When did the first consumer level digital cameras hit the market?

I t depends on the process. I used Ferraniacolor until 3M took them
over and improved the film so that the quality was completely ruined.

I used some plastic bowls half full of water at the correct temp. each
one with an aquarium thermometer in it; all the solutions stayed in
the bowls until needed and the film had a first rinse at the working
temp.

All worked well and I have about a thousand slides that have lasted
for 40 years or so.

 

I only processed Ektachrome when clients needed it in a hurry. I didn't
mind doing it, but the temperature specs were much more strict than
C-41 (which I also did).

 

The mot fun with E-3 processing (early Infrared Ektachrome) was in the
middle of the processing. The film was physically "reversed" by opening the
container, unspooling the film, and turning on bright lights for the
reversal process, then trying to get the wet film back on the ElNikor
stainless steel reels. Seeesh!

 

Ah, the Oly D-500L. At the time I remember being amazed at the quality and I
was very proud in my choice. Unfortunately we loaned it out a few too many
times and someone must have dropped it and I still remember how mad I was
when I found out. But our next one was a Oly D40 and that one lasted for
years until I gave it to one of my kids! Doh!

 

I remember, but think I only did that once.

And I made a mistake. I didn't do C-41...I just did R-4 chemistry for
printing negatives. Jeez...it was so long ago and I don't miss spending
3 or so hours every night in the darkroom.

 

It just so happens that I read your post a few minutes after I'd
finished enlightening my nephew on the subject. Quite a
coincidence. He thought there was something wrong with his SD
card and asked me to check it with my computer. The card contained
pictures of his 5-month old son, with the date stamped on each
shot. He thought the date stamps made the pictures look real
amateurish, but wanted to keep a record of the date they were taken.

 

Having the camera add the data to the image is not needed, you can use a
program like IrfanView to add the date in batch mode, keeping the
originals date free.

Scott

 

I've seen and made some A4 prints (297 x 210mm) from a 990 and they're
fine at our normal viewing distance. But expecations differ.

Cheers,
David

 

But if you look at it from the scientifically determined optimum
distance of 1.5m it should be fine

 

My nephew didn't really want to make the date visible on each
picture. He disliked it very much in fact. He just wanted to be
able to check back on the date in the future, but didn't know
that such a thing as the EXIF data exists - just like Gary before
he was enlightened and, I suspect, a lot of casual snapshooters.

 

When I was thinking about replacing the 995 with a camera that had more
pixels I did a test by shooting a scene at zoomed most of the way out,
then re-shot the center zoomed in by about a factor of two. I then
scale the two photos to match, pasted the two together and make a 8 x 10
print, you could sure tell the center was far sharper then the rest of
the image.

What got me looking at this was my 4x6 inch prints looked very sharp,
but the 8x10 not so much. In fact a careful view of the 4x6 inch prints
showed there was not much more detail that could be seen in the same
image printed as an 8 x 10.

Scott

 

I miss my brown fingernails....

 

To promote D-620L (and D-400) the following year, Oly gave them out to
those of us covering COMDEX (an event I miss), and I remember thinking
it was pretty fun and handy, although I used images from my film SLR in
my coverage of the event, not the Oly. I nonetheless kept and used the
D-620L until I replaced it with a C-2500L, one of my favorite cameras
ever. I likewise added a D40Z later, which I still keep in the glove
box of my car and use from time to time.

 

Even today!

 

I had one of those too, and I generally agree, although I got some
pretty good 8x10 prints when I took the time to shoot carefully.

 

My first digital camera was Casio QV-10 It came out about 1995 about 0.3 mpixel in high res mode. It had enough memory to save 95 images, just about the same number that a good fresh set of 4 AA batteries would last. The QV-10 was one of the first mass
produced digital camera's

There were a few digital cameras before the QV-10 most relatively low resolution. I had a friend with a digital SLR that was a regular SLR with a digital back. It was a one off that cost him about $10K that was 93/94 it had 240,000 pixels.

w..