Well that Olympus did way better than I would have guessed!

I've had many Olympus P&S digicams, my #1 was a Olympus with ca. 750.000 pixels, hence 0.7 MP, then a 1.2 MP, 2 MP, 3MP and so on, up to 8 MP. (Camedia C-800L, D400Zoom, C2000Z, C4000Z mentioned here), C3030, C4040, C5050, C8080...Olympus had for my taste the best JPEG Engine bar none, out of all brands, means Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc....but since ca. 2001 i am shooting RAW, with Canon PowerShot S series, also Olympus Camedia series, and then came my D100 Nikon into 2002...I've had invested too much money into gear, back then, and into years after. Since 2014, i do only buy camera gear 2nd hand, into mint condition - nowadays via MPB, so i am safe, and have 12 months of warranty. Sold much gear, but still have some.

Enjoyable video, interesting topic, looking forward to part two

@ThePhotographyMinimalist

4 ай бұрын

Thank's.

I sold these camera's when new and to be honest I did not think much of them back in the day... that whole line-up of Camedia camera's with XD cards, I could not care less. Had I only seen the pictures you took with them back in the day, I might have sold a quite higher number of them! For what the camera really is itnis quite shocking to me what results you were able to achieve. Never in my right mind I would have thought this possible! One thing though and that is not on you but these camera's had little telephoto lenses. They were primary wide-angle based... And this shows in my oppinion. I'm hyper sensitive for wide angle portrait shots and if I see one I can pick them out immediately... placed in 35mm everything shorter than let's say 70mm will stick out... Ccd camera's usually have a nicer "grain" than most cmos camera's. The exception being Nikon who really trained their algorithm to be "grain" like, in wich they succeded. Some other brands are a lot more like old fashioned television static wich let the image down big-time. Nikon never does that! An other nice little camera from this same time period were the Fujifilm F series, mainly the F47 and F50 with SuperCCD technologie... another way to bend the lack of processing power into something amazing! Honeycomb pixels! Exiting times... God I am glad film is back!

What a coincidence, since a few weeks I started shooting again with my first digital camera. A Sony DSC-V1. Also extremely slow and lot of options from M,A, S, P and fool proof. The results are as you described. Looking forward to part 2.

@marcp.1752

3 ай бұрын

Have it also into my collection, bought the successor V3, and then the R1 in early 2006.

Wow ! Great video. I bought a C4000 as a backup know to my E1. And it still sits on my self. I wonder if I can photograph something and print a super A3+ (13×19) enlargement. A project for today. And I still have a 32 & 64 mb SM cards. Best of all, it uses AA batteries. Thanks. KB

Having owned Nikon D70, Nikon D200, Olympus, etc etc, I can tell you that there is no CCD look. A CCD sensor reproduces colours more saturated and with higher Contrast/Vibrance than a CMOS sensor. You can easily come up with simple preset to covert one to other in LR or PS. There is one exception and that was the Kodak KAF CCD sensor used on Leica M8. Besides the lack of an AA fiilter which makes for exceptional sharpness, the sensor was also tuned to represent the colour palette of one of the Kodak emulsions, reputedly Kodachrome.

@ThePhotographyMinimalist

4 ай бұрын

Thank's for the clarification!

@marcp.1752

4 ай бұрын

Old gear was more film-esque, even CMOS sensors, think Canon. A nowadays (very) old EOS D30, D60, 10D produces way different looks, than gear nowadays. Still, shooting my 40D (2007) occasionally, but i enjoy Nikon way more, in terms of haptics & ergonomics, and especially no silly, stupid "thumbwheel", which already got my nerves, back into the EOS 10 (not D), EOS 5 & EOS 3 days....FYI. The M8(.2) was nice, APS-C with x1.33 cropfactor, a good friend of mine does have a silver M8. Occasionally, the M8/8.2 suffers from hotpixels, by design, i've heard that from my photography friend, whereas the M8 of his wife had a huge line left with stuck hotpixels...back into 2006, the quality & control of that Kodak KAF-10500 CCD (FYI) Sensor wasn't all that great, but without an AA filter inside the OPLF, images turned out sharp & contrasty, i do like the look - but it's the same with (many) DSLRs from that time period. (CCD). Especially the M8(8.2) one should use it like a 35mm Film rangefinder - means max. ISO/ASA 400, ISO 640 is really noisy. With 35mm film, i rarely shoot ISO 800, even less being pushed to 1600. Have film since 1984, when i was a kid. I do enjoy shooting rangefinders, but just figured out today, that this (CLE) rangefinder does suck a hell lot, when you'd like to shoot for instance landscape photography, with many branches & leaves, and into the sunlight, you can't focus a damn thing properly, it's only possibly to go simply to infinity, anyway. One does need more contrast, -shapes, -texture, to proper focus. I wear polarized shades with perscription, it's bad that way with any M series, Bessa, Hexar, Zeiss Ikon ZM or Minolta CL/CLE, etc... when you have 100's of leaves, branches inside the frame..low contrast, because that rangefinder patch is very small, inside your viewfinder via 35mm rangefinder...into contrast, with a 35mm SLR, or DSLR, absolutely no problem, lens being focused manually into 0.5-1sec. hereby. /typo fixed

@ThePhotographyMinimalist

4 ай бұрын

@@marcp.1752 Enjoyed your lengthy comment, thanks!

@lensman5762

4 ай бұрын

The more ' filmlike ' appearance of the images of the older cameras has very little to do with the sensor itself, but a hell of a lot to do with those early microprocessors inside the cameras that did not have the power of the modern processors to use highly sophisticated algorithms to clean up and brighten up a digital image. If you have not noticed, every time a new major digital camera, from any major brand , is introduced it comes with a new much more powerful processor and the claims of crazy high iso low light performance coupled to ' faster ' autofocus. The processor does all the cleaning up job before passing the data to become an image. The older cameras did not have this power, so the data is noisy, and this noise can give the image sort of a ' grainy ' look with a softer edge. The early sensors were also well short in useable dynamic range, so shadow recovery without banding was very rare. The size of the Kodak sensor used in Leica M8 was not APSC, but APSH. Canon used the same size sensor in their flagship cameras. @@marcp.1752

@marcp.1752

4 ай бұрын

@@lensman5762 I am well aware of that, hence therefore its x1.33 cropfactor, so APS-H, and i shoot Canon since the EOS 650. Film since 84 (110, 35mm into 1987) digital via Olympus into 97, 1st DSLR 2002 (D100) so far. I prefer a character image & lens therefore, because it does add mood & atmosphere. Love my old nowadays called "vintage" lenses, which i got a few. Definitivly not my taste are pixel-poopers, err, -peepers, ppl which look at 200, even 400% on their monitors, to seek out the slightest optical defects, CAs, edge distortions, vignetting, etc. Pixel peepers are not being photographers. 🙂 It's all about the composition, gear doesn't matter (if one isn't a pro sports photog) AF speed is the same, i do shoot only static objects, architecture, nature & landscapes...so i could not care less about the AF speed...any gear within the last 10-15+ years is simply good enough, for my needs. Think D700, 5D(II), etc. For analog, i love to shoot old 35mm SLRs. One could make fine compositions with *any* camera, not from image quality, but from composition. But nowadays, you always have the gearheads, nerds & freaks inside the forums on any photog website, lusting for more video features, better AF speed, more MP, etc...always the same...something that'll never change, during the past 25+ of digital... 🙂