Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Do I have this timeline right?
Mar 17, 2023 16:54:51   #
radiojohn
 
First there were clunky digital cameras, basically box cameras without film.

Quickly they added autofocus.

Then came zoom lenses.

Along the way they dropped in "modes" for shooting different ways and under different conditions.

Finally, along with steady improvments, expensive "digital single lens reflex" cameras were cobbled together from existing SLR bodies.

Later DSLRS were built from scratch with both new an existing lens mounts.

On a side track, digital "bridge cameras" were built with fixed SLR type zoom lenses and electronic viewfinders (EVF) where the optical finders once were. These EVFs were adequate for many uses, but not yet up to pro standards. DSLRS still dominated that area.

Finally, improved viewfinder technology replaced prisms and the whole idea of optical "reflex" viewing in most cameras. A few cameras still offered non-reflex optical viewfinders.

The dropping of optical reflex in camera allow designers to rethink removable lens camera body design.

Eventually the DSLR look, based on the film SLR, may look as unusual as twin lens reflex cameras (Rolleiflex, etc.) looks today.

Reply
Mar 17, 2023 17:02:57   #
BebuLamar
 
Wrong! Early digital cameras have autofocus and not clunky. Many are quite cute. They came with all kind of modes from the beginning. The reasons? All these techs were available for film camera long before the digital.

Reply
Mar 17, 2023 17:48:40   #
radiojohn
 
You must not have been around in the early days. My Sound Vision one was fixed focus, used six AAA batteries and you set the white balance by aiming it at a blue sky. My second was a fixed focus box camera by Kodak that I featured in my first article by Shutterbug's "eDigitalPhoto" magazine. It was one of the first articles with photos take BY the camera ad not OF the camera. The previous crop of 640x480 digitals reproduced very poorly.

Concord, HP and plenty of others had early cameras all with fixed focus and no zoom. Digital box cameras.

Reply
 
 
Mar 17, 2023 19:12:22   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
radiojohn wrote:
You must not have been around in the early days.


You might want to include some chronological information other than "the early days", if you want this thread to go somewhere. A trip down memory lane should bring the old folks out of the woodwork.



---

Reply
Mar 17, 2023 20:03:59   #
radiojohn
 
I'm starting in the latter 90's. There were some cameras that worked with Windows 3.1 and more with Windows 95, XP, etc. I'm more interested in the order features were added.

Reply
Mar 17, 2023 21:18:47   #
JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco
 
radiojohn wrote:
I'm starting in the latter 90's. There were some cameras that worked with Windows 3.1 and more with Windows 95, XP, etc. I'm more interested in the order features were added.


I got my first DSLR, a Nikon D1X, in the late '90s. It had autofocus, took existing Nikon lenses, and all the usual exposure modes as their film SLRs. Before that I had some early digital cameras that had more features than box cameras.

Reply
Mar 18, 2023 03:16:35   #
Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal
 
radiojohn wrote:
First there were clunky digital cameras, basically box cameras without film.

Quickly they added autofocus.

Then came zoom lenses.

Along the way they dropped in "modes" for shooting different ways and under different conditions.

Finally, along with steady improvments, expensive "digital single lens reflex" cameras were cobbled together from existing SLR bodies.

Later DSLRS were built from scratch with both new an existing lens mounts.

On a side track, digital "bridge cameras" were built with fixed SLR type zoom lenses and electronic viewfinders (EVF) where the optical finders once were. These EVFs were adequate for many uses, but not yet up to pro standards. DSLRS still dominated that area.

Finally, improved viewfinder technology replaced prisms and the whole idea of optical "reflex" viewing in most cameras. A few cameras still offered non-reflex optical viewfinders.

The dropping of optical reflex in camera allow designers to rethink removable lens camera body design.

Eventually the DSLR look, based on the film SLR, may look as unusual as twin lens reflex cameras (Rolleiflex, etc.) looks today.
First there were clunky digital cameras, basically... (show quote)


A slight segue:
We went from 120 film, completely transitioned to 35mm, for convenience and costs.
Industry tried to do the same with APS film cameras, also promising NEW! and IMPROVED! tech.
Factories rumbled. THAT didn't happen. NOT worth switching to yet another proprietary system
The consumers just didn't transition, and neither did a lot of 3rd party industry support.
So digital started to happen and a lot of APS parts and production were available.
Smaller sensors were nice, but you needed a different production and support culture. Like the OMs, etc.
The market started to stagnate and saturate, the Corps looked at 35mm sensors, and then 120 equivalents
Instead of showing me how much better these photos would be, they told me the cropping advantages,
NEW! $$$ lenses! Etc. Ho hum.
IN THE MEANTIME phone Corps were putting these same smaller sensors into their bespoke products.
Mass consumers hardly ever print 4x6s anymore. Maybe wallet sizes, sometimes, but digital is free and easy.
Turn of the century- people might "forget" that extra clunky box and accessories, but not their phones.
I visit certain in-laws a few times- do I bring my Zeiss Ikon, the Iskra, my D200, my d3200 or my D600?
And annoy everybody? Or just my ubiquitous iPhone. No worries.
I don't print larger than 8x10, and hardly ever this decade. Or two.
As long as it looks good on the PC screen, or their phone, their happiness exists.
Always have an iphone on me..

Reply
 
 
Mar 18, 2023 07:11:28   #
Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore
 
Does anyone remember the early video cameras. I remember at the park daddies Carrington around these large heavy boxes on shoulders to tale video/film of their children playing. Or go to a popular landmark and dads chasing kids around with these massive boxes on shoulders. Guess it was good practice for carring boom boxes around on shoulders

Reply
Mar 18, 2023 08:58:08   #
radiojohn
 
I guess on my magazine "beat" I was less focused on the very high priced items and more on what the average consumer was seeing on non-camera store shelves.

The evolution I described worked it's way down to the consumer level. But now that they prefer Smartphones there not much there for the non-enthusiast.

Reply
Mar 18, 2023 09:02:30   #
radiojohn
 
Funny how Kodak kept trying to sell smaller amounts of physical film for more money. Plus each "new big thing" required new processing gear at the labs. Disc film was just not good enough for anybody!

Reply
Mar 18, 2023 14:10:53   #
Architect1776 Loc: In my mind
 
BebuLamar wrote:
Wrong! Early digital cameras have autofocus and not clunky. Many are quite cute. They came with all kind of modes from the beginning. The reasons? All these techs were available for film camera long before the digital.



Reply
 
 
Mar 19, 2023 00:07:28   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
radiojohn wrote:
I'm more interested in the order features were added.

In 1995 I purchased a Canon EOS Elan {film} camera, with {I believe it was} a 28-80mm lens - that used EF-mount lenses {which has always been quiet and smooth}. A major alternative was a Nikon 7007 {film} camera, also with auto-focus. I don’t know this for certain, but I suspect zoom lenses became common with auto focus, because was easier to engineer zoom lenses when they didn’t have to maintain focus as you zoomed {AF could fix focus very quickly}. I am certain that AF had a good foothold before digital was at all feasible, which happened in the first years after 2000.

Reply
Mar 19, 2023 02:09:14   #
TheShoe Loc: Lacey, WA
 
Also wrong, at least partly, on the assumption about cramming digital into existing SLR bodies. The Olympus E1 was digital from its inception.

Reply
Mar 19, 2023 06:45:41   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
TheShoe wrote:
Also wrong, at least partly, on the assumption about cramming digital into existing SLR bodies. The Olympus E1 was digital from its inception.

Mine is wholey based on my personal observations - no assumptions involved.

Reply
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.