/p/ — More Bang for Buck

What climate do you live in? Do you live in an apartment? Anyway it's warming up in the northern hemisphere, so container gardening is fun and not too expensive and is good for the environment and your health. You can even do it in an apartment if you have a balcony with good sunlight. You can start with herbs, like mint which are basically unkillable and cost less than $5.

>>4508439 (OP)
just use the camera you have instead of buying more gear?

>>4508439 (OP)
If you like waking nature, you can just do that without a camera
If you're autist, perfect reason to start birding
Hiking is a cheap hobby, but camping can get as expensive as cameras
Running is a cheap hobby you can do most anywhere
You can engage with photography cheaply too

>>4508439 (OP)
Translated into English:
>Any cheaper hobbies to replace gearfagging?
>Gearfagging was a reason I'd blindly go walk into a nature reserve, I don't want to lose that without some form of alternative.
I suggest photography.

>>4508439 (OP)
Uhmm what part of photography is costing you money?
Or is your imam complaining about your hobby being haram again?

>>4508439 (OP)
Plein air painting.

>>4508481
I'm too broke to be a gearfag

>>4508482
Haha, I totally have no clue what you're talking about. Its just upgrades to get to a stable ground. All I want really is a full frame and a lens for landscapes.

I have the 800D rn and I feel it a lot especially in low light. Canon entry cameras are actual scams.

My whole setup costs like 1000ish depending how much you value the 800D. My goal is just to find another hobby where spending a 1000 is equivalent to buying the R5 mark II

File: O4021548 1.jpg (3.11 MB, 2592x1944)

>>4508439 (OP)
get a boat then come back to photography and never complain about cost ever again

>>4508523
But it's a one time expense only, just save up and get what you need.

File: landscape2.jpg (4.05 MB, 4000x5000)

>>4508523
All of these were on gear worse than an 800D. If your focus is landscapes, that's actually one of the best opportunities for basic gear.
What do your landscapes look like?

If you want more resolution, take 3 or more shots and stitch them together, now you have more resolution than an R5II
If you want better lowlight performance, use a tripod, and now you have better lowlight performance than an R5II (only applies to static scenes), upgrading lenses typically yields greater lowlight gains too
If your strict about exposure, and shoot at ISO 100, you will have more dynamic range than someone more casually using their R5II on auto ISO hitting 250 or above

>>4508539
Flickr thief strikes again with an ass take and a bunch of other peoples photos.
Everything this guy posts is carefully constructed cope to avoid inducing his own buyers remorse over the $$$$ fuji kit he bought for dog snapshots
just dont listen to flickr thief

>>4508523
Get the fuck rid of that piece of shit canon. Buy ANY nikon. Even a lowly d5xxx aps-c DSLR would be great but honestly if you hit up fb market d750s and d800s are <$500 any day and the 24-120 f4 VR is the last lens a landscape photographer will ever need. You now have significantly less use for bullshit like tripods, GNDs and bracketing, especially with a decent VR zoom, and can stick to just a CPL simply because nikon uses good sensor technology. You will never actually need to upgrade from a ff nikon dslr!

IIRC in full frame only nikon is the #1 or #2 brand depending on whether or not sony dropped something and everyone fled to it before their old snoy broke.

>>4508539
You need some dog pics to round out that sample gallery imo.

>>4508539
digicope and chartfag tier opinions complete with a collage of uselessly small thumbnails of other peoples photos. whats next, a dpreview screenshot?

>>4508523
d810
24-120 f4
50mm f1.8
simple as

>>4508477
BUT I MUST CONSOOOOOM

>>4508478
I love camping but I wouldn't think of it as a traditional hobby. It's not something I can do anywhere. Also what makes it expensive? Only expense I had is some starter gear and a cheap tent.

>>4508532
>>4508609
>>4508613
My point is just getting more bang for buck . Instead of spending 1k and having low-medium end gear. I'm looking for a hobby where 1k would be medium-high instead if that makes sense.

>>4508625
Paint brushes, paints, nice paper, easel. High end gear for less than 1k.

>>4508523
I know everyone in this board is shilling for his own gear and technique but have you considered switching to film?

You can get an olympus 35C for 150$ and that's literally all you need to go out. This is an all mechanical camera so entirely repairable, you buy it for life. By using film you always have the best analog "sensor" you could have, it's all about glass, and the 35c has a great fixed lens. People say film is expensive but it has a very low entry point for an excellent camera, and then you can just shoot less if you want to save money. Thinking about the price per shot could actually make your photo better. If you just invest the money you get from selling your current gear in buying cheap film (gold / fuji / or litteraly anny B&W) you are good for half a year at least.

Photo is my reason to go out, and I feel like film works very well with this mindset. Having to wait for the result makes it more motivating.

>>4508609
>Flickr thief strikes
Thank you for the compliment
>>4508610
Just remember this next time anyone says I only do photos of dogs
>>4508625
I guess car camping with a budget tent is pretty cheap, but if you ever get into like actual backpacking, things will add up
>cooking, filtration, tent, sleeping pad, sleeping bag, backpack, permits, gas to get there, bear canisters, shoes, jackets, etc
Just my backpack and go-to tent is $840 at full retail price
One thing to consider is cost over time. While photo does have that large up front cost, it's not like you have to buy new gear all the time, most of those pics were taken on a body I've had for 10 years now, and still use
Many other hobbies have much steeper long run costs
If you aren't getting pics like I posted, you still have a lot of reply to grow with the 800d anyways

>>4508625
>nikon ff DSLR
>low medium end
The D810 is literally better than every fujifilm, every panasonic, all micro four thirds, the z6/z7, z6ii/z7ii, every nikon and canon aps-c, and every sony camera period. Stop being a a bitch
>but i want an r5/z8/phasone iq180!
Cry moar

>>4508667
OP doesn't really care about photography it seems, they just want something more immediately gratifying with as little effort as possible

>>4508665
>photo thief fujislug is also a glamping redditor
My tent and backpack were $150 between sportsmans warehouse and army surplus. Then I bought a .40 magnum glock for $500 at a yard sale in case of bear. Git gud.

>>4508669
Based mountain man saving his money for full frame

>>4508669
What kind of tent and backpack do you have?
There are lots of good cheap budget options I could recommend for OP, but if you do a lot of backpacking, eventually you'll want something a bit nicer
When I said bear canister, did you think I meant bear spray?
Sounds like you don't actually go backpacking lol

>>4508671
Bear canister? You mean a tarp and rope?

>>4508625
>My point is just getting more bang for buck . Instead of spending 1k and having low-medium end gear. I'm looking for a hobby where 1k would be medium-high instead if that makes sense.
why would you NEED cameras that cost more than that for hobby purposes?

>>4508667
>$1700
>screen can't pop out

>>4508668
Real, I want dopamine injected into my brainstem

A week or two has passed since I first thought of selling my camera gear and I don't think I'm gonna do it. I'll probably slowly save up for some upgrades (full frame, speedlite, etc.) till I'm happy with my gear then stop.

Thanks for the help /p/

>>4508668
Brainrot encapsulated.

Fuckin hell OP, I have ADHD and strugge for that immediate hit, but even I can hold down hobbies and activities that are more methodical and paced. Your brain must be youtube-short style fried if you can't just stick to something and get better at it.
You're unironically doomed if you can't just enjoy a hobby for what it is.

File: IMG_1145.jpg (70 KB, 800x440)

Field recording's easy and if you get a floating point recorder, you don't even have to set the gain, you just turn it on. I use h1n , it's the cheapest apart from a phone. You have to put a windshield on it, not the hairy one, that looks bad

>>4508768
>>4508668
>I want a cheaper hobby
>"wtf op you brainrotted inbred retard can you not enjoy something other than doomscrolling? Kill yourself"

Lmao

>>4508815
Photography can be done cheap quite easily.

>>4508815
Photography is cheap. Gearfagging is not. Since this board is about the latter but pretends it's about photography OP got confused. It's understandable.

>>4508668
>>4508768
>>4508815
OP is not brainrotted. He's simply doing what this board say is photography. Just look at those answers:
>>4508539
>>4508609
>>4508613
>>4508667
>>4508669
>>4508722
>>4508767

Photography is not dead. /p/ is.

If /p/ was sane the only answer to OP's thread would be:
> Post photos or shut up.

OP, have you made even 1 photo thread here, or are you just using this board as your safe place to whine about your meaningless life like everyone else?

Ok, that being said i'm gonna offer a personnal advice. Ditch digital. You have demonstrated that you are not able to shoot digital without becoming a gearfag. It's ok, it's hard, I failed, everyone posting here did. So now it's time to grow up and understand that digital is low quality slop designed to sell the latest model. Sell your e-waste, and buy a pocketable fully mechanical film camera for less than 200$. Use the rest of the money to cover some film and development. You now have a professional tool designed to last you a lifetime, that can support you in making your vision into art pieces, and also, that takes effort to use and time to produce result but get this: effort and time is what makes litteraly anything feel good. That's what e-waste consumers can't comprehend.

>>4508890
What do your landscape photos look like?

>>4508523
800D/T7i is pretty good though. Not a scam at all.
Maybe the shitty kit lenses are but that's a skill issue.

>>4508897
I would love to share, but since I'm being quite blunt in this thread I don't want people to reverse search my pictures and harass me or whatev. I do make photo threads every now and then so you might have already seen my pictures.

Are you genuinely curious about my photos using such a film camera, or are you wanting to judge what I say based only on my end result?

If it is the latter you misunderstood my point. I am not saying I am more talented than anyone. I am saying I love taking photos, and that I found digital destroys the love for photography in most people, turning them into gearfags. Look, OP owns a digital camera, supposed to be able to take more or less an infinity of pictures for no cost, yet wants to stop photography because it's too expensive. How many times did you see this exact same thread? Gearfagging, and by extension digital cameras, are making people hate and quit photography.

And before someone retarded makes this point against me, I'm not saying you cannot do art or take a good picture with a digital camera. All I'm saying is, at the end of the day, photography is about loving to make photos, and one way to get there, is to ditch digital cameras.

>>4508899
>I am also a nophoto, hear me cope
Sad

>>4508902
>>4508897
Flickr thief, we know its you. Go away. Please. You never post real photos not of your moms dog. And you beg for photos because you steal them.

>>4508890
This is literally a wut camera thread

>>4508902
>>4508904
Welp, I tried.

>>4508904
Thank you for the compliments bb

>>4508905
>OP should post a photo
>hear me wax poetic
>no I will not share my own photos
What did you try? Being a hypocrite?

>>4508890
IMHO film is true gearfagging, the ultimate worship of equipment and the highest expression of consumer neurosis - customer identity, FOMO, and a need to always buy something
it always starts with
>i buy film so im a REAL photographer

Just buying a FF DSLR is as far from gearfag as it gets. Its not made to be upgraded from before it breaks or when you finally admit so and so was an arbitrarily withheld standard feature like canon crop shit, fuji, and sony. It’s a $500 purchase that lasts a lifetime and shoots with higher quality than MF film that is effectively $25 a roll. And then filmfags reveal their true nature and start talking about $8000 scanning setups to get 500mp 6x9.

File: 260512033.jpg (617 KB, 1000x1500)

yay camping

>>4508909
more like glamping

>>4508914
Half of it is obviously for car camping, but we must have different definition of glamping

>>4508908
Ahhh, the classic 5d classic has better IQ than 8x10 slide film argument. We love to see it!

Digital is better if you only ever share images online. If you make prints, which is what real photography is, film is objectively better. Mentioning MP or anything like that is just you being a gearfag.

>>4508908
>film is true gearfagging
Gearfagging is gearfagging, doesn't matter if you shoot film or digital. Thinking the real gearfags are the ones who use the cameras of the other brand/technology is the quintessential gearfag take.

> it always starts with
>i buy film so im a REAL photographer
I didn't say that though so ... ?

>Just buy X and your problems will be solved
You accuse film shooters to be gearfags, immediately to follow with this?

>a 500$ FF gives higher quality than MF film
Yeah, I mean clearly you have not the slightest idea what you're talking about.... Why are you even arguing?


So, your solution to OP saying photography feels too expensive is to buy a better and more expensive digital camera? But you're not a gearfag?

>>4508919
>ah, the classic *strawman*
>*vague statements about image quality*
Any modern/"peak" FF DSLR ie: d610, d750, d800, d850, 5d iv, k1, a99 will easily match PRINTED 6x7 and equal and often exceed scans. 35mm is equaled and exceeded by more meager equipment like the 5d classic and d700 and the few and far between professional grade APS-C models. So-so canon DSLRs like the 5DII/III and 5DS are certainly up there as well. Lacking DR, yes, but they have exactly as much as most film besides portra which matches modern cameras better.

A lot of professional 4x5 landscape photographers switched to d850s you know, right? It was all over luminous landscape. Favorable comparisons vs drums and optical prints, favorable meaning they couldnt tell without a loupe. If you have to shoot fucking 8x10 to marginally outdo digital (while fighting hair, dust, scratches, and your doubtlessly mediocre skills) that’s just proving my point that for 99% of people, film is just gearfaggotry, IQ chasing, attempts to buy better photos. A decent FF DSLR will continue taking as many photos as you decide to take for decades and do so as well as any hasselblad 500cm or zenza bronica. For people who do not have the time or equipment to enlarge 8x10 sheet film to several feet across, a decent FF DSLR will outdo 8x10 as well.

To be clear you ARE talking about enlarging sheet by a factor of feet, correct? Otherwise it has zero advantage other than tilt/shift, which 4x5 does… Shit, do you know what DSLRs edge into, that mirrorless has trouble adapting with unchanged IQ? Tilt shift photography.

Admittedly DSLR TS lenses are so expensive, someone who doesn’t do that stuff very often might save thousands by keeping a cheap 4x5 kit or mamiya rz67 kit around. So film still has some point, where digital is more expensive just to take the same picture

>>4508920
>You can NOT BUY QUALITY TOOLS FOR RATIONAL REASONS THATS *GEARFAG*
No, it’s the reality men live in. Cameras are tools.

And yes, film has no advantage over digital unless you are enlarging 8x10 to several feet across or doing occasional tilt/shift photography, or something even more niche like analog effects… it simply doesn’t do anything different otherwise. It’s generally a worse, more expensive tool that requires constant purchases, so its users can pretend they are "not gearfags" because their decision is irrational and fashion/social perception based instead of logic based.

Some dogshit canon 80D would honestly come close to and often beat the average roll of 35mm film shot with vintage kit and scanned with a labs most expensive option.

Filmtardation is thinking an authentic mink fur paintbrush is making your fine motor skills better because of magical properties that are bullshit on the level of
>3d pop tonality microcontrast rendering
And yet calling the guy who recommends just buying a standard brush, not a frou-frou cork sniffer one or a cheap elementary school art kit, a gearfag because he dared apply logical thought to acquiring art supplies.

>>4508922
>gearfag essay of seethe

>>4508925
>stop applying rational thought to art supplies
>wasting money and holding delusions will transform my talentless self into a true artist
No that’s just how to play the comical, tragic part of a starving artist in a stereotypical story, minus the part where you strike creative gold and get famous

If 35mm is good enough for you so is a canon 80d, nikon d500, d7xxx, cheap stuff
If you think medium format is it, any decent and still cheap ff dslr will do.
The better ones output photos that stand alongside real world printed 4x5.

Film is just gearfagging outside of a few niches
>buying this will make my photos better
I offer the comfort of reality and sanity to you
Buying this won’t make your photos better, or you better at photography. Nothing can. But it will balance your budget better, work in more situations with exponentially less supporting equipment, and take the same shitty photos you always take.

>>4508926
>no, I have never made a print in my life
>yes, spend MORE money on worse things
Gearfag mentality

>>4508927
>i swear bro my 8x10 prints made from 8x10 film are super special. they break the laws of physics. i can feel the 3d pop. i’m not a gearfag at all. you’re the gearfag for spending as much as ten 8x10 shots and 1/4 as much as my studio monorail kit on a camera that takes infinite equally good looking photos for 20+ years
So sayeth you and the digital equivalent that thinks his instagram benefits from a gfx100s

>>4508928
>yes, I invent villains in my head to cope and seethe at
Typical gearfag behavior

>>4508929
> If you make prints, which is what real photography is, film is objectively better.
It’s not. It’s the same as very cheap and pedestrian cameras.
>how DARE you mention MP! NUMBERS ARE SOULLESS AND GEARFAG!
I mentioned megapixels because it’s something the filmtarded often do when they have to cope
>look at this oversized scan. 35mm is 200 fuzzy looking megapixels!
>my dog shot on 4x5 is 800mp!
>my dog shot on 6x6 is 70mp!
These are real things real /p/ users have really said.

Why do closeted gearfags always make thing up in their heads to get angry at?

>>4508931
>can’t even walk away
Do I have to scour archive.palanq.win to show you all the coping filmtards? Since there’s a 99% chance you’re that gearfag with the german shepherd or the one with the husky I shouldn’t have to show you your own posts.

Just accept the truth.
Film is gearfaggotry.
Photography really doesn’t benefit much from anything other than an old, formerly high end DSLR. Digital image quality matched and then beat film, and now it’s stagnant. There’s no reason to buy film anymore and only professionals need to upgrade to shit with 40fps, 8 stop IBIS, perfect auto-autofocus and 8k raw video. It’s not 2008. Film isn’t the one true way for a hobbyist to exceed the blurry digital shittiness of a low end canon rebel anymore. Everyone can afford a d750 which might even be more than they need (a d750 is as good as 645 and a lot of typical 6x7 - printed, in real world use, not talking pixel peeped scans of flawlessly calculated max resolution shots with $2500 lenses here)

>>4508932
Have you considered answering my question instead of proving my point?

>>4508933
You’re not important enough to answer, and you don’t ask important questions. You’re just enough of a gearfag to talk down to. Just like OP being an OCD faggot about how he feels left out for not being able to afford an R5II.

Seriously great news for OP, every camera since 2016 takes the same fucking pictures, there are no real upgrades, and lots of stuff older than that is up to snuff and sometimes better.

Idk how this is bad news for you
Unless you’re that german shepherd guy who wastes 8x10 sheets making 8x10 prints of blurry, dirty dog snaps and hallucinated 3d pop tonalities to cope.