« Quote o' the Day: Miriam Grossman Cohen | Main | Pentax Introduces Superwide for 645D »

Sunday, 25 March 2012

Comments

That F3 hooked up to its primitive, digital component reminds me of all those sci-fi/horror movies where humans wake up attached to some diabolically innovative scientific/mechanical apparatus meant to extend or severely alter the remainder of their lives...

"All in all, considering all the potential problems, I don't envy future historians of the era just past in photography."

In my experience art historians don't care about cameras. They care about prints and their "vintage".

Oh look! It's a non Bayer mask color camera from 1996!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/maoby/6187344440/in/set-72157627624479529/
I always wondered why 3 chip cameras weren't successful for still photography the way they are in video.

I would expect that Eastman House is taking note of the rapid evolution of digital equipment, and is probably collecting "antique" digital cameras (all of at least 15-20 years old - gads I feel ancient!!)

When I look at the Kodak photo the first thing that strikes me is how far digital image quality has come.

Click here to see what was on the other end of the cable. Then compare that to size of the Canon S95, bearing in mind that the latter gives far superior image quality at a fraction of the cost. In terms of quality, cost, and convenience photographers have never had it better.

It's entirely appropriate that this should happen. Digital for all its saving wonders and convenience is essentially an ephemeral medium. I say let it pass unrecorded and uncelebrated. Pixels? Poof.

All I know is that the F3 was Nikon's last good-looking camera, before Wünderplastik took over SLR design.

They are probably archived appropriately on the "Wayback Machine"
http://archive.org/web/web.php

Hey...the F5 is anything but Wünderplastik!

Don't forget, that Kodak DCS 100 pictured, cost $35K - and that's NOT a typo.

The comments to this entry are closed.