Started to think about getting a digital, vintage camera. Checked out leica's but they are wayy to expensive, what would /p/ recommend?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 500 Image Height 353 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2710606
>Started to think about getting a digital, vintage camera.
lol wut
>>2710606
>digital vintage camera
Because you're tired of feeling unmanly for enjoying your girlfriend's strap-on?
>>2710606
Used M8's are very cheap. Film bodies are pretty cheap (and total cost will be cheap if you have access to cheap film / dev). There are Epson digital rangefinders too. Other than that, X100 models and the X-Pro1 are probably the best if you're set on the rangefinder / OVF style. Pretty much any mirrorless will look and feel vintagy with a decent leather case.
Just depends what features you need (OVF, etc).
>>2710606
>digital, vintage camera
>nods respectfully at you
>>2710606
The very early Kodak DSC cameras are very cheap, but have virtually no compatibility left functional.
Get one of those sony's with floppy image storage.
those fujis with a leaf shutter are perfect for sandle wearing manginas.
>>2710606
>digital vintage camera
some sony with a floppy disc.
>>2710777
Those pieces of shit cost more than you can get a better newer Canon for.
Also, checked.
I found the perfect "digital, vintage" camera for you OP.
>>2710888
>if you unironically buy an M8 in 2015 you should kill yourself
Just curious, what's so bad about it?
Nice trips
>>2710937
Its an almost 10 year old camera, the sensor from my 300 dollar pentax k-01 wouldl blow it out of the water. Aside from the bad colour and iso performance, it has a 1.3 crop factor and people pay over 1300 USD for that. Pretty absurd, you could get a secondhand A7 and m-mount adaptor and go from there desu
>>2710908
And? They're full frame, have better build quality, and are pieces of digital camera history
>>2710951
>it has a 1.3 crop factor
I thought Canon was the only one that used and APS-H sensor
>>2710952
>They're full frame
Bullshit.
Only the 14/n
And a few other versions.
You said "early" DCS cameras.
Plus, Canon produced the 1DS before the 14/n so why wouldn't he just get that?
>>2710951
>there are people that paid $300 for this
>>2710952
>Full frame
They're 1.3 crop factor = not full frame.
>Better build quality
Yeah I guess, but does that justify the ridiculous resale value
>Pieces of digital camera history
I guess, but then so is the Sony Mavica, so is Canon 350d, even the Pentax K-01 is in a historical camera museum
>>2710606
>digital vintage
Epson R-D1 is the only correct answer.
>>2710937
Sensitive for infra-red. Huge fail. Leica sent out some filters to fix it.
>Muh red dot
>>2710960
It's an super ugly camera but because it was so ugly it became cheap fast and the pancake lens it came with is awesome.
>>2710980
that's not a disadvantage, you retard. That's just more sensitivity.
>>2710994
Making your colors look like ass and not nearly true to life isn't an advantage.
>>2710606
you can get a Fujifilm X20 for 200 quid these days
>>2711636
It is if you know how to post.
More data.
>>2710980
Sounds like bullshit but would also make it a prime candidate for mono infra-red photography.
>>2710956
>You
That's not me. I suggested them as a joke because >Digital Vintage.
They're terrible cameras today.
>>2710961
Which crop factor you get completely depends on which one you buy.
The build quality wasn't better when I had a chance to play with them. Maybe when they were new, but they all seem to be falling apart now.
>>2710952
have you ever operated one? i could fucking take a picture on ilford, stop, develop it under a black cape and make a fucking print in the amount of time it takes to boot that thing.
>>2711777
>That's not me.
I see.
What do you know about the 1Ds?
I was considering one.
Checked.
>>2711698
the problem is the shitty filter causes IR to bleed into the blacks. it's not only more data, it's tainted data. you have to lose even more quality to attempt to correct it.
>When you want the DF
>But the price
>but the hipster
>but
>>2711870
really kill yourself
>>2711870
Why do you want a Df?
>>2710960
good camera . . . just bad looking.
>>2711936
I know, I'm the guy from the other thread. I agree.
>>2711946
Just watched that.
Still want one.
>>2711890 Mind you, the sensor is from their flagship D4
>>2711947
Me too
>>2711948
ayyy
>>2711777
>crop factor you get completely depends on which one you buy
What do you mean by this?
>>2711946
I love Lee Morris.
A lot of girls and normies like my X-E1, and then they think my film Eos 5 is a pro camera heh
>>2711967
Fstoppers is cancer bruh.
>>2711966
The different DCS cameras have different sized sensors.
>>2711966
Canon offers cameras at 1x, 1.3x, and 1.6x crop, depending on which you buy.
get the X100T.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software PicaJet FX Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.0 Sensing Method Unknown Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 100 dpi Vertical Resolution 100 dpi White Point Chromaticity 0 Exposure Time 0 sec F-Number f/0.0 Exposure Program Not Defined ISO Speed Rating 0 Lens Aperture f/1.0 Subject Distance 0.00 m Metering Mode Unknown Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 0.00 mm Color Space Information Unknown Image Width 0 Image Height 0 Exposure Index 0
