I think they are all from a Nikon D100, my first DSLR*. And one of the earliest really good digital cameras you could get at a reasonable price. I still have good-sized prints framed on my wall taken with that camera.
(My good friend, pro photog Laurie, had the Nikon D1, which he'd bought a year or two before. He got well hot in the top when he saw that the D100 took much better pictures than the D1, at under a third of the price.)
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b7467/b74671ae0ab996f8562c55ece82dd56c87e2c851" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/aa988/aa988973e59e70c146c602432a7580527e0e30c2" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e68e0/e68e00c65f4456f98f75c94f5c56730eddb56d09" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/754e6/754e61315f4512e36930a142dcd05631ea8a3cfe" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6f39b/6f39b94813c3c228d71298440eb9265e3a335855" alt=""
*Update: no, I lie. I had a Canon 30D before that. Or was it called D30? Damn their naming games. Anyway, it was the first affordable (relatively, at about $3000) DSLR at three megapixels. Then Nikon leap-frogged them to six megapixels with the D100. At six megapixels is when the cameras stopped being toys for real.
2 comments:
$3,000 for 3 megapixels ?
This little Canon Ixus-30 has 3.2 megapixels, and it cost around $200
back in the Christmas season of 2004.
It still takes very nice pictures.
Yes, the rate of change is breathtaking.
Post a Comment