Simple Digital Camera Recomendations

[Godfrey]

Dear Godfrey,

I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I'll admit that maybe it's just me but spending $ 1500.00 on a pocketable annoyance that needs periodic replacement and that takes pictures with everything in the FOV out of focus seems like a waste to me.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg PA 🙂

I wish I could understand a word of what you're intimating.

Yeah, there's nothing sharp in this photo:

Lancia Fulvia Coupé 1967
iPhone 15 Pro​

G

 

[Pioneer]

I am not a great fan of phone cameras but if I spent half as much time fooling around with it as I did with my Rolleiflex when I first got it I would probably be pretty good with it by now.

The big difference is that I still have the Rolleiflex and it still works the same. I have no idea where that phone with camera is now, or how many times I have been "upgraded" since.

 

[Godfrey]

I am not a great fan of phone cameras but if I spent half as much time fooling around with it as I did with my Rolleiflex when I first got it I would probably be pretty good with it by now.

The big difference is that I still have the Rolleiflex and it still works the same. I have no idea where that phone with camera is now, or how many times I have been "upgraded" since.

My first smartphone, and all the others since, are right here in my drawer since I always just buy the next one when I feel it's better enough that the purchase is warranted ... much the same as with my cameras. The phones all still work fine, stretching back to the first one with a camera that I bought in 2004.

There's no reason that they wouldn't, just like there's no reason that my 2003 Olympus E-1 would not work just fine (it does) still, or that my pair of Leica M10s cannot last another 20-30 years presuming that I keep the batteries in good shape, just like my '78 M4-2 or '54 Retina IIc, or '46 Leica IIIc, or '39 Berning Robot. With care in handling and proper maintenance, there's no reason that all of these things will not outlast me.

Most people toss their three year old cars out for a new one in similar fashion to how people trade in their smart phones every other year ... for no real reason other than they've been marketed to death on how essential it is to buy the latest and greatest. It's mostly nonsense. My 2006 Merc SLK is still the amazing car it was when it was new, and my '67 Lancia Fulvia Coupé is still a delightful thing to drive as well.

G

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

John, yes, the attribution was incorrect, my bad and I apologize for that.

I do not sign onto the digital has gotten worse screed. I see it a lot. I think what is happening is that some cameras are offering a lot more options. More options means more choices. More choices means more complex menus. I have two cars which are examples of the extremes: a Citroën 2CV which is hardly more complicated than a sit-down lawnmower and a Honda G1 Insight hybrid which is a mass of computers with four wheel stuck on it. Along with an engine, motor and large battery pack. Either will get me from A to B. The Honda has more choices.

As for small sensor cameras, I have a Pentax Q S1 which has pretty good images considering the sensor is only 12.4 MP and I have been posting some old images from when I was living in Mexico that were taken with a Sony DSC S70 that has a 3.4MP sensor. The Sony has great color. So I think that for my purposes the iPhone and its ilk are non-starters. OTOH they may be just wonderful for other folks. As my uncle used to say, "We can't all love the same woman."

Let me start by saying when @tortellini_man referred to cameras for travel, I presumed that meant family vacations or holidays where photography is not the primary intent of the trip. For my last few such trips, I've enjoyed bringing only my iPhone and not being weighed down with other gear. If I was going somewhere to shoot a personal project or assignment, then obviously I'd bring a more "serious" camera (probably more than one).

@boojum Different strokes for different folks. Anyone who drives a 2CV and shoots a Pentax is okay in my book!

@Godfrey In principle I definitely agree with you that a digital camera or smartphone should last indefinitely, but I would not want to use a smartphone that isn't receiving security updates anymore. As digital cameras become more connected, this will become an issue for them too.

 

[splitimageview]

I wouldn’t worry about security updates on a device that is only used for photos. No data risk with no data.

 

[tortellini_man]

didnt mean to accidentally create a thread on the validity of smartphone photography 😛

i have no opinions on that other than wanting to look at my smartphone less while traveling and in general

It's zoom range is limited, but I consider Olympus / OM System Stylus Tough "king of macro", focusing down to less than 1 cm at all focal lengths. I've thought it might be the ideal naturalist's camera, as it's also sealed against water and dust, and can embed GPS location data into photos. TG-3 (which is what I had) and succeeding models offer raw output too. I accessorized mine with the ring illuminator, and rarely took it off. Admit that I never explored it's full-auto mode, however.

I've tended to overlook whatever ergonomic issues Sony cameras may have, because I really like the results they produce. The novelty of the hardware has worn off long ago, particularly with my RX100, which is the oldest. But it's still useful. Was kind of surprised that cameras made by a consumer electronics company best known for game consoles should be among the most enduring for me, but life is funny sometimes.

But if the wildlife you seek involves birds in trees, that can be a whole 'nother ball of feathers.

the wildlife stuff is mostly separate from the travel stuff - i am already pretty happy with my setup for far away wildlife (i use the M.Zuiko Digital ED 100-400mm F5.0-6.3 IS, which is the most expensive camera related item i own)

the travel stuff is more for walking the streets of a city that i have flown to

that being said, i have been separately interested in the OM Tough cameras for their potential in doing macro photography in tidepools. i love tidepooling, and the standard macro lens requires a ton of light to avoid all of the reflections on the surface of the shallow pool, so a camera/lens that can be dipped just beneath the surface could be very useful. i have also seen people use probe lenses for this, but that seems more expensive and unwieldy than the OM Tough camera

 

[JeffS7444]

that being said, i have been separately interested in the OM Tough cameras for their potential in doing macro photography in tidepools. i love tidepooling, and the standard macro lens requires a ton of light to avoid all of the reflections on the surface of the shallow pool, so a camera/lens that can be dipped just beneath the surface could be very useful. i have also seen people use probe lenses for this, but that seems more expensive and unwieldy than the OM Tough camera

Consider accessorizing it with the FD-1 flash diffuser, which is rated for underwater use. I used the older LG-1 LED light guide (not waterproof) constantly at closer range, where shading from the camera itself becomes a challenge.

 

[boojum]

Oh, no, don't tell me this thread is winding down! It was just beginning to show hopes of a hair-pulling, eye-gouging, ear-biting discussion. ;o)

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I had forgotten about this thread. I posted several photos from my trip to Europe in the “Digital B&W” thread (starting with my post of April 7, 2025, on p. 298 of the thread) if anyone is interested in seeing the results I got from my iPhone.

 

[DownUnder]

Maybe Mr Tortellini could return and tell us which camera he ended up buying and using in his travels.

Iphones in the right hands can be amazing cameras. I have a few excellent books in my library with photos taken on iPhones. One is an architectural guide to the 1950s architecture of Palm Springs, California. It's full of truly superb images.

This said, in my case the only times I've used a phone camera have been in situations (= churches, government buildings, museums) where taking our a DSLR or mirrorless camera would have security staff down on me like a brick load.

 

[tortellini_man]

i ended up getting a pentax Q10 for pretty cheap -it has been nice so far! i have mostly flown places where it was pretty easy to get film developed though so it hasn't filled as much of a niche as i anticipated

 

[boojum]

i ended up getting a pentax Q10 for pretty cheap -it has been nice so far! i have mostly flown places where it was pretty easy to get film developed though so it hasn't filled as much of a niche as i anticipated

I have the Pentax Q S1 with the short and long zoom plus the "normal" 50mm equivalent. It is a camera which punches well above its weight. Plus it is tiny.

 

[Godfrey]

...
@Godfrey In principle I definitely agree with you that a digital camera or smartphone should last indefinitely, but I would not want to use a smartphone that isn't receiving security updates anymore. As digital cameras become more connected, this will become an issue for them too.

I tend to agree about smartphones ... presuming that you use them to also receive txts, emails, do banking, etc.
I doubt that I'll ever use any camera to do those things, nor do I see any value in my cameras becoming "more connected" ... why would that be an advantage? There's nothing about my photographic process that makes being more connected to the internet and other information devices on the taking end of the photographic process to be any advantage at all.

i ended up getting a pentax Q10 for pretty cheap -it has been nice so far! i have mostly flown places where it was pretty easy to get film developed though so it hasn't filled as much of a niche as i anticipated

Nice, a good choice. The Q10 is a very compact and handy, and it makes good photographs when you want it to. 😀

G

 

[Rayt]

As much as I prefer optical finders I have come to the realization live view is more practical. This beautiful gentleman was from Jodhpur the Blue City. Camera: iPhone 5s. It would have been impossible to line up the shot matching he subject with the background with my M rangefinders or Rolleiflex. I was still traveling with film but relied on my phone for more spontaneous photography. I upgrade my iPhone every 5 years or more and always for the cheapest model but might splurge next time for the better camera. I didn’t know iPhones can shoot RAW. Hmm. The possibilities.

 

[Hilmersen]

This winter I sold my M9p, and plan to only use film for my m-photography. I also have a fuji xh-1 that I bought for video ages ago, and the original x100. What drew me to fuji was the physical dials, as I have for film that is just what I want - a fully manual camera with easy to use dials. For digital, I find that the exposure is probably just better left to the camera. Shutter and aperture should only be changed to serve creative needs. The reason is that e.g blowns highlights just looks terrible in digital, so I would rather have a raw file that retains as much information as possible so that I can ajust the look in post. But, what I really find is that it is the optical viewfinder that gives me joy. I really dislike digital viewfinders - and not only the one in my dated fuji but also in newer leica and sonys. To me the ideal digital camera has an optical viewfinder and 2-4 customizable dials. (apertue, shutter (and exp comp, and iso....but that kind of mutes my point above)). T

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I tend to agree about smartphones ... presuming that you use them to also receive txts, emails, do banking, etc.
I doubt that I'll ever use any camera to do those things, nor do I see any value in my cameras becoming "more connected" ... why would that be an advantage? There's nothing about my photographic process that makes being more connected to the internet and other information devices on the taking end of the photographic process to be any advantage at all.

I don't see the value in light switches, home appliances, or lots of other things being connected to the internet either, but it seems like almost every product being sold today that runs on electricity connects to the internet regardless of whether the customer wants it to or not. This is not good. I am no cybersecurity expert, but my understanding is that pretty much anything that has wi-fi and connects to the internet is a potential attack vector.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

As much as I prefer optical finders I have come to the realization live view is more practical.… I upgrade my iPhone every 5 years or more and always for the cheapest model but might splurge next time for the better camera. I didn’t know iPhones can shoot RAW. Hmm. The possibilities.

Rayt—I too generally prefer optical finders, but the big, bright, beautiful 6″+ screens of modern smartphones make getting along without an optical finder a lot easier and more pleasant that the dim 3″ (and under) screens of old digicams. I've measured the image preview area on my 6.1″ screen iPhone 13 Pro, and it measures about 4.25″ diagonally. I'm too lazy to do the math but it seems to have at least 50% more screen area than the 3″ screen on my D7000.

While I think everyone feels a bit silly using an iPad as a camera, I'm glad that option exists for the visually impaired.

The 13 Pro was a bit of a splurge for me, but I have not regretted it at all. The telephoto lens add some useful capabilities, and there are other subtle differences that make the Pro models worth it for anyone who wants to explore the photographic potential of the device.

 

[Rayt]

Rayt—I too generally prefer optical finders, but the big, bright, beautiful 6″+ screens of modern smartphones make getting along without an optical finder a lot easier and more pleasant that the dim 3″ (and under) screens of old digicams. I've measured the image preview area on my 6.1″ screen iPhone 13 Pro, and it measures about 4.25″ diagonally. I'm too lazy to do the math but it seems to have at least 50% more screen area than the 3″ screen on my D7000.

While I think everyone feels a bit silly using an iPad as a camera, I'm glad that option exists for the visually impaired.

The 13 Pro was a bit of a splurge for me, but I have not regretted it at all. The telephoto lens add some useful capabilities, and there are other subtle differences that make the Pro models worth it for anyone who wants to explore the photographic potential of the device.

Specifically how mirrorless cameras warn me the highlights are being blown out so I can make necessary adjustments is just one feature I don’t want to give up. Using a smart phone to take photos was probably the behavior modification I needed to give up that big beautiful optical finder on a DSLR.

 

[Godfrey]

I don't see the value in light switches, home appliances, or lots of other things being connected to the internet either, but it seems like almost every product being sold today that runs on electricity connects to the internet regardless of whether the customer wants it to or not. This is not good. I am no cybersecurity expert, but my understanding is that pretty much anything that has wi-fi and connects to the internet is a potential attack vector.

"Use all technology, when available, for its advantages. Don't buy/use technology that has no advantage."

That's my rule. I don't buy products that 'connect' for no reason. Period. When there is no option, and the connection is unnecessary, I disable the connection. As far as I can see, there are still plenty of options. 😉

G

 

[Godfrey]

Rayt—I too generally prefer optical finders, but the big, bright, beautiful 6″+ screens of modern smartphones make getting along without an optical finder a lot easier and more pleasant that the dim 3″ (and under) screens of old digicams. I've measured the image preview area on my 6.1″ screen iPhone 13 Pro, and it measures about 4.25″ diagonally. I'm too lazy to do the math but it seems to have at least 50% more screen area than the 3″ screen on my D7000.

While I think everyone feels a bit silly using an iPad as a camera, I'm glad that option exists for the visually impaired.

The 13 Pro was a bit of a splurge for me, but I have not regretted it at all. The telephoto lens add some useful capabilities, and there are other subtle differences that make the Pro models worth it for anyone who wants to explore the photographic potential of the device.

Specifically how mirrorless cameras warn me the highlights are being blown out so I can make necessary adjustments is just one feature I don’t want to give up. Using a smart phone to take photos was probably the behavior modification I needed to give up that big beautiful optical finder on a DSLR.

I don't prefer any particular viewfinder technology. I rate viewfinders, optical or EVF, based on how well they work. Each type (RF, SLR, EVF, etc) poses advantages and disadvantages for particular kinds of use.

The highlight indication and focus assist magnification features of good EVFs are very useful in some circumstances. They get in the way in others. An optical SLR with a tiny format tends to be dim and difficult to see focus transitions with, a big LCD in sunlit work is often difficult to see due to glare and also can be clumsy/slow to manage. An optical RF in some circumstances is super quick and easy to see the focus point, and in other circumstances just difficult to use with accuracy.

In general ... Humans are good at adapting to circumstances; machinery just does what its brief requires, neither more nor less. 😉

G