will shooting vintage digital cameras ever become a thing?

Why do stupid people ask stupid questions?

>>3148067
I have a Canon EOS D60 (6.3mp) DSLR if anyone wants to buy it

Wondered this as well. Would love to try the RD1 but to pricey and I have no lenses for it. Interested in the contax tvs digital as well.

I could see it turn into a meme. Just need someone 'famous' to start using it and get people on board.

>>3148067

maybe for ccd sensor?

>>3148067
People shoot film because of the aesthetic advantages over digital. What part of shitty 20-year-old sensors suggests they could have any advantage over modern sensors?

>>3148067
Despite digital photographers obesssing over gear so much the image you get from an old APS-C or up camera in good light is at web sizes not too different than what you get from the newest medium format digital.

>>3148554
same reason 8 bit music is a thing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qsWFFuYZYI

and this >>3148562
you won't see a lot of difference between a 5mp sensor and a 50mp sensor in print sizes of 8x10 and smaller

>>3148067
no, because digital photography is significantly influenced and driven by gearfaggotry and specsheets while film photography isn't

File: toomsd.jpg (666KB, 1033x1462px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 1033x1462px

Way ahead of ya OP

There are very few digital cameras with a low-fi or otherwise characteristic look that's desirable. Even the Epson's character is mostly between manageable and vomit-inducing; and the M8's sensors are reputed to be rotting away slowly.

I mean, maybe some later impressionists will find value in e.g. shitty cellphone cameras from five years ago, ones that'll make every picture look like an unsophisticated oil painting. But no, there are no vintage digital cameras aside from special goods of the rangefinder wank bracket (see Leica).

Furthermore, there's a point where even old digital cameras get pretty decent. For example, the D2x is still a very capable body aside from its slow processor and crappy display, for a camera from like 2004. But below that point everything's dire like MemorySticks that software hasn't supported for a decade, compact cameras with lenses worse than today (who'd've thunk hey!), and so forth.

>>3148067
Shot some Fuji s7000 this weekend.
>6mp of Super CCD goodness.

Copy pasted from prduct description on google.
>The Super CCD utilizes larger, octagonal-shaped, light-gathering diodes called Picture Elements (pixels) that are laid out in a saw-tooth pattern. Super CCDs can capture more light information than ordinary CCDs.

Last photo taken on it was from 2009.

>Yfw you realize 2009 was 22 years ago.

>>3148565
8 bit music, gimmick or not, has a distinct and purposeful sound. The musical equivalent would be recording everything to 92kbps.
Also resolution is far from the most important part of the last 20 years of digital sensor improvements.

>>3148067
>will shooting vintage digital cameras ever become a thing?
Brian Eno says yes:

“Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided. It’s the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. The blues singer with the cracked voice is the sound of an emotional cry too powerful for the throat that releases it. The excitement of grainy film, of bleached-out black and white, is the excitement of witnessing events too momentous for the medium assigned to record them.”

>>3149065
What an articulate little faggot.

>>3149065
I like Eno and he says a lot of insightful things but he wasn’t thinking when he said this. And he doesn’t even agree with it nowadays anyway.

File: L1089961_small.jpg (1MB, 2634x3916px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2634x3916px

Kinda.

I have an M8. I love the camera, much more than my Sony. The images I get out of the CCD are almost always better for portraiture than anything I get out of the Sony. Skintones are more natural and I rarely have to do much post-processing. But that's the extent that the "vintage" look goes; the color response of the CCD. To anyone else's eye it still looks like just any other modern camera.

I think in terms of the look of "vintage" digital, it usually comes down to CCD vs. CMOS.

Pic related. Shot that this last weekend with my M8.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Leica Camera AG
Camera Model	M8 Digital Camera
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2634
Image Height	3916
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:09:11 10:58:23
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/9.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/9.5
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2634
Image Height	3916
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	00000000000000000000000000002B53

>>3149148
Still have a D200 for that same purpose.

>>3149149
A friend of mine swears by that camera with the 80-200 2.8D and an off camera flash.

File: L1085581SOOC.jpg (544KB, 3916x2634px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 3916x2634px

>>3149149
Yup. Sucks that the lowlight is garbage on CCD's, but with proper lighting, can't beat dem skintones.

Pic related. Straight out of my M8. Black/brown skintones, hell, even tan white people, need a lot of massaging in post with my Sony. On the M8 they're great right off the bat.

Not to say CMOS is shit, it's just different. It's far more versatile than CCD, hence why I have a Sony as my Leica's backup.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Leica Camera AG
Camera Model	M8 Digital Camera
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:09:11 11:27:16
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3916
Image Height	2634
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	00000000000000000000000000001A57

>>3149166
Also, I should mention - I'm not saying that my Sony is representative of ALL CMOS sensors. I've used plenty of other CMOS cameras, including ones from Canon. The skintones are much better on Canon. But the CCD has a look all its own that's much richer straight out of camera.

>>3149167
I could be wrong and i'm too lazy to look it up but aren't a lot of the MF digital cameras and backs CCD?

This thread is of interest to me considering my late uncle has left me a 350D, I promised myself I would do a shoot with it but lord - the aesthetics of 2006 are something else, almost sinister in its antiquity

>>3149148
I like this harsh light. Yes, it definitely looks good to me. I have been trying to get this look but I just won't get it.

File: IMG_0471.jpg (153KB, 750x1134px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 750x1134px

The original Canon 5D came out in 2005. Is that vintage in digital years?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	750
Image Height	1134

File: L1089917small.jpg (1MB, 3916x2634px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3916x2634px

>>3149201
Thanks! I used a Contax TLA140 on the hotshoe. Simple, direct flash.

same with this pic.

M8, Konica M-Hexanon 35mm f2, Contax TLA140

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Leica Camera AG
Camera Model	M8 Digital Camera
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3916
Image Height	2634
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2017:09:11 12:57:40
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3916
Image Height	2634
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	00000000000000000000000000002B27

File: Mavica MVC-FD51.jpg (417KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 1080x1080px

>>3148067
>Will shooting vintage digital cameras ever become a thing?

Sure.
As soon as Nozama delivers my external 3.5" disc drive I will be in buisness.
Took almost a month but, I managed to put together a complete collection of commercially available Sony Mavica's.
From the FD5 (1997) to the CD500 (2003), assembled all 25 cameras.
Managed to get all the cables, chargers and batteries.
Most use 3.5" discs, some also added the Memory Stick and the final 6 use 8cm CDR and CD-RW.
Some have optical zoom, some are fixed, some even have Ziess Lenses.
Scored 250 unused 8cm CD-RW's for $35 and 1000 unused Sony 3.5" Disc's for $50.
All of them are in pristine condition, most came in the original boxes.

Decided to be ahead of the next trend.
When the hipsters are done with lomo film photography and head over to lomo digital, I will be the Wizard of Lo-Fi Digital.

Total cost for all the cameras was $325 with shipping.

>>3148067
I don't think so.

Go get that old PowerShot out of your closet and put fresh AA batteries in it. Carry it around for a day.

It's bigger and worse than your phone camera.

But it also doesn't matter if you break it. That's really the best thing old cameras have going for them.

>>3149247
Follow-up: Where would you bring your camera if you didn't have to worry about breaking it?

>>3149248
I'd do more underwater shooting.

File: 529a1062-e7a6-409d-85ed-22900c999c6a_1.3c0a94a87e5494b7587641d8506b1ef4.jpg (23KB, 450x450px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 450x450px

>>3149252
Go wild

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Polaroid-16MP-Waterproof-Instant-Sharing-Digital-Camera/140578742?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=0&wl13=2902&adid=22222222238260402142&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=m&wl3=108838439790&wl4=pla-182516822192&wl5=9060238&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=8175035&wl11=local&wl12=140578742&wl13=2902&veh=sem

>>3149248
>Where would you bring "your" camera.

That's not "my" camera.

>>3148067
The Nikon D70 is still strangely popular on eBay. Maybe Ken did this?

>>3149256
Why make the effort to reply?

>>3149256
your troll was not successful.

>>3149261
>The Nikon D70 is still strangely popular on eBay. Maybe Ken did this?

My guess would be David Hobby rather than Kenny. The D70 is the best camera that Nikon made with a CCD sensor. Unlike CMOS sensors, a CCD can be implemented with an electronic virtual shutter (i.e., instead of moving physics shutter blades out of the way, it just turns the sensor on and off for the appropriate amount of time), and this is how th d70 and its little brother the d50 were implemented.

A side effect of this design is that it can sync with a flash at any shutter speed.

>>3149214
>used a Contax TLA140

actual madman

those are hilarious but the tla200 is way nicer

>>3149439
yea i just can't justify spending that much on a flash because me monies

just out of curiousity, what would i get out the 200 aside from choosing the focal length on the flash (which I'm assuming only affects the info on the chart and not the actual flash intensity)? I'm using it on a leica so I'm not actually getting ttl or anything like that

also, real talk...does it look like shit? I've never used it as a direct flash like that and in the photo critique thread I got ripped apart for doing that

File: 7X13hzk.jpg (82KB, 600x551px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 600x551px

i shoot with a d40 because i enjoy using outdated technology, not because i lack the funds for a better camera haha

>>3149452
digital hipsterizim.
>get ready folks

>>3149457
CCD hipsters have been a thing for some time now

>>3149448
nah its got a nice appeal I like it

I just think the 200 has a far nicer look to it is all but I also use mine on a G1