Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What’s the oldest year of Sony digital cameras that work with MacOS Monterey?
- Thread starter HappyDude20
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If he is looking for very early retro digital camera then yes the Quicktake from Apple is a very good candidate. I have one but it's software will only work with OS9. It does save the images to a storage card but would need the right card reader to connect it to a computer.
What is interesting the difference a few years make when it comes to the design and specs of early digital cameras. The Quicktake 150 came out in 1995 and was very limited in what it can do, even it's design is very basic and then a few years later the Sony DSC-F505. You couldn't get any more different between the two cameras even if you tried. They are miles apart in terms of design and specs.
If he is really looking for retro then the Apple Quicktake 200 fits the bill perfectly. It looks 90's and it feels 90's.
What is interesting the difference a few years make when it comes to the design and specs of early digital cameras. The Quicktake 150 came out in 1995 and was very limited in what it can do, even it's design is very basic and then a few years later the Sony DSC-F505. You couldn't get any more different between the two cameras even if you tried. They are miles apart in terms of design and specs.
If he is really looking for retro then the Apple Quicktake 200 fits the bill perfectly. It looks 90's and it feels 90's.
Last edited:
What old digital cameras are you using that the app detects?
Since the Quicktakes were mentioned-just don't do it.
The 100/150 MUST have their images transferred via a Mac serial port. I'm not sure if they ever even worked in OS X, or if it was pretty when they did. Most computers that have serial ports(from the factory-there's was an aftermarket option that let you replace the modem in G4 towers with one) officially max at OS X 10.2.8. For anyone counting, that's 15 versions behind Monteray. Again, I'm not even sure the cameras work in OS X at all(even in classic mode) you may need to stick to OS 8/9 for them.
I have a Quicktake 200, and it is the same basic camera as was sold in the late 90s as a cheap digital camera under a bunch of different brand names. Back then, my dad had one that was branded Agfa. They are 640x480 cameras(1.2mp), are powered by AAs that they eat for breakfast(when my dad would be using his I would tell him-without too much exaggeration-that he changed batteries more often than I changed film. I think it would be 40-60 photos typically) and use SmartMedia cards. I think the largest they will use is 8mb.
My QT 200 is in storage or I would pull it out and show some examples of how awful it is. Since it does use removable storage, you can use it without plugging the computer directly in. In fact I'm not even sure how it plugs in-probably via a serial port-but the removable media still poses its own problems. Smartmedia hasn't been made in years-if anyone remembers it, it basically looks like an SD card flattened by a rolling pin(it's super thin but also longer/wider than SD) and the contacts on it look like what's on a cell phone SIM card or on your credit card's chip. You'll need an OLD card reader(USB or Firewire) to read it. Smartmedia itself is not easy to find these days, and you'll pay inflated prices on Ebay for 16mb chips, which seem the easiest to find but I don't even think will work in the QT200. And yes, that 16 megabytes, not gigagbytes.
I took a few photos with my D1 this morning, so I want to revisit this thread in a bit and show the best 1999 had to offer in digital cameras...
The 100/150 MUST have their images transferred via a Mac serial port. I'm not sure if they ever even worked in OS X, or if it was pretty when they did. Most computers that have serial ports(from the factory-there's was an aftermarket option that let you replace the modem in G4 towers with one) officially max at OS X 10.2.8. For anyone counting, that's 15 versions behind Monteray. Again, I'm not even sure the cameras work in OS X at all(even in classic mode) you may need to stick to OS 8/9 for them.
I have a Quicktake 200, and it is the same basic camera as was sold in the late 90s as a cheap digital camera under a bunch of different brand names. Back then, my dad had one that was branded Agfa. They are 640x480 cameras(1.2mp), are powered by AAs that they eat for breakfast(when my dad would be using his I would tell him-without too much exaggeration-that he changed batteries more often than I changed film. I think it would be 40-60 photos typically) and use SmartMedia cards. I think the largest they will use is 8mb.
My QT 200 is in storage or I would pull it out and show some examples of how awful it is. Since it does use removable storage, you can use it without plugging the computer directly in. In fact I'm not even sure how it plugs in-probably via a serial port-but the removable media still poses its own problems. Smartmedia hasn't been made in years-if anyone remembers it, it basically looks like an SD card flattened by a rolling pin(it's super thin but also longer/wider than SD) and the contacts on it look like what's on a cell phone SIM card or on your credit card's chip. You'll need an OLD card reader(USB or Firewire) to read it. Smartmedia itself is not easy to find these days, and you'll pay inflated prices on Ebay for 16mb chips, which seem the easiest to find but I don't even think will work in the QT200. And yes, that 16 megabytes, not gigagbytes.
I took a few photos with my D1 this morning, so I want to revisit this thread in a bit and show the best 1999 had to offer in digital cameras...
I'd suggest avoiding any Sony "Mavica" model. Early ones, while electronic, are not digital but analog. All Mavicas use storage media that is hard to come by today.
I'd also suggest avoiding any and all cameras that rely on either direct connection to the computer or use obsolete storage media (2" Video Floppy, 3-1/2 Floppy, 8cm CD, Memory Stick, Smart Media, ...). Even Compact Flash and SD Card can be problems since older cameras often only work with low capacity versions that are no longer made.
I'd also suggest avoiding any and all cameras that rely on either direct connection to the computer or use obsolete storage media (2" Video Floppy, 3-1/2 Floppy, 8cm CD, Memory Stick, Smart Media, ...). Even Compact Flash and SD Card can be problems since older cameras often only work with low capacity versions that are no longer made.
Based on a discussion in another thread, I think you're using Image Capture, which detects your camera when attached.
The OP has said that the camera is a gift for his nephew, who specifically wants an older camera, not something new and cheap from Best Buy.
No I am not using image Capture and only used it briefly which I have later learned did not fix my problem.
So true. Sony loves going its own way when it comes to storage media that no one else uses, for its music players, still and video cameras.
Just try finding blank Betamax tapes today. ?
It will detect reasonably modern cameras that use standard protocols. Many early digital cameras used proprietary data protocols that required special software to communicate. This special software is often won't run on recent computers, especially recent Macs.
Why on earth would anyone want to use a camera that is so old a modern Mac won’t detect it?
My 2009 Powershot that I retired when I bought my new Powershot was detected by the photos app.
As many reasons as there are photographers. Some people don't want to get caught up in the commercialism and conspicuous consumption of always buying the latest and greatest, some are simply happy with the gear they have, some don't feel the need to be trapped in the permanent upgrade cycle of new OS -> new software -> new hardware, some don't have disposable income for buying a new camera, some are given hand-me-downs and they simply want them to work. Some are using cameras from their place of work or school, and they don't have a choice. Some are pushing back against planned obsolescence. Some want to use old tech for personal reasons, as the OP's nephew apparently does. Some like the nostalgia of using an older camera.
And an OS doesn't need to recognize a connected camera as if it's a peripheral, as long as the camera can generate standard files such as JPEGs and TIFFs, and the photographer uses a card reader.
All of those are reasons. I'm sure I've missed many many more.
My first camera was a second-hand twin lens reflex camera that used 120 film, 12 medium format photos per roll. It was old tech when I first got it, but it was a delight to learn photography and darkroom work on it. Everyone has their reasons, and I had mine for not starting off with a 35mm camera.
One of my "ancient" digital cameras doesn't create standard formats. It dates from the latter part of the previous millenium when the needed processing power to convert the raw sensor data to a standard bitmap was too expensive to put into the camera. It used custom software to connect to the camera, download the stored raw sensor data, and generate a JPEG or TIFF.
Another of my oldies does create standard JPEGs, but either writes to SmartMedia cards, which are all but impossible to source, or downloads via a proprietary protocol that only ran on Windows 95/98/Me (no NT decendant) or MacOS 8.x/9/x (no OSX variant).
That planned obsolescence I mentioned. It's awful, but I understand how quirky things were when digital photography was just beginning and many early cameras were some combination between peripheral, still camera, and video sensor.
And the last thing anyone was engineering for was a device that would still function 25+ years later.
Good luck with yours. I'm trying to find batteries for a 2003 Leica/Panasonic joint project camera, and even those batteries are hard to find now. ?
Both of these are shelf queens. In fact, one has been on loan with an old friend for some 20 years and I'm in no hurry to have it returned. The other has sentimental meaning to my wife & I so it just sits in its box on a shelf.
Here's a photo from my Nikon D1 shot this morning. I hope you'll humor my use of a pet photo, but a jet black dog can be surprisingly difficult to photograph and he was also being well behaved this morning.
First of all, I shot these in RAW(.NEF). This is still the format used by Nikon cameras, although each camera has its own quirks and the RAW processor needs to have support for the specific camera model generating the files. I'll also mention that even though I have a couple of D1s, this is the main one I use, partially because I spent a lot of time setting it up. The camera feels very much like a digital Nikon F5, and rather than having full text menus, a lot of settings(or custom functions in Nikon speak) are handled as on the F5/F100 and you really need a "cheat sheet" to know what you're setting. Incidentally, that button along with the ISO button is right where you'd find it on an F5-under a little metal door behind the small LCD on the back toward the bottom of the camera. The ability to even record in RAW is toggled on/off by a custom function.
Apple Camera RAW is able to read/recognize the files in Monteray, although I'll also mention that I hate Photos as a RAW processor
Fortunately Lightroom also handles them fine
The final result...well it's okay but not really by 2022 standards. I'd not be ashamed to share it if I wanted to show someone a photo of my dog. Note too that this is nearly ideal light-it was morning light in the shade of the porch, so not contrasty like full sun but still plenty bright.
BTW, this is a full resolution file. If I tried to post one from one of my more modern cameras, the website would scream. This was also at base ISO, 200. I have this camera set to underexpose since CCDs do not handle blown highlights the way we're use to on a modern camera, and this is what the uncorrected image looked like(not the same photo, but taken a few seconds before, and I didn't feel like rolling back the edits when I realized I should include it in this post).
Even with my massaging, I feel like my iPhone still handled it better
The long and short of this-
The D1 was among the best available in 1999. I couldn't find an MSRP in a quick Google search, but I THINK Nikon has mostly kept their pro model pricing consistent through the digital area, which would have made it around $5K. That's assuming you could find one. I charged 3 batteries just to be able to use it, and one of the ones I charged wouldn't even power on the camera. These were dumped onto a 2gb Lexar CF card. Further, the only way to directly tether the camera to the computer is by Firewire. I can easily do it when I'm at my desk docked with my M1 MBP since I still use an Apple Thunderbolt Display that has a Firewire port, but otherwise you'd need a stack of dongles(TB3-TB2, TB-FW800, and then either a FW800-FW400 cable or an 800M-400F dongle).
There you have it.
I'll just be blunt too and say that if you're looking at a pre-2000 digital camera, don't expect results like this unless you're buying a top end Nikon, Canon, or Kodak(if I had a Kodak from this era it would probably beat this, but my oldest Kodak is a DCS 760 from maybe from 2001 or 2002). If this hadn't been a RAW file, I wouldn't have been able to rescue it to this extent from the first capture. This is a relatively huge APS-C sensor(~16mmx24mm) and nothing short of DSLRs used sensors that big in those days.
If I have time later this week, I'll see what other cameras of this general age I can easily access and see if I can post comparisons, probably of the same subject. I know I can get to one of my D2s(don't remember if it's the D2H or D2X-the D2X might not be totally fair as it is a relatively advanced CMOS sensor) but I'm hoping one of the D1Hs I have works. I MIGHT have a D100 and/or D1X I can show results from.
Also, again on all of these, 2gb card max. Fortunately CFs aren't that hard to find, but if you have to hunt for them stick to good brands. I have a few 1gb and 2gb microdrives, some of which work, but I don't trust them now. I do find the Toshibas generally more reliable than IBMs.
First of all, I shot these in RAW(.NEF). This is still the format used by Nikon cameras, although each camera has its own quirks and the RAW processor needs to have support for the specific camera model generating the files. I'll also mention that even though I have a couple of D1s, this is the main one I use, partially because I spent a lot of time setting it up. The camera feels very much like a digital Nikon F5, and rather than having full text menus, a lot of settings(or custom functions in Nikon speak) are handled as on the F5/F100 and you really need a "cheat sheet" to know what you're setting. Incidentally, that button along with the ISO button is right where you'd find it on an F5-under a little metal door behind the small LCD on the back toward the bottom of the camera. The ability to even record in RAW is toggled on/off by a custom function.
Apple Camera RAW is able to read/recognize the files in Monteray, although I'll also mention that I hate Photos as a RAW processor
Fortunately Lightroom also handles them fine
The final result...well it's okay but not really by 2022 standards. I'd not be ashamed to share it if I wanted to show someone a photo of my dog. Note too that this is nearly ideal light-it was morning light in the shade of the porch, so not contrasty like full sun but still plenty bright.
BTW, this is a full resolution file. If I tried to post one from one of my more modern cameras, the website would scream. This was also at base ISO, 200. I have this camera set to underexpose since CCDs do not handle blown highlights the way we're use to on a modern camera, and this is what the uncorrected image looked like(not the same photo, but taken a few seconds before, and I didn't feel like rolling back the edits when I realized I should include it in this post).
Even with my massaging, I feel like my iPhone still handled it better
The long and short of this-
The D1 was among the best available in 1999. I couldn't find an MSRP in a quick Google search, but I THINK Nikon has mostly kept their pro model pricing consistent through the digital area, which would have made it around $5K. That's assuming you could find one. I charged 3 batteries just to be able to use it, and one of the ones I charged wouldn't even power on the camera. These were dumped onto a 2gb Lexar CF card. Further, the only way to directly tether the camera to the computer is by Firewire. I can easily do it when I'm at my desk docked with my M1 MBP since I still use an Apple Thunderbolt Display that has a Firewire port, but otherwise you'd need a stack of dongles(TB3-TB2, TB-FW800, and then either a FW800-FW400 cable or an 800M-400F dongle).
There you have it.
I'll just be blunt too and say that if you're looking at a pre-2000 digital camera, don't expect results like this unless you're buying a top end Nikon, Canon, or Kodak(if I had a Kodak from this era it would probably beat this, but my oldest Kodak is a DCS 760 from maybe from 2001 or 2002). If this hadn't been a RAW file, I wouldn't have been able to rescue it to this extent from the first capture. This is a relatively huge APS-C sensor(~16mmx24mm) and nothing short of DSLRs used sensors that big in those days.
If I have time later this week, I'll see what other cameras of this general age I can easily access and see if I can post comparisons, probably of the same subject. I know I can get to one of my D2s(don't remember if it's the D2H or D2X-the D2X might not be totally fair as it is a relatively advanced CMOS sensor) but I'm hoping one of the D1Hs I have works. I MIGHT have a D100 and/or D1X I can show results from.
Also, again on all of these, 2gb card max. Fortunately CFs aren't that hard to find, but if you have to hunt for them stick to good brands. I have a few 1gb and 2gb microdrives, some of which work, but I don't trust them now. I do find the Toshibas generally more reliable than IBMs.
I still regularly use a Hasselblad from 1960. Film cameras aren't exactly a fair comparison because as long as you can find film in the correct format-and 120 is still readily available-you can avail yourself to the newest, latest, and greatest film emulsions around. Kodak has actually been somewhat prolific in the last several years with introducing new stuff, and even their early 2000s introductions are excellent. Although we can still get Tri-X, the Portra line, Ektar, the TMAX B&W films(especially TMX for sharpness and TMY-3 for a clean higher speed film), and Ektachrome are all excellent. I use to say that the E100 series of Ektachrome was cleanest, most digital-like color film you could get.
My point, though, is that a digital camera from 1999 is stuck with the sensor technology from 1999. My all-mechanical Hasselblad has a very different "sensor" in it now than it did in 1960.