Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: oly-0002.jpg (121KB, 1400x937px) Image search:
[Google]
121KB, 1400x937px
I just bought one of these for $50, popped in a battery and some film and it started up exactly as it should. I cleaned the lens which was scratch free but just a little dusty though it's clean and crisp now. It seems as though it simply was never cleaned. What should I expect? Any tips? I keep hearing about this camera, apparently it is HIGHLY sought after and regarded. What types of snaps should I take? I'm using Kodak ultra max 400 in it right now.
From what I understand, it produces FF dslr quality photos simply in a constrained 35mm lens 2.8 setup. Which is okay if you think about it, can't exactly get that in such a small package by any other means.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D60 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows Maximum Lens Aperture f/5.1 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 798 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 52 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2012:10:25 23:02:27 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/5.3 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/5.3 Exposure Bias 0 EV Subject Distance 0.30 m Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 35.00 mm Comment KELVINZZ Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1400 Image Height 937 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Soft Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>
>>3100307
>FF dslr quality
yeh nah
more fun tho
>>
>>3100321
NAH yeah
Do you have a y evidence it doesn't? Obviously not in low light, but in anything that dark it produces large crisp photos with great depth. You can't get that with anything in this size.
>>
Mine misses focus often up-close (still past the minimum focus distance). Is that a common issue or is mine broken?
>>
>50 bucks for a point and shoot
>isn't a T4 or a contax
You can buy "real" cameras with 50 bucks, I payed 80 for my nikon f3.
>>
>>3100331
Not the same anon but do you have any evidence it would?
Let's not overhype the MjuII, after all it's just a mass-produced consumer P&S with a somewhat decent-ish lens. Unless you're shooting Adox CMS 20 the resolution you'll get out of it won't even be close to what a FF DSLR would give you, and probably long before that the lens will already limit the quality.
Don't expect digital-anything-equivalent photos coming out of a film camera. That's simply not why you shoot film.
>>
>>3100331
Because FF DSLRs have long ago surpassed how much 35mm film can resolve. Add to the fact you're shooting what is probably the car color film you can buy, IQ is going to be nowhere near that of a DSLR.
>>
>>3100307
>From what I understand, it produces FF dslr quality photos simply in a constrained 35mm lens 2.8 setup.
this solely depends on how the film is scanned
the mju-2 is just about as good as any other p&s from its era, honestly its just become a meme at this point, nothing too great and nothing too bad about it.
not trying to rain on your parade but its average, for 50 you could have gotten a film slr and a lens that would offer you more creative control.
>>
Only way you're going to match FF resolution is if you drum scan.
It's an excellent camera though. $50 is a deal.
Better yet, I'll buy it from you for $80
>>
>>3100307
just bring it with you on hikes and to parties, that's what it was made for
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1