What is with the newfound obsession for these things? They were meant to cheap cameras anyone could buy. $1000?
>>106578528becausezoomers
2014 Fuji X30>OLED viewfinder>tiltable screen>built-in flash>optional shoe mount flash>MSRP $599
>>106578528why not just use a modern iphone? some people even shoot movies with them.
>>106578656cheug af anon, actually fr
>>106578528Turns out technology doesn't just stop! If you think your camera from fucking 2000 is as good as one from 2020 you're mentally ill and likely also retarded. Professional photography was never cheaper. Professional Lenses were never cheap. Professional videography was never cheap. If you want cheap shit you can still buy cheap ass camera off amazon. Stick in your lane.
>>106578528>They were meant to cheap cameras anyone could buyThose were supplanted by smartphones. Now it's a niche market where you can't mass produce your way to lower cost per unit.
im tired of the algo photos from phones. they always look like shit, even pro phones.gonna rock an iphone air and a ricoh GR IV, perfect combo.
The thought of kids buying cameras with mold makes me laugh. Canon Powershot was such a shit camera for dark photos. The desire for retro tech fried everyone's brains, I've seen the most paint peeled, cracked, pitted e-waste go for more than $100.
>>106578656I use a dedicated camera because:1. It takes way more photos than my phone does on a single charge, has a swappable battery, and doesn't drain my phones battery that I might need for other things like communication and navigation.2. It has better optical performance and autofocus than my flagship smartphone, for times when I really want to be really picky about my photos.3. It takes more natural looking photos. Smartphone pictures all look like they were taken on smartphones.I use my phone for snapshits in my day to day. The types of things that I want to look back on and remember a week later. I take a dedicated camera with me for shit that I want to remember a decade later, like a once-in-a-lifetime trip to a foreign country or a major wilderness expedition.
>>106578528I'm a camerafag myself and they have pretty good stuff inside them. The body is the classic compact, but the insides are pretty high end (though obviously with limitations because of the size).>>106578735>iphone air and a ricoh GR IVBased. Though the Sony RX100V is what I'd personally go with.
but why point and shoots
>>106578656>why not just use a modern iphone?Zoomers want old point and shoots because they don't have the layers of post processing and filters modern smartphone cameras give. They want the "retro" look of myspace and fb photos from the late 00s
You could buy a full frame mirrorless with kit lens on eBay for that much and slap whatever filter on it makes it looks shitty in the correct way to obtain online clout.
>>106579402Any camera that shoots RAW can give them that. I guess there's some marketing push for upselling point and shoots that means they don't want them to figure that out.
>>106579177just curious why the RX100V? cause I was also looking at it but I feel like it just passes the threshold of being pocketable. I have a friend that has it and he ended up not carrying it around everyday. this is the main reason why im going with the ricoh.
>>106579589Really? The size is very good. It also has a really good lens (Zeiss make some of the best lenses around) and it's renown for its build quality. Newer Ricoh's have been a little hit or miss, but the Sony has been a really safe choice for a long time. I'm genuinely surprised by the size aspect, it can fit in a pocket easily. I'm a full frame person myself since my job is being a photographer, so to me the Sony is like a tiny flip phone. I thought the Ricoh was meant to be bigger than the Sony actually.
>>106579616ricoh II would be the same size as the sony but general consensus online seems to be that ricoh is the most pocketable.some measurements:Sony 301gWidth x height x depth101,6 x 58,1 x 42,8 mmRicoh 262g109,4 x 61,1 x 32,7 mmI just realized the sony is actually a bit shorter on width and height. but I guess the thickness perhaps makes it more pocketable. I think Ill have to try both out in a store.
>>106579689Yeah go have a look at both imo. I tend to hear the Sony has the better picture quality though, so something to keep in mind. Both are excellent choices though so go for whatever feels right.
>>106578649why would you mount a flash on your shoe?
>>106579731Because it's based.
>>106578528
>>106578528>phone cameras got popular>cheap point-n-shoot cameras died out as a result>people realize phone cameras are shit>want to go back to point-n-shoots but there are very few>used market gets bought up; prices skyrocketNormalfags caused the problem themselvesShould've taken the /p/ill a decade ago
>>106579402Unironically zoomers should get a Fujifilm camera and make some film simulation recipesThat or get a Fujifilm Instax if they want the novelty of instant photography
>>106580506Most Fujis have built in film simulation, it's pretty much their selling point.
>>106579402>>106579569some actually like the retro look but a lot want it just because it naturally smooths out their skin. high quality cameras like we have now show all these bumps and pimples and imperfections. retro cameras naturally airbrush AND you get to look artisticmost phone cameras have algorithms that detect people and apply a bit of airbrushing but its not enough for them
>>106580519I know. I'm a Fuji userI'm just saying if zoomers really want that old grainy washed out film look, the built-in sims don't quite get there. You need to do some adjustments to the presets
>>106578528Wow, that is how much a DSLR cost when they first came out
>>106580534Wouldn't just putting it a little out of focus and adding some grain be enough?Also, any reccs for a moderately cheap Fuji? I wouldn't mind one as a travel camera to get some good SOOC jpgs.
I invite you to observe the wondrous world of photofaggotry >>>/p/p4467386it turns out that phone cameras are literally worse even though they take the same pictures... because... they're not fun! using a phone is boring as fuck!
>>106580639fuck>>>/p/4467386
>>106580600>Also, any reccs for a moderately cheap Fuji?Depends on your definition of cheap and if you want new vs used>usedProbably something a generation or two old which are still quite capableX-E3, X-T3 (high-end at release), X-T30 II (a slightly newer, downsized, and less featured X-T3)>newTariffs fucked the pricing across the board but the current entry level models are X-M5 (no electronic viewfinder; back LCD only) or X-T50 (not really that cheap)
>>106580686I'm looking at new, probably priced around the same as that Sony RX100V.>TarriffsNo concern, I'm not in the US.
>>106578528What killed it is that even cheap cell phones can take HD pictures, so there's no real market for a cheap separate camera. So now they market directly to professional photographers
>>106580697>probably priced around the same as that Sony RX100VDo you mean the new RX100 VII?Fucking hell anon, that is not anywhere close to "cheap"Just get an X-T50 with XF16-50 kit lens if you see it discounted
>>106578649>OLED viewfinderwhy would you want that ever
>>106578656>why not just use a modern iphonefootage looks super flat and sovless
>>106578528My 5MP Canon Powershot G5 CCD from 2003 takes far superior photos than my 2001 105MP S21 Ultra with it's 4 lenses, RAW or not.
>>1065827702021*
>>106579689>but I guess the thickness perhaps makes it more pocketable. I think Ill have to try both out in a storeis it really a good idea to put a camera in your pocket in a store?
>>106578729>If you think your camera from fucking 2000 is as good as one from 2020 you're mentally ill and likely also retarded.The worlds fastest consumer DSLR lens was made in 1989 and is still unsurpassed (the only faster ones are either joke lens or NASA equipment or one-of-a-kind custom jobs used by Stanley Kubrick).
>>106578528ebay ewaste dump
>>106582770Looks shit
>>106582965It's better than algo slop from modern phones you dishonest sperg.
>>106583577Low resolution blurry, you might want to get glasses gramps
>>106583577Agreed. Phone cameras are convienient but are very subpar and rely too much on aggressive filtering. There is only so much one can do with a tiny sensor and tiny lens...
>>106582830you can just ask the staff if you can pocket it... lol
>>106580769are you retarded?
>>106583759proper cameras use, like, mirrors and shit so you look directly though the aperture
>>106583893oh trueI have to assume that one is all digital though
>>106578729I got picrel for 250bux used and still got ripped off (it turned out that it MSRPs at around 250 new and was several years old at that point)>>106580711if you juts look at WHOA!! SO MANY MEGAPIXELS this looks true but it's not. the addition of an actual lens and the sensor itself being so much better (and larger) impacts image qualitypicrel is 14.2MP but it still takes better photos than a normiephone at 21MP because the sensor is fuckhuge, the lens isn't made of plastic, and the "shutter" is actually adjustable (and even on Auto the firmware isn't complete dogshit that just tries to max out white levels all the time forever)
>>106579731upskirts
>>106580533I'm not talking about a phone camera, I'm talking about any camera that shoots RAW.You can add all that other stuff with filters, or by just downscaling.
>>106578528>Has the world gone insaneyes
>>106583615Ok here's a photo from a 1500€ phone thenSo much better !!!!
>>106578528$1000 is cheap now, that's $600 in 2005. That's what a PS3 cost.
>>106578528As with everything reddit is to blame.They copy what's the next trend and buy in bulk and left with a paper weight they don't know how to use and in return they cause prices to spike up with low supplies.They did this to RPi, Thinkpads, 3DS, etc.
>>10657852898% of people are fine with phones as camerasthe 2% that remains are either pros or retards so it's only natural to fuck them on price
>>106580490Cheap disposable cameras and polaroids seems to be back in the market.
>>106578729>If you think your camera from fucking 2000 is as good as one from 2020 you're mentally ill and likely also retarded.There are so many wrongs things in your post i don't know if I should correct you or call the psychiatric hospital
>>10658458298% of people also don't give a shit about quality
>>106580490>Should've taken the /p/ill a decade agoWhich is?
>>106584574>3DS3ds not only had games but continues to have games worth playing. you're thinking of the Vita
>>106584593yes, so it's only natural that dedicated photo devices are as expensive as possible to profit off of people who do careit's the same as making audiophiles spend thousands of dollars on irrelevant placebo
>>106584597No, check 3DS prices.Now it cost more than MRSP.
>>106584605What headphones and camera are (You) using?
>>106584619In the us market, maybe. In my country second hand market, 3DS are inbetween €50~150.
>>106584642Yeah, I'm talking about US.Where do you buy these from?I'll be traveling to Europe soon, and might use this chance to order some stuff.
>>106584639iphone 16 proi don't even remember what my headphones are called, it's some $100 chinesium
>>106584713You can't make this shit up.Try using a real prosumer camera, even a 20 year old one, or like mid-fi headphones, and then tell us there's no point.
>>106578528$1000 isn't much for a decent camera.You can easily spend more on a single lens alone.
>>106578528My PowerShot SD750 is never obsolete.
>>106583893Unfortunately DSLR's are no longer being developed.It's all screen slop now even the professional cameras.
>>106579402Can you not turn off the AI smearing and bullshit that modern android smartphones have or do you need to install a custom ROM like LineageOS?
>>106584751>there's no pointthere is no pointnobody cares that your photo is 15% better lookingnobody cares you spent $500 on golden cables to play your 192 khz flac files
>>106578729How much gaslighting can you cram in one post? My hole ridden jeans are now apparently "never cheap".
Take Sony Mavica pill
>>106584864I can shoot in raw on my Samsung.Don't know about other brands.
>>106584955>I can shoot in raw on my Samsung.yes but why would you want tothen sensors are shit
>>106584896What the fuck do other people have to do with my own sensory enjoyment of art? Also you're wrong my photos have influenced a lot of people, hell I got a gf just from the stuff I put out on the internet. There are plenty of people out there that do absolutely care, and I chose to surround myself with them. Meanwhile you're just advocating for further enshittification of the world living in, growling in slop like the dung bugman you are.
>>106584964I don't because I use my D800 for real photos.But if I had to use my phone camera I would shoot raw and post process myself instead of letting the phone apply slop filters.
>>106584896Using a decent camera isn't audiophile territory.Leica is audiophile territory.You just seem upset because your phone camera is considered bottom of the barrel.
I have a Canon EOS2000D that's not mineI thought of maybe grabbing something for myself, but I have no idea. There's just way too many shits out there. I don't want to spend 500 bucks on something worse than this. I just want to take nice pictures of fucking sunsets and forests. What the fuck can someone like me get?
>>106584619I see tehm at pawn shops for a hundred or two bucks all the time
>>106585248Well, what do you like and dislike about the EOS2000D?DSLR's are all fine really, even entry level ones.Only the ergonomics is a pit poor on entry level DSLR's, making them harder to use than professional cameras.One thing to consider is the lens ecosystem.DSLR's are going out so the value of DSLR lenses will drop.But then this could also work to your advantage when you buy second hand, and you can use DSLR lenses on mirrorless cameras via an adapter it's just not that compact.
/g/ is really nothing but poorfags coping that their obsolete thing they have isnt obsolete
>>106578528kek you can get a rx100 for a grand
>>106584915>1.44 MiB image>>106585269>pawn shopsAren't these mostly stolen?
>>106582770shit DR son
>>106584574>a woman with an off buttonconsider me all-in!
>>106585462Not much I dislike, I think my problems are mostly with the lens and not the actual camera. I'm using the cheap kit lens that everyone dislikes. As I said this camera is not mine so I don't want to buy accessories for something I'll have to eventually return. I never got into photography but I'm trying to push myself into it.Well maybe there's something, autofocus is slow as fuck and of course having something more compact is welcome.
I have the a7siii but i only do videography work and already made more money than the 5k i spent for the rig. Just don't be poor
>>106585551>Aren't these mostly stolen?god i hope so but it still goes to show that on the used market, 200$ is about the max you'd pay for a 3ds. that's about as much as they were new, and they're not being made anymore, so supply/demand etc.
>>106585607>autofocus is slow as fuck and of course having something more compact is welcome.because you are using boomer dslr's Get a sony a7v or canon r6 with a fast lens.
>>106585607You can buy 2nd hand lenses and then sell them for pretty much the same a few years later.Lenses do make a big difference.>autofocus is slow as fuckThis could also be a lens issue.Better lenses have better autofocus motors.But it could also be an issue with the autofocus sensor in the camera, higher end cameras have better autofocus sensors.
>>106585575What does that even mean? Would you prefer if the photo was washed out and flat, displaying no contrast whatsoever in favor of irrelevant detail in shadows?To me photos like these look far more dynamic than flat ""HDR"" photos.
>>106584915i used to have one of these. photo quality was not impressive.>>106585621you can pick up these shitty mavicas for under $100. i know some faggots try to sell them for much more than this but.. they are faggots. and anyone stupid enough to buy old shit at inflated prices from ebay grifters is a bigger faggot than the seller.
>>106585622DSLR's have dedicated phase detection autofocus sensors.Which are better than the hybrid image/AF sensors mirrorless cameras use.But not all DSLR's are made the same and the AF sensor is one thing they skimp on.Also using a lens with a larger aperture helps the autofocus because phase detection depends on the aperture.For good autofocus you really want f/2.8 or faster.
>>106578528$1000 today is the equivalent of life $400 in 1990 which would not be an unreasonable price for a decent camera
>>106584470>Does not name the phoneI accept your concession
>>106585851>$400 in 1990 which would not be an unreasonable price for a decent camera$400 in 1990 money would get you an affordable camera. if you want very high quality photography then you're looking at well over $1k for the camera and maybe another $1k-$2k or so on lenses and other accessories. and we haven't even got to film and development costs. everything about photography before days of digital was fucking expensive.
>>106585966S21 Ultra
Digital compact cameras are still far superior to phones for the most part. Today's phone cams use fucking AI too. You have no idea if the image will represent what's in the scene.
>>106585976anything not iphone is aliexpress tier
>>106585976100 bucks on ebay lmfaonice "high end"
>>106586027>>106586080iPajeets seething hard
>>106586087You sound sad that your lunch meal money phone doesn't have a good camera
>>106586125It's a fucking phone, it categorically can't have a good camera. To use a rather 2010s analog, it's like a console peasant mistook me for an <opposing brand> user, without realizing I'm laughing at both of you as a superior PC user.
>>106586244The Fox and the Grapesmaybe one day you will be able to afford it
>>106586260Yes but my camera takes better photos than any phoneWhat grapes are you talking about
>>106586276>any phoneebay special
So GR 4 worth it over a 3?
>>106586301Oh nooo It's been a couple years since I bought the phone!! Like they've advanced at all since ???WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO THIS BOARDAM I REALLY ARGUING WITH SOME APPLE SHEEP THAT IS TRYING TO SHAME ME FOR NOT UPGRADING PHONE EVERY YEAR WHAT THE FUCKI THOUGHT THIS BOARD GLORIFIED LIKE FLIP PHONES AND STUFF
>>106586333you've never been in the smartphone generalnew lore updateyou have to buy the newest phone every year or you are a brownoid android jeet
>>106586333Please verify your age using your ID, then proceed to buy the latest iPhone and AirPods, this is the /g/ norm now sir.
>>106578528>no AI shit>zoom lens>zoomers
>>106586333yes, anything that is not $100 will be advanced>I THOUGHT THIS BOARD GLORIFIED LIKE FLIP PHONES AND STUFF?flip phones are not secure you should not use them at all/g/ is security chad boardiphones boot process is protected by factory embedded key into soc and secure enclave hasnt been hacked yet
>>106586482Do you at least get paid for this?
>>106586549i can tell you know nothing about camera quality when you start talking about flip phones lmfao
>>106586549Sir? Your Secure Boot enabled Windows 11 with TPM Laptop?
>>106578528Welcome to aging Zoomer. Things of yesteryear will become expensive.
>>106583943The point is, for most normie purposes, a phone camera is sufficient.
>>106578528A grand for a basic ass camera, fuck off. They sell far better cameras for less. Same brand even.
>>106588890Zoomers want pocketability, i.e. one-handed point-n-shoots
>>106588939Not like you're short of options for that.
>>106579177The RX100 series are kinda obsolete since a Vivo x100/x200u has similar or even superior optical capabilities.. A Ricoh GR however has a larger sensor and a much sharper prime lens but it's a fixed focal length. I had one years ago and regret selling it.If you print your pics it might be worth it to get a dedicated cam. I'd avoid Sony though, their colours aren't the most pleasant but it's a neat little cam.I've shooted and developed my own film years ago. Currently still own several cameras but I just use my phone for snaps and an old Coolpix for fun, beautiful colours for nature shots. Canon gives better skintones though.
>>106583615>anon can't into depth of feild because she's a phone posting retard that doesn't understand what she's looking atShameful. Many such cases.>>106585966>>106585976You got btfo tranny.>>106586080>The S21 cost $100 when released.Dishonest and you know it tranny.
>>106578528I saw some broccoli cut using a one-time-use camera today. These things used to be a last resort. What the fuck, zoomerchuds?
>>106585462>DSLR's are going outwhat has replaced them?
>>106589419mirrorless. smaller frame but using a digital viewfinder ruins the experience
>>106578528>They were meant to cheap cameras anyone could buy.no they weren't
>>106586333it's a waste of time, they'll say anything but the current version of one or two specific phones have shit cameras without seeing the forest that is all phone cameras are shit compared to a non-phone camera
>>106583893mirror cameras are not a thing anymore, grandpa
>>106582770the old cameras have a lot of soul. bigger sensors, bigger pixels, better color science, CCD.
>>106578528I want to go back >t. Early Zoomer.
>>106578656You just can't beat having a mechanical zoom lens
>>106580639They're worse because they're shitty pinhole lenses with digital zoom and cheap auto-photoshop algorithms to make the grainy garbage image look nicer. But you don't care about that. You're only here to shitpost and be disingenuous.
>>106589743Token faggot
>>106584605people who say stuff like irrelevant placebo when it comes to high end headphones have never heard a proper high end system. It's different if it's too expensive for you, but it's entirely justified unless you're VERY BAD at making purchasing decisions.
Point and shoot is not under $1000, it is $100 segment at most, delusional.
>>106580490I already have Canon 450D + kit lens (it is actually quite good), let me guess.. I need more?
>>106578528Photos from smartphones are increasingly just turning into fake ai slop due to all of the automatic post processing that they do. This will only get more extreme until the photo you take is not what is actually in front of you. When you take a photo with an older dedicated digital camera it's literally just the info that hits the sensor represented in your photo. Even more so with film.
>>106586321I don't know if they addressed the dust problem that the 3 had, but at least the autofocus is better.I wouldn't upgrade to it though if you already have the 3.
>>106592558Every mainline phone has a RAW shooting mode now.
>>106593105not him, but i've done some nice photos with phone cameras in raw mode, namely night shots with absurdly long exposure times. shooting raw on a phone really highlights just how bad the optics/sensors are though, like the pictures are super noisy. it's no secret the jpeg's you get from a phone camera app are highly processed, but until you compare them to raws you won't get a full appreciation for how they take shit and make something not immediately objectionable from it
>>106593105very hard to get pic with any kind of sovl from phone, there's just no glass to back sensor up, everything comes out flat.>>106593163yeah, unprocessed raw from phones looks incredibly bad
>>106593105>Every mainline phone has a RAW shooting mode now.Sure, but 99.9% of people don't know of or use it. Which means basically every photo taken is basically ai slop now.
>>106582770Dude it's all blurry, either your camera is shit or you don't know how to take pictures. Stupid moron.
>>106593333thing is over time you don't care anymore if pic is in perfect focus or about technical perfection, it all comes down about how it makes you feel at least for me.
>>106578528you're talking shit, there were always expensive point-n-shoot cameras out there.also, $1000 is NOTHING when it comes to cameras.
>>106593105oh wow anon all problems solved who needs a caamera amirite haha dindt know all u nedeed was rawr :3 xDDD
>>106593500No problem anon.
>>106593500Tho you're wrong, he was replying to anon complaining about overprocessed photos.
>>106578528A cheap camera comes with a phone now. Real optics and good sensors cost money. Btw, this niche between DSLRs and cheap cameras always existed, it's not new.
>>106593500raw files aren't a "solution" to heavily processed photos. heavy processing in phone camera software is difficult to call a "problem", because they are themselves a solution to a different problem, that is that phone cameras are SHIT.for the average person, shooting raw on any camera doesn't solve anything, because as the name suggests... it's raw. a raw is the data taken from the sensor without any kind of processing applied to it, which sounds great if you don't know anything about how digital cameras work. you can't use the raw as-is, some processing is required. a raw is not a solution in and of itself, all it does is allow you to process a photo how /you/ want to.
>>106582770no offense but i think it's really bad. the color contrast is fine until it gets to the blacks and low light areas where it loses sharpness and has too much grainy noise
