Friday, April 8, 2005

Flickr is Fun




image0082

Originally uploaded by tygar.

I spent some time playing with Flickr and talking photography dorkyness with Veirs last night. Picassa rocks and makes me want to use a PC again - sorta.

Unfortunately I recently broke my digital camera. Of course, as soon as I break it I all of a sudden have a photograpy itch I need to scratch. Stacey said I could use her camera, but it's not quite the same.

I was thinking about taking a step up in photography, but I wondered what other people thought. If I go get a Digital SLR or SuperZoom camera, that would be rather bulky. If I can't fit it in my pocket I may hesitate to carry the camera around to parties and such. Honestly I need two cameras, the easy to carry and all-powerful camera. Will the next generation of camera phones weighing in at 1.3 megapixels or more be able to fill the portability gap? Should I just buy two cameras? How much is photography worth?

12 comments:

  1. Photography rocks, its a great way to express your interests and share great things you have seen with others!

    Depending on your budget, you can set yourself up with 2 decent cameras for about $1000. The Canon Rebel Digital is about 800 now for an SLR thats a decent price. Then get a small pocket sized mini camera. All my old cameras I have are Canons, I just went ot Nikon for my first digi camera and loved it, so I upgraded to a SLR Nikon D70. LOVE IT!

    Some photos I have shot with my D70 - http://ww.veirs.net/photography

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah... I know. Crazy debate. I find myself deeply divided between my cravings and my need for fiscal responsibility - but deeper than that - I have been waiting for years now for the perfect digital camera to come out... I should mention that I have the portability issue squarely in hand, with a very petite 2mp digital camera that I have been happy with for about two years now. It shoots pictures that print nicely in a 4x5 format (I just started using ofoto and have been very happy with the results), and becuase it does not have any sort of zoom, the camera seems relatively indestructible (no moving parts). Plus I really like the scant few sounds that it makes (shutter sound, power up sound, delete sound). Even still, I have to say that there is something that I find very creepy about camera phones. (I also find tv/vcr combos and tv/dvd combos to be creepy... but not the hot dogs that have cheese already in them). So back to the issue of large format cameras. Simply stated - you need a big lens to capture good light. You also need the ability to switch between a number of lens depending on what you are doing. Digital SLRs (Single Lens Reflex - the kind of camera that most wedding photographers use) are starting to come into their own - and I think that is a good thing. I was blown away by some of the pictures that Tom took with his point and shoot cannon digital (a high end point and shoot that has a lot of the features of Cannon's Digital SLR cameras, but in a point and shoot body that does not allow for interchangible lenses, or manual focusing and other manipulations). To put it simply - he kicked my ass at getting pictures out there. And once we got home, it took a few minutes to upload some shots to ofoto, and less than a week later 20" x 30" poster size shots were delivered to my door. They are beautiful. The resolutions on digitals are going up, and the prices are coming down. So where am I going with this? To a rather glim conclusion that will probably come back to haunt me. Digital SLRs are a gimmick. They are just a means to wrestle the most possible money out of people that need a status symbol - that need to have the BEST. At the resolutions that are capable with a decent to good point and shoot, and with the ability to manipulate the images, and to instantly view what you have taken... with all of the positive things that are coming out of the digital revolution like digital zooms... there is simply no need for a digital slr. Find yourself a 5 - 6 mp camera with some good optics, some great features that feels right in the hand and has intuitive controls. Make sure it is portable, both in size and wieght. Macro is a really good feature. Point and shoot is a really good feature. SLR in digital is just plain dumb. They are like an albatross around your neck. If you can't manually adjust the aperature, film speed, and focus simultaneously - there is simply no reason to have an SLR format. Period. I have yet to find a digital SLR that allows you to do that. Digital portable point and shoots with a decent resolution and some better than average optics are the way to go.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's a tough one man. I've got more of a split personality when it comes to photography. I love my pentax s4i cause it's so damn small and convienent but my Nikon F3HP (circa 1980) kicks its ass in terms of taking 'real photos'. I guess I'm more of a 'death before digital' kinda guy. I know that doesn't help much, but I guess I'd say that you need two. One for fun and one workhorse. As for camera phones... you're gonna be waiting a while before you see anything close to mid-range digital cameras out now...

    ReplyDelete
  4. The thing is, you old skool film boyz are actually developing your own prints. For me, my primary presentation method will be digital. I do like black and white photography, but I'd rather not spend the time and money developing prints simply as a transport to get my pictures to their typical final-form, digital, displayed on the web.

    I did some more looking around, and given the ultra-low price of a used last-generation digital camera (sub $100 for 3MP+), a camera phone wouldn't even make financial sense if it did take good pictures. I really wish I could borrow each type of camera and play around with it, but I'll have to trust reviews in PC Magazine and personal recommendations for the time being.

    ReplyDelete
  5. For reviews, I really like dpreview.com. It's got great information and extensive reviews along with comparisons.

    I use a Canon A95. It's a great point and shoot with the ability to do a lot of manual changes, and it requires very little post processing (I find this is common with Cannons) I love my camera and find that it's the only one I need.

    With that said, the last guy I dated had a DSLR. Nikon D70. What a nice camera. As much as I think my camera is well suited for me, whenever I got the chance to shoot with that camera, I took it. I loved using it. The feel, the ability to capture images, the lenses...it was excellent. For me, I wouldn't want one - don't want to put in the money for it and the lenses - or have the responsibility. But I can certainly see wanting to own one because they are so nice to use.

    So there you have it. You have to figure out what works for you. What type of shots you want to take and where. From what I've seen, you love taking pictures at parties and things like that. That's hard with a DSLR because people notice it more. (Unless you hide across the rom with your telephoto lense) But to just go out shooting, using a DSLR is great.

    ps - Camera phones stink. Next time I see you I'll try to remember to bring my camera and you can play with it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for giving my picture some attention!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Doug, no problem. I thought it was an amazing picture. I think I stumbled upon it while looking for pictures taken with the Nikon D70 - too bad Flickr doesn't have a better way of searching by camera.

    Jill, I have run across dpreview in a few google searches. Every time I say whoah, that's comprehensive, then get distracted by something else and never seem to read an entire review. I've been doing a bit of ebay searching - I'll probably snipe for a while to try and get a magical price on a low-end point-and-shoot for the time being.

    ReplyDelete
  8. DAVID - LOL thats funny... digital SLR's are a gimmick ! HA loved it.

    WRONG:

    1> They are out doing the film SLR's because they are cheaper to print the photos and there is no development time except for large prints. They are expensive, but the prices will come down more and the film SLRs will go away eventually. Alot of the prices in SLR's are sick cheap right now because people arnt buying them.

    2> A point and shoot can't compair. Yes, its nice and small and easy for snapshots but if you want to shoot anything besides your sister, then you need something that you can really use to customize your shots. Lenses are required for quality macros and telephotos.

    3> Digital zoom - thats a joke. I would never recommend digital zoom because all it does is enlarge the pixals to get a closer image. Not worth it, you can do that in photoshop and get a better print out of it.

    4> Status symbal - not me. I actually feel weird having a large camera because everyone is always looking at you like "why do you have that, look at my point and shoot" ;) hehehe.

    After getting to the end of your comment, it looks like you might be talking about the point in shoot SLR's (they are more SLR size but with no option of removing the lens), those are a joke, I do agree with you there.


    I have a Nikon D70 - yes, it was pricy, but I would not give it up for anything...but a new version of it. I was a die hard Canon fan until I bought a Nikon Digital for its features, and that turned me into a Nikon Fan. I have not touched any of my film cameras since.


    Thanks
    Scott

    David - Sorry, just re-read what I posted. I didn't mean to sound so in your face I just get excited about some topics that I realy want to make someone seem my view.

    Nothing personal.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with JILL - DPREVIEW.com is a great site. That is where I got my first good feeling for my Nik.D70

    ReplyDelete
  10. Okay - I have a lot that I want to say to that, Scott... But I will just react to two things right now.
    First, you say that I am wrong about SLRs, then in point one you bring up a fact about digital cameras. Never did I say that digital cameras are a gimmick. Just Digital SLRs.
    Secondly, are you familiar with the mechanical functioning of your d70? Is there a mirror that must swing up and out of the focal plane before the shutter can fire? Single Lens Reflex (SLR) means something.
    Finally - I can tell that you are upset that I would have offended your camera and/or yourself. For that, I apologize. Let me go on to say that the D70 is perhaps the greatest amateur to entry pro level digital camera on the market. It is really amazing.
    But please, consider the evolution from the 60s to the modern day film based SLR. The form of the SLR is sculpted out of function. The function of a digital camera is really quite different. Why would the perfect shape for a camera that was designed to physically alter the chemicals suspended on a roll of film also be the perfect shape for a camera that uses a ccd to capture light? I would be more than happy to discuss the mechanics with you... but I have come to one conclusion. The physical shape of the film based SLR with its prism and mirror and film roll being stored on one side and frame by frame advancing to the other side is specific to the requirements of film based photography. The form of an SLR is not the form of digital photography in the future. The reason that a digital SLR is "SLR" shaped is quite simple - that is the shape that people have come to associate with expensive high end photography. The shape is a gimmick, my friend. Pure and simple. If you disagree to that statement - I have another question for you... Will digital cameras still be in an SLR shape for the next 10-20 years? If the SLR format is so crucial, and not at all tied to a gimmick, it is safe to assume that high end digital cameras would keep the SLR shape into the forseeable future, right? There is a very good reason that SLRs have kept that shape - form follows function. In the digital SLR, form follows the wants and desires of the consumers.
    And I just saw your additional entry - no apology needed. A good debate is hard to come by - and even harder to achieve when you are worried about offeneding the other person. No worries from my end - and I hope that you realize I mean no offense. I love photography - and there is something that I find so amazing about my fully manual SLRs... and spending hours upon hours in my darkroom developing prints. And finally I should say - congrats on going Nikon. I am a Nikon man through and through.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Never did I say that digital cameras are a gimmick. Just Digital SLRs.
    > Yes, I agree that you stated dSLR's are a gimmick, which is what I disagreed to.

    Secondly, are you familiar with the mechanical functioning of your d70? Is there a mirror that must swing up and out of the focal plane before the shutter can fire? Single Lens Reflex (SLR) means something.
    >LOL - yes I understand what an SLR is - I have been using them since 1986.


    Finally - I can tell that you are upset that I would have offended your camera and/or yourself. For that, I apologize. Let me go on to say that the D70 is perhaps the greatest amateur to entry pro level digital camera on the market. It is really amazing.
    > I don't know that you offended me as much as you made me laugh. Yes, the D70 is a great camera and yes, there are better out there.

    But please, consider the evolution from the 60s to the modern day film based SLR. The form of the SLR is sculpted out of function. The function of a digital camera is really quite different. Why would the perfect shape for a camera that was designed to physically alter the chemicals suspended on a roll of film also be the perfect shape for a camera that uses a ccd to capture light?
    > I belive the function is still that of an SLR due to the requirement to have hardware that can hold and support interchangable lenses.

    I would be more than happy to discuss the mechanics with you… but I have come to one conclusion. The physical shape of the film based SLR with its prism and mirror and film roll being stored on one side and frame by frame advancing to the other side is specific to the requirements of film based photography. The form of an SLR is not the form of digital photography in the future. The reason that a digital SLR is “SLR” shaped is quite simple - that is the shape that people have come to associate with expensive high end photography.
    > Disagree - answer for this is below...


    The shape is a gimmick, my friend. Pure and simple. If you disagree to that statement - I have another question for you… Will digital cameras still be in an SLR shape for the next 10-20 years? If the SLR format is so crucial, and not at all tied to a gimmick, it is safe to assume that high end digital cameras would keep the SLR shape into the forseeable future, right? There is a very good reason that SLRs have kept that shape - form follows function. In the digital SLR, form follows the wants and desires of the consumers.
    > I disagree that in 10-20 years (I hope) things will change. Camera size has not changed much (for SLRs) in the last 30+ years. I can't see SLR's changing size much until they improve on hardware optics and lenses that can be interchanged on a different style camera body. Until this happens, SLR's will stay around.


    And I just saw your additional entry - no apology needed. A good debate is hard to come by - and even harder to achieve when you are worried about offeneding the other person. No worries from my end - and I hope that you realize I mean no offense. I love photography - and there is something that I find so amazing about my fully manual SLRs… and spending hours upon hours in my darkroom developing prints. And finally I should say - congrats on going Nikon. I am a Nikon man through and through.

    > Right on :) Glad to hear about no offense - I know I can be abrasive sometimes, just takes a bit of getting used to from what I hear hehe.

    > I am always glad to find new photographers in the area - if you ever up for a day trip to go shooting, please let me know. I do it frequently now since I have become unemployeed.

    > Scott

    :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh yay. This debate's a lot more exciting than the political banter of our mutual friends over email - about 47 emails since 9:30AM this morning :)

    Digital SLRs are miles ahead of normal mirrorless tiny silver-reflecty-body digital cameras.

    A coworker of mine and does lots of photography. We talked. He said things.

    Real digital SLRs (detachable lenses, mirror in there) have GIGANTIC ccds, variable aperature (yes they are out there), and by and large can process an image far quicker than silvery-best-buy cameras. I agree there's going to be marketing out there to make DLSRs look cooler and maybe there's a few silvery-cams with aperature/shutter speed adjustments or they're coming out eventually, but I wouldn't hesitate to score a digital Rebel or a D70 or some other crafty high-ccd brand that we've grown to love and trust.

    And yes you should take a DSLR to parties. Nothing's cooler than setting up lighting on insane drunk people and having them all stay in the frame. Also have you ever tried to score good low-light-non-flash pictures with a silvery-best-buy cam? Have you ever attempted sporting events action shots? And oh let's not even get into filters mmmhm (snap snap).

    On the note of technology (my apologies if someone already addressed this, i got bored of reading), the idea of an SLR is to allow you to look through the same lens the film frame sees when the shutter's open. Technology at some point will force marketing and politics to take a back seat (unlike alternative-fueled vehicles vs oil companies) and SLRs will merge with silvery-best-buys and create some hybrid picture box that captures what people see and makes it into a huuuuge file and do away with the need for a mirror. Maybe instead of SLRs they'll be called *RBBCWNMMs.

    Wesley


    *really big black cameras with no more mirror

    ReplyDelete