File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Which one, /p/? Aside from the Leica.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:10 14:09:12Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height500
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
The Leica.
>> Anonymous
The Ricoh.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>181680
FUCK, why didn't I think of that?
>> Anonymous
They all fail.
>> Anonymous
G9. I don't like wides too much, especially don't like 28mm equivalent, I don't mind noise, but I do mind mirror clap noise.

But come on, M8, please. 35 Summilux and 75 Summicron or Summarit.
>> Anonymous
Sweet, the 420. It's a nice lil DSLR for the money.
>> Anonymous
DP-1
>> Anonymous
Used 20D/30D/D70/D50.
>> Anonymous
>>181687

OP here. I already have a 5D and want a smaller camera to walk around taking pictures of lolis at the park.
>> Anonymous
>>181693
Get a 35mm rangefinder then. Anything else is going to look like cat shit compared to the 5D.
>> Anonymous
this is very relevant to my current interests too, i'm in a same position. what 35mm rangefinders are good then?
>> Anonymous
>>181694

Sorry, I don't want to buy another film camera. I'm leaning towards the Olympus 4xx with the pancake lens.
>> Anonymous
>>181700

The 5D isn't film.
>> Anonymous
>>181699
Film or digital? Because there are only two Digi-rf's in existence: The M8 and the RD-1.
>> Anonymous
>>181702
you fail at being a hater, LOL
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
olympus is still BIG compared to DP-1 and G9. So is Leica unless you put a very thin lens on it (which can be hard since the M8 can't take most collapsible lenses afaik)
>> Anonymous
G9 is sexy. Or M8 if you have the money.
>> Anonymous
>>181704

what?
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>181699
If you're too poor for Leica, Canon P/VI/7 or Bessa R2/R3/R4.

If it must be really small (these aren't), Minolta Himatic, Olympus 35RC, Yashica GSN and so on. I don't know these as well.

>>181700
It's honestly not that small. If you want something that's actually different from the 5D (don't need to hang it around neck), just get a Powershot and be done with it. You don't need microcontrast or extreem shutter speed for your loli shots.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>181728
If you are looking for loli shots, make sure you get something with good superzoom. My powershot (A520) takes bad loli pics unless they are right up close to me.

Picture only semi-related. I just wanted to get a shot of the girl in the bunny coat.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A520Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.6Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2008:01:05 01:01:34RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardExposure Time1/320 secF-Numberf/4.0Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias-1/3 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length5.81 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1600Image Height1200
>> Anonymous
>>181731
>loli shots
---> /a/
>> Anonymous
>>181731
Best shot I've seen on /p/ so far; moar.

OP: Get the 420; firepower of an m16 in the size of a handgun. The compacts are smaller, but you're giving up a lot of iq for that little extra small.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>181699
Olympus RD/DC, Minolta Hi-Matic 7SII, Canon Canonet GIII QL17, Yashica GX, Yashica CC/CCn

For digital, a Ricoh GRD or Fuji F31fd would be nice.
>> Anonymous
OP here. When I say I want to take pictures of lolis, I mean I want to take Henri Cartier Bresson-quality pictures of lolis. So I want something small and inconspicuous.
>> Anonymous
>>181843

> Fuji F31fd

The F31fd evidently had excellent high-ISO/low-noise images, but Fuji doesn't make this camera anymore. From what I've read on dpreview.com, Fuji's newer models have more megapixels and more noise. Anyone know of a new P&S comparable to the old F31fd?
>> Anonymous
>>181855
>Henri Cartier Bresson-quality pictures of lolis

You can't do that.

If you do that, any subsequent photography will be futile and pointless.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>181858

no, pretty much all compacts have absurd levels of noise these days, even at the lowest iso. your best bet is to buy the camera with the least megapixels, though you probably can't get much lower than 8 these days.\

which is why everything is so noisy. bah.
>> Anonymous
>>181865
I want my 6mp full frame dSLR's with supple clean images at ISO 3200.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>181874

someone said something??
>> Anonymous
>>181877
Halve the pixels and the price and you've got a fucking deal.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>181880

here you go, half the price, quite possibly better resolution
>> Anonymous
>>181881
Most consumer (drugstore stuff) grade film scans at 8mp. Really good stuff that scans at 22mp will offset the price too much.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>181883
who said he was talking about scans?
>> Anonymous
>>181884
Who said I was considering film?
>> Anonymous
>>181883
Also, to clarify this, scanned film requires more pixels to resolve the same detail, because of using grains instead of discrete pixels: it takes multiple pixels to get the same detail as one native digital pixel, similar to how Foveon sensors at four megapixels still have competitive resolution with modern high megapixel DSLRs, because every one of their pixels adds detail, instead of pixels being divided in a Bayer color filter.

So digital will outresolve 135 film; while I haven't seen any tests for APS-C, "full frame" digital pulls ahead even of 120 film. But none of this really matters: resolution never made or broke a photograph, and OP is agonizing over what camera will best get him fapping material without being question by the police.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
epic battle/
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>181885
I was defending the EOS-1 and film, not you.
FILM FOREVAR
>> Anonymous
>>181886
> So digital will outresolve 135 film

OP here. You got the hard math to prove this? It depends on the ppi scanning resolution of the film, right?

A 35mm frame is 24 x 36mm. If I scan at 3200 ppi (typical upper range of modern scanners), it results in a 3023 x 4535 pixel image, which is over 13 MP. My 5D is 12.8 MP.
>> Anonymous
>>182036
>it results in a 3023 x 4535 pixel image
But is it sharp?
>> Anonymous
>>182036
If you read the post, it takes more pixels to represent the same amount of detail in a scan than it does in output from a Bayer sensor, similar to how those four megapixel Foveon sensors will produce output comparable to much larger pixel count bayer sensors.

Again, though, it doesn't really matter. They're all good enough, image quality wise. Shoot film if you prefer the workflow and/or the look of a particular film. Shoot digital if you prefer the workflow and/or a look you can only get with digital. It's all good.
>> Anonymous
>>182036

Michael Reichmann on the issue and two times he's tested digital against medium format film:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/shootout.shtml
http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

135 film < APS-C digital

Don't know where APS-C digital relative to medium format film, I'd guess about the same.

Medium format film < Full frame digital < Medium Format digital < Large format film.
>> Anonymous
>>181896

Evidently that Pentax P645D was cancelled before it ever went into production.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/08/pentax-canceling-the-645-digital-to-focus-on-k-series-dslrs/
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>181855
Right, back on topic folks.

If you look at HCB's shots, lots of them were blurry and grainy so clearly you don't need a godly camera for this. What you need is something inconspicuous, so my suggestion to use a P&S stands. I'm betting you HCB never said "fuck my lolis are not sharp enough time to upgrade", but he did say "oh shit the lolis saw me and my camera time to run"

So there's no need to look at anything SLR sized. Any modern Canon Powershot, for example, will get you the fapping quality you need.
>> washer !kxrJVlZ8OE
     File :-(, x)
get a lumix lx2
>> Anonymous
>>182053
Somehow I don't think Cartier-Bresson was shooting lolis.
>> Anonymous
>>182062
Or at least he only kept them in his "private" collection.
>> angrylittleboy !wrJcGUHncE
>>181858
It's still available from Fuji brand-new ($300), at least here in Manila. You should be able to get one on e-bay or something for a lot less.

>>182053
Wasn't it HCB who said "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept"?
>> Anonymous
>>182319
Yes, it was.
>> Anonymous
DP1, without a moment of hesitation.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
oh hey guise whats up
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>182360
Cool camera but honestly it's not that small. You'd still need to bring a camera bag or keep it around your neck.
>> Anonymous
>>182369
Ah, might be so. I had never actually thought about its size
>> Anonymous
>>182053
well, HCB just had nowhere to upgrade to. The only way he could get noticeably better image quality under the same conditions was using medium format film, but that's obviously out of the question for street photography.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>182376
Yes, but clearly it wasn't an impediment to his making awesome art.

From after WWII, 35mm film had pretty much reached its maximum quality, or at the very least become able to give acceptable quality in the majority of situations for the majority of people (people in /p/ and other "serious" photographers are a tiny minority). I'd say that digital compacts are getting nearer and nearer to this level as well, which makes them pretty suitable for OP's needs (if just being a pedo is what he's aiming for). Remember that he already has a 5D, and the priority here is size.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
you need this, friend
>> radnomness
>>182382
is it bad that i just orgasmed at the sight of that camera?
>> Anonymous
>>182385
Imagine being able to hold it.
>> radnomness
>>182391
seriously...... 0[]0

how much the god like camera??
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>182392
US$32,000
>> Anonymous
>>182392
Thing is, it's only really good for studio and landscape work, environmental portraits if you want to push it.

Now, it's near perfect for those, but otherwise it's very limited, to the point of being unsuited.
>> Anonymous
>>182397
Adding a thought here: just like the $5,000 Leica M8 up at the top: perfect for portraits, street, documentary, generally anything involving shooting people who aren't playing sports far away from you. Landscapes if you don't mind checking your composition on the back after each shot. Unsuited for shooting things far away, macro (why is there even a macro lens in the M system?), and anything requiring precise viewing.

General, run-of-the-mill DSLRs are jack of all trades, master of none. For a master, you need to pay big bucks.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>182385
>>182397
I dunno, I'm not that impressed by it. The point is that it's a handholdable digital MF camera, right? Except the 1Ds is more versatile in that respect, and then I'm pretty sure backs like the one on the Sinar Hy6 beat the H3 in terms of sensor size, resolution, and omg megapixlez. H3 doesn't have a removable back either, right?

So I think we need to decide on a new camera to troll newbies with, guys.
>> Anonymous
>>182398
I can argue that the M8 isn't perfect for street shooting anymore. Compacts like the Ricoh GR Digital have surpassed it (and by far) in stealth and safety of the shooter :D

As for portraits and documentary, I don't really see how the M8 is better here than your run-of-the-mill DSLR, but I certainly see how its lack of AF, DoF preview and flash automation can be a hindrance.
>> Anonymous
>>182413
It wasn't even top when it was brand new.
Defective by design.
>> Anonymous
There is a reason 35mm SLR is the king nowdays...

It's because every other format is inferior/special purpose :)

35mm slr's just work.
>> Anonymous
There is a reason APS-C dSLR is the king nowdays...

It's because every other format is inferior/special purpose :)

APS-C dslr's just work.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>182413
heh heh heh... wow.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
/thread
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>182460
APS-C is "good enough" and "affordable".

If I had the money, I'd go full-frame instantly. I don't. Hence, APS-C.