Photography. My passion and, from now on, my tragedy. . . (Cash hints accepted)

[Sir Big Jugs]

It is a sad day today Gentlemen.

Finally, after many years of active service, my digital camera died.

But lets not hurry things. I'll start from the beginning. . .

My passion for photography has slowly been on the rise. It all started when I was 6, and I got my first camera. It was a Minolta 35mm standard, very cheap camera. I had "earned" it for learning how to both multiply and divide within a week. It was a gift from my mother.

Well, I slowly started to take pictures of things I found interesting. By the time I was nine my mother was beginning to drown in all the bills from the film and the processing of the films. So. . .

On the First of March 2003, on my tenth birthday, I received my first digital camera.
It was a Fujifilm Finepix 2300 2.1mp camera, complete crap, VERY cheap, but back then I was thrilled. It came with a USB cable, a 64mb SmartMedia memory card and 4 AA batteries.

I took pictures of everything I saw. It didn't have any dials like exposure or ISO, so I used AUTO mode all the time. I didn't know what a tripod or telelens was back then. . .

Well, to make a long story short, I used the camera a lot. In the summer of 2004 though, it died. Damaged by a leaking package of milk I was carrying in my bag, it didn't stand a chance.

On Ebay, we soon found another one, which I quickly acquired. It cost $23 with shipping from USA to Finland, and as the memory card had survived undamaged, I had another crap camera. But I was satisfied.

In April 2005 my camera fell to the floor, and disintegrated.

I owned about 100€ then, and my mother decided to pay half the money for a new camera.

We found it. for 199.90€ there was the absolutely last example of the Canon Powershot A75 for sale in our local shop. I bought it.

Later I also bought a 256 mb CF memory card to accompany it.

I took better care of this camera than of the last two. Using camera bags exclusevly, cleaning the lense with appropriate material and handling it with all the care I could. I soon noticed that it was good for indoor photography, and as one thing lead to the other I soon purchased a tripod. Cheap one, but working. I started becoming more and more interested in more advanced photography, and within short I found myself experimenting with all kinds of different exposure, focal width and other settings. I loved that camera. A lot.

Well, it finally happened today. Altough of the extensive care, it simply stopped working. It had been getting worse for a month or so, slowing down and sometimes not responding, but today it was dead.

Completely.

The last images taken with it, were, ironically, just the ones I posted here. The ones of the interior and exterior views of the submarine Vesikko.

(Available here btw:)
http://brewsterpilot.googlepages.com/home

So, now I'm screwed. I have no working camera, and my economy is at 130€.
With an income of 286€ a year, it's gonna take a long time for me to reach 1100€, the amount needed for a Canon EOS 350D/Digital Rebel XT (USA) special pack, including (also included in basic pack in bold)

1. The camera frame.
2. An EF-S 18-55mm included in the basic pack zoom objective,
3. An EF 55-200mm special zoom objective only included in this special pack
4. A BG-E3 Battery HandGrip for the camera, with extra battery possibility.
5. A NB-2LH lithium battery.
6. A CB-2LT charger.
7. An elbow strap.
8. The USB and A/V cables.
and
9. The included CD's.

All this for 1098€!

The basic pack would cost: 730€
The 55-200mm zoom would cost: 330€
The battery grip would cost: 130€

I save 90€ by buying it as a pack. Little to you, much to me. . .

BUT. . .

Adding the 4GB CF card and a convenient camera bag this lot will add another 230€ to this figure.

1330€. Quite shocking.

That means four more years of saving.

Four years without a camera.:damn::damn::damn:

Any idea of how to speed this process up a little?

Any saving or earning tips appreciated!

P.S. I'm too young to work yet.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Brewster


Anyway, a few pics:
http://img.clubic.com/photo/00028532.jpg
FujiFilm FinePix 2300

http://img.clubic.com/photo/00075630.jpg
Canon Powershot A75

[Sir Big Jugs]

Links to Canon EOS 350D/Digital Rebel XT:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eosdigital2/index.html

[Sir Big Jugs]

If you like I'll post some more pictures taken with the PS A75.

Just ask!:ping:

[Sir Big Jugs]

Btw. Some people will wonder, why did I start this thread?

Well. . .

Uhm. . .

Truth is, I dont know either!

Just wanted to mention it.:-?

It's purpose is NOT by any mean to beg money of anyone- just as I read through it I noticed it's written in a bit that kind of way; I'm sorry. To repeat:

I AM NOT WANTING OR BEGGING MONEY OF ANYONE HERE AT ALL!!!

[Onkel Neal]

You've had better cameras than me, I'm using one that was given to me.

[WutWuzDat]

let me get this straight... your 13? Not that I have a problem with it, I joined my first online forum at 13.

[Gizzmoe]

let me get this straight... your 13? Not that I have a problem with it, I joined my first online forum at 13.
He´s 15. He either got the dates wrong or he lied earlier this year when he said he was 15... :)

Any idea of how to speed this process up a little?
Mow lawns or something to get some money.

[Takeda Shingen]

Or, become a real photographer and go with 35 mm. Canon has a great line of film cameras that are, due to the digital craze, very reasonably priced, and are actually vastly superior cameras.

Long live film.

[WutWuzDat]

Or, become a real photographer and go with 35 mm. Canon has a great line of film cameras that are, due to the digital craze, very reasonably priced, and are actually vastly superior cameras.

Long live film.

But isn't that a bit more expiensive in the long run? Film, developing... bad shots could end up costing you a lot. With digital you just hit delete. Plus you can show them on the back of your camera, or d/l them to your laptop and show them to the world.

You can also take short video clips now-a days too. I've heard that some of the higher priced digtal ones can take photos better than the 35mms

Man, I need a new camera, lol

[Sir Big Jugs]

Man, I need a new camera!

Welcome to the club m8!:p

[Takeda Shingen]

But isn't that a bit more expiensive in the long run? Film, developing... bad shots could end up costing you a lot. With digital you just hit delete. Plus you can show them on the back of your camera, or d/l them to your laptop and show them to the world.

You can also take short video clips now-a days too. I've heard that some of the higher priced digtal ones can take photos better than the 35mms

Man, I need a new camera, lol

Expensive, but much higher quality. Digital, regardless of the number of megapixels, creates a pixel-by-pixel digital imprint of the subject. The spaces between the pixels are filled by erronious color, just like white noise is used via digital recording. In that sense, megapixel count is exactly like the sampling rate on a digital recording device. The higher the count, the greater the quality, but you will never have the true image fidelity due to the filler used.

Film captures the actual image via light, which actually burns the image onto the film. It is exactly like analog recording, which captures the actual sound wave on the tape, not a digital representation of the wave along preset sampling points.

It is true that digital cameras will show you what your picture looks like instantly. It is also less expensive to print the photographs, but you sacrifice quality for convenience.

[August]

Expensive, but much higher quality. Digital, regardless of the number of megapixels, creates a pixel-by-pixel digital imprint of the subject. The spaces between the pixels are filled by erronious color, just like white noise is used via digital recording. In that sense, megapixel count is exactly like the sampling rate on a digital recording device. The higher the count, the greater the quality, but you will never have the true image fidelity due to the filler used.

What spaces between the pixels? Never heard of that before.

[Takeda Shingen]

'Spacing' is bad terminology on my part, but I was trying to draw an analogy to recording. Essentially, the more pixels you have, the less 'area' each has to cover, and the greater the clarity and color vibrance you will have. You end up with a larger image, or an image that will retain fidelity when enlarged.

[Camaero]

It depends what kind of quality you are after. I will post a few pictures I shot with a Sony Cyber Shot 2.1 Mega Pixels. It is pretty old but the quality, I don't think, is too bad. I don't need anything more for my personal use.

(These are fairly large pictures so 56kers beware!)

http://www.sntr2.com/JPI/the%20sand%20pump/DSC00024.JPG

http://www.sntr2.com/JPI/the%20sand%20pump/DSC00003.JPG

http://sntr2.com/JPI/roc%20cruise/DSC00001.jpg

I also have an older 35mm camera. There is no comparision for action shots. It freezes the paddle tires perfectly when the sand pump is flying by. Stationary shots are a little better... but I don't think THAT much. I am perfectly happy with the quality of the Sony.

So just how serious about photography are you?:cool:

Oh and I guess I should mention that the studly guy in the dune buggy is me.:rotfl:

[Skybird]

That Powershot A75 on the pic I use myself. Recommendable. 3.2 pixels does not sound much, but for eventually printing pics up to 30x20cm, I cannot complain. With a good printer, results are very good. I use a Canon iP5200.

I am still crying for not using my old EOS 600 anymore. I really should, it is a wonderful piece of photo equipment.

Damn, one gets old.

[Takeda Shingen]

So just how serious about photography are you?:cool:

I am a freelance photojournalist who has had work printed in both The Economist and New Yorker magazines. Also, if you are interested, I have information about purchasing a bridge in Brooklyn.

For me, photography is a hobby. As I said in the other photography thread, I primarily shoot objects in various degrees of shadow, and mostly with Tri-X 35 mm. I develop my own film and enlarge my own prints. You cannot produce true black-and-white photographs with digital, and you never will, which is why I am disdainful of the medium. As I had previously stated, I do own a Powershot A530, but it is, at best, a secondary camera, best used in settings when a quick set-up is required. It is convenient, but lacks the warmth and texture of film.

[Takeda Shingen]

"Pooped from Posting". That's a new one.

[Wim Libaers]

'Spacing' is bad terminology on my part, but I was trying to draw an analogy to recording. Essentially, the more pixels you have, the less 'area' each has to cover, and the greater the clarity and color vibrance you will have. You end up with a larger image, or an image that will retain fidelity when enlarged.

There really is space between the pixels, and it can have an effect, just like the regular grid locations of those pixels can cause aliasing effects that you will not get on film. Now, film doesn't have infinite resolution, it also has a certain grain size which can become quite noticeable on high ISO film. but those grains are randomly distributed, which avoids some of the typical digital effects. Also, on colour film, the colours overlap. In typical CCD's, they are side by side, reducing the area sensitive to each colour.

High megapixel values are good, yes, but for the same sensor size and technology level they lower the dynamic range. Depending on light conditions, you might want to just downsample the high resolution image afterwards to reduce noise.

Oh, and it certainly is possible to do black and white photography with digital cameras. In fact, some of the best performing CCD sensors are monochrome. However, this is for scientific equipment, and I do not know of affordable general use cameras with such sensors. There's stuff available for attaching to telescopes though, including some for the amateur market.

[Takeda Shingen]

Oh, and it certainly is possible to do black and white photography with digital cameras. In fact, some of the best performing CCD sensors are monochrome. However, this is for scientific equipment, and I do not know of affordable general use cameras with such sensors. There's stuff available for attaching to telescopes though, including some for the amateur market.

Well, no. You describe a monochromatic photograph. This is not the same. True black and white photographs are given their sharp contrast due to the chemical reaction of the silver salts, which are converted to liquid silver, and re-convered to the crystals via it's reaction with chlorine. Therefore, you are not recieving the same type of optical density with a digital camera, regardless of how expensive it is, as you have no chemical reaction in the development process. Thus, it is close, but not the same thing.

[Wim Libaers]

The sharpness is not due to the chemical reaction (that's just a technical detail of the procedure), but due to the small size of those crystals. With bigger crystals (as in fast films), you'll lose some resolution, just like you lose some in low-megapixel cameras.

Given a correct choice of film for the conditions, it will beat digital cameras, but its resolution is not unlimited.

[SubSerpent]

You could always change your passion. Why not be a video game collector instead? You have enough money right now to buy a few right?


Actually, if photography is your thing, why not do that to make some money? Go buy a cheap camera with a decent pixel rate and take pictures of things and try to sell them off to people that might be interested in your art and style. Create a website and use that as one of your store fronts. Add links on everything you post to solicate people to go to your site and buy. Be reasonable with prices and don't give up if you don't start making money right away. It may take awhile for word of mouth to spread. On the side try doing a few odd jobs to help with your income (mowing lawns, raking leaves, cleaning houses, babysitting, etc.) Take up on every offer you can to make a dollar. Try seeing if a local grocery store will allow you to bag groceries for tip money that you can use as a charity. You might make enough in a few days of doing that to buy a new camera.

Right now is the perfect time for you to make money. You still have the support of your parents and you don't owe anybody anything (car payments, house payments, utility payments, property taxes, etc.).

[Takeda Shingen]

The sharpness is not due to the chemical reaction (that's just a technical detail of the procedure), but due to the small size of those crystals. With bigger crystals (as in fast films), you'll lose some resolution, just like you lose some in low-megapixel cameras.

Given a correct choice of film for the conditions, it will beat digital cameras, but its resolution is not unlimited.

Great black and white photography retains a bit of 'grainyness'. One of the great problems with digital monochromatic photographs is that they are too sharp, which gives the photographs an almost unnatural appearance. Despite it's grain, the film does posses a richness of color.