What is your favorite old digital camera?
>>2788252
any MF with a digital back
Nikon CoolPix L3
Got it when I was 15,
5MP, took 2 AA batteries, which lasted less than 100 shots, had a decent optical zoom, ridiculous blues, and was tiny. I took the best astro photos with this, holding the lens up to my telescope.
A royal piece of shit, but I used it a ton.
It's in a drawer next to me right now.
Cybershot U series.
Used to have a U50. Now have a U30 that I found at Goodwill a couple months ago; and realized that shiny spot in the front is a selfie mirror.
Totally loved the overall tones when taking pics with that camera.
>>2788365
>dat screen
>>2788399
that fuckin HOTSHOE
>>2788252
This sucker right here.
Canon Ixus 860 IS, I bought this about 10 years ago when I was a shit-kicking scrub with no knowledge of photography. I had no fucking idea how it worked or had any photography skill or technique. It was largely used to make shit-tier holiday photos, and I ignored it after a while.
It has a superb video capturing capability, AND had time-lapse functions. Interestingly the mic was superb as well and I used it a lot to film gigs and stuff.
I recently got it out of storage and recharged the battery, with my photography knowledge and some technique, it actually is an amazing little camera.
>>2788365
>not having a second LCD with live view on the top
Samsung Digimax 815 pro
[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 375 Scene Capture Type Standard
I loved this little fucking thing. Truly a pocket digital. Piece of shit but got me into photography.
Wish i could find it, i know i have it somewhere.
>>2788441
Holy fuck. An early digishit with a prime lens attached to it? Sweet.
how has no one mentioned the Epson RD1? It's so good people are still using it in all it's 6 megapixel glory in 2016.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Created 2004:11:24 15:17:55
>2016
>shooting digital
>>2788447
>2016
>taking photos
People did that in the early 1900s because that was the only option of capturing the moment. Why taking stills when there's video? Why using an obsolete technique?
>>2788453
>2016
>Shooting video
Will live in a world where we have both legs, cars and opportunities, why not capture and document the moment with your own delicious brain
>>2788443
>tfw it was $350
>>2788446
I posted one that I got to use.
But if it can be any kind of digital camera I would choose the Leica R8/9 with the DMR.
>>2788459
>delicious
you just want us to go outside so you can eat our brains, zombieanon
>>2788252
inb4 Sony A7
SIGMA DP 1S. I enjoyed it more than the DP1 Merrill.
learned the base with this fucker. I mostly remember the shitty autonomie and the fact that it was nearly indestructible.
>>2788801
Holy shit that looks hideous
>>2788805
So do all Nikon cameras.
You fags should start buying Fuji instead.
>>2788252
>14
>literally have pentax SLR and like 3 lenses that she gave me the last year
>tell her a pentax body used can only be like $150 that's what i want for christmas
>get this fuckin monstrosity instead
it was alright, attempted to have some manual modes and even a fuckboy ass manual focus via the zoom BUTTONS on the back.
can't say i completely hated it, that zoom was great on vacations, but whatever.
There's even some superiously shitty video i made with my brother on youtube somewhere, god help me
>>2788893
forgot pic
and i found the video and uploaded it
holy shit is it cringy, made this 7 or 8 years ago
https://youtu.be/nez_kJUX6ko
>why even post it then?
because i don't care about being shamed for this trash
and im sure you could use a giggle
>brother refused to participate unless he killed me
also don't look at the other videos on my page
first time shooting video, for some reason i thought 3500 was a good shutter speed for video.
>>2788661
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2004:04:18 22:34:01 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 640 Image Height 537
My first digital camera experience ... my grandma had one I used during summer vacation. Had to archive the images on an iomega zip drive.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark II Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows Photographer Ashley Pomeroy Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2013:05:04 18:16:33 Exposure Time 5 sec F-Number f/8.0 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/8.0 Exposure Bias 2 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 75.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 3000 Image Height 2447 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2788977
How many pixels?
My pick is a Nikon D50. Not as old as some of these others, but that was my first actual camera in 2010. Was using my flip phone camera before that, so it was a huge step up.
Wish I still had some of the pictures I took with that thing. Lost them all in a hard drive crash before I had my backup system.
>>2788938
>https://youtu.be/nez_kJUX6ko
TOPLEL
>>2788938
MInor details aside, that was actually pretty cool. I commend you for using a tripod.
>also don't look at the other videos on my page
My gripe with your skate video is too many bails versus completed tricks. Put a few up front to show a struggle, then land all the ones after.
>>2789530
>round 1
>able to buy
plebs
>>2788446
any similar underrated gems like this?
>>2789087
I had one of those and mine only shot at vga resolution.
>>2788446
I'd love to have one but it's far too expensive. Not compared to a digital leica of course, but still...
>>2788252
I used to work at Circuit city. that's the sony dsc w55 I sold a fuck ton of those. was about 199 back then circa 05
I really liked the panasonic dmcfx8
but my FAV old camera is the canon g9
i have mine right here beside me. lens is busted but i still kept it and i use the g9 strap on my 5dmk3
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2007:12:18 11:06:20 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 842 Image Height 572
>>2788453
>yfw Tony Northrup actually said that we'll eventually stop taking stills and exclusively shoot video clips
>>2789899
Keh has one for like $670.
>>2790677
You can get a real camera for that much.
Still use this badboy from time to time.
Came out in 2002
>>2790680
I'm not a very good photographer, but here's a photo I made with it.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model CYBERSHOT Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2560 Image Height 1920 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:03:12 08:51:01 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/4.5 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source D65 Flash No Flash Focal Length 14.40 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 750 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2790686
Here's a full res picture (please forgive me), so you can see the IQ.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model CYBERSHOT Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:08:20 06:44:04 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 48.50 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2560 Image Height 1920 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2790690
looks better than most pics posted on this site
gearfags BTFO
>>2790679
True, but it is cheaper than a Leica M8.
>>2790680
Sony makes the best cameras.
>>2790695
I laughed so hard from this comment. Because it's true.
>>2788446
>6mp
shit
>see samples
good god its like glorious film
>see price
fuck no. someone have a waaaay cheaper alternative? i want to fuck with a camera like this but without the price.
>>2790755
You are now aware that one of the main things that makes digital look "digital" is the ridiculously high resolution everything is resolved at, and that for many people, getting a higher resolution camera to make their photos look "better" is actually making them look less how they want them. One of the main things you'll hear people say about film is that it has "smooth tones" and that's because colors and tones sort of mush together in a way that doesn't happen on digital. This can be emulated in post, if you know what you're trying to achieve.
>>2790756
Eh, I'd actually argue that "true" colors are what make digital so recognizable.
>>2790756
It's not that colors mush together on film and not digital. It's more how film has a very smooth, more natural color blending than digital's one color per pixel transitions.
Digital has 255 shades/tints of color per color channel, which gives some 24 million colors (IIRC), which is good, but it can't reach some of the colors that naturally occur in the world, which is where we get color banding from.
That, versus the almost infinite variations of color per layer of film, makes the color gamut of film far higher than digital, which makes transitions between colors more like how we naturally see them.
Look at darkroom film prints against several different resolution and color gamut digital prints, and you will notice how digital can't always match film in color range.
Of course, once you scan film, you're also falling into the gamut hole, and digital prints of film scans will show the same behavior.
>>2790755
Just get an autoreflex T or its little brother the TC. I have pic related which i paid about $50 for (mainly the lens) and its a joy to use.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot A50 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop 7.0 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 100 dpi Vertical Resolution 100 dpi Image Created 2003:04:12 06:39:05 Shutter Speed 1/15 sec Lens Aperture f/2.6 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 0.23 m Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash Focal Length 4.31 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 450 Image Height 298
>>2790775
Fuck wrong thread
>>2790773
When it comes to human vision, the difference between 24 million colors and "infinity" colors is very very small. Also, the fact that the "film look" is still very obviously real even when looking at images on a computer monitor (most of which don't even cover sRGB) tells us that it's obviously not that. From there, I'll remind you that those 24million colors can also be pushed pulled, enhanced, and shifted to be pretty much any color you want.
What film does do is unify colors. Skin looks "skin toned" and when a film is warm tinged, other colors like blues and greens are also unified and muted a bit. On digital, you get rosy cheeks, and extra magenta everywhere because digital isn't held back by the chemical processes that film is. If you want your tones unified, you have to do it yourself.
There's no reason to argue against prints because darkroom prints can't really be touched by digital printing, but if you take a digital photo, and process it well to emulate film, and then get it onto a negative, and print that negative, it looks just as good as a full-film process. It's the printing process that's better, not the source.
>>2788977
Was going to post that.
That actually looks fantastic.
>>2788801
Yes! I still have the Coolpix 990 around here somewhere.
>>2788787
Just bought one of these and I've yet to go out shooting with it. Thanks for the encouragement anon!
