New Workshop - Unscripted!

Freebies and Fun

Cutting Edge Technology From 1995 |$20,000 1.3 Megapixel Digital Camera for ‘Cyber Shooters’

By Hanssie on July 17th 2015

Technology is a fast moving beast. By the time you get your new MacBook Pro home and set it up, you’re just in time to read the announcement of the newest product which, of course, is light years ahead of your new toy. Sometimes, it’s fun to see just how far technology has come (when you don’t have to deal with old technology, that is) and since it’s Friday, let’s have a little flashback.

The year was 1995 and I had just graduated high school (don’t do the math on that). Thinking I was cool with my pager and blasting Gansta’s Paradise while rolling in my 4-door white Mitsubishi Galant, the newest technology came in the form of DVDs, Windows 95 and this new thing called “digital cameras.” Someone rad posted this blast from the past on the SLR Lounge Facebook Community Group and it’s 4 of the greatest minutes you’ll probably see today.

[REWIND: THE THREE VINTAGE LENSES I USE TO CREATE A FILM LOOK]

cnet-video-vault

CNet dug up this little gem from their video vault introducing the newest state of the art cameras for the “cyber shooter” where you can “record images directly into memory rather than on film.” These high-speed digital cameras uses high-speed phone lines to upload pictures onto your computer in 2 minutes! Your 1.3-megapixel images can be then sent all over the world via modem in minutes. The cost of this cutting edge tech? Only $20,000 for that FujiX/Nikon beast of the camera you see in the video and the memory card will hold up to 70 images.

Once the image is shot, the hard drive or flash card can be downloaded and stored in a computer. There the image is cropped or color corrected via Photoshop, a graphics software program, saved in a compressed image format, then transmitted by a modem, anywhere on the planet!

Isn’t it great to see how far we’ve come? Goodbye, clunky boxed cameras, dial up speeds and Fabio.

Hope you enjoyed this Flashback friday. Excuse me while I fire up that modem.

aol-login-screen

About

Hanssie is a Southern California-based writer and sometimes portrait and wedding photographer. In her free time, she homeschools, works out, rescues dogs and works in marketing for SLR Lounge. She also blogs about her adventures and about fitness when she’s not sick of writing so much. Check out her work and her blog at www.hanssie.com and www.fittedmagazine.com. Follow her on Instagram. Email her at:
[email protected]

10 Comments

Please or register to post a comment.

  1. colin Charisma

    It’s crazy what passed for high quality back then :)

    | |
  2. Dustin Baugh

    You can see why DSLRs are so big. We had comparatively svelte Nikon F3’s then this beast came out. They shrunk it down a bit over time but people got used to “Big means professional”, now when a Sony a6000 shows up in the professional world people think “Couldn’t afford a real camera?” even though it outperforms most APS-C Canikons in 95% of shooting situations.

    | |
    • Dave Haynie

      Yup… that “big means pro” disease has been around for a long time. And maybe, once, there was some logic to it. But less so these days, particularly in the digital age. Before the days of DSLR video, I bought a lower-end pro camcorder, the Panasonic HMC40. As a “B” camera, I bought their TMC700, which had exactly the same 3-chip sensor, and a slightly better lens. They also made a lower-end “shoulder mount” camera at the time, the HMC70, a BIG, pro-looking camcorder… which used the previous generation sensor and video encoding technology, producing markedly lower-quality results.

      Look at Canon a few years ago… pretty much that same 18Mpixel sensor in the consumer cameras, the 60D, and the 7D. They weren’t selling quality as an upgrade.

      Yes, there are things you buy when you get a larger camera: longer battery life, faster shooting, multiple memory cards, weather sealing, general ruggedness, etc. But nothing that affected the photo quality. And even when it would affect quality, how many consumer customers are going to order a photo large enough to really show the difference. If I’m doing a paid shoot, I’m doing my customer better by the fact that my smaller, lighter gear has me there with two or three extra cameras, just in case something goes wrong, for that “B” and “C” video shoot, etc. Not to mention the fact I do audio correctly as well.

      | |
  3. Paul Empson

    Modems… :-D …9,600bit/s Non,8,1 and just make sure the sending & receiving modem were using the same communication protocol.. I used Kermit way back when…

    cameras may have com a long way but the accessibility and speed of the internet has come on massively.. even if we still think it’s slow :-)

    | |
    • Graham Curran

      My first modem was 1200/300 baud. I shudder to think how that would cope with a modern web-page. My first digital camera was a Panasonic with built in memory and you had to link it to the computer to download images. What a joy was my Sony with a a built-in floppy disc that promised unlimited shooting so long as you had enough floppies and spare batteries.

      | |
  4. Peter Nord

    Anyone interested in a working Coolpix950?

    | |
  5. Tom Cuffari

    I sold quite a few of those “back in the day”. Fuji and Nikon sold the same camera, the only difference being the name. It was widely held that you needed at least a 100mb file to go to print in a high end magazine then so the use of these cameras was limited. We know now that that’s not accurate as we see many quality images from much smaller files. Oh, wait a minute, there are no magazines left either. My bad.

    | |
    • Jean-Philippe Thierry

      Lol. We’re actually getting there anyway with 50 Mega pixels in dslr (more for medium format); and, you’re right, for now reading most of publications on a screen and even looking at our pictures on screens. I’ll talk to my colleague from Marketing!

      | |
  6. Keith Sheridan

    Back in 1995, my dad bought my brother and I an Apple Quicktake 150 because we were both interested in photography. At the time it was cutting edge and so cool, but I look back and think how ridiculous it was spending nearly $1000 on that thing for two high school kids. I stuck with film up until 2004 for my serious photography.

    | |
  7. Matt Owen

    I thought for a minute I was watching a preview of Halt and Catch Fire.

    | |