Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Old is NEW again ?
Page 1 of 2 next>
Sep 11, 2018 09:27:10   #
donrent Loc: Punta Gorda , Fl
 
I recently was viewing some old images of a HS class reunion and was amazed at the quality that existed even "way back then". So I sez to myself- damn those are aren't bad at all !
Looked around and guess what ? I still had that camera. A Kodak DC4800 ,3.1 mp, model with (gasp) a viewfinder! ( had to be close to 20 years old) So I dug her out. batteries were 0 level, could not find the charger, so I ordered one. Got it . The old batteries were still good. So I downloaded the manual and so I started to refresh myself to its operational ability..It works great and I'd forgotten how vivid and strong the color was . As good if not better than any camera there is today. Easy to use, very light to carry. Gee, I like that ! At 82 I'm not into weight lifting any more.
My Thoughts about my rediscovery ?
There just may be a very nice Canon and lens for sale!

Reply
Sep 11, 2018 09:41:42   #
revhen Loc: By the beautiful Hudson
 
If Kodachrome were available I'd be SO tempted!

Reply
Sep 11, 2018 09:45:03   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
I am not familiar with that camera but I was with the Nikon 4800 that sported 8 Mp. Nice little camera and I am quite sure the Kodak is also a good one.

The sensor is those cameras, like many other cameras at the time, was a CCD sensor which in my opinion is capable of better colors although it had a dismal low light performance.
Nothing wrong with old cameras, especially in good light. The D200 comes to mind.

Reply
 
 
Sep 11, 2018 09:53:47   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 
revhen wrote:
If Kodachrome were available I'd be SO tempted!


Oh, yes, if only they still made and processed Kodachrome. Damn, you got me thinking of that song...

Reply
Sep 11, 2018 09:57:05   #
donrent Loc: Punta Gorda , Fl
 
revhen wrote:
If Kodachrome were available I'd be SO tempted!

====================================================================================================================
WHO,. Me Temped ? NOT ONE IOTA AT ALL !!!
I'd be at the nearest film seller faster than "Speedy Gonzales".
I still have my very first 35mm, a 1940's Mercury 11.

Reply
Sep 11, 2018 09:58:58   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 
donrent wrote:
I recently was viewing some old images of a HS class reunion and was amazed at the quality that existed even "way back then". So I sez to myself- damn those are aren't bad at all !
Looked around and guess what ? I still had that camera. A Kodak DC4800 ,3.1 mp, model with (gasp) a viewfinder! ( had to be close to 20 years old) So I dug her out. batteries were 0 level, could not find the charger, so I ordered one. Got it . The old batteries were still good. So I downloaded the manual and so I started to refresh myself to its operational ability..It works great and I'd forgotten how vivid and strong the color was . As good if not better than any camera there is today. Easy to use, very light to carry. Gee, I like that ! At 82 I'm not into weight lifting any more.
My Thoughts about my rediscovery ?
There just may be a very nice Canon and lens for sale!
I recently was viewing some old images of a HS cla... (show quote)


I've never attended any of the graduation anniversary parties I might have attended. Especially HS, that was a life I'd rather forget about. Yikes, 1973.

Reply
Sep 11, 2018 10:02:04   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 
camerapapi wrote:
I am not familiar with that camera but I was with the Nikon 4800 that sported 8 Mp. Nice little camera and I am quite sure the Kodak is also a good one.

The sensor is those cameras, like many other cameras at the time, was a CCD sensor which in my opinion is capable of better colors although it had a dismal low light performance.
Nothing wrong with old cameras, especially in good light. The D200 comes to mind.


My Pentax K-100D (6.1MP) camera has a CCD sensor, but since I had it converted to Infrared only use it is unlikely I'd have to worry about low light or noise. With the AA filter also gone the camera seems sharper than it should be.

Reply
 
 
Sep 11, 2018 10:09:46   #
Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast
 
donrent wrote:
I recently was viewing some old images of a HS class reunion and was amazed at the quality that existed even "way back then". So I sez to myself- damn those are aren't bad at all !
Looked around and guess what ? I still had that camera. A Kodak DC4800 ,3.1 mp, model with (gasp) a viewfinder! ( had to be close to 20 years old) So I dug her out. batteries were 0 level, could not find the charger, so I ordered one. Got it . The old batteries were still good. So I downloaded the manual and so I started to refresh myself to its operational ability..It works great and I'd forgotten how vivid and strong the color was . As good if not better than any camera there is today. Easy to use, very light to carry. Gee, I like that ! At 82 I'm not into weight lifting any more.
My Thoughts about my rediscovery ?
There just may be a very nice Canon and lens for sale!
I recently was viewing some old images of a HS cla... (show quote)


Many on eBay for ~$30....good buy

Reply
Sep 11, 2018 11:30:08   #
Largobob
 
camerapapi wrote:
I am not familiar with that camera but I was with the Nikon 4800 that sported 8 Mp. Nice little camera and I am quite sure the Kodak is also a good one.

The sensor is those cameras, like many other cameras at the time, was a CCD sensor which in my opinion is capable of better colors although it had a dismal low light performance.
Nothing wrong with old cameras, especially in good light. The D200 comes to mind.


Yup....still have my D200 and she still works great (10.3MP).

Reply
Sep 11, 2018 13:07:34   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
Still have my first digital camera, a Sony Mavica CD-300. It has 3 megapixel sensor and writes to a mini disc. It still works and takes amazingly detailed colorful photos.

Reply
Sep 11, 2018 16:20:11   #
BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA
 
lamiaceae wrote:
Oh, yes, if only they still made and processed Kodachrome. Damn, you got me thinking of that song...

Please don't make my start crying again.

Reply
 
 
Sep 12, 2018 06:37:00   #
traderjohn Loc: New York City
 
donrent wrote:
I recently was viewing some old images of a HS class reunion and was amazed at the quality that existed even "way back then". So I sez to myself- damn those are aren't bad at all !
Looked around and guess what ? I still had that camera. A Kodak DC4800 ,3.1 mp, model with (gasp) a viewfinder! ( had to be close to 20 years old) So I dug her out. batteries were 0 level, could not find the charger, so I ordered one. Got it . The old batteries were still good. So I downloaded the manual and so I started to refresh myself to its operational ability..It works great and I'd forgotten how vivid and strong the color was . As good if not better than any camera there is today. Easy to use, very light to carry. Gee, I like that ! At 82 I'm not into weight lifting any more.
My Thoughts about my rediscovery ?
There just may be a very nice Canon and lens for sale!
I recently was viewing some old images of a HS cla... (show quote)


Think Cell Phone. At your age how cool would you be???

Reply
Sep 12, 2018 07:52:45   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
I'm still using cameras that are 60+ years old. So, nothing wrong with your reuniting with your DC4800.
--Bob
donrent wrote:
I recently was viewing some old images of a HS class reunion and was amazed at the quality that existed even "way back then". So I sez to myself- damn those are aren't bad at all !
Looked around and guess what ? I still had that camera. A Kodak DC4800 ,3.1 mp, model with (gasp) a viewfinder! ( had to be close to 20 years old) So I dug her out. batteries were 0 level, could not find the charger, so I ordered one. Got it . The old batteries were still good. So I downloaded the manual and so I started to refresh myself to its operational ability..It works great and I'd forgotten how vivid and strong the color was . As good if not better than any camera there is today. Easy to use, very light to carry. Gee, I like that ! At 82 I'm not into weight lifting any more.
My Thoughts about my rediscovery ?
There just may be a very nice Canon and lens for sale!
I recently was viewing some old images of a HS cla... (show quote)

Reply
Sep 12, 2018 08:05:16   #
rpavich Loc: West Virginia
 
I shoot 40 year old film cameras but the BEST digital camera I ever owned as a Epson RD-1X

6mp and you had to wind the film winder to cock the shutter before each picture. It was awesome!

Reply
Sep 12, 2018 08:19:31   #
StanMac Loc: Tennessee
 
donrent wrote:
. . .I still have my very first 35mm, a 1940's Mercury 11.


You might consider cashing in on that Mercury . . . eBay shows several listed in the mid-three figure price range.

Stan

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.