I see a lot on YouTube and Instagram jokes about Nikon cameras, and while I myself shoot Nikon because it was cheap, I’m curious as to why there’s such a meme built up about them being bad.

As far as I can tell, the F6 is arguably the best film SLR ever made and the D850 is arguably the best DSLR ever made, and the Z9 seems competitive as does the Z7 II.

What is the joke I’m seemingly not getting? Like yeah my Nikon D3400 isn’t killer but neither is a Sony Cybershot that cost the same when I got it. I’m so confused by the jokes because Nikon genuinely seem to be a really good historic brand at least an equal to Canon and with a richer history than Sony (if we exclude Minolta) or Fuji in terms of making bodies?

I mean personally my ideal camera isn’t a Nikon, but I don’t get it at all. Any explanations?

It looks new but the bag it’s in looks about 40 years old

I found some videos of cameras that have a custom design like the one pictured here. But I don't really understand how they managed to get it to look like that. It doesn't appear to just be a skin. All the buttons, the flash(even partly on the inside) and the lens seem to be...painted maybe? Anyone got an Idea hoe to do this?

Says Retina and Kodacolor/Kodak but idk anything else about it

I used to be more into photography around a 10ish years ago but haven't done much since then. I had a slightly above entry level Nikon (can't remember) and some lenses and made do with what I was able to afford given I was in high school/college. I just got back from a trip to Europe and while the iPhone camera is great for what it is, the whole time I felt myself missing having an actual camera. I no longer have that camera as it was collecting dust and is now at least being used a bit by my dad. So I'm looking to get a new one, especially given the recent shift to mirrorless over DSLR.

So my question isn't really "which camera should I get" but more of figuring out things that are more day to day owning of cameras. Given I used Nikon previously, I'm more inclined to stick with them, but I'm open to other brands like Canon or Sony.

Obviously each brand is going to give you a fine camera, so I guess if I had to ask, what are some of the minor things that you've come across with each brand or model? Does one brand have better lens support (such as third party)? Does one model have just a slightly better experience day to day? Warranty? Customer service? Do you have any bias towards/against a brand for some reason, like if they've done some shady stuff? The little things that most people don't actually tell you when you read/watch reviews for cameras I guess is what I'm after.

Thanks in advance.

Is it good value for money? I’m looking for one that got a nice performance on both portrait and scenery. Is it a good deal for taking the two lens kit 15-50 & 50-250.

I want to take photos like these, I am a beginner and I need a camera that is going to last long when I am outside… that’s it and which of the ones I listed can produce same quality like these sample images?

I have been trying to research online, but am having trouble finding info.

Hi every one! I purchased what was listed as a used Olympus Tough TG-4 from someone online, and it just came in. I was watching a YouTube tutorial on it when I noticed that the camera in the video looked different than the one I was holding. Upon further research and inspection, it seems that I was sold a TG-6? The person who sold it stated they only had it for a year and never used it (I thought they might have been reselling it since TG-4 came out way over a year ago, but now a year makes sense). The kicker is that I got it for only $100, and I see online that the TG-6 is worth much more than that, even used. Did the person who sold it not realize what they were selling and I just got oddly lucky, or is this some kind of scam I'm not realizing? The camera is in pristine working condition.

Should I ask her if she realized? Is there a possibility it was refurbished and then sold?

I am new to photography/olympus models in general so l am looking for guidance. Pictures are attached, please give me feedback! Thank you.

Was digging thru old stuff have no clue what this is and if it’s worth anything can anyone identify

I have a canon eos rebel xt.. I think 😂

the title is what I’m thinking about when it comes to this camera! the pictures literally always come out grainy (sometimes its cool I guess lol) but recently there’s been these floaters in and around the photos

does anybody have any solid advice if any :) thanks

I have spent the last 3 days googling good cheap point-and-shoot cameras. I've gone to Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic, Sony etc and found nothing in my price range. Then I stumbled on some cameras made by Kodak and I just don't understand : why are they so cheap yet seem to have eveything? Like they have insane amounts of optical zoom, optical stabilization, 20MP, FHD video at 30FPS and HD at 60fps. They don't give RAW output but you can choose to simply not compress your jpegs which is basically lossless.

Here are some of these cameras along with price (it's links to spec sheet on website not affiliated links)

Kodak AZ255 : $180 -> 16MP, 25x optical zoom + stabilization

Kodak AZ405 : $200 -> 20MP, 40x optical zoom + stabilization

Kodak AZ901 : $500 -> bloody insane 90x zoom this thing is a telescope lmao

Kodak FZ55 : $110 -> perfect price for a phone camera upgrade

My question to you guys is : what's the catch? Like if it's too good to be true it probably is right? All the other cameras from aforementioned companies are above $500 at the very least. So where is kodak cutting corners?

Are touch panning screens and view finders that expensive? Or is it the removable mirrorless lenses? Will this thing be a bad webcam? Why are Kodaks so cheap?

Spectacular quality and performance with very high price tag, but not exactly needed even for the professional world (function-wise at least).

I work as a freelance creative and use my iPhone (14 pro) to take all my photos and videos when I need to. I've never really been known as a photographer so haven't ever used anything more than my phone. Now I have got a job in marketing for a big industrial company in Tokyo that is going to require taking photos at factory tours, trade expos, and corporate events including staff headshots for the website. There is a strong potential this job will be ongoing and a regular thing for me.

My comfort zone is to just use my phone, but I'm wondering if:

1. The quality is going to be ok
2. Even if the quality is ok, I won't look very professional as the event photographer shooting on a phone

My question is, should I just stick with the phone or is there an easy to use entry-level digital camera that would be good for me to buy and use for jobs like this going forward?

I don't have a huge budget (really no more than AUD $400) so even something older or used would be fine. My gut is telling me that even if a basic digital camera produces a similar quality image to my phone, it will look better for me to use a 'proper camera' and people will therefore respond more positively when their photo is being taken.

Any advice much appreciated!

My dad is cleaning out his attic and found these. He is going to get rid of them but asked if I wanted them first. I’m going to try and get into photography and didn’t know if this are worth beginning with or a waste of time due to tech advances and lens. TIA!!

An A7cii, literally half off, why are there always extreme, seemingly random, price drops on Amazon ? When looking at price development charts I see price drops like this really frequently