No, You Don't Want a CCD Digicam

There has been a lot of hype surrounding CCD point-and-shoot digicams in recent years, but are these cameras really that special? I don't think so. I compared my Panasonic Lumix GH5 to two old CCD digicams: a Kodak Easyshare C530 and a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1. In the video, I explain why those are just old digital cameras and not anything magical.
Get 10% off a Dustsilver keyboard with my code "hobbyism" using this affiliate link:
dustsilver.com/products/dusts...
Attributions:
Icons from flaticon.com
Music by Kim Lightyear pixabay.com/users/lightyeartr...
from Pixabay pixabay.com/music//?...
Sound Effect from pixabay.com/sound-effects/?ut...
pixabay.com/sound-effects/tra...

[@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

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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

[@funky_kong835]

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

[@Hovenko]

I been an avid film emulator "enjoyer" most of my life and over the years I realized that the best results are achieved with the high-quality gear. For example, with disposable cameras its usually the plastic lens or the cheap frame it is housed in that makes it look the way it is. The film is a very detailed and high-quality medium, with plenty of high dynamic range and resolution. These cameras simply can't replicate that aspect of it. Basically, in my opinion the best film like or film emulation results lay in multiple steps but should always begin with a high-quality sensor. You can slap on a cheap vintage lens, add grain, halation, bloom, scratches and light leaks in a believable but most importantly controlled manner in post. Modern medium format sensors for example have the one thing you can't emulate and that is the base quality of film.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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...

[@annekedebruyn7797]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@wesley939]

I love CCD

[@CarmineTavernaPhotography]

Yep❤

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@1marcelfilms]

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

[@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!

[@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.

[@assacarnes.]

i have a finepix l50, i really like it, is it ccd? i dont really care about it being or not, i just wanted to know

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@scotthullinger4684]

Both CCD and CMOS have advantages and disadvantages - CCD offers truly great image quality, but has somewhat high noise, are expensive to manufacture, and they require more battery power. CMOS is the norm these days, but not necessarily for the greatest of reasons.

[@HeapsMad]

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

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@nikolajlennert5722]

there is no objective point of bad or good photos, it is art and art is subjective as we know. and once process of art isn't right or wrong, and i thought this would be a video talking about that. a lot of artist i know choose to have a "bad" point and shoot or even a camcorder to document their lives, they do prefer that look of "bad" images because they think its more human and less controlled. and they have them because they don't have money for a mirrorless or even a dslr, and they don't want to use editing program to edit their photos. and the point of it all that is they want to document their life's in a fun way and the camera doesn't intrude into their life's to

[@warmoaran3]

thats another amazing point. with cmos, I feel like you sometimes need to process the photos and videos to get what you want, but CCDs, they offer a nice vibe straight from camera, which that vibe is OBVIOUSLY what I want.

[@ilpoheikkila4773]

Great video! Had to subscribe because of it. And that blue LED on your table looks cool! What is it? Did it come shaped like that or did you make it?

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Thank you! The LED lamp is from Zealbuer on Amazon :)

[@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.

[@noia245]

It is very important that all of the old digicams are different and finding one that u will like is a lottery

[@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.

[@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.

[@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 !!!

[@The_NSeven]

I don't think the "just edit the photos in lightroom" argument holds.. Basically all the people I know who owns old CCD digicams don't want to spend time editing, let alone learning how to edit them. That is kinda the point of point-and-shoots

[@RedmilesShark]

Presets

[@The_NSeven]

@@RedmilesShark still gotta import the photos, learn how to use Lightroom and wait for the exporting

[@RedmilesShark]

@@The_NSeven Automate it.

[@The_NSeven]

@@RedmilesShark I get what you're saying but that isn't really applicable to the average Joe who picks this up

[@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.

[@lazyspam]

Hi, first of all, it's a very nice video, but... It seems to me that the problem is much more complicated than what is said in the film. First of all, if you really want to compare cameras, get the Olympus E400 equipped with the Kodak 17.3 x 13.0 mm Four Thirds System Kodak CCD sensor. This is one of the last cameras of this type and is equipped with a 10 megapixel matrix. It is extremely little known because it was probably released only on the European market. If you can't find it, as someone already told you, you can try E500 or E300. The advantage is that these are cameras in the four-thirds system, so after purchasing an original adapter, you will be able to connect lenses from these old cameras to your Panasonic and really compare how it works. Be careful, however, because with these adapters, autofocus can be slow or may not work fully. In any case, it is the same family as your camera and only with a generation older lens mount. Currently, unfortunately, you made a comparison as if you took a calculator from the 1980s and compared it to a Commodor 64 computer. There is a screen and keys and you can even type something, but it is not the same. If you don't want an Olympus, try the Nikon D200. It also has 10 megapixels and an even larger physically sensor. It used to be practically a professional camera, second only to the professional Nikon D2. Secondly, it's not all about comparing photos like you do. You see, today's cameras are fully automated devices with autofocus speeds that exceed the speed of rockets flying into space. Why think and complicate when you press the button and you have millions of photos per second and surely one of them will work, and if not, the program will process them, combine them, select and add filters. And everything's great except that... you're not there. Your idea, your work are all gone. There are no differences between your photo and mine. You see, it's like this... If you are interested in old electronics, I will give you an example. You can run games or programs in Dosbox, but it will never be the same as running them on an old PC with DOS. You can run the VICE emulator but it will never be a real C64. Old equipment has its limitations, the desire to understand and accept them is part of the fun. If you want to have some fun... buy an adapter for your camera for old manual lenses or buy a manual lens dedicated to your camera. You will see that taking every single photo is quite fun, but also hard work. But remember that this is not fun for everyone... Have a nice day🙂

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Good suggestions and fair points! I do like using vintage tech, so I 100% see that appeal.

[@lazyspam]

@@serialhobbyism_official I really encourage you to try photography with a manual lens. This gives you a lot of time to think about what you want to present in the photo. I use Panasonic cameras and old Olympus cameras myself. On a different note, the Nokia you presented in the film is lying on the desk next to me. This Nokia has an amazing camera. But unfortunately, not everyone knows that after the system update, the native Nokia application was replaced with a regular Windows application. Unfortunately, this cuts out all the camera's capabilities, turning it into a potato. Regards😃

[@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.

[@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.

[@thegrandnil764]

1. limitations are cool 2. Price 3. THe images look really good when you work around the limitations

[@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... :(

[@patrickmcfadden1689]

Nice honest review. I started in film 1970ish. Went full modern digital 6 or 7 years back. I have a little of everything, M43, APSc and FF. I do have a canon SD1200IS i got new in 2011. Tiny, fun, fits in shirt pocket, but mostly point and shoot. Agree with your description of the digicam hype.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Thank you!

[@JulioBomfim]

Vintage digicams are a fun tool and sometimes an experimental way to capture images. I have some and use them in personal projects. I understand their unique image, color and texture characteristics, but I never imagined them as "digital film" or anything like that. Especially because I also photograph with film and I can separate the projects. The problem is the KZbinrs who insist that digicams are the "new" film cameras.

[@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.

[@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.

[@WurdBendur]

I still have my old CCD Sanyo VPC-503, and I always hated using it. Maybe I'll take it out for a spin sometime and see if it's as bad as I remember.

[@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.

[@R_Rod]

Your video made me want a CCD camera

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Ha! Some of them are still cheap enough that it might be worth grabbing one to play around with!

[@abyrvalgglavryba330]

Hi, so what about foveon sensors?

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Good question! I haven’t used one, but I’d like to!

[@ClearComplexity]

I've got just about every Sigma camera made. Foveon is fundamentally a different type of sensor, well, not entirely, but for the sake of the argument they are. The differences mean something like my SD Quattro H captures better detail and color than most FF cameras even today... but that's only in a controlled environment with perfect lighting. They're a metric PITA to use if you're not in said controlled environment. At that point, something like an Olympus Pen camera will give you similar colors and be a lot cheaper and give better results. My favorite Sigma after well over a decade of using them is the fp L, a standard CMOS based camera. I'm hoping if they release another camera, it'll be an APS-C sized cmos camera using an SD Quattro body shaved down for l-mount and a tilt screen to actually make use of the APS-C lenses they've been shipping in l-mount. Foveon just isn't worth the headache, at least not for a working photographer. In the studio I still trust the old but great SD Quattro H, but I'm not a studio photographer, I travel around East/Southeast Asia in rural areas/villages where lighting is never going to be controlled.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

@@ClearComplexity I’ve been interested in getting a Sigma with a Foveon. What makes them a PITA?

[@abyrvalgglavryba330]

@@ClearComplexity I agree with pita, I've got sigma dp2 and this is a very very VERY slow camera, but unlike ccd it produces truly unique and interesting colors. I try to use lumix lx-3, it is pretty good but just ordinary point and shoot camera.

[@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!

[@BurnSteveJobs]

The reason I want them is because alot of them are still like 15 30 dollars and fun to collect 😂

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Which is completely valid! I do the same thing with all kinds of gadgets. Though from that perspective, it does suck how expensive they've become.

[@sssssatori]

One thing really making a difference and arguably misleading people the most is the built-in flash found on majority of CCD point&shoot, I've talk to people who know little about photography and want a ccd like crazy and the kind of "retro vibe" they are after, especially regarding portraits, is the look of that built-in flash flashed directly to your face. It's really a loss tho that we are now stucked with powerful but uninspiring camera designs and phones that have huge heavy ugly camera modules which really ruin the "smartphone" part of the experience. Looking back at the CCD point&shoots there's just so much variety, so many uniqe designs, and I had fun playing with them, tho I never liked the image coming out of them. Did some retro CCD shots for my retro keyboard build a couple weeks back and my sony T700 literally turned my keyboard into a banana of sort with the crazy uncorrected barrel distortion on the wider side of the lens and the noise was going crazy.

[@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

[@null0byte]

My reason for getting a couple old CCD sensors is a combination of sentimental value (the Kodak DCS290 was originally given to me by my aunt who is no longer with us, I had gotten rid of it years ago and recently realized as I began collecting interesting cameras is I wished I’d never done that, so I got a nice one for $30 off eBay) and getting to use cameras I wanted back when they were first released (like the Canon Powershot Pro/1) Not due to esoteric reasons such as being “film like.” So my new hobby of camera collecting is somewhat self-limiting as I’m sticking to notable examples of cameras of different mounts/manufacturers. Examples being Sentimental reasons: Canon 70D (my first DSLR), Kodak DCS290 (afore mentioned reason), Fujifilm X-T2 (pristine model with extremely low shutter count I got to act as a digital equivalent of my old Canon F-1 I learned photography on in high school) Notable (note: I do not own all of these yet, funds-limited): Sony RX-100V (wanted a 1” sensor I can EDC), Fujifilm X-M1 or X-Pro 1 (X-Trans 1 sensor), Pentax Q7 & Panasonic GM1 (they’re just so adorable), some flavor of E Mount camera (currently a Nex 6 I got a great deal on with the two kit lenses, will replace later), some flavor of Pentax DSLR (probably a K10 soon or K1 in a few years), some flavor of Sigma DSLR (for the removable hot filter), Canon 1DS II (close to first full frame Canon), Canon 5D or 5D Mk III (I wanted it but couldn’t afford it), Olympus OM-D EM1 (got a screaming deal which includes the battery grip recently), Panasonic S5 (pristine with near 0 shutter count due to being a studio spare in an upscale podcast studio), Panasonic GH3 or GH5 (wanted one), some flavor of Olympus Pen (preferably Pen F, but prices will have to come WAY down), Nikon D810 or D7200 (last prosumer Nikon with the AF sprocket), and only two aspirational cameras beyond that. Aspirational: Leica Typ 701 & Epson R-D1 (only in my dreams most likely) The lenses are another story, but I don’t see myself doing much more than that

[@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.

[@tomscameras]

Fantastic video, I totally agree with you!!

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Thank you!

[@mibnsharpals]

The film look is probably due to the fact that most CCD sensors have a limited dynamic range and a corresponding clipping behavior when it comes to light. Typically around 6 - 9 stops, instead of 10 - 15 on modern sensors. In addition, more modern sensors clip the lights more steadily and not as abruptly as the old CCDs

[@_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.

[@SteveBrandon]

I have a big boy DSLR camera (Nikon D3300) for events like classic and exotic car cruise nights but I still use pocket digicams for daily photography, mainly because I hate smartphones and prefer having physical controls and an optical zoom anyway. The digicams I currently use were all Value Village thrift store purchases where I usually spend more ordering a battery and charger on Amazon Canada than I spent on the camera itself, and, even then, the cost of buying the camera at Value Village plus the cost of the battery and charger from Amazon is usually less than $30 Canadian altogether. I can't imagine spending three digits on these things in this day and age (maybe low three digits if it's a superzoom with >20x optical zoom). Also, I'm almost 50 so I do have plenty of experience shooting on film (and still shoot on film very occasionally) and the shots I take on digicams, either on CCD or CMOS sensors, don't really compare to 35mm considering that the digicams have much smaller sensors and lenses (then again, my Nikon D3300 also has a smaller 2/3rds DX format "crop" sensor, but it's still much larger than the digicam sensors). If I want to get what is perceived as more "film-like" shots from a digicam, one trick I do use is to use a setting that emphasizes warmer colours (like "Beach" mode on my daily driver, a Panasonic DMC-FH27). Then again, a lot of my actual 35mm film shots aren't actually all that "warm", "warmth" really depends on time of day and film stock, with the warmest shots being taken in the golden sunlight just before sundown (which is generally when the car shows I attend take place), film shots taken earlier in the afternoon are usually much "cooler", due to the sun being much higher in the sky when the sunlight is less filtered.

[@kiliansalomon507]

22 year old here I love my digicam (canon ixus60) I just want a tiny camera that i can have with me all the time to capture moments and memories. and I much prefer the look over the iphones. I also don't want to edit them theres a film positive look on it that i like and i just leave every picture as is. I also shoot "professionally" and on film for more special moments. for an everyday camera a tiny digicam is perfect for me and i do get the hype. but yes most people probably aren't getting what they expect out of it also also i don't think a camera like this should cost more than 30-50 thats where the hype truly gets ridiculous. I got mine for just 10€ at a thrift store

[@jjuarez83]

I don't remember all the details but at the time CCD sensors where overall better. Eventually CMOS caught up and CCD hit technical limitations where CMOS just won. Also the economics made it so it did not make sense to continue development of CCD tech. Honestly though, I don't get it why people want those old cameras. You have better options with your phone camera (which is why point and shoots are not as popular).

[@julianhughes6511]

I like the results from my ancient Fujifilm Finepix F200EXR so long as the ISO is 400 or below. It has a "Super CCD"! For a 15 year old compact its offers truly excellent dynamic range in DR mode, good sharpness and genuinely very nice colours in daylight. It's easy to use, tiny, looks great, and is still better than smartphone cameras except in poor light. However all my Lumix G cameras, from an old GF1 to a modernish G80, are much, much better in every respect except they don't fit in my pocket unless it's cold and I'm wearing a huge jacket. I think you're right, it's a fad. Quite a nice fad in some ways. These old cameras didn't do a lot of second guessing the photographer - no auto HDR or manipulating tones or depth of field. Their "computational photography" was mostly about correcting gross lens distortion in-camera. So people used to smartphones will get very different results than with their Apple or Android and maybe the results have something about them that feels more truthful, or less obviously manipulated anyway.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Great points! Especially regarding computation. I have no clue what processing my iPhone does, but it is clearly a lot.

[@achaycock]

I found this interesting and I do agree that there is nothing inherently special about CCD sensors. I will note that as an owner of literally hundreds of digital cameras, 1) little digicams are just not that great - I'm in the process of selling most of mine 2) there are certain older cameras that produce a very special look to their image - this has nothing to do with CCD vs CMOS and everything to do with the camera. The Pentax *ist D, Olympus e-300 and Canon EOS 5D have a very special place in my heart due to their unique looking images. I think these cameras are the ones that produce a 'film-like' image. It's not really film like, but something about the low pixel density means the noise produced by them is pleasing to the eye. Of course this is my subjective opinion - I will say that I do turn to my Lumix G9 as my first tier camera.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

I think those are good points!

[@cruzdesangre2850]

I've always thought the idea CCD sensors are the new film is inmense copium from people who want either easy views or don't have enough money for a Fuji camera. I'm glad someone finally made a video on this.

[@grayola4291]

I'll just say it might not be for you. Sure thing is that old digicams work best in certain fields and are less versatile than phone cameras. Actually they're not much of all-rounders anymore, at least not for everyone. I also think that it really depends on a certain model as no cameras are made equal. I have just found one that I really liked and to my taste this one has a lot of film-like picture quality. Build quality and ergonomics are also making whole difference for me and some of these old high end ccd digicams are pure art in that regard.

[@grayola4291]

on a sidenote, I bought mine for around 50$ and these cameras really shoudn't go for more than maybe 100-150$ on average.

[@grayola4291]

btw I like the goat photo on 7:20! For me that's all there is about it, if you're able to produce a good looking photo with 0 editing, then the camera is worth something.

[@StripedTailz]

i've taken a lot of time looking for that CCD "film look" that a lot of youtubers seem to say a camera has, but i think a golden ish era for the ccd look is 2000 - 2003. these cameras could never stand up at all to anything to made in 2005 > in terms of usable pixel space and editing. and another thing that can effect these cameras in the lens and where the camera was made, (japanese cameras always have this really high quality feel and sound compared to lower cost chinese made point n shoots) i've only used a small amount of cameras from this era but 2 that's i've taken the most pictures with that have some punch to the images are the Kodak DC4800 and Konica Minolta DiMage Z2. these aren't really a "point n' shoot" considering they're SLRs but it's very hard to find a compact ccd camera with a sharp clear image, my experience of panasonic is good stabilation but everything else quality wise is bad (looking from the photos you took with your panasonic, it's a pretty nice camera, but a bit oversharpened might i add.) with sony the colors don't look good, sharpness isn't very good, i have not tested more kodak compact cameras, mostly just the SLRs with premium sensors avoid vivitar and anything chinese made, as the quality is poor. with canon i haven't tested any cameras, but from sample images i can find it's very soft in terms of sharpness with minolta (or konica minolta) the cameras are of really good quality(at least before they moved their factories to china), colors and sharpness are great. the CCD camera look is really a mixed bag, but try to avoid anything that youtubers tell you and do research via looking for sample images taken by the camera, ancient reviews and specs. there's no room for editing with CCD cameras of this era, so your style of shooting might conflict with the camera, make sure your framing is always close so the subject has enough detail. (avoid cameras that don't have manual or A-S priorities) i would like to leave this off on a good note, CCDs are a mixed quality bag of low cost and a outdated look, not really suited for modern means, but their charm comes from not having room to be more perfect than your shot will allow. Do not trust youtubers who edit their photos! they're just here to make a quick buck! (usually the camera they tout as filmic are absolute garbage or way overpriced)

[@fancypantsantiquesandcolle5048]

They still have a more nostalgic look weather its film like or not doesn't matter. A lot of the low MP have a certain charming look and that will always make them more popular whether its called y2k aesthetic or film look doesn"t actually take that away and the proof is in interacting and being delighted by the results.

[@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

[@dima1353]

Old compact cameras may be interesting if you're sick of this stylization and overprocessing of smartphones. They are also much more convenient and have a zoom. But you have to understand that even a simple flat scene doesn’t always fit into their DR. Therefore, I would recommend more modern cameras and not those with a CCD sensor from the depths of the 2000s. G11, S90, XZ-2 - should be pretty good.

[@anta40]

It's interesting how younger kids nowadays pick old digicams to have fun (why, perhaps their iPhones always deliver technically clean images but.... less soul-ful/artsy/whatever?). While us who used it 2 decades ago just stick with phones (or any modern camera system for better image quality). Well, if you want film-like CCD experience, sadly those point and shoot cams are not the right choice. Spend some cash on Leica M8 or M9, which are not that cheap, and of course not exactly a point and shoot camera. In the end, nothing is wrong with having fun, though.

[@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...

[@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 :)

[@silaswolfe381]

if you're not already a photographer, theres no point in getting a digicam. it's not going to make your skills any better and you're going to be frustrated with the low resolution and the fact that every time you take a photo inside, it looks all yellow because you don't know how to manage wb. if you are already a photographer, there is actually a point to using some digicams. it has a very convenient form factor, and is more fun to use than your stupid phone camera. Some of them have a manual-ish mode that can make it about 100x better than your phone camera (its just 1 photo, not a short video spliced together to create an ideal picture). There is also a sense of freedom you get from using these cameras because there seems to be less of a pressure to take a professional quality photo. just snap something quick and maybe you'll try to make an actually good picture, but maybe you'll just capture a memory. It's very unintimidating and casual, especially for a professional who always has his guard up. for the uninitiated, you'll probably be trying to recreate nostalgic photos or things you've seen online, get bad results, and become bored with the camera. so no, if youre just a layman, please don't buy a digicam. but if you want something fun where people have low expectations of you, do get one. they're lots of fun.

[@shaabaaz3083]

A Hint for y'all, looking for something approaching what i call sharp softness and film-like color science: take a look at early Casio models (QV-3xxxEX), they are pretty much Canon G1 in disguise, you won't be disapointed (AND it won't cost you an eye for such an oldie tech device 😅)

[@notlahaan]

I mean there are differences: 1) Thicker CFA so colors can have more depth & color dynamic range (this also damages the actual dynamic range & low-light performance) 2) Noise from a CCD looks more "film-like", as CMOS produces quite a digital looking noise (if there's any). Combine both of these, and in ideal scenarios there is something to be had with a CCD sensor, however, it's still quite a moot point considering LR exists. I wish I owned something like a H3DII-39/50, which have a high-resolution medium format CCD sensors. Not that it's financially a good idea lmao

[@scottsterling7659]

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

[@scotdotwtf]

ccd cameras are some of the more digital looking cameras in my opinion and they’re great when you want some thing like that but they’ll never compare to real film.

[@pandy9049]

i think what people mean is by the look of these old ccd digicams is that they give off a similar nostalgia that film does. i admit, the quality of the cheap digicams are really bad, but its what people used to create childhood memories. i use a professional mirrorless camera for my own photography, but when im out with my friends or when a client wants that certain look ill use my shitty digicam. the pictures look shit in a good way

[@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.

[@bloodmoney88]

I have two CCCD panasonic video camera's in a box, pristine... with working batteries, are you telling me they might be worth money?

[@RedmilesShark]

The only debatable advantage CCD had was its global shutter by design. But with now with the Sony A7 III paving the way for that to become mainstream in high end bodies and lower end bodies and smartphones down the line that advantage is pretty much now also thrown out the window.

[@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

[@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?

[@Amphibax]

I really liked the whole hype about old digicam mainly because I could sell a bunch of old camera that I just had around for a decent amount of money. Technically your phone is more than enough for everyday photography for most people its all about the vibe and feeling of using a dedicated camera

[@utterlee]

"Oughts"!? It's called "the naughties"!

[@SewTubular]

The CMOS sensors have rolling-shutter lag that can lead to really ugly blur when shooting video. Where CCD sensors have global-shutters with NO rolling-shutter lag. Try shooting fast moving subjects ( racing cars, football games, soccer games, etc... ) with a CMOS camera and the sensor blur will often ruin the shots. The only draw-back to the CCD sensor cameras is that they may have limited dynamic range so shooting subjects that are half in sunlight may be difficult to capture both bright and dark areas at the same time.

[@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.

[@geofff6671]

I owned a Pentax Optio CCD P&S and a Canon 300D CMOS back in the day. The Canon had much faster AF, less noise, and faster fps. But much of the time the Pentax produce much more pleasing JPG images. I put this down to the image processing engine.

[@marxiewasalittlegirl]

Well made video altough I did like some of your kodak pictures, I'll enjoy it for a few days

[@fennecRBX]

true thats its not film like, although i think people like digicams for the same reason some people like film... it has it's own "vibe"

[@ThePhotographersStone]

Whatever it is, it feels retro in modern days. Might as well call it "Film Like" instead of "Digital CCD like" when most using the term never were around when film was in. Film like took a new meaning to just retro for younger folk. Might as well let them have the name Film Like since its gaining new people to the hobby. No-one is taking the name Film Like too seriously where its necessary to correct the term.

[@serialhobbyism_official]

Fair enough! If that's what it is, then I don't want to police the language.

[@DCDavid19]

It’s about vibes and easy jpegs out of camera

[@wotajared]

TLDR. Mid 90s millenial here, that feels like a boomer when it comes to digicams: I suffered these while growing up and always wanted a proper digital camera or just paid up for film. The vibes for me are much more in film, and in the last decade I finally got proper (m43) digital and medium format film. Nowadays it's glory with Phones, which have just larger sensors than the vintage P&S or 1" P&S that punch very well. Coming down to it, I always said that I grew with film and digital in parallel but as well one could count phones -- I just tier the different media for my photography. At least, my pics from the time now, or always, have digicam vibes!! Rant done 😄