Probably No More "Real" Cameras For Me.

Totally agree! The only time/place I take my large camera is when photographing animals. So for safari in Africa or our upcoming trip to the Galapagos I will lug it. The iphone doesn’t cut it there. My camera for that is the Nikon P1000. It doesn’t change lenses just push a button. I can get good pictures of the moon with it.

Good post, funpig. My story is the same. When I had a Galaxy S5, or even a S9, the photo quality wasn't that good, especially in dim light. But now with a Galaxy S24 camera, my results are the same as yours. As mentioned, the big cellphone weakness is the telephoto lens. It's pretty good, but nothing like a big lens.

Until a few years ago, I always carried a Sony Nexus 6 camera with the standard 18-55 mm, and the 55-210 telephoto. I would have thought that most all the Nexus 6 photos would be sharper and overall better, but in reality, most day to day photos were better on the S24. So I agree that the photo processing must be much better.

Nowadays, the only thing I use the Nexus camera for is when we go to an airshow, or when I expect to take some wildlife photos. Then the 55-210 mm zoom works much better than a cellphone's tiny lens.

not quite the same, but I recently bought a "pocket" camera (so basically a phone without the phone bits!) for what I would call evidence gathering in ad-hoc circumstances where taking an SLR wouldn't be practical. I needed to use it last week in full and very bright sun and I couldn't see a thing on the back display! Now I remember why I didn't buy one of these 20 years ago.....

Magic eraser! (As an introvert I would sometimes like it for real life :). Seriously, when in Greenland, a fellow tourist with a lot of really fancy camera equipment and a hefty tripod was waiting...and waiting...for a couple to move away from the front of the church with a perfect iceberg floating behind.
I love my Pixel phone! He was still waiting when I walked away.

There is a big difference between a photographer and a person who takes pictures, and from the selection of "real cameras" and the lenses mentioned thus far in this thread (many older and all consumer-grade) along with many things said regarding technical issues encountered, one would have to conclude the poster(s) fall toward the latter. I wholeheartedly agree that for such travelers, modern mobile phones with their algorithms and AI nannies do a cracking job.

However, a pro-grade camera and lenses in the hands of an experienced photographer still affords a much broader scope of possibilities, albeit at a penalty of size, weight and cost compared to a phone. I still cannot achieve the same optical quality with a phone (iPhone 17 Pro-Max) as I can with my Leica (M) or Sony A7R-serie and pro-quality lenses, nor does a phone give me the same control. If it did, in a heartbeat I'd leave the "real" kit at home in favour of the size and weight of a phone.

Used an SLR ( Canon ) for decades as a film and TV location scout. Lugged to Europe more than once. At some point I downsized to a smaller Canon and then eventually only used my iPhone.

Reasons were/are:
1.) Carry on traveler
2.) Photos from Europe trips are in boxes not framed on walls
3.) Learned to enjoy sharing pics on line via Instagram
4.) Appreciating that simplicity is my focus.
5.) Blending in as I explore back streets, churches, parks, buildings, etc.

I just got back from a trip and spent some time comparing images shot in RAW on my iPhone versus RAW on my Sony RX100 V, which I mainly use for underwater photography. Looking at similar shots (street shots/landscape) side-by-side, I consistently preferred the Sony files.

Carrying a dedicated camera can definitely be less convenient. I also have a Sony a6400 and a few lenses, and while I don't always want the extra gear, I still find that both Sony cameras give me more flexibility and image quality than my phone when I get the photos into editing software.

For me, a lot of that comes down to sensor size and the amount of information available in the RAW files. Since I spend a lot of time in Lightroom and Photoshop, I appreciate having larger files with more editing latitude.

My workflow is pretty simple: I import the SD card directly into Lightroom on my iPhone or iPad, which makes it easy to back up, organize, and cull images while traveling.

That said, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer. It really depends on what you're shooting and how you'll use the photos. Phones are incredibly convenient and are great for everyday shots, sharing with family, social media, and moments when a camera isn't with you.

Personally, after a couple of Europe trips where I relied mostly on my iPhone, I found myself wishing I'd brought a dedicated camera. For trips that are a major investment and places I may never visit again, I'm willing to carry the extra gear because I prefer the results. Others may reasonably make a different tradeoff.

Mirrorless cameras are a good alternative. I have an Olympus with a 14-150 lens, plus a pancake lens. Gives me a lot more options than the phone, and is about half the size and weight as my Canon DSLR. I do find the phone is easier for indoor shots such as museums, but I won’t leave home without my camera.

I've spent decades composing shots and focusing through a viewfinder, and I find it difficult to adjust to the touchscreen on the phone, never mind trying to see what I'm shooting in bright sunlight. Mirrorless with an electronic viewfinder does reduce weight and mass, and the versatility can't be beat. I also can't understand why it's more difficult to compose on a viewfinder with a zoom lens vs. a phone. Same case for a backlit situation - you just have to know how to use the camera's metering.

Yup. I stopped carrying a bridge camera (my former "go-to") in 2022 after I mainly used my phone in Italy in 2021. My neck and back were much happier, and phone cameras have come a very long way.

As others have said, I make an exception for certain situations, and I'll be bringing both on my upcoming safari.

Early this year my wife and I traveled to Europe for our third time. We spent two weeks in Spain. On previous trips I took pro cameras, lenses and a tripod. I returned from those previous trips with what I consider to be excellent images that we printed on large canvases and have hanging in our home. On this last trip though I took only an iPhone 16 Promax. And I was overall pretty happy with the results. But as in life, everything in photography is a trade off.

You can have the expense and hassle of carrying heavier pro gear that will require a higher skill set and more time to utilize properly; without a doubt this will provide a much greater opportunity to produce superior results that will hold up well to being printed to a large size. Or you can have, as I did on my most recent trip, a much more convenient and fluid experience using a phone. And you’ll have less likelihood of being able to produce large, great prints. If you’re interested in taking photos to keep on your phone, to maybe share on social media or with friends there is no way to beat a phone. If you want the highest quality images that you intend to print to large size there is no beating pro DSLR or mirrorless gear in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. It all boils down to what you want to do with your pictures. And what you are willing to invest in time and trouble to get those pictures.

I've spent decades composing shots and focusing through a viewfinder,
and I find it difficult to adjust to the touchscreen on the phone,
never mind trying to see what I'm shooting in bright sunlight.

I'm a guy who just takes pictures, but I really do miss looking through a viewfinder so I can frame a photo better. However, the other inconveniences of the DSLR don't make it a logical choice for me anymore. Though I will take it if I ever make it to Africa for a safari for the zoom capabilities.

Ansel Adams never used a viewfinder... Seriously, after using a big screen to compose shots, I much prefer the big screen over squinting through a view finder, especially in darker conditions. Note: I am an eyeglass wearer.

The early mirrorless cameras did not have a viewfinder. IMO, camera companies started adding EVF to encourage more traditionalists to make the switch from DSLRs, at the cost of reduced battery life.

Taking a shot in bright sunlight with the phone can be a guess sometimes for me, but using the big screen to cull and edit right away, still makes it easier for me to get the shot that I want under those bright conditions. Contemplative composition is enjoyable at times, but most of my photography is the "Austin Powers" snap away and delete.

My lens arsenal may be consumer grade, but is more than capable of taking good and sharp images if I apply the correct techniques. A tripod would make a huge difference if I had the time or permission. I don't want to spend thousands more for an "L" lens or a few extra stops. Full frame is mostly meaningless to me. I have not printed a 3"x4" photo in almost 20 years, let alone any large print.

Never underestimate the impact of "mirror slap". I can see that the mirror on the DSLR has an impact on my image quality. If I use mirror lock-up and carefully shoot using the Canon 200D live screen, I see less motion blur in my my DSLR photos. But once again, this is so cumbersome compared to using my Pixel 7a. I briefly considered investing in a used Canon R* mirrorless (which would have the latest technological advances), but adding replacement lenses would mean spending CAD$5-10,000. That is not worth it to me for my needs.

If I still get the itch to feel like a "real" photographer, I may just pull out the Canon 200D with the 24mm f2.8 pancake lens for some occasional street photography.

Never underestimate the impact of "mirror slap". I can see that the mirror on the DSLR has an impact on my image quality.

I really struggle to believe this. The vibration from a mirror moving is miniscule compared to the camera shake that you're always going to introduce by hand holding a camera. With a lens over 50mm and a shutter speed below 1/125th or 1//60th you're going to have to work to get a sharp picture. it's just a side effect of the camera being in the hands of living, breathing human.

If I'm trying to hand hold at shutter speeds at or below 1/60th I try to inhale gently, squeeze the shutter button, then exhale. Tuck your elbows in tight against your body. If you have a strap on the camera it helps to pull it taught with the camera so it's bracing against your body. At points I've kept a length of string with a tripod screw on the end. Screw the string into the tripod mount and then stand on it, pulling it tight. It's another way of bracing that helps steady the camera without carrying a tripod.

You're always going to be fighting a losing battle with longer lenses. The magnification of anything above a standard lens emphasises even the smallest movement. Your 24mm is going to be way easier to get a sharp slow shutter speed picture with than your telephoto zooms.

It's a lot easier these days when modern cameras will still produce a usable image at ISO 3200, or above in some cases. Push the ISO high and prioritise getting a shutter speed that is more conducive to hand holding in low light.

Back in my youth when I was shooting weddings I was trained never to hand hold a camera. The boss taught me to use a tripod all the time, even in broad daylight. For the quality of work we aimed for, high quality albums and very large framed prints, it paid to err on the side of caution with sharpness. It's not always practical to carry a tripod all the time of course though. We never gave mirror slap a thought back then, even with the big whoosh-clunk of a Hasselblad mirror moving.

Thanks for being honest and sharing this. I have been torn about getting a new, compact camera but I think I'm just going to upgrade my phone. I have a feeling it will be the best return on investment.

Joy, if you upgrade your phone, there may be a number of other improved things, also. But as to the cameras, I'd suggest looking at the big-name cellphone review sites. They go into great detail about the cameras. When I was looking for a used Galaxy S24, I found that there were a lot of S24 variants, and some had significantly better cameras than others. Maybe it's simpler with Apple, but Android phones have so many models, you want to shop for the model with the best camera.

travelerguy - I know Android phones have a much better camera but I am too much vested into Apple. May wait until end of year when they release the new iPhone 18 pro to see if worth than switching to 17 pro (I'm iPhone 15 pro now).

I've always packed along my venerable Canon dSLR along with a couple of lenses (10-22 & 24-105) and a tripod on some trips. I also have a 70-300 but have found that I don't use it much on trips as I can get about 99% of the shots with the other two lenses. In addition I also pack along a P&S and my iPhone. It's definitely a bit of a burden at times to carry all the heavy gear around, but as I may get to many of the locations only once in my lifetime, I want the best results possible. I always shoot RAW with the dSLR but only process the photos that I consider "the best" for sharing with family & friends or posting online. I've found that in some locations the dSLR was the only device that could give me the flexibility when shooting to produce results that I wanted. Being able to change aperture, shutter speed, ISO and other parameters quickly and intuitively was important.

The earlier model iPhones weren't able to match those and produce good quality images. The newer phones are now equipped with much larger sensors and are capable of shooting RAW images. However those newer features can result in much larger image sizes, so phones must have a larger memory.

The capabilities of smart phone cameras have definitely improved over the last few years and with their "computational processing", the phone cameras can produce some excellent images in varying light conditions. However I haven't found the process of taking pictures with a phone to be as fast or effective as with the dSLR. I find that post processing on a phone is somewhat cumbersome compared to a full size computer with good software. The later versions of the iPhone camera software have some fairly extensive editing capabilities, and I also have SnapSeed loaded on my phone.

One other point is that I try to minimize the times I use my phone when out touring during the day, both to save battery life as well as minimize the possibility of theft. The latter problem may not be as much of a concern in the near future, as Apple is reportedly working on an "anti-snatch" feature which will automatically lock the phone if the software determines that the phone has been grabbed out of the user's hand.

I will likely continue using all three devices on trips for the foreseeable future, but it's certainly possible that my methods will change and evolve with the times.

@GerryM

It has been decades since I conducted experiments with my old Nikkormat, but when I compared images shot with a tripod, using the mirror lock-up made a perceptible difference in reducing blur. Rangefinders with a simple leaf shutter were super-quiet and vibration free.

Even with a well damped mirror on a modern DSLR, that extra fraction of a second between depressing the button and having the mirror lift up means that you have to hold your breath and keep rigid that much longer compared to a mirrorless. The phone has even a further advantage. You do not have to push down on a physical button which can introduce motion blur; you can just gently touch the screen.

@Joy
IMO, you would be better off buying a great new phone instead of a great new compact camera.

The Sony RX100 vii and the Canon GX7 iii are considered by many to be the gold standard of compact cameras. However, they both came out in 2019, seven years ago!

OTOH, Apple and Google come out with a new phone every six to 12 months. These phone companies sell hundreds of millions of phones each year and re-invest millions into their image technology to one up each other. IMO, smartphones have better camera technology squeezed into their tiny package compared to most real cameras.

You can't go wrong buying an Apple. I am a Pixel guy and a Pixel hasn't the nifty Magic Eraser which my Apple friends envy. However, Apple's low light capability is every bit as good as a Pixel. And I find the colour and sharpness of the Apple images can be more pleasing to my eye than my Pixel 7a, but then again my phone is 3 years and 3 generations behind... I may check out the end-of-the-year sales.

The phone has even a further advantage.

I think using a phone for your photography is going to be the best fit for you going forward.

I have been torn about getting a new, compact camera but I think I'm just going to upgrade my phone. I have a feeling it will be the best return on investment.

This is what I did recently and have no regrets (Galaxy S25 Ultra). It's nice to have one less gadget to carry around.