Photography at Disney World new observations

[havoc315]

Just returned from my first trip to Disney World since 2012. 2500 photos are waiting in lightroom for me (about half from a Disney Cruise, half from the world), so it will be a few days before I post any photos.

But I wanted to share a couple of observations:

1-- The camera makers really are in trouble. Four years ago, EVERYONE had a regular camera. I'm not exaggerating. 90% of families walking around, seemed to be carrying at least one camera, whether a P&S or a dSLR (not that many mirrorless 4 years ago, but a few) .
Now, I'd say less than 1/4th of families were carrying separate cameras. At character meet and greets, phones seemed to outnumber cameras 5 to 1.
I wish I could say that the 25% using cameras were enthusiasts --- so it was just a decline in cheap P&S but there was still lots of enthusiast camera usage -- But I can't even say that. Of the very few people I saw actually carrying cameras, it was lots of "grandparents" with their old P&S cameras, some 50 year-olds who hold on to the belief that their bridge camera is the same thing as a dSLR, etc.
In fact, I saw very very few dSLRs. Of course there were some Canon Rebels, but I saw just as many mirrorless. Not a whole lot of either.
The camera market will never disappear --- Before the digital revolution, serious cameras were limited to serious photographers. But we are now seeing the market very rapidly shrink, and go back to that --- for interchangeable lens cameras with large sensors -- it's now a niche market.

2-- With advancements in high ISO, shooting dark rides is now fairly easy, at least compared to 5 years ago. Sure, I missed plenty of shots --- At the start of Peter Pan, I accidentally had my lens set to manual focus. There are other shots where I couldn't lock focus fast enough, for the camera metering failed me majorly. But when I dialed in the right settings, I got an incredibly high number of keepers. With the aps-c and 35/1.8, I got lots of images that look good in web sizes and a bit larger. With full frame D750, they look even better.

 

[TheBigE]

Interesting observation, I will have to admit that when I was in WDW in January I really did not notice the number of DSLR cameras. Likely the number is small. I would guess with the ease of phone and the photo plan at Disney there are less and less DSLRs (or even Mirrorless) running through the park.

Interestingly, I believe I saw a larger number of DSLRs during our summer Disney Cruise of the Med than I was expecting. I felt that many were carrying a DSLR, but of those most had the standard kit lens (nothing wrong with that...just my observation). There was a noticeable handful of people that I would put in the "enthusiast" level - this was based on having something other than kit lens or other indicator (BR Strap, flash, etc).

I really cannot say if this observations means anything...other than just my observation.

Looking forward to seeing the results of your trip. (I suspect LR is still processing the images......)

 

[wilkeliza]

We just don't carry our DSLR. We have two (fiance's new one and my handy me down from him) and we just wouldn't take it on a airplane. We travel and although I love Disney photography and those who do it as a non-local I don't want to spend my entire day taking photos and lugging around equipment. Also just the thought of it get messed up on the flight isn't worth it. Instead we pack our GoPro and iPhones. Our iPhones will get us the shots to go on social media and our digital photo albums. We have a few we've touched up and printed it but honestly the iPhone camera (especially with the right app) does the job I need it to when I'm on a vacation like Disney. Often we will take the DSLR on slow paced family vacation but not worth it at Disney.

 

[elmoandzoey]

Your observation is pretty interesting.... mainly because I noticed the same thing, both at Disney and elsewhere. I think a lot of people are under the impression that since a phone can take a picture, it can double as a camera. Granted, a lot of phones take awesomely good pictures that sure are better than some P&S but with the advertising that is out there (yes, I am looking at you, Apple), they seem to suggest that out of the iPhone pictures will be superb. You have no idea how many friends I have that used nothing but their phone for pictures. They may look great on the small phone screen but when they got home and looked at them at the PC and wanted to print them, the pictures were less than stellar.

Do I believe the DSLR market is shrinking? Yes, I do - but only as far as that it rose to a point where it never was supposed to be. People who had no idea what to do with a DSLR got a DSLR because it was just the thing to buy and get. It didn't matter to these people that a P&S probably would have been sufficient enough and also could have saved them money and room in their luggage.

 

[havoc315]

Your observation is pretty interesting.... mainly because I noticed the same thing, both at Disney and elsewhere. I think a lot of people are under the impression that since a phone can take a picture, it can double as a camera. Granted, a lot of phones take awesomely good pictures that sure are better than some P&S but with the advertising that is out there (yes, I am looking at you, Apple), they seem to suggest that out of the iPhone pictures will be superb. You have no idea how many friends I have that used nothing but their phone for pictures. They may look great on the small phone screen but when they got home and looked at them at the PC and wanted to print them, the pictures were less than stellar.

Do I believe the DSLR market is shrinking? Yes, I do - but only as far as that it rose to a point where it never was supposed to be. People who had no idea what to do with a DSLR got a DSLR because it was just the thing to buy and get. It didn't matter to these people that a P&S probably would have been sufficient enough and also could have saved them money and room in their luggage.

Truthfully, the iphone is indeed just as good as the basic P&S cameras that most of those shooters would be otherwise using. Of course it's not as good as an APS-C or FF camera, but it's just as good as the Powershot that they bought for $250 in 2013.
And yes, there was a segment of people who bought dSLRs just because it was the thing to buy --- having a kid, gotta buy a dSLR to take pics of the kid. But then the dSLR sits in the closet except Christmas.

Your explanation is correct --- It rose to a point where it was never supposed to be. But it was a huge ride. In just a few years, we have gone from everyone having a digital camera, to very few people carrying them anymore. The rapid market shrinkage is very dangerous for the camera makers.

 

[elmoandzoey]

Truthfully, the iphone is indeed just as good as the basic P&S cameras that most of those shooters would be otherwise using. Of course it's not as good as an APS-C or FF camera, but it's just as good as the Powershot that they bought for $250 in 2013.

I think I may have phrased it a bit wrong what I wanted to say. Yes, the iPhone does take good photos quality wise. But there's more to taking awesome photos than just a camera or a phone. Exposure, lighting, composition and framing, that also goes into the shot. That's what I meant when I said they are promoting superb photos when in fact it's a bit misleading. Qualitywise they are awesome but the rest... I think that's also what people thought they'd get when they switched to DSLR.

 

[mom2rtk]

Truthfully, the iphone is indeed just as good as the basic P&S cameras that most of those shooters would be otherwise using. Of course it's not as good as an APS-C or FF camera, but it's just as good as the Powershot that they bought for $250 in 2013.
And yes, there was a segment of people who bought dSLRs just because it was the thing to buy --- having a kid, gotta buy a dSLR to take pics of the kid. But then the dSLR sits in the closet except Christmas.

Your explanation is correct --- It rose to a point where it was never supposed to be. But it was a huge ride. In just a few years, we have gone from everyone having a digital camera, to very few people carrying them anymore. The rapid market shrinkage is very dangerous for the camera makers.

I'm really curious about that. My daughter wanted me to print some photos she had taken on her phone, so I had her email them to me. She had an iphone 5c at the time. And honestly, the photos looked great on her phone but just awful on the computer monitor.

Have the newer iphones come that far of did we do something wrong getting them to my computer?

 

[havoc315]

I'm really curious about that. My daughter wanted me to print some photos she had taken on her phone, so I had her email them to me. She had an iphone 5c at the time. And honestly, the photos looked great on her phone but just awful on the computer monitor.

Have the newer iphones come that far of did we do something wrong getting them to my computer?

They have been making giant strides with each generation. The newest announced iphones are 12mp, with image stabilization and a f1.8 lens. The iphone 7 plus actually basically has two cameras -- 27mm and 54mm equivalent, I believe. So you essentially get optical zoom (though they effectively did it by sticking 2 cameras in there.. 2 lenses, 2 sensors).

The 5c didn't have stabilization, it was 8mp, slower lens, less advanced sensor..... So how big are you looking at them on your monitor? You are likely looking at the pics, essentially at full size, thereby magnifying any flaws that are less apparent when shrunk down. Here is the real question --she wanted to print those photos.. how did they look when you printed them as simple 4x6 images?

 

[mom2rtk]

They have been making giant strides with each generation. The newest announced iphones are 12mp, with image stabilization and a f1.8 lens. The iphone 7 plus actually basically has two cameras -- 27mm and 54mm equivalent, I believe. So you essentially get optical zoom (though they effectively did it by sticking 2 cameras in there.. 2 lenses, 2 sensors).

The 5c didn't have stabilization, it was 8mp, slower lens, less advanced sensor..... So how big are you looking at them on your monitor? You are likely looking at the pics, essentially at full size, thereby magnifying any flaws that are less apparent when shrunk down. Here is the real question --she wanted to print those photos.. how did they look when you printed them as simple 4x6 images?

I'm looking at them as full size on the screen so I get that it magnifies the flaws. But honestly, the point and shoot digital I bought in 2003 was way better than this. And they still looked pretty bad printed as a 4x6.

 

[havoc315]

I'm looking at them as full size on the screen so I get that it magnifies the flaws. But honestly, the point and shoot digital I bought in 2003 was way better than this. And they still looked pretty bad printed as a 4x6.

All I can say is phones have come a long way even in just the last 2-3 years. You still need good light to get good images, and still need proper technique. If you miss your focus point, or get camera shake, it's going to mess up the image of course. The newest iphone even finally supports RAW.

 

[HPS3]

I have to agree that the newer phones are fantastic for photos. The new IPhone 7 even shoots in RAW. I would definitely use my S7 Edge over most P&S.

 

[rfam4]

Obviously the best camera is the one you have with you at that point. I make photographs with my dslr and iPhone. I don't take my dslr everywhere I go. If all your doing is taking pictures and posting them on Facebook,a cellphone will probably be fine. But the subject can't be moving, and the lighting has to be perfect.

Technique is far more important than the camera. I have seen some great photographs from an iPhone and some crappy photos from a high end camera. If you don't know what your doing, the camera doesn't matter.

The bigger long term problem is the lack of printing. People simply don't print pictures anymore. They save them on their phone and post on social media. People don't think about the photos when they die or when the their phone craps out. Most social media sites do not give rights to anyone after the account holder passes. So the photos simply get deleted with the account. Plus, who says Facebook is gonna be around for ever. Remember, myspace?

Some of the best times are when you go to grandmas house and sit down with a photo album and just look at the pictures together. If you don't print a picture, it's never actually finished. It's just a file.

 

[saturndb]

Just returned from my first trip to Disney World since 2012. 2500 photos are waiting in lightroom for me (about half from a Disney Cruise, half from the world), so it will be a few days before I post any photos.

But I wanted to share a couple of observations:

1-- The camera makers really are in trouble. Four years ago, EVERYONE had a regular camera. I'm not exaggerating. 90% of families walking around, seemed to be carrying at least one camera, whether a P&S or a dSLR (not that many mirrorless 4 years ago, but a few) .

I go at least 2 times a year for the past 12 years and I have to say I have never seen 90% of families walking around with camera's. I just got back from Disney and I did notice a lot of people using phones to take pictures, I would guess most people using phones now most likely did not bring a camera to the parks 4 plus years ago. I just look at this as the past 4 years have brought a increase in online digital presence. heck I think snapchat started 4-5 years ago.

I do agree that the camera market is shrinking but that is ok with me. I, like many others enjoy what a real camera allows us to capture and create....

 

[zackiedawg]

I've been saying this for years, that the camera market had gotten silly and a little out of control - so many people walking around with cameras who had no enthusiasm at all for photography and often no knowledge of it - but for a while it was 'hip' to have a DSLR even if you left it in auto. Mirrorless was a similar smaller fad. P&S cameras were the one market that was mostly filling a basic need for non-photographers to snap photos when needed - and that market is indeed being filled in or replaced by phones, by sheer convenience. They have the phone, it has a camera, so why bother bringing another camera? Meanwhile, less people with no real interest in photography are still going out and buying far too much camera anymore, so DSLR and mirrorless sales are contracting too.

I personally think it's a good thing. As an enthusiast photographer, I wouldn't mind seeing the market shrink to mostly accommodate true photographers and enthusiasts...with DSLR/SLT/Mirrorless bodies growing in ability, features, ergonomics, etc in ways that photographers care about, and less in ways that every-day consumers care about. And prices can stay on the higher end to maintain profitability in smaller volume...eventually dumping the cheap entry-level models. Personally, I'd love to see it go even further, and see phones and pocket devices take over the entry-level all the way to enthusiast video market, so cameras can stop trying to load up with video-centric features, letting still photography be the main focus of design and advancements...but that's unlikely to happen as quickly at least on the enthusiast end.

I shot with SLRs in the late 70s, when you really didn't see very many at all. Most people back then either didn't take photos, used instamatic type cameras, or even disposables which came along in the 80s. For decades, SLRs were much more rare, and mostly for enthusiasts and photographers...when I ran into someone else with an SLR, you could start a conversation - 99% of the time, they knew something about photography. Over the past 10 years, when I run into someone with a DSLR, probably 15% of the time they know about photography, and many of the rest don't even know most of the settings or functions on the camera outside of the green box mode. I would like to see things go back to small but profitable volume of sales to mostly enthusiasts and pros, and let the snapshot photography be covered mostly by phones or other convenient pocket devices. I think the companies could be profitable on less sales but higher profit margins...at least some companies...there might be some contrition, but there should still be 4-5 solid companies and a good selection of excellent devices available for those who love photography and would never want to take serious photos with a small thin rectangle that rings when people call or text, no matter how good the photograph it can take.

 

[klmall]

ITA with most of the observations above. I remember the era when so many people were using even high-end P & S, ending up with less than average photos and even having trouble getting their pictures from the camera to view other than on the LCD. I lost count of the people I helped transfer photos from cameras to computers. One dept. head I worked with in my last school just kept buying memory cards for months until I streamlined a transfer process for her.

How many of us bought a good P & S for a family member or friend and then watched it go unused but now see that same person snapping away on a phone? That's probably a move for the better especially as phones get better and better.

The old fogie in me does worry about the lost art of taking good pictures as well as preserving family memories. And I am so tired of seeing really bad pics on Facebook in the name of 'look at my cute child drooling today...and yesterday....'

Since I do most of my photography in national parks and scenic places nowadays I still see quite a few DSLRs with phones being used by younger people than me or by a spouse of someone using a DSLR. I'll certainly watch a bit more closely in the next year.

havoc315 - Did you see fewer hoggin' ipads being held up to take parade and attraction photos by any chance?

You've given me food for thought for my spring trip though; thanks!

 

[11290]

havoc315 - Did you see fewer hoggin' ipads being held up to take parade and attraction photos by any chance?

Can't speak for havoc315, but I work parades / fireworks at MK and see a lot less iPads than were seen a couple of years ago. Lot of "phablets" and mini tablets but not nearly as many large size tablets.

I'm sort of back and forth on phone photography. Wife and I both had Galaxy S5's and switch to iPhone 6s+ a little over a year ago. We were very happy with the "camera" of the S5's particularly the nightime, low light performance. While we are both happy with the overall performance of the 6s+ in daytime or good light useage, the low light performance in a general wide angle situation such as watching the Star Wars stuff at Studios is pretty miserable, at least in our experience. Went to an night orchid show a couple of weeks ago in a zoo botanical gardens building (low, mood type light, nighttime, lots of plants type of thing) and got "some" good phone camera pics but also had to do a lot of "in camera" post processing to really bring out the colors, so while most came out sort of usable, only a few really came out as great pics.

Just my $.02. Sadly, while I am in the parks a lot, I hardly ever take my DSLR anymore and just do some general photos with a phone camera.

 

[klmall]

Can't speak for havoc315, but I work parades / fireworks at MK and see a lot less iPads than were seen a couple of years ago. Lot of "phablets" and mini tablets but not nearly as many large size tablets.

I'm sort of back and forth on phone photography. Wife and I both had Galaxy S5's and switch to iPhone 6s+ a little over a year ago. We were very happy with the "camera" of the S5's particularly the nightime, low light performance. While we are both happy with the overall performance of the 6s+ in daytime or good light useage, the low light performance in a general wide angle situation such as watching the Star Wars stuff at Studios is pretty miserable, at least in our experience. Went to an night orchid show a couple of weeks ago in a zoo botanical gardens building (low, mood type light, nighttime, lots of plants type of thing) and got "some" good phone camera pics but also had to do a lot of "in camera" post processing to really bring out the colors, so while most came out sort of usable, only a few really came out as great pics.

Just my $.02. Sadly, while I am in the parks a lot, I hardly ever take my DSLR anymore and just do some general photos with a phone camera.

Thanks 11290. I certainly hope you're right. I also had a Samsung Galaxy S5 and did get some good photos. I now have a Nexus something phone on the Google Fi program which does take nice shots also. DS can get great panoramas on it too. But my hands just cannot hold a phone steadily enough to capture the pictures I want; blame it on age!

 

[mom2rtk]

Thanks 11290. I certainly hope you're right. I also had a Samsung Galaxy S5 and did get some good photos. I now have a Nexus something phone on the Google Fi program which does take nice shots also. DS can get great panoramas on it too. But my hands just cannot hold a phone steadily enough to capture the pictures I want; blame it on age!

My hands have always had trouble with lightweight cameras and phones. So for me it isn't even age.

But even when I can manage to brace it and get a sharp photo, I've never gotten anything close to a good photo out of my Galaxy S5.

 

[havoc315]

My hands have always had trouble with lightweight cameras and phones. So for me it isn't even age.

But even when I can manage to brace it and get a sharp photo, I've never gotten anything close to a good photo out of my Galaxy S5.

I always struggled with camera phones for that reason... until the iPhone 7 -- Its stabilization is pretty remarkable. When I check out the Exif, I'm shocked at how low it went with the shutter speed (to keep the ISO low), and still got an excellent image. Combined with its insanely fast bursts, it is easy to get at least one sharp shot in most situations.

It really has gotten to the point, where for any person who is truly never going to be an enthusiast, and never take the camera off auto, I really would most strongly recommend just getting 1 of the newest phones, assuming they will want a phone anyway. Yes, they won't have optical zoom (or not very much optical zoom). But optical zoom is overrated in many cases, especially when you are just comparing it to a kit dSLR lens, which has fairly limited zoom range anyway.

And I think consumer dSLRs should start packing stabilized 35/1.8 lenses as part of the kit, instead of a 18-55.

Right now, a generic consumer will pick up a dSLR with the kit lens, on auto.... snap a picture. Take the same picture with their phone..... And not really see any advantage of the dSLR.
Yes, the phones have tiny sensors -- but they also have really fast aperture lenses. I believe the iphone 7 has a 1.8 lens.
So tiny sensor + fast lens, is not going to really be any worse than large sensor + slow lens.
So start putting a consumer prime into the kit, instead of a slow 18-55. So when the consumer snaps a comparison picture, the IQ of the dSLR looks obviously better.

 

[mom2rtk]

I always struggled with camera phones for that reason... until the iPhone 7 -- Its stabilization is pretty remarkable. When I check out the Exif, I'm shocked at how low it went with the shutter speed (to keep the ISO low), and still got an excellent image. Combined with its insanely fast bursts, it is easy to get at least one sharp shot in most situations.

It really has gotten to the point, where for any person who is truly never going to be an enthusiast, and never take the camera off auto, I really would most strongly recommend just getting 1 of the newest phones, assuming they will want a phone anyway. Yes, they won't have optical zoom (or not very much optical zoom). But optical zoom is overrated in many cases, especially when you are just comparing it to a kit dSLR lens, which has fairly limited zoom range anyway.

And I think consumer dSLRs should start packing stabilized 35/1.8 lenses as part of the kit, instead of a 18-55.

Right now, a generic consumer will pick up a dSLR with the kit lens, on auto.... snap a picture. Take the same picture with their phone..... And not really see any advantage of the dSLR.
Yes, the phones have tiny sensors -- but they also have really fast aperture lenses. I believe the iphone 7 has a 1.8 lens.
So tiny sensor + fast lens, is not going to really be any worse than large sensor + slow lens.
So start putting a consumer prime into the kit, instead of a slow 18-55. So when the consumer snaps a comparison picture, the IQ of the dSLR looks obviously better.

The stabilization gives me hope! Now all I have to do is wait for them to get cheap enough I would dare carry one without insurance.