No, You Don't Want a CCD Digicam

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

this guy has clearly never been a teenager on tumblr

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.

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.

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 😉

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.😉📸

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.

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.

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

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.

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.