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.
