I realized after
checking disk space on my server that I have taken a LOT of
photos over the years. Of course, the next question is
"how many?". That as it turns out was harder to determine
as it required some shell scripts (and later python) to unravel
that mystery. The summary answer is as of 20160228, the
number is about 115,000 plus or minus a few. And, of
course, since a photo library is a "living thing" it changes
daily. Upon seeing the summary, and given that I have had
many cameras over the years, the next questions were "How many
cameras?", "How many photos per camera per year?". "when did I
get that camera again?".
To answer these and
other questions, some Python code was needed. Even though
I am quite careful about maintaining a "clean" directory
structure, things happen over time. For instance, some
photos were chemical and not scanned until 2006 so the metadata
is from the scanner, not the photo or camera. In some
cases the metadata is missing, wrong or unreliable. But,
to gain access to the photo metadata (which usually includes
tidbits like camera make, model, date digitized and in some
cases the lens model other parameters) you have to crack open
the image file itself. This, in and of itself, is not that
big a deal, but the file formats vary and reinventing that wheel
was both a waste of time and effort. Some code hacking and
3 downloaded EXIF libraries later, the answer was within my
grasp (I finally settled on Python "exifread"). A slippery
data structure was required to account for all the information
and there were over 220K files to be scanned so testing was
burdensome and time-consuming. But, I prevailed. It
was necessary to "prune" the data structure of elements that I
knew to be "foreign" (photos were given to me by someone else or
came from a scanner). Once the foreign files were pruned,
the results were tabulated.
The table below shows
the vetted results as of 20201030. For the "chemical"
photos that were literally stored in a shoe box, the counts are
uncertain. Those photos have been scanned and the original
photo thrown away. Scanned photos acquired metadata from
the scanner itself, so the dates associated with those files are
inconsistent with the date the photo was taken.
Camera Brand |
Model |
Style |
Type and Frame Size
(vs. 35mm film) |
Resolution |
Ownership Start
Year |
Ownership End Year |
Total Photos as of 20201030 |
Canon |
AE-1 |
SLR |
Film, Full |
Chemical |
1975 |
1990 |
Hundreds |
Nikon |
N-90 |
SLR |
Film, Full |
Chemical |
1990 |
1999 |
Many hundreds |
Nikon |
E-900 |
Hybrid |
Digital, 2/3" |
1.2
MP |
1999 |
1999 |
691 |
E-950 |
Hybrid |
Digital, 2/3" |
1.9
MP |
1999 |
2002 |
5,196 |
|
D-1 |
DSLR |
Digital, APS-C |
2
MP |
1999 |
2004 |
8,708 |
|
E-990 |
Hybrid |
Digital, 2/3" |
3.3
MP |
2001 |
2003 |
5177 |
|
E-995 |
Hybrid |
Digital, 2/3" |
3.3
MP |
2002 |
2002 |
360 |
|
D-100 |
DSLR |
Digital, APS-C |
6.1
MP |
2003 |
2004 |
2,085 |
|
Canon |
EOS 20D |
DSLR |
Digital, APS-C |
8
MP |
2004 |
2009 |
3,064 |
EOS 1Ds Mark I |
DSLR |
Digital, Full |
12
MP |
2004 |
2005 |
4,263 |
|
EOS 1Ds Mark II |
DSLR |
Digital, Full |
16
MP |
2005 |
2008 |
12,371 |
|
EOS 1Ds Mark III | DLSR |
Digital,
Full |
21
MP |
2007 |
2017 |
32,252 |
|
Leica |
M8 |
Rangefinder |
Digital, APS-C |
12
MP |
2006 |
2019 |
2,893 |
Epson |
RD-1 |
Rangefinder |
Digital, APS-C |
6
MP |
2006 |
Current |
2,370 |
Canon |
G-7 |
Compact |
Digital, 1" |
10
MP |
2006 |
2012 |
2,610 |
Panasonic |
Lumix LX-1 |
Compact |
Digital, 1" |
8.4
MP |
2006 |
2013 |
2,400 |
Pentax |
Optio W-60 |
Waterproof |
Digital, 2/3" |
10
MP |
2009 |
Current |
853 |
Fujifilm |
X-10 |
Compact |
Digital, 2/3" |
12
MP |
2012 |
Current |
1,861 |
Olympus |
EM-5 |
Mirrorless |
Digital, MFT |
16
MP |
2012 |
2016 |
9,969 |
EM-1 |
Mirrorless |
Digital, MFT |
16
MP |
2013 |
2019 |
8,356 |
|
Fujifilm |
X100S |
Rangefinder |
Digital, APS-C |
16
MP |
2013 |
2019 |
805 |
GoPro |
Hero3+ |
Action |
Digital, small |
16
MP |
2014 |
Current |
273 |
Ricoh |
WG-4 GPS |
Action |
Digital, 2/3" |
16
MP |
2014 |
Current |
312 |
Sony |
Alpha 7 Mark 2 |
Mirrorless |
Digital, Full |
24
MP |
2015 |
2019 |
5,955 |
Sony |
Alpha 7R Mark 2 |
Mirrorless |
Digital, Full |
42
MP |
2015 |
2019 |
17,788 |
Sony |
Alpha
7R Mark 3 |
Mirrorless |
Digital,
Full |
42
MP |
2017 |
2019 |
9,067 |
Sony |
Alpha
7R Mark 4 |
Mirrorless |
Digital,
Full |
60
MP |
2019 |
Current |
8077 |
Fujifilm |
X-Pro
2 |
Mirrorless |
Digital,
APS-C |
24
MP |
2017 |
Current |
715 |
Fujifilm |
XH-1 |
Mirrorless |
Digital,
APS-C |
24
MP |
2019 |
Current |
269 |
Fujifilm |
X100V |
Rangefinder |
Digital,
APS-C |
26
MP |
2020 |
Current |
49 |
There are
some interesting observations to be made from this table.
First, in the early years technology changed rapidly and
resulted in "churn" in camera models and makes as I sought the
"best" for my situation. At the root was the "megapixel
race" where each manufacturer was interested in specs-manship
rather than overall utility. Some of the early cameras
took good photos but had essential issues like slow auto-focus,
shutter lag or poor durability (both mechanical and
environmental). Once certain minimum requirements were
met, these cameras became useful tools and they tended to stay
in service for some years. The most "durable" cameras I
have are my rangefinders: Epson and Leica which I purchased in
2006. Both work fine and I have recorded a modest number
of photos from each (~2500).
My most
"used" camera was a professional-grade Canon 1Ds Mark III that
has logged over 32K photos taken in adverse conditions (dust,
rain, etc.) on several continents. To be sure, the camera
did require maintenance several times in it's service since
2007, but given the thrashing it withstood it was
surprising it did not completely fail. It DID wear out the
shutter after 25,000 frames, but dust is harsh on
equipment. I am surprised it lasted THAT long. Our
repeated trips to the deserts of northern Mexico was the bane of
its existence.
The pro
Canon is a great camera and if you want the job done right, it
is a great choice. But, it is a beast: it is
physically big and heavy. The body alone is 4
pounds. My primary lens is another 3.5 pounds and 10"
long. It's size is not subtle for easy transport and in
poor countries a "big kit" like that says "please, rob
me". You have to really WANT to take a picture to drag it
along. But the Canon pro bodies were the only real game in
town for many years that met my robustness requirement.
Now, newer mirrorless technology has supplanted the need for
"big iron" like the 1Ds line. Unless you have some special
requirement with regard to long focal-length, the rangefinders
do a great job: they are small, inconspicuous and take "good" to
"great" photos.
I
purchased the Olympus EM-5 as a "shop camera" in 2012 to take
photos of projects because it was small and light. My
expectations were not high because it was "mirrorless" but found
after some use that the camera took great photos, had great dust
control, was water resistant and had outstanding
in-body image stabilization (IBIS). And, as a plus, I
found out that I could use my manual lenses on the body (with
adapter). I found myself not taking the Canon and started
to rely on the Oly. The biggest gripe was "ergo"
(ergonomics or usability like button placement, etc.). I
anxiously awaited their upgrade and was very, very
pleased. The new model, OM-D EM-1, was all that I had
hoped for except better IQ (image quality). Don't
interpret that statement to mean that the photos are not good --
they are in fact very good. But, given that the camera
format is micro-four-thirds (MFT) there is a physical upper
bound to IQ due to constraints of the size of the imaging chip
itself.
To get
more resolution and better IQ requires either a
physically-bigger imaging chip, more pixels or both. Sony
announced a mirrorless full-frame camera with IBIS. I
purchased the Alpha 7 Mark II and was very pleased with the
improvement in IQ -- it has a full-size imaging chip and 24 MP
in addition to the IBIS. When the follow-on A7RMII was
announced, I got in line. This camera has so much
resolution it shows the limits of the lenses that are
used. In my case, it meant using better lenses (Zeiss,
Voightlander) which gave the best IQ. Both of these lenses
are fully manual, but they do a great job. I evaluated a
series of automatic lenses for use with the A7RMII but could not
find even one that was up to par with the camera. Sony has
announced upgraded lenses to be available in 1Q2016 time
frame. It has been interesting to see the improvement in
the "G Master" lenses over the regular consumer lenses, if
any. Also, just recently announced is a "smart" converter
that allows use of Nikon and Canon lenses on the Sony
body. Sigma, the manufacturer of this adapter, claims that
the unit will also allow PDAF focus modes using non-Sony
lenses. The Sigma adapter did work, but it was a bit slow
on the focus for my tastes.
In the
end, I have tried to keep up with technology's inexorable
march. At some level, this is a "fool's errand" as it
never stops. I did a huge house-cleaning in 2019 and sold
a bunch of bodies and lenses. Now, the current "kit" is
the Sony A7RM4 (60mp) with G-Master glass as the primary
camera and a new Fujifilm X100V with built-in flash as my backup
and "shop" camera. Kathleen chose the Fujiifilm X-Pro 2
and XH-1 as her kit and it continues to serve her well.
This table
will be updated from time to time as I get bored. History
does not change, of course, but the future does if you make it
change.