So what is on the Camera wall of Cool?
Seriously Uncool: Digital
Cool: 35mm and Medium format
Sub Zero: Large format film
>>2812436
these cars look all the same.
>>2812547
>MF just "cool"
negro u on crack. MF is the only sub zero, not even open to discussion, then large format would be "very cool", because LF is less cool due to being a chore. then a well earned cool for 25mm.
then all digishite is just uncool. except for the sigma merrills, which are very cool.
>>2812549
oh, id add half-frame to "sub zero". because its tru.
>>2812549
MF is dabbler tier, homie. let me know when you move up to a serious format.
On another fucking level I mean seriously what the shit:
Bridges
That colourful Pentax abomination
Seriously uncool:
Hipster lomography 35mm shit, Sony a6000/NEX series, Pentax Q, any 1/2.3" sensor compact, Sigma, Fujifilm and Samsung DSLRs. Samsung NX series, Nikon 1 series, any Panasonic camera with a red dot on it masquerading as a leica, digital medium format, that enormous new leica
Uncool:
Canikon DSLRs, Sony RX100 series, Panasonic G, GX, GM, GF series, Canon film SLRs, Sony a7 series, Fujifilm XA or XM, digital leicas, Olympus PEN series, large format, soviet SLRs
Cool:
Fujifilm XT1/10, 35mm compacts, Nikon film SLRs, Pentax DSLRs, Ricoh GR, Olympus OMD, Panasonic GH, soviet rangefinders, Sony RX1, Leica Q, GoPro, Canon G16
Sub Zero:
Fujifilm X-Pro, Olympus PEN film cameras, Pentax film SLRs, leica M, medium format through 6x7, lytro, Sigma DP Merrill/Quattro
So cool it should be kept in a separate freezer and only handled with a pair of gloves:
Voigtlander Bessa
>>2812436
Seriously uncool: Sony menu system.
Cool: Any successful photographer who uses low/mid-range gear.
>>2812436
Cool: f/2.8
Uncool: f/5.6
>>2812579
All of us have just witnessed a cracked mind of a Bessa owner.
>>2812580
sub zero: f/1.7
What has been seen, cannot be unseen
>>2812591
Not inaccurate. :^)
>>2812584
D800 if you must know
>>2812591
Isi may have cool cameras but they're still an insufferable cunt
>>2812436
Are we going just based on looks? The cool wall really is only about how the car looks.
Seriously Uncool:
Pretty much any APS film camera, Digital P&S, bridge cameras, any camera the Soviets made, Leica M5, M8
Uncool:
A6000, A7, Leica SL, Canon Rabals, Canon x0D, most fixed lens film range finders, Nikon rangefinders, Ikon (or other copies) folders, Fuji X-E series. Leica M6, M9, Alpa cameras.
Cool: Fuji XT series, film compacts like T2, T4, XA or Mju, Leica M3, M4, M7, Q, Fuji GW690 III, RZ67, Flagship (D)SLRs, Zeiss Ikon Rangefinder, Contax 645.
SubZero: X-pro, Any Leica MP, Fuji GA645 Series, Fuji GX680, Konica Hexar AF/RF, Nikon F3, F100, Mamiya 6/7 Contax G2, Contax RTS III
There's probably some I left out.
>>2812614
>Pretty much any APS film camera
>not cool
R ya fokken kiddin me m8?
Also
>canon x0D
Just the wing-formed LCD on top makes it look cool. Also, the majority of cools in dslr looks come from the lens.
Serously Uncool:
Bridge cameras, Digital P&S, Large format, Polaroid, Drones
Uncool:
SLRs, both film and digital
Cool:
Medium format, Fuji X
Sub zero:
35mm film rangefinders
>>2812619
That thing looks like a bridge camera, it definitely belongs in the seriously uncool section.
>>2812620
> large format
> seriously uncool
m8 no
>>2812601
I too get mad at women for posting
>>2812624
No it doesn't
>>2812639
Also, even a rebel can look good with a proper lens
>>2812640
> using a 50 on a crop
Jesus. Why?
>>2812641
same reason you use an 85mm on ff?
>linhof technika
>machine tolerances are so tight
>jizzed in my pants
>>2812635
Nah, it's just isi, I didn't even know she were a lass desu
>>2812614
>The cool wall really is only about how the car looks.
Have you even seen the show? I don't blame me, nobody is this thread has. It has very little to do with looks or how good a car is.
Here is how it works:
>Helen Mirren sees in you in car X, she is very impressed, car X is cool.
>Douchebag X owns car X, it's uncool.
Therefore:
>Sugar uses an RB67, it's seriously un cool.
>ISI uses an x-pro, it's seriously un cool.
>Alex uses large format, it's sub zero.
>Jason Fedora uses an A7, it's uncool.
>Hipsters use Polaroid, it's un cool.
If you going to make up your own rules for the cool wall just be clear.
Uncool:
DSLRs
Cool: Mirrorless
>>2812662
I definitely have seen the show. Id say it's just as much about looks as anything else. Sure they argue plenty about the other stuff you mentioned but I think it boils down to looks, and whether or not Hammond likes it. (If he does, the other two will probably call it seriously uncool) You're completely right about performance though, that's got nothing to do with being cool.
>>2812668
>50 on crop is not an 85.
Canon crop cameras have a crop factor of 1.62162.
That's an 81mm.
No, anon, you cannot tell the difference between an 81mm and an 85mm. Your 85mm varies between, like, 83mm and 87mm with focus distance anyway.
>>2812673
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoyBnuP0K9w
>>2812675
No one cares about the science behind focal length equivalency, and you're not going to get the exact same look of an 85 on a 24x36mm sensor(be it film or digital) but putting a 50 on a crop, whatever the crop factor is. Way to google up some random facts though.
>inb4 isi points out the obvious benefits of APS-c
No one said crop cameras were bad.
>>2812682
I'm sorry no one was able to intervene and get you special education sooner, anon.
>>2812682
>and you're not going to get the exact same look of an 85 on a 24x36mm sensor(be it film or digital) but putting a 50 on a crop,
a 50mm 1.8 on a crop body is identical to an 85mm 2.8 on full-frame.
If you think otherwise I really don't care. You're just stupid.
>Cool
Mine
>Uncool
Yours
>>2812686
Someone just bought a 50 for their crop body and wants to make sure everyone knows they they made a good choice
>if you think otherwise, I really don't care
Kinda sounds like you did care. Bet you're jacking off to tranny porn to appease isi for agreeing with you too.
I hate when people think the same focal lengths will look different on aps-c or full frame. An 8mm on a Pentax Q looks just a bit different to an 8mm even on micro four thirds. The depth of field is the same but that's the only practical similarity. Similarly a 300mm lens on 8x10 looks just slightly different to 300mm on "full frame"
>>2812694
Sorry, but you don't understand lenses at all. You seem to think a focal length is directly equivalent to a field of view while ignoring image circle diameter.
well this thread certainly has some characters in it. anyway here's my version of the cool wall, based on nothing really:
Seriously Uncool: Sony NEX, Canon digital.
Uncool: Nikon Dxx00, Sony A6000, Sony "Zeiss", Leica Digital
Cool: Nikon DX00, Canon New F-1, Canon FD lenses, Nikkor AF-D lenses, Nikon F100, Nikon F2, F4 and F5, Canon EOS 3 and other flagship AF film bodies, Hexar AF, Sony A7 (original) Pentacks
Sub-Zero: Nikon F3HP/T/P, Nikkor AI-S lenses, Fuji X-Pro 1/2, Contax RTS III, Contax G2 (black, the gold version is just Cool) Hexar RF, Olympus XA, Leica M4-P
A league of its own: Pretty much any film camera fuji made after the 70's. GSW 690III, the 645 autofocus cameras, that ridiculous 6x8 studio cam, etc.
>>2812719
>well this thread certainly has some characters in it
Seriously uncool: you
Sugar #2, even from Florida aren't ya?
>>2812722
>replying to every post I make, every night
You sure do spend a lot of energy and time trying to make fun of trips to feel good about yourself.
Maybe next time you could redirect the energy into making a photo, to post on this photo board.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:10:17 02:13:36
Sub Zero
>>2812734
>>2812686
its the identical frame, not the depth of field or anything else, just the frame.you're gonna more background, more distortion. Point is, there are better lenses than a 50 on a crop to buy than a 50
>>2812734
How to get shot: The camera accessory.
>>2812734
Could have bought one of these in excellent condition, complete with original carry case, user manual and the three filters for $200 aud. Sadly I didn't have that kind of money to just throw around
>>2812734
Actually not that bad of a lens, pretty sharp, just a lot of CA on digital.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:09:13 11:26:12 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 1333
>>2812624
No way man, it looks seriously effay
>>2812734
>C R Y O G E N I C
Uncool: Every autofocus Pentax film slr
Every DSLR with body other than navy, black, or silver/black gets dropped to this level (lower tier cameras don't move).
Also cool: Every Pentax DSLR made
Half 135 frame
Film rangefinders
Sub zero: Pentax K-1
>>2812887
You've got shit taste.
>Seriously uncool
Leica M240 : It's a gaudy fat dentist camera.
Anything labeled "Prosumer"
Pentax k-01
Olympus Pen F (digital)
>Uncool
All of Fuji X / Sony
Mamiya rb67
Phase One 645
Pentax DSLRs
Canon-Nikon full frame
m4/3rds
Hexar RF
Minolta CLE
>Cool
Plaubel Makina 67
Rolleiflex
Voigtlander Bessa (modern)
Ricoh GR
Pentax 67
Contax T2
Olympus Pen F (film)
Lomo LCA-120
>Sub zero
Hasselblad 500cm
Fuji Tx1 (Hasselbald x-pan)
Leica M (excluding m240)
>>2812703
No that's the exact opposite of what I think ya muppet. As I say, the focal length directly affects the field of view when size of image circle is taken into account, and directly affects the depth of field when aperture and distance from subject are taken into account. There is nothing "unique" about a 50mm, it'll have different field of view on different cameras, where it will be the direct equivalent of everything from a super telephoto to a fisheye.
>>2812928
>Sub zero
>Hasselblad 500cm
>Fuji Tx1 (Hasselbald x-pan)
>Leica M (excluding m240)
literally best goy.
>>2812620
>Seriously uncool: Polaroid
Instant is its own can of worms...
Seriously uncool:
-everything Urban Outfitters touches
-any "restored" Polaroid camera sold to retarded hipsters for the price of an entry-level DSLR
-Kodak's short-lived instant line
-Keystone's knockoff-cameras
-Impossible Instant Lab
-SX-70 Model 3
-all of Polaroid's consumer-grade plastic crap from the 60s-onward
Uncool:
-any of the later packfilm folders that had annoying countdown timers or proprietary flash mounts grafted to them
-roll film cameras
-Instax
-101/102
-Spectra
-600 (camera)
-SLR-680/690
Cool:
-100
-250
-Type 55
-SX-70
-Konica Instant Press
-Fujifilm FP-1
-600SE
-20x24
Subzero:
-180/185/190/195
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3100 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Elements 4.0 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/4.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 994 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 78 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:04:11 03:39:18 White Point Chromaticity 0.3 Exposure Time 1/10 sec F-Number f/9.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 1.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash Flash, Compulsory, Return Detected Focal Length 52.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2812942
>no big shot
Poser
>>2812928
>Anything labeled "Prosumer"
U mean A7R2?
>>2812787
What would be a good equivalent of a 50mm for a crop sensor body? I'm honestly curious because 50mm is my favourite typo of lens to use for my SLR but sometimes I just like to fuck around with my nex.
Cool: iPhone
Uncool: Cameras
Normal people don't really care about your Sonys and Canikons, they prefer their iPhones to take pictures
>>2812969
Voigtlander 35mm f1.2 Nokton
>>2812983
As long as it's not a dumb looking compact or a bulky ass black DSLR, it's cool.
Digital only:
Uncool: Sony, Canon, Leica, any camera with a telephoto lens, bridge cameras of any brand, "tough" cameras, Olympus Pen F
Cool: Olympus besides the Pen, Panasonic LX series, Fuji X, Nikon and Pentax DSLRs.
>>2812983
Sorry bro, no matter how you go ahot it, taking pictures with an iPhone does not make anyone look cool. Or uncool for that matter.
>>2813101
It makes you look like a fresh off the boat gook tourist or hipster, actually.
The most uncool thing you can do is shoot with an iPad.
seriously uncool: 35mm
cool: digital cameras
sub zerio: iPhones brah
>>2812943
Magicubes and trying to find the unicorn flash or flash adapter are uncool.
>>2813146
Well, everything about instant film is tryhard and uncool in 2016, with the exception of instax.
So maybe you don't know shit.
>>2813114
I shoot concerts and once saw a woman in the front row recording the show on the camera on her macbook pro.
>>2813204
>FP3000b
>tryhard
>>2813206
Fucking liquid nitrogen cool
>>2813210
>discontinued film you have to buy at ridiculous mark-up
Seriously uncool.
>>2813206
thats totally badass.
>>2813214
>The stuff I shoot isn't cool or unique enough to warrant paying a little extra for it.
Sounds like what YOU shoot is uncool. There's no matching FP3000b.
>>2813204
Butthurt much? I have a Big Shot and it's truly not a bad camera, all aesthetics considered -- but its grocery list of limitations didn't make it a good camera either. Not to mention I'm fairly certain that if not for Warhol's attachment to the model, it would probably be lumped in with all the other plastic Colorpacks and cheap crap of the era.
>>2812586
>sub zero: f/.95
FTFY
>>2813247
no, thats for cucks that dont shoot.
>>2813247
That's bokeh-whoring, for gear fags, and when you try to actually use it, it's ridiculous and nothing is actually in focus. Fuck off with that noise.
>>2812601
>isi
>worse than most of the other trips on the board
You only notice her posts because of the name/trip.
She's no worse than some of the faggots in the film general, rpt or gear threads desu.
>sub zero
Contax/Yashica, Bronica, FED,
>seriously uncool
Modern Zeiss, Modern Canon
>>2812641
Why not?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot SX130 IS Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.4 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Lens Size 5.00 - 60.00 mm Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.01 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2016:02:11 07:38:58 Exposure Time 1/10 sec F-Number f/3.4 ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/3.4 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 5.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 4000 Image Height 3000 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Evaluative Sharpness Normal Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Large Focus Mode Single Drive Mode Continuous Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Macro Mode Normal Subject Distance 0.160 m Sequence Number 1 White Balance Fluorescent Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 224 Image Number 106-0018
Cool: taking pictures
Uncool: worrying about the credibility of your camera as a lifestyle accessory
Seriously uncool: bickering on the internet about it
>>2812641
Uh, You know that 85mm equivalent lenses are popular and quite useful, right?
>>2813215
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 800 Image Height 273 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 2016:04:11 18:40:23 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 800 Image Height 273
>>2813255
Not him, but isi is the worst shitposter on this board.
>>2813286
No the sad, uninspired faggots who jump at every opportunity to attack isi instead of just ignoring her are the worst shitposters on the board.
Seriously Un cool:
>quarter-frame (m4/3)
>half-frame (aps)
UN COOL:
>1 inch sensor or smaller
>645
>6x6
>6x9
>5x7
COOL:
>35mm
>6x7
>digital MF (larger than 35mm but not actually 645)
>4x5
SUB ZERO:
>6x8
>8x10
>>2812549
>mfw kiddies can't be fucked to put effort in nowadays
>daddy what are planes of focus
>but I want it EASY daddy!
>>2813492
idk 5x7 is cool it's just situational/requires talent to use that "extra space"
it can be used to make some cracking stuff
(in 35mm equivalent)
Seriously Un cool:
>wider than 20mm
>35mm
>43mm
>45mm
>90mm
>105mm
UN COOL:
>20mm
>24mm
>40mm
>100mm
>135mm
>200mm
>anything longer than 200mm
COOL:
>21mm
>28mm
>50mm
>85mm
SUB ZERO:
>31mm
>55mm
>58mm
>77mm
>>2813491
how is having a short-tele portrait lens silly?
Having a 50 as your ONLY lens on crop is silly. But its still one of the most important lenses for most people.
>>2813504
I used a 50 on my D300 as my primary lens for like six years and never felt constrained or silly.
>>2812600
>D800
>low/mid-range
u f0cken w0t m8
Let's be serious guys this thread should have been:
>Seriously uncool
post-Alphon /p/ rageposting anon
>Uncool
>MFT shills, isi, shitposting anon
>Cool
Muhmegapickles, 2% of anon in the RPT, carlos, $19.99, pantsuit and the rest of 2006-era /p/, IRC excluding isi
>Sub-zero
old Naturefag, pre-Alphon /p/, PhotoshopR's tutorial live streams
>0*degrees Kelvin
Alex Fucking Burke, Bassackwards not on the merit of his photos but on the merit of how many fucks he gave, Ken Rockwell
>>2813503
>135
>seriously uncool
>45mm
>Cool
>50mm
HOW ABOUT YOU GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE.
>>2813503
>SUB ZERO:
>31mm
>55mm
>58mm
>77mm
Pantecks viral marketing pls
Not even on a scale measuring coolness:
Sugar
>>2813566
this. i used to hate the bastard but now i kinda get his act.
still blocked, though.
>>2813482
Literally this
>>2813247
>sub zero: f/0.7
FTFY
>>2812928
>prosumer camera
>it's a bridge camera
>>2813494
tru
"those who sacrifice image quality for convenience deserve neither"
>>2813532
What the fuck happened to Bass, incidentally? I left this shithole for a while and at that point he was posting less but still visible. Did he just fade out? Or actually make a point of leaving?
>>2813680
He had a stroke a while back. Feared he was dying.
Posted a Goodbye thread a few months ago, hasn't been heard from since.
Pour out a bottle of Crown if you could.
>>2813680
He had a major stroke a few months ago and is basically knock knock knockin' on heaven's door.
>>2813556
45mm
>muh perfect lens because it's close to 43.3
>muh pancake
50mm
>it's popular so it's bad
>it's actually a telephoto
>it's called a nifty fifty so it's shit
That it got you so worked up proves how right the ranking was.
>>2813532
i'm cool? thanks sugar :)))))
>>2813769
HAHAHAHA don't kid yourself faggot
Remember, as per the Cool Wall rules, that if you own it then it becomes Seriously Uncool.
This is sub zero
>>2813809
Oh, that guy who made his own cameras. Can someone remind me of his name?
>>2813832
tichy
first time checking out /p/ and now i feel bad for owning a 6D as a personal camera
>>2814343
What is wrong with the 6D?
>>2814377
>What is wrong with the 6D?
Not much of a lifestyle choice are they?
Actually it's a fine camera. /p/ has an irrational hatred of all things Canon.
If you stick around you'll notice that pretty well every brand except Canon has an army of shills and fanbois. You'll find some of the longest threads are filled with them arguing about who's camera is the best. The only thing they will agree on is that they all despise the worlds most successful and popular camera manufacturer.
Canon users, for the most part, don't give a flying fuck. They are much more confident in their purchases and rather than waste their lives bickering like children on 4chan they go out and use their cameras
ITT: jobless leftist pot heads
>>2813255
stay mad forever poorfag
>>2814343
biff uses a 6D
>>2814377
just not as effay as some of the quirky shit around here I guess.
It does what I bought it to do though, which is to take photos. My only regret is that it is quite large and I sometimes I dream about having a fun mirror less fixed length camera...
Pretty sure I would get tired of it fast though
>>2813261
THIS
>>2814394
It's a nice change of pace from what /p/ used to be. Is not that Canonfags don't give a fuck, it's that they have been completely devastated in almost every metric. It wasn't that long ago that there were permanent canon vs. nikon threads on /p/. Canonfags died out when nikon sensors were light years ahead. Then nikonfags died out when the sony decided to make their own cameras and leave nikon with last gen sensors. Canon on /p/ now is just a non-factor. Don't worry, everything changes and everything feels the same.
No fanboy is above any other on /p/. It's shit all the way down and nobody rises above it.
>>2814402
I was using a 6D a couple of days ago. Pretty amazing camera. My only complaints were that images on the LCD were brighter and more saturated than anywhere else I viewed them on, square aspect ratio was only available in live view, and the wifi app was clunky as hell. I borrowed it to take a couple of pictures for an instagram I just made.
I was actually very surprised. I thought it would be a struggle to use but I just turned everything off and set it to manual. The only time I messed up was when I didn't pay attention to the meter.
The size and weight were great with the 50mm f1.8. The camera felt great in the hand. I never used the 24-105mm f4 zoom because I find zooms overwhelming.
I actually think the 6D looks pretty fucking good. People have taken the canon dslr design for granted because it has been ubiquitous for so long. If canon changed the design or stopped making them people would go crazy about how "the don't make 'em like they used to".
I might pick one up but I wish it was either cheaper or had weather sealing. It can handle the elements a bit but at the price I rather not risk it. If it was cheaper I wouldn't care.
>>2814401
lol and? Biff isn't even good, stop riding his dick
>>2814422
>vented
>cool
I disagree but I'll let it pass if you agree that rangefinders are un cool.
Seriously Un cool
>EVF
>WLF
UN COOL
>rangefinder
>SLR
COOL
>viewfinder
>TLR
SUB ZERO
>ground glass
>sports finder
>>2814423
>rangefinders
>uncool
>seriously uncool : WLF
>cool : TLR
>>2812553
wtf? half frame is based
>better aspect ratio
>twice as many pictures
>super compact bodies
>lenses are sharper than 35mm lenses
>>2814425
And ground glass is sub zero...
Ever get the impression that people don't comprehend what they're talking about?
>>2812928
switch cool with uncool and put put lomo 120 in uncool
>>2812620
>Polariod
>Seriously Uncool instead of Sub-Zero
ITT: Proof /p/ never goes to parties
>>2814545
Seriously uncool:
Taking your camera to a party
>>2814568
I have never been to a party where people didn't get excited to take photos with a polaroid camera. I suppose if your "party" is just you and six guys sitting down in a living room while one other dude plays music from YouTube through some little USB speakers while you're all on your phones trying to get girls to come over, yeah, a camera there would be pretty lame.
>>2814576
>I have never been to a party.
FTFY
>>2814578
>projecting this hard
please stop anon, you're embarrassing yourself
>>2814420
burn yourself. He's a great photographer and a great person.
why is the olympus pen digital so uncool but the olympus pen film is so cool?
>>2815046
digital is fake and gay. is it your first week here or what?
>>2815048
fuck off with the shitty memes
>>2815049
fuck off with the salty butthurt.
>>2815053
>salty
is /p/ part of the fgc now?
you're all bad at shitposting
t. shitposting pro
Officially starting off in the mainstream 35mm film camera department:
Seriously Uncool:
>Pentax K1000
Uncool:
>Canon AE-1
Cool:
>Olympus OM
Subzero:
>Nikon F
Any additions/changes?
>>2815046
Because it is trying so hard.
>>2818353
So according to your logic it's just like a Nikon DF. But the Nikon F is praised throughout the thread. Olympus OMD is somewhat praised here, but how would it be any different than the Nikon DF or Olympus pen digital?
>SERIOUSLY UNCOOL
Entry level DSLRs, most Canon DSLRs, Sony mirrorless, Leica M5, Canon AE-1P, bridge cameras, Panasonic
>UNCOOL
Pentax, most Nikon DSLRs, Canon FD, most Nikon AF SLRs, Olympus OM-D and Pen-F, TLRs, LF rail cameras, digital Leica
>COOL
Canon EOS (film), Nikon D700, Nikon manual focus SLRs, Nikon F100, Olympus OM and Pen, Olympus XA, Nikonos-V, press cameras
>SUB ZERO
Nikon FA, Leica M3, Ricoh GR film and digital models, Hasselblad V, Nikon F6, Hasselblad X-Pan, Fuji GW rangefinders, wooden field cameras
>ABSOLUTE ZERO
Nikon F3, Nikon F2 Titan
>>2812563
>/p/haggots will only be happy with nothing but a >1:1 reproduction on a 50ft sheet film
Seriously bro? Medium format is good enough. Id doesn't matter if your shooting 8x5. if the shots not there.But if I get the shot with my cellphone. My snapshit will beat yours.
>>2818393
>I like nikon, the poster
>>2818393
>no mention of contax
this fucking pleb
>>2812620
Agreed 100% drones go into the seriously uncool section.
>>2818393
I must admit, F2 titan is absolutely beautiful. I wouldn't mind if all Nikon did was slap a digital back on it and sold it as an enthusiast dslr.
>>2818887
>nikon doing something awesome, its consumers want
You keep dreaming. We used up the nikon magic with the d500.
>>2812436
>this entire gearfaggotry
>>2818908
Can you explain the D500? I'm having trouble seeing it's appeal or it's place in the nikon line up. Is it just a birdwatching camera? I always thought the D7200 was nikon's top crop camera.
>>2818927
The D500 is a cheaper alternative to the D5.
If you don't need a full frame sensor, but you do want the best of the best in other features, then it's your camera.
Its predecessor, the D300s, was also very successful.
>>2818933
That makes sense. The market for the D5 can explain the cost as a business expense. For people who can't justify the price and don't benefit from full-frame there is the D500.
>>2818933
The D500 is not in the slightest an "alternative" to the D5. That's like saying a Civic is an "alternative" to an F350. It's true only in the barest and most ignorant of understandings.
>>2818976
They even named it "500" to refer to the "5" in D5.
It shares many of its features, such as its AF system, button layout, robustness and weather sealing.
And both cameras are optimized for high fps and high ISO.
Sports photographers and photo journalists who can't quite afford a D5 will get the D500 instead.
And many D5 owners will also buy a D500 as a secondary/spare camera.
>>2818983
Holy shit. They're different products for different markets retard.
It doesn't have shit to do with "being able to afford" and has everything to do with being a statement that it's on the same level in some ways, but different in others.
It's like Canon's 7D. The 7D isn't an alternative to the 5D or 1D series, it's a different professional tool for a different market designed to cater to different needs.
Companies don't compete with themselves like you're trying to idiotically claim.
>>2818983
That's interesting. When you look at it as a second D5 body the D500 looks like a great deal.
The name was what confused me most. I thought nikon was going for Dx being their FF sports flagship and Dxxx being their FF high resolution cameras. Took me a while to figure out it was a D300s replacement but then I couldn't see where an updated D300s fit into nikon's modern lineup. I would have understood it's purpose sooner if they called it the D50. That might create some confusion with Canon and they wanted to cash in on the D300s' popularity.
>>2812576
>Fujifilm X-Pro, Olympus PEN film cameras, Pentax film SLRs, leica M,
lmao this nigga.
>>2818996
I would ask you to elaborate on how the markets differ.
But you resort to name calling so I'll tell you to fuck off stupid cunt.
>>2818998
Nikon's naming schemes never made any sense.
"D50" has already existed before, so they can't use that.
>>2819005
>I would ask you to elaborate on how the markets differ
Because you're an idiot who doesn't have the slightest clue how the camera markets work nor the sense to think about it for a few moments and come to a conclusion that's even marginally logical.
>But you resort to name calling so I'll tell you to fuck off stupid cunt.
Don't be an idiot and no one will call you an idiot.
>>2818996
Lol
>mfw people actually take their time to make elaborate, totally pointless lists
>mfw this entire thread
>>2812576
what a fucking hipster
>>2818376
The OMD is styled after the oldies but doesn't try its hardest to copy them. That's understandable.
The Nikon Df isn't praised here. It's an overpriced piece of shit because of the hipster tax both new and used.
>>2819613
L2read, I never said the DF gets praise
Seriously uncool:
Holga, Sony or Panasonic with Hassie Logo or Red Dot, Samsung NX, M 4/3rds, Sigma Superzooms.
Uncool:
Canon Rebel, Smartphones, Sony A6000/NEX, Sony A7s, Sony SLTs, Impossible Project Film, Kiev 88, Seagull TLR
Cool: Hasselblad 500 Series, Leica R Series, FF Canon / Nikon, Pentax SLRs, Rolleiflex, Fuji X100 Series, Voigtländer Bodies.
Subzero:
Fuji X Pro2 / XT-1, Mamiya RB/RZ, Linhof, Voigtländer Lenses, Leica M, LF Nikon Lenses, Soviet Fotosniper.
>>2812436
>pure, concentrated, cancerous sludge that dripped out of Hillary Clinton's snatch:
isi
>>2820200
Grow up kid
