DSLr vs point-and-shoot

Travel Forums Travel Photography DSLr vs point-and-shoot

Page
Last Post
11. Posted by Andrew Mack (Travel Guru 1037 posts) 3y Star this if you like it!

I'm not especially into photography so I just use my camera phone but one of my travel mates has the full dslr kit. Whilst his photos are a bit better than mine, they should be for the time, effort and expense he puts into taking them.
Unfortunately he spends so much time looking through the lens that he often misses stuff that I see.

[ Edit: Edited on 23-Dec-2017, at 05:50 by Andrew Mack ]

12. Posted by berner256 (Moderator 1527 posts) 3y Star this if you like it!

Pocket cameras now have viewfinders; and screens that tilt or swivel. Go online to check. Camera makers continue to improve products, adding additional features, in a more competitive environment. For photo enthusiasts, why not pack two cameras (a big and a small) to cover all bases.

I find that photography and videography help me "see" better. I'm more engaged and more keenly aware of my surroundings.

13. Posted by ToonSarah (Travel Guru 1377 posts) 3y Star this if you like it!

Quoting berner256

Pocket cameras now have viewfinders

True, but many are small and/or are the electronic sort. I prefer a clearer view than I get from those - just personal preference though :)

14. Posted by greatgrandmaR (Travel Guru 2102 posts) 3y Star this if you like it!

Quoting Andrew Mack

I'm not especially into photography so I just use my camera phone but one of my travel mates has the full dslr kit. Whilst his photos are a bit better than mine, they should be for the time, effort and expense he puts into taking them.
Unfortunately he spends so much time looking through the lens that he often misses stuff that I see.

My father was the same way. He was very good about working out the way to get a photo, but my mother said that if there was nothing for him to photograph, he would kind of lose interest.

I do not spend a lot of time or effort in taking photos. I do what I can in the moment and don't obsess about getting to a better spot (if I even could). I just take as many photos as I can and discard the bad ones. I'm with Berner256 - I am more interested and involved if I am looking for photos to take. To the extent that if a place does not allow photography, I have no interest in going in to see it.

15. Posted by berner256 (Moderator 1527 posts) 3y Star this if you like it!

If a place doesn't allow photography, I'm still happy to visit. That's particularly true of places of worship.

16. Posted by ToonSarah (Travel Guru 1377 posts) 3y Star this if you like it!

Quoting berner256

If a place doesn't allow photography, I'm still happy to visit. That's particularly true of places of worship.

I would still visit but I get very frustrated by these bans. I know a lot of places feel that too much flash can be damaging, but I wish they would allow non flash photography, which can't possibly do any harm other than to their sales of postcards! I am always happy to pay a small fee to take photos and would much rather do that than be prevented from taking any, but it won't stop me visiting, though it will almost certainly reduce my pleasure in doing so.

I agree it's possible to be so caught up in taking photos that you forget to properly take in where you are, and I try to watch out for myself falling into that trap. For instance, when we saw the Northern Lights I wanted to capture them in photos but I knew what I got would be nothing like the full effect so I only took photos for a while and then put my camera away so I could simply take in the sight. The same with the whales I mentioned in my previous post.

17. Posted by greatgrandmaR (Travel Guru 2102 posts) 3y Star this if you like it!

If I'm on a tour where some places don't allow photography, then I go along with it. And I think the reason that they don't allow non-flash photography is that so many people are completely unable to figure out how to disable the flash on their cameras and it is easier just to ban it all. Also the old style flash bulbs were more of a problem then what we have now.

If the place says in advance that they don't allow photography, then I can decide what I want to do. Sometimes I go and sometimes I think the admission fee is too much or maybe I'm not that interested in seeing what is there. But it really ticks me off if the brochure says that photography IS allowed and then some officious guide person tells me that I can't take photos. Once someone told me that photography was not allowed in any historic NC buildings. Which is just silly - plus she wasn't in a historic building.

18. Posted by berner256 (Moderator 1527 posts) 3y Star this if you like it!

I understand why photography isn't allowed in many places. Sometimes it's disruptive; a distracting sideshow. For example, how many times have you seen people posing in a manner that would be considered inappropriate or offensive, particularly in sacred places? There's also the fact that some people completely disregard the rules and go ahead and do as they wish. When this goes on repeatedly, it's no wonder that photography bans are put in place. Even so, you still see people taking photos.

Tourism is growing by leaps and bounds as incomes rise worldwide. So it's not surprising that many attractions are now swamped with visitors. Allowing photography could add to congestion in some of the more popular places.

19. Posted by greatgrandmaR (Travel Guru 2102 posts) 3y Star this if you like it!

Leaving churches out of it -
I'm talking mainly about museums and historic places. Many museums (the British Museum for instance, and the Hermitage) allow photography. If they can allow photography, what excuse does any other museum have for not allowing it?

20. Posted by Andrew Mack (Travel Guru 1037 posts) 3y Star this if you like it!

Personally I take photos as a reminder of places, rather that as artistic items.
So a few photos 'kick-start' my memory of where it was and the stories/events involved in that journey.
I've friends who are prouder of their photos than they are knowledgeable about the place the picture were taken. They only know when it was taken because of the date-stamp.
Although I must say that the memory of my first trip (France/Belgium/Luxembourg) in 85 is a very vague memory...