you make some great points. honestly though, i think the main audience this trend applies to would probably just be folks who want to shoot casually, and don’t care to edit their images, or invest too much time beyond just the shooting experience of their photography.
Small form factor. Automode. Perfect for parties. Also cheaper than an actual film point and shoot. Quality is not an issue when you post to instagram.
@@banana_necessary Which is fine. There's literally nothing wrong with that. At the art academy we had an extremely snobbish teacher (he was otherwise pretty good at teaching stuff about photography, very knowledgable, good resources and extremely broad but expert knowledge base) who looked down on anything he considered "bad". So naturally that resulted in a couple of art students reacting to that by getting the absolute worst cameras they could get their hands on and take the what this teacher would deem the most god-awful pictures ever just to prove a point. And I love that. That's just the power of context and concept. That being said, I shoot everything because sometimes something fits a vibe.
Yes. Even before the trend I've used my digicam for the same reason. (although I do not post them on instagram, I just shoot to keep memories lol) I love shooting film for documenting my trips and my dslr mostly for official work. But there's that charm about using my mom's old digicam on being portable. Although my smartphone could do anything a digicam can do (from 40mp RAW pics to 4K video). Just like the good ol p&s film cameras, sometimes having little options to think about is what makes things fun
My humble dissent: 2 things are going on here, 1) you’re looking at the wrong cameras and 2) you’re looking at this from the wrong angle. There’s some interesting magic that happens when you throw some of these older RAWs intro super modern software like Lightroom or Capture One. Color noise can be entirely eliminated with a single slider. Colors respond totally differently than modern sensor Raws and what’s left is a hybrid image of old hardware + new software, a result that wasn’t entirely possible back in the day. Depending on the camera you use, you can get really interesting outputs. Now, are these results something YOU specifically would be interested in? That’s an entirely different question since it’s subjective, like when you say the X100 outputs look like film. Are you serious bro? You shoot film right? I’ve shot and owned every single X100 since the S and I couldn’t disagree more. If anything the X100 series is the epitome of fake film nostalgia bait since its mission when first designed was to literally fabricate film nostalgia using modern technology. By your logic, shouldn’t you be confused by the X100 series just as much?? Just shoot film, right? Some people like the look of VHS. Some people like the look of film… and now, older “digicams” are carving out a spot on the spectrum as a tool to be used to express oneself. Saying one is better is than the other is literal snobbery. Try the Olympus Camedia series, namely the C-5050 / C-5060 / C-7070 if you have a chance. Their outputs are so unique, you can tell it’s the Camedia series even if they’re edited. The Contax/Kyocera Finecams spits out really interesting jpegs as well. The E-1, E-300, E-400 and E-500, though not digicams, offer a super unique look you can’t get from modern equipment anymore too. Again, whether you like it or not is a different story but don’t mistake your “preference” of what you presume is quality as the end all; photography and image creation is much deeper than that. Cheers🎉
for me, the X100V has been the biggest let down of all time as a photographer. I have the Olympus C-5050 and its raws are mind boggling. My favorite "halfway" tool is the Pana GX1 with the panny 20mm, what a rendering... unmatched. All in all f I want super rich 3D photos (and super film like) I always have my Leica M240, much, much superior to the X100V even when paired with a humble Voigtlander 35 1.4 nokton
I've watched tons of RUclips videos by "photographers" touting digicams. The one thing I've noticed it that about 99.9% of the images they show are just low quality snapshots with zero post-processing. Like everyone else, I have limited time. When I decide whether or not I will invest my time following a RUclips photographer I first check their images. If their images are just plain old snapshots, I don't spend my time watching any more of their videos.
Just wanna add to that finishing recommendation. I picked up a few digicams for the combination of price/convenience, and I don't think most of what I get out of any of them is very interesting. Still, I sometimes use them because they're cheap, fun to mess with, and convenient. I picked up an Olympus C-5050 though, and man, what a joy. Plus it's just a blast to shoot with. I love that little tank.
I am curious if you have tried custom film simulations on the newer Fuji cameras. The default simulations are okay for quick jpegs, but there are a lot of guys online that have created a bunch of custom sims that really do look similar to just about any type of film you can think of. It is as lot of fun, and you can save quite a few of these settings as a custom setup and label them. The settings have to be matched to your generation of processor, X-trans iii, iv, v for example. I use them on my T-X30ii, and they make some fast and beautiful jpegs. Here is an example of settings for X-trans iv, Kodachrome 64: Classic Chrome Dynamic Range: DR400 Highlight: +1 Shadow: +2 Color: 0 Noise Reduction: -4 Sharpening: +2 Grain Effect: Weak Color Chrome Effect: Weak White Balance: Daylight, +2 Red & -5 Blue ISO: Auto, up to ISO 6400 Exposure Compensation: +1/3 to +1 (typically) fujixweekly.com/fujifilm-x-trans-iv-recipes/
@@6.5mm_is_the_best_mmI'm guessing this comment is directed at me? I apologize if it's not but i'll respond anyway since it's under my comment. Yes, I have tried many, many, many Fuji recipes. Not to be that "I liked x band before they got famous" guy but I've known about Fuji X Weekly way before it had any serious footing like it has today and have followed Ritchies work loosely ever since. I've shot Fuji as my main system for over a decade now and have dabbled with most of their bodies and lenses. If you're asking me specifically, I'm done with Fuji. My interest in them started to fade when I got the X100V on release day (way before this crazy internet hype) and the X-S20 was the nail in the coffin. They are fantastic products and I don't think they are overrated by any means, but to me, they just aren't fun to shoot with anymore. People complain about Sony's feeling like computers with a lens attached, but I feel like Fuji is going down that same road. They kinda have to. Camera tech, specifically speaking in terms of output, have plateaued, and haven't really changed much for the past decade or so. Maybe even more. Some of my best images I've ever shot was on an Olympus E-P1. Or the C-7070. Or the Lumix LX3. Are they as sharp and modern looking like, say, an X-T5 or a Leica M11? No. Would the shots be "better" if I had used modern equipment? Absolutely not. They are perfect the way they are and I would never wish for them look like I shot them on a modern camera. I just no longer care much for super high quality, super sharp, super malleable images. The experience of using weirdo cameras that came out 15 years ago that can create beautiful images is way more interesting to me than using the newest gear which cmon... don't fool yourself. They all basically do the same thing. Any setting a Fuji Recipe can do can be somewhat replicated with a slider or two in Lightroom and if you absolutely need the exact look that Fuji decided to dial in in their JPEG engine then thats awesome man. You found your perfect camera. Please dont let me discourage you from enjoying your Fuji cameras and recipes. Different strokes for different folks after all. I'm just in a phase where I'm done with super modern looking tech.
So, I went down the digicam rabbit hole. Couple of things I determined. 1. If you want to try out macro photography a $100 digicam is great. A couple three of my cameras have focusing distances of less than 5mm. 2. More importantly, pocket cameras of old were designed to go into pockets. The Fuji X100 is compact compared to an X-T* but next to a digital Elph? I don't really like the UX of most cellphone cameras (seriously, a physical, shutter button, it's not that hard) and my cellphone is a Surface Duo 2, which is even worse. A camera that I can fit in my pocket, with enough resolution to make 8x10 prints solves some issues for me. That being said, I think a lot of the romanticizing CCD sensors is delusional. If my OG Sony RX100 hadn't just died I think all my experimentation would have lead me back to it.
a USED x100 is like almost 5 times as expensive as some of these old digicameras, it's an accessible and affordable way for new photographers to get into photography and probably eventually, film.
3 to 4 megapixels is big enough for a4 print lol. So it does brings back memory. Its just that due to flatness and low resolution of the files, it cannot be edited as much as modern cameras.
the main reason people love them is because it's what we grew up with! when i was younger i always remember having a digital camera or minidv camcorder close by as it's all most of everybody i knew had. i personally love it because it creates family memories with looks from an era where everything seemed better to me because i knew nothing about the world as i do now. it also creates fun videos with the suuuper crunchy 320x240 or 640x480 .avi files that reminds me of those old home videos our parents used to record...
The trend is basically grasping for the feeling of how it used to be. The feeling of a simpler life that many of us older people remember and younger people heard about. The other aspect of it is the growing understanding that more technology advancement and addiction to how our lives are contained in a connected slab of glass as our smartphone which is actually removing us from the physical reality. Newer cameras are too sharp, too perfect and life in reality is not that. It’s not about photography as far as the art. It’s the feeling and time that those cameras were the best at the moment. They are time machines. Newer cameras that simulate that old look are just that a simulation. It’s not the same thing when you know it’s just mimicking something older.
Before I bought my powershot G12 I was considering the fuji film x 100. It was not in the budget, G12 offers me a 10 mega pixel a CMOS and sensor while also being able to shoot RAW and the work that has come out of the camera is not bad.
It seems that one of the factors behind the "digicam" trend is that prices of film keep going up and some film shooters are moving onto "digicams" for the nostalgia factor. Personally I'd rather just shoot old manual lenses on a DSLR to get a "vintage" look. That said, early digital cameras can be really quite interesting for their quirky design and construction, as manufacturers were still exploring the possibilities of the new medium. Later cameras became much more homogenized design and feature wise.
I think this, the price of film, the portability of digicams (compared to dslrs) and the look and feel of an actual camera (rather than an iphone) is why people are getting them. It's why I got one for 50 bucks this week. I'm honestly surprised by how much I liked it. It is exactly like a point and shoot and fits in the palm of my hand and performs like a ten year old iphone.
I've recently picked up a beat up old, 8MP Canon point and shoot digicam for £15, have a Canon DSLR and a Ricoh GRIII for if I want high resolution, pixel peepable images, but for just enjoying taking a photo without needing to go through a full editing workflow or pay the film tax, the digicam is scratching that itch really well, and the images make me smile. I have been turning off the display, disabling the image review and just shooting with the optical viewfinder and looking at what I get when I pull the card at the end of the day, then my workflow with it so far is a bit of cropping/straightening and the rest I leave as is. May just be me but having a less capable camera with me helps me every day helps me take what is a fun hobby far less seriously, of course if I go on a trip specifically to take pictures, I take my good cameras, but if I'm going on a bike ride, or a walk, or out shopping, the little digicam works in a way a smartphone just won't.
A dedicated camera in your pocket has its appeal as a documentary tool. But thats not the only reason why I have a collection. I'm been building my collection because of their quirkyness. Have a look at some of them and you wonder how the heck they got to this (Finepix 4800Z for example). Also, some have some cool tactile qualities in operation, such as manual sliding covers for power.
Digicams were a revolution in photography. My first one was a Sony 8mp with a Zeiss (branded) lens, and the pics out of it was way better than the point and shoot 35mm from the 90s that often gave you bad exposures, bad developments from Walmart, and for a reasonable price of $250 at the time with no film or development charges. If you want a true retro digicam, go get a nice one. They aren't expensive. A Canon G10 with 14mp CCD sensor, built in ND filter, and decent manual controls can be had for $100ish. And it fits in your pocket. Easily. And the price of 1/5th of an X100. And don't muck around with the images in PS. Just let the CCD do its work. "Why wouldn't you shoot film?" Because film gets pricey. And takes a while to develop. And some people don't have access to easy development. I bought a Nikon D80 for a friend in the Philippines who doesn't have easy access to film development. Nice colors.
Digicams in general have become more popular for a couple of reasons, but mainly that film photography is expensive AF nowadays. Most of the people that just wanted to shoot film for nostalgic/aesthetic reasons end up gravitating towards digicams because, by the time you finish buying a good quality film P&S, film, developing the film and printing the photos you took, you could have just bought a late 2000's/early 2010's premium compact digital camera. You may get a bargain for the film camera, but those unavoidable film costs will slowly kill you. I bought a Samsung EX1/TL500 used online with its charging cable and a 2gb SDHC card included for $85. It's a 10 megapixel CCD sensor equipped with a Schneider Kreuznach Varioplan 24-72mm lens and in the right hands, it can take beautiful photos. A couple of days after I bought it, a Nikon Coolpix P7700 showed up for $95, but unfortunately I couldn't snag it in time. You could have bought both cameras for the price of an Olympus Mju II, 5 rolls of film, developing, post processing costs and still had money to spare.
There is a very obvious, and good, reason why lots of people (like me) use digicams. Money. And convenience. Sure, I could get a Fuji X100 like you said, but those suckers are >500 bucks a pop. Meanwhile, I can get a used digicam for like 30 bucks and still manage to make some amazing photos with it. You also don't have to haul a bag of lenses and accessories with you, or spend tons of money on extras. No, it's just a little crappy cam that you don't really care about if it gets damaged or not and you can just take it with you wherever you go, without a goddamn backpack or worrying about damaging your multi-hundred dollar toy. :)
I bought a 2009 digicam. The reason is because my phone camera is not good. Even though it has 25MP, my digicam only have 10MP, the digicam looks way better. I actually interested to buy some cameras like Fuji X100 but I can't afford it, digicam have good result with cheap price with a smooth optical zoom. Plus I love the natural 'old aesthetic' without using any app. Maybe peoples are after these digicams because closer to film camera style but easy to transfer it to PC and not expensive like Fuji X100. But also agree to what you said. I don't have any knowledge about photography, so thank you for this video! xD
My icon was shot with an Olympus digi-cam 20-something years ago and I have it used it as my icon/avatar on my website and social media since I can remember. I took some great photos with that camera and I'm pretty sure it's sitting in a drawer somewhere around the house. Having said that, I have no desire to ever pick one up again. I think it's pretty niche product at this point that doesn't offer very much aside from nostalgia
Please? We called them digicams back in the day... late 90s, early 2000s. It wasn't an official term by any measure but everyone spoke like that. I'm sure if geocities was still around, most mentions of the word would point there. I have some cameras from the era that i chose back in the day based on actually liking them (most weren't very good) and they are Powershot G2 and Optio W10. I went to a vacation with friends a short while back and shot on W10 there and the pictures came out awesome; and i sometimes take my G2 out for a walk and i'm also very very pleased with it. My father has a Fuji Finepix 500 series (maybe 510 or 520 i'm not sure) that he's in love with. Would i just grab random thrift store CCD camera? No. There's no point in that, most weren't that well made. Nor would i overpay for these old cameras. But they can be fun. Today there's any number of good modern cameras that you can use, basically any MFT etc, and not be disappointed. Or why not a small Pentax DSLR, it can be an old one from 2010s, it can be a CMOS one, it's fine. People get their head too twisted about gear when they shouldn't be. I've also got one spectacularly weird digicam, Sanyo VPC Z400. I wouldn't shoot with it today, it's a little borderline in quality, but i did make good pics with it back in the day, and i just love taking it into my hand and admiring it. I would for sure not mind more weird cameras from the era. The quirks and features of this camera include a special light guide window to be able to review your pictures in sunlight by pointing the top of the camera at the sun, and a spring loaded lens that can be capped at any time even if the camera is on or it failed to retract because the battery ran out and the camera didn't notice that well in time.
I have to mostly agree! Those CCD colors really are great, and it's fun when they are ultra small and cheap, but the rest of deal kind of ruins it for me. I'm not shooting film just because it's old and the colors are good. The colors are a factor, but there's definitely a lot more at play. If a 2004 Sony Mavica floats your boat, congratulations, but I'm not ready to throw out film over it, and I wasn't even willing to back then. ha ha.
I think it's also a bit of an expression of desperation with the current film prices and also the prices of the really good film point and shoots, like the Contax cameras. This creates a market for promises, there are hundreds of new videos every week about which niche digicam looks exactly like film. Not even the X100V really looks like film (had one myself), the look of a digicam is just flat. But it is the look that a generation has grown up with, which also explains the nostalgia.
Amen, brother. I've got a few digicams that I purchased through the years to use in my business when I was inspecting properties. They were perfect for that purpose but I certainly wouldn't use one when doing a serious shoot. The only time I would use a digicam today is if I was going to lunch with a friend and didn't want to bring along any of my film cameras (Nikon F, F2AS, F100 and F4s) or DSLRs (D70s, D80, D600 and D850). Come to think of it, if I was doing lunch with a friend, I would just take my iPhone.
I chuckle about many of the videos - reviewers boasting about the photos taken by an old CCD point and shoot ... on RUclips ... who renders a 10megapixel photo into a 1080i video - processes every video with their own compression algorithms - where what you see is a scaled and processed version ... viewers pour over videos and details - comparing one to another to choose the perfect "digicam" - do they realize the images on YT aren't really representative of the cameras they're evaluating? And where I've watched dozens of reviews and examples of the same camera, it's pretty obvious that the real aesthetic is the ability of the person behind the camera to compose a nice picture / perspective, choose the right ISO, shutter, aperture, white balance, compensation, etc.
Probably the treng is just it, a trend. But may not the only reason to go for digi-cams. In my example, I shot film in the past, but now it is not so cheap or convenient to develop at home with kids around. I use my vintage lenses in my M4/3 cameras and I particularly like the look of earlier M4/3 models and the challenge of shooting with less advanced models. So I decided to go even a little further back and add to my kit a canon sx200 is which has 14mp, 12x zoom, manual controls and allows to shoot in raw with CHDK. It is challenging, fun and gives nice results. I'd we don't go too far back and know the limitations of the gear, results can be very good.
I sometimes use a Sony DSC H-3 without having a memory stick any more. The internal memory stores only 8-10 images which is quite an analogue feeling. And there is a manual mode in this where I use sunny 16. Sometimes it's enough to carry around. But I agree I don't consider buying one (I have to get my Rolleiflex 3.5 being serviced 😊)
Interesting points, something that is confusing to me in the film space though, when film is developed into a negative, if one wants to digitize it for web or printing isn’t it then going to have to be captured by a digital sensor anyway? Whether it is scanned on a flat bed, photographed via a macro lens or in a lab, all of these will be at the mercy of a digital sensor. So isn’t darkroom printing the only way to really preserve “true” film “look”? It is the exactly same workflow as digital but with added cellulose and chemicals?
You know how vinyl has a dull thud sound on the bass end and a warm fuzzy sound on the high end? And then you can digitize that to sound file or CD and it sounds indistinguishable? You are using vinyl as a medium to distort the music in a (possibly) pleasing way. Even if the original album was recorded on analogue tape or digitally. Film is sort of the same, but with film you are actually using the analogue medium to record the light in the first place. You get different, often more pleasing tones with the film. Then when scanning, you are carrying those tones (possibly distortions) along to the digital file.
@@musa7606 Yea I get that, and agree. I just think that after spending $$ on let’s say portra and carefully, thoughtfully composing and shooting the result is still being reproduced by a digital sensor that has a certain colour scheme baked into it from the get go. But I do enjoy film images and you’re right about that certain “something” that’s almost intangible it’s very pleasing and rich like vinyl, which I’m also a huge fan of!
I found a digicam 2meg for £1.50 at a charity (goodwill) shop in the uk. I glued the battery cover back together and it works great. Just a bit of fun at no money. Why not?
was looking into a “digicam” and ended up just getting a mirrorless micro four thirds 😅 smaller than my dslr but still packs that punch that digicams lack. just couldnt find one that i felt id be content with
Grew up with these digicams, never like them at all due to too small size which is somehow didn't feel so good in my hand, only thing acceptable for me are the old bridge camera or DSLR as I like their aesthetics at the very least. On the other side, I could say I still on digicam as I don't have capacity to upgrade my camera beyond 2012 era for various reason and just don't think newer camera than that really make a difference. I stop buying this kind of camera around 2015 when I got PowerShot G1X and I barely shoot simple point and shoot pocket camera since then. I still interested in some bridge camera from that era but I hate small compact camera with passion ever since I start to get into photography and it's not about image (even when these are new as I learned about digital camera from camera catalogues or review magazines in my childhood, around early 2000s, I always wonder why I never get a chance to try my hand on bigger camera as I really annoyed by these point and shoots ever since), however my father really like them.
I'd say I am one of the last millenials that learned photography in the digital revolution through film and even caught and shot the last of Kodachrome in my teens. Film has been my media for conscious photography but I went into Medium format and B&W fully analog workflow, hybrid for the rare color rolls. When I saw the CP articles about digicams I was amused but I can understand it under an umbrella similar to lomo & toy cameras. Growing up with digicams, I am not going to the limitation of 2000s P&S, high grain and bad IQ in ISO 400 and small sensors... Haha I already have many contemporary shots with that look baked in! I haven't however sat to get into the CCD look. I tend to joke that I'm part of the digicams as I have the RX100 for EDC as well as a decent phone that has a largeish sensor, these are still digicams. The phones are crazy good. About the revival nostalgia, look into the "30 year cycle" of nostalgia which is basically our love for what we looked up to growing up.
As digicams might be convenient, wasn’t the whole point of film photography is that you’re not using a digital camera? I think that it’s great to have multiple options, I wouldn’t see this as a replacement for film, as it’s another option for taking photos. I hope film sales still continue to rise and more mainstream companies to cash in on the film revival as we’ve seen Target sell their own brand 35mm camera and Five Below selling their own B&W film and their own underwater camera. Film photography can’t be replaced
Film cost very expensive to treat as a hobby right now at least in my country. 20$ developed and scanned. People go cheap way to CCD point and shoot camera to compensate that mood and tone and it cost only 50$. I'm okay with that mindset. I have sony ZV1 and Kiss x5 with 24-70mm as my main camera. But since Digicams trend comes I bought a Nikon Coolpix 4100 and Casio Exilim S3 From 2003-2004 and i'm happy with them. it's proved that photos came out from crappy cameras are my pure skill and picture from them are pretty shitty (but in good way).
I mean I really like to use my Sony DSC-S70 for parties and stuff. It's cool that it can only take around 100 photos until the memory card is full and the battery empty. It lets you think about what you take photos of, just like in film photography. And I can give it to people without worrying about it because it's not 1600€ like the X100V. And I feel like people are way more open to photos because they know they can't land in some snapchat group the second after. If i use my bigger, better quality camera people feel under pressure and I don't want to give them my film camera because they don't know how to operate it and buying some analog point and shoot is also quite expensive, not to mention the film. So this camera which is from my grandfather is an easy, free way of getting cool party photos. If I want to take higher quality photos I use my a6400, if I want even higher quality photos I can borrow a camera from my friend, if I want to enjoy the experience I shoot film.
Except by nostalgia, there is no benefit reason for a digicam. Any iPhone, or decent android phone that you already have in your pocket, will do way better of 95% of all digicam. Digicam nostalgia is good and promoted by those ones selling digicam. Now you can see them reaching amazing prices. Fever, trendy scam, nostalgia, okay. Quality? Very questionable - not sustainable reason for.
Snapseed on the phone works fine, it's not about image quality, it's about mood......i have shot film since 1978 and so far I hate CMOS sensor even do I have several like X-T1, D700 and so on...
I've been using an old sd600 as a cheap beater camera for documenting stuff I do while I work on stuff like my car or any other mechanical work. Not a fan of using my phone in those situations due to higher chances of breaking it and being out 500+ dollars on a broken phone. With a cheapo old point and shoot, I don't have to worry as much. Small size and decent picture quality, they do the job well. Plus the tactile feel of buttons over touch screen is still a better and faster experience over my phone if I need to get several photos of what I am doing. Also think its a good and cheap way for kids to have fun with photography,. I let my nephew and nieces use old point and shoots for fun and they really enjoy taking shots of random things. A lot of the old canons support chdk and you do get RAW output too, I don't mind the workflow for it when I do use it.
Any camera can help to produce an extraordinary image... *in the right hands.* Digicams are so limited athat only shine with advanced photographers. Most of the photos (including mine) taken with digicams, are meh. My Fujifilm X100S and my two film cameras get me more keepers not only in composition, but also rendering: they look life-like, not old digital with harsh colors and highlights. Although I miss the digicam color noise powering with red the afternoons. What I wonder is what will happen for the next generations, if they will try to pick a Pixel phone, a LG 6, a Huawei P9 or any other to discover their batteries are long time dead.
I think you missed the point. I’m a photographer, I use heavy, expensive bodies that I don’t always want to take with me when I go out with friends. A digital camera fits in my pocket, it’s cheap and it’s fun to use. People feel relaxed and taking a picture becomes a way to play. You can’t get the same result with your phone because everyone has it, taking a picture with your phone is boring.
@@goldenhourkodak That's what I bought for a friend... I promised here a film camera but she couldn't find anywhere to process it. So I got her a D80... Very similar to a film experience. I was rather shocked at how low tech it was ha ha.. meter with a non AF lens? Nah! Live view on the screen on the back? Never! :) But still, a nice camera.
I have cameras of all catergories. They're all different "paint brushes" available for me to use, depending on the look I'm after. I shoot a 2007 Nikon P50 digicam DAILY, though. DAILY. EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. Because having a dedicated cam means I will USE it. It's small, uses AA batteries and regular SD card. I shoot it for snapshots. That's all. To document. To record. Not every shot I take has to be a project. Shots from my modern cell look like sh^&, anyway (S23). Overprocessed garbage.
I don't even understand the term "Dicicam". Shouldn't that be any digital camera. But I guess I own two "dicicams", an old Samsung...and a Panasonic Lumix. But I still havefive more digital cameras...digicams...three DSLR's one mirrorless and one dedikated videocam. They are all digital, and they are all cameras. Digicams. ;) I also have an old 35mm filmcamera. That is NOT a Digicam! :D
@@Overexposed1 For reference it was just the “ready to shoot” kit you would get at walmart. Had the dock, camera, an SD card, strap, case, copy of Kodak’s software, batteries that I had already pulled because they would have leaked. Hey, you do you. A fool and their money will soon part.
The next thing I’m getting into are the Digital camcorders from 2008 to 2013. Cannon. Sony. Jvc. Dirt cheap. Batteries are still being made. You can get a lot of them, like five or so, for $50 max. Flip each for $90 to $100 plus shipping. Bingo bango. Next thing will be the “easy shoot” cameras. The ones with the build in USB cords, Flip brand. Flip ultra, etc.
you make some great points. honestly though, i think the main audience this trend applies to would probably just be folks who want to shoot casually, and don’t care to edit their images, or invest too much time beyond just the shooting experience of their photography.
Small form factor. Automode. Perfect for parties. Also cheaper than an actual film point and shoot. Quality is not an issue when you post to instagram.
I've seen what film shooters post to instagram. Its often not pretty.
@@banana_necessary Which is fine. There's literally nothing wrong with that. At the art academy we had an extremely snobbish teacher (he was otherwise pretty good at teaching stuff about photography, very knowledgable, good resources and extremely broad but expert knowledge base) who looked down on anything he considered "bad". So naturally that resulted in a couple of art students reacting to that by getting the absolute worst cameras they could get their hands on and take the what this teacher would deem the most god-awful pictures ever just to prove a point. And I love that. That's just the power of context and concept.
That being said, I shoot everything because sometimes something fits a vibe.
Nostalgia fever. Virtually 95% of the mobiles can do the same or better than digicams.
@@IsaiahPrestes Not really... Digicams have 2 advantages... Real lenses, and CCD sensors for the rich colors.
Yes. Even before the trend I've used my digicam for the same reason. (although I do not post them on instagram, I just shoot to keep memories lol)
I love shooting film for documenting my trips and my dslr mostly for official work. But there's that charm about using my mom's old digicam on being portable.
Although my smartphone could do anything a digicam can do (from 40mp RAW pics to 4K video). Just like the good ol p&s film cameras, sometimes having little options to think about is what makes things fun
My humble dissent: 2 things are going on here, 1) you’re looking at the wrong cameras and 2) you’re looking at this from the wrong angle. There’s some interesting magic that happens when you throw some of these older RAWs intro super modern software like Lightroom or Capture One. Color noise can be entirely eliminated with a single slider. Colors respond totally differently than modern sensor Raws and what’s left is a hybrid image of old hardware + new software, a result that wasn’t entirely possible back in the day. Depending on the camera you use, you can get really interesting outputs.
Now, are these results something YOU specifically would be interested in? That’s an entirely different question since it’s subjective, like when you say the X100 outputs look like film. Are you serious bro? You shoot film right? I’ve shot and owned every single X100 since the S and I couldn’t disagree more. If anything the X100 series is the epitome of fake film nostalgia bait since its mission when first designed was to literally fabricate film nostalgia using modern technology. By your logic, shouldn’t you be confused by the X100 series just as much?? Just shoot film, right?
Some people like the look of VHS. Some people like the look of film… and now, older “digicams” are carving out a spot on the spectrum as a tool to be used to express oneself. Saying one is better is than the other is literal snobbery.
Try the Olympus Camedia series, namely the C-5050 / C-5060 / C-7070 if you have a chance. Their outputs are so unique, you can tell it’s the Camedia series even if they’re edited. The Contax/Kyocera Finecams spits out really interesting jpegs as well. The E-1, E-300, E-400 and E-500, though not digicams, offer a super unique look you can’t get from modern equipment anymore too. Again, whether you like it or not is a different story but don’t mistake your “preference” of what you presume is quality as the end all; photography and image creation is much deeper than that.
Cheers🎉
for me, the X100V has been the biggest let down of all time as a photographer. I have the Olympus C-5050 and its raws are mind boggling. My favorite "halfway" tool is the Pana GX1 with the panny 20mm, what a rendering... unmatched. All in all f I want super rich 3D photos (and super film like) I always have my Leica M240, much, much superior to the X100V even when paired with a humble Voigtlander 35 1.4 nokton
I've watched tons of RUclips videos by "photographers" touting digicams. The one thing I've noticed it that about 99.9% of the images they show are just low quality snapshots with zero post-processing. Like everyone else, I have limited time. When I decide whether or not I will invest my time following a RUclips photographer I first check their images. If their images are just plain old snapshots, I don't spend my time watching any more of their videos.
Just wanna add to that finishing recommendation. I picked up a few digicams for the combination of price/convenience, and I don't think most of what I get out of any of them is very interesting. Still, I sometimes use them because they're cheap, fun to mess with, and convenient. I picked up an Olympus C-5050 though, and man, what a joy. Plus it's just a blast to shoot with. I love that little tank.
I am curious if you have tried custom film simulations on the newer Fuji cameras. The default simulations are okay for quick jpegs, but there are a lot of guys online that have created a bunch of custom sims that really do look similar to just about any type of film you can think of. It is as lot of fun, and you can save quite a few of these settings as a custom setup and label them. The settings have to be matched to your generation of processor, X-trans iii, iv, v for example. I use them on my T-X30ii, and they make some fast and beautiful jpegs.
Here is an example of settings for X-trans iv, Kodachrome 64:
Classic Chrome
Dynamic Range: DR400
Highlight: +1
Shadow: +2
Color: 0
Noise Reduction: -4
Sharpening: +2
Grain Effect: Weak
Color Chrome Effect: Weak
White Balance: Daylight, +2 Red & -5 Blue
ISO: Auto, up to ISO 6400
Exposure Compensation: +1/3 to +1 (typically)
fujixweekly.com/fujifilm-x-trans-iv-recipes/
@@6.5mm_is_the_best_mmI'm guessing this comment is directed at me? I apologize if it's not but i'll respond anyway since it's under my comment.
Yes, I have tried many, many, many Fuji recipes. Not to be that "I liked x band before they got famous" guy but I've known about Fuji X Weekly way before it had any serious footing like it has today and have followed Ritchies work loosely ever since. I've shot Fuji as my main system for over a decade now and have dabbled with most of their bodies and lenses.
If you're asking me specifically, I'm done with Fuji. My interest in them started to fade when I got the X100V on release day (way before this crazy internet hype) and the X-S20 was the nail in the coffin. They are fantastic products and I don't think they are overrated by any means, but to me, they just aren't fun to shoot with anymore. People complain about Sony's feeling like computers with a lens attached, but I feel like Fuji is going down that same road. They kinda have to. Camera tech, specifically speaking in terms of output, have plateaued, and haven't really changed much for the past decade or so. Maybe even more.
Some of my best images I've ever shot was on an Olympus E-P1. Or the C-7070. Or the Lumix LX3. Are they as sharp and modern looking like, say, an X-T5 or a Leica M11? No. Would the shots be "better" if I had used modern equipment? Absolutely not. They are perfect the way they are and I would never wish for them look like I shot them on a modern camera.
I just no longer care much for super high quality, super sharp, super malleable images. The experience of using weirdo cameras that came out 15 years ago that can create beautiful images is way more interesting to me than using the newest gear which cmon... don't fool yourself. They all basically do the same thing. Any setting a Fuji Recipe can do can be somewhat replicated with a slider or two in Lightroom and if you absolutely need the exact look that Fuji decided to dial in in their JPEG engine then thats awesome man. You found your perfect camera.
Please dont let me discourage you from enjoying your Fuji cameras and recipes. Different strokes for different folks after all. I'm just in a phase where I'm done with super modern looking tech.
So, I went down the digicam rabbit hole. Couple of things I determined.
1. If you want to try out macro photography a $100 digicam is great. A couple three of my cameras have focusing distances of less than 5mm.
2. More importantly, pocket cameras of old were designed to go into pockets. The Fuji X100 is compact compared to an X-T* but next to a digital Elph? I don't really like the UX of most cellphone cameras (seriously, a physical, shutter button, it's not that hard) and my cellphone is a Surface Duo 2, which is even worse.
A camera that I can fit in my pocket, with enough resolution to make 8x10 prints solves some issues for me.
That being said, I think a lot of the romanticizing CCD sensors is delusional. If my OG Sony RX100 hadn't just died I think all my experimentation would have lead me back to it.
a USED x100 is like almost 5 times as expensive as some of these old digicameras, it's an accessible and affordable way for new photographers to get into photography and probably eventually, film.
The factor have fun for a couple of nickels makes sense. Anything else is just fisherman cuento.
3 to 4 megapixels is big enough for a4 print lol. So it does brings back memory. Its just that due to flatness and low resolution of the files, it cannot be edited as much as modern cameras.
the main reason people love them is because it's what we grew up with! when i was younger i always remember having a digital camera or minidv camcorder close by as it's all most of everybody i knew had. i personally love it because it creates family memories with looks from an era where everything seemed better to me because i knew nothing about the world as i do now. it also creates fun videos with the suuuper crunchy 320x240 or 640x480 .avi files that reminds me of those old home videos our parents used to record...
i'm also saying this as somebody 25 digi-cams deep into the trend (which isn't just a trend for me anymore lol) so i might be a bit biased lol
Thanks for watching. Good luck with your addiction! Hahahaa.
The trend is basically grasping for the feeling of how it used to be. The feeling of a simpler life that many of us older people remember and younger people heard about. The other aspect of it is the growing understanding that more technology advancement and addiction to how our lives are contained in a connected slab of glass as our smartphone which is actually removing us from the physical reality. Newer cameras are too sharp, too perfect and life in reality is not that. It’s not about photography as far as the art. It’s the feeling and time that those cameras were the best at the moment. They are time machines. Newer cameras that simulate that old look are just that a simulation. It’s not the same thing when you know it’s just mimicking something older.
This is introspective af, well said 👏🏼
Before I bought my powershot G12 I was considering the fuji film x 100. It was not in the budget, G12 offers me a 10 mega pixel a CMOS and sensor while also being able to shoot RAW and the work that has come out of the camera is not bad.
It seems that one of the factors behind the "digicam" trend is that prices of film keep going up and some film shooters are moving onto "digicams" for the nostalgia factor. Personally I'd rather just shoot old manual lenses on a DSLR to get a "vintage" look.
That said, early digital cameras can be really quite interesting for their quirky design and construction, as manufacturers were still exploring the possibilities of the new medium. Later cameras became much more homogenized design and feature wise.
I think this, the price of film, the portability of digicams (compared to dslrs) and the look and feel of an actual camera (rather than an iphone) is why people are getting them. It's why I got one for 50 bucks this week. I'm honestly surprised by how much I liked it. It is exactly like a point and shoot and fits in the palm of my hand and performs like a ten year old iphone.
I've recently picked up a beat up old, 8MP Canon point and shoot digicam for £15, have a Canon DSLR and a Ricoh GRIII for if I want high resolution, pixel peepable images, but for just enjoying taking a photo without needing to go through a full editing workflow or pay the film tax, the digicam is scratching that itch really well, and the images make me smile.
I have been turning off the display, disabling the image review and just shooting with the optical viewfinder and looking at what I get when I pull the card at the end of the day, then my workflow with it so far is a bit of cropping/straightening and the rest I leave as is.
May just be me but having a less capable camera with me helps me every day helps me take what is a fun hobby far less seriously, of course if I go on a trip specifically to take pictures, I take my good cameras, but if I'm going on a bike ride, or a walk, or out shopping, the little digicam works in a way a smartphone just won't.
Not sure “work flow” corresponds to “digicam” lol
A dedicated camera in your pocket has its appeal as a documentary tool. But thats not the only reason why I have a collection.
I'm been building my collection because of their quirkyness. Have a look at some of them and you wonder how the heck they got to this (Finepix 4800Z for example).
Also, some have some cool tactile qualities in operation, such as manual sliding covers for power.
Digicams were a revolution in photography. My first one was a Sony 8mp with a Zeiss (branded) lens, and the pics out of it was way better than the point and shoot 35mm from the 90s that often gave you bad exposures, bad developments from Walmart, and for a reasonable price of $250 at the time with no film or development charges.
If you want a true retro digicam, go get a nice one. They aren't expensive. A Canon G10 with 14mp CCD sensor, built in ND filter, and decent manual controls can be had for $100ish. And it fits in your pocket. Easily. And the price of 1/5th of an X100.
And don't muck around with the images in PS. Just let the CCD do its work.
"Why wouldn't you shoot film?"
Because film gets pricey. And takes a while to develop. And some people don't have access to easy development. I bought a Nikon D80 for a friend in the Philippines who doesn't have easy access to film development. Nice colors.
I assume you had a Sony F828?
@@aprilthunder Something along the lines of a W100... they had several models in this range, I forget exactly which one I had.
Digicams in general have become more popular for a couple of reasons, but mainly that film photography is expensive AF nowadays. Most of the people that just wanted to shoot film for nostalgic/aesthetic reasons end up gravitating towards digicams because, by the time you finish buying a good quality film P&S, film, developing the film and printing the photos you took, you could have just bought a late 2000's/early 2010's premium compact digital camera. You may get a bargain for the film camera, but those unavoidable film costs will slowly kill you.
I bought a Samsung EX1/TL500 used online with its charging cable and a 2gb SDHC card included for $85. It's a 10 megapixel CCD sensor equipped with a Schneider Kreuznach Varioplan 24-72mm lens and in the right hands, it can take beautiful photos. A couple of days after I bought it, a Nikon Coolpix P7700 showed up for $95, but unfortunately I couldn't snag it in time.
You could have bought both cameras for the price of an Olympus Mju II, 5 rolls of film, developing, post processing costs and still had money to spare.
There is a very obvious, and good, reason why lots of people (like me) use digicams. Money. And convenience.
Sure, I could get a Fuji X100 like you said, but those suckers are >500 bucks a pop. Meanwhile, I can get a used digicam for like 30 bucks and still manage to make some amazing photos with it.
You also don't have to haul a bag of lenses and accessories with you, or spend tons of money on extras. No, it's just a little crappy cam that you don't really care about if it gets damaged or not and you can just take it with you wherever you go, without a goddamn backpack or worrying about damaging your multi-hundred dollar toy. :)
I bought a 2009 digicam. The reason is because my phone camera is not good. Even though it has 25MP, my digicam only have 10MP, the digicam looks way better. I actually interested to buy some cameras like Fuji X100 but I can't afford it, digicam have good result with cheap price with a smooth optical zoom. Plus I love the natural 'old aesthetic' without using any app. Maybe peoples are after these digicams because closer to film camera style but easy to transfer it to PC and not expensive like Fuji X100. But also agree to what you said. I don't have any knowledge about photography, so thank you for this video! xD
My icon was shot with an Olympus digi-cam 20-something years ago and I have it used it as my icon/avatar on my website and social media since I can remember. I took some great photos with that camera and I'm pretty sure it's sitting in a drawer somewhere around the house. Having said that, I have no desire to ever pick one up again. I think it's pretty niche product at this point that doesn't offer very much aside from nostalgia
Please? We called them digicams back in the day... late 90s, early 2000s. It wasn't an official term by any measure but everyone spoke like that. I'm sure if geocities was still around, most mentions of the word would point there.
I have some cameras from the era that i chose back in the day based on actually liking them (most weren't very good) and they are Powershot G2 and Optio W10. I went to a vacation with friends a short while back and shot on W10 there and the pictures came out awesome; and i sometimes take my G2 out for a walk and i'm also very very pleased with it. My father has a Fuji Finepix 500 series (maybe 510 or 520 i'm not sure) that he's in love with.
Would i just grab random thrift store CCD camera? No. There's no point in that, most weren't that well made. Nor would i overpay for these old cameras. But they can be fun. Today there's any number of good modern cameras that you can use, basically any MFT etc, and not be disappointed. Or why not a small Pentax DSLR, it can be an old one from 2010s, it can be a CMOS one, it's fine. People get their head too twisted about gear when they shouldn't be.
I've also got one spectacularly weird digicam, Sanyo VPC Z400. I wouldn't shoot with it today, it's a little borderline in quality, but i did make good pics with it back in the day, and i just love taking it into my hand and admiring it. I would for sure not mind more weird cameras from the era. The quirks and features of this camera include a special light guide window to be able to review your pictures in sunlight by pointing the top of the camera at the sun, and a spring loaded lens that can be capped at any time even if the camera is on or it failed to retract because the battery ran out and the camera didn't notice that well in time.
I have to mostly agree! Those CCD colors really are great, and it's fun when they are ultra small and cheap, but the rest of deal kind of ruins it for me. I'm not shooting film just because it's old and the colors are good. The colors are a factor, but there's definitely a lot more at play. If a 2004 Sony Mavica floats your boat, congratulations, but I'm not ready to throw out film over it, and I wasn't even willing to back then. ha ha.
I think it's also a bit of an expression of desperation with the current film prices and also the prices of the really good film point and shoots, like the Contax cameras.
This creates a market for promises, there are hundreds of new videos every week about which niche digicam looks exactly like film.
Not even the X100V really looks like film (had one myself), the look of a digicam is just flat. But it is the look that a generation has grown up with, which also explains the nostalgia.
I bet one DSLRs will one day trend again vs the now popular miroroless cameras. It may not be now but later on.
Amen, brother. I've got a few digicams that I purchased through the years to use in my business when I was inspecting properties. They were perfect for that purpose but I certainly wouldn't use one when doing a serious shoot. The only time I would use a digicam today is if I was going to lunch with a friend and didn't want to bring along any of my film cameras (Nikon F, F2AS, F100 and F4s) or DSLRs (D70s, D80, D600 and D850). Come to think of it, if I was doing lunch with a friend, I would just take my iPhone.
I chuckle about many of the videos - reviewers boasting about the photos taken by an old CCD point and shoot ... on RUclips ... who renders a 10megapixel photo into a 1080i video - processes every video with their own compression algorithms - where what you see is a scaled and processed version ... viewers pour over videos and details - comparing one to another to choose the perfect "digicam" - do they realize the images on YT aren't really representative of the cameras they're evaluating? And where I've watched dozens of reviews and examples of the same camera, it's pretty obvious that the real aesthetic is the ability of the person behind the camera to compose a nice picture / perspective, choose the right ISO, shutter, aperture, white balance, compensation, etc.
You are onto something
Probably the treng is just it, a trend. But may not the only reason to go for digi-cams. In my example, I shot film in the past, but now it is not so cheap or convenient to develop at home with kids around. I use my vintage lenses in my M4/3 cameras and I particularly like the look of earlier M4/3 models and the challenge of shooting with less advanced models. So I decided to go even a little further back and add to my kit a canon sx200 is which has 14mp, 12x zoom, manual controls and allows to shoot in raw with CHDK. It is challenging, fun and gives nice results. I'd we don't go too far back and know the limitations of the gear, results can be very good.
I sometimes use a Sony DSC H-3 without having a memory stick any more. The internal memory stores only 8-10 images which is quite an analogue feeling. And there is a manual mode in this where I use sunny 16. Sometimes it's enough to carry around. But I agree I don't consider buying one (I have to get my Rolleiflex 3.5 being serviced 😊)
Interesting points, something that is confusing to me in the film space though, when film is developed into a negative, if one wants to digitize it for web or printing isn’t it then going to have to be captured by a digital sensor anyway? Whether it is scanned on a flat bed, photographed via a macro lens or in a lab, all of these will be at the mercy of a digital sensor. So isn’t darkroom printing the only way to really preserve “true” film “look”? It is the exactly same workflow as digital but with added cellulose and chemicals?
You know how vinyl has a dull thud sound on the bass end and a warm fuzzy sound on the high end? And then you can digitize that to sound file or CD and it sounds indistinguishable? You are using vinyl as a medium to distort the music in a (possibly) pleasing way. Even if the original album was recorded on analogue tape or digitally.
Film is sort of the same, but with film you are actually using the analogue medium to record the light in the first place. You get different, often more pleasing tones with the film. Then when scanning, you are carrying those tones (possibly distortions) along to the digital file.
@@musa7606 Yea I get that, and agree. I just think that after spending $$ on let’s say portra and carefully, thoughtfully composing and shooting the result is still being reproduced by a digital sensor that has a certain colour scheme baked into it from the get go. But I do enjoy film images and you’re right about that certain “something” that’s almost intangible it’s very pleasing and rich like vinyl, which I’m also a huge fan of!
@@alexbadeu All I know is when I scan Portra, it still looks good.
I found a digicam 2meg for £1.50 at a charity (goodwill) shop in the uk. I glued the battery cover back together and it works great. Just a bit of fun at no money. Why not?
was looking into a “digicam” and ended up just getting a mirrorless micro four thirds 😅 smaller than my dslr but still packs that punch that digicams lack. just couldnt find one that i felt id be content with
Grew up with these digicams, never like them at all due to too small size which is somehow didn't feel so good in my hand, only thing acceptable for me are the old bridge camera or DSLR as I like their aesthetics at the very least. On the other side, I could say I still on digicam as I don't have capacity to upgrade my camera beyond 2012 era for various reason and just don't think newer camera than that really make a difference.
I stop buying this kind of camera around 2015 when I got PowerShot G1X and I barely shoot simple point and shoot pocket camera since then. I still interested in some bridge camera from that era but I hate small compact camera with passion ever since I start to get into photography and it's not about image (even when these are new as I learned about digital camera from camera catalogues or review magazines in my childhood, around early 2000s, I always wonder why I never get a chance to try my hand on bigger camera as I really annoyed by these point and shoots ever since), however my father really like them.
Because new digital cameras are STUPID EXPENSIVE!!! I paid $200 for an old Powershot G12 and I think that is ridiculous.
I'd say I am one of the last millenials that learned photography in the digital revolution through film and even caught and shot the last of Kodachrome in my teens. Film has been my media for conscious photography but I went into Medium format and B&W fully analog workflow, hybrid for the rare color rolls.
When I saw the CP articles about digicams I was amused but I can understand it under an umbrella similar to lomo & toy cameras.
Growing up with digicams, I am not going to the limitation of 2000s P&S, high grain and bad IQ in ISO 400 and small sensors... Haha I already have many contemporary shots with that look baked in! I haven't however sat to get into the CCD look.
I tend to joke that I'm part of the digicams as I have the RX100 for EDC as well as a decent phone that has a largeish sensor, these are still digicams. The phones are crazy good.
About the revival nostalgia, look into the "30 year cycle" of nostalgia which is basically our love for what we looked up to growing up.
I have a canon power shot elph 190 is, it’s the perfect mix if old and new, 20 megapixel ccd sensor, good A/f, and it had WiFi and works with the app!
Digicam was a nickname from EARLY on in the digital camera space. See, for example, Steve's Digicams from the late nineties and early 2000s.
I always wanted one of those Canon ELPHs when I was younger. Looks like they still produce one model but it's on backorder...
As digicams might be convenient, wasn’t the whole point of film photography is that you’re not using a digital camera? I think that it’s great to have multiple options, I wouldn’t see this as a replacement for film, as it’s another option for taking photos. I hope film sales still continue to rise and more mainstream companies to cash in on the film revival as we’ve seen Target sell their own brand 35mm camera and Five Below selling their own B&W film and their own underwater camera. Film photography can’t be replaced
Here in Brasil, are Very expensive... Fuji x100v is around 4.000 dollar / 19.000 reais for a new One.... And used about 2.700 dollar/ 13.500 reais...
Film cost very expensive to treat as a hobby right now at least in my country. 20$ developed and scanned.
People go cheap way to CCD point and shoot camera to compensate that mood and tone and it cost only 50$. I'm okay with that mindset.
I have sony ZV1 and Kiss x5 with 24-70mm as my main camera. But since Digicams trend comes I bought a Nikon Coolpix 4100 and Casio Exilim S3 From 2003-2004 and i'm happy with them. it's proved that photos came out from crappy cameras are my pure skill and picture from them are pretty shitty (but in good way).
I mean I really like to use my Sony DSC-S70 for parties and stuff. It's cool that it can only take around 100 photos until the memory card is full and the battery empty. It lets you think about what you take photos of, just like in film photography. And I can give it to people without worrying about it because it's not 1600€ like the X100V. And I feel like people are way more open to photos because they know they can't land in some snapchat group the second after. If i use my bigger, better quality camera people feel under pressure and I don't want to give them my film camera because they don't know how to operate it and buying some analog point and shoot is also quite expensive, not to mention the film. So this camera which is from my grandfather is an easy, free way of getting cool party photos. If I want to take higher quality photos I use my a6400, if I want even higher quality photos I can borrow a camera from my friend, if I want to enjoy the experience I shoot film.
Except by nostalgia, there is no benefit reason for a digicam. Any iPhone, or decent android phone that you already have in your pocket, will do way better of 95% of all digicam. Digicam nostalgia is good and promoted by those ones selling digicam. Now you can see them reaching amazing prices. Fever, trendy scam, nostalgia, okay. Quality? Very questionable - not sustainable reason for.
Snapseed on the phone works fine, it's not about image quality, it's about mood......i have shot film since 1978 and so far I hate CMOS sensor even do I have several like X-T1, D700 and so on...
I've been using an old sd600 as a cheap beater camera for documenting stuff I do while I work on stuff like my car or any other mechanical work. Not a fan of using my phone in those situations due to higher chances of breaking it and being out 500+ dollars on a broken phone. With a cheapo old point and shoot, I don't have to worry as much. Small size and decent picture quality, they do the job well. Plus the tactile feel of buttons over touch screen is still a better and faster experience over my phone if I need to get several photos of what I am doing.
Also think its a good and cheap way for kids to have fun with photography,. I let my nephew and nieces use old point and shoots for fun and they really enjoy taking shots of random things.
A lot of the old canons support chdk and you do get RAW output too, I don't mind the workflow for it when I do use it.
I found one at the thrift store for like $9 and it has a leica lens but the resolution and dynamic range is so poor that it just sucks lol
Any camera can help to produce an extraordinary image... *in the right hands.* Digicams are so limited athat only shine with advanced photographers. Most of the photos (including mine) taken with digicams, are meh. My Fujifilm X100S and my two film cameras get me more keepers not only in composition, but also rendering: they look life-like, not old digital with harsh colors and highlights. Although I miss the digicam color noise powering with red the afternoons. What I wonder is what will happen for the next generations, if they will try to pick a Pixel phone, a LG 6, a Huawei P9 or any other to discover their batteries are long time dead.
"Just get a Fuji x100" Old point and shoot produce good enough results for people that are going for that "film" look, without breaking the bank
I think you missed the point. I’m a photographer, I use heavy, expensive bodies that I don’t always want to take with me when I go out with friends. A digital camera fits in my pocket, it’s cheap and it’s fun to use. People feel relaxed and taking a picture becomes a way to play. You can’t get the same result with your phone because everyone has it, taking a picture with your phone is boring.
In the 2000s, all I wanted was to be able to afford a DSLR. Now that I can, I ain't going back!
How about a dslr with a ccd sensor? How about a nice mirrorless camera that foregoes the mirror?
@@musa7606 That's what I use. A Nikon D80 with a 10mp CCD sensor (when I am not shooting film)
@@goldenhourkodak That's what I bought for a friend... I promised here a film camera but she couldn't find anywhere to process it. So I got her a D80... Very similar to a film experience. I was rather shocked at how low tech it was ha ha.. meter with a non AF lens? Nah! Live view on the screen on the back? Never! :)
But still, a nice camera.
I have cameras of all catergories. They're all different "paint brushes" available for me to use, depending on the look I'm after. I shoot a 2007 Nikon P50 digicam DAILY, though. DAILY. EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. Because having a dedicated cam means I will USE it. It's small, uses AA batteries and regular SD card. I shoot it for snapshots. That's all. To document. To record. Not every shot I take has to be a project. Shots from my modern cell look like sh^&, anyway (S23). Overprocessed garbage.
I dream with a Leica Q, but here in Brasil it costs like a Volkswagen car
If you're posting to instagram exclusively you don't need more than a few megapixels anyhow.
the allure is that it has the y2k, frutiger aero vibe. film is not very nostalgic to ppl like me who were born in the 90s
I don't even understand the term "Dicicam". Shouldn't that be any digital camera. But I guess I own two "dicicams", an old Samsung...and a Panasonic Lumix. But I still havefive more digital cameras...digicams...three DSLR's one mirrorless and one dedikated videocam. They are all digital, and they are all cameras. Digicams. ;) I also have an old 35mm filmcamera. That is NOT a Digicam! :D
digicam is nostalgic fun in low price, eot
Same thing as film, photos are good cuz they are bad and not touched by phone HDR junk
the only ones benefitting from this garbage trend are those RUclipsrs who ran out of content
Films too expensive
I’m making a killing selling these to idiot zoomers. I sold a kodak easyshare “complete kit” with some dollar tree double A batteries, for $500 lmao
Holy lord. Wowwwwww
@@Overexposed1 For reference it was just the “ready to shoot” kit you would get at walmart. Had the dock, camera, an SD card, strap, case, copy of Kodak’s software, batteries that I had already pulled because they would have leaked.
Hey, you do you. A fool and their money will soon part.
The next thing I’m getting into are the Digital camcorders from 2008 to 2013. Cannon. Sony. Jvc. Dirt cheap. Batteries are still being made.
You can get a lot of them, like five or so, for $50 max. Flip each for $90 to $100 plus shipping.
Bingo bango.
Next thing will be the “easy shoot” cameras. The ones with the build in USB cords, Flip brand.
Flip ultra, etc.
Hustle & flow.
Nostalgia simps will pay anything to get that "vintage" look.
This is a horrible trend.
No, I think it‘s a great trend, because it‘s better to appreciate old tech than throwing it away in the trash.
@@mauriceschoenen Exactly
@@mauriceschoenen more 2 years, fever is gone, and people will be throwing it away in the trash. Somewhere in Africa or southeast Asia.
@@mauriceschoenenNo. The only benefiting are those RUclipsrs because they ran out of ideas for their content