>>4516386
gear doesn't matter. just take foto.

If all you did with your M43 was point, and shoot, then I don't see why not. Your focus will be more on composition and capturing moments than fine tweaking of settings.
Though many P&S camera do allow precise adjustments of aperture and shutter settings. But buried under menus such that it's a chore to use.

>>4516388
I did change exposure and shutter speeds etc but I do want a genuinely compact and discreet setup, but I don't know, maybe it's just nerves from taking it out in public

Studying composition, understanding light etc will get you further with a shit digicam than having a high end camera and no understanding.

>>4516386
Yes, but the fact you're asking is a pretty good indicator you wont, at least for while

Half the photos in the MoMA are talentless snapshits haphazardly taken on medium format/sheet film

Make of that what you will. Fantasies about being good at photography, using the full capability of your camera etc are clueless boomer coded and half invented to appease their wives, half invented to cope with not being allowed to buy a nicer camera (unless you’re making money off it buster -their wives).

>>4516387
Lies

>go to art gallery
>it's a le heckin minority decolonise le stunning and brave episode
>it's a snapshit but because it's of some country like palestine or ukraine that's going through war it's heckin deep and important episode
Sick of these reruns
Take photos anon
Also don't spend time on 4chan, your time should genuinely be around a 90/10 split between doing the hobby and shitposting about the hobby on 4chan

>>4516386
my experience is that "point and shoots" are more of a misnomer than should be allowed. my dslr hanging on a strap with the power switched on all weekend has way more quickdraw point and shoot capability than fucking around with either the Canon Power Shot or Leica D-Lux I've tried forcing myself to enjoy on multiple outings. You'll get better shots with a disposable.

>>4516470
>leica
Try buying a real camera next time

>>4516475
It was given to me, but what about the Canon PowerShot I mentioned? Is that a real camera? Remember, we're talking about point and shoot quality. And what would you recommend as a good point and shoot that takes amazing shots and will get OP good at photography, like they asked? Because I think a DSLR makes a better standby point and shoot, and a better thing to get good on since manual operation is easier than on most digicams- but it sounds like you might disagree.

>>4516478
I just hate Leica and Leicafags so much
Any camera is good so long as you enjoy using it and you take it with you
>b-but how will i build my heckin client portfolio and make money
I only talk to hobbyists not money making leeches

>>4516479
>Any camera is good so long as you enjoy using it and you take it with you

>>4516470
>Leica D-Lux I've tried forcing myself to enjoy on multiple outings

So I said I didn't like my Leica, literally after trying to enjoy it, and you took time out of your day to get mad at me for trying out a camera brand you don't like and then told me to do literally the thing I said was the reason I *also* didn't like said thing.

Jesus you retards will argue with your fucking shadow if no else is around I fucking swear

>>4516480
My shadow is a fat faggot
Anyway like I said, take whatever camera you want
>b-but muh specs muh tech sheets
Take the fucking camera and take photos then post them here
Doing the hobby instead of shitposting on 4chan will change your mind

>>4516479
>b-but you're using a different mainstream, readily available, and popular name brand than the one that I have chosen to use for myself ;_;

File: file.png (487 KB, 1080x1486)

487 KB PNG

>>4516483
>leicafags when they're expected to actually use their camera to take photos

>>4516484
Leica users literally pay $10k for a sony a7rv that has 99% of its features removed and a major reliability downgrade. They definitely don’t take many photos.

>>4516386
>Can you take amazing shots and get good at photography with just a point and shoot?
Yes, if it has dials which allow you to directly control exposure. A small sensor point and shoot using properly judged manual exposure will take a better photo than a full frame camera set to auto-exposure in most conditions.

>>4516491
>>4516484
And they still live in your head rent free

>>4516574
>Mentions fact
>>"REEE RENT FREE RENT FREE REEE"

>>4516484
I'm known to enjoy photography, and a customer-friend kicked down a Leica D-Lux from an estate they were sorting for consignment. I thought it would be fun to try out and maybe I'd be hooked in, but I don't like the interface, the battery life, the photos, or the near incapability to quickly capture a sudden, unexpected shot the same way I can with a dslr hanging around my neck, passively powered on and always ready to capture the moment with a glance in the viewfiender and shutter click.
It's like I said I tried a Leica digicam and didn't like it, and everyone got so triggered at the mere mention of the word Leica that the thread immediately kneejerk derailed into this weird thing of people arguing with no one about nothing, but being *really* worked up about it anyway. Look at yourselves- this is embarrassing. There is literally not a single person in here defending Leica- you can all calm down and just tell op what you think about someone buying a point and shoot to learn with, vs the m34 they already own. shit.

Going to art galleries and looking at the photos, looking at pro photos, and you know what is never shown? The camera they used or the settings. It's ALL about emotion, story, composition, etc

>>4516646
but the camera is invariable 6x7 through sheet film. the vast majority of contemporary art photography is shot on film and all 20th century art photography is absolutely film.

no gallery is ever accepting your fuji x100 snaps unless you’re a blasian trans womyn examining the intersectionality of the need for open borders and further marginalization of privileged groups through the bravery of translatinx bodies

>>4516646
Gallery goers already know it’s all mamiya, schneider, linhof, hasselblad, zeiss, leica, phaseone, rollei, etc.

File: P8300011.jpg (2.82 MB, 4288x3216)

2.82 MB JPG

>>4516386
this board is full of ass wipes and all of them replied to this thread
>no foto faggots

Tell me why you hate my fuckin pic
(Olympus D540 100yrs old)
pro tip idgaf

I have lost more stock then you lame ass gear fags have ever taken

>>4516676
KINOOOO
Where was this taken?

File: DSCF6144.jpg (1.34 MB, 2816x2112)

1.34 MB JPG

here's a digicam shot i found. i think it's quite possible to get nice pics out of a compact camera, especially if you acknowledge that the image quality will not prop you up whatsoever. therefore you will have to rely on technique, ie subject, composition, lighting, timing, scene selection, processing, etc. check the archives to see s95-chan soloing every rpt a few years ago

>>4516676
my only complaint is only with the framing. the left fifth of the frame doesn't appear to be doing anything. seems like you should have set the lamp post and the shadowed portion of the wall as your outermost elements. honestly i might go further and say that since the flowers and the light on the ivy are really stealing the show, the entire left half of the frame could be removed.

>>4516588
imagine effort-replying to mindless b8

>Can you take amazing shots and get good at photography with just a point and shoot?
No, it's impossible. Everybody knows knows lighting, composition, shapes, subject, etc. have nothing to do with taking a good picture; the only thing that matters is megapixels.

>>4516478
>And what would you recommend as a good point and shoot that takes amazing shots and will get OP good at photography, like they asked?
You're phone

>>4516696
Right, which is why every fine shart photographer ever shoots /p/ tier shit on a pentax 67 or linhof field camera and gets into galleries while you wallow in instagrams algorithm slop.

Camera quality is pertinent to the IRL experience of the photo. Most computers can only display a very low quality copy so even m43 is beyond the limit of the average PC. On a 4k 100% srgb laptop screen, typical of just some wealthier westerners/east asians and totally unknown to the 70% of earth that isn’t all that smart, a 100mp or LF film starting point only offers marginal gains in sharpness and noise over a cheapo snapper at the most (15” diag, <256dpi) the machine can show at once.

IRL prints, especially real film prints done with top tier gear and skilled use, can show off resolution and color depth that digital methods simply can not replicate and which exceeds the finest paintings. Digislugs can pixel peep max edge contrast down to the limit of the sensor, and then zoom out and lose it all… but even measly 35mm film can show distinct but soft details up to over 200mp equivalent digital resolution. And enlargements cram all that super fine detail onto photopaper that can show details as small as one nanometer for a lifelike, 3d effect.

>>4516729
even an ok inkjet print made from a canon 5dII file and good paper exceeds the display capability of 90% of computer screens

photography is not for computers
if you’re all digital your biggest competitors are grok, deepseek, and claude

>>4516729
Nobody cares. You take snap shits of dogs and no nothing about photography. Gear doesn't matter. Some of the greatest photographers ever shot on consumer grade cameras and lenses.

>>4516731
I dont own any dogs and never had, and anything decent on consumer grade anything in a gallery anywhere was shot on film, not a sony a6400. Sorry. It’s the truth. Even 35mm shot on soviet gear can produce a 200mp+ scan with discernible pixel level detail. A silver halide grain is ~1um (not nm, my bas) and layers of them can technically resolve smaller details than that. A pixel on a high end digital camera is 4um and bayer has less resolution than the pixel count implies. Film is superior beyond the capability of the computer and can only shine with real enlargements and contact prints presented in real life. Fine art photography’s defining characteristic is being mostly film. This is for real, experiencable reasons, not gatekeeping. Is it true that somehow all these more accomplished people are being delusional while you know the truth that 1000x700 80% quality jpegs on 4chan are the great equalizer? No. Internet photography is borderline irrelevant and already being replaced by AI like terrible greasy finer food was replaced by arguably better tasting and healthier fast food. Now all those anti-snobs are making sketti at home for two fatties and the civilized world is still enjoying their filet mignon with pest and shallots (a basic dish, i admit).

Your digital camera will basically never matter if you don’t make real prints. Use a sony a7. Usr a 5DII. No one cares except the guy (you) putting up with its shoddy autofocus and poor editing lattitude vs films near infinite highlight response.

No digital shit you engage in will ever hold a candle to film beyond the limited world of displaying jpegs on the internet.

>>4516732
*pesto
Tarragon specifically
Mmmm

File: P6030201.jpg (1.79 MB, 2048x1536)

1.79 MB JPG

>>4516677
Region in Austria, the Salzkammergut.
>>4516692
Noted. The other shot had people in it :)

>I just love the low effort of a snap shit.
You take a ton of pics and you find gold in the mix you didn't
know you even got.

>>4516732
>I haven't been to many galleries
Sad, I hope you can experience some more!

>>4516768
>excuse me chud, but my local art show had digital photography

>>4516729
67!

>>4516771
That's not how you greentext

>>4516452
if you cant figure out how to maximize your photos with limited capabilities/gear then youre ngmi

>>4516386
the tgs are pretty fun, had one for years. still my favorite bad weather camera