>>3407915>The most retarded thing I've read on /p/ in weeks and revealing of the fact you have no practical experience or idea what you're talking aboutPhotos taken through an FD 50mm f/1.4 compare very favorably with the same lens in EF mount. At very high megapixel counts you will notice the greater sharpness of the newer lens, but the OP said "are competitive" not "are the same as".
People go nuts over vintage lenses because they're great, and many professionals still hunt them down and use them for photos that casuals would assume used the very most cutting edge technology.
Now
>>3407829>>3407804As far as these points go, they are mostly true. However, from a practical point of view you already have what you are asking for from a practical point of view. You want a camera that uses
>a cheaper, lower megapixel sensor >older mechanics>slower, older generation processors which are cheap now>$200 or lessGuess what? You've described a used DSLR from 2005-2010. Literally hundreds of thousands of them out there to pick from. Many of which have low shutter counts and more life left in them than you will ever use.
Camera companies mostly know this and don't want to make these sort of products because a majority of customers would buy them rather than their higher priced items. Because the reviews on them would be great and they'd be the #1 recommendation for casuals and beginners. And then there would be a blooming used market for them at the less than $100 price mark. Camera companies make pretty decent dough servicing older, more expensive cameras and charging a lot for it.
So no surprise no one is in a rush to do this other than some Chinese manufacturers, but they don't really see to have the right ideas or connections yet to make a proper cheap camera. They always tend to try to guss it up in some way. But they'll figure it out soon enough. We're already seeing some very fast cheap lenses that get into that territory coming from there.
