Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
I suspect many of us amateurs just aren't having problems, or like myself have drifted away from my once more serious interest. Still have a couple Nikons that are operable.

My D90 I packed up into spare case, but it pretty much lives in the closet. I was going to give it to a GD, but her step-mom gave her a new 5100, so, no need.

My D7200, I take along on trips, but little of that lately, so it sits, waiting..

My walks, I used to sometimes take the D7200 along with its Tamron 18-270mm zoomer, but pretty quiet, so my iPhone has taken over.. Also documenting remodels, fixits, projects, handy...

And the pros amongst us, likely busy, as well...

Enjoy..
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have not had a camera in a while now. I think there are just too many photos out there! :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Too easy to get decent to excellent images from smart phones or pocket digitals. And also much easier to tweak a so-so image into a terrific one with free to paid for editing programs.

I still take my bridge SLR-like Canon camera on big trips, but rarely for local diversions.

Still fun to see the vestigial KODAK signs in foreign locations. That used to be important (as were prepaid mailers).

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I haven't done anything photo-worthy since our cruise last May (which I'm pretty sure I already posted).

We're doing another trip in December, but we've been there before so I'm not even planning to bring my real camera. Just a cellphone. We're going with family who have never been, so it's really more for them. We wouldn't be repeating this trip on our own.

Around the house it's all quiet, nothing really to motivate shooting.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Oh, wow, I believed you to be a serious pro level photographer! As in making a living at it! A Canon forever guy! I remember many interesting postings over the years... Including seeing the changes we see...

I still follow any interesting articles in venues like PetaPixel, other Nikon news sources...

Travel, we've been pinned down by family health, DW's foot surgery, bath remodels, painting, so no big trip this year. Next year we're booked for a Viking Sea cruise, beginning in Bergen, Norway, ending in London, so I'll have to get back up to speed by then...

The pushing of mirrorless cameras hasn't been of interest, a whole new set of lenses, etc, just not in the budget..

And we are aging, I just rolled past 77, so a bit less wandering perhaps...

Times do change...

Be well!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yes, and as a long time Apple guy, investor as well as user, currently with an 8+ iPhone, the in-camera setup is so well done, it's generally a waste of time for any post processing, other than maybe cropping.. Panoramas, so easy, no more stitching, fiddling to make one up..

There is a 3D imaging, using Portrait mode I haven't sorted out yet, supposed to work with the 8+, but I'm not seeing the 3D menu when I've tried..

Anyway good to know we are all still at least keeping an eye on this board, I'd hate to see TMF shut it down after all these years!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Too easy to get decent to excellent images from smart phones or pocket digitals.

No one makes prints anymore, so cell phone pics look pretty good on screen. People can still tell the difference if I bring up a DSLR photo on my phone. The equality is undeniable.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Oh, wow, I believed you to be a serious pro level photographer! As in making a living at it! A Canon forever guy! I remember many interesting postings over the years... Including seeing the changes we see...

I know, I can see that. I have though several times about getting back into the hobby but the price of entry for a camera and a few lenses for the amount of use it would get is way out of balance.

Even used I'm dumping
5d3 $1200
70-200 f2.8 IS II $1500
24-70 f2.8 II $1200
Flash $125
Maybe some wide angle 16-35 or there abouts $800ish

Would be spending about $5,000 give or take. Just cannot justify it for the amount of time I'd spend using it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It is amazing how much we toss into our hobbies... I was pretty late into photography, in the days of film, it was out of reach in several ways, financially, access, looked at setting up a darkroom, but never got there.. On the road too much..

There was an early SLR, I think it was a Pentax, but whatever lens it came with was all I had... Then I messed up a few rolls, forget to set the ASA, pay more to get it pushed, then the rolls, of Hawaii of course, when I forgot to check that the film was engaged into the take-up side... Another where the light meter battery was dead... I gave it to my son, no idea where it ended up. So then it was P&S's... But rarely there, too, because it was costly, raising a family, etc..

So digital really grabbed me, actually the first was a Sony Mavica I had at work (still have it)... Endless floppies from either work or AOL's freebies.. I did go with a Nikon 880 for a time, nit needed more lens.. Eventually after talking to Canon, Nikon, Olympus reps at Macworld in SF, I fell into the Nikon camp, friendly gurus at the shows, open to rumors, told me to hold out for the D70, and away I went.. We had a decent Nikon shop in Marin County, helps to stay wound up a bit... Since then they gave up their Nikon connection, but we still have a small chain, here in Sonoma County if needed..

But at that time both of us were working, we could manage to stash the cash and dive in.. And I'd find some good deals in flea markets, even craigslist, but now the current D7200 was a Costco kit...

Then came the iPhones, their updates...

Too handy! Has to be killing the hobby markets... Even traveling, so many using smartphones, even iPads..

Crazy times...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I just couldn't resist jumping in here. It seems life takes us all in different directions where it is difficult to actually pull out a DSLR and have at it. I've had a Canon EOS 20D since it was the latest and greatest, and it's "well traveled" but in the last four or five year has rarely seen the light of day. Last year I upgraded to an 80D thinking the new toy/tool would rekindle my interest, but alas, it's got a couple thousand miles on it, but only a couple hundred pictures....

Time.... just not enough of it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Even traveling, so many using smartphones

There is an overwhelming amount of photos around the internet. It's just over saturated, everything has been photographed to death multiple multiple times from every angle possible during every time of day and night.

I think once something becomes this common there is no appreciation for real work and too many people doing the same thing. Same with R/C planes. With quad+ copters (drones) they are so common and cheap that anyone can spend a few $$ and fly doing stupid crap to the point where the FAA is involved and ruined the hobby for a lot of us who were respectful when flying our aircraft. Before when you had to build it you were more careful what you did with it.

Guess I'm one who holds uniqueness dear and once things reach critical mass I'm simply not that interested.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well said, canonian.

But....

Photography as an art (hobby or pro) is "unique" in that we capture a moment in time never to be the same again. I've done mostly landscape/nature and architectural photos. My next conquest (when I have the time) is portraits - not posed or formal, but real people as they really appear. Those are the types of photos I always find fascinating/unique.

While there may be lots of "snapshots" around - most of them being selfie and selfie like, there is a dearth of photographic art - and while I'll never be a pro, I will still work to become better at it - even if I share my art with no one.

BTW, you are right about drones and the FAA. I have a couple of hexacopters and am studying for my part 107 certification - but the idiots have ruined it in many ways for the rest of us. My drones are mobile photography platforms for me (and not toys, racers, curiosities, and things to impress bystanders with) - and I may do some "video" as well with them (my 80D captures video as well, and I've had an interest in (and the equipment) to do professional audio as well....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"I think once something becomes this common there is no appreciation for real work and too many people doing the same thing"

I think the writing has been on the wall since the death of "Life" and "Look." The ease and reliability of digital are just the penultimate nails in the coffin.

Ken
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It's just over saturated, everything has been photographed to death multiple multiple times from every angle possible during every time of day and night.

True. But it's not mine. I'm not going to find an image online, blow it up, and hang it on my wall. Our house has several enlarged and framed photos, and they're all mine (and 1poorlady's).

If I'm going someplace new I'm bringing my pack. If I've been there several times, probably just my phone (or our new GoPro). That's just because of lugging the pack around to see things I've already seen. That said, a few exceptions. Like Hawaii. I'm bringing the camera if we go there. San Diego? Probably not. Cabo San Lucas? Probably not.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Our house has several enlarged and framed photos, and they're all mine (and 1poorlady's).

Exactly to my point about most people not printing anymore. Prints from a Phone camera are clearly poor quality versus a larger sensor and better glass. You can see the difference instantly.

There is definitely something to be said for it being a photo YOU took.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"and while I'll never be a pro, I will still work to become better at it - even if I share my art with no one."

I believe that's the key: the enjoyment of creating a piece of art, the effort that goes into the process. Many are the times when something catches my eye while driving, and I'll either stop, or turn around and go back, even circle the block if needed, then park, get out and record a scene. It may be an elderly person sitting on a park bench, the way a shadow paints a picture on a surface or the juxtaposition of contrasting shapes and textures, all waiting to be explored by a unique eye for interpretation. Selecting a viewpoint and framing a composition are all fun and takes me out of my daily routine and into another world that exists only in my mind — and the image I create. And whereas I will most likely never print the images, tweaking them into their final form on my desktop monitor and then sitting back and say 'Aaah, there it is!' is a pleasure next to impossible to share with anyone.

So to all those who think "photographing" with smart phones supplanted the art (and pleasure) of photography, I'll just hum a chorus of the old song "Oh no, they can't take that away from me".

RayB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Plus the memories. The photo can take you back to the feeling when you were there. The rushing water, the wind in the trees, etc.

Sometimes I go for the artsy shot*, but often I'm just trying to capture a moment**. The lighting of Halfdome, or the bison by the geyser, or the rainbow over the waterfall.

1poorguy (will probably never give up the hobby, but long ago gave up any idea of monetizing it)


*I have one of Il Duomo that if you didn't know it was Il Duomo you wouldn't know it was Il Duomo, and then I have other shots where it's clearly Il Duomo that were less about the "art" of shapes and angles and more recording the memory of the place.
**Composition and lighting are also crucial to make the photo enjoyable to view even if it is evocative of memories.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I have the Canon 5D Mark IV and love it. I also have the iPhone XS and can tell you that it does not produce as good of photo compared to my Canon.

Razz
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have the Canon 5D Mark IV and love it. I also have the iPhone XS and can tell you that it does not produce as good of photo compared to my Canon.

It would be really interesting to know at what print size you can see the difference since you have the latest of both technologies. 4x6, 11x17, 16x20?? Or can you see it right off the bat on the iphone screen, or maybe a little larger on a tablet.

I know people can tell the difference on my phone screen when a DSLR photo is shown. Without prompting that ask right away if that was taken with the phone because it looks amazing.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have a 24X36 print made from a 6MP image shot with a 10 year old Canon G6. I've been asked whether it was from an enlargement from a Kodachrome. You can't get quality like that from a cell phone image, and neither should one expect to. However, most of today's images, whether produced by a pricey DSLR or a throw away phone, are viewed mostly on computer screens or in 4X6 Walmart prints, so it makes no difference.

RayB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
However, most of today's images, whether produced by a pricey DSLR or a throw away phone, are viewed mostly on computer screens or in 4X6 Walmart prints, so it makes no difference.


Agree for the most part however as I said earlier people often notice a DSLR image when I show it on my phone. They simply ask what I took that photo with.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
However, most of today's images, whether produced by a pricey DSLR or a throw away phone, are viewed mostly on computer screens or in 4X6 Walmart prints, so it makes no difference.

The difference I see is that I have to do some editing for long distance photos made with a phone while I don't with a photo from a DSLR with a zoom lens. That's the main thing I don't like about photos with my iPhone. I have limited digital zoom. I have to use software to further zoom in and crop the the photo. If I take a photo with my DSLR with a 70-200mm lens, I can get by without any editing.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Cellphone cameras have come a long way. You can get some really nice images from them. And for most purposes people won't notice much difference.

But a proper DSLR will have better dynamic range, better resolution, and because of the lenses fewer/less-severe aberrations (you're not getting an achromat on a cellphone).

Then again, they say the best camera is the one you have with you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Then again, they say the best camera is the one you have with you.

Then carry your DSLR :)

That way you do have the BEST camera with you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I really couldn't say because I've never had a print done from a photo taken with my iPhone. I would figure small prints like 4x6 you would never see the difference. I would think the point you would notice id when you get to the 11x17 and larger prints. I do a lot of night photography and that is why I wanted the Canon 5D Mark IV, which has low noise at high ISO.


Razz
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I do a lot of night photography and that is why I wanted the Canon 5D Mark IV, which has low noise at high ISO.

If its cool/cold out try keeping the shutter open at a lower ISO and you can get a cleaner image. There is a point where heat will introduce noise versus high ISO. If you can shoot for 10 seconds at ISO 400 and get a clean image versus a quicker shutter speed at ISO 6400 it could be a game changer in your night time shots. Also depends on the subject and if there is any motion.

Hope you are using a f2.8 lens or better yet f1.8/1.2 :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
When shooting the stars and milky way, Lower ISO like 400 or 800 won't do. I am using exposure times of 12 to 30 seconds and you start to see the stars trail at 30 sec. My Sigma 24 mm Art series lens can go to f/1.4, but I find the best results between f/2 to f/2.8 using ISO 1600 up to 3200.

Razz
Print the post Back To Top