Thread 105628122

why would anyone by a camera?
it seems they are still being sold

altough price range of 100 euros have disappeared (was common in year 2006) there are now cameras that cost 500 eur or more

rarely there is anything chepaer

but I ask once again, what is the use case?
lets assume you have 500 euro phone which of course has a integrated camera

>>105628122 (OP)
>but I ask once again, what is the use case?
Good photos.

My camera doesn't require a battery.

>>105628225
Does it require some consumable media insteadv

>>105628225
thats a bit weird, there should be electricity involved

>>105628122 (OP)
Well, I'm a photographer and could have a sperg level autism fit over this post but I won't. Dedicated cameras offer more control over the photos you're taking. It's like a router/modem combo vs an OPNSense box and dedicated modem. Cell phone cameras are fine for most people but lack large sensors, better lenses, the ability to easily shoot RAW, control depth of field, exposure, ISO and hook up external flashes. Also megapixels are a meme. I shoot a full frame camera with 16 MP and the photos look far superior to my phone camera with 24 MP. If you have an actual use for a dedicated camera vs just using your phone you would know why you need a camera.

>>105628252
My guess is a film camera without any metering.

>>105628242
Yes, film.

>>105628287
Sound even more inconvenient.

>>105628122 (OP)
Taking pictures of things far away. Taking pictures of action when shutter lag is intolerable.

>be on vacation at Niagara falls
>some kind of brown family lining up to take picture
>walking by minding my own business
>brown man motions to me to take his phone and take picture of him and his family
>wave him off and say "no sorry"
>was legally not allowed to touch anything connected to the internet at the time because I'm convicted haxxor man
>brown man gets angry and accuses me of being racist
>can't really make out what he's saying because he's brown man that can't into English but I know that look
>keep walking while brown family points and yells at me in brown language

I wonder if they still tell their brown clan back home how racist Americans are.

I stopped later and took picture of nice Japanese family because as usual Japanese man had real camera. In fact, he had multiple cameras and a bag of dedicated camera equipment. Every Japanese tourist family I've ever met always has one of those guys in the group.

>>105628295
Well, I like it, and it's high resolution.

>>105628281
I totally forgot to add control over shutter speed.

>>105628281
Even my APS-C 18MP camera gives good results, but I have lots of high quality lenses. I should get a full frame one, I bet there's older digital cameras that aren't too expensive now, right? Not sure how I'd get my macro shots with a phone.

>>105628122 (OP)
There's a video that explains why super expensive cameras exist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjnTLcRCpfc
tl;dw for most use-cases a smartphone camera make most cheap cameras completely obsolete, the more expensive ones are useful only for making movie-like shit.

>>105628357
I loved my D3 which can be had for pretty cheap now the D700 uses the same sensor. I personally recommend Nikon because there is 50 years worth of cheap glass to be had for dirt cheap.

>>105628362
>the more expensive ones are useful only for making movie-like shit.
Yeah, na.
I can crop any portion of a full resolution photo from my camera and it'll look better than any downscaled image your phone shits out.

>>105628387
Ah, my current digital camera is a canon, so I made sure to get the EF lenses for full frame options down the road. One of my first cameras was a Nikon F3 though, so all the Nikon lenses I have are manual focus. That doesn't bug me though, I guess I can go either way brand wise.

>>105628122 (OP)
I have the cheap Canon 4000D.
These are some of the pictures I took with it
> https://tifelabs.com/v.0.2/public/photography.html

>>105628122 (OP)
If you plan to view the photo/video on any kind of a large platform - 55"+ TV, cinema screen, large poster, billboard by the side of the road, etc.
I have a Sony A6400 and I have a OnePlus 12. The camera is from 2019, the phone is 2024. When I view pictures and videos on my 55 inch TV, the ones that come out of the camera look fantastic, no matter the lighting conditions, whether the object or the shooter was moving i.e. taking photos/videos of sports or while shooting from inside of a moving car, while the phone pics look just okay, they look well enough if you shoot outside in daylight, but other than that, if you spend enough time looking at photos taken with an actual camera, you will be able to tell the difference 9 times out of 10 and you will almost always prefer the ones taken with the camera.

>>105628402
Any brand is fine don't let gearfags fool you. If you have Canon glass and it works with their older bodies that's fine. I don't know the Canon lens system, but your F3 lenses will work on Nikon digital up to the D850. I only specify Nikon because of all the years they used F mount. Easier to get cheaper lenses which is nice for someone getting into the hobby and trying to figure out what they like.

>>>/o/
>/g/ - Photography

>>105628122 (OP)
A dedicated device always does a better job than a multi-function device. A camera is a great example of this.

>>105628303
>as usual Japanese man had real camera
This is an understatement. I grew up in a Japanese family and every man has a camera or camcorder. We have so many pictures and footage all the way from super 8 to modern day stuff. I'm no different, I have a mirrorless I use for random stuff.

>>105628122 (OP)
>use case
making me happy

>>105628637
Japanese tourists are the nicest tourists I've ever met anywhere. It's like being in a time warp and going back to the small town I grew up in whenever I see them in family or large groups. I've only seen one Japanese person on vacation that was upset. A man with a small 2-3 year old daughter and his cute waifu. The waifu was upset with him and refused to sit with him on the bus. We were at disney world so I assume she didn't get to ride or do something she wanted to do.

The little girl they had laughed at me the entire ride because I looked like stupid gaijin. I gave her kawaii over priced pin I bought at disney store and the Japanese man snatched it out of her hands. But then when he saw I wasn't trying to murder her with poison he said it was kawaii too and gave it back to her. The waifu seemed less upset by the gesture and she took a seat next to him when I got off the bus.

I got really high on MDMA that night and gave away pins and toys to Japanese tourists. Only tourists at the park I could stand being around for longer than a few minutes. Everyone else was like walking human garbage.

Every single family I met on that trip from Japan had one dedicated camera man. I assumed it was common thanks for confirming.

Do you happen to know why the Japanese girls are the only tourists that don't dress like whores? Every one I've ever seen wears ankle length skirts or coveralls. Now and again I'll see the odd one in a knee length skirt. But they're always well dressed.

>>105628122 (OP)
Why is there no guide of what to buy?
Usually 4chan has come up with a bunch of pastebin, rentry, and meme infographics for each field imaginable.
But not for photography. Nor for video recording.

>>105628122 (OP)
why buy a tv when you have a phone? it has a screen
why buy a laptop when you have a phone? it can run programs
why buy a home theatre system when you have a phone? it has speakers
etc

>>105628682
just ask /p/

>>105628122 (OP)
Literally just go buy a camera with a 35 or 50mm lens and go figure it out before you feature creep yourself into buying $1k worth of shit that you are never going to use or care about. The best camera is the one you have and you can do a lot with even pretty basic cameras.

>>105628674
>Do you happen to know why the Japanese girls are the only tourists that don't dress like whores? Every one I've ever seen wears ankle length skirts or coveralls. Now and again I'll see the odd one in a knee length skirt. But they're always well dressed.
The japanese usually try to be modest however this isn't always the case. There are always some who like to be unique like gyaru. I would think most times when someone is successful enough to be a tourist they have grown up enough dress with modesty. It's hard to say though since shit with women is always a bit more confusing.

>>105628281
>sperg level autism fit
Please do

>>105628122 (OP)
lets assume you DONT have 500 euro phone

>>105628122 (OP)
mobile phones are shit with such tiny chip and tiny optic.. you need big ass chip and big ass optics

>but I ask once again, what is the use case?
to take photos

>>105628848
Too old and tired. I wasn't sure if OP was trying to bait. Seems like it was an actual question.

>>105628819
I only asked because it's very obvious they're Japanese because of the modesty. Over the last few years I've been dragged to a bunch of major tourist traps. The Japanese are the only ones that act like they have any sense left. The girls dress modest, they're always supervised by an older lady, they stick to their own group, they mind their own business, they know how to stand in line, they aren't loud, they don't spit on the ground, they don't walk around eating like slobs, and they are generally nice when approached or when they approach me. I know some of this has to do with the shame culture and the fact that the live in a somewhat decent society (on the surface anyway) but the difference between them and every other nationality (including my own now sadly) is really obvious.

I wasn't sure if they have some unwritten rule about how to behave while around gaijin or if this is just how they are all of the time. I know there are exceptions to the rule but it seems the ones that travel outside of Japan are nice people for the most part.

I can't say the same for others I have to deal with. Which are usually loud, annoying, don't know how to stand in line and do things like spit on the ground. Chinese tourists are really horrible along with South Americans. My father can't tell the difference between the different Asians. He thinks they're all Chinese. So he kept wondering why some of them are nice and others really rude. I had to point out that there are different kinds of slant eyes and they are from different countries.

I can't get over how much camera gear the average Japanese group lugs around. Usually people just lug around gopros or use their phone cameras. But the Japanese men seem like they're all really into /p/ autism.

>>105628122 (OP)
I have Olympus pen 5 camera that I bought 10 years ago, it shits all over the best phone cameras found to date. If you like shit photos use phone.

>>105628122 (OP)
I'm gonna answer genuinely
>Superzoom
Quality is about the same or better than a phone, but people buy these when they would be satisfied with a phone camera, but want more zoom
>DSLR/mirrorless
Bigger sensor+the ability to change lenses, the former improves image quality drastically because you can get more light in, the latter gives you a lot of options in terms of aperture and focal length

Also what >>105628281 said

>>105628340
I remember an OLD Afga I inherited fromy grandpa. I loved to play with the shutter speed control. At the slowest setting, you could see the shutter remain open for a second. It was a completely mechanical camera, from 1962 I believe. To this day, I don't completely understand how mechanical delays are made.
I should pick it up and oil it back to life.

>>105628122 (OP)
They're for taking photos, anon.

Toot toot.

>>105628122 (OP)
My Pentax K10D from 2006 still takes higher quality images than 500 euro phones with """50 megapixel""" cameras

>>105629544
ok, sure boomer.
I have a 300$ phone with a 200Megapixel(!) camera.
Technology evolved get over it.
SCameras are obsolete, newer samsung phones offer more zoom and shooting with very little light. and computational power in phones can do AI magic. no need to pay for overprized bricks.

>>105629575
YWNBARC. You are not getting 200 megapixels worth of resolution. The image sensors on smartphones are so small that they have terrible signal to noise ratio. Compare any photo from a tiny phone camera vs a real camera with a real man size sensor and the actual resolution and dynamic range is far better from the real camera. Real cameras also have far better quality lenses. "AI magic" is why photos taken from phones increasingly look like smeared oil paintings when you zoom in.

>>105628122 (OP)
I want to take photographs without ZOG tracking my every move.

>>105629602
Nah that is just photography gatekeeping
"acktshually you can not into photography unless you shill out 5000$ for a pRoFeSsIoNaL camera"
everyone knows that what matters is the result and phones have become superior to all the canon or more accurate can-not-unless-you-pay-for-the-lens-too shit.
cope harder because you fell for the photography meme.

>>105629575
Unfunny trolling is such reddit behavior. Kys

>>105629626
Don't get me wrong, the skill of the photographer matters more than what gear you use, and most people are happy with their phone cameras. But comparing objectively, a camera with a larger image sensor is going to be capable of higher resolution and dynamic range, and better low light performance. A larger pixel will have more photons hitting it than a smaller one.
BTW a camera that will outperform any phone is only around $100 used, not big money.

>>105628252
No it doesn't. They can be mechanicel. Just like watches

>>105628682
It's a complicated question (but not really). It depends what your photography goal is. Basically you need to have the ability to use the lens and lighting that fits your needs.

>>105629661
Don't bother with this retard he's a reddit tourist trying to be funny.

>>105628682
Buying guide for cameras in 2025:

- buy a cheap DSLR from the used market and a fixed f1.8 lens. $200 at the very max. Use it only in perfect light (direct light at sunset or sunrise) or in intentionally shitty light with iso to max in black&white
- Buy a flagship. $10k for a hasselblad or $5k for a Canon setup or similar
- Do never under any circumstances settle for the mid-range.
- If you're the quirky kinda guy maybe experiment with analog. It can be pretty fun as a rabbit hole to dive into

>>105628287
Based. What format? Do you print, or just scan? Are you a /fgt/?
>>105628283
You can have metering without electricity. (Or more precisely, without external source of electricity).

you don't sneed more

>>105629722
If you can get within 6 feet of your subject sure. Some people take pictures of wildlife or indians that take pictures of girls in bathing suits at the beach.

>>105628122 (OP)
that's why. There is no replacing real longer focal lengths

The 100 euro entry level camera of the past is now your smartphone.

this isn't that hard to understand. almost nobody needed a high quality camera. ever. most people just wanted something that recognisably captured a moment in time. enough to tell who was doing what in that moment
phone cameras have long since been good enough and even more convenient than the kind of cameras most people bought. remember, most people weren't buying high end cameras, they were buying something simple. they didn't know what most of the features were anyway. they left it on "auto" and pressed the shutter when they wanted a photo. smartphones fill that role just fine

the people who buy cameras /now/ are the kind who do and have always needed something more than those basic cameras, the ones smartphones replaced. only in special cases will someone consider a cheap camera now, like maybe they're old and just want something familiar, or it's being taken places it may easily be lost or damaged, where using your possibly expensive phone isn't a good choice. but the people who want high quality, specific-purpose lenses, whatever, are still buying cameras because smartphones never replaced the high end, not even close

>>105630130
oh and ps. i'm not a photographer, i've never owned a high end cameras, i'm just interested in technology enough to have learned enough about cameras to know there is a considerable divide between point-and-shoots/smartphones and high end cameras

>>105630031
>the 200mm chad vs the 20mm virgin
It's dick size all over again

>>105630156
20mm chad reporting in

>>105630247
*ignore the broken Ducky keyboard. I've since replaced the board and cleaned the keys. Still don't use it though because 60% is a meme.

I got this canon camera from a friend and sure enough, my phone can take nice pictures and all. But I experienced that on priority modes this is still a bit better than my phone. It has 2 fixed settings. I cannot change the aperture on my phone. I think the S25 has some virtual shit or whatever. These cameras are obviously more suited for people who take photography a little bit seriously.
I'm no photographer and some guy out of the blue, just by carrying a fucking camera, asked me to take a picture. It's weird, people look at you like you're good at this just by wearing a camera because people got used to phones that cost 300 bucks and are able to process images in 30 billion ways.
My only issue with photography is that it is an expensive hobby.

>>105628122 (OP)
Because the picture quality is ultimately determined by the size of the lens and your phone has a tiny lens.

>>105628122 (OP)
cameras have real optical zoom instead of the crappy pseudo-zoom of smartphones

>>105630031
It's been proven that it's not about focal length, it's the distance from the camera. I can't find the video rn but when the camera is close, the nose is twice as close to the camera as the ears. But when the camera is far away, they are relatively the same distance apart, at least compared to the distance from the face to the camera
You can do an experiment to prove this. If you take a picture of a face with a high megapixel camera, 20mm lens but from far away and crop the picture to just show the face, the face would be as flattering as taking the same face from the same distance with a 100mm lens but no cropping

>>105630706
To be fair they do put like 4 cameras on phones these days
Anyway, thinking of replacing my D5300 with a mirrorless. Thoughts /g/?

>>105631017
Source: my ass
Memory is unreliable anon. You could’ve just imagined the video.

>>105628122 (OP)
Yeah idk why they don't film movies on android phones instead of buying those big cameras.

>>105631056
i have a feeling the music videos filmed with current iphones is a scam.

>>105631042
Just do the damn experiment. Take a 20mm, stay 5m away from your subject's face and crop the face. Tell me your results

>>105628122 (OP)
stfu zoomer
If you actually think phones make acceptable photos you must be blind

>>105631017
it's a matter of how you define the experiment. in such pictures the magnification is fixed/normalised to produce a set of images which differ only by the effects of using different focal length lenses (which does also require changing the distance the camera is from the subject to achieve the same magnification)

you are correct that you can instead crop an image to get something like what you'd get from a longer focal length lens, though not exactly the same as if you had used a different lens, and of course you get a lower quality picture as you're effectively using less of the sensor's area

>>105628387
As someone who used to work support for Nikon, buy a Canon and a mount adapter. Nikon has great optics, but you're fucked the moment something goes wrong with your camera.
That whole D800 fiasco with the shutter flinging oil onto the sensor was a known design flaw, and we just weren't allowed to talk about it. So many of them came in for non-warrantee repair because of it, and the only thing we'd do is clean off the sensor and ship it back. The same camera might get sent in 2 or 3 times before the owner gave up. It was such a fucking mess.
Not to mention the artificially-limited software, specifically locking out certain features for lower end cameras (they can ALL do live video over USB, you just can't use it).

Great rifle scopes and binoculars, though.

>>105628122 (OP)
Yeah, but don't buy anything with a sensor smaller than APS-C class.

>>105628122 (OP)
If I'm making an instagram, would it be better use a dedicated camera or a phone? The zeitgeist now is to use as little filters as possible right? So DSLRs/mirrorless would be better

>>105631109
Nice try. I won't fall for your bait.

>>105631017
>cropping
Unless you're trying to identify a criminal or grab the license plate from a car or something in an "emergency", I seriously hope you guys do not do this.

>>105628122 (OP)
Depth of field.
Phones make flat sovless pics.

>>105631372
Also, their gorillion babby size pixels don't do tonal gradation well.

>>105628387
Haha imagine if you had photos of her peeing haha wouldnt that be weird?

>>105631276
yes.

I have an old compact olympus around, it's slightly better than my smartphone but likely worse than modern flagship smartphones. Also it doesn't help that it has problems stabilizing the photo if it's not highly illuminated unless I use flash. So yeah, I can understand why cheap digital cameras are not around anymore unless there's a nostalgia factor.

>>105631276
For Instagram, you need to make a video. Not every camera is good at this.

>>105631034
Unless you're upgrading to FF or want to start shooting video there's no reason to get Mirrorless. Worse battery life, new shitty lenses without an adapter, possibly new storage format. Not worth it if you have a working camera that does 99% of the shit the mirrorless can do.

>>105628303
Reminds me of when I was on holiday in Thailand and a lady wearing a headscarf and her daughter asked me to take a photo of them. I said sure and asked with a smile if they could take one of me too, they both looked disgusted and walked away. I don't know why that stuck with me.

>>105631238
I wouldn't buy a D800. The D3, D700, D4, D4s, D850 are the only Nikon DSLR Bodies I would recommend in 2025. Idk how their mirrorless game is these days but I don't have an actual reason to upgrade. My D4 has less than 100k on the shutter.

>>105631765
You missed the point pretty hard.

>>105631765
I shot their DSLR line for 10 years and switched to Z in 2020. I think the only advantage of the old F mount digital is battery life.

>>105631804
No, I don't think I did. There are several Nikon bodies with issues. As you said, won't get resolved by Nikon. The ones I listed are not known for having issues and come with F mount and 50 years of usable glass.

>>105628122 (OP)
Camera quality and resolution is infinitely better than phones and always will be, simply because of physics, you'll always need a big thick girthy lens to capture all the light and detail. You can upgrade your assortment of lenses and shoot all kinds of shots you're interested like ultra macro, ultra wide, portrait etc some phones have these lenses but they're small, weak and so low quality.
And a phone with the best camera quality will be equivalent to a decades old camera with shit quality and will be an extremely expensive phone. You'll buy that phone and after less than 3 years everything will be outdated and obsolete and you'll want to upgrade and it'll essentially become plastic trash. If you had instead spent half money you'd spend on that phone on a camera, you'd have something that would last you a decade and phone cameras still probably wouldn't have caught up, because they physically can't.

>>105631822
That's basically all I've concluded out of it looking into it as a strictly photography and no video fag. I have a bunch of D and G lenses so unless I want to use their $200 adapter or replace my soul glass with their souless z glass it seems like a downgrade.

>>105628225
ok grandpa you can show me your film rolls after your nap

>>105631860
>z glass it seems like a downgrade.
It's absolutely not. It's pretty shocking what optics designed for a digital sensor produce. Frankly, I'm happy they ditched the physical linkage for aperture and AF control and finally joined Canon in 1987 with electronic control. The FTZ works, but I just dislike adapters in general. I only kept 3 of my old F mount lenses and everything else got sold. The downside is, of course, cost.

>>105628122 (OP)
you can't replace hardware with software. the smartphone is not good at taking pictures.

>>105628122 (OP)
>>105628281
During lockdowns I needed a webcam, but webcams are shit and were being scalped. I thought a used Sony A6000 with a proper hdmi out would be a good option. While the sensor, maximum resolution and framerate are great, the auto adjustment for lighting and the image processor are really showing their age for video capture. Auto focus is also terrible. So I know it has the potential to work great, but it wouldn't be worth the effort compared to using an old smartphone for my price range at least.

>>105628225
no flash then?

>>105632043
Damn son I am old. My first camera was this little battery free kodak that used these one time use flashes.

>>105633832
Whoops forgot pic.

>>105633838
imagine the carbon footprint of that

>>105628225
many film ones do, to rewind and auto-focus and some other shit

>>105633871
or of wars

>>105629718
>format
8x10, I've had a few drum scanned, but I do contact prints that's why I like the size.

>>105628122 (OP)
because the photos out of a real camera mog smartphone photos

>>105628122 (OP)
dedicated equipment is usually better than a phone, thats the case with those cameras as well. A proper digital camera will have more MPs and many times bigger, optical zoom. You can also add some different lenses for certain use cases. Your average phone has very small , digital (worse) zoom and cant use any lenses really.

Any decent camera rec thats portable & light that doesn't require swapping out lenses and stuff? Tired of all my phone photos looking oversharpened and ai upscaled, picrel is a photo I took yesterday on my Pixel 7 where the sharpness just makes it look awful. I took a photography course ~10 years ago where I used DSLRs but would prefer something smaller if possible, it would be nice if I could fit it in a large pocket and pull out whenever. I don't care about video at all and mostly like to take pictures of landscapes/nature/architecture.

>>105636172
See if a Rico GR fits your needs. I use one, fits in my pocket. The 3 has a 28mm or 40mm option.

>>105636172
There is an entire board for photography. Don't fall for the gear chasing habit though. Get any cheap camera and use it until you feel you hit a wall with what you can do with it. Only then you should upgrade.

>>105628411
I like your website, photos are uninspired though
>>105631034
could be okay, what is your use case? what do you do with your camera?
I've got a D700 with a bunch ai converted and af-d lenses as my main camera and an a6000 with a 16mm as my daily point and shoot then I want something small I can pocket.
I shoot film too but thats a sperg niche tbf

>>105628281
If you have an android phone then download OpenCamera. Enable the Camera2 API. You can adjust many of those things you mentioned. Nigger

>>105631804
>You missed the point pretty hard.
the d600, d610 and d800 were and still are shit
all the bodies the other anon are solid
>but but muh canon shilling
pic rel was my 5d2 at 200k. canon makes cameras that break as much as nikon made cameras that break.
I've got 2 d700s 270k and 460k that keep shooting just fine

I have a use case where I needed something that took a “good enough” photo but was able to do it
>under water, fairly deep at times
>in any weather
>can be handled rough if needed
So I bought this, so far it’s fine. We’ll see how it really holds up to more than just a little mud in the future

Please tell me what I should buy to become a youtube grifter. I read some cameras get really hot while recording, or don't support certain video format. The cheap Sony ZV are supposedly no good and pushed hard by shills.

>>105628122 (OP)
Unless you're recording skateboarding tricks in slow motion, phone cameras are good enough

>>105631918
>Frankly, I'm happy they ditched the physical linkage for aperture and AF control
in lens motors on f mount have been a thing since 1992 and e type lenses came out in 2007
nikon only kept doing mechanical aperture and screw af for backwards compatibility

>>105636384
Still have a baby sensor, fixed lens and no flash control. Probably great for your average tard but I dof control, lenses and flashes.

>>105636443
I wouldn't trust a frogposter on how to wipe my ass, I sure as the shit on my anus wouldn't trust one on photography hardware, software, or techniques.

>>105636479
So who should I trust then, anon?

>>105636443
dedicated cameras are better to use
>>105636384
>install opencamera, that'll let you use external flashes, it'll also let you control depth of field on your fixed aperture camera
fucking indians man lmao, dont you have a roms to download and eastern europeans to harass on xda?
>inb4 some braindead response
dont care, read this nigger; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

>>105631740
I actually really wanted a medium format, not even full frame
The cameras and lenses are mad expensive though. Not a good financial decision at this point

>>105636360
I mostly like to do architecture, street, cars and landscapes. I was thinking of posting myself to instagram to show off and get zoomettes though

>>105636600
zero reason for you to buy a mirrorless unless youre cripplingly shy with a dslr while doing street and desperately need the e shutter
>get zoomettes though
hah, nice one
next youre gonna tell me that you bought a T420 and installed arch to attract women

>>105636600
>chasing zoomer girl fire emoji high
I can’t wait to see your work on the gram Ansel.

>>105633832
i'm only 35 and he makes me feel old for having used cheap manual winding/advancing film cameras
while most cameras i used at least had a battery for metering and flash, they were optional and the actual taking photos part didn't require electricity

>>105628873
this was bad in /rpt/ and it's still bad here

>>105637179
post your train fgt

>>105631758
Lmfao I believe this
Your story reminds me, I was just in Paris and was on the water taxi that takes you up the river to all the major stops

I saw a younger couple trying to take a selfie with the Eiffel tower behind them and when I see people struggling with selfies I usually offer to take the pic. They're usually grateful for the help. These two were no exception. They sounded and looked slightly foreign and I asked where they were from. They said Israel! Took me all my strength not to say "oy cry rough time to be jew eh?" Anyway I didn't. They asked if I wanted my picture taken too and I said "nah it's ok" but they were really friendly and we chatted for a few minutes after

Anyway thanks for reading my blog

>>105637475
**Oy vey

>>105628303
>at the time because I'm convicted haxxor man
lol what did you do?

>>105628122 (OP)
>why would you use a *insert specific tool here* when Swiss army knives exist?
kekphones can never and never will surpass the efficiency of the real thing it tries to replace for a certain use case

>>105628219
Not according to /p/, but hey...

Full resolution, maximum optical zoom of my 70-200 lens.

>>105639514
Full resolution, maximum optical zoom of my Xperia 1 VI.

>>105639514
>>105639521
phone photos can sometimes look alright right up until you compare it the same photo taken on a real camera

>>105639605
In this case, even when you crop down it is still clear.
That's not always the case. I am sure the periscope cameras have lower transmission than regular lenses, so there's a lot of loss coming with that optical zoom.
At some point I'll do more comparison photos using the main cameras in more favorable conditions.

>>105637475
Yeah I mean it's just Islam that beats you into conformity and makes you act weird and not even human. You get cucks like Kabib who can essentially have sex with dudes in an octagon but is too afraid to shake a woman's hand. Why even leave your house let alone your country if that's your mentality.

A real camera doesn't rely on """"""""""""""""""""ai""""""""""""""""""" and filters to make the pinhole lens look less shitty.
A real camera can actually zoom in.
A real camera (video) has both those benefits, and a microphone that isn't also a pinhole designed solely for picking up voice.

>>105628682
/p/ probably has one, but population rot affects every board and I wouldn't be surprised if that sort of resource fell by the wayside.

>>105629496
That's actually a very nice photo.

>>105642776
I can't speak to /p/ specifically, but /o/ is an old small board too and by the time /o/ put together its sticky in 2013 the population was already severely degraded. The motivation for the sticky itself was trying to preserve some institutional knowledge before literally everyone had moved on and left but it was already mostly too late.
The fate of the enthusiast boards is to lose enthusiasts in the general pop. And by enthusiast I just mean Doer.
Similar pop shift happened to /ck/ and /cgl/ where you end up with fans of things taking over, rather than amateurs/pros.