----------------------------------------------
Ive got the makings of the digital version already on hand, so "on hand" will be my equivalent of "old cheap used" stuff:
• 12MP nonSLR body
• Adapter for snapshot lens
• Slow wide lens with crude clickstops for Close, Less Close, and Further Away
• Not overly accurate, shoe-mounted, peepsight finder is optional[/quote]
Yeah, I have an Oly P1 and a fixed 12mm (I think) pancake lens.
StanMac wrote:
For some strange reason, I like those “crap” images you’re getting with your phone.
Stan
That's the "LOMO" effect...less than perfect, but visually interesting. A bit anti-technology.
It does beg the question that, with improved larger resolution and in-camera processing, would a modern fixed focus slightly wide angle "box camera" be fun to use?
Too bad there is no market for one!
For what it is worth, the first article I wrote for Shutterbug was about a "digital box camera": a one MP Kodak that did not zoom, was fixed focus and not much more. A photo I took with was printed in the magazine, unlike the many 640x480 cameras of that time. I used it on the NYE of 2000! It was that long ago!
The ONLY display of my shots ever was a gallery-type display in Taiwan, taken with another 5 MP "Papershoot" camera from Taiwan. Maybe I'm really a box camera kinda guy.
Here are two more. Same cheap camera.
Somewhere far below cameras most of us use and those wretched "toy" cameras for kids found on Amazon are basically Chinese "sucker" cameras touted as 48 MP, V-Logger 4K, "powerful zoom" etc.
In reality, these are weighted-down plastic cameras, usually 5 MP fixed focus with digital zoom and grossly over-interpolated settings to give the illusion of better resolution.
I wondered why they went to so much effort, just like some of the "promotional" film cameras with film-winding, etc, but wretched single element lenses.
It appears they are using modules from outdated smartphones!
I never buy these new for the outrageous prices asked, but find them for $10 used.
Early models had all kinds of effects, including LOMO, Dog Eye, Japan Look and more. My latest loses these but includes a mic input!
Here is a sample photo, with increased saturation and contrast. Basically a box camera for the artsy set who us Dianas and Lomography products. Feel free to heap on all the scorn you want.
Mac wrote:
https://www.wired.com/story/leica-m11-digital-rangefinder/
A $9,000 camera. Haven't won the lottery yet.
As a person long involved in journalism, IMHO they were trying to be "clever." It is a crappy misleading headline.
Thanks for the list.
I listened to a lot of Top 40 stuff on an AM radio in high school. Years later I played a lot of "middle of the road" music as a radio DJ.
All time favorite: Pictures of Matchstick Man [never got to play it!]
Camper Van Beethoven version is also great.
Silly song that outlasted the 60's: Judy In Disguise! [Never Got To Play it!]
Proudest song I ever played: Neil Diamond: "Coming To America." (From The Jazz Singer.) I was on all night radio in Milwaukee the night the Iranian hostages were finally released. The minute they were out of Iranian airspace I blasted it out! "Freedom's light burning warm."
BobSchwabk wrote:
What makes an image "fine Art"?
A friend once quipped, "The only difference between art and exercise is the frame."
A surprising number of free apps have also been "portabled" so they can run without getting mixed into the OS. They can even run off a USB stick, etc. portableapps.com
lightyear wrote:
It is unenforceable on public property ( sidewalks, street, etc.).
I believe it is clear it is aimed at a street photographer engaged in the business of offering to take photos for $$.
Apophasis wrote:
I still shoot 95% film. In 35mm, I shoot Nikon, Canon, and Leica. Some of the old best lenses from these manufacturers still seem great to me, but I do not know the other side. Those of you that have used the best of the manual lenses mounted on digital cameras, how do they compare? I would be especially interested reports on the cheaper old lens that are surprisingly great (IMHO): Nikon E AIS 50mm 1.8, Nikon 135mm 3.5 AIS etc.
Thanks.
Adapters are pretty cheap. Best to just try and see of you like it.
Last used on a Polaroid Swinger circa 1965.
Longshadow wrote:
If I knew what they were I might be able to answer your question.
Extinction meters. Zero electronics. Highly dependent on your perception of shades of gray.
delder wrote:
I agree!
I personally feel there would be SOME market for a true SMARTPHONE/PRO CAMERA combination with Interchangeable/Pancake lens & physically larger sensors.
Is a viewfinder too much to ask for?
Any votes?
Might be easier just to wedge a phone into an existing camera design!