/fa/ - Fashion

>>7428352
How camera can be /fa/? Okay, maybe headphones can be stylish or whatever, but buying camera just for design is just stupid. Anyway, i own picrelated.

Fuck off back to Tumblr u cunt

OP confirmed for complete tool

>>7428428
I bought a Leica just for the design. These things are beautiful.

>modern cameras

lol plebs

looking for a DSLR to start as hobby (and a class for school)

I'd like to spent $500 (including w.e equipment I need. lens, batteries, etc)

any advice on what to cop? where to look?

thanks

>>7429838
canon t3i

>>7429838
Used Pentax K-5 and a 50mm.

>>7428352

Ricoh GR2

probably one of the best compact cameras around before the new mirror less cameras that came out last year.

>>7429866
>Comparing some shit tier camera to the jewel that is the Sony mirrorless cam

>>7429801
>Showcasing vintage cameras with a piece of shit Brownie.

You're the pleb mate.

>>7429910

>Sony mirrorless good

hahaha. I mean they make good cameras, but design is horrible and they make shitty lenses. Its soccermom tier unless you own some awesome legacy glass or leica lenses.

/fa/ and functional

People always ask if Im shooting film

/fa/ :

Any rangefinder
Any film slr
Olympus m4/3rds
Sony NEX
Pentax K01 (lol)
Fujifilm digital cameras

Not /fa/ :

>Any digital SLR
>loomix m4/3rds
>Samsung nx

>>7429838
in a similar but poverty striken vein to this question, whats the cheapest/best camera to get some travel pics and stuff?

>>7429838
>>7430495
it doesn't really matter if you go for nikon/canon or any other brand. it's generally better to buy a older camera model and spend the big money on lenses

iPhone, duh.

Who the hell carries a heavy camera everyday?

Most film dslr's look pretty good, pic related, mah Konica.

>>7430678

Meant to say slr's.

>Shitty Canonet's

>>7430688

>The saddest Rollei in the world

>>7428428
>>7429866
My jelly levels are of the charts.
Also adding to the list: Olympus Mju 2 and Fujifilm's mirrorless lineup, especially the x100s. I have never been more satisfied with any purchase ever, plus the hipster qts love it.

i bring a disposable with me basically everywhere if that counts

>>7430649
Actual photographers. Christ this thread is cringe.

>mfw /fa/ probably takes better pics than /p/

>>7430871
No, they don't. If /fa/ did, then the fit pics in waywt wouldn't look like garbage.
Though I'm kind of surprised that /fa/ and /p/ aren't more close.

I mean.

/p/ is wannabe photographers.

/fa/ is wannabe models.

Members from both boards should totes meetup.

/fa/ can dress like faeries and /p/ can take pictures.

>>7430390
>Not owning those lenses
Poorfag pls

hnn

>>7431072

post pic then

>>7431106
Point is, you said the new sony isn't a jewel but soccer-mom tier. This does not stand since the pricetag is already pretty fucking high. And is clearly targeting people who already have that kind of lenses.

I think that the pentax q is cute c:

>>7431115

I said Sony makes great bodies but shit lenses and they do. And the new A7 and A7r arent even that expensive considering youre getting a FF camera starting at $1700.

>>7428428
Contax T3 is auto-win
Just so fucking expensive and hard to find :(

pic related

is mine

>>7431599
>Its soccermom tier unless you own some awesome legacy glass or leica lenses.

Anon pls. You don't need to lie.

>>7431724

I meant NEX is soccermom tier

Then you said "new" Sony so I assumed A7/A7r which are pretty fairly priced IMO

I've got one of these.

>>7432492

>>7432499
And one of these

>>7432504
And one of these...

>>7432513
Aaand one of these.

>>7432524
And one o' them....

>>7432531
And one of these....

>>7432542
And this thing..

(Hey Universe! Check out the dude with the Bolex!)

>>7432542
goddamn you have a lot of cameras

>>7432546
And I've also got a couple Nikon DSLRs, a Nikon J1 (shut up, I got an awesome deal on it) and a canon camcorder....but those are work horse cameras, not as aesthetically pleasing.

>>7432548
Yes....yes I do.

Oh, and I've got a kodak brownie bullet, but everybody has a kodak brownie bullet....so nothing special there.

>>7432548
You should check out my tumblr.

lukedodson.tumblr.com

It's mostly digital, but I've got some of my film stuff on there. I'm sitting on a bunch of negatives from the Kodak and the Yashica A that I need to scan in.

>>7432557
>>7432561
I've been wanting to get a used film camera off eBay for shits and giggles, but idk if i can justify buying one because i probably wouldn't use it and getting film developed is annoying.

Looking at your tumblr now

>>7428428
Literally have too many film cameras to name. Pictured is leica iiif and Ricoh gr1v

>>7432573
Didn't mean for that post to be a reply but hey ho

Some nikons

>>7432570
You can get some good ones off shopgoodwill.com for pretty cheap as well.

That's where I got the argus autronic 35.

I need to start volunteering at the photo center so I can use their scanners and b/w lab. Luckily there's still a good independent film lab here in Seattle as well so I don't have to send out my rolls to have them developed.

>>7430801
i always carry my Olympus Mju 2/Stylus, such a perfect little 35mm snapshot camera

>>7432590
Nice. I stuck with Nikon for my dslrs because I can use my old glass on them as well.

I've got a Nikkor 50, an E series 50 and I snagged a Mk1 Vivtar Series 1 70-210 for $40 at the flea market.

>>7432499
i have one of these and an fe. i like the fe better

>>7432615
Which dslr? The only digital camera I have is a canon 5D and I have an adapter to use my nikon lenses but it's a bit more inconvenient. Then again I only use film these days.

>>7432635
I'd like to get my hands on an fe.

The FG was actually my first "real" camera. I took a photo class in High School and my mom bought it from the local pawn for me.

It's honestly about die. The advance is slowly failing and the shutter timing is off among other problems but I hang on to it for sentimental value.

>>7432649
D3000 and a D3100, but I'm scrimping up for a D600. I know it's got shitty flash compatibility but I'm not a studio photographer so I hardly ever use anything but a speed light.

I'll probably sell the D3000 to a friend for cheap (or just give it away) but I'm probably going to keep the 3100 as a back up/time lapse beater.

what's a good film camera i can carry in my pocket and costs less than $20 on ebay? op's looks nice.

>>7432672
i have a nikon L35af and an Olympus Stylus Epic, both are really cheap and pocketable

>>7432665
Some people say it's not worth shelling out the cash for full frame but to me I really see a big difference. The d600 looks nice, but if it was my money I would buy a used d700 for less.

>>7432672
>>7432687

I'll second the L35af. I got my for $7 at a thrift store.

The film camera landscape is littered with Minolta Hi-Matics and Olympus XA as well

>>7432672
OPs camera costs more than 20x your budget so I wouldn't recommend the 28ti.

Like >>7432687 said, I also recommend the Olympus stylus epic (named mju II in Europe) if you can get one for $40 or less then jump on it. I know my cameras and you can't get better quality than that for less.

>>7432689
I thought about a d700 and if I don't get the d600 that's my back up plan.

But I like the smaller body on the 600 and that it's a little better for shooting different subjects on the fly.

Also I have a credit line with newegg, so when I pay off what's on their now I can finance the camera and get some accessories with it.

looking to get a camera bag under $100. what are some /fa/ camera bags?

>pic related, a camera bag not under $100

>>7433260
Get a regular bag and put a kit cube set up in it.

i feel those who are enamored with film as a media are too young to remember using them in a bygone era where vacation photos were easily corrupted due to circumstances like part-time wage worker error, ambient temperatures, camera quality and not developing your film roll within a timely manner

or simply just a bit of moisture in your camera body. A film camera is really the representation of a consumerist lifestyle, disposable AA batteries, disposable film and lets face it, disposable cameras. they were never meant to last outisde of a few professional options.

let's not forget the sheer heft of stoarage boxes of developed negatives and film, many of which were useless photos of fingers and the inside of lens caps filling basements everywhere only to fade/tear/melt or be damaged by moisture

>>7433291
People like film for the same reason people like analogue delay pedals: The first generation of digital replacements was made by engineers to be mathematically perfect and objective.

And it was therefore completely sterile.

Now we have digital guitar delays that emulate the sound of analogue, the same way we have digital filters to emulate the look of film.

The moral of the story is that technologists and engineers are useful but they don't know shit about making anything look or sound pretty.

>>7433291
it's just a type of photography you fat jackass, stop looking into it so hard

>>7433291
You're funny.

>>7433291
le cringeface

i feel those who are enamored with sieg heil as a trip are too young to remember using them in a bygone era where waywt photos were easily corrupted due to circumstances like part-time wage worker error, ambient temperatures, camera quality and not developing your film roll within a timely manner

or simply just a bit of fuccboi in your camera body. A sieg heil is really the representation of a consumerist lifestyle, disposable face , disposable body and lets face it, disposable fits. they were never meant to last outisde of a few professional options.

let's not forget the sheer heft of stoarage boxes of developed pleb and terrible, many of which were useless fits of fingers and the inside of geos filling basements everywhere only to fade/tear/melt or be damaged by moisture

I like film because there's something about rediculously stark HD digital pictures that look untrue to how you see it with your eyes.

That and its hard to look at a screen to see what you're taking a picture of when the sun is bright, or catch the delay just right.

With film you just press a button and the image snaps immediately. Sometimes you get it and sometimes you don't but when you do it really looks awesome.

>>7431605
>Contax T3 is auto-win
Yes, such a nice camera.
>Just so fucking expensive
It worth every dollar, great lenses, easy to use, compact and etc. I had Nikon D80, then i bought Canon 5D Mark II, then i sold all this fucking shit like flash, lenses, bags, tripods and bought one little camera and i love it.
>hard to find
Not really.

>>7430837
up yr game and take a manual film slr /w u

>>7433548
i have afilm SLR

lets just say i give 2 fucks about it
i would use it if i could get free film from walgreens forever camera but i've never found one cheap enough

>>7433291
You have no idea what you're talking about do you?

>Ruined by 'a little bit of moisture'
Film doesn't react to water you idiot. Getting water on film doesn't do anything to it. Not only that, but film cameras in general withstand moisture better than their digital counterparts.

>ruined by ambient temperature
You are really going full retarded aren't you. The required temperature that would 'ruin film' would likely kill your unhealthy ass in prolonged periods. Unless you mean leaving the film out in direct sunlight for days on end (even though it says clearly on the box to store film at room temparature or lower), for which I challenge you to do the same with most other electronics.

>Consumerist lifestyle
Just what the fuck. Do you see many advertisements for film cameras? No. What about digital cameras on the other hand? To use film is to be subversive to the consumer lifestyle, not submissive. Back when film cameras were the rage, you would buy a metal bodie camera, and then never have be told to 'upgrade' your camera body ever. They were built to last. Compare that to digital age where you are told that your camera, even though fully working, must be replaced by a newer model after 3 years because it is considered obsolete technology now.

>>7434349
>>7433291

>AA batteries
Only a small portion of film cameras even use AA or AAA batts. Most use button cell batteries that lasts for like a year. If you're complaining about spending 3 bucks a year to keep your camera running as an argument against film cameras when digital cameras costs a lot more and is of more inconvenience (think of how many times you have to charge it/replace batteries in a year) to power.

>film camera is a representation of disposable camera
If you actually use disposable film cameras, then yes, obviously. That is the point. If you don't want a disposable camera then let me tell you my leica that was made literally about 60 years ago works like new and still holds it's value. Let's see where your digital slr is in 60 years time. No, in fact it will literally become disposable in less than 15 years time as the value will drop to next to nothing.

>>7434349
>Film doesn't react to water you idiot
negatives, cameras, pictures do

>but film cameras in general withstand moisture better than their digital counterparts.

weather sealing is standard on most/all DSLR's today that aren't meant for kids toys

under water cams are dslr's in bags

>The required temperature that would 'ruin film'
vegas sun in a few hours will do it

>Do you see many advertisements for film cameras?

too old, nobody bus them anymore. Back before you were alive, film cameras represented the consumerist lifestyle.

$14.99 roll of film
$14.99 processing fee +prints of all images
$5.99 extra for negatives processed returned
$39.99 for genenric fujifilm
$5 pack of batteries

the costs kept adding and adding back in the day, which is why digital took over

>when digital cameras costs a lot more and is of more inconvenience

i only charge my batts once in 3-4 months if that i do not have a battery grip/life extension

>If you actually use disposable film cameras, then yes

outside of a handful of examples most film cameras are garbage

sad think is i probably have a better film camera than you


it sounds like you can't afford to drop a few grand on a decent DSLR and are bitter about it

>>7434380
It's too obvious that you are either trolling, or just completely ignorant and unable to comprehend. Both are reasons that I'm not going to respond to your body of text.

> I probably have a better film camera than you

Over the years I've owned about 6 grand worth of film cameras including a few Leicas, many medium format cameras, and one very expensive large format camera. I also have a full frame digital camera actually and could spend thousands on a digital set up if I wanted to, but I don't. What was even the point in saying that you think you have better cameras than me? That better cameras = more photography knowledge? Lol. I actually study this at university and let me tell you you know fuck all.

>>7434380
>$15 for a roll of film
The fuck kind of film are you buying?

>>7434424
cooooooll

becuase film as a format is dead,for kids who can't afford a dslr or mirrorless cam.

you're better off snapping pics with an iphone

anyone into lomo here?

>>7434440

I'm a fashion photographer and use medium format digital Hasselblad's for the bulk of my work since it's fast and convenient, but the photography I really enjoy doing and where I seem to get the best results come from my grandfathers 60-year old Leica M3.

Film has it's place.

>>7434443

Lomo is for stupid wannabe hipster fucks.

>>7434440
Film has many benefits compared to digital.
Higher dynamic range, larger scan size and megapixels, and greater color depth are just a few.

>>7434440
Most art photographers who actually have made a name for themselves and accumulated more money than you will ever have use film. So that is clearly not true.

>>7434453
idk i think lomo looks better than half the high res shit taken by an overpriced dslr. I always loved nature shots of some lofi shitty camera

>>7434443
Fuck Lomo.
>Paying almost $300 sometimes for a camera that performs like a busted disposable

>>7434467
lol $300? i feel bad for anyone paying that much. I got mine for like 45 bucks

>>7434435
process only


$11.99 per 24 exposures, 35mm film
Print your favorite images from film, negatives or disposable camera in just an hour.

Develop from 35mm film, disposable camera or APS (Advanced Photo System) negatives
Print 4x6, 5x7* and 8x10* photos (*at additional cost)
Printed on Glossy Photo Paper

Product Details Below | Return Policy
Same Day Pickup available at select locations
<< Back
Holiday Shipping Deadlines »
---------------

Fujifilm Instax Mini Twin Pack Film
Priced per store

Overview:

Size/Count 2.0 ea

Super-Fine grain
Vivid, sharp images
Fast developing more
------------------------------------------------------
the cheapest DSLR in an arms length reach is a $550 canon 1100D
it has a 32GB SD card in it

the canon 1100D will take pictures on continous mode at 3 FPS meaning that i can take the equiv of a roll of film in 8 seconds.

it does NOT cost me $30 to do it.
i can "develop" those shots in 5 seconds, flip the sd card out and use Adobe Lightroom 5.0 and have them on 4chan

>>7434465
I have nothing against lo fi photography, it's just silly to pay a relatively high price to get a cheap look. Just buy a disposable or a badly made compact instead of spending 10x more for the same thing.

>>7434476

I pay four euros for any developing including pushing.

No need for print when you have a 135 film scanner.

>>7434486
wow ou ghetto'd a back ass solution with a pos a fucking scanner

and still have to pay a dude

gb2 tumblr poser

>>7434481
Yeah. I've got a cheap Time camera that gives me the same results.

>>7434476
I'm a student and can still afford to purely shoot film so I'm real living evidence that you are a moron.

>i can take the equiv of a roll of film in 8 seconds
And that's what you photos look like: that you've just snapped one hundred photos in half an hour without being selective or considerate with your photographing. You're me when I was 16, a trigger happy kid with a digital camera taking meaningless photos 20 times over. Time to grow up kid.

>>7434498
does this piss you off?

muh actuations

I got a NEX-5r, is it /fa/?
Originally I wanted an Olympus 4/3 but they're not available where I live
>tfw

>>7428352
i even hate the gf's old canon...bitch took the 5d mkii

>canon ae-1
>1978
>i'm a massive faggot who got it from my grandfather and used it because it's a giant unbreakable brick and I drop shit a lot
>I was in high school once
le embarrassed face

>>7434512
Why would it piss me off?

>>7434532
>without being selective or considerate with your photographing.

cuz u pretentious dough

>>7434545
I like how you always come into threads to tell everyone how shitty their stuff is and how much better the stuff you own is

you can drive a riced out honda and still be shit at working on cars

you can own a nice camera and be a shit photographer

you can own a 5-zip margiela jacket or have a closet full of loro piana shirts and still look bad

>>7434531
muh film grain , muh bokeh reblog and tell everyone (im sure they care) about how much you hate an nex-9

in this picture
continous shooting in low light conditions (note histogram)

light studio 5- makes bad photos magically into good ones

it's like i don't even have to try
yet you cry
when you get your neg back and it's all motion blur

>>7434557
im not, my stuff is shitty i noted that up above >>7434545

im arguing over format

film is really for kids playing artist with mom's old camera she bought on a trip to disney world in the station wagon

now they're on tumblr putting digital down......it really was revelutionary when it came out.

and it is a great innovation of us middle market consumers who don't know what the fuck we're doing

no you're not an artist, no im not an artist
a canon ae-1 from a thrift store does not make you god tier at photgraphy like these kids think they are

film was just....a bad format

mirrorless is now the middle consumer tier innovation

>>7434545
i'm talking about art (something you wouldn't know about), not taking photos for the purpose of showing your ugly too-long-sleeved dad sweater resting on top of your gut to show on the internet.

>>7434528
>>7434559
Have you actually taken ANY good photos?

>>7434568
>film is really for kids playing artist with mom's old camera

You are an ignoramus.

>film is really for kids playing artist with mom's old camera

>>7434580
Big words, no argument. For once sieg has a point.

>>7434584
actually I forgot to attach a picture >>7434585

>film is really for kids playing artist with mom's old camera

>>7434568
>film was just....a bad format
I just lost any respect I had left for you.
I understand you're not artistic in any way, but don't be so naive as to say "film was a bad format". It still IS a thing, by the way.
As an overweight consumer of shit, you have no place to comment on artistic mediums. Sure, digital is great for taking quick photos of your trough at dinnertime to post on instagram, or to shoot some high volume job, but if you want to make a meaningful image, there's no replacement for film.

>>7434575
>Have you actually taken ANY good photos?
i don't have to.
photoshop makes me the next ansel adams

while you're sitting there taking ken rockwell seriously

and being pretentious on tumblr with a junk camera, making zero sales on zenfoliio

>talking about making art

your darkass grainy shots on bulk bin film is crap, but it's not your fault its your media choice

FLW houses might have sucked if he built them out of pressed fiber board

>>7434592
>>7434585
>implying you're half as good as this

The problem isn't the medium itself, the problem is pretentious faggots thinking that making use of something like that automatically makes them legit pros.

>>7434598
No one's arguing against that, and this applies for many things in life. People front all the time.

>film is really for kids playing artist with mom's old camera

>>7434618
he's talking about you guys

>>7434598
>>implying you're half as good as this

Did I imply that though? Even vaguely? Nope. Sieg you are an idiot.

>>7434627
No sieg, your flawed logic is showing again.

>>7434635
>implying I'm fat

I don't think you understand the concept of implications very well anon.

>>7434618
>film is really for people wanting to improve their ability by focusing on self-imposed scarcity
>something lost with contemporary digital photography

>>7434662
I don't think you understand the concept of not being overweight very well

>>7434691
apparently all you need to be an artist today is teenage angst, $20 in film, moms old camera and some pre-owned rick tees

>>7434721
No all you need to be an artist is great vision, it doesn't matter how cheap your gear is.

Example: Sieg spend thousands on camera gear and still take shit photos because he's artistically handicapped.

>>7434689
I don't think you understand how to differentiate between people, one of the many signs that might place you in the autism spectrum.

Please, do seek professional help.

>>7434780
I didn't even say that you were sieg in that post, I only implied you were overweight. You literally just gave it away lol

>>7434780
I think technically it's that you have difficulties discerning between peoples' faces.

Film isn't dead, but it should be. it's like driving a buggy to work in 2013.

Goddamn this camera is so effay, shit is only like $15 too

>>7436455
i have one of these, nice

>>7436455
I love my XA. It's part of my EDC.