[NSR] Photography Old vs New School

Discussion of the Genuine Buddy, Hooligan, Black Jack and other topics, both scooter related and not

Moderator: Modern Buddy Staff

User avatar
pcbikedude
Member
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:09 pm
Location: The Cajon Zone

Post by pcbikedude »

I miss taking slides. I had a mini slide projector. I captured several great shots of Yosemite all on slides. I didn't use Kodachrome very often. I preferred the Ektachrome.
The scenery only changes for the lead scooterist.
User avatar
ericalm
Site Admin
Posts: 16842
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by ericalm »

I still have a Kodak Carousel slide projector. Haven't used it in almost 20 years but I still take it with me when I move. Only way to view the hundreds of slides I cart around in plastic shopping bags.

(This might provide some insight into what the closets look like in my house.)
Eric // LA Scooter Meetup Group // Stella 4T // Vespa LX // Vespa LXS // Honda Helix // some, uh, projects…
User avatar
pcbikedude
Member
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:09 pm
Location: The Cajon Zone

Post by pcbikedude »

I have several binders full of negatives and slides.

One thing I do like about digital photography, my wife takes pictures of every little thing imaginable on trips. She will shoot 8GB of pictures on a 4 day trip. Most good but at least 30% are not. It is at least economical.
The scenery only changes for the lead scooterist.
TVB

Post by TVB »

Mulliganal wrote:One of the things I dislike about DSLRs is that I think it make some people very lazy. When people shot film I think many of them put more effort into knowing their camera, film type and shooting conditions.
This was over five years ago now, but my art school's "Photo I" class started students out with black and white 35mm SLRs. I approve.
User avatar
ericalm
Site Admin
Posts: 16842
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by ericalm »

TVB wrote:
Mulliganal wrote:One of the things I dislike about DSLRs is that I think it make some people very lazy. When people shot film I think many of them put more effort into knowing their camera, film type and shooting conditions.
This was over five years ago now, but my art school's "Photo I" class started students out with black and white 35mm SLRs. I approve.
I met a high school photography teacher who said they still start off with 35mm and learn processing and printing before digital. My reaction: "They teach photography in high school? Wow."

Part of me thinks that's great. On the other hand… Good luck finding a darkroom outside of a college or school. When I worked at the LA Times there were abandoned darkrooms (also piled high with obsolete scanners!) scattered around the building. Each department had its own photo staff that did all their own printing at one time.
Eric // LA Scooter Meetup Group // Stella 4T // Vespa LX // Vespa LXS // Honda Helix // some, uh, projects…
User avatar
babblefish
Member
Posts: 3118
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:42 am
Location: San Francisco

Post by babblefish »

TVB wrote:
Mulliganal wrote:One of the things I dislike about DSLRs is that I think it make some people very lazy. When people shot film I think many of them put more effort into knowing their camera, film type and shooting conditions.
This was over five years ago now, but my art school's "Photo I" class started students out with black and white 35mm SLRs. I approve.
Our local community college used either Pentax Spotmatic or Minolta SR101 cameras also with B&W film. But that was at least 25 years ago...
Hmm, I still have two or three Asahi Spotmatics, I think...
Some people can break a crowbar in a sandbox.
User avatar
babblefish
Member
Posts: 3118
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:42 am
Location: San Francisco

Post by babblefish »

ericalm wrote:Part of me thinks that's great. On the other hand… Good luck finding a darkroom outside of a college or school. When I worked at the LA Times there were abandoned darkrooms (also piled high with obsolete scanners!) scattered around the building. Each department had its own photo staff that did all their own printing at one time.
I really miss doing darkroom work. I've been seriously thinking about setting up a B&W darkroom again in my house since I still have all my equipment (yes, I'm a pack rat). Just have to find a local source for the chemicals. :D
Some people can break a crowbar in a sandbox.
User avatar
Mulliganal
Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:44 pm
Location: Hot-Lanta

Post by Mulliganal »

ericalm wrote:When I worked at the LA Times there were abandoned darkrooms (also piled high with obsolete scanners!) scattered around the building.
Unfortunately those darkroom days are dead, but I'm happy I had the opportunity to experience that world in the darkroom. I was the onbase photographer while in the military and I remember almost living in the darkroom; that was a great experience.

I guess the schools these days could force their students to shoot manual mode with the autofocus turned off. The metadata would show if they cheated.
".....Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us......"
User avatar
babblefish
Member
Posts: 3118
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:42 am
Location: San Francisco

Post by babblefish »

Mulliganal wrote:
ericalm wrote:When I worked at the LA Times there were abandoned darkrooms (also piled high with obsolete scanners!) scattered around the building.
Unfortunately those darkroom days are dead, but I'm happy I had the opportunity to experience that world in the darkroom. I was the onbase photographer while in the military and I remember almost living in the darkroom; that was a great experience.

I guess the schools these days could force their students to shoot manual mode with the autofocus turned off. The metadata would show if they cheated.
Not just autofocus, but turn off aperture and shutter priority too. Full Manual man! :D
Some people can break a crowbar in a sandbox.
TVB

Post by TVB »

ericalm wrote:Part of me thinks that's great. On the other hand… Good luck finding a darkroom outside of a college or school. When I worked at the LA Times there were abandoned darkrooms (also piled high with obsolete scanners!) scattered around the building. Each department had its own photo staff that did all their own printing at one time.
It depends on whether you're looking at photography as an art form, or as an element of journalism.

Learning to deal with film is probably useless for a future journalist (unless they're going to be covering the aftermath of WW3), and the nuances of depth of field may be best left to the Photoshop rather than the dark room, when news is breaking.

But as an artistic medium, chemical photography is no more obsolete than oils or watercolors, and that Photo I class demonstrated techniques you can use with chemicals which cannot be done with mere bits (e.g. ever paint a 3D object with emulsion and project a negative onto it?)
TVB

Post by TVB »

Mulliganal wrote:I guess the schools these days could force their students to shoot manual mode with the autofocus turned off. The metadata would show if they cheated.
So would the results.
User avatar
peabody99
Member
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2006 2:19 am
Location: San Diego

Post by peabody99 »

poloroids are the best. Not only the instant gratification, but for what ever reason the pics are more flattering. My friend has one...don't know how he finds film still, and it is just like I remember.
User avatar
ericalm
Site Admin
Posts: 16842
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by ericalm »

peabody99 wrote:poloroids are the best. Not only the instant gratification, but for what ever reason the pics are more flattering. My friend has one...don't know how he finds film still, and it is just like I remember.
Fuji makes film that will fit some Polaroids as well as their own Instax instant cameras. A group in Europe bought the last Polaroid factory after it closed and were supposed to resume production, but I don't know if it ever actually happened.
Eric // LA Scooter Meetup Group // Stella 4T // Vespa LX // Vespa LXS // Honda Helix // some, uh, projects…
User avatar
jasondavis48108
Member
Posts: 2919
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 12:36 pm
Location: Ann Arbor

Post by jasondavis48108 »

pcbikedude wrote:Does anyone use a toy camera like the Diana and Holga?

I find these interesting. 120 film, fix focus lens, plastic body, interesting pictures.
Image

Crap Eric, I think I have the disease. :rofl:
My wife has a degree in photography so we have several cameras laying around here. She shoots mostly digital right now but is attempting to get her darkroom up and running again. We have had several holgas but I think we only have two or three left. They are awesome cameras and ours are the modified type with tripod mounts and extended exposre modifications. She also has the old holgaroid back but I don't think they make the film for it any longer. I was a polaroid junkie for quite some time (especially SX-70) so the Holgaroid was a real blast. We also have a holga pinhole camera around here somewhere. I love toy cameras but quite honestly, film kinda feels like a pain in the butt these days to me, my wife would shoot me for saying that but it's true :lol:
"Only the curious have, if they live, a tale worth telling at all" Alastair Reid
iMoses

Post by iMoses »

Mulliganal wrote:
iMoses wrote:What I love about my DSLR is that I can shoot hundreds of photos without worrying the cost of paying for developing film... what I hate about my DSLR is that I have to go through hundreds of photos I just took :)
One of the things I dislike about DSLRs is that I think it make some people very lazy. When people shot film I think many of them put more effort into knowing their camera, film type and shooting conditions.

With digital I see people just shoot until they get a half-decent shot with no regard to shooting conditions, f-stop, white balance or film speed. Then they wonder why so many of their shots are under/over exposed, or blurry.

Perhaps I'm being a snob, but I think folks should spend some time at least learning the basic of how a camera works, especially if they plan on documenting the life and times of their kids.

Edit, the one thing I love about digital is there is no need to change film, be it from ASA 100 to 400, or from color to B&W. Now that's cool.

I totally agree, I've seen great cell phone pictures from someone who knows what they are doing. And I've seen just bad photography come out of a $4,000+ "professional" grade one. But that is on the photographer not the equipment. That being said some folks have an eye for it.
User avatar
Mulliganal
Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:44 pm
Location: Hot-Lanta

Post by Mulliganal »

iMoses wrote:I totally agree, I've seen great cell phone pictures from someone who knows what they are doing. And I've seen just bad photography come out of a $4,000+ "professional" grade one. But that is on the photographer not the equipment. That being said some folks have an eye for it.
So true iMoses, in photography I've heard the folks with the $4,000 camera and no knowledge of how it works are called measurebators; they buy $4,000 just to be able to say they have a $4,000 camera.

I took this photo with a point and shoot camera one day while on my lunch hour, so folks really don't need a $4,000 systems with 21mp if they just learn more about the camera and its limitations.

http://www.pbase.com/capturestudio/image/37114383

Edit: this photo was taken with my beloved Canon PowerShot S410 before my son jumped off the sofa, fell to the ground, and jammed the lens into the body of the camera. It was toast after that.
".....Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us......"
User avatar
pcbikedude
Member
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:09 pm
Location: The Cajon Zone

Post by pcbikedude »

You guys are pure EVIL. Now I don't think I can walk in to the camera store to pickup my repaired camera and not buy a new lens too. :twisted:
The scenery only changes for the lead scooterist.
User avatar
babblefish
Member
Posts: 3118
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:42 am
Location: San Francisco

Post by babblefish »

Mulliganal wrote:I took this photo with a point and shoot camera one day while on my lunch hour, so folks really don't need a $4,000 systems with 21mp if they just learn more about the camera and its limitations.

http://www.pbase.com/capturestudio/image/37114383

Edit: this photo was taken with my beloved Canon PowerShot S410 before my son jumped off the sofa, fell to the ground, and jammed the lens into the body of the camera. It was toast after that.
Excellent work! I still love well done B&W photography. Hard to believe that came from a cheap point-n-shoot camera. By chance did you hack the camera's firmware using CHDK?
Some people can break a crowbar in a sandbox.
User avatar
Mulliganal
Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:44 pm
Location: Hot-Lanta

Post by Mulliganal »

babblefish wrote:
Mulliganal wrote:I took this photo with a point and shoot camera one day while on my lunch hour, so folks really don't need a $4,000 systems with 21mp if they just learn more about the camera and its limitations.

http://www.pbase.com/capturestudio/image/37114383

Edit: this photo was taken with my beloved Canon PowerShot S410 before my son jumped off the sofa, fell to the ground, and jammed the lens into the body of the camera. It was toast after that.
Excellent work! I still love well done B&W photography. Hard to believe that came from a cheap point-n-shoot camera. By chance did you hack the camera's firmware using CHDK?
Thanks babblefish, I love B&W also, so much more expression in well done B&W. No hacks to the firmware, just standard updates. I still miss that little Canon camera, I replaced it with a Lumix LX3 for those times when I don't want to lug around my D300 and its 'Beast' 28-70mm lense.

I can't wait to get my Stella so I can do more street photography; there are so many great shots that I pass up on because I can't pull over easily in a car.
".....Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us......"
User avatar
pcbikedude
Member
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:09 pm
Location: The Cajon Zone

Post by pcbikedude »

The news about my beloved Pentax K1000 is bad. The light meter is no longer functioning :cry: . Although the camera is not dead, it would be hard to judge the right shutter speed and f/stop without it.

But the good news, the camera store carries used cameras too. I was able to find a replacement camera that takes all the same lenses with the manual operation that is similar to the K1000. Enter Pentax MX.

I'm looking forward to my first roll of film in 3 years.
The scenery only changes for the lead scooterist.
TVB

Post by TVB »

pcbikedude wrote:I was able to find a replacement camera that takes all the same lenses with the manual operation that is similar to the K1000. Enter Pentax MX.
That's a good camera, essentially the non-auto version of the 35mm I fell in love with all those years ago (ME super). But you may find it a little small to hold onto compared to a K1000. :)
CWO4GUNNER
Member
Posts: 379
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 5:01 am
Location: BHC AZ
Contact:

Post by CWO4GUNNER »

IMO in the day the best professional compact film camera ever made alone with the best lenses Olympus/Zuko. The company as it once was on the cutting edge photo technology, a thing of the past and a completely different company now.
Image
Image
Image
TVB

Post by TVB »

CWO4GUNNER wrote:IMO in the day the best professional compact film camera ever made alone with the best lenses Olympus/Zuko. The company as it once was on the cutting edge photo technology, a thing of the past and a completely different company now.
You'll get no argument from me about the venerable OM-1 and ye olde Zuiko lenses, but I've been pretty happy with the digital Olympus cameras I've owned over the past decade (upgrading them only because the tech has been improving).
User avatar
KRUSTYburger
Member
Posts: 3366
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:54 am
Location: Pee-Cola, FL

Post by KRUSTYburger »

Man, this thread is bringin me back! Almost enough to get the ol' cameras out of the attic... I'm too lazy to deal with film anymore, and I've been using a $70 point-shoot (12mp Kodak Easyshare) until it broke not too long ago and I'd like to get a new one before Amerivespa.

So you folks who are digital-savvy, what's a good digital camera around 300 bucks? I was looking at a Nikon Coolpix P500 or something, but I really don't know what's out right now and what's got the best photo quality. I'd especially like to be able to take nice macro shots, shallow depth of field & stuff like that, my old camera was pretty lousy at that. Also I like the auto-panorama feature, I use that a lot. I could do it in photoshop if I needed to though...
Image
CWO4GUNNER
Member
Posts: 379
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 5:01 am
Location: BHC AZ
Contact:

Post by CWO4GUNNER »

TVB wrote:
CWO4GUNNER wrote:IMO in the day the best professional compact film camera ever made alone with the best lenses Olympus/Zuko. The company as it once was on the cutting edge photo technology, a thing of the past and a completely different company now.
You'll get no argument from me about the venerable OM-1 and ye olde Zuiko lenses, but I've been pretty happy with the digital Olympus cameras I've owned over the past decade (upgrading them only because the tech has been improving).
Well yes I agree of course, Im speaking to the time period I used it while traveling as a single young man in the Navy in the South Pacific between 1974-1982. When I came back stateside and joined the Coast Guard, I got married and the cameras went in the closet and VHS video camera were the new capture moment device for growing families and events. Not until 2001 did they come out with a decent digital camera The one I picked was the first to have 6 to 12 megapixel tecnology and 12X zoom lens, video, macro and so many other features I still haven't used them all. In fact 10 years later I still use this camera today as you have seen my image postings becasue the features were as close as you could com to an SLR 10 years ago. That's a long time for a camera to hold up. Considered the predecessor to all digital SLR cameras today.
I give you the Fugi FinPix S700
Image
Image
User avatar
ericalm
Site Admin
Posts: 16842
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by ericalm »

KRUSTYburger wrote:Man, this thread is bringin me back! Almost enough to get the ol' cameras out of the attic... I'm too lazy to deal with film anymore, and I've been using a $70 point-shoot (12mp Kodak Easyshare) until it broke not too long ago and I'd like to get a new one before Amerivespa.

So you folks who are digital-savvy, what's a good digital camera around 300 bucks? I was looking at a Nikon Coolpix P500 or something, but I really don't know what's out right now and what's got the best photo quality. I'd especially like to be able to take nice macro shots, shallow depth of field & stuff like that, my old camera was pretty lousy at that. Also I like the auto-panorama feature, I use that a lot. I could do it in photoshop if I needed to though...
I'm struggling with this, too. I've solicited recommendations, read all the reviews, shopped around… and still can't decide on a digital compact.

Current lead contenders are either a Panasonic Lumix (ZS or LX) or one of the Canons in the roughly $300 range (SD? SX? Uh… ). A photographer friend loves her Canon; great image quality and shoots in RAW, which is a big plus for me. I also need image stabilization.

Honestly, I go through this every time and still somehow wind up buying the "wrong" camera that I'm ultimately not happy with. Sigh. My current Sony CyberShot is okay, but just that.
Eric // LA Scooter Meetup Group // Stella 4T // Vespa LX // Vespa LXS // Honda Helix // some, uh, projects…
CWO4GUNNER
Member
Posts: 379
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 5:01 am
Location: BHC AZ
Contact:

Post by CWO4GUNNER »

CORRECT MY LAST!
LOL that camera is the latest version at only 1/2 price ($250) for what it cost me back then ($500) and it was 2002 when the original S7000 came out with CCD 12 megapixel. Anyway I still have my and use my old S7000 and it has 19X zoom not 12X. Incidentally I gave my OM1 to my daughter and she had it reconditioned and tuned. She likes to look of film for some reason but Im just happy she enjoys it so I don't correct her. I could not imagine going back when you have programs like Photoshop its like having a multi million dollar film development studio without the cancer causing chemicals to breath in. No Im sorry the digital camera did the film what the automobile did to the buggy whip.
Image
Image
User avatar
babblefish
Member
Posts: 3118
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:42 am
Location: San Francisco

Post by babblefish »

Except for the fact that digital cameras cannot match the dynamic range of film (yet) nor film's quality at ISOs' greater than 200 (yet). The high end DSLRs' with full size sensors come very close, but command prices that most casual users crindge at ($2500 and up, body only). Well, at least I crindge at the prices... :(

I looked at a Nikon D5100 today because the reviews for it are good, but for $900 (includes an 18-55mm lens), it feels really cheap. Like an empty plastic box. I really like the semi-pro Pentax K5, but at $1600 for body only, it's beyond my budget.

Actually, I'm probably being a bit snobish about all this since I'm so used to using high-end 35mm SLRs. I may give the D5100 a try since the picture quality is consistently rated very highly and I have several Nikkor lenses already. If I can just get over that empty feeling plastic body...

For those looking for honest and extensive reviews of digital cameras, I highly recommend this website: http://www.dpreview.com/
Some people can break a crowbar in a sandbox.
User avatar
KRUSTYburger
Member
Posts: 3366
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 1:54 am
Location: Pee-Cola, FL

Post by KRUSTYburger »

This Fuji looks pretty sweet for a compact point-n-shoot.

http://www.shopfujifilm.com/detail/FUJ+16112544
Image
User avatar
BuddyRaton
Scooter Dork
Posts: 3887
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:08 pm
Location: Boca Raton, Florida
Contact:

Post by BuddyRaton »

For a point and shoot I love my Cannon power shot (I don't even remember which one) Check Costco for some good deals.
"Things fall apart - it's scientific" - David Byrne
www.teamscootertrash.com

'06 Cream Buddy 125, 11 Blur 220, 13 BMW C 650 GT, 68 Vespa SS180, 64 Vespa GS MK II, 65 Lambretta TV 175, 67 Vespa GT, 64 Vespa 150 VBB 64 Vespa GL
TVB

Post by TVB »

Of course the model I own is no longer in production (camera manufacturers retool more often than automakers), but this one (Olympus SP-600UZ) is similar to mine, which I like a lot (and used for my "award-winning" calendar photo). Cheaper and smaller than a DSLR, more capable than a point-and-shoot. (Looks like they removed the manual-focus option, though... saving that for their more expensive X-series cameras, I guess.)
CWO4GUNNER
Member
Posts: 379
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 5:01 am
Location: BHC AZ
Contact:

Post by CWO4GUNNER »

You know its funny, they have all these new digital SLR cameras out with hi-resolution movie mode and they want over a thousand or thousands $$. Of course I'm tempted to buy the latest and greatest especially after using the same digital camera for so long. But in reality I have to be honest with myself. Being retired with the kids grown and gone, the only reason I take any photos is to share them with my various hobby groups (motorcycle, gun, fish keeping, off-roading, street & scoot bikes, and most importantly evangelical). All of those photos are posted in 800x600 resolution to either meet posting requirements, save space, or save memory, as most of our storing and sharing is internet based. As far as Im concerned my old Fugi FinPix S7000 like my old 1992 Nissan pickup & 1986 Jeep Wrangler, are not only not costing me anything to do the same indistinguishable good job, but actually putting money into my pocket every year through cost avoidance, something more of us need to seriously consider in this country if we are ever to get out of this debt crisis. :wink:
User avatar
Mulliganal
Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:44 pm
Location: Hot-Lanta

Post by Mulliganal »

ericalm wrote: Current lead contenders are either a Panasonic Lumix (ZS or LX) or one of the Canons in the roughly $300 range (SD? SX? Uh… ). A photographer friend loves her Canon; great image quality and shoots in RAW, which is a big plus for me. I also need image stabilization.

Honestly, I go through this every time and still somehow wind up buying the "wrong" camera that I'm ultimately not happy with. Sigh. My current Sony CyberShot is okay, but just that.
Eric, I use a Lumix LX3 as a backup to my D300 and it's a great P&S camera; if I recall correctly it also came in first in the P&S shoot-out a while back. If you can find one perhaps it can be purchased for around $300 since they now make a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5.

You probably already know this site dpreview.com, it's a great starting point for info on cameras.

For all the Olympus OM1 folks, when I strayed off the Nikon ranch the OM1 was the camera of choice. What a great little SLR that was. My first digital was also an Olympus E20; the buffer was slow as hell but the colors were warm and wonderful.
".....Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us......"
User avatar
Jackie F
Member
Posts: 293
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 11:41 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by Jackie F »

Lotrat wrote:Anyone need a Kodak disk camera with dead batteries?

Image
You read my mind.

Last year, I bought a micro four thirds camera, Olympus PL-1. Like a scooter, you can easily get caught up with the accessories.

For more info, you can check out http://www.mu-43.com/.
User avatar
ericalm
Site Admin
Posts: 16842
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 3:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Post by ericalm »

Mulliganal wrote:
ericalm wrote: Current lead contenders are either a Panasonic Lumix (ZS or LX) or one of the Canons in the roughly $300 range (SD? SX? Uh… ). A photographer friend loves her Canon; great image quality and shoots in RAW, which is a big plus for me. I also need image stabilization.

Honestly, I go through this every time and still somehow wind up buying the "wrong" camera that I'm ultimately not happy with. Sigh. My current Sony CyberShot is okay, but just that.
Eric, I use a Lumix LX3 as a backup to my D300 and it's a great P&S camera; if I recall correctly it also came in first in the P&S shoot-out a while back. If you can find one perhaps it can be purchased for around $300 since they now make a Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5.
I call the Lumix "My Friend Paid Way Too Much for a Leica Digital." :)
His Leica takes great shots, regardless of what he paid for it.

The camera I want to be able to pay too much for: Fujifilm FinePix X100.
Image

Because of the disaster in Japan, stock is low and I've seen these listed for as high as $2K—about twice MSRP. A friend has one but I've yet to see it in action.
Eric // LA Scooter Meetup Group // Stella 4T // Vespa LX // Vespa LXS // Honda Helix // some, uh, projects…
User avatar
pcbikedude
Member
Posts: 1194
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 9:09 pm
Location: The Cajon Zone

Post by pcbikedude »

All we need now is a photographer's vest and we can have a MB paparazzi posse. :rofl:
Image
The scenery only changes for the lead scooterist.
User avatar
PeteH
Member
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 4:32 pm
Location: 3603mi SE of Dutch Harbor

Post by PeteH »

I've got one hanging in my closet. Not for photography, as I never had the great gaggle of junk (filters, lotsa film, etc.), but I used to wear it to tech conferences - it was great for holding all my garbage like PDAs, vendor swag, phones, music players, vendor swag, small notebooks, pens, vendor swag, etc. That way I didn't have to schlep the shoulder bag that looked like the other 10,000 shoulder bags.
User avatar
Hwarang
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 7:56 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Post by Hwarang »

Mulliganal wrote:
iMoses wrote:I totally agree, I've seen great cell phone pictures from someone who knows what they are doing. And I've seen just bad photography come out of a $4,000+ "professional" grade one. But that is on the photographer not the equipment. That being said some folks have an eye for it.
So true iMoses, in photography I've heard the folks with the $4,000 camera and no knowledge of how it works are called measurebators; they buy $4,000 just to be able to say they have a $4,000 camera.

I took this photo with a point and shoot camera one day while on my lunch hour, so folks really don't need a $4,000 systems with 21mp if they just learn more about the camera and its limitations.

http://www.pbase.com/capturestudio/image/37114383

Edit: this photo was taken with my beloved Canon PowerShot S410 before my son jumped off the sofa, fell to the ground, and jammed the lens into the body of the camera. It was toast after that.
This is true of any skilled or artistic community. Essentially it works out that somewhere around 5% are true maestro's ... the rest, however skilled, fall somewhere below. Equipment and academic knowledge, no matter how difficult to acquire, have never been a suitable substitute for "having the chops" as we say.

Curiously, this is also a caution against clinging to "that old minolta" in your closet. It doesn't matter what kind of pencil is in your hand. It's just a tool. Find one that works for you and make something beautiful.
"Limitations are the soil from which creativity grows." - Zeldman
"All that glitters is not golden" - Shakespeare
"Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known" - Carl Sagan
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer ..." - Dune
Post Reply