>>4402348 (OP)
Nikon d750 and af-s 50mm f1.8 g

$500 off ebay tops

How come cameras don't have colours anymore?

File: file.png (47 KB, 1681x306)

47 KB PNG

>>4402362
color is forbidden

>>4402364
But there's a legitimate, if depressing, reason for that
Mcdonalds and other chains changed their restaurants so they can easily franchise them and expand (expand even more, I know)

>>4402362
While leaded gas was common there was a huge explosion of garish shit especially wherever cars were common. Before that, everything was refined and mature. Now leaded gas is gone and the mental retardation is passing from society.

As the recovery whiplash settles down you’ll see drab minimalist designs get more ornate, but still subdued and adult. Think deep blue and rich gold instead of primary blue and primary yellow. The fischer price world is not coming back unless we get another brain damaged genera-
>zoomers are brain damaged by excessive social media and smartphone use during critical developmental periods
Ok, it’s coming back.

>>4402364
Think about this for more than one second. The reason they don't make Mcdonalds restaurants in fun whacky colours anymore is because they're not unsinkable anymore and sometimes restaurants close. It's much harder to sell the building to another chain or business if it's full of ridiculous colours and your own branding, but not if it's just a plain restaurant. And take Canon ILC cameras for example. The last somewhat interesting looking one of those was the Canon IX, and that was probably the only interesting looking one of those. Since the EOS 1 in 89 they've just been blobs. And before they they just looked like cameras. Sure an AE1 looks cool and vintage now, but when it was new it was just a camera. That's how they all looked. I don't think fixed lens cameras have really gotten more dull per se either, they've just gotten more niche so the ones that do exist are ones that have the widest appeal.

>>4402362
They still do, and there's a market now for camera decal skins too. Non-black just doesn't sell as well historically.

File: Canon1DXMarkIII_6.jpg (243 KB, 1080x1080)

243 KB JPG

>>4402392
I don't think I want any of these but it's nice to have the option I guess, fuckin love my blob though

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1080
Image Height	1080

>>4402348 (OP)
I had something similar at one point and it's a bit of a let down in most regards. You're getting a P&S with a telescopic lens glued to the front. Results are pretty trash if you have money for other options, but if you're poor it can be a good pick for birding and whatnot.

>>4402348 (OP)
stop listening to people on this board and just buy a camera.
you'll have so much more fun using a real camera for photography verses looking like a creep or looking like you dont know what you're doing when you use your phone

>>4402348 (OP)
If it's the only camera you have, it'll be great, otherwise I'd look into getting something else. You're getting the image quality of a point and shoot with none of the benefits in terms of portability.
Either go for a decent APS-C/FF camera or a pocketable P&S with RAW.