3, I routinely shoot up to ISO 64,000. Last week, I played with 12,800 at a high-school football game. The results at these speeds still amaze me. I remember when Ektachrome ASA 160 was "high speed film." It is incredible that one can get a recognizable image at ISO 12,800, let alone a clean one. Looking back a few decades, it is fascinating to review the evolution of the camera. The progress in the past ten years absolutely amazes me.

Photography is the art of capturing a moment that can be studied, discussed, and enjoyed for a lifetime. The photograph lives to reveal the details of an instant in time. For the photographer, it's not only the image and the story within that sparks great interest, but also the tale of getting the shot -- the hunt itself.

It is fascinating to discuss the techniques we use to get that shot. I find it equally fascinating to discuss the tools that we use. We are witnessing an incredible evolution of the camera, there is much to share as we watch it evolve. It is this variety that fascinates me about photography for it offers so many different fields of study that can shared in spirited discussion -- from the image, to the hunt, to the technology that drives the evolution of our tools -- it offers the spice that keeps the pages of this forum alive and kicking.

 

[tron]

[* EOS 620 (1/4000s shutter, 1/250 x-sync) and Canon technical date back ... great camera. You could simply exchange the grip for a bigger one for bigger hands, nowadays you have to buy a semi-pro camera for that ... http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/eoscamera/620/

* EOS RT: nearly zero shutter lag and you can see the moment the picture is taken which all other dslrs don't manage because of the mirror blackout. Loved it ... http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/eoscamera/EOS-RT/

[

WOW! EOS 620 was my first Canon camera and RT my second one (without selling the first one)