THIS NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED ABOUT

>>2983005
There's a lot more to a photograph than camera settings and mediocre, over-saturated, post-processing.

>>2983005
I hate everything about this, if all you want to do is point and click, use a smart phone, why would anyone pay $99 dollars a month for exactly the same thing?

The fact that you can't even choose what you think are your best photo's really pisses me off too, who decides? An AI? What's the algorithm to decide what makes a good photo?

Also, the editing on those snaps are bad, same old cookie cutter hipster shit.

>>2983005
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

When they said AI, they meant a bunch of pajeets sliding the sliders and dodge and burning.

>>2983005
so, if i unstitch the leather or faux leather, i'll get a galaxy nx camera with all the buttons?

Prattapixel. The same people that brought you white male privilege photography. There are far better ways to waste you life than reading that shit

>>2983005
Well this'll be my most costly dick pic to date, but I think it'll be worth it knowing some underpaid indian will have to spend a few minutes staring at my penis as he dodge and burns away

OP here

>>2983013
My thoughts exactly.

>>2983014
Yep, there's a fully functional Samsung NX underneath.

This whole thing is so ridiculous. Who are they targeting with that 'idea'? Hipsters who want to 'experience a film-like feeling'? Hell, if you want to feel that feel then get a film camera or if it needs to be a digital at least get a Leica M-D.

>$99/month for the camera and a book
>$1 for each picture taken
>"your best photos selected" ..what if those are the ones I didn't like?

This thing is going to fail even harder than Lytro did with their weird cameras.

I do this service for my wife's cell phone shots.

I'd probably rather pay $99

So for $99 a month I could have pajeets looking at pictures of my dick, at the press of a button, instantly over 4G?

>>2983037
That would be the most Trump thing to do
I wonder how much CP will be trafficking through them

>>2983035
just install vsco on her phone dude

Literally doesn't affect anyone on this board, so who cares?

>>2983023
lytro actually has a concept that photographers would love on their cameras when the technology matures

this offers absolutely nothing to that same crowd.

>>2983058
who is the market? is there some incredibly lucrative niche just waiting to be exploited?

>>2983083
>who is the market?

Instagrammers and rich Californians who want to consume conspicuously. The fact that they send the photos to your phone (and not an email or a dropbox/cloud hosting service instead) should tell you this much.

It's hard to say if this niche will be lucrative or not, as they've never really tried something like this before. I'm willing to bet this company folds in six months without a Kardashian endorsement.

>>2983053
I did. And Snapseed. And Instagram.

No dice. I'm still making the edits on my phone then sending them back to her.

>>2983094
ask her if she would pay 99 bux for that service

>>2983058
Literally nobody. Literally.

>>2983096
She said "No, you do it for nothing"

>>2983177
Lol, fucking cucked.

>tfw you want to try it but you don't live anywhere close to the demo centre, well there is always
>drtv

>>2983254
drtv is no more, senpai

>>2983177
Start editing the photos of her very slightly so she looks less attractive. Widen her eyes a few millimeters. Lower the mouth, etc.

I'll give it 6 months before it flops

Nothing to discuss here, this is the first and the last time we hear about this "startup".

>>2983035
why not just batch run them in lightroom with auto settings applied?

Normies dont want this though, they already have instagram and vsco for the more adventurous.

Now, a good startup would be an instant camera which sends a digital version to your phone, as well as printing to instant film, since kiddos take photos of the instant film prints and post them online already.

I wonder if people are retarded enough to spend $99/month on a camera.

By comparison: my D800 was about $3000 and should easily last 10 years.
So that's no more than $25/month.

But then people easily spend $800+ for a smartphone if the price is hidden inside a contract.

>>2983283
>and should easily last 10 years.

i got some bad news for you, homie.

>>2983283
>a digitoy lasting 10 years

lmfao bro.

>>2983292
Lots of digital cameras can last fine. The just don't "age" well cause the technology moves so fast.

>>2983288
>>2983292
Just because the technology won't be up to date, doesn't mean a camera won't last that long you fucking nig nogs

>>2983306

The cameras literally fall apart, homegirl. Even with very light use (10,000 frames a year) the shutter will die in ten years, and those are usually the last thing to go. A few years before that, the dials will stop working, the grip will come lose, and (most importantly) the sensor starts to degrade and you get hot pixels everywhere.

Source: I have a D300 that is pushing 8 years and I doubt it'll last another 2.

>>2983288
>>2983292
>>2983309

My D700 still perfect. Also, you have the option to get new rubbers and to change the shutter.
So pls, no. A good camera could easily last a decade and more.

>>2983310

Sensor.

>>2983312

>gearfag

>>2983309
I have a D2Hs, a D300, and a D60 all going strong.

A little rubber cement is all you need for the grips, and I haven't seen any gradual degradation of IQ.

>>2983261
>Not having faith in Kai 2.0, shaky meme guy and thicc.

Now Kickstart my $99p/m Leica rental startup.

>>2983086
>>2983283
If it gets the kadashian endorsement it'll probably survive.

This camera isn't for /p/. And as outrageous as it is, i can see the benefit.
Yes the big con is the price but really people don't want to sit and edit photos.
Maybe the camera gets shared between mum and daughter?
I hope they alter their concept a bit, if you just pay someone to edit your photos, without the camera gimmick it might be more profitable?

All in all you still have to compose a good photo and i don't see the camera doing that for you

I see this getting big tbqh. For $99 you get a dece camera, and some "robot" to make your pics look pretty great. Everyone here has spent way more on a lens you rarely even use. No editing to work on so you have all that extra time to keep shooting too. You can focus on the heuristics of photography instead of the technicals.

>>2983005

>$99 a month
>for the price of this thing you could get a fullframe body and a lightroom subscription

Fuck that is outrageous.

>>2983013

It is probably batch ran through lightroom with the "auto" presets flicked.

>>2983005
I found the fatal flaw, why pay $99p/m when you can buy
>F U J I

File: 1470235959726.jpg (43KB, 699x637px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 699x637px

>>2983397

>>2983397
Wrong. You get a *shit* camera and lens given that it is ~$1200 per year (people here mostly can't seem to spare $300/year, if it was $1200 we'd constantly see shots from great FF cameras with the best lenses).

And thinking you can get unlimited and decent post for only $99 this month also is naive.

>>2983309
>the dials will stop working, the grip will come lose, and (most importantly) the sensor starts to degrade and you get hot pixels everywhere

Maybe for you, Nikuck.

Canon bodies are actually meant to be used.

>>2983094
>installed instagram on her phone
>I'm still making the edits on my phone then sending them back to her.
Why? Most people would hardly see a difference on their snapshits.

>Dick pics
>Not photos of burning Indian flags

>>2983292
I have a Fuji s6500fd still working fine

>>2983292

1Ds MkII still doesnt give a fuck about how old it is, just keeps going

My 5D from 2005 was running like a champ when it was stolen this year.

>>2983848

It's because you never used it.

>>2983848
>when it was stolen this year
kek thanks for reminding us, I needed that laugh

>>2983267
>subsribe 1 month before bankrupt
>get a samsuck camera for $99

File: Screen Shot 2016-12-16 at 9.50.40 AM.png (270KB, 636x910px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 636x910px

You fucking plebs actually go shoot photos with an un-aesthetic camera? HA! Bet you guys look like fucking losers

>>2984115
my fuji xpro 1 looks quite sexy ;)

>>2984115
>Relonch fits my style

So you have a latex fetish then, there are clubs you can join

The success of this company all depends on the subscription model.

If they allow you to subscribe for just one month, then you can just pay $99 for a camera, take all the photos your heart desires at a wedding, send them off, and boom, you get quality photos sent back.

The editing on the photos is shit, but to most people, it looks really good. The average person sees bright/bold colors without noticing the other shit elements of the editing.

In any respect, their whole market will depend on whether or not it can overthrow the event photographer industry. If it cannot do that, I really don't think they will survive.

>>2984350
It can only attract the rich lazy photographer niche, most of it is part of the phone photographers.
I don't think people will do the extra move to get an extra camera when they already have their phone and vsco cam installed.
I think this is destined to flop, no real crowd to gather and not very competitive prices.

>>2983292
Dropped my 7D in the lake one time and had to swim down to get it. That was in 2010 and like 80,000 shutter actuations ago, still works pretty gud.

>>2983848
I was wondering why this 5D I stole had a bunch of uninteresting snapshits on it.

>>2984350
Honestly this subscription model actually seems pretty smart.

Take your average /p/ poster for example. They might go out to take photos 2-3 days out of a month, and they don't know how to edit, how to judge what is good or bad, and they certainly aren't shooting in full manual. Considering we are supposed to be the board where people are actually interested in photography, an average schlub may see this as a great deal.

>>2985783
kek

>>2985786
Stop projecting faggot

>>2985818
Post pics faggot

>>2985819
>implying I'm the one with something to prove
kek, you'll get there one day m8. Try replacing all that projection with taking action

>>2985822
>20 minutes and not 1 photo
lol

>>2985823
See >>2985822 :^)

I charge $50 a day and a 48 pack of coca cola for weddings.

Ill be fine

Jew polin from fro knows photo made a video about this shitty camera.

>>2983082
You mean Lytro hasn't tanked yet?

Say what you want about the subscription idea, but that leather case is sexy.

>>2985860
>that leather case is sexy.
If by "sexy" you mean crap then I agree