>new camera for $99>better build and image quality than $600 Pentax 17
>better build and image quality than $1600 Fuji X-half
>find cheap industrial sensor>do some calibrations measurements>create some film simulations>apply shitty plastic lens>profitwhy does nobody do this?
fuji would be retarded to not straight up target this segment at under 200 dollars
>>4470096What is this meme of the Pentax 17 ring poorly built? It uses composite materials but it’s actually very solidly and well built. Using plastics doesn’t mean it’s poorly built. I have no concerns about knocking mine about on the daily.
>>4470101Kodak blind bag cameras.
>>4470096buy an ad faggot
>pro
>>4470242you don't think pros use the Camp Snap™ desu?
>>4470096isnt this shit for kids going on school camps?
>>4470251despite the Camp Snap™ moniker, I assure you it can take photographs at locations besides a recreational lodging property
>>4470096Unironically kind of want one and might actually buy it. Here's my reasoning:>pleasant design, looks better than any old digicams>no screen >funWish it was full manual, though, that's the only reason why i might not get it
>>4470096this is 1990s hp digicam but they have image processing sorted with thirty years training data
what does this do that my phone can't?
>>4470446it's not about what it CAN do, it's what it CAN'T do
>>4470096>$100 landfill cameraThis is marketed towards gen z and their trendy digislop camera revival. In the end gen z just needs to feed their consumerist desires.A better alternative than buying more electronic waste is to get an old digicam from your parents/grandparents, or buy one off of ebay for extremely cheap.>muh old timey filtersDigicams looks old timey naturally, they don't need a filterIf you need anything more than what the digicam outputs just put it into lightroom and edit for 15 seconds.Same generation who "brought back" thrifting somehow can't comprehend they can thrift for old cameras, and instead, need to buy newer temu versions of shit to emulate it being old.
