On: NanoSnap: A 19g, 5x3cm camera with 4K photo and 2K...

[throwaway290]

I actually like the third one. It's not for high quality stuff anyway, it's for slice of life snaps. Worse is better

[daneel_w → throwaway290]

Good definition brings a lot of value to street photography in my opinion - for the moment right then and there, and for the history it documents.

[throwaway290 → daneel_w]

slice of life snap is very different from street photography... it's the blurry unfocused faces or other parts of your friends being in the moment feeling doing things

[daneel_w → throwaway290]

That just sounds like a ridiculously narrow and specific subcategory of street/flâneur photography.

[throwaway290 → daneel_w]

it's not generally done in the street for one and flaneuring has nothing to do with it.

no need to keep making guesses, it's okay to not know something.

[daneel_w → throwaway290]

Street photography does not have to be in the street. The name never really had a mandatorily fixed connection to the practical expressions of the genre, or the artistic phenomenon that it is. It's about moments in passing, casual observations etc. I write this (and previous comments) as someone with a profound love for photography and that genre in particular, not as someone throwing random guesses. But thank you for the quip retort.

[throwaway290 → daneel_w]

Sorry. You are talking about some kind of photography where "definition" is important. I am not talking about that kind of photography. I am talking about the kind of photography for which people use cheap film cameras, expired film, disposable cameras, cheap digital compacts. "Definition" is of very little importance.

> Street photography does not have to be in the street.

Well that's another can of worms I guess. People tagging random non-street shots as street photography is my personal pet peeve...