Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

That is all well and good. But, I have only one right index finger. I can only carry one camera and use one at a specific time.

A problem has developed. This problem presents itself when we who enjoy photography choose different cameras to photograph different images. I would like to carry my AE-1, 1v, Rebel 2000, 5D and a R3. But I cannot.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I have taken pictures with my cell phone for online use when it has been convenient but for serious photography I use my cameras.
Although I have mirrorless bodies I find that I am not neglecting my dSLR bodies. I use them more often than not.

joemcl1

Paul,
I think for the most important piece of equipment when taking photos is the one that is between our ears. Cameras and lenses are important but the decisions we make on how to
employ them are key difference for most of what we shoot
I enjoyed your recent Chicago images which I think would have been very similar if you had been using an SLR and lenses from 50 years ago.
All the best for more Chicago scenes.
Joe McL

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thanks Joe. The earlier comment is a bit of humor wrapped around a truth. Although I can't reach back 50-years, I can go 40-years back into SLR photography. I will say flatly: no, manual focus results were not better, not overall, nor the consistency of superior results. My recent film work uses only AF lens, mainly from newer lens models developed for DSLRs, but compatible with final higher-end SLRs. Even the best 35mm film is inferior to higher pixel resolution digital. If you can fill the film frame with a well exposed composition, you have a nice image that doesn't matter whether film or digital. But from today's entry-level digital, you can harvest so many other images within the frame details that you cannot pull from a frame of film.

I also shot those legacy MF lenses on mirrorless digital. Here again, the new cameras (technology) with ancient lenses deliver better overall and consistently better overall results than ancient lenses on ancient bodies.

Of course, it's the photographer / digital editor (human), but equipment makes a material difference in many genres of photography, probably all. DSLR to DSLR to MILC might not have as much pronounced differences, depending on subject, being all digital and auto-focus cameras, but the DSLR+MILC to phone comparison is nearly always obvious, unless post processing is used to close that difference. Phone images winning awards like the MPA (https://mobilephotoawards.com/) rival any interchangeable lens cameras, but these are not your average 1:1 comparison of phone to interchangeable lens camera.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Haha....
This is my landscape camera, this is my portrait camera, this is my .....

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I took pictures yesterday with a camera that has no viewfinder. It was point and guess for composing. Also, I don't like holding the camera or phone in front of me.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Agreed at the legacy absurdity and the need for a bag full of bodies. Now in May 2023, the old is new again, all consolidated onto a single digital mirrorless platform. Well, maybe, depending on the choice and compatibility of brands and lens mounts. The only lingering difference is film. But, with proper consideration and use of EOS-based technology, you can use your EF lenses on your EOS film bodies, all your EF lenses on all your EOS film bodies, and then a simple twist and remount the same lenses onto digital.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Essential for a horror movie, though.

ELNikkor

Your iPhone hand-held is awesome compared to my D750 with 28-80mm at 28mm, f22 hand-held for 5 sec. Much to be said for the new tech in those phones.

(Download)

GLSmith Loc: Tampa, Fl

It seems as if this topic has yet arisen again....My stance on this is still the same, I know quality of the glass that is used for my DSLRs. They are kept with lens covers on when not in use. What I have a hard time with is why do Apple, Samsung and other cell phone manufacturers not produce statistics on what the lens of the camera on their phone is made of, where it is made & how it is tested for accuracy. Then there is the grab the phone out of my purse or pants pocket and shoot without a thought of what dust or anything else might be on the lens which also has fingerprints.
Cell phones are OK in a pinch, if no other camera equipment is around, but I'll stick with my DSLRs while waiting for mirrorless prices to drop

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

If I don't have my camera with me? I use my iPhone. If I have both? I USE MY CAMERA. It's designed for it.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Same way.
Except I usually do panos with my phone. It does the stitching on the fly. Pouf, image....

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Interests change. Willingness to put forth effort changes. I am deeply interested in railroads. More than photography, actually. But as the years have passed, my willingness to sit at a workbench and spend 40 hours building a single freight car has faded. So has the vision and manual dexterity to do what I consider to be an acceptable job. So very nice "ready to run" rolling stock is the standard for me now. It's orders of magnitude better and more accurate than what was available when I started in the hobby 60 years ago.

Now I am deeply into railroad history and operation. I make visits and collect operating ephemera (documentation and paperwork) that would have been completely out of reach and uninteresting to me when I was 10 years old. I'm not out of the hobby. I have broadened my interest and knowledge immeasurably.

Yesterday afternoon, I was in a large room. I needed to document the clutter, accumulation, and total disorder. Lighting was poor, from a single overhead fixture in one corner. I could have gone and gotten the D850 that I had with me. Could have figured out how to shoot a very good picture of the room and its contents. But I pulled out my S21, set the camera to 16:9 and 0.5x (wide angle) and accomplished a perfectly exposed shot in less than 30 seconds. Had the tool, knew the capability, knew how to use that capability. Boom. Job done.

This forum has many great members. It has potential to be a great place. But there is too much arrogance and too much "righteous indignation." I am not using my DSLR less and less. But I am coming here less and less. And when I do come here, my expectations are getting lower and lower.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Your story - and your conclusions - sound exactly like mine.

srsincary Loc: Cary, NC

Regarding Smartphone expense :the Google Pixel has excellent Computational photography features. I haven't checked in a while (I don't use my Smartphone for pics, BIFs are challenging 😃), but the last "head 2 head" iPhone versus Google Pixel 7 Pro review I read last year showed that the iPhone is better at certain modes, the Pixel at others. There is no Apple slam dunk or rout in this space.

The Samsung S22 (at the time of the last review I read, there was no S23) is no slouch either.

The Pixel 7 can be had for 700 or so USD. Which is not too bad for a *Smart*phone these days.