User ID

Hmmmnnnn .... I just find fairly recent cameras to be where the fun is for me. I guess Im not really intrigued by playing with relics. I just want results.

I do have a Pen-F, sort of a fake relic but with modern specs and functions. Thaz about all the nostalgia I can stomach. Im actually a bit put off by all its cosmetic fakery, but its the only Olympus with a left-corner eyepiece. I happen to have several modern cameras with that layout. Maybe thaz my version of nostalgia ?

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

👍

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

In dental school, graduated 1977 NYU, we used them for lab work and they were portable so in school we could use them at home too. Excellent torque

Canisdirus

Which my post isn't about.

I already said...if you don't care...go for it.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I have a question about the usefulness of older, less pixels, camera for astrophotography
I've heard older cameras might be better at astrophotography because you have less pixels and thus each one is bigger so it's a better light bucket
At star parties all action is after dark so there is a lot of time during the day for BS sessions.
Don't know the technology to have an honest opinion so I'm putting it out there for discussion.
I've always had Canon rebels, xsi, T3i, 77D, t7i. The 77D was a retirement present to myself. T3i I used with a ring flash and Tamron 90 macro 1:1, and had exce)ent results. The T7i I found used for $450, so I jumped on it for a second camera with a different lens
The T3i after I retired gave to my brother for some astrophotography. He has another astrophotography camera to use with his C 11.
At the time the 77D was a good choice for me and I looked at higher end but the weight and feel I liked better
As a bonus Canon just upgraded their processor for the 77D to a logic 7? Processor and the pro Canon still had a logic 6.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

It depends on what you are doing at night. If you are using a tracking mount, pretty much any camera can be made to work. If you are photographing through a telescope, total sensor resolution is of secondary importance.

But if you are working from a traditional tripod, exposure times get to be very limited. So the ability to work at higher ISOs (at least 4,000 or so) becomes a fundamental requirement. And if you are shooting with a wide-angle lens, resolution becomes a primary parameter, because it determines how many individual stars can be captured, defining the whole "look" of your finished photograph.

I still have among my weapons a Nikon D300s. I still love and occasionally use this camera. It would almost certainly do a fine job mounted to the output of a telescope, but would not be any better or even as good as one of my newer cameras. And it fails utterly for skyscape photography...both sensitivity and resolution fall way short of what is required.

gwilliams6

Yes you date the cameras, but marry the great lenses. LOL

Cheers and best to you.

Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore

I always use a tracking mount

Flickwet Loc: NEOhio

It is a DX2S, i love the camera

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You don't create great images while admiring all the features your camera doesn't have.

radiojohn

I am nowhere near buying in the stratospheric price ranges enjoyed by so many here.

A year or so back I got a modest Olympus 16 MP mirrorless m4/3 camera and a couple of satisfactory (for me) kit lens & adapters for some older lenses. But I never warmed up to the multiple choices menu, touch screens, etc. It seemed like too much had to be checked to make sure nothing had changed before I could use it.

Recently I came across an ancient, forgotten, despised 10 MP Olympus E-410 DSLR and found myself enjoying using it. It felt familiar.

Keep in mind, if they had better screens, I'd probably be happy with a Pentax Spotmatic or a Chinon Memotron (GAF L-ES)

So, I think I understand what the author was commenting on.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I do not "COLLECT" cameras- never did and don't keep old gear for "nostalgia". Therefore, I have disposed of most of my old equipment that has gone obsolete or comes to its timely or untimely demise, just to serve as a dust collector or paperweight!

I have, on the other hand, retained stuff that I can still use. I have digitized some of my medium format cameras so I can use used some of my favorite senses and some vintage or exotic ones that are incompatible with my current digital equipment. I have several soft-focus lenses where the effect cannot be replicated with any modern glass. The focal lengths are too long for any DSLR or mirrorless camera. I still use one on my superwide camer with film- I love the lens.

I no longer need to make large format transparencies but I did hold on to my 4x5 Linhof. I still use it wiorth film on certain architectural jobs where tilts and swings are required.

When a lot of y'all say "old" you are talking about early digital models. My stuff is really OLD! I do, however, detest and never use the term "Old Relic" because every time I look in the mirror that word comes to mind! I have yet to make the transition to a mirrorless camera system but I am seriously planning a MIRRORLESS HOUSE!

JacksonHD Loc: NorCal

👍👍

RonDavis Loc: Chicago, IL

Well...I find that once in a while shooting with an "older" (digital) camera(s) that I own presents a refreshing and pleasurable challenge. Using an older camera causes me to slow down and think more about the exposure triangle, compositions and what else is needed to get the anticipated results.
I also have newbies with up-to-date technology in the arsenal, but they don't present the same intellectual challenge....yet. I'm not talking about point and shoot....but adjusting the exposure triangle setting is a bit easier and faster with these latest advanced models. Advances in technology is not resisted and is well appreciated!

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Ron, this is an interesting discussion. The general response seems to be that the newer cameras with their superior technology are to be preferred because they produce better results more efficiently at a lower cost. If a person were to state on this forum that it was their aim to produce museum worthy images or ones that people would be viewing in photographic books several decades from now and would further say that they planned to use older model film cameras to achieve this goal and would like to receive comments and suggestions from the UHH Community. I think the overwhelming response would be that they were about to embark on a fools errand; that they should disabuse themselves of such nonsense and set out with most uptodate equipment they could afford to achieve their goals. If the newer more technological advanced equipment produces such superior results, then why are we still cluttering our walls with such inferior efforts when there are superior more modern images readily available to replace them.