A nice camera, but not outrageously costly; in 1956 my aunt bought a Roliflex double-lens reflex for $150; that’s $1458 in 2021 dollars. It was professional quality, but not top-of-the-line
She never learned to work it & gave it to Grannie; she never learned to work it & gave it to me; I never learned to work it & gave it to a friend who already knew how. I have since wished on occasion that I had kept it and been more stubborn about learning.
And with a 2010 copyright, it was no doubt digital, and digital is digital; easy, and easily manipulated – but still pixels, and thus lower quality than film (there is, for example, a very limited amount you can enlarge any digital pic before it becomes cubism; you can take a photo from a Kodak Brownie or a Polaroid, let alone a high-end real camera, and make it as big as you want with no loss of clarity).
A nice camera, but not outrageously costly; in 1956 my aunt bought a Roliflex double-lens reflex for $150; that’s $1458 in 2021 dollars. It was professional quality, but not top-of-the-line
She never learned to work it & gave it to Grannie; she never learned to work it & gave it to me; I never learned to work it & gave it to a friend who already knew how. I have since wished on occasion that I had kept it and been more stubborn about learning.
And with a 2010 copyright, it was no doubt digital, and digital is digital; easy, and easily manipulated – but still pixels, and thus lower quality than film (there is, for example, a very limited amount you can enlarge any digital pic before it becomes cubism; you can take a photo from a Kodak Brownie or a Polaroid, let alone a high-end real camera, and make it as big as you want with no loss of clarity).