finally, a "what to buy" article that says "don't buy"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 15 points 5 days ago (1 child)

the point is that 2000s digital cameras are even more mediocre (except the high-end kind it mentions at the end that aren’t seeing a revival)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    The article completely missed the point of CCD vs CMOS sensors. CCD tends to leak when there is a high contrast. Combined with a harsh flash it gives a distinct look for night time party photos.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_digital_cameras_with_CCD_sensors

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

    the article does address the "distinct look" part:

    If you want noisy or blown-out photos on purpose, plenty of apps can fake it for you.

    here's a photo from their review linked there:

    Captured with the included Chrome 400-P emulation on my iPhone 17 Pro, this photo from Prague’s Church of Our Lady of the Snows exhibits film-like grain, high contrast, and slightly desaturated colors. Ben Keough/NYT Wirecutter

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago*

    That one is a more traditional film photo, not CCD bloom. But fair point.

    It’s just that I have found myself in situations where groups of drunk 20-somethings ask me to take their photo with a vintage digicam. And having seen the results I get why they’re fun, the flash is strong and it makes things pop up so differently.

    I guess it could be simulated, but I doubt they had the latest iPhone in their pocket and taking the photo wouldn’t have been as fun anyway. Also that flash would be difficult to make it work realistically.

  • source
  • parent