Been selling digishitters to zoomers as a side hustle. Recently got a request to take photos with a Casio from 2005 because a potential buyer wanted to see how it looked.Outside I went, took some photos of scenery, flowers and whatnot. Went inside, noticed that I had used a low quality setting, went outside again to redo it in high quality setting, sent the photos to the potential buyer, gets feedback the next day that the photos "were of a too high quality and didn't look vintage enough". So it made me wonder, perhaps I should have just sent the low quality photos right away and that would have generated a sale, but still.. How does a camera that didn't even get good reviews when it was new in 2005 look "too good?"
put it on auto iso and use that 'fake' image stabilization where it waits for you to stop shaking before actually taking a picany shot that takes it a longer time will have the iso maxedyou will get a high iso, borderline motion blur image[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCASIO COMPUTER CO.,LTD.Camera ModelEX-G1Camera Software1.01Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.9Focal Length (35mm Equiv)114 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2009:01:03 19:11:53Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/5.4Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating160Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length19.98 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1328Image Height2000RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoDigital Zoom Ratio4Scene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastHardSaturationHighSharpnessHard
>>4329435Poor contrast, low dynamic range, weird colour casts, noisy images even in ok light, aberrations etc etc etc.
This[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGoogleImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Width640Image Height939
>>4329503I responded to his thread subject question and that’s more than he deserved. Not my problem.
>>4329503Because between digishits and top tier pro mirrorless, there's a lot of shit that's technically better than a phone, but if you just pick it up and snap, it won't be, so there's almost no point to spending that much money because a $350 DSLR is also technically better but only if you try. Digishit is a good way to avoid the "500 to 5000 scam zone" of modern MILCs and still have something fun and unique.
>>4329586>>4329594do not reply to negative value shit like that
>>4329435Many people think old = low quality and wear rose tinted glasses.Prolly doesnt help theres a whole scene peddling digishits as film-like.
>How does a camera that didn't even get good reviews when it was new in 2005 look "too good?"In 2005 people were looking at prints or monitors, which even in 2005 were bigger and clearer than a phone screen.Nowadays it has to look bad even on a tiny instagram thumbnail.
>>4329805they ARE "different"zoomies just notice it's different
>>4330987so basically the only viable camera range to use is the sony mavica
>>4334472Yes.
It's an even more mystic bullshit version of the "film look". I use a 2008 point and shoot (with RAW) as my main camera, and I can tell you that there is no benefit given from its CCD sensor, or the fact that it is old. I use it because it is compact, and the images are able to be edited nicely.The only valid digishits with a "vintage look" are below 4 megapixels and have wack japanese colour science from the era where nobody really knew what a digital camera was exactly supposed to be.Pic related is from the only digishit I know with a truly unique rendering.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeKONICACamera ModelKD-300ZCamera SoftwareKD-300Z Ver 1.01Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2001:05:01 19:42:10Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Shutter Speed1/84 secLens Aperturef/3.1Exposure Bias-2 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length11.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2048Image Height1536
>>4335177looks almost like one of those old additive process color plates with the fine grille effect
>>4335183Looking it up I see the resemblance.The camera that takes these photos are getting increasingly rare and break very often unfortunately.
>>4329435Hey OP, I’ve been doing the same thing on Facebook Marketplace but want to maybe launch a dedicated website, how do you run your operation.
>>4335189If you think that is viable then go ahead. Not like it is complicated setting up those sort of stores these days, I would be concerned with longevity if you want to do it "seriously" because who knows if/when this trend blows over.Me personally I just buy and sell largely in the same market.. just snipe underpriced cameras and then clean them up somewhat and take more professional photos and sell them at a markup.
>>4335177Eh in general I would say that early CCD digicams have a different colour palette in general, not just because they are CCD but because film companies, as you say, didn't know what digital should look like. With modern cmos and raw, most companies just shoot for 'accurate.' The notable exception to me is fuji, who still makes their film sim larps, which some people swear by. Generally to get the most out of a digishit camera from the early CCD era, you need to shot JPEG, and most only do that if you're going back properly far enough. I like the digishit look, but I'm not nostalgic for it. I was a digital atheist, so I shot film well until my early 20's, and then eventually switched over to digital after almost a decade hiatus. >>4335199Pretty smart, can't blame you for the hustle. It's actually nice to see the cameras getting used, no matter what the reason is.
Zoomer here. For me digishit camera is one in Nokia N8, good ccd sensor, not a good lens, really cheap and compact
>>4336630It is CMOS dumbass.
>>4332585What?
>>4336773Well, I checked the Imaging resource and it looks like you're right (i will give them more credibility than other websites).But this further proves the point that JPEG encoding algorithms contribute more to the "Vintage look" than the actual sensor type.
>>4335177I got a couple of CCD digishits and early/mid00's cameras kicking around that I enjoy but yeah.To the general point of the thread, a lot of point and shoot cameras were extremely capable, especially if they're ones like the OP, Casio, Fuji, Nikon and the MFT crowd all made a lot of extremely nice compacts of varying quality. The real shit they're probably looking for if they're wanting vintage or garbage is shit like the cheap vivitar scamjobs that were around.Anyway onto better pastures. Got a bit of a love for the old Sony DSC-P cameras, the Px2 stuff was a riot though they're gimped by memory stick duo. Those cameras really did some great work and only really had a great replacement in that zone when the K800i launched in mid '07. In 2003 those cameras were the fucking bomb, I gave that to me mum to replace her vivitar scam when I got my K800 then she got my K800 eventually too.Love my Epson RD-1 too, always loved the body but the dials have been gone forever lmao and the 2GB card limit is becoming an issue.Finally less in the compact zone and more for the boomer audience the Fuji S7000 was a wonderful camera in '04, this is what they gave out at college to get people to learn the exposure triangle, extremely capable fixed lens optical zoom cameras with a hotshoe and optical viewfinder, 35-210 and a blistering fast 800 ISO and RAW gods we ate good before they let us at film.There's some wonderfully capable CCD stuff out there and yeah it won't look too vintage if you know how to take a photo. These styles of point and shoot are the shit they're looking for if they want some real raw pegs.
>>4336298All very true Anon. It's sad that most camera companies don't try anything special with their cameras anymore. I'd love to see neo-digishits embracing the <4 megapickle look.>>4336896Those near y2k digishits are the best. Heard the Epson RD-1 is a great camera.
>>4337742Kyocera++
>>4337911Love Kyoceras. They're getting so rare now sadly. I've been working on a web application + image processor to make fake kyocera-like photos to try and preserve the look; I plan on releasing it sometime this month.
>>4337918I got this out of a Kyocera S3L literally 21 years ago... I still can't really believe either the quality or that it was 21 years ago!
>>4337923Also this
>>4329435Zoomer here, i bought a cybershot WSC-1 bc looks great and a friend of my gf have his pocket camera and looks nice, the problem was the fucking original old memory stick but i'm waiting the adapter from amazon
>>4337973Yup, memory stick duo and those old fujifilm/olympus XD cards are probably the cause of much zoomer distress.
>>4329435>vintage lookIt's basically what you (can) get with foveon
