Does anyone care about instant photography in /p/

This thread is dedicated to close-range photographic captures utilising macro-optical imaging configurations to achieve greater reproduction ratios. Got it? Good now upload some shit.

Last thread:
>>4376661

>he's back
our eyes were not ready, but at last we truly see:
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/skylum/luminar-neo.htm

>be me
>took basic digital photography course
>been using Instagram since 2012, watched it turn woke and enshittify
>more than 900 photos uploaded yet less than 120 followers in the end
>account got flagged for "spam" for pushing back against- and criticizing gender ideology or the LGBT+ cult
>gets deleted
>make new account
>algorithm sucks, hashtags no longer work because "muh Maui wildfires censorship" or something (it's no longer possible to browse posts by Recent)
>only a few followers and getting some likes partly from thot spambots, old followers either forgot about me or don't care anymore but new account is rather unaffiliated to old one in terms of Big Data
>looked near the Sun during 2017's partial solar eclipse in a backyard with white-ass walls reflecting sunlight like snow
>vision felt like it got slightly less bright and less colorful after that, but maybe it healed after all these years
>Nikon camera got humid inside during a vacation trip, then got dirty with rice dust (yes, rice dust) because silly me tried putting it inside a bag of rice to take humidity out = lowkey bodied
>stone-inside-shoe kind of problem made me lose enjoyment for photography even though I wasn't that good at it
>wat do

>"DUDE 50mm PRIME LENS is so good"
>*tried 50mm prime lens out*
>tried to shoot places
>too tight
>tried to shoot interior
>too narrow

this is fucking suck, this has got to be a fucking meme. There is no way people actually prefer this over 24-70mm.

contribute

#1
post ur clouds edition

>films documentary with $17k medium format camera
>tonehslop all the way through
I think we should ban selling lenses brighter than f/2.8 for FF or equivalent. Brighter lenses should only be produced in limited quantities and loaned to certified shops. We must end this DoFslopfest right fucking NOW

Thread theme: https://youtu.be/QR75ti4mN_A?si=N-UtB79FhGkJOuBO

Hi there! I'm trying to get back into photography after a 5y break. Mainly just as a hobby for now, with the possibility of turning it into a semi-professional side hustle.

My last camera was a Sony A7 III, but I've always wanted to try Canon (mostly for the color science and the better grip/ergonomics). I've been looking at the Canon R5 Mark I and was pretty set on it, but then a friend asked me: "Why not the R5 Mark II?" My first answer was obviously the price. But now I'm starting to wonder if the difference is worth it, considering this might be my last and only camera.

I know the technical and feature differences between the two, but I’m more curious about the practical side — how much those differences actually matter in real use.

Can anyone here help me justify one over the other? On the one hand, the price difference noticeable for my pocket. On the other hand, I don't want to buy an expensive camera, run into some limitations in a few years, and regret not spending a bit more.

Also, if it matters, the lenses I'm planning to buy are:
1. RF 28-70mm f/2.8 IS STM
2. RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM

Appreciate any advice in advance!