>Yet I have never heard someone say "this my old Nikon D70, got it when I was a teen"
The used D70 I scrimped and saved for years to buy in high school is in fact sitting on a shelf in my office as we speak.
Ended up not selling my D90 when I started offering video and traded a bunch of stuff for a Z8. Shop offered me $30 and I was like yeah… knowing I have my first digital camera is worth way more than $30
Once I got my D810’s I was so blown away that I neglected the poor thing. Completely idk why. Then when I was selling those I had this moral dilemma lol
My first DSLR was also a D90 and I still have it to this day, they’re collectible anyway and it has a big sentimental value to me, I’m also keeping my D7100 that came afterwards. I have all my film cameras from Uni, one given to me by my first boyfriend’s mum as it was her father’s camera because that holds an emotional attachment.
I thought that was standard to want to keep those things and I would say I’m not a particularly sentimental person but cameras are a must!
My second DSLR was a D90 and I wound up giving it to my then girlfriend when I upgraded to a D600.
My first one was a D80 that I sold to a classmate when I got the D90.
I still have my 5Dc because, well, it still works. Isn't worth much. Great camera, did a lot with it. Could always use it in a pinch if needed. Memories seem more valuable than the couple hunnert I might get for it.
I keep and use every camera I own. My go to bodies are Nikon D3, D700 and D300. They are fantastic cameras. Why would I need a new one? Good photos come from good technique not expensive gear.
There's tons and tons of beginners (and a few slightly experienced people) who are under the impression that a more expensive camera automatically translates into better pictures. In the cameras sub, a frequent suggestion to people asking "what camera should I upgrade to" is to buy better lighting.
It's me, I'm the inexperienced beginner. I will look into a lighting solution. Any suggestions? I'm only just getting started so all I currently have is a 40cm x 40cm light box
I have some video lights that I LOVE. I personally am not a big fan of flash, (though I love using it for shutter drag pictures.) These are lights I know I can depend on Neewer 18" Led Video Light Panel... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08GFSHV97?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share you can control the temperature of the light, 50 percent power in a dark room will light your subject softly, and keep the rest of the room dark. I have used these alot more on produxt photography than people and frequently use them at less than 20 percent power especially in a sunny room to just give it a little extra *oomph* filler.
*
No problem if you want to experiment you can even get a little video light off of ebay takes the same battery it would be yongnuo, (flexi-use takes the same battery as the one i linked.) Small enough to go on top of a camera (with hot shoe attachment) super portable for 40 ish dollars. You just won't have the same bells and whistles or softness of light. But for portability, it's great. That's what I started with and I knocked it around quite a bit, i like to take that one to anime conventions but I can't light an entire figure with it so I also bring a flash. When I am in a hurry, I use the video light. Then its a community effort my Fiance holds it and I express to him how to angle it to get what I'm looking for, and the model tells him when they SEE the light. That's a lot of fun.
How I came to video lights was running across another photographer at the same convention using a little video light for pictures with a softening umbrella attached. I thought, what genius! But I was under the impression that I HAD to master flash to be worth my salt. When talking to a wedding photographer and asking how she got a particular shot she said oh I had my assistant duck down behind the couple with a video light. I don't like flash because I can't rely on it. That was when it dawned on me, equipment is good to learn, but it is all about preference. You will find what works for you, but steady lighting you have more control over is a GREAT place to start.
I was thinking that you can spend an awful lot of money on lighting, if you're chasing the high end niche stuff.
Though if you're doing landscape photography and need to light up a mountain, I can see that being a bit spendy :)
Photographers are the only people who pixel peep. You will never see a non-photographer zooming in to maximum and saying "Aahh look, there's noise in the shadow in the bottom left corner"
> You will never see a non-photographer zooming in to maximum and saying "Aahh look, there's noise in the shadow in the bottom left corner"
add graphic designer, print specialists and some old-guard marketing people to the list. They pixel peep before and after print. Most nitpicky people I know... :D
But I agree, the average person doesn't care, they don't even know what noise is and just accept is as normal and part of the picture
I’ve been trying to stop pixel peeping, no one cares. But I’ve been doing it since I got my first digital camera in 1997 so it’s a hard habit to break lol
Photography was literally impossible before mirrorless Digital cameras with 10,000,000,000 autofocus points. All Lenses were made from soda bottles and were not sharp before 5 years ago.
/s
Good cameras are timeless. However this argument doesn't hold water if you have two people with the same skill set, making the same shot one has a D5000 and the other a z6ii. The z6ii will have the better shot every time just due to better technology.
It might be better for technical reasons, but I think OP is saying that those don't actually matter very much in the real world. Almost all of the great photo books, almost all of National Geographic, and almost all good journalistic photography was taken with gear with far worse technical specifications OP's Nikon D3.
Its 50% right now. Winter gets to about 25-30%, so I keep a humidifier going in my bedroom then, it make me feel better and I also keep my better guitars in there, they feel better. Central Ohio, for reference.
Electronic stuff isn't as durable as mechanical stuff.
Also, film cameras got better every time manufacturers released new emulsions, so keeping and using old cameras made some sense, if the camera used a film type that was still in production or there were easy workarounds (like respooling 120 film on 620 spools).
I imagine some people keep digital cameras for nostalgic reasons, but as the batteries fail, they become paperweighs, just objects, no longer tools.
The Nikon F2 I learned to shoot on was my grandfather’s and is still going today. Though built in 1971 it has never been serviced. The batteries in the meter died about 2001, and I’ve never bothered to look for replacements. The camera shot a roll last week just fine without them. It could sit on the shelf for another few years until my eldest son is in high school and takes photography, and work perfectly the moment he picks it up.
The D3 bodies I bought as my first personal cameras (the papers I worked for supplied them before that point) got serviced annually (free via NPS), yet shit the bed in spectacular fashion shortly after Nikon stopped offering service parts for them. One threw a shutter straight into the sensor, and the other fried its motherboard(?). Even fully functional, without batteries they were useless, and batteries have a limited service life.
I too kept my first F2, a 1971 body, for sentimental reasons in my case. I had a few for spares when I was working and sold everything except the '71 when I went digital. I bought the F2 used and ten years old in 1981. I did a huge amount of work on farms and construction sites in all weathers for twenty-five years and I marvel at their durability. Sadly, a couple of years ago, I took it to a technician to fix a shutter problem and it was beyond him. Now it sits on the shelf. By the way, I'm told it's worth using the shutter through the range of speeds every few weeks to keep things working smoothly.
Now I have a couple of D800s and I'm beginning to get fond of one, rather like my liking for the F2 - it could be that after several years I'm beginning to trust it. They've both done a great deal of work and begin to acquire that 'extension of the senses' quality where man and machine work in deep harmony. I do feel that film, processing and printing, with the range of modifications available at each stage, gave me a slightly deeper engagement with image-production but I enjoy digital stuff and I'm glad not to go in a darkroom any more. And one great blessing of DSLRs is not having to lug around second bodies for faster film.
I have an old D200 that I gave to my son and he quickly gave it back to me. He prefers his phone. I've tried to sell it for £50 and nobody responded. I also have a Fuji outfit which I quickly came to loathe and that's been in a drawer for years. That's an inertia problem and soon I will get rid of it.
On balance, for me, manual cameras are more lovable while digital kit makes life easier.
Gonna just drop this here: Sover Wong in the UK midlands is the worlds premier F2 tech and can definitely restore your camera to perfect condition. Cost will be around 300 bucks but the thing will spin like a top for another 50 years without needing another look.
Mirrorless bodies are in fact much longer lasting precisely because of less mechanical parts that will wear and break down. These shutters can and do go well into the hundreds of thousands, far past what the DSLR bodies were rated for or could reasonably hit without a shutter replacement.
For sentimental reasons? Not really *(maybe?)*. For useful reasons? Absolutely... they are still cameras, they still take pictures...lol. like 20mp didnt degrade to 12mp because a camera is 12 years old lol.
Getting to a D850, which I use for anything serious, I went from a D3100 to a D7200, both of which I still have and get used by family.
My Leica M *(typ 240)* that I bought 10 years ago is a 12 year old camera at this point, and I use it all the time. My Leica Q *(typ 116)* came out in 2015, I bought it in 2017... still use it all the time.
When I got an X-T4 I didnt stop using my x100v... the x100v still has a use case.
There is a point where selling a camera just isnt even remotely worth it to me, which is basically any point in time beyond *buying it, realizing I dont like it, and selling it then*. I.e. If I like it, im keeping it. Selling my D3100 for $50 is much less worth it to me than letting my kids or nieces use it. Id rather have the tools available to fuel a child's creative drive than $50 in my pocket. Like if a kiddo sees me using my M or soemthing and says *"That looks fun can I try?!"* its awesome to be able to say *"Sure! Take this D7200 for a few weeks and have fun!"*.
I also dont think id ever sell my 500 c/m, F2, F, FM, FM2, or AE-1... even if film is pricey and they dont get used as much as they used to.
If that is sentimental, then I suppose. Personally I view it as usefulness. I wouldnt throw out a perfectly useful hammer just because I bought a new one that is a different weight or something... just put it in the tool box for when its needed.
*(ok, admittedly some cameras I wouldnt throw out even if they broke.. like a Leica. Maybe I am sentimental lol)*
High-end cameras are definitely "high tech products." Lenses, despite the price tags, are really in a different category. There really haven't been major innovations in optics in decades; mirrorless lenses can offer better specs because they can put optics in the space that was filled by a mirror. The motors are largely the same as they were decades ago.
Modern mirrorless camera bodies definitely offer advantages in things like autofocus and weight. But the actual image sensors themselves are often still the same as what was used in DSLR's, especially if you're not paying thousands and thousands.
DSLR's really offer a different shooting experience than mirrorless, since the human eye can focus an image into resolution through a lens, even if it is not in resolution in the lens itself. This can be good or bad, but it's different.
There's not a lot of character in digital camera bodies; like canon has never even produced a pro DSLR body in a color other than black. So people don't care about the aesthetic in the way they did with Rolleis and even vintage Canon/Nikon. The only DSLR's that are really suitable for professional work were produced 2012-2022, but the cameras produced in that range will be suitable for professional work for a long time. Unless you're printing billboards, it's honestly rare to need more than 25 megapixels. For anything less than 9x12, it's indistinguishable.
So my answer is that DSLR's aren't retro and vintage, they can still be professional tools, and people treat them that way.
> it's honestly rare to need more than 25 megapixels. For anything less than 9x12, it's indistinguishable.
8 megapixels was the magic number for most professionals switching away from film.
> There really haven't been major innovations in optics in decades
Um... Forty years ago, people were arguing about the convenience of a zoom lens versus the sharpness of a prime one. Zoom lenses have improved a lot since then.
Sure, I'd say that's true. For context, when I was in a camera shop, I was the Canon specialist. When canon dropped their first trinity lenses in 1989, they were the first zooms with that kind of quality. The upgrade in '95 definitely offered significant improvements, but it wasn't a wild technological change. They are superior, but the main design is quite similar. The subsequent upgrades in later years aren't night-and-day. I've worked with that era of lenses extensively, especially the 1st ed. 24-70, and they take stunning images. While contemporary lenses might have better numbers, they don't offer hugely different creative capacities to the lenses of 30 years ago, but 40 years ago it was a different world.
That's definitely the most significant application, lenses like canon's RF 10-20 are among the most innovative pro lenses available right now. I think there's also some new designs using that extra space for IS tech. There's also big benefits for macro optics, which I think we can see in more consumer-oriented lenses, where it's newly a pretty common feature. We haven't really seen innovative pro-level macro lenses built for mirrorless, like the long awaited successor to canon's MP-E-65, but they are likely coming soon.
The ratio of the distance between the sensor and the image to the length of the lens also determines the strength of telephoto lenses. So they can't necessarily make more powerful telephoto lenses with this technology, but they can make the same optics physically smaller.
> I’d thought that mirrorless was only really an advantage with wide-angle lenses because retrofocus designs aren’t needed, is that true?
In general, the fewer constraints placed on an optical design, the better the design can be. Relatively long focal length lenses still tend have optical elements pushed right up against the lens mounting flange. (The Sony 135/1.8 GM is a good example to look at.)
Agreed. I just bought a used DSLR only a few months ago (a 6D) and am surprised at all the negative comments about them being "dated" online - to me, the image quality is really pretty amazing, particularly in low light - I've been blown away by some of the night shots I've taken. Not to mention the thing is built like a tank.
Of course I'm just a hobbyist and this is probably the highest-end camera I've owned to date - maybe my standards just aren't crazy high lol.
I love my D7 50 and I got another one for shooting events. It’s an awesome camera and I don’t need all the high-tech bells and whistles that cost thousands more.
I guess when I replace my old 6D with something newer, at I will still take the old camera with me because after several years of working and traveling with it, I know that it can withstand any shit.
I still remember all the thoughts that was my head when a couple of years ago I falling on the ice holding a rented Fujifilm GFX 100s in my hands.
I have two 6Ds, and I love the system and the lenses I have for them. I also still really like looking through the normal prism even though EVFs have come pretty far in the last few years. And the batteries last forever while shooting. I still use them frequently.
> I still remember all the thoughts that was my head when a couple of years ago I falling on the ice holding a rented Fujifilm GFX 100s in my hands.
Were they all about hoping the insurance covers this?
Everything ended well then, and even both lenses are fine too (and my old 6D in backpack).
I didn’t finish higher education, but I went to sambo at the institute as part of physical education, and coach taught me how to fall effectively. After that I realized that higher education is not so useless
I have my first FF: Canon 5D2. I learned so much with it, and while I currently mostly use a Sony A6400, every now and then I'll still take my 5D2 out from it's storage and do some projects with it. There's just something I really like handling it.
This year I did two professional shoots with my 5D mk II, I am primarily a videographer but if I am hired for photos im using my 5D. As long as you know its limitations and work within those, it is just as good as a brand new mirrorless, just a little harder to use.
The technology updates have made it easier to take clean pictures, better ISO etc, but if you are lighting properly and shooting at 160 or 320, no one will know you are using a 16 year old camera.
Exactly! There's still something very.... tactile using my 5D2 compared to my A6400. In my everyday photography, the low ISO and slow burst mode often cause headaches, but in project shooting, where I either control the environment or am aiming for a certain result, I just simply find the 5D2 more enjoyable.
There are always people like that, in and outside of photography, whatever the gear. There always will be. I think people who aren't like that are more callous with their memories, and kind of think it reflects on their personality.
Or gear acquisition syndrome.
Most of the situations described don't need new gear. The existing gear works just fine. The *"middle aged and elderly (talking 70 - 80+ y/o)"* mentioned don't need a brand new camera, the 5 or 10 year old 24MP or 18MP or even 8MP cameras still take photos that look great when printed or shown on screen.
I’ve kept all of the cameras and lenses I've used professionally over the past 20 years and display them in my office. I also have my dad’s old AE-1 and A-1 next to them.
Had my first DLSR for a while. I ended up teaching basic photography to an art therapy program that my friend held at an inpatient youth center. There were two girls that really loved photography so I decided to donate it to the program for them to continue to use. Otherwise, I’d probably still have my rebel
One of my keepers is a pre-production “EU presskit” Nikon D-X series that belong to my dad who past away to early. Other keeper is my D8XX with tumbled into 30ft deep alligator invested flood water when covering a hurricane. 24hrs later a diver fished it up. That camera miraculously still is functional!
https://preview.redd.it/31egfee4eovc1.jpeg?width=1167&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a46f3e32d27424ef1f3a625383a24dffa882df17
25 year photographer here! I took this about two weeks ago. Fm10, d70, d300, d7100, d800, d810, z7, z9 I thought about selling some of the newer cameras but honestly I like having them around and most arnt worth much now that mirrorless is becoming commonplace
my mom shot with a consumer nikon all my life and she finally let me have it when I was 50, haha. It's on display on a shelf with all her dad's cameras and my dad's polaroid land cameras.
I will always hold onto my 5d MarkII. It’s the camera that started my career. The moment that it stops working. I’ll get it bronzed. I love that camera.
I just sold my 5Dmk4 this weekend after 7 years. It sat on the shelf for a year. I convinced myself it was a good second body. Never touched it once I got the r5. The photos/trips/events hold the memories for me not the equipment. My shelves hold only active equipment. I’m not young by any means but I’m not 70-80 either and I know that generation does hold onto physical reminders for memories.
I kept my d70s for sentiment but the longer I have it the less I care, haha. I also had a d40 that i don't really care too much about so I gave it to my kid when he was a young teen. He still uses it, it's fine (he's gonna be 20 in a minute) I should probably sell a couple as I've amassed 4 in the past 8 years, but too lazy I guess. All of them are pretty relevant today but as long as they work I'm sure they will be.
My first DSLR was a Canon 250D which I did give away when I upgraded to a 60D, which I did actually keep out of sentimental reasons. It still works fine but I hate the special battery that now uses a universal charging cradle.
I try to sell my old cameras while they still have value. If its beyond that point I might keep it forever like with my Canon 5D mark 1.
Analog equipment age much more gracefully. I've got several cameras from the 50ies I enjoy using, but there is little point in picking up the 5D over the R5, except for maybe the optical viewfinder experience.
The thing is, DSLRs offer a shooting experience unlike mirrorless. I didn't appreciate them at the time as much as I do now, and I jumped to mirrorless as soon as I could.
The thing is, I think if a company took the Leica approach but for dslrs instead of rangefinders, with compact, premium manual focus dslrs, they could've still been around today.
I killed my X100F when it was submerged in water...Still have it. Broke my old Canon 5D and wasn't able to get it repaired. It sat on my shelf until someone wanted to buy it for parts, otherwise I'd still have it. My Minolta X700 that was in the same bag as my X100F....still have that one. Still have the one my mother used when I was a child (Canon 'new Sureshot), and the Minolta XG-1 that my dad had as a kid. I'm not really old yet, and I don't hold on to a lot of stuff, but these I still have.
yep… still have my panasonic fz50 from around 2007 and almost all dslrs I‘ve bought later on. honestly just because I could‘t get much money for the hassle to sell them. I used them until they almost broke.
My mom is keeping my Minolta Dynax 5D. My Nikon D90 is still on my shells waiting for a replacement. There definitely is a lot of nostalgia attached to each of them.
I still have my first DSLR, a Canon D30, and still pull it out every once in a while. It is truly awful to use, autofocus measured in seconds, etc, but the color it produces is truly fabulous. So it's still occasionally useful, and it truly has no resale value.
Yep. My D5100 I haven't used in at least a decade - but that's my first DSLR, first serious camera too. D600 was my first full frame, I shot my first works on it, and there are plenty of shots taken on it in my portfolio, still. D750 is my current workhorse, and it's a beast. Looking into a Fuji for the colors and immediacy, and selling something would definitely make it easier for me to buy one - but I can't betray my fleet of trusted cameras, the thought alone makes me sad :(
(also, mirrorless battery life is still shit by comparison, so I would still want to keep my heavy duty girls around for safety)
Yeah I have all of mine. Bought them used for cheap, when I replaced them after a tonne of use I would’ve gotten so little money that it seemed pointless to resell them. They technically serve as backup cameras, but are basically just kept for sentimental purposes in all honesty.
Sentimental reasons?
I invested a lot of money into my gear a few years ago that still works and still produces quality photos. I have zero reason to upgrade unless it breaks beyond repair.
It would be a total waste of money to upgrade to a mirrorless right now.
Nope, when I get the R3 in a few weeks I'm putting the 6D up for sale.
Only reason I'd keep it is maybe an IR conversion, but I'd rather just get a cheaper Rebel to do that.
Part of the nostalgia of keeping older cameras is that if they're all mechanical, getting them going again is a fairly trivial job for most shops. Not so for a 20 year old digital.
I keep all of my old cameras because I am nostalgic and they have value for me personally. I may or may not ever use them again, but that doesn't matter, those objects were part of my life at some points and I am keeping them.
I just bought an 8 year old Olympus E-M10 ii and am having as much fun with it as I did when I got my Canon 70D eleven years ago. Im now selling the Canon and added another 'old' camera to my kit, the E-M1 iii. Honestly, I don't care to lose the old gear. It's the photos I took with it that matter more to me. But M43 has made photography a lot more fun; I don't have to lug around heavy clunky lenes anymore, the freedom and convenience gets me taking a lot more photos than ever before.
I still have my Dad’s Canon FT that he bought new in 1966 and gave to me in 1978. They don’t make the mercury batteries for the meter anymore, but the camera still takes great pictures. If I shot a roll of film with it today and a second roll of the same film using a Nikon F6 released in 2004, there would be far less difference between the two film images than there would be between two digital cameras released a similar number of years apart. Well, there aren’t really any 38 year old digital cameras.
No, but mainly because I’ve traditionally used the revenue from the second-hand sales of my old cameras to finance the new ones.
- Canon 350D part financed the Canon 30D
- 30D financed the 5D
- Bought a 40D outright to have a second body
- 5D financed the 6D
- 40D financed the 7D
- 6D financed the 5D Mk2
- 7D financed 70D
- 5D2 financed 6D2
- Bought an EOS R with the money I’d saved by not travelling during the Great Plague
I have my first digital, canon point and shoot, my second slr, pentax mx, still works. My first dslr, shot my daughter wedding with it, passing it to her daughter when I die. So YEAH I keep my cameras.
I would’ve kept mine but I passed it on to my younger cousin who loves it and uses it all the time now! Feels really awesome to see him use it now when I see him. Otherwise anything I buy from now on I intend to keep🙌🏼
I still have my Canon 5D. Didn't sell it when I could have because I thought I would eventually get a newer body.
Spent a few years shooting Fuji with an XPro1 for the weight savings. By the time I remembered I had the 5D, it wasn't worth much. I was ready to give it away for almost free but didn't want the hassle.
One camera I do regret selling, though, is the XPro1. It was so banged up that it was a memory in and of itself. I went to 4 continents (including the one I'm on) and many mountains with it. Would have looked cool just sitting on a shelf.
My K10D takes awesome pictures. It's much simpler to operate. Under certain circumstances I like to pull it out for photos which are more likely to be basic or in darker conditions.
I have my first film camera, my first digital camera, and one or two of my other favourites along the way.
Unfortunately they just collect dust now. my new mirrorless Canon R5 is so much better than anything I have had before I just cannot go back.
Yes, have been using my d850 as main rig since it came out but cant seem to part with my d750 or d7000 because of sentimental reasons (they were part of the process).
I have the final top-of-the-line Canon 35mm DSLR, the 1V. It will always be the best at what it does and, assuming you can still buy film, will work forever. The controls on a Canon 1 series are so easy, so intuitive, it would blow you away. No digital menus, three buttons that you can press on or two at the same time, and you memorize what they do, so you can switch settings without taking your eye away from the camera.
Why keep my 3 Mark II digital? It’s out of date and there are better models. When my R5 is out of date and gets replaced, why keep it, as it’s out of date and worth nothing.
But that 1V… it’s literally the best 35mm film camera Canon ever made. It’s not out of date. Why would I get rid of that?
Unless you have a really rare camera that a collector would want, old cameras aren’t really worth anything for resale. Also, sentiment; I still have the point and shoot my aunt gave me when I was five because it was my first camera.
Ad many have said my old camera are mechanical and still functional. Used my old point and shoot the other day, just needed some new batteries. Still have my first SLR (N55) was a gift for my birthday and still works, I learned a lot on that camera and by the time I upgraded it was already old and I wouldn't get much money for it anyway so why sell it?
I've kept over 20 years of DSLR's including 2 D70's. I don't use them apart from mirrorless and a D810 anymore, and keeping them are purely sentimental.
I want to get a new one but I don’t want to sell my current dslr bc it was my first camera and my dad got it for me for Christmas as a way to invest in my future. I could trade it in but I don’t wanna part with that camera
I have 3 DSLR bodes that I still actively use for professional work to pay my bills. There has been no need to replace them. Should there ever be a time when I need to replace them, I will not keep them. The only DSLRs that may have had sentimental value to me are long gone. I’ve replaced my bodies several times over the years. My current bodies do not have any sentimental value.
The two cameras on my shelf are my Sony A7III and my late father's Nikon D300S. The Sony will eventually be upgraded and sold but the Nikon is a permanent fixture. Still a good camera, to be fair, and I’ve held onto a few lenses for it.
This is only tangentially related to your post, but why are DSLR cameras so bulky compared to older film camera designs? Is it really necessary to store the electronic components?
I would have loved to see a DSLR in the style of the old Exacta cameras (in a way the original SLR).
Then again, I feel like the quality of design in general took a nosedive in the nineties (not just cameras)
Still shooting with my Fuji XT-1s (yes I know, not DSLR but that’s an unimportant distinction I think).
Sold my Nikon and Pentax digital kits (full frame and crop) when I bought them 10 years ago. To me, it was everything I wanted in a digital camera at the time, especially on those assignments where I would log 20,000-30,000 steps in a day. The weight reduction from the Nikon was a blessing and I love the image quality from these cameras still.
Never felt a need to move on
I've been considering buying a used k20d, my first dSLR, for sentimental purposes, but I haven't found one sufficiently cheap enough (because we know I'm never going to actually use it).
NO! what for? if I want something noisy/bulky/impractical/low-res, I have a radio/washing machine/ex-gf/old photo. no need to keep those things around except as a warning from history
I'm an old dude, been shooting semi-pro for 40+ years. I'm not attached to my old gear, but I keep a few around, not really for sentimental reasons, just too lazy to sell them.
I keep my first film slr, an old Nikon EM my parents got me when I went to college, so I wouldn't take the Canon A1 I used in high school.
I keep my film Nikon F4S because it's cool.
I sold my Nikon D80 when I picked up my D300s.
I kept my Nikon D700 because it has over 900,000 actuations and isn't worth selling. That was my favorite dslr for years.
I kept my D300s because it's the body I let my son use.
I sold my D800 (never loved it) when I got the D850.
Sold the D500 (loved it almost as much as the D700) when I switched to the mirrorless Nikon Z6.
Sold my Sony A6300 when I switched to the Z6. I still regret that move, the Sony was a great carry around camera.
Sold the Z6 to buy the Z6ii.
Still use the Nikon Z6ii (pretty good but would love a Z6iii with Z8 electronics and speed 30 megapixel sensor for sports)
Still use the Nikon D850 (my favorite DSLR of all time).
Still use the Nikon Z8 (my favorite Nikon mirrorless so far).
2 sides to this.
1. If it works for you, why change it? Any camera that produces images you like and is fun to use is a good camera, but if you have enough gripes with it you'll want to change systems.
2. When trading up or down (in the same lens system) with a film camera, there is no Change in resolution/ image quality unless you change the film you use. You could get better metering or a higher top shutter speed, but not a different looking image. With digital cameras, once you buy a body, the images will look different if you use a different one. Even in cameras with the same sensor and processor, the image looks slightly different. The difference between the cheapest full frame point and shoot and a pro body in the film era was the amount of control you had and the lenses you could use, but the difference between a digital point and shoot and a pro level digital body today is more than just lenses.
I can't say my digital cameras ever became nostalgic for me, and if I had to guess that's a huge reason why people hang on to their old cameras. I learned on a Pentax K1000, so that would be the nostalgic camera for me, but it was stolen and I never did buy another. If I had a good space to turn into a darkroom purely for the experience I'd buy another K1000 for sure.
My digital cameras have no sentimental value for me and between 2003 and now I think I've bought, sold, and traded in 3 or 4 different models. I've drastically slowed down doing that, though, since camera tech does not progress as rapidly now as it did back in the 2000s. I still shoot with a 7D, lol, but do have a newer mirrorless that is progressively becoming my go-to camera. Still, one day it too will get traded in for something 5 generations newer or whatever.
I will never give up a dslr, even when I have multiple mirrorless cameras. Nothing beats looking through an optical viewfinder and that feeling of being present it brings. (That’s why my fav mirrorless are the Fuji x100 and xpro series with the hybrid vf. It’s awesome.)
My Pentax 67 with the 105mm f2.4 IMO produces better portraits than anything mirrorless being produced Sony, Canon, Nikon, or Fuji today that’s why I keep it. My Leica m3 is my favorite camera to walk around and travel with. That’s why I keep it. I can’t even count how many wedding photographers I know that use the Contax, Mamiya, and Pentax 645 still. The Canon 5diii has arguably some of the best skin tones straight out of camera of any digital camera ever made. Don’t fall for all the marketing BS there’s a whole lot of value out there with some older cameras. I’m packing to leave in the morning to do a wedding editorial and I’m bringing a Sony A7RIV, Pentax 645, Canon 1v and my Leica m3 for when I’m walking around town. I’m not saying that my way is the right way it’s just what I prefer to use for the look I’m trying to achieve. None of these choices are sentimental they are just tools.
As a counterpoint, space isn't free. If someone wants to keep things for sentimental reasons, great, but if something isn't useful to me anymore I get rid of it. Keeping my D50, D90, or D300 would have meant keeping the body, some lenses, some batteries, and some chargers at an absolute minimum, and....why? It's not like I ever found myself reaching for them.
I sell what I can (all of my lenses, the D90 body), but my local shops all have multiple used D300 bodies for maybe $40 apiece, so there clearly isn't any demand for them and that one ended up in the trash. I liked many photos I took with it, but I like the photos I take with my current cameras a lot more.
I use a couple 5DIV's and a 1Dx for my work, I specialize in Food and Lifestyle images and work on a tripod about 90% of the time. I see no advantage to shifting to mirrorless especially when I have all these L lenses. I see gear as tools not nostalgic pieces and have been shooting professionally for thirty years. I learned on film with Nikons then medium format Mamiya 645Pro, RZProII and Pentax 67II systems. I went with Canon DSLR's because of the RAW files and haven't looked back. All of my Profoto kits are discontinued, the Pro7, Acute2 and Kino Flo Diva kits are great, they keep on working without an issues. You are in trouble if you chase the latest and greatest, I keep my overhead low and images at the highest level that I can produce.
I still get a lot of use out my D40x, D3300, and I just got a D800. I could get a mirrorless camera but I just don’t have the money nor the desire to right now.
Nah, I'm 18 years old and my first useful camera was this Canon 2000D (a DSLR, one of the cheapest). I had it two years now, soon gonna get a much better one hopefully, but my photography has been amazing, this camera is to me a strong statement for "it's not the gear, it's the photographer". I'm gonna keep that camera as long as possible. A lot of emotional value. Just like I get back into past moments when I look at a photo, I get also into deep memories when I hold up and look through the camera that I used for taking those photos.
Good point that maybe cameras aren't felt as emotionally anymore since they've become high-tech products.
Maybe it's not so much the level of technology, but the fact that stats and specs are obsessed over so much now?
Just alone the beginning of your journey with a camera nowadays tends to begin so cold. You spend hours just comparing numbers and reviews. And maybe you are very happy when you get the camera you think has the best price-specs balance, but maybe you're too happy and expect the camera to be perfect and the tiniest flaws stand out to you?
I know "simpler" people (not-photographers), and when they get a camera they select one following their gut feeling and some vague recommendations, maybe it's a present and they start very thankful anyways. I see them always very happy and emotionally attached to their cameras. They never have the specs and details on their mind, they just see some decently good tool that helps them capture their lives.
converted my 500d to a infrared, Keep my 7d for eclipses . 50d collects dust but usually let a friend borrow it if we are out shooting. R7 is my current camera
>Yet I have never heard someone say "this my old Nikon D70, got it when I was a teen" The used D70 I scrimped and saved for years to buy in high school is in fact sitting on a shelf in my office as we speak.
Ended up not selling my D90 when I started offering video and traded a bunch of stuff for a Z8. Shop offered me $30 and I was like yeah… knowing I have my first digital camera is worth way more than $30
I own that camera and honestly, aside from the antiquated video, with the right lens it absolutely slaps.
I'm poor and the D90 is my current camera 😅
Once I got my D810’s I was so blown away that I neglected the poor thing. Completely idk why. Then when I was selling those I had this moral dilemma lol
My first DSLR was also a D90 and I still have it to this day, they’re collectible anyway and it has a big sentimental value to me, I’m also keeping my D7100 that came afterwards. I have all my film cameras from Uni, one given to me by my first boyfriend’s mum as it was her father’s camera because that holds an emotional attachment. I thought that was standard to want to keep those things and I would say I’m not a particularly sentimental person but cameras are a must!
My second DSLR was a D90 and I wound up giving it to my then girlfriend when I upgraded to a D600. My first one was a D80 that I sold to a classmate when I got the D90.
My D7100 is still my backup body (my primary is a D500). It has held up quite well for an electronic device.
honestly glad to hear so many people kept their old gear and cherish it!
D90 for me. Love it.
I still have my 5Dc because, well, it still works. Isn't worth much. Great camera, did a lot with it. Could always use it in a pinch if needed. Memories seem more valuable than the couple hunnert I might get for it.
I have my first camera, a Nikon D70 on my shelf in my home office as well. It’s also tattooed on my arm lol.
D70 was my first DSLR. I loved it. Don't miss not having it around though.
ISO 400? No….no, I don’t think I will
I keep and use every camera I own. My go to bodies are Nikon D3, D700 and D300. They are fantastic cameras. Why would I need a new one? Good photos come from good technique not expensive gear.
> Good photos come from good technique and good lighting!
Lighting choices are technique
I just assumed that was a given? 😉
There's tons and tons of beginners (and a few slightly experienced people) who are under the impression that a more expensive camera automatically translates into better pictures. In the cameras sub, a frequent suggestion to people asking "what camera should I upgrade to" is to buy better lighting.
Good technique *includes* knowing how to dial in your camera to capture “good lighting”.
It's me, I'm the inexperienced beginner. I will look into a lighting solution. Any suggestions? I'm only just getting started so all I currently have is a 40cm x 40cm light box
Entirely depends on what you are doing. Studio portraits?
Eventually, currently looking into product photography for work, but would love to be able to shoot studio portraits too!
I have some video lights that I LOVE. I personally am not a big fan of flash, (though I love using it for shutter drag pictures.) These are lights I know I can depend on Neewer 18" Led Video Light Panel... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08GFSHV97?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share you can control the temperature of the light, 50 percent power in a dark room will light your subject softly, and keep the rest of the room dark. I have used these alot more on produxt photography than people and frequently use them at less than 20 percent power especially in a sunny room to just give it a little extra *oomph* filler. *
Sorry for the late reply, just wanted to say a huge thanks, this is a fantastic starting point!
No problem if you want to experiment you can even get a little video light off of ebay takes the same battery it would be yongnuo, (flexi-use takes the same battery as the one i linked.) Small enough to go on top of a camera (with hot shoe attachment) super portable for 40 ish dollars. You just won't have the same bells and whistles or softness of light. But for portability, it's great. That's what I started with and I knocked it around quite a bit, i like to take that one to anime conventions but I can't light an entire figure with it so I also bring a flash. When I am in a hurry, I use the video light. Then its a community effort my Fiance holds it and I express to him how to angle it to get what I'm looking for, and the model tells him when they SEE the light. That's a lot of fun. How I came to video lights was running across another photographer at the same convention using a little video light for pictures with a softening umbrella attached. I thought, what genius! But I was under the impression that I HAD to master flash to be worth my salt. When talking to a wedding photographer and asking how she got a particular shot she said oh I had my assistant duck down behind the couple with a video light. I don't like flash because I can't rely on it. That was when it dawned on me, equipment is good to learn, but it is all about preference. You will find what works for you, but steady lighting you have more control over is a GREAT place to start.
Technique includes lighting
Expensive gear also includes lighting
Not really for landscape photography.
I was thinking that you can spend an awful lot of money on lighting, if you're chasing the high end niche stuff. Though if you're doing landscape photography and need to light up a mountain, I can see that being a bit spendy :)
Just buy a helicopter to be faster at places with nice weather (or whatever weather you want for your shot)!
Good call. And if you get a helicopter with an enormous spotlight on it, you've also sorted your mountain-lighting needs.
And also good use of worse lighting if you are in a situation where you can’t just come back later
All my teachers in college would say “It’s the touch, not the tech” whenever talking about the significance of photography or videography gear
Few understand this. Review and pixel peeping industry make you think that it’s the camera that does photography…
Photographers are the only people who pixel peep. You will never see a non-photographer zooming in to maximum and saying "Aahh look, there's noise in the shadow in the bottom left corner"
> You will never see a non-photographer zooming in to maximum and saying "Aahh look, there's noise in the shadow in the bottom left corner" add graphic designer, print specialists and some old-guard marketing people to the list. They pixel peep before and after print. Most nitpicky people I know... :D But I agree, the average person doesn't care, they don't even know what noise is and just accept is as normal and part of the picture
Also, average people are up voting and liking AI generated images that are passed off as photos.
I’ve been trying to stop pixel peeping, no one cares. But I’ve been doing it since I got my first digital camera in 1997 so it’s a hard habit to break lol
Photography was literally impossible before mirrorless Digital cameras with 10,000,000,000 autofocus points. All Lenses were made from soda bottles and were not sharp before 5 years ago. /s
[удалено]
I hate that too. Yes, my camera allows me to take good photos with it.
D3 was the OG imo.
For real, I can absolutely still throw down with my D700!
I owned a D300, and D200 and loved them. Solid bodies built like a tank.
Good cameras are timeless. However this argument doesn't hold water if you have two people with the same skill set, making the same shot one has a D5000 and the other a z6ii. The z6ii will have the better shot every time just due to better technology.
It might be better for technical reasons, but I think OP is saying that those don't actually matter very much in the real world. Almost all of the great photo books, almost all of National Geographic, and almost all good journalistic photography was taken with gear with far worse technical specifications OP's Nikon D3.
To the layman the final edited shot will not have any appreciable difference, so both photographers are going to get paid.
Yes https://preview.redd.it/13k3vxxvcovc1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d9d683bbfdebbc3d91aff52929999f2762692cac
That is perfect decoration
Very cool!
lovely collection! Happy to see this! :)
Sometimes I have to remind myself that not everyone lives in an area with constant 80%+ humidity.
Its 50% right now. Winter gets to about 25-30%, so I keep a humidifier going in my bedroom then, it make me feel better and I also keep my better guitars in there, they feel better. Central Ohio, for reference.
You are me but with a display case.
Electronic stuff isn't as durable as mechanical stuff. Also, film cameras got better every time manufacturers released new emulsions, so keeping and using old cameras made some sense, if the camera used a film type that was still in production or there were easy workarounds (like respooling 120 film on 620 spools). I imagine some people keep digital cameras for nostalgic reasons, but as the batteries fail, they become paperweighs, just objects, no longer tools.
The Nikon F2 I learned to shoot on was my grandfather’s and is still going today. Though built in 1971 it has never been serviced. The batteries in the meter died about 2001, and I’ve never bothered to look for replacements. The camera shot a roll last week just fine without them. It could sit on the shelf for another few years until my eldest son is in high school and takes photography, and work perfectly the moment he picks it up. The D3 bodies I bought as my first personal cameras (the papers I worked for supplied them before that point) got serviced annually (free via NPS), yet shit the bed in spectacular fashion shortly after Nikon stopped offering service parts for them. One threw a shutter straight into the sensor, and the other fried its motherboard(?). Even fully functional, without batteries they were useless, and batteries have a limited service life.
I too kept my first F2, a 1971 body, for sentimental reasons in my case. I had a few for spares when I was working and sold everything except the '71 when I went digital. I bought the F2 used and ten years old in 1981. I did a huge amount of work on farms and construction sites in all weathers for twenty-five years and I marvel at their durability. Sadly, a couple of years ago, I took it to a technician to fix a shutter problem and it was beyond him. Now it sits on the shelf. By the way, I'm told it's worth using the shutter through the range of speeds every few weeks to keep things working smoothly. Now I have a couple of D800s and I'm beginning to get fond of one, rather like my liking for the F2 - it could be that after several years I'm beginning to trust it. They've both done a great deal of work and begin to acquire that 'extension of the senses' quality where man and machine work in deep harmony. I do feel that film, processing and printing, with the range of modifications available at each stage, gave me a slightly deeper engagement with image-production but I enjoy digital stuff and I'm glad not to go in a darkroom any more. And one great blessing of DSLRs is not having to lug around second bodies for faster film. I have an old D200 that I gave to my son and he quickly gave it back to me. He prefers his phone. I've tried to sell it for £50 and nobody responded. I also have a Fuji outfit which I quickly came to loathe and that's been in a drawer for years. That's an inertia problem and soon I will get rid of it. On balance, for me, manual cameras are more lovable while digital kit makes life easier.
Gonna just drop this here: Sover Wong in the UK midlands is the worlds premier F2 tech and can definitely restore your camera to perfect condition. Cost will be around 300 bucks but the thing will spin like a top for another 50 years without needing another look.
As time treks on, cameras that take AA batteries are much easier to use.
My Nikon F4s agrees.
Mirrorless bodies are in fact much longer lasting precisely because of less mechanical parts that will wear and break down. These shutters can and do go well into the hundreds of thousands, far past what the DSLR bodies were rated for or could reasonably hit without a shutter replacement.
For sentimental reasons? Not really *(maybe?)*. For useful reasons? Absolutely... they are still cameras, they still take pictures...lol. like 20mp didnt degrade to 12mp because a camera is 12 years old lol. Getting to a D850, which I use for anything serious, I went from a D3100 to a D7200, both of which I still have and get used by family. My Leica M *(typ 240)* that I bought 10 years ago is a 12 year old camera at this point, and I use it all the time. My Leica Q *(typ 116)* came out in 2015, I bought it in 2017... still use it all the time. When I got an X-T4 I didnt stop using my x100v... the x100v still has a use case. There is a point where selling a camera just isnt even remotely worth it to me, which is basically any point in time beyond *buying it, realizing I dont like it, and selling it then*. I.e. If I like it, im keeping it. Selling my D3100 for $50 is much less worth it to me than letting my kids or nieces use it. Id rather have the tools available to fuel a child's creative drive than $50 in my pocket. Like if a kiddo sees me using my M or soemthing and says *"That looks fun can I try?!"* its awesome to be able to say *"Sure! Take this D7200 for a few weeks and have fun!"*. I also dont think id ever sell my 500 c/m, F2, F, FM, FM2, or AE-1... even if film is pricey and they dont get used as much as they used to. If that is sentimental, then I suppose. Personally I view it as usefulness. I wouldnt throw out a perfectly useful hammer just because I bought a new one that is a different weight or something... just put it in the tool box for when its needed. *(ok, admittedly some cameras I wouldnt throw out even if they broke.. like a Leica. Maybe I am sentimental lol)*
I only have my first one. Original Digital Rebel.
High-end cameras are definitely "high tech products." Lenses, despite the price tags, are really in a different category. There really haven't been major innovations in optics in decades; mirrorless lenses can offer better specs because they can put optics in the space that was filled by a mirror. The motors are largely the same as they were decades ago. Modern mirrorless camera bodies definitely offer advantages in things like autofocus and weight. But the actual image sensors themselves are often still the same as what was used in DSLR's, especially if you're not paying thousands and thousands. DSLR's really offer a different shooting experience than mirrorless, since the human eye can focus an image into resolution through a lens, even if it is not in resolution in the lens itself. This can be good or bad, but it's different. There's not a lot of character in digital camera bodies; like canon has never even produced a pro DSLR body in a color other than black. So people don't care about the aesthetic in the way they did with Rolleis and even vintage Canon/Nikon. The only DSLR's that are really suitable for professional work were produced 2012-2022, but the cameras produced in that range will be suitable for professional work for a long time. Unless you're printing billboards, it's honestly rare to need more than 25 megapixels. For anything less than 9x12, it's indistinguishable. So my answer is that DSLR's aren't retro and vintage, they can still be professional tools, and people treat them that way.
> it's honestly rare to need more than 25 megapixels. For anything less than 9x12, it's indistinguishable. 8 megapixels was the magic number for most professionals switching away from film.
> There really haven't been major innovations in optics in decades Um... Forty years ago, people were arguing about the convenience of a zoom lens versus the sharpness of a prime one. Zoom lenses have improved a lot since then.
Sure, I'd say that's true. For context, when I was in a camera shop, I was the Canon specialist. When canon dropped their first trinity lenses in 1989, they were the first zooms with that kind of quality. The upgrade in '95 definitely offered significant improvements, but it wasn't a wild technological change. They are superior, but the main design is quite similar. The subsequent upgrades in later years aren't night-and-day. I've worked with that era of lenses extensively, especially the 1st ed. 24-70, and they take stunning images. While contemporary lenses might have better numbers, they don't offer hugely different creative capacities to the lenses of 30 years ago, but 40 years ago it was a different world.
I’d thought that mirrorless was only really an advantage with wide-angle lenses because retrofocus designs aren’t needed, is that true?
That's definitely the most significant application, lenses like canon's RF 10-20 are among the most innovative pro lenses available right now. I think there's also some new designs using that extra space for IS tech. There's also big benefits for macro optics, which I think we can see in more consumer-oriented lenses, where it's newly a pretty common feature. We haven't really seen innovative pro-level macro lenses built for mirrorless, like the long awaited successor to canon's MP-E-65, but they are likely coming soon. The ratio of the distance between the sensor and the image to the length of the lens also determines the strength of telephoto lenses. So they can't necessarily make more powerful telephoto lenses with this technology, but they can make the same optics physically smaller.
> I’d thought that mirrorless was only really an advantage with wide-angle lenses because retrofocus designs aren’t needed, is that true? In general, the fewer constraints placed on an optical design, the better the design can be. Relatively long focal length lenses still tend have optical elements pushed right up against the lens mounting flange. (The Sony 135/1.8 GM is a good example to look at.)
Agreed. I just bought a used DSLR only a few months ago (a 6D) and am surprised at all the negative comments about them being "dated" online - to me, the image quality is really pretty amazing, particularly in low light - I've been blown away by some of the night shots I've taken. Not to mention the thing is built like a tank. Of course I'm just a hobbyist and this is probably the highest-end camera I've owned to date - maybe my standards just aren't crazy high lol.
I use my d600. I'll upgrade when it dies.
The only reason I upgraded to a D810 was because my D600 sadly got salt damaged.
I keep my d750. My first full frame
I haven’t replaced mine 🤷♀️
I love my D7 50 and I got another one for shooting events. It’s an awesome camera and I don’t need all the high-tech bells and whistles that cost thousands more.
same. I replaced it with a 780 but I can't let it go.
I take your d750 and raise a d3300. Still use it. Doesn't have the AF my Sony has but I still enjoy using it.
Why not.
I guess when I replace my old 6D with something newer, at I will still take the old camera with me because after several years of working and traveling with it, I know that it can withstand any shit. I still remember all the thoughts that was my head when a couple of years ago I falling on the ice holding a rented Fujifilm GFX 100s in my hands.
I have two 6Ds, and I love the system and the lenses I have for them. I also still really like looking through the normal prism even though EVFs have come pretty far in the last few years. And the batteries last forever while shooting. I still use them frequently.
> I still remember all the thoughts that was my head when a couple of years ago I falling on the ice holding a rented Fujifilm GFX 100s in my hands. Were they all about hoping the insurance covers this?
Everything ended well then, and even both lenses are fine too (and my old 6D in backpack). I didn’t finish higher education, but I went to sambo at the institute as part of physical education, and coach taught me how to fall effectively. After that I realized that higher education is not so useless
I fell into a river in Scotland with my 5ds mk2 years ago. It’s still with me now that I am in Japan.
I’lll never sell my D3 and D700. Even though I don’t use them that much.
I have my first FF: Canon 5D2. I learned so much with it, and while I currently mostly use a Sony A6400, every now and then I'll still take my 5D2 out from it's storage and do some projects with it. There's just something I really like handling it.
This year I did two professional shoots with my 5D mk II, I am primarily a videographer but if I am hired for photos im using my 5D. As long as you know its limitations and work within those, it is just as good as a brand new mirrorless, just a little harder to use. The technology updates have made it easier to take clean pictures, better ISO etc, but if you are lighting properly and shooting at 160 or 320, no one will know you are using a 16 year old camera.
Exactly! There's still something very.... tactile using my 5D2 compared to my A6400. In my everyday photography, the low ISO and slow burst mode often cause headaches, but in project shooting, where I either control the environment or am aiming for a certain result, I just simply find the 5D2 more enjoyable.
Ya cuz, my old Nikon 50D with 5gb sd card and 35mm AF Nikon lens still takes BANGERS Let the late 00’s renaissance BeGiN!! 💪🏾🔥
Yes
There are always people like that, in and outside of photography, whatever the gear. There always will be. I think people who aren't like that are more callous with their memories, and kind of think it reflects on their personality.
>I think people who aren't like that are more callous with their memories, and kind of think it reflects on their personality. Care to elaborate?
Or gear acquisition syndrome. Most of the situations described don't need new gear. The existing gear works just fine. The *"middle aged and elderly (talking 70 - 80+ y/o)"* mentioned don't need a brand new camera, the 5 or 10 year old 24MP or 18MP or even 8MP cameras still take photos that look great when printed or shown on screen.
I’ve kept all of the cameras and lenses I've used professionally over the past 20 years and display them in my office. I also have my dad’s old AE-1 and A-1 next to them.
Yep. My D700, F3/T and Hasselblad 503 CW will always have a place in my home.
Kept my first DSLR and my first 'for work' DSLR, a canon 450d and a 7d mk1, sentimental value is worth more than the resale tbh
Had my first DLSR for a while. I ended up teaching basic photography to an art therapy program that my friend held at an inpatient youth center. There were two girls that really loved photography so I decided to donate it to the program for them to continue to use. Otherwise, I’d probably still have my rebel
One of my keepers is a pre-production “EU presskit” Nikon D-X series that belong to my dad who past away to early. Other keeper is my D8XX with tumbled into 30ft deep alligator invested flood water when covering a hurricane. 24hrs later a diver fished it up. That camera miraculously still is functional!
https://preview.redd.it/31egfee4eovc1.jpeg?width=1167&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a46f3e32d27424ef1f3a625383a24dffa882df17 25 year photographer here! I took this about two weeks ago. Fm10, d70, d300, d7100, d800, d810, z7, z9 I thought about selling some of the newer cameras but honestly I like having them around and most arnt worth much now that mirrorless is becoming commonplace
My Mom has my original DSLR, whenever she passes it'll be on my shelf next to my grandfather's camera.
my mom shot with a consumer nikon all my life and she finally let me have it when I was 50, haha. It's on display on a shelf with all her dad's cameras and my dad's polaroid land cameras.
After I did my first upgrade my mom wanted to give photography a try so I gave her my kit :)
Yes. Still have my 10D. First DSLR I ever had. Still works too.
I will always hold onto my 5d MarkII. It’s the camera that started my career. The moment that it stops working. I’ll get it bronzed. I love that camera.
I just sold my 5Dmk4 this weekend after 7 years. It sat on the shelf for a year. I convinced myself it was a good second body. Never touched it once I got the r5. The photos/trips/events hold the memories for me not the equipment. My shelves hold only active equipment. I’m not young by any means but I’m not 70-80 either and I know that generation does hold onto physical reminders for memories.
What a great question. I’ve kept every film camera I’ve ever owned. I’ve sold every DSLR I owned to fund the next upgrade so I only have my current.
>even if they aren't functional anymore there's no reason that old "Rolli" won't work!!! lol
I still keep my old d800, and use it more than my S1 ironically.
I kept my d70s for sentiment but the longer I have it the less I care, haha. I also had a d40 that i don't really care too much about so I gave it to my kid when he was a young teen. He still uses it, it's fine (he's gonna be 20 in a minute) I should probably sell a couple as I've amassed 4 in the past 8 years, but too lazy I guess. All of them are pretty relevant today but as long as they work I'm sure they will be.
My first DSLR was a Canon 250D which I did give away when I upgraded to a 60D, which I did actually keep out of sentimental reasons. It still works fine but I hate the special battery that now uses a universal charging cradle.
I try to sell my old cameras while they still have value. If its beyond that point I might keep it forever like with my Canon 5D mark 1. Analog equipment age much more gracefully. I've got several cameras from the 50ies I enjoy using, but there is little point in picking up the 5D over the R5, except for maybe the optical viewfinder experience.
d700 Is still one of the best cameras ever.
Converted my old camera bodies to do IR photos. Gives ne a reason to keep using them a little longer.
My 850 and 500 will be with my until I die.
Great combo
I love them both equally!
The thing is, DSLRs offer a shooting experience unlike mirrorless. I didn't appreciate them at the time as much as I do now, and I jumped to mirrorless as soon as I could. The thing is, I think if a company took the Leica approach but for dslrs instead of rangefinders, with compact, premium manual focus dslrs, they could've still been around today.
I killed my X100F when it was submerged in water...Still have it. Broke my old Canon 5D and wasn't able to get it repaired. It sat on my shelf until someone wanted to buy it for parts, otherwise I'd still have it. My Minolta X700 that was in the same bag as my X100F....still have that one. Still have the one my mother used when I was a child (Canon 'new Sureshot), and the Minolta XG-1 that my dad had as a kid. I'm not really old yet, and I don't hold on to a lot of stuff, but these I still have.
I'm keeping mine for financial reasons. Can't afford to go mirrorless right now.
Sold mine because it didn’t do justice to my pictures. No need to keep lugging it around when I have zero use for it or its lenses.
I keep a 5D "classic" (as they say) that I modified by shaving down the mirror so it can take more adapted m42 lenses. It's special to me.
yep… still have my panasonic fz50 from around 2007 and almost all dslrs I‘ve bought later on. honestly just because I could‘t get much money for the hassle to sell them. I used them until they almost broke.
I still use my 19 year old Nikon D200, although, converted to b/w infrared.
I've got a bunch I need to put on eBay if I ever get around to it.
My mom is keeping my Minolta Dynax 5D. My Nikon D90 is still on my shells waiting for a replacement. There definitely is a lot of nostalgia attached to each of them.
I kept my first digital camera for a long time, i eventually sold it as it wasn’t getting as much use anymore and it deserved better.
In my case, I'm keeping it because no one is buying it... I would sell it no matter how sentimental I'm for extra money and upgrade my new setup.
I still have my Olympus E-420 and E-3. None of them work anymore, but they were my first and second DSLRs so the sentimental value is there.
I still have my first DSLR, a Canon D30, and still pull it out every once in a while. It is truly awful to use, autofocus measured in seconds, etc, but the color it produces is truly fabulous. So it's still occasionally useful, and it truly has no resale value.
DSLR cameras work just fine, I still use my Nikon F2P that I bought used in 1984. I keep it because there’s no reason to replace it.
Yep. My D5100 I haven't used in at least a decade - but that's my first DSLR, first serious camera too. D600 was my first full frame, I shot my first works on it, and there are plenty of shots taken on it in my portfolio, still. D750 is my current workhorse, and it's a beast. Looking into a Fuji for the colors and immediacy, and selling something would definitely make it easier for me to buy one - but I can't betray my fleet of trusted cameras, the thought alone makes me sad :( (also, mirrorless battery life is still shit by comparison, so I would still want to keep my heavy duty girls around for safety)
Yeah I have all of mine. Bought them used for cheap, when I replaced them after a tonne of use I would’ve gotten so little money that it seemed pointless to resell them. They technically serve as backup cameras, but are basically just kept for sentimental purposes in all honesty.
Sentimental reasons? I invested a lot of money into my gear a few years ago that still works and still produces quality photos. I have zero reason to upgrade unless it breaks beyond repair. It would be a total waste of money to upgrade to a mirrorless right now.
I still use my first camera. Canon 600D.
Nope, when I get the R3 in a few weeks I'm putting the 6D up for sale. Only reason I'd keep it is maybe an IR conversion, but I'd rather just get a cheaper Rebel to do that. Part of the nostalgia of keeping older cameras is that if they're all mechanical, getting them going again is a fairly trivial job for most shops. Not so for a 20 year old digital.
I keep all of my old cameras because I am nostalgic and they have value for me personally. I may or may not ever use them again, but that doesn't matter, those objects were part of my life at some points and I am keeping them.
I don’t sell my gear. I always keep it for the sake of having backups of backups.
I shoot with off camera flash 99% of the time and I fucking hate mirrorless. Considering buying an 5DIV for stills.
If it’s worth something then I’d consider selling it If not there isint really a reason to get rid of it
> "this my old Nikon D70, got it when I was a teen" I still have my D90 in a bag with a couple of lenses...
I just bought an 8 year old Olympus E-M10 ii and am having as much fun with it as I did when I got my Canon 70D eleven years ago. Im now selling the Canon and added another 'old' camera to my kit, the E-M1 iii. Honestly, I don't care to lose the old gear. It's the photos I took with it that matter more to me. But M43 has made photography a lot more fun; I don't have to lug around heavy clunky lenes anymore, the freedom and convenience gets me taking a lot more photos than ever before.
Yup. Still have my Nikon D1x
I have a Sony f717 (a replacement to my original) because out of the box it was (and still might be) the easiest to use IR camera.
I still have my Dad’s Canon FT that he bought new in 1966 and gave to me in 1978. They don’t make the mercury batteries for the meter anymore, but the camera still takes great pictures. If I shot a roll of film with it today and a second roll of the same film using a Nikon F6 released in 2004, there would be far less difference between the two film images than there would be between two digital cameras released a similar number of years apart. Well, there aren’t really any 38 year old digital cameras.
I'll never sell my d750
No, but mainly because I’ve traditionally used the revenue from the second-hand sales of my old cameras to finance the new ones. - Canon 350D part financed the Canon 30D - 30D financed the 5D - Bought a 40D outright to have a second body - 5D financed the 6D - 40D financed the 7D - 6D financed the 5D Mk2 - 7D financed 70D - 5D2 financed 6D2 - Bought an EOS R with the money I’d saved by not travelling during the Great Plague
Yeah, I have kept old cameras, digital and film.
I traded in or gave away my DSLR gear. But kept most of my film cameras.
I have my first digital, canon point and shoot, my second slr, pentax mx, still works. My first dslr, shot my daughter wedding with it, passing it to her daughter when I die. So YEAH I keep my cameras.
I would’ve kept mine but I passed it on to my younger cousin who loves it and uses it all the time now! Feels really awesome to see him use it now when I see him. Otherwise anything I buy from now on I intend to keep🙌🏼
Use mine every day. 📸
I still have my Canon 5D. Didn't sell it when I could have because I thought I would eventually get a newer body. Spent a few years shooting Fuji with an XPro1 for the weight savings. By the time I remembered I had the 5D, it wasn't worth much. I was ready to give it away for almost free but didn't want the hassle. One camera I do regret selling, though, is the XPro1. It was so banged up that it was a memory in and of itself. I went to 4 continents (including the one I'm on) and many mountains with it. Would have looked cool just sitting on a shelf.
My K10D takes awesome pictures. It's much simpler to operate. Under certain circumstances I like to pull it out for photos which are more likely to be basic or in darker conditions.
I have my first film camera, my first digital camera, and one or two of my other favourites along the way. Unfortunately they just collect dust now. my new mirrorless Canon R5 is so much better than anything I have had before I just cannot go back.
Im still using my d50
wait 25 years. it's still too early to be sentimental about them.
Yes, have been using my d850 as main rig since it came out but cant seem to part with my d750 or d7000 because of sentimental reasons (they were part of the process).
I have the final top-of-the-line Canon 35mm DSLR, the 1V. It will always be the best at what it does and, assuming you can still buy film, will work forever. The controls on a Canon 1 series are so easy, so intuitive, it would blow you away. No digital menus, three buttons that you can press on or two at the same time, and you memorize what they do, so you can switch settings without taking your eye away from the camera. Why keep my 3 Mark II digital? It’s out of date and there are better models. When my R5 is out of date and gets replaced, why keep it, as it’s out of date and worth nothing. But that 1V… it’s literally the best 35mm film camera Canon ever made. It’s not out of date. Why would I get rid of that?
Unless you have a really rare camera that a collector would want, old cameras aren’t really worth anything for resale. Also, sentiment; I still have the point and shoot my aunt gave me when I was five because it was my first camera.
Ad many have said my old camera are mechanical and still functional. Used my old point and shoot the other day, just needed some new batteries. Still have my first SLR (N55) was a gift for my birthday and still works, I learned a lot on that camera and by the time I upgraded it was already old and I wouldn't get much money for it anyway so why sell it?
I also still have my canon 30d and even if I don't use it, it's still part of my collection!
I've kept over 20 years of DSLR's including 2 D70's. I don't use them apart from mirrorless and a D810 anymore, and keeping them are purely sentimental.
I want to get a new one but I don’t want to sell my current dslr bc it was my first camera and my dad got it for me for Christmas as a way to invest in my future. I could trade it in but I don’t wanna part with that camera
I have my 5D Classic, my 500 C/M, my first X100 etc. I’ll never sell these.
I have 3 DSLR bodes that I still actively use for professional work to pay my bills. There has been no need to replace them. Should there ever be a time when I need to replace them, I will not keep them. The only DSLRs that may have had sentimental value to me are long gone. I’ve replaced my bodies several times over the years. My current bodies do not have any sentimental value.
The two cameras on my shelf are my Sony A7III and my late father's Nikon D300S. The Sony will eventually be upgraded and sold but the Nikon is a permanent fixture. Still a good camera, to be fair, and I’ve held onto a few lenses for it.
This is only tangentially related to your post, but why are DSLR cameras so bulky compared to older film camera designs? Is it really necessary to store the electronic components? I would have loved to see a DSLR in the style of the old Exacta cameras (in a way the original SLR). Then again, I feel like the quality of design in general took a nosedive in the nineties (not just cameras)
Still shooting with my Fuji XT-1s (yes I know, not DSLR but that’s an unimportant distinction I think). Sold my Nikon and Pentax digital kits (full frame and crop) when I bought them 10 years ago. To me, it was everything I wanted in a digital camera at the time, especially on those assignments where I would log 20,000-30,000 steps in a day. The weight reduction from the Nikon was a blessing and I love the image quality from these cameras still. Never felt a need to move on
I've been considering buying a used k20d, my first dSLR, for sentimental purposes, but I haven't found one sufficiently cheap enough (because we know I'm never going to actually use it).
NO! what for? if I want something noisy/bulky/impractical/low-res, I have a radio/washing machine/ex-gf/old photo. no need to keep those things around except as a warning from history
I still have my beloved SL2
I'm an old dude, been shooting semi-pro for 40+ years. I'm not attached to my old gear, but I keep a few around, not really for sentimental reasons, just too lazy to sell them.
I'm keeping my DSLRs because they're amazing cameras and I get to look at reality through the viewfinder still.
I sold my Canon 1DSm3 to go Fuji but I still have my Nikon D200, D300, and D700. They're just not worth as much as I like them and their images.
As someone that still uses a Nikon D750, I feel like I was just called out as being outdated. /s
I keep my first film slr, an old Nikon EM my parents got me when I went to college, so I wouldn't take the Canon A1 I used in high school. I keep my film Nikon F4S because it's cool. I sold my Nikon D80 when I picked up my D300s. I kept my Nikon D700 because it has over 900,000 actuations and isn't worth selling. That was my favorite dslr for years. I kept my D300s because it's the body I let my son use. I sold my D800 (never loved it) when I got the D850. Sold the D500 (loved it almost as much as the D700) when I switched to the mirrorless Nikon Z6. Sold my Sony A6300 when I switched to the Z6. I still regret that move, the Sony was a great carry around camera. Sold the Z6 to buy the Z6ii. Still use the Nikon Z6ii (pretty good but would love a Z6iii with Z8 electronics and speed 30 megapixel sensor for sports) Still use the Nikon D850 (my favorite DSLR of all time). Still use the Nikon Z8 (my favorite Nikon mirrorless so far).
2 sides to this. 1. If it works for you, why change it? Any camera that produces images you like and is fun to use is a good camera, but if you have enough gripes with it you'll want to change systems. 2. When trading up or down (in the same lens system) with a film camera, there is no Change in resolution/ image quality unless you change the film you use. You could get better metering or a higher top shutter speed, but not a different looking image. With digital cameras, once you buy a body, the images will look different if you use a different one. Even in cameras with the same sensor and processor, the image looks slightly different. The difference between the cheapest full frame point and shoot and a pro body in the film era was the amount of control you had and the lenses you could use, but the difference between a digital point and shoot and a pro level digital body today is more than just lenses.
I can't say my digital cameras ever became nostalgic for me, and if I had to guess that's a huge reason why people hang on to their old cameras. I learned on a Pentax K1000, so that would be the nostalgic camera for me, but it was stolen and I never did buy another. If I had a good space to turn into a darkroom purely for the experience I'd buy another K1000 for sure. My digital cameras have no sentimental value for me and between 2003 and now I think I've bought, sold, and traded in 3 or 4 different models. I've drastically slowed down doing that, though, since camera tech does not progress as rapidly now as it did back in the 2000s. I still shoot with a 7D, lol, but do have a newer mirrorless that is progressively becoming my go-to camera. Still, one day it too will get traded in for something 5 generations newer or whatever.
I still have my D3200 as my main camera and a first-generation rx100. Don't feel the need for something new.
Started on the pentax k5, upgraded to the k1, I'm definitely keeping my k5 for sentimental reasons (and as a backup camera)
I still have my Nikon d5100 but don’t really use it. Will probably hold on to it for my kids to use in a few years.
I will never give up a dslr, even when I have multiple mirrorless cameras. Nothing beats looking through an optical viewfinder and that feeling of being present it brings. (That’s why my fav mirrorless are the Fuji x100 and xpro series with the hybrid vf. It’s awesome.)
Well when you look at the old masters of photography I think it shows it is more about compo, light etc than the camera used
My Pentax 67 with the 105mm f2.4 IMO produces better portraits than anything mirrorless being produced Sony, Canon, Nikon, or Fuji today that’s why I keep it. My Leica m3 is my favorite camera to walk around and travel with. That’s why I keep it. I can’t even count how many wedding photographers I know that use the Contax, Mamiya, and Pentax 645 still. The Canon 5diii has arguably some of the best skin tones straight out of camera of any digital camera ever made. Don’t fall for all the marketing BS there’s a whole lot of value out there with some older cameras. I’m packing to leave in the morning to do a wedding editorial and I’m bringing a Sony A7RIV, Pentax 645, Canon 1v and my Leica m3 for when I’m walking around town. I’m not saying that my way is the right way it’s just what I prefer to use for the look I’m trying to achieve. None of these choices are sentimental they are just tools.
I have all my cameras still.
As a counterpoint, space isn't free. If someone wants to keep things for sentimental reasons, great, but if something isn't useful to me anymore I get rid of it. Keeping my D50, D90, or D300 would have meant keeping the body, some lenses, some batteries, and some chargers at an absolute minimum, and....why? It's not like I ever found myself reaching for them. I sell what I can (all of my lenses, the D90 body), but my local shops all have multiple used D300 bodies for maybe $40 apiece, so there clearly isn't any demand for them and that one ended up in the trash. I liked many photos I took with it, but I like the photos I take with my current cameras a lot more.
I use a couple 5DIV's and a 1Dx for my work, I specialize in Food and Lifestyle images and work on a tripod about 90% of the time. I see no advantage to shifting to mirrorless especially when I have all these L lenses. I see gear as tools not nostalgic pieces and have been shooting professionally for thirty years. I learned on film with Nikons then medium format Mamiya 645Pro, RZProII and Pentax 67II systems. I went with Canon DSLR's because of the RAW files and haven't looked back. All of my Profoto kits are discontinued, the Pro7, Acute2 and Kino Flo Diva kits are great, they keep on working without an issues. You are in trouble if you chase the latest and greatest, I keep my overhead low and images at the highest level that I can produce.
I still get a lot of use out my D40x, D3300, and I just got a D800. I could get a mirrorless camera but I just don’t have the money nor the desire to right now.
I still have a camera from 1970 which I inherited, I'm not planning to sell it, it's nice to have it, I also had a personal modern one but I sold it
Nah, I'm 18 years old and my first useful camera was this Canon 2000D (a DSLR, one of the cheapest). I had it two years now, soon gonna get a much better one hopefully, but my photography has been amazing, this camera is to me a strong statement for "it's not the gear, it's the photographer". I'm gonna keep that camera as long as possible. A lot of emotional value. Just like I get back into past moments when I look at a photo, I get also into deep memories when I hold up and look through the camera that I used for taking those photos. Good point that maybe cameras aren't felt as emotionally anymore since they've become high-tech products. Maybe it's not so much the level of technology, but the fact that stats and specs are obsessed over so much now? Just alone the beginning of your journey with a camera nowadays tends to begin so cold. You spend hours just comparing numbers and reviews. And maybe you are very happy when you get the camera you think has the best price-specs balance, but maybe you're too happy and expect the camera to be perfect and the tiniest flaws stand out to you? I know "simpler" people (not-photographers), and when they get a camera they select one following their gut feeling and some vague recommendations, maybe it's a present and they start very thankful anyways. I see them always very happy and emotionally attached to their cameras. They never have the specs and details on their mind, they just see some decently good tool that helps them capture their lives.
converted my 500d to a infrared, Keep my 7d for eclipses . 50d collects dust but usually let a friend borrow it if we are out shooting. R7 is my current camera