# general griping & old-man complaining



## Vira (Jan 12, 2012)

I tend to think the same thing about a majority of people and computers.


----------



## Jahn (Apr 26, 2013)

I just use an iphone for everything. If anything, I should at least invest in a decent dedicated point and shoot, probably. However, kids pics to grandparents via email are so easy with an iphone.


----------



## WheeledGoat (Mar 17, 2013)

I know - when faced with the
snap photo - attach to computer - download file - attach to email
vs.
snap photo with phone - click send
i tend to choose the latter as well.

Hell, the camera on my android phone rivals the p&s camera I spent $150 on 10 years ago. If only they made snap-on wide angle lenses for the phone... lmao


----------



## Sajacobs (Aug 24, 2012)

I think the iPhone can take some nice pics. I'm with you....ease of sending pics from a phone is great.


----------



## Nubster (Aug 9, 2011)

But I would rather monkey around with a real camera because when you get one of those once in a lifetime super special shots of one of your kids and you only have cellphone quality, you might kick yourself. I mean cellphone > nothing but for me at least, 
cellphone <<<<<<<<<<<<< real camera.


----------



## tetra73 (Aug 2, 2011)

Hahahaha...hmmm....is called....hmmm.....I don't know what it is called. Just wait until they think they can shoot paid gigs. FYI, "P" mode stands for professional.


----------



## Chulios66 (Jan 3, 2013)

That much for a camera? Guess they didn't know what they where thinking:icon_lol:


----------



## zackariah (Jan 17, 2013)

I just dropped a grand on a Nikon 5200 and extra lenses. I am going to take a photography class though. I can't wait to see the pics I will get with it. But I do agree that some people are silly with tech they can't use. Especially TVs. Brighter is not better people.


----------



## tetra73 (Aug 2, 2011)

In the worst case, they will quickly lose interesting in photography and would only showcase their toys in special occasions. Yes, an Iphone or a simple point and shoot is more for them. But they want to play photographer... On the good side, they may take interest in the art of photography and beginning to pursue it. 

Just for the record, this is what I shoot for leisure...it didn't even cost me over $700...











My favorite shot from yesterday, with the camera above.










With the actual bike race, I was shooting with my Canon 1dmarkIII.


----------



## dprais1 (Sep 12, 2012)

Nubster said:


> But I would rather monkey around with a real camera because when you get one of those once in a lifetime super special shots of one of your kids and you only have cellphone quality, you might kick yourself. I mean cellphone > nothing but for me at least,
> cellphone <<<<<<<<<<<<< real camera.



I have very very few pictures of my kids and family. 
I would rather spend my time enjoying a baseball game, going to the park, the zoo whatever than trying to record those moments.

And then there is the fabricated moments, when you take your 1 or 2 year old somewhere and they ball their eyes out the whole time and puke. Then you spend 10 minutes trying to get everyone to smile in sync so you can think back and pretend you literally had a Kodak moment.

I don't think the quality of the picture has anything to do with the quality of the memory.

Here is one of my favorite photos. My daughter being chased by a goat.


----------



## Nubster (Aug 9, 2011)

dprais1 said:


> I don't think the quality of the picture has anything to do with the quality of the memory.


Maybe not, but if I can help it I'd like the quality of the photo to match the quality of the memory. Since I can, I'm happy with that.


----------



## dprais1 (Sep 12, 2012)

Nubster said:


> Maybe not, but if I can help it I'd like the quality of the photo to match the quality of the memory. Since I can, I'm happy with that.


I can agree with that. 

and I'll add in that I'm completely biased and subjective.


----------



## WheeledGoat (Mar 17, 2013)

that's a cool pic w/ the goat chasing your kid - made me smile and it's not even my kid! (or goat! lmao)


----------



## Vira (Jan 12, 2012)

The way I describe a more professional camera is the same way I would describe my art toolbox. I used to carry around a toolbox with charcoals, erasers, rolled parchment, sketchbooks and hairspray so a camera with different lenses and a tripod would be like new erasers, willow or pressed charcoal and a fancy canvas. It may be more work for a shot but the medium (camera/cell/paint/etc) expresses the same thing far differently. It's just a different way of capturing the moment. I'm not a photographer at all but a person with Gimp or Photoshop or paint or autocad or sketchup isn't a graphical designer or architect either. It's a tool and some people use it and some people don't. 



dprais1 said:


> I have very very few pictures of my kids and family.
> I would rather spend my time enjoying a baseball game, going to the park, the zoo whatever than trying to record those moments.


Oh and not to pick on you, but your comment is a good example. If I rephrase this to "I would rather spend my time enjoying a baseball game, going to the park, the zoo whatever than playing with a fish tank." How would you look at this? I would say...Ok that's your hobby and your thing. Right? I don't think that putting a point in shoot meant for quick pics is in the same league or purpose as a pro camera. Different mediums and different tools meant for different jobs. A hammer vs a screwdriver. 

I do still feel a little miffed though when someone spends a few thousand for a gaming laptop with a special logo and uses it just for email and facebook.


----------



## dprais1 (Sep 12, 2012)

Vira said:


> .
> 
> 
> Oh and not to pick on you, but your comment is a good example. If I rephrase this to "I would rather spend my time enjoying a baseball game, going to the park, the zoo whatever than playing with a fish tank." How would you look at this? I would say...Ok that's your hobby and your thing. Right? I don't think that putting a point in shoot meant for quick pics is in the same league or purpose as a pro camera. Different mediums and different tools meant for different jobs. A hammer vs a screwdriver.
> ...


Yep, you are right. I can't fathom all the money and time my wife spends on purses and sarees(dresses) and she can't understand my tank hobby.

That's why my next post was that I _am_ biased.

If I can explain a bit better. If your hobby is photography then click away, you are having fun and good for you. 

But it is not my hobby and I would rather spend time having a vacation, for example, than trying to document it. I think many other people would benefit from this approach, especially those the OP referred to--point and shoot types like me.

Anyhow, no offense intended, a hobby is a hobby and that is really all the explanation anyone needs.


----------



## verongome (Apr 17, 2012)

A DSLR camera is one heck of a camera. Good for expert photographers to amateurs!
It really captures every bit of details!


----------



## redfalconf35 (Feb 24, 2008)

Vira said:


> The way I describe a more professional camera is the same way I would describe my art toolbox. I used to carry around a toolbox with charcoals, erasers, rolled parchment, sketchbooks and hairspray so a camera with different lenses and a tripod would be like new erasers, willow or pressed charcoal and a fancy canvas. It may be more work for a shot but the medium (camera/cell/paint/etc) expresses the same thing far differently. It's just a different way of capturing the moment. I'm not a photographer at all but a person with Gimp or Photoshop or paint or autocad or sketchup isn't a graphical designer or architect either. It's a tool and some people use it and some people don't.


Bingo. I have a DSLR (bought it so my wife and I could take pics while we were on our honeymoon), but I've learned (to an extent) how to use it. I can get good photos of stuff that a point and shoot (and especially a camera phone) can't even touch. It's a tool, and a specialized one, but it's one that I consider invaluable. 




> I do still feel a little miffed though when someone spends a few thousand for a gaming laptop with a special logo and uses it just for email and facebook.


To go off the tool analogy above, it doesn't matter if you have a cheapo $2 hammer, or a $500 top of the line pneumatic nailer, the nail is gonna go in. If somebody wants to "stimulate the economy" with their $1.5k gaming laptop and use it for facebook, it's hard to fault them much beyond the fact that they're wasting money. :icon_cool



> I mean truth be told, unless your making your living taking pictures buy a regular camera and quit trying to show off. Just cause you take some photos of a tree branch and post it on some photo site doesn't make you and artist, it makes you a douchebag who wasted a crap loud of money. I mean in this economy people see these thing differently then they used to. They don't see the fancy sophisticated person taking pictures. They see the person . God I really hate people sometimes!


And what about us folks who "wasted a crap loud of money." not because we wanted to show off, but because we want to take nice photos of things in a way that our regular camera just can't do? I take photos of my aquarium that i couldn't even dream of replicating with a point and shoot, let alone a phone camera. There was no elitism, class warfare, or other malice aforethought attributed to my purchase, I simply saved for a few months in order to get something that I figured would give me enough utility to warrant the cost. Let me say, it was completely worth it!

To analyze someone's choice in camera as "mak[ing] you a douchebag who wasted a crap loud of money" or "rubbing it in their faces that they are rich and we are broke and unemployed" and going on to attribute hate to them shows some sort of underlying issue here. Are you really judging me and other DSLR owners simply because we purchased a nicer camera than you think we should be allowed? I would think that the irony of posting that on a planted aquarium forum would be a little more apparent.


----------



## Snakeblitz33 (Jul 22, 2013)

I bought a nikon d3200 with an extra zoom lens. I also got a tripod with a remote shutter. I have taken my time to learn f-stops, shutter speeds and depth of field. There is always room to be better, but i like macro photography and need a lens that costs more than the camera. Makes me "shutter" to think that if i put more money into the hobby - how can a piece of glass improve my skills? They cant. So for the last few weeks i have practiced and practiced to make sure that i still want to invest the money. 

I used to be a real PnS guy, but after i had a kid, it changed.


----------



## Seattle_Aquarist (Jun 15, 2008)

Hi WheeledGoat,

I agree 100% with your comments; I am seldom on 'automatic' mode unless it is a family function and I want to take pictures 'on the fly'.

I too have a several year old Canon SX 110 IS and find it to very versatile and yet not complicated.


----------



## Deirdre (Mar 18, 2011)

Seriously? You hate someone because of the amount of money they spend on a camera? 

I didnt buy my DSLR to "show off" and I also didnt spend 800$ to rub it in anyones face. I bought it for me and me alone, and God knows I saved YEARS to afford it. It is a hobby I enjoy so what is it to you how much I spend on something that brings ME joy? 

Also when arguing a topic it is best to not lump people in the same group as you. (ie "we" and "us") You dont know me. You dont know my lifestyle or how I live and you sure as hell dont know my finances. 

Just my .2


----------



## concepts88 (Oct 4, 2012)

Pro cameras do not have an auto or program mode. Or are you talking about a and s mode? That's only semi automatic. 

Prosumer and entry level cameras have p mode. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mjolnir1982 (Jul 21, 2013)

Just had a baby girl so gonna have to start taking more pics, what would be a good entry level camera for under like 2500?


----------



## concepts88 (Oct 4, 2012)

2500 is not entry level. Buy a decent camera with the controls you need and the spend your money on good quality fast lenses. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mjolnir1982 (Jul 21, 2013)

Well I know it isn't truly "entry level" but I firmly believe you get what you pay for. Plus I want good lenses. How is Nikon for cameras? Cameras aren't really my field of knowledge unless it's more the P and S form.


----------



## concepts88 (Oct 4, 2012)

You should play with both Nikon and canon in the store. I find the Nikon cameras have a better quality feel to them than canon. Canon is more cheaper plastic. Controls are a bit weird also on the canon, ask the sale person how to change. Settings quickly via dials and then make your choice. Nikon is better for portrait and landscape and fishes? Canon is better for fast moving shooting such as sports. You should also read up on lenses as both companies offer unique lenses in some categories the other does not. If you are not planning to shoot sports and do not need the frame rate the d800 is a fantastic camera. Some lower end cameras will not have controls for quick adjustments, and as you get better you will look for that. You should also look for a 100 percent viewfinder so what you see in the viewfinder is what you will get. Since i believe you may be shooting plants and fishes, this may be important. Full frame cameras also let on more light but the lenses are generally more expensive. 

But the worse thing you can do is set a budget. Spent almost all of it on a body and then have nothing left over for good glass. There is only so much you can do with kit lenses, the lens that comes in a kit. Nice pictures are possible, but you will be hampered in low light situations, when you want to blow out a background to isolate your subject and other things you can do only with good glass. Go to the store and play, once you commit to a brand, its very expensive to switch to another. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mjolnir1982 (Jul 21, 2013)

Well I love Canon for P and S cameras but I will look into the Nikons. I haven't had or used a Nikon in the P and S format only because I believe they are just charging to much for that format. I mean some of their cameras can be as much a DSLR from other companies. CRAZY I TELL YA CRAZY!!!


----------



## plantbrain (Dec 15, 2003)

I hate lugging the DSLR around myself, but still use it for some things, but 90-%, I use a G12 Canon. Small but decent enough to do most things out and about. Traveling is a PITA with 3-6K$ worth of equipment. So unless I'm sure I need a good pic and the DSLR is able to do it well, I do not bother.


----------



## concepts88 (Oct 4, 2012)

Forget nikon and canon for p and shoot. I shoot nikon on dslr but my carry around is now a Sony rx100 with a 1.8 lens. I has spot focus and two adjustment dials for manual mode which makes it perfect for prosumers like me. This camera is simply amazing for a point and shoot. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mjolnir1982 (Jul 21, 2013)

Real never looked at Sony. The wife has a nice Sony P and S but never really used it. I bet it takes really good pics. I always use my Canon to take pics right now but the battery is finally going and I really don't want to spend the money on the battery for a 5 year old camera.


----------



## mr.bigglesworth (Jul 6, 2012)

800$+?!! Where do you get your numbers?!

I paid 50$ for my 2007 DSLR new-in-the-box off Ebay with 2 quality lenses also NIB
Cannon EOS 400D


----------



## mr.bigglesworth (Jul 6, 2012)

WheeledGoat said:


> If only they made snap-on wide angle lenses for the phone... lmao


They do 
Amazon.com: FOM Telescope 8X Zoom Telephoto Long Focal Camera Lens Tripod for iPhone 4 4S - White: Cell Phones & Accessories

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------

