104
I Reviewed Late-2000s Digital Cameras. Allow Me to Remind You Why We All Switched to iPhones. (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
76 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent