Brendan Nystedt writes that the popularity of pocket-size vintage digicams among young photographers is not just a fad, but an artistic statement.
One of the biggest points of contention among enthusiasts is the definition of "digicam." For some, any old digital camera falls under the banner, while other photographers have limited the term's scope to a specific vintage or type. Sofia Lee, photographer and co-founder of the online community digicam.love, has narrowed her definition over time.
"There's a separation between what I define as a tool that I will be using in my artistic practice versus what the community at large would consider to be culturally acceptable, like at a meetup," Lee stated. "I started off looking at any digital camera I could get my hands on. But increasingly I'm focused more on the early 2000s. And actually, I actually keep getting earlier and earlier … I would say from 2000 to 2003 or 2004 maybe."
Lee has found that she's best served by funky old point-and-shoot cameras, and doesn't use old digital single-lens reflex cameras, which can deliver higher quality images comparable to today's equipment. Lee says DSLR images are "too clean, too crisp, too nice" for her work. "When I'm picking a camera, I'm looking for a certain kind of noise, a certain kind of character to them that can't be reproduced through filters or editing, or some other process," Lee says. Her all-time favorite model is a forgotten camera from 2001, the Kyocera Finecam S3. A contemporary review gave the model a failing grade, citing its reliance on the then-uncommon SD memory card format, along with its propensity to turn out soft photos lacking in detail.
I love that aficionados have begun gatekeeping and playing authenticity cop already. I just sold a bright green Sony DSC whatever for $300. Probably didn't even pay that for it in 2005! And whoever bought it is going to run headlong into the question of whatever "the community at large would consider to be culturally acceptable." I'm looking foward to watching a Tik Tok struggle session caused by someone thinking their Fujifilm XF1 qualified as a digicam.
Still, there is a lot of genuine interest in the explosion of digital sensor tech in the 2010s out there.
YouTubers like Warner and O'Keefe helped raise interest in cameras with Charged-Coupled Device technology, an older type of imaging sensor that fell out of use around 2010. CCD-based cameras have developed a cult following, and certain models have retained their value surprisingly well for their age. Fans liken the results of CCD captures to shooting film without the associated hassle or cost. While the digicam faithful have shown that older cameras can yield pleasing results, there's no guaranteed "CCD magic" sprinkled on those photos.
Not mentioned in the article (presumably because it's all about still shooting) are the outstanding but now low-res sensors on the first gen of inexpensive cinema cams from the 2010-ish period. The original Blackmagic and Blackmagic Pocket, and the Digital Bolex. The second-gen models weren't so "filmic"—higher resolution, lower dynamic range, less idiosyncratic color. But now you can get these ancient digital cine cameras which produce beautiful filmlike footage—so long as you're OK with 2k and a RAW workflow from hell.
Conversely, the old Brian Eno quote:
> Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit – all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided.
