This topic has been discussed here many many many many many many many many many, did I say many times.
Cell phones do a great job capturing GENERAL subjects. At my nephews recent wedding inside an old train station with limited light it did a great job capturing my wife and I with the groom and his brother.
Cell phones are very good for these types of situations. Also, when I want a difficult part, I will record it with my cell phone and take the image to the hardware store to show the clerk exactly what I need instead of describing it. And when my wife and I rent a car we take many images of the car so that if there is the slightest damage we can prove by the date it was there before we drove off the rental lot.
HOWEVER, for my professional wildlife photography, no cell phone can match my Sony a1 or a9 and my Sony 600mm f4. So below is an example of my cell phone and a9.

I doubt that many hedgehogs use the cameras in their cell phones more than occasionally or in photographic emergencies where they don't have their main gear with them. If you are an exception to this rule, I want to hear from you. I don't even have a modern cell phone; just a clamshell phone that has a camera that I never used, even for a test shot.

Cell phones these days can produce decent enough image quality for casual work, such as family events and holidays. That said, how often do you use your cell phone in this way as opposed to a dedicated camera (if any)?

How controllable are its settings and which does it have: manual shutter speed, aperture, ISO sensitivity, white balance? Does it have scene modes and, if so, do you use them? Does it have a capture mode other than JPEG? Some have more than one lens. About what angle of coverage does your camera have for each? (Don't forget to specify long dimension, short dimension, or diagonal.) Does your phone have on-camera flash? If so, can you disable it? How is your camera's performance in dim light (How low can you go?) What is your flash's range, if you have one?

Does your phone have a photographic feature that you are especially proud of? That you wish it had but doesn't? That you use a lot?

Describe your favorite technique(s) for holding your phone steady when long exposures are expected.

I doubt that many hedgehogs use the cameras in their cell phones more than occasionally or in photographic emergencies where they don't have their main gear with them. If you are an exception to this rule, I want to hear from you. I don't even have a modern cell phone; just a clamshell phone that has a camera that I never used, even for a test shot.

Cell phones these days can produce decent enough image quality for casual work, such as family events and holidays. That said, how often do you use your cell phone in this way as opposed to a dedicated camera (if any)?

How controllable are its settings and which does it have: manual shutter speed, aperture, ISO sensitivity, white balance? Does it have scene modes and, if so, do you use them? Does it have a capture mode other than JPEG? Some have more than one lens. About what angle of coverage does your camera have for each? (Don't forget to specify long dimension, short dimension, or diagonal.) Does your phone have on-camera flash? If so, can you disable it? How is your camera's performance in dim light (How low can you go?) What is your flash's range, if you have one?

Does your phone have a photographic feature that you are especially proud of? That you wish it had but doesn't? That you use a lot?

Describe your favorite technique(s) for holding your phone steady when long exposures are expected.

I doubt that many hedgehogs use the cameras in their cell phones more than occasionally or in photographic emergencies where they don't have their main gear with them. If you are an exception to this rule, I want to hear from you. I don't even have a modern cell phone; just a clamshell phone that has a camera that I never used, even for a test shot.

Cell phones these days can produce decent enough image quality for casual work, such as family events and holidays. That said, how often do you use your cell phone in this way as opposed to a dedicated camera (if any)?

How controllable are its settings and which does it have: manual shutter speed, aperture, ISO sensitivity, white balance? Does it have scene modes and, if so, do you use them? Does it have a capture mode other than JPEG? Some have more than one lens. About what angle of coverage does your camera have for each? (Don't forget to specify long dimension, short dimension, or diagonal.) Does your phone have on-camera flash? If so, can you disable it? How is your camera's performance in dim light (How low can you go?) What is your flash's range, if you have one?

Does your phone have a photographic feature that you are especially proud of? That you wish it had but doesn't? That you use a lot?

Describe your favorite technique(s) for holding your phone steady when long exposures are expected.

I doubt that many hedgehogs use the cameras in their cell phones more than occasionally or in photographic emergencies where they don't have their main gear with them. If you are an exception to this rule, I want to hear from you. I don't even have a modern cell phone; just a clamshell phone that has a camera that I never used, even for a test shot.

Cell phones these days can produce decent enough image quality for casual work, such as family events and holidays. That said, how often do you use your cell phone in this way as opposed to a dedicated camera (if any)?

How controllable are its settings and which does it have: manual shutter speed, aperture, ISO sensitivity, white balance? Does it have scene modes and, if so, do you use them? Does it have a capture mode other than JPEG? Some have more than one lens. About what angle of coverage does your camera have for each? (Don't forget to specify long dimension, short dimension, or diagonal.) Does your phone have on-camera flash? If so, can you disable it? How is your camera's performance in dim light (How low can you go?) What is your flash's range, if you have one?

Does your phone have a photographic feature that you are especially proud of? That you wish it had but doesn't? That you use a lot?

Describe your favorite technique(s) for holding your phone steady when long exposures are expected.

I doubt that many hedgehogs use the cameras in their cell phones more than occasionally or in photographic emergencies where they don't have their main gear with them. If you are an exception to this rule, I want to hear from you. I don't even have a modern cell phone; just a clamshell phone that has a camera that I never used, even for a test shot.

Cell phones these days can produce decent enough image quality for casual work, such as family events and holidays. That said, how often do you use your cell phone in this way as opposed to a dedicated camera (if any)?

How controllable are its settings and which does it have: manual shutter speed, aperture, ISO sensitivity, white balance? Does it have scene modes and, if so, do you use them? Does it have a capture mode other than JPEG? Some have more than one lens. About what angle of coverage does your camera have for each? (Don't forget to specify long dimension, short dimension, or diagonal.) Does your phone have on-camera flash? If so, can you disable it? How is your camera's performance in dim light (How low can you go?) What is your flash's range, if you have one?

Does your phone have a photographic feature that you are especially proud of? That you wish it had but doesn't? That you use a lot?

Describe your favorite technique(s) for holding your phone steady when long exposures are expected.

First off, this comment is in no way intended to be confrontational nor
belligerant, even though it is entirely possible some will choose to misconstrue it
as being so.

Some of the included pics were done by a secondhand (or is it third-, fourth-, or
fifthhand? I have no idea) DSLR, the others were done by a camera that includes
phone capability. Which are which?
None of the equipment is newer than nine or ten years old. Not including the
cost of memory cards, the total funds tied up in the digital picture taking devices
are significantly south of $850.00 U.S. None of the picture taking devices have
sensors with pixel counts that will satisfy the demands of pixel-peeping gurus.

There are two cameras with phone functions. Each has only one lens, not
multiples. Each has manufacturer-set automatic settings operations.

One of the cameras with phone capability will allow the operator to set white
balance, ISO, +2 - -2 exposure compensation, shutter speed from 1/2000 - 1/2
second, choose dng and jpeg output, and, with careful difficulty, manual focus.
The other will allow the operator to select a focus area within the frame, and has
a slider which allows imprecise adjustment of exposure, though there is no
indication if it is shutter speed, ISO or what is being changed by that slider; it
produces only jpeg output.

Neither of the cameras with phone capability has image stabilization
technology. If I do not have a tripod with phone clamp attachment along, I
steady the camera on a rock, or stump, or tree branch, or fence post, or log, or
fuel can, or jerry rig, or tool handle, or a wish and a prayer.

The cameras with phone capability have not been regarded as an unfortunate
make-do, since the time a photographer with over four decades professional
experience counseled me to learn all I could about picture taking while using the
camera with phone capability, since at the time it was the only picture taking
method I had available.

Each of the three picture taking instruments has selectable scene modes. I've
never tried any of them.

Perceivable differences in the pics:
-- are those the results of differences in the picture taking apparatus format in
use, pitting outdated, never above bottom mid-level mirrorless fixed lens, fixed
aperture cameras against an outdated once-okay/so-so, never above bottom-
rated DSLR?
-- are those due to the fact the hillbilly, untrained picture taker has maaaaybe 40 weeks
total accumulated time in digital photography and post-camera
processing, spread out over the past 5 years, or so? Would 45, 50, 60 years
experience and hours of training be enough to transform the bumbling, dorky
hillbilly into a real photographer who could step into a scene and instantly know
what the optimum camera settings and perspective and compositional
imperatives for that particular scene are? Would newest tech and more
expensive doodads instantly elevate the bumbling, dorky hillbilly's pic results
into an equally elevated class of worth above the present knowledge and experience level? Or, would there only be a continuation of mediocre results
backed by more time spent and a higher stage of technolgy acquired through
the expenditure of many months' or years' worth of hard-earned moolah which
should have been put to better use?

In a reply to me in another thread earlier today, hawgster 'burkphoto' very nicely
put into words something that seems to be a part of the push and pull inside me
that makes me wish for more available time and greater experience in this
photography interest:
•• "I'm interested in getting results. I'm interested in seeing results. I'm okay with
how you got your image, if it moves me or communicates with me, and your
methods weren't illegal, unethical, immoral, or fattening." ('burkphoto' quote) ••

(Shameful apologies to the offended, venerated, experienced, advanced,
equipped, distinguished, elevated folk who are sadly forced to endure such an
underwhelming, little kids table post amongst the exclusively desired, never-
less-than worthwhile, estimable Big Boy posts in the Main Photography
Discussion section.)

Been using SLRs since ~1955 and DSLRs since 2005. In the 2000s I got into event photography, taking photos of events concerning various nonprofit organizations I work with. They were mostly for PR purposes and indoors, so lighting was poor in general. Probably 75% nonprofit events, 25% family photos (gatherings, vacations, etc.). The early DSLRs were OK but sucked in poor lighting conditions. When I got a D3 (~2008) that changed.

In the '90s I had a cell phone. Went to a more capable phone (I wouldn't have called it smart) that had a camera. The camera got used when I had nothing else at hand and the photos were primarily documentation of things on the farm where image quality wasn't all that important. Eventually I got a more capable than that phone (Android) that had a slightly better camera, but also internet capability so I could get weather reports out in the field and even wrote some apps to keep track of irrigation zones. At the time I was using Windows based machines.

Then I got a new wife. An Apple girl. She had an iPhone and a Mac Air. So I had to learn a bit about the Mac platform to do IT for her. I was out of town a lot at first dealing with business I had been into before we got married so we did a fair amount of texting. Between Android and iPhone, connections sucked. Some texts took 24 hours to get through. So one trip I forgot my phone and since the contract was up, I decided to switch to an iPhone. Connection problem solved. It was an iPhone 8 and had a reasonable camera.

In 2019 we took a Mediterranean cruise. Didn't take the DSLR, just the phone. All the photos were with my or her iPhone. They came out pretty good, although the iPhone 8 phone didn't do well indoors and those shots would definitely have been better with the DSLR. A couple months ago I got an iPhone 15. The camera is much better, but I've been busy and haven't had time to do any real comparisons, so although I suspect the indoor shots will still be better on the high-ISO-capable DSLR, I don't have any confirmation yet.

Next time I go on vacation I will probably just take the iPhone. I don't usually get wall hangers from my vacation shots and maximum image quality is not really needed for family shots. I'm retired from the event photography beyond family events and I don't demand a lot from those shots. The family is not demanding either.