Digital Cameras: Do you Take Pictures?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pictures
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the prevalence of digital cameras among users, with many owning high-resolution models but not actively taking many photos. Participants express a desire for more portable cameras to encourage frequent use, sharing experiences of their current equipment and the limitations they face, such as battery life and size. The conversation highlights the advantages of digital photography, including instant review and the ability to delete unwanted images, contrasting it with the challenges of film photography. Users share their preferences for camera features, such as optical zoom and battery efficiency, and discuss the importance of image quality over megapixel count. There is also mention of the evolving technology in cameras, with some expressing excitement about future innovations. Overall, the thread reflects a blend of nostalgia for film photography and enthusiasm for the convenience and capabilities of digital cameras.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Some really amazing and otherwise incredible photographs in National Wildlife's 35th photography contest!

http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?issueID=79&articleID=1158
 
  • #53
Some cool butterfly pictures.

http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/butterfly/msg031420019447.html?10
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
All pics were shot with a Canon EOS 1D Mark II.

Check these pictures out!

http://nature.gardenweb.com/forums/load/bird/msg0517460527347.html?1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
Astronuc said:
All pics were shot with a Canon EOS 1D Mark II.

Check these pictures out!

http://nature.gardenweb.com/forums/load/bird/msg0517460527347.html?1


How beautiful!

I have an old Nikon FG-20 (I do believe) that I just adore. It was given to me this past Christmas - I've always wanted a camera that took 'real pictures'. If given the chance (And money to buy film), I'd take at least three rolls a day. I usually only take about a quarter of that, when I have money. I've got negatives lying around everywhere! :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
SimplySolitary_ said:
How beautiful!

I have an old Nikon FG-20 (I do believe) that I just adore. It was given to me this past Christmas - I've always wanted a camera that took 'real pictures'. If given the chance (And money to buy film), I'd take at least three rolls a day. I usually only take about a quarter of that, when I have money. I've got negatives lying around everywhere! :)
I used to shoot 8-12 rolls/day, and most were 36 frames/roll. Of course, I too was constrained by money.

With a digital camera, I can easily shoot 200-300 or more frames in a day. I have two memory cards, or I take the laptop along to download one card.
 
  • #57
I've gone digital (Olympus 3040 zoom) but still have one of my trusty old OM-1s. At one time, I had three of them and an OM-4 with a wide selection of single-focal-length lenses. I also used to have a Bronica ETR-S and ETR-C with some single-focal-length lenses. I processed my own film much of the time, to keep costs down. Film photography was expensive! I should buy a better digital camera - the lack of processing expenses makes digital photography a no-brainer!
 
  • #58
Astronuc said:
I used to shoot 8-12 rolls/day, and most were 36 frames/roll. Of course, I too was constrained by money.

With a digital camera, I can easily shoot 200-300 or more frames in a day. I have two memory cards, or I take the laptop along to download one card.

What kind of digital camera do you use?? I've been looking into digital cameras, and I do have one, but I don't want to get one that'll take extremely bad shots, or will die out quicky...
:)
 
  • #59
Astronuc said:
All pics were shot with a Canon EOS 1D Mark II.

Check these pictures out!

http://nature.gardenweb.com/forums/load/bird/msg0517460527347.html?1
Are YOU Dave in VA?

That GardenWeb is cool! I post lots of stuff there in the Name That Animal Forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
DaveC426913 said:
Are YOU Dave in VA?
No, I'm in the NY area. My wife browses Garden Forum, and I seem to remember you mentioning that you post pictures there.

SimplySolitary_ said:
What kind of digital camera do you use??
I use a Kodak EasyShare DX6490 (4 MegaPixel), with 10X zoom and 3X digital zoom for combined 30X, and auto-focus. However, one problem I've noticed is that the combination of low light and full zoom leads to blurry pictures because of long exposure. Zooming in with the digital zoom (> 10X total) for closeups requires fixing the camera to a solid base, which is not always practical.

I payed about $500 for the camera (and 128 MB memory card) when I bought it two years ago. Now, I would want to invest in a camera with the ability to change lens, i.e. a digital SLR. The camera is now about $250. Also, one should expect the rechargable battery to last about 1 year, afterwhich it seems to drain fairly quickly and the voltage seems to change because the camera performance (auto-focus) gets sluggish.

I have an old (30+ years) Canon F-1 with a variey of zoom and telephoto lenses. I would like to have the digital equivalent of that camera.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
I hate taking pictures. I bought my first digital camera only after the birth of my kid, and that was after my wife and parents pestered me no end. And I've got nothing but baby pics.

I'm not the most sentimental person. The way I see it, I have a perfectly good set of eyes and visual cortex. Why would I need a camera?
 
  • #62
Curious3141 said:
I'm not the most sentimental person. The way I see it, I have a perfectly good set of eyes and visual cortex. Why would I need a camera?
So you can share them with your parents. :biggrin: Baby pictures of course.

I enjoy taking pictures of nature and sharing it with people. I find nature very interesting, and sometimes it's just simply beautiful.

I like taking pictures of colorful sunsets and scenery, or colorful flowers, birds and insects. I post some of these in order for people who might be interested.

I also appreciate the effort and skill of others who take pictures. :smile:
 
  • #64
Curious3141 said:
I'm not the most sentimental person. The way I see it, I have a perfectly good set of eyes and visual cortex. Why would I need a camera?

To capture a certain beauty in something that someone might not find beautiful. To realize that everything can be simply wonderful. To see a sunset over the ocean, blue waves upon the sand, is truly a beautiful thing, but to capture it in a frame in such a way that someone else might find it as stunning as you did... well, that's just an amazing thing.
 
  • #65
SimplySolitary_ said:
What kind of digital camera do you use?? I've been looking into digital cameras, and I do have one, but I don't want to get one that'll take extremely bad shots, or will die out quicky...
:)
I have an Olympus Camedia C-3040. It does a real good job most of the time (I am more a manual 35mm guy) but the biggest gripe that I have is the time-lapse between when I press the shutter button and the time when the actual exposure is made. I love action photography and nature photography, and sometimes you just have to have an image of "NOW", not 1/2 second from now. That is a small thing if you are doing family portraits, landscapes, etc, but if you want to capture a hummingbird "dogfight", or a sport-biker doing a "stoppie", or a kayaker doing a perfect pirouette in an eddy, "NOW" is the standard that I want the camera to perform to. "Wait for it..." is not acceptible. In this one regard, the C-3040 comes up short. It is very conservative in power consumption, and I power it with Nickel-metal-hydride batteries that are available anywhere and recharge to much better strength than NiCads, without the memory problems (at least to date). The camera is small and unobtrusive. It takes a few seconds for the lens to extend to the using position on power-up, so it is not as handy as a film camera for spur of the moment shots. It is nice, though, to come back home, dump all the shots to the PC's hard drive, and later delete the clunkers and save the keepers. As with film cameras, the great shots often come unexpectedly, thus the admonition to just "keep shooting". The up-side of digital is that you don't have to keep buying film, processing the film (even if you do it yourself it gets expensive!) and printing the good prospects. Digital photography entails two real costs - the cost of the camera/lens(es)/batteries/memory cards, and the cost of the paper and ink to print out the images you want to keep. Photo-quality printers are a dead give-away compared to the cost of the paper and inks, believe me - that's where your hard-copy costs reside. I hope this helps.
 
  • #66
Slow response is the one complaint I have with a digital that uses autofocus, especially as the battery ages.

I much prefer SLR, with manual settings and a relatively large f-stop for depth of field.
 
  • #67
Astronuc said:
Slow response is the one complaint I have with a digital that uses autofocus, especially as the battery ages.

I much prefer SLR, with manual settings and a relatively large f-stop for depth of field.
Yep. The digital cameras have taken away that "gut feel" certainty that I can get the shot I want, NOW. I used to set out with one or two of my OM-1s, fitted with great lenses and loaded with film that I could trust, and could shoot all day long and get lots of nice (not just usable) images. The sunny 16 rule and a feel for dispersion/attenuation by clouds/low sun angle could keep me pretty much in the zone most of the time.

I had a chance to buy a Leica M-6 with a Noctilux lens for $2000 quite a few years ago, and just didn't have the ready cash to pull it off, and lost the deal. Why, why, why? :cry: I should have sold my truck and hitchhiked to work until I could get another vehicle!

Oh, well.
 
  • #68
i bought my cam about 2 years ago but i think i have only taken about hardly ummmm...300Mb worth...that seems to little compared to the amount some of u people have taken... :lol:

-jake
 
  • #69
SimplySolitary_ said:
To capture a certain beauty in something that someone might not find beautiful. To realize that everything can be simply wonderful. To see a sunset over the ocean, blue waves upon the sand, is truly a beautiful thing, but to capture it in a frame in such a way that someone else might find it as stunning as you did... well, that's just an amazing thing.

To my mind, the beauty of a scene is mostly an internal construct based on external cues. In other words, it's my own mind that makes a scene beautiful. :biggrin: How can I convey that to anyone else? Not that I'd have the least interest in doing so, the only people I would be interested in sharing that sort of experience with are immediate family, and they'd probably be with me anyway. I'm exceedingly introverted, almost to the point of social apathy.

Also, I find that taking pictures seems to detract from my immediate enjoyment of a scene.
 
  • #70
Volcanos!

http://volcano.und.edu/vwintl/vwintl.html

I imagine there is quite a risk in taking those photographs, but then it must be awesome to see eruptions in person.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

How Can a Digital Photo Frame Revive Old Memories and Connections?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Are Fujifilm Disposable Cameras Good for Resolution and Color Quality?
Replies
9
Views
21K
The Lens Matters More Than the Camera: A Personal Story
Replies
14
Views
2K
Which Digital Camera Sensor Size Should I Choose for Sharper Pictures?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Anyone sick and tired of all the fancy techy stuffs?
Replies
22
Views
2K
Photo Contest - What COVID-19 Makes Me Miss The Most (7/4-7/10)
Replies
11
Views
2K
Photo Contest - Panorama (3/31-4/6)
Replies
12
Views
2K
Need suggestions for a new camera
Replies
10
Views
2K
Reasons my internet/cable line was cut?
Replies
13
Views
6K
B Is a Quantum Entanglement Camera the Key to Seeing Into the Future of Earth?
Replies
3
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top