>>4505216
Its basically the same quality as a smartphone. The long end of the zoom is very blurry and they break easily.

They’re really overpriced right now so you can sell it on ebay and buy a ricoh grIIIx

>>4505216
yea, don't listen to this poster >>4505220.
it's a fun camera, go use it.

>>4505216
looks like the inspector gadget of cameras, tbqh

>>4505250
Sell it before it breaks or enjoy samsung phone quarity. Your choice. There are many better small camera - simply not made by sony. Even an olympus omdem5iii is a huge upgrade. Because it won’t break.

There are a two inescapable facts in photography
Sony products are not well made
Sensor size is all that matters

Cope, if you must.

>>4505216
Assuming this is actually real because I don't know why any business would bin a $1.3k camera just because it has no box, yes it is a very good compact camera. It has image quality rivalling a Canon 7D which was a high end DSLR back in the day and can still produce great images today. It doesn't have the best lens of the RX100 series but if you're not trying to get photos of stuff miles away it's good, and if you do have to use it all the way zoomed in then it's better than just not getting the photo. Yes it's better than a phone. No it's not a fragile toy, my RX100 literally has a dent in the top and still works fine.

>>4505306
> It has image quality rivalling a Canon 7D which was a high end DSLR back in the day and can still produce great images today
what? that’s totally false
rockwell is that you?
you’re on a VGA monitor and are colorblind ken
go to best buy
and an optometrist

File: rx100vs7D.png (250 KB, 2404x1244)

250 KB PNG

>>4505326
Sensor technology improves with time, newer 1 inch can compete with old APS-C, new APS-C can compete with old FF. I don't know why this fact upsets you so much.

>>4505294
you are retarded. please kys.

>>4505216
It supports manual and RAW. The perfect noob camera.
Everything that it sucks at you can spend money on a better platform and lens to achieve. Your images will suck, but you'll be able to take images that don't completely suck (aka, better than a phone, no AIslop) when processing from RAW.

It's basically a 24-200mm shitty kit lens but that's okay for noobie use. You can spend $3000 per lens later, once you figure out what focal length you like best if you really want quality.

>>4505342
Dear god canons sensors used to be super shit compared to nikon and pentax. Slide film tier but worse looking
>it was a professional camera!
Yeah back then digital had to meet lower standards. 35mm had better IQ than digital until the release of the canon 5d iv and nikon d800 and real film medium format was unquestionably superior. Professional digital camera meant you would be like, taking school portraits or shooting for the news. Quality didnt matter.

Most people couldnt even shoot raw if they wanted to because computation power and storage were more expensive and hadn’t plateaued.

Old canon performance really can’t be called professional anymore outside of like, passport photos. Even the news expects better.

>>4505345
sounds like you hate cameras

>>4505347
Sounds like you’re a shrimpy little redditor that collects ewaste if you think “old digital was shit” means “i hate cameras”

A lot of photography just wasn’t a good use of film and that was the standard ewaste like the canon 7d had to meet. Now ewaste canons are quirk chungus r/lomography toys.

>>4505345
Why don't you actually look things up instead of making assumptions. The D300s released a couple months prior to the 7D was around the same or a little worse in some areas, it wasn't until the D7000 a year later that the Nikon was better.

But regardless, if you can't get a decent photo with a camera from that era (or a newer one with the same quality but a smaller sensor) then that's a you issue. Stop blaming equipment for your lack of skills.

File: SNOYLIE.png (1.17 MB, 1427x742)

1.17 MB PNG

>>4505383
>>4505306
Stop coping. Stop lying. The rx100 is garbage and the 7d is pretty dogshit but its not nearly as garbage.

>if you cant take A good photo with this piece of shit
No one wants to be forced to shoot with flash just for crispy shit early 2ks digital “quality” and pass up shots a digishit cant nail anymore. Get with the times. Old digital is bad.

Digital was not as good as film for decades. Early digitals are not good cameras and never have been. They were made to take passport photos and shoot cheaply for the newspaper.

Imagine running defense for digishit.
>dey were profeshenul cameras!
Yeah in the exact era where that “professional” started meaning nothing

Its actually true. Digital started out being horribly, horribly bad. Digital was so bad it murdered all interest in developing photography as an art form. Photography became nasty computer graphics and everyone stopped caring.

Real darkroom prints evoke emotions that digital simply can not. The detail and tonality are not there to tickle to optic nerve. It’s like looking at anime porn instead of vintage playboy spreads shot on 8x10.

>>4505349
so what camera bodies do you like?

>>4505400
Film. And a few digital ones that aren’t equipped with super shit sensors for their size and aren’t too poorly made to trust.

Nikon post-d750
Canon post-5div
Sony post-a7c
Olympus in the short window after they got good and before they died (em1 and em5 ii and iii)
Working film bodies.

Otherwise its all ewaste and overpriced funko pops pretending to be cameras

>>4505402
nice, you ever share any of your pictures here?

>>4505404
Yes. But not for you.

>>4505216
Very cool camera concept.
Too bad it runs Sony's firmware, which is the worst I've ever tried (worse than Fuji)

>>4505345
>Old canon performance really can’t be called professional anymore outside of like, passport photos

nta but i had a passport photo taken with a canon bridge cam from 2005 last year, i dont even think it had 10 megapixels maybe like 3 or 4mp. was at a big usps post office that took them for you for $20 bucks