Before the inflation of camera prices thanks to social media (In East Asia, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan that I know of were already in this trend years ago) you could find a Canon S95 for around 75 bucks in great shape. It was Canon's last digicam that shot raw with a CCD sensor (not the last compact, but in the form factor of the smaller cameras it was as far as I know), taking the sensor from the S90 and combining it with the updates the S100 brought at the same time. The S95 is a great little pocket camera, I love mine. I also have a G10, G12, and P7100, but those are the bigger style advanced compact bodies. The Fuji X-Q1 and X-Q2 (same camera basically) both had the X-Trans 2 sensor and still take really solid photos with that warmer characteristic of the 2nd gen X-trans sensor... but as with all things Fuji now, thanks yet again to social media driving up prices, they're horribly inflated. I bought one in "good" condition for 50 bucks a couple of years ago and recently sold it no reserve for 225. Value lies in the beholder, but none of the Fuji stuff is worth what it's going for right now (especially X100V's selling for 2500-3000+ USD, the people buying those are the problem). Worth pointing out that the Pentax Q cameras and MX-1 (fixed lens Q more or less), that had tiny yet solid sensors, also produce great Pentax colors and really high quality images for what they are. Easily usable these days for small prints and sharing online.
Awesome video Goughie! Very informative. I didn't imagine the color quality of those old sensors would up so well for so long. And the form factor of that fuji digicam is epic! Cheers!
I remember low yields being an issue too with CCD sensors. If I recall, for any particular batch an appreciable number had to be discarded for various problems. CMOS was a huge benefit to manufacturers.
Large semiconductor devices were susceptible to defects, but there are defects that a CCD being a simpler device is likely to survive. They also had other manufacturing issues such as e.g. with bonding, such as the SONY 2003-2004 CCD fiasco. I actually have some of the affected cameras, a Canon S1-IS (oof expensive) and a whole pile of Minolta Dimage X20 - notably the sensors that this happened to had the best dynamic range of the era because they suffered the least thermal and physical stress in manufacturing, but in turn, the bonding process did not produce a permanent connection, the sensors all failed within 2 years in moderate climates and often under 6 months in the Emirates for example. In contrast, a CMOS sensor of comparable size of like 1/2" or larger plain couldn't be made AT ALL in that era due to semiconductor yield issues. So CMOS sensors at the time were tiny little noisy shits the size of a short grain rice corn at most. But yeah they were fast. The lack of dynamic range was due to size. But then we got gargantuan CMOS processors by mid 2000s, which had to be entirely defect-free, so the measures in purity of materials and manufacturing were stepped up massively, which also opened the possibility to make large CMOS sensors, which wiped out their fundamental problems. When DSLR manufacturers finally made the jump from CCD to CMOS in the late 2000s, like when Pentax went from K10D with a 10MP CCD, to a 14MP CMOS, everything got better. Colour stayed the same, it was faster, it gained features, it gained oodles of dynamic range and extended ISO range. There was no drawback.
In most of your Z1 vs X100V comparison shots, I prefer the output of the Z1. Colours on the X100V look bland and washed out in comparison. But maybe I’m biased, since I still shoot with several CCD cameras. Of all the cameras in my collection, the one that returns a colour and tonal rendition I really love is my Nikon D700. And I mean straight out of camera, before any editing. Keep up the good work! Cheers! //Rick
That's why the ccd craze is nonsense, manufacturs tried to make CCd based cameras look like film, the d700 is actually a CMOS camera. So it is really more about picture profile and not so much about sensor type.
I still don't get it. How a method of reading the charge from cells can affect colours in the picture. It must be due to Bayer filters and rendering colour, not simply CCD or CMOS. They can only read charge from sensels. O_o
Personally, I’ve been seeing a lot of these videos and I don’t see these special colors. Earlier this year I gave away my canon G7 from 2005 and my panasonic fz50. That camera was genuinely loved then. And finally the Panasonic L1 the only 4/3 camera they made before going m4/3. I mean they were good for their time but I really don’t think they are that special people are going bonkers for. Even though the L1 was a really cool range finder style camera and had the very first live view
I loved the video thanks, but I think you underplayed the sheer naturalness of the CCD photos. I sometimes take shots and when I review them, they take my breath away. I even won a first prize at my local village show with the first picture I have ever entered into a competition. Admitely small beer, but it made my day.
Its crazy how expensive film is now when i was in college like 7 years ago we used to go and get ours in poundland. I think the ccd vs cmos think is a bit like crt/lcd screens, crts had way better colours and refresh rates, colours have improved now weith all the types of oled on modern displays and refresh rate has caught up over the last few years but crts are still nice lol
I think people are more interested in having a great photography experience and less in the look, similar to film cameras. The old CCD cameras are also really super interesting and sometimes really weird but that's the charm. :D
I remember how disappointed I was when I looked at the JPEGs from my first DSLR, the Canon 300D, which should have been a big upgrade from my Pentax Espio 555 point and shoot all the way back in 2003. I remember at the time looking into CCD vs CMOS sensors. We were told CMOS were the way of the future and I was stuck wondering why given the image quality from a large APS-C sensor seemed worse than that from a CCD digicam.
Yes, I totally agree. Another "benefit" to CMOS is high ISO - which often brings with it noise. I have an old Lumix tz7 (ccd) which I used to take travelling, I still use it today.
Personally I have no interest on jumping on the bandwagon of old CCD cameras. Been there, done that and never want to go back to low resolution over sharpened images. Each to their own though, just not for me.
Isn’t it crazy that we are going back to old technology because the technology that we have today even though faster lacks personality. Thank you for the extensive information about CCD and CMOS sensors. Old Digital point and shoot are going to be the next big thing like you said because of the CCD sensor. I have seen many photographers going back to them to somewhat balanced out the cost of film. I am happy to see the resurrection of the point-and-shoot cameras.
Hm, not sure what to think about all this. It seems that producing “vintage” looking photos has become a photography genre of its own. It's nice if used in a purposeful way but social media is full of "vintage” looking photos that seem to have no other merit than being shot on film (or having used a Fujifilm film recipe... or a Digicam 😉).
@@Goughie Well, the algorithm only knows about my interests, but not about what I consider interesting stuff or boring stuff. 😉 There's nothing wrong with film photography or Fujifilm recipes but shooting film alone (or using a Fujifilm recipe) does not make a great photo. Actually, I follow quite a few photographers that make excellent use of film or Fujifilm recipes, but I would say that the film look is only a mean for them, it's not the main reason for taking the photo.
There’s certainly something to the CCD look. I use the older Ricoh GRDiii and Leica M9, and there’s a quality to the images I really like. Regarding the Ricoh GRDiii, it’s great to just have camera in the pocket that handles very well and also delivers not only great images, but a good user experience. The Sony Cybershot series are also great little pocket cameras. I picked one up for 5 quid and it’s fantastic.
let me tell you something that will change your perspective (and maybe yout life), something that they dont want you to know: buy yourself a nice Sony DSC-W530, this is a magic CCD camera, it`s gorgeous, thin, atemporal looking and extremely portable, you can fit it almost anywhere, nobody ever realises you are holding a camera. I have a battle one on me and recently I gave the same model to my girfriend too, and she`s in love with it, it`s impossible not to love the Sony DSC-W530, wich comes with a 14mp sensor. My conclusion: 100% hiddem gem, nobody is talking about it, making it extremely exclusive and cheap!
If you've ever developed film, then this is a no-brainer. Is all the chemical waste, energy, and water spent to develop film really worth the marginally more vintage feel that film buffs claim to get? Just get a vintage digital camera and use a memory card with little space in it (a 1gb card should be good for about 100 images, get a smaller one if you really want to the film experience).
The most filmic colours I've seen from a digital camera have been from the Sigma DP1. Slow and long since discontinued but beautiful colours. If you ever go to Japan it might be worth hunting down one. th-cam.com/video/cdgTfOAjmLo/w-d-xo.html
Clearly presented, illustrated, and paced, Goughie. Did you make the CCD-CMOS diagrams, yourself? Fun and ease of use among factors for the retro digicam craze, IMO. Colors are a matter of personal taste, and can be adjusted to one’s liking in post (film simulations, as well), or by in-camera filters/styles, etc. Even smartphones have built-in camera filters - some enable importing/matching colorations of an imported image (haven’t tried it myself). Thrift stores, estate sales, and yard sales can be good places to pick up an old digicam - although recording media (3.5 disc for Sony Mavica comes to mind) might be difficult to find. Have fun in Venice. Hear the water levels have dropped to difficult levels. Cheers!
I had the Z1, I remembered that the image noise was quite disappointing compared to lower resolution P&S models from Canon at that time, and the same 5Mp resolution Sony models, but I liked the build quality, and the colour was perhaps more vibrant than competitions.
Yes indeed - no question about it: JPGS were better 20 years ago. But in recent years, I've sort of missed the boat on which CURRENT cameras and/or manufacturers now have the best JPGS. Anyone know of a website or a TH-cam channel which discusses this?
Check my comment above. Canon also had some good ccd cameras The S95 is amazing and shoots RAW but jpegs don't compare to the Fuji cams i list in my comment
I will admit that my Nikon Coolpix L4 was a fun little camera and many of my favorite images came from it - but it was because of the memories those pictures bring back, not the look - which is subjective anyway, right? Honestly, I think this trend is purely because people want to be seen as different than whatever is “mainstream”at the time. Nothing wrong with it - people should do what makes them happy - I just can’t ever see myself going back to using these.
The main thing as well with the CCD, is that it was the transition from film. So basically colour was always in the forefront especially from Fujifilm. Now with the cost of film you see a lot have adopted a switch to the older digital cameras. Go figure.
TH-cam keeps suggesting me videos from you I have not watched so far so I give em a go. Must say I am never disappointed in the slightest, you deal with such unusual and so interesting topics. You definitely deserve a lot more subscribers!
@@Goughie not 'too' kind 😁 I know for a fact that making oneself clear and seamless like you do is a huge amount of time and effort, and I really think you're doing it very well. You go straight to the point, you say what needs to be said, everyone's happy!
The Fuji F10,F30 (1/1.7") and especially the F40fd & F47fd use 1/1.6" super ccd's (8x6mm) which is alot larger than most digicams and are still pretty amazing. Even in lowlight today. I have all of these including the F50fd but that one is not great even though alot of old reviews said it was. Example if you use the flash on the F50fd (which is on the opposite of the lens) zoomed to 3x. The exposure is way dark. If you do that on all the others even with the iso down @200 the exposure is great. The F40&47fd are the best all around BECAUSE they are twice as sensetive than the rest of the F line. Example, iso 200 will give you the same s/s & exposure as iso 400 on the others and that is the SECRET. yes the f30 has less noise, but does it really ? when you need a full stop more ISO. I think not. It took many years for me to actually realize this. I just gave you a few of the best digicams ever produced. In one comment Oh... and don't bother with the F100fd or 200exr. The lens has a max aperture of f3.3 with 12mp on a 1/1.6" chip which for the time was to much . Means higher iso's with way worse noise. Those 2 are really bad. AND, alot of reviews say otherwise.
@@shogun4612 i liked it. I had a e550 & 900 You should know, you can trick the F & E series cameras to do about anything. I think the F40&47 have more to offer. Newer Sensor and processor and full ISO range. The thing is, A & S priority settings are useless on these camera. So i dont see the advantage of using an e900 opossed to an f40/47. They have worse and slower lens performance, older tech, smaller lower res & smaller screen and limited iso. Also the price is higher due to some youtube hype. The purple fringing and blown out highlights are the only real negative. But the color and constrast on the F47 especially is better. Crazy thing. The cheap & slow AA fuji A800&900 are selling for more money than the Finepix F10 through F50fd/se ! Hint. Buy an F20 for $30 and you will get the same pictures as an F31fd thats 3x more money. The E is good but the F has better everything. Including batterylife and menu layout
@@frankartale1026 Thanks a lot for the very detailed answer! I have F47, but sometimes the zoom lever does not work well, although the camera is in perfect condition. Thanks again for the useful information.
@@shogun4612 your very welcome . The f47 is the best one until you print. I love the f50fd but i wish the pictures were as good. I was going through some prints and the F10 & F50fd had the best color by a good amount. Out of the XF1, XQ1, X100S, F30,F40 &47fd. Go figure !! I have the X100 original and XE1. Those 2 sensors are magic.
CCD all the way.. i still have my Fuji F30 i bought 17yrs ago.. still works perfect and the jpegs are stunning (still)
Before the inflation of camera prices thanks to social media (In East Asia, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan that I know of were already in this trend years ago) you could find a Canon S95 for around 75 bucks in great shape. It was Canon's last digicam that shot raw with a CCD sensor (not the last compact, but in the form factor of the smaller cameras it was as far as I know), taking the sensor from the S90 and combining it with the updates the S100 brought at the same time.
The S95 is a great little pocket camera, I love mine. I also have a G10, G12, and P7100, but those are the bigger style advanced compact bodies. The Fuji X-Q1 and X-Q2 (same camera basically) both had the X-Trans 2 sensor and still take really solid photos with that warmer characteristic of the 2nd gen X-trans sensor... but as with all things Fuji now, thanks yet again to social media driving up prices, they're horribly inflated. I bought one in "good" condition for 50 bucks a couple of years ago and recently sold it no reserve for 225. Value lies in the beholder, but none of the Fuji stuff is worth what it's going for right now (especially X100V's selling for 2500-3000+ USD, the people buying those are the problem).
Worth pointing out that the Pentax Q cameras and MX-1 (fixed lens Q more or less), that had tiny yet solid sensors, also produce great Pentax colors and really high quality images for what they are. Easily usable these days for small prints and sharing online.
Awesome video Goughie!
Very informative. I didn't imagine the color quality of those old sensors would up so well for so long. And the form factor of that fuji digicam is epic!
Cheers!
Something to be said about Goughie's presentations and info shared. It is appreciated. Great job!
This channel deserves more subs
Agreed
You right
You guys are all far too kind!
I remember low yields being an issue too with CCD sensors. If I recall, for any particular batch an appreciable number had to be discarded for various problems. CMOS was a huge benefit to manufacturers.
Large semiconductor devices were susceptible to defects, but there are defects that a CCD being a simpler device is likely to survive. They also had other manufacturing issues such as e.g. with bonding, such as the SONY 2003-2004 CCD fiasco. I actually have some of the affected cameras, a Canon S1-IS (oof expensive) and a whole pile of Minolta Dimage X20 - notably the sensors that this happened to had the best dynamic range of the era because they suffered the least thermal and physical stress in manufacturing, but in turn, the bonding process did not produce a permanent connection, the sensors all failed within 2 years in moderate climates and often under 6 months in the Emirates for example.
In contrast, a CMOS sensor of comparable size of like 1/2" or larger plain couldn't be made AT ALL in that era due to semiconductor yield issues. So CMOS sensors at the time were tiny little noisy shits the size of a short grain rice corn at most. But yeah they were fast. The lack of dynamic range was due to size.
But then we got gargantuan CMOS processors by mid 2000s, which had to be entirely defect-free, so the measures in purity of materials and manufacturing were stepped up massively, which also opened the possibility to make large CMOS sensors, which wiped out their fundamental problems.
When DSLR manufacturers finally made the jump from CCD to CMOS in the late 2000s, like when Pentax went from K10D with a 10MP CCD, to a 14MP CMOS, everything got better. Colour stayed the same, it was faster, it gained features, it gained oodles of dynamic range and extended ISO range. There was no drawback.
Very nicely done. I would have never thought about this comparison! OTW to get a digicam.
you won't regret it. I have been buying them for about 18 months and have over 50 which as my daughter said "is enough"
I still use the Fujifilm F30 that I bought back in 2008, awesome little gem!
Great camera, probably the best compact of that time.
In most of your Z1 vs X100V comparison shots, I prefer the output of the Z1. Colours on the X100V look bland and washed out in comparison. But maybe I’m biased, since I still shoot with several CCD cameras. Of all the cameras in my collection, the one that returns a colour and tonal rendition I really love is my Nikon D700. And I mean straight out of camera, before any editing. Keep up the good work! Cheers! //Rick
That's why the ccd craze is nonsense, manufacturs tried to make CCd based cameras look like film, the d700 is actually a CMOS camera. So it is really more about picture profile and not so much about sensor type.
The last CCD Nikon dslr D3000 + good/fast lens(like 35mm 1.8f G for example) is less than 140 pounds in mpb👍
That camera was so bad
I still don't get it. How a method of reading the charge from cells can affect colours in the picture. It must be due to Bayer filters and rendering colour, not simply CCD or CMOS. They can only read charge from sensels. O_o
Personally, I’ve been seeing a lot of these videos and I don’t see these special colors. Earlier this year I gave away my canon G7 from 2005 and my panasonic fz50. That camera was genuinely loved then. And finally the Panasonic L1 the only 4/3 camera they made before going m4/3. I mean they were good for their time but I really don’t think they are that special people are going bonkers for. Even though the L1 was a really cool range finder style camera and had the very first live view
I loved the video thanks, but I think you underplayed the sheer naturalness of the CCD photos. I sometimes take shots and when I review them, they take my breath away. I even won a first prize at my local village show with the first picture I have ever entered into a competition. Admitely small beer, but it made my day.
A wins a win!
Its crazy how expensive film is now when i was in college like 7 years ago we used to go and get ours in poundland. I think the ccd vs cmos think is a bit like crt/lcd screens, crts had way better colours and refresh rates, colours have improved now weith all the types of oled on modern displays and refresh rate has caught up over the last few years but crts are still nice lol
It looks as if images in comparison at the beginning have different exposure.
I think people are more interested in having a great photography experience and less in the look, similar to film cameras. The old CCD cameras are also really super interesting and sometimes really weird but that's the charm. :D
Yes!!! I think people are finally realising that having a good time is often as important as the results!
I remember how disappointed I was when I looked at the JPEGs from my first DSLR, the Canon 300D, which should have been a big upgrade from my Pentax Espio 555 point and shoot all the way back in 2003. I remember at the time looking into CCD vs CMOS sensors. We were told CMOS were the way of the future and I was stuck wondering why given the image quality from a large APS-C sensor seemed worse than that from a CCD digicam.
It’s interesting hearing some lived experience! I wasn’t into photography at the time so I didn’t experience this!
Yes, I totally agree. Another "benefit" to CMOS is high ISO - which often brings with it noise. I have an old Lumix tz7 (ccd) which I used to take travelling, I still use it today.
@@normm7764 All my lumixes are CCD except the DMC-TZ60
Personally I have no interest on jumping on the bandwagon of old CCD cameras. Been there, done that and never want to go back to low resolution over sharpened images. Each to their own though, just not for me.
Didn't Fuji make great CCD DSLR years ago? S5?
Very likely! Maybe I should try one!
@@Goughie Would love to see review. And since it’s F mount lenses shouldn’t be a problem
I have an S3 Pro, it’s said to be better in terms of colour and white balance. But not tried the two side by side
Please please Goughie, Zed one we are not run by the USA yet. At £20 it's a bit of daft you can afford.
😂😂😂
Isn’t it crazy that we are going back to old technology because the technology that we have today even though faster lacks personality. Thank you for the extensive information about CCD and CMOS sensors. Old Digital point and shoot are going to be the next big thing like you said because of the CCD sensor. I have seen many photographers going back to them to somewhat balanced out the cost of film. I am happy to see the resurrection of the point-and-shoot cameras.
It was basic not extensive. Ffs
Need someone to release a CCD retrofit kit for my AE-1 and I'll call it a day from there.
Ahahah! Imagine 😂
I have an old 8mp Kodak laying around, gonna take some shots with it 🤩
Do it! Tag me if you post them!
Hm, not sure what to think about all this. It seems that producing “vintage” looking photos has become a photography genre of its own. It's nice if used in a purposeful way but social media is full of "vintage” looking photos that seem to have no other merit than being shot on film (or having used a Fujifilm film recipe... or a Digicam 😉).
Your social media feed is a likely reflection of your own likes… 😉
@@Goughie Well, the algorithm only knows about my interests, but not about what I consider interesting stuff or boring stuff. 😉
There's nothing wrong with film photography or Fujifilm recipes but shooting film alone (or using a Fujifilm recipe) does not make a great photo.
Actually, I follow quite a few photographers that make excellent use of film or Fujifilm recipes, but I would say that the film look is only a mean for them, it's not the main reason for taking the photo.
Pentax k10d has ccd sensor.
There’s certainly something to the CCD look. I use the older Ricoh GRDiii and Leica M9, and there’s a quality to the images I really like. Regarding the Ricoh GRDiii, it’s great to just have camera in the pocket that handles very well and also delivers not only great images, but a good user experience. The Sony Cybershot series are also great little pocket cameras. I picked one up for 5 quid and it’s fantastic.
Please can i know which model of Sony do you have?
@@shogun4612 th-cam.com/video/AcaWriSRwY8/w-d-xo.html
@@shogun4612 any will do
let me tell you something that will change your perspective (and maybe yout life), something that they dont want you to know: buy yourself a nice Sony DSC-W530, this is a magic CCD camera, it`s gorgeous, thin, atemporal looking and extremely portable, you can fit it almost anywhere, nobody ever realises you are holding a camera. I have a battle one on me and recently I gave the same model to my girfriend too, and she`s in love with it, it`s impossible not to love the Sony DSC-W530, wich comes with a 14mp sensor. My conclusion: 100% hiddem gem, nobody is talking about it, making it extremely exclusive and cheap!
If you've ever developed film, then this is a no-brainer. Is all the chemical waste, energy, and water spent to develop film really worth the marginally more vintage feel that film buffs claim to get? Just get a vintage digital camera and use a memory card with little space in it (a 1gb card should be good for about 100 images, get a smaller one if you really want to the film experience).
just use a Fuji X-E1
The most filmic colours I've seen from a digital camera have been from the Sigma DP1. Slow and long since discontinued but beautiful colours. If you ever go to Japan it might be worth hunting down one. th-cam.com/video/cdgTfOAjmLo/w-d-xo.html
I’ll keep my eye out for one!
I like the low megapixel combined with nice color. I prefer older CCD cameras to newer.
2023: Bruh you don’t shoot in JPEG???
2000: Na bruh raw is the best..
I recently bought an old Lumix and wished I hadn’t
nice video, I like the look of the ccd sensor. That’s the reason, why I keep my Leica M9P.
If only I could afford one of those.
Clearly presented, illustrated, and paced, Goughie. Did you make the CCD-CMOS diagrams, yourself? Fun and ease of use among factors for the retro digicam craze, IMO. Colors are a matter of personal taste, and can be adjusted to one’s liking in post (film simulations, as well), or by in-camera filters/styles, etc. Even smartphones have built-in camera filters - some enable importing/matching colorations of an imported image (haven’t tried it myself). Thrift stores, estate sales, and yard sales can be good places to pick up an old digicam - although recording media (3.5 disc for Sony Mavica comes to mind) might be difficult to find.
Have fun in Venice. Hear the water levels have dropped to difficult levels. Cheers!
Yes I made them myself! Spent waaaay to long on that 30 seconds of this video!
@@Goughie I wondered the same thing. It was not unnoticed... I was impressed and learned a bit on that diagram.
I’m curious if new processors these days can process CCD sensors much better and faster and make them very useful again.
Imagine that’s very likely! Seems to still make sense for certain niches! Especially deep space Astro!
Good point
I had the Z1, I remembered that the image noise was quite disappointing compared to lower resolution P&S models from Canon at that time, and the same 5Mp resolution Sony models, but I liked the build quality, and the colour was perhaps more vibrant than competitions.
Yes! This wasn’t the best reviewed camera for sure!
Yes indeed - no question about it: JPGS were better 20 years ago.
But in recent years, I've sort of missed the boat on which CURRENT cameras and/or manufacturers now have the best JPGS. Anyone know of a website or a TH-cam channel which discusses this?
Check my comment above. Canon also had some good ccd cameras The S95 is amazing and shoots RAW but jpegs don't compare to the Fuji cams i list in my comment
@@frankartale1026 - Yes, I agree.
This was great! Super interesting topic!
I will admit that my Nikon Coolpix L4 was a fun little camera and many of my favorite images came from it - but it was because of the memories those pictures bring back, not the look - which is subjective anyway, right?
Honestly, I think this trend is purely because people want to be seen as different than whatever is “mainstream”at the time. Nothing wrong with it - people should do what makes them happy - I just can’t ever see myself going back to using these.
What memory does the fujifilm fine pix use?
Pretty sure this was an XD picture card!
The main thing as well with the CCD, is that it was the transition from film. So basically colour was always in the forefront especially from Fujifilm. Now with the cost of film you see a lot have adopted a switch to the older digital cameras. Go figure.
TH-cam keeps suggesting me videos from you I have not watched so far so I give em a go. Must say I am never disappointed in the slightest, you deal with such unusual and so interesting topics. You definitely deserve a lot more subscribers!
You’re too kind! Glad the algo worked it magic! 😂 thank you for watching!
@@Goughie not 'too' kind 😁 I know for a fact that making oneself clear and seamless like you do is a huge amount of time and effort, and I really think you're doing it very well. You go straight to the point, you say what needs to be said, everyone's happy!
The Fuji F10,F30 (1/1.7") and especially the F40fd & F47fd use 1/1.6" super ccd's (8x6mm) which is alot larger than most digicams and are still pretty amazing. Even in lowlight today. I have all of these including the F50fd but that one is not great even though alot of old reviews said it was. Example if you use the flash on the F50fd (which is on the opposite of the lens) zoomed to 3x. The exposure is way dark. If you do that on all the others even with the iso down @200 the exposure is great. The F40&47fd are the best all around BECAUSE they are twice as sensetive than the rest of the F line. Example, iso 200 will give you the same s/s & exposure as iso 400 on the others and that is the SECRET. yes the f30 has less noise, but does it really ? when you need a full stop more ISO. I think not. It took many years for me to actually realize this. I just gave you a few of the best digicams ever produced. In one comment Oh... and don't bother with the F100fd or 200exr. The lens has a max aperture of f3.3 with 12mp on a 1/1.6" chip which for the time was to much . Means higher iso's with way worse noise. Those 2 are really bad. AND, alot of reviews say otherwise.
May I know your opinion about Fujifil E900?
@@shogun4612 i liked it. I had a e550 & 900 You should know, you can trick the F & E series cameras to do about anything. I think the F40&47 have more to offer. Newer Sensor and processor and full ISO range. The thing is, A & S priority settings are useless on these camera. So i dont see the advantage of using an e900 opossed to an f40/47. They have worse and slower lens performance, older tech, smaller lower res & smaller screen and limited iso. Also the price is higher due to some youtube hype. The purple fringing and blown out highlights are the only real negative. But the color and constrast on the F47 especially is better. Crazy thing. The cheap & slow AA fuji A800&900 are selling for more money than the Finepix F10 through F50fd/se ! Hint. Buy an F20 for $30 and you will get the same pictures as an F31fd thats 3x more money. The E is good but the F has better everything. Including batterylife and menu layout
@@frankartale1026 Thanks a lot for the very detailed answer!
I have F47, but sometimes the zoom lever does not work well, although the camera is in perfect condition. Thanks again for the useful information.
@@shogun4612 your very welcome . The f47 is the best one until you print. I love the f50fd but i wish the pictures were as good. I was going through some prints and the F10 & F50fd had the best color by a good amount. Out of the XF1, XQ1, X100S, F30,F40 &47fd. Go figure !! I have the X100 original and XE1. Those 2 sensors are magic.
Man this is the other way around right? 6:45
agreed. The CCD picture is clearly vastly superior
Awful lot of fun count: 3 😂
Not sure if it’s you in the past that’s pointed out my use of “awful lot” but this isn’t the first time! 😂
@@Goughie I am in the U.K. and it comes naturally :)
Early 2010's smartphone cameras will be the next photography trend once the digicam hype goes away.
My honor8 (huawei made) has an amazing camera, battery is pretty useless by now but man, it takes amazing photos, especially portraits
Perfect. Just got the e900.