What Cameras are Best for Taking Pics While Driving

[Brian556]

I have a DSLR. It takes great pics, but doesn't work well for taking pics while driving because (A) its big and clunky) (B)It has interchangeable lenses.
I've tried those "credit card" cameras. They have great zoom but take crappy pics.

What camera(s) have good zoom with non-interchangeable lenses, and can take pics at or near DSLR quality, and can handle moving vehicles and stationary objects without blur or focus issues?

If you can post a link to a pic you have taken while moving with the camera you recommend that would be great. Thanks in advance

[Beltway]

A 2005 Nikon point-and-shoot digital camera!
4.6 megapixel.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/US17-Chesapeake-9.jpg



http://www.roadstothefuture.com/US29-LMH-Bypass-102005-5.jpg


Zoom lens, about 2.5 x.

[formulanone]

I have a DSLR. It takes great pics, but doesn't work well for taking pics while driving because (A) its big and clunky) (B)It has interchangeable lenses.

It really just boils down to how much image quality matters to you or not. If you get out of the car and typically shoot in good conditions with the light in the right directions, a point-and-shoot is great, and you can make all sorts of fine controls as well. Like any new equipment, it will take a little trial and error to get desired results.

Zooming is where point-and-shoot cameras tend to require a steady hand or reveal their weaknesses, so that's a big trade-off. And the amount of creative control can be more limited than with a DSLR. It depends on what you want or need from a camera. Cell phone cameras have even come a long way in the past five years, but they're best for outdoor still objects in good lighting, some indoor ranges when held steady, and not much else.

Balancing shutter speed and image quality (lower ISO) is easier with a DSLR. Any moving-vehicle shot is going to be clearest at shutter speeds faster than 1/500 second, although you can go slower when stationary, or if the object is further away and straight ahead.

(A) The standard kit lens on a typical crop-sensor (not full-frame) DSLR might weigh 2 pounds, or maybe three if you bought a fancier lens. Shoot in a wide-angle, then crop and adjust as desired. If the traffic is clear, put it the viewfinder up to your face and never zoom greater than 55mm.

It's harder to mount a polarizer on a point-and-shoot lens, which removes glare from photos. Some allow for a screw-type mount and you might find an obscure one on the internet. But chances are better you'll find more options for DSLRs.

(B) Mostly, if you use a 18-55mm lens (the "kit" lens), you'll get most of what you want for road photography. You can find more mid-market or expensive stuff that will go 17-85, 18-135mm, or even further. I carry a separate zoom lens as well (55-300mm). It doesn't get a lot of use for road photos, unless there's no other way to get a shot of a faraway object or vista. I don't recommend shooting a long zoom lens through a windshield or window, anyhow...all it will do is typically exacerbate the distortion and variations of your windshield/window, and the bokeh looks a little wonky.

I also like my 50mm fixed-lens because the images a little crisper and it handles lower light situations at a nice price. A fifty-millimeter lens approximates the zooming-range of natural sight.

I have a Canon EOS Rebel T3 - they're now up to the T7, and it's now twice the pixels. $500 is a pretty good entry point, and there's some other neat stuff you'll want with it (like a spare battery).

If you want the best of both worlds, there's the series of 4/3 "Mirrorless" cameras; about 25-50% less bulk of a standard DSLR camera, but not quite the small point-and-shoot or phone camera. But these get a bit expensive.

Some recent uploads...no cropping (maybe one degree or less of tilting).

Kit lens, partly-cloudy skies; effortless focus up close at medium driving speeds:


50mm lens, overcast skies:


50mm lens, foggy skies in Dallas:


17-85mm lens at 85mm, clear but hazy sky:


Low light? No problem.


Need to pick up some details?


Indirect sunlight


Into the low sunlight


Zoom lens example from 10+ stories up:


Unusual clouds in the morning:


A rare (undistorted) example where I used a zoom to make the bridge look lower over the Mississippi on a cloudy day:


About 2000 feet up above US 92, 50mm lens on a mostly-clear sky (1/1600s at f/4):


Zoom lens at 163mm from a parking lot one morning:


Full zoom at 250mm, getting outside the car mid-day:


That's not to say I don't have my fair share of crap photos, either. I cull out 75-90% of my shots.

[ClassicHasClass]

For me, dealing with motion blur and depth of field are the primary issues. That means a small aperture, like at least f/8, and a fast shutter time (my "flying camera" HDV setup at speed uses a shutter time of 1/2000s, which demands a higher than normal ISO and a lot of light -- anything slower and the road surface and signage gets progressively uglier). For style points I have a red tint on the flying camera lens to counterbalance the green cast from the windscreen and then autobalance everything in post processing.

Really, though, for hand camera shots at speed my best camera is the Pixel 3 I carry with me ("f/8 and be there"). It does a surprisingly good job. I mean, when my passenger takes pictures on my behalf, ahem.

[vdeane]

My Kodak EasyShare point and shoot from 2007 has served me well over the years.  Alas, I don't think they're made any more, and I imagine I'll be looking for a new camera at some point (it's been resetting date and time overnight more often as of late, and I noticed it can't store any dates later than 2025 or so, so it will need to be replaced then regardless of whether it still works or not).  When I have enough time to get everything set up before a shot, it's anti-blur mode, flash off, optical zoom (not digital) all the way in.

Here's one of my recent shots: http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i87a&state=NY&file=102_0683.JPG
Here's an early morning shot; some graining is visible due to lower light: http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i87a&state=NY&file=102_0276.JPG
Of course, unfavorable light is never good: http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i87&state=NY&file=101_9233.JPG

[AsphaltPlanet]

Formulanone, you are easily the best photographer on this forum.

I'd recommend a sony alpha 6000 for road photographer.  Good camera, and not very expensive, and should be available used.  The only caveat to that is Sony's 16-50 kit lens is a power zoom, which I don't particularly like for road photo.  Sony's 18-135 is pretty excellent (I use it for a lot of my road photos), but it's not super cheap.

[formulanone]

Formulanone, you are easily the best photographer on this forum.

I'd have no basis nor appreciation for my work if dozens of others hadn't done tried it before me. Your stuff is very good, and I'll add that Jake, Ian, Steve, wphiii, and several others take some great stuff which also inspired me.

Shucks, I probably have over 10,000 rather average photos on my Flickr just to collect the numbers.

Here's one of my recent shots: http://nysroads.com/photos.php?route=i87a&state=NY&file=102_0683.JPG

And this is fine, you don't need anything fancy in most conditions.

Doesn't matter how much you concentrate, how nice one's equipment is....shooting into the sun is rarely going to give detailed results:

[nexus73]

Formulaone's series of photos struck me as the kind which were ultra-clear and had perfect contrast.  I wonder how much of that is the camera and how much gets credited to making adjustments on the computer to the original images?  However he does it, I sure love the clarity his images have.  My poor eyesight needs all the help it can get...LOL!

Rick

[formulanone]

Formulaone's series of photos struck me as the kind which were ultra-clear and had perfect contrast.  I wonder how much of that is the camera and how much gets credited to making adjustments on the computer to the original images?  However he does it, I sure love the clarity his images have.  My poor eyesight needs all the help it can get...LOL!

Rick

A little adjustment goes a long way, but I've also found too much adjustment usually goes the wrong way...

Usually just editing out some of the green windshield tint helps - reducing the green and add a tiny addition of contrast helps most situations.

[Scott5114]

This is as good of a thread as any to ask this in–I've had a Canon DSLR for years, but I've never really learned what all of the options I have can do, so I'm probably not getting the best images I can out of it. Could anyone write up a brief description as to what the common settings on a SLR do, and how to optimize them for road photos (both in the car and out)?

[ozarkman417]

Before I ask a question like that, I would like to know what the best way to take pictures while driving is in the first place. I only have my phone to take pictures with, and if you have seen my ROAD SIGN UNO pictures, they are subpar. I have a SONY A7 Mirrorless camera right now, but my brother is looking at getting a 1,000 dollar camera for Astro-Photography (It might be a camera that is modified for Astro-Photography only, so in that case it would not be useable).

[wxfree]

[csw]

I think it's important to remember that no matter what camera you have, trying to take photos with poor lighting will give poor results. Unfortunately there's not a whole lot you can do when you're traveling into the sun, in rain, or when the sun starts to go down. You are able to do a little better with a better camera and some editing though.

I know my pictures aren't the best, but I just use a Canon point-and-shoot and it works pretty well for my purposes. I try to design my road trips so that I am driving with the sun behind me (i.e. head west in the morning, east in the afternoon, and north whenever possible), I try to keep my windshield as clean as possible, and I try to stay in the right lane as much as I can, among other things. But for every photo you see posted online, there are probably 4 or 5 more that didn't turn out as well.

I agree that formulanone qualifies as a Most Valuable Poster on this board because his photos are so high quality. AsphaltPlanet and Mergingtraffic round out the top three. For someone who is still pretty new to road photography, I really appreciate having great photos from these three and others to measure up to.

And since I haven't really answered the original question, I'll at least post some examples of the best and worst that a point-and-shoot can give you.

The good: BGS with favorable lighting conditions (clear sky background).


The good: Standalone route shields with favorable lighting conditions (partly cloudy background).


The bad: BGS with decent lighting conditions, but I waited too long to press the trigger. Also dashboard glare.


The bad: Standalone shields with poor lighting conditions - blurry signs.


The ugly: BGSs in terrible lighting conditions and a torrential downpour.


The ugly: BGS at dusk (awful lighting conditions) and some windshield glare.

[formulanone]

This is as good of a thread as any to ask this in—I've had a Canon DSLR for years, but I've never really learned what all of the options I have can do, so I'm probably not getting the best images I can out of it. Could anyone write up a brief description as to what the common settings on a SLR do, and how to optimize them for road photos (both in the car and out)?

Okay, I'll start with a few controls.

Green Rectangle

Forget about the myriad of fine controls and just take some nice photos. If it's a sunny day, if you and your objects are still, you're good to go.

ISO Rating

This is the image sensor's sensitivity to light (or film). The lower the number, the greater the image quality; a higher ISO number usually means a lower-quality image. A typical lower-range might be 64-200, medium 400-800, higher at 1600 and greater. Unlike film, which was generally "fixed" to an ISO rating until the roll was completed, digital photography allows you to change this sensitivity on the fly.

Despite the acronym being the same as International Standards Organization, the setting varies from camera brand and model. A fancier camera with a great lens (more expensive, naturally) moves the ranges further apart; the numbers are a formula based on test results, independent of the sensor's quality and cameras abilities. An iPhone camera can go to ISO 32, but that doesn't make it "better", it auto-optimizes.

Many cameras will auto-set the ISO for conditions. So shoot at the lowest possible one all the time? Well, not exactly...a lower ISO requires a slower, more steady shot to prevent blurriness. For subject/objects in motion, or moving towards the camera, you'll need to make the shutter react. The trade-off for a higher ISO is that you gain contrast in exchange for that faster shutter speed, all other things being equal. The average camera might give ISO value a lower automatic priority over shutter speed and aperture.

ISO 200:


ISO 800, 1/100s, f/3.5


Tv = Shutter Speed (Time value)

A little basics on the SLR (Single Lens Reflex) camera. A mirror reflects the light coming in through the lens opening, and you "saw" what you'd like to photograph. When you press the shutter release button, the viewfinder window goes black for a moment, because the mirror momentarily flipped up to allows the light to hit the film or digital image sensor. The longer the mirror stays up, the more light exposes the sensor; the shorter it stays open, then there's less light. In simplest terms, too much light = over-exposure, too little = under-exposure.

Fast and slow shutter speeds are relative terms, although there's some limits to what your camera can do. For example, 
1/60 - 1/100 second is typical for indoor use with a flash, 1/100 - 1/250 is good for still images or landscapes outdoors, 1/250 - 1/400 to capture slower-speed action without blurriness, and 1/500 - 1/800 is in the ideal range for photography in a moving vehicle at legal speeds.

1/640 second:


1/800 second:


Want to capture a moving airplane, racing car, or make a runner look like they're absolutely still? Or while going very fast? Use 1/1000 - 1/2000 of a second.

Not a roadgeek photo, but to give you an idea how to get a sharp image at roughly 150 mph (not use what the exact V₁ was), you will have to shoot at 1/2000 second for clarity:


But those photographs of stars, night-time photos, light trails...that's the other end of shutter speed. You'll want exposures over one second, possibly up to 20-30 seconds. That's where you need a tripod or something to hold the camera body steady. Don't sneeze.

1/20 second:


1 second:


5 seconds - from a balcony and tripod:


Av = Aperture Value

How to get your object and background in focus? Or just the object in front? And how can allow for a faster shutter speed and achieve ideal exposure? Well, your camera lens opening (the aperture) changes, just like your eyes do between indoors and outdoor lighting. Remember when the optometrist puts those drop in your eyes to dilate your pupils? Basically, it opens the aperture up to receive more light, and your camera lens does the same.

The term "depth of field" comes into play here. In a landscape, or a typical vacation photo with people and a background, you may want both to be in focus. And that's where a narrow aperture is desirable; it will basically focus more of the closer subject matter and the distance. Narrow aperture = higher number. This also called an "f/stop" or f/number. A lens has a limit, and usually anything over f/11 is generally considered a narrow aperture. The terminology gets a bit topsy-turvy: a narrow depth of field is a wide-open aperture, and wide depth of field is a narrow aperture. (Sorry, nobody consulted me.)

Here's an extreme example of depth-of-field; example is at f/16:

The pavement right next to the lens isn't in focus, but the reflector and rest of bridge are. You could focus the lens closer, shifting the sharpness towards a different range.

Here's an example with a narrow depth of field - f/2.8 at 1/1600s @ ISO 100:


The spacing between the subject(s) and the camera's image sensor, and where you'd prefer the focus of the objects in question is one of the ultimate questions...there's no wrong or right. But what if you want to make the subject appear more sharply, to contrast with the background - i.e. make the background look less sharp, to draw attention to the subject? That's where you will want a wider lens aperture. Maybe anything under f/6.3 is a wider aperture, but this is where things get tricky...a lens has a lower and upper limit, and while most lenses and cameras can shoot narrow apertures without much fuss, professionals pay big money for wider apertures, because it's more artistic, and because of the following trade-off:

For the same exposure of an image, the relationship of the shutter speed is dependent on the aperture. Wide-open lens (less focus) means you can use a faster shutter speed, and a narrow aperture (more focus) means a slower shutter speed must be used for a comparable exposure. A lens is sometimes called "fast" if it can open up to a wider aperture, and "slow" if it works better at narrow apertures, because of the relative shutter speeds for equivalent exposure.

If you need a faster shutter speed because the object or subject is moving rapidly, then you have to use a wider aperture. But, there's the risk of losing the focus because of (1) focusing distance with a wide aperture (2) the reaction time between thought and pressing the shutter release + time the shutter take to capture the image (3) parallax of subject to camera; i.e. amount of expected and apparent movement of desired subject between point A and B when the shutter opens and closes. You can ignore parallax if the subject and photographer are not moving, or moving very small distances.

Here's an example where having a shutter speed at 1/250 second isn't fast enough, because it's at f/13. The sign in front could have been a bit sharper:

...If the sign was further away from the camera, then 1/250 would be fine. My guess is that I left it on "Av Mode", and it's fine for illustration purposes.

What if I need more light because I need focus up to the lenses limits, and can't use a slower speed? That's when you can dial up the ISO value to rescue that balance. But it's not a panacea - higher ISO values mean more contrast in the image, because the image sensor doesn't need to capture as much color depth or range. It may appear more grainy...and there may be artistic value to that, just the same. Really high values are not desirable - think of a JPEG at high compression values; it might have been a sight to see in 1995 when photo images were rare, but it's rarely desirable in most cases. If you absolutely, positively, have to get that photo of a UFO at night, then there's not much choice but to kick up the ISO.

ISO 400, but keeping it 1/500s, f/4.0


Photography is all about finding that balance, and deciding what values in your image are of primary concern. You can correct some of these things in post-production, a fancy term for using Photoshop or other image-editing software. Truth is, all the professionals use something or other to clean up, re-color, tint, or balance out color.

WB = white balance

In most cases, you can probably set this to AUTO and you're good. Outdoor daytime light, cloudy days, heavy shade, indoor lighting types all affect the color and hue of your image. And the settings in your camera can alter the contrast and how the sensor picks up the color of the various types of lighting. I find my own camera seems to be weak in this department, but I've tried using custom white balance with no desirable effect (that means I need more practice at it).

In short, I'll use daytime for bright days, cloudy for cloudy days, and balance between indoor lighting types as needed for those kinds of lighting. Fortunately, you can review you images in a digital camera and tune it to your liking.

Your mileage may vary if you use the wrong white balance, but sometimes it creates some unexpected results, such as this shade-lighting color balance which increases yellow and reds:


Or just all goes green, and nothing can really save it, but doing it right the first time:


Lens Distance "mm" and focus

In short, a lower number is a wide-angle and captures more of the subject, and a higher number zooms in more. A wider lens tends to have more image distortion at the edges. A good mid-point is around 40-55 mm; that's what your eyes tend to see without magnification. A greater zoom can also "flatten" the distance between subject and background. A wider lens allows for more light; lower f/stop values than a zoom lens, so there's than balance as well.

A zoom lens has to held more "still" than a lens at wide-angles; you knew there had to be a trade-off, right? That means a faster shutter speed to prevent lens "jiggle" or get a tripod or something to hold it steady (i.e. don't breathe ). And shooting through a windshield or window at higher zoom ranges creates a blurrier image:

210mm zoom, 1/800s at f/5.6 (I just really wanted this FL 960 sign, which was a new addition):


M = Manual Control

This is where you put it all together. Like driving a manual transmission, it took me a year or so to have any confidence in this zone.

Rules of thumb for roadgeekery:

ISO 100 when shooting an object that's still or barely moving, and daytime outdoor light is generally ideal.
ISO 200 is best in a moving vehicle, or cloudy days for still objects.
ISO 400 for moving during a cloudy day
ISO 800 for night shots with high contrast or a fast-moving object in low-light conditions
ISO 1600 for photographing city aerials at night or very dim conditions.

For ISO 200 (sunny) to ISO 400 (cloudy):

I prefer shutter speeds at 1/500 or above if moving. Usually, a lens at f/5.6-6.3 is fine to avoid parallax. Here's 1/640s at f/5, ISO 200:



You can get good distant sign bridges or vistas at 1/160 second if the road isn't bumpy, but I prefer no lower than 1/250-1/320 for those situations. 1/1000 might be overkill, with the sacrifice of low exposure or degraded image quality.

Sometimes you can get good straight-ahead results at slow speeds, but you also have to be driving slowly (20 mph - 1/60s at f/4, ISO 400), dependent on the kinds of detail you want to capture; you'd never get signs with any clarity on this kind of shot:


1/100s, f/3.5 at ISO 1600 - driving at around 25mph:


I love the bokeh of a lens at f/3.2 or f/2.8 but you'll get nothing but blurriness in a moving vehicle, and it will be easily out of focus if you're too close to your subject (stop breathing, that'll work). You'll have to use a faster shutter speed and good luck to make that happen, or increase the ISO to dial up a narrower aperture.

Here's an f/3.5 shot at 1/80. This would be too blurry if I wasn't stopped, and too over-exposed in regular lighting. The car in front is about the only item in focus.



Is 1/1600 necessary for a non-moving sign? Not really. And you'll want a wider depth-of-field for something like a bridge or to get a sign and mountain vista in focus, so there's isn't much reason to go that fast in shutter speed. Facts are that you'll still get sharper results when getting out of your vehicle.

Getting the ends of this bridge in focus with the front means using f/9 - since we're both still, I can go down to 1/125s at ISO 100:


Just to show that point-and-shoots aren't bad if you get out:







To wit, I've never been able to re-create this shot with a DSLR...sometimes the moment just has to be right:

[kphoger]

I know a guy who used to be into that kind of camera.  When he saw something he wanted to photograph while driving, he was known to pull over, set the thing up, stand in the hood/cape thing, and shoot his picture.

[Brandon]

How to roadgeek in the 1880s.

[formulanone]

I know a guy who used to be into that kind of camera.  When he saw something he wanted to photograph while driving, he was known to pull over, set the thing up, stand in the hood/cape thing, and shoot his picture.

There's people who really like the old stuff the same reason people like old cars, vintage aircraft, et al. And years ago, when film cameras were still the only commercially-available types out there, you could pick up old or less desirable stuff on the cheap. And it's still the case thanks to digital.

I'd recommend starting out with used equipment - I didn't buy a new (D)SLR until 2012, or a new lens until 2015. I started in the hobby when I was 8, and didn't dabble with a film SLR of my own until I was 17. The only drawback is that used equipment may have been dropped or put through unfavorable conditions (fact: cameras are terrible bath toys and don't bounce well), so try before you buy.

Questionable Technique (Note: these are all my shots - I don't critique others unless asked, and that's happened exactly once.)

You can't wait until the sign or object is too close when shooting.


You need to adjust ISO if you're going to be stubborn about fast speeds in low light and poor focus and really want a "473":


Tunnels are white balance nightmares:


Not everything is a work of sharp beauty while moving:




Leave the moving light trails to the professionals!


Which object(s) are you focusing on?


Glare and sunshower? Good luck with that.


Sure the sign is in focus, but zooming in through a windshield makes for a nauseating bokeh with a cheaper lens:


..sometimes you can blame the camera, such as shutter collapse. It's an expensive reason to avoid blame:

[hbelkins]

This is as good of a thread as any to ask this in–I've had a Canon DSLR for years, but I've never really learned what all of the options I have can do, so I'm probably not getting the best images I can out of it. Could anyone write up a brief description as to what the common settings on a SLR do, and how to optimize them for road photos (both in the car and out)?

I would recommend looking up your camera on Ken Rockwell's site.

https://www.kenrockwell.com/

[Brandon]

You can't wait until the sign or object is too close when shooting.

I know it's construction signage, but it is decidedly a candidate for the "Worst of" thread.  Not quite "CraIG CoUntY", but near enough for my taste.

[vdeane]

I can't even imagine how people take photos with a DSLR while driving.  Too many options!  Sometimes I don't even have enough time to turn on my camera, turn off the flash (especially since I have to wait a couple seconds before it will let me start pushing buttons), and zoom in until a sign has already passed by.

Here's an example where having a shutter speed at 1/250 second isn't fast enough, because it's at f/13. The sign in front could have been a bit sharper:

...If the sign was further away from the camera, then 1/250 would be fine. My guess is that I left it on "Av Mode", and it's fine for illustration purposes.

I swear I can't even tell the difference, even at the full size on Flickr.  How far do you zoom in to judge those things?  Some of the photos you've posed here actually look sharper than reality itself.  Of course, I've never edited mine... I think the only photo I've ever edited was one from a school field trip to Canada's Parliament that came out way too dark.  Anything that wasn't so bad that I just deleted it gets posted to my website, from the best of the best to the ones with issues (although I only post the best ones and good ones that are otherwise significant (such as the one of exit 3, since that exit is brand new) to Facebook).

[hbelkins]

When I first started taking road pictures, I actually got quite good at taking pics with a 35 mm SLR film camera. I could compose the pic through the viewfinder and snap the pic without losing a beat.

I don't think I would try that now. I came into possession of a Nikon D80, but unfortunately, you can't compose pics via the LED viewscreen. So I'm still using my old camera with the LED screen for pics while driving. One feature it does have that I like is manual focus. Set that to "infinity" and you don't have to worry about sun glare or bug carcasses messing with the focus when you snap the pic.

[AsphaltPlanet]

I can't even imagine how people take photos with a DSLR while driving.  Too many options!  Sometimes I don't even have enough time to turn on my camera, turn off the flash (especially since I have to wait a couple seconds before it will let me start pushing buttons), and zoom in until a sign has already passed by.

Honestly, you don't know what you're missing.  I can't imagine taking photographs with a point and shoot while driving, espescially one where the lens retracts when you power the camera on.

I use a technique called back button focusing on my camera.  Basically, that decouples the camera from focusing when the shutter is depressed.  This is really great while driving, because most of the time you just want the camera to focus to infinity anyways, so when taking a photo, all you have to do is to hit the shutter button when the composition is correct.

I couldn't go back to using an old style DSLR where you had to focus through the optical viewfinder now that I've gone mirror-less however.

[1995hoo]

Ultimately, the best camera for taking pictures while you're driving is the one you're most comfortable using. I intensely dislike using my DSLR when I'm driving because I feel like I need two hands to operate it properly and I find that uncomfortable when I'm driving, especially driving a manual-shift car. I'm sure some people might disagree with that, but ultimately you have to decide what feels appropriate to you.

If I'm in the passenger seat, of course, or if I stop the car to take a picture, the above does not apply!

My iPhone can shoot 4K video and I've sometimes found I can get a better result by having it film something, then playing it back and pausing the video at the point where I want a photo and taking a screenshot of that. This isn't always the case, but if I'm in heavy traffic or something it's sometimes a good solution.

[Beltway]

Honestly, you don't know what you're missing.  I can't imagine taking photographs with a point and shoot while driving, espescially one where the lens retracts when you power the camera on.

My two photos posted above used exactly that method.

[AsphaltPlanet]

Honestly, you don't know what you're missing.  I can't imagine taking photographs with a point and shoot while driving, espescially one where the lens retracts when you power the camera on.

My two photos posted above used exactly that method.

Maybe you don't know what you are missing either?

You're photos look pretty dated to my eye.  It's pretty obvious from looking at them that they were taken from a really old camera.  Particularly the second photo is very over-saturated and grainy.