Take only a mobile phone when traveling for picture taking?

[swandy]

Question for those who travel. Do you feel that phone photography has gotten to the point (as far as image quality) that you would feel comfortable only taking a mobile phone on a trip? I ask because my wife and I are traveling to Israel for about 3 weeks and while I have decided not to take my mirrorless camera (an Olympus EM5mk3) along - basically based on our last thee trips where I left it home but took my iPhone 14 and my compact camera (Sony RX100mk5) only. And a recent trip to Florida (St. Augustine to Key West) where I only took the iPhone - but while Florida we have been to many times, the other two trips were to the French Wine Country and Spain which we had never seen. I would take the Sony to have a second camera in addition to the iPhone (always have a backup especially when traveling somewhere I don't plan on visiting again), but I have seen so many photos - both my own and in various iPhone forums - where the results have been impressive.
So the question: how many have just taken their iPhone (or whatever mobile phone they use) and felt comfortable with taking just the phone? Something in

 

[dirk]

Until now, I always had at least a compact camera additionally with me.

The newer my smartphone was, the more I used it for normal photography.

I use currently a Google Pixel 7 pro. It has a very good Image quality, similar or sometimes better than the iphone 14 of a friend, but still it is way behind my Ricoh GR3 and GR3x or my Panasonic Lumix GX9.

The smallest "package" so far for me was 1 smartphone and 2 Ricoh GRs (3x & 3)

The smartphone is very convenient and with automatic HDR, you are able to take very good photos without any effort even in challenging light conditions.

The portraits modus is very good with the Pixel 7 Pro, but results big file sizes, which you can not get very small later on in lightroom.

In my view it depends on what you shoot and the focal range you prefer for that, what you are doing in vacation (a lot of walking in cities etc).

 

[DrLex]

I think it indeed depends on what you intend to shoot, and on the size and resolution at which you'll want to view the photos.

I also combine a smartphone with a camera. The smartphone is easier to quickly grab especially when the camera is still in its bag. We all know the saying “the best camera is the one you have with you,” and it is better to have a decent shot of something fleeting than no shot at all because it took too long to ready the camera.
For straightforward shots under good conditions, the smartphone suffices. Just as its compact camera predecessors, it especially does a good job at close-ups of small things, and it can easily produce decent panoramas.
The camera is obviously way better for shooting things in the distance, quickly and accurately focusing on moving things, having more dynamic range without needing HDR, shallow depth-of-field that doesn't look artificial, and situations where the phone starts to struggle with low light. The viewfinder on the camera makes it way easier to properly frame shots especially in bright sunlight. (And I especially appreciate its adjustable diopter now that my eyes start to struggle with looking at small screens at close distances.)

You can of course also zoom in with the phone, but you'll quickly enter digital zoom territory that blurs the image. If you only plan to watch the images on smaller screens, this could be OK. You wouldn't want to try capturing a bird in the distance though. (I tried it with a pheasant once. I keep the photo only for the memory, it takes a lot of fantasy to recognize a bird in the blotch of pixels.)

On my last trip I thought the wide-angle of my phone (OnePlus Nord) would be good enough for landscapes and architecture. However, I was rather disappointed by the results. The sensor is obviously very noisy and the phone tries to hide this through aggressive noise suppression which destroys details. It also applies some kind of tone mapping that flattens contrast across the whole image. Everything just looks weird and I cannot disable this in the camera app. I have now installed a custom app that allows to obtain less manipulated images, but then the noise becomes obvious. This is where the limitations of tiny sensors and lenses start to show through. Next time I go on a trip where I expect to take many wide landscape shots, I'll probably carry a wide angle lens for my camera, or I may just do as I often did in the past, and take multiple shots which I then throw into software that stitches them together into a virtual ultra-wide-angle shot.

When I was a kid in the film era, I started out with those cardboard single-use cameras, and they were OK for taking home some good overall impressions of a trip. The smartphone is of course a lot more advanced, but for some reason it still gives me a similar vibe as those disposable boxes, compared to my real camera which opens up more possibilities.

 

[philzucker]

Sure depends on your needs and also on the specs of your mobile phone. I recently made a city trip to Utrecht, Netherlands, and decided to bring only my phone, a Pixel 7 Pro. That has (as most phones nowadays have) several cameras from tele to ultrawide, does macros, and is very capable for hand held night shots. In the city and its confined spaces I felt comfortable using it. Quality was absolutely okay and for critical shots I could use RAW files which are very nice to PP for that extra sharpness and detail.

I've lately seen travel pictures from several younger people that were exclusively taken with (good) mobile phones, and quality, colors and detail were robust enough for a good big showing using a video projector and also for up to A3-sized prints and photo travel books they made from it.

Of course even the best mobile phones can't match the dynamic and tonal range and/or the fine resolution a capable camera like e.g. the Ricoh GR with its APS-C sensor offers.

That's why I'm planning to take three cameras on my upcoming vacation where a lot of travelling with an RV will be involved: My mobile phone, a Ricoh GR (for those extra quality landscape shots!) and a Ricoh Theta V (for the occasional 360 degree shot). Makes up for a small enough "always have with you" package that will serve most of my needs for taking landscape pictures and documenting my travels. But I won't try to do wildlife, serious macro or shallow DOF photography with those cameras because they are simply not the right tools for that.

Phil

 

[MHVirginia]

Question for those who travel. Do you feel that phone photography has gotten to the point (as far as image quality) that you would feel comfortable only taking a mobile phone on a trip? I ask because my wife and I are traveling to Israel for about 3 weeks and while I have decided not to take my mirrorless camera (an Olympus EM5mk3) along - basically based on our last thee trips where I left it home but took my iPhone 14 and my compact camera (Sony RX100mk5) only. And a recent trip to Florida (St. Augustine to Key West) where I only took the iPhone - but while Florida we have been to many times, the other two trips were to the French Wine Country and Spain which we had never seen. I would take the Sony to have a second camera in addition to the iPhone (always have a backup especially when traveling somewhere I don't plan on visiting again), but I have seen so many photos - both my own and in various iPhone forums - where the results have been impressive.
So the question: how many have just taken their iPhone (or whatever mobile phone they use) and felt comfortable with taking just the phone? Something in

Hello,
I’m getting ready to go to Nashville, St. Augustine, Santorini, Mykonos and Alaska. The debate about whether the iPhone 13 Pro, or if I buy one the 14pro, is ample camera for these trips has been at the forefront of my mind for a month. I think I’ll bring the iPhone as my main camera for Florida, TN and Greece with a Sony RX100m6 as the back up. But for Alaskan wildlife, I’m thinking of my Sony RX10M4 as the main with the phone back up.

I like the iPhone and have been taking an online iPhone class to get comfortable with the capabilities. The class is iPhone Photography School with Emil Pakarkis. Excellent teacher. I’ll be taking his editing class prior to Greece, but I’m not sure I can finish it all before FL or TN. There’s a great deal of information to absorb, and the best way is to practice. I’ve been lazy lately.

I think the iPhone won’t work for BIF, so out comes the Sony. But what the iPhone does do is automatically upload to the cloud, geotag and make it easier to find photos in a good semblance of order. It has good color and you can manipulate DOF by switching to portrait or telephoto. Framing photos is easier for me with the big screen to look through.

I hope this way of thinking helps you with your decision. If you have any comments, I’d love to hear them.

 

[swandy]

Hello,
I’m getting ready to go to Nashville, St. Augustine, Santorini, Mykonos and Alaska. The debate about whether the iPhone 13 Pro, or if I buy one the 14pro, is ample camera for these trips has been at the forefront of my mind for a month. I think I’ll bring the iPhone as my main camera for Florida, TN and Greece with a Sony RX100m6 as the back up. But for Alaskan wildlife, I’m thinking of my Sony RX10M4 as the main with the phone back up.

I like the iPhone and have been taking an online iPhone class to get comfortable with the capabilities. The class is iPhone Photography School with Emil Pakarkis. Excellent teacher. I’ll be taking his editing class prior to Greece, but I’m not sure I can finish it all before FL or TN. There’s a great deal of information to absorb, and the best way is to practice. I’ve been lazy lately.

I think the iPhone won’t work for BIF, so out comes the Sony. But what the iPhone does do is automatically upload to the cloud, geotag and make it easier to find photos in a good semblance of order. It has good color and you can manipulate DOF by switching to portrait or telephoto. Framing photos is easier for me with the big screen to look through.

I hope this way of thinking helps you with your decision. If you have any comments, I’d love to hear them.

Great set of places you plan on visiting (we have been to Nashville, Florida a lot and Alaska - Greece is still on our bucket list). And like I said have not taken my "larger" camera (an Olympus EM5 mirrorless) on any of the last three trips, though only the last one to Florida was just my iPhone 14. And my travel shots tend to be on the wide to normal range - even when I took along the Olympus - so not having anything longer than the Sony (though the extended digital range I am now first learning to use isn't bad and extends the 70mm equivalent to around 200mm) isn't usually a real issue for me personally. (No safaris on this trip.) So I am leaning towards the iPhone 14 and the RX100mk5 - because I want a second option just trying to decide which will be my primary camera. Thanks

 

[patrickt]

I'm 81 and I decided a few years ago to quit carrying my camera and lens around. I had a Google Nexus, I moved to Huawei, then to Pixels, and finally to Sony Xperia 5II and then 5III. At the same time I quit making 16x20 prints. I've never regretted my decision.

• Sony - XQ-BQ62
• 10.2 mm
• ƒ/2.3
• 1/2000 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• -1
• ISO 50

• Sony - XQ-BQ62
• 5.1 mm
• ƒ/1.7
• 1/250 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 64

Enjoy your vacation.

 

[swandy]

I'm 81 and I decided a few years ago to quit carrying my camera and lens around. I had a Google Nexus, I moved to Huawei, then to Pixels, and finally to Sony Xperia 5II and then 5III. At the same time I quit making 16x20 prints. I've never regretted my decision.
View attachment 1731
View attachment 1732
View attachment 1733
Enjoy your vacation.

That has been my thoughts out last few trips and so for this one. (BTW I am about 10 years younger than you.)

 

[AlbertM43user]

Question for those who travel. Do you feel that phone photography has gotten to the point (as far as image quality) that you would feel comfortable only taking a mobile phone on a trip? I ask because my wife and I are traveling to Israel for about 3 weeks and while I have decided not to take my mirrorless camera (an Olympus EM5mk3) along - basically based on our last thee trips where I left it home but took my iPhone 14 and my compact camera (Sony RX100mk5) only. And a recent trip to Florida (St. Augustine to Key West) where I only took the iPhone - but while Florida we have been to many times, the other two trips were to the French Wine Country and Spain which we had never seen. I would take the Sony to have a second camera in addition to the iPhone (always have a backup especially when traveling somewhere I don't plan on visiting again), but I have seen so many photos - both my own and in various iPhone forums - where the results have been impressive.
So the question: how many have just taken their iPhone (or whatever mobile phone they use) and felt comfortable with taking just the phone? Something in

If it is good enough to you then mostly a phone cam would be good enough.

This should be a matter of highly personal perferences.

In case of us, that we also travel a lot after our retirement some 1/4 century ago, mostly overseas since local couldn't satisfy us to explore the unknown (culture, history, people, food, scenery...), when we shall carry our phone, I would never use their cameras.

Reasons：IQ, to watch the image on a tiny phone screen at some distance until the fault disappear and becomes beautiful is not what I want. I need my output to look good at least technically at 1:1 although I know I can never be an artistist...

Yes under some condition the top of line phone camera can do no worse than certain compacts, specially for those who use auto everything, but why I do not use my cheaper cameras which cost just a fraction of the cost.

During my travelling, I shall have to prepare to shoot under all sort of conditions, from weather to lighting. As my current cameras can do well upto 2/3 ~ -1 or -2ev by single shot, I doubt could any phone do it yet without all sort of stacking artifact.

BTW, regarding cost, I can save on not neccessary to upgrade my cameras periodically just because network does not support the format. My cameras have a longer usable life at a lower cost in a sense.

On the operation side, I prefer to have a vf, zoom quickly, pre lock focus, fine tune the exposure setting, might need slower shutter speed somwtimes... I can nail it on my cameras within second(s). On a phone, unless P&S...

On lenses option, forget the phone. We are shooting with an EFL of 14~300, can a phone do that?

Can't rule out a phone in future but not expect it to happen in the next few years. My phone's are our phones, navigation guide, info center, weather center, translator, currency ex calculator, wallet, partial function of passport, books to entertainment center. Not our camera yet.

My 2 cents.

 

[Lee Jay]

The basic problem with phones, even of today, is the range of conditions in which they can satisfactorily shoot. This has gotten a lot better lately with optical image stabilization, multiple cameras, and image stacking, but the range of conditions is still pretty narrow.

My phone has a roughly 13mm equivalent wide angle, a roughly 28mm equivalent "standard" and a roughly 84mm equivalent "telephoto". While that's way better than phones used to be, my standard travel kit goes from full-frame fisheye through to at least 400mm equivalent, if not 640 or 960, before cropping. The SLR can shoot in darker conditions and with shallower DOF, and even the built-in flash is hundreds of times more powerful than the puny LED built into the phone. Plus the camera is more fun to use, way easier to frame with and way more responsive.

But the phone has its place now, whereas a few generations ago, it really didn't.