My opinion on camera gear over my last trips to WDW

[AydensMom]

I must admit I love the photos but I am getting a little sick and tired of dragging 3 or 4 pounds of camera and glass to the parks everyday. I am actually considering the sale of my Nikon gear or perhaps just the expensive ultra-wide and 2.8 zoom to fund a Fuji X100s. The photos are supposed to be stunning, with people and stationary objects perfectly exposed. Plus with the single focal length it forces the user to zoom with their feet and think about photo composure.

Just my thoughts ... anyone else thinking of going lighter ???

Pat.

 

[Experiment_626]

Every person's experience is his or her own, and obviously if the choice is between photos with lighter/smaller equipment and no photos because the weight of gear is too much for you, then maybe lighter weight is a better choice for you.

However, I think I'd find the fixed lens too limiting. In a controlled environment such as WDW, there are limits on how much "zooming with your feet" you can do. You can't always get closer than you are, or farther away. The whole "just zoom with your feet" mantra that some espouse reminds me of Scott Bourne's rants against what he calls "the religion of low light," where he says if a scene is too dark, "you can always bring more light." Obviously, Mr. Bourne hasn't tried bringing more light into The Haunted Mansion. Anyway, there are other choices that wouldn't limit you to a fixed lens but would still reduce the weight you'd carry. And I'm not sure what you mean about things being "perfectly exposed"; I'm sure the meter in the Fuji is a good one, but significantly better than what others offer? I'm skeptical on that.

Personally, I would be okay with less weight, but I'm really not as obsessed with having a tiny camera as some seem to be. I find the D7000 I've been using to be about as small as I can stand. I prefer the dedicated physical controls, size (and when I'm actually shooting, the heft) of my D300. I'll continue to carry a DSLR-type camera to the parks until I can't, if that day ever comes. Sure, it does sometimes make me wish my little one was still in a stroller so I could throw the camera bag in there as well, but there are alternatives such as using a locker part of the time. Maybe one day soon the mirror will go away, but I still think the form factor of a DSLR works. I've heard it said that just because film cameras needed that shape, it doesn't mean digital cameras must also mimic that form -- but I'd respond that just because they don't have to, it doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't.

In the end, there are lots of choices and that's good for all of us. As for me, I'd go full-frame in a heartbeat if I could afford to replace all my lenses!

Scott

 

[zackiedawg]

Yes and no. I definitely considered the idea of going lighter, and indeed ended up buying a camera that was significantly smaller and lighter which I've used often at Disney. Though I too would feel just too limited by a fixed focal length, and I didn't necessarily prioritize pocketability - just a lot lighter and smaller - so I went with a Sony NEX system. I can carry the camera body and 3-4 lenses in the same space that my DSLR with one lens used to take up, and if I decide to go with just the camera and a single mounted lens, I can hold the camera in my palm or hang it around my neck without any pain from the weight...and having a decent APS-C sensor AND still having lens-interchangeability was very important to me.

The 'no' side comes from the fact that I haven't given up carrying DSLRs at Disney - I definitely am not ready to fully replace my DSLR system, so the NEX runs as a second body and second system - I can sometimes bring both the DSLR and the NEX, with different focal lengths, or I can bring just the DSLR and chosen lenses when I know I won't mind the extra weight and bulk, or I can just bring the NEX when I want to run lighter and more portable. When I go on solo photo trips to Disney, both cameras come. When I'm up there with family or friends and photography is something I only do on the side, then the NEX comes because it doesn't get in the way and still lets me get good shots without everyone else complaining about 'the camera guy' slowing down the group and annoying everyone by not being able to go on some rides or always needing to find a locker before doing so...and taking up time at the bag checks.

 

[nigelp]

Before you get rid of your heavy weight can I ask how are you carrying it?
Are you still using the strap that came with your camera? If so, why not have a look at some other straps that will help to spread the weight of your camera or invest in a better bag.

I personally hand hold my camera (I have a wrist strap purely for safety reasons) and 'drop' it in a bag that hangs by my side when I am not using it. I no longer finish the day with that awful aching neck feeling.

 

[2Tiggies]

Before you get rid of your heavy weight can I ask how are you carrying it?
Are you still using the strap that came with your camera? If so, why not have a look at some other straps that will help to spread the weight of your camera or invest in a better bag.

I personally hand hold my camera (I have a wrist strap purely for safety reasons) and 'drop' it in a bag that hangs by my side when I am not using it. I no longer finish the day with that awful aching neck feeling.

I learned the hard way last year and I didn't have any particularly heavy lenses but the Tokina 11-16 on my camera body with battery grip, hanging round my neck pretty much all day from rope drop to park closing ...... there were some nights when I really felt it.

I just changed up my telephoto lens and the new one is a fair bit heavier, as is the 24-70 F2.8 I will be toting about next trip and I bought myself an UPstrap last week. In a nutshell, I don't know how I ever managed with the neck strap even though I never gave it a second thought before. The shoulder strap makes an enormous difference - far more so than I ever imagined when i ordered it!

I love prime lenses and if I could afford it, I would be using them predominantly. I don't mind changing lenses and I guess having what I want when I want it is more important to me than the convenience of carrying less. Perhaps that will change in time; I don't know. I have never found my camera gear a hindrance, despite many asking me how i can possibly carry "all that stuff" around with me all day. I don't take anything that I know I won't need for that particular day but sometimes I know I want something specific for something specific and to me it is well worth the $7 to rent a locker for those occasions

 

[pjacobi]

I must admit I love the photos but I am getting a little sick and tired of dragging 3 or 4 pounds of camera and glass to the parks everyday.

What the purpose of being in the parks?

If the primary purpose is photography and you have plenty of time to devote to the craft, then 3 or 4 pounds of equipment should not be a burdon.

If the primary purpose is a family vacation, enjoying the parks, looking after a spouse and kids, then good quality P/S camera is all that you need for a quick family snapshot. Keep the dSLR when you *do* have the time and are not destracted by other priorities.

It's awful tough to try to get the best shot when other people are waiting on you to catch up. It's also uncomfortable to carry around lots of equipment that you have no time to use.


-Paul

 

[goofydad621]

What the purpose of being in the parks?

If the primary purpose is photography and you have plenty of time to devote to the craft, then 3 or 4 pounds of equipment should not be a burdon.

If the primary purpose is a family vacation, enjoying the parks, looking after a spouse and kids, then good quality P/S camera is all that you need for a quick family snapshot. Keep the dSLR when you *do* have the time and are not destracted by other priorities.

It's awful tough to try to get the best shot when other people are waiting on you to catch up. It's also uncomfortable to carry around lots of equipment that you have no time to use.


-Paul

This was what I was thinking about in my post about a new P/S camera. BEfore DSLRs were out I would take both P/S and SLR with us and some mornigns take theSLR and just go out to take photos but not condusive of a family trip for us.

 

[cobright]

I must admit I love the photos but I am getting a little sick and tired of dragging 3 or 4 pounds of camera and glass to the parks everyday.[...]
Just my thoughts ... anyone else thinking of going lighter ???

YES... omg yes.

I took my D7100, a borrowed D600, and my EOS M (interchangable lens compact), to WDW last month. I wanted to take the D600 just for a couple of family portraits (one from each park), use the crop body dslr as the basic goto camera and the compact comes along for basic easy going days.

The FF body (with a good lens and tripod and all that) really did add to the family portraits I think, but I wasn't about to lug it around all day. Hats off to folks who do, but it was hot, I was hot, and the camera is big. So into a locker it went until sunset.

The D7100 replaced my older D80 and is a really nice camera. After day one, I left it at the resort. What I found was my compact system canon took just as good a pic. Not as good a camera. It was slower, and continuous shooting mode was a joke, it took ages (like 2 sec or more) to clear the buffer for the next shot(when shooting RAW) and I still don't really like live-view. But... for me... most of my pics are character interactions and some poses around the park. Things where I have a bit of flexibility in timing and composing my shot. If I had better lens options for the canon, I would have left the 7100 home altogether.

If you need absolute spontaneity then absolutely find a light dslr. I'm not sold yet on these superPnS yet, but I imagine you would be well served by a aps-c sensor interchangable lens system.

I think the Sony NEX3 or 5 or whatever is probably a better option than the canon I have (my canon was pretty well priced though), maybe the new samsung nx2000 as well. I did get to play with a couple 4/3 systems and the Nikon 1 system and some were better than others. for instance, I didn't think the nikon 1 J1 performed better than the sony rx100 (same sensor size).

I'm rambling... I guess bottom line is ... don't convince yourself either way until you get a few different styles in your hand. I have been a "bigger is better" guy for a long time and was really impressed with the picture quality I have seen from the newer compacts.

 

[AydensMom]

Before you get rid of your heavy weight can I ask how are you carrying it?
Are you still using the strap that came with your camera? If so, why not have a look at some other straps that will help to spread the weight of your camera or invest in a better bag.

I personally hand hold my camera (I have a wrist strap purely for safety reasons) and 'drop' it in a bag that hangs by my side when I am not using it. I no longer finish the day with that awful aching neck feeling.

I use Crumpler strap not the crappy Nikon supplied one. I'm just thinking that except for perhaps 5% of my shots the Fuji would be just as effective and I can throw it in my pocket.

Pat

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

It really depends on the photographic goals of the vacation/visit. For myself the photography is an integral part of the vacation. It helps that the DW is also a photographer, so I don't get hassled very much. I bring as much gear as I can possibly carry on the plane. That usually is three DSLR bodies, 2 w/ grips, accompanying flashes, two tripods and other support equipment. Throw in a P & S and camera phones and we are usually able to cover any circumstance. My family refuses to be photographed, so primarily I just shoot WDW parks, rides (the dark rides are my favorites), hotels, etc. Occasionally, I can sneak a candid of the family. Since I am a motorsports photographer, shooting things like Disney are a welcome change to what I normally do 7-8 months out of the year.

So to answer your question, no, I do not go light.

 

[traylorc]

Like Gianna's Papa I am a pack mule at heart and carry around multiple bodies and lenses. To be honest, I don't mind carrying around all that weight because photography is an important part of my WDW experience. That does not mean I neglect my family...but IMHO WDW is one of most photogenic places on the planet. I am fortunate my wife understands my passion for photography.

Besides when we get home from vacation and I have an opportunity to review and process my shots...it makes hauling around all that photography gear worthwhile.

 

[rossb]

I've done WDW with Nikon DX, Nikon FX, and Micro 4/3 equipment. To be honest the Micro 4/3 equipment is more than I need for WDW and it is very small and light.

 

[boBQuincy]

I've done WDW with Nikon DX, Nikon FX, and Micro 4/3 equipment. To be honest the Micro 4/3 equipment is more than I need for WDW and it is very small and light.

I agree. There were some sensor limitations when I first switched to micro 4/3 but newer cameras like Olympus OM-D and Panasonic GX7 have sensors that are comparable to many APS-C. Some of the newer (and $$$) lenses like Pan 12-35, 35-100, and Oly 12-40 are f/2.8, great optical quality, and still half the weight of typical dSLR lenses.