Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Top 10 Digital Cameras on Flickr 212

zokiii writes "This list represents the top camera makes and models used to create photos uploaded to Flickr. The list is generated automatically by periodically sampling the EXIF data from the stream of recent uploads." This is actually an incredibly simple idea, but a really useful one when considering a new camera to buy. Score three points for scrapers.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Top 10 Digital Cameras on Flickr

Comments Filter:
  • Stats (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @09:04AM (#16095474) Homepage Journal
    Beautiful use of statistics and just the sort of thing that the Flickr board of directors can take to their marketing meetings. Companies eat this stuff up as it is a real world reflection of specific markets using their products.

    Interestingly, these statistics show that most of these cameras are solidly in the middle "pro-sumer" market and demonstrates that both Canon and Nikon did good when they went after a market that was primed to explode much like the 35mm market did in the late 70s and early 80s. Technology in both cases made it possible to build high quality cameras at affordable prices.

    Of course this means good things for the consumer, but watch out for a new megapixel war much like what we saw with computers and the Mhz war. Of course just like the Mhz war, the MP war is going to be mostly hype as I've seen some damn fine images from 6 or 8 MP cameras that were far above the quality produced by some higher MP count cameras. The secret is going to be the size and quality of the individual imagers on the CCD, the quality of the image management chips (I tend to prefer Canon's DIGIC) and the quality of the lens.

    • Re:Stats (Score:4, Insightful)

      by capt.Hij ( 318203 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @09:17AM (#16095551) Homepage Journal
      Beautiful use of statistics and just the sort of thing...

      They do not say if they are reporting the number of cameras by user or if they go by the number of pictures. For example, if they go by picture they are telling us who uploads the most pictures, if they go by user they are telling us how many cameras are used. They do not discuss the methodology.. They also do not provide numbers nor graphs. It is an awful way to communicate statistics.

      • Re:Stats (Score:5, Informative)

        by Uncle Rummy ( 943608 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @09:29AM (#16095638)
        Actually, they do discuss this, though indirectly. They apparently are counting the number of pictures uploaded:

        Further, you will notice that the D-SLRs dominate the list. Perhaps this is due to the sheer volume that photo enthusiasts (amateur photographers and professionals) upload on their sites, which sometimes serve as their portfolios. They're likely the ones to have Pro accounts, too, which gives them unlimited upload capability. Casual users, on the other hand, might not be uploading so frequently, and would probably have free, limited accounts.
      • Re:Stats (Score:4, Insightful)

        by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @10:21AM (#16095965) Homepage
        They are also doing the (somewhat understandable) mistake of counting the Canon "Rebel XT" and Canon "350D" as two separate models, though the only single difference is the name. Had flickr been popular here in Japan, you'd have found a "Kiss Digital N" on the list as well.

        And it looks a little lazy not to factor in the number of pictures; they have all the data after all.
        • by RDW ( 41497 )
          It's also worth noting that there are very few individual dSLR models currently in use (even counting those badged differently depending on region and minor upgrades like the D70s), but many barely distinguishable short-lived P&S cameras - i.e., the choice in this market is so large and rapidly evolving that any single P&S model may not rank very highly, even if most users shoot this type of camera. I wonder what proportion of flickr users actually shoot dSLRs in general?
        • by Amouth ( 879122 )
          I am wondering why this is news.. i mean realy... did anyone not thing the Rebel TX would be #1

          $ for $ it is the best one out there..
    • by mmusson ( 753678 )

      I've seen some damn fine images from 6 or 8 MP cameras that were far above the quality produced by some higher MP count cameras

      That's because megapixel counts are misleading. You need to square the number of pixels to double the quality of the image. Jumps from 6 to 8 to 10 sound big but are negligible. I'll think about upgrading when the 36-64 megapixel cameras are out.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Also to add to the question of MP count vs Quality is the size of the sensor.

        (Roughly speaking:)

        A larger 6 MP sensor will in general give a better image than a smaller 6 MP sensor.

        Given two sensors that are the same size, the sensor with a larger pixel count has smaller pixels. A smaller pixel gets less light to sample. So at some point more pixels won't get you a better image at a given sensor size.

        Over time the technology is impoving so a sensor of a given size and pixel count can be in general designed b

        • by Amouth ( 879122 )
          Your right some compact cameras have good lenses .. i had a Vivatar - the lens was wonderful on it.. it took pictures i never thought a 2.1 mp camera could. but then it died on me so i got a rebel tx.. spent weeks finding a lens i liked for it.. got a sigma 18-125.. ho so much better.

          the sensor size makes alot of diffrence but when you get to the dSLR's that realy isn't the worrie as all of them have good sensors.. the worrie is the lens... while i like my sigma i some times use a friends canon lens.
      • by rgmoore ( 133276 )

        A bigger problem is that upping the pixel count won't help unless it was the limiting factor in picture quality before. Taking advantage of increased pixel counts requires good lenses and good technique. Even on a 6 MP camera you can easily get pictures where the limiting factor in quality is a bad lens, poor choice of aperture, or inability to control camera shake. Adding pixels in those cases just enlarges the blur. If the problem was camera shake, adding pixels will often make it worse by reducing se

        • Yeah, talking about a megapixel war and Flikr at the same timne invokes some cognitive dissonance. If you are uploading at 800 x 600, you don't need 10 megapixels to get the image - even if you do some heavy cropping.

          I don't think you will see even prosumer cameras much above 10 megapixels. Above that level, cameras become a bit harder to handle because you have to control for camera movement much better and you have to have at least middle of the road lenses to get the full impact of the capture size. D
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I fear you may be right about the MP war. Interestingly I saw (a few years ago) a program which did a direct comparison of Digi and 35mm SLR. They took two cameras of as close a spec as they could manage, same lens, etc - the Digital was 10MP.

      They took a shot of a rather tasty presenter lass in a catsuit, and enlarged the images to cover the side of a multi-storey building in the centre of Birmingham.

      There were slight differences in the appearance of the two unbelievably large posters, but resolution was

      • There's easily a use, even on the consumer side, for far above 10 MP. But the optics of the camera needs to provide enough detail themselves for that resolution to show you something beyond a lower-res shot. In your example, that presumably wasn't the case. Also, what method were they using for blowing up the 35MM shot? If they were enlarging a scan, what was the resolution on the scan? If the original image was of high enough quality, they SHOULD have been able to generate a much better image with a super-
        • Honestly, I don't remember the details of their methods for enlargement (it really was a few years ago), but they did take a close look at the shots when they were enlarged and even at that close inspection, there wasn't a lot in it. Both were pretty sharp (black cat-suit, white background - decent edge on it) so I'm assuming the enlargement process was as good as they could manage, although there was a slight granularity in the digital shot.

          You've raised an interesting point though: at what point does the

          • Mostly they would only pay so much for a 35mm camera, however good, and in both digital and 35mm it's the lens quality (the significant contributor to cost, at the high end) that becomes the limiting factor. Isn't it?

            It depends. Certainly you can't just stick any lens on an 8mp camera and expect it'll give you the full resolution that the sensor is capable of.

            But even most cheap (and I do mean cheap, sub-$100) zoom lenses are capable of maxing out the resolution of an APS-C-sized 8mp sensor at least at the
            • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )
              That's mostly true of you're going around shooting at f8 all the time, but consumers in particular don't do that. Cheap lenses resolving power drops off very quickly as you start to get into less than ideal shooting situations (ie reality). The 50 1.8 is kind of an anomaly too -- which is why you'll find that most advanced amateurs have one.
        • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )
          Fortunately for digital after a certain point the bigger the picture gets the farther away you are when you look at it, so resolution doesn't really make the slightest bit of difference. I found six megapixels to be more than enough to enlarge a picture to any size you care to. I have two hanging on my wall that are 45" across -- the biggest the printer could print, and they look great. I've done the same with film and, if it's good, high quality film, it might look a bit better from close up... but nobo
      • The MP war will probably, as you say, be a boring and inevitable one, but I can't see that it will be of any benefit to the consumer. There's no accounting for marketing...

        I beg to differ. In 60 years, my 2 GHz machine will be long in the landfill (or recycled, or...) In any event, the machine will be gone.

        The photos I am taking with my digital camera, though, will still be around. Maybe I will be showing them to my grandchildren.

        Digital cameras are one place where hardware and the quality of the data creat
        • by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )
          Be careful... the higher the resolution the higher the noise as well (barring other factors). Canon has been very good about keeping the resolution of their dSLRs down until they can produce a higher resolution sensor that has similar or better noise characteristics.

          Once you get to a certain level of resolution noise becomes MUCH more noticeable than a difference of a few megapixels.
      • by dodobh ( 65811 )
        For point and click/portraits, no. For stuff like landscapes, low light shots, fine artwork, the more the merrier. Of course, these also need a corresponding investment in lenses, which means that a lot of stuff is going to the higher end of things rather than the lower end of prosumer cameras.

      • OK, the MP and MHz wars are similar but there are differences. For one thing, consumers don't know how to interpret tech specs that well, and for computers there are bunches of them, and I realized the MHz war was silly when the first pentiums came out. But even synthetic and/or "real world" benchmarks are not that good, and different computer systems can score differently on differnet tasks. That will always be the case. There also is the "good enough" factor, and today just about any computer is now g
      • by drgonzo59 ( 747139 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @12:49PM (#16096996)
        1. In general the 10MP=approx=35mm film might be true for B&W photos. For color the MP count would have to be larger, somewhere around 15 or 16.

        2. Also with film it is possible to get ISO 50 film (Velvia for ex.) to match its resolution and color range it will take even more MPs.

        3. When talking resolution MP are not the whole story, the sensor size is just as important. A small sensor with a lot of MPs is bad news since the images will be very noisy. People don't usually take this into consideration and only look at MPs. A lot of super-zoom and consumer models now have managed to fit a 10MP in their body but the images are nevertheless much worse than the same MP count images from a DSLR with a larger sensor.

        I am assuming the lens is not a limiting factor.

    • There are some features that I think will rule more than MP count will. Things like stabilization, night shooting in different wavelengths (built in), or a camera that focuses fast enough for the instant-one-press novice that doesn't give the camera time to bring the subject into sharp focus. I don't know if those are all features available yet, but they are more important than going past 6MP until we get 40GB memory cards, and 500GB hard drives on every computer with 40GB cheap removable media to make back
    • I don't think current digital cameras use CCDs, they are largely CMOS-based. That's still in a great many camcorders though.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by shellbeach ( 610559 )

        I don't think current digital cameras use CCDs, they are largely CMOS-based. That's still in a great many camcorders though.

        Then you'd think wrong []. The only digital cameras using CMOS are the Canon digital SLRs (and very fine CMOSes they are, too, giving arguably the best image quality of the 35mm or smaller format options).

        All the rest, including Canon's non-SLR digitals, use CCDs (mostly manufactured by Sony, although Fuji has long been showing Sony how much better CCDs can be if you make them in a hexag

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by QuietLagoon ( 813062 )
      Beautiful use of statistics and just the sort of thing that the Flickr board of directors can take to their marketing meetings.

      In actuality, it is horrible use of statistics. The numbers are little more than a popularity contest, showing the more popular cameras, not necessarily the better cameras. If you want to use a camera that a lot of other people are using, then follow what the numbers show. However, that will not guarantee that you will get a camera that actually meets you needs.

      To the point

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by vsack ( 558342 )
      This is great for targeted advertising towards their user base, but it's not clear that you can make many conclusions about the general market based on this data. After all, the user of Flickr are a self-selecting group. I don't think you'll find as many Canon 1Ds-Mk II cameras on there, as they're a ~$6800 body and the owners of those cameras are more likely to use them professionaly and have dedicated sites for their photos, rather than relying on Flickr to host.
    • by Lumpy ( 12016 )
      It already is hype.

      I have a 3MP camera that kicks the crap out of most everything else. Fuji S1 It even takes better photos than a Canon Digital Rebel.

      I have an advantage though.... I have a $1500.00 lens, the rebel comes with a $22.95 (quality wise) lens. If the rebel used the same quality lens it would be pretty much spot on but still lacks my color saturation because of the different design of the CCD. but then my camera cost way more than the Rebel did.

      Lens is 90% of your picture. Camera quality t
      • by Aladrin ( 926209 )
        I'll admit that within a certain range this might be right, but if I have an OLD super-high-quality 1 megapixel camera with the world's best lens, vs a brand new el-cheapo $200 8 megapixel camera, I know which one will look better.
      • by cowbutt ( 21077 )
        Lens is 90% of your picture. Camera quality the next 8% and megapixels make up the last 2%

        On a digicam, I'd say that the preset JPEG quality settings make up at least 50%, reducing the lens' importance to ~40%. If you can shoot raw or TIFF, that's an option, but it'll dramatically increase the cost of storage, and, in the case of raw, the time and effort it takes to get usable pictures. One of the things I look for is a demo shot that includes a leafy tree, to see whether the "best quality" JPEG settings

    • sorry, but entry level DSLR are usually not called [] prosumer cameras. prosumer cameras are usually cameras with non-changeable lenses. PAT
    • by blahtree ( 55190 )
      Actually, I think the MP war is fading. The main difference between this and the MHz war is that the MP war is moderated by the need to store the pictures somewhere. The bigger the files get, the fewer pictures you can store on the same card. Consumers don't like this, I'm sure.

      There was a huge race at the beginning to get up to 4MP, but past there, progress has been relatively slowly trickling upwards.

      There are many other characteristics that consumers use to compare cameras: price, size/weight, LCD si
    • Interestingly, these statistics show that most of these cameras are solidly in the middle "pro-sumer" market...

      I was very, very surprised to not see any members of the Nikon Coolpix or Fuji Finepix consumer lines show up, as these seem to be quite popular among my acquaintances and small business clients. There's also a Kodak line (name escapes me now) that folks seem to be taking a liking to. The Finepix line in particular has been popular with my clients in real estate.

      We can argue that the prosumer c

  • Small error (Score:4, Informative)

    by KokorHekkus ( 986906 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @09:10AM (#16095511)
    Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL and Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL are the same camera AFAIK, just differnent names for different markets. It's called 350D in Europe, Digital Rebel in the US... rest of the world I don't know.

    Guess it says something about the demography of the posters though.
    • Re:Small error (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Xiph ( 723935 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @09:21AM (#16095577)
      Actually not entirely true, the digital rebel is the EOS 300d, not the 350d, the 350d is the digital rebel xt.

      There's a fast comparison of those two at dcresource []
      Basically 350 has a few improvements, it has more internal memory (hence 14 instead of shot bursts), it has usb 2.0 instead of 1.1, its just under 15% lighter and has a better battery, iaacte (i am a camera test engineer (at Phase One))

      • by Xiph ( 723935 )
        grr. lack of editing capabilities... (adding the number 3) Actually not entirely true, the digital rebel is the EOS 300d, not the 350d, the 350d is the digital rebel xt. There's a fast comparison of those two at dcresource Basically 350 has a few improvements, it has more internal memory (hence 14 instead 3 of shot bursts), it has usb 2.0 instead of 1.1, its just under 15% lighter and has a better battery, iaacte (i am a camera test engineer (at Phase One)). oh well, my own bloody fault for not reading t
    • So you're trying to infer from the data that Europe knows how to take better pictures than people in the US? They both got the same equipment, but just one is better at usin it? Nudge nudge, know what I mean? Do you like photography, eh?
    • Re:Small error (Score:4, Informative)

      by savala ( 874118 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @09:25AM (#16095603)

      Almost, but not quite. 350D and Digital Rebel XT (so positions 1 and 3) are the same.
      Digital Rebel is the 300D, while Digital Rebel XTi is the 400D.

      Also, here's the original (much more extensive) source [], which is way more useful than just some stupid blog linking to it. Also good to see is this (month old) graph [] of the relative movement over time.

    • ...Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL...

      Well it sure sounds like a product name crafted for the US market. I keep waiting for some USian with a mean sense of humor to suggests the name 'Canyonero' to Ford's marketing people as the name for their next SUV. I bet the thing would stand a good chance of hitting the market before they figured the gag out.
  • by binaryDigit ( 557647 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @09:10AM (#16095513)
    Most of the cameras are all relatively high end stuff:

    2. NIKON D50
    3. Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL
    4. Canon EOS 20D
    5. NIKON D70
    6. NIKON D70s
    7. Canon PowerShot S2 IS
    8. Canon EOS 30D
    9. Sony CYBERSHOT

    Don't know if this is really useful for the "average" consumer, but does give an interesting view of who posts on Flickr. It would be interesting to compare this with other sites like pbase and see how the camera distribution changes as the demographics of the users (and the intended audience of the site) changes.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Itsacon ( 967006 )
      I still use a 35mm camera, and scan the negatives with a film scanner. Never checked what kind of EXIF data would come out of that, but I suspect the scanner tags the images itself. Imagine if that got into that list, would be nice if people went into a camera store asking for a "Nikon CoolScan" for their holiday snaps, and were handed a 3kg scanner :-P
    • by mgblst ( 80109 )
      Sony cybershot? Well, wow, lets not get too specific. Is it the 2 megapixel model released 5 years ago, or the 10 megapixel released this week? Or one of the ones in between.
    • Wow! Sony only has 1 camera on the list. This is both surprising considering how many different models they market and their ubiquity around the world, and at the same time not surprising since their reputation is in the tank.

      A friend of mine had a Sony camera a couple years ago. The LCD stopped working and it was still under warranty. They told him that only the parts were under warranty and it would cost $180(US) in labor to fix it.
      He tossed the camera and vowed never to buy anything from Sony ever
      • They did the same thing to me on a brand new $800 video camera back in the late 90s. I vowed to never buy anything Sony ever again, and so far I haven't.
      • I think it might seem surprising to someone that's not into photography that Canon completely ownes the market. Nikon makes decent stuff, but 6/10 of those cameras listed are Canon, and for good reason. They make good cameras.
      • Or maybe it just shows that Flickr users aren't representative of digital camera users as a whole. The three top selling camera producers are Canon, Sony and Kodak. Sony shows up in the list once and Kodak not at all. Sony really hasn't had anything in the high-end space, so naturally they wouldn't show up. Kodak's high-end cameras are very expensive ($10,000+) so naturally wouldn't be there either. Nikon's presence on the list is far higher than you would expect based upon their sales figures (which is fin
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by thelost ( 808451 )
      The top 4 cameras are sub $1000 cameras. I realize everyone isn't prepared to pay $800 for a camera, but they aren't professional. I would but them in the high end consumer, amateur photographer category, so yeah I would say it's useful. I own a 350D myself. It's my first Digital SLR camera and I am very happy with it. A list like this would have influenced me.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by shellbeach ( 610559 )
        A list like this would have influenced me.

        Really??? You'd base your choice of an $800+ camera on a list that doesn't give any indication of photo quality or camera usability, but simply indicates the mass volume of pictures taken?
        • by thelost ( 808451 )
          well why don't we look at what this list potentially says.

          A great deal of the users on flickr are amateur photographers, I have recently become interested myself. From my experience of flickr the people on their know their kit. So if a great many flickr users are using entry level canons then that is enough to at least recommend them to me.

          From there I go to a place like, check out their review of the canon eos 350D [] and see that it is both a good camera and reasonably priced (within my budget).
      • by radish ( 98371 )
        The 20D isn't really sub-$1000, for example J&R still have it listed at $1100, and B&H have it at $990. These figures are before tax & shipping.
    • If you want to take astounding pictures, a DSLR makes life a helluvalot easier. While you can take fairly good photographs with some of the upscale compacts, operating them as anything but a automated compact camera seems to be pretty awkward. (Setting ISO, setting aperture priority, modifying aperture, etc etc.). Oh - and RAW. RAW is king - those extra 4 bits per channel makes life much easier when you edit afterwards.

      But I agree, to the "average" consumer, flickr top10 is not the place to look. It is much
  • Are these Skewed? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by amulder ( 257708 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @09:11AM (#16095518)
    They mention that stats might be skewed, by the sheer volume of photos uploaded by photo enthusiasts. The implication is that they're simply totalling up all the pictures.

    Wouldn't it be more accurate to generate stats by user? (ie: x% of flickr users have camera Y)
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by teslar ( 706653 )
      Some users might have more than one camera, or be borrowing other people's cameras so that would be inaccurate too.
      But you could normalise the data instead...
    • by TCQuad ( 537187 )
      It might be more accurate, but less useful. People who share a lot of photos are using their camera often and are obviously happy with it. If you're trying to figure out what camera to buy, their opinion should be weighted more heavily than those who take one or two photos here and there.
  • by Silver Sloth ( 770927 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @09:12AM (#16095523)
    Well, err...
    It tells you what other people are using. By this logic I should be driving a Ford Mondeo (and using Windows on my PC!)
  • by joejoejoejoe ( 231600 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @09:15AM (#16095539) Homepage Journal []

    John has this for flickr too, and shows the top 100 makes and models. I think he uses the Flickr-API, ie not a scrapper. He says on the page "The lists are generated automatically by periodically sampling the EXIF data from the stream of recent uploads." and I think he hits that stream via the API...
  • The article mentions that Sony cameras don't specify the exact model in the EXIF. Cyber-Shot is pretty vague since most digital cameras sold by Sony in the last five or six years is named like that.

    On the other hand, in the top 10, there is both one entry for the Digital Rebel XT, and one entry for the 350D, which are actually the same camera, the first being the name under which it is sold in North America, the second the name under which it is sold in Europe.
  • This is actually an incredibly simple idea, but a really useful one when considering a new camera to buy.

    So if everybody started using Ford Pinto's you should too? Dont mistake most common with best, much less best for you.
  • Photos, not users (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lev13than ( 581686 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @09:22AM (#16095587) Homepage
    Interesting idea, but there is a problem with the methodology []. The app samples about 9,600 pictures per day. Since multiple photos from the same user are included, it will skew more heavily towards users who take & store (vs. take & delete) and those who are pro users (since they can upload more). This behaviour is more likely found in someone who fits the 'prosumer' profile, hence the abundance of these type of cameras on the list.
    For version 2 of the stats, it would be really useful to have it ignore multiple camera models from the same user. It would also be neat to see it compare post-processing apps and general camera 'categories' (i.e. cell phone vs. p&s vs. slr).
  • Popular != good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @09:23AM (#16095590)
    Just because people using Flickr use certain camera types doesn't mean they're the best cameras. They might be, but then again it might be that people who've just spent a fortune on a digital camera are far more likley to upload pictures than casual users. It would even be easy to skew the results simply by dumping a load of pictures up on the site from a certain brand and make it appear that it is more popular than it is.
    • by savala ( 874118 )

      It would even be easy to skew the results simply by dumping a load of pictures up on the site from a certain brand and make it appear that it is more popular than it is.

      Flickr gets over a million new pictures [] uploaded on a good day. I really don't think skewing the results is that easy (assuming the 'periodical' sampling is not predictable).

      I also think that people who spend a fortune on a digital camera are the pros buying a D2Xs or a 1D Mark II, and those are much less likely to upload pictures. Low-end

      • by DrXym ( 126579 )
        Let me ask you - who is more inclined to upload pictures, me who takes may be 2 or 3 snaps a week, or some amateur photographer decked out with a new SLR camera? The answer is far more likely to be the latter. Not only that, but as cameras cost more there are less models to choose from. Thus the great unwashed masses who upload 750,000 pics a day may do so from 300 different models. Whereas the other 250,000 come from a far smaller pool of (say) 50 expensive models that skew the results in their favour. The
  • Pbase [] is another photo-hosting site. They're geared a bit more toward the serious photograper (not to say there isn't a mix, but sites like flickr seem to more "snapshot" type photos). They have a very nice camera database [] that is very helpful when looking at new cameras. The nice thing about it is that you can see random example photos throughout their database that were taken with each camera. It also tracks lenses too, though for the most part it's up to the user to enter the lens data when the uplo
  • How are there 27 comments already and nobody has mentioned a typo in the HEADLINE?


    I'm starting to lose faith in slashdot...
  • by wfberg ( 24378 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @09:32AM (#16095654)
    It's just a list of which cameras produced the most pictures uploaded to flickr. The article itself points out that it's likely skewed because enthusiasts that spring for expensive cameras are also more likely to spring for premium flickr accounts where they can upload an unlimited number of photos.

    So what does this list tell us?
    The people who spend a lot of money on their 'prosumer' cameras take a lot of pictures. Well, they would have to, otherwise they just wasted that money on their prosumer camera. And they're also more likely to spring for a premium flickr account. Well, they would have to, what with all the crappy pictures they have to take to legitimize buying an expensive camera.
    Even looking at the individual users pictures tells you nothing about the quality of their camera. They might just be really good photographers, or they just throw out 9 out of 10 shots because the camera sucks.

    These statistics are pretty much useless to anyone. They're only useful to flickr itself; they can now dream up new ways of advertising, like show ads for camera accesories based on EXIF info.

    Now, if they had a list of camera models by number of users, that would be more interesting (probably more accurate portrayal of marketshare than the manufacturers themselves give off). Or of models that are used to post the fewest pictures before the users photos suddenly change to another brand (in other words; quickly abandoned crappy models). Models that are used most for dark scenes with/without flash. That sort of thing.
    • by DingerX ( 847589 )
      It's also skewed towards people who use flickr as a photo dumping ground. Some people put up on flickr every single picture that comes out of their camera; some just put up the shots they'd like others to see.

      Oh, and:

      Of course, the data may be skewed, since some users might unknowingly be stripping off EXIF data from their photos before uploading to Flickr (say, if the photos were resized using an editor that didn't save the EXIF along with the resized image). Also, notice that Sony cameras are marked by "

    • by jschrod ( 172610 )
      Models that are used most for dark scenes with/without flash.
      While I agree with you - what would that metrics tell? Inquiring mind wants to know.

      Maybe I'm simply not in the know -- I usually do dark scenes without flash with my Nikon F2, Ilford film, a stativ, and a good lens. :-)

      • by wfberg ( 24378 )
        Models that are used most for dark scenes with/without flash.

        While I agree with you - what would that metrics tell? Inquiring mind wants to know.

        Maybe I'm simply not in the know -- I usually do dark scenes without flash with my Nikon F2, Ilford film, a stativ, and a good lens. :-)

        it's just an example of a piece of statistics that would make a bit more sense.
        For the lower end of the market (i.e. your NON-Canon EOS/Nikon F models) the performance in low light is particularly horrendous, what with the tiny len
        • by jschrod ( 172610 )
          Thanks for your comment, that was insightful. I have to admit that I don't know much about low-level digital cameras; I'm still using film for most of my pictures.
  • by Mycroft_514 ( 701676 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @09:34AM (#16095673) Journal
    To allow this totally BS use of statistics to actually MEAN something.

    As one other photographer already mentioned part of.

    1. Pro photographers are not going to store info on flicker
    2. Pro photographers are going to be outnumbered by non pros, thus changing which is the best "camera"
    3. It has been proven that a good photograper can take a better photo with a disposible camera than many consumers can with the "best" camera.
    4. Others have noted that some cameras are lumped together, and others have multiple categories by the way the data is sampled.
    5. No ratings of which photos are best are factored intot he sampling.

    Sure, mod me down for this, but it doesn't change the fact that this story is totally BS.
  • I wonder what the top 5 popular F.stops are, the Average/StdDev exposure speed and so on.

    (Yes this is sarcasm)

    • Sarcasm maybe but if they showed a large number of users of a particular camera routinely applying a stop or so of correction, it would be a pointer to dodgy metering quality and a camera to avoid.
  • I'd like to (Score:3, Informative)

    by Klaidas ( 981300 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @09:47AM (#16095743)
    I'd like to point out that it's not this super "Top 10" - it's just top 10 of *recently* uploaded, not top 10 of all photos.
  • by MDMurphy ( 208495 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2006 @10:40AM (#16096072)
    The link is to a site who's main purpose it to regurgitate a few other site's text and surround it with ads ( yeah, like a lot of sites ). The original page: [] has more details, week-to-week changes. The list is part of a larger collection of Fickr toys: []
  • As some other comments have already touched upon this listing of the top 10 isn't that useful by itself. Its just a measure of what's 'popular' on one photo site, and nothing more. Perhaps if you could use this list to browse shots taken by those cameras it would be useful... which brings me to []. PBase lets you search by camera model and then view all the photos stored on that site taken by the camera model you have chosen. This is incredibly useful in evaluating the quality of the out
  • Most cameras can take decent pictures. More megapixels doesn't mean better photographs either since there are so many factors involved. You can take great photos with almost any camera, assuming it has basic focusing control and a usable lens, which most do.

    Where it becomes a challenge is when you're in situations with low light, where only the better cameras have low enough noise, or when you need a particular lens.

    I have seen many excellent pictures taken by cheap consumer point and shoot cameras. I ha

Executive ability is deciding quickly and getting somebody else to do the work. -- John G. Pollard