Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: The best/your favorite shot taken with the worst/cheapest/dumbest camera  (Read 4796 times)

Mjollnir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547

I've only been interested and active in photography for about two years, and don't have that much experience, hands on in the field, with that many cameras, and have gone from a dearly loved (but quite stupid) Lumix FS7 to an LX5 to Canon 7d and maybe a GH2 or G3 in my future.  That said, I truly believe that in photography, having been all too often now at sites where high-dollar equipment and down-the-nose looks seem to go hand in hand, it's far, far more the driver than it is the car, so to speak.

I'm curious:  given the cheapest/lowest quality/simplest camera that you have postable photos from, what are the shots you've taken with this gear that are nearest and dearest to your heart, that really show off your photography.  IOW, what you were trying to portray really came through in the pic, regardless of or despite the limitations of your camera.

I'll start.  All of these taken with the aforementioned FS7.  Very interested to see what people come up with.

Two piers in fog, Avila Beach, CA.



The road to South Lake, Bishop Canyon, SW (and way above) of Bishop, CA.



Somewhere in Upper Antelope



Mods:  if this thread is better suited to a different forum, please move it.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2011, 12:36:08 pm by Mjollnir »
Logged

Justan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1928
    • Justan-Elk.com

All 3 are good but the 2nd one is a standout.

tq-g

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 42

Really nice shots, especially the second one. But I bet anyone can take great shots with fancy equipment like that.

Just kidding. :D

I don't have many shots taken with bad cameras, but these two were shot with a HTC Legend. Not great, but the conditions were lovely one eveing when I was walking home so I had to try to shoot something with my phone. A shame I didnt have a proper camera with me though.
Logged

Mjollnir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547

Really nice shots, especially the second one. But I bet anyone can take great shots with fancy equipment like that.

Just kidding. :D

I don't have many shots taken with bad cameras, but these two were shot with a HTC Legend. Not great, but the conditions were lovely one eveing when I was walking home so I had to try to shoot something with my phone. A shame I didnt have a proper camera with me though.

I am constantly amazed at what cellphone cameras are capable of.  Well done.

I've seen some shots someone took from the top of Mt. Whitney with an iPhone that I never would have guessed were from a phone if I hadn't have looked.
Logged

Lisa Nikodym

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1705
    • http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lisa_pictures/lisa_pictures.html

Quote
I am constantly amazed at what cellphone cameras are capable of.  Well done.

I've seen some shots someone took from the top of Mt. Whitney with an iPhone that I never would have guessed were from a phone if I hadn't have looked.

On the other hand, just about every indoor photo of moving subjects (people and pets) I've seen from cell phone cameras has been utterly horrible.  Motion blur, camera shake blur, excessive blooming, poor brightness and/or contrast, weird color shifts, etc. etc.  Outdoor landscape shots that are adequate are pretty easy with even cell phone cameras, but in light conditions that are less than optimal you need something better.

If you want to see my favorite photo taken with a cheap camera, look here:
http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lisa_pictures/large_jpg/Southwest/GrandCanyon2.html
Taken from the north rim of the Grand Canyon at sunset with drifting thunderstorms, taken with a Kodak Instamatic point-and-click and whatever cheap negative film was in the hotel gift shop, back before I knew how to work a camera any more than just pointing and clicking.

Lisa
Logged
[url=http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lis

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22813
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com

Lisa,

With a great camera like that, why'd you ever bother switching to digital?   ;)

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Lisa Nikodym

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1705
    • http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lisa_pictures/lisa_pictures.html

Quote
Lisa,

With a great camera like that, why'd you ever bother switching to digital?   

Eric

Good reason:  It was borrowed from my dad!  ;D
(Hi Eric!)

Lisa
Logged
[url=http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lis

Mjollnir

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 547

On the other hand, just about every indoor photo of moving subjects (people and pets) I've seen from cell phone cameras has been utterly horrible.  Motion blur, camera shake blur, excessive blooming, poor brightness and/or contrast, weird color shifts, etc. etc.  Outdoor landscape shots that are adequate are pretty easy with even cell phone cameras, but in light conditions that are less than optimal you need something better.

If you want to see my favorite photo taken with a cheap camera, look here:
http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lisa_pictures/large_jpg/Southwest/GrandCanyon2.html
Taken from the north rim of the Grand Canyon at sunset with drifting thunderstorms, taken with a Kodak Instamatic point-and-click and whatever cheap negative film was in the hotel gift shop, back before I knew how to work a camera any more than just pointing and clicking.

Lisa


Ha!  That's great color reproduction from such a wee little filmy camera!
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up