Poll:How Many Active Cameras For Capturing Memories Do You Own?

[stepford]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ggbutcher Nikon F2 Photomic (from my youth)...

Oh c'mon, if you haven't shot with it in the last 20 years I don't think it counts. I still have all kinds of old Canon FD era equipment that at this point are little more than historical artifacts.

I do envy your big old view cameras though...

[Aus_E_Expat]

I use 3 currently;

Samsung Galaxy S7 phone which has a great camera;
Nikon D7100 SLR;
Sony A 6300 mirrorless.

The Sony is the prime camera for shoots but the Samsung is used most days.

[ABQ2015]

I've been taking road trips throughout the SW this year and on one trip saw a herd of elk but was unable to get a close up shot with my smart phone. So I dug out the old Pentax (point and shoot with a zoom lens?) for the next trip but it stopped working a couple of months later. So I'm debating whether to replace it.

[DrRoy]

iPhone
Nikon D7200/Nikon 18-200mm
Canon 6D/Canon 16-35mm

[folivier]

I have 3: Olympus EM1-1 & EM1-2, and a Sony RX100. I don't consider smartphones as real cameras, ok as P&S but not for serious photography. I'm old school and NEVER shoot on any of the auto modes. Mostly aperture mode. I like to control DoF in my photos. But occasionally will use the phone if that's all I have in my hand. But it's like going back to the early days of digital cameras. Press shutter, wait, wait, Ok, OOF? wait let me try again, and again....
Quality photographs are a combination of quality glass (lens, glass not plastic, f-stops), camera features (auto-focus mostly), and composition (seeing your photo before you touch the shutter).
Oh yeah, a pet peeve of mine are the horrible, out of focus, dark pictures that people post on social media. And the responses they get: great!, stunning, etc.
Especially when you can't even tell what the picture was. (rant of the day)

[RunningBum]

I think it's great some of you have an interest in photography, and can take much better pictures than I could. And some of you can probably take a better picture with my phone than I could with your camera.

For me a camera is about making memories, as the thread title says. When I went through all my old photos to have them scanned, I mostly picked the ones with people in them. Rarely photos with just scenery. And my regret isn't the quality, but rather than I didn't have more. With a phone, I'm taking a lot more pictures. As someone else here said, the best camera is the one you have with you.

I just don't think hobby photographers should be putting down us amateurs who are more interested in capturing a moment than we are in creating a masterpiece. Acting superior because you won't use a smart phone camera does not impress me in the least, and criticizing people for taking photos that they and others enjoy makes me think a little less of you.

[HFWR]

Three - iphone, older Nikon Coolpix, older Canon RebelXT

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walt34 .... As an example, look at the photo I took last year for a Christmas gathering with the DSLR. Note how the image is in sharp focus from front to back (that's called "depth of field") and that the windows are not "blown out" meaning that they're not just overexposed white blocks. That's because I took the trouble to get a light level reading of the outside light and set the strobes to match that lighting level. You're not going to get that with a phone camera, at least not without going deep into the camera's settings menu if the settings are available at all. But I realize that not everyone is that fussy and just wants a quick shot of the event. That's what point 'n shoot and phone cameras are for.

That photo is a stunning example of depth of field. Very nicely done!

Is that some aux fill flash in the far corner and on the door? I sense it is, and probably really helps with that photo, to avoid a dark corner and door.

I'm curious how well a decent phone camera could capture that scene? I'm assuming it would fail miserably in the depth of focus area, but I don't know that for sure. HDR mode might do a pretty good job to avoid "blown out" windows.

But basically, the phone cameras have got so very good lately, that I can certainly see why even somewhat selective people use them as their primary camera. But when you need/want that extra level of quality and flexibility in a challenging situation, you need to bring out the specialized 'big guns'!

-ERD50

[folivier]

Actually the DOF of camera phones is pretty consistent since the lens to sensor distance is so minute. Where they don't perform well is trying to produce a nice bokeh (areas out of focus) because of this. But don't think they would handle nice even lighting that Walt has done so well with. Unless you use an HDR app, which IMO usually look over-processed.

[happy2bretired]

Just my phone camera.

[Ronstar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by folivier Actually the DOF of camera phones is pretty consistent since the lens to sensor distance is so minute. Where they don't perform well is trying to produce a nice bokeh (areas out of focus) because of this. But don't think they would handle nice even lighting that Walt has done so well with. Unless you use an HDR app, which IMO usually look over-processed.

The new iPhone X has a portrait setting that produces a good bokeh, although I seldom use it. I prefer the regular phone photo setting DOF for landscape photography. Phone is great for areas where you want to take photos, but are afraid to bring your camera (even though phones can cost more than cameras these days)

[tulak]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningBum For me a camera is about making memories, as the thread title says. When I went through all my old photos to have them scanned, I mostly picked the ones with people in them. Rarely photos with just scenery. And my regret isn't the quality, but rather than I didn't have more. With a phone, I'm taking a lot more pictures. As someone else here said, the best camera is the one you have with you.

I radically changed my perception on how and what type of pictures to take a couple of years ago. At this point in my life, it’s all about simplicity.

I think the more interesting question isn’t how you capture memories, but how do you share and view captured memories?

For me, I’m still working on the full transformation (lots of old pictures to go through), but my end goal is Apple Photos with only pictures that I care about. I don’t need duplicates, raw images, tons of scenery shots, etc.

All I want are simple albums that captures the essence of the experience. It’s worked well for me and my family over the last couple of years.

For example, when we travel I’ll automatically start an album where everyone can add pictures. I’ll weed through it after the vacation to make sure there’s a reasonable number of pics and then I’m done. This makes it easy to go back and look at trips without having to go through a bunch of duplicate/filler pics.

The added bonus for me is that all my pictures are backed up to the cloud and synced between all my devices. This lets me manage pictures from a laptop and view them on a phone/tablet.

[RunningBum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tulak For example, when we travel I’ll automatically start an album where everyone can add pictures. I’ll weed through it after the vacation to make sure there’s a reasonable number of pics and then I’m done. This makes it easy to go back and look at trips without having to go through a bunch of duplicate/filler pics.

I like that idea. I did it when digitizing printed photos. Just because storage for digital photos is cheap doesn't mean I can't go through and purge a lot of photos. Sounds like a good rainy day/week project.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by folivier Actually the DOF of camera phones is pretty consistent since the lens to sensor distance is so minute. Where they don't perform well is trying to produce a nice bokeh (areas out of focus) because of this. But don't think they would handle nice even lighting that Walt has done so well with. Unless you use an HDR app, which IMO usually look over-processed.

I was curious, so I took a shot similar to Walt's (I won't share - the table is messy, not decorated, and it is overcast, so the window isn't super bright). The DOF actually was very good - I was surprised at that. And this is with a pretty modest phone - the MOTO G4 ~ $220 a couple years ago? The HDR looks natural to me (not that 'cartoony', 'outer space' look that some people go for with post-processing). It kept the window light from blowing out, but as I said, it is overcast (but still fairly bright), so not the greatest challenge. But one window was 'blown out' w/o HDR.

-ERD50

[mpeirce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tulak I radically changed my perception on how and what type of pictures to take a couple of years ago. At this point in my life, it’s all about simplicity.

I've been going through lots of old family photos and I chuck almost all the scenery shots. I just don't care about another picture of the Eiffel Tower or a beech somewhere even if it is really old. I also keep significant places like old homes.

What I really want from the old family photos is pictures of people. It's really nice to have a collection of photos of someone at a variety of ages.

That being said, I still take scenery pictures because they bring back memories for me. I do take more people shots though, for posterity ;-)

Back to talking about cameras: I really like to know where a photo is taken. It's hard to place some old photos. Phone photos have location metadata now. My SX740 doesn't have GPS, but it can get location data over bluetooth from the phone. It means running their dumb app on the phone, but it's worth it to me.

[Major Tom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lsbcal Zero because I think the OP meant that phones are not to be counted as cameras. But my new iPhone is a great camera among other things.

Judging by this sentence in the OP's post, I think it was intended for camera phones to be included in the count,

"I have three that are active. My smart phone for quick impromptu shots, a small Kodak point and shoot for stuff like posting on ebay and an old Cannon point and shoot that has a bit bigger zoom than the Kodak."

As for me, I have 2 active cameras, with a 3rd one "almost active". A few years ago, I got tired of lugging the Canon 20D DSLR around with it's accessories, and plumped for a neat little compact camera with an APS-C sensor, a Ricoh GR II. Currently, my phone camera is always on me, with the Ricoh GR II for the more "serious" stuff. The Canon 20D, with a fantastic EF24mm f/1.4 lens, sits in the file cabinet. In theory, I could use it as a backup, but can never muster the enthusiasm to use a (relatively) large and heavy camera and lens.

RobbieB mentioned that he hates cellphone pics. Well, I'm not disputing the fact that he does (that would be silly), but I'd like to offer an alternative perspective. Certainly, there are photographic tasks that a camera phone is just not up to. However, if you have a good eye, you can make striking images with any old camera. Most of the time when I pull the phone camera out to take a shot, I wish that I had one of my "proper" cameras with me but every now and again, I get a worthy shot from the cellphone. It's not always about first-rate technical quality.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrRoy iPhone Nikon D7200/Nikon 18-200mm Canon 6D/Canon 16-35mm

I also own a Canon 6D and have enjoyed sunset shots with it.

Very nice sunset landscape!!!!

[HI Bill]

2 iphones, and 2 full-frame DSLRs. For creative/professional/low light photography, one still needs a DSLR. For quick daytime selfies, the iPhone 6 and above are fine.

[KB]

I only use the camera on my iPhone XS now. So much easier and it's with me always.

[Walt34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 That photo is a stunning example of depth of field. Very nicely done! Is that some aux fill flash in the far corner and on the door? I sense it is, and probably really helps with that photo, to avoid a dark corner and door.

Yes, you can see the fill flash on both sides of the image. On the left, down near the floor the wall is overly bright because the flash (IIRC) is sitting on the floor, and on the right the flash is bouncing off the wall and door. Behind the camera are two more strobes bouncing light off the walls/ceiling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 I'm curious how well a decent phone camera could capture that scene? I'm assuming it would fail miserably in the depth of focus area, but I don't know that for sure. HDR mode might do a pretty good job to avoid "blown out" windows. -ERD50

Actually, I'm impressed with the quality of the newer cell phone images. They will do a fine job on depth of field because of the small size of the lenses. This gets into the physics of light transmission through lenses which I have only a faint and hazy sort-of-sometimes understanding of. Suffice it to say it gets real complicated real fast; people who design camera lenses are very smart folks. As someone else noted if you don't want deep depth of field and want the foreground and background blurry with only the subject in focus, the you need a large aperture to pull that off. To my knowledge cell phone cameras don't have adjustable apertures.

The only way I know of to avoid the "blown out" windows is to have the interior lighting match the level of the outside lighting. Otherwise one of them is going to be too light or too dark.

What I get by lugging along the DSLR, extra lenses, strobes, tripod, etc. is options. At least with an interior shot, if I don't like the lighting I can augment it or sometime even overpower it entirely. Even outside, if I'm trying to get a shot of people and the scene is backlighted, (like a sunset behind the people) I can use a "fill flash" to get some light on the front of the people so they won't all be silhouettes. That's not an option with a cell phone camera.

And I certainly "get" that a lot of people simply don't want to be bothered with all that stuff. I'm married to one of them. But when we get back home with a bunch of family photos I shot with a DSLR guess who wants to look at them first...