[shuttertalk]

Hey all,

I spent some time tonight analysing my shooting habits in terms of numbers of photos taken, and noticed some interesting trends. Just thought I'd share...

It's been just over a month since I bought my new camera but I noticed that disk space consumed was already almost equal to all the photos from my previous camera, which I had owned for 14 months. Intrigued, I captured some statistics and put it into an excel spreadsheet and generated a few tables and graphs.

Here are the cameras I've owned, and also the total number of photos taken, average number of photos per month, plus some other stats. I've excluded photo counts from my wife's camera, camera phones, etc.



Some interesting observations first up:
- Megapixel count really does translate to bigger images on disk, and
- The average number of photos taken per month roughly doubled when I made the transition from compact (Nikon Coolpix 775) to prosumer (Fuji S5000), and doubled again when I went from prosumer to DSLR.
- Average didn't change when I went from Nikon D50 to Nikon D80 - I guess it was an incremental upgrade
- Bit too soon to tell with my Canon 7D - I'm definitely still in the honeymoon phase, but it will definitely be interesting to see down the track whether moving from an entry-level DSLR to a higher end DSLR has a made an impact.

Let's see how it looks like when I put those numbers in graphical format. I calculated the number of photos taken per month and also split it up by camera model.



More interesting observations:
- There is a significant increase in photos during the first 3 months after acquisition of a new camera
- My shooting habits tend to go in peaks and troughs - some dry spells (e.g. Jun - Aug 2005)
- Major events, seasonal events and also vacations play a big part :
- Most photos taken was 2444 in one month and 1804 the next, which was during our 3 week long Europe / Asia trip
- Significant increase after baby Olivia was born
- Increased amount during end of year (Christmas holidays) and also on vacations

Just another graph showing the cumulative total of photos over time. I've also drawn in trend lines in red - very interesting to note that the rate of photos taken increases sharply upon transition to a DSLR.



It would be most interesting to note the psychology behind that - whether it might be due to having a more pleasant shooting experience due to better flexibility and control, or whether a mental shift takes place to taking photography more seriously. Or maybe it's just easier to take more photos - e.g. faster focussing, more frames per second shooting rate, etc. Whatever the reason, in my case anyway, I think that move has definitely prodded me into taking more photos, and I would definitely recommend that as a stepping stone for anyone who is thinking about getting serious about their photography.


Anyway, just thought I'd share some quick stats and thoughts on my photography habits over the past 8 or so years that I've been shooting on digital, hope it's been of interest to you. Thanks for reading!

[Toad]

Interesting stats. I can think of a few more as well that would be interesting to track.

For example, I usually use a zoom lens rather than a prime - but lately I am beginning to suspect that I typically shoot at the most wide setting or the most telephoto settuing of the zoom.

It would be interesting to see how many of my photos are taken at what focal lengths. The information is all there - I just don't know how to get at the totals easily. How did you do it, Jules?.

[Irma]

Very interesting indeed... and I like specially your last paragraph. it is really interesting...

I took many more pictures when I just got my camera three years ago than this year... one thing is that I was doing a lot of bird flight shooting and you take hundreds and hundreds of pictures, I didn't do anything like that this year... Also I think that a lot of my shooting those years was about learning and experimenting with my new gear.

This year I found my self in the first third of the year very unhappy because I couldn't find inspiration... I dedicated then a lot of my time to read, to learn not only technical aspects but about art, design... my photography changed too... it was more about thinking first the idea, organize my image and then shoot.. I didn't take many pictures but still I feel that my photography improved...

[Toad]

We all go through those creative slumps... your new stuff is very sophisticated in approach - so the break to recharge yourself worked very nicely.

[shuttertalk]

How did you do it, Jules?.

Hey Rob, I did a pretty manual process - just put together a table in excel and manually counted # of photos for each month via windows explorer (highlight folders -> right click -> properties). Bit tedious I know, but just took me around an hour.

It would be interesting to see how many of my photos are taken at what focal lengths. The information is all there - I just don't know how to get at the totals easily.

That is actually more interesting, especially if you have a few lenses which cover a broad focal range. I recall there was a thread a while back about software which did this automatically - see:

http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=2385

I haven't used it since, but it would be interesting to see what the graph looks like now.

Irma, thanks for your thoughts too. Also, I should add that number of photos in no way relates to quality of photos. In my case, I've been taking more over the past two years because I wanted to capture all the special moments with my little one, and she makes such a wonderful subject.

[Toad]

It would be interesting to see how many of my photos are taken at what focal lengths. The information is all there - I just don't know how to get at the totals easily.

That is actually more interesting, especially if you have a few lenses which cover a broad focal range. I recall there was a thread a while back about software which did this automatically - see:

http://www.shuttertalk.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=2385

I haven't used it since, but it would be interesting to see what the graph looks like now.

Irma, thanks for your thoughts too. Also, I should add that number of photos in no way relates to quality of photos. In my case, I've been taking more over the past two years because I wanted to capture all the special moments with my little one, and she makes such a wonderful subject.

I downloaded it and its running right now...thanks for the link.

[Toad]

Well here we go.... its worse than I thought - I am totally a creature of habit with huge spikes around certain settings....

An astonishing 35% of my photos are taken at the focal length of 40mm (35 mm equivalent). I have been planning to buy a Panasonic GF1 with the 20mm pancake lens for some time but was very worried that the 40mm equivalent pancake lens would limit me. Apparently not so...

I also apparently like to shoot wide open aperture-wise as often as not.

Also whats with me shooting at ISO 64 and at either 1/64 sec or at 1/1000 sec



I honestly thought that I was more creative in my camera usage than that. That tells me something, however, and what it tells me is that simplification of my camera gear is totally viable. I only use a fraction of it...

[matthew]

Jules, I keep waiting for someone to give you a hard time about needing a chart to see how many photos you've taken versus how many you've posted here - but for obvious reasons, I'm not the best one to do it.

So far this year (it's all over except for christmas photos) my Lightroom library shows 16377 raw files, but I've only assigned a star rating to just over 4300 of them.

Count by Make and Model
8 Nikon / LS-50
2343 NIKON CORPORATION / NIKON D700
44 OLYMPUS CORPORATION / E-1
1892 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3
44 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-300
30 Panasonic / DMC-FZ18

The Nikon LS-50 is my film scanner, so it technically includes three cameras, but almost all images were shot with a Nikon F-100 ("fSLR") that I've recently added. The D700 joined the family in May. The Panasonic FZ-18 is my IR camera, which takes a lot of photos, but very few of them get a rating that would include them in this list. My E-300 lives on my light box, so a relatively high number of its photos are included, and my E-1's just enjoying its retirement.

Count by Make and Lens
233 NIKON CORPORATION / 105.0 mm f/2.8
598 NIKON CORPORATION / 180.0 mm f/3.5
4 NIKON CORPORATION / 35.0 mm f/2.0
60 NIKON CORPORATION / 35.0-70.0 mm f/2.8
440 NIKON CORPORATION / 50.0 mm f/1.8
279 NIKON CORPORATION / 85.0 mm f/1.8
653 NIKON CORPORATION / 85.0 mm f/2.8
424 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / 12.0-60.0 mm f/2.8-4.0
173 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / 150.0 mm f/2.8
914 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / 35.0-100.0 mm f/2.0
179 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / 50.0 mm f/2.0
121 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / 50.0-200.0 mm f/2.8-3.5
157 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / 7.0-14.0 mm f/4.0

All of the nikon-mount lenses have less that the full year's use, and they were all added at different times. The 85's and 50/1.8 are all from when I bought the D700, but the 35/2.0 is an early christmas present that's usually on my film camera. Next year will give a much more accurate picture of which f-mount lenses I use the most. For Olympus, it's absolutely no surprise that the 35-100 dominates the others. I've occasionally toyed with the idea of further cutting down on the number of Oly lenses that I own, but they're all so pretty, I have a hard time getting rid of any more of them.

Count by Make, Model, and ISO
684 NIKON CORPORATION / NIKON D700 / 200
11 NIKON CORPORATION / NIKON D700 / 280
683 NIKON CORPORATION / NIKON D700 / 400
13 NIKON CORPORATION / NIKON D700 / 560
13 NIKON CORPORATION / NIKON D700 / 640
339 NIKON CORPORATION / NIKON D700 / 800
273 NIKON CORPORATION / NIKON D700 / 1600
13 NIKON CORPORATION / NIKON D700 / 2200
213 NIKON CORPORATION / NIKON D700 / 3200
65 NIKON CORPORATION / NIKON D700 / 6400
7 NIKON CORPORATION / NIKON D700 /12800

I've always said that I don't care about how the D700 works in low light...

412 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3 / 100
69 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3 / 125
54 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3 / 160
110 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3 / 200
65 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3 / 250
53 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3 / 320
148 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3 / 400
51 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3 / 500
57 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3 / 640
196 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3 / 800
31 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3 / 1000
205 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3 / 1250
432 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3 / 1600
5 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3 / 2000
4 OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. / E-3 / 3200

...but I do find it ironic that I'm more likely to use my E-3 at higher ISO settings.

The camera that's really missing from this list is my SX20IS, but again it's a fairly recent acquisition, so it doesn't have much history to add. But here's what really surprised me about it:

884 Canon / Canon PowerShot SX20 IS
465 52% 10mm
119 13% 20mm
40 4% 30mm
38 4% 40mm
28 3% 50mm
28 3% 60mm
14 1% 70mm
23 2% 80mm
8 0% 90mm
121 13% 100mm

I bought it because I really like my FZ18 superzoom, but wanted a walk-around camera that shoots in visible light. Focal lengths have been rounded to the nearest 10mm, so half of my photos with it have been taken under 85mm-equivalent. Two thirds of my photos have been taken under 140mm-e. So while I do like to use the zoom at its longest setting for one out of every eight photos, the rest of the time almost any little pocket camera would be fine.

[Toad]

So while I do like to use the zoom at its longest setting for one out of every eight photos, the rest of the time almost any little pocket camera would be fine.

Exactly the conclusion that I am coming to, and as that conclusion supports buying the GF1 with the 20mm pancake lens attached - so much the better.

I didn't realize there were so many stats hounds around.

[shuttertalk]

Interesting stats, Toad - thanks for posting. Is that from just one zoom lens, or do you have a collection? Maybe you've got a favourite 35mm f/2.8 or something...

But yes, sounds like you have a case for simplification there - if you're using a zoom then maybe you could move to a 35mm plus a 100mm macro for those occasional longer reach?

[shuttertalk]

Matthew, thanks for posting your data too! Interesting to note that with your Nikon, you seem to be shooting mainly with primes, whereas with the Olympus it's biased towards the zoom - is that a conscious decision on your part?

I also commend your discipline in assigning star ratings to your photos - I've only just recently started forcing myself to do so and also categorising my photos more descriptively. With my new camera too I've been more ruthless at deleting photos that are non-keepers, blurry or just subtle duplicates.

p.s. And yes, I am aware that only a handful of those 33,000 or so photos have seen the light of day on ST in recent times

[Toad]

Interesting stats, Toad - thanks for posting. Is that from just one zoom lens, or do you have a collection? Maybe you've got a favourite 35mm f/2.8 or something...

But yes, sounds like you have a case for simplification there - if you're using a zoom then maybe you could move to a 35mm plus a 100mm macro for those occasional longer reach?

Mostly from my 18-200 zoom which it appears I use almost always at its widest length...

[matthew]

Toad, your 40mm tendencies was something I was thinking of when I saw that - with a camera that can shoot anything, I essentially stick close to home. I'm thinking that, except for my work-related images, I'm going to spend January shooting only with my F100 and 35/2 & 85/1.8. Or at least one roll of film on a special outing, weather permitting.

Julian, it's absolutely a conscious prime-versus-zoom decision: Olympus zooms are typically as good (or better than) Nikon primes. There's no Nikon zoom that appeals to me; I like telephotos, sharp lenses, and ones without optical distortion. The only Nikon zoom that I have is the 35-70/2.8, which I bought for an irresistible price but now lives on Craigslist. (Granted, the 70-200VRII and 14-24 are great, but I already have the equivalents for my Olympus cameras, and don't have the budget to re-buy lenses - the 150 and 180 sigma macros notwithstanding.)

I have to admit that I've been slipping on assigning star ratings recently. I try to do it the first time I look at the photos, but it doesn't always work out that way. In the new year I'll be starting a new catalog, which will change how I do things a little bit.