Hi There guys this is my Son with one of my Cameras(not sold yet) Canon 40D - 70-200 2.8 compo and he is shooting OK with it, he is 9 years old

One of his shots, light level was poor and camera at 3200 ISO

Pete

monty11 said:
Dave, you'd be surprised at the levels that under 10yo-s (the younger the better) are capable of as they are not yet so dumbed down and have more of the primal instincts that we lose as we grow up and what we as photographers try to rediscover again. The only parental involvement (unless the parents are photographers) is getting the camera, as chances are that the youngster can take better pictures than the parents ever will.
Ok, I doubt that having them run around with D3-s is a brilliant idea due to its weight but why not a D3000 or a D5000.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the photos, the composition, and their eye for what makes a photo was brilliant. But then you look at the settings/setup and see £5k worth of kit. All pro cameras, not semi pro, (from the catalogue D300, 30D, 40D, D200, the cheapest is a D80, all with hefty lenses) I know I wouldn't let my kid loose on that. I'd me much
happier handing a kid a D40/60, D3000, eos1000d or something relatively cheap (but still good) like that.
In my head it just doesn't add up, if the parents are photographers, they are likely to have something older for the kid to use, if they aren't, it seems unlikely they're buying their 10 year olds such expensive kit.
Anyway, however they got the kit, they are taking great photos, I can only wish I was that good now, let alone 20 odd years ago.

jbl said:
About the kids with cameras discussion, I'd go with a compact camera first... one with good options that the child can discover, once he understands and uses these options, you upgrade to DSLR.. no point starting with a DSLR, all the pics will be overexposed, underexposed, blurred.

Well with the DSLR, you could start them off on Aperture or Shutter priority, but I don't think that's a smart way to go first.

Composition is easy with a point and shoot though, that's something nice that they can learn when they're little. Just let them have fun with a really cheap camera. Besides, deleting photos is easy and memory is relatively cheap.

About the kids with cameras discussion, I'd go with a compact camera first... one with good options that the child can discover, once he understands and uses these options, you upgrade to DSLR.. no point starting with a DSLR, all the pics will be overexposed, underexposed, blurred.

Dave, you'd be surprised at the levels that under 10yo-s (the younger the better) are capable of as they are not yet so dumbed down and have more of the primal instincts that we lose as we grow up and what we as photographers try to rediscover again. The only parental involvement (unless the parents are photographers) is getting the camera, as chances are that the youngster can take better pictures than the parents ever will.
Ok, I doubt that having them run around with D3-s is a brilliant idea due to its weight but why not a D3000 or a D5000.

Good point, dave. Could they even carry a D3 and one of the bigger lenses?

I went to see the exhibit of this at Bristol museum, the photos were in the strictest sense, awesome. It's a shame it's all tainted with this. But I have my suspicions about all the under 10's running around with their D3's and 1D's etc! You can't help but think there's a certain amount of parental involvement. I think every photo was taken with a Nikon or Canon DSLR except for one cybershot.

oh...wait...never mind, they already ate them and Santa is pissed!

mb said:
Do you see any reindeer?

Santa's there so the Reindeer can't be far

ted2001 said:
Ho Ho Ho...wouldn't the wolves eat the reindeer?

Do you see any reindeer?

Ho Ho Ho...wouldn't the wolves eat the reindeer?

Or course it is real, here is the second one and you can see the honest face of the photographer himself shot at the second lap this happy wolfs are making every single night. Oh wait this looks like Niko behind the bushes!

The photographer has submitted another photo in hopes of winning this year's contest. Although I have my suspicions, the judges seem to think that this time his photo is REAL. :^)

bmxdad said:
And I was going to enter a picture this year of a Black Bear jumping a fence

Pete

LOL

And I was going to enter a picture this year of a Black Bear jumping a fence

Pete

QuadraPixel said:
why not pick a runner up or second place photo for the winner?

That's what I was thinking. Aren't most contest of any kind like that?

Actually I don't really think this is the reason why they didn't declare a new winner :D

Not as good as getting it from the beginning, but better than not getting it at all. It would still taste pretty good to me it I got it.

Well it would then be the Snowflea photo ... women at the market told me that this one was competing for the winner. As there will be no winner, then at the moment the second runners up are all the category winners together.

If you are asking why not ... well how would such a winning award taste? Not quite as well as getting the winning title from the very beginning.

why not pick a runner up or second place photo for the winner?

official, the guy has been disqualified and there's no winner announced this year (2009)

So it's officially official then...

Here's the link to all the previous discussions on that photo.
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1170

Rember this from a few months back?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8470962.stm