I don't want to buy a new flagship every two years. I just want to have a nice pocket camera and keep my midrange for a while. My old olympus pocket camera lasted for almost a decade. Preferably nothing more expensive than $700
>>4489617market price, not sale price>$200ishLumix LX3/LX5/LX7Nikon CoolPix P330Olympus XZ-1/XZ-10PowerShot G10Samsung EX-1>$350ishRicoh GR Digital ICanon PowerShot S120Olympus Stylus XZ-2Nikon CoolPix P340Samsung EX2FLumix LF1Fujifilm X10Fujifilm XQ1>$500ishLumix LX100 IRX100 IIIPowerShot G15Pentax MX-1>$700You probably don’t need to spend this much money.
>>4489626Thank you, knower
>>4489617rx100 is the only good one and any of the old models are fine and cheap
Fuji X30 slow afCanon Ixus155 20mp ccd sensorRicoh WG-80 water and shock proof
You take photos not camera
>>4489626Are there any under $500 that don't look like a Fisher Price toy?
>>4489933Guns don't kill people, nuh uhI kill peopleWith guns
>>4490075You could try not being poor or just use your phone if you’re gonna whine.
>>4489626>none of them weather sealedluhmow
>>4490750Can we see some of the poor weather type shots you do?
Used Lumix dc tz99e>>4489665This one too
The Ricoh GR 3/3x/4 are the only cameras that remain pocketable with reasonable IQ. The rx100 series are a close second, but you'll be trading down in IQ (but trading up in AF).The GR is notorious for sucking dust into the sensor, so if your target environment has a polluted atmosphere, avoid, unless you have a Ricoh service center close by.I found an LX100 in mint condition for ~360 on mpb. You'll find some decent deals if you're patient, but again, the IQ will be a step down from even the RX series despite the larger sensor.The other models mentioned will only make you want to kys when you compare the IQ and shooting experience to that of a phone.If you are really committed to something timeless with decent IQ, film might be the way to go.Picrel, the GR is the GOAT in pocketable digital compacts.
>>4490075No :(Sounds like you should just use your phone instead :(((
>>4490178i can sing this in my head but i dont remember what its from
>>4490075Digital? Unlikely. If you want to try film, there are many options
>>4489617I want to punch her boobies>if you know what I mean
>>4489617Sony ZV-1 not big shots but is a great video camera
for strictly photos it's not 1:1 as modern phone software averages frames for low light (and for this definition it's like normal indoor lighting not crazy full frame pulling full detail in the darkness)I mean you could do this manually with a compact in post but only if nothing moves so the still small 1/1.5? sensor punches above its size in phones and is basically on par with 1" or more nowtldr just sensor size now, 1"+which leaves you with rx100 series and ricoh gr and zv1F for extantactually that one sony action cam tooI wish panasonic still made their compactsfor video though you can just go with similar sensor sizes as long as bitrate is good enough
>>4495056Very helpful
>>4490766This cope is so stupid. Did you know that all of those cameras will be fucked permanently by a bit of dust getting in? "Weather sealed" is a lot more than "able to take shots in the rain." For a fixed lens camera in particular it should be a given.
>>4496638Oh, in that case, can we see some of your examples where dust ingress has impacted you?
>>4496673Can I see some examples of needing other people to have examples to have an opinion?
>>4490766reminder this is corgifag having a perma buyers remorse meltdown because fuji weather sealing is so trash he must imagine no one actually needs the same basic environmental protection phones haveHe will apply the same cope to anything, autofocus, etc, and INSIST you never hold these expensive ass cameras to standards unless you can post all your ___ shots for him (he will call them shit and say you dont need more than an xt3) BTW Why is it ALWAYS a dogfaggot?
>>4496673Never, because I use weather sealed cameras, and I always have. Nikon DSLRs had pretty decent weather resistance, shitty non sealed cameras costing thousands are a new thing driven by Sony.Fixed lens compacts have never been well sealed. Just not worth it to me, I don't like buying ewaste even if it's cheap.If you genuinely are interested just look up "dust ricoh gr." Tons of examples.
>>4496692that dog in the middle looks kind of familiar
Thought on the olympus tg7? I've heard that you can take better pictures with the iPhone 12, but it looks fun and I was planning in buying one. What do you guys think?
>>4498441>>4498336
>>4489665>cheapYeah, I'm seeing them selling from $300-$1,000 on ebay. What the fuck? I remember small digital cameras being like $150 about 15 years ago and they took great shots.Like any hobby, there will be a bunch of snobs here who will tell you to fuck off unless you want to drop a grand on a fucking camera that probably doesn't even match what phones have now. That's why I don't like 4chan. Everyone is such a superior asshole instead of being helpful.
I'm getting this. I'm sure it will be fine.
>>4498443>I remember small digital cameras being like $150 about 15 years agoFaggot zoomer retro hipster tax. These 20 year old retards who never used anything except a touchscreen and AI get told by youtoobers that they'll be cool and take better photos than their iPhone 17 if they gobble up all the 15 year old digishits and anything remotely retro looking.>That's why I don't like 4chan. Everyone is such a superior asshole instead of being helpful.Yeah I feel that. Putting in effort and trying to help people usually results in being ignored at best and more likely shit talked for minor reasons.>>4498444It will be. When you go the compact P&S route the form factor and portability are your main concerns. Nah you wont match some chud/chad with his 5DII and 70-200mm f/4, but if you're having fun then everyone else can eat sand.
>>4498445I ended up looking around a bit more and opted for this instead for a bit less money. Not as compact, but it's more of a real camera like my first A-1 in the 90s. I have an iphone mini if I need a small camera.
>>4489626I own an EX1. Its the shit.
>>4498443$1200 original msrp. If you want a $150 msrp camera from 15 years ago then actually look for that, but it's ewaste and will take worse pictures than a smart phone.
>>4498443Inflation plus an influx of zoomers who have never used a dedicated camera who find the compacts cute and want them thus driving the prices up combined with the fact that they are no longer being produced at all except for some chinese cameras that are equivalent to budget cameras from 2006.
>>4498443You’re right. The rx100s shouldnt be more than $50. What the camera market puts up with is unjustifiable when applied to mass produced plastic electronics. Those shitters aren’t even better than a phone, just more philosophically palatable to anti-AI slacktivists. The pocket camera market offers you two sane choices:Ricoh GRwhatever working PNS you can find for <$50
>>4505499>they are no longer being produced at all except for some chinese cameras that are equivalent to budget cameras from 2006you lost me there. rx100 is still in production.
>>4505559Well, yes, but how old is it and at what price?
>>4505640The latest one was released 2019. or have a ricoh gr iv from 2025, they're the same price.personally i don't care about cameras being that small. at that point it's a fashion thing like a phone.
>>4491769Of course, a GR-series camera would be excellent for OP, but it won’t cost him $700 or less. Maybe a GR1? If that’s the 16MP one, I just found a listing for one… $899… let alone the ones you’ve mentioned.
>>4505788>$899 for a gen 1even the gen 2 and 3 are getting around for that much or less
>>4489617any
Isn't there those new(ish) digital cameras that looks like candy bars?
>>4489665these break too easy
Canon G7x
>>4498451Wow this board moves slowly.So I paid all this money for the Canon which is oversized for what it is, and then I find the old Samsung in a drawer which is what I wanted all along. Then I realized any phone I have seems to take better pictures. Is this true or do I just not know how to utilize these bulkier digital cameras?I know an actual photographer can take great images with anything. Maybe the tech in phones just got so good that you can’t fail.
>>4518351Uhhh you bought a bridge powershot which probably has a 1/3" sensor from 2010 paired with the cheapest glass they could bolt to the body that'll pass at 1000mm. Literally boomer ewaste.Just buy a fucking 60D or something and a 50mm STM and you'll have a far better camera. But fwiw if what you want is compactness then you either suffer with the shitty IQ or you pony up for a GR Ricoh or Snoy RX100. I have never understood the blobmera nonsense since you can just buy a pancake lens and still be very light and reasonably compact.
>>4518353I don't speak camera geek so I don't know any of your jargon. But I get through context that I need to spend much more money because all of that is shitty. Thanks.
>>4518353>GR Ricoh>$2,000Pony up is right. No way. The images from that vs. phones or those other two can't be that far off.
>>4518353not that anon, the Ricoh GRs in particular seem really neat on the surface, but I can't justify the price for what they offer. lack of a real viewfinder also sucks, but if it was $500 I'd have bought one on impulse by now. the Sony is the same, and I also found the RX100 felt surprisingly cheap when I held one in a store, the dials felt like wobbly shit.
>>4518353>Just buy a fucking 60DObjectively the worst of the x0D series.Both the 50D and 70D are better in their own ways.
>>4518360sensor = what determines image qualityanything without a replacable sensor 90% of the times was entirely superseded by cell phones (gr ricoh/rx100 are exceptions) because they were built for casuals and have sensors the size of a cell phone'sbig sensor = better image qualitybuy a canon 60d or any <$200 dslr from the mid-early 2010s (nikon d3200/d3300, pentax k5ii, sony a65/a67/a58) and you'll have a better camera in every way to a phone because the sensors are the size of a postage stamp vs the size of a pencil eraser
>>4518410Maybe if I have any luck reselling that bulky Canon I paid $189 for. Thanks for the suggestions. I'd pay $200 for something that takes better pics than a phone because I don't even use a smartphone other than for taking photos.
>>4518432for canon nikon often local sales (facebook/craigslist) can get you a better deal than ebayand i would look at a canon 7d even the mk1 is better than a canon 60d. with canon the single digit bodies (5d/6d/7d) are the "pro" bodies while the 60/70/80ds are the "enthusiast" bodies; $200 definitely gets you a 7d or a 5d mark 2 (older, worse autofocus, bigger sensor)https://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2010/08/27/canon-60d-vs-7d/
>>4518432>>4518433Get a 6D; it falls right at the $200 mark and it has in-body lens corrections (unlike the 5D2).The 6D isn't a "pro" body; it's also an enthusiast, hence, why it uses the x0D body size/layout.The original 7D can be had for around $100, but I'd push you towards the 6D due to the cheaper film-era lens for it.
>>4518351Smartphones rule for day to day shapshots because they're always with you. Next are pocket compacts when you feel like bringing them from time to time. Bigger cameras as specialized tools with tactile dials, plus other specific requirements. If a smartphone can do the job, then no issue there.
>>4489626Which of these can fit a 64 GB microSD?
>>4518518Anyone compatible with the SDXC standard.
>>4518520Thank you. I've been specifically looking for a new camera to last me the next decade or more while travelling. My first camera ever was a Kodak EasyShare C143 which I used for more than a decade or maybe even 2 decades, until new Windows couldn't run its software or something. The last camera I had bought was this chink scamera from Facebook Marketplace for $40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiH4Ay7YezE. Before that, I had a Minolta MN12Z from one of my shitty relatives, and it was such a shit camera even when taking regular photos. I swear, all I want is to take CLEAR and FOCUSED photos of things like placards in museums, as well as video of me and friends and places when I travel, but these cameras can't do any of that. I am holding the fucking camera as still as I can but just by using the dumb "digital zoom" and zooming in to take the shots, they become pixellated blurry messes no matter what sort of size I pick. I could try taking photos in 5000x4000 size, but they'd still look like an indecipherable glitchy pile of pixels. The Minolta felt trash to use too. My old crap Samsung phone's camera was actually better because I could have finagled the retarded unchangeble auto-focus of it to take the photos when they were actually clear.Anyway, I just need>camera that can fit 64 GB MicroSD>has a focus that actually works to take clear photos of detailed things>has a decent video capabilityThat's it. I don't want stupid effects, filters, scene moods, or whatever useless filler "feature" trash. I just want something that WORKS. But what is one that works?
