Are cameras effay? Which do you think are the most? SLR or DSLR?
Post your cameras here.
Manual-focus Nikons are also pretty /fa/, especially the F3 or F2 Titan.
The X100 looks like a shitty plastic toy, it's like a Fisher-Price Leica. It's a pretty great camera,sure, but it's ugly and cheap looking.
Just picked this Kodak Retinette 1B today. Shit is cash, feels so quality.
Find me a more aesthetic camera than this. You can't.
tfw noone to appreciate my photos
tfw i had no idea how to operate my camera when i went to europe pic related
I bought a Kodak Retina II from the fifties in perfect condition weeks ago.
effay as fuck
any effay DSLRs?
I've seen some tight mirrorless cameras but >mirrorless
I would love to get into film but I am in the middle of nowhere, and as a result there are no places to go and get film developed.
also, I shoot film, but develop it myself (I shoot with Nikon FA). Buy some B&W film and diafine and dish soap. Pretty easy. Once you get comfortable with that branch out into more complicated chemical setups.
What a shit camera, it's so damn ugly too and don't try to hide that by posting a photo from its least unflattering angle. It could've been great but it ended up being such a fat ugly abortion. Goes great with a trench coat and cargo pants.
>get film developed.
You're supposed to do it yourself, that's the whole fucking point.
How could I forget about the FA, that camera in chrome was my first film camera. The FA is most certainly /fa/.
>You're supposed to do it yourself, that's the whole fucking point.
brb purchasing a nortisu and saving money for my future cancer treatment
Maybe for black and white bro, but not so much colour.
Then shoot black and white, why even bother with film if you're just going to pay to give someone else the privilege of doing your work for you so that they can give you a shitty jpg of your photo that you could've gotten instantly in the first place by using a digital camera instead.
Also a full Tetenal C-41 kit with all the chemicals you need is $25.
I submit this as the first /fa/ digital camera in the thread.
I would say ask /p/ but they'll just yell at you and give horrible advice. If you want to learn the fundamentals of photography in the year 2015 then a digital camera will be much easier and can be much more educational if you use it right and read a book or something. Do that for a while and then move on to film when you're ready to add some more complexity.
If you just want a film camera as a fashion accessory then get an M3 >>9691815 because it gets all the bitches wet.
damn is bro. do you know that some people do own film scanners that are far better than the drugstore scanners? and that C41 is a standardized process, with chemicals that self oxidize with use?
it's far better to send c41 out for developing to a lab with fresh chemicals than to try to do it your self. that tetenal kit you suggest is a monstrosity with bleach AND fixer (blix) in the same bath. it was never intended for archival, consistent developing, it was supposed to be used by journalists needing an image at any cost. if you use the tetenal kit, expect your film to fade in a hurry, and don't expect colour accuracy either.
>dad used to take amazing photos
>developed his own film in a DIY dark room
>had a collection of amazing vintage cameras from the 50s-80s
>sold them all
>died before he had a chance to pass his expertise onto me
Considering it, and the fuji x-e1 and the olym omd em10.
What bothers me about th a6000, apart from the usual complaints about lens selection from sony atm, is that the only ones I have access to are made in china.
Perhaps it shouldn't bother me, but it does. The fuji's and olyms are made in japan, or at least assembled there.
No the original uploader of the image but I've owned the GRv1 and still own the first GRD, no dust problems whatsoever since 6 years. Though some heavily used models like mine can have issues with the SD card and it resets your adjustments.
You took this with your handy right? Otherwise I'd recommend you to look out for a new camera.
It is, but the pictures are bad. The communists in the DDR used it frequently.
The only two lenses I copped are the 35mm 1.8 and 55-200mm kit lens that comes with it. And I'd say it covers pretty much everything I need. Not to mention they're pretty sharp and look amazing.
Anyone think that the GR would be a smart choice to learn the basics?
Compact: more likely to take it around = more likely to use.
If I take a real shining to photography then I could invest in a larger system with interchangeable lenses.
If that day comes, I'll still have a nice portable "in my back pocket".
Has a certain charm about it too.
Isn't that /fa/?
You can learn the basics with any camera. If you're on an intermediate level with a film SLR or any cheap digital camera, I'd say go for it. There is no need to purchase a DSLR though if you just shoot for fun, unless you have enough money for a good body and glasses, then sure go ahead and purchase one.
I used an old SLR years and years ago.
Nothing but a cheapo camcorder and phone cam since then. Have to relearn.
What about the RX100 m3?
I've got the cash to invest in a nice mirrorless system, but I'm thinking something smaller, more limited, to see if I really want to dip my toes into this hobby.
>I've got the cash to invest in a nice mirrorless system
And I mean mirrorless instead of DSLR, as I figure that I'd be less likely to go around and take pics if I'd have to lug around heavey/bulkier kit.
I live in a shitty, dusty and mostly desperate city in the third world, and though there are lots of idiot tourists that do flash their large, expensive looking gear around, something smaller, inconspicuous like the GR (or rx100iii - or even smaller mirrorless later on) seem more prudent to me.
You mean compared to the Ricoh GR? I'd say it has a wider aperture, higher resolution and is generally just faster, in terms of image quality, it's pretty bad. I think even an Iphone 6 has a larger sensor.
Anyway, if you have enough money just go for the Sony Alpha A6000 + external flash. In terms of being compact, light, easy to shoot with, just go for the ricoh gr.
>SLR or DSLR?
Neither, rangefinders are more /fa/ aesthetics-wise. But DSLRs are always going to be eons more practical. If you're serious about photography, then get good with a digital before you go out like a total asshat taking shit photos with fucked up exposures with your Pentax K1000 you bought at a thrift shop.
How is this ontopic?
I want to get a GH4 as my secondary/weekender,but I currently own and use this SONY F5.
oops u cucks
Would probably enjoy playing with this (contax) ,just to get my stills skill up
X100 is probably better.
>Has a viewfinder, a good one too
>Can work into fits better
>Doesn't get dust into it like GR does
>S and T models have usable autofocus unlike GR
>Never feel gimped unlike canon rebels for starting
The RX100 is nice if you want a nice compact though
Copped from a friend for 25. Works beautifully. Looks great.
I used to lurk /p/ as my main board but I go there less and less because of the hostility and largely awful board culture. Now I mostly just take photos for myself and lurk /g/ and /fa/ instead.
Slr: Canon A1
Dslr: Canon 70d
Looking to get a solid manual viewfinder next
Rangefinder mirrorless are by far the most /fa/.
DSLRs are great but they are big and clunky and not /fa/. They are appropriate for a studio but that's it.
That being said I'm too poor to go mirrorless so I rock a d7100.
Yes film is good to learn in a way because you are forced to take time and figure out each function. But it get pricey to constantly buy and developers rolls. And when you do do this you'll probably forget the settings you liked/used for the photos that worked.
I would get a digital like >>9692854 said. Don't go running getting a top of the line dslr. Either get a used canon rebel (or other brands equivalent) or I started with a digital point and shoot that had pretty good manual options (except for focusing)
Don't be the photo gear guy thinking getting the best of each equipment is going to give you good photos. Get something workable that allows you to have good control and learn everything about it. What does what, how to do certain things you like in other photos, read, and just shoot a lot, as much as possible.
Having a camera as an accessory and not as something you are actively pursuing is posercore and not /fa
Taking good pictures regardless of what kind of camera you are holding is /fa
Lifestyle is long game, worrying about day to day accessorizing is plebian horde tier
pf i was reading through poets reddit account you posted and found this
>Let me say that I've been working in Hip Hop for some 16 years now, and I'm Bisexual.
>But this aspect of me has never made a difference, even in a culture dominated by toxic masculinity and homophobia. I just do what I do, I try to make fresh joints. I scratch. That's all that counts to the people I work with.
>And for the record, if a rapper insists on negative attitudes towards gays or women or a race, I WILL NOT WORK WITH THEM. I don't care HOW famous they might be. Upholding my principles has been key for me, even if it's kept me out of a few truly great deals.
>Even KRS-One has said that if you are the best in the world, chances are you won't end up on the radio. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN_FPOAltFc)
>So master your craft, and the fans and collabs will come to you in huge waves. Nothing else matters. Being Bi has not changed the way my samplers or synths work. Not at all. If anything, the separation and pain of being isolated in a neurotypically dominated society has made me 10x the musician I would've been otherwise.
>We're all human. We're all artists. That's all that counts, in the end.
this thread is dumb
there's one thing to admire a cameras aesthetics and another thing to call it "shit" because you don't like it's appearance
plus gearfaggotry is the worst part of photography
my current cameras
I use this camera (Sigma DP2m)
looks pretty cool
and takes great images
ITT: poseurs who think carrying around a 2lb piece of antiquated equipment just to look cool and make dumb idiots think they're some sort of artist is ok
Shooting film + developing at home is a waste of time, space and money. Its also a crutch to get away with bad photography.
These kids say dslrs are shit because they think you cant turn off af with a switch and think it cost too much money for glass and a body that is a wear item.
But consumer electronics are disposable even if you buy a mirrorless setup with no wear parts tech will update to warrant a new setup in 2 years and new glass in a new mount in 5
Meh, I've been shooting film for years, have my own lab assistant doing dev & printing, I just love the process and look of some films. Too many people are in it for the wrong reasons, they just want to look cool with their crappy Practika with shit 50mm's.
Christ, you consistently have shit opinions.
this is a shot from my rolleicord v
Came to £650. But that's with the metered prism finder and the billingham bag. It's not particularly practical for anything other than landscape and studio work though, unless you get yourself a grip that is.
He's a regular at /fa/ and /o/ and occasionally goes to /p/. He talks shit on all of them but
>hordes clothes and looks like shit
>buys canon dslrs to take blurry pics of clothing labels
>thinks a honda civic si is anything impressive
>Then shoot black and white, why even bother with film if you're just going to pay to give someone else the privilege of doing your work for you so that they can give you a shitty jpg of your photo that you could've gotten instantly in the first place by using a digital camera instead.
What sort of plebby as fuck places do you go where you can't drop of c41 film and get the negs back? kek
most people/trips on here don't want to talk about their lifestyle or where their finances come form,which is understandable and i might regret alluding to such in my life but whatever.
I honestly got it for $19k which is way below market prices,through work sacrifices and connections m8