No, You Don't Want a CCD Digicam

[@thealmightysnark5878]

I fully agree, I can appreciate the old technology and how certain limitations were overcome, but calling a CCD film like is just weird when it's largely a post-processing sort of deal, take Fuji's modern camera's as a good example of this! Lovely video, keep it up!

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Thank you!

[@thedrunkweddingphotographer]

for real

[@unbroken1010]

That's debatable. Relax p Diddy

[@Drinkyoghurt]

I think the part people refer to as film like is the "noise". On a CCD it looks more smooth and even, whereas on CMOS sensors you have this "digital" grain that's baked in.

[@Souzaphotos]

In camera processing of a photo to jpg is post processing, just in camera... so some do output a certain look that maybe desired , but I do agree with the conclusion of the video for the most part.

[@azkar357]

everyone ik who uses em isn't too big into cameras they just think its fun and the pics turn out more unique than their phone's. Many digicam users that I know don't want to spend money on an expensive camera. People just like fun "toys". I think you look too deep into it.

[@jamesauld1253]

I couldn't agree more

[@lili2ngtag]

real

[@markogrubisic]

Yep...just leave it to the people...I have them few and love them...

[@Mr___X]

That likely has something to do with it. Hipsterdom was always a downwardly-mobile cultural trend anyway, a way to make not having money "cool". This is nostalgia for the pre-2008 world with post-2008 earning power.

[@oteliogarcia1562]

the fun part is important. with every cellphone able to take pictures and videos nowadays, one thing I noticed is that I'm taking less and less pictures. if you bring a film camera or digicam out of the house, you know you really intend to shoot.

[@UKMike2009]

Clickbait nonsense to compare a GH5 "state of the art" (at launch) camera with two point and shoot compacts. Of course the GH5 gives better results - we would be astounded if it were not so. Nothing to do with CCD vs CMOS, you just picked cameras from two separate and distinct classes.

[@DisturbedVette]

Exactly I was thinking. This guy is full of himself.

[@Kallasticot]

Exactly. Also, it's hard to trust any video when half of it is a sponsor.

[@shinu_music]

Imagine Buying an old car for 500$ that people use to drift around and shit and then compare it to a 5000$ daily driver. Thats basically this Video. Seriously Pointless 17 Minutes.

[@DisturbedVette]

@ where are you getting a car for $500? I want to know.

[@SuburbanRifleman]

I wouldn’t go out and spend real money on a CCD camera. But, contrary to popular belief, there are still a ton of them in junk drawers. If you find one at grandma’s house or at the Goodwill store for next to nothing, it can be really fun to play with.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Very true! Unfortunately, the Kodak was actually the only one I could find in a thrift store, and I had searched A LOT.

[@SuburbanRifleman]

@@serialhobbyism_official wow! I guess I’m living in the past. Anyway, I found an old Canon Powershot, dust-covered, on the back of a closet shelf recently, and it’s been a nostalgia trip to play around with.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

@@SuburbanRifleman Ha, it came as a surprise to me, too. When I decided to make this video, I thought the thrift stores would be littered with the things. I bet that Powershot is worth a pretty penny!

[@SuburbanRifleman]

@@serialhobbyism_official I was almost knocked over when I looked at the bottom of the camera and read, “Made in Japan”. I thought, “Oh yeah, this is definitely worth messing around with.”

[@edgarwalk5637]

After seeing the hype, I found one in my junk drawer, and had some fun.

[@warmoaran3]

as someone who enjoys CCD cameras, you're coming from a CMOS biased side. its not about the sensor being "better", its about the feel the sensor gives straight from camera, the beautiful colours, and the noise, they add to the artistic value. and, its also about the experience, the bad ISO performance so you have to consider more, the fact that hot pixels can happen, and the overall vibe of using something from the 2000s. everyone has a preference, people like me just prefer CCDs, as we feel like they have a certain charm. also because the sensor is quicker and has a global shutter.

[@supitschillbro]

personally with no horse in this race (I did not know CCD vs CMOS even existed as a debate) I thought he was very fair. I mean I like the crappy iPhone pictures I have on my Facebook from 2012, but I think it's because it's more sentimental than anything else. I think I would prefer whatever style I had because I was young and with my friends all the time back then.

[@Qimchiy]

The only good thing with CCDs is global shutter. If you want that old school vibe for video. You're better off snapping a wide angle lens on a crappy webcam to record skate videos.

[@warmoaran3]

@gordigorri I've compared my CCD camera against some CMOS cameras, and the CCD has nicer tones out of camera. I'm not following some gen z aesthetic trend, I genuinely prefer the quality and colours out of CCD sensors. (My 8mp CCD captures more detail than my 12mp phone sensor, and they're both almost the same size sensor)

[@warmoaran3]

@@Qimchiy what I want is nicer colours out of camera, plus with the benefit of more captured detail over 12mp phone cams, which I see in effect.

[@Qimchiy]

@@warmoaran3 12mp phone camera sounds pretty outdated. You didn't give much information there. Most phones now have better color science (especially white balance) compared to CCDs. Also phone cameras do not have comparable lenses to any mirrorless camera when it comes to detail and sharpness especially at higher ISOs.

[@JKinAus]

Don’t reveal this brutal truth! I haven’t listed all my old digicams and film cameras on ebay yet 😂

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Ha! 😂

[@thedrunkweddingphotographer]

better do it quick! I sold some junky Sony point & shoot for $250 just the other day.

[@JessicaNeidingHaverly]

This is so real. I bought a lot of 6 digicams because I wanted to try the RX100v that was in its leather case etc. and figured I could sell the rest back to have a free point and shoot that has a similar menu system as my a6400.

[@UnauthorizedAdventure]

😂

[@vidgrod695]

hahah

[@gedwardjones]

I, as the owner of a dozed CCD cameras, always thought that the hype was a bit overblown, but there is one thing that a lot of folks miss in these types of videos: Yeah, I can put a bunch of those cameras in my pocket. If you prefer to shoot with a camera than a phone, having a pocketable camera is gold.

[@anachronismic]

This is a big point I feel. UX plays a big role in this. UX and nostalgia are valid reasons to buy these (though the hype may make it less reasonable lol), even if the ccd being film like is overblown. If anything the overblown highlights I get sometimes on digicam is similar to the 90s film point and shoot exposures lol (and needing flash for anything low light)

[@kempinenPC]

okay, but wouldn't you rather have a cmos point-n-shoot than an old crappy ccd digicam? it's the same experience but better

[@anachronismic]

@@kempinenPC in context of the very small cam that people talk about as digicams, maybe? There’s some things in the earlier stage of things that companies won’t do any more, for better or for worse (look at the fine cam sl300r for example, or like the power shots with viewfinders). I do personally like the way the limitations of old digicams come in (sometimes the slower shutter makes for neat effects that I’m not about to dig through a menu to recreate). Ultimately I think a lotta people don’t have the money for like a gr3, and the place that the bottom fell out on the casual market leaves me at least thinking I might as well just use my phone.

[@gedwardjones]

@@kempinenPC Honestly, I don't think the difference is as pronounced as people like to make it. I don't really have a dog in the sensor fight, for what I shoot both work. My real thing is at the tail end of CCD/Beginning of CMOS the world was lousy with cameras that actually fit in your pocket. In the end, the Rx100 mk1 was probably the sweet spot.

[@onurzrhl2859]

Look for a ricoh gr

[@miklosbremer3120]

I noticed that what a lot of people actually feel nostalgic too is pictures taken with flash. I take my point and shoot to parties and without flash it is just a boring picture. But with it it becomes what people want.

[@TBoneProductionsVB]

Yea specifically that on camera flash with dark backgrounds because it couldn't expose the background well without exposing so long they'd get motion blur.

[@kennyadvocat]

Back in the day people tried really hard not to use a flash. If needed you did it off camera so it looked more natural. The style people are emulating is the harsh disposable camera flash.

[@unbroken1010]

​@@TBoneProductionsVBlearn drag shutter properly

[@TBoneProductionsVB]

@@unbroken1010 I've well mastered the technique. It's a fun one.

[@Mr___X]

That's correct. It's a fad and fashion in part because even entry level mirrorless and DSLR cameras are so good and so widespread that amateur photography has eaten in to the space professional photography once held. So, like all things fashion, there's a trend against that and nostaglia for simpler, lower quality, less technical becomes what people want for a few years. The overprocessing and HDR of phone photos also plays a big part in this as well.

[@OVXX666]

this guy has clearly never been a teenager on tumblr

[@unbroken1010]

He spent all his time at P Diddy /Snoop Dog after parties

[@brendanclark81]

I'm part of the Xennials micro-generation ...... grew up in the '90's shooting film, early '00's was in college and had the new 2MP digital cameras and now have the money to spend on good photo equipment. One thing that I have always found interesting is how much I didn't know in the early days of digital cameras. Buying my first real camera (Nikon D3000) in about '10 forced me to learn more about white balance, exposure comp, noise, etc. Now, the old, "digicams" intrigue me.....I didn't know what I didn't know back then and the pictures sucked because the operator was inept. Now, by understanding the old cameras' limits...and abilities....I am better educated and can produce decent pictures on a 20 year old camera. In a society driven by planned obsolescence and the constant pressure to upgrade, it's nice to take a step back to simpler technology and still produce amazing results.

[@annekedebruyn7797]

"CCD is film like" - told you by your favorite tiktok/youtube hipster who never grew up shooting film or has ever shot film.

[@davidgambin2551]

I learned photography with a nikon FE, and to me, most ccds are film like, and I don’t have a TikTok or KZbin channel.

[@kennyadvocat]

yup I grew up using film cameras. We were late to get a computer so didn't get digital camera right away. And Cmos looks way more like film to me. My old D70 looked nothing like film.

[@annekedebruyn7797]

@@davidgambin2551 What about it looks film-like? And to which film stock? Because I honestly cannot see anything about CCD sensors that is similar to film color and contrast wise.

[@unbroken1010]

​@@kennyadvocatcmos does not look film without luts and even then it's debatable

[@unbroken1010]

​@@annekedebruyn7797you probably have Tds

[@abdullahaldabbagh155]

I disagree with the thoughts presented in this video. My main point of contention is the choice of cameras. The cameras you have bought aren't good ccd sensor cameras. I have the nikon p7100 and i find it perfect for today's standards. The photos have amazing colors, high dynamic range, very cool noise patterns and just a general vibe that I couldn't find on any other camera. I do believe that most ccd sensor cameras from before 2010 can be hot garbage, but the high end compact cameras that released between 2010 and 2011 (ie olympus xz1, lumix lx5) are still amazing relevant cameras that can be used to take objectively great photos at a low cost.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

That's a fair point! But so much of the CCD content I see is basically "any old CCD digicam will be awesome!" So I wasn't trying to pick the best of the best-though the LX1 is generally considered a pretty solid option from what I've read.

[@GS-vb3zn]

What can you expect from a dilettante who doesn't seem to be a photographer or even know much about the subject (you can glean this from taking a cursory look at past video topics). He decided to wade in with an opinion that throws red meat to Photography World's gear head fanboys. He shows a crap low tech camera and basically says "See? This sucks." Of course not all CCD camera's offer a filmic look. Classics like the Nikon D200 and D700 do. So does the Pentax K10D and the Olympus E-300, E-500 and the E-1. And, of course, the Leica M8.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

@@GS-vb3zn Dang man, how do you really feel? I do applaud your use of the word "dilettante," though-that's a good one. But you're right that I'm not a photographer. I have many interests and cameras/photography is just one. However, even photos from the cameras you listed don't look at all like film to me. I genuinely don't see how anyone thinks they do. Of the ones you listed, the M8 is the closest. But straight from the camera with no editing? I don't see strong "filmlike" attributes. 5 minutes of editing on any digital photo from any modern smartphone will make a photo look more like film than any of those do straight from the camera. One last point: if these qualities are so subtle that only pros can see them, then are they really that big of a deal?

[@lindemann316]

​@@serialhobbyism_officialYou should try something from the Finepix lineup from Fuji. Those are orders of magnitude superior to the Kodak.

[@partygremlin2675]

​@@GS-vb3znso he needs to be a photographer to notice and point out that majority of ccd is not film? Wow... Clever...

[@NPJensen]

Well, I see these CCD claims too. Unfortunately a lot of people get it wrong. It's not all CCD sensor cameras, that will deliver film like colors and desirable noise. There are certain old cameras with CCD sensors with color science similar to that of film - specifically the Kodak Rochester made CCD APS-H sensor, you find in the Leica M8 (and a few other APS-H cameras as well) and the 4/3 version of the same sensor found in cameras like the Olympus E-300 and E-500. For the compact experience, the Panasonic LX3 and the Olympus XZ-1 deliver great results (though not Kodak Rochester made sensors) - for a camera with no viewfinder/EVF. I especially like the colors of the Olympus XZ-1. I think Olympus got the colors right in a lot of their cameras no matter the sensor. The Canon PowerShot G2 has an optical viewfinder and is popular among some film shooters because with a small memory card and the flippy screen turned inwards, it has a point and shoot film camera feel to it (with full manual control if so desired) - and Canon got the colors just right too. As I understand it, CMOS sensors primarily won out because of lower manufacturing costs and superior dynamic range. Some of us think, the CMOS benefits won out in spite of poorer color science compared to CCD sensors in general. Anyway, to get the good (old) stuff, you have to know what you are looking for - not just any old CCD sensor camera will do 😉

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Thanks for the info! I considered that, but most of the content I found on this topic seemed to imply that CCD sensors in general were better. I'd be curious to see photos from the cameras you mentioned. Is there really something special about the color that you can get with a CMOS color profile or editing? I think you're partially correct about the reasons CMOS won out. My understanding is that the other big factors were speed and heat. CMOS is faster and doesn't get as hot, which can be really important (especially for video).

[@NPJensen]

@@serialhobbyism_official Well, the Kodak made sensor delivers yellows and reds, that pop like you see it in Kodak's film stocks. You can probably get close with modern sensors and editing - though the film simulations out there are hit and miss, if you ask me. I experiment a bit in Darktable with LUT film simulations for stills as I can do that with no extra costs, and I like that solution better myself. I prefer my modern stuff clear, bright and colorful though, so I don't edit the same way as when I'm editing photos shot on old gear. I'd recommend watching Onemonthtwocameras for good examples.

[@SianaGearz]

G2 is among the cameras i bought back in the day and i have been using it this and last year again. It's good and fun. 1GB CF card though so uh 618 pictures space remaining for RAW.

[@SianaGearz]

@@serialhobbyism_official Nah there were a mere handful of good CCD sensors with good dynamic range and colour, though all the better brands used the good ones. There was also a lot of junk.

[@Amphibax]

Today the main reason we use CMOS is readout speed, CCD sensors just aren't fast enough for modern cameras and the other reason professional photographers, for the most part, just don't care aslong as it delivers some good quality pictures.

[@everythingoliver3]

I honestly don’t care what photography style is better. But if people are gonna argue about it it just gets silly. They both have pros and cons, and people will have different opinions. I like ccd more personally, but I’m not gonna force you to think the same. I collect digicams. If you collect film cameras, cool. Don’t force other people to hate what you hate.

[@c5e3]

sorry to say, but the noise of my canon g10 is grainy as on film at iso 400 or 800. in the early days of digital photography it was the comapnies' goal to reproduce film-look on digital. just a couple of years later they decided to go as realistic as possible. i'd say they are like renaissance and realism in arts

[@jamespowers8826]

They were grainy because of the limits of the technology, not from any effort to make them look like film. I shot film for over 50 years, processed film every day in my darkroom, and the technologies do no resemble each other. I've no nostalgia for film. As soon as the Nikon D1x came out, I never shot film again.

[@wesley939]

I love CCD

[@CarmineTavernaPhotography]

Yep❤

[@s.lindland]

ccd looks like film because of the low dynamic range and the poor low light performance causing grain. The photos look better compared to phones because it looks natural, and it isn't processed to hell and back. I don't think it looks like film, but i do like the artifacting and the way the grain looks. The reason why people call it filmlike is just to separate it from phone cameras, because these cameras were so easily replaced by phones, but we forgot what we lost. I also agree that any camera that can do raw can get the same look, but you'd be surprised at the lengths people go to so they can avoid doing that. There's a reason why people flock to fujifilm with their jpeg in-camera film looks.

[@Kluqse]

"tell me you know nothing about film without telling me you know nothing about film" Negative film have a very large lattitude when it come to the dynamic range, it also have a great low light performance when exposed properly, I know it well I do night photography almost exclusively, and did it for years with film. If exposed properly the grain stays fine. Shitty results come from shitty photographers it's that simple. Also, you can try to emulate the film look but you'll only get close to it, never you'll be able to have the same result even trying really hard.

[@4r1777]

I feel like you don't know much about film. film has a very large dynamic range, many people shoot film just for the way that it handles highlights, because highlights tend to get blown out very easily with digital cameras unless you are under exposing. CCD photos actually look more "digital" than a normal digital camera. I think the reason people feel it to be more film like, is because most people shoot with smartphones that apply a ton of HDR & sharpening. And in that sense, I agree ccd looks more natural than a lot of modern photos... but nothing remotely like film.

[@Vintageologist]

@@4r1777 I think people equate film with low quality is that they know "film" only from filters that take a digital image, add noise and other imperfections and then call it "film". Shooting Kodak Portra against light coming through autumn leaves you'll find just how much better it handles such a situation vs. most if not all digital cameras. Simply said, film shines in strong highlight detail, digital excels in shadow detail. That's why film can in some situations still look better than digital and a filter / preset won't give you the same (although with great digital cameras and good presets, the difference becomes minimal).

[@Mr___X]

@@4r1777 Yes, these are obviously a reaction to the fact smartphone cameras have largely stopped improving, the novelty of HDR has worn off, and the desire for both "nicer" photos and something distinct/different/"better" leads people to look to digital cameras. These compact cameras are all tiny, affordable, and have vintage cool as well.

[@Mr___X]

@@Kluqse Yes, but it's also true that film does not have the same dynamic range as a contemporary digital camera. Particularly for the average consumer. Think about what your average family photo album from the 90s looks like.

[@corktail7900]

i have a canon powershot a3200 is and it has a ccd sensor. i have gotten some very nice photos with pleasantly wrong colors, but i think the poor quality optics play a bigger role than the ccd sensor.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

"pleasantly wrong colors" 😂 I like that, lol

[@adamj3566]

The pictures from the Kodak look awesome imo. I thought that's the reason to buy these cameras bc their nostalgia factor is better than any filter attempting to do the same. Def not "film like" though... I have heard it described as 'crunchy'

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Interesting perspective! The look doesn’t appeal to me, but I suppose it’s all subjective!

[@adamj3566]

@@serialhobbyism_official Suppose so lol! I think you captured a gem at 7:40

[@serialhobbyism_official]

@@adamj3566 Thanks! I have noticed that people seem to really like the look of on-camera flash at the moment. It is very much a vibe that's popular right now!

[@Gielon]

Some people see the difference, some don't, another reason the CCD are called film-like is that the scanners in the lab were usually 8MP CCD and if you shot film in the 80s ,90s then this look resembles your prints you were getting from the roll of Kodak film from the lab, but you're a bit to young for it.😉📸

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Interesting point regarding the scanners!

[@WilliamAlderman]

Very interesting!

[@bwc1976]

True, even a photo from a Camp Snap can have better resolution and less grain than the scans I've made from ISO 400 film. The film still has better dynamic range and is more forgiving of overexposure than the Camp Snap though.

[@rnilu86]

I have CCD a point and shoot camera from Nikon which I bought 14 years ago and the photos from it never looked like film.

[@raulal00]

Also depends on the camera... Like today, a cheap bad camera was always bad. Top of the range from 2008 is a nice camera. Not in comparison with a 2 thousand camera from 2024, but yes comparing it with a 400 bucks phone

[@midknight4681]

I've noticed a duality of two broad types of photographers, and in making a video like this i think it is important to clarify on this. (Broadly) There are photographers who want cameras that capture sharp, high quality images in as many conditions as possible, and there are photographers who focus on very specific artistic elements of photos. The latter group has some that do truly want these ccd cameras. I think the main areas these digicams shine in is unique lighting conditions, and you have to really understand the crummy digicam to get any sort of results out of them(just as you do with film). This artistic group also doesn't necessarily care about "better or worse", more so going off of feelings. Ccd colors aren't by any means better, but they are different and to me and many others, very nice to look at even straight out of camera. Another massive driving reason for this sudden craze is nostalgia. This reason is why ccd IS the new film. As time passes, the majority of people who are most relevant in the media shifts, and currently this "most relevant group" is one that universally has a nostalgia for crummy low megapixel images(this is why the hype is crazy at the moment). I have friends who dont even care about photography who have bought and/or use these digicams regularly. The quality of the images of these cameras is funneling many new photographers into the hobby, because they see something they are familiar with. This nostalgia is also probably also incredibly comforting under the surface, and acts as an escape from how chaotic the world is nowadays. its probably just nice to use a digital device that cannot provide a consistent flow of short form content and terrifying headlines lol.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

I think you've made some very good points here! If we think of "filmlike" as simply "nostalgic old camera technology," that makes a lot of sense. I probably did get too hung up on the term "filmlike" and may have taken it too literally. I can see the appeal as you described it and I'm probably just slightly too old to feel that, since I was already an adult when some of these sought-after CCD digicams hit the market.

[@midknight4681]

@@serialhobbyism_official yess exactly, i wanted to include this in my comment but for the generation that shot film itd probably make no sense to go from getting good film images to using the new... 0.3 megapixel cameras... so i completely understand not being attracted to old digicams at all, but enjoying the new cmos cameras.

[@sprouting_lady]

I just don't get it. The images don't look artistic or anything, they just look like shit. I aspire to emulating pictorialist photography in my work, so I definitely fall into that second camp of photographers, but this....I think I'm officially hitting the "I'm too old to understand this nostalgia wave" age. I hated the quality of these things in the 00s, and I hate them today.

[@JanMichalSzulew]

Whoa, took me a while to understand why is this video made in 2024. I had no idea there's interest in compact cameras again. I sure hope it leads to their resurrection, esp in the "prosumer" (that still a thing?) area.

[@RuffKutz]

I have a few ccd cameras, olympus mju740, Sony T7 and a couple more that I am yet to find in my draws. Since its become easy to get new battries, I have enjoyed using them again. Its about having fun and learning. I think these cameras are fun once you learn how to get around their shortcomings and gives me an appreciation for brand new cameras. I also love the reaction when someone says great shot what camera did you use, oh a digicam from 2005. They are blown away. I think everyone can learn new skills from using these old camers because you can't just press the shutter release and know the camera will cover everything for you. It makes you think about your shot as specially because the little things are not great with lighting. Whaterver camera you want to use, get out, use it and have fun!

[@sprouting_lady]

"Prosumers" these days are either getting top-end smartphones or dedicated ILCs depending on where their interests and goals lie. The point and shoot market is basically a dying beast at this point, and while I'm sure it will get a small boost from this fad it's ultimately centered almost exclusively around old models which makes it hard for it to actually translate to a larger market.

[@HeapsMad]

hit the nail on the head.. nostalgia for a time you never lived through yourself

[@somotrouglino]

I'm old enough to remember when those cameras were new and back then nobody thought they look like film. I did notice the difference in the look when I switched from CCD Nikon D80 to then brand new CMOS Canon 60D, but calling it film like is a huge stretch. I did tests using the same lens, ISO settings and exposure on a CMOS and CCD DSLR. What was strange to me at the time is that older CCD did look better than newer CMOS, smoother, warmer, less noisy, but only on base ISO. As soon as you went over it, cmos started showing it's strengths. That's why every manufacturer switched (and they were cheaper to make). Difference in tonality probably has to do more with color science than technology itself, but the smoothness of the base ISO image was definitely a strength of CCD.

[@JoannaJedrzejczyksForehead]

No one is really talking about micro 4/3rds here, state-side. I do find them interesting myself, though.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Yeah, MFT is definitely underrated. I get why (sensor size), but I love my GH5 cameras. They're perfect for video and are plenty capable of taking nice pictures, too.

[@JessicaNeidingHaverly]

I had a blast with a canon powershot set to slow sync flash and iso 100 and probably vivid at a wedding reception. This was 8 months ago. I have had no other reason to choose it over my phone or A6400 since. I think if you have one in your drawer, it's a fun diversion.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

That would be fun for a "novelty" sort of photo, since the crazy flash does have a very mid-00s vibe.

[@VetteWerks]

My Lumix LX5 with slow shutter and steady hands, great results. It's a novelty.

[@MaeveWumbo]

I think its alright that people enjoy them, even the ultra kruddy ones. My desire for that 2000's inspired me to purchase my first camera 1.5 years ago, a Nikon Coolpix L6. Without that, I would have never gotten into photography and been interested enough to purchase the much better camera's I own now, and to have the camera knowledge to really understand the difference between an old and new camera. But I purchased that Nikon for only $25. Its now being sold on ebay for $80-$130. The recent vintage digicam trend shooting up the prices takes all the joy out of it. My experience was taking a chance with an old cheap junk piece of electronic that was in the glass case of a dusty thrift store, and managing to have tons of fun with it despite how outdated it was. It couldn't imagine many people now finding their purchase actually worth the price they paid for these old digicams. Where as my camera was finding unexpected joy in a chance purchase, people buying these now must be convincing themselves to enjoy it simply for the sake of the price.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

I think you're completely right and I didn't mean to imply that people shouldn't enjoy these cameras. People should grab joy wherever they can find it!

[@Selrisitai]

I think the only thing you're missing is what you mentioned earlier in the video: If you're editing your photographs afterward, it's a different experience, a different _thing._ Some people like all-in-one solutions, some people like to adjust manually at every step, including the post work; some people want something that does one thing (takes pictures, for instance) and does it well. The more you go back to "simple" technology, the more you can, potentially, connect directly with your equipment and the act of taking pictures, with nothing else to distract. I think that this is a fad, but it's not a fad about authentic photographs: it's about authentic _photography._ The more you're switching lenses, comparing equipment, adjusting settings and editing pictures, the less you're out there taking pictures and developing your skills in _that_ regard. Of course, of _course_ there's nothing wrong with, and in fact many benefits and virtues of, control, options and every process of photography. The one who takes a thousand snaps, sifts through to find the diamonds in the rough, and then edits the ever-living out of them is _just as "authentic"_ as the guy who sets up his waiting station, snipes the perfect photograph, and does only minimal editing to account for camera imperfections. But the guys doing the latter are looking for something that the guys who do the former might not be. Ergo, simpler technology.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Fair points and I probably did brush off that concept too readily. It seems like Fujifilm is doing a good job with film simulations in-camera and I think that is a great option for filling the niche you're talking about. But, of course, those cameras are expensive. I can understand why people might try to achieve something similar with an old $50 CCD they found at a thrift store or on eBay.

[@FairyTalesInYoghourt]

​@@serialhobbyism_official Taking pretty pictures without editing or geekery is not a *niche*, it's just the usual way since the beginning of popular photography.

[@LGPhotoArt]

Sorry but I totally disagree. First the CCD and CMOS didn't battle and coexist for long, CMOS pretty much just replaced CCD as they are basically cheaper to manufacture and draw less power. However the CCD has better quality and better noise to signal ratio, and faster readouts. I am ok with where CMOS stand now, given the functionality and the progress that came on them throughout the years, however when i switched from my CCD sensor Nikon to my first CMOS sensor Nikon I could see that CMOS was, quality-wise, a downgrade, especially when it comes to color saturation and skin tones.

[@arachnophilia427]

depends on sensor. i gave my D200 away when i got my D700. it wasn't even a comparison. the D200 had slightly, and i mean slightly nicer skin tones. but it was way fuzzier because of the strong lowpass filter, and WAY noisier. like, the first football game i shot was a revelation. i went from not being able to get any usable pictures at all on the D200 to portfolio shots on the D700, on the same field, under the same lighting.

[@Mikri90]

@@arachnophilia427 D700 was a monster at the time of release. Heck it's still pretty capable. As for the original comment, if the OP went from a D200 to something like a D300, I could agree, except for noise, because D200 was bad in that segment, but I never really liked anything coming off a D300/D90. I had a D80 and so the output was the same as a D200, and I know full well how poor was it in low light. D700 on the other hand was quite a bit above a D300, which shared the same body, but the IQ was far better on the FF model, for obvious reasons, but also had better color reproduction from my own experience.

[@SidReasor]

Thank you for making sense lol

[@LaaszloKiss]

During the early 2000s I was using a 35mm film camera and I remember I put up a stiff resistance against shifting towards digital because I found the image quality of those early CCD sensor cameras rather poor compared to even a cheap film camera. So yes, saying that an ancient 5mpx CCD camera will bring back the film look is simply not true. It will definitely bring back some nostalgic vibe but it has nothing to do with film like experience. Film photography (when done well) still provides a decent quality and it's not fair to compare it to the dawn of digital photography.

[@petergibson2318]

Film cameras from the American Civil War (1860s) produced FAR higher resolution images than most digital cameras could well into the 21st century. It is only after the photographs are “colourised” that you realise how sharp and deep the originals are. By modern standards at least 8K resolution in 160 year old photos.

[@LightTheUnicorn]

Honestly, for me, it's just fun. I'll take my GX80 with me if I need a decent and small camera that's not my phone. But if I'm going on a bit of a walk or something, I often throw an ancient CyberShot or something in a jeans pocket and see if I can work around it to get something interesting and see what it can do. Just a bit of a pastime that's creative, it's nice to talk with other friends who do the same and see what weird (and yes, sometimes delightfully, laughably awful) shots we get.

[@Jarrych83]

Seeing the discussion around this stuff about a year ago when it started to crop up (pun intended), it's DEFINITELY the cameras like the lx3, the more interesting powershots, ricoh's, etc. I have an lx3 I've had since it was new and it's still a lot of fun to use. People were finding pocketable cameras that had nice controls and were fun to use, which was the big reason this took off. And, you could get something really nice for pretty cheap. Spend 150 or less and get something that has a more positive experience and puts out photos more interesting than a smartphones? Heck yeah. So really, it's the controls on late 2000s cameras that also had solid 10-12mp sensors and make for a great "bridge" to more engaging photography. Gen Z basically just grew up with smartphones and there isn't a "positive experience" to taking photos. You're absolutely right that it's a fad, but there's some good reasons and hopefully it means Olympus properly resurrects the pen line instead of keeping it on life support. It's why CampSnap, which was designed for kids going to summer camp (it's in the name), is a lot of fun. I just got one for my 8 year old and, despite simple nature, takes reasonable photos in lots of different conditions and I can take 5 minutes to run them through some basic editing for great pics. She also gets to use my lx3 in more controlled situations, like family trips, and it's dynamite for learning on.

[@tristanwh9466]

I think you misunderstand the actual appeal of CCD sensors, especially if you're suggesting people should just use their smartphone camera with an instagram filter. Photography is an artistic medium, and as such there is no such thing as objectively "better" or "worse" image quality. Things like narrow dynamic range, distincitve noise patterns, low resolutions, and lack of image sharpening may be seen as "lower quality" to you but can also be aesthetically appealing and sought after. A good analogy is guitar distortion. If you asked someone in 1950 they would tell you that a distorted guitar sound meant a failed recording and misused equipment. Compare that to today when its so ubiquitous that you couln't imagine the last 40 years of rock music without it. I see the CCD camera trend in much the same way, for many people it enables a refreshing photography experience in a world full of AI shaperning, denoising, multi-exposed HDR iphone cameras. I epsecially disgree with your last point. For the evarage person taking photos on your phone and having to fiddle around in lightroom ($160/year) afterward does not compare to taking quick photos with an interesting $20 camera that fits in your pocket and only does one thing. The appeal of film is that I DON'T have to spend more time on my computer than I already do, or use a smartphone camera that gets work emails and twitter notifications. These digicams share that quality, and it's a big part of what people mean when they call these film camera replacements (especially now that you need a trust fund just to afford shooting portra)

[@warmoaran3]

Exactly. you hit everything right there.

[@ChunterInfo]

I got sucked into some Canon point and shoots about a year ago, but what makes them work for me isn't the CCD My phone is overloaded and takes 20 seconds to launch the photo app. I wanted something that could go from pocket to shooting in seconds without the need to carry a bag. It also has so many hidden features that I'm still discovering some a year later. These make up for the things I wish it would do manually in certain cases. Once I learned what was meant by "looks like film" it confirmed your opinion that you can do that look on anything with digital editing. (Direct flash, compressed dynamic range)

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Dang man, you need a new phone! In all seriousness, I get the appeal of having a point-and-shoot. I just don't think it needs to be an old CCD model.

[@bwc1976]

This exactly about the phones, a separate camera will always be faster. Every Android phone I've tried (including a Samsung S10e which was top of the line just a few years ago) has too much lag when switching between tasks.

[@godofredo0409]

​@@serialhobbyism_officialCCD are cheap. GX7 for example is freaking expensive. Not everyone can afford cameras you have mentioned.

[@stevenrobinsonpictures]

To clear this up...The reason that CCD's have become cool and associated with good colour; for example sake - back when camera's like the D200 came out, Nikon were using the kodak recipe for colour. The Colour Filter Arrays (CFA) in all these cameras generally where optimised for colour performance, and strict colour delineation, (not high ISO). As time went on, the demand for high ISO performance took over, and CMOS came about; became cheaper to produce and had better high ISO performance. It's better high ISO performance wasn't just linked to the CMOS part of those cameras however. The CFA's had been weakened to let more light pass to those sensors as well as sensors becoming more efficient (hence better high ISO), at the expense of colour seperation, and what you are calling this "film - organic" look. This all got mixed up to be all CCD sensors are film like and have good colour, which was never the case. There are bad CCD sensors out there that don't have these qualities. I agree with that part of your video that, that particularly is a falsehood. However, if you can't see how good a D200 is, you won't understand this and that's fine. Shoot with what makes you happy. You are showing cheapo fixed lens cameras from the early 2000. The lumix was...meh. Yes - these where mostly all trash. You gotta look at stuff like the D200. D200, Fuji S5 pro. Check them both out if interested in this. I have a blog post I wrote all about this recently, just google it with my name and you'll find it. "D200 Colour." NB I bought a mint D200 for £120 a few years ago. It had 200 shots on it. It has been a brilliant camera, and I own all the latest and greatest...

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

I remember when I bought my Canon 10D that the conventional thinking is that CCD was better and that CMOS was a bit of a risk. But, having used it for many years, it did a great job for what was available at the time and the next camera I bought wasn't for many years after that because I mostly didn't need a new one. This whole thing smacks of the folks that insist that vinyl is superior to CDs because of reasons.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Yep, the vinyl/CD comparison is a good one!

[@austinsphotos]

I still have my first point and shoot coolpix and decided to take it out and see if there was anything to it. I could see it being fun for a group of friends going out. They're easy enough to use and were cheap enough that you could hand it to a stranger for a group photo without having to explain how to use it. Anything else is better done with actual film and as someone that daily carries either an f100 or z5 I can say finding a comfortable strap is key.

[@xkonstantin5]

I think the woes are more for those old canon camera's color science, not really because it has a ccd sensor. While true that ccd cameras tend to make more warm-ish results and it's not as clinically sharp i would say we should rather focus on the color science than anything else. Another reason i saw on some facebook groups of people getting those cameras is that some canons have CHDK - they could shoot raw and could fit in their pockets. I have both CCD and CMOS cameras and they both have certain charms but not everything is about the sensor. about that a modern phone could take better pictures, i would kinda disagree because phone lenses are usually not as good. Besides the certain xiaomi's and huawei's, many phones do not have a full blown set of rotating aperture so photos tend to look more flat even though there is a DOF sensor - still not as good as a camera. Why cameras have only 1 sensor and everything else is the lens? Point and shoots (i have tested canon) have good enough lens to be sharp, colorful and flexible in a small enough camera body you could shove in your jeans pocket! By no means it could replace fully a modern full frame or a crop camera, but it's still a nice little experiment.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

I think those are pretty fair assessments!

[@icecreammm2]

I compared test photo's from my D200 (CCD) with my D750 (CMOS) and the colors were pretty much exactly the same. I do understand the appeal to use older point and shoot camera's, they can be a fun experiment. Most of these camera's have very small sensors and slow lenses and only go up to around ISO 800, so unless it's very sunny, you need to use the (crappy) flash. I guess it's that throw-away-camera picture look that appeals to some people because it looks nostalgic.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

I think you nailed it!

[@thedrunkweddingphotographer]

100%

[@lanonimozeneisecanadoclaud8887]

I had a d200 as well for some time and I have to say: it wasn't special for colours or quality but it was special because it costed no more than 50 bucks....

[@hanns1401]

I was looking at a D200 because I'd seen hype around CCD cams and the D80 and D200 in particular. However there was a nagging voice in the back of my head that told me it would end up sitting in a closet being a paperweight once the novelty wore off. I think this video and your comment confirms that. I used early DSLRs and digicams and remember how bad they were, but the rose tinted nostalgia goggles almost got me anyway lol.

[@thedrunkweddingphotographer]

@@hanns1401 And good thing you listened to your nagging voice because you are in fact correct. While yes the D200 is very well built, the images are average at best. As I wrote on my own separate comment, I had it since launch 2005 and sold it about three years ago for a D700. And in all the years I owned the D200, I was never happy with it. It's why I preferred to just shoot film for my weddings. In fact, I almost left the Nikon brand altogether because of the D200. So I was confused when videos starting popping up claiming the D200 is "film like." What a sack of crap.

[@joeburch7959]

This video is not fair to CCD sensors, you used an awful CCD camera to judge it by, you should have used a better digicam. I recently took out my old CCD camera with 16.2MP (Lumix TZ18) and it truly takes wonderful photos that completely blow the photos you took with your CCD in this video. You should have used the Sony DSC-830 as that is a great example of a good CCD camera. Anyway, good video sir!

[@serialhobbyism_official]

That’s an understandable point, but I was trying to address the idea that old CCD digicams in general are amazing, not specific models. That said, I do think the LUMIX I used was pretty decent.

[@woodypigeon]

I bought a whole heap of these old digital compacts a few years ago when they were still being offloaded for dirt cheap. They are sort of interesting and fun, and some of the old Canon Powershots are a good platform for tinkering. And I still love my old Panasonic LX's. All that has come to an end now with all the hype and price gouging. I won't be selling any of mine.

[@raulal00]

I have a LOT of Lumix/Leica, if they someday will sell for...300 buck each, i'm selling with all may pain 😂😂

[@kp-ti1xv]

My personal reason to use a Canon Powershot G10 while travelling is that it's built like a tank, it has optical zoom that no smartphone can compete with and it produces perfectly fine looking images while being super cheap so even if I were to break it or get it stolen it wouldn't be a big deal (the only downside is that the low light capabilities are non existent). On top of that I just enjoy using an actual camera instead of my phone

[@1marcelfilms]

I bought a few very low end digital cameras from early 2000s and they sure make "nostalgic" pictures.

[@Vintageologist]

From what I've seen it's mostly the fact that these cameras will give you the trashy low quality pictures that were popular in "early social media". Just like those that people had on myspace. They'll give you that "automatic flash going off against the mirror selfie" that was so popular with emo girls. I can understand it feels more authentic doing it that way rather than taking a perfect picture to downgrade it using filters or even Lightroom / Photoshop. At at time where every post on Instagram is polished to perfection up to the point where they're totally fake and everything is staged, this can feel really different... I guess even for people that weren't there (I was). Back then when people would just upload what they have and weren't trying to one-up each other in "production value". From a technical perspective, these cameras are obviously bad. But back then it was nice to have something. It was more about capturing the moment rather than being in a competitive environment with all the other people on social media.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

I think you’re right! It’s just strange to me as someone who lived through those days (I turned 18 in 2006). Our photos looked like that because our cameras sucked and we were bad photographers, not because we were trying to achieve that look. But I guess that’s how retro nostalgia cycles work!

[@randomgeocacher]

Nitpick: I find it a bit funny that we call active pixel sensor sensor “CMOS sensor”. Instead of focusing on how the sensor works / does we focus on that it is built on a standard digital process? It makes a tiny bit of sense, a bit more than calling the mobo battery “CMOS battery”. CCD is a better name since it describes how the CCD sensor works. Maybe having accurate non-nonsense names for the sensor technologies would help people understand what the sensor does, there is very little magical “film like” properties to either sensor design :)

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Good point! As someone who came from the IT/PC repair world, the CMOS battery thing annoys me, too

[@randomgeocacher]

@@serialhobbyism_official mmm, doesn’t make much sense describing magical properties to a sensor that has a few amplifiers and move the charge to the amplifier… vs a sensor that has the amplifier close to the charge well. Especially on the modern backside illuminated sensors where almost all of the sensor area is micro lenses and wells, all of the “electronics” (amplifiers etc) are on the backside.. if in the early 2000’s you could argue that CCD used the area more efficiently, that’s certainly not the case with latest generation of backside illuminated APS.

[@deydododontdedoh.5672]

I think when they say film like, they mean fuzzy, grainy and crappy. The reason I say this is that none camera people back in the 70's and 80's used to use compact cheap and very basic 35m and 110 cameras for holidays. Inevitably pictures from these often looked blurred, fuzzy and grainy and dark or blown out. This is where I think these cheap ccd cameras are 'film like' I think it's all about the flaws that remind us older generations of those old cheap film cameras we used a teens on holiday and the newer generations have never experienced that with their oh so perfect auto everything phones.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Good points! I think you’re probably right about a lot of it.

[@allandnc4402]

I tend to agree with you for the most part but there's something about this old digicams that makes them unique. Whenever I see a picture taken with a digicam on Flickr or wherever I tend to instantly recognise it but I wouldn't compare it to film and most certainly CMOS or CCD doesn't matter. I happen to have 2 old dSLRs a Nikon D80 last Nikon with CCD from the Dxx series and the D90 the first with CMOS from the same series and honestly I don't see anything particular on whichever one to tip the scale in whatever direction, they're about the same in my opinion.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Exactly! I can see why people like old digicams, even if they aren’t my cup of tea for the most part. I just don’t think CCD somehow magically look like film.

[@Nadoor70]

My 14 year old daughter came and asked me do you have a CCD camera? I was surprised by the question. I have been using cameras since 1978, so film, CCDs and CMOS. I had 3 CCD cameras in the attic, all of them Nikon Coolpix cameras. I gave her the Coolpix 990 and she started taking pictures with it and sending pictures to her friends. She thought its was the coolest thing. Then, I started researching what this is all about and it seems that this is another fad after the resurgence of expensive film cameras like the Contax G2, Nikon 35Ti, Mamiya 7 that were selling for astronomical prices. This is all fueled by instagram and YT posts of influencers praising these camera and all of a sudden the prices goes 10x. I think you hit the nail on the head with your video. It is a psychological /nostalgic feeling and not a scientifically-based logic. I would take a modern CMOS sensor over even a Leica M9-CCD. There is no comparison. Start with the best image and tweak to make it film like, or better just shoot film!

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Exactly! But hey, as long as she's having fun, that's what matters!

[@lanonimozeneisecanadoclaud8887]

It's a great video, well done! I believe much of the initial vibe of the ccd craze started because these cameras were brutally cheap if not directly for free, and that has attracted loads of young budgetless folks. Then it has turned into a broader fashion and that's when all the youtubers popped by. I personally tried a few, much more modern and advanced CCD sensor cameras, from a sony dsc w830 to a nikon d200, completely different creatures to each other, mainly for the reason that they were absolutely ultra cheap. The sweet sopt amongst all of them was a canon powershot of which i can't even remember the model: it had enough megapixels (10), good lens (often overlooked in these cameras, sensor is not enough), could do raw with magic lantern and was ultrapocketable. and a viewfinder, lol! Unfortunately didn't last my heavy hand but delivered wonderfully. CCD or not, all I need is a modern pocket camera with a decent lens, raw, exposure controls and a viewfinder...

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Great points! I think you're right that there was a lot to be said for them when they were free or a few bucks at a thrift store. But now that people collect them, the prices have gone crazy.

[@lanonimozeneisecanadoclaud8887]

@@serialhobbyism_official exactly!

[@IanInChengdu]

So many of my students are shooting with CCD cameras here in China. The prices have skyrocketed and the sellers are rinsing the customers.

[@fiver-hoo]

"people in photography circles" aren't saying CCD sensors are film like. Just tik tockkers and youtubers trying to get views. Having a youtube channel about cameras doersn't make you a photographer lol.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Fair point about the influencers. But I see it in discussion boards, too.

[@powbobs]

So?

[@alexdarklord666]

I started with a Canon A75, back in 2004. It had full manual control but only 3.2 MP and highest ISO was 400. During the day shots were looking decent, actually pretty good for social media posts of today. However, even a cheap $200-300 phone of recent years can beat it when it comes to AF and other stuff !!!

[@SMGJohn]

Digicam trend originally rose because people in Japan wanted a nostalgic look back to the summer era of 2000s, this was a special time in Japan 1995 - 2009. Its known as the nostalgic time, a ton of music from this era just bleeds summer and nostalgia themes, everything was warm and cozy, ironically cameras shot warmer tones in those days because yes movies made in Japan, also tended to be mostly about summer and again nostalgia. So its interesting how much this era just influenced everything down to the colour science of cameras sold during this era. Now why westdroids wants digicams is really beyond me because this is originally a Japanese trend that started around 2016 if I remember correctly and sort of faded away around 2020 when COVID hit hard, I mean people could not go out so it made sense. I think for westdroids they probably were watching Japanese influencers and somehow it spread like a wild fire during COVID era and people had nothing better to do so they started buying lots of stuff.

[@JulioBomfim]

Yep, you nailed it! The digicam trend started in Asia - especially Japan - in the mid-2000s and gained a lot of traction during and shortly after the COVID quarantine.

[@nooneinpart]

It’s not like Japanese people exclusively grew up with CCD point-and-shoot cameras, people in the West did as well. We’re just about reaching an age where that demographic is starting to feel nostalgic about their lives ~20 years earlier, and because of social media, it spreads as a trend. Though from what I’ve heard it’s much more of a thing in Japan than here, you rarely see it outside of social media in the West but apparently people have claimed they’ve spotted many people walking around with point-and-shoot cameras in Japan.

[@Ferdinator_Pro]

well, something like nikon D90 or d200 would be a better better for comparing it to a GH5 instead of cheapo cameras from yesteryear compared to a higher end one, no?

[@PP-bw8ig]

The Kodak C530 is fantastic on a sunny day. Colours are beautiful. Just ride the +- exposure and use the forced flash occasionally. BTW exposure isn't buried in the menu, you just press the directional buttons. Fixed focus, so everything 1m or further is in acceptable sharpness (Great for through glass windows on the bus, train etc.) Pocketable & has low storage requirements. I bought 4, all less than £10 each. Just bided my time on Ebay. 2 quirks. The settings reset when it's turned off. I turn the display off instead of the camera (to save battery power & settings). The date/time only goes up to 2025: guess they didn't expect the camera to last! I take photos all the time with it because it is very small & people seem to accept me taking street photos with it without getting annoyed. No post-processing required for my taste. Noise doesn't bother me & I rarely pixel-peep. Night photography requires the self-timer. It is powered by 2 AA batteries and accepts SD cards up to 2GB. It's a relaxing camera to use...just frame & shoot. I usually leave exposure comp on -1.0 on sunny days for the effect that I like. Photography should be fun!

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Guess that shows how much people can differ! I hated it, haha. The Panasonic was somewhat enjoyable, but I couldn’t stand the Kodak

[@PP-bw8ig]

@@serialhobbyism_official I have a Pana GX80 (GX85) which is a great camera but I barely use it due to it not being quite pocketable enough. Best camera is the one you have on you at the time & all that! Thanks for the video & your kind reply. I agree about CCDs not being film-like BTW. Cheers!

[@cdelrioc]

I´m happy about the CCD fever. It allowed me to sell some really crappy cameras for a good price.

[@Alsydvi]

You are entirely correct about these mostly being about nostalgia. I definitely don't think they produce anything that looks 'film-like', but in my opinion they have their own unique niche. For many people who grew up using film cameras, they wanna replicate the film look because it is nostalgic to them. Film grain is an imperfection, it makes the photo look 'worse', losing detail and adding something to the photo which isn't actually there, but sometimes people still want it because it reminds them of a time they grew up in or makes the photo charming in its own way. Digicams offer something similar, their photos look 'worse', but it is a unique kind of worse, one that reminds many people who grew up in the 2000s, such as myself, of their childhood. It gives photos a 'in the moment' feel in a way, makes every photo feel like a family trip in 2007, and just being able to take a bunch of these pictures without mass editing them is a nice ability to have. On a different note, they are also great for liminal space photography. Liminal spaces are typically empty spaces which give off an eerie unsettling feeling, like an empty hallway or waiting room. Some popular images of these tend to be taken with old digicams, the backrooms photo being a prime example. The terrible low light performance of these cameras makes it seem like you are in the middle of a black void with some of these images, which triggers the fear of the unknown in the viewer. In others, liminal space images evoke the feeling of nostalgia for a place they were never in, another thing you touched upon in the video, and contrary to how some people find these images eerie or unsettling, they can often be comforting to others, and the digicam look is part of what makes some of these images stand out to the viewer. Thanks for coming to my TED talk

[@eek0212]

try some olympus CCD DSLRs like E300(E500) and E400. When you shoot those camera with RAW and just with basic processing from LR (auto ISO, corrections) you will get the very pleasing color. Not just color those oly CCD SLR have very unique grain patterns reminds me of "film look".

[@JessicaNeidingHaverly]

Agreed. My mom gave me her evolt E500. It's a fun piece of history. The shutter is starting to fail though. I wish the 4/3 lenses were cheaper considering!

[@serialhobbyism_official]

But if you're using Lightroom anyway, can you not achieve something similar with a photo from a modern CMOS? Grain patterns may be slightly different, but it isn't very noticeable to my (admittedly amateur) eye.

[@eek0212]

@@serialhobbyism_official with oly i dont do any 'heavy' touch with images. My Lighytroom workflow is very simple, just push two button 'auto WB' and 'Auto' button on Basic menu and thats it. Sometimes i dont even apply 'Auto' because image already felt very pleasing after applying auto WB. Well yeah, maybe you could simulate some film look with heavy lightroom curve manipulation but i never could able to get the similar images oly can make so far even with other 'CCD' cameras like Leica M8,9 Nikon D40,50,100,200, Fuji S5pro, Pentax istDS, R-D1, Dynax7D and A200. Oly's grain pattern is really different and you know it cant be simulate like color. If you didnt have chance to using any of oly or Kodak big sensor CCD cameras from early 2000s, maybe you could google some RAW images from those cameras on internet and open it with your tool :)

[@abnorth2276]

Something worth focusing on in the fact that most point and shoot cameras from for example canon around 2010 are really compact AND take good images (or at least decent). Especially if you consider CHDK which lets you shoot raw and have full control over the camera. I look back at a lot of images from my canon 1100hs and think they look pretty good for a point and shot. And I think it was sold at like 300$ while something like the canon G7X mkii around 700$. That‘s not accounting for inflation but I think I have made my point.

[@andyl4565]

Thanks for your take on the CCD craze. I've been photographing since before digital cameras were even an idea and I would sometimes use cheap, plastic film cameras because it would give photos a kitschy, lo-fi look that provided a nice break from the constant demand for perfection. I view the current CCD/digicam fad functioning in the same way as the plastic cameras that I and others would sometimes use. It lets you loosen up, simplify the process and often the flawed nature of the equipment would provide interesting results. Eventually I got over that phase and went back to quality gear and so will this current crop of young photographers using CCD digicams. The question is, what will be the next fad? Perhaps fliphone cameras?

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Old phone cameras does seem likely! A bit like how there is an enthusiast community for the Game Boy Camera.

[@Randuski]

Alright I’ve had thoughts on this for a while, and I think the people talking about digicams are just using the wrong words. The images coming out of them don’t look like film, it’s just that they look old. They are nostalgic. Idk why they started saying they looked like film, that’s obviously nonsense, but I understand generally what they mean. I shoot video with this old handicam specifically cause it looks like home movies from when I was a young kid. Old as fugg shitty quality video. It’s great, and it gives videos that I take now, a nostalgic vibe like they were shot decades ago. I like it. The other thing, is that the economy is in shambles, people are broke, and “hey this camera is $40 and has a cool retro vibe to it, save your money and get this”

[@serialhobbyism_official]

I think those are both totally fair points! I will, however, I say that I think you can get a similar "old digital" look from CMOS digicams from the the early-to-mid '00s, too :)

[@Randuski]

@@serialhobbyism_official almost certainly yea. It’s much more about the lack of dynamic range, on camera flash, and low megapixels haha

[@jameschang8174]

You should compare your GH5 with the same size sensor - Olympus E5/E300/E500.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

That's not a bad idea! If I can scrounge together the money to buy one of those, I might do that!

[@RichardJamesMendoza]

Ever since I started digital photography, I went through different cameras - A Canon mini DVD camcorder (lent by a friend) - A Sony Cybershot point and shoot - Canon IXUS point and shoot (complete with manufacturer autofocus defect) - Ricoh GR+ - Canon DSLRs (5D*, 5D Mark II**, and 60D) *Given away, swapped with a 60D **Borrowed from a news agency +Given by a friend For what I needed to do, the GR and the Canon won out every time. The GR was so useful for everyday shooting and some unique challenges thanks to its fixed focal length. From the DSLRs, I would've chosen the 60D anytime because of its intuitive controls, next to the 5D Mark II. The original 5D was kind of primitive, and always carried the rare risk of breaking the mirror inside. So when I found out that people were fawning over CCD point and shoots, I was completely puzzled. My Sony camera, which according to my mother was a family camera she bought with quite a price tag (I confirmed with a little digging), lacked the length and control I needed. It got worse when it got wet; the camera's zoom became barely useable and it just disintegrated into oblivion. With all its faults such as sucking in too much dust, the GR had very good image quality, and even the flash was manual! I was thinking maybe the pricepoint of newer cameras are edging people out of photography, but the sudden demand, and subsequent price gouging of some secondhand sellers, cancels that out. It's really just a way to capture pictures without using your phone. Just grab the camera from the pocket or bag, and shoot a lot of snapshots! But really, people can shoot more with newer compact cameras (if there are still any). I want people to remember, regardless of medium or technology, digital photography is cheap and take as many pictures and videos as you can. It will all be worth it.

[@gregorymessimer5728]

Though mine was Motorola, I Loved my Windows Phone! I use Launcher 10 to simulate the feel and some of the functionality. Best OS for one year, beforec everyone pulled support for it. As for cameras, the most modern stuff is better overall, but there are a few niche applications where older cameras are superior, including the Lytrto! For instance, the Sony DSC-F828 has a magnetically retractable UV/IR filter and can be used to photograph in those wavelengths. I also find that detail isn't lost as quickly while cropping (zooming) in in post-pro. While it's still .jpg, it must have something to do with the compression algorithm.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

I wish Windows Phone was still around! The Lumia line was pretty interesting. And I actually have a Lytro! The photos are AWFUL. But the technology is very interesting. I'd like to try a Lytro Illum to see if that is better.

[@gregorymessimer5728]

I have the original Lytro as well. Glad to hear it isn't just operator error! I'd love to try the Ilium as well!

[@serialhobbyism_official]

@@gregorymessimer5728 yeah, it was such a cool concept, but he photos are really disappointing. Fingers crossed I’ll be able to get an Illum to do a video in the near future!

[@_NoDrinkTheBleach]

Early CCD sensor cameras were somewhat superior to early CMOS sensors, but there's no comparison now. My first digital camera was a Canon A75 point and shoot that had a CCD. It was solid for the time. I took some decent web sized pictures on it. I appreciated that it had several shooting modes. I don't have any nostalgia for it, though. After buying a DSLR, I really had a hard time going back to point and shoot cameras for many years. I think people are romanticizing the CCD cameras just because they are no longer made.

[@ES-qm5hr]

The thing is if you don't know how to get the most out of old CCD point and shoot cameras than you won't understand their appeal. And that is fine. I have film, CCD and CMOS cameras, and they all do different things. I still use CCD cameras for a particular look, but to be honest I want them to stay cheap, so I won't say what I do with them because they are already too expensive. Saying that, I can do special things with them.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

I just haven't seen any good examples of CCD cameras doing anything special-at least not so special that you couldn't fairly easily replicate it through editing. That said, I know some people feel like any significant editing is cheating.

[@warmoaran3]

@@serialhobbyism_official the look is best when its from the sensor itself. not when you try to emulate it.

[@SianaGearz]

It was clear in the 90s and the early 2000s that CMOS sensors didn't work. They were garbage. They were pinhole sized sensors, and performed correspondingly. Until they no longer were. In mid late 2000s SONY suddenly took them seriously and made CMOS sensors that left CCD firmly in the dust. Just down to what was conductive to a given type of semiconductor technology possible at a given time. I still photograph with CCD cameras but purely because i'm no longer a gearhead and have had them for 15+ years and just kinda never upgraded, and well if i have them why shouldn't i use them. And it's fun it genuinely is. And it's also the cameras that i picked at the time quite deliberately because i liked them, while the majority of the rest i just... didn't! So i wouldn't just grab any random CCD camera, especially not at elevated prices. Especially given the 2003-2004 SONY sensor pest, i have 3 cameras that died from it, good nice cameras. And given i have a crappy and wonky phone, they do perform genuinely better. That Kodak is impressively bad though. I have a 1998-ish 1.3MP Sanyo that beats it in sharpness, dynamic range and features, plus the Sanyo is loaded with funny quirks to work around typical problems of the era, and who doesn't like unique things like that?

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Well said!

[@badlighting]

The first camera I bought with my own money was a Canon ELPH 180. It was a huge upgrade over my phone (at the time). It has a higher-res sensor than my current phone (an iPhone 13), and I like the photos that come out of it, so I still use it to this day when i just want something simple with optical zoom.

[@williampetry]

The Samsung NX mini from 2014 is my favorite point-n-shoot of all time. I have 3 with all the lenses (I guess it's more of an interchangeable "pont-n-shoot"), but it's also a CMOS camera.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Those are pretty sweet-looking cameras! I wouldn't mind grabbing one.

[@signalshift6676]

I heard this saying some time ago.. it was about building architecture, the shortcomings you hated yesterday, are the things you want back from tomorrow. It's less that they take pictures like film, but just have their own shortcomings.

[@ti2809]

Can immediately tell you haven't spent enough time on this subject. you get old digicams because of the imperfections and not because "ccd is better" it just depends how imperfect you want it to be. early 2000s stuff will.... you know what ? why am i even explaining this to you.

[@ianbeepower8542]

Because you think you know better?

[@ti2809]

@@ianbeepower8542 because i actually know better from years of experience working with both cmos and ccd. Serial hobbyism probably spent two weeks on this video and that is not enough to tell you the whole picture, nowhere near enough to even know what people are creating with these old cameras. If he took the time i think he would come to a balance conclusion. Overall he just seems pessimistic. ultimately i dont see the point of making a video on a very subjective topic when they don't engage photography in an artistic way. Nowhere on his channel do i see him even remotely mention him going out to take photos for creative purposes. the reason you need to see it with an artist's perspective is because art isn't always about reaching technical perfection. the "vibes" he hears people talk about (and dismisses and finds undesirable) are aesthetic traits brought about imperfect optical formulas, high noise, odd color profiles, the use of flash, and tweaking iso or any internal settings a camera might offer. Some cameras are wholly unique that give something hard to replicate even tweaking them hard in lightroom. Stuff like Kyocera produced which had diagonal noise patterns and very unique colors. If you're creative you can turn something "crappy" into art and serial hobbyism isn't creative enough for that or understanding enough to give people who actually use these a pass.

[@shepalderson]

CCD vs CMOS has been a big deal in astrophotography, and for a good while, the CCD astro cameras had some advantages around noise, amp glow, and sensitivity. Now, modern CMOS sensors can meet or exceed the best CCD sensors. I just encourage people to use what works for them and brings them joy. Personally, I really enjoy the "film simulations" you get with fuji cameras, specifically because I like the subjective vibe I get out of them without doing any post processing.

[@sonyviva308]

Its the new Gen Z kids wanted to feel like its the 2000s again man. They don't really care how many megapixels it has. A crappy 3mp is what they want. I don't mind kids loving old tech, but what I don't get is photographers praising CCDs over CMOS and of course calling it "film like". Just shoot film. man.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

100% agree! I think it’s fine for young people to be into the look, just don’t agree with the “filmlike” statements from photographers.

[@Tom-kp8hh]

For me it’s definitely the experience thing. I just caught the end of the film era as a teenager in the early 00’s and then went on to shoot video professionally and photography to a semi professional level. And I gotta say after picking up a Canon G9 it’s less about the end product per se and more about the challenge. I’ve loved stripping back all the tools, expectations and advancements and making the most out of the camera. And yes I could easily replicate the look with a current camera or phone but the pleasure that comes from knowing you did it with a 20ish year old camera has been a really enjoyable experience and brought back excitement in my photography. Also low a key a self affirming sign that I actually have some skill too and it’s not just the camera 😂

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Haha, fair enough, I can respect that!

[@louhautdavid6451]

I understand your opinion despite I enjoy some of these cameras. I must admit that it's mainly a cheap way to get a new toy. But to get a real film look ? No ! And what film by the way ? However there are good surprises sometimes. I took pictures with a 3.2 Mp Olympus camera today and by the magic of my imagination, I observed that the noise pattern mimics some imperfections of the Fresson process, a beautiful printing technic based on coal in quadrichromy. Maybe I could do something from that with a few tweaks in Lightroom. Let me my dreams please...

[@anachronismic]

I mean that’s the core of it innit. I think people have used the term “film like” as a shorthand to the limitations early digital cameras had, and so pushback is fair in that sense. Spending 100 dollars on a digicam feels goofy lol. At the same time, there is always fun to be had in the limitations, and that’s really what I feel people go to those for.

[@louhautdavid6451]

@@anachronismic I find my cameras in garage sales for 20 Euros max...

[@TBoneProductionsVB]

I hope sales of current pocketable point and shoots gets some benefit from this too. It does seem some people forgot how good dedicated pocketable cameras are. That being said I wouldn't want to use one older than 2010 and I prefer it to have manual control but I do know how to trick some auto modes into different shutter speeds/ exposure. Cellphone makers are trying so hard to take all the glory and its been a worry to me that production of good point and shoots may throw in the towel. To me the Sony Hx and Rx series were amazing quality, capability and accessible prices and I hope we don't lose that.

[@diegoNoYellow]

I think a fair conclusion for the topic is that as always an excess of nostalgia isn't great at all; but as mentioned these ccd cameras have their own quirks like the pocket comfort size and its limitations and if someone just wants to have fun that's great for me, I mean limitation is a thing that sometimes I tend to avoid but honestly at times it brings a lot of creativity to sort it out and end with a nice result. I own a Canon T7 and a Powershot A2200 and clearly I would use the T7 for the vast majority of situations mostly because I can easily edit the photos as I please, but it can be quite heavy and bulky at times mostly if its for a non professional situation or unexpected event. I think that buying a CCD camera should be an informed purchase and being very thoughtful of its capabilities compared that clearly the vast majority of cell phones from nowadays have better specs, but at the end I can say too that using a CCD can be fun and it doesn't put me in the pressure of expecting the result to be perfect. Thank you for sharing your opinion through this video.

[@martinbernath]

It greatly depends on what ccd and cmos cameras you compare. My powershot g5 takes beautiful pictures without editing and they all have their flare, whether its more vibrant yellows, bloom around lights or higher natural contrast. While my lumix fz300 takes "accurate" photos that require some editing to add the flare. Its not as much about sensor technology as its about color science. You can find old cmos cameras that also exaggerate certain colours and you can find later ccd cameras that provide clinical, accurate colours within the sensors capabilities. When you are shooting raw most of this doesnt matter, its the post processing in the jpegs that makes difference.

[@Mr___X]

It's worth noting that the Canon Powershot cameras released just a few years ago, and only just discontinued, have also shut up in price in the last year or so as well. A lot of this interest has to do with discontinuation and the realisation that NOW is the best time to buy these before they disappear for good. Every product has its upsides, its own character. That's what people are buying, as well as possibly investing in the hope that it's worth a small fortune in the future. But mostly, it's just supply being capped out and only getting lower. Phone cameras have peaked and even the best ones don't take particularly nice photos, oversaturated HDR with far too much digital processing.

[@Max_Mustermann]

One of the main reasons for "digicams" becoming popular recently is the prices of film skyrocketing, so those looking for a nostalgic experience started moving elsewhere. And having owned a couple of CCD cameras, I would say that whether or not a camera produces "film-like" images depends more on the specific camera than on the sensor type.

[@mrtransistor6173]

CCDs are quite useful for astrophotography because they have lower read noise and amp glow compared to CMOS cameras.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

That's a good point! But I imagine you would use a CCD DSLR, rather than a CCD point-and-shoot digicam, no?

[@mrtransistor6173]

@@serialhobbyism_official It makes more sense to use a dedicated CCD or CMOS astronomy camera over a DLSR, since they're less prone to thermal noise and amp glow. Some astronomy cameras have built in coolers to drop the temperature to below zero to reduce noise even further, with the added benefit of using the same previously taken dark frames with the same temperature. Though a few companies still make dedicated CCD astronomy cameras, the newer CMOS units are slowly replacing CCD cameras entirely, mostly due to manufacturers stopping production of CCD sensors. Some astronomers still swear by CCDs.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

@@mrtransistor6173 Interesting, thanks for the info! I've never tried astrophotography myself, but it is something I'd like to tinker with at some point.

[@mrtransistor6173]

@@serialhobbyism_official It's quite a realm on its own. Though it's quite rewarding.

[@riccardo1796]

For the "film like" look I got a Fuji...

[@genericusername5909]

That is just advertizing hot air that fujifilm used influencers to implant in consumers who don’t know better

[@Photo0021]

Higher end CCDs can be used vecause they're older cameras, not intending for a film look, but instead an imperfect digital look. I have a Kodak C875, its a better camera than your example Kodak. As an example.

[@sliepa]

I have a Kodak C875, too, and a Kodak C713.The dynamic range is quite good on both. Shot the C713 at the county fair in August midday and the colors were wonderful, nicely saturated but not harsh or garish, shadows and highlights well controlled. But for all the talk of color, which is great, I love shooting both of these cameras in b&w mode, which produces some gorgeous images. I think the better CCD sensor cameras are in a category of their own and shouldn't be compared to film or CMOS sensors. I just like the sharp but somewhat softer digital images they create.

[@scottsterling7659]

Being a person who shoots film, calling those cameras "film like" is crazy

[@jonmichael4134]

I would’ve liked the modern CMOS comparison to have been a compact, as I thought all your early points about vibes and the experience were spot on.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

I think you're probably right that that would have been a better comparison... :(

[@scstudios8]

I am still baffled that people want to shoot film now, and also find older digital cameras. I shot film long enough to be thrilled when digital finally turned the corner. For me, that was the Canon 5d2. That camera ended film for me. There was pretty much nothing I had to give up. If I shot black and white film I would have been still not happy, but that is not what I do. I think when you only had film back in the day, you learned to hate all the limitations that we no longer have. People that never did shoot film and now do see the density of the hobby expand because now you have so many things that are hard to overcome. Your hobby time goes way up. I did find it nice to learn how to use full manual cameras though, and that was with film where you better know what you are doing in the moment. So, that did carry over to me with digital and that experience was worth it. Nothing like getting your film rolls back when you are now on the other side of the globe and you say, ok, here we go, these are my picks from that place - it was so stressful.

[@kamil.p5134]

Could please give a settings for modern cameras to have similar colors to CCD sensor ??

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Just depends on the camera. Play around with the color profile settings, or look at what other owners of that model do with their cameras.

[@raulal00]

Push grain, less color, specially green/red (blues are usually intense and special on ccd because low dynamic range and preserve sky) less contrast, less sharp, some vignette, less contrast, push highlight because no dynamic range... Just convert it in a worst photo technically 😂

[@JamieMPhoto]

There are some great colors that come out of those things, they aren't phones, and they're usually tiny ... outside of that, there's a reason I say "they destroyed a generation of images and now they're back for more" ...

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Ha! c. 2008 Facebook photo albums are littered with the remnants of that destruction

[@juliocesarpereira4325]

I had some point and shoot cameras with CCD sensors that were very good. They weren't as limited as those you bought for your video. I managed to get very good shots with a Fuji Finepix Z70. My first CMOS point and shoot camera was a Sony DSC-WX100 and it blew my mind. I still use it when I want to take street photos without being noticed. I also had some bridge cameras: a Fuji Finepix FZ40 and a Sony DSC-H10. The FZ40 had an impressive Leica lens kit. But the sensor was really bad. Someone told me it was a hybrid type. You have all kinds of noise using ISO higher than 400. As for the Sony DSC-H10 it has a CMOS sensor and it was far better. With the FZ40 I couldn't get correct tones of green from any vegetation and the H10 did it effortlessly. Unfortunately, the H10 lens kit was inferior. I photographed the moon with it and the edges were purple and I didn't have any of that with the FZ40. Now, as for DSLRs, I used to have a Nikon D50 and it produced wonderful colors albeit it only had 6Mp. Currently, my mirrorless cameras and DSLRs are all CMOS.

[@Logrythmic.C47]

I had respect and i was agreeing to the claims but i just couldnt burst out a MASSIVE LAUGH when i heard u say "I made a video on how great the Zune was" big ups for having the balls to say that. Tho i seriously disagree. Maybe for modern day, anything that spews out music is good for most but for the time? Anything but zune dude.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Ha! I know I'm being heavily biased by nostalgia, but I do think Zune was pretty darn good!

[@andrewdoeshair]

I recently found a 4 megapixel CCD piece of hot garbage made by HP (I think) in the back of a drawer, and after fiddling around with it for an hour I threw it in the trash. Around the same time that I found that thing, I picked up a canon 40D for $40 and although it’s got a CMOS sensor and I can’t fit it in my pocket, it’s giving me the JPEGs that I would have wanted to get from a magic old CCD point and shoot. Now I’m digging through reviews of DSLR models from 2005-2010 and trying to build a collection of them because they’re so freaking cheap 🤓

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Yep! Old CMOS DSLRs are so cheap and a great way for people to learn about photography and operating a camera

[@DJHypnovibe]

The Nikon D300 is a great CMOS DSLR from that era, and the Nikon D60 is a great CCD sensor DSLR. The D300 has something called nikon picture control which essentially let's you shoot with a film emulation turned on.

[@christophercole8114]

I'm a photographer that uses DSLRs. I have a Rebel T7, a 6D and an 80D. I don't carry those around all the time though. There's a device in my pocket that has a camera and it's more advanced than any of my DSLRs. I hate using it though. I hate computational photography with a passion. It has nothing to do with the quality of the pictures it takes. It has everything to do with mr, ss a photographer, having very little to nothing to do with the pictures I take with it. Nearly everything is done by AI, algorithms and other technology. So what am I to do? I recently purchased a PowerShot SX210 IS, a point-and-shoot camera with a 14mp, 14x optical zoom with a full frame equivalent of 28-392mm and an aperture that's f/3.1 at its widest. Not great for low light but then again I really don't need it to be. It has a CCD sensor but that wasn't my "must have" element of that camera. I wanted something that connected me, as a photographer, with the photo I'm taking. I don't want programming making my decisions for me. My PowerShot SX210 IS also comes with manual and semi-manual modes that give me control over the photos. I don't know that it's necessarily a certain look photographers are chasing, rather a certain feel. That's how it was for me. CMOS vs. CCD I could care less about. I want to feel connected to my photos that taking a picture with my device that has a camera can't give me. I think your premise needs to be revised.

[@HiCZoK]

Your mistake. Should've bought old sony digicam. Preferably mavica. The vibes with these are awesome. 5mp is WAY too much lol. We are talking 2 or below. One that looks like paused vhs. IMO even the example pictures you show from olympus look great. I don't want controls or features. Not everyone likes changing settings. I like pics sooc because it's a challange to shoot with what I can get

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Ha, I actually have been meaning to buy an old floppy-based Mavica!

[@HiCZoK]

@@serialhobbyism_official highly recommend! It's a bit different vibe and REALLY low res.

[@FrogCabin-in5wd]

I should never have given up my old 6mp Nikon D40. The photos I could take with it always had outstanding color saturation and low noise (within reasonable ISO settings). Alas, I thought I needed the latest 24mp camera with dozens of auto focus points, and I traded it away. There was just something extra nice about photos from the D40, not to mention the satisfaction of getting great results from an entry-level camera and the kit zoom.

[@Skux720]

Yeah, I tried it, the photos just looked terrible haha. Even with CCD SLRs like the Nikon D80 or the fabled CMOS sensor of the Canon 5D Classic I couldn't see anything special, just low dynamic range, colour noise and slightly more obvious grain. The only meaningful advantage of digicams is the on-camera xenon flash which is more powerful than anything on a smartphone and faithfully recreates the '2000s house party' vibes. I kept the 5D because I love the shooting experience, but all the hype around 'infinite film-like photos' or 'magic colour science' of old sensors is basically nonsense.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Yeah, the house party vibes are definitely there. I personally don't like that look (probably because I lived it in the 2000s), but I can see the appeal.

[@Mikri90]

Can't say I fully agree as I owned both the D80 and the 5D, to me they had more character than modern cameras and the files edit really nicely and easily (compared to what I use now), but I would agree that the "film-like" claims are load of horseshit. They're still digital sensors, and behave as such, just with a somewhat different color signature compared to mostly clinical looks of today's cameras. D80 was of course trash past like ISO400, but at low ISO it was lovely. 5D could go way higher while still looking good. Of course, a caveat: I am speaking of RAW images edited to my taste, the JPEG experience may vary. I always resented using JPEG because I always felt that I am wasting potential, it's like FOMO but for image files :D...it's not that the cameras had bad color in JPEG, on the contrary, I just happened to rarely make use of it.

[@sufferingincorporatedtm1781]

i like this video, i really appreciate that you took subjective vibes into consideration and your comparison to audio equipment was great. it would have also been worthwhile to take some pictures with a smartphone, since i think a lot of people look to buy a cheap old digicam or no camera at all. i have an olympus 300 digital that my parents used when i was really young, which seems somewhere between the 2 cameras you bought (it also does that annoying thing with the flash). i think it produces very pleasant cool tones, based on some photos that were already on it by my older sister (i'm still learning, but i did take a good one of a jack-o-lantern last year). although overall i'd agree that the main appeal is that it's more fun than a phone, with a sprinkle of nostalgia. i'd disagree that adding character in photoshop or through filters is just as good, since it's added in. it's an extreme example, but a little while ago samsung phones had a feature that detected white circles in photos and automatically replaced them with a premade moon image. it's that kind of fakeness that a lot of people are trying to cut out i think.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Great point regarding the moon and fakeness! In my mind, there is a difference between something like a filter (which is adjusting what is there) and something like that, which is straight-up artificial. Interesting to think about! How we think of things as authentic and all that.

[@bluestarcesium]

The CCD camera, that people should look to buy, is the Hasselblad H 3D II or the Pentax 645Z. These are medium format cameras are priced under two thousand dollars today. Many used medium format cameras offer professional pictures at a reasonable cost.