2019, I am forgotten

>pocket cinema
you mean the black magic pocket cinema camera 4k?

no, you grew up

Attached: file.png (2000x1333, 2.66M)

Pocket camera yes, it's true.
Smartphone does a better job for this.
But you cents replace a reflex camera ( digital or film, who care)
Just because you will never find a 6cm (or more) front lens in a smartphone.

This thread is full of plebs

Attached: 49632.jpg (640x480, 87K)

They are unironically better than any phone... Stupid normies

>microdick canon sensor
>35-140mm equivalent
>F2.6-5.5
No, phone cameras have come a long way, but point and shoots even further.

Reread his post, he's agreeing that Point&Shits still surpass smartphone cameras

not how radiation works retard

Attached: 1560220833338.jpg (913x576, 75K)

i have a ricoh gr iii coming in the mail today

Mirrorless is just better

my cheap-o canon is still far better than my phones camera.

Attached: 91a8xiYUU3L._SX425_.jpg (425x287, 20K)

Hey, i owned one

me too :)

had custom firmware on it and everything

bestcam coming through

Attached: 11079-dp2viewfinder-1.jpg (500x334, 42K)

Are Smegmas any good or are you guys just memeing

flickr.com/groups/sigmadp2m/pool/
see for yourself

Attached: 14678626942-30af23470c-k.jpg (1536x2048, 1.28M)

Smartphones are getting optical zoom too now. It's only, like, 5x though.

you mean a pocket pusi?

Attached: U.jpg (280x280, 8K)

They have a very, very specific use case, but for that use case they are perfect. The original DP2/s/x is absolutely tiny and completely pocketable, but the sensor and lens combination is both exceedingly sharp, and of sufficient equivalent aperture to enable pleasant depth of field. Pic is my table of possible compacts to buy (I'm still completely unsure on what to get, but have my eye on several listings) it comes down for me to getting a DP2 and then not shooting film anymore :( or getting a rangefinder compact. Don't know what I'm going to do. Film is really special but limiting. I don't know if I'd get bored of the DP2 like I did with the DP2M, or if I'd hold onto it forever.

Attached: table.png (968x704, 65K)

To add, the DP2 and DP1 haves flash AND a hotshoe. It may be a weak flash, but it allows you to shoot in the dark. The DP2M only has a hotshoe, so it's viewfinder or flash.

Standalone cameras still make most good photos out there.

Cheap P&S are of course mostly replaced by smartphone cameras.

Attached: a7III.jpg (800x547, 58K)

good luck finding dpxm flash for sale, they are relatively rare and getting rarer by day

A sample from my old DP2M at f/2.8. Look at the hairs on the nettle leaves or the tiny bits of detritus on the frog's nose.

Attached: _P2M0018.jpg (4704x3136, 2.58M)

My G5x still does a far better job than my phone.
I want to buy a mirrorless one of these days though.

Looks worse than even an A6000 for some reason - probably the glass on it?

Jpeg compression + minimum focusing distance (the lens is not a macro lens with floating elements so close focusing performance suffers, for that you need the DP3M).

>mfw own a decent DSLR and macro-lens
>mfw still use my Note 9 camera more often than not because it's pictures are fantastic
I can totally see why dedicated cameras that aren't super high end have taken a nose dive as far as sales. Normies figure "good enough" is fine.

Phones give off electromagnetic waves, not radiation, mister Dunning-Kruger.

here's a better example of 100% sharpness, once again wide open.

Attached: _P2M0004.jpg (2048x2048, 2.26M)

this is with macro attachment lens

Attached: 4826cr.jpg (2660x1301, 1.03M)

An appropriate reminder that image quality is only really related to the total amount of light the sensor area gets exposed to. Any point and shoot with sensor ten times the size it has would match the image quality that of a professional camera.

I think I've seen better even with Mamiya filter lenses. But yea, I'd pretty much always use a decent prime for macro.

No offense to you, but I'm definitely glad there currently are much better cameras/lenses than that. My current A6000 toy can do pic related (1:1 crop with some JPEG compression problems, the overall image is quite a bit larger) and I still *really* want a better camera soon because it doesn't do quite as much as I'd like it to do.

It would be a really good time if the actually good gear didn't all cost a bunch of thousand dollars (which compared to the film past is cheap, but unfortunately still not a trivial expense).

Attached: bunnies.jpg (2545x1322, 857K)

the deal with sigma and foveon sensor is that it doesnt have bayer filter, so the resulting images have very nice colors and also often have that film look that bayer filter cameras cant do or it looks just too artificial

It still lives in my computer

Attached: screen-2019-06-11-20-13-59.png (1340x650, 139K)

> so the resulting images have very nice colors
I don't really see the advantage. It's mostly a matter of how you post-process the colors in your RAW, isn't it? With 12-16 bit colors and increasingly less severe posterization etc. effects you should have enough to work with.

> that film look
Of uneven film grain?

I'm old enough to be accustomed to that and yet I basically want that shit gone, it doesn't really look good. Even back then I always preferred the extremely fine grain types on some monochrome film. Not saying you couldn't do this with a Bayer sensor, but it doesn't seem like these are the sensors that are actually doing it.

>I'm old enough to be accustomed to that and yet I basically want that shit gone,
personal preference, I like that clean high res bayer look in some situations but in others I find it too artificial, tbqh film is often too grainy even for me(and just impractical), but the foveon produced pictures look just right, there is something in them that just makes photos look natural just how you see things with your own eyes

I still have mine. . . .somewhere in a box.

For me it's the lx100

Attached: 817CTtLi6vL._SX466_.jpg (466x314, 19K)

I bought this camera just for the physical controls knobs. SLRs are too big to carry around for casual photography and every other compact camera out there requires you to navigate the cancerous menus.

I use my coolpix all the time because it has 20x optical zoom and takes excellent pictures

I remember seeing a Samsung candybar dumbphone in the Guinness book of world records that had an actual telescoping zoom lens the size of a point and shoot's, wish at least some smartphones had that.

why no sony rx100 mark VI on the list?

$12 at Goodwill

No, they are becoming popular with hipsters for the CCD sensor and 2000s aesthetic.

Notice how all of the cameras cost about 150 quid/euro or less.

Same reason. Last thing I want is to navigate the menus, that wrote of the sony rx100 III because of that.

ten bucks too much desu

Attached: Z-SONY-RX1RM2-BEAUTY.jpg (1024x691, 115K)

>best compact ever made, period

Attached: 4ecba39b-8a3e-4865-bf25-aa92267fbc94.jpg (700x466, 39K)

my daily carry is a canon 7D mark II with the 55-250 IS STM. there is nothing in the point n shoot or cell phone arena that even comes close to the performance of this setup.

It's not mostly a matter of how you process it, no.
Bayer filter sensor if you take a 10mp image of a purely blue subject you only get slightly above 2.5mp of actual information (Since green can overlap into blue a bit, one of the reasons why x-trans focuses on more green pixels). However, with a stacked sensor, you will be getting a full 10mp of detail.

>there is nothing in the point n shoot or cell phone arena that even comes close to the performance of this setup.
you're fucking retarded

Eh...

Attached: hp215onceuponatime.jpg (640x480, 60K)

hurr i'm retarded

>doesn't post argument

>what are premium compacts
>what is ricoh GR1-3
>what is full frame point and shoots
the glass you're using is not impressive, it's a standard kit zoom with obvious corners cut, get the cheap 70-300 FF kit zoom instead if you want quality worth bragging about.

Not him, but the 55-250 is a pretty shit fucking lens. Horrible rendering, low sharpness, all your normal issues with any kind of zoom superzoom (and, until very recently, issues with every zoom).
While the RX1R lens isn't the best, it is certainly sharper and has better rendering. Not to mention the dynamic range of it shits all over the 7D Mark II.
It is far more expensive as well, but it still disproves your statement of "nothing" being close.
I'd take a Ricoh GR III over it tbqh. More dynamic range, better lens for sharpness, and although the IBIS on it isn't the best it still has it to compare to the IS on the 55-250.

full frame doesn't equal performance
"premium" compacts have smaller sensors

actually that lens is impressive for the performance for the price. the IS is better than the 70-200 IS USM i used to lug around because i didn't think i was pro enough if my lens wasn't at least f/2.8. it's a sharp wide open as my 70-200 f/4 L. did I mention it's light as fuck?

>honestly thinking the 70-300 kit zoom is a better lens

maybe you're referring to the I or II version, or had a shit copy? i had a an IS II and it was plenty sharp, but the STM is definitely a step up.

i've owned nearly ten grand in mid-high end canon glass though the years and the gearfagging about muh sharpness is so fucking overrated it's retarded.

no surprise both of you are ricoh fags. probably into so called street photography.

P1000 nikons

how fucking retarded are you?
you think that premium compacts have small sensors while they have the same sensor as your camera, and you also think that your 55-250 shits on L glass.
>full frame doesn't equal performance
but it can and will make shitty lenses perform well because of 2.5 times the surface area.
>did I mention it's light as fuck?
so is the 70-300 canon FF kit lens, and it's better as well.

While preferring sharpness over everything else is retarded, the lens still has no pop, no rendering or anything like that either. The STM is a hilariously trash lens and its only upsides are the stabilisation and the flexibility, but I'd rather carry around multiple lenses and swap.