>>4323635
both are shitty cameras

It doesn't have to make sense, blame it on JewTubers and influencers memeing it into a hype beast camera

>>4323636

Newfag detected, I remember when they were new and /p/ shilled the fuck out of them

>>4323638
Your photography would literally get so much better if you sold all your trash gear and just got an X100whatever. You need the discipline and focus of a single focal length and a seamless shooting experience.

>>4323635
Ricoh gr is better

>>4323641
Lol no. This is the most pervasive gearfag meme. It exists to sell cameras, not because it actually works.

File: 1625125707062.jpg (277 KB, 1000x667)

277 KB JPG

>>4323636
the fuji i get it. but why the canon? that thing is a powerhouse

>>4323643
It's not true across the board, it's just true for Sugar, who is objectively a bad photographer and gearfag by nature.

An x100 series camera is the anti-gearfag camera. Throw a wrist strap on it and take everywhere. Marvel as it becomes a seamless part of your daily life and you start cranking out keepers by the gigabyte.

I say this as someone who shoots their "serious" work on both Nikon and Canon.

File: 1137-0096.jpg (336 KB, 1400x935)

336 KB JPG

>>4323641

Nigga I've done better work than 90 percent of /p/ on 10 dollar pawn shop kit lenses slapped on a 6mp D40, sit the fuck down

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D40
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.2.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	758
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	21 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2023:07:31 02:55:49
Exposure Time	30 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	14.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4323653
>just can't help himself

>>4323649
>Gear will make you better
I'd love to see your "keepers". Garry winogrand already tried this method with a beat up leica and a canon 28mm. He ended up dying with a few hundred undeveloped rolls he knew weren't worth the fixer and even his keepers were hit and miss so clearly it doesn't work for everyone.

Cameras are and aren't like musical instruments. They are, in that you will get good if you enjoy using what you have, and that you don't have to be the most technically or technologically proficient person to make good shit. They aren't, in that you won't get good just by playing with it all the time, because the camera isn't even half of the equation, it's not the instrument. It's more like the microphone.

Buying some stupid meme camera making you better is purely a meme to sell cameras. Sugar wouldn't be different with an x100vi. He'd just take sugar snaps with an x100vi and complain about the quality of the add-on lenses.

>>4323653
You are worse than 95% of /p/. I could pick a random photo out of any random recent photo thread and it'll be better than this one. You've been shooting for what, 16 years? Still no breakthrough? No aha! moment where it suddenly made sense?

It's because you have terminal gearfagitis. You obsess over gear and can't stop talking about it. Talk about photos. Talk about composition. Learn some new photographers. You only know two or three and constantly bring them up if you aren't talking about some vintage silvernose vivitar piece of shit thrift store lens. Go get a fucking book, a motherfucking compendium. Push yourself. You will do more in a year for your photography if you stuck to one camera and one focal length and just focused on making interesting photos instead of talking about cameras.

Go fuck yourself. Buy an X100v with your trucker money, and when you feel the urge to pipe up about how good the raws are or how satisfying the aperture wheel is, shut the fuck up instead.

File: 1137-5854.jpg (814 KB, 1400x1118)

814 KB JPG

>>4323641

Canon Rebel 10mp XTi and 50/1.8

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Photographer	unknown
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:03:27 22:09:36
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4323657
>If you buy more gear you will cure your gearfagitis and turn into an artistic savant
>just one more hit i'll be higher than ever and that's it
damn gearfagitis really is terminal

>>4323656
Good homie, you're entirely missing the point.

It's not about the gear, it's about the lack of gear. It's about focusing on the image and not the camera. You could swap out "x100" for "any fixed lens camera capable of producing good images" and my point would still stand.

Ricoh GR, Fuji X100whatever, Leica Q2, a fucking used D810 with a 35 f/2 ai-s, doesn't matter. I'm talking about discipline. A fixed lens just removes the possibility of distraction.

You are right when you say that sugar would just take sugar snaps (sugar snap /p/'s?) and then complain that the telephoto extension has chromabs or some retarded shit lmfao.

File: sugarrocket.png (981 KB, 1806x744)

981 KB PNG

>>4323658
wow cool photo so original

>>4323661
>any fixed lens camera
There you go making sure it has to be a new purchase again. You're approaching everything wrong. It's not like trying to learn 5 instruments at once while combing through boutique effects pedals and modular synth gear, it's like fucking around with 50 different microphones and thinking that once you simplify your recording setup you will finally play some music.

>>4323661
weak willed bth

>>4323668
Yes, sugar is.

>>4323657
>worse than 95% of /p/
Kek, no. If you want to insult someone's work or disagree with their own assessment of it then that's fine, but be reasonable. If you go to extremes like this you just look desperate.

>>4323669
nah sugar just doesnt have a strong interest in using photography as a serious art form. he just photo-blogs, photo-journals, and tinkers. thats ok, just not worth paying to look at or anything. no amount of accessory gearfaggy optimization faggotry will change your interests and what you like to do. it will only change your wallet and temporarily satisfy your retail therapy related neurosis. you can be a good photographer if you

step one: have fun
step two: be a good photographer

no buy, sell, trade, trim this down, ok maybe buy this, swap that for that, optimize that bullshit required. god knows every gearfag on youtube has a video somewhere in their feed where they went minimalist and expected their photography to improve, and then ended up being the same gearfag but with a minimal setup on their shelf. if there is anything you can buy to become a better photographer - it's a decent printer and some basic tools for mounting photos in frames so you can exhibit a real life work to real life people who are not bots on instagram.

>>4323635
Because there are people that aren't autistic about gear and what something stylish that works.

>>4323674
>let me defend my tripfag boyfriend

>>4323689
I'm not defending anyone, I'm calling >>4323657 out for one retarded thing they said out of an entire list of things, discrediting their own post.

>95% of any /rpt/ is better than that photo
Retarded statement. Also they didn't back it up with examples. There are 150 images in >>4320425 so link me the ~142 (95%) that are better.

>>4323635
yeah enjoy carrying that bulbus of an ugly camera around with big ass lens like a filthy jeet.

>>4323695
Your problem is you always try to use reason on a board full of mostly children

File: designated street camera.jpg (44 KB, 795x597)

44 KB JPG

>>4323697
>yeah enjoy carrying that bulbus of an ugly camera around with big ass lens like a filthy jeet.
Whats with you esl indians and self hatred, my saar? Get help bro.

>>4323701
actually english is my 3rd language but whatever saaar.

>>4323635
If FJ 100XVI or whatever is sold out and unavaialble... Can we have digishits but with modern fucking sensors for $200-300?

>>4323700
Don't I know it.

>>4323707
No, sorry. Last of the breed were the LX100 and RX100 (everything in this segment has to include 100, I guess) and they're both dead.

>>4323741
yeah they are dead because they were too expensive, to the point its a better option to get a DSLR from canon or whatever. Or mirrorless from any suspect.

>>4323741
They're dead because normies only want to take selfies. Culturally encouraged narcissism. What you can do if you're into photography is still very far beyond what mu

>>4323747
>screen blacks out
>auto-post
What the fuck time to unplug my router for a week or take meds
>very far beyond what multi-cam phones can do

File: mom look im market.jpg (149 KB, 1372x752)

149 KB JPG

>>4323744
Here.
There is still a hole in the market and its not like its impossible, they could in 2012 right? Taiwanese can? A bit more quality and shit would sell!
I can't be fucking smarter than entire dept of sales and marketing or whatever canon, nikon. etc
>>4323747
Wrong advertisment. You can market tele-zoom cameras easily.
Just roll this ad, ppl will buy
>dude with camera looks out of window
>sees a female taking off clothes
>sees exactly the same camera
>jump cut
>that female slaps due for spying
Or replace it with 2 dudes, given photographer sexual preferences.
>>4323749
Multi-cam is a gimmick anyway. Main camera is good big sensor (1/3" or even 1/1.7") but those additional cameras are junk straight from 2000 webcam. Hence apple was too slow to get more cameras lol.

>>4323751
uh pink wrong a bit, doesnt fucking matter

>>4323635
The photos of the X100VI are good enough for the average photographer. Those interested in the best possible IQ obviously won't get a fixed lens aps-c camera. The fuji is more about the overall experience. Beautiful design, not too bulky, great user interface, film sims, inbuilt ND filter, IBIS, etc.

The company found a niche market that other manufactors simply ignored or aren't capable to fill. That's why this thing is so damn popular. Fucking good design, while canon and others still sell their shitty blobby huge ass ugly product no one finds attractive. This is also why it's popular among influencer.. they can easily sell it. They can convince anyone because it offers a great package.

>>4323751
> they could in 2012 right?
Anon in 2012 people still weren’t truly sold on phones as replacements for their cameras. Nowadays that’s very different, for the normies that would have been convinced to buy a “premium compact”, a phone is now “good enough” in quality to complement the convenience of “the one you have with you”. I just don’t see that segment resulting. Even Sony sorta half killed the rx100 when they changed the lens to be a shittier boomerzoom to appeal to that market because the kids aren’t buying the thing. Anyone interested get an rx100va and cherish it before the resale market on them goes bananas.

>>4323761
>popular
Its like when you say an anime is popular
Basically no one has any fuji whatsoever

>>4323676
I actually agree with the majority of this post. It irks me when sugar presents himself as some granddaddy ultimate photographer when really, he's just shooting slice-of-life as a trucker. And that's fine. Just be humble about it, about your aspirations, and about your talent level.

It is shocking how few people on this board actually print their photos. That's the whole fucking point, right? Printing? Taking the immaterial and making it tangible? Immortalizing a moment in time and turning it into something that other people can hold in their hands? People forget about the transmutive power of photography.

>>4323762
>Anon in 2012 people still weren’t truly sold on phones as replacements for their cameras.
In 2012 phone cameras did suck. Autofocus was a feature!
>Nowadays that’s very different, for the normies that would have been convinced to buy a “premium compact”
Somebody convinced normies (esp. zoomers) to buy digishits from 2004-2008. And those do produce photos comparable or worse in quality to ones of phones (especially at low light conditions).
>. I just don’t see that segment resulting
With 24-150 mm equivalent - sure. Small sensor even with big optics won't give you much improvement in quality. With exception for colors, as Samsung sensors used in phones are just 10 bit for whatever reason, which is kind of not enough and when converted to 8 bit jpeg you can see that.
> kids aren’t buying the thing
Yeah no wonder nobody is buying $1000 camera, when they can get mirrorless for $800 and have freedom with lenses and bigger sensor at that too. Or DSLR from Canon for idk, $600? $500?
Target price should be $150 for bottom segment, and $500 for top segment.
Or lol, canon made that videoblog thing with 1" sensor they can't get rid of, which was the dumbest shit ever since phone does exactly the same job.
So it has to do more than phone (and marginally better too) and be cheaper than DSLR/MILC in order to sell.
And im pretty sure its possible, because... Phone lenses are all plastic, and they are mass produced and pretty complex aspherical ones at that. Digishits (later ones) did use plastic lens. Hell, even some RF mount lenses are mostly plastic.

>>4323770
The actual popular cameras are depressing
https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Mirrorless-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/3109924011
https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Electronics-Digital-Cameras/zgbs/electronics/281052/ref=zg_bs_unv_electronics_3_3109924011_2

>>4323779
Anon, you still don’t get it, normies don’t care about any of those “quality” things you talk about, glass lenses, sensor sizes, etc. none of it matters. They don’t give a shit. The photos look good enough for Instagram, that’s all they care about. You’re never convincing them they need more than their phone again. And without the normies, there isn’t enough market demand for corpos to revive these types of cameras. I just don’t see it happening. You say they should make them cheaper, sure maybe, but then they wouldn’t be very good. No company is going to underprice their products just for no reason. Just buy an s95 and hope the lens doesn’t grenade itself anon, it’s over.

>>4323789
>tfw taiwanese kodak digishits compete with shenzhen digishits and not with nip canon or sony or fuji
shame.
Kodak at least is 0.75 of a camera compared to other 48 MPX shit they sell

>>4323789
>kodak Pixpro

USA USA USA

>>4323635
Yeah, if the raw output of the sensor is all you care about, don't get the new expensive camera. This is obvious, why do we need a thread about it?

>>4323790
>normies don’t care about any of those “quality” things you talk about,
They do not care about the details, as in which element is responsible for what.
But they do care about about quality of photo, which is why newest iPhone has 1/1.7" sensor? and 12 element aspheric lens in there. To get the best picture possible from such small camera.
>You’re never convincing them they need more than their phone again
If you can convince them that you need 48 MPX iPhone camera, you can convince them they need telezoom camera as an accessory for their iPhone, to take more better pictures. And accessory can't cost more than iPhone.
> there isn’t enough market demand for corpos to revive these types of cameras.
There is enough demand for somebody in Shenzhen to manufacture horrible phone sensor cameras.
>You say they should make them cheaper, sure maybe, but then they wouldn’t be very good.
Well, let's thing, what did change since 2012 (back when 200-500 dollars could get you an good camera) and 2024.
Glass/Lenses? Maybe. Plastic lenses got more refined (to allow phones to take good pictures). But not by that much. Price difference is negligible.
CCD/CMOS? Absolutely. Modern phones can see in absolute darkness, while 2012 digishit can't see with indoor lighting for shit. But again, it's like comparing Core 2 Duo and newest Core i5. Prices are more less the same, if not cheaper.
Processing? Cheap as fuck too, because same phenomenon as CMOS sensors.
So I would say that if you take 2012 digishit, remove awful CCD and install phone sensor in there, you'd get one pretty decent camera. And price of a phone CMOS is probably cheaper than that of a CCD in 2012.
Furthermore Kodak/Asia optical makes new digishits for $100. They are a bit underwhelming.
Alternative route is to make a fucking phone with 1 (one) good camera. Not 4 cameras out of which only 1 is useable and 2.5 other are gimmicks. Which would sell. I think.
>>4323793
More like Taiwan numba one!

File: 1137-5053.jpg (4.73 MB, 4368x2912)

4.73 MB JPG

>>4323776

You know what, fuck it I'm going to give it to you. I probably should be more humble but this was a troll thread and I thought nut swinging was allowed here but anyway. My bad guys.

Fucking printing, dude I have been shooting since I was a kid and I am just now building a print setup, I scored a nice Beseler 67 totally free from a curbside pickup with 2 enlarging lenses and like 4 or 6 carriers. Has all the color filters too. I saw that while I was on my way to visit my parents, they live in a nice neighborhood and I slammed on my brakes when I figured out what it was. '

>>4323663

I'ma swing my nuts one last time and I'll shut the fuck up.

I was there, and you weren't. Not only that, I did the last one too pic related and got to bullshit with a couple of the Atlantis astronauts during the rollout. I also saw the launch from 5 miles away and was present for the landing as well as the rollout to its current display. I like to troll sometimes but really I wished you were there to see it, shit was fuckin cool. we built that, humans did.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi
Image Created	2012:03:01 12:49:41
Exposure Time	1/6 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Partial
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4323822
so your argument is mostly that photography isnt creativity and art it's just taking a snapshit of a subject you find interesting

>>4324089
Groupe f/64 at its purest

>>4324089
This has always been true and will always be true about photography, yes.

>>4324092
Knows

>>4324105
Doesnt know

File: IMG_2096.jpg (425 KB, 1284x772)

425 KB JPG

>>4324092
>group 64
>picrel
>marxists
Ewww, excuse my while I vomit. I take pride in it knowing if it separates me from a smelly Marxist.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1284
Image Height	772

>>4324117
Yes wherever you find an effort to destroy art marx is not far away. Art = the human spirit. “True communism” requires its destruction.

>>4324117
imbecile
>>4324124
bigger imbecile

>>4324124
Based and trve

>>4324126
Mad commie. Groupe f/64 killed photography and turned it into a thoroughbred subversive propaganda vehicle by conveniently shuttling out the fact that photographs were easily manipulated.

We must accept that anything that's not set up or manipulated is not art, nor truth. Zach had it right. "Photo of a ___"

Snapschizo is back online

>>4324126
>a movement dedicated to removing creativity from photography is tied to marxism
>marxism is about removing individuality from humanity
Shocker

>>4324142
Your boogeymen arent real
But marxists and marxist ideas objectively worsening the world is. Groupe f/64 inspired the shittiest photography and ripped the soul out of the whole art form. The distinctly aryan culture was lost and may never be recovered.

>if you google “groupe f64 marxism”, (((google))) is eager to make “CULTURAL MARXISM IS A BASELESS CONSPIRACY AND HECKIN ANTIJEW” the #2 result
Oh yeah they know
Marxism is destructive to culture. Brushing up against it is enough to spread the poison.

Bring back pictorialism.
“Straight photography” belongs in textbooks. Obscure the gear. Remove the mechanistic from the mind. Become human, not consumer-worker, the party hates it.

>>4324089
Share yours, you pretentious faggot. Least that guy actually posted photos on a photography board.
Show us what you got.

>>4324152
People are bringing it back. In a way the modern bokeh craze and revival of super shit gear is the beginning of the permanent death of straight photography. People are waking up (sadly, the only way to get them to question the lie of photographic truth is to mock one of america's big BTFOs of communist russia and doubt the moon landing - in feature film format).

It fits. The bokeh haters with their "premium" crop sensor ILCs are often poor, just like real commies.

Straight photography can sort of live on in super sharp medium format studio wank, but that carries the implication that it's more like a painting than soulless documentation so it's sort of dying anyways.

>>4324142
Who is snap schizo? Not everyone who agrees with cINEFAG is ciNEFAG.

>>4324158
nice gear sisters, it's over. we need to sell our overcorrected mirrorless lenses and go back to putting baby butt soft voigtlanders on fujis.

>Straight photography bad

What's wrong with getting it right in camera?

>>4324182
because you know what? fuck cameras. is that all photography is now? cameras? i am sick of fucking cameras. i hate my fucking camera.

4x5 dude was right all along
we need more dog hair on our negatives (intentionally)

>>4323635
>Make it make sense.
It's a meme camera. People buy it for the retro meme, meme-sims and the meme-finder.

File: IMG_9868.jpg (343 KB, 828x1420)

343 KB JPG

>>4324289
It's an outrageously expensive meme. How that makes sense to anyone is beyond me.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	828
Image Height	1420

>>4324316
>people finally caught on that it was stupid to pay that much instead of just getting an XPro 3 and the xf18 or 27 pancake
>now the XPro is just as expensive without lens
Ah.

>>4323822
>nut swinging
Wow you really are a fag and a poor photographer, get your head out of your own ass and stop huffing your own shit

>>4324321
Even the used prices for the original X-Pro 1 went up. And that is an absolute piece of shit.

>>4323648
He's either new here and feels the need to make a contrarian stand against everything or just a brandfag that doesn't happen to own canon. Probably both.

>>4324321
xpro 3 is 2000$ where i live and the xf 27 is 550$

>>4323635
People don't want a brick, they want a flawed but stylish camera. Why should you care? Only the pictures matter in the end.

>>4324316
could get a couple Ricoh GR III's like that one prudent anon for that price, wow

File: image_ReC1Zdd.jpg (181 KB, 1242x1227)

181 KB JPG

>>4323635

File: IMG_2105.jpg (477 KB, 1284x1919)

477 KB JPG

>>4324906
I bought a iii and iiix for the resale price of the 100vi. No ragrets, poorfags don’t @ me

[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
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1284
Image Height	2778
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: Untitled.png (41 KB, 890x324)

41 KB PNG

>>4324908
>i'm so rich i-
>10 of them fit on a credit card
You makin minimum payments for life homes?
Are you sure you've never shitposted seething about full frame being too expensive too?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (130 KB, 1280x720)

130 KB JPG

>>4323635
You haven't seen nothing yet
>next summer:
>gfx100s guts
>slow as shit lens
>probably not exactly sharp, even for medium format
>autofocus that makes your dslrnosaur seem fast and quiet
>$10k
>still so big that size savings over the ILC dont matter
>1.2x fatter full frame
are you excited? just buy a gsw690ii lol

>>4324927
>f4 lense
ah its like going back to a TLR but shitty

>>4324931
the more cameras fuji releases the smarter it looks to just shoot film if you truly want the minor size savings and operational simplicity
after all we aren't poor are we?

>>4324934
That was always THE fact. Actual fuji film does everything fujifilm digital does, but better, excepting the crutches like af-c subject tracking and uselessly high FPS numbers, and corpse skin/worms.

>>4324915
>haha I could totally afford it if I wanted I swear

>>4324945
yes
i have
>$1750 FF body
>$1000, $450, $550, $600, and $450 lenses
>$700 in flashes in modifiers
>$400 in film gear
>$1500-$2k in shot film per year
>taxes not counted
and ~$180,000 in lines of credit
i am not super rich and do not have very nice gear, but i could still afford an x100vi, in cash or credit, but it's kind of a shitty camera desu.
your fervent defense of it being a status symbol almost signals that you can only afford an x100vi and nothing else tho

>>4324945
Anon this is the richest board on 4chan, next to /k/. But also the most autistic.

A lot of people can afford “expensive” things here but their autism is too strong to buy just anything. There’s some fucker spending $50+ a shot taking pictures of dead bugs and he HAD to do it with several grand worth of 8x10 wet plate gear.

>>4324948
>>4324945

>>4324951
Does it blow your mind that people richer than you dont want to buy garbage?

File: 01N1vHXf5Aj6miqFDReBAYi-2(...).jpg (168 KB, 760x427)

168 KB JPG

>>4324951
Yeah, I could afford it, if i was stupid enough to want it, but it's cope sensor wormtrans and shit all around.

There's a camera I can't afford, and still want, pic related :^)

>>4324955
Get the 50c back instead and you can do it!

>>4324954
If anything it does appear to blow the self proclaimed wealthyfag's mind that other people do buy things he doesn't, lest he wouldn't have made this thread

>>4324984
>he
your minds so blown that you're starting to think everyone who doesn't share your opinion is the same person baka

i told you i'm not even rich, or i'd have a 907x+cvf-100c already. buying a full frame ILC has never made anyone rich. just another kind of disappointed. maybe you'd be less unhappy if you removed that x100vi preorder from your cart and picked up a fun little rangefinder like a ql17 and a roll of ektar
i know i would be

>>4324999
why did you reply if you aren't OP tho?

>>4324911
eternal 'miration

>>4325018
why are you posting if no one asked you to

>>4324927
>f/16
>iso 3200
man imagine getting that bad boy on the street

>>4325024
?? that's literally what I am asking

>>4325068
why are you such a beta you think thats a question anyone cares about

>>4325073
relax bruh it's just a camera

>>4325094
i have an xt3 so im good ok but lets see ya photos first

Sorry I just feel depressed when im not carrying a x100 arround my shoulder

>>4324938
What about the worms?