[Closed] Digital Camera - WWSTWD

I have a slightly older TZ and, apart from one specific feature, my camera phone pisses all over it.

If I was going to buy a camera I'd buy a "proper" one, that took a bit of effort, produced MUCH better results and was at the other end of the scale in terms of convenience, otherwise I doubt I'd judge it worth carrying when I usually have my phone anyway.

I do have an older Sony Alpha. I didn't really rate the picture quality. Everything seemed very "soft" and needed a bit of post-processing to achieve life-like results. I'm not saying that's still the case though.

I was thinking that would be the case that the current camera phones would be better, zoom aside, than the TZ.

Get the most expensive and ebay it is what some people would do

Is it silly to ask why a camera if you don't really use one? Modern phones have awesome cameras that are brilliant for most amateur snapping.
There must be something else in the catalogue that appeals and you'll use more?

I doubt I'd ever buy a new camera again when you can pay maybe even half the RRP for a used one with a warranty from somewhere like Mpb.com

I'd also never buy a Sony as I don't like the Way they process colours. Is there a Fuji option?

If you want a new camera I'd really buy it second hand.

We have been to spectacular places recently and I felt that the iPhone pictures haven’t done it justice but there again id just stick it on a present as i currently don’t have time to learn photography. No there’s no Fuji option unfortunately I used to have some of their early digital cameras.

The catalogue is mostly rubbish but I’ve just had another look and I could get the Panasonic g80, the lens and some decent binoculars with the award. I had considered the eBay option as I’d get much more back than taking the cash option but it’s too much hassle for me. There’s an new but opened A6400 on eBay now bidding currently at £850. Depending on my circumstances in few weeks I could be looking at only getting £400-£600 cash versus £1200 from the catalogue.

I used to have Sony DSLRs and I was quite happy about it. The only camera I've got now is Rich GR but I'm thinking about getting something more versatile. A6400 is the option to consider, unless you are willing to stretch budget a little bit and go full frame with A7.

I’m not massively into photography

Then I would not bother with a fancy camera. It won't make good pictures - you do that. You'll take a few pics and they'll look more or less the same as your phone pics but slightly better quality, you'll go 'oh' then not bother bringing it with you again.

The thing with phone v camera in the current age is that it's now easier for most people to take better pictures on a phone.

The software in phones do a lot of work to improve the final result, and if you want more, it's very convenient to edit further on your phone.

A camera can be hard work in comparison, relying on your own skills and knowledge. Then you can spend hours editing to achieve the same as what your phone does.

The camera will give you a superior quality, which will be particularly noticeable if you blow up images to a large size. If you want prints for the wall, the camera is the way to go. For the family photo album most decent phones do the job well enough.

I did the photography thing for a while, and enjoyed it. I spent quite a bit of time figuring out what camera bag to use, because I was going out on family days out and I needed a few lenses but also the ability to carry lunch, kid stuff etc. And in the end I stopped because I needed to actually be with my kids not wandering off looking for subjects and setting up shots.

My go pro takes pictures that are as good as my DSLR+ time to faff in post production.

I've not used the DSLR much recently.

I'm not a professional, but I love a good photo.

I've recently had a photo from my phone in lowish light blown up to A3 and printed. It's pretty much perfect until you get within 30cm.

The GoPro fits in any pocket, the DSLR needs a bag taking as well.

realised I haven't taken pics of the kids & dog for a while what with it being winter etc so grabbed my ancient entry-level nikon dslr with fixed length 35mm lens rather than the usual phones... Sunny day with the bluebells out, so glad I took it, u cant beat shooting RAW onto an APSC or better sensor with half decent glass and a bit of tweaking in PS afterwards. I could upgrade to a better body, but it would be bigger, heavier with more fiddly bits, so why bother. IF I were you I'd take a look at the venerable Nikon D5600 body, or D3500 even, and google around for DX lens recommendations. Not the latest thing by a long chalk but will take pics you will be very happy with.

Agree. Still think the best photos I have taken were with a Canon 20D (that was already over 10 years old) and a prime lens. Could probably get that setup for around £100.

As above, unless you're a professional or hobbyist who simply needs to get the best results and has the time and patience to set up shots, mess about with settings etc, a decent phone camera or compact point and shoot is going to be the best option for family album pics.

I’d say that the thing that will drag you away from your phone is zoom range

Sony do the a6400 bundled with a 18 130.

Panasonic do a 12 60 and a 14 140. I don’t know about kits

Scotroutes has it. I bought a Lumix TZ-95 and it was really underwhelming compared to my then mobile phone. My current S21 would wipe the floor with it. If your current mobile isn't that great for pics could you buy a new phone from the catalogue? The Samsung Galaxy S ranges have optical zoom in addition to taking great pictures reducing the usual weakness with phones.

I've got a Sony 6300 with a few lenses. Even with the kit lens it's still fairly bulky compared to a phone but as others have said, for any subject that requires any kind of zoom it will outclass a phone camera. I would argue that it does in all situations.

If the gift is free, does it matter that the catalogue price for the Sony RX is high? As you've had one in the past you'll be familiar with it. Even just sticking it in HDR mode all the time it will take better photos than a phone AND be almost as portable. Add in the pop-up viewfinder, wide aperture for night shots, sports mode for kids and pets it seems the ideal choice to me...

I also have an RX...:-)

Ive been mullling it over and I’d come to the same conclusion that the RX is the camera I’m most likely to have with me which is the most important thing.

The thing with phone v camera in the current age is that it’s now easier for most people to take better pictures on a phone.

The software in phones do a lot of work to improve the final result, and if you want more, it’s very convenient to edit further on your phone.

Very much this. I remained skeptical until last week first using an iphone 11 with ProCamera app (White balance, shutter speed, ISO, RAW capture etc etc).

I’m now looking forward to getting out in the sticks with it. Planning some low light/night experiments this evening with a gooseneck clamp. Being water-resistant and having a big preview screen (ie live WB matching) is a dream for me. Will see how it gets on with direct sunlight though. I may have to go oldskool with a blackout sheet over me!

First impressions for everyday use and for landscape pics - it beats compacts and DSLR in so many ways (not all, ie trad photography as an art-form and/or wildlife photography) and on the whole it’s an absolute delight to use. Bearing in mind this is for reference pics by which to make art/painting/video etc not wide/large format prints.

Not ditching my DSLRs ever/yet though. Nothing for me beats being lost in the moment in an SLR/optical viewfinder.

OP speaking as a photographer of some 20 years I have to say the RX 100 is without doubt the most fiddly and fragile camera I’ve used to date. Unintuitive UI, slippery, weird lens ring, and the menus were hell for me (I was coming at it from prior experience with Lumix and Olympus and Canon and Nikon compacts)

Others might have different experiences, so just a cautionary take. See if you can maybe try one out? I’ve really tried to like compact zooms in latter years (Still rocking a Pentax MX1 but it hardly ever goes out with me except for macro wildlife needs) - and they (for me) are losing the battle with newer phone cameras.

Unless you really really need the zoom and big sensor I’d recommend having a think about a better phone camera (?) with a decent camera app and cloudspace?

In short, if I was you I’d buy something from the catalogue, sell it, then buy an iPhone 13 Pro Max (or lightly used 12 Pro Max and some nice walking boots/jacket) 😉

ymmv

Some of the best pics I've taken have been with a phone. It's all about composition and artistic expression, it's bugger all to do with image quality.

Some of the best pics I’ve taken have been with a phone. It’s all about composition and artistic expression, it’s bugger all to do with image quality.

And yet so many of us still shoot film so there's at least something in the aesthetics of the image rendering that matters.

The whole point of a 'big' camera isn't to magically take better photos, it's to provide creative control to the photographer. If you are going to

just stick it on a present as i currently don’t have time to learn photography.

then there is absolutely no point in buying a dSLR. Nil, nada, forget it. You'd be better served with an IXUS.

then there is absolutely no point in buying a dSLR. Nil, nada, forget it. You’d be better served with an IXUS.

Well, the RX100 works like a posh Ixus 😉

I would go with ebay.

If you really cant be bothered CEX will give you £500ish for an A6400. Less money but less hassle than ebay.

it took me 3 months to notice I’d lost my last camera an RX100 version 1, as I just use my phone, my current phone is an iPhone 12.

For some reason I missed reading that bit.

In which case as others have suggested I’d choose the most expensive thing then sell it on marketplace or eBay and use the money to buy something that would really be used and would give the most pleasure/function.

Meanwhile maybe enjoying learning to take great pics with yr nice iPhone 12 camera? For easy fun just better learn to use the native Apple photo app + (say) Snapseed or If the pics are just for social media or small prints for contemporary tastes (ie punchy, toned, pin-sharp, oversaturated) then the latter should more than suffice. ‘Zoom’ with yr legs.

Ive been mullling it over and I’d come to the same conclusion that the RX iPhone is the camera I’m most likely to have with me which is the most important thing.

FTFY

I found what I judged to be a very balanced and fair comparison video (iphone vs mirrorless) which pleases me as a nitpicker. If you want easy + punchy then iPhone is that right out of the box and quickly. If you want subtle and accurate then DSLR (or even mirrorless) + an interest + acquired skills. Compact digital zooms OTOH are in some ways the odd one out. They are neither as properly compact, versatile, fast and simple (and weatherproof) as a smartphone, nor as ‘natural’, as satisfying or creamy-bokeh-tastic as an SLR.

I've got used to the menus on my RX, to the extent that I was happy to get an Alpha... I agree they are well slippery though, I have a Sony grip on mine and it makes a world of difference. I've no idea why it isn't standard...

The camera you have with you is the one you chose to take. If taking pictures is something you really care about, you will choose to take the camera that works best for you and gives you the results you want.

If you find that the camera you have with you is just the one you happened to have (because it's actually a phone not a camera), then you didn't go out to take pictures, you just went out (out) and the pictures are incidental so the camera you use is largely irrelevant.

The camera I have with me when I go out to take pictures weighs about 4kg and is the size of a small dog.

I've just picked a random photo that I know I couldn't have taken with a phone. Whether anyone apart from me likes it is subjective, but still....

[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/4760/26448544398_464f696a75_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/4760/26448544398_464f696a75_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/GiaGNb ]DSC00638-2[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

Sony Alpha A77ii SAM DT 16-50mm f2.8 - 16mm, ISO 800, f9.0, 2.5s

I have an rx100.

Yes it’s compromised by is small size. It’s the menus and controls are quirky.

But I haven’t broken it and it’s turned in loads of great photos where I would never have taken a bigger camera

I never go near the menus. I just leave it in aperture priority. Back dial does aperture, front ring iso down press then back dial for exposure compensation. I just use a centre focus point save shoot RAW

I have bought a mirrorless which is more fun to use. Key highlights are

More zoom range and zoom position stays when turned off

Turns on with a switch not a button

More able to adjust settings

Nice viewfinder

Buy in Blanche the rx 100 range is the camera for some one not into photography

https://www.flickr.com/gp/john_clinch/5E6Z24

I’ve just picked a random photo that I know I couldn’t have taken with a phone.

Which phone? My iPhone 11 Pro has a wide angled lense and with “night mode” will do fantastic long exposures whilst hand-held. Phones are coming on a lot.

Gorgeous image btw, I like it.

I have bought a mirrorless which is more fun to use

This is the key. Regardless of whether or not the op actually wants a dedicated camera, or a new point and shoot or whether to learn photography how to take better pics etc, ir would secretly prefer a new hoverboard etc - if it’s fun to use then that’s the big bonus and will usually return the best results.

For me the most taking photos fun is my Canon DSLR w/50mm prime on full manual or aperture priority. All the dials are in the right place and my left eye is up against the eyecup, looking into another quiet world. Not so much fun afterwards, in PP etc it just seems like PC/officework - at least compared to:

The other type of photo fun I enjoy of late is not carrying that bug bulk/weight nor having to transfer files etc, and instead having a 6” touch screen smartphone camera with me all of the time by which to take pics/videos instantly edit/review and/or share.

For someone else, both of the above options might be some kind of hell compared to their joy of using an RX100 (or some other compact zoom) or maybe a superzoom, or a mirrorless kit with 10 expensive lenses, or an Instant Polaroid with onboard printer, & c.

There are almost unlimited options/devices to having fun taking (or not taking) pictures and for different reasons/end uses, and we’re of course all individuals:

If it isn’t fun for you, you’ll probably not bother.

* Also love taking creative low-light urban scenes and bought the 1st RX100 with that in mind. I’m hoping the iPhone can do similar while also being fun for me. Otherwise I take the dSLR.

Whether anyone apart from me likes it is subjective,

It’s also (your pic) well-composed and I find it interesting. Ace 👍🏼

I’ve just picked a random photo that I know I couldn’t have taken with a phone. Whether anyone apart from me likes it is subjective, but still….

But a picture like that takes thought and it takes preparation, which takes time. That picture wasn't made good simply by swapping a phone for a DSLR.

But a picture like that takes thought and it takes preparation, which takes time. That picture wasn’t made good simply by swapping a phone for a DSLR.

But if I hadn't had my DSLT (Sony terminology) when I was passing Cromford canal after a night shift and only had my phone, I probably wouldn't have stopped at all. If I had stopped, I doubt I'd have gotten that pic with my phone

Which phone? My iPhone 11 Pro has a wide angled lense and with “night mode” will do fantastic long exposures whilst hand-held. Phones are coming on a lot.

Gorgeous image btw, I like it.

Ta - I'm just using a tough phone (Blackview) at the moment, which has no chance - the Samsung Note 10 that's been smashed for a year now wouldn't have managed it either. I know iPhones are better, but a tiny sensor can only do so much

t’s also (your pic) well-composed and I find it interesting. Ace 👍🏼

Ta!

I took this with the Samsung, but you can see it's dynamic limitations.

[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/4600/24614482217_08dc9f1d8e_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/4600/24614482217_08dc9f1d8e_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/Dv6E1r ]2018-01-03_10-36-50[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

I took this with the Samsung, but you can see it’s dynamic limitations.

You can but realistically there isn't a digital camera you can buy that would have not resulted in some highlights being blown.

I probably wouldn’t have stopped at all

I understand this. Cameras do shape process and process does shape the final image. I never take anything more than dull crappy family memory snaps on my phone because as an ergonomic device it sucks for image making.

This connection between equipment, process and image is the reason most fine art photographers, and even some commercial photographers, still insist on shooting (large or medium format) film; the medium changes your response to the scene, ironically precisely because of its limitations.

I’m not qualified to tell you the difference between cameras, or whether you can take as good a photo with a phone these days, but from my own personal experience - I bought a DSLR about 15 years ago as I wanted to take some nice photos. I spent a couple of years doing just that, helped by a couple of expensive lenses, but eventually I found out that 1. I’m not artistic enough to take really nice photos despite having a good camera, and 2. It started to feel like too much faff carrying a camera bag everywhere, especially once the kids came along. I’m sad to say that this once lovely DSLR hasn’t been out of the cupboard for more than 5 years.

My point is, if you aren’t into photography will you also get to the point where you just use your phone because it’s easier?

You can but realistically there isn’t a digital camera you can buy that would have not resulted in some highlights being blown.

For sure - this was the closest timewise I took with the Sony. Of course it still has blown highlights, but the difference is plain to see. Of course you know this, but as a side by side demonstration for other folk to see. Excuse the over processing and dust spots

[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/4563/37908891014_520d78d86e_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/4563/37908891014_520d78d86e_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/ZKSYzd ]DSC00341_2_3_4_5-2[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

I'm not sure where this is going other than arguing for fun, but isn't the best camera the one you like using?

I think anyone interested in photography needs to at least try a DSLR (or similar mirrorless), because for me it made all the difference. Having a physical object to interact with, all the controls at my fingertips and a choice of lenses means I enjoy the process of taking photos much more, which means I'm more likely to learn and experiment and be creative with it.

If you're not that interested or if you've tried it and find carrying the camera around to be a chore, then by all means stick with your phone. It's great that I can have a very capable camera in my pocket and I get a lot of use out of that too.

I don't want to take over this thread, so will shush soon. This one is a bit more 'natural', but still - aint no phone going to be taking that.

[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/4531/37908884304_9b4178fdbc_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/4531/37908884304_9b4178fdbc_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/ZKSWzw ]DSC00531-2[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

ND filters were used iirc

All this said, I haven't used my proper camera in ages

I bought the RX100 principally to ‘replace’ the dSLR for urban street photography (principally low light/night) and used the rear rack on the bike (parked with sidestand) to affix a Gorillapod for the purpose of low noise long exposures. It soon became evident that the little compact could take a surprisingly detailed low light exposure - but any light source/s would show a very (IMO) unattractive halo and the whole shaboodle looked ‘digital’ compared to low-light work via the dSLR.

As for ‘image quality’ (there’s an undefined and ambiguous term) - smartphones (and compacts) are better in low light than they were but not quite yet(insert your DXO/obsession/aesthetic). I’m looking fwd to seeing how the iPhone 11 compares to my old attempts via dslr and compact zooms.

BTW IQ VS processing = the closing gap

https://flic.kr/p/2ndyt9V

Wow ^^^

What was your set up for that?

This one is a bit more ‘natural’, but still – aint no phone going to be taking that.

No?

But if I hadn’t had my DSLT (Sony terminology) when I was passing Cromford canal after a night shift and only had my phone, I probably wouldn’t have stopped at all. If I had stopped, I doubt I’d have gotten that pic with my phone

Right, and my point all along is that for that to be the case, for you to have your DSLR with you, you have to be making an effort to 'do' photography; it has to be a hobby. If it's not a hobby and you're not going to 'get into' it then don't buy a DSLR it'll be a waste of money.

No?

I'm not saying it's a great photo, but I don't think you'd get the dynamic range from a phone sensor

Right, and my point all along is that for that to be the case, for you to have your DSLR with you, you have to be making an effort to ‘do’ photography; it has to be a hobby. If it’s not a hobby and you’re not going to ‘get into’ it then don’t buy a DSLR it’ll be a waste of money.

Yeah, fair do's

I know I'm in an outlier here (because we've discussed this in another thread), but even as a teacher of photography I very rarely use my 'big' camera or any of my film cameras (except for my Instax).

I love the limitations of less 'serious' cameras and the digital artifacts they create when you push them outside of their intended use envelope. I buy and use cheap compacts and older camera phones precisely because of their weaknesses. And cheap clip on phone lenses are a whole new world of wonder for me.

https://flic.kr/p/2ndkqFX

To answer the OP question before the thread descends further into arty fattiness, if you're going to get a camera from the catalogue just go for the one you will actually carry and use for what you want to do. From those you've mentioned I'd go for the Sony.

Thanks for all the comments. It been a really interesting discussion. Depending on what happens with my job will probably determine what I do. If I don’t get the new job I’ll probably take the cash and buy a new go pro and a fénix 6 ( don’t tell the wife). If I get the job there no point getting the cash as I’d end up with about £400 from the £1200 so I’ll get the A6400 and a nice spotting scope and sell the A6400 to buy the go pro and the Fenix plus I think I can upgrade to iPhone 13 pro ( don’t want the max).

I think I should just get the best out of the phone I have as that what I’ll always have it with me.

I reflected that I had the DSLR with a nice lens and stopped using it, then I had the RX100 and didn’t notice I’d lost it. I should probably stick to using my phone.

I’ll get another chance to get a camera in 5 years if I make 30 years I’ll be closer to retirement when I can learn how to use a camera properly.

OP there are some decent iPhone 12 photo tips on the TechZG channel

@TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsSTR

I don’t want to take over this thread, so will shush soon. This one is a bit more ‘natural’, but still – aint no phone going to be taking that.

I would have said that 5 years ago. But smartphones has shot forward since then. Especially with the advent of Apple ProRAW format which contains more information than a classic RAW file

Dynamic range?

https://twitter.com/halidecamera/status/1338198533900419076

I’d recommend having a nosey at Alessandro Michelazzi’s blog and portfolio eg:

Here’s (IMO) an interesting low light subject shot on an iPhone 13 Pro from the talented Sebastiaan de With (designer of Halide):

I hope that he doesn’t mind me running it through an BW filter just to get the idea:

These people are changing what is possible in truly pocketable form. IME it’s a very exciting time to be getting into phone cameras.

I’m not saying it’s a great photo, but I don’t think you’d get the dynamic range from a phone sensor

Don't need to - it can take a load of photos and combine them, just one of their many tricks.

@molgrips exactly.

I nearly squeezed out some geek-wee upon first reading about ProRaw (mmmmm) and the iPhone Pro’s four (squeeeee!) onboard cameras)

ProRaw "provides many of the benefits of our multi-frame image processing and computational photography, like Deep Fusion and Smart HDR, and combines them with the depth and flexibility of a raw format…

…In order to achieve this, we constructed a new pipeline that takes components of the processing we do in our CPU, GPU, ISP and neural engine, and combines them into a new deep image file, computed at the time of capture, without any shutter delay. And we do this for all four cameras, dynamically adapting for various scenes while maintaining our intuitive camera experience."

So ProRAW for iPhone 12 Pro delivers 12-bit DNG files with 14 stops of dynamic range better than the (£4k) Canon EOS R5!

The below review has interactive slidey comparey fun. Weeee! Ahem.

https://fstoppers.com/reviews/5000-pro-camera-vs-iphone-13-pro-can-see-difference-583063

OK, so phones have come along a bit!!!!

*considers getting an iPhone 13 Pro Max (diehard Android user)

OK, so phones have come along a bit!!!!

Apple literally spend billions of dollars a year in R&D to make sure their phones are better at taking pretty much the exact sort of photos you want to take!

It's still just a phone.

It’s still just a phone.

Clearly not. A phone can only be used for voice calls...

I do actually remember being blown away when I first got a phone with a half decent camera tbf - this was whatever iteration of Galaxy Note was kicking about in 2015. Pretty boring composition, but impressed with the detail

[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/5693/20672384114_c9d4c9faae_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/5693/20672384114_c9d4c9faae_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url][url= https://flic.kr/p/xuKnzL ]2015-09-10_01-27-37[/url] by [url= https://www.flickr.com/photos/85252658@N05/ ]davetheblade[/url], on Flickr

Unless you actually need a zoom or specialist lens or to make large exhibition prints, or shoot sports, or are a pernickety pixel-peeper, or enjoy using physical controls and OVF/EVF, or things like that - there’s just no contest IMO

For me a pocket camera phone is just another tool. And a very handy one at that. I also have a Victorinox Swiss Champ multitool and (not being a professional mechanic or handyman etc) it’s better and quicker to carry and use than some of my dedicated knives and tools in many/most situations. But not all.

However, I rely on camera as a creative tool for more than a hobby, just as others may rely on a power-saw. A power-saw can’t compete with a handsaw in many situations, so both are kept. They are only saws, at the end of the day. No contest.

TL;DR - it all depends, dunnit?

* Edit: My FTFY re-quote was to @zilog6128 😉

it all depends, dunnit?

I really enjoy these threads, I can't say I am much of a photographer - I did O level photography over 35 years ago but these days I just like taking pictures of holidays and trips away. A couple of years ago I finally sold my 35mm slr and went digital, it was a bit of a dilemma as I was very tempted just to get a pixel phone but in the end I bought a Fuji XF10 from their refurb shop at a price you couldn't refuse. It takes a beautiful image, it has a big sensor, the film simulations are lovely, but ultimately it is not a lot of fun compared to my old film slr. By comparison I really enjoy shooting with the phone, there is something quite exciting about point and shoot with it and then reviewing at home - a sort of pot luck, a David Bailey 'splash of red paint' kind of thing.

In many ways the lack of a viewfinder is a hindrance and also an asset - taking pictures is less obtrusive and you often end up with a detail in the picture that you would have moved out of frame if you could see it in the viewfinder. A good picture is a good picture, regardless of the equipment, and I try not to worry about whether it'll look good in poster size. After all, there's only so much space on my walls and for me, what I feel when I look at a photo is more important than the pixel count.

Of course Henri Cartier-Bresson said this, worth remembering -

'Constant new discoveries in chemistry and optics are widening considerably our field of action. It is up to us to apply them to our technique, to improve ourselves, but there is a whole group of fetishes which have developed on the subject of technique. Technique is important only insofar as you must master it in order to communicate what you see... The camera for us is a tool, not a pretty mechanical toy. In the precise functioning of the mechanical object perhaps there is an unconscious compensation for the anxieties and uncertainties of daily endeavor. In any case, people think far too much about techniques and not enough about seeing'

Maybe too late for your deliberations, but I’m still using a LUMIX G80, and still rate it for stills and video. Panasonic’s picture quality and video output are really good. Downside is that their autofocus system was a bit weaker than some of their contemporaries at that point - absolutely fine for landscapes, posed photos, but can struggle a bit with fast moving stuff like sports photography. Lenses - I tend to use either a Leica 12-60mm (Panasonic version is good too) or the 14-42mm kit lens from my old GX1.
G80 doesn’t connect to phone via Bluetooth, but will transfer files via wifi, which I often tweak on an iPhone for stuff like Instagram.
I was originally recommended the G80 by a couple of mates who work professionally in video production, and one of them is still happily using his for b-roll work.
Should also mention the body is weatherproof, which is handy for using outdoors

Good quote @kormoran.

I do rather enjoy photography as an actual passtime, I did it for a while and I thought I'd begun to gain some insights into it as an art form, when I'm not really much of an artist. But like many things I would enjoy, I just can't fit them all in.

Clearly not. A phone can only be used for voice calls…

If I gaffer tape a camera to my home home phone it's still just a phone but now with a camera strapped to it. The camera phone is just like this. Unwieldy I'm use and massively limited.

There isn't a photograph I've taken that I would ever want to see the light of day that I could have taken on my phone.

If I gaffer tape a camera to my home home phone it’s still just a phone but now with a camera strapped to it. The camera phone is just like this. Unwieldy I’m use and massively limited.

There isn’t a photograph I’ve taken that I would ever want to see the light of day that I could have taken on my phone.

Yeah, great comparison. You would also need to strap a sat nav, an internet browser, an MP3 player etc, etc,. to your home phone. Modern smartphone are fantastic and the cameras and processing in them are amazing.

Most of us seem to be happy with the images we get from our camera phones.
I don't find them unwieldy (the opposite in fact) or massively limited at all and have taken loads of photos with my phone that would be no different if I had been carrying around a DSLR but then I am a casual photographer who just looks at their images on a computer screen.

Yeah, great comparison

You're right, it was an obtuse comparison but it was deliberately so to highlight the point, which is that even though a phone is small and light, from a photographic perspective, I (and many others) find the ergonomics dreadful. The lack of a view finder is the most obvious limiting factor but shutter lag is perhaps the biggest issue as is the lack of any kind of dial based/intuitive manual control. For point and shoot of anything that isn’t moving and is all in the correct FOV for your focal length or doesn’t require a very considered and finally timed ‘moment’, they work really well. Which is why they are just fine for people who are only interested in taking snaps rather than pursuing photography in a focused or artistic way.

I was with you right up to the end, but a quick search online would show that there are plenty of people “pursuing photography in a focused or artistic way” with a phone camera. Just as there are people doing the same with DSLRs, film cameras, old instamatics and anything that can make an image really. It’s all just art and just because somebody chooses a different tool doesn’t make them any less serious or their art any less valid.

I was interested to read the comments about the phone vs a Fuji XT10 above as I have the same camera and much prefer it to my phone. But we are all different and that’s all part of the fun.

Which is why they are just fine for people who are only interested in taking snaps rather than pursuing photography in a focused or artistic way.

Must try not to bite...

Must try not to bite…

I’m hungry, so if no-one minds…

(Images from The Mobile Photography Awards)

I was with you right up to the end, but a quick search online would show that there are plenty of people “pursuing photography in a focused or artistic way” with a phone camera.

Apologies, please don't interpret my comment as being binary - I am sure there are plenty of people doing this and the fact that I am not aware of them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. If you know anyone producing genuinely interesting work on a mobile phone I would love to know about it. None of the contemporary photographers I admire, love, follow etc use a mobile phone with maybe one exception - Richard Rinaldi - but interestingly each time he posts an image taken with his phone I don’t think much of it. It’s the work he creates with his 8x10 camera that I really take notice of.

The device you use does not prevent you from creating a great image but it can inhibit or limit the results, which again is why so many photographers still use film. That so many acclaimed photographers, i.e. photographers whose results have been recognised as excellent and thus who can offer us some insight into the process of image making, still shooting film that we should probably take notice of this and ask why.

The answer is because the device (the camera and the image substrate) does change our process and our process is how we make images (as opposed to take photographs) and hence my comment that those engaged in image making as a dedicated objective or pursuit, care very much about the device they use to do so. It’s not because the sensor in a camera phone is not capable (excluding the need for things like long telephoto lenses, extremely fast tracking AF and image burst modes, none of which I need ironically for the work I do) of making those images but rather the device is.

I’m hungry, so if no-one minds…

If these are posted to prove a point I am wondering what the point is?

Which is why they are just fine for people who are only interested in taking snaps rather than pursuing photography in a focused or artistic way.

There is an area in between taking snaps and actual photography. An area I would say I am in. Have been into photography for many years and used many cameras but I now take just use my phone 90% of the time for many reasons - always have it with me, image quality is good enough for my needs, uploads onto desktop automatically.
The DSLR comes out if I want depth of field, low light, more control and so on.

If these are posted to prove a point I am wondering what the point is?

My point (by way of contrast to what you inferred) is that small digital cameras with small lenses and small sensors are fine for those who are interested in pursuing photography in a ‘focused or artistic way’.

Whether you or I personally think of them as wearing Big Photography Pants or no is actually immaterial to whether or not they are pursuing their art in ‘a focused or artistic way.’

Have you considered that you may simply have a personal ‘purist’ preference for chemical vs digital?

Phone manufacturers use software to enhance the performance of small lenses and imaging sensors. Why don't camera manufacturers use similar software that to make their products with big lenses and sensors absolutely incredible?

I think it’s because people who use that sort of camera prefer to have control over the post processing. So they’d rather do things like focus stacking, HDR, dodge, burn, sharpen etc themselves with the computer and software that they already have.

small lenses and small sensors are fine for those who are interested in pursuing photography in a ‘focused or artistic way’

'Fine' is fine but fine is not what a lot of people are aiming for. Some people are aiming for 'blow you away', 'make you think', 'evoke a visceral emotional response', 'change your mind' or perhaps even 'change the world'. It's the difference between an image being 'just fine' and one that wins Taylor Wessing, Deutche Borse or a Pulitzer. And an image taken with a mobile phone may well win one of those awards some day, though I think the odds are against it because photographers operating at those levels tend to choose their tools carefully and with thoughtful consideration. But still, that doesn't preclude it from happening.

Have you considered that you may simply have a personal ‘purist’ preference for chemical vs digital?

Yes of course and I've been at pains to explain why and not dismiss the potential for a phone to render a decent image, but to reiterate it's all about how the camera influences process and how process determines the image you make.

Why don’t camera manufacturers use similar software that to make their products with big lenses and sensors absolutely incredible?

They do, they use things like pixel shift and image stabilisation hardware and their software is all about the signal processing to turn the electrical data into colour and pixels.

I think cameras are behind phones when it comes to “computational photography” as they call it, but it’s heading that way.

Phones compromise on image sensor and lens to fit everything in a small package, but dedicated cameras compromise on processing to provide speed of use and battery life. Digital photography is battery intensive and I think a lot of the market for high end cameras would be put off by shorter battery life, longer delay between photos or a bulkier camera to do extra processing, especially when post processing is a standard part of their workflow.

Some people are aiming for ‘blow you away’, ‘make you think’, ‘evoke a visceral emotional response’, ‘change your mind’ or perhaps even ‘change the world’.

Not a single one of those things depends on the kit being used.

The fact that images from what are perceived as less effective devices aren't winning the awards yet says as much to me about the attitudes of those judging as it does about the images themselves.

It all depends on whether you see photography as a technical exercise or an expressive process (obviously that's not a binary or mutually exclusive choice). Depending on your stance you'll then make decisions about what you want to do and the kit you want to use to achieve that end. No camera is inherently 'better' than another since there is no universally agreed metric to measure that.

The issue is created when anyone tries to assert that one approach is objectively better than another which is of course nonsense when it comes to art.

I come from a Fine Art background and my ability to draw accurately and use materials technically correctly is pretty good. My paintings are big, messy splodgy, abstract landscapes that use whatever materials feel right (mud, dung and tippex included). No one would tell me my paintings are invalid or worse due to that choice. There is an equally valid approach to photography where someone may well have the tools and skills to create technically great images but choose not to as that doesn't meet their aims.

I got drawn in...

What proper cameras give you is opening the world of 'lens compression' (look it up). For that you need the depth in the glass, it can't be faked

It's my favourite tool in photography - and I make my living out of creating imagery!

Quality wise, in daylight, a modern high end iPhone will look near enough as good as makes no difference to a DSLR. It's the compression that non-flat lenses gives you that would be the real difference you experience tbh.

Good point, but if that's not important to you then it's not important to you...

With an Art History head on, I think there'll be a tipping point fairly soon where the tech drives the taste and (D)SLR stuff like lens compression will start to no longer be seen as desirable or attractive. Look at how the camera phone obsession with (artificial) bokeh has driven what people want in an image over the last couple of years.

H

Not a single one of those things depends on the kit being used.

True, and I believe I was saying that in my post. And yet, I've not yet come across a photographer making images on their phone that made me feel anything like the above. Not even close, but if you know someone who is, please do show me.

It all depends on whether you see photography as a technical exercise or an expressive process

Again, to reiterate the statement, I see it as an expressive process, where that expression is made by a process that can be either quick and cheap or slow and costly (and I'm not talking about money). Images made quickly and at little cost are less likely to work and are worth less than ones where some one really took the time to create it. The equipment you use does not determine that process, but it does influence it and I will never want to use my phone to create the images that I really care about because I care more about the process than to use something so, well, facile.

Look at the work of people like Jem Southam and Richard Leayroyd as great examples of how the equipment being used demands a certain process to be followed and how the process determines and shapes the image. Leayroyd in particular is a good example because it is utterly impossible for a camera to produce the kind of delicate balancing of light, tone and colour that his images display, precisely because of his equipment and process. It's similar for Jem Southam, although he's only using a field camera, which one might almost call a point and shoot set up compared to Learoyd's approach.

Nadav Kander's work in The Long River is another example of the sublime beauty inherent in both process and equipment. Those images would never have been as stunning on a phone.

I treat photography as a deep expression of something inside me, more than you might imagine. It is the way in which I express things that are fundamental to me and hopefully fundamental to other people also. I do aspire to move people and change the world with images even if that is perhaps a naive ambition. It is part therapy, part human expression and part exploration of the soul. It is a craft and the permanence of the impressions I hope to make is reflected in the permanence of the substrate on which they are captured. That process is critically important; it has to feel like a craft, which is why I still chose to work with film. But don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting you have to even shoot film, although that is a good way of trying to explore this subject (which is now way off topic!) as to why the equipment does matter - because it does shape process and that does shape the final image you make.

as to why the equipment does matter – because it does shape process and that does shape the final image you make.

And this is why I love art. I think we got to this point in the last thread on this, but I 100% agree with this statement. We just come to this agreed view from diametrically opposed starting points. The equipment and process I use absolutely does matter, but for very different reasons why it matters to you. Just don't try to make it hierarchical...

There isn’t a photograph I’ve taken that I would ever want to see the light of day that I could have taken on my phone.

If you couldn't afford a fancy camera, would you give up photography? Or would the urge to capture what you see still be there?