Disposable camera vs ifone

“Also considering going no phone, no camera, all memory…but then did it really happen?”

It happened until dementia sets in – after that who cares?

Why? I can’t imagine disposable camera quality is very good. You have the phone, so just take it.

You can also get a very light camera with zoom lens. Probably better quality snaps than with an iphone.

I agree to the notion of leaving the phone. Partly, I think it’s good to take a vacation from our addictive devices. partly it’s because it’s lighter with less fiddle factor to leave the phone/charger home.

I spent about 10 years carrying heavy camera equipment. As a result I ahve a million good shots of trips on slides. At one point I realized that I was always mentally ‘looking for a good shot’ while hiking. I was also always stopping and hauling out the gear,then putting it away until 10 yards down the trail I’d find a better shot. madness! I came to believe that my memory was better storage and since then I don’t really take shots.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-alpha-a6000-mirrorless-camera-with-16-50mm-retractable-lens-black/4660008.p?skuId=4660008&ref=212&loc=1&extStoreId=1021&ref=212&loc=DWA&ds_rl=1260402&gclid=CjwKCAjw1ej5BRBhEiwAfHyh1CujzcHwJDBK1KXMgJBpH1uHTcT79yEj6DtyDp35DmAZvdZqlmcqeRoCuU0QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

three minutes on google turned up this: 8 ounces, so a bit heavy but with a zoom lens and better optics than an iphone. 230 shots on one charge. I bet one could find still lighter cameras. Erika mentioned a 4.5 ounce sony on another thread.

The zoom lens alone makes this a better option than an iphone for taking shots

“8 ounces”

That’s the body only. Another quarter pound for the lens. Which still isn’t bad.

The OP was asking about a disposable camera, so my guess is he isn’t looking to spend hundreds of dollars. I have that camera. It’s a great camera. So much lighter than DSLRs.

If the concern is spending too much time on the phone, you have control over that. Put it in airplane mode and be disciplined to just use it for photos.

You already own it, so no cost there. But HYOH and do what works for you. Just my 2 cents.

The A6000 which is a heck of a camera is 16oz with kit lens and battery.

Take the phone. A disposable camera isn’t weightless, it takes poor pictures, and it adds plastic and chemicals to the waste stream.

But….but….but……the phone is so distracting! It will ruin your life! It is evil personified!

I made the mistake of carrying a phone on a trip once and couldn’t hike a single step – my eyes were transfixed on the screen…

;)

Sorry couldn’t resist…..

Hike somewhere with no cell service ;-)

During the last century, I’d keep a disposable camera in the glovebox of my car and after any fender bender, jump out, snap pics of my car, his car, their relative position, their license plate, their face, etc.  It avoided them changing their story after the fact.

I still do that, but I do it with my phone.

Other than that, a camera on every table at a wedding reception, and those waterproof disposable cameras for snorkeling in Hawaii; I avoid disposable cameras.  My old-school alternative: an Olympus XA takes great photos and has a fabulous light meter (mine have done good 15-second automatic exposures of sunsets and aurora).

But at 7.8 ounces, there are lighter digital options now (such as your phone).

However, does anyone still have digital photo files they took in 1996 or 2002?  Whereas I’ve got all the film photos I’ve taken for 50 years, and those that my parents and grandparents took back to the 1920s.

“However, does anyone still have digital photo files they took in 1996 or 2002?”

Trick question I guess, but my answer would be yes.

The only digital photos I have from 20 years ago are ones I emailed to myself (or more recently) posted on Facebook.  I’m doing better now, having switched to a Mac has meant far fewer computer crashes, and back-ups are now automatic.

It’s amusing how people want to run a storage company out of their homes……when in 2020 there are at least five or more “cloud” storage services out there that have pretty seamless offerings. No I’m not talking about the company that names everything iSomething…..I know folks who were stuck in that world for a while and took them a while to extricate themselves from the extortionate pricing for marginal value.

But….but…but…privacy….security…..motherhood…..apple pie….

All of my pictures (and other stuff) going back many years are all on a cloud service. I’m possibly at risk of being hacked by many bad guys, including ones from the security services of your favorite countries……I still sleep quite well.

“However, does anyone still have digital photo files they took in 1996 or 2002?”
I was a bit late in coming to digital cameras, having a large investment in Olympus OM2 cameras (yes, two). That said, I still have all my prints and all my negatives. I must scan them some day.

I went digital late in 2004. I still have all the originals from then onwards. This is Goolara Peak: we are going down a slightly steep spur off it to the Coxs River below.

My secret for this, if it can be called that, is simple: BACKUPS, every night.

On a PC I use Second Copy, a professionally written backup system which is so far better than some of the glossy freebies it is not funny. Every night Second Copy automatically runs through my entire disk and makes a backup of any new files it finds onto a second independent hard disk within the box. Actually, it makes two backups: one is simply incremental and the other is an image. EVERY night, automatically. And the hard disk is in standard PC disk format: it can be read on any PC directly.

Then every week or two I plug in a USB-connected stand-alone hard drive and run Second Copy onto it. I have two of these stand-alone hard drives. They are of course immune to power failure damage. I did try a Maxtor Network-Attached Storage (NAS) RAID system once, but the controller died and the disk contents became inaccessible. The disks were partly encrypted, which was incredibly stupid. I had them recovered by a professional firm. Cost $$.

I have thousands of photos on file. I simply could not remember every one of them without seeing them. But the memories …

Cheers

“Take the phone. A disposable camera isn’t weightless, it takes poor pictures, and it adds plastic and chemicals to the waste stream.”

yeah, because phones produce no waste. Why, you can plant them in your garden and they’ll produce an abundance of cabbage! NOT! Phones are a plague on landfill. Take the camera; it has a zoom and you won’t replace it every year with a new one like people do with their phones. I’d guess phones are in landfill at a ratio of about, oh, ten thousand to one versus cameras.

He already owns the phone. And the end of days, which is worse: a phone in a landfill, or a phone and a disposable camera and the chemicals used to develop the film in a landfill?

Well, in my post I wasn’t writing about a disposable camera. I was pointing to a
lightweight camera that takes digital photos and has a zoom lens. And pretty decent optics. Unlike an iphone.

If you’re looking to carry a phone to take pictures, you can do much better in terms of weight and optics and aperture control and framing with a zoom with an actual camera. A camera isn’t designed to be a phone, true. A phone isn’t designed to be a camera. So take your pick.

A good compact should last for MANY years. My Canon G15 was bought in 2012 or 2013, and is still going very strong and is used all the time. Better photos than a smart phone of course: bigger & better glass.

Cheers

Thanks all, great comments as usual. Still pondering but the simple choice does seem to be to use the phone. It’s true that the idea of a deliberately disposable camera, plus mailing the film to LA for developing (don’t thinks I mentioned that) is kinda silly to save a few oz. Plus it is gear I already own.

The phone isn’t much of a distraction for me on the trail as I am typically out of coverage by the time I hit the trailhead. My battery lasts forever on airplane so no need for a battery brick. I do enjoy the occasional music session on the way to sleepy time; play those fun songs that deserve headphones, or purge whatever song has been in my head all day.

But the idea of a digital point n shoot is intriguing! I’ve had several Elphs that were top quality but heavy. Would be kinda fun to try that approach again.

There is one HUGE difference between any film camera and any digital camera which is rarely mentioned. With a film camera you count every frame you shoot: each one costs $$. With a digital camera a photo costs $0 – nothing.

I was always hesitant about taking another film photo: was it worth while? With a digital camera I will take several photos at different angles in place of just one, and I do not hesitate to whip the camera out and click. Strangely enough, I still think I do not take enough photos when we are out.

Cheers

Really good point, Roger! One I have definitely come to take for granted, as I think we all have…

“I came to believe that my memory was better storage”

Your thinking is similar to the late Collin Fletcher’s reason for not hiking with a camera.
I like an occasional photo, but do not own a smart phone (OK a cheap TracFone, but keep it off and use it only for emergencies (not while trekking though, there is a RescueMe PLB for that).

Had a Yashica T4 that I loved, but since the advent of digitals have never been able to find a really small but good mirrorless pocket camera that is even close to the 3 oz of my GPS. After years of frustration, finally gave up researching the BPL camera threads, and use an older model waterproof Panasonic or a Canon that is lighter, but not WP. A good friend who is a camera phobe who always seems to know all that I don’t, explained that many millions were spent developing the iPhone cameras to take better pictures than cameras like mine.

Bought one of those tiny Minox spy cameras while overseas, but all the pix came out fuzzy and grainy, so think I got a phony lookalike, which is not uncommon in the third world.

So gave up in despair about not having super photos, and surrendered to ‘progress,’ so apologize for the quality of photos I’ve posted on BPL.

explained that many millions were spent developing the iPhone cameras to take better pictures than cameras like mine.
I am sure that a smart phone can take pictures, but the lenses are very small compared to the DSLRs and better compacts. Ultimately, it is the glass which matters, and no amount of marketing spin can hide that.

Yeah, lots of investment in phone cameras, but every improvement in one of them can be found in a ‘real’ camera.

Thing is though, many users never look at their photos at large scale. Some seem to be happy to look at them on the smart phone screen. Well, so much for resolution!

Cheers