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, 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.

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.

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 😉

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)

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 zs1, lumix lx5) are still amazing relevant cameras that can be used to take objectively great photos at a low cost.

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?

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" ...

I swear growing up in the early 2000s during the megapixel race, people wanted the highest resolution camera they could get, nowadays everyone wants "tHe FiLm loOk" with all the good image quality modern cameras produce I would say its half trendy and the rest wanting something different in their style

If you want a late 90s trip to the zoo vibe, then using your old LX1 might be an arguable choice. Yes, you can edit these things in, but not everyone has lightroom or even paintshop pro. But if you are sophisticated enough to have photography as a hobby, you are correct, grab a good CMOS, snap your pics, then edit the color, contrast and focus you want. Great video, glad I am a subscriber.

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.

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.

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

I have some experience with the CCD cult, but from a different context. I've mostly seen this discussed on the Pentax forums, and they are much less concerned about nasty little "digicams" and much more about how older CCD-based APS-C Pentax DSLRs compare with newer CMOS-based APS-C Pentax DSLRs. The claim, then, is that CCD produces better colors, richer colors. I actually have an old Pentax K100D (my first DSLR!) and a couple of newer models like my K-S1 (a mere ten years old now), and I have tried to compare their color output. Shooting raw, using a gray card to set white balance, I can confirm that they discern colors somewhat differently. To my eyes it's not a dramatic difference, and which is "better" depends on the subject matter. The CCD camera can sometimes do magical things with a red subject, while it makes green vegetation look slightly brown-and-dying.

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.

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 😄

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.

Many of us use higher end CCDs because they're older cameras, not intending for a film look, but instead an imperfect digital look. I have a Kodak C875, significantly better camera than your example Kodak. As an example.

UKpostsrs should tell people that you can get "digicam" look onolder cellphones.just not old enough that you can't download modern photography app that reproduce CCD like images and beyond

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hi, so what about foveon sensors?

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.

I got XE1, Lumix LX5, and Canon Sd1000. I can not guarantee to anybody that they produce film like look since I haven't shot film camera in years, but I can tell that the photos they produce are shockingly beautiful. Damn I love my lx5. I just use my sd1000 more cos it's literally the size of an ID.

Film look! No film camera can get same quality as new cmos camera 35mm or Medium film period!

Your video made me want a CCD camera

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.

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.

THank you. Well done. I shot film for years and am older than you. My first digital camera was the Canon s200. That being said, I have several older digital cameras and my old 16 megapixle Fuji xe2s with my manual lenses from the 1940s-1960s do give me a tremendous character and the sensor is film like. However, I also use these lenses on my Sony a7c with great results. The best camera and lens? Learn to see. The rest is commentary. cheers

Very interesting to listen to the non-photographer persepctive. But at the end of the day, it's not about being better, it's about being different.

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...

Nice seeing someone else own a Kodak c530. Thought I was the lone wanderer out here

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.

Fantastic video, I totally agree with you!!

Alot of the first CCDs were indeed developed by Kodak who did give the sensors a color science akin to what they knew best. Kodachrome. They do indeed have a rendering more closely aligned with the films they were intended to replace. Over time the CMOS simply copied the color range of the CCD and then some. But to be fair the early CMOS sensors were cold and under saturated . I think you are simply too young to remember. Also, Kodak Easyshares were always crap.

Those videos annoy me a ton, unlimited film photos my ass lol I dont blame people at all for looking for an easier way to get a 'look' from their photography, but if you want a more authentic experience they do still make film haha

I do want some decade old, somewhat rare point and shoot compact camera, but I want it for convenience while having manual settings and not because it have some outdated sensor.

"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.

My canon PowerShot is scratched or something 😂 making zooming useless 😅 only thing I can set is iso 😅 it's tough

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".

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

I agree completely.. The only old camera that i like is canon 5d classic

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.

They just have a vibe and look to the shot. Yes the image is different. And some cams them self had different feels to the shot making them unique . Yeah they are crap competed to today's cams. But I still carry a old cam in my bag with my camera when I go out.

One thing I disagree with is the fact that the most expensive digicam was $60 while the CMOS one + a lens blows that budget out of the water. Besides, us people who seek the vintage look know that the real vintage look is in using a half century old lens. (Definitely has nothing to do with the whole price gap between modern and vintage lenses).

get a fuji X-A10 and use the classic chrome simulation.

I love CCD

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.

This video is shot and presented at a very high level. Very interesting and visually pleasing to watch. You deserve a lot more views!

I can only afford a cheap digi cam. And i have a terrible phone. Sure modern cameras are better but i can only afford my 20 dollar kodak easy share c703. I cant afford a camera 100 dollars and up and anything modern worth buying are like 500 and up. Old digicams are not popular because their better, but because their cheap and nostalgic. And i think limitation breeds creativity. As for the filmlike arguement, i have several film cameras but i cant afford to buy film every now and again. So its more convenient to use an old digi cam and then edit them to look like film. I think your missing the point of the digicam popularity, its not a fad, but more like a longing or regression. I understand your take but i think you are whole-heartedly missing the point and I will continue shooting on my cheap digicam and loving every second of it.

I have an M8.2, an M9 and a very old DSC S70 and they all have luscious color. My M240 not quite as nice. That's just my view.

It’s about vibes and easy jpegs out of camera

If I want the film look, I shoot a roll of Portra on my Nikon FE.

Its definitely not "film like" but it IS different and the cameras are still fun. I dont really care whats better as long as its what i feel like shooting lol. And if i want film like photos... i shoot some damn film 😂😂.

I heard people use clinical and character to describe lenses not cameras. If you need imperfections in your shot buy a diffusion filter and be done with it.

just adapt a vintage lens to a modern mirrorless camera

16:25 💯💯💯

Try a Sigma DP1 & be amazed .

Robin Wong us actually saying what you say, not that CCDs are superior! I own a Powershot G9, which was given to me for free, and I even shot a G7 in Istanbul in 2012. They are nicely built cameras with decent lenses but images are not particularly good by today standards: even my e-pl6 from 2014 destroys them hoplessly. Highlights are blownup super early and shadows are muddy and full of noise; they use tiny 1/1.8" sensors and that's the problem. This being said, they were WAY better then any point and shoot that came after, when 1/2.3" CMOS that were chasing the most Megapixels, and produced jpegs so oversharpened to be useless and unrecoverable through their superzooms. At least the G9 gives you proper controls to take a shot, and images are "cheap film like", in an era when a roll of Kodak "portra" costs more then a Movie ticket and is prohibitive to develop. I was born in the film era and I bought, new, a Yashica T4 in high scool: good P&S but I'm still laughing that I sold it for 450€ on E-Bay 2years ago. Same with my X100V, that I sold, 2 years after I got it, for more then I payed new: influences make people do weird things! 😆

But CCD are tonez! I only have to replace them every 3 month because their cap blew and dies of natural cause

all of those "vintage look" is just an ilussion. VSCO did it, not the sensor. yea it's much more suitable to fit the VSCO preset into old camera rather than new one (too sharp, etc), but if you look into SOOC of old digicam... they are lame and weird, but that's it.

Yes, I do!

Все правильно, конечно. И пленка и старые ccd камеры сильно хуже сегодняшних камер. И всегда можно загрубить картинку с современной камеры. Но мне просто тупо нравится снимать на старые камеры. Я люблю ретро. И картинки, которые с них получаются мне тоже нравятся. Пусть с современной ка еры можно получить что то похожее. Но все таки немного удивили сравниваемые фотоаппараты. Можно было взять сравнимую по размеру матрицы зеркалку olympus e300, e500 например. Крохотный кодак с еще более крохотным сенсором - явно мимо. Эти камеры могут в чем то посоперничать с современными смартфонами. Не более.

It's funny that even film shooters call CCDs sensors film-like when they are nothing remotely close. These digicams have terrible colour NOISE. Anything above 400ISO is bad.

It's probably been said but if they really want a retro experience, go grab a full manual film camera, throw a role of black and white in it and process it at home, it is a very satisfying process that gives nice retro looking photos because they are taken on real retro gear! There are some good film specialists popping up that are all too happy to get you started. My 21 year old daughter only shoots film and switches between a Kodak Autographic from around 1905 and a 1970's Canon AE1, the only digital camera she has is her iPhone. I look back at the photos I took on my first digital camera back in the early 2000's, you couldn't pay me enough to go back to that.

I used my Canon PowerShot G12 up until the beginning of this year, when I bought a Canon EOS R8 to up my photography game. I remember shooting photos on my G12 just last year and thinking how there was some kind of "retro" look to its photos. Part of me wants to think that had something to do with the G12's CCD sensor, but maybe I'm just believing the hype of the "digicam trend" on social media at this point. The G12, released in 2010 (although I bought mine in 2012), was the last camera in the PowerShot G series to carry a CCD sensor.

The reason why people are going crazy over CCD sensors is simple. They see photos coming out of these old sensors and like the color science. I've seen two other videos on CCD vs CMOS and its just color science that's it. Camera companies are always playing with color science. We still have people saying this Nikon or Canon with CMOS sensor takes great photos its again just color science. Cobalt Image they sell camera profiles for cameras so your camera can have any color science it wants.

CMOS won out because they are massively less expensive to manufacture, that's it.

I get that the new sensors are definitely better and I do strongly agree, but shooting on those CCD cameras only looking at the sensor I think is missing the point of using those camera, it's the whole package of the lens character, colour (sometimes you get those weird colours from the shitty ir and uv filters), and the experience of capturing and not knowing what the image might turn out, same as shooting with film, I mean I still use a hacked canon point and shoot just to capture raw and it looks great. At the end of the day the point of a photo depends from the photographer's intent, sometimes it's clinical and sometimes it's artistic

Truuuu….

ahahha "the expirience maaaan" 🤣

CCD uses global shutter

This is an excellent video and does dispel the CCD myth. However- all of those flaws of the Kodak could be considered a strength if say you were doing some sort of retro fashion shoot , perhaps even some Bridal ports. As a pro- I could use LRc and yield any look- but this is why Fuji is popular with amateurs as the various film looks give you what you may be looking for w/o mastering LRC. Many of these folks do not do any editing outside of their phones- and getting the look they want in their camera is more "authentic " to them. So the Kodak is both the worst and possibly the best camera. I'm thinking pretty people- sun dresses, tanned muscles and Ray Bans...

You want film like colors, just put whatever camera in 5500K and ISO 400 and never change it, thank me later. 😂

so, there's a kernal of truth to the color thing, and it can be shown with actual scientific tests. some older cameras really do have more accurate color, and are better at distinguishing similar colors. most of those cameras are CCDs. but it's not the CCD. it's the color filter (bayer) array. older cameras tended to have stronger CFAs, and older cameras tended to have CCDs. that's the only association. newer cameras weaken the CFA to increase light transmission to the sensor, for lower noise on higher resolution sensors. but you can absolutely find CMOS cameras with strong CFAs, like the D3/D700.

I'll be brutally honest here since you are just making blanket statements. The photos you took with the Kodak look like a 6 year old took them. You have no concept of light and how it affects photos which is the first thing you learn as a photographer. So when you take trash photos, you can expect trash results with any camera. Second, no one is claiming an awful camera like that Kodak is good or has a "vibe". The majority of CCD sensor digicams are terrible, but the good ones (Canon G2/G3, Fuji S5 Pro, Sony A300 series etc..) definitely give a filmic character that is a very different look from modern CMOS sensors. It has nothing to do with imperfections but how a CCD sensor deals with colors and its limited dynamic range that has a look more similar to film. Not to mention that in the early days of digital cameras, Canon acknowledged that they specifically designed their sensors to replicate film to entice film shooters to go digital. Anyhow, it's not for everyone.

"filmlike" hahah okay zoomer

Oh the pocketchip crh baby. Now crying on CAMERAS

Happy to know someone on this platform is speaking logic when it comes to this topic. TBH, I recently unsubscribed from said channels you pointed out because I got tired of the "this is so film like" videos. And as someone who's been using 35mm film since 2004, all I gotta say to the people who want the "film look" is to just use film and shut up! And as someone who worked at cameras stores from 2005 to 2015, Ritz and Samy's were two of them, all I gotta say about point & shoots is they were crap then, and they're crap now. But that didn't stop me from making $200 each on a few I had laying around recently. Most recently, a few videos have cropped up about the Nikon D200 because of its "superior film like" CCD. I had that camera since launch 2005 and I was never happy with it's color output. It never gave ME the "film look." I should know, I shot film side by side at weddings. So I don't understand why and how the hell people are now saying cameras like the D200 are all of a sudden film like. That said, cameras like the D200 have a look, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it film like. I recently picked up the Nikon D700 and the Olympus EM-1 (2012) because after many real world tests aka photographing weddings while drunk, I found the color output from both complement my film scans 80% of time. Keyword, complement. Not replace, not compare, no! Just complement. And professionally speaking, I'm more than happy with that.

Nice video. I agree with everything, guys just learn how to edit your images 😁 If I want to take a "filmish" picture I'm just setting up the highest ISO and then just editing my image and comparing it to a real film shot trying to match colours. How many times I've looked at CCD sensor images and I still can't see even a bit of the "film like" look for some reason, it just looks like a photo shot on a cheap camera lol