I wonder if I am alone in being unable to let go of previous digital cameras created over a decade - hardly any time compared to film cameras - but significant in the emergence of sensor improvements [ or otherwise [ still love those CCD colours which means hanging onto older digitals ].
Dee's ruptively Gender indee'terminate . Autistic Glitch - cameras help contain and focus an out of phase world . Contax / Kiev surround and ground me in chaos . I may even take a photo or two with my several Digi-boxes . OOPs I stated Female , which was weird . I am actually XY , but my head does not recognise that 'frequency' so forgive me if I don't change it . Love puns - Miss-aligned etc LOL
Overall, I doubt that digital cameras will be as collectible as their counterparts in film. The likely cause is the near instant obsolescence factor in digital equipment. Digital cameras are, after all, just small computers with a lot of sensor nodes. Digital cameras are the victims of the same Moore's Law that rules computer processors - Capacity doubles and costs halve every eighteen months. Except for museums and nostalgia, no one uses an IBM XT, or even a 2000 Mac, because they just don't work in today's computing environment.
While you can still get a decent image on a ca. 2000 Nikon, Canon, etc., the latest versions are quicker, better, cheaper; you get all three, when in 1990, you had to choose two.
An old Nikon D40 will hardly yield "chump change" for the seller. Part of the reason is the lack of "personality" of the modern DSLR. They're all black matte plastic, with the only difference appearing the area of the pentaprism. If you were a Nikon F user, your camera stood out from the Canon. No one mistook a Nikon F3HP for a Canon F1. The Leica M series would never be mistaken for a Yashica Electro 35. You can still get decent images with the D40, but if you need repairs, you're better off tossing it.
There's also a lot of inherent value built into older film cameras. Production costs were high, since parts had to be precisely made, then hand fitted. Modern manufacturing techniques and materials guarantee "first time fits", in the majority of instances. Old Leicas are valuable for that reason alone, aside that they're no longer made. The same can't be said for a Nikon Cool Pix, Model XXX.
A Nikon F5 still brings around $350-400 on the used market, because they were the last of the "real" Pro Nikon models; the F6 doesn't have the same cachet, although they sell for more because of their advanced technology. However, even pre-digital, film cameras suffered from the same fast obsolescence factors. You can't give away a Nikon N4004, etc., because their A/F technology is so ancient. Moore's law is at work again.
Of course they will be collected. Look at some of the early working digital cameras now being sold and the collectors of early computers and video consoles. People will collect all sorts of things. Old technology means nothing if you just want to relive something from your youth and what you could not afford when you were younger. Like old cars a spin around the block can be interesting and nostalgic but I would never use my Leica’s and Rollei’s for serious photographs – that’s what digitals are for - but it does not stop me collecting cameras from the mechanical age.
I have a collection of over 250 cameras from 8mm to 8"x10"
All of them use film in one form or another from glass to celluloide and plastics.
But not those digital monsters. Thay can not take pictures and are, therefore not cameras. I can not even find the door by which film might enter the camera.
Whoops! Excuse me. My tongue is stuck in my cheek. See ya later when I get it freed.
A camera is just a tool to take photographs and improvements in technology make the tools more versatile and faster to use. The last few months I have been dry firing and film firing some of my best cameras. A Leica 3f, 3g and M3, a Nikon S2 and SP, a Contax 3a, Canon F1’s and every Nikon F model – up to the F6 (which is the closest film cameras ever got to digitals) and Rolleiflex 3.5F. These were some of the greatest machines ever made and I appreciate their jewel like quality and the great engineering in them BUT as a tool they just don’t hold their own against modern digital cameras. For serious photography I would no more use one of these than watch a black and white television or drive a model T.
If I could convert my old Canon T90 to digital I would gladly pay $1,000 for it. A great deal of the digital appeal is the never even imagined forward leaps in the darkroom. Now I can sit at my desk and push a few buttons and save hours of work, for example. And the multitude of editing tools is miraculous. And no costs. The unbelievable reduction in cost per picture is a very welcome improvement as well.
Post by paulhofseth on Sept 9, 2019 8:43:25 GMT -5
Digital is definitely not analogue. That much seems agreed. Most people who collectdo it for enjoyment. a minority expect is to be profitable. So the fact that anything with chips in it will quicly become unreapairable does not worry one future collector. Even some of the Early Leitz SlRs contained chips from Ferrnti that can no longer ve obtained, so stick with the older purely mechanicals if usabuility is necessary..
It will certainly not become an art collectors marke twhere buyers can show off by exhibiting their wealth, but a quiet hobby like some collect dinky toy autos.. The stuff to collect may be the visually distincctivve and the innovative like the early Leica+Fuji hybrids and kodaks halfhearted pioneering effort. I am not entaring that market. The interchangeable lenses made to fit digital apparatus, but without dubious electronic innards may also become scarce and sought after..
Digital is just another evolution in camera technology.
Glass Plates, roll film, 135 format film, APS-C, and finally chips.
Cameras also always developed: Range finder, SLR, internal light meter, mechanical controlled auto exposure, electronic shutter, electronic auto exposure, program mode, data backs, computer controlled mode. Replacing the film with digital medium is just another step.
There are collectors out there for allmost everything, if a camera is "old" depends also on the age of the person who is looking at it.
What makes a Nikon F100 collectable and a D100 not?
Both cameras are dead and beyond repair if they have a serius electronic problem
Early digital cameras get rare now and reflect the personal history of the user. For me the Coolpix 900 was the first digital camera I was interested back then. But it was too expensive and compared to slides it could not hold up regarding image quality.
Anyway, now I have them in my collection as a milestone of personal interest.
The Nikon 990 was my first real digital and I made thousands of 3 megapixel images with it and several of those pictures were printed at 11x14 and hang framed around the house. I actually have 3 of them now and occasionally use one just to see what it can still do.
Post by Just Plain Curt on Nov 2, 2019 11:13:13 GMT -5
Guilty of picking these up when I find them cheap enough. I have somewhere around 24 of the digital point 'n shoot variety as well as assorted cards for image storage. Still have a couple of foil card type too. Not even sure what those were called.