Photography at Disney World new observations

[fractal]

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.

Back in the days of film SLRs, the "kit lens" was almost always a 50mm 1.8.

I do agree that a modern camera phone is basically equivalent to a DSLR + kit.

 

[havoc315]

Back in the days of film SLRs, the "kit lens" was almost always a 50mm 1.8.

I do agree that a modern camera phone is basically equivalent to a DSLR + kit.

Exactly. 5 years ago... even 2-3 years ago, I would confidently tell people that a dslr, even with kit, even on auto, will outperform your phone or cheap P&s. That's no longer true.
For people just looking for snapshots... a decent looking image to capture the memory... a smart phone is superior to a dslr. (Already in your pocket, no need to transfer the images, no fiddling with controls)

Even if consumer dslr kits are a little better, is that worth paying if you already have the smart phone anyway? If you're given a 48" flat screen TV as a throw-in with something you're already buying, would you stick it in a closet and buy a 50" TV instead for $1500? Or would you decide the "free" 48" is good enough.

The only way consumer dslr/ILC cameras survive, they must be just as easy as a smart phone, while offering clearly superior image quality. A stabilized 35mm/1.8 would give that clear IQ bump. "Take stunning photographs in low light.... that would be impossible for a smart phone"

 

[jamez2014]

must admit the latest iphone 7 that i got, the camera has really shocked me especially now i have the RAW files to play with, i will take the 6d with me when i go WDW, but i can see me still using the iphone, using lightroom panorama stitching and RAW ive managed to create some great pics with the iPhone. Even the DOF if used correctly is pretty effective, i will say the low light performance is still fairly dismal tho.

 

[KVH]

Obviously the best camera is the one you have with you at that point.<SNIP>

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.

THIS. I'm still seeing the discussion about gear when it should be about the result. Think of this - how many people who rely solely on their mobile device to maintain their photos have lost everything (sometimes more than once)? New phone, lost phone, etc. Its' all about "here, look at these" as you hand your phone over to someone. But it seems like the general public has accepted that these memories are subject to deletion and they're OK with it.

I've got my dad's slides from WWII and family B&W snaps from the 50's. Yes, some show age but some are as good they day they were developed. While we don't have enough time behind us to prove it, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that babyfirststep.wmv or promphotos.jpg or parents50thanniv.gif won't be around in 20 years, let alone 50 or 60.

And the sad fact is, the sheeple are OK with that.

 

[mom2rtk]

THIS. I'm still seeing the discussion about gear when it should be about the result. Think of this - how many people who rely solely on their mobile device to maintain their photos have lost everything (sometimes more than once)? New phone, lost phone, etc. Its' all about "here, look at these" as you hand your phone over to someone. But it seems like the general public has accepted that these memories are subject to deletion and they're OK with it.

I've got my dad's slides from WWII and family B&W snaps from the 50's. Yes, some show age but some are as good they day they were developed. While we don't have enough time behind us to prove it, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that babyfirststep.wmv or promphotos.jpg or parents50thanniv.gif won't be around in 20 years, let alone 50 or 60.

And the sad fact is, the sheeple are OK with that.

I'm really happy to be digital these days. Too many boxes of old negatives stacked up around here already! That said, I print loads of photos to use in my scrapbooks. Now to figure out where to store the growing piles of scrapbooks....

 

[havoc315]

THIS. I'm still seeing the discussion about gear when it should be about the result. Think of this - how many people who rely solely on their mobile device to maintain their photos have lost everything (sometimes more than once)? New phone, lost phone, etc. Its' all about "here, look at these" as you hand your phone over to someone. But it seems like the general public has accepted that these memories are subject to deletion and they're OK with it.

I've got my dad's slides from WWII and family B&W snaps from the 50's. Yes, some show age but some are as good they day they were developed. While we don't have enough time behind us to prove it, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that babyfirststep.wmv or promphotos.jpg or parents50thanniv.gif won't be around in 20 years, let alone 50 or 60.

And the sad fact is, the sheeple are OK with that.

I think you're comparing half a dozen of one, to 6 of another.
I dare say that for myself, and many people, they will "keep" digital images far longer than prints on average. Prints will get "deleted" long before digital images.

What I mean --- In the days of prints, yes, everything got printed. Then flipped through by me and my immediately family. The very rare memorable image might be stuck in a frame on the coffee table. A few prints might make it into a photo album. And the rest would get thrown into a shoe box.
Fast forward 5 to 10 to 15 to 20 years. The shoe boxes are lost or buried in an attic. Some of the photo albums have been lost. Some collect dust in a closet. Maybe some still sit on the coffee table. The rare occasional guest flipped through them when visiting, the prints are starting to fray and yellow. There are still a couple of those prints framed.. the colors have faded. But guests to the house see them on display.
Fast forward another 20 years... maybe my kids and grandkids have kept a handful of the prints taken from those frames and albums.

Now digital -- Almost nothing gets printed. The photos go onto my harddrive, and on to social media... Me and my immediate family view them. Our friends and family view them. Grandparents save them on to their own computer. The very rare memorable image still gets printed. And if it yellows and frays in 5--10-20 years, it can be re-printed. A few images still get saved, and made into a digital slide show.. or still printed into a coffee book album. Fast forward 5 to 10 years... the best images are still in their original quality on the backup harddrive and on flickr or instagram. Fast forward to 20 years after the pictures were taken. The original computers and memory cards are long gone. Don't have access to the "originals" anymore... but the digital images live on in cloud storage or social media. Instead of yellowed images collecting dust in a box somewhere, these photos remain to be viewed in pristine condition by children and grandchildren.

 

[jvz82]

I always bring my DSLR with me. My last two previous trips, I used my camera exclusively. This most recent trip, I have my new iPhone that actually takes pretty decent pictures, and I made good use of Memory Maker. I also brought my DSLR, but I admit that more often that not I would grab for my phone when I wanted to take a quick picture. My camera pictures are obviously way better. I used it for character meals more than anything, and if I had a moment where I felt like I had time to fumble with the camera case and set up a shot. I shoot everything in manual so sometimes it just takes longer and I'd rather get my phone. This also may have more to do with having 4 young kids and just needing the convenience of my phone right now.

I know of a lot of people who don't bring their DSLRs with them to Disney because they don't want to worry about it. I can't imagine being at Disney without it.

Also, I print basically all my pictures! I LOVE my pictures. I scrapbook so I keep everything digitally and in print form. My kids and I love flipping through our family scrapbooks! My two hobbies go hand in hand, which is wonderful for me. I'm probably in the minority though.

 

[DSLRuser]

Until I can manually adjust ISO - APERTURE - SHUTTER SPEED in an iphone...i will always carry my DSLRs. I have many primes, so a fixed optical zoom doesnt bother me. But not having the liability to creat a shot with manual adjustments keeps me away from using an iphone as a serious tool.

 

[DSLRuser]

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.

It is all about creativity. You are correct. If you have a fancy DSLR and leave it on AUTO...you may as well just use your iphone. With the exception of using a big optical zoom.

 

[havoc315]

Until I can manually adjust ISO - APERTURE - SHUTTER SPEED in an iphone...i will always carry my DSLRs. I have many primes, so a fixed optical zoom doesnt bother me. But not having the liability to creat a shot with manual adjustments keeps me away from using an iphone as a serious tool.

Obviously, for you, a dSLR is far superior. Because you are actually taking advantage of its features and quality.

But as a footnote -- You can control an iphone manually... you just need the right app to do it. It's a fixed aperture lens, so you can't stop down the aperture. But you can adjust the shutter speed, ISO, white balance.. all manually. And save it as a raw file or jpeg.

 

[photo_chick]

I pop back in for this interesting thread! I've spoken about the disappearing photograph a few times. We live in the most photographically documented time ever in human existence. Everyone has a camera of some kind with them all the time. Yet we don't print 99% of those photographs. So when our technology fails, and it will fail at some point, there will be a huge blank spot for this time in history.

I do see fewer people with DSLRs these days. And I don't think that's a bad thing. I don't use mine for much beyond paid work these days. The rest of the time I'm shooting large format film. Now how do I lug the view camera around Disneyland this summer.....

 

[KVH]

I'm glad so many people are happy with phone pics. It seems no one really cares anymore about things like color fringing or diffraction. Not to mention a humongous, uncontrollable DOF. Not to mention trying to get a decent largish print.

Yeah, people are happy. And that's cool. Really. The best camera is the one you have with you. But it's happiness based on ignorance rather than knowledge.

 

[photo_chick]

I'm glad so many people are happy with phone pics. It seems no one really cares anymore about things like color fringing or diffraction. Not to mention a humongous, uncontrollable DOF. Not to mention trying to get a decent largish print.

Yeah, people are happy. And that's cool. Really. The best camera is the one you have with you. But it's happiness based on ignorance rather than knowledge.

I know several photographers who are extremely educated in their craft that choose not to get absorbed in the minutia of technical aspects. They can pick up a phone and make amazing photographs. Far better than what I shoot. At a certain point it seems the tool becomes irrelevant. Almost an obstacle for some.

 

[havoc315]

I'm glad so many people are happy with phone pics. It seems no one really cares anymore about things like color fringing or diffraction. Not to mention a humongous, uncontrollable DOF. Not to mention trying to get a decent largish print.

Yeah, people are happy. And that's cool. Really. The best camera is the one you have with you. But it's happiness based on ignorance rather than knowledge.

I think you've missed the point. Trading a little bit of quality for convenience is not ignorance.
I cook with store bought dried pasta, instead of making pasta fresh from scratch... does that make me ignorant to the superior quality of fresh homemade pasta?
Or, I find the taste of dried pasta good enough, that I don't need to put in the time and effort of homemade pasta.

If you're never printing bigger than 8x10... and most people don't..
If you aren't going to learn how to master the manual controls of your camera, and most people don't..
And if you're never moving beyond kit lenses anyway...

The best smart phones will actually produce images that can exceed most compacts, and can be just as good as dslrs.
The iPhone 7 plus will actually give people greater depth of field control (partially simulated) than they would get with a dSLR (with kit lens).

For me personally, when it comes to photography... I go the homemade pasta route. I'll put in the time, expense and effort for the better quality.
But I wouldn't say others are ignorant for cooking Store-bought pasta instead of homemade.

 

[KVH]

Havoc, et al, I'm good with most everything you say. BUT. I could probably argue the whole ignorant/knowledgeable point. And I hate sounding pretentious too. I could think of the same analogy with cars, computers, fountain pens, etc. However I wonder what it would be like for Ollie Average if they actually knew what they were missing. To me, that is still the key here.

Then again, I can remember a day when a film SLR in the parks was a somewhat rare thing and it was Instamatics as far as the eye could see. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose . . .

 

[havoc315]

Havoc, et al, I'm good with most everything you say. BUT. I could probably argue the whole ignorant/knowledgeable point. And I hate sounding pretentious too. I could think of the same analogy with cars, computers, fountain pens, etc. However I wonder what it would be like for Ollie Average if they actually knew what they were missing. To me, that is still the key here.

Then again, I can remember a day when a film SLR in the parks was a somewhat rare thing and it was Instamatics as far as the eye could see. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose . . .

It's diminishing returns. Simply buying an aps-c dSLR kit isn't going to give most people photos any better than their phone. They have to spend hours learning photography, learning post processing, spending even more on upgraded lenses....
Then actually carrying the bulky camera, and spending time post processing, etc...
All for photos that in their eyes, may be just a bit better.

As an example, my wife and I were taking pictures of our kids at a particular moment. I took a perfectly exposed and composed shot with my expensive gear. She took a shot with her phone that was grainy, underexposed, and slightly blurry. But she preferred her iPhone photo... because she caught a slightly better smile.

It's not that people are ignorant -- it's that the technical perfection isn't a high enough priority to pay the costs for most people. They don't care if the photos are a little soft or underexposed, or if the bokeh isn't perfect. Or they don't care enough to take all the steps necessary to really improve it.

Getting back to my analogy -- I do appreciate the better taste and quality of fresh homemade pasta. Definitely tastes better to me. And when I really want it, I'll go to a good restaurant (as in hire a photographer). But when I'm cooking myself, the homemade pasta isn't worth the extra work to me... and I'll use the dried pasta.

 

[photo_chick]

It's diminishing returns. Simply buying an aps-c dSLR kit isn't going to give most people photos any better than their phone. They have to spend hours learning photography, learning post processing, spending even more on upgraded lenses....
Then actually carrying the bulky camera, and spending time post processing, etc...
All for photos that in their eyes, may be just a bit better.

As an example, my wife and I were taking pictures of our kids at a particular moment. I took a perfectly exposed and composed shot with my expensive gear. She took a shot with her phone that was grainy, underexposed, and slightly blurry. But she preferred her iPhone photo... because she caught a slightly better smile.

It's not that people are ignorant -- it's that the technical perfection isn't a high enough priority to pay the costs for most people. They don't care if the photos are a little soft or underexposed, or if the bokeh isn't perfect. Or they don't care enough to take all the steps necessary to really improve it.

Getting back to my analogy -- I do appreciate the better taste and quality of fresh homemade pasta. Definitely tastes better to me. And when I really want it, I'll go to a good restaurant (as in hire a photographer). But when I'm cooking myself, the homemade pasta isn't worth the extra work to me... and I'll use the dried pasta.

Truth. The average person doesn't place technical perfection as that high of a priority mainly because yes they notice their kids smile or some other magical moment more than they do the fact that it's slightly off technically. And I have seen quite a few people shell out a couple thousand for a nice DSLR setup then be disappointed because their phone spits out better pictures right out of the box.


However, there are some extremely knowledgeable and technically demanding photographers who still prefer to use the simplest camera possible. Today's point and shoots and smartphones boast extremely capable cameras. I can set the shutter speed, ISO, aperture and white balance on mine. Its pretty usable at ISO 3200. My DSLR from 2005 didn't even have ISO 3200. It's all about perspective I guess.

 

[KVH]

OK. Dog with a bone here. One of the issues discussed earlier was about prints versus "always in the cloud."

I am honestly really curious. Does anyone have any decent research on the long-term viability of cloud storage? As in extrapolated out to the multi-decade level? I have several magnetic storage mediums sitting around that I can no longer access (3420, Travan, Zip). Yes, there is techonolgy somewhere to read them but it isn't ubiquitously available. Will the cloud be different? Yeah, I got a load of stuff out there too so am concerned.

Short story long: Just watched this msytery. It took over 70 years to solve. All based on observations that came down to one print (from Joe Rosenthal's SpeedGraphic) compared to the iconic Iwo flag raising shot (also Joe's). I'm trying to picture the availability of "all my shots in the cloud" as being something that will even exist in 2086 as other than a memory and coming up bupkis.

50 years from now my kids will be able to show their grandchildren shots of their first visit to WDW in the 90's. I'm not so sure I can make that claim about the pics on their phones right now.

Yes, I'm a curmudgeonly old Luddite. But don't I have as good a chance of being right as I am wrong too?

 

[PrincessInOz]

Interesting conversation.

I'vé just come back from Shanghai and Hong Kong Disneylands and the dSLR camera was practically non-existent there. I could count the number of dSLRs on one hand in Shanghai but still needed both hands and feet for Hong Kong. And to add insult to injury, Shanghai Disney don't even let you take a tripod into the park!

I figure it comes down to the adage that the best camera is the one you have with you. Most people just post on social media; so the phone camera is appropriate for them. Given the camera capability in the iPhone 7 and the Google phone, they probably have more photo taking capability in them than the original digital cameras when they came out. The trend towards phone cameras will probably grow.

I have to admit that I'm nearly ready to ditch the weight of the dSLR for something smaller, lighter and more compact. The question is which system. I may wait to see what the next generation of phones does before making a decision.

 

[David Daniels]

All of this is great conversation. And all of it, I think, is missing the one key point to 95% of people. The phone is their "good enough." That's the bottom line, period.

For me, I'm a minimum of 2 DSLR's every trip because that's my good enough. Also, the ONLY time people care about their photos on their phone, is when something goes wrong. I worked for 3 years at a very popular fortune 500 "Fruit Stand" that sells a lot of iProducts. Every single day tears over their lost photos (all 15 bazillion of them stored only in one place, their phone) are gone because their iDevice leapt into the pool, toilet, under the tire, etc. They take and keep all 5 bazillion photos and videos of their precious memories on their phone, but never want to put forth the effort to store, backup, somewhere else. Yes I've spent years learning cameras and settings because I want better, more. You get out of it what you put into it...