Who still brings a “camera” into the parks?

[jec6613]

For myself the parks, I carry either a high quality compact: Nikon Coolpix P7800 or A (or both), or I jump right to a ILC. On my next trip, I'll probably pack my Df and a few manual focus prime lenses and have fun with those, but realistically you don't need full frame in Disney: APS-C is fine, you'll so rarely need even ISO6400 that you're better off with the smaller APS-C lenses. Without the larger sensors, you can't get either the dynamic range or high ISO performance in your phone. And if I want to share or post something quickly, I transfer it to my phone over Bluetooth or WiFi, all of which those cameras support.

I bring my mirrorless camera with a small zoom lens plus my phone. The mirrorless is significantly smaller than a DSLR. Some days I use mostly my phone, and other days it's mostly my camera. It partly depends on what type of photos I'm shooting. For motion, night photos, and anything where a zoom would come in handy my real camera does better. But some of that depends on how you'll use the camera. I don't get better results with my camera unless I'm shooting in manual.

A common misconception: they're not smaller, at least if we're talking like-for-like (this is a long topic about photographic equivalence, there are many articles on the subject), with a few exceptions. They are thinner since they don't have a bulky mirror box, but the Canon SL and Nikon D3k/D5k series are the same size, and their lenses are smaller, lighter, and higher quality, particularly the most recent Nikkor kit lenses. To get similar optical quality from a Sony E or Canon EF-M system, you need much bigger lenses, or an adapter (in which case you've just made your mirrorless camera DSLR-thick). The thinness does mean that smaller bags will fit them though, but until Nikon and Canon flesh out their line (and in Canon's case refresh the EF-M lineup) and force Sony to make decent kit lenses, you're either giving up substantial quality or getting a bigger system.

The three systems that are in fact smaller are the Nikon Z with f/4 zooms, the Leica M, and the Fuji X. The Nikon Z is smaller so long as you don't add any primes and stick to a 2-3 zoom kit (14-30, 24-70, and 70-300 AF-P on an FTZ), and the Fuji X is smaller but heavier. That said, the Fuji is also the best mirrorless system out there right now, if someone were buying new and had the money that would be the one I'd recommend, hands down, for most types of photography. And of course the Leica M has tiny lenses, but that's a whole different animal (and fully manual focus). In the next 2-ish years I also expect the EOS R and L mount systems to get the smaller part right.

 

[mgarbowski]

That said, the Fuji is also the best mirrorless system out there right now, if someone were buying new and had the money that would be the one I'd recommend, hands down, for most types of photography.

100% agreed. I understand why people want full frame mirrorless, but few people require it and the Fuji system has both great cameras and lenses.

And of course the Leica M has tiny lenses, but that's a whole different animal (and fully manual focus).

It's also the system in which 1 camera and 1 lens can easily cost more than 2 Disney vacations for a family of 4!

 

[lostprincess_danie]

I always take a separate camera on vacations. Sometimes my DSLR if I know I'll be taking family portraits (though not taken it to Disney yet.) other times a point and shoot. I like being in complete control of my photos and shooting raw because I love editing and adjusting later. I just got the Panasonic ZS100 and am giving it a trial run on a beach trip soon.
Agree with others that handing off a regular camera to a cast member or stranger doesn't always go well. Then I just use my phone and hope it turns out okay.

 

[jec6613]

I always take a separate camera on vacations. Sometimes my DSLR if I know I'll be taking family portraits (though not taken it to Disney yet.) other times a point and shoot. I like being in complete control of my photos and shooting raw because I love editing and adjusting later. I just got the Panasonic ZS100 and am giving it a trial run on a beach trip soon.
Agree with others that handing off a regular camera to a cast member or stranger doesn't always go well. Then I just use my phone and hope it turns out okay.

When I carry my DSLR, I used to keep a Coolpix P330 or Coolpix A in my bag to hand off to strangers: much easier. The Coolpix A also has an unlimited flash sync speed, so for daylight people photos it's exceptionally nice to have.

I have found though that with my D500, if I set tap to release and put it into live view, people don't have any trouble with it at all. I hand it to them, tell them to tap to focus and take a picture just like your phone, and it comes out really well. Not perfect of course, but much better than a phone.

 

[jec6613]

100% agreed. I understand why people want full frame mirrorless, but few people require it and the Fuji system has both great cameras and lenses.

The only real exceptions I've found to this rule for APS-C are people who only have $500 or $1000 to spend, and people who want sports and wildlife.

For $500 or $1000, you should go pick up the Nikon kit at Costco. Canon and Sony are good cameras in that price range too, but the lenses aren't: Nikon updated their kit lenses and Canon and Sony haven't, and the difference in IQ is immediately visible on a tablet, and even in 2 MP images. That said, Canon and Sony's entry APS-C are still way better than any phone and until a few years ago were as good as it got.

For amateur sports and wildlife, it's the D7500, and again it's not because of the camera (though it's very good, except for 8 vs 10 FPS and a few omitted features it's better than the 7D II): it's because of what you can put in front of it. Put on the 16-80mm f/2.8-4 in the kit, and then add a quality telephoto to match budget and needs: 70-300 f/4.5-5.6E, 80-200 f/2.8, 70-200 f/4 VR, 70-200 f/2.8 VR, 80-400 VR, 200-500 f/5.6E, 300 f/4, and teleconverters to taste. A 70-200 f/4 or 80-200 f/2.8, 200-500 f/5.6, and a 1.4X TC come in under $3500 for the bunch, and get you 24-1,050mm equivalent lens reach, well beyond what most people can handle shooting with, and they're all jaw droppingly high quality optics that the third parties can't compete with (the Tamron 70-200 G2's are close though, but that's only one lens). To get the same quality at long focal lengths from Canon or Sony or Fuji, you're into exotic telephoto territory immediately.

 

[lostprincess_danie]

I have found though that with my D500, if I set tap to release and put it into live view, people don't have any trouble with it at all. I hand it to them, tell them to tap to focus and take a picture just like your phone, and it comes out really well. Not perfect of course, but much better than a phone.

The touchscreen/tap to shoot on the ZS100 is one of the reasons I upgraded my older point and shoot.

 

[jbehr12]

We (myself, wife, daughters 8 & 10) are heading down to WDW this Aug 1-10. I am debating if I buy a pocket sized camera or just use my iPhone XR. Thoughts? Recommendations? Due to bulky size, DSLR style cameras would not be an option...

An XR should cover your needs, it’s a stellar camera. I would only recommend an actual camera if you’re vlogging or putting up content online.

 

[jec6613]

An XR should cover your needs, it’s a stellar camera. I would only recommend an actual camera if you’re vlogging or putting up content online.

As someone who shoots a lot of images, I'd recommend the opposite: if you're putting it up online, use your phone. If you want to look at it in 10-20 years and not look crummy, use a real camera.

The fact that on a 4x6 print at 3' I can 100% of the time spot a phone photo, even from an XR or GP3, and I cannot tell the difference between an image shot on a disposable film camera, a 20 year old 2.7 MP Nikon D1, or state of the art Nikon D850 with an 8x12 print at the same distance, should tell you volumes about the image quality difference. Online posts are ephemeral and disappear quickly, and among the sea of people using similar quality devices and relatively low resolution screens with low color gamut, it'll look fine, but they don't hold up long term, and as display technology advances it will become more and more apparent over time. Yet as I scan in negatives and slides from the 1960's-1990's, they still hold up on today's high resolution displays and with large prints.

Yes, a small sensor compact isn't really much better than phone other than for zoom capability, but the fact remains that the physics of optics and the airy disc aren't changing, and size does matter.

And of course, if you're a serious vlogger or doing serious online content, this thread isn't for you since you already know what you're doing.

 

[jbehr12]

As someone who shoots a lot of images, I'd recommend the opposite: if you're putting it up online, use your phone. If you want to look at it in 10-20 years and not look crummy, use a real camera.

The fact that on a 4x6 print at 3' I can 100% of the time spot a phone photo, even from an XR or GP3, and I cannot tell the difference between an image shot on a disposable film camera, a 20 year old 2.7 MP Nikon D1, or state of the art Nikon D850 with an 8x12 print at the same distance, should tell you volumes about the image quality difference. Online posts are ephemeral and disappear quickly, and among the sea of people using similar quality devices and relatively low resolution screens with low color gamut, it'll look fine, but they don't hold up long term, and as display technology advances it will become more and more apparent over time. Yet as I scan in negatives and slides from the 1960's-1990's, they still hold up on today's high resolution displays and with large prints.

Yes, a small sensor compact isn't really much better than phone other than for zoom capability, but the fact remains that the physics of optics and the airy disc aren't changing, and size does matter.

And of course, if you're a serious vlogger or doing serious online content, this thread isn't for you since you already know what you're doing.

He just wants pictures of his family, 90% of what you said is unreadable to the layman. I’m going to reaffirm your phone should do just fine for your needs. Skip all the fancy jargon.

 

[jec6613]

He just wants pictures of his family, 90% of what you said is unreadable to the layman. I’m going to reaffirm your phone should do just fine for your needs. Skip all the fancy jargon.

In my first paragraph, which contains the important conclusion, should be understandable to someone with a primary school education, as should my fourth paragraph at the bottom.

In the second and third paragraphs only contain contextual information to support the statement of the first paragraph. They do not contain any vocabulary should be unreadable to a high school junior or senior, and is not peculiar to a trade, profession, or group, they involve proper written sentence structure with clear ideas, and proper nouns are distinguished and described such that they provide the necessary context to describe their relevance. Additionally, all of those words and subjects and the understanding needed are covered in basic US high school English and science courses by the 10th grade without any specialization, and all are words and terms I've seen properly used consistently and properly on prime time television shows. It is therefore neither jargon, nor is it unreadable to someone who is not a professional photographer.

To put that another way, I could write my previous post to my arts and humanities wife and she would understand it. She also wouldn't care about any but the first and final paragraphs, and unless you choose to refute my statement, you don't need to care either.

I'm sorry that you're having a difficult time unpacking my post, but most of the audience are adults with a high school education, with a minority of minors who have access to educational materials that allow them to understand the most complex part of my post; so I targeted my post at the intended audience.

Since you are choosing to refute my statement, would you care to provide any evidentiary reasoning behind your statement that a phone camera is sufficient to the required needs?

 

[mom2rtk]

If you're happy with what you see on your phone and don't care about low light photos, and are never going to use your photos anywhere but on your phone, then don't carry a camera.

If you're ever going to print your photos, then use a camera.

 

[Ellie Webbs]

I use my phone, action camera and 'big' camera every day at Disney. Downsizing our Lumix to a travel size this trip though, 2 weeks of carrying 2 cameras around my neck for 12 hour days made my chiropractors day...

 

[arminnie]

My DH takes a DSLR when we go to the Flower & Garden Festival. But it’s easy to carry as I have a power chair with storage underneath.

We both have iPhone XRs so use those otherwise. I finally weaned my DH off his flip phone 2 months ago so now I don’t have to keep handing him my phone.

 

[jec6613]

Which model RX100 do you have?

It largely doesn't matter, they're all about the same quality with some sublte feature, and major price, differences.

Check out the Ricoh GR III if you don't mind not being able to zoom. It links to your phone to share instantly, is smaller than the battery you'd need to keep your phone powered for taking photos, and has a DSLR sized sensor with very good lens. If you have a DSLR-sized budget, a Leica C-Lux is better than the RX100 cameras for not much more money, and does offer a pretty good zoom, and much better customer support as well. Apple's stores could take lessons from Leica's.

The larger the sensor and the better the lens in front of it, the better the resulting images will be, and both of those hit the mark while fitting in a shirt pocket. The Ricoh has a big sensor and the Leica with a somewhat smaller sensor and a nicer lens with more punch to it.

 

[PollyannaMom]

Yes, I take a separate camera to WDW. I do use my phone for some shots (in fact, there were a few that came out better on it last trip.) But I have a small Nikon Coolpix that takes up very little space, and it's worth it to me to bring it for a couple of reasons:

1) I have way too many pictures on my phone already! I'm more likely to actually do something with the ones I take on the camera.

2) Optical vs. digital zoom. Zooming in with my camera extends the lens and I get a full-quality shot of what I'm aiming at. "Zooming in" with the phone before you take the picture is the same as cropping it after - you loose resolution.

 

[Friend of MM]

We bring 2 different point and shoot digital cameras. One, a waterproof Olympus Stylus and the other a tiny Canon PowerShot Elph. Both take excellent digital pictures and have good rechargable battery life. Zoom feature takes very good quality Safari pictures! If buying new, choose one with Image Stabilization. we do have an extra battery for both as well as memory cards. Phones have really cut into sales of Point and Shoot cameras, but they are still excellent to have in pocket for quick use.

 

[jec6613]

If buying new, choose one with Image Stabilization.

Good news: they all have it now. The low end compact camera market just doesn't exist anymore, so the few that don't have VR or IS are wide angle/normal high end cameras with fixed focal length (non-zoom) lenses.

 

[jec6613]

I use my phone, action camera and 'big' camera every day at Disney. Downsizing our Lumix to a travel size this trip though, 2 weeks of carrying 2 cameras around my neck for 12 hour days made my chiropractors day...

And the proper straps that would keep the chiropractor away make you look a bit of a doofus.

 

[Ellie Webbs]

And the proper straps that would keep the chiropractor away make you look a bit of a doofus.

I'm sure that you are right with 1. There are better straps and 2. I would look like a doofus! The only trouble is I'm cheap lol!

 

[MarkinNM]

Well other then my Samsung, I will be bringing my GoPro hero5........