Forgot your password?

Current favorite still-image camera type:

Displaying poll results.
Film camera (35mm or smaller film)
  801 votes / 4%
Film camera (film > 35mm)
  570 votes / 3%
Fixed-lens digicam of some kind
  1869 votes / 11%
Digital SLR in conventional 35mm size
  6555 votes / 38%
Micro 4/3,Q, or other newfangled mount
  978 votes / 5%
Whatever came with the phone
  4251 votes / 25%
I [am indifferent toward/hate] them all equally
  1473 votes / 8%
Other; I'll explain my favorite below
  334 votes / 1%
16831 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Current favorite still-image camera type:

Comments Filter:
  • I hate them all. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SoupIsGood Food (1179) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @04:58PM (#42755005)

    I hate them all.

    - Full frame DSLR bodies are ludicrously expensive.
    - All the glass worth owning is designed for full-frame - smaller DSLR formats get slow and/or soft zooms and a smattering of primes in useful focal lengths at useful speeds. Non-full frame DSLR owners are a despised afterthought, despite driving most of the profit.
    - All of the mirrorless systems with great glass at good prices have crummy bodies.
    - All of the mirrorless systems with great bodies have overpriced/slow/crummy/all-of-the-above glass.
    - Modern primes are stupidly overpriced. Adjusted for inflation, N/C/S/P lenses with mediocre quality are pricier than equivalent Leica or Carl Zeiss lenses sold in the '90s.
    - Ditto flash units.

    I sold my Contax kit, I'm ready to take the plunge after sitting on the sidelines for a while - Fuji XE-1 with the kit zoom looks like the (reluctantly chosen) winner. It takes gorgeous photos, the zoom is sharp, contrasty and fast, the other lenses in the system are superb and (for primes) reasonably priced, the old-skewl controls make me feel at home - I just need to put up with craptacular EXF and The Worst Autofocus in Scotland.

  • Light field camera (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 31, 2013 @05:22PM (#42755289)

    http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/03/10/0113202

  • Re:DSLR... sorta (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pswPhD (1528411) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @05:58PM (#42755715) Homepage

    I actually find the opposite.
    Having a half decent DSLR around my neck means I actually use the thing to take pictures. The camera on my phone is rubbish and so it stays in my pocket most of the time.

  • Re:Canon A720IS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rwa2 (4391) * on Thursday January 31, 2013 @08:08PM (#42757011) Homepage Journal

    Plus the excellent chdk firmware to open up features like raw mode and extra-long exposures and all kinds of other neat stuff usually found on high-end cameras.

    Not to mention the underwater case ( Canon WP-DC16 ) that is (was?) available for it at a fraction of the price of other cameras and gives you full functionality and a lot more portability into harsh environments.

    I recently picked up a used Canon T2i, but it actually doesn't seem to take substantially better pictures than what I could capture with my A720IS. I'll still be getting plenty of mileage out of that Point and Shoot.

  • by war4peace (1628283) on Thursday January 31, 2013 @08:31PM (#42757179)

    I picked "other" for the same reason. I have a rather morally old Canon S5 IS, which is neither a DSLR nor a pocket camera. It's what was called a "bridge" camera at the time. It does have a body, you can put a limited number of accessories on it, but it's not a DSLR.

  • by war4peace (1628283) on Friday February 01, 2013 @01:47AM (#42758583)

    It's an adaptation from my native language. It means something that still works perfectly, just no longer fits in the definition of being useful much. Like a 486DX in the world of i7.
    Sorry about the confusion I created :)

  • Re:Phone (Score:4, Interesting)

    by History's Coming To (1059484) on Friday February 01, 2013 @08:28AM (#42759821) Journal
    Favourite? That's the time I turned my bedroom into a camera obscura to watch the transit of Venus. Certainly not my "most used" or even a "slightly practical" camera however. (You can't beat it on etymological veracity though.)
  • by flyneye (84093) on Friday February 01, 2013 @09:04AM (#42759983) Homepage

    Compared to film even the most expensive 35 mm size digital is pretty damn sorry, right up to offerings by 'blad.
    Gone are the cool tricks of photography like 3 color sliders and bulb settings, f stops and other things that made art happen at the camera level.
    Digital has a long way to go to be cool.
    On the other hand, I recall an article, maybe a year or two ago where some geek made a view camera with a flatbed scanner for a back.
    THERE are the missing pixels that todays digital cameras lack. The slow speed of scanning even lent a cool bulb-setting-like trick, while the fact that it was a view camera made it possible to use readily available (now)cheap lenses from the old days of film cameras. Not very portable, but then view cams never were.

A CONS is an object which cares. -- Bernie Greenberg.

 



Forgot your password?
Working...