/out/ - Outdoors » Thread #280257

[56 / 13 / ?]

Anonymous Mon 03 Mar 2014 20:15:58 No.280257 View View Reply Original Report

Hey, /out/.

I'm needing to get a camera for taking /out/ with me - I'm not happy with the photos on my phone. What, if any, camera do you use - or do you have any recommendations?

Ideally a compact digital.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 03 Mar 2014 20:23:55 No.280266 Report

Quoted By: >>280301

>>280257
I've been rocking my 35mm again. Manual lenses are the tits. Learn a manual flash.

Seriously you can pick up a nice 35mm camera on craigslist for dirt cheap these days.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 03 Mar 2014 21:10:35 No.280292 Report

Quoted By: >>280301 >>283669

>>280257
Canon SX160
>useful wide angle to good zoom
>fairly compact for a super-zoom
>takes AA batteries
>manual mode, 15 second long exposure
>shoots RAW with CHDK firmware hack

discontinued and cheap,but they're getting harder to find since the 170 came out a while ago.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 03 Mar 2014 21:22:04 No.280301 Report

Quoted By: >>280332 >>280335 >>280663 >>280783 >>280784

>>280266

I'm not wanting to deal with film and processing. I don't want to go down the D-SLR route either that would allow for manual lenses.

I just want a solid camera that can fit in my pocket.

>>280292
I'll check this out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 03 Mar 2014 21:52:54 No.280332 Report

Quoted By:

>>280301

look into the x20

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 03 Mar 2014 21:57:44 No.280335 Report

Quoted By:

>>280301
Ricoh makes some pretty nifty water and dust resistant cameras. I got an old R10, did see a lot of rough terrain and bad weather and still works like a charm.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_1383.jpg, 3MiB, 3888x2592

Anonymous Mon 03 Mar 2014 22:34:39 No.280356 Report

Quoted By: >>280359

Canon Rebel XS i got a couple years ago cheap works well for me.

>pic taken a couple days ago

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO IMG_1432(small).jpg, 2MiB, 2722x1815

Anonymous Mon 03 Mar 2014 22:36:34 No.280359 Report

Quoted By: >>283552

>>280356

>same day, couple hours later

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 04 Mar 2014 06:08:54 No.280663 Report

Quoted By: >>281240

>>280301
If you do go the canon route, just a warning, the newer SX170 takes special batteries AND apparently has less battery life per charge than the AAs do, it's otherwise pretty much the same. Not a bad camera as such but IMO not that good an /out/ camera.

Likewise my mirrorless Lumix GF2 takes nice pictures, but unless I ration my snapping the battery will only last a day hike, or maybe a weekend.

I got my 160 a couple weeks ago while I still could, even though my old 130 works fine, just to have a backup that still uses AAs, since things don't last forever and sometimes they fall in the river.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO D3S_7725-1200.jpg, 242KiB, 1200x1107

Anonymous Tue 04 Mar 2014 15:15:21 No.280783 Report

Quoted By: >>280786 >>281286

>>280301
>I'm not wanting to deal with film and processing

So you just don't actually want to have to learn how to use a camera. You just want to point, shoot, and have pretty pictures pop up.

The art has been lost.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 04 Mar 2014 15:16:23 No.280784 Report

Quoted By:

>>280301
>I just want a solid camera that can fit in my pocket.
>Not wanting a 35mm rangefinder

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 04 Mar 2014 15:22:26 No.280786 Report

Quoted By: >>280787

>>280783
>point, shoot, and have pretty pictures pop up
Sounds good to me.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Nikon_F3_with_HP_viewfinder.jpg, 279KiB, 1280x958

Anonymous Tue 04 Mar 2014 15:26:04 No.280787 Report

Quoted By: >>280791

>>280786
>Sounds good to me.
An Instant Gratification Society, ladies and gentlemen, behold.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 04 Mar 2014 15:50:53 No.280791 Report

Quoted By: >>280799

>>280787
>An Instant Gratification Society
OK. I just want to preserve memories, not learn the art of photography.

I'm surprised that you're surprised that a large segment of the population is interested in point and shoot digital cameras.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 04 Mar 2014 16:18:34 No.280799 Report

Quoted By: >>280808 >>281379

>>280791
>I'm surprised that you're surprised

I'm not surprised. I'm fully aware of this. I'm just a bit bothered by it. To know how to get the very most out of your camera can be important.

I look at my negative scans and my prints and they just speak out way more than a digital picture ever will to me. When you put some thought and time into the picture you are taking and you end up with an amazing print, you'll look back on it and continue to be amazed and proud of that moment in time that you just captured. It's something infinitely more special than a 1 in a million digital pictures that you can take without care.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 04 Mar 2014 16:33:39 No.280808 Report

Quoted By: >>280814

>>280799
You're seriously a bit bothered that most people take snapshots, many people take high quality snapshots, and that very, very few people devote themselves to photography as a major part of their lives? It seriously bothers you that among people on this planet there are some who aren't camera snobs?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 04 Mar 2014 16:43:39 No.280814 Report

Quoted By: >>280818 >>281226

>>280808
What bothers me is the lack of care or respect for the art. People take a million snap shots with auto settings and think they created a special image. They then post their pictures to show off their "work" which has not had any work put into it.

If it's for your own private keepsake, that's fine. But don't call it travel photography. When I'm 80 and going through my photographs I would love to see the work and thought that went into capturing each image. I want my children and grand children to see amazing what amazing things can be created with just a bit of work. The pictures taken this way have infinite more character.

Every mom and their teenage child now has a camera and thinks that they are professionals. It's killing the art.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 04 Mar 2014 16:50:35 No.280818 Report

Quoted By: >>280823

>>280814
Humbug, that's pure snobbery.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 04 Mar 2014 17:01:04 No.280823 Report

Quoted By: >>281221

>>280818
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean the lack of respect isn't killing the art and the profession.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 04 Mar 2014 17:13:57 No.280833 Report

Quoted By:

Oh no! Those accessible camera gave us kitsch that now commoner can produce! Doom upon artisan! The end is nigh!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 05:39:10 No.281221 Report

Quoted By:

>>280823
What's killing the profession is all the amateurs undercutting pros or outright giving their images away. The art is doing just fine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 05:55:58 No.281226 Report

Quoted By: >>281382

>>280814

Don't worry anon. I'm 18 and I have recently taken up film photography. I have 3 pentax k1000's that I bring with me when I am /out/. Sure it's a bit much but the warmth of the prints you get from 35mm film will always be greater than that of the prints from a digital.
I have even begun developing my own film, and it has been going rather well.

Cheers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 07:02:52 No.281240 Report

Quoted By:

>>280663
>since things dont last forever
>and sometimes they fall in the river
im guessing your speaking from personal experience, also, thanks for the lulz.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 09:09:28 No.281285 Report

Quoted By:

any canon point and shoot really. can't go wrong with canon. The waterproof ones are not as good in low light.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 09:12:46 No.281286 Report

Quoted By: >>281413

>>280783
no, there were always people who just wanted to take an easy picture and those who wanted to use it artistically. I don't know where you're coming up with this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 15:17:45 No.281379 Report

Quoted By: >>281413

>>280799
>I'm surprised that you're surprised
>I'm not surprised.

I'm not surprised, either.

I'm not surprised that dumb assed OP isn't using the catalog and asking this question in the very worthy, existing /out/ camera thread and has bumped yet another valid /out/ thread about caving, snowmobiling, exploring, kayaking, hiking, trail cleanup, and all the other VALID /out/ topics with his attention whoring lack of respect and lack of using the FUCKING CATALOG!

Fuck you, point and shoot simpleton, instant gratification, look at me, self-centered, fucking OP.

Use the FUCKING CATALOG!

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 15:24:31 No.281382 Report

Quoted By: >>281384 >>281408

>>281226
>lugging 3 identical pentax cameras around innawoods
>not taking pictures with a wooden box and a black curtain over your head

Wannabe

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 15:31:32 No.281384 Report

Quoted By:

>>281382

Shit, my favorite innawoods camera is my cheap Nikon FM10 body (no sense in banging up some nicer bodies) and a fixed Nikon 35mm f/2 lens. That lens is sharp as a mother fucker and that's all I need. It's my main travel lens.

PewPewBang

PewPewBang Wed 05 Mar 2014 16:35:57 No.281408 Report

Quoted By: >>281410

>>281382

I have different film in each one. I also carry around 3 lenses: 55mm, 28mm, 70-210mm and a few extra rolls of film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 16:42:11 No.281410 Report

Quoted By:

>>281408
I don't get why anon thinks it's so surprising. A lot of people lug around multiple cameras. Sometimes it can be easier to grab a different camera quickly than it is to pause and swap lenses. Especially when taking nature and travel photography. Things don't always like to stand still and wait for you. Hell, they rarely ever do.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 17:09:49 No.281413 Report

Quoted By: >>281419

>>281286
>I don't know where you're coming up with this.
They're standard filmfag luddite talking points, who seem to be 25% aging Leicafags and 75% pretentious arty hipster teenagers who also think Photoshop is "cheating" because they're never actually made a wet print and don't know how much manipulation goes on in the darkroom.

Digital compacts aren't even necessarily about an easy picture, it's about a camera that's easy to take with you whatever you're doing. At least my digital compact has a full manual mode, unlike most pocket film cameras made since the 1970s, which was something that always annoyed me back in my film days.

>>281379
Anything that got bumped has been inactive for a week anyway, because nobody who actually goes out posts here anymore. Statistically speaking, it probably just one of the milsurp backpack or knife threads anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 17:19:11 No.281419 Report

Quoted By: >>281434

>>281413
>75% pretentious arty hipster teenagers who also think Photoshop is "cheating" because they're never actually made a wet print and don't know how much manipulation goes on in the darkroom.

Took photography in HS and in College years ago when everyone learned on film and how to process. I much prefer it in the same sense that, while digital art can still be art, it will never of equal value to someone doing a piece by hand whether it is painting or it is a film print or even a woodblock carving.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 17:37:52 No.281426 Report

Quoted By: >>281429

GoPro

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 17:42:24 No.281429 Report

Quoted By:

>>281426
Its for video. Pardon =\

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 17:59:26 No.281434 Report

Quoted By: >>281441

>>281419
I prefer film and darkroom as a process too, but objectively what matters is the print not how you get it. In that respect I think silver gelatin prints do look better than a digital B&W giclée, but for color I actually prefer digital now. Especially now that Kodachrome is gone. And I noticed when I saw "Watermark" that even Edward Burtynksy is using medium format digital now, not large format film.

I've also seen a few mediocre gallery shows that are touted as being shot on film, as if that somehow makes up for boring photography.

And to get back on topic I find digital is a LOT more convenient for /out/ stuff and a $200 digital compact gives better results than a comparable film point and shoot. Also a DSLR blows film out of the water for low light/night stuff.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 18:11:57 No.281441 Report

Quoted By: >>281473 >>283749

>>281434
>but objectively what matters is the print not how you get it

I disagree on that. Especially when it comes to valuing and purchasing art. Part of the money that you are spending is on the amount of work put into the piece. How you got there is important to a lot of people.

Hell, if that were the case, I'd sell my postcard sized scans that I blow up and print for the same as a painting if both are equally as visually appealing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 19:18:33 No.281461 Report

Quoted By:

Very happy with my LX7.

Pocketable
f1.4 wide
f2.3 zoom
24 - 90 mm
Built in ND filter
Dedicated sliders buttons and switches for the important stuf
Very good movie mode with manual settings if required
Decent burst mode

Best camera I've owned.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 19:42:21 No.281473 Report

Quoted By: >>281480

>>281441
>Part of the money that you are spending is on the amount of work put into the piece. How you got there is important to a lot of people.

A lot of famous film photographers had assistants develop the film and professional printers do their darkroom work though. Production costs were higher I guess, but they weren't really putting more work into it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 05 Mar 2014 19:51:02 No.281480 Report

Quoted By:

>>281473
It doesn't matter at that point if they did the work or not. Hell most composers have ghost writers to do the work for them as do most professional artists and even many authors.

The point is that you can charge for the time and energy spent putting into the work. It doesn't matter if you did it or an assistant did it. The art world is a fucked up and convoluted world.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1380668858420.jpg, 1MiB, 1996x1383

Anonymous Sun 09 Mar 2014 14:39:31 No.283552 Report

Quoted By: >>283554 >>283669

>>280257
Im not OP but im looking to get a new camera because i dont like the quality of my iphone 4s.

is it worth it to buy a 100$ camera or should i just use my phone?

i want to take nice night sky pictures, but not with the shitty clarity of this >>280359

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 09 Mar 2014 14:45:08 No.283554 Report

Quoted By: >>283556 >>283669

>>283552
in other words, what price would i have to pay to get the most bang for my buck? im looking to spend around 100$ but could be persuaded to spend more if the quality was objectionably worth the price.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1393738536039.gif, 2MiB, 400x299

Anonymous Sun 09 Mar 2014 14:46:35 No.283556 Report

Quoted By:

>>283554
>objectionably
objectively

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 09 Mar 2014 19:19:03 No.283669 Report

Quoted By: >>283751

>>283552
>>283554
$100 probably won't get you much better, $250 for something with a manual mode for the night pictures would (still wouldn't be as good as a DSLR though).

Or you could try to get older models cheap on closeout. >>280292 is $110 on amazon.com right now.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO NEX-5_with_16mm.jpg, 159KiB, 1280x869

Anonymous Sun 09 Mar 2014 21:44:35 No.283730 Report

Quoted By: >>283751

Someone mentioned mirrorless earlier. I have a Sony NEX which is pretty nice. not quite DSLR but it is fairly compact (the default lens is a little big), it takes nice pictures, and it can be used like a point and shoot when you want it to.

somewhat expensive but they go on sale from time to time and other brands make similar cameras.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 09 Mar 2014 22:25:20 No.283749 Report

Quoted By:

>>281441
>I'd sell my postcard sized scans that I blow up and print for the same as a painting if both are equally as visually appealing.
but those are very unlikely to be as visually appealing. current digital cameras can easily produce beautiful pictures on par with film.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1401451_244230995737184_14649258 (...).png, 801KiB, 1000x562

Anonymous Sun 09 Mar 2014 22:26:36 No.283751 Report

Quoted By: >>283752 >>283771

>>283669
>DSLR
>>283730
so with this type of camera you get the sweet crispness of those night sky photos like pic related?

how does this compare to high end digital compact cameras like a gopro HERO?

HammockMode

HammockMode Sun 09 Mar 2014 22:33:15 No.283752 Report

Quoted By: >>283758

>>283751
gopros have almost no manual finctionality and are horrible in low light. also has no flash, optical zoom, etc.

apples and oranges. you can have a camera, and a gorpo, but you can't have a camera OR a gopro

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO image.jpg, 209KiB, 900x658

Anonymous Sun 09 Mar 2014 22:47:55 No.283758 Report

Quoted By: >>283763

>>283752
thanks for the info, ive looked into it a bit more at it seems that a durable camera in the DSLR type is an oxymoron.

taking a fragile piece of gear like that on a weeklong backpack trip would have me nursing the gear more than enjoying the vacation i think.

i guess ill have to wait for car camp trips to bust out a sweet camera.

HammockMode

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO CRW_0037.jpg, 480KiB, 1400x1050

HammockMode Sun 09 Mar 2014 22:53:54 No.283763 Report

Quoted By: >>284060 >>284076

>>283758
yeah I too want a DSLR but in order to bring it camping you essentially have to keep it in a hard case and not risk it for hours in a stuff sack or around your neck... which makes taking photos a chore.

on friday this weekend i broke my camera (canon powershot) when /out/ in the snow. feelsbad.

It'll be a long time before I can replace it too because i'm destitute these days. I've been looking at Pentax who make some DSLRs that are fairly robust and weather-resistant

pic related - i had climbed down this snowy gorge for some shots and this is probably the last shot i got before taking an icy nosedive, camera first, into the rocks :c

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO dsc02890_.jpg, 113KiB, 800x533

Anonymous Sun 09 Mar 2014 23:06:34 No.283771 Report

Quoted By:

>>283751
>gopro
>high-end
laughinggirls.jpg

They're good for what they are. I get photos/video with mine (Contour) that I couldn't get with any of my other cameras because of its design.
As a camera, they're no better than a cheap cameraphone (although sometimes mine amazes me with the images it'll get).

DSLRs are great, but
>expensive
>heavy
>complicated, if all you want to do is take a picture
>Learning curve
>Lots of parts/accessories/lenses to carry with

I have a Nikon and take it out regularly, if I'm going out with the intent of coming back with good pictures.
I also have a smaller "bridge" P&S camera. It has some similar features of the Nikon (M/A/S/P) with decent optics, but without the size/weight/expense/complication of my Nikon.

Took >pic related with my P&S yesterday. Could I have gotten a better photo with my Nikon? Sure. However, my primary activity yesterday was teaching a group of new snowmobilers about avalanche safety. Taking photos was secondary to that task.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Mar 2014 06:54:45 No.284060 Report

Quoted By: >>284077

>>283763
> I too want a DSLR but in order to bring it camping you essentially have to keep it in a hard case
What? No, maybe unless you're mountaineering. I hike with mine all the time and the only problem is the size and weight. It's taking it out on the water that I'd put it in a pelican case.

For long trips away from a charger i'd want either my DSLR or something that takes AAs, electronic viewfinders burn batteries. .

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 999224_10201793860340664_8746308 (...).jpg, 47KiB, 960x540

Anonymous Mon 10 Mar 2014 07:48:10 No.284076 Report

Quoted By: >>284077

>>283763
what the fuck?

i took this picture on my phone, and i dont think it came out too bad, granted its all fog so the lines arent going to be sharp anyways. i mean, if you have half an eyeball you can take a decent enough picture with an average camera.

HammockMode

HammockMode Mon 10 Mar 2014 07:52:31 No.284077 Report

Quoted By: >>284079

>>284076
i take lots and lots of photos and many of them are very good, but my camera is about 10 years old and now is BUSTED - so I have no camera. I posted that pic only because it was literally the last one I got out of the camera before disaster. it was also at night (obviously) and there was no way to see what pic I got until the exposure was done. this wasn't a good exposure. also the camera is old and as such isn't up to scratch anyway.

not that I'm looking to replace I'm hoping to upgrade to a DSLR

>>284060
if you're walking along that's fine, but if you're climbing, river crossing, mountain biking, etc it goes in a hard case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 10 Mar 2014 07:57:05 No.284079 Report

Quoted By: >>284080 >>284472

>>284077
im just saying you dont NEED a dslr or anything fancy to get a good picture. to get a high pixel count or whatever (i clearly dont know much about cameras) you do, but to get a good photo, you can easily take something just as good if you know what your doing. and if you dont know what your doing, then you dont need it. if you want it though, go for it.

and with that, im going to punk out of this thread

i just want to add that my picture wasnt always that blurry, i played around with it a little bit and fucked it up some, not that it was really noticeably better or anything.

HammockMode

HammockMode Mon 10 Mar 2014 08:02:16 No.284080 Report

Quoted By:

>>284079
well it's a cool pic bro!

and yeah, I know a decent amount about photography and really think it's time to upgrade. it would pain me to spend a couple hundred+ on a camera that doesn't do much more than the one I've been using. but DSLRs cost a lot of moneyfunds :c

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 11 Mar 2014 00:31:33 No.284472 Report

Quoted By:

>>284079
> you can easily take something just as good if you know what your doing.
That depends on what you're trying to do (and also on what your standards are). Most cameras take half-decent snapshots in full sun but if the lighting gets more challenging or you're trying to do something more ambitious or you intend to publish/sell or print big for an exhibition, the limitations quickly become apparent. There's no way around the sensor noise, limited exposure control, blurry optics or poor DoF control of cheap cameras and phonecams no matter how skilled you are (you just learn how to stay just within the limits). And the bigger you print the more obvious the flaws are.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches