It's official, vintage digital compacts are trending (Petapixel)

[helen.HH]

still have NO Interest and never will
Too gadgety for me ... just not my kind of cool ~
but the photos it creates look fine

 

[former member]

Canon S95- 10MPixel CCD based P&S camera. P&S was moving over to CMOS at about the same time, I have a Ricoh CX-1 that is 10MPixel CMOS. Recently picked up the BSI CMOS Ricoh CX-5 for $30. I use it mainly for documenting my lens projects, and for pictures of cameras.

My 10MPixel CCD based camera of choice is still the M8.

 

[shawn]

Not really a 'compact' but a very nice vintage CCD camera. They have really shot up in value too.

 

[hap]

Canon S95- 10MPixel CCD based P&S camera. P&S was moving over to CMOS at about the same time, I have a Ricoh CX-1 that is 10MPixel CMOS. Recently picked up the BSI CMOS Ricoh CX-5 for $30. I use it mainly for documenting my lens projects, and for pictures of cameras.

My 10MPixel CCD based camera of choice is still the M8.

I would have thought your M9 would be the go to....

 

[former member]

I would have thought your M9 would be the go to....

My 10Mpixel goto camera... I use the M8 for grab-and-go outings, calibrating lenses, etc.
My M8 has a zero-defect CCD. Dynamic range of the CCD is higher than the M9, the saturation count is almost 50% higher. With 1/8000th shutter speed, no problem shooting wide-open at ISO160..

 

[Guth]

Is there anything being sold today that has not experienced an increase in value over the past few years? (Or in popularity for that matter?) What I found interesting is the comments of those much younger than myself referring to these early digicams in such nostalgic terms. In reality, this is not unlike the way I look so many different things that I enjoyed in my youth and still enjoy now much later in my life — from cars with manual transmissions to film cameras, from manual typewriters to vinyl LP's, so on and so forth. While pining for the days of early digicams with their sensors of only a few megapixels seems kind of funny to me, it's all relative. Anything that manages to get people away from their smartphones is a good thing in my opinion.

I captured the first few years of my son's life on film using my rangefinder. After my wife and I decided to move to Oregon and my son had grown a bit older, we were continually on the go. I ended up buying a little Canon Digital ELPH, model SD400. The very small size made it incredibly convenient to haul along with us wherever we went and the digital images were equally convenient to email to family and friends located elsewhere around the country. Given my needs at that point in time, it actually served its purpose well. The thing that drove me crazy about the SD400 was the shutter lag — it was horrendous. Even when taking simple snapshots it was very irritating.

I can't recall exactly what happened to the little SD400, but I believe that it developed some sort of a problem. I went on to buy a Canon SD880is to replace it and later on I bought a Canon G10 — both of which I've used in recent years. Though they didn't fit the mold of the cameras discussed in the original article, they too served me well. Fortunately I hung on to my film gear and have been enjoying it once again for a number of years now. This is where my enjoyment in photography is primarily coming from these days. Be they film cameras or digital cameras (with a few megapixels or a lot), I still like the idea of using dedicated cameras to capture moments in time and I'm glad that others do as well.

 

[JeffS7444]

Is there anything being sold today that has not experienced an increase in value over the past few years?

Yes! Although they don't quite fit into the "compact digital" category, some deals that I've seen over the past couple of years have included:

Canon EOS 5D II: $275
Sony A7R: 350
Olympus EM5 II: 275

And then there was the Casio Exilim EX-S500 that I got for free. If you just want to play with an older digicam and don't care about having the same makes and models as some influencer, there are still some deals to be had.

 

[Pál_K]

Is there anything being sold today that has not experienced an increase in value over the past few years? (Or in popularity for that matter?)

No longer being made and now being sold on the used market?

Camcorders and associated equipment.

For a large professional video project in the 1990’s I bought a top-of-the-line Electronic News Gathering camcorder and editing VCR, plus all sorts of audio equipment.

These days, the same equipment can be found and bought on eBay at 5% of the original price.

The good news is that my stuff still works - I was even able to buy a new sealed lead acid battery that it uses at a reasonable price.

 

[KoNickon]

I like that Dufferin Mall one -- tricky exposure handled well. And mazel tov to Becky and Ilan! You caught the decisive moment, I'd say!

 

[JeffS7444]

The new Japanese-market leader in compact cameras is ... Kodak?!
Kodak Cameras With Decade-Old Tech are Outselling All Others in Japan

I purchased a refurbished Kodak FZ45 several years ago @ ~40 USD, and thought it was a solid offering for the price. Film-like, or "retro", not so much, except in the sense that all standalone cameras have become retro. Sony's Cyber-Shot DSC-W800 and W830 are logical alternatives, if you can find one. They're still listed on the Sony USA web site and perhaps dribbled out occasionally, just as they've done with the RX1R II, which was originally released more than 7 years ago.

 

[Archiver]

It's funny to see kids younger than some of my cameras post YouTube videos that proclaim, 'Unlimited Film Like Photos with this old digicam!' It seems that the old CCD cams are getting some love, which I suppose is good for the environment as old cameras are being used, and not consigned to landfill. Also, it's good for photography because young folk who primarily use smartphones are getting to experience a bit of what we know, which is how to take reasonable photos with cameras that lack decent stabilization, and need attention given to shutter speed and ISO. I know a 21 year old woman who uses a Canon S90, given to her by someone who was getting rid of a lot of digital gear. She loves that camera, funnily enough.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Not really a 'compact' but a very nice vintage CCD camera. They have really shot up in value too. View attachment 4816405

I purchased one of these when the camera first came out. I sold it a couple of years later when I moved to m4/3. However, I always regretted selling the camera so about a month ago, I bought another L1 with the Pana/Leica 14-50 zoom, in mint condition. I have been having a blast shooting this camera and the images are superb. If the weather holds up here in the Dallas area this weekend, I will be shooting a Pride event Saturday with this combo. I was at an art festival a couple of weeks ago, and two different young photographers stopped me and asked about the camera. They thought it was really cool looking. 😎

 

[JohnGellings]

It still seems to me, in modern times, Fuji and Ricoh are the only ones to do it right and consistently. At least, in film, we have the Pentax and Mint coming soon. Those, even if I might not buy them, are fresh. The latest Leica D-Lux was a disappointment. The Panasonic S9 too.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Not really a 'compact' but a very nice vintage CCD camera. They have really shot up in value too. View attachment 4816405

Ooops, my bad. I thought I was looking at an L1, but this is an LC1 which is much different from the L1. At first glance, I thought the lens looked a little strange...😳

 

[Godfrey]

I see have my evergreen Olympus E-1 and lenses: still working perfectly 21 years on. I sold or gave away all the compact digitals along the way. They never proved all that satisfying to use... The old E-1 continues to make superb photos.

G

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I recently went through my photo archives and searched for photos I shot with the two compact digicams I owned, a Canon G9 and a Canon SD880is (both of which had CCD sensors IIRC). I remember both of those cameras being quite nice to use, but I don't see any magic in the file output. The files look distinctly different than what I'm getting from my iPhone 13 Pro, in that they don't have the oversharpened look of the recent iPhones, but overall I prefer the photos from my current phone.

I did always like the Canon S100 (the later one that was the successor to the S90/S95), though I never owned one. Idid a quick price check on ebay. Probably 75% of the S100s for sale were listed as "for parts or repair" due to lens errors. Not encouraging. Good working ones seemed to be priced around $200, which seems awfully high for what it is.

I'd still like to have a GRD IV, but good copies of those are going for $400+!

 

[ddutchison2]

Is the attraction of old digital cameras that they slow you down? Is it the anticipation of having to wait to see your photos until the compact flash reader you had to order off eBay arrives? Is it the aesthetic of the 1MB image? Or, as the article stated, is it the authenticity of the images from old digital cameras? Or perhaps is it the fact that the people using old digital cameras are all celebrities you have never heard of?

Much of the above, and for many reasons older photographers can relate to in their own terms. A big part is the rendering that is unique to a CCD sensor - this is something new generation photographers can sometimes wax poetic about in the same way that older generations praise certain lens types like the original 50/1.5 Nokton or the 8 element 35 Summicron.

Low resolution is also perfectly acceptable when your primary media for publishing images is on web pages, most likely viewed on small-screen phones. This is even seen as an advantage in a milieu where a photo's "vibe" is often considered as important as the actual subject (much like the love of Bokeh that's been with us since the 90s). Once upon a time - before the mass-marketing power of the internet influencers cottoned on - a low resolution aesthetic also represented a big savings in gear costs.

Among young photographers there's also a rebellion against the clinical perfection and predictability of modern digital cameras and lenses - something that is shared by many of us here. There is also a rebellion against the never ending cycle of technical advancement/obsolescence. If todays state-of-the-art flagship camera is yesterdays news in 2 years, why not buy something known to be "obsolete" and stop worrying about kleeping up?

 

[boojum]

I guess I had better charge the batteries and dust off the old Pentax Q S1, complete with short and long zoom plus a "standard" 50mm equivalent. It takes good pictures and movies. What's not to like?

Judy is pissed the BBQ joint is not fancy. The food was good.






Here's the manufacturer's blurb on the camera:

Manufacturer description: The PENTAX Q-S1 is the latest addition to the popular PENTAX Q series of compact-sized, interchangeable-lens digital cameras. The camera is equipped with a wide range of features to make photography more enjoyable, including a 12.4 megapixel, back-illuminated CMOS image sensor to deliver high-quality images, high-sensitivity shooting to a top sensitivity of ISO 12800, and a reliable shake-reduction system using a state-of-the-art gyro sensor. It also provides a variety of creative tools, such as bokeh control and Smart Effect to add the desired filters with just a simple turn of a dial.

I got it for cheap. They range from ~$200 to ~$900 now. The sensor size is larger than the M8 (10.3) and smaller than the M9 (18). It has a good image. With the lens off it easily fits in one pocket and the lens in the other. With the lens on it will fit in a large pocket or a jacket pocket.

I'm putting the batteries in the charger. There is no excuse for not always having this along. ;o)

Here is another example of what this tiny camera can do. It punches well above its weight. Here is Santa Takes a Trip:



And here is what we are talking about: Yes, the flash is built in.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

Much of the above, and for many reasons older photographers can relate to in their own terms. A big part is the rendering that is unique to a CCD sensor - this is something new generation photographers can sometimes wax poetic about in the same way that older generations praise certain lens types like the original 50/1.5 Nokton or the 8 element 35 Summicron.

Low resolution is also perfectly acceptable when your primary media for publishing images is on web pages, most likely viewed on small-screen phones. This is even seen as an advantage in a milieu where a photo's "vibe" is often considered as important as the actual subject (much like the love of Bokeh that's been with us since the 90s). Once upon a time - before the mass-marketing power of the internet influencers cottoned on - a low resolution aesthetic also represented a big savings in gear costs.

Among young photographers there's also a rebellion against the clinical perfection and predictability of modern digital cameras and lenses - something that is shared by many of us here. There is also a rebellion against the never ending cycle of technical advancement/obsolescence. If todays state-of-the-art flagship camera is yesterdays news in 2 years, why not buy something known to be "obsolete" and stop worrying about kleeping up?

Not sure buying a digital point and shoot with a high failure rate after 10+ years is much of a rebellion against relentless technical advancement and planned obsolescence. If someone likes the pictures from these cameras, more power to them, but if you want to rebel against planned obsolescence then buy something built to last a lifetime and work indefinitely (with reasonable service) like a Leica M or a Nikon F. You can buy a Pentax Spotmatic or K1000 or many other good reliable film cameras for less (with a lens) than what these digital ticking time bombs are going for today.

 

[JohnGellings]

Among young photographers there's also a rebellion against the clinical perfection and predictability of modern digital cameras and lenses - something that is shared by many of us here. There is also a rebellion against the never ending cycle of technical advancement/obsolescence. If todays state-of-the-art flagship camera is yesterdays news in 2 years, why not buy something known to be "obsolete" and stop worrying about kleeping up?

How do you explain the popularity of cameras like the Fujifilm X100V and VI and Ricoh GRIII(x)? I don't think we can lump all young people together. This isn't mainstream stuff we are talking about.