When did digital cameras first start producing very high quality images?
Thursday, January 26th, 2012 at
7:01 pm
The first point and shoot digital I bought back in 2005 was nothing special, but it could shoot some high quality images for casual use. As long as you didn’t need to do artsy-fartsy photography you were golden. I bought one a few years earlier and it was garbage.
Tagged with: garbage • google • high quality • photography • quality images • script type • text javascript
Filed under: Cameras
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
The late 90′s was when the first digital cameras were producing quality images.
It was around 2002-2003 when digital cameras reached the point where magazines and ad agencies started preferring digital images to film. By 2005, National Geographic stopped accepting film submissions.
It was in the late 90s that the Nikon 900 series of cameras were highly regarded. I still have my 990. While only 3.3 mp, the camera had a high quality Nikon lens and allowed manual control. The first really good DSLRs that I remember were the Canon D30 and D60 from around 2001 to 2002. They were VERY expensive and relatively rare. The 6mp D60 was the "holy grail" of digital cameras for a while. I got mine in 2002, still have it, and it still works like new. It is 6mp and high ISO performance is quite poor, but otherwise still a decent camera. During the first decade of the new century, great advances took place with digital cameras. Far better quality at much lower prices.
The first digital camera I ever had the misfortune of dealing with was the horrid Sony Mavica. It was less than one mp and wrote to a floppy disc. I have one as a relic to the past. These were popular in the late 90s and as far as I know were the first widely available digital cameras sold.
steve
I too still have my $1,000 Nikon Coolpix 990 and it still does an excellent job
http://s862.photobucket.com/albums/ab182/fotomanaz/Answers%20album/?action=view¤t=iDSCN6990LL.jpg
P&S cameras actually should be doing a pretty decent job. What P&S did you buy. How well grounded are you in the fundamentals of photography?
While my D100 is still a viable camera, it was not until the introduction of the D3 just before the China Olympics did anyone take digital cameras seriously. Only in the past few years, has Arizona Highways began to accept digital images for publication.
Sample
http://s862.photobucket.com/albums/ab182/fotomanaz/Answers%20album/?action=view¤t=iSVReality.jpg
The amazingly high performance of the D3 in the low light conditions found in many of the sports venues at the Olympics, caught the attention of many who and not looked very closely at Nikon as possible choice as a professional tool. Seeing images shot at ISO’s of 3200 and 6400 that had less noise than a Canon at 800 ISO, caught the attention of sports photographers who buy their own equipment.
Here is a sample of an image shot with the D3 in a rather dark building.
http://s862.photobucket.com/albums/ab182/fotomanaz/Answers%20album/?action=view¤t=VultureMineDetaili.jpg
This was shot with the ISO set to an amazing 12,800 ISO. As you can see, there is no noise in the shadow area
My guess is that you have your ISO set to AUTO and the poor photos have more to do with the shooting conditions rather than the actual camera
Of course knowing that you have a P&S made by a well know camera brand and NOT an economy GE, Vivitar or Polaroid would help as well.
Basically if a camera is NOT listed on this link, it is basically just a generic camera with someones name stamped on it.
http://www.dpreview.com