In my view, the enormous number and variety of the menu options on my Nikon 810 offer many more ways to manipulate the capture than less expensive, lighter weight cameras. If a "serious" photographer can be said to be adept at using many more of the menu features than I am neither inclined nor able to master, then DSLRs are more "serious" than P&S and bridge cameras. My limit for menu items was reached way back with a D200, and to the assertion that I bought increasingly complex cameras mostly for prestige of ownership I plead guilty. I can't prove this but I know it's true: many buyers of high-end cameras are similarly prestige motivated. Somebody should do a careful study of what percentage of their own camera's menu features are really used by camera owners. I have not yet encountered anyone except Thom Hogan et al. who actually understands and uses all the available options of a current up market DSLR.

Much is said here about cellphone cameras, whether a cellphone camera is really a camera, and that perhaps pictures taken with a cellphone camera are even considered photos. Then there are the dedicated cameras that seem to be deemed "lesser" cameras, such as the "point and shoot," and bridge cameras. It seems, at least on the surface, that these cameras aren't considered to be serious cameras because the lenses are fixed and they're lighter, with smaller sensors, even though many of them have all the PASM & Auto modes as well as many other features. Yet because they're small, it seems they're less regarded as a serious camera. Then there's the big jump to the DSLR's and upper end mirrorless cameras. Are they somehow more of a serious camera? Or is the serious part really the photographer behind the shutter button, regardless of the type of camera? So what really constitutes a "serious" camera? How do you all feel about this?

Much is said here about cellphone cameras, whether a cellphone camera is really a camera, and that perhaps pictures taken with a cellphone camera are even considered photos. Then there are the dedicated cameras that seem to be deemed "lesser" cameras, such as the "point and shoot," and bridge cameras. It seems, at least on the surface, that these cameras aren't considered to be serious cameras because the lenses are fixed and they're lighter, with smaller sensors, even though many of them have all the PASM & Auto modes as well as many other features. Yet because they're small, it seems they're less regarded as a serious camera. Then there's the big jump to the DSLR's and upper end mirrorless cameras. Are they somehow more of a serious camera? Or is the serious part really the photographer behind the shutter button, regardless of the type of camera? So what really constitutes a "serious" camera? How do you all feel about this?

Of these six, my Galaxy Note 8 is capable of 2, 3, 4, and 5. I'll have to investigate the possibility of an external flash capability. That would be an interesting experiment. Additionally, in Pro mode, the following can be accessed:

1. Metering---center-weighted, spot, or matrix
2. Exposure compensation
3. White balance
4. Focus: autofocus (center or multi-af with 35 focus points), or manual
5. Choice between shooting raw (dng) or jpeg. If you choose raw it will still save a jpeg but will also store a raw file. Raw files always get stored in the internal memory whereas the jpeg can be stored on the external memory, if desired.

The zoom capability is impressive. Up to 2x it is optical, afterwards it is digital but one shot I took of a bald eagle resting a tree at an estimated range of 64 feet came out well. It wasn't something I would say is comparable to a camera with a telephoto, but it was impressive none-the-less. Macros are quite impressive, too. Here is a macro that was taken simply to do a web search. The flower was about six and a half feet above me. The image was simply a quick shot, no pro mode, no attempt to compose, no flash, and I could even see the image on the screen until shot was taken---guess you could say the composition was done from the reverse side from the front of the camera and estimating center position.

http://www.angelstarphotography.com/Galleries/Macros/Macros/i-vZLfjsp/A

I have used my cell phone camera in moments when I didn't have my DSLR around and wanted to capture a moment. I use Pro mode most of the time and have captured streams with a frothy look, sunsets, panoramas, and HDR shots. I will admit that I do prefer my DSLR due to the intricate control one has but a cell phone with a good feature set can stand in when the DSLR is not immediately available. Ben Long talks about using cell phones for such cases as well.

One final comment...check out Brent Hall's video on the Note 8 and how he uses it at times.

https://youtu.be/Tk6nc4fVFI4

Finally, its all in the photographer as to what can be done and a willingness to explore and experiment.