Evo said:
Maybe I should hold onto it until it becomes a valuable antique? Or sell it now, it has all of the accessories with it.
And an Intel 386 based PC with a math coprocessor might become a valuable antique too.
But really, what your Kodak DCS 520 has going for it is that it was one of the first digital cameras that inspired professional photographers to migrate away from film to digital. So in that sense it is a piece of history.
I remember drooling at the thought of owning that camera when it was first released (and even more-so when corresponding Nikon compatible version was released). I even contemplated what I could sell so that I could afford one. But alas, I didn't make a purchase. I waited a few years, and by then Nikon and Canon had caught up with their own digital SLRs that were more affordable.
[...], it has to be super simple, i do not have the patience to mess with settings. That's why my Nikon is unused, F stop, is that to set the aperture? It has all of these dials, and different lenses. ACK
Evo, I'm surprised at you.
So much of what takes place on the physics forum directly applies to photography (homework questions about lenses, optics, logarithms, powers of 2, inverse square behavior, are a few examples).
Antique or not, your Kodak DCS 520 is a
good camera. And don't let anybody fool you, your 2 Mega pixles are better than some of today's 10 Mp point-and-shoot sensors. I'm a bit of a photo-buff myself,
http://www.collinsmark.com"
and I have some experience in this area. Not all pixels are created equal. The pixels in your Kodak camera are quite large and will produce higher quality images than most smaller sensors, even though the latter may have a higher pixel count. (The decrease in noise alone outweighs the resolution disadvantage.)
It's not the kind of camera that you use for snapshots. Any cheapy camera will work for that. But that's what you'll end up with -- snapshots. But your Kodak is heavy, and due to its older, power hungry CCD (not CMOS) sensor, you won't get many pictures on a single battery charge. It's the kind of camera to use when you want to take good photographs, and plan on taking them ahead of time. With this camera, you have control of the depth of field, so you can intentionally throw the background out of focus (if you want to), giving the subject emphasis. That's something you simply cannot do reasonably well with a point-and-shoot.
And your Kodak has a fairly decent shutter lag (compared to point-and-shoots anyway). In my experience, one of the biggest reasons for blown photographs is that there is a delay from the time the shutter is pressed until the time the picture is taken. This applies to all pictures other than landscape or still-life. With you Kodak, you can catch those fleeting facial expressions the moment they happen.
And the Kodak will also alternately function as a blunt weapon.
In the end though, you should ask yourself whether you are prepared to invest in any Canon glass. How many lenses do you have for it? It sounds like you already have a Nikon SLR, with a few lenses already. If you are not prepared to purchase more Canon lenses, perhaps you may want to sell or stash the Kodak and just stick with the Nikon and the Nikkor glass.
I want my mother's old Leica.
Oh, baby!
[Edit: Leica makes a digital rangefinder camera, which I drool over even today. But I warn you, it's not cheap! http://en.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m9/" ]
Oops, I'm afraid I could think of several reasons why using this camera could result in disappointments. Not only because of the progress of refinement and quality in some ten years. Maybe there could also be practical problems like the aging of the battery and the weight (58.2 oz) and the use of