Any people who have low mileage with their equipment?

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by RaymondC, Dec 31, 2017.

  1. In the film days I was happy with 1 roll per day when I was traveling. With digital not much have changed, well maybe 30-50 max images per day, sometimes even just 20, if I am at home maybe a bit less than that. Granted I don't do wildlife, sports etc ... With friends and family like Christmas function etc like with a group of 80 people .. I might fire out maybe 50 on that 2hr session but that's about it. I usually do some group shots but seldom do individual or few people together because many don't want a camera pointed at them. If they do it's just shared on social media and never a print. Something they just glance over in seconds.

    Over time with my own stuff I have also taken less because even if there are no film/lab costs many of the images just sit on my hard drive and never gets reviewed.

    For eg, I have a Nikon D70 from 2004 with 14,000 shutter count. My newer D600 from 2014 is 11,000.

    Last edited: Dec 31, 2017
  2. Yes, too bad. The plentifora of digital shots is a desease. It supports only hard disk sellers. My way is the same as in film shooting (still much). In digital I keep only acceptable photos and often print them, mostly to 4x6 size. I deliver them to my targets and get many thanks. Still nice touch to photography as a hobby, not as accomplishing something with volume.
  3. I used to shoot a lot of film and usually know if a shot is right when I push the button. In spite of vacations, events and some commercial product work, my D200, that I bought new and is the only camera I use, is at about 8600.
  4. My two-year-old Pentax K-3 is at about 8700. To be fair, it gets used along with assorted film cameras and is mostly used for shots I want in color.
  5. i know it is heretical to say. But digital cameras are not something to get too involved in. I understand them only enough to use them. And I use them as a utility to help me in communicating and in preserving memories. Since there is no real cost as in film and no delay they are a pleasant adjunct to the day to day. And to communicate with far off family. If the snapshot is king, why not just fire away. But instinct says that there are good shots and ones to erase. Think of it like long distance phoning. I can remember when ma would shout " Hey, cut it short, that is long distance. " Now who gives a flip. So we call to say what are you having for dinner there in Boston. Warm enough for you. The coinage has gotten demonetized and that has a price some of us realize. So I bought a Waterman ink pen but I have not really used it. I am a victim too :)
  6. Tony Parsons

    Tony Parsons Norfolk and Good

    I've had my Pentax K20D about 3 1/2 years, just over 9000 shots with it. Some days 2 or 3, some over 500, depending on subject matter.
    Landrum Kelly likes this.
  7. I've had my Tachihara 810HD for 37 years and have put a lot of film through it - about 1500 sheets.
  8. Depends what you are doing, and how active you are.
    I am helping the local high school yearbook, and I have shot more in the last few months than I ever did with my D70 (from purchase to its death).
    Were I not doing that, I likely would shoot about 100 shots in a month. I just don't get out to shoot, as much as I should.
  9. I still have the old Pentax ME that I bought just out of high school. I chose Pentax back then because the tiny size and quiet shutter appealed to me.
    Never could afford extra lenses back then but I shot a lot of film compared to my friends. I have a picture of a birthday cake somewhere friends made for me with the inscription "Put the Camera Down".
    My first digital was an Olympus stylus point and shoot that I used mostly for documentation at work.
    Having put the Pentax aside except for travel and special occasions for many years , I enjoyed a renewed interest buying new old stock film bodies and SMC manual lenses on eBay when digital began to take off. Then the bottom seemed to drop out of film.
    Not wanting to ditch the old Pentax glass I had accumulated, I was encouraged to get a compatible Pentax K30 which remains my only digital SLR. Still don't have an autofocus lens for it.
    Digital, though of great utility, has never had the appeal of film for me.
    In fact, I recently bought pristine, "new" Nikons, FM2n, and F3.
    I noticed files filling up with useless repetition due to file transfer from cheap, quick, and easy spray and pray photo bracketing. The computer was dominating the camera. Now I'm enjoying pushing my hobby back toward the camera and less toward the computer.
    But I don't make my living with photos.

    As for the Waterman, get a Rhodia Journal and start enjoying the bottled ink! ;)
    m42dave and jt99|1 like this.
  10. I shoot with digital. I'm involved in making pictures and don't think of myself as being involved in digital cameras. I experience delay, even though I have my handy dandy preview screen on the back of my camera and can process photos relatively quickly at times. The preview screen gives me a glimpse, nothing more, so I don't rely on it beyond its usefulness to me.

    The delay has to do with why I don't discard my files and have extra drives full of photos and backups. Because my vision, abilities, understanding, and appreciation keep changing. So what speaks to me today may not have spoken to me 7 years ago when I shot it. I've come across many shots I might well have discarded back then that I now consider gems. Gerry, I had a similar inclination to you at first about getting rid of what seemed like trash. But allowing some time, patience, and honing an ability to revisit and rethink old images have been good companions to my instincts. I'm just glad I saved all those files. The drives don't cost that much or take up that much room.


    Most of my photo involvement is with seeing, expressing, creating, sharing, enjoying and the actual pictures. I see those things being fulfilled with both film and digital all the time, with all price points and quality of gear, and through a range of genres, styles, subject matters, and mediums.
  11. Further to what Fred has said about discarding images, if I'd deleted all my so so pics back in the day what would I post on NW.
    Storage has never been so cheap, so don't be to hasty with the delete option. A lot of gem images are just waiting for an outlet.
    Dieter Schaefer likes this.
  12. SCL


    I shoot film when I want to have fun, and then only B&W, although I still have some slide film in the freezer. Otherwise, (probably 90% of the time) I shoot digital, to experiment, to shoot local wildlife and nature, my cats, and rarely - family (they are mostly camera shy). Even with "essentially free" digital, I rarely shoot more than 200 shots/month. Film is more like 36-72/month.
  13. Hi All,
    I use a Nikon D300 bought used from keh I think with about 13000 when bought and have added maybe 5000 to that. For street I carry a X10 or x30 and shoot in color then convert usually to Black and White.

    Take care and have a good new year
  14. Personally, I think that the No Words forum is the answer for all those images sitting unused on your hard drive.

    I think that the low cost per image feature of digital is super great. When I go back over my slides of earlier travel, I am always saddened by being reminded of the shots I didn't take because of the expense of film and a general reluctance to over-shoot.

    You can always throw away images if you want, but you can never replace the ones you never took.
  15. I also shoot pretty much the same way I shot during film days. There is a cost to digital and that is time in front of the computer. I don't want to have to go through 10,000 images to find 5 that I like. My goal is to shoot 5 if I want to have 5. However, I'm not that good and so, I wind up shooting about 20 - 30 to get the five I want.

    Sometimes I watch Youtube videos of the various metrosexual people showing off their overpriced equipment and I see them do an outdoor family shoot and they're firing their cameras like machine guns. I don't get that. You'll have to go through 5 or 6 images that are essentially the same. You can see what you're shooting before you press the button, so you pretty much know how good it's going to be. If you're not sure, take two, but to fire off a burst... not my thing.
  16. My 4 year old Nikon Df has about 4000.
  17. I don't shoot in bursts either. But I get why people do it. Expressions change by the microsecond. Especially when you're photographing a group, the more shots you take, the more likely you're going to get something where everyone looks OK all at once. It's sometimes just an odds game. Again, not my thing, but I get why people shoot differently from me.
    Hmmm? Would it make a difference if they were handsome cowboys or unkempt guys from the inner city?
    Not sure I'd spend time in front of the computer watching metrosexuals strut their equipment. Frankly, I'd prefer going through a few more of my own images to find the keepers. :)
  18. Well the human expressions change on a time scale of maybe 100 milliseconds (not micro which is one millionth). Even though I believe it is possible to anticipate changes in human expressions by observing what is happening just before, and knowledge of the subjects’ personalities, it is hard to predict eye blinks so getting at least a few shots is a good idea if you want to capture natural expressions with eyelids open. But I do agree that using burst often results in tons of shots which are nearly the same, and they have to be evaluated and the good shots selected, which can be a very time-consuming process (since if you have several people in the images the best combination of expressions can be challenging to evaluate).

    When possible I use single shots and try to time them as well as possible. In some situations I use burst because I anticipate evolution of expressions at such a pace that I wouldn’t be able to keep up and make concious decisions. However the quantity of data that results from routine use of burst is overwhelming so I avoid it where I can.
  19. Tony Parsons

    Tony Parsons Norfolk and Good

    I know a few wildlife photographers, who are often 'firing their cameras like machine guns', as wildlife is not only unpredictable but constantly on the move. Horses for courses, I suppose.
  20. The argument of time spent in front of the computer as cost, compared to the cost of film, makes absolutely no sense at all. Developing and scanning a single roll of film costs me more time than culling and editing 100s of raw files. If you'd print instead of scan, you still need time to review your negatives and do the actual printing. So, I really don't see the vast amount of time I'd be saving shooting film only.

    There is a lot of grey area between "machine gunning all the time" and rigorous shooting as if every single shot costs a lot of money. When I shoot film, I find myself often too held back by the idea of cost to try something a bit different and potentially more creative - choosing the safe option instead. When I shoot digital, I find myself making more photos than really needed - but JDM nailed it about: you can always throw images away, but you cannot replace those you didn't take. Plus, I learnt more from making a load of stupid mistakes because I did feel compelled to try different things than I did from choosing the safe option.

Share This Page