Tag: finepix

Sunsets and uncomfortable confrontations

Posted in Philosophy and Photography, PhotographyTagged , , , , , , , , , , 3 Comments

Yes, it was another cloudy day and I was out with the Finepix 6500fd. Driving around tiny old towns, largely forgotten and left to people with desires to escape the rest of the world, can be surprising sometimes. Yes, there are plenty of interesting ruins to look at and photograph, but occasionally there are also encounters with unfriendly locals.

Old Post Office – Finepix 6500fd

Admittedly, not an awesome photo, but the old Post Office above is an interesting building. I’m always careful when it comes to remaining in public areas, as there’s largely few restrictions on what can be photographed as long as it can be viewed from a public area that one is occupying. I can walk along any public road or path and photograph buildings and most other things without a problem.

The confrontation

So, there I was in the middle of an old dirt road, pointing my camera at an old Post Office. A car pulled up and out hopped a local. She asked me in a very pointed manner: “Why are your taking photos of my house?”. A little surprised, and somewhat curious, I replied, “You live in the Post Office building?”.

It turns out she didn’t live there, but in the house next door. I assured her I had no interest in photographing her home, but only the old building because it “looks cool”. She clarified and told me that she only uses it for storage. I tried to de-escalate the situation and asked about the history of the building and when it was closed down. She responded but still was very unhappy and asked me again why I was making photos of her home. At this point I politely fare-welled her and left, knowing that it was pointless to continue the conversation.

Mangroves at sunset – Finepix 6500fd

Reflecting on feelings and laws

I knew I wasn’t doing anything illegal and this was simply a case of an unhappy and suspicious local. That’s perfectly understandable, of course. There’s a difference between what I can legally photograph and how someone feels about it. I’d tried to cool things down and assure her that I wasn’t interested in photographing her home, but rather just a nice old building with some history. Rather than argue any legal point about public land, it was simply better for me to leave.

I’m often in two minds about these, thankfully rare, situations. On one hand, I understand that someone might be suspicious of a stranger coming to town and having an interest in their property. Would I also react similarly if someone was camped outside my home with a camera pointed at it? I may, though I’d likely be mostly interested in the camera gear. On the other hand, it’s certainly not illegal to photograph things from the vantage point of public land.

If the person is open to a conversation, I think it’s reasonable to explain what you’re doing and why you have an interest. I don’t think it’s helpful to start a conversation about legalities around the act of photography because this may be more likely to cause more upset. There’s an understandable emotional response involved that does cause some personal dilemma but I think it’s wise to consider both sides.

It’s certainly perfectly reasonable to photograph the world around us, yet remain aware of the private and public boundaries that are sometimes difficult to define. It’s also reasonable to consider the potentially strident reaction that a person might have to the act of photography in an area they consider, legally or not, their turf. Despite the dilemma, I remain on the side of photographing the world within legal limits, and if there’s a confrontation, explaining why I’m there in hopes this will provide context and calm the situation.

In the end, we finally saw a great sunset:

A welcome sunset – Finepix 6500fd

Another cloudy day and another Finepix camera in hand

Posted in Gear Talk, PhotographyTagged , , , , , , , Leave a comment

In a previous post, I rushed out with the Fuji Finepix 6500fd and was impressed by the camera’s ability to hold onto detail. Fast-forward to a cloudy Sunday and a last-minute invitation from family friends, and once more, the Finepix 6500fd is in my hands. It has the feel of a mini-DSLR and the manual zoom, unlike most other Finepix cameras from the 2000s era, really adds to this feeling.

Pink scrawls – Finepix 6500fd

At this point, I’m trusting the Automatic White Balance of the 6500 because it does an admirable job, even on a really cloudy day. At some point, there’ll be some sun, I hope! As you can see in the above image, out of cameras JPGs are nice and colourful. Of course, I have it set to JPG Fine, ISO 100, and the Fujichrome picture setting so that there’s more saturation of certain colours and extra contrast. I’ve yet to use the F-Standard setting.

Roadside groceries – Finepix 6500fd

Like most older digital cameras, it’s not great when it comes to preserving strong light and shadow areas. There’s a bit of a focus on preserving highlight and shadow detail in modern photos, but it really depends on the subject and the type of photo it is. Is there anything you really want to preserve in the highlights/shadows? Do strong highlight and shadow areas add punch and drama to your photo? These are really the questions that should be asked, and not just an assumption that these areas need detail all the time. In many cases, clipped highlights and blocked out shadows don’t matter and add visual interest.

Bees and butterflies – Finepix 6500fd

I did also take out my Nikon D40 but I ended up bagging it because it seemed to be overexposing. As it happens, I think it was my error entirely. I’ll take it out again and check to see if it’s a mechanical issue with the shutter speeds or just me being completely stupid.

The cactus takes over – Finepix 6500fd

Because I set the Finepix to Soft sharpening levels, all of the JPGs benefit from some light extra sharpening in Lightroom. Using both Texture and Clarity in small amounts also brings the best out of this camera. I’d go so far as to say that the lens on the Finepix 6500fd is superb for the time, and it wrings the most out of the sensor to the point that a higher resolution sensor would likely be a better fit for the lens.

A cloudy few hours with the Finepix S6500fd

Posted in Gear Talk, PhotographyTagged , , , , , , 8 Comments

Previously, I admitted to having developed a thing for the old Fujifilm Finepix bridge cameras from yesteryear. I didn’t have the money to buy them back when they were new and I’ve often heard good things about Fujifilm cameras in general. Given the recent fetish in the more feverish and magical corners of the internet with CCD cameras of a certain vintage, I think it’s a good time to explore their capabilities and features.

Blossoms – Finepix 6500fd

Where the S7000 is a bit clunky and shows its age, despite some amazing image making capacity for the time, the S6500 feels more modern and sleek. Start-up time is quicker, menus are cleaner and more responsive, and the nice histogram that overlays on the, slightly disappointing, EVF when the Exposure Compensation button is pressed is really useful for looking after highlights and shadows.

I set it to JPG Fine and the Chrome picture mode. This pushes contrast and boosts saturation, especially in greens. Unfortunately, the day was thick with cloud cover, but the Auto White Balance did an admirable job when photographing flower blossoms on the side of the road. Even in this grim light, there’s lots of detail.

Speaking of detail, can you believe that the above photo was made with a small sensor bridge camera from 2006? Even under heavy cloud, there’s amazing detail in the foliage and on the sign. I set Soft sharpening in-camera, preferring to sharpen up in Lightroom. At ISO 100, there is no discernible noise. Unlike the JPGs from the S7000, where pushing them even a little during editing shows plenty of digital noise and tonal fragility, the JPGs from the 6500 preserve a lot more noise-free detail in shadows. The photo above was pushed to +30 in shadow areas! Apart from that, there were small boosts to mid-tone Contrast and Clarity.

Machinery in the yard – Finepix S6500fd

More than megapixels and sensors

The quality of these photos is not just about the sensor. Though the sensor is the same one that’s in the much-loved Fuji F31fd camera, a great lens also makes a big difference. A quick trip out under heavy clouds and rain isn’t ideal for testing a camera, but just looking at the detail in the foliage from a 6.3 megapixel Super CCD sensor and lens combination from 2006 is something of a revelation.

Beauty on the side of a back-road

I think this camera is worthy of setting to record in native Raw file format at some stage, just to see how much detail can be pulled from shadows and highlights. What’s clear is that the Super CCD sensor in the S6500 handles higher dynamic range scenes much much better than the older and clunkier S7000. Two years of digital camera advancement makes a big difference, and I can only imagine how thrilled I would have been to have had this camera way back when!

Rust, ruin, and Fujifilm bridge cameras

Posted in Gear Talk, PhotographyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

There’s something delightful about rust – rough patches of red, brown, orange, and black signify the decay of something once whole. It’s a reminder that nothing lasts forever. It gives one pause to consider time, relentless and vast. Also, a good excuse to post some photos of rust and old stuff!

Something rusty – Sony RX100 Mark 1

There’s another thing too: lately I’ve become interested in those old Fujifilm bridge cameras I could never afford at the time of market release. Honestly, I barely had two cents to rub together, let alone the disposable income to purchase one of the many Finepix models from the 2000s era. It was a time when digital, so ubiquitous now, was still carving out a place in photographer’s hearts.

Back in 2004 or 2005 (too long ago), I remember going out with my late father with the intention to buy a good camera. He picked up a mostly plastic, silvery Finepix – a 3500 I think. It was 4 megapixels and looked quite neat. I picked up an Olympus Ultra Zoom – silvery and plastic: a 3 megapixel Olympus Camedia C-725. I still have it, minus the XD card.

My father got the better deal, honestly. Though it wasn’t the best digital camera at the time, the Fuji Finepix he had was fun and easy to use, and he used it a lot! On the other hand, I used my C-725 rarely, under the misapprehension at the time that Olympus must somehow be of more legendary status than Fujifilm. I failed to squeeze much joy out of it and found myself feeling regret. I foolishly set it to Manual mode, placing myself under pressure to make sense of it all, and my brain exploded! Once I find an XD card, I’ll fire it back up with new vigor and give it a second life – if it still works.

Where industry once was, rust reigns supreme – Sony RX100 Mark 1

I have the Finepix S7000 now, of course – a camera that recently surprised me with features, even if it’s slow by today’s lofty standards. But there are two more on the way: the Finepix S5600 and the Finepix S6500fd. The former intrigues me with a minimum ISO of just 64, and a reputation for low noise. The latter features the excellent sensor also present in the Finepix f31fd – a camera that has been targeted by the CCD colour crowd and is now absurdly expensive.

I’m enjoying the old bridge cameras. Back then, these cameras bridged the gap between people who were either still using film cameras and wanted an easy way into digital, and/or those who were using compact digital cameras and wanted to move to something closer to a DSLR/pro camera but didn’t want to lay out too much money.

CCD vs CMOS colours – debate, assumption, bias, and speculation

Posted in Consumer Culture, Gear Talk, Other Thoughts and Reflections, PhotographyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , 8 Comments

I’m not a scientist. I’m not an engineer of any sort. I’m certainly not a designer of optical devices or digital sensors, just so you know. There has been debate in some corners of the web about old cameras with CCD sensors rendering better colour and their images looking more film-like. I think a pleasing photo is a subjective thing and people are free to decide what that looks like. I’m just curious about the nature of the debate and why people might think this way.

CCD sensors were the dominant type of digital sensors at the dawn of digital photography. Around 2010 or so, CMOS sensors started to appear in new camera models. At the time, I really didn’t think about it, as I couldn’t even afford any of the better CCD cameras anyway. And believe me, there are plenty of CCD cameras that make junk photos! Interestingly, the CCD colour is better pundits rarely discuss those junk cameras, perhaps because their output doesn’t suit the argument that CCD colour is better.

Of Nikons, Canons, Pentax, and Fujifilm

When people talk about those lovely CCD colours, they usually reference the same cameras: most of the early Nikon CCD cameras, the Fuji Super CCD cameras, early Canons and compacts of a certain model, the Olympus Evolt series, the Leica M9, and a handful of compacts with excellent output. Of course, those cameras were always considered excellent. Reviews at the time of their release praised them, so it’s no surprise that they’re still great cameras today.

I used a few CCD cameras at the time, and then moved to CMOS cameras because that’s what was being sold. I don’t remember anyone discussing the merits of CCD colour versus CMOS colour. I do know that the output of many cheap and cheerful CCD cameras at anything higher than 200 ISO is pretty awful – there’s lots of chroma and luminance noise, and the colours don’t look so great. If you read reviews of those old consumer cameras online, you’ll see there was a focus on accuracy of colour. This is because camera makers saturate certain colours to make the output more attractive for consumers.

Complaints about colour from Flickr

Consider the quote above about an old CCD camera. Evidence that colour reproduction has always been on the mind of the photographer and that CCD cameras, for all their current hype, have issues with accurate colour reproduction. This is not to say that inaccurate colours are less attractive. Many cameras are sold based on how their on-board JPG conversion software renders colour, after all.

What influences the colour of a digital photo?

First of all, whether it’s a CCD sensor or a CMOS sensor, the sensor itself is actually colour-blind. The sensor only sees lightness/brightness and not colour. The Colour Filter Array on top of this slice of silicon filters wavelengths of light into Red, Green, and Blue. All of this data is transferred to AD converters and the signal amplified. The on-board software takes this data and, in the case of JPG output, it does some clever stuff to render a compressed file. To achieve the Canon look or the Olympus look, or whatever, the software also applies a tone curve, temperature and tint settings, and may saturate certain colours more heavily.

The Fuji-Chrome look in digital

Fuji is pretty well-known for offering users lots of film presets in their digital cameras. These settings emulate some of the qualities of certain films, including colour, grain, and tone curve. The photo above is from an old Fuji Finepix S7000. It’s a JPG straight out of the camera on the Chrome setting. Note that there’s a slight green bias in the white balance, as well as extra contrast. Definitely a pleasing photo.

On some makes of camera, the White Balance is known to bias warmer or cooler. Nikons tend to have a cooler look to photos, and this helps to produce better colour in some scenes where a warmer bias would create unnatural colours, such as in some types of skin tones. But these things largely matter only when JPG file output is needed.

Choice of lens also has some influence on how a photo looks. People talk about the Leica look, for example, noting that there’s some mystique about it. I don’t have the money to buy a Leica of any sort, so it’s hard for me to comment on this phenomenon. What I do know is that a poor lens can produce poor output, and a great lens can produce great output. Leica have always been known for the superiority of their optics, so it’s most likely that the signature Leica look has a lot to do with the contrast and sharpness imparted by the lens.

Hype and reality

So, why are some people talking about the inherent superiority of CCD sensors and how they render colour? Is CCD colour a question of hardware or software? Here are some common reasons and assumptions, including my thoughts on them, from people who believe that CCD sensors produce better or more film-like images:

  • The old CCD sensors have thicker Colour Filter Arrays that separate colour better and produce stronger images: As I said, I’m no engineer, so this is tough to question. If this is true, then all a camera maker would need to do is to put a thicker CFA on a new CMOS sensor, and it would approximate all of those great colour results from old cameras. I strongly suspect that the CFAs have very little, if anything, to do with it though, given that there are other strong influences on how a photo looks, such as white balance and camera software.
  • Camera manufacturers stopped using CCD because CMOS was cheaper, which led to less organic images: Companies do things to save money all the time, but would they really intentionally hobble the output of their cameras to the extent that many CCD enthusiasts believe?
  • Camera X with a CCD sensor makes photos that look so much better than camera Y with a CMOS sensor, so therefore the CCD sensor must be superior: Let us not forget that most CCD pundits never mention all the junk CCD cameras from that era (is anyone talking about those plasticky Nikon L series compacts that produce average photos?). They mostly talk about the CCD cameras that are still good, even today. They were praised then, and they are still making good photos now. I think that some people who were too young to remember the digital transition now cultivate the mistaken assumption that old camera technology is mostly inferior to today’s technology, and that those great cameras from yesteryear make photos look great because there’s some hidden and forgotten technology in them – the CCD sensor.
  • CCD cameras make images that are film-like: Let us be clear – only film looks like film. I grew up with film cameras and remember the cheap cameras (I couldn’t afford anything else), powerful in-built flashes, and cheap consumer film. I think the look that many young people talk about relates to the softer quality of many film photos due to low-grade lenses and the appearance of highlights from low-priced consumer film cameras. Those old CCD cameras have limited dynamic range, often creating blown highlights. The best CCD sensors, at low ISOs, do produce less digital noise due to the chip’s architecture, and some people say that this means it’s closer to film. But modern CMOS sensors have advanced greatly in these areas and have far more dynamic range, colour accuracy, and noise control. Just look at the crappiest CCD cameras at anything above base ISO and you’ll see some pretty ugly chroma and luminance noise. The best CCD cameras from that era can make some very nice low noise images, even up to 800 ISO, but none of this means it looks like film. Plenty of people know more about it than I do, but film grain is random and organic. Digital noise is square and uniform. Where an old and highly regarded CCD camera may be useful is at the lowest ISOs and almost no perceptible digital noise. That could make for some nice black and white conversions. The low noise might also make it a better fit for overlaying scanned images of film grain. I’ve never seen much point in overlaying film grain over digital photos that already have digital noise.
  • You’ll have unlimited film-like images if you buy this cheap CCD camera: There are lots of YouTube videos touting the benefits of these old digicams, even going so far as to label them Y2K cameras. This is a hook to lure people in to watching the videos so that the creators can game the algorithm and snag subscribers, with a little magical thinking and potential profiteering thrown in. Growing up, I saw thousands of photos from film cameras of all sorts. The so-called Y2K camera, the moniker itself a pointer to the generational interest in digicams, doesn’t make film-like images.

If you want to read a pretty in-depth, though only loosely scientific, article on CCD versus CMOS colours, take a look at this site. Spoiler alert: there isn’t a visible difference between them for most people, and any colour output differences seem to come down to company preferences with regard to on-board software processing. CMOS also offers so much more low-light performance that it’s little wonder CCD was replaced by it in the end.

There is something curious about the Olympus E-1 I’ve been using recently, in light of this speculation about sensors. The RAW files it produces are not as flat and dull as you’d expect. They require little editing when exposure settings are nailed. Is that the sensor? Maybe. More likely a tone curve applied, though it seems odd that this can be seen in the RAW files? You can read my thoughts about it here.

Nikon Z5, when paired with sharp lenses, can produce wonderful output

Does it matter?

People love the photos they love. And I’m not an engineer, so I don’t have all the answers. In the end, it doesn’t really matter. Humans are always looking for meaning somewhere and often latch onto narratives despite the data. And that’s OK. Creating and finding greater meaning in life is what we’ve always done.

What I do find interesting is how much prices have risen for the CCD cameras that get the most attention in these online forums and social media discussions. No doubt, some people in those corners have enough interest in profits and online followers that they’ll keep pushing the CCD vs CMOS colour narrative, even unconsciously. I think this is what bothers me the most: the fact that a lot of young people are being duped into paying a three figure sum for a point and shoot from the early 2000s just because some YouTubers told them that the CCD sensor it features produces filmic photos.

In the end, whatever the truth, it’s all part of the marketing and hype cycle. It’s a snake-oil trend that will eventually fade. A generation that grew up seeing family members use those early digital cameras are now looking back to find inspiration in a world that’s over-saturated by AI and overly processed images from smartphones. They feel nostalgic about those old cameras from their childhood and that’s perfectly OK and understandable.

Are digicams worth using now?

The short answer is: yes, of course old cameras are worth using now! Admittedly, I like some of those old cameras because I can afford some of the best ones and their history interests me. And where else would they end up? In the junkyard, thoughtlessly tossed and abandoned as old XD cards and Compact Flash cards molder and rot in their plastic slots? We don’t need the latest and greatest cameras to make interesting photos, that’s for sure.

I do have one thing to thank the Y2K digcam craze for: it has provided me with the impetus to explore some of the early digital cameras I always wanted and could never afford at the time. I can now appreciate some of the great technology in some of those cameras and see how we ended up where we are now. It has also taught me something else: image-making hasn’t advanced as much as the big companies want us to believe.

Olympus E-1 – minimal editing required

A remembrance of old cameras and simple joys

Posted in Consumer Culture, Other Thoughts and Reflections, Philosophy and Photography, PhotographyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

I came across an old Flickr group about a long obsolete and out of production Finepix camera. The discussion thread there is now abandoned and filled with hopeful posts from beginner photographers, posts from film camera veterans excited about the possibilities of digital photography, and people considering the merits and costs of upgrading to a DSLR.

Sony RX100

Some people questioned why the group was becoming less active, with people theorising that the marketing cycle of cameras and the forced obsolescence of models was resulting in formerly active members moving on to bigger and better cameras, the lure of more megapixels ever-present. Some others were steadfast in their dedication to a camera that permitted them to fall in love with photography as a hobby, sure that they’d never need any more than 5 or 6 megapixels. As you can imagine, there’s a little camera history in those threads, underpinned by melancholy.

Finepix Flickr group
Early morning walk – Sony RX100

The joy of discovering photography is reflected in those discussions, as well as the spin-cycle of marketing, upgrades, and feature-creep. Isn’t there often a sense of doubt kindled in us by big manufacturers so that we’ll buy the latest gadget? This is part of the reason why I like old digicams. It’s not that I think there’s some long-forgotten, superior image making technology buried in CCD sensors, or that those cameras are more capable than cameras of today, but that old cameras still feed the joy of photography. In this sense, they are relevant.

Seen better days – Nikon Z5

The truth is that people were making interesting photos using simple box cameras a hundred years ago. People still make arresting photos using old cameras now. The act of photography is the recording of an image to a medium, whether that’s film emulsion or software output via digital sensor and SD card. Photography is about seeing the world afresh and inhabiting the moment.

Standing alone – Sigma DP2M

Abstracts & macros with the Finepix S7000

Posted in Gear Talk, PhotographyTagged , , , , , , , Leave a comment

When the clouds are heavy and the weather inclement, I like to look for interesting patterns and textures in the environment. It’s also a good way to test out the macro abilities of the Fujifilm Finepix S7000. On these old fixed lens digicams, there was usually a dedicated Macro mode button. The S7000 has two modes – Macro and Super-Macro, making it possible to get as close as one centimetre away from the subject.

The details are crunchy enough in the close-up photo above, even before any Lightroom tweaking. I’m not going overboard with the editing, as these are only 8 bit JPGs and don’t contain a lot of information to work with. Small boosts to contrast and clarity, with a minimal increase in vibrance is enough to make it shine. Other settings are my usual on this camera: 12 MP Fine* JPG.

Since we were at the seaside, it made sense to photograph the lovely colours and patterns of the shallows. And in good light, the Finepix is a fine camera even 20 years after it debuted. Just a slight decrease to highlights and a slight boost to contrast and the photo comes alive I think.

Lastly, the photo above intrigues me. The seabed is distorted by the water and there’s something red lying on the sand below. One might almost think there are strange creatures inhabiting the salty depths, throwing out exploratory tentacles.

Next outing, I’ll probably take another camera. Perhaps the Sony RX100 – a camera I’ve had in my possession for a decade and have barely explored. Certainly a nice camera that was once King in the world of compacts – when compact cameras were still a going market concern.

Watch the shutter speed – a hike with the Finepix S7000

Posted in Aesthetics and Technique, PhotographyTagged , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

OK, I pushed it today. I really did. And it didn’t really work. I should have known better, but I like to risk it sometimes. What am I risking? A blurry photo in conditions that should attract higher ISO/wider apertures.

The S7000 came with us for a hike today. The weather wasn’t great for old cameras with visible noise at what would be considered only moderate ISO ranges these days. The S7000 operates at a base ISO of 200, which is already a touch noisy. Add in a few rain drizzles and heavily overcast skies, and the problems become apparent.

I managed a few decent macro shots at lower than ideal shutter speeds, one of which is pictured above. What I noticed was that even on the F-chrome picture setting, the JPG output was decidedly dull. It lacked any punch or saturation, even in the greens. I’ll put that down to the overcast day and the even lighting conditions. At the very least, the clouds enabled some nice detail in macro photos.

Admittedly, I did add some Clarity, Vibrance, and Texture in Lightroom for these photos, but nothing overboard. I’m fortunate that the teeny 1/1.7 inch sensor is fairly forgiving of movement, as my shutter speeds just weren’t fast enough for most of the hike. This is because I really didn’t want to push to ISO 400 for fear of noise. Still, I should have widened the aperture more often. Perhaps I’m just too used to any form of stabilisation in my cameras.

Overall, a bit of a down day with the Finepix S7000. Today was as disappointing as last time was surprising. I’m pleased enough with the three photos that worked though. Looking at them now, they’re quite pleasant. My favourite is the arrangement of tree branches. I should certainly know better, of course, and I didn’t adapt. I was stubborn about my approach.

I suppose today just wasn’t the day for it. Next time I may take out the Sony RX100 and flip that to Vivid picture mode. No doubt, Sony’s sensor would handle a day like today with sufficient aplomb. I did also have my Olympus OMD EM5II with me, but it was the Finepix that I wanted to use, given the success I had the first time.

What did I learn today?

  • Older cameras like this love a lot more light,
  • Always watch shutter speed,
  • Even when I think I can hold steady, watch the shutter speed!
  • Be more flexible in my photographic approach,
  • Don’t be too hard on myself because there’s nothing wrong with learning and experimenting.

A day out with the Fujifilm Finepix S7000

Posted in Gear Talk, PhotographyTagged , , , , , , , , 5 Comments

When I became serious about developing skills in photography, I was drawn to the practice of contemplative photography with small and simple cameras in Auto mode. The idea that I can re-frame the world and see it with fresh eyes is attractive because it anchors the mind in the moment. There’s no struggle with too many buttons or camera settings in Auto, and there’s no complex exposure puzzle to solve because the camera does the heavy lifting.

When I purchased my first DSLR – a Nikon D5100 – I was thrust into the world of camera gear. My formerly simple photo walks turned into knotted thoughts about dynamic range, sharpness, and aperture settings. I sought out videos and online forums so I could learn. I purchased even more gear, knowing all the while that people were making great photos with primitive boxes over a century ago.

There’s a joy in this sort of learning curve, and it’s important, but there’s also a cognitive load that removes some of the pleasure of inhabiting the moment – at least for me. Others, I suppose, may find sustainable joy in complexity.

So, how can I re-enter the moment with camera in hand? This is where old digital cameras are useful. Enter the Fuji Finepix S7000 – a prosumer camera announced in 2003 that features full auto and manual modes, a fixed zoom lens with a maximum aperture of 2.8, great ergonomics, a nice EVF, and Fujifilm’s take on the digital CCD sensor: a 6.3 megapixel Super CCD generation IV sensor.

Super CCD – the secret sauce?

Before CMOS digital sensors went mainstream, CCD sensors could be found in most older digital cameras. Most camera reviews at the time focussed on whether colours out of the camera were natural or over-saturated, providing clues as to how camera makers programmed their on-board software to make JPG photos more vibrant and attractive to buyers. There’s a current trend where some people believe that CCD sensors contain “techno-magical” properties and produce film-like results, but as someone who grew up with film cameras – only film looks like film. I suspect that those who believe this are young enough to think they missed out on a digital technology that offers long-lost superiority over current camera output. Frankly, there were plenty of trashy, low quality CCD sensor cameras back then too.

The Fujifilm Finepix S7000 features a Super CCD sensor with a honeycomb patterned Colour Filter Array (CFA) overlaid. Some people think CCD sensors create better colours than CMOS sensors, but people who know a lot more than me are pretty certain they don’t. Anyway, there are other reasons to use old cameras like the S7000.

Using the S7000

I purchased the S7000 for a fraction of its original retail price. Here in Australia, it would have been a top-shelf digital camera at the time of release – the likes of which I’d not have been able to afford. Back then, I’d only just moved on from my first digital camera: a boxy Kodak DSC with 1 megapixel, an awfully tiny LCD screen, no manual controls, and the worst battery life I’ve ever encountered in any modern electrical device.

Oh, what a camera I’d missed! The S7000 is pleasingly ergonomic. The grip is comfortable and the myriad buttons are within easy reach. What surprises me is the EVF – a pretty immersive experience, even by today’s standards, despite comparatively low resolution. Honestly, I had no idea that a 20 year old digital camera could be this advanced! This is mirrorless before we had modern mirrorless.

OK, the camera has some annoying quirks: the slow start-up time, washed out LCD and EVF, the tinny start-up sound I’d forgotten about on these old devices, the photo playback button located on the power switch, 2 separate menu buttons, a maximum shutter speed of 1/1000th of a second unless in full manual mode (where it’s a whopping 1/10000th), and the screen that nags you to update the date/time. You can turn off the tinny sounds, including the focus beep and the fake shutter sound, but when you change the 4xAA batteries, the camera forgets all user settings and you have to go in and do it all again. So, I just leave the annoying camera sounds on now.

SOOC – Straight out of the camera

I usually set all my cameras to RAW and edit the photos later, but in the interests of removing cognitive load, enjoying the moment, and exploring the manufacturer baked-in colour profiles of the S7000, I set it to the Fujichrome colour setting at 12 megapixel, Fine JPG. It’s the best way, I think, to experience what most people used at the time and just enjoy a day out.

All of the photos on this page are the S7000’s JPG output. In F-chrome mode the output is high contrast, high colour saturation, and a green bias in the white balance. I think they look pretty nice. In fact, I think the output is remarkable from a 2003 digital camera.

Older CCD sensors aren’t great when it comes to strong highlights in high dynamic range scenes, so I made most of these photos between -0.3 and -1.0 exposure compensation, just to protect the highlights. As you can see on the hulls of the boats above, the detail is preserved well. I do wish the giant black solar panel wasn’t blocking the boat at the back, but that’s life.

Blues and greens are especially nice using the Fujichrome setting, and the contrast is punchy. I barely touched these images in Lightroom – some cropping when required, some image straightening, and the barest highlight recovery and black point. Not that JPGs provide much latitude for recovering shadows or highlights, but I’m happy with that because it means I don’t need to mess around much in editing after enjoying the day out.

For such an old camera, the resolution and detail is excellent, though pixel peeping reveals the sort of softness that most modern photographers would be seriously troubled by. There’s also visible chromatic aberration around strong contrast areas. Still, there’s a pleasantness and immediacy to the images I can’t deny. They’re sharp enough without making the eyes water.

The S7000, through clever software and the honeycomb structure of the CFA, interpolates 6 megapixels to a 12 megapixel output, though you can choose 1, 3, or 6 megapixels if required. It can also output CCD RAW files at 12 megapixels only. I set it to 12 MP Fine JPG setting, as this seemed to be the preferred setting of many users at the time.

A surprising performer

The Fujifilm Finepix S7000 ticks a lot of boxes for me: it’s easy to use, has advanced settings if I want, has fantastic Macro and Super Macro modes (I’d forgotten about the dedicated macro button featuring the cute flower symbol on these old cameras), and satisfies the itch to stop thinking about settings too much and instead focus on the world and the image. The 12 megapixel output is certainly usable, even today, and would easily yield a good 8×10 inch print. It would have been an amazing camera at the time of release and I’m sure it would have blown my mind in 2003. It also proves that today’s complex mirrorless cameras had perfectly capable precedents.