I was surprised to see $600 (actually $599) on an old G12 on mpb. Some of these older p&s's seem to be selling for quite a bit, $300-600, anyone know the reason? I suppose it's not much compared to X100VI, Q3, perhaps just nice & compact
I wish Canon would try to compete vs Fuji more, I think they could pretty easily if they revived the G1x series, for one, and the Sigma primes are in that direction
I know there is a trend amongst the younger generation and hipsters right now to use these old P&S cameras. Not sure why, but I think they believe it's their way of feeling they are "being different" and "going analog", even though it's still digital.
It's a bunch of hype among the youth. IQ was never very good and other than long teles, functionally replaced with smartphones years ago. They will tire of it soon because the hassle factor of posting on the F***b**k, lack of AI fakery, etc. is too much.
If you have old P/S it might be a time to sell them.
It's wild how out of touch the average FMer is, though I suppose that's because the average age here tends higher.
Gen Z in particular is 1) pulling back from digital and online life and 2) VERY interested in physical media and digicams are as close to film as they can get (for the ones that can't afford the film shooting lifestyle). They are very interested in documenting their in-person socializations much like early millennials were. Digicams make that very easy and don't require a cell phone to do it. It's a device that can be shared and passed around, an extension of sharing a social moment.
artsupreme wrote:
I know there is a trend amongst the younger generation and hipsters right now to use these old P&S cameras. Not sure why, but I think they believe it's their way of feeling they are "being different" and "going analog", even though it's still digital.
I never understood about analog imaging. I recall there were a few cameras that used a video sensor and recorded it as analog data like a video frame. Before that was film and after that was digital.
RoamingScott wrote:
It's wild how out of touch the average FMer is, though I suppose that's because the average age here tends higher.
Gen Z in particular is 1) pulling back from digital and online life and 2) VERY interested in physical media and digicams are as close to film as they can get (for the ones that can't afford the film shooting lifestyle). They are very interested in documenting their in-person socializations much like early millennials were. Digicams make that very easy and don't require a cell phone to do it. It's a device that can be shared and passed around, an extension of sharing a social moment....Show more →
If it's me trying to detach and "go analog", then I'm using something like the Olympus below and shooting film. Or, even a polaroid would work, but definitely not an old P&S. I have several old P&S my drawer, I should probably pull them out and sell them while they are worth something:
Some years ago, old P&S film cameras were all the rage among hipsters and yuppie puppies. Skinny jean era? When I sold my 1990s Olympus Stylus (clamshell) on ebay, it bid up to nearly $300. I thought it would go for $20 if lucky.
artsupreme wrote:
If it's me trying to detach and "go analog", then I'm using something like the Olympus below and shooting film. Or, even a polaroid would work, but definitely not an old P&S. I have several old P&S my drawer, I should probably pull them out and sell them while they are worth something:
Remember though, you're talking about college-aged kids. Film costs for someone living on a college budget are largely prohibitive, though lots and lots of college kids do dabble in instant film/disposables/film SLRs.
As Scott said, it's really no more complicated than the desire to detach digitally (i.e. do less with one's phone), combined with the fact that younger people tend to find vintage/retro aesthetics appealing. Harsh on-camera flash from a small sensor compact camera is a look that's not easily reproducible without a flash-equippied small sensor compact camera, and that was the dominant look of nightlife in the 90's and 2000's. Plus, everyone here can relate to the idea that there's something inherently fun about holding, using, and passing around a dedicated photo device.
I personally think it's a neat trend, and I hope it's one that people are able to continue to enjoy without getting entirely priced out by scalpers.
Plus the crazy prices of mirrorless is pushing many away. I’ve noticed the obsolete M system is slowly climbing in price - I could sell mine now and make a nice profit if I so wished.
RoamingScott wrote:
It's wild how out of touch the average FMer is, though I suppose that's because the average age here tends higher.
Gen Z in particular is 1) pulling back from digital and online life and 2) VERY interested in physical media and digicams are as close to film as they can get (for the ones that can't afford the film shooting lifestyle). They are very interested in documenting their in-person socializations much like early millennials were. Digicams make that very easy and don't require a cell phone to do it. It's a device that can be shared and passed around, an extension of sharing a social moment....Show more →
Yep.
Also, nostalgia is and has always been powerful. Whereas the typical FMer may yearn for the good old film days of their youth, the late millennial and Gen Z equivalent might be closer to “cheap” P&S cameras among other tools that contribute to their own sense and memories of retro, lo-fi aesthetics.
And ironically, these kids aren’t the biggest sharers of AI slop on FB nowadays. It’s their parents, aunts and uncles, and grandparents
Also, nostalgia is and has always been powerful. Whereas the typical FMer may yearn for the good old film days of their youth, the late millennial and Gen Z equivalent might be closer to “cheap” P&S cameras among other tools that contribute to their own sense and memories of retro, lo-fi aesthetics.
And ironically, these kids aren’t the biggest sharers of AI slop on FB nowadays. It’s their parents, aunts and uncles, and grandparents
These kids are barely on FB and IG, and good for them!
They are off FB, yes. That is because they have moved to YT and TikTok (Pew Research). About 50% of kids spend more than 4 hours non-school time on screens (CDC). Only about 15% of kids (13-year olds) read for fun (books) (NEAP)
mjc wrote:
They are off FB, yes. That is because they have moved to YT and TikTok (Pew Research). About 50% of kids spend more than 4 hours non-school time on screens (CDC). Only about 15% of kids (13-year olds) read for fun (books) (NEAP)
I just shot a 15yr old bday part in a very beautiful and expensive place. The kids were all glued to their phones instead of enjoying their surroundings. I think it was TikTok they were on all day.
n8rv wrote:
I thought we were talking about college-age / twentysomethings, not pre-teens. Those haven't discovered cameras or any other hobbies yet.
I don't know I saw "kids" mentioned above a few times. Either way, all my little cousins are in their 20's and are the same way, they are glued to their phone. Hopefully this trend is going the opposite direction.
artsupreme wrote:
I don't know I saw "kids" mentioned above a few times. Either way, all my little cousins are in their 20's and are the same way, they are glued to their phone. Hopefully this trend is going the opposite direction.
The smartphone zombie apocalypse has not yet reached its peak. The only potential factor that could halt this trend is the widespread extinction of smartphones. I posit that wearable technology, such as glasses or contacts with video overlays, auditory implants, and other devices, combined with more immersive virtual worlds, will ultimately lead to the demise of smartphones and exacerbate technological addiction.
Gochugogi wrote:
The smartphone zombie apocalypse has not yet reached its peak. The only potential factor that could halt this trend is the widespread extinction of smartphones. I posit that wearable technology, such as glasses or contacts with video overlays, auditory implants, and other devices, combined with more immersive virtual worlds, will ultimately lead to the demise of smartphones and exacerbate technological addiction.
