Wow. You really got it right. I was a marketing manager at Apple when we launched the camera. Rajiv Mehta was the Product Manager who predicted the rapid replacement of film and passionately launched the product. Well done, from start to finish you captured the life and death of QuickTake perfectly.
Thankyou! I really appreciate you commenting here. It's always valuable to hear from people who were actually involved at the time. Coming at these videos as a journalist (I was actually working on computer magazines in the 90s when it came out), I always try and interview people where I can versus just rehashing or repeating existing online pieces. I also have the benefit of being able to refer back to my original articles from the 90s! Can you share any stories or anecdotes from the launch or subsequent models? It was certainly an interesting time at Apple with all the different categories.
I am deeply impressed by your dedication to getting the images off the camera! I have given up on quite a few that just did my head in after a while :P
Hah! Thanks! Not sure if you knew my background from longer ago, but in the 90's I worked for one of the big PC magazines in the UK and specialised in cameras (no surprise!) but also the really geeky hardware builds, mods and tweaks. So there was no way I could let these things beat me, although I had forgotten just how hard it was to install early versions of Windows - something I used to do literally every day, but now seems unnecessarily difficult! I was also surprised how much 'vintage' PC gear that I still had or that was on sale was from the 2000's onwards and was simply too new to work with any of this stuff. For example, Windows 98 really prefers old IDE drives and old AGP graphics and both are museum technologies from the 90's now. Some good news though is while my 98 build took the best part of a year on and off, it actually worked straightaway for the Olympus C-800L which I'm currently looking at and amazingly it talked to the computer using the same mini-DIN cable as the QuickTake 100, so at least all that legwork could be applied to another model!
Ali, that's the "charm" of working with the earliest digital cameras before the days of plug-and-play USB, removable storage, and when image formats like JPG weren't even standardized yet. Ah. Those were the geek days! ;-D Gordon has been around in the digital space a LONG time. I'm sure he's familiar with the charm I'm referring to. Hahah.
I'd love it if you did a video not necessarily on the old PCs, but your whole 'old' workflow as someone who was a published professional way back in the early days of the digital camera. Retro tech is super popular, but there aren't a lot of people making videos about them who actually worked with the tech back when it was still current.
Yeah, that might be fun! I remember supplying the first digital photo to our production desk in the mid Nineties and they weren't impressed! It was of a PC cpu cooling fan. I might be able to identify the issue...
I did use one at work back in the 90's. When you talked about the somewhat substantial shutter release button the tactile memory of pushing that button was awakened in my brain. I did like the feel of pressing the shutter. The QuickTake was really a great tool for getting images for newsletters and emails. We would rent them out by the day and a lot of people came in to do just that as they were pretty exciting tech.
In 1997, my employer gave me his Quicktake 100 as I was leaving his ad agency for college. He'd upgraded to a more capable camera. I was beyond thrilled to receive it and use it for quite a few projects and to simply play with. Cutting edge at the time.
Welcome back x2. Fair point about lack of review. Back then, in the context of the market being mostly film, not being able to review pics was just part for the course.
I still have mine from back in the day, but it was really the Sony Mavica, with the floppy drive, that helped me really get into digital photography. Yeah, had to carry around floppies, but could see results and quickly get shooting again once full.
My English professor bought this camera and loved it, he treated himself with some dividends he got back on some stock, and adamantly said this would be the way of the future, he was right, but not with the quick take. And back then I didn't know of any printers that had photo-quality printing, I would have loved to see a 4x6 of this. Also the pics of the graffiti and David Bowie mural are awesome for 620x480.. Great video mate! Hopefully i would find one at a thrift store!
Honestly these images look great for the era! We were all pretty used to the graphics of like “Oregon Trail” etc… this blows that away… I would have been mesmerized as a kid lol
We had one in our graphics lab when I was in high school. We used it for capturing events for the school paper. 8 shots wasn’t really a limit, as that is about how many frames you would take on a film camera of any given event anyway, and you didn’t have to shoot and develop a whole roll of film just for that one frame you really wanted. Getting shots off the camera was certainly faster than developing, printing, and scanning film. We printed the weekly paper on an offset press so the QuickTake had enough resolution for any layout except possibly the cover shot. Digital photography was obviously the future and I was able to eventually make a career out of it.
Yes, even though the images look horrible and the interface slow today, back then it was so much faster than using film and the results were usable for modest reproduction. Good to hear your memories about it being used in that kind of environment.
Thanks, another interesting and informative video. I acquired a 100 & 150 to compliment an assortment of early Macs I have which made connection easy. Apple also made a case for them that came with a protective sleeve that fitted over the camera body while allowing access to all the controls/connections and incorporated a strap that made one handed use much more secure. It's twin, the Kodak DC40 incorporated lugs for the same purpose and came with a strap, a much better idea. The DC40 also had the lens mount threaded to take 37mm accessory lens etc. Tiffen made a push fit adapter for the QuickTakes, again 37mm threaded, for the same purpose. The QuickTake came with a battery charger and three NiCad batteries which was just as well in view of it's appetite for power!
Gordon - Thanks for this bit of digital camera history. Despite being an "early adopter" of a Mac in May 1984, and going on to become a Macintosh consultant starting in 1989 (and doing "serious" photography since 1975, when at age 15 year got my first SLR, a GAF,) , I never came across the QuickTake, though I knew of its existence. Looks like I didn't miss much. 😆
@@DinoBytes Yeah - what I love about this "vintage" digital cameras (which really wasn't that long ago, compared to day, the history of film), is looking at and comparing the photos and the tech, plus the certain quality the images have. Makes you appreciate both: the magic and fun of it all, the wonder. I think however that I will pick a different vintage digital camera to play with, despite the fact I could figure it out - I remember those serial cables! (I sold off all my vintage Macs, including the 128Ks, except a 2010 laptop).
@@DinoBytes hah, so true! I think the fact that we were a bunch of Apple users that the camera was a safe bet of quality to use in our classrooms for documentation.
Great review as always! I recently picked up a QT100 / 100 Plus and 150 and they all seem to be facing what I'd call "CCD Rot" as the images are horrible. Colors are off, QT100's photos are mostly green. None of the photos I've taken look anywhere near as good as the samples you or LGR showed. I was happy to figure out how to get them off the camera(s), but the resulting photos didn't make me happy. Also, I wanted to let you and other's know, I was able to connect the camera using a USB to Serial Adapter (Sabrent brand) and a cable from a KODAK DC20 (Apple to PC serial). I used the Quicktake 150 software and after carefully ensuring USB to Serial drivers were installed (Prolific in my case), the QuickTake software communicated with the cameras. A few caveats, I am using Windows XP on a Dell D630 laptop and what I found worked was to connect serial first (serial to USB), then power cable (or batteries) to power up the unit. If you power the unit first, I don't believe it will communicate properly. The D630 has serial port and this is how I first connected the cameras but also tried the USB adapter afterwards and was surprised it worked! Also, the preview times are horribly slow! Takes about 30 secs per image to view and I guess "decrypt" the qtk files. Still lots of geeky fun, but I was sure hoping to get better photos. Maybe I'll source another QT100 before the prices get too out of hand. Thanks again for the fun and informative videos, this one should have TONS more views! Thanks to you I'm now on the hunt for more vintage digital cameras 😊
Thanks for the info! I must try a USB adapter, but I do try and maintain a windows 98 or xp system for these serial cameras. Yes, I've seen many samples from these old cameras look really faded or tinted, so I suspect some ageing issues. Cameras from closer to 2000 onwards seem much better behaved! Hope you get a chance to checkout more of my videos here!
@@DinoBytes I've seen them all and always like but don't always comment. I know the work it takes to make these videos and I appreciate the time and effort you put into them. I'm now on the hunt for the Sony F828 based on your last video, ha ha
Was wondering why I hadn’t seen one of these videos from you from awhile and realized I didn’t have notifications on! Fixed so now I can continue watching these glimpses of past technology.
Thank you so much for this video; I watched it with intrigue. Then, a few weeks later, I happened into a thrift store and there was a QuickTake 100 just waiting to be bought! The staff said none of them had any idea what it was, but I did! I bought it, put in some new batteries, and it fired right up. Your video was very helpful with considering the software compatibility. I went with a serial to usb cable on a 2007 MacBook running Windows XP, and had no issues with the driver or software installation! Can't wait to go out and take some retro digital photos.
Glad you enjoyed it! I'm impressed you got the cable and software working! Can you possibly link to the serial to USB cable you bought - or the name as links aren't always allowed in comments - and also what software version you used? I recently got hold of a Kodak DC40 which is essentially the same camera, so I'll need to fire up my old rig again OR try a more modern approach, so you've inspired me!
@@DinoBytes I've tried to post this several times, and it seems to keep being deleted. I did a search for a serial to usb cable on ali express and found one marketed as a QuickTake 100 and 150 cable. It came with the driver download.
@@DinoBytes I'm sorry, I was having trouble writing the comment it a way that it didn't get taken down. There are several comments that hopefully pieced together can provide enough information to find the sources.
I have a 150 here, retrieving the images is certainly a dedication! Thankfully, I have a few appropriate Apple products from the correct era. The software is painful to configure correctly!
I never saw/remember the Apple digital cameras but I do remember the Newton PDA's. As far as early digital cameras go, my first exposure to one (pardon the pun) was an early Sony Mavica....
Another great vintage review, Gordon. You forgot to credit Chinon, which was the actual manufacturer and designer of many of the QuickTake and Kodak DC cameras. Apple may have tweaked the industrial design of the camera, but the form factor and design of the camera is actually a Chinon one. As you know, in the early days of digital photography, it was quite common for big brand cameras to actually be licensed and rebranded models designed and produced by a number of manufacturers such as Chinon, Sanyo, Fujifilm, Mustek, etc. Even big name Japanese manufacturers licensed and rebranded from each other during this early time. This practice was especially common amongst traditional photography players and computer giants who often didn't have in-house expertise in consumer electronics and digital imaging. These OEM manufacturers rarely, if ever, get the recognition they do for their key role in jump starting the age of consumer digital photography. In my opinion, it is more appropriate to credit Chinon rather than Apple regarding firsts, though I like your narrative arc that ties Apple's early entry into the digital photography and the Apple iPhone's dominant position in modern day digital imaging :-) Cheers!
Chinon camera largely based on camcorder innards - interlaced and with mild NTSC artefacts! I tried its successor back in the day - Kodak DC120. Was not fond, compared to Fujifilm, Yashica, Olympus and everything else that came out in that era. Didn't care about the extra resolution, didn't find that more pixels was more better. They were not good pixels. The easiest to use are cameras of the era that use a SmartMedia card, you can just find a reader, and i wonder if Darktable is still able to connect to ones using the Fujitsu/Sierra chipset using serial port.
Wow!!!! I had no idea that camera was so very limited. I am a former Apple employee and have been using their products since 1984, but I will definitely pass on having this item in my Apple collection! I will stick with my Sony Mavicas, which I love. Thanks for the great video.
You're welcome! To be fair, it came at a time when Apple was trying out a lot of different things, many of which were partnerships with other companies.
Apart from the poor resolution, those images actually look pretty decent! 😀Love your dedication, like a digital archeologist you manage to pull those images from the camera! The Quicktake looks like a projector doesn’t it? Thanks for the video, it’s really interesting and fun to hear your insight, putting the camera into the context of its time.
Have you tried exporting as BMP or TIFF, those QTK files? Both example pics from earlier seem to exhibit a LOT of jpeg type compression (as if the Jpeg quality slider wasn't set to 10… but something like 6 or lower).
In my Possession is a distant Brother of the Quicktake, a Kodak DC120. Compact Flash for Memory, a (nearly unusable) LCD Screen, and the most Frustrating Battery Compartment in every Digital Camera I have ever used. I really like Cameras from that Era, but it's often a Headache to use them. Especially with the Sensors of the Time. The Resolution is not really a Problem with me, for the Internet even VGA is often enough. But the lighting gets me every Time. You really need a big amount of light, at best bright Daylight, to get a good Quality Picture. Indoors, it's nearly impossible to get everything out of these Cameras.
I have a DC120 Zoom! They're actually quite easy to buy again on eBay for some reason, unlike a lot of models on either side. I'll make a video about it soon, but really need to do the DC40 first.
This camera, and many others from the early days of digital photography, make look today like some Star Trek TOS gimmick, but you just have to love how that incipient market pushed manufacturers to develop new products and not only constantly improve the internals (i.e. sensors, lens, image processing, connectivity, etc.) but also come out with innovative external designs and ergonomics (sometimes with questionable outcome xD). In this model in particular, not having a built-in screen to review your shots is most certainly a nuisance, but to be fair, until at least the very late 90s or early 2000's screens were lousy at best and, to check if a shot was really a keeper, you had to load it down to your computer anyway. Connectivity was a joke though!
Pictures aren't so bad. I have just bought a FujiFilm @xia ix-10 with .35MP (that's point 35) or 640 x 480. I paid £8.49 including postage and I have my Windows XP or Vista dual boot PC (I blame former you for that) ready for any challenges, plus I may get to buy my gzillionth connection wire, but I do have some Smart Media cards, so maybe I will be able to use those in one of the readers I have.
We had these at school around 1997. We would upload the images to a Power PC Mac. We thought it was the most futuristic thing we’d ever seen, being able to load images into a computer and print them out, compared to that old fashioned film stuff haha
Great work Gordon. I don't think current users of digital cameras appreciate how far the technology has come in nearly 30 years. Back then I was still shooting film, although I did get access to a Casio digital camera at work in the late 1990's. Some one should write an iPhone app that mimics the QuickTake 100 with the 'delete all' button included... but only the photos taken with the app! The quality of the 640x480 photos are surprisingly good considering!
Thanks, but sadly not! I'm doing the Olympus C-800L which is also an old model with internal memory and a mini DIN serial port! BUT I've found it works fine on my Windows 98 build and even works with my QuickTake 100 cable, so no worries there!
My father bought a QT100 for me and my brothers in 1995 when it was heavily discounted (500DM/ca. $350). We did use it until my father bought an Olympus Camedia C-2500L DLSR in the beginning of 2000. My brother used the QT100 for some time afterwards to record time-lapses directly onto his (linux) computer. He had reverse-engineered some part of the communication and was able to get raw images from the camera. I think that he had to modify something on the QT100 PCB to make that work, though. Sadly most of or digital images have since vanished and even the time-lapse videos that my brother made (of which he was extremely proud) were lost when our home-server catastrophically failed. Some good pictures were printed and some even digitally developed. These are still around although some are heavily faded, as early color-ink printers were barely capable of printing photos. The QT100 itself died a sad death when some NiCd Batteries had been forgotten inside and leaked. Some parts of the QT100 were so heavily corroded that even traces on the PCB are no longer there. Very sad.
@@DinoBytes Our backup strategy was the server that crashed 🙂 It took a lot of stuff with it. Even most of the (cheap) backup CD-R from the mid-late 90s were no longer readable in 2005. No cloud-services back then...
I remember when this camera first came out, someone from Apple visited my middle school to show off this technology. They hooked it up to some 27" TV on a cart, but it was a bit too small for an auditorium to really see what was going on. Anyway, us kids at the time had no interest in anything on a television that wasn't Nintendo. I do remember the teachers being amazed though.
"The language might be off-putting." That, is hilarious!I I actually had one of those cameras. I remember having them call the CC company to make sure the card was good before they let me walk out of the store! I have no idea where I lost it. I like to think you found it, but it's a long way from the U.S. Midwest to Brighton. Fine work getting the images off! "Could not let it beat me." Funny stuff. Did you try the TIFF output? I had a little giggle when you chose the JPG output.
Actually I do have TIFF versions of the images generated from the software, so I should check to see if they manage to avoid the compression artefacts seen on the JPEGs, It may be baked into the QTK files, or may be from the JPEG conversion afterwards...
My father had a Canon RC-250. Technically a video stills camera but it used what were basically mini floppy diskettes. Something of a bridge to true digital cameras.
@@DinoBytes I wonder if my father still even has it. I'll have to ask. He still did a few years ago, but was busy clearing out clutter and may have tossed it. That had a composite-out RCA jack, so (if it works) it's a bit easier to offload.
@@DinoBytes The batteries even in their day were not great. I do remember my father bought the AC adaptor as the battery life, after only a few months, fell to just a few minutes on a full charge.
Awesome video as usual! It´s interesting to see such an ancient piece of digital technology in action. The pics don´t look bad - sure, the resolution is very low, but it would be interesting to see them processed in Topaz Gigapixel. The old PCs would also be interesting. If you like old computer technology, there are some great channels like LGR and Psivewri, maybe also as inspiration, just suggesting.
I am always struck by how acceptable the results are from ultra-low-resolution sensors when viewed on computer screens. This one is the lowest res I've seen reviewed, but the results are far from grim, it is the content that counts. I find there is also too much emphasis on "Noise" and as an ex film photographer I sometimes welcome a bit of grainy character like we had with 1960s Kodak Tri X. Keep up the good work
I enjoy your videos. The camera store tv did a review of the Kodak digital back for the Nikon camera you showed, it’s worth watching because that was NOT a good camera at all, but was transformative.
Thank you for another fascinating look at a piece of digital camera history! Quick question: have you done similar videos or something like radio work prior to UA-cam? Your enunciation is really good making your videos work well as podcasts too :)
Thanks! Maybe you've seen my main channel where I've been reviewing cameras since the start of UA-cam in 2006? I also did do some radio and TV work from the mid Nineties to mid-2000's, but on small channels.
It's difficult if the camera only has internal memory. You either need to get the images out over a serial cable (requiring the cable, software and an old OS), or you capture the TV / video output, and accept VGA resolution (which it probably was anyway). But if it has a card, then get a reader.
I see a lot of people (not here) making fun of these cameras and calling them a "potato". Those who had them, though, today have pictures that they wouldn't have, and think that that was money really well spent. The truth is, these cameras were a miracle, and people noticed, and Kodak and the entire film industry went quickly bankrupt because of them.
Actually.... Its highly possible that it actually recorded short video in QuickTime format, then divide frames into images... Hence the *qtk file container...
This was an entertaining one! So I’m guessing once you converted to jpg, you had to save it to a floppy, then used a floppy to USB adapter to get the photos onto a modern PC?
Yes and no! For the PowerBook, yes, that was my workflow as I don't have a LocalTalk network or any other drives connected to it. But the Windows 98 PC was booting from a compact flash card, so I just removed it and read it on a modern system. The PC also has USB ports which I think I can get working under 98 with the right drivers in the future, plus a CD drive which could, at a push, be used to write discs.
I never knew about Apple’s bid for the DSC market. I instead opted for the (dreadfully slow) Sony Mavica. Painfully slow because the pictures were recorded on 3-1/2” floppy disks. Sure, I got more pictures in one session and it’s resolution was 640x320; but, you had to wait a dreadful minute or more between snapshots so forget, burst mode unless you stuck firecrackers in the drive bay and lit them up. It is interesting as well that Apple chose to use the same 8-pin din serial cable that they also used on the Apple Newton / Message |Pads. Sadly, that was the Scully era at Apple where Apple started to loose its way in the consumer world. There were a lot of things that came out of Apple those years that had absolutely no traction. The 20th Anniversary Macintosh introduced in June 1997 is a classic no winner sporting the idea of the first “trash can” computer. Fun to reminisce about Apple foibles.
Wait till you see them on a bigger screen though! But again if we're mostly consuming on phone screens, it's less of an issue... they did have a vintage look to them, certainly!
But of a stretch calling it a first as it requires so many caveats to do so, it's barely even an Apple product, more of an apple branded private labelled money spinner. Film was faster, 1 hour turnaround was common. Film also had MUCH higher resolution, dynamic range, better colours, more images (usually 24-32 p/roll).
I agree, but in the industry is is still widely known as the first consumer digital camera, and it also had those magazine covers a one of the most influential models.
@@AdamJRichardson ha ha! I wasn't sure, as some others have made the same comments and it got me thinking maybe I wasn't being totally fair on the camera. I'll still do a comparison just to check!
Wow. You really got it right. I was a marketing manager at Apple when we launched the camera. Rajiv Mehta was the Product Manager who predicted the rapid replacement of film and passionately launched the product. Well done, from start to finish you captured the life and death of QuickTake perfectly.
Thankyou! I really appreciate you commenting here. It's always valuable to hear from people who were actually involved at the time. Coming at these videos as a journalist (I was actually working on computer magazines in the 90s when it came out), I always try and interview people where I can versus just rehashing or repeating existing online pieces. I also have the benefit of being able to refer back to my original articles from the 90s! Can you share any stories or anecdotes from the launch or subsequent models? It was certainly an interesting time at Apple with all the different categories.
I am deeply impressed by your dedication to getting the images off the camera! I have given up on quite a few that just did my head in after a while :P
Hah! Thanks! Not sure if you knew my background from longer ago, but in the 90's I worked for one of the big PC magazines in the UK and specialised in cameras (no surprise!) but also the really geeky hardware builds, mods and tweaks. So there was no way I could let these things beat me, although I had forgotten just how hard it was to install early versions of Windows - something I used to do literally every day, but now seems unnecessarily difficult! I was also surprised how much 'vintage' PC gear that I still had or that was on sale was from the 2000's onwards and was simply too new to work with any of this stuff. For example, Windows 98 really prefers old IDE drives and old AGP graphics and both are museum technologies from the 90's now. Some good news though is while my 98 build took the best part of a year on and off, it actually worked straightaway for the Olympus C-800L which I'm currently looking at and amazingly it talked to the computer using the same mini-DIN cable as the QuickTake 100, so at least all that legwork could be applied to another model!
Ali, that's the "charm" of working with the earliest digital cameras before the days of plug-and-play USB, removable storage, and when image formats like JPG weren't even standardized yet. Ah. Those were the geek days! ;-D Gordon has been around in the digital space a LONG time. I'm sure he's familiar with the charm I'm referring to. Hahah.
@@manhattason I certainly remember things being easier than this at the time!
@Dino Bytes by Gordon Laing we've become soft ;-)
@@manhattason I certainly have!
This clearly gives you joy, and it’s so nice to see people doing things that make them happy!
Thanks, yes, I do enjoy these
I'd love it if you did a video not necessarily on the old PCs, but your whole 'old' workflow as someone who was a published professional way back in the early days of the digital camera. Retro tech is super popular, but there aren't a lot of people making videos about them who actually worked with the tech back when it was still current.
Yeah, that might be fun! I remember supplying the first digital photo to our production desk in the mid Nineties and they weren't impressed! It was of a PC cpu cooling fan. I might be able to identify the issue...
I did use one at work back in the 90's. When you talked about the somewhat substantial shutter release button the tactile memory of pushing that button was awakened in my brain. I did like the feel of pressing the shutter. The QuickTake was really a great tool for getting images for newsletters and emails. We would rent them out by the day and a lot of people came in to do just that as they were pretty exciting tech.
That's a perfect application, and it's important to remember while the images look horrible today, it was groundbreakingly convenient back then!
In 1997, my employer gave me his Quicktake 100 as I was leaving his ad agency for college. He'd upgraded to a more capable camera. I was beyond thrilled to receive it and use it for quite a few projects and to simply play with. Cutting edge at the time.
Welcome back x2.
Fair point about lack of review. Back then, in the context of the market being mostly film, not being able to review pics was just part for the course.
Exactly. It seems an obvious deal-breaker today, but no biggie back then. UNTIL the models with screens came out though and changed everything!
I still have mine from back in the day, but it was really the Sony Mavica, with the floppy drive, that helped me really get into digital photography. Yeah, had to carry around floppies, but could see results and quickly get shooting again once full.
Yeah, I found the Mavica more practical - have you seen my video about it?
@@DinoBytes Yep!
My English professor bought this camera and loved it, he treated himself with some dividends he got back on some stock, and adamantly said this would be the way of the future, he was right, but not with the quick take. And back then I didn't know of any printers that had photo-quality printing, I would have loved to see a 4x6 of this. Also the pics of the graffiti and David Bowie mural are awesome for 620x480.. Great video mate! Hopefully i would find one at a thrift store!
If you visit my website cameralabs.com, you can access the original images if you fancy trying to print any of them out!
Honestly these images look great for the era! We were all pretty used to the graphics of like “Oregon Trail” etc… this blows that away… I would have been mesmerized as a kid lol
I was mesmerised as an adult at the time!
One of the best photo channels on UA-cam. Love it
Thankyou, I really appreciate that!
We had one in our graphics lab when I was in high school. We used it for capturing events for the school paper. 8 shots wasn’t really a limit, as that is about how many frames you would take on a film camera of any given event anyway, and you didn’t have to shoot and develop a whole roll of film just for that one frame you really wanted. Getting shots off the camera was certainly faster than developing, printing, and scanning film. We printed the weekly paper on an offset press so the QuickTake had enough resolution for any layout except possibly the cover shot. Digital photography was obviously the future and I was able to eventually make a career out of it.
Yes, even though the images look horrible and the interface slow today, back then it was so much faster than using film and the results were usable for modest reproduction. Good to hear your memories about it being used in that kind of environment.
The 150 was my first digital camera. It was good enough for little quick pictures on early web sites
Exactly, back then it had more than enough detail!
Nice color rendition, quite surprising for such an early sensor tech
I was working for Apple in 1994 as a tech and used to repair a lot of these cameras :) fun times!
Cool! What were the typical failures for these models, and do you remember the upgrade process to become a 100 Plus with the extra compression?
Thanks, another interesting and informative video. I acquired a 100 & 150 to compliment an assortment of early Macs I have which made connection easy. Apple also made a case for them that came with a protective sleeve that fitted over the camera body while allowing access to all the controls/connections and incorporated a strap that made one handed use much more secure. It's twin, the Kodak DC40 incorporated lugs for the same purpose and came with a strap, a much better idea. The DC40 also had the lens mount threaded to take 37mm accessory lens etc. Tiffen made a push fit adapter for the QuickTakes, again 37mm threaded, for the same purpose. The QuickTake came with a battery charger and three NiCad batteries which was just as well in view of it's appetite for power!
Thanks for the info! Glad you enjoyed the video!
Gordon - Thanks for this bit of digital camera history. Despite being an "early adopter" of a Mac in May 1984, and going on to become a Macintosh consultant starting in 1989 (and doing "serious" photography since 1975, when at age 15 year got my first SLR, a GAF,) , I never came across the QuickTake, though I knew of its existence. Looks like I didn't miss much. 😆
To be fair at the time it was amazing!
@@DinoBytes Yeah - what I love about this "vintage" digital cameras (which really wasn't that long ago, compared to day, the history of film), is looking at and comparing the photos and the tech, plus the certain quality the images have. Makes you appreciate both: the magic and fun of it all, the wonder. I think however that I will pick a different vintage digital camera to play with, despite the fact I could figure it out - I remember those serial cables! (I sold off all my vintage Macs, including the 128Ks, except a 2010 laptop).
My old job in technology for a university got this camera in 1996. I still have a couple of b/w shots of me in the office.
Nice! I always like to see the old photos that are still stored in these when I buy them from eBay! Often really sad looking office photos!
@@DinoBytes hah, so true! I think the fact that we were a bunch of Apple users that the camera was a safe bet of quality to use in our classrooms for documentation.
Great review as always! I recently picked up a QT100 / 100 Plus and 150 and they all seem to be facing what I'd call "CCD Rot" as the images are horrible. Colors are off, QT100's photos are mostly green. None of the photos I've taken look anywhere near as good as the samples you or LGR showed. I was happy to figure out how to get them off the camera(s), but the resulting photos didn't make me happy. Also, I wanted to let you and other's know, I was able to connect the camera using a USB to Serial Adapter (Sabrent brand) and a cable from a KODAK DC20 (Apple to PC serial). I used the Quicktake 150 software and after carefully ensuring USB to Serial drivers were installed (Prolific in my case), the QuickTake software communicated with the cameras. A few caveats, I am using Windows XP on a Dell D630 laptop and what I found worked was to connect serial first (serial to USB), then power cable (or batteries) to power up the unit. If you power the unit first, I don't believe it will communicate properly. The D630 has serial port and this is how I first connected the cameras but also tried the USB adapter afterwards and was surprised it worked! Also, the preview times are horribly slow! Takes about 30 secs per image to view and I guess "decrypt" the qtk files. Still lots of geeky fun, but I was sure hoping to get better photos. Maybe I'll source another QT100 before the prices get too out of hand. Thanks again for the fun and informative videos, this one should have TONS more views! Thanks to you I'm now on the hunt for more vintage digital cameras 😊
Thanks for the info! I must try a USB adapter, but I do try and maintain a windows 98 or xp system for these serial cameras. Yes, I've seen many samples from these old cameras look really faded or tinted, so I suspect some ageing issues. Cameras from closer to 2000 onwards seem much better behaved! Hope you get a chance to checkout more of my videos here!
@@DinoBytes I've seen them all and always like but don't always comment. I know the work it takes to make these videos and I appreciate the time and effort you put into them. I'm now on the hunt for the Sony F828 based on your last video, ha ha
Was wondering why I hadn’t seen one of these videos from you from awhile and realized I didn’t have notifications on! Fixed so now I can continue watching these glimpses of past technology.
Hurrah! Now go back and watch all the ones you've missed!
Thank you so much for this video; I watched it with intrigue. Then, a few weeks later, I happened into a thrift store and there was a QuickTake 100 just waiting to be bought! The staff said none of them had any idea what it was, but I did! I bought it, put in some new batteries, and it fired right up. Your video was very helpful with considering the software compatibility. I went with a serial to usb cable on a 2007 MacBook running Windows XP, and had no issues with the driver or software installation! Can't wait to go out and take some retro digital photos.
Glad you enjoyed it! I'm impressed you got the cable and software working! Can you possibly link to the serial to USB cable you bought - or the name as links aren't always allowed in comments - and also what software version you used? I recently got hold of a Kodak DC40 which is essentially the same camera, so I'll need to fire up my old rig again OR try a more modern approach, so you've inspired me!
@@DinoBytes The software I found on a on reddit thread that asked 'does anyone have a copy of the quicktake 150 software for windows?'
@@DinoBytes I've tried to post this several times, and it seems to keep being deleted. I did a search for a serial to usb cable on ali express and found one marketed as a QuickTake 100 and 150 cable. It came with the driver download.
The name of the shop was Rixu Cable Factory Store.
@@DinoBytes I'm sorry, I was having trouble writing the comment it a way that it didn't get taken down. There are several comments that hopefully pieced together can provide enough information to find the sources.
I have a 150 here, retrieving the images is certainly a dedication! Thankfully, I have a few appropriate Apple products from the correct era. The software is painful to configure correctly!
And the end result ain't great, but it's fun to try!
I never saw/remember the Apple digital cameras but I do remember the Newton PDA's. As far as early digital cameras go, my first exposure to one (pardon the pun) was an early Sony Mavica....
Hope you've seen my video about the first Mavica!
Love the mini history lesson…😊
Another great vintage review, Gordon. You forgot to credit Chinon, which was the actual manufacturer and designer of many of the QuickTake and Kodak DC cameras. Apple may have tweaked the industrial design of the camera, but the form factor and design of the camera is actually a Chinon one. As you know, in the early days of digital photography, it was quite common for big brand cameras to actually be licensed and rebranded models designed and produced by a number of manufacturers such as Chinon, Sanyo, Fujifilm, Mustek, etc. Even big name Japanese manufacturers licensed and rebranded from each other during this early time. This practice was especially common amongst traditional photography players and computer giants who often didn't have in-house expertise in consumer electronics and digital imaging. These OEM manufacturers rarely, if ever, get the recognition they do for their key role in jump starting the age of consumer digital photography. In my opinion, it is more appropriate to credit Chinon rather than Apple regarding firsts, though I like your narrative arc that ties Apple's early entry into the digital photography and the Apple iPhone's dominant position in modern day digital imaging :-) Cheers!
Yep, Chinon and Sanyo made a lot of the actual cameras.
Chinon camera largely based on camcorder innards - interlaced and with mild NTSC artefacts!
I tried its successor back in the day - Kodak DC120. Was not fond, compared to Fujifilm, Yashica, Olympus and everything else that came out in that era. Didn't care about the extra resolution, didn't find that more pixels was more better. They were not good pixels.
The easiest to use are cameras of the era that use a SmartMedia card, you can just find a reader, and i wonder if Darktable is still able to connect to ones using the Fujitsu/Sierra chipset using serial port.
Wow!!!! I had no idea that camera was so very limited. I am a former Apple employee and have been using their products since 1984, but I will definitely pass on having this item in my Apple collection! I will stick with my Sony Mavicas, which I love. Thanks for the great video.
You're welcome! To be fair, it came at a time when Apple was trying out a lot of different things, many of which were partnerships with other companies.
Picture quality is surprisingly good.
I think you're being very charitable! It was fun yo finally get working though.
Apart from the poor resolution, those images actually look pretty decent! 😀Love your dedication, like a digital archeologist you manage to pull those images from the camera! The Quicktake looks like a projector doesn’t it? Thanks for the video, it’s really interesting and fun to hear your insight, putting the camera into the context of its time.
Thanks, and yes, it is a little like a mini projector!
Before my time. My first was a Minolta D’Image IV in 1999.
That was a lovely camera, I remember reviewing it... I hope to do it again here in the future...
Great effort to get it to work again, few would have the patience!
Thanks, I couldn't let it beat me!
Have you tried exporting as BMP or TIFF, those QTK files? Both example pics from earlier seem to exhibit a LOT of jpeg type compression (as if the Jpeg quality slider wasn't set to 10… but something like 6 or lower).
Good idea, I'll try a comparison, exporting the same QTK file in different formats...
In my Possession is a distant Brother of the Quicktake, a Kodak DC120. Compact Flash for Memory, a (nearly unusable) LCD Screen, and the most Frustrating Battery Compartment in every Digital Camera I have ever used.
I really like Cameras from that Era, but it's often a Headache to use them. Especially with the Sensors of the Time. The Resolution is not really a Problem with me, for the Internet even VGA is often enough. But the lighting gets me every Time. You really need a big amount of light, at best bright Daylight, to get a good Quality Picture. Indoors, it's nearly impossible to get everything out of these Cameras.
I have a DC120 Zoom! They're actually quite easy to buy again on eBay for some reason, unlike a lot of models on either side. I'll make a video about it soon, but really need to do the DC40 first.
This camera, and many others from the early days of digital photography, make look today like some Star Trek TOS gimmick, but you just have to love how that incipient market pushed manufacturers to develop new products and not only constantly improve the internals (i.e. sensors, lens, image processing, connectivity, etc.) but also come out with innovative external designs and ergonomics (sometimes with questionable outcome xD). In this model in particular, not having a built-in screen to review your shots is most certainly a nuisance, but to be fair, until at least the very late 90s or early 2000's screens were lousy at best and, to check if a shot was really a keeper, you had to load it down to your computer anyway. Connectivity was a joke though!
thank you
You're welcome!
Love these videos Gordon 👍
Thanks!
Pictures aren't so bad. I have just bought a FujiFilm @xia ix-10 with .35MP (that's point 35) or 640 x 480. I paid £8.49 including postage and I have my Windows XP or Vista dual boot PC (I blame former you for that) ready for any challenges, plus I may get to buy my gzillionth connection wire, but I do have some Smart Media cards, so maybe I will be able to use those in one of the readers I have.
Nice choices!
We had these at school around 1997. We would upload the images to a Power PC Mac. We thought it was the most futuristic thing we’d ever seen, being able to load images into a computer and print them out, compared to that old fashioned film stuff haha
It's no joke, this stuff WAS futuristic back then!
You do great work. It is entertaining.
Thanks!
It still takes really good pictures. It is harder to keep digital photos because computers are constantly upgrading.
Yes, I think we could lose a lot of digital assets from the 90s and early 2k's, including old websites too.
Great work Gordon.
I don't think current users of digital cameras appreciate how far the technology has come in nearly 30 years. Back then I was still shooting film, although I did get access to a Casio digital camera at work in the late 1990's.
Some one should write an iPhone app that mimics the QuickTake 100 with the 'delete all' button included... but only the photos taken with the app! The quality of the 640x480 photos are surprisingly good considering!
Ha ha, yes, delete all 'smart bomb' buttons need to cone back!
Cool!
Hopefully the next old camera you are testing has a easier way of transfering the photos!
Thanks, but sadly not! I'm doing the Olympus C-800L which is also an old model with internal memory and a mini DIN serial port! BUT I've found it works fine on my Windows 98 build and even works with my QuickTake 100 cable, so no worries there!
I was wondering when you'd get around to this one. Very Nice video Gordon!
Thanks, yeah it was held back by old computers, software, and cables! I've had the camera for a year!
Please tell me you're doing a video on the Fotoman some day
As soon as I can find one... I did review it 30yrs ago, but haven't seen one since
My father bought a QT100 for me and my brothers in 1995 when it was heavily discounted (500DM/ca. $350). We did use it until my father bought an Olympus Camedia C-2500L DLSR in the beginning of 2000. My brother used the QT100 for some time afterwards to record time-lapses directly onto his (linux) computer. He had reverse-engineered some part of the communication and was able to get raw images from the camera. I think that he had to modify something on the QT100 PCB to make that work, though. Sadly most of or digital images have since vanished and even the time-lapse videos that my brother made (of which he was extremely proud) were lost when our home-server catastrophically failed. Some good pictures were printed and some even digitally developed. These are still around although some are heavily faded, as early color-ink printers were barely capable of printing photos.
The QT100 itself died a sad death when some NiCd Batteries had been forgotten inside and leaked. Some parts of the QT100 were so heavily corroded that even traces on the PCB are no longer there. Very sad.
Sorry you lost the images... not many backup strategies for digital images back then
@@DinoBytes Our backup strategy was the server that crashed 🙂 It took a lot of stuff with it. Even most of the (cheap) backup CD-R from the mid-late 90s were no longer readable in 2005. No cloud-services back then...
@@john_ace sorry for your loss! It really hurts, I know.
I remember when this camera first came out, someone from Apple visited my middle school to show off this technology. They hooked it up to some 27" TV on a cart, but it was a bit too small for an auditorium to really see what was going on. Anyway, us kids at the time had no interest in anything on a television that wasn't Nintendo. I do remember the teachers being amazed though.
That's pretty cool! I think they would have been very popular in education for newsletters, updates, events, trips etc,
"The language might be off-putting." That, is hilarious!I I actually had one of those cameras. I remember having them call the CC company to make sure the card was good before they let me walk out of the store! I have no idea where I lost it. I like to think you found it, but it's a long way from the U.S. Midwest to Brighton. Fine work getting the images off! "Could not let it beat me." Funny stuff. Did you try the TIFF output? I had a little giggle when you chose the JPG output.
Actually I do have TIFF versions of the images generated from the software, so I should check to see if they manage to avoid the compression artefacts seen on the JPEGs, It may be baked into the QTK files, or may be from the JPEG conversion afterwards...
My father had a Canon RC-250. Technically a video stills camera but it used what were basically mini floppy diskettes. Something of a bridge to true digital cameras.
Yes! I'd love to try out the analogue disc video stills cameras which preceded digital.
@@DinoBytes I wonder if my father still even has it. I'll have to ask. He still did a few years ago, but was busy clearing out clutter and may have tossed it. That had a composite-out RCA jack, so (if it works) it's a bit easier to offload.
@@Skipsul yes, exactly, the TV output would make it easy to capture. The challenge is often getting hold of the media and a replacement battery.
@@DinoBytes The batteries even in their day were not great. I do remember my father bought the AC adaptor as the battery life, after only a few months, fell to just a few minutes on a full charge.
Awesome video as usual! It´s interesting to see such an ancient piece of digital technology in action. The pics don´t look bad - sure, the resolution is very low, but it would be interesting to see them processed in Topaz Gigapixel.
The old PCs would also be interesting. If you like old computer technology, there are some great channels like LGR and Psivewri, maybe also as inspiration, just suggesting.
Thanks! And yes, I love LGR!
I am always struck by how acceptable the results are from ultra-low-resolution sensors when viewed on computer screens. This one is the lowest res I've seen reviewed, but the results are far from grim, it is the content that counts. I find there is also too much emphasis on "Noise" and as an ex film photographer I sometimes welcome a bit of grainy character like we had with 1960s Kodak Tri X. Keep up the good work
Thankyou!
They definitely have their "moodiness". It might be just that those pixels were huge even if there were very few of them.
I scored a 150 on eBay and fully restored it, but it's a real challenged due to all the tiny parts.
What parts did you restore?
I enjoy your videos. The camera store tv did a review of the Kodak digital back for the Nikon camera you showed, it’s worth watching because that was NOT a good camera at all, but was transformative.
Thanks, and I remember that video of theirs
I watched it as promised! Great review. Thanks for doing this, so we don't have to. Also, love your T-shirt.
Thanks!
techno masochist here. this camera looks perfect for me
You'll love it!
Brilliant mate, I love it! Cheers
Thanks!
I have one in a box. I shall be selling this camera for whatever I can get for it and WILL USE this video and LGR's video as a "You sure you want it?"
Ha ha! You're very welcome!
haha what a beast of a camera and soooo easy to use 😂
cheers for yet another awesome video
I took one for the team.
Thank you for another fascinating look at a piece of digital camera history! Quick question: have you done similar videos or something like radio work prior to UA-cam? Your enunciation is really good making your videos work well as podcasts too :)
Thanks! Maybe you've seen my main channel where I've been reviewing cameras since the start of UA-cam in 2006? I also did do some radio and TV work from the mid Nineties to mid-2000's, but on small channels.
@@DinoBytes Oh, I've seen that channel but I didn't know you've been reviewing stuff on UA-cam for that long! Wow, that's a lot of dedication!
@@yawningmarmot madness more like!
I would like to do that with two cameras that i have, but I dont have the drivers of one of'em. Is another way to do it with a modern PC?
It's difficult if the camera only has internal memory. You either need to get the images out over a serial cable (requiring the cable, software and an old OS), or you capture the TV / video output, and accept VGA resolution (which it probably was anyway). But if it has a card, then get a reader.
I see a lot of people (not here) making fun of these cameras and calling them a "potato". Those who had them, though, today have pictures that they wouldn't have, and think that that was money really well spent. The truth is, these cameras were a miracle, and people noticed, and Kodak and the entire film industry went quickly bankrupt because of them.
Exactly and I also used them in a production environment. Groundbreaking back then but horrible to use now even vs one from, say 1999.
How about tracking down a Minolta RD-175 and doing a review? Introduced in 1995 and cost a whopping £8500.
I remember that one!
Actually.... Its highly possible that it actually recorded short video in QuickTime format, then divide frames into images... Hence the *qtk file container...
Blimey, that's a worry!
This was an entertaining one! So I’m guessing once you converted to jpg, you had to save it to a floppy, then used a floppy to USB adapter to get the photos onto a modern PC?
Yes and no! For the PowerBook, yes, that was my workflow as I don't have a LocalTalk network or any other drives connected to it. But the Windows 98 PC was booting from a compact flash card, so I just removed it and read it on a modern system. The PC also has USB ports which I think I can get working under 98 with the right drivers in the future, plus a CD drive which could, at a push, be used to write discs.
All the Gen Z retro camera folks are going to love this one.
I never knew about Apple’s bid for the DSC market. I instead opted for the (dreadfully slow) Sony Mavica. Painfully slow because the pictures were recorded on 3-1/2” floppy disks. Sure, I got more pictures in one session and it’s resolution was 640x320; but, you had to wait a dreadful minute or more between snapshots so forget, burst mode unless you stuck firecrackers in the drive bay and lit them up. It is interesting as well that Apple chose to use the same 8-pin din serial cable that they also used on the Apple Newton / Message |Pads.
Sadly, that was the Scully era at Apple where Apple started to loose its way in the consumer world. There were a lot of things that came out of Apple those years that had absolutely no traction. The 20th Anniversary Macintosh introduced in June 1997 is a classic no winner sporting the idea of the first “trash can” computer. Fun to reminisce about Apple foibles.
Hope you get to watch my Mavica video too
you know what, those photos don’t look half bad on a phone screen!
Wait till you see them on a bigger screen though! But again if we're mostly consuming on phone screens, it's less of an issue... they did have a vintage look to them, certainly!
Mini Din..
Do Nikon D3...
I've done the D1 and have a D1x... I'm concentrating on the first models in each series
But of a stretch calling it a first as it requires so many caveats to do so, it's barely even an Apple product, more of an apple branded private labelled money spinner.
Film was faster, 1 hour turnaround was common.
Film also had MUCH higher resolution, dynamic range, better colours, more images (usually 24-32 p/roll).
I agree, but in the industry is is still widely known as the first consumer digital camera, and it also had those magazine covers a one of the most influential models.
Can't believe you chose lossy jpeg to export instead TIFF format - all that quality lost!
True... to a point! I also have TIFF versions, so might make a comparison video between the formats...
I was being sarcastic in case it wasn't clear 😁. I expect the difference would be extremely marginal
@@AdamJRichardson ha ha! I wasn't sure, as some others have made the same comments and it got me thinking maybe I wasn't being totally fair on the camera. I'll still do a comparison just to check!
It wasn't the first but it was the cheapest at the time ... 🦘
Exactly, the first consumer digital camera with colour photos and non-volatile memory under a grand - but that's a bit long for a thumbnail and title!