I'm old, an amateur, and a bit cheap. I'm done carrying around an SLR and a bag of lenses as it's just too much effort. I've also had a series of small cameras both film and digital. I also always have my iPhone in my pocket. My current camera is a Canon G12 which fills most of my needs quite well and if it isn't in my hip pocket I make do with the iPhone. I'm also hesitant to say that I use the iPhone camera for more than copying my shopping list. I do not consider the phone to be a worthy substitute for a real camera but someday they will get there. The iPhone 8 takes very nice pictures without the temptation to take too long getting the camera ready to take a picture. When I go out to take pics I do not even consider using the phone and my guess is than anyone here is also not going to use the phone.


Like many of us I also peruse the ads for new cameras. I glance at the SLR ads but take careful note of the compact cameras leaning heavily towards the pocketable models. I like having a viewfinder whether it be an optical or electronic one. The perfect camera for me would have a zoom range from 24 to 200-300mm, a 1.8 constant F stop, shutter speed from B to 1000 with a frame rate of 5-6/sec., fully articulated LCD screen, a hot shoe, pop up flash, full frame sensor(I can dream), integral automatic lens "cap", JPEG and Raw, wireless downloading, battery life of 300+ shots, a replaceable and rechargeable battery, be water/dust resistant, take good video, fit in my shirt pocket, and have all of the other things my G12 has. The Sony 100 series looks like it may get there in a few years but is not there yet. Their latest with the longer lens is a step forward. I'd be willing to spend around $1200 or so but it has to be near perfect as it would be my only camera. Given the small market for such a camera I fully expect that when My G12 gives up the ghost I'll have to buy another compromise camera.

My primary camera is a now a "bridge" so I'm biased in that direction. That said a B-17 is first and foremost a military aircraft, it's old, was not built for the comfort of the crew, and certainly not built for the comfort of passengers. If you'll be circulating thru the different cabin/cockpit areas you may need two hands to hold on leaving you camera vulnerable to bumps and bruises. Not a place for long lenses and heavy equipment. Taking pictures of the countryside from the air is a "sport" for very clear skies without any haze. In July those conditions are rare at low altitude. I'd stick with the bridge.

Not knowing how many pics you'll take makes it hard to suggest how many cards to bring. I spent 12 days in Italy a couple of years ago and took 3 16 GB cards and didn't fill any of them to capacity. My camera is a 12 GB model and I took about 6000 pictures spread over the three cards. A 16GB card holds 4000+/- 12MP pictures. If you bring a computer you can download every night and possibly get along with only one card. If you want to be extra safe you can upload to the cloud too. I generally don't upload to the cloud but I do not erase cards and use the computer as a back up for the cards. I upload to the cloud when I get home.

If you have only one card now I'd sure buy at least one more. 16 GB cards only cost about $10 each so the money shouldn't much of a deterrent to buying additional cards. Also, if you run out of capacity you can buy more in Italy.

Have a great trip.

Reading later posts I'm reminded of 13 more devices bringing the battery count to 79. Hopefully that will be the final number.

It was almost painful to realize I have devices that require 61 batteries. Of those 24 use rechargeable batteries. The devices are Cameras, flash gun, camera remote control, TV & DVD remotes, dust busters, cell phones, drill, tablet, computer, electric razors, waterpic, car, boat, flashlights, kitchen timers, thermometers, bike sensors, wall clock, garage door remote, car GPS, handheld GPS for boat, personal rescue light for boat, handheld VHF radio for boat, smoke alarms, and the house alarm system sensors and backup battery.

Wow, I never would have guessed at the number and the longer it takes me to compile the list and write it down the more things I remember. I almost wish I hadn't compiled the list as it makes me wonder what would happen if our electric grid failed. Ugh!

Keep in mind that most of the folks here are very serious about photography and will have a very natural bias towards top quality equipment. That said their advice is very good even with their bias towards DSLRs rather than "point and shoot" cameras.

My suggestion is that you start off with a relatively inexpensive camera and if the photo bug bites you to then move up to better equipment. Others have told you the pros and cons of both DSLRs and "point and shoots" so I won't repeat those.

My thought is that being new to photography trying to capture decent pictures of your teams members and their action with a complicated camera will likely lead to a bunch of poor pictures. Using a fairly simple camera set on "Auto" will likely allow you to get lots of acceptable pictures. As you learn you'll begin to want to explore the full range of possibilities of the camera. At some point you'll likely feel the camera is restricting you and then you'll know enough to begin sifting thru the variety of cameras available to find what you need.

The worst thing I can imagine for you is to go into photography whole hog without knowing whether or not you'll really enjoy being a photographer. Having a bunch of expensive gear wasting away in a closet isn't a pretty prospect. You may also find out that carrying around a heavy camera and a pack with heavy accessories isn't for you.

Buying a used mid sized bridge camera will let you get a bunch of decent pictures, allow you to learn, save a bunch of money, and teach you whether or not you need a bigger more capable camera or a smaller more compact high end bridge camera. Assuming you have a smart phone in your pocket you might consider using that to see what kind of pictures you can get. Don't try to get long range action shots as the zoom range on the phone really won't allow decent results. Get as close as possible while staying off of the field and see if you can get acceptable pictures. Then borrow a simple camera from a friend. When you compare the pictures from both "cameras" you'll be able to see some differences and get an idea of what an even better camera can do.

My first trip to Europe was in 1970. As a non professional with a decent SLR and 3 lenses I felt really burdened. I persisted with SLRs until the digital cameras matured a bit and then decided that carrying heavy gear was something I was no longer willing to do. I'm on my 3rd digital camera now, a Canon G12. It fits in my back pocket just fine, until I try to sit down but it's always ready. The zoom lens covers all of the shooting I do with minor exceptions. the results are acceptable to me. Do I ever yearn for the capabilities of an SLR - Yes, but I'm sure it would ultimately end up sitting on the shelf with my last film SLR.

My total travel kit is the camera, a slave flash, the battery charger, a remote shutter release, a couple of batteries, two 16gig SD cards, a pen, lens tissues, and a 40 year old table top tripod. The camera rides in my hand or pocket and rest of the stuff lives in the hotel or rental car. Going thru my last trip's pictures I find nothing that would require a longer lens than the 140mm on the G12. Most of my shooting is at less than 50mm.

Many years back Sports Illustrated had an article about the photographers who shot for the swim suit issue. That year there were several. Each photographer told what gear he had used. The reason I recall the article was because one of the photographers used disposable cameras to take his pictures. His pictures looked fine to me(perhaps the subject matter distracted me from being a photo critic). The disposable camera "message" has stuck with me as has the common saying about the best camera being the one you have in your hand.

My camera is rarely more than a hundred feet away from me, AND, my iPhone is always in my pocket and it takes decent pics.

If I made my living with a camera I'd have a completely different outlook on camera gear, but I'm an amateur. I think you be happy with just the smaller lens on your SLR, but, if I had all new gear I'd be very tempted to bring it all. Then you'd have a solid basis for deciding what to bring the next time.

Thanks for posting the pictures so I could finally get a great view of the Tetons..

I have skied at Jackson Hole three times for a week each time and only once have I ever seen Grand Teton. That was on the last visit while I was walking to the plane that took us home.

In the winter the Elk Refuge is full of so the backdrop of your pictures would have numerous animals in view. Great place to take pictures.

I have downloaded Faststone and have been using it and have the following observations:

1. The work flow is very slow taking possibly 4 times longer to edit each picture,
2. The number of editing functions available are not as comprenhensive as Picasa 3,
3. The graphic user interface is not as intuitive as Picasa,
4. Moving pics from one file folder to another is slow and tedious. It was fast and simple in Picasa 3,
5. The learning curve is not a problem but simply takes a bunch of browsing until you know where things are,
6. The price is right but the functionality is less than what I'm used to with Picasa 3.


I have made one attempt to download another copy of Picasa # but no luck so far. I a bit concerned about getting a download that's infected with a virus and will do some more searching. I'll not keep Faststone if I can reload Picasa 3. My present copy comes up with an error message that will not allow opening the program. Hopefully I can get back to Picasa # with a fresh copy.

Thanks. I'll try the trial and see if it meets my simple needs.

Bill

For many years I've been using Picasa to edit and organize my pictures on my PC. Now that Google has abandoned Picasa I'm searching for a worthy substitute. Picasa was free and that would a nice but not necessary attribute for the replacement. I'm not looking for an application with all the bells and whistles so something fairly basic would do just fine.

I'd appreciate any suggestions I can get.

The "G" series is great for an amateur with "high asperations". If size is important the S100 series is also a good series. Folks who like Canon also like the SX-50 which I guess is what's called a travel camera (small, large zoom). I have a G-12 which suits me just fine because I like to have it with me all of the time. The Sony rx100 would be a step up due to the smaller size and larger sensor but it lacks a couple of things I'd like - hot shoe, longer zoom.

The "G" series is great for an amateur with "high asperations". If size is important the S100 series is also a good series. Folks who like Canon also like the SX-50 which I guess is what's called a travel camera (small, large zoom). I have a G-12 which suits me just fine because I like to have it with me all of the time. The Sony rx100 would be a step up but it lacks a couple of things I'd like - hot shoe, longer zoom.

The price problem with all of the editions of the rx100 is that they are in a class by themselves. With no competition Sony can price the camera any way they want and still sell it easily. The small size is a big attraction.

I have had 2 SLRs sitting on the shelf for 10 years now (Canon A1 and a Miranda G) - they are both film cameras each with 3 lenses but I abandoned them in favor of a pocket-able film camera. I found I was not taking the camera SLR with me due solely to the size/weight.

When I went digital an SLR wasn't even a consideration. My first digital was a Canon S70 and now a Canon G12. Neither of these is as small as the Sony RX-100. If my G12 dies tomorrow I'll likely buy the Sony mostly because of the reviews and it's size. From most pro reviewers it gets a great rating with only minor gripes. My gripe is the lack of a place to mount a big flash gun. That said I have had good results with my G12 with a slave flash mounted on an accessory grip. None of the auto zoom features etc. of the dedicated flash but OK for casual work.

I'm only an old photo addict with a desire to not miss any photo ops. My pics are mostly for personal use so the utmost IQ isn't a bread and butter necessity.

Your purchase should take full consideration of the use you intend for the camera. If you buy the Sony you'll have some money left over for some useful accessories that with an SLR would likely go for some additional lenses. My accessories are a tripod, a wireless remote shutter release (birds and small critter photos) and some close up lenses.