Simple Digital Camera Recomendations

Tim Murphy said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Pioneer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
boojum said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.
 
I wouldn’t worry about security updates on a device that is only used for photos. No data risk with no data.
 
didnt mean to accidentally create a thread on the validity of smartphone photography :p

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

JeffS7444 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
tortellini_man said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom