Camera from 2008-2010

Hi! For a project I'm working on I want to capture the aesthetic that was in the photo's from like 2008-2010. Kinda like those myspace pictures, so what are some decent cameras from that era? Thanks!

Link: Sensors Database - DxOMark search filters for production date available. I'd recommend what goes with the lenses you already have. If you believe that "old tech" creates the look you are after, maybe dig for CCD sensor cameras?

I assume good images were made during RAW conversion those days. I have no clue what got posted to Myspace. - Questionable SOOC JPEGs?

I haven't tested or tried everything, but I am still kind of content with Pentax K10 D or Leica M 8 from that era. Others probably bought Nikon or Canon.

I see you've just joined PN. Can you tell us a bit more about yourself and your project?

The effects in pictures depend some on the film and lens, but pretty much not on the camera.

 

Lenses change much slower than cameras, so you only need to find which lens was used in that

time frame, and a camera to put it on. Films change, too, but very little since 2008.

 

So, pretty much any film camera now will give pictures like you might have had from 2008.

 

There are people who can make digital pictures look like film, but it isn't so hard to do

with actual film, and get the real look.

Kinda like those myspace pictures, so what are some decent cameras from that era?

Film use was pretty much at a nadir in 2008, and it's highly unlikely that Myspace would have a high proportion of scanned film images posted.

 

So basically you're looking at digital cameras. I guess Myspace had pictures posted taken with anything from a phone-camera, through compact and 'bridge' cameras to high-end DSLRs. Like the Canon 5D and Nikon D700. Only 12 megapixels each, but still capable of high-quality results that, reduced for web use, you couldn't tell apart from the most recently made camera available.

 

So a 'typical' camera from 2008-2010? No such beast IMO. And ignoring fashion and hairstyles, I sincerely doubt there's an identifiably different look to pictures taken only 10 years ago.

Edited January 8, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

Film use was pretty much at a nadir in 2008, and it's highly unlikely that Myspace would have a high proportion of scanned film images posted.

 

So basically you're looking at digital cameras. I guess Myspace had pictures posted taken with anything from a phone-camera, through compact and 'bridge' cameras to high-end DSLRs. Like the Canon 5D and Nikon D700. Only 12 megapixels each, but still capable of high-quality results that, reduced for web use, you couldn't tell apart from the most recently made camera available.

 

So a 'typical' camera from 2008-2010? No such beast IMO. And ignoring fashion and hairstyles, I sincerely doubt there's an identifiably different look to pictures taken only 10 years ago.

 

Agree! The only thing is that in that period unlikely you have a 24MP image (there were cameras with 24MP or more during that time but not typical). So it's more like 10 or 12MP.

Film use was pretty much at a nadir in 2008, and it's highly unlikely that Myspace would have a high proportion of scanned film images posted.

 

So basically you're looking at digital cameras. I guess Myspace had pictures posted taken with anything from a phone-camera, through compact and 'bridge' cameras to high-end DSLRs. Like the Canon 5D and Nikon D700. Only 12 megapixels each, but still capable of high-quality results that, reduced for web use, you couldn't tell apart from the most recently made camera available.

 

So a 'typical' camera from 2008-2010? No such beast IMO. And ignoring fashion and hairstyles, I sincerely doubt there's an identifiably different look to pictures taken only 10 years ago.

 

Yeah! Like the project I am working on is very like late 00's, I guess what I am looking for is a compact camera, that's what they're called right? I am a amateur at best when it comes to camera knowledge haha, that's why I am on this site :)

 

The quality I am looking for is kinda like this, I hope you know what I mean:

 

Redirect Notice

I see you've just joined PN. Can you tell us a bit more about yourself and your project?

Of course! I am Tyra and I am working on a personal project that is very late 00's (2005-2010 ish), I don't know a lot about cameras so that's why I decided to come on here. I think what I am looking for is a like compact camera that was from that era, do you have any suggestions maybe?

Yes there was a D700 in later 2008, but not many people were using them.

 

There were a lot of 1 megapixel point and shoot cameras from around then.

Sometimes the high-end 2 megapixel point and shoot.

 

I presume we are talking about kids, not professional photographer adults.

 

I am not sure by now what a usual phone camera was in 2008, but much

less than today.

There were a lot of 1 megapixel point and shoot cameras from around then.

Sometimes the high-end 2 megapixel point and shoot.

A bit of an underestimate.

If you go to this link, you'll see that 8 to 10 megapixel compacts were pretty popular in 2008.

I still regularly use a Nikon D3s, which IIRC was released in 2010, and is a mild tweak of the 2008 D3(and the original D3 had the same sensor as the D700 mentioned above). At web resolution, I seriously doubt you could distinguish it from my 2014 D810, and that's a camera that still holds up under very close scrutiny today.

 

If you want crummy, head to Ebay and grab an iPhone 3G or 3Gs, or for that matter a flip phone like a Motorola RAZR(there are other phones from that era with the same camera as the RAZR but without the cachet, so should be less expensive). Those look decent enough in good light-I can scroll back on my phone and see pictures taken with my 3Gs and they're a lot worse than the iPhones I've had since then but aren't terrible-but they do fall apart in low light. The other issue with early iPhones(aside from swelling batteries) is that the original, 3G, and 3Gs are on the upswing of being collectibles so you may have to deal with that.

 

Other phones I had in the 2006-2010 period were some sort of Motorola flip phone whose model I don't remember, but it was popular and I imagine there are a lot of semi-functional ones still out there. I also had a Samsung Blackjack, which had a crummy camera but also had a micro-SD card slot so it was easy to get photos off of.

 

Phone cameras, I'd suggest, were probably the worst in common circulation at the time. That was before manufacturers really figured out the "magic" that makes them so darn good today.

A bit of an underestimate.

If you go to this link, you'll see that 8 to 10 megapixel compacts were pretty popular in 2008.

 

While people didn't keep them nearly as long as film cameras, they also didn't buy new ones every year.

 

So, yes, the popular new camera in 2008 might be 8 megapixels, but the popular cameras that people

were using at the time would have been a few years older. I suspect plenty of 1 and 2 megapixel

models still in use.

I suspect plenty of 1 and 2 megapixel

models still in use.

I was using a Minolta Dimage 7i with a 5 megapixel sensor soon after it came out in 2002.

Six years later it was looking like a real relic from another era.

 

You'd have to go back to 1999 to find the likes of Sony's 1.3 Mp original Mavica (using floppy disks for storage!) in common use. I distinctly remember talking a guy out of buying one; explaining that he'd need a sackful of Floppies to store his holiday snaps!:eek:

Edited January 10, 2021 by rodeo_joe|1

Hi! For a project I'm working on I want to capture the aesthetic that was in the photo's from like 2008-2010. Kinda like those myspace pictures, so what are some decent cameras from that era? Thanks!

 

If you would like on-point replies, please link to a photo with the characteristics you call a myspace "aesthetic" (I thought that was a compression algorithm).

 

In 2008 I'd guess 4 to 8 megapixel cameras were common among active web picture posters who likely updated on the 18 month marketing cycle. iPhones, too.

I had a Sony Mavica FD73 back in the late 1990s for taking photos for eBay sale items. From reading the eBay chat rooms, I would say it was the most popular camera for eBay. It was very simple to use with a close focus (not macro) of 1/2 inch. None of my computers now have a floppy disk drive so I have a lot of photos on disks sitting in a shoe box in my closet.

Also for a while webcams, maybe 0.5 megapixel, were pretty popular,

though not so portable. And even with higher resolution cameras, people

might choose lower, so as not to fill up the memory card so fast.

 

Remember those 64MB, and 128MB cards?

I don't think a 'vintage' camera will yield 'vintage looking' photos unless you understand the prevailing conditions and culture. It's like buying a 1920's box camera today to emulate 1920 photos. Sure lens quality has changed, emulsions have changed... but it's not about technology, it's about the prevailing conditions and culture.

I don't think a 'vintage' camera will yield 'vintage looking' photos unless you understand the prevailing conditions and culture. It's like buying a 1920's box camera today to emulate 1920 photos. Sure lens quality has changed, emulsions have changed... but it's not about technology, it's about the prevailing conditions and culture.

 

True. Usually "look" or "aesthetic" queries refer to color photos that include people, clothing, hairstyle etc. Makeup, fabrics, styles and dyes change regularly. Back in the 1990s my wife got interested in a L'Oreal ad whose key word was "cybershine" (some may recall that ad campaign). She discovered that colors of cars, nail polish, women's shoes came out of the same vat so to speak, and were changed about every four years -- manufacturers need several years lead time to tool-up.

 

Shoot the same film of someone dressed in a vintage style and someone dressed in the "same" color and type of clothing, but contemporary, and the colors will render differently. Rather than a photo store, the best resource for an "aesthetic" is likely a vintage clothing store.

 

Search terms: womens fashion in 2007, gave me more information that I want to know.

 

Color Hunter has examples of palettes and example pics by decade.

We are talking about 2008-2010 AD, right? The one that was ten years ago? Was it that much different from now? I'm looking at my pictures from that time, and apart from the fact that I (hopefully) became a slightly better photographer, not sure much has changed.

 

I suggest that instead of looking at cameras from that time, try to recreate the feel of the subject. Think of what defined those years for you and try to recreate that. I was using a Nikon D80 between 2006-2012, and a Panasonic LX something compact camera. Sure, they are dated by today's standards, but I don't think the pictures coming out of them were fundamentally different from today's cameras. It's not like "the quality was so 2000's". What might have been different were the environment, clothes, styling, and perhaps post-production trends. But again, we're talking about one decade ago. That's not such a long time. Despite being an amateur photographer, it's usually sounds (music) and smells that make me nostalgic rather than sights.

I suggest that instead of looking at cameras from that time, try to recreate the feel of the subject.

+1

In my mid teens I bought an old (1920s) 1/4 plate camera, and on first use I was most disappointed that the pictures it produced didn't look at all 'old fashioned'. And of course they weren't - then.

 

If I was to dig those pictures out today, they'd look much, much older!

 

More recently I've bought - very cheaply - a few hardly-used but discarded digital cameras. Mostly 8 to 12 megapixel ones from around 2005 or a bit later. As with the 1920s plate camera, the pictures they produce today look like they were made...... today.

That look is really a matter of post-processing and totally camera-independent. Get a cheap,used dslr and free PS plug-ins like the excellent Nik Collection. Experiment...Otherwise, just shoot HDR on a phone, adjust and pray.

 

(snip)

I suggest that instead of looking at cameras from that time, try to recreate the feel of the subject. Think of what defined those years for you and try to recreate that. I was using a Nikon D80 between 2006-2012, and a Panasonic LX something compact camera. Sure, they are dated by today's standards, but I don't think the pictures coming out of them were fundamentally different from today's cameras. It's not like "the quality was so 2000's". What might have been different were the environment, clothes, styling, and perhaps post-production trends. But again, we're talking about one decade ago. That's not such a long time. Despite being an amateur photographer, it's usually sounds (music) and smells that make me nostalgic rather than sights.

 

This is reminding me of the art forgers who try to find materials that are appropriate for the time.

Modern pigments are very different, but with some work, one can recreate older formulations.

Some might buy old but not famous paintings to reuse the canvas.

 

There are some who try to make modern photographs with the look of the early 1900's,

where there are significant differences. I suspect it would be difficult to tell 2010 from 2020

at screen resolution, but maybe not at higher resolution. Though since the camera information

goes into the JFIF file, it would be easy to check to find out if a newer camera was used.

I was using a Panasonic FZ-20 in 2004 or so. Even those image were quite good. After that I got a DX format camera (Nikon D200) and used it for the next 13 years. I don't think there's anything you could say about image quality over the last ten years other than the improvement in cell phone shots. Possibly the initial premise is false?

I have wondered sometimes, when I have some negatives and don't remember which camera they came from, identifying it by the exact frame shape. Some have rounded corners, some not so rounded. I might have tried it once, when I was almost sure which one it was.

 

Color films often have some distinctive color effects, some of which are easily visible and known.

 

I suspect some effects of the Bayer filter in digital cameras would come through in the

images, maybe cheaper cameras would have more distinctions. And bokeh is well

known for its visibility, at least in some images. It might contribute more subliminally

in others.

I suspect some effects of the Bayer filter in digital cameras would come through in the

images

Maybe, but it varies more with make and model than it does over time.

 

One of my favourite digital cameras is an all-plastic Kodak with Schneider zoom lens. The colour from it has a fairly unique rendering with strong reds and blues. However, another - supposedly improved - Kodak from slightly later has a disappointingly 'meh' look.

 

I suspect you could pick a handful of cameras, all made in the same year, and get a different colour rendering from every one of them. And none of them would have a signature look for that particular year.