Skip to Content

Retro Apple: The QuickTake 100 digital camera

In 1994, I was working as the IT manager for a natural gas pipeline company (all Macs, of course), had long hair pulled back in a ponytail, and none of that hair was gray. In January of '94, I remember being invited down to Apple's Denver office -- they had a Denver office in those days -- to see some new products that were being introduced.

While I was disappointed that they didn't show us an updated Newton (the MessagePad 110 would be introduced in March), I was intrigued by another device that was demonstrated -- the Apple QuickTake 100 digital camera. At the time, the only other small business / consumer digital cameras on the market were the Canon Ion, a device from Kodak (rebranded by Apple as the QuickTake 100), and the Logitech PhotoMan.

After the demo, we passed around the camera and took photos of each other, and then waited as the pictures were uploaded to a Mac. Considering that "digital photography" for us at that time meant taking a picture with a film camera, waiting for the film to be developed and prints made, and then scanning the pictures on an expensive and slow SCSI scanner, this seemed like the future. Of course, I remember comments from many of the people in attendance to the effect of "digital photography will never replace film photography."
At WWDC 1994 in San Jose, there was a booth at one of the many evening parties where you could have your picture taken with a QuickTake 100, uploaded to a Mac, placed into a fake Macworld magazine cover, and then printed out on a color printer. While that type of action would take literally seconds with modern technology, it took the Apple employees who manned the booth close to 10 minutes per picture! The line to get on the cover of Macworld was long and slow as a result.

So what started this trip down Memory Lane? A few days ago when I opened up the mailbox, there was a box sitting inside of it. The box was from my nephew in Seattle, and it contained some goodies that he decided not to take with him when he starts graduate school at M.I.T. this fall.

Nestled in packing paper along with a full set of Apple IIc system disks was an Apple QuickTake 100 in good condition. I knew that my nephew had mentioned finding the QuickTake in a surplus pile somewhere, but I never expected to end up in my hands. He knows that I have a penchant for collecting old tech, so he must have decided that the QuickTake would find a good home with me.

The first thing that struck me is how large the QuickTake 100 actually is (see comparison with iPhone below). It looks like a set of binoculars and it is held in both hands that way. Since it weighs one pound, that may be what the designers at Kodak thought would be the best way to hold up a heavy camera. On the back of the camera is an optical viewfinder that you peer into, along with a postage stamp-sized monochrome LCD that displays the current number of pictures stored in the camera.
So, what's the capacity and resolution of the QuickTake 100? It has a whopping 1MB of flash memory and has two resolutions -- 640 x 480 (or .3 MP) and 320 x 240 (.075 MP). You could take a grand total of 8 photos at high resolution, or 32 at the low resolution setting. Compare this to the resolution of the iPhone 3GS camera, which is 2048 x 1536 (3.072 MP), or many modern digital SLRs around the original price of the QuickTake 100 (US$749.00) which boast zoom lenses and 15 MP resolution.

The QuickTake 100 had a fixed 8 mm lens and a shutter speed range of 1/30 - 1/175 of a second. The QuickTake 150, which was essentially the same camera, added a separate close-up lens that allowed focusing as close as 30 cm (about a foot). Due to the rather slow shutter speeds, the QuickTake had a built-in flash.
Being the geek that I am, my next step after unboxing the QuickTake 100 was to see if it actually worked. Popping a set of 3 fresh AA batteries into the camera did nothing; poking at the various buttons (none of which are marked, by the way) produced no beeps, nothing on the display, and definitely no flash. It was time to visit the Apple website to see if I could find a manual for the camera, which by some miracle did exist. The manual told me what I had forgotten -- to turn the camera on, you have to slide the lens cover to the right. D'oh!

Success! Through the icons on the display, I was able to figure out that the top right button toggled the camera resolution, that the top left button toggled the flash, that the bottom right button started up a 10-second timer, and that the bottom left recessed button erased the camera. Next to the resolution icon was a number (in this case, 0) and in the middle of the display was a larger number (8). I had to resort to reading the manual to figure out that the number 8 was the number of photos stored in the camera, and that the zero was how many pictures I had left.
Taking no heed to the fact that historically important photos might have been stored in the flash RAM, I deleted the photos to see if I could take new pictures of important things like my cat and messy desk. Sure enough, the camera worked perfectly, counting up the number of "high-resolution" photos I had taken and attracting the attention of the cat, who decided that it tasted pretty good and kept licking it.

The next task was trying to figure out how to look at the photos in the QuickTake. Remember, the QuickTake doesn't have an external color LCD display, nor does it have any way of emailing photos to an address. A quick Google search indicated that I was going to be out of luck. The QuickTake 100 has a simple RS-232 connector, and needs to connect to a serial port on the other end. That leaves both of my Macs out of the picture (no pun intended). A serial to USB adapter wouldn't work, and the QuickTake software (available here) doesn't run under Mac OS X.

To get these photos off of the camera, I'll need a Mac that has the proper port and that is running Mac OS 7.5 through 9. I might just try my luck on an old PowerBook on eBay. In the meantime, here's a link to some photos taken with a QuickTake that show you how the photos look. These pictures were taken by Franny Wentzel and posted at citynoise.org, and as Franny mentions, the photos have a wonderful watercolor look to them.

I'm not willing to spend more than $25 to get an old Mac that will work with the QuickTake, so I may never have a chance to actually use the camera. I'll keep this device as a historical piece, since it does represent one of the first consumer digital cameras to hit the market. The QuickTake series never was a best seller for Apple, and the last model was dropped by Steve Jobs in 1997 as part of the streamlining of Apple that he instituted.

It's fascinating to see what an impact Apple has had in the digital photography world through iPhoto, Aperture, and even PhotoBooth, and also through the trend of building digital cameras into its products. Between the omnipresent iSight cameras built into most Macs, the iPhone cameras, and rumors of new iPods with cameras built in, most Apple hardware either has or will have a way of capturing photos. All of this started with the clunky, overpriced digital camera called the QuickTake 100.


In 1994, I was working as the IT manager for a natural gas pipeline company (all Macs, of course), had long hair pulled back in a ponytail,...
 

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

26 Comments

Filter by:
Ian

Before the first iMac arrived in 1998, all Macs had serial ports. My 9600/350 has a serial port and could handle this task, but a PowerBook is much smaller.
After connecting the camera to the Mac, there are several ways of transferring images to a recent Mac. I connected a 9600 to an iMac with an Ethernet cable and used File Sharing to transfer files across. It's fiddly but doable.
On the OSX machine, the kdc format is listed in Graphic Converter's Convert menu, so it should be possible to convert them to TIFF or whatever.

Here's one useful page found by Google:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:hVcq6C-jM4YJ:retromaccast.ning.com/xn/detail/1672786:Comment:25477+QuickTake+100+connecting&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&client=safari

August 22 2009 at 11:29 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Kanon

The device looks so big.
I think this cute Canon 10 MP digital camera is better.

August 06 2009 at 5:46 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Kichigai

A few years back, when I was in my IB Art class, my professor pulled out a QuickTake 250, and I thought "wow, I didn't know Apple made cameras!" So I took a few snapshots, and said "OK, now we just take the memory card out and put it into the SmartMedia slot on my memory card reader" and I got a big fat DENIED. Even when Apple tried to adopt standards with that thing, it didn't adopt them right. Nothing read the 8MB card that came with the thing, and it wouldn't read other SM cards.

It was a good try, Apple, but I hope it proves going proprietary doesn't often seem to work out as well as you'd hope.

July 30 2009 at 6:13 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Kichigai's comment
Dan

The Quicktake camera you are talking about uses the original 5 volt SmartMedia Cards. All modern SmartMedia cards are of the 3.3 volt variety, as are the current readers.

It is not Apples fault that SmartMedia decided to change their card specifications years after the Quicktake was discontinued.

July 30 2009 at 11:54 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Robt

Ah nostalgia. My first digital camera came not long after this one. It was an Epson PhotoPC which stored its 30 or so pictures on internal storage, with no removable storage and connected to the PC with a serial cable. The pics were 640 x 480 I believe. I still have it in a box somewhere. I believe we got it in late 1995 or early 1996.

One of the first uses we put it to, was what many people do first with instant photography (such as Polaroids before). My young wife began to do a series of poses for photo shoots in the buff. That was so cool to have that freedom without worrying about the geek at the photo lab or having to buy boxes of polaroid film. You could even keep the pictures somewhat secure on the hard drive and not floating about in shoeboxes and albums under the bed :)

Digital photography has meant that a huge percentage of every day folks have posed in their birthday suits. Some would probably wish they had not, but its one of the revolutions in photography that is not talked about a lot.

Of course camera phones took that to another level as well.

July 30 2009 at 1:15 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Cam

haha, I've got an old Power Macintosh 6500/250 that might work...

July 30 2009 at 10:04 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
EMoShunz

"attracting the attention of the cat, who decided that it tasted pretty good and kept licking it"
that may well be the best line i've ever read! reminds me of that picture of olivia munn...
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/11502_Olivia-Munn-Lick-Iphone.jpg

July 30 2009 at 8:11 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Finnschi

I am willing to give you my Old Power mac G4 sawtooth 400 Mhz 4 free , If you pay for the shipping... its just sitting there i my basement (it hast OSX Tiger on there right now.. but it came with os9 , don't have the install disks though....)

hit me up if you want it...

July 30 2009 at 6:33 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Wesley Bowman

I had one of these in 1994. We didn't have Macs at the time. There was Windows-based software for it and I had it hooked up to a 386 laptop running Windows 3.1. At the time a picture from the QuickTake was full screen! Although it was expensive, it saved our rural real estate appraisal business a huge amount of time in running to the nearest 1 hour photo over 20 miles away.

July 30 2009 at 4:35 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
mickey

Kodak treated their photo format, .KDC, as a (licensing) cash cow rather than make it open and make money from good hardware.

The only Mac software that I recall that was able to read, view, and convert .KDC was an early version of Thorsten Lemke's brilliant GraphicConverter software (which was and is available as a fully-functional, free, trial version).

Exactly *which* version, and whether it was for an early Mac OS X or earlier, I'll leave up to the next person in the chain.

I hope this helps bring some of those early masterpieces to life,

Michael 'Mickey' Sattler

July 30 2009 at 4:21 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Robert M. Hall

I have an original one of the Quicktakes as well (its still in mint working condition). I haven't used it in years but going through some old boxes of computer stuff in my basement doing some cleaning I ran across an old archive of CDs, DAT tapes, Syquest and ZIP cartridges where I had backed up hundreds of pictures I had taken with my Quicktake. I really wanted to look a the photos to see what they were, and I still have a number of older Macs lying around that run the software, but I actually found it easier to just download the Windows 95 version of the software and install it onto a copy of XP under VMware, and it worked perfectly. You can find a copy of the windows 95 install software here: http://members.driverguide.com/driver/detail.php?driverid=74152&action=summary

It worked perfectly for me under Windows XP without any problems.

Good luck!

July 29 2009 at 9:53 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Buy an ad here

Hot Apps on TUAW

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.