T-Mar

That's akin to saying who needs a high end bicycle when an X-Mart special will get you where you want to go. While camera phones do have certain advantages, image fidelity is not one of them. Until you spend time with a good, modern camera and develop an appreciation for image parameters, you can't appreciate how far phone cameras still have to go. Camera phones are satisfactory for the majority of consumers but then again, so are department store bicycles.

SJX426 

I've been using a Lumix ZS for a couple of years, maybe more than 10. The first one started having a dark spot on the images so I bought the latest version about, wow!, 10 years ago! Then I found out how to take it apart and clean the CMOS chip. Now I have two! MP's are different and the older one has GPS built in, which I like. It takes amazing pictures that rival a lot of much more expensive cameras. The disadvantage is that it is a little more bulky than many of those listed above. Mostly because of the zoom range. Both have Zeiss lenses.
My first digital cameras were Olympus'

I still have my 35mm kit of Olympus stuff. OM1 and OM2 in black.

P8231682 on Flickr

rustystrings61 

I loved the other end of digital cameras. Back more than a dozen years ago I switched over from one-use film cameras on the bike (because when you drop them, who cares?) to the magnificent $9 refurbished Aiptek pencam, about as primitive a digital camera as you could ever hope to find. Viewfinder, a focus ring you sort of estimated your distance and set and forgot (which could make for some interestingly blurred "artsy" photos when you forgot to reset it) but was ideal for taking photos while riding. It had a lanyard I would sling 'round my neck, and in the winter it could ride between my jerseys, while in summer I would bind up the lanyard and let that hang out of the back of a jersey pocket to make it easier to grab when the mood struck. Of course the photo quality was, technically, lousy - but it had its own quirky charm, sort of like using an old Com-bloc camera, or maybe manipulated Polaroids. Here's a bunch of images I took with mine, though these are my favorites -






I've since gotten into the habit of just using the camera on my phone, but a separate, dedicated phone may well be in my future. They're certainly available cheap enough.

John E

Point (and shoot ) well taken. In this thread I was interested mainly in the comments regarding modern compact cameras. My wife is a professional artist (mainly oils, some watercolors and photography) who really should have something to occupy the wide chasm between her bulky-but-versatile Nikon SLR and my iPhone. It sounds like the Canon G9X is worth looking into for this purpose.

SamSpade1941 

I still carry and use film camera's. My digital cameras are Nikon DSLR's which I can and do pack on the bike , but it is nice to have a compact, svelte and quiet film camera. Image courtesy of an old Leica IIIg with Russian made 55mm f/2.8 lens and expired Kodak T-Max 400 ISO film stock .

R

Kobe 

The only time I use a camera that is not my phone anymore is for under water pictures. I think my new phone can go to 3 meters, but it's not worth finding out.

I do use a digital camcorder for the kids concerts and sporting events because the zoom is much better.

kingston 

I have four kids and have always been perplexd when people video those those things. They are so excruciatingly boring live I can't imagine ever going back to suffer through them again on TV.

Kobe 

Agreed, I keep all videos to under one minute and that is still too long. The videos aren't really interesting until at least 5 years later.

tricky 

I like them! Reminds me of stuff that comes out of cameras built by Lomography (https://www.lomography.com/) Maybe that's what you mean by com-block cameras. I also follow this local guy on Instagram that is using the old Sony Mavicas that record photos to floppies. I guess low-fi and vintage digi cams are becoming a thing!

TiHabanero

The in-laws filmed every Christmas, birthday, recital, etc. and have boxes filled with video tapes and CD's, but have not opened those boxes in 20 years. Really kind of wasteful. When my children were in the house I refrained from the camera events as I wanted to absorb the moment and lock it into memory instead of standing behind a lens the whole time. Sure glad I did. Have just the right amount of pics to remind me of what I have forgotten...just how great those kids really are!

Back into photography and went digital. Going back to film at some point as it is simply easier to use the camera, which adds to the enjoyment of the hobby.

rustystrings61 

Those are EXACTLY the cameras I was thinking of! The best analogy I can make, which some of y'all will understand, is that the $9 Aiptek pencam was the Fostex X-15 1 7/8 ips cassette portastudio of cameras. But what do I know, I was lo-fi before the term was invented ...

northbend 

In the past 10 years I've killed several cameras while riding, had one just simply give up with lens errors. The longest lasting one was a Lumix waterproof/shockproof model. It was easy to use, super tough and took decent pictures. It jumped out of my handlebar bag on rough single track last year never to be seen again. I really miss that camera.

I bought a larger more sophisticated Lumix LX100 to replace it thinking that perhaps it would prompt me to be more mindful when using it. It survived my cross country bike tour this summer and I got a few great photos with it but what a pain it was to lug that thing around. It actually was more of a distraction than a positive addition to my riding experience and I now regret buying it. I couldn't take pictures "on the fly" and theres no way I'd use my phone instead after breaking one of those from dropping it as well. My next camera will be another one of those small tough point n shoot digital cameras like the one I lost last year.

madpogue 

+1; and that doesn't necessarily mean DSLR or mirrorless. The key is the glass; with a phone camera, no amount of electronic/software sophistication (or high resolution) will make up for the tiny lens with no optical zoom. Fortunately there are cameras out there (and have been for some time) with very good optics, wrapped in to astonishingly small packages. Although I've hauled a DSLR around on some rides, my "daily driver" is a Nikon S7000. 20x optical zoom Nikkor lens, LxW is slightly larger than a credit card, less than an inch thick, so it's truly a "pocket" camera. They even offer one now in about that same size package, that shoots 4K video. So we're not talking a hand-made Italian frame dripping with Campag; more like a 500-Series Trek, still a lot better than a Free Spirit.

gugie 

Pocket sized digital cameras are practically disposable nowadays. You can get a good 10MP camera for $25 on eBay.

Rollfast

I had a very poor Argus digital camera from Walmart years ago, it was so bad the pictures and lousy photoediting software actually created accidental masterpieces.

I have not had good experiences with Canon Powershots however. The first one had a recall on it because the CCD chip failed badly, but being secondhand that camera was not covered. The last one I had recently and the motorized lens etc just went stupid.

I'm using a used Sony Cyber-Shot now and would really like the 1 GB memory stick instead of 16 MB. I does download from a micro USB to USB cable though. I can still get the maximum 1 GB card cheap. Only 3X but okay. I used to used Sony Mavica FD models, floppy disk recorders basically and while top gear in the 90s they are dinosaurs now.

canklecat

The only digicams that would be significantly better than a good phone camera would be the Nikon CX or Sony 1-inch sensors. Those are just enough larger to have better dynamic range and better high ISO/low noise performance, compared with any teensy sensor digicam including most phone cameras.

Nikon discontinued their Nikon One CX sensor cameras, so the J-series would be good buys used. The smallest detachable lens would be the 10mm, which is equivalent to a 28mm wide angle on a 35mm film/full frame format.

The Sony 1-inch cameras are more compact with non-detachable zooms that should cover most snapshot needs. More expensive but better performance than Nikon's CX series.

Occasionally I'll carry my Nikon V1 if I'm using my handlebar bag. But usually I'll tote an Olympus ToughCam -- weatherproof, shock resistant, quick response, good JPEGs (no raw files in the lower priced Oly ToughCams). Mostly because camera phones have terrible ergonomics, sluggish shutter response and poor flash.

KraneXL

That's exactly why editing is a specialty all on its own. It can take the boring and make it interesting. Just a tip, but one reason why things tend to be boring is because they move by so slowly. Seeing it again after its been edited speeds things up, so that's all you see are the good parts. Aka, no waiting for them.

Standing behind the camera IS locking it into memory -- the camera's memory. Its so much more accurate than the human one.

Spending the holiday's behind the lens of a camera rather than enjoying the festivities is a tough (and sometimes thankless) job. But in time to come, everyone will be glade you took the time to record those events for them to enjoy in years to come.

due ruote 

Phone cameras have come a long way, but I get frustrated by the lack of control. At least on my iphone 6, the camera sees its job as making everything in focus at all times. That's not always what I want.

I have had a Canon S95 for years that is very much a pocket sized point and shoot, but still has full manual controls. Still going strong.

Most recent acquisition is a Sony A6000. It's a big step up in terms of image quality, but not something you would carry in a pocket. Still smaller than a DSLR though. Lately, I have been experimenting with using old Minolta manual lenses (which are crazy cheap) on it with a $20 adapter. It's kind of a fun way to get good quality prime lenses and have a C&V type fully manual camera with all the advantages of digital. You just have to remember that putting 35 mm lenses on an APS-C camera yields a focal length roughly 1.5X what it says on the lens, which makes it tough to get a good wide angle.

kingston 

You're absolutely right about that. My daughter edited ~3 minute videos of a few of our vacations and they are awesome. I have hours and hours of video from when the kids were little (the youngest is 16 now) that maybe I'll make into a ~3 minute video someday when I'm retired and have more time.

CV-6 

This may be true, but behind the lens does kind of leave you out of the occasion. You are involved, but then again you are not. I have on several occasions wished I had put the camera down and just enjoyed the experience.

Kobe 

Yes, sometimes you just need to be this lady, taking in Prince Harry's wedding.

T-Mar

I can relate to that. When you're following an event through a viewfinder, you are usually concentrating on a single subject or a small group of subjects and do not an appreciation of what is going on around the subject(s). If, for instance, I'm covering a particular individual in a 100m dash, I often have no idea where the athlete actually finished in the race.

KraneXL

That's just the nature of the thing. Just as a host takes on all of the work while their guest just enjoy the event. You have to make a choice. That, or hire a professional photographer.

This is why photography is still a profession even though everybody has a camera. Keeping track of your surroundings is a skill and can take years to perfect. There is however, a technique where you keep both eyes open so that your dominate eye keeps track of the subject, while the other watches for other actions surrounding him.

T-Mar

While this expands the camera person's field of view it is still compromised compared to plain eyesight. Depending on the focal length of the lens, you could be losing up to 40% of your normal field of view. And it doesn't work with many of the box style, point and shoot, cameras.

dweenk

Ah, that is another problem. For someone without binocular vision, one eye is everything. Changes the way you see the world.