When I started High School, my teacher explained that the camera does 1% of the work. The remaining 99% is done by the nut in the viewfinder. In my opinion, a SLR will produce a better image than that of a cell phone. In a couple of years, perhaps the camera feature of a cell phone may produce similar or compatible images to a hand held camera.

Back then, the idea of a mobile phone was one with a long telephone cord. We never imagined what we have now.

When I try to explain to my children that snapshots of people and their food is not a photograph, they roll their eyes at me.
I still view their snapshots with merit and critique the final image to lighting, clarity and position of the photographer.

We as photographers should gently critique each other so as to improve upon our skill set. I think that we should acknowledge that the tiny camera on board a phone is a feature such as a calculator or compass it has as well. Perhaps phone manufacturers will improve the tiny little marvels and create manipulative features such a shutter speed, aperature and ISO settings. This is on the way. Being able to provide better resolution and clarity should be soon on the horizon.

Well now each photographer will say their rig is better and provide reasons why yours is not. This is a forum for knowledge, sharing and growth should be fostered.

I think we should put our snobbishness on hold for now and see what develops. (No Pun Intended!). There will be many changes on the horizon. We should embrace them!!

Let's not try to be sarcastic or arrogant about which camera type or camera model is better.

Happy Shooting?

Sales of 'traditional' cameras of all kinds have sunk to amazingly low levels as phone cameras have rapidly taken over the market. Starting with the Huawei P30 Pro's Leica camera, phone cameras now can be adjusted manually for aperature, speed, ISO, EV, and include automatic settings as well. The Huawei P30 includes a 5X telephoto to wide angle capability. The newest cameras from Apple, Samsung and (I suppose) Google's Pixel all include these capabilities, are waterproof to some degree, and generally provide all the functions of a 35 mm digital.

My camera group is going to have a discussion of the topic but I would like to hear from you about when you might favor a phone camera over a traditional digital camera, assuming you carry both. What can a phone camera NOT do?

Sales of 'traditional' cameras of all kinds have sunk to amazingly low levels as phone cameras have rapidly taken over the market. Starting with the Huawei P30 Pro's Leica camera, phone cameras now can be adjusted manually for aperature, speed, ISO, EV, and include automatic settings as well. The Huawei P30 includes a 5X telephoto to wide angle capability. The newest cameras from Apple, Samsung and (I suppose) Google's Pixel all include these capabilities, are waterproof to some degree, and generally provide all the functions of a 35 mm digital.

My camera group is going to have a discussion of the topic but I would like to hear from you about when you might favor a phone camera over a traditional digital camera, assuming you carry both. What can a phone camera NOT do?

What a tired topic! Some of us truly sound like a bunch of old farts totally stuck in a rut.

Perhaps we should start a new thread about how these new fangled DSLR contraptions will never replace view cameras?

Cel phones are here, technology is advancing astonishly fast and their current capability was undreamed of regardless of cost just a short while ago.

Can we not simply accept that they are a wonderful adjunct to DSLRs and, for some people, a perfectly acceptable replacement.

A quick search will reveal some incredible photos and videos taken with cel phones, created by that small number of people who really understand how to use them. (And 99% of cel phones users don't, managing quick snapshots at best).

The world is changing - you have two choices.

I've almost quit using my D5200 to take pictures. My daughter (1500 miles away) sends cell pics of my GD to Google, where I DL them, edit the crap out of them (that's my hobby, more than taking pics) I've only been taking pics for 45 years, and I have always had as much or more fun in post than actual taking of pics.

I like to edit the good ones, use them for desktop bg slide show, and upload to Facebook albums where My Portal provides a 24/7 slideshow of all my favorite pics on the kitchen counter, where everyone can see them, and I watch them whilst I eat my oatmeal. I like the fact that all her pictures need a little to a lot of post work, that's where most of the enjoyment comes for me. Here are a couple I did yesterday that she took in Hawaii.

These may not be world class to you guys, but to me, more than "good enough" and why cell popularity has soared, while "real cameras" are waning.

Part of the problem is your fear of going past ISO 6400. I don't have a D7100 so I don't know how high one can go above iso 6400 and still get good images, I believe it expands to iso 25600, but I do have a D7200 and I have used it in very low light conditions at fairly high ISO'S, well above 6400, and have gotten perfectly usable images. Keep in mind the image sensor in your DSLR is much, much larger than the one in the iPhone. In fact, the iPhone cameras use some of the smallest image sensors made. Now how do you think the iPhone photos were better than the D7100 photos? The iPhone selected a much higher iso than you did and it applied noise reduction to the image; nothing that you couldn't have done with your D7100. Had you shot at ISO 12800, half the D7100'S expanded ceiling, your photos may very well had been as good or better than the iPhone. Don't be afraid to use higher ISO'S when the ambient light requires it. Today's post processing software is amazing.