>>3859365>similar qualityanon, similar quality is depending on the film stock you feed the camera in the OP and on the lens you put on it.
You don't get the same resolution from ADOX CMS 20 II and Ultramax 400.
>>3859380>and it doesn't look like anything digital from 90s-2010s, which is the aesthetic i'd like, is much better than a smartphone.kek, that's where you're wrong kid.
2000s have plenty of very capable cameras. And the main difference with a smartphone is the amount of control you get and the rendition of details and colors.
I'd take an APS-H camera any day over a smartphone.
But the way you approach this you'd be probably best off with some cheap compact with full manual control so you can learn before you start spending the big bucks.
By the way, pic related is a typical 90s digital camera. You have to understand that you're looking at stuff before USB was common, before the average Windows computer ran an NT variant, before even monochrome monitors had stopped being common in home computers. But 2000s instead have plenty of good cameras.
