>digital cameras are such a technological dead end that Kodak brought back Ektachrome and swung some deal with Alaris and is now offering more film direct to stills consumers and Pentax and Lomo are putting out film cameras againI guess it shouldn't be a shocker when every "blockbuster" movie looks like ass now because it was shot on digital>what should I buyIt's like guns 30+ years ago. There's enough stuff on the used market that I'd just go buy a nikon or a canon from the 80s or 90s. There are a bunch of cameras with hipster tax on them, like how kar98ks and garands were over priced compared to thirdie country guns, but generally anything that's mostly electronic like those 90s SLRs are free from hispter tax because hipsters generally want>manual dial controls>compact bodies>mechanical film advance levers>muh dials >mechanical actions instead of chip based actions
didn't we just have this thread are you homosexual, OP?
I do like being able to have space for 1000s of pictures though.
>>108496152Just get a really large roll of film
>>108496134no, I'm pretty sure you're a homosexual though.
>>108496173nah uh (You) are!
>>108496113>digital cameras are such a dead end that a bunch of dying companies are releasing meme hipster cameras that don't sell while the big players release MILC after MILCAlso electromecanichal film cameras from the 80s and 90s are unreliable garbage and there's a reason everyone wants full mechanical.
>>108496447digital milcs are dead. no one wants that shit because it looks like dog shit >Also electromecanichal film cameras from the 80s and 90s are unreliable garbage t. fucking luddite. You can get like 5+ 90s canons for one hipster faggot "all mechanical" shitbox
film is a scam to nickel and dime trend consuming retards each time they take a single photo
>>108496512then why do movies look like garbage?
>>108496575obviously because of the lighting?? 2000s movies using digital look just as good as film and mog modern movies.
>>108496586most of those 2000s films that looked good were shot on filmdigital movies look like ass. it's why jurassic park mogs jurassic world
>>108496586>2000s movies using digital look just as good as film
>talked to my photo buddy about wanting this since my D3200 is getting to the point where a phone does a better job>he literally told me its THE rddit cameraWhat the fuck did he mean by this?
So why cant digital look good? What makes it le bad! ?
>>108498536its bad because its good and we hate good things
>>108496134its a schizo begging for attention, just ignore him
>>108496113it's not so much that digital tech is dead end, it's that larpers don't find it fashionable to carry around a bigass slr shaped cameras. It's why fuji is such a hot seller despite selling far inferior tech
>>108497133>fuji retro fad>rangefinder larp>putting ILC money in a fucking compact He's right. It screams "performative street photographer" aka "awkward redditor with a camera".
>>108496113>camera :|>camera: retro :O
>>108497133if you think d3200 is obsolete because phone does a better job, picrel is obsolete by your d3200. Shit af, joke of a soft lens, only thing it has going is the "pretty" looks which falls apart when you compare it to leicas it tries to copy. But hey, if you think d3200 is outdone by a phone, you weren't born with an eye for good photography anyway so swipe away.
I have a film camera, an old point and shoot. I really like taking a pic and moving on, but at the end of the day I do phone + analog. But the pics I look at the most are the analog.Less practical and more expensive because of developing the films buy the satisfaction you get out of it I'd ten times higher
>>108496113You mean I can have film like back in the day?
>>108497133at least the fuji meme cameras are small>>108498536>>108498552the pixel arrays contain discrete data so the color transitions look like ass compared to digital
>>108498583samefag>>108498714sony has smaller cameras and they are still ass. plus there are the ricoch ones which are smaller than the fujis and have a better focal length
>>108498793film looks better, it's why modern movies look like ass>>108498826ye
>>108496113Its the end result that matters no matter what a photo is shot with. Art is subjective and different cameras give a different look to a thing. I choose to pick the convenience of shooting a thousand photos and getting a few really good ones instead of dropping loads of money to get 20 shitty photos.
>>108500256film looks better. the best photos I've taken were on film and I've taken my digishit photos than film photos
>>108496113>I guess it shouldn't be a shocker when every "blockbuster" movie looks like ass now because it was shot on digitalBeing shot on digital has very little to do with why blockbuster movies all look the same and why they are all aids. Film grain is not a panacea for bad work.
>>108500463film renders colors better
