Ive started taking photos with my phone but I want to get on the next level and I wanna buy a camera. I talked about it in another thread but I wanna make a thread cuz I need someone to convince me before I become a poser

I generally take photos of my life as much as possible but I also enjoy doing scenery, composite and symbolic photography. I'll post a few in this thread.

I am hyperautistic; I am basically a polymath and I usually compute every single event in my mind and mechanics behind, hence I rather have everything in full control if possible so I can play 4D chess. Mind the text cuz this will be my cope later.

I asked a few people, did some research and found Fuji X100V. Camera looked good and having dials of settings I like to change impressed me. After some more research I found that Fuji was on the way to become a nostalgia/poser bait. I dont really mind that but I want my moneys worth.

I can always buy a dslr but I want a compact daily WITH viewfinder and that disqualified a lot of cameras. My only alternative is a Nikon zfc but I find it big.

Now anon, Ive set my mind into X100 but I still feel uneasy so please try to convince me into not buying it as if I am using taxpayer money, cheers.

>>4435761 (OP)

>>4435762

>>4435763

>>4435765
surely money will fix my skill

If you want that camera then go for it.

for this type of photography, any of the older models in the x100 line will do the same job. they all have the shutter speed dial. although i guess if we're being particular, the iso dial wasn't added until the f and wasn't as well implemented there as on the v and later.
just to be clear, all cameras these days give you full exposure control even if they don't have dedicated dials for each parameter. anyways, it's probably a fine starter camera because even though the buy in is high, you can easily flip it if you don't like it. and it's small enough that you can easily take it with you almost everywhere, therefore giving you tons of opportunities for practice. pic related one of the last pics from my x100t before i sold it

>>4435773
i personally wouldnt go for the first three.
x100f is the first one with a "modern" sensor (more resolution,16 vs 24 is noticeable - and seeing ops pictures - its got better iso performance, good for the low light shots)
the x100v has an improved lens design (supposed to be sharper/whatever), but the controls on it are more touch-oriented (no d-pad)
i would go for the V, if you have the finances, but the second hand market is totally fucked - the F might be a much better "entry" to the system

You can take good images on a phone too, the key is to abandon the default camera apps because they do horrible processing by default. I dunno if you took your OP pic or not but to me it looks like its using some default 'night mode' type processing to try to brighten up the image which just makes for smeary digital looking mess. You should install an app that lets you shoot RAW. The images will come out looking too dark on your phone, thats correct, you need to edit them then in Lightroom or similar software like you would with a DSLR. If you do this you'll be surprised at the quality you can get out of a phone.

>>4435862
OP was shot in a car(pun intended) and I had to be quick so it was probably pre settings, whats a good android app I can use I have a galaxy a24

>>4435869
My favourite was 'Halide' on the iPhone but sadly it doesn't exist for Android. Samsung have their own called 'Expert RAW' (Available from Galaxy Store) and the app 'Open Camera' (Available from Play Store or F-Droid) also can shoot DNG RAW files (you need to enable it in settings though, its off by default).

>>4435761 (OP)
Your shots are pretty good, in an outsider art sort of way. If you want a pocketable sort of camera, look at 2004-2014 era compact digital cameras. They're not technically the best cameras in the world but they're cheap, disappear in a pocket and are tuned to have their pictures look like slide film.
They're maxed convenience cameras basically

>>4435761 (OP)
The x100v is $2300 and take worse pictures than anything else in that price range or even lower.
I would ask yourself why you think you need a compact camera. Have you ever held an actual camera? You seem lo like shooting in low light so you should be looking for something with good iso performance. Pic rel.
People shit on m43 here but even the OM 3 mogs the fuji for the same price and size. The Nikon z6ii is way better for less money. The RP also mogs it for way less but it has no evf.
You can learn how use any camera so you can "plan ahead". I think the issue is you think you know what you want but you actually don't because you are formulating your opinion from very shallow data. I recommend getting a cheap old used camera first so you can figure out what you want.

>>4435874
>Your shots are pretty good, in an outsider art sort of way.
thanks anon Ill invest more time this summer
>2004-2014 era compact digital cameras
wont I be sacrificing low ISO performance with that

>>4435886
>$2300
actually Ill buy it around CHF1300~
>something with good iso performance
I dont shoot in low ISO necessarily. Also one of my prior goal is to get something approx pocket size, dslrs in general is bulky to me. My only real alternatice is a ricoh really
>old used camera first so you can figure out what you want
my toxic trait is I learn way too quick and basics almost always bores me so I try to overstimulate myself as possible

sorry for taking you guys time but it seems I wont change my mind and Ill do what Ill be happy with

>>4435886
also picrel is insane, what exactly is fuji raw storing because I know its not sharpness

>>4436078
yeah the sensor is total dogshit. Even m43 is blowing it out of the water. Looks OP will fall for marketing

Reading your thread makes no sense why would you want VI at all, it's not a small camera, it's not a cheap camera, and after playing with x-t50, sensor is not a problem, lens is, in fact x-t50 is nearly same size with one of pancakes as VI but cheaper and you have actual option to change lenses, VI is a stylish accessory camera to look " cool" and hardly an update over good smartphone with some better camera app

>>4435886
>om3
THIS POSTER IS A PAID SHILL
NO ACTUAL HUMAN BEING WOULD RECOMMEND A REBRANDED EM5III BEING SOLD FOR $2000
>inb4 om system marketing babble

>>4436119
Ok, so any small-ish camera that has good value for the money?

>>4436149
olympus em5iii or sony a7c

research lenses yourself
but stay away from "pro" and panasonic leica branded lenses on m43 (no amount of money will make it better, and they have no soul)
and stay away from sony g master lenses on ff (they have no soul, and make it too good)

do not get caught up in weather sealing its a marketing gimmick that doesnt do anything with a guarantee. they use it to convince people to spend big on bigger gear (then it dies sooner because wr is never 100% effective). smart people keep smaller gear under their coat.

>>4436146
It's better than x100v for the same price. It's also a similar size and aesthetic. If I had to choose I would take the olympus because the sensor isn't shit. It's really that simple

>>4436193
Anon don’t be silly, choosing between four turds and xtranny worms is like choosing between green or brown shit. You aren’t convincing anyone.

>>4436199
That's what OP wanted. I don't want to convince you of anything. I don't care. I use Nikon