ばか！バカ！　馬鹿ー月！

Anyone here is into photography?

Just like how Sola inspired me to appreciate clouds, I jumped into the photography bandwagon after watching Tamayura. I was almost thinking of getting a Rollei 35s, but I ended up getting a digicam with manual zone focusing. I missed so many photos with my poor handling and I am actually glad that I didn't get the Rollei.

My mum has a DSLR but I hate the idea of dragging heavy equipment around. Yeah compact cameras are no match with DSLRs, but it probably doesn't matter much to me since being a newbie I don't even have the adequate techniques to use high-end equipment.

Here are some random shots I took today. Full-sized versions are available in my Flickr album.

17mm; f/7.1; 1/125s; ISO100; +0EV


17mm; f/4.5; 1/30s; ISO100; -0.3EV (should have stopped down to at least f/6.1 or f/7...)


17mm; f/9; 3.2s; ISO50; +0EV

as many art talents and skills i have photography isn't my forte. nor is knitting, crocheting, and sugar flowers.

My daughter is a camera maniac, though her topics are a little less artsy: Renaissance Faires, Steampunk and automobiles. See http://home.comcast.net/~amizu039/wsb/h ... html-.html to see what I mean.

you sure is a good idea to introduce your daughter to this communist state?!

b0mb3r wrote:you sure is a good idea to introduce your daughter to this communist state?!

She's perfectly capable of defending herself, and she was the one who posted all those pictures, not me.

I own an old Fuji Finepix bridge camera...not DSLR quality but it suits for taking nature shots....

Not something I do frequently though.....

Yeah, Doraneko...Sola will drive any to go on a sky capturing spree


Anyone still uses those good old SLRs? (not digital)

rpapo wrote:My daughter is a camera maniac, though her topics are a little less artsy: Renaissance Faires, Steampunk and automobiles. See http://home.comcast.net/~amizu039/wsb/h ... html-.html to see what I mean.

Looks cool. How good it would be if I ain't in a city where 99.9% of all private vehicles are boring consumer models from Toyota/Honda...

Cosmic Eagle wrote:I own an old Fuji Finepix bridge camera...not DSLR quality but it suits for taking nature shots....

Not something I do frequently though.....

Yeah, Doraneko...Sola will drive any to go on a sky capturing spree

Bridge cameras are certainly decent for nature stuff especially bird photography. After all there is too much of an investment on lens if I were to get an equivalent zoom lens on my parent's DSLR (with the kit lens only...).

Btw beginner-class DSLR is a consumer trap IMO as the promotion materials also stress the superb image quality, but beginners can hardly get much out of the body with the kit lens. On the other hand upgrading to a good lens is another punch to the bank account.

As for sky capturing, I very much look forward to do so when the smog here clears away. (Yeah as weird as it sounds blue sky is a rarity here)

Blue skies are rare further south here too...normally it's overcast....


Can't take birds with a bridge....shutter speed too slow....

DSLRs and mirrorless hurt my wallet too much....I'll only get them if they're needed for work or study

Sorry if I am getting this crazily off topic, along the lines of what cameras to buy, what would you recommend?

I prefer one with a viewfinder simply because Screens get annoying eventually, but aside from that, is the whole "The more expensive it is, the better." true with cameras?
(When it warms up here, I'm probably going to venture to a waterfall about 5 miles in a trail.)

Cosmic Eagle wrote:Can't take birds with a bridge....shutter speed too slow...

I think at least they are good for taking birds standing in water or on branches from a far distance as getting anywhere nearer will simply frighten the birds away. The tiny birds will be reduced into mere pixels if I take pictures of them using the 16mm lens on my digital compact.

As for capturing clear sequences of birds flying/landing with razor-blade sharpness and clarity, it is too much of a capital game that I didn't even bother to think about it.

hobogunner wrote:Sorry if I am getting this crazily off topic, along the lines of what cameras to buy, what would you recommend?

I prefer one with a viewfinder simply because Screens get annoying eventually, but aside from that, is the whole "The more expensive it is, the better." true with cameras?
(When it warms up here, I'm probably going to venture to a waterfall about 5 miles in a trail.)

Not necessarily true although I can't say it is totally off either. Consumer stuff relies more on the design factor and marketing than performance for its pricing. Prosumer stuff is usually a hit or miss with this theory, and it is not a surprise to see absolute gold and absolute junk priced at the same range. Only for professional level equipment the correlation between price and performance is consistently high.

Anyway if price is not an issue to you, Fuji x100 is probably a good choice. I absolutely loved it when I tried it out. It has a clear optical viewfinder that also shows clear shutter/aperture/etc information, and you can also switch it to electrical VF for even more functions. The image quality is also said to be superb and gives entry-level DSLRs with kit lens a run for money. Too bad that I don't have that much cash to bring one home. I still love the digital compact I am using, but most of the time I find myself guesstimating under bright sunlight.

The other prosumer compacts with optical VF are Canon G12, Nikon P7100 and the recently released Fuji X10. Their viewfinders don't show any information and are used for image composition only. The problem with these models is that you have control and fun during your photography session, but you need to manage your expectations since they are closer to consumer compacts than DSLRs in terms of image quality.

An alternative is to consider one of the mirrorless enthusiast compacts with interchangeable lens, attach a prime lens on it and add an optical viewfinder. Most of them (except Nikon) are said to have fairly high quality close to entry-level DSLRs. The Sony NEX series even come with big DSLR-class APS-C sensors (other brands have Miro Four-thirds only). Get one of these cameras, install a 16mm lens and then pick up an old OVF from a second-hand camera supplies store and you are ready for your trail.

For me I only paid around 300 bucks for a seond-hand digital compact (the one I used to take the photos in the first post) and I always use it during my trails and excursions. As long as it gets the job done I am not complaining.

Doraneko wrote:

Cosmic Eagle wrote:Can't take birds with a bridge....shutter speed too slow...

I think at least they are good for taking birds standing in water or on branches from a far distance as getting anywhere nearer will simply frighten the birds away. The tiny birds will be reduced into mere pixels if I take them using the 16mm lens on my digital compact.

As for capturing clear sequences of birds flying/landing with razor-blade sharpness and clarity, it is too much of a capital game that I didn't even bother to think about it.

Ah...stationary birds...I see....

Well pros with DSLRs can capture better images and do many fanciful tricks but a bridge does fine in the fact that the scene is 90% of the shot.

To make art, it's not just the tools.

About mirrorless...the Sony Nex has sensors of DSLR level but their price is also higher than DSLR level....unless the vendors here are ripping people off anyway...

If you have money to burn you can try an old SLR? I hear the picture quality is superior to digital models....problem is the film won't be around in a few years....

Cosmic Eagle wrote:Well pros with DSLRs can capture better images and do many fanciful tricks but a bridge does fine in the fact that the scene is 90% of the shot.

To make art, it's not just the tools.

Indeed. Every tool has its own limitations and at the end of the day it relies on man to blow life into it. Even with a pinhole camera a pro will most likely fare much better than newbies (like me) with a full frame.

Many beginners tend to overemphasize on technical superiority of lens and keep upgrading their gear instead of using them. For me, I would rather stick with a simple digital compact without upgrading options or other bells and whistles. In that way I can focus on taking pictures instead of worrying which lens to buy/sell.

Cosmic Eagle wrote:If you have money to burn you can try an old SLR? I hear the picture quality is superior to digital models....problem is the film won't be around in a few years....

In my city a film SLR body doesn't burn too much of a hole on one's wallet. With $200-300 one can get a pretty decent second-hand model. But film availability as well as development costs are real problems.

Hobo is planning to go on a trail to a waterfall. That is why I supposed he would like to take something more portable with him and didn't consider SLRs, be they film or digital.

Of course I sometimes do wish my sensor was stronger when there's a blood moon or other night sky stuff I wish to capture...


As for excursions...nah it's just at least 3/4s of photographers here are DSLR wielding nuts who take their shiny big guns to every single thing...thought it was the same elsewhere too...

rpapo wrote:

b0mb3r wrote:you sure is a good idea to introduce your daughter to this communist state?!

She's perfectly capable of defending herself, and she was the one who posted all those pictures, not me.

Mentioning this to her, she said "with a pipe wrench!" Figures. She's off at a steam-punk murder mystery dinner this evening.

Lol does your daughter need a CLUE?