Comments on: A look back at the NC2000

A look back at the NC2000

Armitage Shanks — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 06:57:36 -0800

A look back at the NC2000, a short history of the one of the first photojournalist-quality digicams. [via]

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 06:58:03 -0800

*crosses fingers that two-year-old article really hasn't been posted already*

By: tellurian

tellurian — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:14:56 -0800

What a great story. "It had no LCD for playing back the images" Just like a real camera.

By: Smart Dalek

Smart Dalek — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:32:16 -0800

It was a real camera - it was a standard Nikon body with a custom backplate and an accessory battery pack. When these things first made the rounds, I remember college instructors dismissed the high level of noise as moot, as most images were likely to be published as black-and-white halftones. A little software filtering here, some actual whiteout or other physical trickery there, and the shots would be ready to go in less time than it would take to dunk a roll of negatives into the immulsion.

By: Peter H

Peter H — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:35:49 -0800

"The first thing I said to them was, 'How do you change the battery?' And their comment was, 'What do you mean?' And I said, 'This is crazy. You can't produce a camera with a non-replaceable battery.' And they said, 'Well, it's too late.' And I said, 'Then why the hell are you showing it to me?'" And then he asked me if I'd like an iPod.

By: Peter H

Peter H — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:36:23 -0800

This is a fun read, thanks/

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:42:23 -0800

This is pretty amazing, mainly because I don't understand the distinction between a "photojournalist quality" camera and, well, any other camera. So it amazes me that this article is regarding a camera as late as 1999. 1996, in highschool, we had a very sweet digital camera. It actually took 3.5" floppy disks, and could get 5 or 6 images on each disk. The camera the article refers to was 1.3 megapixels - not a huge amount,. And I'm fairly sure our floppy-disk based camera was probably grabbing a similar resolution. Anyone care to set me straight? Is the NC2000 special just because it was an SLR?

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:46:43 -0800

I didn't read far enough. It was much earlier than 1999 apparently.

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:47:25 -0800

mmmm long-format tech pron. In other news I've been waiting for sub-$1000 DSLR to be Good Enough . . . Canon tempted me but the Olympus E-510 seems to be The Ticket.

By: Smart Dalek

Smart Dalek — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:50:17 -0800

Jimbob - sounds like your school had a Sony Mavica. At the time, they were also cool - especially for insurance outfits photographing accident claims.

By: splatta

splatta — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:06:15 -0800

I just got my car fixed at a body shop, and they're still using the Sony Mavica. They take photos of the damage, and store the floppy disk with the file. Very handy.

By: cowbellemoo

cowbellemoo — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:11:54 -0800

Great post. It's nice to see the blood, sweat, and tears that have gone into the digital medium.

By: cowbellemoo

cowbellemoo — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:16:59 -0800

sub-$1000 DSLR to be Good Enough They got some great pics with a 1.3 megapixel piece of trash (I say that lovingly). Don't let the tech hold you back!

By: LondonYank

LondonYank — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:04:51 -0800

When I was in a summer internship in the 90s at a medical university my boss had a Kodak DCS 200 which I wasn't even allowed to look at sideways, let alone touch. I believed it to be the pinnacle of imaging technology. 1.3 megapixels. I love this quote, from the review back in 1993: The DCS 200 is the second in what is still a unique line of truly portable 'instantaneous' digital cameras from Kodak. Yes, there are other digital cameras but, as yet, they are all tied to the studio and powerful computers. The use of such cameras is also restricted to tripods and still life subjects because of the long exposure times - up to half a minute - required for the three sequential exposures through red, green and blue filters.

By: sgt.serenity

sgt.serenity — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:09:44 -0800

the Olympus E-510 seems to be The Ticket. it sure does - if the lcd is adjustable like its predecessor and a bit tougher, i tried an e330 and the lcd seemed rather fragile though, theres no 3200 iso either which is disappointing, im looking forward to when they stop trying to copy film cameras altogether and come up with some way of doing incredibly high iso.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 11:53:00 -0800

Great find, thanks.

By: tommasz

tommasz — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:34:20 -0800

I actually interviewed for a job at Kodak's Elmgrove plant back in those days. They were actively trying to get FireWire data transfers to work. I recall being underwhelmed by the size of the cameras. Perhaps if I'd been more impressed I would have gotten the job. Sadly, Kodak sold off the Elmgrove facility and abandoned the DSLR market.

By: Stunt

Stunt — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:01:18 -0800

Man. I still regret having not picked one of these up for almost nothing last year when I had the chance. I'm not even sure if I could get all the stuff needed to ever use the damn thing, but that's not the point; it would have been a cool collector's piece. I can't recall my reason for deciding not to get it, but boy am I slapping whenever I remember.

By: 0xFCAF

0xFCAF — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 01:15:53 -0800

Thanks for posting, the hilariously noisy ISO 1600 shot of the hockey game alone was worth it