Z10 cult edition

HP R837, mediocre camera, but very comfy form factor

>>4427899

>>4427898 (OP)
Really havent taken one of these out in a long time... Hard to choose them over a dslr or film cam. Somehow im alway happy with my digishit results though.

>>4427908

>>4427900
>HP R837
based, i had one of picrel myself for a time, looks similar without the slider. but the only remaining photo is a portrait of my mom which i'm not sharing lel.

One of my cameras has this haze over all the images. any idea what's causing it? I don't readily notice anything on the lens. Unless whatever may be on the lens is so fine and evenly distributed that things appear normal.

>>4427898 (OP)

>>4427926
If cleaning the lens with a microfiber cloth and cotton swab doesn't help, you might have some contaminant within it, like condensation or mold. The only time I got photos like this was when I bought a cam with fingerprints all over the lens.

Anyone have a cheap digishit point and shoot suggestion? I was looking at some CCD ones but it looks like tiktok has inflates the fuck out some of them.

>>4428092
look for brands that aren't popular, like HP, casio, ricoh and so on. they're still cheap from what i can see.

>>4428097
picrel from my old hp M417. Neat little thing, parents actually bought it for me as a "senior year" present back in like 2005 or something lol.

>>4428097
Daaaang I've been wanting a 1MP camera. Ty bro.

>>4428099
some of the fuji cameras made in the late 90s that are around the 1mp range (some less some more) are actually quite interesting. i had one that worked basically more or less like a focus-free 35mm camera. saved photos onto those old smartmedia cards that look like a comically oversized SD card. fun stuff.

>>4427912
dang i didnt even know there was another model, interesting. Such a comfortable camera to hold and use I love it. Doesnt do well in low light but none of these do really.

>>4428115
Oh, looks like it has a touch screen which I guess is an upgrade. I love how you can charge these with just a mini USB cord and standard USB adapter.

>>4427988
love it!

>>4428097
I can vouch for the HP Photosmart 435, no expert but I liked the pics it took

>>4428099
i love how chonky and overbuilt the late 90s/early 2000 ones are. They all use AA batteries as well.

>>4428097
> needs repair
> NOT TESTED
> as is
just try to pick something from salvation army or your country equivalent or even facebook marketplace, ebay is such fucking bullshit with these people selling broken shit like it is some sort of vintage holy grail

>>4428143
>EXEC 3+++
>Covered in filth
>Rust in battery compartment
>Paint peeling off
>We take Japanese pride
>There IS many fungus
>Might turn on
>Apperance is Beautiful

70% price of functional one.

I swear to god the used camera market is analogous to expensive jewelery, where nobody wants to admit what they bought isn't somehow worth a profit after 10 years of being neglected.

>>4428092
Hit the thrift stores. Stuff to keep in mind:
If it uses AA, check for battery leakage. If it doesn't look to bad, you can neutralize it with vinegar.

For lithium battery packs, you can get 3rd party replacements w/charger for pretty cheap off eBay. If you're lucky, the camera might even charge the battery off micro USB.

Early 2000s cameras might not recognize the higher capacity SD card standards (SDHC SDXC SDUC) So you might have to go online for cards. Same with Compact Flash cameras.

Older Sonys use Memory Stick. Old cameras of many brands might use xD or Smartmedia. They're not hard to obtain, just an extra step towards your exploration in digishittery. Really old, and novelty cameras might only have on-board memory and use some weird USB plug (and requires software to import.)

>>4428092
Check some of the Kodaks. The Chinon designed ones have the best colour science of any digicam I've seen and have decent durability. My DX6490 is still alive and kicking. The newer Asia Optical designed ones aren't too bad either, just the Flextronics designed ones (the silver boxes) seem to have the worst reliability.

>>4428100
Bro, wtf are these prices?

>>4428227
That weird vertical model line might be inflated because Leica used it to make its digilux camera maybe? Dunno lol, something like the Fuji a101 looks like it’s still cheap. Lot of volatility I think just cause Fuji is a better known brand.

>>4428227
lmao these fucking people, don't even bother see >>4428147 the only way these kind of things are worth it is if you can get them on an auction at a reasonable price, theres some ebay guy that goes by muracame they list interesting rare stuff every now and then. chasing this stuff became an obsession, I need to stop.

>>4428234
I know how you feel. Unfortunately for me the cameras I chase are really expensive. I only need a couple more pieces for the system and I'll be happy.

>>4428119
Thanks.

I sold my nearly 20 year old 8mp Canon ixus snapshit camera to some dumb Arab bitch for 200$. Couldn't believe it.

I got a coolpix l27 for free from me mum (keep it in me car that) and sometimes find digishits at yard sales for $5 and sell them on ebay for bout 100 clams a snapper

Anyone have a good SD card recommendation? I have some Kodak C533s I'm gonna hand out to my nephews at a family reunion to get pictures. Any suggestions to get some 1gb sd cards. Preferably in bulk.

>>4428143
friend, you can buy a lot of five decent digis for $20-50 and most of them will be fine. Its fun. If you really want to be sure its 100 percent working then there are plenty of ebay listings that show the camera switched on. The problem is that often the original battery is worn out so they are sold 'untested'.

>>4428330
why tf are those 2010s Canon Elph cameras worth so much money now? I sold one for $300

>>4428618
I'm guessing because you can run CHDK on them. I sold one the other day 10 minutes after listing it. I have another really beat up looking, but fully working one that I priced up, but is still getting views.

>>4428618
>>4428661

In Sweden the trend for buying "vintage digital" is quite low, but there are demographics of third worlders that like "shiny thing" will throw money at it without any research.

The girl bought it for "vlogging", so I can only assume she wants that lo-fi aesthetic for whatever reason. More likely she is dumb and saw relatively well kept camera and wanted.

New SD cards don't work optimally, I told her this, and said the camera is from 2008, and nope, still wanted it.

Oh well, 200 bux is even nicer.

>>4427898 (OP)
Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z10.

I love this thing, very well laid out controls, nice ergonomics. Just need to get good at pick chers. $20 Z10 gang.

>>4429142
Full zoom baby bun bun

Olympus C7000.
Lens was stuck. I cycled the power like a dozen or more times over a few days and it finally extended. But the brand new battery seemingly died after a few shots.

>>4427898 (OP)
>sold an $8 snapshitter last year for $100 because didn't think I wanted it anymore
>just paid $300 for the same camera as wasn't able to find a refurbished flagship phone that could replace it for less than $500
Life is suffering.

I apologize if it seems like I don't know what I'm talking about, but what's the ThinkPad equivalent in the world of digital cameras?
>relatively inexpensive on the used market (don't laugh, i have $350)
>no useless crap I won't need like livestreaming functionality or god knows what else
>somewhat robust, can take a few bumps and dings
>just... works, for the most part.
I'm planning to get into photography as a hobby, I'd like to be able to do albums of local farms nearby. Don't intend to make a cent off of it, obviously.
Used to use a Canon T7 in high school, so I'm somewhat familiar with how those operate. But I'm a poorfag...

>>4429405
D200 or fuji s5pro if you want the best skintones.

>>4429406
someone on /p/ is definitely selling a d200 and an s5 pro after getting bored with 10mp and 3 ISO settings

>>4429428
No I love my s5pro. 6MP is perfect for web sharing. It's exactly in the price range that anon was asking about.

>>4429429
>s5 pro
Its in the same price range as a 5dIII/D750 and more than a 5d classic for an ultra limited meme machine that isn’t in shit condition or part of the run with extra busted autofocus (and it doesnt have af fine tune).
>d200
At least it’s $75 but the d300 is strictly better and overlooked because of ignoramuses memeing about monochrome sensor tech affecting colors in ways other than electronic noise

>>4429405
d3100

>>4429430
S5 pro has much better colors than the 5d3. Sorry I upset you nerd.

>>4429433
What doghair thinks his gear opinions sound like
>Hey, Tim Flach here back from another adventure in animal photography. Today, I'd like to tell you about a very special camera...
What he actually sounds like
>*pantpantpant* phepherd 5 proof has woof bark than the 5dog barkbarkbark sorry woof puppy woof bark *shakes* *gets hair in developer tray*

>>4429405
Micro four thirds is now in digishit territory, and $350 with some deal hunting could land you an EM5II and 20mm f1.7 II

>>4429440
Sounds better and much more based than paragraphs of angry rambling.
Dogs are the best test subject for any camera. If you don't have a dog and photograph it you simply do not know much about cameras, and especially their performance! It's a simple fact. Big sorry!

>>4429405
A lot of cameras have had wifi, gps, phone connectivity etc for a while. But the good thing is if you don't want to use it, they don't force it on you (ie. having to "sign in" just to use the camera.) At most it's just an extra option you'll find in the menus.

I've never used it, but Canons have CHDK available to unlock additional functions. And probably why Powershots still go for pretty good money.

If you want to go the interchangeable lens route, Micro4/3 will give you access to just about any old glass you can find.

>>4429406
can you really say a d200 is "digishit"

>>4429405
low end: go to estate sales and buy a bunch of $1-$5 compact cameras, pick a favorite and sell the rest (that work) to zoomers for $50+ each
high end: the olympus om-d e-m5 and e-m1 mark 1 and mark 2 models are the nicest digishits available (they are still digishits tho)

>>4429604
All digital cameras are basically digishits, but that is okay.

>>4429604
>CCD: blue/violet more vibrant
>CMOS: yellow/red more vibrant
I've noticed this trend and it's consistent for nikon, leica, canon, and pentax. Is the less vibrant yellow/red the CCD skin tone secret?

>>4429627
Large picklepitch, maybe. I bet that has something to do with it as well.

>>4429635
6-7 micron pixels (d200, m8, s5 etc) are not really huge. Close enough to 20-24mp FF.

I think it's trends in CFA dyes and the only thing the sensor tech changes is noise levels.

>>4429616
This sounds like a cope from someone who hasn't owned a nice foolframe.

>>4429640
Thats pretty humungo compared to what we have today tho, yeah? I don't know anything about cfa stuff so I didn't mention it.
I think it could be a combo of all the things that just make it have better colors, and I really do think better colors is way more important than how many megapickles you got in the jar.

>>4429641
Oh brother! I have 3 medium format digital backs and a gosh darn 5dm3. When compared directly to my 8x10 film sensor, yes they are just snapshitters. The multi inch sensors are not always worth whipping out tho. Shallow dof and slow operation can be very limiting when photographing dogs, sadly.

>>4429643
I will consneed to the fact that huge film stocks will btfo digital every day of the week
However, you must also admit that the practicality of whipping the whip out for most photos is not worth it in terms of time, weight, bulk, and cost (of film).
Foolframe digital is small format remember?
- Ren Kockwell

>>4429660
Remember what wisdom Sir Kenneth Rockwell bestowed upon us, "It's not the size that matters, it's how you use it."

>>4429662

>>4429673
This sounds like cope from someone who hasn't owned a big film camera.

I am officially derailing this thread since it turned into gear talk, did you know flowers have these things inside them that look like dog dicks ? crazy.

>>4429692
That looks like a dick and balls. What's this about dog dicks? Do you have dog dicks on the brain? You see a dick and think of dogs? Is there something you want to tell us?

>>4429692
>spanish speaker
>sees dog dicks everywhere
los abominacions de favela

Trip to the arcade with Z10, this is an excellent racing game called Sega Turbo from 1982

>>4429998

>>4429998
Mutoid Man

>>4429998
nobody played this

This damn thread made me buy 2 fuji digishitters. Both 2MP or less. I think they'll be fun to use.

I love how extremely ugly this camera is.

Pentax Z10 supremacy

>>4430147
noice

I did it. Won an auction for like half the price they normally sell for. Ordering a usb adapter or card reader, so pics in a couple days.

It works and is a very cute little camera. It says hello and goodbye.

>>4431059
Backshot for glory.
I need to learn japanese now also.
The round lcd is pretty sweet if you ask me.

>>4431059
>>4431060
cute cam, it's the basis for a leica camera so there's that.

>>4431087
>1.5 square inches of leather
>red dot

5x the cost. Very nice. Do you know if it has a different lens?

>>4431104
according to the dpreview press release from back then, it's identical internally.

>>4431107
Nice. Saved a few bucks. I'm going to try inverting, profiling, then printing the images on 8x10 OHP sheets and then contact print them. It should be quite the look.

>>4431060

>>4431180
Top left still confuses me, but I got the rest figured out. Thanks!

Sony XC-711

fuji xq1 is borderline digicam at best, but it's probably still the best place to post htis

>>4431491
trippy

>>4431491
circuit bent?

Fujifilm FinePix JX500.

Here it is. Fujifilm finepix 4700x. Hit auto in lightroom.

>>4431580
Kind of, but not really.

It's mostly just a dongle to mux the color channels. It can only capture one at a time, so they get captured sequentially and composited back into a single full color image. The rainbow blur is just a car smeared in a slightly different place on each channel.

>>4431733

This is Sooc

A truly powerful camera.

>>4431736
Oops pic.

>>4427898 (OP)
Got this shitter from work for free a while back
Powershot A1200
Brand new in box.
They have several others that have been sitting that I might try and nab. Few older ones that might be cool to play with.
I really should start carrying this little guy around. Yeah my phone will probably BTFO but idk.

How do you anons cope with phones vs full ILC/manual cameras, or even something like the Ricoh GRs like where do digishitters fall in 2025? Tell me your philosophy. I understand fun and feeling and "cause I like it" argument, so if it's no deeper than that, that's all it has to be, but I wonder who some of you anons are.

>>4431950
honest optical zoom from a digishit produces less uncanny photos that smartphones forced ai hdr, ai noise reduction, ai face detection and skin smoothing, ai tone equalization, etc

imagine if this camera shot raw. would you really run it through the whole topaz suite, and then dxo just to be sure? because thats what phones do (but worse due to less processing power) in addition to sending apple an "anonymized hash"* to make sure its not cp*

*phones are closed source at the hardware level and can do whatever the manufacturer wants no matter what they tell you now. many intel powered laptops run a second os that glowies can access with a 5g radio. it's nuts.
*if they can tell whats to say photos of police activity wont be next, or god knows what else, pictures of muhammad?

I now own a camera with an EVF. This one is not quite as charming as the 4700x. Still has a good ugly look to it.

So you guys are the ones buying all the kodak easyshares on ebay

>>4431976
The iPhone sharpness filter you can't turn off makes any photo you take with it DOA

Wtf? This 2MP camera I paid 20 bucks for takes better looking pictures than my 2024 phone!

This camera >>4432454 It really has that classic digishitter look to it as well. Very very nice.

Hey digishitters. Any recommends on a CCD compact with RAW? Something lowish MP and preferably with some kind of optical zoom.
Seems like everything I find in the digishit category either doesn't shoot RAW or relies on digital zoom.

>>4432899
Why do you need raw for a 2 MP camera?

>>4432905
>Why do you need anything. Why even buy a camera, just look for longer faggot
Bro either be helpful or move on.

>>4432909
>no no spoonfeed me google searches without anything in return! Please I am useless!

Answer me, cunt.

>>4432910
I asked for help on a forum after doing some moderate research and looking because I can't seem to find anything that fits the bill.
You've decided to go
>Why do you even sneed X
You're a nigger. Fuck off.

>>4432912
>I refuse to answer your simple question simply because I'm a huge cunt

Yes we all know that. Now answer me.

>>4432912
Sure! Here are a few compact point-and-shoot cameras with CCD sensors from the 2000–2010 era that shoot RAW:


---

1. Panasonic Lumix LX3 (2008)

Sensor: 1/1.63" CCD

Lens: 24–60mm f/2.0–2.8 (equiv.)

RAW support: Yes (Panasonic RW2)

Notes: Cult favorite for its fast lens and Leica-like output.
---

2. Canon PowerShot G10 (2008)

Sensor: 1/1.7" CCD

Lens: 28–140mm f/2.8–4.5 (equiv.)

RAW support: Yes (CR2)

Notes: Classic G-series compact with full manual controls.
---

3. Nikon Coolpix P6000 (2008)

Sensor: 1/1.72" CCD

Lens: 28–112mm f/2.7–5.9 (equiv.)

RAW support: Yes (NRW format)

Notes: Built-in GPS, limited to older Nikon software or RawTherapee for decoding.
---

4. Ricoh GX200 (2008)

Sensor: 1/1.7" CCD

Lens: 24–72mm f/2.5–4.4 (equiv.)

RAW support: Yes (DNG)

Notes: Highly customizable UI, beloved by street photographers.
---

5. Leica D-Lux 4 (2008)

Sensor: Same as LX3 (1/1.63" CCD)

Lens: 24–60mm f/2.0–2.8 (equiv.)

RAW support: Yes (DNG)

Notes: Rebadged Panasonic LX3 with minor firmware changes and red dot.
---

Would you like a list of even earlier models or larger CCDs (like the Sigma DP1 with Foveon)?

You suck at the internet. No wonder you're such a salty little beotch.

and we wonder why the board is dying lmao

xq1 again

>>4431950
not sure what you are talking about but i enjoy the convenience of a small digicam and i enjoy the lo-fi look of primitive digital cameras too. i have 2 apsc bodies, 3 35mm film bodies, a 645 and a 6x6, and a gfx. i simply like fooling around with different platforms

>>4432995
no you know what, based opinion. we all like cameras here. click shutter make picksure.

Fujifilm FinePix JX500.
I came across this accident this morning just after the ambulance had arrived. The person was still in the car, and you could see a paramedic looking inside. I don't know the trapped person's condition.

I didn't want to get too close and so had to crop a lot (the lens on this camera is pretty scratched up and gets worse when I zoom). Besides, to get much closer, I would have had to stand in the middle of the road (also I still find it difficult to take pictures of people).

This is one of those rare times I wish I had a better quality camera with me.

>>4433677
Literally any sort of medium telephoto capability would have solved this.

>>4433696
True, but I had what I had.

>>4433704
Nah I get you man. I just mean any camera with a longer zoom could have helped. There's compacts with 150mm equiv. zoom, you don't need to go nuts and hammer down five grand on some bulky shit.

>>4433708
Yep, you're right.
I should be glad I was carrying a camera in the first place. I could also have found a way to get a little closer but it was a tense scene and I didn't want to be in the way.

Kodak Easyshare M420
Saw some exotic Italian cars doing pulls downtown Ottawa yesterday. Took this right as he mashed the gas pedal.

Should I buy a Sony cybershot or a Canon powershot, or just go straight to something like an RX100. I just want a cheap secondary cam that can live in my car or backpack.

>>4433787
getting to goof off with a coven of goth girls.. lucky!
>>4433262
thanks for noticing
>>4433677
>to get much closer, I would have had to stand in the middle of the road
cope. there are literally three guys already in the road
>also I still find it difficult to take pictures of people
ok it's good to admit it. i suggest you push yourself to get closer regularly, even if only a little

>>4434027
Fair criticism. It turns out Robert Capa was right after all. Something I going to work on.

>>4427898 (OP)
Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z10.

>>4432899
Any post-2004 Canon + CHDK.

Been experimenting with my 2MP camera. I have it set to the absolute lowest settings.

There's something I really like about these pictures, especially this one.

>>4435086

>>4435087

>>4435088

>>4435089

>>4435090

>>4435091

>>4435092
Last one for now. These ultra low resolution pics have a very interesting aesthetic to them.

What do you think?

Anyone got suggestions for a camera that looks cursed? I think someone here posted pics from one where every pic it took it looked like the nun from the conjuring was gonna appear in the corner, I'm talking a camera so shit it can make any situation look like lost media from a 2012 creepypasta.

>>4435099
One of the earlier vivitar vivicam's (with digital lens, not zoom) should work.

>>4427988
Checked and fantastic

>>4428097
>not popular
>ricoh
OK nigga

>>4435099 If we are talking cursed shitty digital cameras, none can top the Sony FD Mavica

>>4435570

>>4435572

>>4435573

>>4435574

>>4435575

>>4435495
Thanks.

what's the definition of a digicam? Does it have to be point and shoot and CCD?

>>4435961
digishit checklist
>no interchangable lens
>digital
>shit

Fujifilm FinePix J20.

I'll be joining you guys soon

Got into the "digicam" fad.
Still learning to nail the focus and shutter speed.

>>4437866
Forgot to add, the camera is a Canon SX130.

>>4432529
>This 2MP camera I paid 20 bucks for takes better looking pictures than my 2024 phone!
I know it's bait, but the photo sure look good.
2MP remembers my of the old Nokia E63 I gave to my old man. The number of megapixels is totally irrelevant to how good a photo can look, some cameras just take good photos not matter now many details they can fit.

That Canon SX130 I'm using, is 12mp, but I'm perfectly satisfied shooting at 6mp.

I had an old Kodak ps but I threw it out recently because I couldn't find the charger anywhere

>>4437870
Phones just make gnarly looking pictures with the oversharpening and all that crap. I guess they have to because the sensor is so small or whatever.

>>4437866
Try setting the camera to vga resolution. Kino machine.

>>4437922
>Phones just make gnarly looking pictures with the oversharpening and all that crap

Not if you use HedgeCam 2.
Look, "this phone shoots like film!".

>>4437922
>Try setting the camera to vga resolution. Kino machine.
I'll certainly do this once in a while.

>>4437929
Wow based filmic type phone shot.

>>4427908
>>4427911
Absolutely love these. What camera did you use for these shots?

Do you like this one

>>4437956
or this one better

>>4437955
Was just two different old phones

>>4428618
dumbass zoomer girls saw them in a tiktok. same thing applies to all those W series cybershots. they shop solely based on "vibes"

Fujifilm FinePix JX500.

>>4427898 (OP)
Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z10.

>>4433677
nive photo desu

>>4438831
Thanks.

Fujifilm FinePix J20.

Camera is not that old, but for how much it is beaten and the amount of fungus in the lens I expected worse quality.

(Canon SX30 Is)

>>4440757
Unless your lens has a mushroom dead center, or it looks like you wrapped a doily over it, I doubt the fungus will truly affect your image much.

eternal suffering to the sony engineers who invented memory stick

>>4441448
Hasselblad solved that with 1TB internal memory. Memory cards are so 2024.

>>4441461
>1TB internal memory
Is that supposed to be a lot. I have 20 CFexpress cards, all 4TB that I use every time I'm taking pictures for more than an hour.

>>4441466
You do not need more than 1TB when photographing with a hasselblad. Each and every image comes out perfectly. Most photoshoots are finished in minutes.

>>4441466
>>4441461
you don't even need that much

>>4441473
The average hasselblad photoshoot produces less than 1 gigabyte of photos, every single one perfect.

Gentlemen, I am fully committing myself to digishit.
I'm making a movie entirely on this SONY camcorder. I've already posted in the current video thread. This movie is going to be amazing.

https://darkspellcaster2.gumroad.com/l/rhpfvb?_gl=1*gg7786*_ga*MTc4ODAyMjU3OC4xNzUwODY0Mzc1*_ga_6LJN6D94N6*czE3NTE0NzA3MzYkbzQkZzEkdDE3NTE0NzE2MjIkajE5JGwwJGgw

Fujifilm FinePix JX500.

Thinkin about putting this lil guy back into service. Found him in a box of old stuff recently. Been trying to get a pocketable setup for my current setup but it's nothing like this.

>>4443737
>>4443738

Fuck yeah

>>4443738
similar theme here

>>4443177
I had this exact model, got it for $5 before the pawn shops around me cottoned on to the digishit trend. I took some of my favourite photos ever with that thing, was all I used for about four months (and I have a full-frame Sony and a Pentax DSLR). I ended up smashing it in a drunken fit of rage; such is life. I'll post some photos from it after I post these ones I took today with my Ixus 170.

most of these exceed the file size limit. the only thing /dst/ about the Ixus 170 seems to be its form-factor.

>>4443177
here's some W180 shots

that'll do
there's a lot of fun to be had with a digishit

one more

Sony Cyber-shot DSC-P100

creeper

this 21yo $20 Z10 looks better than my $1k Pixel 9 pro XL

>>4434052
absolute cinema

Any anons here own this cam?
Manufactured and designed by Asia Optical from what I could find.
There was a sale the other day for 100 burger bucks, decided to buy a brand new one to replace my 16 year old Easyshare since this one has a lot more manual settings to play with.

>>4444910
unsurprising, given how equivalence works and the utter size of the entrance pupil on that unit

a cloud?

>>4445031
Quite the load there, Mr. Serrano.

>>4444943
Thanks.

>>4445045
i don't know what that means
>>4445071
cool

>>4428227
Highway robbery, that's what they are

>>4445164
its a weird form of leica tax since these were basically rebraded and sold as Digilux. ontop of the market snapping up old digishits like crazy.

>>4440757
I want time to go out and try my hand!
This one is probably the best photo I took so far.

>>4445156
https://allenartcollection.oberlin.edu/objects/1241/untitled-vii-ejaculate-in-trajectory

>>4445314
I don’t want to look at that

Fujifilm FinePix J20.

Voigtlander Virtus D4 for 50€, yay or nay?

>>4446045
nay
see what you can get for free or >10€

>>4444073
>>4444081
>>4444083
awesome. saved the last one
>>4444086
very good atmosphere but as a standalone image, lacks an emotional component

another home shot. couldn't find a good frame but hte light was nice

>>4429405
5D Mark II + 50/1.8

>>4429405
The olympus e-m5 ii with the lumix 20mm f1.7

I wouldn't waste my time with DSLRs <$350. They're mostly poorly made or nearly a decade older and much closer to experiencing age-related failures. A 2016 mirrorless that started out with weather sealing and was probably used to photograph someones cat is going to last a good bit longer than a 2008 DSLR being sold by an ex newspaper employee.

>>4446115
6D is much more refined and around the same price. The only advantage of the 5D2 I can think of is sturdiness and possibly better ML performance because of the CF card. It doesn't even have decent sealing.

>>4446137
>sturdier
>works better with custom firmware
Yeah that fits anon's ThinkPad analogy pretty well.

is a 1D digishit? i mean it used to be the absolute most expensive top of the line, but it's ggoing on 25 years old now...
I hacked up the DC coupler cable to run off a PD trigger cable and a PD power bank, and now instead of dealing with shitty unreliable NIMH batteries, we have unlimited lithium power, yeeeea babyyyyy. i will proceed to not use it again for months and then only take a few snapshits when i do. picrel unwitting test subject.

>>4446809
Better tonality than micro four thrids

>>4446813
lmao, and even the barely held together result falls to shit at anything above its base 200. this old camera tech is interesting stuff. sure, it CAN do 1600 iso, but i'm not sure why they even offered the option, the files are horrendous.

>>4446809
Not the heckin corgerino!

>>4446809
Maybe instead of buying cameras, buy a brush for your dog

Why do /p/'s dogs always look so abused and neglected? I've seen signs that heather has no hair on her belly, leo always looks terrified, and now this.

Here is my latest digishit.

>>4446830
Incorrect. My dog only fears the pigs/pig field because I accidentally left the electric fence on and he got zapped by it one time.

>>4446809
anything outputting RAW can’t be digishit

>>4446837
So it's just ewaste.

>>4446834
>eye whites showing
Stress.
>mouth open indoors
Stress.
>curled paw
That one has an injury like a partially torn ligament and is being kept warm to reduce pain.

This dog is suffering silently because, at least he gets food.

>>4446840
you dumb stupid idiot
it’s still the finest digital camera of 2001
get out there and make some art with it

>>4446841
LOL! I needed a good laugh today. Thank you.

>>4446841
Wait wait can you do my cat too?

>>4446844
This just looks annoyed.

>>4446843
It's not a joke. Your dog is sore and sick of the fucking camera. Cameras stress animals out because it looks like a giant floating eyeball to their rudimentary brain.

>>4446846
Why was he just randomly laying around on the backdrop with all the lights still set up? I don't lock him in the room and force him to let me take pics. It doesn't even work like that.
It's a game he enjoys playing. I position him with lure command, he stays, then when camera clicks he gets his treat. I've been working on changing this, so I can take more than one picture of him when he's positioned, but still. He doesn't care about the flashes and camera stuff. I've been taking pics of him with big cameras all his life...

I used to clip his nails with dog nail clippers instead of a dremel tool and he would leave the area because he didn't like it. Not even high reward treats would coax him. He would do the exact same if he didn't like the studio/cameras. This is really really basic stuff.

>>4446830
i know you wouldn't believe me, but i do brush them every couple days (inb4 sure you mean once a month) and these fuckers just keep shitting the stuff off. do not recommend.

2023 digishit. This dog is absolutely terrified of cameras.

>>4446851
Undercoat doesn't all shed at the exact same time. Most people that actually know/own dogs understand this.
I like to use a staggered steel comb and then a slicker brush for mine. Makes pretty quick work of it. Chris christensen makes the absolute best dog grooming tools imo.

>>4446844
>the imminent hip failure stance
yikes

Does the 5dm3 count as a digishit ewaste? What is even the definition of ewaste?

>>4446857
Parents had joint health testing and passed with flying colors! :D He's very athletic. Faster and more agile than our great pyrenees.

>>4446860
These threads have never really specified I think. You could buy one of those present day chinkshit plasticky “8k camera!” And it would be digishit, but in the right conditions something like a 5d might pass for something more modern and have excellent image output. I guess it comes down more to the images made than the age of the camera? Who knows

>>4446860
everything with dynamic range identical or inferior to the om-5 is a digishit. That is the exact point photos lose the hyper-realistic "real camera" vibe that starys with modern full frame digital and 645 format film, and instead you think "wow, point and shoots still got it"

>>4446862
If dynamic range matters so much why does slide film absolutely mog all digital? When you expose and develop film to be printed you aim for a contrast of 4 or 5 stops. How come these prints look infinitely better than modern digital?

>>4446866
Slide film is a set look. it actually has the tone curve baked in to the chemstry and all the dynamic range that would ever make it to a print plus a little more, and no exposure lattitude.

This is not quite how digital cameras work where less dynamic range reduces color range a ton because rather than it being a set look with no exposure latitude, it's just less accurate information. digital does not have the tone curve baked in, the sensor data is flat. add in digital's hard clipping vs film's non-linear response and it's clear why slide film looks better than micro four thirds.

>>4445795
>>4445430
>>4445427
this is what I am talking about

>>4446866
Film grain > digislug noise and moire

>>4446881

>>4447267
woops

>>4446990
Wow I thought that was the moon. Incredible work.

>>4446809
>>4446842
well i took out the 1ds ii today with the usb hackpack and it worked pretty well. shitty usb bank can't sustain burst shooting lol, forced anti-spray and pray. But i must say, it's fun to use, but god i can't imagine using this for work or as a daily. so much back focus and missed focus and "looks good in the viewfinder" that's just a hair off on review. inb4 somone claims i did it wrong, the point is modern mirrorless AF systems are so so much better, it's like a 2% miss rate instead of 20% with this thing. Uninteresting subject but at least you can still massage some nice colours out of the files.

>>4447311
that’s fucking incredible quality for 2001
I’d use that camera every day
let its limitations provoke your creativity

>>4447319
2004 actually but still, yeah, it's not bad. i guess what i was getting at more is just how far tech has come despite the constant shitflinging here. i would have been happier than a pig in shit to have this back in junior year when it was new. but i just didn't even consider issues like picrel with my eos R, i tried to get the nameplate in focus and it just missed and gave me beautiful focus on the paint just beneath it. even with point selection focus, i did get it after a few tries. but that's just it, it took a few tries. fun stuff.

>>4447323
what f-stop was this? the 'a' is sharper than the 'V'. might just need more depth-of-field by half a stop or a different angle. there's probably a plane where u could get that logo and badge in the same depth-of-field without even changing aperture.

>>4447319
I've said it before and say it again, IQ has largely stagnated. There's very little a newer camera could improve quality-wise on that picture.

>>4447391
pls explain camera IQ for the folks at home

>>4447411
Always do the opposite of what cANON says. That picture is sized for ants and blurry as fuck on any modern screen. But cANON is a literal thirdie. He uses a $150 thrift store laptop and an ancient dx canon DSLR with like 7 stops of DR. He thinks he knows all about cameras because of this.

He has never posted a picture recognizable as photography.
>https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/tripcode/%21%21oKsYTZ4HHVE%20/filter/text/
>https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/tripcode/%21%215Dz%2BC7v45HK/filter/text/
Literally, doghair and huskyfag are a better source of information than him. And those two are not a good source of information.
>my ancient 12 stop DR MFDB is better because the sensor is bigger! huh, the sensor technology is worse and its worse than full frame? IMPOSSIBLE, it must be the size alone that makes bigger sensor better, not also better technology! <-doghair
>the D750 has better autofocus than the Z7II! <-huskyfag

>>4447391
>Now shoot something with any detail and watch as eyebrows turn into sharpied on blurs

>>4447432
>he posted this and claimed it "humiliated" the gfx
oh my god he's blind, on top of being so dumb he compared useless pixel shift to a simple single shot and his perpetual equivalence faggotry (unsurprisingly mft dropped out of the market because equivalence matters for low light fast action and nothing else, and bigger sensors end up getting at least a few faster lenses for that)
can they not afford glasses in africa/russia wherever he is?

>>4447390
It was f4. Like i said i did get it in follow up shots but it was a challenge for the camera to get the plane just right even with the focus long over the letters. My eos R does it no problem and that’s already 7 years old now lol. I imagine things are even better now.

>>4447311
>looks good in the viewfinder" that's just a hair off on review
adjust your diopter

>>4447484
That's not diopter breh, DSLR OVFs are lower resolution than film SLR OVFs. The thick ass fresnel focusing screen is slightly blurrier than a plain glass or a precision matte.

>>4446860
>What is even the definition of ewaste?
ewaste is an inflammatory term used by shill to try to get you to spend money. Cameras and audio equipment are literally the only electronics that are not ewaste

>>4447486
ok anon. I don't have issue when I have my diopter adjusted. Unless your camera just sucks

>>4447490
I've spent more time using DSLRs professionally than you have spent on 4chan

They are inherently imprecise. Then again I used full frame DSLRs with fast glass, and you used a pentax K10D with the kit zoom for a week. One of us could tell and know how many safety shots to take, the other could miss focus and just call it "SOVL" (for photo of a lamp or something) while the other vaporwave weirdos jerked off to it.

>>4447487
I was waiting for someone to say the truth.

>>4447491
time for bed grandpa

>>4447487
Yes. Spending money is evil. We are all born with a set welfare allocation. Anyone trying to tell you a better product is "better" is a SHILL after your neetbux!

>>4447504
>Yes. Spending money is evil.
didn't say that

>>4447484
good thinking but i don't believe that's the issue. there are many photos that do have correct focus like it looks in the VF so i don't think the VF itself is off. it's just that when its such a reduced size, the subtle missed focus is hard to see. maybe if i stopped pixel peeping it would be a non issue lol. picrel for example nailed it just where i wanted it, but f4 was too shallow still and 1/125 to slow so there's a bit of blur across the whole image. didn't want to bump iso on this old thing though it craters fast. just takes practice i guess. before anyone says "why bother", it's the DST thread, we here for fun lads. we all have proper cameras to use otherwise, i imagine.

>>4447556
have you tried just using single point? Maybe it will be more accurate

>>4447491
>throwing the K10D under the bus in /dst/
ishygddt

>>4447556
Are the AF selection points the sharpest they can possibly be? Try adjusting the diopter back and forth until you achieve the best clarity. For best results, take the lens off and do it against a white wall. Once that's set up, you can be sure your diopter setting is not the culprit.

>>4447652
anon dslrs just are not very precise with focus. there's more slop and less optical excellence in those old mechanisms from day one including the mirror, ovf, and focusing sensor. the ovf in particular loses a bit of resolution to brighten the dim image from a partially translucent mirror.

>>4447655
They are perfectly serviceable if not shooting wide open with a lens that goes under 1.8

Do you have any digicams you have your eye on? I figure this is about the last time to get any of this stuff for prices that aren't completely unreal so I have my eye on a few things.

>>4448052
I've always wanted one of picrel ever since i was a panasonic "product expert" back in college lol. actually was during the time that these things were new and on the retail floor (2005-6ish). Could never afford it at the time though. But it was neat it was like a proto-x100 type camera, RF style with "premium" glass. leica used it as the base for the digilux 2, though at the time i knew nothing about leica, just that this thing looked cool compared to all the other digishits on the product floor. back in the day there were whole sections with tons of different cameras on display, for the zoomzooms in the audience.

>>4448067
That's a really good looking camera. Could be brand new. Still a bit expensive at $500

>>4448086
Yeah it’s crazy how expensive they still are, it’s got that Epson RD1 effect, price is absolutely ballooned because it’s a “cheap” Leica alternative somehow. There’s another camera I’ve wanted for literal decades now though, oof. Can’t believe that fag cuck snappiness just gets given these things and I have to seethe

>>4448090
lol I follow that fag to try to snatch stuff up when he mentions it. I don't think there's much that hasn't ballooned. A lot of the Olympus camedia stuff and the old canon G series are still pretty cheap

is a canon powershot a710 is worth 60 bux? I want to take pics at a concert but i dont know if they confiscate these. My iphone’s photos are smeary ass

Fujifilm FinePix J20.

>>4449009
don’t do it
ask your grandma for her camera

>>4449009
digicams are ass for low light

>>4449392
Skill issue.

>>4449395
>iso 400 is a skill issue

>>4448052
I was about to try to pick up a combo deal on a Dimage A1 (same as 7Hi) + a7 Digital/7D DSLR. I kinda wanted the A1 too, but the 7D was my main reason for purchase

>I checked the α-7 DIGITAL recordings but couldn't preview them (this = most likely first black frame imo, its gonna need a shutter replacement iirc to fix)
>A1 confirmed that the footage was saved.

Glad I re-read the ad after a 6,000 yen bid because it sounds like it was having first black frame, no idea why nips would bid that much for something that the seller admits might have a issue. All the 7Ds I've seen for sale seem to average for $70-120 anyways which is more than I wanna spend. Its gonna join 3 other vintage CCDs (Snoy a390 + a100 + KM 5D, the 5D is probably my favorite)

I'm also looking for a K200D or K10D to join my KF and the lenses I own for it. Was considering a sub-$40 Fuji or Ricoh/Pentax P&S to post in these threads regularly, just not sure if <2010 DSLRs are considered /dst/ material

>>4449492
Don't get the 7D if you intend to use it.
Their IBIS units fail, resulting in the black frame issue.

>>4449492
Yeah DSLRs aren't really digishit but I don't think people would object here. My current wishlist is the 7Hi, a Coolpix s4, Powershot g6, SOme super ccd fuji, maybe a Powershot pro, maybe a Camedia c1400. I think I'll be happy with that.
It's interesting to see what has withstood the test of time I definitely wouldn't bother with something broken. I have a D200 I gambled on at an ebay auction. Perfect condition except that the cf card slot is missing a pin and nobody will fix it

>>4449568
>Perfect condition except that the cf card slot is missing a pin and nobody will fix it
Be the difference you want to see in the world. What is there to lose? You can't possibly make it worse than it already is.

>>4449568
>Yeah DSLRs aren't really digishit but I don't think people would object here
yeah i posted my 1d/1ds in here and its fine. it blurs the line but hey, the idea isn't fine art lol

>>4449568
>Yeah DSLRs aren't really digishit but I don't think people would object here
Maybe AA-powered Pentax CCDs could qualify with their low res sensors, even though the magnitude of the APS-C sensor itself kinda denies that.

>>4449579
Sensor size isn't that much more important than sensor tech

Those old CCDs are so bad that almost 645 sized medium format can be outdone by a nikon d810 in every measurable and noticeable way if shot above like, iso 32. Consumer cameras like the d200, k10d, and finepix s5 are even worse off and are about on the level of large sensor point and shoots no matter where they're set.

>>4449591
kek
>magnitude of aps-c!
>looks like a pocket snapshitter but with nicer bokeh
old ILCs are, in fact, digishit.

>>4449592
Their image quality is head and shoulders above that of same era compact cameras commonly referred to as "digishits".

>>4449593
>well ITS BETTER THAN A 1MP HP PHOTOSMART!
But later compacts are also digishits, and basically the same thing with worse lenses.

D200, finepix s5, k10d = digishit.

Older MFDBs are also kind of digishit unless you use enough flash or exposure time to saturate the ancient shit sensor. PNS quality with cool bokeh. Especially if you get an older tethering-only back running somehow. Maybe the space left on the back of a view camera could be occupied by a power pack and a mac mini.

>>4449594
The tethered backs usually have a 4-16 shot multishot setting so you can get really clean files from them if you use them for what they're designed for, product photography in a studio.
There are sliding backs for technical cameras that allow you to precisely position the sensor in a 2x2 grid for even larger stitched shots. Completely outdated, but if you put the autism in you can still get some really good images from them.

I still firmly believe the colors look uniquely awesome on my 33MP dalsa ccd! You just need to give it enough light or else it looks terrible :D

>>4449594
Oh yeah, and having a digi cam with leaf shutter is also really nice!

>>4449598
>You just need to give it enough light or else it looks terrible :D
This is the key, people forget that MOVIES used to be shot on ISO 5 at roughly APS-C size.

>>4449601
Yeah! See! I mean if you think about it having more light is basically always better. We just can't have all the light we want sometimes.

>>4449594
>>4449591

I agree and disagree. I shoot my KM 5D alongside a Sony ZV1 (1in CMOS made in 2020, same as a RX100Mk7)

Sony actually has surprisingly good IQ for a point and shoot. The autofocus is WAY better (higher keep rate + sharper images). The backlit CMOS sensor lets you take photos in the dark decently, albeit a little noisy/blurry if there's movement or its too dark.

The KM works better in the daylight with low movement. I can change lenses on it too so I can get actual distance/detail out of it. Pic rel was taken with it and a 35-70mm f4. The bigger sensor is nice if you have good lighting.

The large sensor p&s that they're comparable are stuff made in the last 5 years (1in minimum, think Canon G7X, Sony ZV1/RX100, Panasonic LX100, basically anything in the wiki below but the problem is they still start at $400 used going up to $2000+ and they're kinda bulky)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_sensor_fixed-lens_cameras

Old P&Ss are fun because they're shitty so its more of a "work with what you have" experience, I'm probably gonna look for a Fuji SuperCCD, Kodak Z950, or similar from the late 2000s, whatever comes up for under $40

>>4449548
Yeah I just lost another bidding war on Buyee for one: 12500 yen ($85) shipped for a a7 digital with a 24mm f2.8, couldn't go past that because there's a 50% chance its gonna have a issue. IBIS failure is actually separate from black frame, IBIS = rattle on startup and no IBIS on the screen (just hit shake reduction off), black frame is the shutter cam itself hence why only a shutter replacement fixes it. They're also at the age where other stuff breaks like the CCD or LCD itself.

https://www.dyxum.com/columns/other/first_black_frame/first_black_frame.asp

The 5Ds are way less likely to get it, iirc its because they were mass produced in Malaysia while the 7Ds were handmade. Its just funny because there's barely any actual differences between the two, its the same CCD and processor.

Fujifilm FinePix J20.