6MP sensor max pre 2008 DSLR

My first DSLR was an awesome secondhand Fuji S2 Pro, which was a six-megapixel SuperCCD that had an actually-useful upscale mode because the pixels were octagonally packed; otherwise it was a Nikon F80 franken-camera so quite familiar to me at the time.

I think the only "people photography" stuff I did with it was family and some gig work so I am not going to post it (though one of my favourite photos is still a photo I took with it of my then eighty-year-old father). 

Lens-wise, I had an F80 then as well, so I mostly used the 50mm f/1.8 D lens I had from that and still use, and the really not good 28-100 G kit zoom, because Nikon for some reason only put the optically much better 28-80 G zoom in the F75 kit back then. I had a Cosina 100mm f/3.5 AF macro lens then too. An excellent lens for the tiny money. Pretty sharp even if it did look (and sound) a little like a small toy cement mixer when autofocussing.

I have about 16 older digital cameras like

the legendary 1995 Casio QV-10A 0.07Mp the first consumer digital camera to have an LCD screen for live view a rotating lens for selfies and internal image storage

plus and from the same 1995 the first Nikon E2 digital DSLR (as well as an identical Fujix 505) both of which have 1.3Mp and were used professionally and I've taken images with them. Interestingly despite their small 2/3" sensors they acted as a full frame camera in that a 50mm lens gave you a 50mm field of view. They use PCMCIA cards

Other notables and working today:

1996: Sony Cybershot DSC-F1 - 0.33Mp - Sony's first digital camera similar to Casio but much better built and with a built in flash

1997: Somy MVC FD200 Mavica - 0.33Mp unique in storing images on a floppy disc (and later CDs) a massive success for Sony. 

1999: Nikon D! (I have the D1X) 2.62 Mp first wholly Nikon digital DSLR and aimed at professional market

2000: Canon D30 - 3Mp - their first home grown digital DSLR - and the first CMOS rather than a CCD sensor.

2000: Fujifilm FinePix S1 Pro - ostensibly 3Mp but with some technical wizardry from what was said to be a Super CCD 6Mp I have the later S3 Pro.

Beyond 2000 the race (like the wild west) was on for better cameras:

Classics that I have include:

2004: Konica Minolta - 8Mp first with an anti-shake steady shot mechanism

2005: Nikon D200 - 10.2 Mp APS-C a superbly built 'modern' DSLR produces wonderful images from its CCD sensor and so cheap today

2005: Canon EOS 5D - 'The Classic' 12.8Mp - affordable full frame DSLR created a storm of interest and still today many commend its imagery and colour science sme even remarking 'The Greatest Digita; Camera of All Time'

2006: Sony's A100 - 10.2Mp CCD sensor - first Sony digital DSLR successor to Konica Minolta DSLR models with eye start and vibrating dust-off sensor

2007/8: Nikon D3 and D700 (I have)  - 12.1Mp - Nikons first Full Frame DSLR baby brother of earlier professional D3 a heavy but beautiful camera revered today because of its unique sensor purportedly made by Panasonic

2008: Panasonic Lumix G! - 12Mp - first digital mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera adhering to Micro Four Thirds with EVF with automatic face detection/AF tracking later replaced by the G2 with video incorporated.

2011: Sony SLT-A65 - 24Mp - 10fps - feels very plasticky not really a mirrorless as mirror is translucent.

My faves are the Nikon D-200, D-700 and the Canon Classic all produce wonderful colour rendering and are quite useable today. Taking the 1.72Kg Fujix or Nikon E2 out gets lots of questions.

Edited by photofervor

Edited by photofervor

Edited by photofervor

I still have my 6MP 2003 camera.  

I'm using better lenses now, AF improved a lot from late 1990s to early 2010s, (and a little more since, but that was the steep part of the curve). Rear screens are bigger. My 2016 camera has unbelievably low noise, huge dynamic range, more pixels, a bigger sensor, stabilization. Its main limitation is a couple of inches behind the viewfinder.  

Technical image quality *is* better with newer cameras, and the "convenience" functions mean the photographer can put more of their mental effort into what they're shooting and less into camera operation.  

I recently retired my Nikon D700 and replaced it with a Nikon D3s.

I could have a more modern D750 or a D800 but I didn’t want huge file sizes as my PC wouldn’t thank me, I didn’t need the imagery a newer model offers either for the standard of my photography.

"Anyone still using their old DSLR from pre 2008"

Yes - my main studio camera is my 2008 Nikon D3X (which I got used about 6 years back). My outdoor natural light camera is my 2009 D3S and I bought a very nice 2005 Nikon D200 last year.

I also have a 2007 Canon 40D (which is borrowed from a friend for me to make a YouTube video about it.)

I looked recently and was amazed to see that on eBay D3X bodies are still selling for roughly £650 - which is what I paid 6 years ago.

Jonathan C said

Other than resolution, the three things that have seen the biggest change in terms of possible images are ISO capabilities, Dynamic Range, and Auto Focus - take an image of a static subject, with sufficient light to shoot at ISO 100, and a limited dynamic range in the scene, and there should not be a lot of difference in an image viewed online.

Take the same two cameras (modern and old) and shoot moving subjects in low light with large dynamic range, and there will be a huge difference in the images.

This!

The 20D, and even more so the 50D were excellent in bright light and limited tonal range.

The 100D was fantastic as long as you could keep to 800 ISO or less (one of my all time favourite cameras)
I have a 20"x30" print of this on the wall from the 100D:

Grainless, bitingly sharp - but it was 100 ISO, f/5.6 with an 85mm/1.8 - and it's pretty much front lit. 
In other words, more or less all the advantages.

Slightly younger than the cameras asked for - but one of Canon's old sensors, recycled into a cheaper camera body.

Sorry for the deviation from the subject  :)

Edited by Huw

1999-01-05, Wan Chai, Hong Kong, from the top deck of a Kennedy Town to Shau Kei Wan tram, using my very first DSLR I purchased a few days earlier as a 'Christmas present to self'. It was an Olympus C1400XL - the 1400 referring to the number of kilopixels in its sensor. Unedited...

Edited by waist.it

I can remember seeing an exhibition of A4 portraits in Cork Airport by a local pro in 2001.
Shot on the3.1 MPx Canon D30 - Canon's first DSLR.
Absolutley stunning quality compared to 35mm film.

Then later that year the Nikon coolpix 995 came out.
3.3 MPx, vastly expensive (£1,000 or so).
I bought one, and so did most other Pathology labs round the world .
Paid for itself in a couple of months.
It's filter thread (28mm?) screwed straight on to a Leitz or Olympus microscope eyepiece.
Instant high quality photos, instead of shooting Kodachrome 25 and waiting a couple of weeks to the slides.
Pretty decent landscapes up to A4 in bright light.

Now my poor old 5D4 does that job, displaced by the newer mirrorless.

waist.it said

1999-01-05, Wan Chai, Hong Kong, from the front seat, top deck of the Kennedy Town to Chai Wan tram, using my very first DSLR I purchased a few days earlier as a 'Christmas present to self'. It was an Olympus C1400XL - the 1400 referring to the number of kilopixels in its sensor. Unedited...

...

Edited by waist.it

I think that was my first Digital camera as well (if not, a very similar model) - strictly speaking, a 'Bridge Camera' rather than DSLR (as the lens was built in, and couldn't be changed).

Got some lovely shots with it of Yosemite and the Autumn colours in/around Portland, Oregon.

Jonathan C said

waist.it said

1999-01-05, Wan Chai, Hong Kong, from the front seat, top deck of the Kennedy Town to Chai Wan tram, using my very first DSLR I purchased a few days earlier as a 'Christmas present to self'. It was an Olympus C1400XL - the 1400 referring to the number of kilopixels in its sensor. Unedited...

...

Edited by waist.it

I think that was my first Digital camera as well (if not, a very similar model) - strictly speaking, a 'Bridge Camera' rather than DSLR (as the lens was built in, and couldn't be changed).

Got some lovely shots with it of Yosemite and the Autumn colours in/around Portland, Oregon.

Remarkably good cameras, especially for the time. The C1400XL was an SLR - though you're right, the lens was not interchangeable. But as the nice man in the shop in Kowloon was quick to point out, the term 'single lens reflex' does not refer to the ability to change the lens. It refers to the fact the (optical) viewfinder looks through the same lens as the one that takes the pictures.

Huw said

I can remember seeing an exhibition of A4 portraits in Cork Airport by a local pro in 2001.
Shot on the3.1 MPx Canon D30 - Canon's first DSLR.
Absolutley stunning quality compared to 35mm film.

Then later that year the Nikon coolpix 995 came out.
3.3 MPx, vastly expensive (£1,000 or so).
I bought one, and so did most other Pathology labs round the world .
Paid for itself in a couple of months.
It's filter thread (28mm?) screwed straight on to a Leitz or Olympus microscope eyepiece.
Instant high quality photos, instead of shooting Kodachrome 25 and waiting a couple of weeks to the slides.
Pretty decent landscapes up to A4 in bright light.

Now my poor old 5D4 does that job, displaced by the newer mirrorless.

I remember the Coolpix 995. I was working under contract for our Regional Dental Deanery at the time. The 995 was very popular with dentists, who were astonishingly creative in making home-made attachments for the thing. It was very highly regarded and used extensively for clinical photography for several years.

Edited by waist.it

Jonathan C said

Other than resolution, the three things that have seen the biggest change in terms of possible images are ISO capabilities, Dynamic Range, and Auto Focus - take an image of a static subject, with sufficient light to shoot at ISO 100, and a limited dynamic range in the scene, and there should not be a lot of difference in an image viewed online.

Take the same two cameras (modern and old) and shoot moving subjects in low light with large dynamic range, and there will be a huge difference in the images.

Yup.

I have a folder of images from a 6.3 megapixel 2002 Canon D60 that hold up just fine technically (albeit not so much artistically). But they're all at ISO 100, as ISO 200+ in that camera was a golf-ball sized noise generator. And mostly studio-lit, to control the contrast/dynamic range. But that's what I typically shot then--and still shoot now. I sold a number of 20x30" portraits taken with that camera.

This is a typical 20-year old unretouched example:

I'd definitely spring for a newer camera given the limitations, but if you only have a few dozen dollars/pounds, it's perfectly usable for many purposes even today. (And close-to-or-actually-useless for others--sports and wildlife due to AF limitations; or low-light due to ISO noise performance, for example.)

Edited by Kevin Connery

I remember (from quite a while ago) when Contax brought out their FULL FRAME DSLR it had a resolution of 6Mp, Contax argued it was the maximum effective resolution needed to fall within the required Nyquist sampling frequency.

tandi said

Well a 36MP is a little more than pre 2010 sensor territory, but post away. Just looked at your profile, your D90 did some great work, nice edits too.

Edited by tandi

Thank you tandi

Lightingman said

I remember (from quite a while ago) when Contax brought out their FULL FRAME DSLR it had a resolution of 6Mp, Contax argued it was the maximum effective resolution needed to fall within the required Nyquist sampling frequency.

To be fair, it took them so long to get that camera from the drawing board to the shops that it's entirely possible fundamental physics changed in the interim!