New to Disney photography help please

[BeachMouse1]

Hi we travel to Disney often. I am wondering if some of you photography experts could give me a little guidance here.
I have an iPhone 15 pro max and it takes nice photos. I would like to get more into photography at Disney but not yet ready to start purchasing a camera body, lenses etc.
Are there any “point and shoot” type cameras that you feel would be a good start or is the iPhone just as good as any of these “point and shoot”?
I have read many conflicting opinions on this

 

[OKW Lover]

Great question. The iPhone is a surprisingly good camera. For a phone.

In a PnS camera look for a good optical zoom. Something on the order of at least 5 times. Also be sure you are getting a good number of megapixels resolution. Something on the order of 5mp or higher.

Be sure to have large enough memory cards to store those pictures on too.

One thing I miss with my PnS is the ability to geotag my pictures automatically. Some PnS cameras do offer that feature so look for it if geotagging is important to you.

 

[BeachMouse1]

Great question. The iPhone is a surprisingly good camera. For a phone.

In a PnS camera look for a good optical zoom. Something on the order of at least 5 times. Also be sure you are getting a good number of megapixels resolution. Something on the order of 5mp or higher.

Be sure to have large enough memory cards to store those pictures on too.

One thing I miss with my PnS is the ability to geotag my pictures automatically. Some PnS cameras do offer that feature so look for it if geotagging is important to you.

Thank you for this very helpful. I know it’s weird but I just don’t feel the same when using a phone vs a camera! I just couldn’t figure out if the cost of the camera was justified if the iPhone is just as good so I’m glad you talked about the zoom

 

[jec6613]

I'm going to put the tl;dr up top: you probably do want an interchangeable lens camera, just treat it as a compact and don't swap lenses.

The iPhone (and the Galaxy S Series) are actually a surprisingly competent camera, and basically killed the P&S market - not just because it's good enough, but because it's actually better quality than most of the P&S cameras.

What you'll need to understand about cameras is the basics of how they work: Light comes in the lens, through an aperture that controls how much light makes it through, and strikes an image sensor (or film if you're really old school). In order to improve image quality, you need more light captured by that system, and you can do that by either increasing the aperture opening, measured by the f-number (lower is better, termed "faster") or increasing the size of the sensor (bigger is better).

And the iPhone now has a very substantial image sensor (1/1.56") and very fast lens (f/1.6). This leads you to an unfortunate situation where most affordable compact cameras offer features (usually zoom), but otherwise have lower image quality and often fewer controls than your iPhone.

So I took a minute and perused B&H (they usually have every current camera listed on their website) with the idea of finding every compact camera where the technical image quality exceeds that of an iPhone 15, and it's a surprisingly short list:

• Sony RX100
• Canon PowerShot G7 X
• Sony ZV-1 (more of a video camera though)
• Fujifilm X100VI
• Fujifilm X100V
• Ricoh GR III
• Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II
• Leica Q2
• Leica Q3
• Leica Q2 Monochrom

If you're buying some other camera, it's for some feature that isn't the image quality - zoom lenses, or maybe you just don't want to drain your phone battery or like the feel of a purpose designed camera in your hand. You do you, I don't judge, and own and use several compact cameras despite having a bunch of DSLR and mirrorless bodies (and SLR for good measure).

The trouble with picking one of the above cameras, as you'll quickly discover, is they're not cheap, and the Nikon Z30 with 16-50mm lens kit exists that undercuts the price of all of them and offers really good image quality and features - including things like direct phone linking and the Geotagging that @OKW Lover mentions, plus the ability to charge using the same USB-C as your iPhone 15.

*Aside, I'd skip the Canon kits with the 18-45mm lens as the lens is very poor quality, unusual for Canon.

Edit: oops, wrong username tag!

 

[jec6613]

For fun, I decided to get some quick grab shots of my well compensated test subject, and put some crops side-by-side.

The compression on the forum is going to make them all look worse than I'm seeing them, but they'll show you some of what I was talking about... first, how good the phone is, and second, yes you can get significant steps up in quality; specifically look at hair definition and the autofocus accuracy and such.

First is an S22, basically state of the art phone, my work iPhone 15 does a similar job. Second is a Nikon Zfc with 16-50mm kit lens, same as you'd get out of a Z30 or Z50. Third is a Nikon Z8 with 24-70 f/2.8S, basically top of the line body and lens.

Edit: OK, the forum really shrinks them so much you can't see anything, attaching three images instead. Still bad, but not as bad.

 

[mom2rtk]

I have found that recent model cell phones take pretty good photos when displayed on a screen. I print a lot of photos though and there's no comparison between the ones I've taken with my full frame DSLR and even a high quality cell phone camera.

 

[OKW Lover]

I have found that recent model cell phones take pretty good photos when displayed on a screen. I print a lot of photos though and there's no comparison between the ones I've taken with my full frame DSLR and even a high quality cell phone camera.

Interesting. What phone and DSLR do you have and what photo software are you using to print the pictures?

 

[BeachMouse1]

I'm going to put the tl;dr up top: you probably do want an interchangeable lens camera, just treat it as a compact and don't swap lenses.

The iPhone (and the Galaxy S Series) are actually a surprisingly competent camera, and basically killed the P&S market - not just because it's good enough, but because it's actually better quality than most of the P&S cameras.

What you'll need to understand about cameras is the basics of how they work: Light comes in the lens, through an aperture that controls how much light makes it through, and strikes an image sensor (or film if you're really old school). In order to improve image quality, you need more light captured by that system, and you can do that by either increasing the aperture opening, measured by the f-number (lower is better, termed "faster") or increasing the size of the sensor (bigger is better).

And the iPhone now has a very substantial image sensor (1/1.56") and very fast lens (f/1.6). This leads you to an unfortunate situation where most affordable compact cameras offer features (usually zoom), but otherwise have lower image quality and often fewer controls than your iPhone.

So I took a minute and perused B&H (they usually have every current camera listed on their website) with the idea of finding every compact camera where the technical image quality exceeds that of an iPhone 15, and it's a surprisingly short list:

• Sony RX100
• Canon PowerShot G7 X
• Sony ZV-1 (more of a video camera though)
• Fujifilm X100VI
• Fujifilm X100V
• Ricoh GR III
• Sony Cyber-shot RX1R II
• Leica Q2
• Leica Q3
• Leica Q2 Monochrom

If you're buying some other camera, it's for some feature that isn't the image quality - zoom lenses, or maybe you just don't want to drain your phone battery or like the feel of a purpose designed camera in your hand. You do you, I don't judge, and own and use several compact cameras despite having a bunch of DSLR and mirrorless bodies (and SLR for good measure).

The trouble with picking one of the above cameras, as you'll quickly discover, is they're not cheap, and the Nikon Z30 with 16-50mm lens kit exists that undercuts the price of all of them and offers really good image quality and features - including things like direct phone linking and the Geotagging that @OKW Lover mentions, plus the ability to charge using the same USB-C as your iPhone 15.

*Aside, I'd skip the Canon kits with the 18-45mm lens as the lens is very poor quality, unusual for Canon.

Edit: oops, wrong username tag!

Wow thank you for all this. I need to do the research and look at all these. Truly appreciated

 

[mom2rtk]

Interesting. What phone and DSLR do you have and what photo software are you using to print the pictures?

I have an iphone 14 and a Canon 6D. I edit in Lightroom and print with an Epson XP-640.

 

[jec6613]

I have found that recent model cell phones take pretty good photos when displayed on a screen. I print a lot of photos though and there's no comparison between the ones I've taken with my full frame DSLR and even a high quality cell phone camera.

It's not just printing - get a sufficiently high quality (and large) display and it's night and day obvious!

And @OKW Lover you'll notice that the 6D isn't exactly a new camera, either. Image sensors haven't actually moved the needle that much since 2012 or so in terms of image quality. Not that there haven't been improvements, but mostly not in the image quality department, as modern camera sensors are capable of capturing the randomness of photons. Feed the 6D images through Topaz Photo AI to make up for the lack of processing power in the camera itself and they'll come out nearly as clean as the images out of a D6, despite the decade long gap.

I will add though that if you're starting in photography, you should really buy into a new mirrorless system rather than the older DSLR equipment. The quality of life improvements that help you get better, faster, are well worth the increase in cost; but if you're in a DSLR system and it does what you want, there's no compelling reason to move.

 

[mom2rtk]

It's not just printing - get a sufficiently high quality (and large) display and it's night and day obvious!

And @OKW Lover you'll notice that the 6D isn't exactly a new camera, either. Image sensors haven't actually moved the needle that much since 2012 or so in terms of image quality. Not that there haven't been improvements, but mostly not in the image quality department, as modern camera sensors are capable of capturing the randomness of photons. Feed the 6D images through Topaz Photo AI to make up for the lack of processing power in the camera itself and they'll come out nearly as clean as the images out of a D6, despite the decade long gap.

I will add though that if you're starting in photography, you should really buy into a new mirrorless system rather than the older DSLR equipment. The quality of life improvements that help you get better, faster, are well worth the increase in cost; but if you're in a DSLR system and it does what you want, there's no compelling reason to move.

My 6D will be a decade old in a few months. Knock wood, it has done a spectacular job for me. I have no clue what I will do when it finally gives out. So many choices. Too many really. But I'm pretty happy with the glass I have and don't have the budget to make any big changes. I might consider a refurbished 5D of some sort. Maybe something from Facebook Marketplace as everyone who does have the budget moves to mirrorless.

 

[jec6613]

My 6D will be a decade old in a few months. Knock wood, it has done a spectacular job for me. I have no clue what I will do when it finally gives out. So many choices. Too many really. But I'm pretty happy with the glass I have and don't have the budget to make any big changes. I might consider a refurbished 5D of some sort. Maybe something from Facebook Marketplace as everyone who does have the budget moves to mirrorless.

Depends a lot on your risk tolerance. On big vacations, I carry a minimum of two camera bodies - both because of a backup body, but also because if I'm going somewhere dirty or dusty then I don't have to swap lenses, especially handy on safari where I may only get a space that's safe to clean cameras and lenses at night. You may want to think about something like that - even a second, used 6D would do very well. I do like to ensure that accessories are compatible and that the interface is very similar so that I don't need to think about which camera is in my hand when I'm swapping back and forth, but other than that the world's your oyster.

As for what camera to get when your 6D finally dies and the parts aren't available to keep it going ... well, it depends when. Sure, a 5D would do well, but if we're talking a few years from now you might as well get whatever mirrorless is current, and a lens adapter, if you can fit it into the budget. Especially as the EF mount is a newer mount, so the EF-RF adapter is 100% compatible with all EF lenses at full performance - something not true about the Nikon F-Z adapter and a big reason why I still have three DSLRs.

 

[_19disnA]

It depends on how you plan to use your pictures. If you mostly want postage stamp sized images to post online, then probably any camera will work fine. If you want to be able to enlarge them to put on your wall, then the image quality of the typical DSLR camera will yield better results. Photography is to me just as much about the equipment you use as the skill of the photographer. Finding the right shot, composition and subject matter are things you learn from experience, regardless of the equipment you are using. Apple phone ads make it seem like their amazing devices will suddenly make everyone a pro photographer which I think is very misleading.

When you go to Disney do you want to carry around photography equipment all day just to get a few good shots? Do you want to spend time finding the right locations for that 'perfect' shot? I would imagine most do not.

 

[cobright]

Are there any “point and shoot” type cameras that you feel would be a good start or is the iPhone just as good as any of these “point and shoot”?
I have read many conflicting opinions on this

The iPhone camera is as good or better than most PnS cameras until it isn't. And that point usually happens at around a 1" sensor. At this point your looking at a 1st generation Sony RX100 or a Sony ZV-1 series, a Canon G9 of some sort.

But let's be honest, those are $300-500 cameras that you will not take nearly as many pictures with as you already do with your phone and while those pictures will have better potential quality, the gear is not going to support an expansion in your ability as a photographer. They will simply take the same pictures as your phone, a little better and a lot less often.

As mentioned in other posts, a nice middle ground is a mirrorless interchangeable lens system camera. Go the keh, pick up a good used olympus or panasonic and you get a flagship camera a few generations old for under $300 with features current cameras charge seriuous $$ for. In particular, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 has in-body 5-axis image stabilization, meaning you never have to compromise on whether to get a fast lens, an image stabilized lens, or an affordable lens.

 

[BeachMouse1]

The iPhone camera is as good or better than most PnS cameras until it isn't. And that point usually happens at around a 1" sensor. At this point your looking at a 1st generation Sony RX100 or a Sony ZV-1 series, a Canon G9 of some sort.

But let's be honest, those are $300-500 cameras that you will not take nearly as many pictures with as you already do with your phone and while those pictures will have better potential quality, the gear is not going to support an expansion in your ability as a photographer. They will simply take the same pictures as your phone, a little better and a lot less often.

As mentioned in other posts, a nice middle ground is a mirrorless interchangeable lens system camera. Go the keh, pick up a good used olympus or panasonic and you get a flagship camera a few generations old for under $300 with features current cameras charge seriuous $$ for. In particular, the Olympus OM-D E-M5 has in-body 5-axis image stabilization, meaning you never have to compromise on whether to get a fast lens, an image stabilized lens, or an affordable lens.

Thank you this makes a lot of sense. I was going to ask what you meant by the keh and I google the Olympus camera and the KEH website came up. What kind of lens would you recommend to start with if I get this body?

 

[cobright]

Thank you this makes a lot of sense. I was going to ask what you meant by the keh and I google the Olympus camera and the KEH website came up. What kind of lens would you recommend to start with if I get this body?

A big thing to remember with MFT camera format is that the crop is 2X. Which is bonkers if you come from traditional photography or use a full frame digital, or even the more common APS sensor DSLR or mirrorless cameras (they crop in 1.6x). If you are new to dealing with lenses of various focal length then you will have less to unlearn but in general the same size (focal length) lens for MFT will be a lot more zoomed in. One area where MFT cameras really shine is wildlife photography and birding because a relatively small lens, say 300mm will perform like a 600mm in terms of magnification.

Anyway... to the point. My favorite walking around, kit lens, is the panasonic 12-32mm. Its a sturdy wide angle zoom with enough range to compose most travel photos, but it's a very slim pancake lens. Meaning it's physically short, doesn't stick out much, more like a PnS camera, which lets you stick the whole camera into a pocket easier. Not too expensive.

After that a kit telephoto zoom. A 45-150 can be picked up under $100.

 

[jec6613]

A big thing to remember with MFT camera format is that the crop is 2X. Which is bonkers if you come from traditional photography or use a full frame digital, or even the more common APS sensor DSLR or mirrorless cameras (they crop in 1.6x). If you are new to dealing with lenses of various focal length then you will have less to unlearn but in general the same size (focal length) lens for MFT will be a lot more zoomed in. One area where MFT cameras really shine is wildlife photography and birding because a relatively small lens, say 300mm will perform like a 600mm in terms of magnification.

This is a common misconception that to get photographic equivalence, a 300mm f/4 is roughly a 600mm f/4 on full frame, but it's not. Also, except for Canon, APS-C (including the actual film, BTW) is a 1.5x field if view multiplier.

You need to convert both the sensor area and aperture to get a photographically equivalent lens when comparing sensor sizes, which means you end up with a chart, example below using the iPhone as a baseline. The m4/3 Wikipedia page also shows a similar chart.

Sensor	Aperture	Focal Length
iPhone 15 (48 mm^2)	f/1.6	~6m
1" Type	f/2.2	9mm
4/3 Type	f/3.2	12mm
APS-C (Canon)	f/4	15mm
APS-C (All others)	f/4.5	16mm
Full Frame	f/6.3	24mm

During the DSLR era, 4/3 and m4/3 were de facto smaller than full frame or APS-C simply because SLR need at least an f/5.6 aperture for autofocus to function, but that is no longer the case - as an example, the Canon 800/600mm f/11 DO lenses are lighter than a m4/3 an equivalent 400/300mm f/5.6.

The only advantage m4/3 now holds in the size/weight department is that either (1) it's an older system with a single sensor size for the mount so some lens options are available where they just aren't in APS-C or Full Frame and (2) the physical lens mount and sensor are smaller, allowing for the body itself to be miniaturized more. How important those are to you is a personal thing, I find #2 to be completely irrelevant because with relatively large hands, most cameras are below the minimum size I find comfortable to hold, but #1 to be very annoying because it means I have multiple systems.

The disadvantage of going with a m4/3 system are (1) the inverse of missing lenses is true as well - things like a 35-100 f/1.4 or 52mm f/0.7 don't exist, and (2) the options for bodies are much more limited.

And where does this leave us? Basically where the best compromise is for most people is APS-C:

1. The sensor is large enough that you can get usefully fast and wide lenses for a reasonable price compared to m4/3
2. A 1.4x teleconverter means a telephoto lens (300 f/4 for example) performs the same on m4/3 and APS-C (and the Fujifilm X-T5's crop mode actually turns it into de facto a m4/3 sensor with the same resolution as the OM-1)
3. For every direct example I could find of current production lenses, the Z, F, RF, and EF mount telephoto + TC came in both cheaper and lighter than an equivalent m4/3 lens (at least MSRP)
4. APS-C cameras by and large share the same mount as full frame bodies, leading to more lens options, especially third party.

The biggest problem with APS-C right now is that the only company with actually serious bodies at the moment is Fujifilm, with Nikon and Canon's last serious entries being the 7D Mk II and D500 (the D500 from 2017 still remaining the best APS-C stills body until the X-T5 came out last year).

As for where I ended up, I spent a long time with APS-C, but a few years ago I downsized my normal travel kit to a smaller and lighter full frame option. Yes, downsized: being able to drop to slower lenses by a full stop made my kit both smaller and lighter compared to what I used to carry with APS-C for the same sort of travel photography, with the only downside being price.

 

[cobright]

This is a common misconception that to get photographic equivalence, a 300mm f/4 is roughly a 600mm f/4 on full frame, but it's not. Also, except for Canon, APS-C (including the actual film, BTW) is a 1.5x field if view multiplier.

I mean, it cannot be much of a misconception when your explanation confirmed what I said. Your chart shows that with regard to magnification a 12mm MFT lens is equivalent to a 24mm lens in a full frame system. This can play a deciding factor when the camera is primarily to be used while vacationing, as it allows the shooter a higher limit in magnification against the constraints of portibility and (to a large extent) price.

Obviously a larger will result in better photos (ceteris paribus and all that) but the right camera is not always the one that will produce the best photos. This vacationer (in my estimation) is looking for something that is better enough than his camera phone without being as large and complicated or expensive as a DSLR.

Without these constraints I would have recommended the SL3 my wife bought me for our anniversary with any one of the L mount summilux lenses. Dreamy camera, but even so it's twice as heavy as my old E-M5, really too big to fit in a pocket, and a terrible choice in a first camera, financially speaking.

I hit the parks 2 or 3 times a week these days and in all honesty, it's my Olympus I take with me most often.