>>4107770This simply isn't true. The colors are mostly different due to camera input profiles bundled with these cameras, not the differences between thin vs thick CFA. Thick CFAs are also no closer to film than thin CFAs due to film using subtractive vs additive color systems(Additive systems are superior in basically everyway, and can simulate the look of film no prob).
>he drive behind the popularity of old ccd cameras today isn't just the colors. Its the sensors sensors themselves capture light differently. The pixels are larger than today's cameras.Large vs small pixels doesn't matter, if you control for light capture/area is more important and basically the same for the same sensor tech.
Since shot noise dominates at high iso, high iso will be grainy no matter what. However, read noise is basically all the noise in low iso use case, since there is virtually no shot noise. CCD has way worse read noise at any iso compared with CMOS and the same size sensor. Read noise is not nice, it isn't pleasant like film grain or shot noise, its blotchy and irregular. CCD and CMOS are basically the same, except CCD is worse in basically all applications.
While the 'experience' of using a camera might matter to some, I just want a camera that works well. The 'unique aesthetic' different shitty CCD cameras have can be made with basic contrast and color adjustments, cropping, and adding digital noise in post.
While to past certainly has 'sleeper' cameras that punch above their price used. These old CCD cameras aren't them.
also, post photos faggot
