Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Lack of DSLR’s at Disney World
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
Jan 14, 2020 14:24:18   #
traderjohn Loc: New York City
 
rmalarz wrote:
Consider the surroundings. Disney World is not a noted wonderful landscape. Hardly worth a photographic effort. Snapshots would be the order of the day.
--Bob


Stop...Stop. What would the definitions of; pompous and arrogant be?? So all the others who are in favor of taking their DSLR's are wrong. You have declared Disney World "hardly worth a photographic effort". Ya gotta love this stuff.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 14:33:43   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
traderjohn wrote:
Stop...Stop. What would the definitions of; pompous and arrogant be?? So all the others who are in favor of taking their DSLR's are wrong. You have declared Disney World "hardly worth a photographic effort". Ya gotta love this stuff.

Yep. Good, even great pictures are everywhere, and it really doesn't matter a whole lot on the camera, much more on skill and creativeness. All camera's, including DSLR's and Cell phones have limitations, but it is the shooters job to shoot around them. Examples are everywhere.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 15:01:06   #
adm
 
If you turned back the clock 50 years, we would be saying that we only saw a small number of people using 35mm SLRs and that most people were using Instamatics. Smart phones are adequate for those who desire only to take snapshots, which is the vast majority of people. If one views photography as a creative art form as do most people on this site, DSLRs or mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses and adjustable exposure, white balance, etc. are required.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 15:24:45   #
mas24 Loc: Southern CA
 
This is why I bought my Sony pocket camera, in addition to my Nikon DSLR and Nikon Bridge camera. My Sony pocket camera has a Zeiss lens, with a focal range of 25-200mm. More than enough for Disney World, or any other amusement park. And, I can stick it in my pocket, with no worry of the bulk of my other cameras. I also bring along an extra charged battery, if needed.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 15:28:38   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Hardly. I'd go more with the definition of practical. That's my approach. YMMV. Been there done that once. That's all I needed to take my camera to Disneyland.
--Bob
traderjohn wrote:
Stop...Stop. What would the definitions of; pompous and arrogant be?? So all the others who are in favor of taking their DSLR's are wrong. You have declared Disney World "hardly worth a photographic effort". Ya gotta love this stuff.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 15:28:53   #
WILLARD98407 Loc: TACOMA, WA.
 
yds0066 wrote:
Just got back from Disney World and all I saw was about 2 dozen digital DSLR’s including Mirrorless the entire time I was there. The park photographers all use Crop Sensor Nikon’s. EVERYBODY was using cell phones. I didn’t see a single point and shoot and only a few bridge type cameras. I was surprised.


Being a grampa of 76 yrs, I haul around a d800 w/ 24-70 f2.8. I leave the vert. grip at home but carry an extra battery.

Having been to most of the theme parks with the family while my kid was growing up, I now have the "luxury"of not being a rider, just the guy who is there to record the kids and grandkids while they do their thing.
I'm doing my thing while they're doing theirs. While they're tied up with an activity I get time to wander and shoot.

I don't print more than a few that are requested by the family, but after all pp and culling, the remains are archived and dispersed to the kids for their histories.

Grampa strikes again.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 15:52:27   #
GrandmaG Loc: Flat Rock, MI
 
yds0066 wrote:
Just got back from Disney World and all I saw was about 2 dozen digital DSLR’s including Mirrorless the entire time I was there. The park photographers all use Crop Sensor Nikon’s. EVERYBODY was using cell phones. I didn’t see a single point and shoot and only a few bridge type cameras. I was surprised.


I encountered this in Ireland as well. I was shocked how many came from far away and only wanted selfies!!! I did leave my DSLR at home and brought a Sony a6000 & 3 lenses. Best decision ever.

For Disney or Universal, I only carry a Sony RX100mIII in a fanny pack. No need to lock it up to go on the rides. I’m there to have fun.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 15:53:14   #
Haydon Loc: Hiding In Connecticut
 
wdross wrote:
Only a matter of time before someone will have a "bird in flight" shot take with their 5X zoom lens at 1/8000 of a second on their 108 megapixel Samsung smartphone. And it will be as good as anything we could have shot with our larger cameras. Just not necessarily done as easily as with our cameras. And done with a lens with limitations. But the BIF photo, done by smartphone, will probably happen this year.


Let me know if it's within my lifetime please :)

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 15:57:00   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
adm wrote:
If you turned back the clock 50 years, we would be saying that we only saw a small number of people using 35mm SLRs and that most people were using Instamatics. Smart phones are adequate for those who desire only to take snapshots, which is the vast majority of people. If one views photography as a creative art form as do most people on this site, DSLRs or mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses and adjustable exposure, white balance, etc. are required.


We’ve always had “serious” cameras. View cameras, roll film cameras, and rangefinder 35s were popular before the age of SLRs.

The heyday of SLRs was between 1965 and 1995. That was the era of serious slide shows, and the culmination of photojournalism in the Vietnam war era.

A large portion of SLR sales were to photographer wannabes. That portion got slimmer when 35mm automatic point-and-shoot cameras and mini-labs became popular in the late 1970s through the early 2000s.

We’ve always had point-and-shoot cameras of some sort since George Eastman sold the first Brownie. Smartphones took their places for most folks.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 16:24:51   #
LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY
 
burkphoto wrote:
We’ve always had “serious” cameras. View cameras, roll film cameras, and rangefinder 35s were popular before the age of SLRs.

The heyday of SLRs was between 1965 and 1995. That was the era of serious slide shows, and the culmination of photojournalism in the Vietnam war era.

A large portion of SLR sales were to photographer wannabes. That portion got slimmer when 35mm automatic point-and-shoot cameras and mini-labs became popular in the late 1970s through the early 2000s.

We’ve always had point-and-shoot cameras of some sort since George Eastman sold the first Brownie. Smartphones took their places for most folks.
We’ve always had “serious” cameras. View cameras, ... (show quote)


To get a bit off topic (my apologies to the OP), perhaps you can answer this: What was the frame rate with film cameras using motor drives? I ask because while I certainly appreciate the advantage of a high frame rate for action shots I have to chuckle at some who claim you need the highest rate possible to get good sports shots. Seems to me that there were a few good shots taken in the days of film.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 17:00:08   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
LFingar wrote:
To get a bit off topic (my apologies to the OP), perhaps you can answer this: What was the frame rate with film cameras using motor drives? I ask because while I certainly appreciate the advantage of a high frame rate for action shots I have to chuckle at some who claim you need the highest rate possible to get good sports shots. Seems to me that there were a few good shots taken in the days of film.


My Nikon F3 with MD-4 motor drive could do 6 frames per second. It was fine for what I needed. It got expensive when using slide film.

We’re spoiled with today’s gear!

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 17:13:38   #
LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY
 
burkphoto wrote:
My Nikon F3 with MD-4 motor drive could do 6 frames per second. It was fine for what I needed. It got expensive when using slide film.

We’re spoiled with today’s gear!


6 fps? Wow! Higher then I would have guessed. Reminds me of an old trucker's saying: Proceeding at a high rate of fuel consumption! How many shots did you miss changing film?
And yes, we are spoiled with today's gear! Ain't it great!?

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 17:27:24   #
Toment Loc: IL-FL
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
I think there's still some areas / times for a DSLR, such as night and the Animal Kingdom.

Walt Disney World by Paul Sager, on Flickr


Cinderella Castle by Paul Sager, on Flickr
I think there's still some areas / times for a DSL... (show quote)


Agree 100%

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 17:30:28   #
wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
 
Haydon wrote:
Let me know if it's within my lifetime please :)


This year the Galaxy series will come out with the S11 and S20. Both the upper end of the series will have a 5X zoom lens. The S20 rumored to also have an ultra wide lens and a macro lens. These will all be in the same thin cases that almost all of us have now. It has been indicated that the S20 will have a 108 mp sensor, but it has not been confirmed that the S11 upper end will have the same. The lower end of the S11 series have been indicated to have 60 mp and 80mp sensors. I would suspect the zoom would be in the range of 25 to 125 in 35mm terms. But if they feel they have covered the wider end of the lens range with the single wide angle, the the zoom could be made 40 to 200. I think this year it will be made such that it is possible to actually shoot BIF. Hopefully you will live to the end of the year.

| Reply
Jan 14, 2020 17:39:41   #
wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado
 
burkphoto wrote:
My Nikon F3 with MD-4 motor drive could do 6 frames per second. It was fine for what I needed. It got expensive when using slide film.

We’re spoiled with today’s gear!


I know that the Olympus Om-4ti with the most expensive motor drive would shoot at 10fps. Towards the end of the film era and just before digital, I recall Canons and Nikons were getting up to 15 to 18 frames per second, but it was very conditional depending on the lighting conditions and the film speed.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2020 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.