>>4392664
i thought your rant was about trying to get a film aesthetic in the shots. and instead it is a cancerous gear fag rant about the device ergo and grip design. wtf is wrong with gearfags lmaooo

I have one reason for film to stay and you're gonna be so mad once you hear it.

Also is this engagement bait?

File: 1729715060949339.jpg (803 KB, 1464x2232)

803 KB JPG

>>4392664
>Muh form factor
>Muh progress
>Muh hipsters
>No photo
I just like film and I'm gonna keep shooting it I guess is where I'm at

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4392664
35mm = 100MP
6x7 = 300MP
4x5 = 450MP
8x10 = 1800MP

Maybe in the year 3000 we will see anything come close to the larger formats of film.

>>4392669
Nah photosites will be so small we're gonna get power bleeding betwen them and end up with excessive noise.

Analoog is the way forward

File: 1650735783883.png (247 KB, 760x572)

247 KB PNG

>>4392669

>>4392673
What if we had a fully organic bio sensor for truly life like colors?

>>4392664
What actually is your point? What do you mean that cameras are made like they were in 1995? What do you mean by clunky? How do film photographers buying used cameras have anything to do with Camera companies selling modern cameras? Genuinely curious.

>>4392669
I want whatever kind of meth you eat for breakfast

>>4392665
gear fags are so sad. he probably wants some y2k mp3 player shit so he can weeb nostalgia collect more funkos.

Gearfags are the worst for making film so fucking expensive, but film is a fun medium. the only reason I shoot it is because the developing process is a bit therapeutic though. Film fags who aren't professionals and send their film to be developed by someone else SHOULD kill themselves though.

>>4392678
>What actually is your point?
My point is consumer retardation egged on by swindling profit driven corporations have drawn out and in some areas outright obstructed the technological progress of photography and as a matter of course have slowed the progress of photography itself.

>>4392678
>What do you mean that cameras are made like they were in 1995?
Modern high end cameras are chunks of antiquated shit molded by technology and photographer habits founded in the 1950s. When corporations realized the future of photography was digital in the 1990s they set to transitioning consumers to to "film like" digital cameras instead of pushing out digital cameras designed
to be "digital cameras". Here we are 25 years later with pro digital cameras that are still cobbled together splitting their design and function between film and digital.

>>4392781
lmao who are you even mad at dude? what do you expect a camera to be in your idealised vision?

>>4392678
>>4392781
Cont.
Here is one example. We all know ISO was is film sensitivity to light. With digital cameras however ISO settings increase the amplification of the signal sent by the sensor. As such there should be no ISO setting on any digital camera. There should be a sensor gain setting instead. While this setting is currently cobbled into modern cameras built in pretending to be ISO. With film cameras ISO is set and forgotten between rolls of film. ISO isn't something to set in between shots like shutter, aperture, focus, ect. which all have their own easily accessible control. This design has carried through to modern digital cameras in that most cameras are still stuck with a couple knobs to be utilized as shutter and aperture. Even if re-assignable there is still only two knobs so some other setting is getting buried if sensor gain is assigned to one of them. No modern digital cameras should have less than three control knobs. There should be shutter, aperture and sensor gain knobs. Instead digital cameras are crippled with simply not enough readily accessible controls. If ISO of film was something that could be changed between shots by turning a knob there would have been three quickly accessible knobs on all SLR cameras since film photography was sold to the masses a decades ago. As soon as digital cameras began being sold, an easy to access sensor gain knob should have been immediately added to cameras.

>>4392678
>What do you mean by clunky?
I mean modern slr/mirrorless are chunks of shit with awful ergonomics, poor control layout, antiquated operating systems, terrible menus and in general simply behind the times. Almost nothing has changed with camera design in 25 years. Take a look at a Nikon D1 from 1999, an F6 from 2004 and a Z9 from 2024. They are all the same clunky chunk of shit. Meanwhile companies like Apple have innovated products over the same twenty five years and have gone from iMac G3 chunks of shit to sleek modern iPhone 16 Pro Max that are computers and cameras and gps and games and a million other things limited only by what apps are available. Why are cameras still mongoloid devices? Where the fuck are apps for cameras? Why aren't there touchscreens on every camera? Ffs why aren't there enough knobs on modern cameras? I don't want to hear about the limits of stuffing modern tech into a massive black brick of photographic shit. Its real simple: iPhone tech plus interchangeable lens camera. There is no rational argument why modern camera technology is stuck in early 2000s.

>>4392784
Just stick to your phone retard. Holy shit kek

>>4392678
>How do film photographers buying used cameras have anything to do with Camera companies selling modern cameras?
Photography is dead in the water right now because photographic technological innovation has ground to a complete halt besides bells, whistles and bullshit spewed from corporations. Modern cameras suck. No one in their right mind wants them. Not film photographers. Not digital photographers. Not even zoomer instagramers want modern cameras. A majority of photographers have simply checked out of modern photographic technology. The reason for this is companies have stopped progressing while constantly raising prices and killing off all manner of innovation while ceaselessly clinging to film based design. If technology was progressing as it should most film photographers wouldn't waste time backpedaling into film because they would be excited about innovation that isn't happening. New camera sales are dead in the water. The only people buying new cameras are people with more money than sense. A large number of photographers are going backwards into digital cameras, film cameras, any camera besides modern junk. Even fifteen year old snap shitters are commanding ludicrous prices in the aftermarket. The absolute state of modern camera technology drives people away from the market. It kills innovation of technology and the progression of photography. It's all because of greedy companies selling film like digital garbage since the late 1990s. Fuck film. Fuck making digital cameras that wish they shot film. Film should have died in 1999. Had this have occurred photography wouldn't be where it is today, going driven backwards by the boat anchor film has become to digital technology.

Most of this is just teenage hyperbole.

File: scalliwag.jpg (57 KB, 600x459)

57 KB JPG

>>4392664
>For decades scoundrels held back the evolution of camera obscuras. Now scalliwags have joined them. Today modern roll film cameras are still drafted as if it was 1881. hundreds of dollars over the past 30 years has been wasted by vendors drafting film cameras around designs of 1870s tintype clunkers. The world of photography should have moved on from collodion and its obscene designs twenty five years ago. folding camera merchants certainty figured this out. Now they are eating obscura companies alive. How embarrassing.
>a pox on delayed photographers and camera merchants for not pulling their heads out of their behind. There is literally no rational reason to be using collodion today besides scalliwags engaging themselves over bygone aesthetics. This is especially true since 99% of their framed captures are PRINTED AND BOUND AT THE LOCAL BOOKSTORE. There is certainly no reason for cameras to be be clunky monstrosities either besides scoundrels nostalgic for the past and delayed merchants catering to them. Heaven forbid, collodion and its antiquated designs still hounding photography. Ether and its lingering stench need to retire already.

File: r3 7.jpg (485 KB, 1326x2061)

485 KB JPG

>>4392784
if you want to revolutionize camera design philosophy, to move from traditionalist film based to modernist optimal for digital use, you have to offer the masses something more appealing than familiarity. every single 2000s bridge camera with unique form factor has failed for that reason
it amazes me how they keep the button setup on the flagship models instead of the mode selection wheel since it was introduced like 20 years ago or so. the pro boomers are so used to it they would snap if they had to learn something new.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4392784
Touch screen controls are always shit
No exceptions

>>4392669
More like 1/4 of that with good small grain film

>>4392676
There would still be a digital conversion somewhere which would be so small thst it would introduce noise.

>>4392783
Go to p2p to find your sensor's gain stages and use manual iso + push in post. You're really just angry at what the same knobs are called lol. The only valid related thing you chose not to bitch about is the fact that digital iso gain is destructive to highlights instead of just being metadata.
>3 dials
Get a sony or canon. If you want specific ergos, you buy a specific product. Crazy huh.

>>4392787
Yeah lol, but what would this place be without that?

>>4392804
>What would the internet be without teenagers
A place where we could have regular discussions without edgelord shit-flinging. Hopefully more nations follow Australia and ban minors from the internet.

>>4392795
It's almost as if professionals prefer having 4 blindly usable buttons instead of single wheel for a thing they don't even change that often and flagship models are tailored towards them rather than newtards like you. Who'da thunk.

>>4392807
Don't pretend like that was some altruistic move on the part of our ministers and house. Our resident egg minister Dutton just wants to strip privacy laws down to fuck all; don't follow in our footsteps for anything, we're fucking our own country up the ass on a daily basis.

>>4392809
The bill has nothing to do with Dutton, and if you actually read it you'd know it has nothing to do with digital ID's, in fact it strictly forbids them. You're just upsetti that it's going to be another four years until you're allowed back on the living room computer :^)

>>4392666
is this engagement bait?

>>4392807
I mean there are places to do that, even on /p/, but certainly not this thread lol. My picture threads are usually civil for the most part

>>4392812
Easily the worst meme-response /p/ has ever had

>>4392815
agreed

>>4392783
You do realise film sensitivity was just called ISO because that's the standard it followed, right? It wasn't even the only one, it's just what became most popular. Digital sensor sensitivity follows the same standard and behaves the same way so that's what it's called as well. The only reason to call it something else would be to make it easier for normies who can't do five minutes of research to figure out what the numbers mean. Are you also advocating we relabel the aperture value as the blur amount?

Meanwhile if you allowed manufacturers to call it what they want then they'd go and stick their own values on it, no one would known what a Nikon sensor sensitivity of 10 means or how it would compare to a Canon sensitivity of 10. And whether a Sony lens with a blur rating of 2 is faster or slower than a Panny lens with a rating of 3. And let's just scrap focal lengths while we're at it, stick for zoom ratios for zoom lenses and ultrawide, wide, normal, tele, supertele, etc. for primes, just so it's easier for the uneducated.

File: 1628563898818.gif (822 KB, 200x150)

822 KB GIF

>>4392817
>Are you also advocating we relabel the aperture value as the blur amount?
I'll have you know my phone has a BOKEH mode where you turn the "f" number down to make blur go brrr lmao.
I'm afraid catering to the lowest common denormienators has already resulted in this style of simplification.

>>4392817
The one thing I would change is to use field of view ° instead of focal length. It's much more intuitive than FL.

>>4392815
>>4392816
>t. Shills who dont wanna pay for an ad

>>4392824
Holy fuck, get a job

>>4392817
no you mong
it's the other way around, ISO takes the most popular standard and makes it an International Standard Organization standard

File: Kuhne_Rabbit_optogram.jpg (19 KB, 191x200)

19 KB JPG

>>4392802
I totally forgot this existed, but imagine a sci-fi enhanced version of this in a handheld camera.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optography

File: L1056268.jpg (2.25 MB, 3916x2634)

2.25 MB JPG

>>4392825
cry about it
have a photo for your troubles

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Leica Camera AG
Camera Model	M8 Digital Camera
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:29 05:01:18
Exposure Time	24 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3916
Image Height	2634
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	00000000000000000000000000003AE0

>>4392664
>Film and its lingering stench need to die already

Don't get your panties all bunched up now. Nobody is shitting on your parade. Film is just a hobby that some enjoy very much. Get over it.

File: front_facing_crying_zoomer.png (319 KB, 670x879)

319 KB PNG

>nooooo everything needs to be like my goyphone

File: IMG_0954.png (27 KB, 941x531)

27 KB PNG

>phones are eating camera companies alive
Yes, they ate the cybershot wx coolpix neon yellow poweshot number soup shitters that barely looked like cameras. Real cameras are doing fine. The canon rebel slinging MWAC craze is dying off but otherwise no phones changed nothing that matters.

Just shut up and buy a sony a7c. Sony already did exactly what you want. The problem here is canon and nikon. Centered viewfinders are morally wrong. Sony is #1 in full frame market share solely because they are the only one making compact bodies with offset viewfinders and compact lenses with working aperture rings (its not film design, its GOOD design, your hand is already meant to be there and so should a standardized clicked and declickable control wheel)

>>4392837
canons aperture rings only work in video unless you buy the $4500 non weather sealed r5ii, yknow the one with the same dynamic range as a lumix g9ii
>canon: release another blob only trinity zoom users matter. release another bazooka lens big aperture means its more pro. and remember, no weather sealing on non-L lenses allowed! huh sony just got getty? that was our last major contract. at least we dominate aps-c *hangs self*

>>4392837
>Sony is #1 in full frame market share solely because they are the only one making compact bodies with offset viewfinders and compact lenses with working aperture rings
Pana GX9+PL 15/1.7

>>4392842
I ate the rest of the post
That's the only thing that comes to mind similar to what you're describing
With half the sensor

>>4392844
1/4 the sensor
1/8th the autofocus (this sole feature is why canon and sony remain dominant)
Less aperture than sony’s smallest shittiest lens

And probably a patent stopping anyone from using its one good idea (tilting evf) or else it would be on everything by now. Apparently it really is a patent. Look at how retarded fuji’s tilted centered EVF is.

Good job panasonic!

>>4392824
is this engagement bait?

>>4392860
Is this engagement bait?

>>4392865
>>4392860
Yes,no

>>4392866
is this engagement bait?

I would rather look at the works of Renoir than the works of an autistic savant who produces cold, lifeless, and technically accurate portrayals of reality. A photograph can never be anything more than a simulacrum. Digital photography is only going to become more AI driven, an ironic situation in which we "fill in the gaps" of reality with algorithmic assumptions.

>>4392870
>its a film is more real retard
It’s actually not, you’re just huffing your farts over terrible lab scans

If you scan film on a d750 it looks like it was shot on a d750
If you print it optically, well, have fun, but it weirdly still looks like it was shot on a d750

>>4392867
Maybe, sort of, possibly.

>>4392664
certainly another nophoto thread will help
also seethe and cope, film will live for ever

Film photography isn't preventing the medium from advancing.

Digital photography companies not releasing new technology for years until its more profitable is.

Heres a shock for you - every time a new camera is premiered, the tech inside it is already 5 years or more out of date.

>>4392789
good post

>>4392664
>fujifilm
do they even make film anymore?

>>4392837
The A7C is ugly, that's the problem. No one wants to walk around be seen with an ugly looking product hanging around his neck. And in todays time people care more than ever about prestige. That's why the X100VI is trending so much, being sold out everywhere. Because it's not as ugly as Sony, Canon or Nikon cameras. Even from technologic standpoint it's worth in basically every way. Still everyone wants one.

Yes it still steals from nostalgic/retro feels. But that's because no manufactor yet could create a modern looking beauitful camera. Why would you? The market is dying, good designers are rare and expensive. Let engineers and ergonomists chose the design.

>>4392837
>centered viewfinders are morally wrong
Who shit in your breakfast? Did a Niggon CEO tap your exwife?

>>4393455
The a7c is ugly *if you are female*. The x100vi is what is called cute, by comparison.

Like most people on 4chan and in the weeb/gamer sphere your tastes are strongly feminine. You wish you were more feminine. You would kill to look like timothy chalamet. Leather, silver, black, buckles, fitted everything, if you’re a 4channer there’s a 99% you love it and want a messenger bag to round it out.

Sony blocks and canonikon blobs look great with gruff men wearing rugged clothes like black jeans and dirty carhartt jackets. You are definitely more into the asian softboy or retro chic look, like everyone else here.

File: funko.jpg (793 KB, 1464x2232)

793 KB JPG

>>4393455
>>4393525

>>4393525
Bricks and blobs = tops, bears, daddies
Retro larp = bottoms, twinks, sissies
>arent they all gay?
Yes

>>4392784
you think cameras have
>antiquated operating systems
i don't think cameras should have operating systems at all
we are NOT the same

>>4393530
i have a nikon brick. had a x100v and sold it for more than i paid new. still have 2 rx100 series. what does that make me?

>>4393772
Bi

>>4393645
Cameras should have operating systems, but none of this LE APPS shit. Simply refine the software so shooting raw isnt mandatory. Give me the same sharpening and NR controls I have in capture one. Achieve mixed white balance correction, something my phone can do, something fucking FILM did not even need. Replace all these hdr lo/dr123 bullshit settings with a shadow gradation SLIDER. Get rid of raw, jpeg, and raw+jpeg mode. Only shoot raw internally. Store jpeg settings as metadata so they can be adjusted on camera and autoconvert when exporting. Instead have an "export raw only" option

Usb C 3.1 full featured on every body
Screens as good as a fucking xiaomi phone
Batteries that hold actual charge instead of 2x lithium ion AAs in a plastic shell

WHY ARE THESE REQUESTS HARD?
Because the companies are japanese. Visit the japanese version of a webpage. Look at what tech japs use when they’re not just buying apple. Their culture has an active hatred for innovation and a suicide inducing fear of missteps.

>>4393814
the only company to guess at a tilting evf implementation mostly makes washing machines

everyone else is still copying the objectively bad design of film SLRs. needs 2 more nukes.

>>4393814
Did you know camera jpeg engines only have global moire reduction, and its always on, as high as possible? This is destructive to fine detail and color separation

And it’s why they often opt for crazy strong AA filters and equally bad solutions like xtrans. If cameras had competent operating systems, you could tap to auto-mask the object with moire and adjust the moire reduction just like you can on a real editor. Such as the one that can run on your phone. But the back screen cant even automatically adjust brightness (an ipod touch from the 200#s could!) so why would they figure that out…photographers are cucks and think having to shoot raw and fiddle with menus for basic shit like brightness makes them skilled.

File: ong-excited.png (52 KB, 498x498)

52 KB PNG

>>4393820
>If cameras had competent operating systems, you could tap to auto-mask the object with moire and adjust the moire reduction just like you can on a real editor. Such as the one that can run on your phone

>>4393823
>no you need to accept shit from this $4000 device. dont pixel peep you can see how they’re scamming you!
If a d750 is worth $300 then so is a z6ii.

>>4393824
Preaching to the choir, I paid 100 bucks for my Pentax K50

if you're too stupid to fix your camera settings maybe photography isn't the hobby for you. or you could stop complaining about technical specs and just focus on taking pictures I dunno

>>4393826
>i am very smart and skilled, i do a machines work for it
You could also claim to be smart and skilled for shifting your own gears but no one half as smart as you think you are would buy it

Dig your own ditches too smartypants?

>>4393829
I don't even use a dslr I shoot film, but I can't imagine going online and complaining that something teenage girls and vloggers can figure out is too hard for me.

>>4393820
>Such as the one that can run on your phone
Did you know that phones take good enough photos for phone screens? Maybe you should try using one, Mr. phonefaggot.

>>4393830
>you should continue paying high prices for zero progress because, girls can drive stick!
I’m glad every company but sony is slowly dying.

>4393830
They don’t even do that and the things that matter make it past the phone screen

Unfortunately because the japs are pussies and nerds are cucks that take pride in using worse technology, shooting raw is still mandatory if you want a photo thats not merely good enough for some shitty social media website that sane nonusers can not even look at - and sane users no longer exist, only mush minds watching fake influencers advertising chinese junk

Photography is dying and your computer nerd opinions are killing it. Maybe if steve jobs were alive apple would have made a competent ILC.

>>4393841
I'm not encouraging anyone to buy a new camera or support any company, but I do think its funny that your big complaint is that "the camera doesn't do 80% of the work for me!" and then turning around and shitting on phones that do everything for you but also wishing a phone company made cameras. just take some deep breaths and relax buddy, you don't have to get mad for nothing

>>4393844
The camera doesnt even LET you do the fucking work without moving the files to a macbook first, retard. Shooting raw is mandatory if you want the IQ you paid for. For thousands of dollars for a sensor from 2012, this is inexcusable. My fucking phone can edit d850 raws with the full feature set of capture one. Phone price: $1k. Why can a $5000 sony a1 or canon r5ii NOT?

It can’t even adjust screen brightness automatically. Do you feel proud and like a hard worker when you menu dive to change screen brightness? Really?

Do yo also feel accomplished when you swap an overpriced battery pack because jap cucks are afraid to move to the same battery tech that works fine in phones and laptops? You could get 2000 shots per charge and instant refills from power packs and wall warts with USB PD but you are STILL paying cannot and snoy $100 for a battery pack designed in 2005. At least the chinks sell you an inferior version for less right? $5000 devices btw.

You are a cuckold if you pay more than $350 for these unforgivably stagnant pieces of shit and your defense of plastic jap ewaste is a large part of what killed photography. These pieces of shit are less convenient than a phone because they are locked into the same paradigm as the nikon d200. Therefore the benefits over a d200 are negligible.

>>4393841
>and the things that matter make it past the phone screen
Don't you say. It's almost as if there's no demand for editing photos on a small, cramped device, because it's retarded for the photos that matter, and irrelevant for the photos that don't.

>>4393844
he said his phone can process raws better than the camera and described putting standard editor features where panasonic letsnote using depressed salarymen put the most primitive and coarse utilities possible

strictly this is demanding that the camera let him do the work for it because aesthetically bankrupt anime people cant make a good raw to jpeg conversion themselves (thats why c1, lr, and phocus are the standard not dpp and nx studio)
the only good looking cameras are hasselblad and leica too weird how only western institutions are competent with the arts

>>4392789
based

>>4393848
You do not need a large screen to edit. People just like looking at the final product at a larger size for appreciation reasons. Even real estate photos, the lowest of the low, are preferred on a 15” 4k screen at the minimum.

But for local and global adjustments I only need a 6” screen to get r dun. It could happen right on camera, if japan could imagine a paradigm from a year other than 2005. Have you ever tried to use nikons nx transfer shit? Basically doesnt work. The only reliable workflow has not changed since 2005. Remove card stick in computer.

Screens, batteries, and product design haven’t changed since 2008

Image quality fundamentals have not changed since 2013

They added camcorder functionality thats it - oh wait, that was 2012 (5diii), and it got modern (4k) in 2016

How about IBIS? Oh wait 5 axis IBIS dates to february 2012.

FPS? Mech shutters actually got slower. Shutterless cameras drop to aps-c DR or worse. Some upgrade for the single least important spec in photography.

Resolution? Stagnant since the 5ds, except for one shitty sony line that adds 11 more whole megapixels.

At least medium format digital finally got as accessible as a 2013 DSLR amirite?

>>4393852
all progress in professional cameras has been nothing more than soulless design committees allowing features that were already on consumer/hobby cameras to trickle in
>ok, NOW we admit that the screen should flip out. happy?

>>4393852
>You do not need a large screen to edit
bait

>>4392664
sorry man but no one can tell the difference between a full frame dslr and last year's iphone anymore no one cares

>>4393896
they can (at 4k and above), thats why the pixel peeping bad meme exists. to cope.
>DID YOU JUST VIEW A PHOTO LARGER THAN A POSTAGE STAMP SO YOU CAN TELL MY CAMERA SUCKS!? CONSOOMER BOURGIE PIXEL PEEPER GEARFAG INCAPABLE OF ABSTRACT THOUGHT SUBHU-*explodes in a shower of vsco presets*

>>4393896
Keep quiet niglet

>>4393896
>Looks at photo on any medium bigger than a 2.7" screen
>Holy fuck, why does every photo I take look like compressed asshole
Also, you're a fag.

>>4393847
I have never used a dslr anon, I do not shoot digital. You're frothing at the mouth at your imagination.

>>4393847
>>4393849
>ree anime ree japan ree in camera editing
just shoot raw and use literally any software to edit, why the fuck would you want to do editing on anything other than a full sized high quality monitor anyway? do you think professional musicians get mad that they can't record and mix their music on their instruments?

>>4393956
No. Never.

>>4392664
I shoot film because my parents didn't throw out their old cameras and I don't want to spend money on a new digital camera that will be superseded in a few years time.

>>4393961
exactly. a professional musician would never expect their guitar, no matter how expensive, to record and mix their music for them or even to be able to be used to mix their music after the fact. they would never say "well shit i can record on my phone and its pretty good, and I can even get garage band on it, so why can't fender make a damn guitar that does it for me?? i'm not spending two grand on strat that can't even do what my iphone does."

this is literally what >>4393852 is saying, whaa whaa i can't use one tool for every part of the job whaa whaa.

and of course the irony is that they probably don't even use a fucking camera aside from their iphone and have convinced themselves that its everyone else's fault that they can't get the images they want to

>>4393896
more weak bait

>>4392796
iPhones work great. So do higher end android phones.

>>4393645
Digital cameras don't exist without operating systems. How do you think digital cameras work? Magic?

>>4393956
>>4393969
>comparing in camera digital photo development to musical instruments recording their own sound
false equivalency
you're retarded if think somehow these concepts should be related

>>4393969
>comparing cameras to an instrument from 3000 fucking BC
This is how you excuse japan for charging you $4500 for the same tech they sold 12 years ago lmfao

You compare it to medieval musical instruments
>yes mashimoto i am very happy to be reliant on a computer because you put a casio watches processor in my $4500 camera
>yes mashimoto please more memory card bullshit
>and more 2005 era battery packs
>why are fewer people buying cameras
>hey is nikon going out of business? what? sales down again this year? where did olympus and pentax go?

>>4393852
>>4393847
>>4393820
>>4393814
Anyone who disagrees is a literal luddite

Using a workflow thats old enough to vote when cameras could produce the same good results onboard and actually use and integrate with modern technology does not make you an artist

It makes you a tech nerd, the kind thats still using CDs instead of cloud storage and insisting its better
Steve Jobs literally took a multi-billion dollar bite out of photography because photographers are idiots lol

With each passing year more phones and fewer "real cameras" are sold. And those phones are catching up.

>>4394315
95% of people aren't smart enough to think of an OS beyond Windows, MacOS and Android. Even more people forget that just because a piece of software is proprietary and very limited in what it does, doesn't make it anything less than an OS.

For the dum-dums:
>An Operating System is any piece of fundemental software that controls the general use of a piece of hardware. Usually sits on top of firmware.

>>4394316
its only a false equivalency to you because you disagree.

>>4394320
I have never bought or owned a digital camera of any form, its funny you continue to obsess over an object's expense or where its from instead of considering that specialized tools have specialized functions. why would I want to edit my photo on a screen that's going to be a couple of inches wide at best when I own a computer that can actually display my image in a useful fidelity? why should I be editing while I shoot, detracting from what my focus should be (capturing the moment) when I can capture accurate images and then later edit it to achieve the size/crop/color grade/effects I want? do you think a drill that doesn't also hammer in nails is defective because you paid $500 dollars for a construction tool from germany and thus it should be able to do it all?

>>4394321
the workflow has existed for thousands of years. before we could generate images with cameras they were generated with people's hands and physical materials. the people observed, composed, sketched, and then finally added details and subtle changes to create the ultimate work of art. maybe they made multiple sketches and combined the best results, or sketched two different scenes/subjects and then combined them into a final composition. why is it ludditic to think that this way continues to be the best way? before I even go out to take pictures I choose the film i'm going to use, the lens(es) i'll bring with me, and potentially even what subject matter i'm searching for. I observe with my eyes, compose in the viewfinder, and then take the picture. if I want the film to be darker or more blown out or to combine two pictures I do it after the fact, once I have the images captured. just because its digital now doesn't mean you should disregard those steps that people have used to create compelling images since the dawn of civilization. you're focused on the details and the bells and whistles and not on fundamentals.

>>4394331
>>4394315
>go on photography board
>don't know what kind of camera has no operating system
why would you admit to being stupid on purpose? no one made you.

>>4394333
>i dont own a digital camera, but im a narcissistic piss baby here to write an essay about how i am very smart for changing screen brightness manually and relying on a computer to finish off photos
Lol grow up young sheldon. The adults are talking. Go now, go play with your computer.

>>4394336
once you can produce a better image than >>4392667 with something that's almost 50 years old then you can call me young sheldon bud. it seems to me that you're the one obsessed with turning your camera into a computer that can finish the photos for you. I don't need to worry about editing in camera or on a computer because once the photons hit the emulsion the images is captured and I just need to bring it out.

>>4394339
bro they wrote a wikipedia article about you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

>>4392664
>the film aesthetic
>All of a century’s worth of films all have one look
>I really am that god damn stupid, pls kill me