posted in Technology
I Reviewed Late-2000s Digital Cameras. Allow Me to Remind You Why We All Switched to iPhones.
finally, a "what to buy" article that says "don't buy"
www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/iphone-camera-vs-old-school-point-and-shoot/
Replying to @Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
No, the size of the sensor matters, and phones are mediocre cameras. I will die on this hill.
Replying to @chewypoops@lemmy.world
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)
Replying to @Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
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.
en.wikipedia.orgList of digital cameras with CCD sensors - Wikipediathe 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:
Replying to @Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
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.