The film resurgence is at least partially manufactured nostalgia, as many shooting film never experienced it when it was the only choice. Many argued (and still argue) over the technical superiority of film, whereas CCD shooters don't seem to care, and in fact embrace, the limitations of older tech. Finally, the film to digital jump was a revolution, not the evolution that digital continues to be. To find a similar revolutionary change in the technology, you'd have to go back to the first SLRs or even further to the advent of rollfilm. I'm reminded of the original vinyl record audiophiles who abhorred clicks and pops on their records. Modern vinyl lovers seem to find it part of the charm.
Approachability. Film is cheap to enter, but gets hellishly expensive right quick, especially if you're a novice and waste a lot of it learning the ropes. The allure of digital has always been the ability to take just one more shot. And even though you're limited in the number of shots you can take on older storage media and batteries, it's still a hell of a lot better than film.
@@wiggyjones I just finished a roll of fairly cheap black and white film on an analog EOS 300 with a decent lens on it and all 36 of those pictures are fucking amazing, and not because I'm such a great photographer. I'm really talking about the picture quality. You do not get that same dynamic range unless you get a really expensive digital camera. Put something like a Helios 44-2 on one of those old EOS bodies with a cheap M42 to EOS adapter and you can get moods that just don't seem to translate the same on a digital camera (I also have a digital EOS). Not that I am knocking either, but I have found that while I started on digital, I've moved to and through a bit of everything. I've generally got some small rangefinder on me as well as a micro 4/3 body with something wacky on it (like a Helios or C-mount camera). But all platforms offer something and I've been lucky and smart enough to run into some real nice deals before prices really got out of hand. Every camera platform is like a brush, a canvas, etc. Putting all your eggs in one basket just limits your possibilities too. That can be fun or easy (or a crutch) when you start, but when you shoot on a middle of the road digital camera for 4 years I'm sure you eventually get a bit tired of its limitations and you're gonna want something else. And I have never met anyone who is into cheap cameras (wether digital or analog) that only has one. Most people who are into cheap shit (again, like me) end up hoarding a bunch of cheap shit and spending about as much money on this type of thing as a professional (which is fine, while I own some professional gear I'm way more attracted to the weird). I basically just noticed people are rarely frugal on these types of things.
The form factor of the old digicams offer more stable handling when pointing and shooting for the average person who is just out and about. Cell phones are actually a horrible shape for handling during photo snapping. Professional cameras are a whole thing that you cannot just take with you on a whim.
Some digicams require specific batteries, chargers and old memory formats to operate. These accessories are either unsupported, obsolete, discontinued, rare and expensive to find.
It is fascinating to me, as a photographer who's over 60 years old, to see this happening. I came up with film cameras, was an early adopter of the first digicams, and I didn't foresee this nostalgia for the CCD era digicam. I am enjoying this very much. I think the bottom line will always be enjoyment of the art of photography, using whatever tools make you the happiest. Thanks so much.
Same here - my first job was Wolf Camera in the early 90s - i got to see the first digital offerings and we all just laughed .... we all knew it was the future and a change was coming... I honestly figured by now digital would be king but it seems film is still hanging in there -- it seems there's a limit to how "Sharp" we like our humans 🤣🤣
@@BracaPhoto I read online that Kodak hired more people to make the film, and that film was making a come back. I also see that Fuji discontinued some kinds of film though. Will digital cameras eventually get rid of film again in a few years? a camera shop that I called the other only dealt with used equipment. They had a lot of older film cameras on the website. I just started getting into instant cameras. I always wanted a Polaroid when I was a kid, but never bought it for some reason. I have the Polaroid now and Fji square camera. Do instant cameras need a lot of light in the background? sometimes pics would be real dark when it had some sun still outside. I tried to take pics of multiple flowers with different colors of moms garden, and it didn't turn out good. Could it be that the instant camera couldn't handle so many different flower colors at once? My first digicam was a cheap creative brand from circuit city. It was returned for not being good. I had a Hp digicam and loved it. My nikon got stolen at a concert many years ago. Nikon wouldn't give me my rebatefrom Office Depot for the digicam. it was a lot of money even though it was on sale. I read other reports online about Nikon being not good with rebates. I bet that was a fun amazing job working at Wolf Camera.
I don't understand it either. I learned on film and still shoot the occasional roll of B&W to home develop and scan. But the quality of my photo collection takes a distinct dive from the early 00's (when I started using a 'digicam' as my regular camera), up until I bought modern APS-C DSLR a decade later. My 90's film negatives OTOH scan to match the quality of my current pictures. I really wish I'd stuck with film for a decade longer.
@@aeon8721 I just bought the "Kodak VR35 K40 Point & Shoot film Camera today. I did see a Hp digicam the other day, but it was only one mega pixel. If I see a Fuji digicam at a thrift store, I will buy it immediately.
One of the main reasons for digicam nostalgia is the fact that modern smartphones all output the same flat, overly sharp, perfect HDR to the max images that just aren’t exciting, unique, random, or artistic.
Thats why NOMO was created. Or if you want to shoot film, why not instant film? Tons of great options better than 20 year old point and shoot digicams.
I've been using manual mode on my phone camera, and im actually kind of impresed, i just took for granted so i never gave it much tought, but lost phones have pretty good cameras nowadays!
I'll pull out my phone if I need to get a picture and have nothing else, but if I want to have fun I will grab my sony MVC-FD75 Mavica and fill a few floppy disks, the reactions from people when they see what it records to are priceless too, as a bonus you can still buy new batteries with monstrous capacity
I think the draw of CCDs is because the current crop of teenagers/young adults grew up with it. People born 1995-2005ish probably grew up with CCDs and that kinda crappy yet certainly interesting look is what they would've found in their family albums of their childhood. Film resurgence definitely had the same nostalgia factor, though the whole unique chemical process is what I think will keep film alive for longer.
Erin C You obviously, clearly don't know what you are talking about. CCD scanners are used in telescopes, Microscopes, X Ray equipment. To civilian level equipment.
@@ariesmight6978 I'm referring to civilian CCD point and shoots here, as are CCDs referred to in this video's context. Please take a braincell and try to understand the situation
Oh, here's algorithm on collecting - anything: 1. For whatever you're into, figure the marketing half-life of whatever it is you're into - clothing, mass market audio, cars, comics, etc. For digital cameras, that half-life is about three years. Also, understand what it is in a particular marketing generation those items that were quirky, differentiated, rare, or otherwise desirable in some way. 2. The sweet spot for purchasing value is about two half-lives. For acquisition, this means you want cameras like the Leica SL (Typ 601) or the higher-end Lytro. Prices are low. Those who care about functionality recognize that the new, current gen stuff is just better; if nothing else, it's pumped by real, current marketing outlay after all. It's also recent enough that there is no rosy haze of nostalgia associated with it yet. 3. The nostalgia driven pricing curve tips up around 5 half-lives. This is when those who bought into the then current marketing in their youths can now actually acquire what they couldn't afford back then (btw, this is me and film equipment years back). Pump the items on social media too. Be slick about it. Wait for the current hipsters to latch on and echo amplify about "that special quality of whatever". Hopefully it catches. Sell the old junk for a nice profit.
I just recently did a project for a class where I shot all my pictures with older digital camera such as these. I had no idea there was a trend for this happening, but now I'm really excited there is a community surrounding it I can partake in!
I took a Fujifilm F10 to Oaxaca Mexico in 2005/2006 and shot over a 1,000 pictures with it. I still marvel over the pictures taken with it. Great (Fuji) colors. I still have the camera even though my main shooter it the Fujifilm X-T5.
In the 2000s, my brother gifted me PnS cameras for my birthday every other year. I mostly had the Canon Powershot cameras and I took so many crappy little photos with them, but it was the most fun I had with shooting because I was carefree. In high school and college, I enrolled in Photography classes and started using DSLRs and whatnot, and even though the quality was 10 folds better, I didn’t necessarily have more fun with those cameras, because everything looked too “perfect”. Fast forward now, I’m still a camera junkie. I have lots of cameras and I still have some of my “digicams” from 2000s! They will never be as good as my film cams, but it produces such an aesthetic that, like film, is very hard to replicate with filters. It’s the grimy, imperfect, slightly out of focus, soft, nostalgic aesthetic that is quintessentially “Y2K” and I have tons of fun shooting with these cameras still. Yes, there is a surge of Gen-Z shooters who are making “digicams” trendy right now, so prices of these old cameras are probably quite high. But I think that’s what keeps the community engaged and fun. To this day, some of my favorite photos of all time, were shot on a Powershot. It’s also important to note, that in terms of nostalgic cameras, Y2K is the last line of true digital nostalgia, because anything produced in 2010 and after, starts to use larger censors that we see today. Even in 30 years, the most unique cameras will be relics of film cameras and the digicams of the 2000s. So in other words, the best time to invest in a digicam (2000s point and shoot) is now!
If these old cameras bring people back to photography I think it's great. Maybe it's a fad or maybe people just like using simple cameras that still take good pictures. If it brings people joy more power to them.
I think a lot of it has less to do with the technology and more to do with the form factor. By using a pocket camera you can take it anywhere while not using your cell. No distractions, just photos.
I think individuality is also there, people like to stand out from the crowd and there are some great camera designs from the early 2000s to early 2010s ranging from quirky to beautiful. These can be great conversation starters in groups, on the technical side they pose a challenge that can engage a photographer in his craft again. And yes nostalgia definitely nostalgia
I can never pass these up at thrift stores when they’re all usually dirt cheap. I found a $2 Sony mavica that used a floppy disk. The photos look like 2010 webcam quality, it was so much fun to use. Rip
Hi! What country do you live in? In the EU they are quite expensive in thrift shops and in the US I haven't even found thrift shops so far - seemingly everyone uses craigslist and other online platforms.
@@faggabumm I’m from USA, living in California prices are relatively high compared to the rest of US mostly. I make most of my best finds in smaller more out of the way thrift stores and antique markets
I've already seen some people start playing with this. It's cool because there are some interesting phone cameras out there, and they're all super cheap because no one wants a super old smart phone...
point and shoot CCD digicams do give off disposable film vibes for sure. however, for the film SLR look, the early CCD dslrs are the cameras to grab. I recently got a Fuji s2 Pro and Olympus E-1, and I just can't put them down. The CCD sensors by fuji + kodak respectively have the best out of camera color science I have ever seen. also, the low MP+ higher ISO noise (ie; 800 iso) of CCD sensors give a very film grain look, it's really a look difficult to achieve w/ modern high MP sensors.
I’m happy to see any trend that brings more people into photography. It’s this kind of thing that keeps the community thriving - even if the community is different from what it was before. Even though I’m a bit of an old timer, I’m happy to welcome and embrace the change.
CCD definitely does have its own look that's very different from CMOS sensors. I was once talking to a Japanese photographer who uses the Pentax medium format system as his main system. He was talking about how he prefers the 645D over the 645Z in situations where you have complete control over the lighting. Arguably the smaller dynamic range is the biggest challenge with the CCD sensored 645D. I've also been thinking of getting a used 645D to experiment with CCD medium format. The smaller megapixel count on the old digicams is not as big of an issue as it used to be since we have some very good enlargement tools available now. Also for alternative sensor type digicams I have to mention the older Foveon based Sigma DP compact cameras, those files also have a very special look to them.
Highly recommend the Fuji F40 FD. Images out of that little gem are gorgeous with a noise pattern quite similar to the original X-Trans sensor. Has become my go to pocket cam :)
When we moved across the country a few years ago I purged all of my camera equipment (film camera and lenses, light meters, darkroom equipment, and a few decades of digicams) except for my DSLR and my 2001 Fujifilm FinePix 2800 Zoom. There's something special about the 2 megapixel images that come out of that camera.
I feel like the one keyword for this whole thing is "imperfection". There are no new bad cameras, the improvements are still there but its only making near perfect stuff better and that just gets boring. If the only difference is quicker autofocus or even more resolution people want something else, something different. And then something clunky, more innacurate, slower, objectively worse has "character". I dont even know if i should see this "character" as something good or bad, i think its very subjective. And even though I like tech and engineering I had that exact personal journey. After my set-up was complete and I basically could shoot any scenario with ease it suddenly becomes boring because the chase is over. The options then are to relearn a different system, which I did, getting into film, which I did, and using tech from a time when it was't as perfect as today, including old DSLRs and Digicam, the latter still being on my "not yet" pile. I'm sure no one during the Digicam age, given the opportunity, wouldnt switch their Fuji Finepix for a Sony A7R4 because thats future stuff and incredible. But once its the norm its just kind of boring. For me personally current high end gear has this image of a work horse, a tool for professionals, weddings, portraits, just something you need for the job. It doesnt have that fun component of being a camera for personal use and joy, just something sterile. Also one more point, although im rambling on for long already. Old camera tech and film have the advantage that for them that the rose tinted glasses work. People might remember their Digicam time very well but instead of being dissapointed with the results they most likely advanced enough in photography in the mean time that their current Digicam pictures are much better than their past, more akin to their memory of them rather than the reality. I'm sure every picture I took with my aunts mini mju were terrible, but I had fun. If I picked it up today I would probably have similar fun reliving the time and taking the pictures I thought I was 15 years ago.
Exactly! It is the imperfections. Some hating boomers here thinks that us Gen Zs are using it in hopes to improve our photography which is not the case. We are using these because of its imperfections. Almost all of my digicam photos from the past are bad photos taken by my mom, my aunt, my friends etc. So yeah. They should stop talking and hating if they don’t even know what they’re talking about.
Well there is definitely the unspoken draw of slight imperfection, but in the case of CCD cameras at least you can’t ignore the impact of the CCD sensor. It really is gloriously true to life!
Great video! I love my F10 too. The first one I've owned in the early 2000's was a great step forward in image quality. As I was looking for good old cameras now, I remembered this, bought it again and was excited to see, how good it is, even today. You could have a lot of fun for so cheap!
Another great video but not all CCD sensors are created equal. In fact, I would say probably 70% of them are junk. Ive been doing the digicam thing for nearly 20 years. The Fujifilm SuperCCD sensors are the best IMO, especially in the S5 Pro. In the point and shoot bodies, the Finepix A series starting with the A400 on up are great. The F series from the F10 to the F41fd as well. The early Canon Powershot models, like the G series up to the G6, the A series starting with the A60 up to the A95 and some of the SD if you want entry level no manual anything. Sleepers are the early Panasonic Lumix FX and LX series with the Leica lenses that are the same cameras as the early Leica C-Lux and D-Lux models for 1/3rd the price. Pre EasyShare Kodaks are great as well. The rest is a mixed bag of meh IMO.
In my opinion, this is nothing more than a fad that will just inflate prices of old cameras. Many people will buy CCD cameras with the idea that an obsolete piece of tech will somehow magically improve their photography instead of learning how to take photos properly. A reminder that in blind tests between CMOS and CCD sensor photos, nobody could tell the difference. Old cameras won't make your photos better. CCD is not a magical sensor that will improve your skills. Go outside, take photos with the camera that you have with you. It doesn't matter which one you own, all it matters is how you take photos.
Agreed, it is a fad that largely appeals to zoomers that grew up with Digicams from their childhood. Not too similar to millennials and point and shoots.
I am familiar with electronics, and the main difference between CCD and CMOS sensors is the analog to digital converter is offchip with a CCD sensor versus on chip with a CMOS sensors. There are some minor differences like a CMOS sensors has lower noise because the analog signal doesn't need to travel offchip to be converted, etc but they are conceptually the same.
You’re correct that it’s just a fad. I think it’s also some clever people wanted to start a new fad as film is so popular and getting expensive, like the LF35 and Mju ii are in the $350-450 range…crazy! Those are electronic cameras waiting to fail. Also, a lot of the digicams use proprietary and obsolete memory cards, batteries and chargers. Try finding some of those weird cards they used….good luck. I know a guy who hoards a ton of stuff and he sells some of it at a flea market. He’s got a huge and good stash of old digicams, but he’s missing a lot of chargers and memory cards for them, so a lot of them are basically useless.
I don’t think they’re always hard to tell apart. The Leica M8’s CCD sensor has to this day produced images I’ve never really been able to replicate with other cameras. I foolishly sold mine when the prices skyrocketed in recent years, and I miss it regularly. I’ve tried a handful of other CCD sensor cams to see if it would fill the void and none of them really stack up to the M8. Some do produce a more vivid image right out of camera than a lot of CMOS sensors I’ve used but nothing that would have me choosing the clunky mechanics of a decade old camera over something newer with a smoother experience. The only CCD camera I have left these days is a Sony a350 and I’ll probably end up selling it at some point. I really just miss my M8. Some people aggressively proclaim you can’t see the difference between CCD and CMOS and maybe they can’t. But I can. At least for some of them, and definitely with the M8.
Nostalgia is a form of something more significant. Whereas some philosophers such as Camus understand it to be a clinging to some perceived 'better time' akin to living through undesired circumstances driven by hope for a perceived better future, others have analysed it in terms of stability of identity, a means of grounding oneself, ie., planting tangible roots. As much as the rate of technological advancement and sociological change is at times exciting, it can cause existential nausea too. From an art perspective, technological differences provide limits, or rather different mediums through which one can express one self or through which one can experience the world. Eg., being 'limited' to black & white photography pushes us to be more creative in ways other than using colour. As soon as a technology has some recognisable 'form', it becomes a new language of expression. Whether that be film, digicams, or what-have-you. The mistake is in thinking that because one technology is better at producing something that corresponds to reality, it is better as an art medium. But realism in painting is not necessarily that which moves the hearts of men. Sometimes, metaphor is better than a scientific description. Eg., what is water? Poetry and prose can be expressed in German, Latin, or Mandarin, and no less in film, digicams, or a 4k mirrorless.
I absolutely love old digital cameras. My powershot pro 1 gets just as much use as my fancy new G5x. I even still sometimes shoot with the first camera ive ever been given, an ancient olympus D520 that records to smartmedia cards :)
Very cool Olympus! I love that style with the lens cover. Makes it look like the 35mm film cameras they were replacing. And I also loved my PowerShot Pro1. One of the very best I've used. I only sold it because I'm always trying new cameras, so gotta let go of some old ones, but it's truly a gem.
Whoa, It's almost as if it was possible to get good pictures with basic gear as long as the subject is good, light is good and you know what you're doing. Crazy, right?
Finding your youtube site made my day! Lately my interest in photography has lost its luster and I'm currently shooting with the (ugh! expensive!!) canon mirrorless R5. It is "perfect" and I can practically say "R5, take me a pretty photo." Maybe that's part of the problem. My love for photography started with the Canon C2020, Canon C3030 and C5050. All were awesome. When the battery door broke, the cost of repair was more than the cost of the camera. Sure wish I'd gone for the repair. The images were fantastic! Would love to see a review of that line! Again, thank you for the inspiration.
I can fully relate to that. I started my voyage into photography the classic way: an old Ricoh M42-SLR first, then Nikon F film cameras, old Mamiya 6x7, color slide film all the way. Bought a Nikon Coolpix 5000 when it was clear that digital would be the future but never really warmed up to the camera as it was just not good enough at dusk/dawn/night shots. Kept on going film for a while. But my "magic digital camera" became the Nikon D70 with its 6.1MP CCD sensor. There's still a special vibe about the image quality of the photos that have been taken with it, maybe it's that kind of "filmlike" imperfection.
"Digier"; I'm stealing this one. Probably get a T-shirt made - have LOTS of 'em, mostly little Canons & Nikons - always carry at least two at all times.
You probably don’t check these older videos but a discovery of a Minolta 70-210 led to the purchase of a Sony a230 which gives fantastic images. That led to a Sony a850 based on the lens. It’s give’s amazing images.
I didnt know this was a trend but was feeling the urge to find my dads old floppy disc camera. I think old tech is fun and simple when faced with everything overhyped in the latest phone.
Excellent analysis. The ”digicam hunt” is addictive indeed. There’s inspiration to be found in the challenge aspect of it: trying to take fine pictures with a very cheap camera. Many new cameras are ”perfect” like you say and also somewhat overkill for the average non-pro photographer. Why not opt for a very cheap cam in a world where sustainability is a key word? You don't need many megapixels for the images to look good on Insta anyway...:) Another note: Those earlier Fuji digicams is now more (real) retro than their own retro-styled X-cameras that has followed! 😁
I’m a bit of a film tragic, I find that film has a great many advantages in creative control and I love to tinker with analogue cameras and experiment with them. (I’ve been going through a bit of a half-frame phase lately which looks like it will culminate in me spending probably too much on a fairly shitty camera, but the enjoyment I’ll get from shooting with it offsets that for me) I ended up on this video from your Pentax Q one and you noted the massive decline in camera sales thanks to the rise of smartphones. Until now, I’ve always lumped automatic digicams in with smartphones, yet thinking about it now, they are different beasts entirely. I’ve had my parents’ old Olympus D-545 kicking around in a box or drawer somewhere since I was 15, so it’s stuck with me between 6 different houses because I wasn’t willing to part with it. This video has inspired me to experiment with the little bugger in parallel with my film tinkering. Maybe I won’t like the results, but usually in these experiments I get to explore my preferences and work out what formats I like to use for what, and I’ve already had some ideas…
I own a Sony A100 and its really great. I also have a Nikon D200 which uses the exact same Sony CCD as the A100. I use the Nikon more as it has a much better build quality and its weather sealed. I love both though!
The big difference is the on-camera xenon flash, which gives a particular look to indoor and party photos that Smartphones just can't replicate with their weak LED flash.
I didn't knew there was such trend as i was trying to purchase a pocket camera better for photography than regular phones. That explains sudden high prices.
there has been a /digishit/ thread on the photography board on 4chan for years at this point, all photos taken with old ccd cameras. I'm surprised it took this long for it to get as hyped as it is now.. little annoying because the prices are now going up for most cameras.
I feel the same with cinematography.. I wish CCD sensors were the standard instead of CMOS.. Like the Digital Bolex (RIP) thought it looked way more filmic and the CCD was one of those reasons
Happy buyer of a canon Ixus 970 is for 25£ and I'm not going back. You can do some manual customisation, it has some nice picture profiles (positive film and vivid), a nice lens and 10mpx CCD sensor. No regrets, even a viewfinder with the ability to turn off the LCD and use it like a disposable camera!
I shot a few of these when I was younger and had no money, and I am so happy to be able to shoot on proper gear now - I don't miss one second of this...but hey, Hippsters 😅
i went back to using digicams as necessity when all film photolabs in my area shut down while there's a gallery director breathing on my back waiting for my prints. That was in 2015 and there was an abundance of deadstock unsold digicams at rock bottom prices when iphone photography took over. though, im not into the old CCD nostalgia aesthetic, these cameras tend to give a faithful rendition when used with film emulations on lightroom. it turns out the photolab film scanners like the Noritsu, SP3000 and Flextight scanners also uses CCD sensor - mainly from Sony. so, i did hoard some cybershot digicams before the recent surge of these CCD digicams and got them for cheap!
I have tons of photos from cameras I have owned since the Sony Mavica FD73 in 1999. I have owned a D100 and D200, both CCD based cameras. There is no magic in a CCD. The last CCD sensors may have been better than the early CMOS sensors, but that advantage didn't last long. I think the difference is in the weaker IR filters, bayer color filters, and the early color science used in jpeg processing. The only camera I own that is really different than other sensors is a Sigma DP3M Foveon camera. If anything is comparable to color film (layered color filtering) it is the Foveon sensor. I guess with film prices going up, we need a new retro trend to latch on to, so digicams are back!
Agree. Sensors are about light intensities. Asuming Bayer filters are more or less the same then and now, all the color magic happens as a result of in-camera software processing. CCD sensors were used on a specific period of time characterized for a specific kind of processing software. Perhaps the external Analog-to-Digital conversor needed for processing CCD sensors output also has a share in getting those wondeful images.
Nostalgia is certainly one valid reason. The other reason being the film look emits an organic feel that is absent with photos taken with modern digital cameras. Even modern point & shoot cameras like the Canon G1X Mark III or Sony RX100 VII produce sharp and clear images like any high-end DSLR or mirrorless camera. However, that organic aura is not there. And few art lovers are in love with the organic feel. Thank you for the video.
Thanks for this.... like you said, nostalgia is an overgeneralization... I re-bought my first digicam, purchased in 2001... because I took for granted how it took macro shots with ease. It was only when I "upgraded" that I saw what I'd lost; subsequent cameras over-focused and mostly missed. I have high end and low end Leicas and others, but that 4MP Olympus camedia D-40 was the easiest macro I've experienced... one click and it found the macro sweet spot.
Great topic. You're probably right. For most consumers, digicams may equal nostalgia. In the same way that film does. I suppose when photography first arrived on the scene, people were nostalgic for paintings. In addition, Digicams have a lot of flaws and that's what makes them authentic. Perfect pictures are boring. An image lacks something when it has everything. Embracing imperfection provides us with a catalyst to create. All the flawed cameras in the world, especially the cheap ones, encourage us to take pictures, be curious, and be free with our creativity. When you're not afraid to make mistakes, because mistakes make the picture, it helps you to make pictures with more story and character.
How come the majority of digicam photos I see in people's reviews are looking up in the trees, or looking at a mostly sky scene with a dark building/lake/ground at the bottom? What am I looking for in these shots? Help me out.
@Phillip Banes I mentioned CCD/CFA because it was a trend that as cameras switched to CMOS, their CFAs tended to become weaker and exchange less color separation for more low-light performance. Older CMOS sensors also may have stronger CFAs and give similar colors
Wow, so I was just like 12 years ahead of the curve? I have shot with a Nikon D50 (CCD) since it was new in 2004/5, and I have used it ever since. A couple of years ago I tried to update to a D5500 which I found BNIB on Marketplace for SOOOO cheap. I hate it, and have gone back to the D50...
Back in the days when the digital cameras was new many photographers continued to shoot film since the digital wasn't good enough. Nowdays some believe that a primitive camera with a small ccd is like shooting film. It's not even near, at least not negative film perhaps slide film in the way It behave with highlights but still no. a new modern camera with a great dynamic range reminds more of a negative film than those older one digital cameras. There is a good reason why It took a while before professionals started to use digital cameras. And when we first did, it was digital backs attached to cameras like Hasselblad and so on. When we first invested in digital cameras we got digital backs from sinar with a 12 megapixel full frame sensor. They worked with The Hasselblad H series, Hasselblad 503 (V series) But also on a Sinar p2 that was rebuilt to be more like a P3 with live view and 4 times and 16 times multi shot. Later down the road the sensor got bigger since the put two full frame sensors together and you got an output of 22 megapixel. High iso was completely off the chart and we used 2000 & 4000 watt flashes the get the required light. First dslr that actually made a large impact for high end conersial photography was the canon 5D Tho nothing beats a large format camera like sinar when it comes to studio work off none moving subjects. So every time I hear that an old amature digicam is film like I just lift my eye brows. That term has to come to an end and we need to talk more about the shooting experience and look that this old gear provides. Enjoy the content you create! 👍👌👍
It is good call video, because many, if not most older digital cameras are still working. I went film as deep as C41, ECN2 and E6 matching developers kits at home. So, from my simply technical POV, here is no film on digital. But... In order to give really high ISO on digital they had to throw the child with the water. CCD and low ISO CMOS sensors are just more pleasing, from non technical POV. I like Ricoh GRD III (CCD) over Ricoh GR III (CMOS), for example. Not just like, but use it. :)
Digicams are wonderful until the sensor dust gremlin comes along to curse you. That said, my Finepix F10 (which I believe was the first digital point and shoot with ISO 1600) was the camera that got made me take photography a little more seriously. I miss that thing!
People are just bored with taking pictures with their phones and the super sharp 'clinical' samey output. And you got to blame social media too with stars showing off their 'cool' snaps with their digicams. So the prices for some of these cameras are outrageous now, like the way of the Contax film compacts, super 'hyped'. No longer I can find that $5 digicam at the flea market or thrift store that nobody wanted just a couple of years ago. If Fuji could jump on this opportunity and remake and sell a Super CCD compact right now for a reasonable price they would sell like hot cakes.
This is something i have been struggling with since CMOS basically eliminated CCD sensor based camcorders and i always hated that... because i still prefer the picture of CCD cameras. I can't stand rolling Shutter and taking videos of things like lightning strikes of flashing lights because HALF if the goddamn image is always dark because CMOS sensors are still too slow at their line-based readout speed while CCDs capture the entire image at once. This is why i'm glad i still have a Sony PC100E which uses a Megapixel CCD that delivers the most gorgeous single CCD chip based SD-video picture i have ever seen on a consumer camera. I'd say it's even nicer than the 3CCD chip based Prosumer camcorders like the VX2000 or the PD150.
i so recommend trying out older Canon Powershot and hp photosmart cameras, i have both and they're my favourites to use! the colours on my Powershot S230 (3.2MP, 2002) and so vibrant, and the quality is surprisingly good?? and i can't stress enough how under-rated the photosmart line is, i have a photosmart 720 (3.3MP, 2002) and a M547 (6.2MP, 2007) and they both have this dream world vibe to them, as if its computer generated if that makes sense?? and on top of that, because both of them are forgotten about, the prices are rock bottom, i paid $4 for my photosmart 720 (same price for my M547!!) and my Canon i got for 10 bucks with all the accessories and original box (all in like mint condition??!) seriously, i hope this type of photography goes popular again, i love it so much
Hi there! My parents don’t use it anymore but I decided to keep using it. However, we’ve lost our charger. Do you what the charger is like? (Mini USB etc) so I can get it online? Hope I can finally get an answer for this I searched every camera store ! Thank you!
The F11 is one of the best ccd cams ever. Not to mention the battery life is around 500 shots in the f11. You just happened to pick a non inferior made in japan compact. purple fringe is only negative and no raw
As a techie, I can see the nostalgia factor in old digicams. I have owned many over the years. However, I was moving a few years ago, and I found I had three old cams kicking around in my closet. I still have all the photos I shot with them as well, so I can go back and see them whenever I want. And I can see the limitations of those cams. They don't have manual controls. They shoot poorly in low light. The videos are pretty bad. They use AA cells and burn through them very fast. And to top it off, one of them used the old memory cards which you can't get easily any more. I gave them away to someone who worked with schools for poor children to teach them photography. They are of no use to me since I have way nicer cams now. Better to have them used by someone else. I guess I won't be falling into digicam nostalgia any time soon. Being able to look at the photos I took makes me realise the nostalgia is associated with the times of using those cams, not the actual tech itself, which was rather limited.
I have a Sony Cybershot W300 with CCD and 1./1.7 inch sensor, quite weird because it looks a typical P&S but there is a complete manual mode. You can adjust the 3 aperture levels, speed and ISO. The quality is on par to the Canon Powershot G10 which is very good.
Not sure if this is right or not, because I came to my own conclusion after reading about sensors; specifically, CCD and CMOS... ...but it would appear as though CCD is the right sensor for PHOTOGRAPHY, while CMOS sensors started entering cameras because CCD was bad at video, while CMOS is good at video. In any case, I also use a Fujifilm Finepix S5200 bridge camera with a 5.1 megapixel SuperCCD sensor.. and while it doesn't have the 24mp size, I'm always impressed by the photos. Sure they aren't as "pixel accurate", but apart from pixel peeping, we view photos from a certain distance at a certain size, and for normal use, it's perfect. 5.1 megapixels. 5 point 1. 😅
The only thing I like about old digicams is the form factor. Nothing was settled, cameras swivelled and folded, some had optical finders and Casio style menus. Dynamic range was non-existent and 400 ISO looked like confetti. They didn't last long in my experience, ribbon circuits failed, lenses ceased to extend, screens died, sensors grew bands and artefacts. If they work for other people, great.
Honestly I just collect and use old cameras for fun tbh. not really nostalgia because if I want that I'd just use a throw away camera from fujifilm you can buy for like 7 bucks or get some polaroid film. That's nostalgic for me. I also just like how certain photos look. Like my Canon Powershot 600 which actually can shoot raw somehow. I haven't found out yet. I think I had the manual somewhere. But I love the monochrome photos it can take, which is actually just for text but works great.
I have a DSLR and a mirrorless (though older models), but I probably shoot more on my two Canon ELPHs. Great pocketable little cameras. I also have old Nikon and Kodak digicams that still do the job. These cameras are capable, cheap, handy, and fun, so why not use them? I'd so much rather use them than my phone.
I really tried to love digicams, but as weather is not so good here most of the time in darker seasons, results were very dissapointing. But I will surely try in spring/summer when light is better.
Hmm, that is a good point. And in the end if it's not for you do not worry! The point is to find whatever works for you, inspires you, gets you results you're interested in :)
I've been preaching for years that CMOS sensor output has drawbacks vs CCDs. For example, I never liked the images from CMOS medium format. It just looked like any other CMOS camera except with higher resolution. I also like the output from the Sigma X3 Foveon Sensor. My theory, I think camera makers somehow sacrificed the smooth roll-off on the highlights range to increase dynamic range or sensitivity vs CCD. Smartphone compute photography can come close due to almost no blown highlights but the range in the highlights also lacking. There is probably an exception to Google's compute capture or Gcam app which appears to capture the highlights better, probably due to more multiple exposures. But then again, content/audience already has moved on the video. HDR video at high FPS with efficient video compression is the goal now, at least, in my opinion.
I had a 3MP Canon digital camera back in the day. I am still surprised how good those old photos are. Phone photography set us way back for a while. We were all charmed by how good they were - for a phone - that we ignored their far superior point and click alternatives.
I think the best word to describe this is "character". Most modern cameras output incredibly accurate photos, that pretty much all look the same, because they are near perfect. These old CCDs cameras had a certain "character" or imperfection to them, that isnt present on modern cameras. Sure the image isnt perfect, but thats what makes it interesting, because its cool to see how "the camera sees" the current scene. This also applies to the film resurgance. And this effect isnt exclusive to cameras. You can see this pretty much in every form of media and even with something like cars, game consoles, etc. It seems that perfection isnt as appealing as "character" in many cases.
The film look is probably due to the fact that most CCD sensors have a limited dynamic range and a corresponding clipping behavior when it comes to light. Typically around 6 - 9 stops, instead of 10 - 15 on modern sensors. In addition, more modern sensors clip the lights more steadily and not as abruptly as the old CCDs
my problem with this is it's WAY too close to just using a normal priced DLSR/mirrorless and dropping the resolution or deliberately setting the ISO into noisy ranges. Film's resurgence makes sense as it is true analog with massively different workflow, this is still digital and doesn't affect your workflow in anyway
I've always thought of nostalgia as wanting old memories unachievable. But if you get the result today, that's very much not a nostalgic act nor, "living in the past." Is 2018's Ektachrome, a film made available after CCDs were gone, nostalgia for CCD sensors? It too can add lavender to skies and reds to faces.
For me there is a technical reason without nostalgia: no digitally corrected lenses and less computational photography. Maybe is an illusion but I feel for the sake of compactness photographs are relying in a digital representation rather than just how the ligh reaches a sensor through a lens. I love the photos of my smartphone Samsung S20 FE but I feel more attached to the photos of my cellphone Sharp SH-06D. I adore the results with my Fujifilm X100S or my Sigma DP2, but I disliked too much the Sony a5000 with the kit lens. In film cameras I prefer my Fujifilm DL SuperMini or my Canon Eos 7 with a 135mm f2.8 lens that my Samsung ECX 1 with its many many functions.
And how is the digicam trend NOT like film resurgence? Go. 👇
The film resurgence is at least partially manufactured nostalgia, as many shooting film never experienced it when it was the only choice. Many argued (and still argue) over the technical superiority of film, whereas CCD shooters don't seem to care, and in fact embrace, the limitations of older tech. Finally, the film to digital jump was a revolution, not the evolution that digital continues to be. To find a similar revolutionary change in the technology, you'd have to go back to the first SLRs or even further to the advent of rollfilm. I'm reminded of the original vinyl record audiophiles who abhorred clicks and pops on their records. Modern vinyl lovers seem to find it part of the charm.
Approachability. Film is cheap to enter, but gets hellishly expensive right quick, especially if you're a novice and waste a lot of it learning the ropes.
The allure of digital has always been the ability to take just one more shot. And even though you're limited in the number of shots you can take on older storage media and batteries, it's still a hell of a lot better than film.
@@wiggyjones I just finished a roll of fairly cheap black and white film on an analog EOS 300 with a decent lens on it and all 36 of those pictures are fucking amazing, and not because I'm such a great photographer. I'm really talking about the picture quality. You do not get that same dynamic range unless you get a really expensive digital camera. Put something like a Helios 44-2 on one of those old EOS bodies with a cheap M42 to EOS adapter and you can get moods that just don't seem to translate the same on a digital camera (I also have a digital EOS).
Not that I am knocking either, but I have found that while I started on digital, I've moved to and through a bit of everything. I've generally got some small rangefinder on me as well as a micro 4/3 body with something wacky on it (like a Helios or C-mount camera). But all platforms offer something and I've been lucky and smart enough to run into some real nice deals before prices really got out of hand.
Every camera platform is like a brush, a canvas, etc. Putting all your eggs in one basket just limits your possibilities too. That can be fun or easy (or a crutch) when you start, but when you shoot on a middle of the road digital camera for 4 years I'm sure you eventually get a bit tired of its limitations and you're gonna want something else. And I have never met anyone who is into cheap cameras (wether digital or analog) that only has one. Most people who are into cheap shit (again, like me) end up hoarding a bunch of cheap shit and spending about as much money on this type of thing as a professional (which is fine, while I own some professional gear I'm way more attracted to the weird). I basically just noticed people are rarely frugal on these types of things.
The form factor of the old digicams offer more stable handling when pointing and shooting for the average person who is just out and about. Cell phones are actually a horrible shape for handling during photo snapping. Professional cameras are a whole thing that you cannot just take with you on a whim.
Some digicams require specific batteries, chargers and old memory formats to operate. These accessories are either unsupported, obsolete, discontinued, rare and expensive to find.
It is fascinating to me, as a photographer who's over 60 years old, to see this happening. I came up with film cameras, was an early adopter of the first digicams, and I didn't foresee this nostalgia for the CCD era digicam. I am enjoying this very much. I think the bottom line will always be enjoyment of the art of photography, using whatever tools make you the happiest. Thanks so much.
Didn't foresee this interest for CCDs but I'm delighted.
Same here - my first job was Wolf Camera in the early 90s - i got to see the first digital offerings and we all just laughed .... we all knew it was the future and a change was coming...
I honestly figured by now digital would be king but it seems film is still hanging in there -- it seems there's a limit to how "Sharp" we like our humans 🤣🤣
@@BracaPhoto I read online that Kodak hired more people to make the film, and that film was making a come back. I also see that Fuji discontinued some kinds of film though. Will digital cameras eventually get rid of film again in a few years? a camera shop that I called the other only dealt with used equipment. They had a lot of older film cameras on the website. I just started getting into instant cameras. I always wanted a Polaroid when I was a kid, but never bought it for some reason. I have the Polaroid now and Fji square camera. Do instant cameras need a lot of light in the background? sometimes pics would be real dark when it had some sun still outside. I tried to take pics of multiple flowers with different colors of moms garden, and it didn't turn out good. Could it be that the instant camera couldn't handle so many different flower colors at once? My first digicam was a cheap creative brand from circuit city. It was returned for not being good. I had a Hp digicam and loved it. My nikon got stolen at a concert many years ago. Nikon wouldn't give me my rebatefrom Office Depot for the digicam. it was a lot of money even though it was on sale. I read other reports online about Nikon being not good with rebates. I bet that was a fun amazing job working at Wolf Camera.
I don't understand it either. I learned on film and still shoot the occasional roll of B&W to home develop and scan. But the quality of my photo collection takes a distinct dive from the early 00's (when I started using a 'digicam' as my regular camera), up until I bought modern APS-C DSLR a decade later. My 90's film negatives OTOH scan to match the quality of my current pictures. I really wish I'd stuck with film for a decade longer.
@@aeon8721 I just bought the "Kodak VR35 K40 Point & Shoot film Camera today. I did see a Hp digicam the other day, but it was only one mega pixel. If I see a Fuji digicam at a thrift store, I will buy it immediately.
One of the main reasons for digicam nostalgia is the fact that modern smartphones all output the same flat, overly sharp, perfect HDR to the max images that just aren’t exciting, unique, random, or artistic.
Thats why NOMO was created. Or if you want to shoot film, why not instant film? Tons of great options better than 20 year old point and shoot digicams.
Also the noise reduction is pretty bad on some older phones.
I've been using manual mode on my phone camera, and im actually kind of impresed, i just took for granted so i never gave it much tought, but lost phones have pretty good cameras nowadays!
I'll pull out my phone if I need to get a picture and have nothing else, but if I want to have fun I will grab my sony MVC-FD75 Mavica and fill a few floppy disks, the reactions from people when they see what it records to are priceless too, as a bonus you can still buy new batteries with monstrous capacity
Reason: many can’t afford a new one ha ha ha
I think the draw of CCDs is because the current crop of teenagers/young adults grew up with it. People born 1995-2005ish probably grew up with CCDs and that kinda crappy yet certainly interesting look is what they would've found in their family albums of their childhood. Film resurgence definitely had the same nostalgia factor, though the whole unique chemical process is what I think will keep film alive for longer.
Erin C You obviously, clearly don't know what you are talking about. CCD scanners are used in telescopes, Microscopes, X Ray equipment. To civilian level equipment.
@@ariesmight6978 I'm referring to civilian CCD point and shoots here, as are CCDs referred to in this video's context. Please take a braincell and try to understand the situation
@@erwinc.9117 HaHa You wiped out!!!!
@@ariesmight6978 lmao. Try and infer something.
@@ariesmight6978yes they do, it's just that and other factors that attracts Gen Z to these old tech gadgets.
Oh, here's algorithm on collecting - anything:
1. For whatever you're into, figure the marketing half-life of whatever it is you're into - clothing, mass market audio, cars, comics, etc. For digital cameras, that half-life is about three years. Also, understand what it is in a particular marketing generation those items that were quirky, differentiated, rare, or otherwise desirable in some way.
2. The sweet spot for purchasing value is about two half-lives. For acquisition, this means you want cameras like the Leica SL (Typ 601) or the higher-end Lytro. Prices are low. Those who care about functionality recognize that the new, current gen stuff is just better; if nothing else, it's pumped by real, current marketing outlay after all. It's also recent enough that there is no rosy haze of nostalgia associated with it yet.
3. The nostalgia driven pricing curve tips up around 5 half-lives. This is when those who bought into the then current marketing in their youths can now actually acquire what they couldn't afford back then (btw, this is me and film equipment years back). Pump the items on social media too. Be slick about it. Wait for the current hipsters to latch on and echo amplify about "that special quality of whatever". Hopefully it catches. Sell the old junk for a nice profit.
I just recently did a project for a class where I shot all my pictures with older digital camera such as these. I had no idea there was a trend for this happening, but now I'm really excited there is a community surrounding it I can partake in!
That's so awesome! Yes, welcome to the club :) (Well it's not a formal club but you know what I mean, haha!)
I took a Fujifilm F10 to Oaxaca Mexico in 2005/2006 and shot over a 1,000 pictures with it. I still marvel over the pictures taken with it.
Great (Fuji) colors.
I still have the camera even though my main shooter it the Fujifilm X-T5.
In the 2000s, my brother gifted me PnS cameras for my birthday every other year. I mostly had the Canon Powershot cameras and I took so many crappy little photos with them, but it was the most fun I had with shooting because I was carefree. In high school and college, I enrolled in Photography classes and started using DSLRs and whatnot, and even though the quality was 10 folds better, I didn’t necessarily have more fun with those cameras, because everything looked too “perfect”.
Fast forward now, I’m still a camera junkie. I have lots of cameras and I still have some of my “digicams” from 2000s! They will never be as good as my film cams, but it produces such an aesthetic that, like film, is very hard to replicate with filters. It’s the grimy, imperfect, slightly out of focus, soft, nostalgic aesthetic that is quintessentially “Y2K” and I have tons of fun shooting with these cameras still.
Yes, there is a surge of Gen-Z shooters who are making “digicams” trendy right now, so prices of these old cameras are probably quite high. But I think that’s what keeps the community engaged and fun. To this day, some of my favorite photos of all time, were shot on a Powershot. It’s also important to note, that in terms of nostalgic cameras, Y2K is the last line of true digital nostalgia, because anything produced in 2010 and after, starts to use larger censors that we see today. Even in 30 years, the most unique cameras will be relics of film cameras and the digicams of the 2000s. So in other words, the best time to invest in a digicam (2000s point and shoot) is now!
Man, that little startup "boopideeboop" the FinePix made brought me back...My dad had a lot of Fuji cameras.
If these old cameras bring people back to photography I think it's great. Maybe it's a fad or maybe people just like using simple cameras that still take good pictures. If it brings people joy more power to them.
I am pretty happy its a fad because kodak also returned to making film again, i hope fuji will go back to making film as well
What’s the difference between a fad like digicams and artistic movement? I think they have more in common than different.
I think a lot of it has less to do with the technology and more to do with the form factor. By using a pocket camera you can take it anywhere while not using your cell. No distractions, just photos.
I think individuality is also there, people like to stand out from the crowd and there are some great camera designs from the early 2000s to early 2010s ranging from quirky to beautiful. These can be great conversation starters in groups, on the technical side they pose a challenge that can engage a photographer in his craft again. And yes nostalgia definitely nostalgia
I can never pass these up at thrift stores when they’re all usually dirt cheap. I found a $2 Sony mavica that used a floppy disk. The photos look like 2010 webcam quality, it was so much fun to use. Rip
Hi! What country do you live in? In the EU they are quite expensive in thrift shops and in the US I haven't even found thrift shops so far - seemingly everyone uses craigslist and other online platforms.
@@faggabumm I’m from USA, living in California prices are relatively high compared to the rest of US mostly. I make most of my best finds in smaller more out of the way thrift stores and antique markets
@@Davidwags thanks for getting back so quickly! I will check those out
@@faggabumm haha any time, happy hunting!
It wouldn't surprise me we're gonna have late-00s phone camera aesthetic revival too by the time the 2020s ends.
I've already seen some people start playing with this. It's cool because there are some interesting phone cameras out there, and they're all super cheap because no one wants a super old smart phone...
Heck, flip phones are coming back into vogue.
now that you mention... my Sony Ericsson K750i shot beatiful photos. I should find it and be early on this bandwagon
point and shoot CCD digicams do give off disposable film vibes for sure. however, for the film SLR look, the early CCD dslrs are the cameras to grab.
I recently got a Fuji s2 Pro and Olympus E-1, and I just can't put them down. The CCD sensors by fuji + kodak respectively have the best out of camera color science I have ever seen.
also, the low MP+ higher ISO noise (ie; 800 iso) of CCD sensors give a very film grain look, it's really a look difficult to achieve w/ modern high MP sensors.
Olympus E-1 самая удивительная камера в плане цветопередачи. У меня были также Fujifilm S 2,3,5 Pro.
I’m happy to see any trend that brings more people into photography. It’s this kind of thing that keeps the community thriving - even if the community is different from what it was before. Even though I’m a bit of an old timer, I’m happy to welcome and embrace the change.
CCD definitely does have its own look that's very different from CMOS sensors. I was once talking to a Japanese photographer who uses the Pentax medium format system as his main system. He was talking about how he prefers the 645D over the 645Z in situations where you have complete control over the lighting. Arguably the smaller dynamic range is the biggest challenge with the CCD sensored 645D. I've also been thinking of getting a used 645D to experiment with CCD medium format.
The smaller megapixel count on the old digicams is not as big of an issue as it used to be since we have some very good enlargement tools available now.
Also for alternative sensor type digicams I have to mention the older Foveon based Sigma DP compact cameras, those files also have a very special look to them.
I had one of these when I was an exchange student last summer-highly recommend!
Highly recommend the Fuji F40 FD. Images out of that little gem are gorgeous with a noise pattern quite similar to the original X-Trans sensor. Has become my go to pocket cam :)
I've heard good things about that one and the F31d!
Agreed. The problem is getting an XD picture card under $100. The memory card is going to cost you 3 times what the camera does which is absurd.
@@michaelbell75 Unless you're lucky enough to have some on hand, like this guy does 😁
@@michaelbell75 Oh yeah, forgot the F40fd's card slot is dual purpose, and can take either XD or SD. Very handy :D
@@B9scrambler ah that’s right. They added SD to the F40fd. Just have to make sure you have the 1.10 firmware on it.
When we moved across the country a few years ago I purged all of my camera equipment (film camera and lenses, light meters, darkroom equipment, and a few decades of digicams) except for my DSLR and my 2001 Fujifilm FinePix 2800 Zoom. There's something special about the 2 megapixel images that come out of that camera.
❤
I feel like the one keyword for this whole thing is "imperfection". There are no new bad cameras, the improvements are still there but its only making near perfect stuff better and that just gets boring. If the only difference is quicker autofocus or even more resolution people want something else, something different. And then something clunky, more innacurate, slower, objectively worse has "character". I dont even know if i should see this "character" as something good or bad, i think its very subjective. And even though I like tech and engineering I had that exact personal journey. After my set-up was complete and I basically could shoot any scenario with ease it suddenly becomes boring because the chase is over. The options then are to relearn a different system, which I did, getting into film, which I did, and using tech from a time when it was't as perfect as today, including old DSLRs and Digicam, the latter still being on my "not yet" pile. I'm sure no one during the Digicam age, given the opportunity, wouldnt switch their Fuji Finepix for a Sony A7R4 because thats future stuff and incredible. But once its the norm its just kind of boring. For me personally current high end gear has this image of a work horse, a tool for professionals, weddings, portraits, just something you need for the job. It doesnt have that fun component of being a camera for personal use and joy, just something sterile.
Also one more point, although im rambling on for long already. Old camera tech and film have the advantage that for them that the rose tinted glasses work. People might remember their Digicam time very well but instead of being dissapointed with the results they most likely advanced enough in photography in the mean time that their current Digicam pictures are much better than their past, more akin to their memory of them rather than the reality. I'm sure every picture I took with my aunts mini mju were terrible, but I had fun. If I picked it up today I would probably have similar fun reliving the time and taking the pictures I thought I was 15 years ago.
These are wonderful thoughts, thanks for sharing them.
Exactly! It is the imperfections. Some hating boomers here thinks that us Gen Zs are using it in hopes to improve our photography which is not the case. We are using these because of its imperfections. Almost all of my digicam photos from the past are bad photos taken by my mom, my aunt, my friends etc. So yeah. They should stop talking and hating if they don’t even know what they’re talking about.
Wabi sabi photography
Well there is definitely the unspoken draw of slight imperfection, but in the case of CCD cameras at least you can’t ignore the impact of the CCD sensor. It really is gloriously true to life!
Great video! I love my F10 too. The first one I've owned in the early 2000's was a great step forward in image quality. As I was looking for good old cameras now, I remembered this, bought it again and was excited to see, how good it is, even today. You could have a lot of fun for so cheap!
Another great video but not all CCD sensors are created equal. In fact, I would say probably 70% of them are junk. Ive been doing the digicam thing for nearly 20 years. The Fujifilm SuperCCD sensors are the best IMO, especially in the S5 Pro. In the point and shoot bodies, the Finepix A series starting with the A400 on up are great. The F series from the F10 to the F41fd as well. The early Canon Powershot models, like the G series up to the G6, the A series starting with the A60 up to the A95 and some of the SD if you want entry level no manual anything. Sleepers are the early Panasonic Lumix FX and LX series with the Leica lenses that are the same cameras as the early Leica C-Lux and D-Lux models for 1/3rd the price. Pre EasyShare Kodaks are great as well. The rest is a mixed bag of meh IMO.
In my opinion, this is nothing more than a fad that will just inflate prices of old cameras. Many people will buy CCD cameras with the idea that an obsolete piece of tech will somehow magically improve their photography instead of learning how to take photos properly.
A reminder that in blind tests between CMOS and CCD sensor photos, nobody could tell the difference.
Old cameras won't make your photos better. CCD is not a magical sensor that will improve your skills. Go outside, take photos with the camera that you have with you. It doesn't matter which one you own, all it matters is how you take photos.
There's definitely a lot of truth to this. Use whatever camera you want to take good photos :)
Agreed, it is a fad that largely appeals to zoomers that grew up with Digicams from their childhood. Not too similar to millennials and point and shoots.
I am familiar with electronics, and the main difference between CCD and CMOS sensors is the analog to digital converter is offchip with a CCD sensor versus on chip with a CMOS sensors. There are some minor differences like a CMOS sensors has lower noise because the analog signal doesn't need to travel offchip to be converted, etc but they are conceptually the same.
You’re correct that it’s just a fad. I think it’s also some clever people wanted to start a new fad as film is so popular and getting expensive, like the LF35 and Mju ii are in the $350-450 range…crazy! Those are electronic cameras waiting to fail. Also, a lot of the digicams use proprietary and obsolete memory cards, batteries and chargers. Try finding some of those weird cards they used….good luck. I know a guy who hoards a ton of stuff and he sells some of it at a flea market. He’s got a huge and good stash of old digicams, but he’s missing a lot of chargers and memory cards for them, so a lot of them are basically useless.
I don’t think they’re always hard to tell apart. The Leica M8’s CCD sensor has to this day produced images I’ve never really been able to replicate with other cameras. I foolishly sold mine when the prices skyrocketed in recent years, and I miss it regularly. I’ve tried a handful of other CCD sensor cams to see if it would fill the void and none of them really stack up to the M8.
Some do produce a more vivid image right out of camera than a lot of CMOS sensors I’ve used but nothing that would have me choosing the clunky mechanics of a decade old camera over something newer with a smoother experience. The only CCD camera I have left these days is a Sony a350 and I’ll probably end up selling it at some point. I really just miss my M8.
Some people aggressively proclaim you can’t see the difference between CCD and CMOS and maybe they can’t. But I can. At least for some of them, and definitely with the M8.
Nostalgia is a form of something more significant. Whereas some philosophers such as Camus understand it to be a clinging to some perceived 'better time' akin to living through undesired circumstances driven by hope for a perceived better future, others have analysed it in terms of stability of identity, a means of grounding oneself, ie., planting tangible roots. As much as the rate of technological advancement and sociological change is at times exciting, it can cause existential nausea too.
From an art perspective, technological differences provide limits, or rather different mediums through which one can express one self or through which one can experience the world. Eg., being 'limited' to black & white photography pushes us to be more creative in ways other than using colour. As soon as a technology has some recognisable 'form', it becomes a new language of expression. Whether that be film, digicams, or what-have-you. The mistake is in thinking that because one technology is better at producing something that corresponds to reality, it is better as an art medium. But realism in painting is not necessarily that which moves the hearts of men. Sometimes, metaphor is better than a scientific description. Eg., what is water? Poetry and prose can be expressed in German, Latin, or Mandarin, and no less in film, digicams, or a 4k mirrorless.
I absolutely love old digital cameras. My powershot pro 1 gets just as much use as my fancy new G5x. I even still sometimes shoot with the first camera ive ever been given, an ancient olympus D520 that records to smartmedia cards :)
Very cool Olympus! I love that style with the lens cover. Makes it look like the 35mm film cameras they were replacing. And I also loved my PowerShot Pro1. One of the very best I've used. I only sold it because I'm always trying new cameras, so gotta let go of some old ones, but it's truly a gem.
Interesting video, I have and still use my Olympus E500 with the CCD, love the colors! Cheers!
Another vote for the Olympus E500! Love the images that come from this camera. Although it's a DSLR, it's lightweight and ergonomically, a joy to use.
Whoa, It's almost as if it was possible to get good pictures with basic gear as long as the subject is good, light is good and you know what you're doing.
Crazy, right?
Finding your youtube site made my day! Lately my interest in photography has lost its luster and I'm currently shooting with the (ugh! expensive!!) canon mirrorless R5. It is "perfect" and I can practically say "R5, take me a pretty photo." Maybe that's part of the problem. My love for photography started with the Canon C2020, Canon C3030 and C5050. All were awesome. When the battery door broke, the cost of repair was more than the cost of the camera. Sure wish I'd gone for the repair. The images were fantastic! Would love to see a review of that line! Again, thank you for the inspiration.
All that lovely chromatic aberration and narrow dynamic range!
I can fully relate to that. I started my voyage into photography the classic way: an old Ricoh M42-SLR first, then Nikon F film cameras, old Mamiya 6x7, color slide film all the way. Bought a Nikon Coolpix 5000 when it was clear that digital would be the future but never really warmed up to the camera as it was just not good enough at dusk/dawn/night shots. Kept on going film for a while.
But my "magic digital camera" became the Nikon D70 with its 6.1MP CCD sensor. There's still a special vibe about the image quality of the photos that have been taken with it, maybe it's that kind of "filmlike" imperfection.
One of my favorite cameras is the Sony Dsc s85 from 2001. It gives a nice film look and the lens is pretty good f2.0-f2.5
"Digier"; I'm stealing this one. Probably get a T-shirt made - have LOTS of 'em, mostly little Canons & Nikons - always carry at least two at all times.
You probably don’t check these older videos but a discovery of a Minolta 70-210 led to the purchase of a Sony a230 which gives fantastic images. That led to a Sony a850 based on the lens. It’s give’s amazing images.
I'm still using my Kodak Box Brownie bought at the general store in 1905. Never found the need to upgrade. best camera ever made.
I didnt know this was a trend but was feeling the urge to find my dads old floppy disc camera. I think old tech is fun and simple when faced with everything overhyped in the latest phone.
Excellent analysis. The ”digicam hunt” is addictive indeed. There’s inspiration to be found in the challenge aspect of it: trying to take fine pictures with a very cheap camera. Many new cameras are ”perfect” like you say and also somewhat overkill for the average non-pro photographer. Why not opt for a very cheap cam in a world where sustainability is a key word? You don't need many megapixels for the images to look good on Insta anyway...:)
Another note: Those earlier Fuji digicams is now more (real) retro than their own retro-styled X-cameras that has followed! 😁
I’m a bit of a film tragic, I find that film has a great many advantages in creative control and I love to tinker with analogue cameras and experiment with them. (I’ve been going through a bit of a half-frame phase lately which looks like it will culminate in me spending probably too much on a fairly shitty camera, but the enjoyment I’ll get from shooting with it offsets that for me)
I ended up on this video from your Pentax Q one and you noted the massive decline in camera sales thanks to the rise of smartphones. Until now, I’ve always lumped automatic digicams in with smartphones, yet thinking about it now, they are different beasts entirely. I’ve had my parents’ old Olympus D-545 kicking around in a box or drawer somewhere since I was 15, so it’s stuck with me between 6 different houses because I wasn’t willing to part with it. This video has inspired me to experiment with the little bugger in parallel with my film tinkering. Maybe I won’t like the results, but usually in these experiments I get to explore my preferences and work out what formats I like to use for what, and I’ve already had some ideas…
I love my Sony A100 's 10 mp CCD. It has some kind of magic that my newer cameras missing
A100's JPEGs are gorgeous.
I own a Sony A100 and its really great. I also have a Nikon D200 which uses the exact same Sony CCD as the A100. I use the Nikon more as it has a much better build quality and its weather sealed. I love both though!
The big difference is the on-camera xenon flash, which gives a particular look to indoor and party photos that Smartphones just can't replicate with their weak LED flash.
I didn't knew there was such trend as i was trying to purchase a pocket camera better for photography than regular phones. That explains sudden high prices.
there has been a /digishit/ thread on the photography board on 4chan for years at this point, all photos taken with old ccd cameras. I'm surprised it took this long for it to get as hyped as it is now.. little annoying because the prices are now going up for most cameras.
I got an assortment of digicams from Goodwill online bids, it usually get competitive but there are some great deals for digital or film cameras.
I feel the same with cinematography..
I wish CCD sensors were the standard instead of CMOS..
Like the Digital Bolex (RIP) thought it looked way more filmic and the CCD was one of those reasons
Happy buyer of a canon Ixus 970 is for 25£ and I'm not going back. You can do some manual customisation, it has some nice picture profiles (positive film and vivid), a nice lens and 10mpx CCD sensor. No regrets, even a viewfinder with the ability to turn off the LCD and use it like a disposable camera!
Nice review man.
Thanks for the share and take care of yourself.
I shot a few of these when I was younger and had no money, and I am so happy to be able to shoot on proper gear now - I don't miss one second of this...but hey, Hippsters 😅
i went back to using digicams as necessity when all film photolabs in my area shut down while there's a gallery director breathing on my back waiting for my prints. That was in 2015 and there was an abundance of deadstock unsold digicams at rock bottom prices when iphone photography took over. though, im not into the old CCD nostalgia aesthetic, these cameras tend to give a faithful rendition when used with film emulations on lightroom. it turns out the photolab film scanners like the Noritsu, SP3000 and Flextight scanners also uses CCD sensor - mainly from Sony. so, i did hoard some cybershot digicams before the recent surge of these CCD digicams and got them for cheap!
I have tons of photos from cameras I have owned since the Sony Mavica FD73 in 1999. I have owned a D100 and D200, both CCD based cameras. There is no magic in a CCD. The last CCD sensors may have been better than the early CMOS sensors, but that advantage didn't last long. I think the difference is in the weaker IR filters, bayer color filters, and the early color science used in jpeg processing. The only camera I own that is really different than other sensors is a Sigma DP3M Foveon camera. If anything is comparable to color film (layered color filtering) it is the Foveon sensor. I guess with film prices going up, we need a new retro trend to latch on to, so digicams are back!
Agree. Sensors are about light intensities. Asuming Bayer filters are more or less the same then and now, all the color magic happens as a result of in-camera software processing. CCD sensors were used on a specific period of time characterized for a specific kind of processing software. Perhaps the external Analog-to-Digital conversor needed for processing CCD sensors output also has a share in getting those wondeful images.
You cannot go wrong with the F20, F30, F31fd although the lens in the F10 and F11 is not as good it does produce some interesting results!
Nostalgia is certainly one valid reason. The other reason being the film look emits an organic feel that is absent with photos taken with modern digital cameras. Even modern point & shoot cameras like the Canon G1X Mark III or Sony RX100 VII produce sharp and clear images like any high-end DSLR or mirrorless camera. However, that organic aura is not there. And few art lovers are in love with the organic feel.
Thank you for the video.
How the hell you make every shitty camera look so good. I have enough trash in my house already. My wife would kicked me out if I kept getting these 😢
Thanks for this.... like you said, nostalgia is an overgeneralization... I re-bought my first digicam, purchased in 2001... because I took for granted how it took macro shots with ease. It was only when I "upgraded" that I saw what I'd lost; subsequent cameras over-focused and mostly missed. I have high end and low end Leicas and others, but that 4MP Olympus camedia D-40 was the easiest macro I've experienced... one click and it found the macro sweet spot.
Great topic. You're probably right. For most consumers, digicams may equal nostalgia. In the same way that film does. I suppose when photography first arrived on the scene, people were nostalgic for paintings.
In addition, Digicams have a lot of flaws and that's what makes them authentic. Perfect pictures are boring. An image lacks something when it has everything. Embracing imperfection provides us with a catalyst to create. All the flawed cameras in the world, especially the cheap ones, encourage us to take pictures, be curious, and be free with our creativity. When you're not afraid to make mistakes, because mistakes make the picture, it helps you to make pictures with more story and character.
CCD + raw output = gold
How come the majority of digicam photos I see in people's reviews are looking up in the trees, or looking at a mostly sky scene with a dark building/lake/ground at the bottom? What am I looking for in these shots? Help me out.
I had a Kodak EasyShare for years, it's CCD/CFA give such pleasing colors
@Phillip Banes I mentioned CCD/CFA because it was a trend that as cameras switched to CMOS, their CFAs tended to become weaker and exchange less color separation for more low-light performance. Older CMOS sensors also may have stronger CFAs and give similar colors
I used to have the Fuji F31FD took some great pics, I’m sure that’s gone up too!
I've seen many buying small old compact cameras, kind of a bummer as prices go up. I wanted to buy a copy of one I've broken so I can use it's housing
Wow, so I was just like 12 years ahead of the curve? I have shot with a Nikon D50 (CCD) since it was new in 2004/5, and I have used it ever since. A couple of years ago I tried to update to a D5500 which I found BNIB on Marketplace for SOOOO cheap. I hate it, and have gone back to the D50...
Any particular settings
Back in the days when the digital cameras was new many photographers continued to shoot film since the digital wasn't good enough.
Nowdays some believe that a primitive camera with a small ccd is like shooting film.
It's not even near, at least not negative film perhaps slide film in the way It behave with highlights but still no.
a new modern camera with a great dynamic range reminds more of a negative film than those older one digital cameras.
There is a good reason why It took a while before professionals started to use digital cameras.
And when we first did, it was digital backs attached to cameras like Hasselblad and so on.
When we first invested in digital cameras we got digital backs from sinar with a 12 megapixel full frame sensor.
They worked with The Hasselblad H series, Hasselblad 503 (V series) But also on a Sinar p2 that was rebuilt to be more like a P3 with live view and 4 times and 16 times multi shot.
Later down the road the sensor got bigger since the put two full frame sensors together and you got an output of 22 megapixel.
High iso was completely off the chart and we used 2000 & 4000 watt flashes the get the required light.
First dslr that actually made a large impact for high end conersial photography was the canon 5D
Tho nothing beats a large format camera like sinar when it comes to studio work off none moving subjects.
So every time I hear that an old amature digicam is film like I just lift my eye brows.
That term has to come to an end and we need to talk more about the shooting experience and look that this old gear provides.
Enjoy the content you create! 👍👌👍
Does anybody know how to figure out which models have film simulations and which don't? Or do all models later than the F200 EXR have them?
It is good call video, because many, if not most older digital cameras are still working. I went film as deep as C41, ECN2 and E6 matching developers kits at home. So, from my simply technical POV, here is no film on digital. But... In order to give really high ISO on digital they had to throw the child with the water. CCD and low ISO CMOS sensors are just more pleasing, from non technical POV. I like Ricoh GRD III (CCD) over Ricoh GR III (CMOS), for example. Not just like, but use it. :)
Digicams are wonderful until the sensor dust gremlin comes along to curse you. That said, my Finepix F10 (which I believe was the first digital point and shoot with ISO 1600) was the camera that got made me take photography a little more seriously. I miss that thing!
People are just bored with taking pictures with their phones and the super sharp 'clinical' samey output. And you got to blame social media too with stars showing off their 'cool' snaps with their digicams. So the prices for some of these cameras are outrageous now, like the way of the Contax film compacts, super 'hyped'. No longer I can find that $5 digicam at the flea market or thrift store that nobody wanted just a couple of years ago.
If Fuji could jump on this opportunity and remake and sell a Super CCD compact right now for a reasonable price they would sell like hot cakes.
Not inferior, but older. Great video with great images.
This is something i have been struggling with since CMOS basically eliminated CCD sensor based camcorders and i always hated that... because i still prefer the picture of CCD cameras. I can't stand rolling Shutter and taking videos of things like lightning strikes of flashing lights because HALF if the goddamn image is always dark because CMOS sensors are still too slow at their line-based readout speed while CCDs capture the entire image at once. This is why i'm glad i still have a Sony PC100E which uses a Megapixel CCD that delivers the most gorgeous single CCD chip based SD-video picture i have ever seen on a consumer camera. I'd say it's even nicer than the 3CCD chip based Prosumer camcorders like the VX2000 or the PD150.
i so recommend trying out older Canon Powershot and hp photosmart cameras, i have both and they're my favourites to use! the colours on my Powershot S230 (3.2MP, 2002) and so vibrant, and the quality is surprisingly good?? and i can't stress enough how under-rated the photosmart line is, i have a photosmart 720 (3.3MP, 2002) and a M547 (6.2MP, 2007) and they both have this dream world vibe to them, as if its computer generated if that makes sense?? and on top of that, because both of them are forgotten about, the prices are rock bottom, i paid $4 for my photosmart 720 (same price for my M547!!) and my Canon i got for 10 bucks with all the accessories and original box (all in like mint condition??!) seriously, i hope this type of photography goes popular again, i love it so much
It is.. My Olympus E10 is my new film camera (bc of stupid film prices) and images that it produces are stunning
sony cyber shot dsc-w110 have you used this one and if so how was your experience?
Hi there! My parents don’t use it anymore but I decided to keep using it. However, we’ve lost our charger. Do you what the charger is like? (Mini USB etc) so I can get it online? Hope I can finally get an answer for this I searched every camera store ! Thank you!
I couldn’t have summed this up better myself! Thanks for making such a concise video on the topic
Thanks for watching! :)
The F11 is one of the best ccd cams ever. Not to mention the battery life is around 500 shots in the f11. You just happened to pick a non inferior made in japan compact. purple fringe is only negative and no raw
Yes! The earlier F series cams used the battery that would later be used in the Fuji X100 and Ricoh GXR.
As a techie, I can see the nostalgia factor in old digicams. I have owned many over the years. However, I was moving a few years ago, and I found I had three old cams kicking around in my closet. I still have all the photos I shot with them as well, so I can go back and see them whenever I want. And I can see the limitations of those cams. They don't have manual controls. They shoot poorly in low light. The videos are pretty bad. They use AA cells and burn through them very fast. And to top it off, one of them used the old memory cards which you can't get easily any more. I gave them away to someone who worked with schools for poor children to teach them photography. They are of no use to me since I have way nicer cams now. Better to have them used by someone else.
I guess I won't be falling into digicam nostalgia any time soon. Being able to look at the photos I took makes me realise the nostalgia is associated with the times of using those cams, not the actual tech itself, which was rather limited.
I have a Sony Cybershot W300 with CCD and 1./1.7 inch sensor, quite weird because it looks a typical P&S but there is a complete manual mode. You can adjust the 3 aperture levels, speed and ISO. The quality is on par to the Canon Powershot G10 which is very good.
Not sure if this is right or not, because I came to my own conclusion after reading about sensors; specifically, CCD and CMOS...
...but it would appear as though CCD is the right sensor for PHOTOGRAPHY, while CMOS sensors started entering cameras because CCD was bad at video, while CMOS is good at video.
In any case, I also use a Fujifilm Finepix S5200 bridge camera with a 5.1 megapixel SuperCCD sensor.. and while it doesn't have the 24mp size, I'm always impressed by the photos. Sure they aren't as "pixel accurate", but apart from pixel peeping, we view photos from a certain distance at a certain size, and for normal use, it's perfect.
5.1 megapixels. 5 point 1. 😅
The only thing I like about old digicams is the form factor. Nothing was settled, cameras swivelled and folded, some had optical finders and Casio style menus. Dynamic range was non-existent and 400 ISO looked like confetti. They didn't last long in my experience, ribbon circuits failed, lenses ceased to extend, screens died, sensors grew bands and artefacts. If they work for other people, great.
Honestly I just collect and use old cameras for fun tbh. not really nostalgia because if I want that I'd just use a throw away camera from fujifilm you can buy for like 7 bucks or get some polaroid film. That's nostalgic for me.
I also just like how certain photos look. Like my Canon Powershot 600 which actually can shoot raw somehow. I haven't found out yet. I think I had the manual somewhere. But I love the monochrome photos it can take, which is actually just for text but works great.
Got canon ixus 60 recently, it has an optical viewfinder
all the phos shown here are edited filteror raw?
Paper is a huge component of creativity... there is scientific research that shows that screens exposure only can reduce creative skills.
I have a DSLR and a mirrorless (though older models), but I probably shoot more on my two Canon ELPHs. Great pocketable little cameras. I also have old Nikon and Kodak digicams that still do the job. These cameras are capable, cheap, handy, and fun, so why not use them? I'd so much rather use them than my phone.
I'm hoping to get my hands on a ccd camera
Since I might have been the 100th like, allow me to say; I really love your videos, the way you approach photography & your calm personality. :D
Haha, congrats 😆 there's no prize 🎉 but thank you for the kind words and sticking around :) means a lot.
Ditto ...this little $hit makes such good and convincing videos, I just had to try out Pentax ...and now I'm a very happe user.... Bloody Snappiness 😜
@@waltherziemerink 🥳🥳
Agree! I like this channel not only for the content but also for your calm style
I really tried to love digicams, but as weather is not so good here most of the time in darker seasons, results were very dissapointing. But I will surely try in spring/summer when light is better.
Hmm, that is a good point. And in the end if it's not for you do not worry! The point is to find whatever works for you, inspires you, gets you results you're interested in :)
How is Lomography film compared to Kodak? I read that Fuji is now re branded Kodak for the 400 speeed film now. Is that true?
Make more video on fuji digicam & also show their film simulation.
I've been preaching for years that CMOS sensor output has drawbacks vs CCDs. For example, I never liked the images from CMOS medium format. It just looked like any other CMOS camera except with higher resolution. I also like the output from the Sigma X3 Foveon Sensor.
My theory, I think camera makers somehow sacrificed the smooth roll-off on the highlights range to increase dynamic range or sensitivity vs CCD.
Smartphone compute photography can come close due to almost no blown highlights but the range in the highlights also lacking. There is probably an exception to Google's compute capture or Gcam app which appears to capture the highlights better, probably due to more multiple exposures.
But then again, content/audience already has moved on the video. HDR video at high FPS with efficient video compression is the goal now, at least, in my opinion.
I had a 3MP Canon digital camera back in the day. I am still surprised how good those old photos are.
Phone photography set us way back for a while. We were all charmed by how good they were - for a phone - that we ignored their far superior point and click alternatives.
I think the best word to describe this is "character". Most modern cameras output incredibly accurate photos, that pretty much all look the same, because they are near perfect. These old CCDs cameras had a certain "character" or imperfection to them, that isnt present on modern cameras. Sure the image isnt perfect, but thats what makes it interesting, because its cool to see how "the camera sees" the current scene. This also applies to the film resurgance.
And this effect isnt exclusive to cameras. You can see this pretty much in every form of media and even with something like cars, game consoles, etc. It seems that perfection isnt as appealing as "character" in many cases.
The film look is probably due to the fact that most CCD sensors have a limited dynamic range and a corresponding clipping behavior when it comes to light.
Typically around 6 - 9 stops, instead of 10 - 15 on modern sensors. In addition, more modern sensors clip the lights more steadily and not as abruptly as the old CCDs
Does that mean my old 4 megapixel Vivitar digital camera has value?
Yep. About $15.
@RobertLeeAtYT
My Pentax *istDL sells for around $25.00 on Ebay so it makes sense
I want to pick up an M9 for this reason, but copies without a corroded sensor are pushing $5k....I went with a GFX 50R instead
my problem with this is it's WAY too close to just using a normal priced DLSR/mirrorless and dropping the resolution or deliberately setting the ISO into noisy ranges. Film's resurgence makes sense as it is true analog with massively different workflow, this is still digital and doesn't affect your workflow in anyway
How does a 2005 digicam make more filmlike photos than my 2003 3.2 megapixel minolta?
Great for friends at get-togethers, blasting the flash is cool
I've always thought of nostalgia as wanting old memories unachievable. But if you get the result today, that's very much not a nostalgic act nor, "living in the past."
Is 2018's Ektachrome, a film made available after CCDs were gone, nostalgia for CCD sensors? It too can add lavender to skies and reds to faces.
For me there is a technical reason without nostalgia: no digitally corrected lenses and less computational photography. Maybe is an illusion but I feel for the sake of compactness photographs are relying in a digital representation rather than just how the ligh reaches a sensor through a lens. I love the photos of my smartphone Samsung S20 FE but I feel more attached to the photos of my cellphone Sharp SH-06D. I adore the results with my Fujifilm X100S or my Sigma DP2, but I disliked too much the Sony a5000 with the kit lens. In film cameras I prefer my Fujifilm DL SuperMini or my Canon Eos 7 with a 135mm f2.8 lens that my Samsung ECX 1 with its many many functions.
all the photos shown here are edited filter or raw photo?