Nice thread. I enjoyed browsing your pics, notably the building windows and the yuca "shadow", among others. On the technical matter I have no qualification to discuss the subject. I have a compact digital and I do like to take photos, mostly of nature, birds (I wish I had a good zoom sometimes) and small creatures like insects, spiders... I would like to take more people but I don't dare to do so.
Here are two views from last year, in Bretagne (west of France). I was browsing my photos while listening to Arvo Pärt's Tabula Rasa, and these two images got my attention, so here they are.
Professional photographers will tell you never waste your money on card that size. Buy smaller cards and carry a lot of them. If you use one large card and lose it, or it gets corrupted (I had a pro tell me that happened on a shoot with about 200 images on one card!) you lose everything. Smaller cards, less to lose. Some people recommend never more than 50 shots on one card, but really, whatever you are willing to lose should be the max.
The pro's likely had a point back when digital cameras first came out. The chips were not very stable 3-4 years ago. I don't think this is the case today unless you're working in extreme conditions - very cold, very wet.
With cameras having 12 megapixels today, and shooting RAW (think of this as similar to AIFF vs MP3) you only get about 75 images per gig. Most people who shoot digital shoot a lot more images than had they shot with film...don't like it, simply delete away.
The other reason to move to larger chips is that these P&S cameras (G9 included) also have a video mode that's quite nice in quality. If you find yourself in a situation where video is the right medium then you'll be happy that you went with the larger chip. The newer P&S cameras do not have a time limitation whereas the older ones limited the length to 3 minutes.
One thing you can do to minimize the likelihood of a chip failing is to always format the chip after you've downloaded the files. Deleting images is not the same as reformatting - directories remain on the chip which may corrupt new images. Avoid in camera editing whenever possible as that has also caused some problems.
There is software to recover images on corrupt chips. I've never used any as the problem has yet to hit me, but from what I read these recovery utilities work very nicely and are inexpensive.
The pro's likely had a point back when digital cameras first came out. The chips were not very stable 3-4 years ago. I don't think this is the case today unless you're working in extreme conditions - very cold, very wet.
I recently attended some photo clinics/workshops in the mountains with some of Canada's best nature and wildlife photographers, and all of them were switching cards frequently. They even carry portable drives - one of these guys had carries two of these http://www.thecamerastore.com/Produc...roductID=31960 and dumps every card onto both for two backups. I guess when you've hiked 12 hours for that perfect sunset in the mountains, or you've been tracking a family of grizzly bears for several hours, you don't want to lose that perfect shot that might make you $100.
With cameras having 12 megapixels today, and shooting RAW (think of this as similar to AIFF vs MP3) you only get about 75 images per gig. Most people who shoot digital shoot a lot more images than had they shot with film...don't like it, simply delete away.
I actually asked a couple of the older guys at these workshops if they found that they were shooting more pics because of digital. Again, consensus was no. That, to them, was too random for an artist - shoot a bunch and pick some. They spend too much time scouting locations, framing and setting up a shot...they make sure it is as close to perfect as they can get it. One compared it to a painter: painters don't just do 20 similar canvasses, decide which is the best and throw away the others. These photographers might take 2 or 3, with different filters or settings, but in the end they pretty much know what one is going to be 'the shot' before they press the shutter release.
Landscape photography is a different animal than what most people would even consider with a P&S camera. Hell, 90% of their shots are being at the right place at the right time (of day). It's a fascinating field of photography, and one where I wish I had the time to learn more about. Ansel Adams would bring a polariod to his shoots to make certain his composition is valid and that his metering was on target. Once he was satisfied, a single shot on a medium or large format camera and he was done for the day (in the field). He had assistants help lug his gear around, which at the time must have weighed over 100 lbs.
Those external drives are almost necessary today. The price point of one or two of those compared to many chips makes it a no-brainer. Add to that the redundancy that the external drive brings to your images.
I think if you posed your question to a Wedding photographer you would get a different response than the landscape photographers. If you asked the same of a product photographer they likely shoot more than the days of film but not excessively, still spending most of their time managing the light and reflective surfaces. Photojournalists click away and paparazzi do as well.
Ask the average non-pro if they shoot more with digital than when they shot film - you'll find that because of the cost difference most shoot A LOT more.
When you get into sports photography - especially with cameras like the MDKIII, a four gig chip may last you 15 minutes, if that.
Yeah, hearing some of the tales from these mountain guys was amazing. Compasses, sunrise charts, topographic maps gps, etc - they plan their shoots like somoene sailing around the world. One talked how he determined what would be the perfect sunrise over a mountain lake shot, and then hiked 25 miles in, camped out overnight, set up, and then it got foggy just as sun was coming up. This is in a national park, where you have to get permits for overnighting in the back country, and he had only registered for a day. He did the 50 mile round trip that day to get another permit - 60 lbs of equipment on his back, because he wasn't going to chance leaving it - redid his calculations to be pointing just a 1/2 degree north...and the next morning got a shot that has made him $1000s of dollars.
Another one talked about carrying a canoe and paddles, plus camera equipment, for a day, putting it at the edge of the lake, shooting, then carrying it back...had no plan on getting out on the water, but felt that a canoe in the bottom of the frame made the photo a bit more interesting. He was right...but what a lot of work.
The really scary ones were the stories of tracking wildlife through the mountains - climbing ridges to be with goats while carrying thousands of $$$ worth of equipment, and not getting any good shots. Or sitting by a lake for 10 hours, following the light, and hoping to catch a loon taking off just where the right amount of sun is hitting the water and the bird. It's a lot of work for little money.
No, these were things that they were telling us in seminars or, for the better ones, over drinks in the evening. And no, money is of very little importance to these guys. Many said they do portraits (human and animal), and corporate work when they need money (but never weddings!) but spend most of their time in tents and vans, enjoying the wilderness. Oddly, of the 6 workshop facilitators that weekend, I think 3 had MScs or PhDs in biology.
Here's a couple of their websites www.darwinwiggett.com (this dude was a hardcore hiker/climber! lives off his work but is way below poverty level he says) www.grandmaison.mb.ca (one of Canada's best, he actually makes a good living from books) www.markandlesliedegner.com (both have other part-time gigs to support the business)
With my wife's permission, I'm posting some photos of hers from our recent vacation in southern California. While Patti is not as passionate about photography as me, she has a superb eye for composition, as you'll soon see. She takes far fewer photos than I do, but makes each one count.
These photos were all taken within a span of an hour or so, at the Santa Barbara Mission and Santa Barbara Botanic Garden. Patti uses a very small, simple, 2.0 MP Fuji Finepix 2600 Zoom point-and-shoot camera. Fortunately, it has fine optics and renders colors very accurately.
I found one of these online moments ago for less than $70.00.
Ron, I love the Botanic Gardens. One of my favorite places in SB.
Last time I was there (last year), I took a similar shot of the "Ancient Steps".
We had a great visit there. We didn't have enough time to see everything, so we plan to return next year for another chapter. It's a beautiful place with a wonderful history and mission.
Nice shots, Brooks.
Originally Posted by Surfer
Tres jolie, Patti. Thanks for posting those Ron.
My pleasure. I passed on your compliment to Patti, and she's appreciative.
Yeah, that's an amazing little camera. The Fujinon lens is remarkably crisp, and once you set up the white balance, the color saturation and accuracy is excellent. And, it only uses two AA batteries.
This entry level Fuji certainly has its limitations, but it's provided a great introduction to digital photography for my wife and has proven to be a reliable workhorse.
Finally picked up the new cam this past weekend. Haven't really dug into what it can do just yet, but here are some shots I've taken with it in fully automatic point and shoot mode:
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Ron Thorne
