Go Back  Bike Forums > The Lounge > Foo
Reload this Page >

Remember when photography was cool?

Foo Off-Topic chit chat with no general subject.

Remember when photography was cool?

Old 08-10-19, 10:49 PM
  #51  
c0urt
moving target
 
c0urt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: birmingham, al
Posts: 2,891

Bikes: looks like a specialized crux now

Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 223 Post(s)
Liked 36 Times in 19 Posts
it's not, i get to see more cool stuff just because i have camera in my hand, people assume i belong or have a reason to be there
c0urt is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 12:58 PM
  #52  
mrodgers
Senior Member
 
mrodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,632

Bikes: 2014 Giant Escape 1

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 237 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Even with digital, there is still processing that needs done. Else you are just pointing and shooting and not engaged in the hobby of photography.

Everyone I rode with on the Lake Ontario trip has posted their photos. It's been 2 weeks. I'm still working on processing mine (though I haven't had the time, usually takes me 2 or 3 days while everyone else just posts directly from their phones, or directly from dumping from the camera to the computer hard drive.)

It has nothing to do with equipment either. Coworker spend about $1500-2000 on dSLR and equipment, then said it's great, everything is automatic. He showed me pictures he took of his kids playing in the snow, complete with all gray snow. Meanwhile, I spent $200 on a camera that had manual controls, read and learned about the exposure triangle, and took pictures of my kids in the snow. With properly set white balance and shot in manual, my kids were shown in their brilliant snow clothes with brilliantly white and properly exposed snow.
mrodgers is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 01:45 PM
  #53  
KraneXL
 
KraneXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: La-la Land, CA
Posts: 3,268

Bikes: Cannondale Quick SL1 Bike - 2014

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2933 Post(s)
Liked 93 Times in 75 Posts
Originally Posted by mrodgers View Post
Even with digital, there is still processing that needs done. Else you are just pointing and shooting and not engaged in the hobby of photography.

Everyone I rode with on the Lake Ontario trip has posted their photos. It's been 2 weeks. I'm still working on processing mine (though I haven't had the time, usually takes me 2 or 3 days while everyone else just posts directly from their phones, or directly from dumping from the camera to the computer hard drive.)

It has nothing to do with equipment either. Coworker spend about $1500-2000 on dSLR and equipment, then said it's great, everything is automatic. He showed me pictures he took of his kids playing in the snow, complete with all gray snow. Meanwhile, I spent $200 on a camera that had manual controls, read and learned about the exposure triangle, and took pictures of my kids in the snow. With properly set white balance and shot in manual, my kids were shown in their brilliant snow clothes with brilliantly white and properly exposed snow.
Well yes, and no. But its a little more complicated than that. With film, without processing you don't get anything. While digital always give you a result even if its not 100% to your satisfaction. Actually, I could fill a database will all the difference but I try and keep it short in this instance.
KraneXL is offline  
Old 08-12-19, 03:51 PM
  #54  
Seattle Forrest
Senior Member
 
Seattle Forrest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 19,362
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8325 Post(s)
Liked 378 Times in 225 Posts
With digital there is always processing, like with film. Without software processing, so you get are the luma values direct from the sensor, a bunch of numbers that haven't even been demosaiced yet. It's just that most people have cameras and phones set up to do all the processing for them. That doesn't mean the images haven't been processed.
Seattle Forrest is offline  
Likes For Seattle Forrest:
Old 08-13-19, 11:52 AM
  #55  
coffeesnob
Senior Member
 
coffeesnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Va
Posts: 447

Bikes: Trek DS 8.3 - cannondale M500

Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2422 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
we rode our bikes on to the ferry last saturday and everyone was pulling out their cell phones taking pics. I brought my digital nikon p900 with me. Even though it too is digital I thought it odd that no one uses a camera anymore.
coffeesnob is offline  
Old 08-13-19, 12:03 PM
  #56  
u235
Senior Member
 
u235's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 913
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 323 Post(s)
Liked 23 Times in 20 Posts
Remember when photography was cool?
No. I was never into art for the art. Not knocking, you asked

For me, I'll take quick pics of some things that are unique to me but bottom line, I am there to see and experience it in real 3D life, changing my experience to "getting the shot" would take away from the actual experience. I understand the commitment and the passion, I just don't have it. I can view and download others pictures of just about anything that are far better than I could ever take myself but they are nothing compared to being there myself.

Last edited by u235; 08-13-19 at 04:57 PM.
u235 is offline  
Old 08-13-19, 01:56 PM
  #57  
DrIsotope
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 6,996

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn

Mentioned: 105 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3789 Post(s)
Liked 302 Times in 208 Posts
Originally Posted by coffeesnob View Post
we rode our bikes on to the ferry last saturday and everyone was pulling out their cell phones taking pics. I brought my digital nikon p900 with me. Even though it too is digital I thought it odd that no one uses a camera anymore.
The P900 has a 1/2.3" CMOS, compared to the 1/2.6" in some Galaxy phones or the 1/3.0" in an iPhone . The sensor in the Nikon is right around 28mm/sq, compared to 22.5mm/sq for the Galaxy and 17.3mm/sq for the iPhone respectively.

Relatively speaking, the P900 has a much bigger sensor, until you consider that a "full frame" CCD or CMOS in a DSLR (like the one in my 14 year old Sony Alpha A-100) is ~860sq/mm-- 31 times the size of the sensor in the P900.

Realistically, anything smaller than APS-C (330-370mm/sq, depending on mfr) is capturing significantly less real data (why a 10mp photo from a full frame will be sharper and more vibrant than a 16mp from a point and shoot or phone,) so if you're already willing to make that compromise, might as well use the camera that has a built in web browser, games platform, and oh, makes phone calls.

Phones also have the advantage of having superb software packages for their cameras-- the iPhone has a very small CMOS, and is still one of the best portable cameras out there (below APS-C, of course.)
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 08-13-19, 02:22 PM
  #58  
Lemond1985
Sophomore Member
 
Lemond1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 1,613
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 907 Post(s)
Liked 229 Times in 166 Posts
Having 800 people working on the Iphone camera definitely helps. They had a mini-Manhattan Project over there developing the technology.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a6782696.html

I think the convenience factor is huge, and I'm not lugging a full-size camera around, to a lot of places. So the perfect becomes the enemy of "good enough" and no shot is ever taken of the scene at all. Shot below was taken with my Iphone, and had I not had it with me, I would have gotten, zilch, nada, nothing.




As a non-professional photo taker, my only gripe, is the sort of ragged edge border between the sky and the trees. Other than that, it's as good as any consumer grade digital camera I have used, and better than a lot them.

Last edited by Lemond1985; 08-13-19 at 02:32 PM.
Lemond1985 is offline  
Likes For Lemond1985:
Old 08-13-19, 02:47 PM
  #59  
coffeesnob
Senior Member
 
coffeesnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Va
Posts: 447

Bikes: Trek DS 8.3 - cannondale M500

Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2422 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by DrIsotope View Post
The P900 has a 1/2.3" CMOS, compared to the 1/2.6" in some Galaxy phones or the 1/3.0" in an iPhone . The sensor in the Nikon is right around 28mm/sq, compared to 22.5mm/sq for the Galaxy and 17.3mm/sq for the iPhone respectively.

Relatively speaking, the P900 has a much bigger sensor, until you consider that a "full frame" CCD or CMOS in a DSLR (like the one in my 14 year old Sony Alpha A-100) is ~860sq/mm-- 31 times the size of the sensor in the P900.

Realistically, anything smaller than APS-C (330-370mm/sq, depending on mfr) is capturing significantly less real data (why a 10mp photo from a full frame will be sharper and more vibrant than a 16mp from a point and shoot or phone,) so if you're already willing to make that compromise, might as well use the camera that has a built in web browser, games platform, and oh, makes phone calls.

Phones also have the advantage of having superb software packages for their cameras-- the iPhone has a very small CMOS, and is still one of the best portable cameras out there (below APS-C, of course.)
The major drawback of the camera phones and the reason I take my P900 on the more leisurely rides is the zoom. The zoom on the P900 is amazing, plus it is easier to adjust the camera to the surroundings than the camera phone. The drawback is that it is heavy and takes a lot of room up in my bike trunk. But lugging around the extra weight is good exercise. One day I hope to get the P1000
coffeesnob is offline  
Old 08-13-19, 02:50 PM
  #60  
coffeesnob
Senior Member
 
coffeesnob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Va
Posts: 447

Bikes: Trek DS 8.3 - cannondale M500

Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2422 Post(s)
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Lemond1985 View Post
Having 800 people working on the Iphone camera definitely helps. They had a mini-Manhattan Project over there developing the technology.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...-a6782696.html

I think the convenience factor is huge, and I'm not lugging a full-size camera around, to a lot of places. So the perfect becomes the enemy of "good enough" and no shot is ever taken of the scene at all. Shot below was taken with my Iphone, and had I not had it with me, I would have gotten, zilch, nada, nothing.




As a non-professional photo taker, my only gripe, is the sort of ragged edge border between the sky and the trees. Other than that, it's as good as any consumer grade digital camera I have used, and better than a lot them.
Actually they should have great cameras considering the cost. I think everyone likes using camera phones so much so they can post to Instagram or FB right away. My wife is a perfect example.
coffeesnob is offline  
Old 08-13-19, 03:03 PM
  #61  
DrIsotope
Non omnino gravis
 
DrIsotope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SoCal, USA!
Posts: 6,996

Bikes: Nekobasu, Pandicorn

Mentioned: 105 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3789 Post(s)
Liked 302 Times in 208 Posts
I get the thing about zoom-- that is as big a limitation on phone cameras as is a CMOS that could rest atop a pencil eraser.

As I mentioned earlier, I've been using my 10mp Sony Alpha A100 regularly for over a decade, just more and more sparingly. It's big. It's real heavy. The iPhone has convenience down pat.

Which isn't to say I wouldn't take a mirrorless Alpha A7 III (or an A7R, swoon) in a split second... but odds are really high I would spend that money on bike stuff instead.

Because I take snapshots, no bones about it. I think I have a decent eye for composition, but photography is not one of my life pursuits. I'm okay not spending money on it.
__________________
DrIsotope is offline  
Old 08-15-19, 03:38 AM
  #62  
jideta 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 195
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 74 Post(s)
Liked 116 Times in 63 Posts
Fuji had some nice small compacts with some heavy lifting sensors.
I had one of their rangefinders, an X10 or something like that.
Didn't do too well at high ISO though so it went it's own way as I was shooting mainly in low light.
I don't really like shooting with my phone; the size of the objective lens makes me cringe.
jideta is offline  
Old 08-15-19, 08:04 AM
  #63  
mrodgers
Senior Member
 
mrodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Western PA
Posts: 1,632

Bikes: 2014 Giant Escape 1

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 237 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by coffeesnob View Post
we rode our bikes on to the ferry last saturday and everyone was pulling out their cell phones taking pics. I brought my digital nikon p900 with me. Even though it too is digital I thought it odd that no one uses a camera anymore.
$500 camera. Most people would buy a $200 point and shoot camera and none of them have as good as quality as a good phone camera.

I'm not happy with my Lumix ZS70 at all. My $40 phone has a crappy camera as to be expected on a $40 phone. Paid $300 for the camera and image quality is very lacking. Would like to get a mirrorless camera, but I'm just a normal person so the funds aren't there for that.
mrodgers is offline  
Old 08-15-19, 08:15 AM
  #64  
eja_ bottecchia
Senior Member
 
eja_ bottecchia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,388
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 785 Post(s)
Liked 140 Times in 102 Posts
Many here have mentioned mirrorless cameras. I have an older Canon DSLR with a mirror.

Coupled with a quality Canon lens I am able to take good, amateur-grade photos.

So my question is, does mirrorless provide a noticeable improvement in image quality (assuming all other factors are equal)?

Thanks.
eja_ bottecchia is offline  
Old 08-15-19, 08:21 AM
  #65  
KraneXL
 
KraneXL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: La-la Land, CA
Posts: 3,268

Bikes: Cannondale Quick SL1 Bike - 2014

Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2933 Post(s)
Liked 93 Times in 75 Posts
Originally Posted by eja_ bottecchia View Post
Many here have mentioned mirrorless cameras. I have an older Canon DSLR with a mirror.

Coupled with a quality Canon lens I am able to take good, amateur-grade photos.

So my question is, does mirrorless provide a noticeable improvement in image quality (assuming all other factors are equal)?

Thanks.
An easy one:

None whatsoever. Mirrorless advantage is size/weight. That is all.
KraneXL is offline  
Likes For KraneXL:
Old 08-15-19, 04:25 PM
  #66  
clemsongirl 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 24 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 212 Post(s)
Liked 175 Times in 67 Posts
Originally Posted by eja_ bottecchia View Post
\
So my question is, does mirrorless provide a noticeable improvement in image quality (assuming all other factors are equal)?
the main advantages of a mirrorless for me are a smaller, lighter and mechanically simpler size and more importantly a good EVF. A lot more can be done with EVF’s and autofocus systems thanks to mirrorless advancements in display technologies and on-sensor data analysis which can give better image quality too. some with hybrid contrast- and phase-detect AF systems are excellent now too. I’d also say mirrorless is technically more advanced now and arguably the way forward in the 21st century.

now if someone needs longer battery life or the continuous/motor drive shooting for sports or wildlife i’d say mirrorless isn’t there yet.
__________________
"The negative feelings we all have can be addictive…just as the positive…it’s up to
us to decide which ones we want to choose and feed”… Pema Chodron
clemsongirl is offline  
Old 08-15-19, 04:48 PM
  #67  
eja_ bottecchia
Senior Member
 
eja_ bottecchia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,388
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 785 Post(s)
Liked 140 Times in 102 Posts
Originally Posted by clemsongirl View Post
the main advantages of a mirrorless for me are a smaller, lighter and mechanically simpler size and more importantly a good EVF. A lot more can be done with EVF’s and autofocus systems thanks to mirrorless advancements in display technologies and on-sensor data analysis which can give better image quality too. some with hybrid contrast- and phase-detect AF systems are excellent now too. I’d also say mirrorless is technically more advanced now and arguably the way forward in the 21st century.

now if someone needs longer battery life or the continuous/motor drive shooting for sports or wildlife i’d say mirrorless isn’t there yet.
Thank you. I use the motor drive on my cameras quite a lot. I will wait for mirrorless technology to develop a bit further.

Thanks!
eja_ bottecchia is offline  
Old 08-15-19, 04:49 PM
  #68  
cb400bill
Administrator
 
cb400bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kalamazoo MI
Posts: 16,528

Bikes: Fuji SL 2.1 (carbon fiber), Pinarello Stelvio (steel), Cannondale Synapse (aluminum)

Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1294 Post(s)
Liked 91 Times in 58 Posts
Thread closed per OP's request.
cb400bill is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.