i drool for this. but is it worth about 380 eur including shipping? tell me, /p/. after all it's you that made me want this.i could get the GR Digital for about the same price ...
>>196410I want one too so bad but the price is just too high. Get over it and upgrade to medium format instead.
>>196581just to go kiev? i really don't think so. but medium might be fun later on.i'm currently totally keen on street and the like, which is hard(er) to do with an (d)slr.
>>196583For street you might want to buy cheap rangefinder like canonet or yashica. You can get one for less than $100 if youre lucky.
>>196594i didn't look for that too hard yet, only thing that would have come across my mind was Voigtländer Bessa R ^^;
Yashica Electro CC or GX. They'll blow your minds.Or cheaper, get an Olympus XA. They're good, and really cheap nowadays.
Can we please get past the over pricing and hipster aspect, because if you hadn't noticed scene bitches walking around with their SLR's lately, and give some mechanical and optical critique?
>>196644Bad mechanics, unreliable shutter, inaccurate and unreliable aperture control (possibly inexistant), and economic optics. Also it's overpriced.
>>196644>lomo.jpg0/10
This one is pretty neat too, and usually not as pricy as the lomo-copy ;) Images come out as a mixture between a "real" camera and a lomo-esque one.
are there any digital lomos?lomo film is too xxxpensive
>>196664this.
>>196666wtf that is kodak?
>>196666Not very LOMO results:http://flickr.com/cameras/kodak/cx6200/
>>196676protip: dunk it in water, dry it, scratch the lens and put vaseline on it. There's your digital lomo.
>>196664Learn to post process.
>>196632thanks a lot. i'll look around a bit. andy eventually post what i got/shot with it.>>196649guess ur right, tho i only once touched one and it sucked.i mean lomo is alright, but i want a discreet alternative to a rather bulky slr.
>>196693>Learn to post process.I have yet to see any PP images that look like true LOMO shots, and the few that come even remotely close take way more time than they're worth.TL;DR version = GO FUCK YOURSELF.
>>196701play with the contrast levels on R and G levels, usually around +60. That and color match with red and green. All this plus lens correction=done and easy.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:01:12 14:01:16Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width201Image Height267
>>196721Why did you pick such a terrible example of a Lomo photo?And honestly your version doesn't look much like that anyway.
Here's a more representative Lomo photo.Let's see you copy this without spending a lot of time on PP.
>>196746Admittingly I don't know how to PP x-pro.>>196721And that's the only lomo I have with about the same colors with the grass and the dirt, the rest are city shots. I mean, it is a compact, that was just a test roll.
fake x-pro.Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D2XCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsFocal Length (35mm Equiv)127 mmMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern986Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Created2008:06:03 13:45:53White Point Chromaticity0.3RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknownExposure Time1/400 secF-Numberf/3.2Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceShadeFlashNo FlashFocal Length85.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width580Image Height309
>>196756looks fucking awful