Leaving your DSLR at home

[Lee Jay]

Why would I want to be limited to the blue (pocket compact) or purple (advanced pocket compact) range, when I could have all that range inside the green, and get tracking AF, a real optical viewfinder and 100-1000 times the flash power as well? In the past, I've used every bit of that range when on travel. In fact, travel is the perfect time to have lots of range because you are going places you haven't been before, and therefore you don't know in advance what you're going to want to shoot with when you get there.

I'll be taking the green one with me on my next trip, for sure.

--
Lee Jay

 

[pavi1]

This is a very good example of all a smart phone camera is good for. Taking pictures of a business card so you don't have to stuff your wallet, electric bill, recipe before going to the store so you don't have to write a list.

Totally useless for photos of anything you want to look at more than once.

I don't know. I use my smartphone camera for a lot of one-off shots. I also use it for my ebay stuff too.

I would never say that the smartphone is useless for photos I want to look at again. I will say that it increases the number of casual photos taken and turns most photos into something casual.

I don't think I'd want to hang about to take a photo of this fellow with a DSLR.

--
I take photos for my own pleasure. I write books for my own pleasure too. If people buy them then fine. If not then I don't really care. The fun was in writing them. Income is just icing on top of the cake.

Thanks for proving my point. Does anyone really want to see those more than once?

--
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44

 

[Draek]

I did say when like is compared to like. If you compare a CSC with an APS-C sensor and lets say an f2 50mm lens, there is no reason to assume that a DSLR with the same sensor and equivalent lens is going to be better. It might be, or it might not, because the presence or absence of a prism is totally irrelevant regarding IQ.

Actually... it isn't irrelevant, though the effect goes the other way. Mirrors negatively affect file quality by adding undesireable vibrations during capture, a factor that tends to come into play at slow (1/15 and below) exposures, particularly handheld but even with good tripods. It was the main reason Leicas had such a reputation for low-light shooting back in the days of film; CaNikon and the rest of the SLR makers all had f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses as well, but only Leica was free of that particular annoyance. You can use MLU of course, but I think it's clear how that'd mess with your sense of timing, with all that entails.

With modern technologies such as OIS, IBIS and the like the situation isn't so clear-cut anymore of course, but, well, it's still a factor to consider for those of us who learned proper shooting technique.

 

[SomebodyFamous]

Actually... it isn't irrelevant, though the effect goes the other way. Mirrors negatively affect file quality by adding undesireable vibrations during capture, a factor that tends to come into play at slow (1/15 and below) exposures, particularly handheld but even with good tripods. It was the main reason Leicas had such a reputation for low-light shooting back in the days of film; CaNikon and the rest of the SLR makers all had f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses as well, but only Leica was free of that particular annoyance. You can use MLU of course, but I think it's clear how that'd mess with your sense of timing, with all that entails.

With modern technologies such as OIS, IBIS and the like the situation isn't so clear-cut anymore of course, but, well, it's still a factor to consider for those of us who learned proper shooting technique.

 

[SomebodyFamous]

Maybe those were not the best photos.

To be honest though, not every photo is worth keeping forever. Not every photo is worth taking to keep forever.

 

[pavi1]

Maybe those were not the best photos.

To be honest though, not every photo is worth keeping forever. Not every photo is worth taking to keep forever.

Very true. Most of mine could be deleted and no one would care. For that 1 in 10,000 that is worthy of canvas and a wall, I don't want it to happen with an iPhone.

 

[Cope]

If the purpose of the vacation is to capture something, take the DSLR. If the purpose is to relax, take a P&S or buy postcards; otherwise you may spoil the trip for everyone else.

 

[Mark B.]

Depends on where I'm going and why. I recently took a 4-day business trip visiting a different city each day. Although I was in some interesting places, and needed a camera anyway for business purposes, I opted for my superzoom (Canon SX50) and smaller external flash (430 EXII). I also had to lug my business laptop, so taking a DSLR and even a smaller lens was out of the question.

Generally, though, if I'm traveling with my wife I'll still opt for the DSLR and a couple lenses. The SX50 can't touch it in terms of IQ.

Mark

 

[SomebodyFamous]

This infamous image of Paul Gascoigne was taken by a journalist in London with a cheap disposable film camera. The camera cost pounds and earned the photographer thousands of pounds. These cheap and bad cameras are well worthwhile - just like the iPhone that's just been condemned.

It doesn't matter what camera was used - if the image is salable, it will sell. If not then the most stupidly expensive camera, ludicrously expensive lens and most dreadfully perfect technique won't save it.

--
I take photos for my own pleasure. I write books for my own pleasure too. If people buy them then fine. If not then I don't really care. The fun was in writing them. Income is just icing on top of the cake.

 

[coudet]

I just read part of an interesting thread about people with big DSLRs. If I recall correctly there was a 5DII and a D800E mentioned. People left them behind

I leave my behind too, often, when I leave the house. Though, I take it 100% of the time when I go out to take pictures.

when they went abroad and just took zoom compacts instead.

Compacts and cellphones are ok, if you don't care about the quality your pictures.

The Nikon 1 is the size I would carry.

Don't kid yourself. My bet it would be just another camera that you leave at home, while you take pictures with your phone. And size of the camera is not the reason for that. Ultimately, it comes down to the importance (or lack of) that photography holds for you.

 

[sportyaccordy]

It really depends. These days I pretty much only use my camera for travel and landscapes. A big DSLR would be awesome for night time stuff, but for landscapes, who cares. I think if you are a pro DSLRs make sense. But I really prefer the incognito look of something like a NEX which is why I have one. If A7 bodies ever drop below $1K used I think I will jump on that band wagon.

 

[Leswick]

It's highly subjective and up to an individual. Just spend 6 weeks in AK and since I care about IQ, the DSLR was the choice.

Leswick

 

[pavi1]

This infamous image of Paul Gascoigne was taken by a journalist in London with a cheap disposable film camera. The camera cost pounds and earned the photographer thousands of pounds. These cheap and bad cameras are well worthwhile - just like the iPhone that's just been condemned.

It doesn't matter what camera was used - if the image is salable, it will sell. If not then the most stupidly expensive camera, ludicrously expensive lens and most dreadfully perfect technique won't save it.

--
I take photos for my own pleasure. I write books for my own pleasure too. If people buy them then fine. If not then I don't really care. The fun was in writing them. Income is just icing on top of the cake.

That image is Krapp. Does not matter how much someone paid for it.

--
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44

 

[SomebodyFamous]

That image is Krapp. Does not matter how much someone paid for it.

If it's "krapp" then it wouldn't be worth money.

 

[Daro31]

Amusing, I guess like they say all things are relative. I started photography with my fathers hand me down Yashikamat TLR, when my father got his Rollieflex 2.8 TLR. When I was about 15 I ended up with the Rollie. Finally when I was working at 21, I bought my Mamiya RB67 Pros-S and 3 lenses. I actually took it on vacation with my kids and a shoulder strap. For serious work I had a 4x5.

I call it a hobby that got out of hand.

Now when we travel, going light is taking the battery grip off of my 5D MKII, and 3 lenses that get me from 17-200 mm.

I have always thought if I ever get that once in a life time picture I want to make a to be able to make least a good 16x20 from it.

My dad had a darkroom and I just remeber mounted 16x20 prints for the camera club as kind of what was a photograph. Anything smaller than 11x14 was a snapshot.

We all do photography for different reasons. Get the equipment (tools), that do what you want to do.

 

[SomebodyFamous]

I was thinking about it all today during quiet periods at work.

None of us here are professionals (though some dreamers believe they are)

99.999% of our photos remain forever in digital form, never being printed.

If we display work, we display it digitally on picture frames that are really not very high resolution.

We don't *need* digital SLRs. There's very little that we can't do with a bridge camera or an interchangeable lens compact.

 

[Lee Jay]

I was thinking about it all today during quiet periods at work.

None of us here are professionals (though some dreamers believe they are)

99.999% of our photos remain forever in digital form, never being printed.

So, that means we have to take 100,000 images before we print one? I've printed more than a hundred this year and I haven't taken 10 million shots.

If we display work, we display it digitally on picture frames that are really not very high resolution.

I don't display the ones I don't print. They're for looking back at later times.

We don't *need* digital SLRs. There's very little that we can't do with a bridge camera or an interchangeable lens compact.

I looked back, and despite the fact that only about 80% of my shots this year were taken with a dSLR, 100% of the ones I printed were. That hasn't always been the case. I have printed some shots taken with compacts or bridge cameras, but not very many.

 

[Bobo Hodls]

Or just 'Deep thoughts'?

 

[hdr]

... In cameras, one size does not fit all, but it is also increasingly true that one size
can fit most.

Absolutely correct. That is why old horses will be discarded (or left at home) as time progresses.

 

[jonrobertp]

I was thinking about it all today during quiet periods at work.

None of us here are professionals (though some dreamers believe they are)

99.999% of our photos remain forever in digital form, never being printed.

If we display work, we display it digitally on picture frames that are really not very high resolution.

We don't *need* digital SLRs. There's very little that we can't do with a bridge camera or an interchangeable lens compact.