You know, just a basic Unicorn Camera.

July 10, 2016 8:26 AM

I want to get a new point and click camera sometime this week that automatically uploads photos without having to plug the damn thing into a computer. Please give me suggestions! Hopefully this kind of thing exists with my details within!

I am non-high tech type of person who TRAVELS. A. LOT. I'd really like to start taking more photos and want to pick up a new point and click, regular camera this week as I'm off to a few Scandinavian countries next week. Up until now, I've just been using an iPhone. I'm looking for suggestions for a non-fussy camera that would meet the following requirements:

- Be able to whip it out and take photos (so no interchangeable lenses, no giant case, no attachments or big adjustments other than that of a basic zoom, flash, etc)

- Be able to push a button after taking said photo and wirelessly upload it either to iCloud, Flickr, or Photobucket. I don't do Facebook or Twitter, but having the ability to share this quickly on an internet/cloud platform in real time would be a main point for me. I don't use Instagram or Picasa, but would be open to using them if it means accomplishing this.

- Does not need an accompanying phone app - operates independently of phones

- Not have to sit down and spend time on a computer with the damn thing doing extended maintenance like transferring photos, deleting, etc., or dealing with space management - something that could manage its own storage on the actual device would be fantastic. I would rather that the camera send everything to the cloud/Instagram/whatever and I delete and edit within those platforms if the camera needs space on the actual device for taking more photos.

- good quality photos

- Being able to easily put photos on a flash if I want to bring them somewhere to print them (which may be a rare occurrence)

- Easy to use, not fussy, rechargeable

- Bonus if it's vibration/freeze/drop/water resistant/proof.

Does this even exist?

I'm in the U.S. - Thank you so much!

posted by floweredfish to Technology (27 answers total)

Not a camera but the Eye-Fi memory card is supposed to do this.
posted by girlmightlive at 8:34 AM on July 10, 2016 [3 favorites]

I looked long and hard for this and finally decided the answer was my iPhone. The optics aren't as good as a dedicated camera, but you can't beat the UI and the networking.

The problem with wi-fi solutions is you can't just connect to any old Wi-Fi networks. I used an Eye-Fi for awhile and it was basically impossible to use it with any network other than my home, the setup was just too complicated. There may be cameras that have cellular modems in them, but smartphones seem to have completely owned that market.
posted by Nelson at 9:03 AM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

Eye-Fi Demonstrates the Danger of Cloud-Dependent Hardware
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 9:08 AM on July 10, 2016 [4 favorites]

Best answer: Lots of cameras are wifi-enabled now, and they can directly connect to Flickr and the like. How easy it is to set up when you're traveling, I don't know, since you're moving between different wifi nodes. I've always been partial to Canon Powershot cameras, they're pretty great.

I agree about the iPhone being the best option, actually, but on a vacation you're going to want to zoom in and out and take pictures in less than ideal lighting conditions, which the iPhone isn't great at.
posted by Huck500 at 9:15 AM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

Nthing iPhone. (You'll get a significant improvement in photo quality by upgrading to one of the latest models, if you haven't done so already.)
posted by actionstations at 9:33 AM on July 10, 2016

Yeah, the answer to your question as posed is, really, "your iPhone". Upgrade to the latest model if you don't yet have it to get the photo quality improvement.

The issue is that camera connectivity is not quite there yet - there are cameras that are supposedly wi-fi enabled and can upload directly to Flickr and whatnot (friend of mine has the Canon G7X II and I believe that can do it, for instance), but it's going to be fiddly, and nowhere near as smooth as just doing it on your phone.

For me, getting better optics, more fine-grained control over settings, good results in low-light situations, etc etc etc out of a decent camera (I got the Sony RX100 II because that was the best I could afford) was worth the trade-off of the extra fiddliness, and I'm perfectly content sitting myself down at a computer with my SD card and my 1500+ photos to sort through, or spending two minutes fiddling around with the app on my phone to get a single photo copied over to it to upload to Instagram if I really want to. For you, it seems like it wouldn't be.
posted by sailoreagle at 9:56 AM on July 10, 2016

You can add lenses and other stuff to your iPhone to significantly improve your picture quality.
posted by jbenben at 10:30 AM on July 10, 2016

Going to Scandinavia, you say? If you do go the iPhone way: Tips for Traveling Abroad with Your iPhone
posted by Mister Bijou at 10:38 AM on July 10, 2016

Response by poster: Thank you all so far!

I'd really like a camera if possible. As for the wireless uploading, just wanted to clarify that it would probably be more like, I take a bunch of photos while out and about, then later in the evening when I have stable wifi wherever I'm staying, be able to look through the camera and upload various photos through the camera to the cloud/wherever using the camera device/menu without having to hook it up to anything or have a computer open. Typically I don't even bring a computer when I travel, at most, an iPad.
posted by floweredfish at 10:41 AM on July 10, 2016

Another option isn't a point and click but a camera that can be set to take pictures at a pre-determined interval that also, automatically uploads them to a file online. The camera, which is wearable, is called Narrative.
posted by CollectiveMind at 10:49 AM on July 10, 2016

Eye-Fi seems really limiting. You need, I think, a smartphone app that is paired with the Eye-Fi to upload the photos or something.
posted by My Dad at 12:21 PM on July 10, 2016

The Panasonic LX100 is a damn fine point & shoot camera and although it doesn't have a cellular chipset it does have WiFi.
posted by bz at 12:41 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

I tried using an Eye-Fi for this purpose, and I (as a very tech-oriented person) found it to be annoyingly complicated to set up and use. I can't un-recommend it enough.

I'd recommend using your iPhone - it'll have the easiest/most reliable interface for uploading, and the image quality is pretty great. You'll sacrifice some optical flexibility vs. a dedicated camera with a zoom, but it seems like a worthwhile trade-off to me.
posted by sriracha at 12:42 PM on July 10, 2016

later in the evening when I have stable wifi wherever I'm staying

One of the problems with this is that many hotel access points use captive portals that you have to click through a website agreeing to the terms of service to get online. For camera makers, trying to support third party cloud services also means that whenever one of them changes their API, they have to put out new firmware for the device - with relatively low margin items like point and shoot cameras that users might expect to keep working for five years, that's a lot of overhead for not a lot of payoff.

You're looking for a product that few enough people are interested in that you're going to have a very narrow number of options. Almost everyone also carries a smart phone, so most of the cameras that have WiFi plan on piggybacking on that. The helps with the API problem, as it's much easier to update an app than every camera's firmware.

Nikon and Samsung both made cameras that were built on top of Android so they could run any Android app, but the versions they used are old enough that many apps may not support them any more.

The forthcoming Light L16 camera will have direct uploading capability, but it's still in prototyping and is sold out through mid-2017. Also, it's pricey and designed for people that want to fiddle with tech.

If you're traveling with an iPad, I'd suggest just getting a decent camera that meets your requirements in other ways, a really big SD card, and a reader for the iPad and sync photos up to Dropbox or whatever as you go to bed.
posted by Candleman at 12:45 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

As many have pointed out, this is a fairly niche market, specifically because the iPhone does what you want fairly well and easily. Could you clarify why you want a separate device/don't think the iPhone is a good option? That might help you get better answers.
posted by bluloo at 1:04 PM on July 10, 2016

Oh yep, if all you wanna do is have a relatively simple time sorting and uploading photos in the evening without the need for a computer, I echo Candleman's suggestion of getting a SD card reader that works with the iPad / iPhone. You'll be vastly more comfortable going through photos and determining which are good on something that is not the tiny screen on the camera, and then more comfortable uploading on something that can more easily deal with hotel wi-fi. Even doing it on your iPhone, if you're not taking the iPad, would work.

I've never used one myself, but I was on a weekend trip with a friend recently and she took a photo that I wanted to have a copy of - she just pulled the card out of her camera, put it in the reader, connected the reader to my iPhone and copied it over. Took about two minutes - while walking to our next destination. So it seems like it wouldn't be too fiddly.

At which point, if you go that way, you're free to get whichever camera has the features you most like at a price point you're comfortable with (try Snapsort for comparing features, but be aware that the prices it lists may not be wholly accurate - they're a good gauge, but shop around).
posted by sailoreagle at 1:19 PM on July 10, 2016

We recently got this camera and it somewhat accomplishes your goals (based on your update). Your iPhone or Android can connect directly to the camera (no hotel WiFi needed) and you can move the photos to the phone where you can do what you want with them. Other Samsung cameras may have similar capabilities if this particular model doesn't fit your other requirements.
posted by Tehhund at 1:29 PM on July 10, 2016

This is outside my expertise, but does being able to turn your phone into a mobile hotspot change the calculus?

Did some searching and come up with the manual for a Kodak camera here. It promises the following (assumes some particular accessories):

■ Transfer pictures to your computer and synchronize with EasyShare software (see
page 51).
■ Email pictures directly to your friends and family (see page 58).
■ Print to a Wi-Fi enabled Kodak EasyShare printer dock, photo printer, or other
printer connected to a Wi-Fi wireless network (see page 60).
■ Upload to, and view your pictures on KODAK EASYSHARE Gallery or your regional
online Kodak picture service (see page 61).
* Uses Wi-Fi 802.11b protocol—compatible with Wi-Fi wireless 802.11b and
802.11g networks

I'm not at all clear either what you mean by "upload" if you don't have a computer with you or how this camera would connect to the internet in some random place. Nor do I have any reason to recommend this particular camera. My guess is that all the companies that sell cameras with WiFi have something similar to offer, which is to say, connection to a proprietary photo site from which they hope to sell you something.
posted by SemiSalt at 1:47 PM on July 10, 2016

In light of your update about being happy to upload photos once a day, and even though you said you don't want to rely on your phone...

We have a Sony RX100M4 and a Sony NEX6; uploading photos to either of our iPhones and thence to iCloud requires 3-4 button presses on the camera (enter Preview mode, hit the Fn or wifi button, to enable wifi, then select "transfer all photos on this day"), then subsequently selecting the camera's ad hoc wifi network on the iPhone and opening the PlayMemories app. The photos transfer as soon as the app opens and automatically upload from there to iCloud.

This procedure is painless enough to do once a day while we're on holiday and has the advantage that we don't need to configure the camera to connect to random wifi networks (because the camera creates its own network that the phones then connect to).
posted by snap, crackle and pop at 1:54 PM on July 10, 2016 [1 favorite]

I have this Panasonic Lumix camera. Works great. It's waterproof / shock proof / freeze proof.

It comes with WiFi and GPS. I don't have it auto uploading anywhere, so I don't know how well that works, but it's easy to transfer stuff to the phone wirelessly from it. (Your phone can even act as a remote for it, if you're so inclined...)
posted by ph00dz at 1:57 PM on July 10, 2016

I have two Olympus cameras with wifi and they have basically the same workflow as what snap, crackle and pop describes. Turn the camera's wifi on, connect to it from my iPhone or iPad, launch the app, select the photos I want, copy them to my iOS device, share from there.

I don't know of any cameras that join arbitrary wireless networks. They all create their own networks you have to join from an intermediary device. And it's probably better that way, since you only have to configure your phone once per camera. And you don't have to worry about your camera getting a virus (I wish I were joking).
posted by fedward at 2:02 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

My Canon PowerShot G16 can also transmit photos directly to my android phone.
posted by canoehead at 3:21 PM on July 10, 2016

I have a Panasonic Lumix CM1 that does this. (I got mine about $150 cheaper new in box on eBay.) It's technically a smartphone, although it's too bulky for me to use that way, but it's got a really nice lens and a 1" sensor (RX100-sized), and it takes excellent photos. (It's still point-and-shoot camera sized, it's just a little too thick to keep in my pocket all day.)

Because it runs a modern version of Android, it can upload to any service you'd like--I use Flickr, but Google Drive would probably be even less work. It has no problems working as a non-phone--in fact, the current version that Panasonic sells (only in Japan) is identical but being marketed as a camera, not a phone.
posted by Polycarp at 3:32 PM on July 10, 2016 [2 favorites]

A word of caution with the CM1 - like the Samsung and Nikon I mentioned upthread, it's running a quite old version of Android, though in this case it's 5.02, so it at least still has some time before apps will stop supporting it. But it also hasn't been updated since February, which means that it's missing quite a few important security patches, so doing anything online with it is getting increasingly risky. That's part of the risk with edge problem solutions is that updates can come very slowly, if they come at all. The February update fixed the Stagefright bug, which was disclosed in July of last year and fixed in mainstream products in August, but CM1 users were vulnerable for another ~6 months.
posted by Candleman at 8:33 PM on July 10, 2016

Best answer: You want "good quality photos" without having to work ("non-fussy") for it.

Bluntly, this does not exist. Your use of the word unicorn seems to imply that you're aware of that. Neither do cameras, with camera ergonomics, really have great integration with web/cloud services aside from sending them to a smartphone, thus adding another step. Maybe Samsung's mirrorless and compact Android-based cameras did, but they appear to be in the midst of exiting that market, so I don't know if I would suggest buying into it. Android cameras, as mentioned upthread, have their own set of issues; I mistrust them, but they may work just fine for you. Various cameras have different kinds of connectivity, but they're all really fiddly and the simplest thing seems to be send to phone, which then handles the rest.

If you want better photos, learn to access your iPhone's camera with a different app that supports manual controls. Better photos doesn't (necessarily) mean better hardware, it means making better choices - not letting the software make all the choices for you. There are camera apps which are free or in the $1-5 range that will enable you to make those choices. You will see quality gains buying a compact camera such as the ones people have suggested, but the gains will be marginal.

I say this because a lot of people acquire cameras that wind up in desk drawers, or just anywhere other than the pocket of the person carrying them. I've also seen plenty of people who have the camera in their pack just take the phone out of their pocket, because it's easier. If you're not going to print much (which I will also say is a bit of a mistake), then you really don't need better quality than a smartphone, because modern smartphones will easily take adequate photos for a 4x6 print.

Look, this sort of thing comes up a lot. Improvements worth having are worth working for. What I'm reading in your request is that you don't want to have to work on learning to take better photos - fiddling - and you don't want to have to work on organization and storage - which, again, I consider a bad choice philosophically.

I also mistrust the cloud. Full disclosure: I have philosophical biases. To wit, they are:

-Use local storage. Have a copy of everything somewhere where YOU can access it. You never know when your free or paid cloud service will fold or be acquired or unreachable, or incompatible.

-Print your photos. Few people realize the value of even an unsorted shoebox of photos, and in the future you will very likely want a photo as a physical object. Ironically, digital photos that can "last" forever have become more ephemeral to most people because they never get around to printing them.

-Have the gear you'll use the most. Don't bother getting anything you don't want to fiddle and fuss with. If you're going to shoot full automatic, there's little reason to get a dedicated camera. I've seen several people get a better camera, then discover that their photos are "worse" because they've stopped doing everything on automatic. Things you're looking at will only mean marginal gains. If you're going to buy a camera, go to a store and try the options. Bad ergonomics and UIs make people not want to use cameras, which causes them to not get used. Try it before you buy it.

-If you want "better," be willing to work for it. It's okay to want "good enough". And "good enough" is why the revenues of camera companies have been ravaged since smartphones became mainstream; most people really just want good enough. Be sure that your smartphone REALLY won't do enough for you, and if that's the case, commit yourself to learning to fiddle with something.

Sorry, I ranted too much.
posted by Strudel at 12:26 AM on July 11, 2016 [3 favorites]

Response by poster: Thanks all. Definitely stuff to think about, but I feel like Strudel's rant kind of has it. I think I want to get a camera because of being able to work on taking photos, work on taking better photos and yes, to get some memories and photo albums and such going. For me, I don't think iPhone pictures are good enough, or that I feel as if they have less per any if that makes any sense. They don't accomplish what I think I want to accomplish, even if I'm doing a crap job of articulating that. :)

Thanks you also for the suggestions. In reading through them all I think aim going to look into the Canon SX530 for now because it's cost efficient enough to try out and see if this sticks. Its wi-fi option I guess will have to do until there is such a thing as a wi-fi super camera!! :)
posted by floweredfish at 4:46 PM on July 11, 2016

I have a Nikon coolpix that can be accessed wirelessly by an app on my phone or iPad. (It creates its own wifi spot when you want.) This lets me access and then post the pics from my camera pretty easily.
posted by chr1sb0y at 6:12 PM on July 11, 2016