• grepe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    curious question: did you consider carrying around a small camera if taking pictures is so important for you? i am weighting pros and cons of this solution myself and slowly but surely coming to that breaking point…

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      I’ve yet to find a camera that’s both small enough that it isn’t a significant presence on my person, while at the same time a quality that it’s significantly better than something on a high end smartphone.

      You can get some very good SLRs but they’re not exactly compact. Plus they’re really expensive and because they’re bigger more likely to get knocked. I suppose I can get really bougie and get an old compact film camera and then scan the negatives. But I think that would get really expensive.

      • grepe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 days ago

        i went the film way… i had pentax mx first (about 400g with pancake lens), that was too big so i went with olympus ees2. much faster for quick snaps but still big. even rollei 35s i carry now (as small as it gets) is still a bit too cumbersome to handle if it is inside my backpack…all of these are good solution for a photo walk but not fast enough for quick snaps. so now I’m thinking really small digicam… something fitting inside my pocket or something with rugged design i can use anywhere. any newer compact is going to run circles around even high-end smartphone… but price is a consideration.

        with film the price is not an issue if you enjoy developing it yourself (which i do) and will buy film in bulk. with k400 and d76 i can get to 6-8 cents per picture when shooting half-frame (try dividing a price of a good dslr by the average amount of pics you make with it over its life and you will get pretty close to that).