As someone who has decided to live without the distractions of a smartphone, can you recommend me 2 cameras?>1 camera suitable for everyday carry (pic related, it's my old camera from the time before smartphones I just dug up, I want to go back to that "simpler" time), recommend me the best there is available today>1 professional style camera, I'm considering strongly the Canon EOS R6 Mark III, not sure which lens to get, looking for a lens that is multipurpose so I can just get one initially
Rx100, whichever generation you can affordNikon z5 with 24-120 f/4
>>4517381>Canon EOS R6 Mark III, not sure which lens to getI googled this topic and foundhttps://thrumylens.org/photography/best-lens-for-the-canon-r6-mark-iii-if-you-only-buy-one/
>>4517382>Nikon z5seems cheap, isn't it trash?
>>4517384>>4517382https://cameradecision.com/compare/Canon-EOS-R6-Mark-III-vs-Nikon-Z5
>>4517384oh ok it's a troll thread I hope you die of explosive diarrhea in front of your parents
>>4517386not at all, I just wonder why you recommend me a clearly inferior camera to the one I mentioned having set my sights on. If anyone can be accused of trolling, it should be you.
>>4517387>asking /p/ for the best camera>expecting them to tell you the best camerathis is a filthy commie board, no one wants to see you succeed or be happy
OP here, I am anxious to find out if this old camera in the OP pic still works, initially it seems like it's dead, maybe because the battery is still too weak, I am anxiously waiting
>>4517391holy fucking shit, it still works, but after 30 seconds it shut down bcs battery. Am charging it and so excited to see how it compares in performance to my phone. I haven't used this camera in at least 12 years
>>4517387>why you recommend me a clearly inferior camerathen buy the z5 II. also if you don't know anything about cameras how do you even know it's worse?also can you point out which canon lens is 24-120 f/4? thanks
>>4517381>everyday carryLumix TZ series>professional style cameraLumix S1 or S5 seriesWhy Lumix? Best feature set / functionality. Canon's crippleware for example does not allow activating Zebras in still photo mode although they have it in video.The thing with the top selling brands like Canon, Nikon, Sony, is that they sell based on marketing/brand recognition. They don't actually care to make good products anymore because they know people will buy whatever slop they make regardless.
>>4517399could you recommend specific models?
>>4517399>Lumix TZ seriesi gues the most expensive one is the best one?Panasonic Lumix DC-TZ300
>>4517402Depends on what you want.You get more zoom and a tilting screen with ZS99 but a smaller sensor.
>>4517405bigger sensor better, right?
>>4517381To replace a phone? Neither of them can make calls though...
>>4517407Pretty much. Smaller sensor produces noisier images than larger, with the difference becoming more noticeable in darker lighting conditions..
>>4517410I don't need all the bullshit that comes with a phone. I have an IP phone in my study
>>4517410BTW fuck you with your troll shit
>>4517391Turns our this camera is dog shit it's actually worse than my phone after comparing
Maybe a keychain or something cheap like cybershot tx1 or any random camera at amazon
picture using the camera in OP
using phone in same circumstancesboth kinda crappy in having all letters sharp, but phone seems even worse?
>>4517454the letters on the right side of the page are completely washed out,, and this is not a one time freak occurence, I notice all the time that phone sucks to take pictures of text, only the center is sharp
>>4517452>>4517454even if you zoom in on the center where both are kinda sharp, the camera absolutely destroys the phone, look at the "M" in Moses in chapter 23 verse 3, night and daythe phone does have more accurate color it seems
>>4517452holy fucking shit, /p/ was right all along, sony does make everything look green
>>4517458nevertheless the text is way sharper in the green sony picture
>>4517454which phone?it seems decent, not like modern AI abominations.The main reason to use a compact camera vs a phone that's capable of decent image quality is for long optical zoom.Also direct control dials are nice on cameras.
>>4517475MakesamsungModelSM-A137FFocal length4.0 mmAperture1.8Exposure1/50ISO50FlashOff, Did not fire
>>4517384af is poor, had it for a few yearsfirmware updates didn't improve it muchz5II is fine however, buy used or on discountz6II/z7II are okay, only issue i had with it was focusing on eyes where it would go to eyelashes or glasses instead
>>4517506For the quality I would have assumed an older phone.Maybe it's the subject that does not trigger bad processing.Pic related is the kind of processing I expect to see on a modern phone.
>>4517547Phone suck balls. My picture is super up close of a piece of paped
>>4517442kek why am I not surprisedthere's a reason phones ate up the digishit market
>>4517750To be fair that camera is really old, was not a top tier one hack when I bought it, and still the picture was sharper than the phone
>oh my SCIENCE im a heckin enlightened "dumbphone" user and yes I read Jordan Peterson and Meditations
>>4518318Why does it bother you
>>4517381If you don't mind shitty quality, there are many brand new compact cameras for less than $100€ that just have a smartphone camera build in. no moving parts. just flat device. If you want optical zoom and good quality you need to spend more. Back then you had to pay a decent price $200E to get decent quality too. Inflation adjusted maybe $400€ today.
>>4518340He’s malding because hasidic jews and the kids of tech billionaires don’t use smartphones. They do not get high off their own supply. Kids actually end up with permanent developmental delays from using iThings. Phones are THE goyslop and everything about them is why we’re fucked. Once you get into the master class of society nobody uses them except when absolutely necessary. Smoking a bowl of pot every day is better for you than using a smartphone. Yes, it’s that bad.
>>4517452use the flash nigga
>>4517381
>>4521475Ohhh noooo>nikon zf does not have this problem>even micro four thirds is better
>>4521484>>4521475Was thinking of getting an S9 for the same reason as OP. Is it really that bad?
>>4521595They basically did everything they could to avoid making a camera that anyone would prefer to the leica Q or to any of their m4turd offerings, so it totally lacks all of the features that make a camera better than a phone besides a lens mount and a normally sized sensor
>>4521595Its literally the perfect compact travel camera because it actually has small lenses.
>>4521619L mount doesn't even have a real pancake lens.Nikon has the most small lenses. Not only do they have their own pancake lens and muffins, they can use all of viltrox's Z mount versions, adapt all of sony E mount with the ETZ21 pro, and adapt any and all leica M lenses with focus confirmation in MF with the MTZ 6 bit adapter (and, unlike panasonic, canon, and snoy, do so without losing corner/edge image quality).The Nikon ZF is literally the perfect travel camera. The S9 is kind of a worse a7c, which is a much worse ZR.
>>4521622my god, it even has a viewfinder hump. it's for alpha males.
>>4521622Nikon is based too but they dont have a tiny 18-40 and their 40/2 isnt as small as Panasonics oneS9 > ZF > Snoy
>>4521629>Give up literally every feature that makes a camera a camera to have a terrible zoom range, a marginally smaller toy lens, worse everything, and no pancakespanasonic shills give snoys a run for their money
>bigger>worst zoom range>widest is only 28mmWhat was Sony thinking?
>>4521637Panasonic is vlogger sonySony is photography panasonicOne is a toaster companyThe other is a stereo companyYou're getting junk either way and only arguing video codecs vs autofocus and ultrawides vs traditional focal lengths
>>4521475>Literally the same exact camera and mount but better in every wayt. Sigma
sure thing anon sony rx100 mk 1 and canon r8 i do not own either
>>4517381The ones you feel like using
>>4517381>1 camera suitable for everyday carryRicoh GR II through IV depending on how rich you are.>1 professional style camera, I'm considering strongly the Canon EOS R6 Mark IIIThat's fine. I prefer Nikon but Canon is great too.
>>4517381A tough P&S. TG-7 or whatever. Rationale: While it's not "the best" in small format image quality, a tough is lintproof so it can be actually pocketed. And it can go where a phone or a fancier camera can't.Whatever modern body you fancy + a journalistic zoom for it. All major brands are good enough the weak link is the photographer.
Would you consider keeping a smartphone on you for pictures? Keep the data off so it's not distracting.
