Digital Camera's Suck!

[Trawlerman]

Well not really but you know what I mean.

I went out just after 5am this morning with my digtial camera. It's a nice day and I decided to take some photo's on the River Humber.

Had a clean 128MB memory card and two sets of NiMH batteries. Should be allright with that? Wrong. One set of batteries were nearly spent despit having only been charged last week and the other set were completely flat despite coming out of the charger only an hour earlier.

So just to compound things, quite often when I go down there (a 5 mile cycle ride for me) I often see nothing. Not today though. There were loads of ships about - tugs, a trawler, superferry and numerous freighters - and I couldn't take a photo of any of them. :cry:

I did get this one though before the batteries died. Not perfect but it's reasonable I suppose.

http://www.arcticcorsair.f9.co.uk/audio/akstuff/tug.jpg


Tomorrow after work i'm going down again with a proper camera.... a 35mm!

[cabinover]

I know what you mean, I still need to do something about a camera after the last time I tried to use my digital :worried:
Mark it: Filed!!!! :thmbsp: :thmbsp: directly to the round file.

[mhardy6647]

Hmmmm... I get very good life out of NiMH's in our two digitals that use AA's. I have a Panasonic with a proprietary package NiMH that's only fair; but I can get dozens of photos without flash, even with the LCD on. I keep an 'emergency' set of alkaline AA's in the camera pouch with the cameras (Olympus and Nikon) we have that use this size batteries, so I've yet to be left dead in the water (so to speak).

Even with flash, I think the 'lifetime' is reasonable on the Olympus and Nikon; so-so on the Panasonic. The flash is really wimpy on the Panasonic, so I very rarely use it. The Panasonic's one saving grace is a really long zoom lens with an opitcal image stabilizer.

I know that regular alkalines don't last long in digitals, nor do Ni-Cd's, but NiMH's seem to be pretty dang robust IME. Are you using the 'right' charger or your NiMH's?

[Chad Hauris]

We use Energizer rechargeable AA's on our digital camera...it's a fairly old Olympus CAMEDIA but the camera will run for a month or more, taking about 75-100 pictures before new batteries are needed (we keep one set of batteries in the charger while the other is being used). We always use the flash because most photos are taken indoors and the picture is usually too dark without it.

Not sure if Energizer rechargables are ni-cad or Ni-MH, we bought them within the last year. We charge them in a Ray-O-Vac charger.

[ProAc_Fan]

Hmm I keep 2 LiIon batteries charged and ready for action in my Canon. I've never run low on battery power and 1 battery is easily capable of shooting a 1Gig CF card without the power level indicator moving from the full reading.

Mike

[Celt]

Was reading in the morning's paper where Kodak was fixing to cut 14,500 jobs due to the 35mm market shrinking because of digital photography. Personally, I think digital is okay for that quickie shot (in the same manner that a Poloroid would suffice) but can't imagine taking pictures for posterity with the digital medium. Properly stored negetives and prints can last generations. What will be left in 30-50 years with digital? A faded inkjet print? A flash-card that can no longer be read by any device? I know alot of people love their digital cameras, but these are things that have kept me from buying one. Sadly, it's becoming harder to find places locally to process film. :(

[Chad Hauris]

As for me...if we didn't have the digital camera not many pictures would get taken. Mostly we use the camera in our business for taking pictures to post on our website...it is so much easier to use, you can see if the picture turned out or not immediately, and you don't have to wait or pay to develop the film.
Plus you can instantly document things like wiring in a chassis so you have a record of what wire went where when you have to leave the job and come back to it.

I probably will get a personal digital camera sometime as I have gone on trips and ended up not using the film camera as I didn't want to mess with getting film or getting it developed. Had I had a digital I would have taken pictures.

1 gigabyte flash card? Our old camera has an 8 megabyte card. Camera technology must have come along way since ours was made!

[outlawmws]

Something is wrong with your bats, that I'm positive of. We have really never used anything but NiMH Ray-O-Vac's. They last a card or more unless SWMBO uses the viewer excessivly. Once in a while one goes bad and then the trick is to ID which one, as if 1 of 4 is bad it will drag the whole set down with them. Used to keep a set of regular Alkalines in her bag, but I think they got used for something else. :scratch2:

We keep 3 sets chargeed just for the camera, (She uses it a LOT) as well as the kids have sets of NiMH and alkalines for the Game Boy's, Walkman's etc... All my flashlights use rechargeables except 3 (for better on the shelf life) Speaking of which, there is that issue with rechargeables. Std batteries do hold a charge longer. If I'm not mistaken, it's like this, longest to shortest:

Lithium, Alkaline, Carbon, Alk recharge, NiMH...

You should get a couple of weeks of decent shelf life on the NiMH, but we try to keep then on top, espesially if heading out.. I even carry an 12-120V inverter and a 4 hole charger on road trips. (Lithiums can last over 10 years... the car emergency LED flashlights have Lith's, but they cost a lot...)

Keeping digitals photos for posterity: If you keep copies on disk, Multiple CD's, In a different place than next to your PC, they should last indefinitly. CD's can be reburned, prints reprinted, and it you have a fire, the off site sets mean you have lost nothing... Only your own inattention will mean you mighrt lose something... Hard drive space is getting cheper than ever, and even on line storage is available with a garantee of multiple site protection.

Kodak, Fuji, Etc are removing more and more film media from the market, and the quality of digital can rival film on almost every front. Sure, your going to get the arguements that it isn't the real deal, just like Vinyl vs CD, But the reality is that they can have slightly different textures, but the Mega pixel cameras do just fine. If there is a true difference in quality, it has more to do with the user, and comparing a caddy camera to a geo camera than any actual difference, with only a 2.2 MP camera SWMBO gets the comment "that can't be digital" often. (She really is good at the camera thing) she's using a Canon Power Shot A40. :yes: She is also ready for a good SLR dig, but that's $$ and we are waiting...

[valveman]

Hey Mick,

Ah the flat battery symdrom, yeah I hate that. The other thing is these last few days I've been starting work at 05:00, and the sun rise was making for really good photos, but, I kept forgetting to take camera. Although don't think passengers would be to pleased if I stopped every 5 mins to take a piccy :naughty:

The thing that I don't like about digital cameras is the delay when you push the 'shutter' button...... not good for action pics :thumbsdn:

ttfn

[Trawlerman]

I think what happened is that the batteries had been charged OK and then when the charging complete lamp came on they got unplugged to used to vacuum cleaner and then plugged back in the socket with the switch off. Power drained back :(

I use UNIROSS NiMHs which to be honest have not seen a lot of action. I have a decent rapid-charger that cost me around $100 so I can't see it being faulty.

As far as the batteries are concerned, I will be giving them another go very soon. Contemplating going down the river again in the morning as I finish work. It's only 10 minutes ride away and is almost on the way home.

It annoyed the hell out of me this morning though as one of the new Trawlers sailed and I had been looking to get a photo for a while now. It was a fluke that I was down there with the camera anyway and a real let down to see what could have been some impressive photos slip away. It's kinda like finding a mint-boxed Sansui 8080 for a dollar and then finding that you lost your last dollar because you have a hole in your pants! Doh!!

[Trawlerman]

Anyway, what did you guys think of the photo that I did manage to get? Only a lowly little tug but nice looking all the same.

Looked it up and it was built at Hull (where I live) in 1973 for the Royal Navy as a dock tug. She only recently came to the River Humber when a local company called John Dean Tugs bought her for general river work. This is the first time that I've seen here and Imust admit she looks quite smart considering.

[ProAc_Fan]

Time to don my photo critic hat. The boat is underexposed and OOF. A few minutes of post processing could make this quite a nice image. Whenever possible shoot in RAW format as that aids greatly in the post processing. Your camera doesn't always do a good job with the white balance or the exposure either.

Mike

[mhardy6647]

I'll conceed (a little) underexposed, but I'm not seeing that it's out of focus! Maybe a little chromatic aberration (or is that a digital artefact?) but the focus looks good to me.

[Trawlerman]

That photo was taken on full automatic. The boat was doing a fair speed and I had to catch it up on my pushbike and then jump off and get that shot off quite quickly.

It was also about 0545 so the sun wasn't totally up at that point. I do tend to find that the metering is sometimes fooled when taking photos at the river. Lots of bright sky and reflections off the water can cause metering to go on the wonk :)


I think that camera does introduce some digital artefacts but it's always been there. I took some shots again today of the superferries on the river and they were taken at the full quality and size and came to around 14MB each. I can do RAW images but they take up an amazing amount of space on the card (about 45MB IRC) and take ages to save off. I'll have to have another play around.



BTW, the camera is 5.2Megapixel Mintolta Dimage7 with a Carl Zeiss Jenna Lens. Sort of a Digital SLR.

[ProAc_Fan]

Trawler if you'd like to remove the digital noise try running your images through a program called Neat Image. It's available in demo mode for free. Just google it up and you'll find it easy enough. You can add the program as a plug-in for PS or just use it seperately.

Mike

[charlieboy]

I think noise Ninja has a free download also. Heres my equipment list
(2) Canon 1d's
Sigma 12-24 4.5-4.6
Canon 50 1.4
Canon 24-70 2.8
Canon 70-200 2.8
Canon 300 2.8
6 spare batteries
1.4x and 2x converters
bogen tripods
Studioball head
Alien bees studio lighting
And too much other stuff like bags,stands,backdrops,monopods,light meter......
Heres some of my pics.

www.getyourpics.net

[Trawlerman]

Trawler if you'd like to remove the digital noise try running your images through a program called Neat Image. It's available in demo mode for free. Just google it up and you'll find it easy enough. You can add the program as a plug-in for PS or just use it seperately.

Mike


Interesting program. Just downloaded it and had a quick skeg at it. Will have to mess with during the week when I have more time. I just got home after 14hrs nightshift :wtf: Must be mad but I gotta keep the wolves formt he door somehow.

[uofmtiger]

Keeping digitals photos for posterity: If you keep copies on disk, Multiple CD's, In a different place than next to your PC, they should last indefinitly. CD's can be reburned, prints reprinted, and it you have a fire, the off site sets mean you have lost nothing... Only your own inattention will mean you mighrt lose something... Hard drive space is getting cheper than ever, and even on line storage is available with a garantee of multiple site protection. Well said!

There are a lot of folks out there using digital to restore old film photographs as well. I think digital will actually be a better way to keep perfect copies of the original shots (especially when shot it RAW format).

Like others I never use film anymore. I still have a couple film cameras, but they do not get any use (never really did). For "posterity" shots, I still prefer digital because I can look at the picture immediately on the display to make sure I got what I wanted. There is no way that you can do that with film.

BTW I never have issues with my camera's batteries. I do keep a spare just in case, but have never needed it.

[Bogframe]

I've been using an Olympus CZ3020 for my digital shots and Energizer rechargeables. Since I switched to them, I haven't had to worry about my batteries running out. It came in handy on Sept. 11 this year when I went to the Brooklyn Promenade and took this with the asa set for 400, f2.8@1"

[Morden2004]

I've been using an Olympus CZ3020 for my digital shots and Energizer rechargeables. Since I switched to them, I haven't had to worry about my batteries running out. It came in handy on Sept. 11 this year when I went to the Brooklyn Promenade and took this with the asa set for 400, f2.8@1"

Awesome shot! Tripod? Just a super exposure as well.

I have been working my way through my new Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT and I have to say it is dead easy to use and understand for an old film guy like me. I love it.

Paul

[Andyman]

FWIW, when I bought our most recent camera, I made sure it used AA's.
Reasons?? One, we had a bunch from our old Olympus, and
Two, you can always get a fresh set at almost any store around.
Try that with your Sony/Casio/Nikon/Fuji whatever proprietary cell.
They may be bulkier, but they always work.
Besdies, I'm no Ansel Adams anyway:lmao:

[Bogframe]

Awesome shot! Tripod? Just a super exposure as well.

I have been working my way through my new Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT and I have to say it is dead easy to use and understand for an old film guy like me. I love it.

Paul
Yes, a StarD tripod that I bought in a now-defunct store back in 1978. Thanks for the nice comment! I'm an old film and old camera guy as well. I went down there with the digital, a Hanimex Praktica Nova IB, a Vivitar 220/SL and a Nikon FG that I had just bought and found out it has a sticky mirror. The film shots came out pretty much the same as the digital, but the one from the Hanimex was so nice and so clear that I'm having a 20 X 24 Ilfochrome Classic (Cibachrome) print made from it. Being a picture framer, I know enough never to touch one of those with my bare hands. The emulsion on those prints is so delicate that even a momentary touch with a fingertip will make a mark that will never come out, but the color saturation and clarity is well worth the delicacy!

[Morden2004]

Yes, a StarD tripod that I bought in a now-defunct store back in 1978. Thanks for the nice comment! I'm an old film and old camera guy as well. I went down there with the digital, a Hanimex Praktica Nova IB, a Vivitar 220/SL and a Nikon FG that I had just bought and found out it has a sticky mirror. The film shots came out pretty much the same as the digital, but the one from the Hanimex was so nice and so clear that I'm having a 20 X 24 Ilfochrome Classic (Cibachrome) print made from it. Being a picture framer, I know enough never to touch one of those with my bare hands. The emulsion on those prints is so delicate that even a momentary touch with a fingertip will make a mark that will never come out, but the color saturation and clarity is well worth the delicacy!

Definitely a shot to cherish! :yes:

I absolutely love it. And, mounted and framed as a 20x24 it will make you smile everytime you view it! Very nice work. Makes me want to jump on a plane and spend some time in my favoutite city anywhere: the Big Apple!

Paul

[Telecolor 3007]

Digital camera really sucks :yuck: Evem my ol' "Zorki" 4 takes better pictures than those junks!
The consumer knows always to pick up the worst products (see VHS vs. Betamax, VHS vs DVD-DVD=:yuck: )

[ProAc_Fan]

I think you doth protest too much. Sorry but in todays world 99% of photogs are better off with digital than with film. The D-SLR has broken the $1,000 price barrier and are now selling like hotcakes. If you really like to take pics why would you fork over $5/roll for film, process 36 images to get 2 or 3 keepers, be stuck with whatever ISO the film is, have no option for black and white ( unless of course you buy B&W film), or any other creative mode available with digital. Sony even now has a full size sensor in their new R1 fixed lens camera so even low light is not an issue.

Now I agree a medium format Hasselblad will take sharper photos than any digital camera but that's for that 1 percentile I mentioned earlier. Even Leica and Hasselbald make digital gear now so it's time to get your head out of the sand and accept the fact that the war is over and digital has won.

Mike

[PioneerGuy85]

Yes, yes they do :D I have a 1984 Pentax ME Super which I happen to love. I've also got the SMC-M 50mm and SMC-M 80-200 f4.5 fixed ap lens. Love them both, though the 50 is banged up.

[ProAc_Fan]

I hate to break it to you fella's but OLD doesn't always equal BETTER. The light meters found in today's modern camera's are light years ahead ( pun intended) of what could be found 20 years ago. Getting proper exposures meant carrying a portable light meter and knowing how to use it. Now with the evaluative spot meters, center weighted meters, and spot meters built into the better digital cameras getting the proper exposure is almost guaranteed. Trust me, I've seen enough of the old family slide shows taken with those K-1000's or ME Supers to know exposure was a hit and miss affair. Also modern light meters allow you to shoot after the sun goes down which can't be said for those older SLR's.

Mike

[audioguy]

To the first guy's post. Well, yeah, that's weird with the batteries. Something seems wrong. What camera is that out of curiosity. I love the batteries for my d70. They last a long time. With a full battery i can take around 300 i bet. I can have the camera sitting for a couple weeks or month and can still shoot i bet a 100 pictures with it. I also know that the tiff setting and if you have electric zoom instead of manual; both suck up a bunch of battery life.

[ProAc_Fan]

Agreed audioguy. I use 2 Li-Ion's batteries in the vertical battery grip with my Oly C-8080 and I can easily fill a 2 Gig CF card and still have plenty of battery life left. Rechargeable Ni-Mh have never worked nearly as well in my experience.

Mike

[onepixel]

Keep your batteries warm. They don't work as well when they are cold.

[systemerror909]

Digital camera really sucks :yuck: Evem my ol' "Zorki" 4 takes better pictures than those junks!
The consumer knows always to pick up the worst products (see VHS vs. Betamax, VHS vs DVD-DVD=:yuck: )


Yeah, my Zorki "C" is clearly superior to my 20d. Except apart from the fact that:

1. Theres no light meter, let alone 3 mode spot/evaluative/centerweighted option
2. I still have to wind it for each frame and
3. I can't set the shutter speed until i've wound it to the next frame, without risking ruining the shutter mechanism.
4. The thing takes film with old style "Leica" type film leaders, meaning I have to custom cut the leader on each roll of film (imagine if you had to custom cut your CF card to get it to fit?)
5. The rangefinder mechanism only provides accurate focusing on lenses up to 135mm
6. Screwmount lenses require care when being attached so that the rangefinder foot accurately lines up to provide focusing.
7. No autofocus.

Despite all the obvious advantages the zorki has over the 20d, I still feel compelled to keep my 20d, with the thought in mind that if cameras keep getting worse I'm gonna want to hold on to it in case 10 yrs down the line my zorki fails and I might be forced to buy an even NEWER and more technologically inferior digital camera.

[tubino]

Get a smart charger for your NiMH batteries. WORTH EVERY PENNY. Charges the batts independently, you get to pick charge rate, and it does not OVERcharge batteries, = longer battery life. And you only charge them as much as they need, so they tend to charge more quickly for a given current.

[TONEPUB]

I see the digital vs. analog debate rages on here too. I always like to tell people that both are interesting, because they both have a different feel and depending on your mood, one is often more intriguing than the other.

However, in a pro world, the high end digital stuff has far outsurpassed film in every way. Less noise/grain, more accurate color and a much wider tonal scale by a long shot. And you get the picture right away.

As for storage, there are CD's that will last 300 years now, and I can't imagine anyone (myself included) that is creating images so profound that they need to last longer than that.

It's sad to see fim go, because I grew up with it and using film required a certain mastery, but digital is really the same way. To get the most out of it, you really need to master the medium. I'll also miss the darkroom.

[tubino]

I'm tired of mediocre results, which are not a DIGITAL problem, but a CHEAP digital problem. I'm buying a DSLR, probably a Nikon D80 with Nikon 18-200mm VR lens. The D200 looks SWEET, but I don't think I can justify the extra $, not to mention the extra WEIGHT. I want availability of quality lenses!!!

Opinions?

[outlawmws]

I bought my wife one of the Pentax IST* series (can't remember which specific model, I'll check when I get home if you are interested) she is pretty serious about her photography, (She has been into it for 30 years and we are setting up her B&W enlarger now) She is completly satisfied with it and has been using it extensivly, including in her Digital Photog college class, for nearly a year.

I picked it over a Nikon (Xmas Present, I agonized over the choice) as the build quality seemed better in my hands. The Nikon felt like a plastic toy in the shop.

[Ultra-Hog]

My question is, in post #1, how did you post such a huge picture on AK? I thought that there were limitations to something closer to 640 x 480 or something like that.

[tubino]

I bought my wife one of the Pentax IST* series [snip]
I picked it over a Nikon (Xmas Present, I agonized over the choice) as the build quality seemed better in my hands. The Nikon felt like a plastic toy in the shop.

The Canon Rebel XTI is too small for my hand, and feels cheap compared to the Nikon D80. The D80 feels great in my hand, and solid, but the D200 is so sturdy (metal body, enviro-sealed) that it makes the D80 feel like a fancy toy. But if you put a big lens on the D80 and compare it to the D200, the weight difference is not so noticeable. Both the D80 and D200 are really fast, from startup to picture, from button to shutter, from shutter to card-write.

I think the ergonomics and lens choices, plus the pro features in the D80 (many shared with the D200) are keeping Nikon on the top of my list. Some claim that you pay extra for the Nikon name, but the D80 looks like a terrific value for money to me.