Would You Carry a 'Dedicated Camera' If You Didn't Have To?

The batt'ry in my iPhone 13 seems to be getting hinky—a long stint on the charger sometimes doesn't get it to 100%, and it's draining faster—and I'm wondering about replacing it. Replacing the phone, I mean, although I could be talking about replacing just the battery. I've replaced the battery in a phone before, but that just tends to encourage me to keep the phone until there's no trade-in value left in it. Replacing phones generally is the same kind of conundrum as when to sell stock or deciding when to take Social Security—it's a game, but there's no gaming it. When to do any of these things is an insoluble puzzle. Anyway the reason I replace phones is for the cameras, pretty much exclusively. And in researching the newest cameras vs. the one I have, I've happened across the phrase "so good" several times now. 

As in, the camera in the phone is "so good" you might not even need a "dedicated" camera any more.

"Dedicated camera" is only the latest modification of "camera" that I've encountered over my lengthening journey. It distinguishes a camera from a phone camera, which is what "camera" most often means now. "Stills camera" was another that popped up, a bit further back, to distinguish that from a camera that shot video as well, although that's basically everything now, including the phones. Before that, 25–30 years ago, it was "film camera," to distinguish those from digital cameras; before that, "manual focus cameras," to distinguish those from the autofocus cameras coming on strong; way back, before my time,"manual camera" helped distinguish cameras without autoexposure or just cameras that didn't have built-in light meters. Now, if you say to somebody that their camera has a light meter in it, you're likely to get the response, "what's a light meter?" But I suppose it's always been this way: in the 1890s there was "hand camera," to distinguish those from "stand cameras" and cameras on tripods. Whereas, in the 1860s, maybe, every camera was a stand- or tripod camera.

It's tough being a camera—you're never just a plain ol' camera. Each time, the new term acknowledges that something has changed to make it so that all cameras are lately not what the newer term describes. No one would have said "film camera" in 1960 or "stills camera" when the only way for consumers to shoot video was with a camcorder. Remember when those were a hot thing and all the rage? Time was if you had said "dedicated camera" and explained that it meant a device that was just for taking pictures, you would have gotten funny looks.

But I digress. So anyway, now there are dedicated cameras as well as cameras, which are assumed to be in your phone. So do you even need a dedicated camera any more?"

Oooh! Oooh!
I have my hand up. My answer: absolutely I need a dedicated ILC. (ILC = interchangeable lens camera.) The phone cameras that are so good now aren't that good yet.

My response actually tilts the other way altogether. That is, I sometimes wonder if it's bad for me to even have a phone with a camera in it at all. What it does is to encourage me not to have my "real" camera with me. What happens then is that I take a picture with the phone that I wish I had taken with a better camera. I've discussed this before.

A personal memory. Wex has Butters' discus toy, which Butters considers a violation of the proper order of the Universe. Wex would tease Butters by keeping it, and Butters would stalk Wex patiently until he got it back. I called it a "Wexican standoff." I could wish this were shot with the Fuji, but in all likelihood the picture wouldn't exist if it hadn't been for the iPhone.

I think, however—I hope—that I have fully embraced iPhoneography. It's freeing and fun to be able to "take notes" with the iPhone, and to almost always have a camera with me (I still leave my phone at home sometimes—I didn't grow up with them; that's my excuse and I'm sticking to it), and to be able to take a meaningless picture just for myself and just for the pure joy of it. There's another advantage: it has meant that I get out on purpose to do "dedicated photography" more often, with my real camera. Since my dog died I've been lonely and depressed, and my old "mindless compensating" activity—pool—is (temporarily I hope) not comforting, because he was always with me in the pool shed. But when I get out with the camera it's been working as a refuge, a relief. Driving around looking for pictures is still relaxing and comforting. He was never with me on those trips. It's a nice way to get away. Also, I enjoy concentrating on photography.

Should I happen to get a good shot, I would much rather it have been taken with my Sigma FP-monochrome or Fujifilm X-T4.

Do you make any effort to keep a dedicated camera on you at all times, or most of the time? Because that's one solution to avoid getting stuck with just your phone—to always have a real camera close at hand. I would think that would be the great advantage of the new Fujifilm X-E5 and its pancake lens, or any small, pocketable larger-sensor camera. 

But here's what would be the real test of dedication to dedicated photography: if you could buy a phone without a camera in it, would you?

I'm actually glad I can't (I'm in the Apple ecosystem, and Apple doesn't make a cameraless iPhone). I'd like to think that that's exactly what I would do if I could—reserve photography for the tools that do it best; force myself to carry a dedicated camera; never get stuck with an iPhone file for something I'd love to print.

But in reality I guess I'm glad I don't have to make that decision. For all I think I'd like to be uncompromising, I actually like my phone. I've gotten used to it.

Cameras, after all, are useful for other things than just making "dedicated photographs"!

Mike

Original contents copyright 2025 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

Roger Bradbury: "I have a dedicated camera on me nearly all the time. It's in a canvas shoulder bag which is part camera bag, part old boy on an old British motorcycle's bag. The camera is a Sony A6000 with the okayish-quality and tiny 16–50mm kit lens. As it's protected by being inside a strong 1960s British Army ammo pouch inside the main bag and hardly weighs anything, I hardly have to take any notice of it at all. It goes everywhere I go when I don't have another camera, and only gets left in the car or bike if I'm in the pub or supermarket. I essentially already have a mobile phone without a camera, as the best the camera in my phone can do is little better than a potato print."

Vijay: "I always carry a dedicated camera with me. It’s a Ricoh GRIII in my front left pocket. My back left pocket always has my iPhone. I wouldn’t buy a phone without a camera because I use the iPhone for videos, and the GRIII for stills. My videos aren’t long, usually about six seconds, and their primary purpose is to capture audio. Sounds (especially of nature) are so representative of many places for me."

Henry White: "Hmm. I leave my phone at home more often than I do my camera. I can't remember the last time I left home without a dedicated camera. I was at a doctor's appointment this morning, Leica D-Lux 8 over one shoulder...as comforting as a warm blanket."

Josh Hawkins "Eight to 10 years ago I was going camping with the kids a lot. Every other weekend, every third weekend. It gave my then-undergrad wife time to study. The kids were three and five, in that range, at that time. I decided to make my life easier and just take my phone with for photos. The photos were just fine from it. What I found was camping just wasn't as much fun. Part of the joy was from having a 'real' camera with me. It wasn't that I just had more fun taking photos, I had more fun camping, overall, all around, because I was using a 'real' camera. It's been a valuable discovery. Sometimes I take my camera to things not because I need it, but because it's just more fun that way. "

Kye Wood: "You carry a dedicated camera for the fun factor. Just like you drive the convertible on the weekend. If you're wired that way, and it floats your boat, a dedicated camera will get the superior shot every time, because you will be engaged and not just passively prodding a button drawn on a glass screen."

Herjulfr: "No. The more I use my phone for photography, the less I like photography. I now prefer to leave the phone or at home or in the car and bring my X-Pro1 or my old Canon FTb. Holding them sets me in the mood, I am more aware of my surroundings and, at the end of the day, I have enjoyed taking photographs."

Edward Taylor: "What no one seems to discuss much isn’t whether a phone camera can replace a dedicated camera, but whether a dedicated camera could ever replace a phone camera. My phone captures decent photos in challenging lighting conditions that my $4,000 dedicated camera simply can’t, especially handheld. And I can share those photos instantly. I often use both cameras for the same shot, and frequently the phone is the only one that produces a usable image. At some point, I believe dedicated cameras will need all the computational power and connectivity of phones to stay competitive, or to replace phones entirely. Cameras should have cellular plans and appropriate software. Is a $20/month data plan really prohibitive when you’ve spent thousands on the camera?"

James Coleman: "I carry a 'dedicated' camera everywhere. I never leave the house without one unless it's raining cat and dogs or I'm headed somewhere 'dedicated' cameras aren't allowed (never mind everyone's got a phone...). My Pixel 6a does a great job but I've taken too many phone photos over the years when I'd wished I'd had my dedicated with me."

Comments

[Alan Fairley]

I have been on trips where I would take a picture with my “real” camera and would then take the same(ish) picture with my phone for emailing or Facebooking at the end of the day. You can see how this could get a little out of hand….

[Dave Millier]

I have an ageing budget Motorola phone and I tested printing a snapshot from it on my Epson P900 printer. I can't see any difference in image quality between the phone and my GFX50s medium format camera at A3 print size (roughly 15" x 11"). The camera in the phone is a 26mm equivalent 64MP quad type that gets binned to 16MP. I don't actually think the printer can put more than a 16MP source file's detail on paper at this print size and the bigger camera is wasted unless I find a way to print at least 30" wide.

I just posted an article on my website comparing A2 prints from my medium format against micro fourthirds - no difference there either, the max print size from the P900 is not big enough to show off the resolution advantage of medium format. Obviously you can see it on screen if you pixel peep.

[Richard Alton]

I see best through a viewfinder, so a phone camera is definitely a last resort for me. It's not a matter of pixels - my Fujifilm X100 (yes, that's right - the original model) still takes lovely pictures when I'm seeing clearly. And its optical viewfinder...

[Albert Smith]

I always hear the "cellphone cameras are so good now..." argument, but not for me.

Maybe people with young people's eyes that can instantly go from infinity to a phone held a foot away from the face can use the phone as a serious camera. But having to walk around with reading glasses make quick spontaneous shots less than spontaneous. I also always find that I miss the discarded Coke can laying on the ground on the glared out phone screen, which I would have seen in a proper finder and gotten rid of or recomposed to exclude it.

Even if you don't use it often, the ability to utilize selective focus when it will enhance the shot, or just to differentiate your images from the millions of people that are using their phones as their only camera, make having a sensor larger than the phone's worth the effort of lugging a real camera. And digital fakery doesn't count for me.

I'll always have as a minimum one of my Fujifilm X-E class cameras with an f/2 lens on my person when out and about.

[robert e]

I wish I could say "yes", but the truth is that a "dedicated" camera hasn't been a frequent carry for me since i got an iPhone 7 (I stay 2 or more gens behind--the latest iPhone at the time was the X).

Increasingly, I find myself snapshooting information rather than jotting it down in an app or on paper. Recently, I even snapped someone else's info-snap as they showed it to me on their phone. Oddly, that's not the kind of thing I'd think of doing with a dedicated camera, even though it would be just as easy to do.

[Tom Burke]

Yes - sometimes. If I'm on holiday or a trip then I will.

I tend to take the decision on an occasion-by-occasion basis. Today, while doing an 8k hike in the Derbyshire Peak District, I took just the phone. It was a new walk for me, despite being just a few miles from home. In fact that might subconsciously have been part of the decision - because it's so close I know I can always go back there with the Canon; today was something of a scouting exhibition. But if I was going somewhere that I was unlikely to ever to revisit the ILC would definitely come with me.

(There's also the question of 'which ILC?'. Some years ago I had two Canon outfits - a 5DIV + 3xf4 zooms, and an APS-C body with a third party standard zoom. Buying a full-frame camera had been my ambition for a number of years, but after I'd had it for a while I often found myself just picking up the APS-C body instead - it was so much easier to carry and use. The 5DIV went within a couple of years and since then I've had APS-C ILC bodies almost exclusively.

[Tom R. Halfhill]

Phone cameras are so commonplace now that some people think my digital camera is a film camera. To them, any "dedicated camera" must be a historical artifact.

A member of Rangefinder Forum says a teacher recently stopped him from using his film camera to photograph his young daughter's dance class -- even though all the other parents were taking pictures with their phones.

Lesson: using a camera that makes it easy to share pictures of children on the Internet is okay, but using a camera that makes it difficult is not. And that's exactly what I would have told the teacher, while whipping out my phone.

[John Sullivan]

I have my iPhone in my pocket all the time (except when I am not wearing pants) so I get all kinds of shots. My main camera is a Fuji GFX100S. Its comfortable with the wide strap but only gets put on when I am going out to take pictures. I also have a Fuji XT-3 that friend gave me, also a Fuji X-1, also a gift. These are for neighborhoods I don't fully trust, no big loss if I get mugged.
I just finished up a project for my wife. Her daughter died about 2 years ago and we have her belongings in storage. Because my wife is not able to go through these things herself, I volunteered to photograph everything so she could look through it. I wound up with 1,000 pictures made with my iPhone. Clothing, kitchen wear, knickknacks, everything. It was exhausting but I feel like I know her better now than when she was alive. It would have been much harder to do with the big cameras. When I need a quick pic, its always there (except when Im not wearing pants)

[Keith]

I typically use my iPhone to take photos of something I need to send to someone soon. Or something that has stupidly small text moulded in the same colour as the background and I can't get my eyes and glasses sweet spot onto it, so I'll take a photo and zoom in. Or, if I just happen to really badly want to take a photo and I don't have a 'real' camera with me. I don't take one everywhere, but maybe I should. But then, a couple of my 'real' cameras are film, and that wouldn't help in those first two cases.
Would I buy a phone without a camera? Yes. Just like I'd buy a car without one of those $#@! 'infotainment' screens. I hate them. Will those choices ever be offered to me in a new product? I think you all know the answer to that.

[Ken Tanaka]

"Do you make any effort to keep a dedicated camera on you at all times, or most of the time?"
As the iPhone's camera(s) have become more sophisticated and capable I've come to rely on it more than a dedicated cam device for non-photo walkabouts. This setup, which I now use often, may shift you in this direction, too:

- An iPhone 15 Pro Max (or later)

- The new free Adobe Project Indigo camera app (available in the App Store). More info at: https://research.adobe.com/articles/indigo/indigo.html
It's proving itself to produce astonishingly natural, yet technically excellent, images. Don't be put-off by the "computational" term; read about what it's doing!

- A top-notch magnetic camera shutter grip for your phone. I use the $89 ShiftCam SnapGrip Pro which can also inductively charge your phone.

Since you need a new phone anyway... you won't regret it.

p.s. But, yes, I spend lots of hours most weeks using a dedicated camera out in the world...and love it. The rig above is for those tweeter times.

[Not THAT Ross Cameron]

Hmmm, interesting Q.

I find phone cameras useful as an aid at work. Before COVID and people were in the office and used white boards, we’d take photos when something was done and send around via email.

They also replace scanners. For the times when I need to fill out a paper form (yes, that hasn’t entirely gone away yet), when completed I can take a photo and send it back via email / text message. I even worked out how to take multiple images and convert to a single pdf to email via iPhone. Except yahoo limits attachments to 25MB, and images don’t really compress in a pdf. Yep, found out how to compress pdfs via iPhone too.

My child is seeing a medical specialist, and I want to share the latest school report. I can’t download the report from the school app, but I can take screen snaps and send them.

I might keep a dedicated camera around to do those things, if it were as connected and convenient as the phone.

[David]

I’m a iPhone notetaker / camera photographer too. I’m not fond of the processing an iPhone does.

However I’ve recently been using an iPhone app, made by Adobe and still in Beta, called ‘Pi’, and I quite like it for ‘Photos’.
It is clunky (it’s a beta) and the processing sometimes takes a short while (I imagine it’s doing things people wouldn’t bother with on the inbuilt camera), but the interface is nicely minimal and the photos more natural. I recommend photographers with an iPhone have a look.

[Peter Williams]

Wait until September (if your phone holds out) and get the iPhone 17 (version of your choice) that is due out then. That's what I'm doing after skipping the lacklustre iPhone 16 that I'd waited for.
For many years I always took my Fujifilm X-E3 with one of the 'Fujicrons' pretty much whenever I left the house, but I seem to have slacked off on that this year.
I agree with what Albert Smith said too.

[Timothy Auger]

My iPhone 12 Mini is 'useful' for taking a record of something practical, rather than photographically satisfying. The lenses are usually obscured by fingerprints or gravy stains, and in the weakest of sunlight, or unless I'm wearing my reading glasses, it's impossible to frame what I'm shooting anyway. I only use it for photos when I'm forced to and I'm not carrying my trusty Fuji X30 or Olympus EM5iii. The fact that it doesn't do raw without invoking an external app doesn't help. Its own jpegs are horribly over-denoised and over-sharpened.

[DavidB]

I use a variety of cameras for different purposes.

If I am out doing a trail run I carry my iPhone in my water bottle waist pack. It shoots well enough to document most things I see on the run. However, if I want more control over the images and better image quality, I will carry the Sony RX100-V; it is small enough to also fit in the waist pack.

On hikes or mountain bike rides I typically carry a larger pack and then I include the Sony RX10 (but have also been known to carry a DSLR).

Finally, for landscapes, astrophotography, capturing lightning, or similar, I will carry the full-frame Nikon D850 using a large backpack.

And I always have the phone camera even when I have the dedicated cameras.

[Frank]

Settings / Battery / Battery Health - if more than 80% it is fine. If less than 70%, replace battery with Apple battery < 150 $ and should last 2-3 years. If use generic replacment, cheaper, but last 1-2 years likely.

And while in Settings / Battery, enable Low Power Mode to extend run time on a charge.

Lots of things will run down a battery - mostly weak wifi or cell signal, keeping display bright and on a lot of times, extensive Blu-tooth usage, etc. i turn off wifi and Blu-tooth when not needed and use Low Power Mode on my SE2 which is famous for not lasting a day. i usually get 2 days run time.

[Thanks for reminding me of this. Mine is still at 85%, so the situation is not dire yet. I was pleased to see that app use is almost exactly what I use the phone for and in the right proportions. 15% of the power I use is to monitor my pacemaker—not going to turn that off!! –Mike]

[Frank]

Part 2: ON the same Settings / Battery page, look at the usage stats for which apps are using the most battery. Maybe some can be turned off. At least you will be aware which ones being vampires.

[Nikhil Ramkarran]

This may be a bit niche, but as a 2 phoner (2 phone toter?) I've been wishing for a folding phone without a camera for at least 1 and a half days now.

I have the applephetamine for my personal picture taking (and ignoring when people call instead messaging for some reason) so I just need the folder for work. It would be so much less massive without the mediocre cameras and suitcase of cash to purchase.

[Herman krieger]

I only carry a camera when there is a specific purpose for it. That is a habit formed in the 1940s, when I went out on jobs with a Speed Graphic camera. Later, with either a Leica or a Super B Ikonta, when I thought about snapping a photo, I would ask myself, "What are you going to do with the photo?" If there was no good answer, I didn't take the photo. I now have a digital camera, which mostly stays at home. My dumb cell phone is kept in the car in case of an emergency.

[John Camp]

I keep a Fuji X-T5 sitting on a soft pad on the backseat floor of my primary car, while I'm out scouting around for whatever. I don't use it often -- maybe twice a week -- but I *never* use an iPhone for anything I take seriously. Honestly, for the variety of weather conditions and the variety of distances I'm shooting at here in the mountains (with a 28-120 equivalent zoom) an iPhone doesn't work very well. What it does work for is when my wife tells me to go to the grocery store to buy something and she's uncertain about the exact brand or type of thing she wants, I'll shoot a photo of it and text it to her, and she'll text me a right or wrong. She also used it to record the scene when she was in a fender-bender a few weeks ago. I think of an iPhone as a note-taker, not a serious camera.

[Ken]

Yes, I would buy a phone without a camera since I taped over my phone's camera and don't use it. I'd actually love to find a much smaller phone (the size of my old flip phone that used to fit in my pants pocket).

Besides, what I like to shoot (mostly birds, wildlife, and landscapes) doesn't really lend itself to phoneography. But I also just really enjoy shooting with a real camera.

[Chris Bertram]

Charging that battery to 100% will just shorten its life anyway. Try to keep it in the 20-80 range. You can set max charge to 80 in settings.

[Craig Beyers]

“If you could buy a phone without a camera in it, would you?” No: the phone function is one of the least-used functions; I seldom make or receive phone calls. I text with people, read social media, get directions…and make photos. I tend to upgrade every 3-4 years WHEN the camera and its software are worth upgrading. It helps when the phone has trade-in value, too. My iPhone is always my second camera and, through it’s wide angle lens, gives me a second view when I have a 70-200 on my mirrorless camera.

[Thomas Rink]

No, I do not take a dedicated camera with me every time I go out. But this is not because of my phone. If I have a camera with me I constantly look for pictures, which makes me absent-minded and a nuisance for any company (e.g. my wife who tries to strike up a conversation). Thus, I only take the camera for the dedicated photographic excursions around my home.

I have a 2022 iPhone SE which I bought second hand last year. The camera is much better than the 1st gen SE I had before, but I still don't find it satisfactory. I believe the problem is Apple's camera app rather than the camera itself. Pictures look good on the phone but are often too bright, oversaturated and oversharpened when examined on the computer, resulting in a flat and disappointing look. Of course this can be fixed in Photoshop as these are HEIF files, but this is extra computer work that I don't have to do with my regular camera. Maybe the new Adobe app that Ken Tanaka mentioned can improve the situation.

I understand that a lot of others produce interesting work with their phones, but it just isn't for me

[Richard John Tugwell]

I often carry my x100V around as a 'dedicated camera'. It slips into a jacket pocket, is a joy to use etc etc. (My main issue with phone cameras is framing, and use in bright sunlight etc).

However I've recently taken to carrying this around. It's even smaller and has a slim form factor, so pocketable. Of course it also has a zoom lens. Perfectly acceptable image quality (depending what you need) and great battery life. Pretty good macro mode. Viewfinder is a bit naff, but usable.

Also makes for an interesting nostalgia trip. I'm currently sorting through all my G11 images from the first decade of the century.

[Stelios]

I would rather leave my phone at home than my manual focus dedicated stills film hand camera!

[David Littlejohn]

I second Ken’s endorsement of the Adobe Project Indigo camera app. It makes much better looking pictures than the iPhone camera app. And it shoots raw files. It’s still in its early days, but it’s now my phone camera.

[Paul]

A dedicated camera only for me. More often black and white film if I have an occasion to take a camera out at all. The flip phone was sufficient for me. Leave it in the car for emergencies. I despise those foolish devices but the world has changed around me and I have had little choice but to adapt.

[Speed]

"Love means never having to say you're sorry" is a catchphrase based on a line from the Erich Segal novel Love Story ... "
(Wikipedia)

Always having a camera with you means never having to say, "I'm sorry I missed that shot."

[gerry]

"Do you make any effort to keep a dedicated camera on you at all times, or most of the time?"
I almost never leave without it! (But I have an iPhone SE 1st gen that I use, as you say, to "take notes".)
And yes, phone cameras are so commonplace now that sometimes, when people see me with a camera, they think I'm from the press! :)

[James C Chinn]

I used to have a Canon SureShot that I would always stick in my pocket when running errands or on walks. It had a 10MP sensor and although it had no EVF it had some image stabilization, 28-105 zoom eye detection and I found that it made noiseless files up to 1600 ISO. Great Canon color for jpegs and easily workable RAW files. Auto focus wa a bit slow (2010 tech obviously) but still far superior to an phone for street photography. Smaller than most modern phones, it had a beautifully simple style and once you accepted its limitations it was a joy to use. But like you with your phone I would sometimes have the Sureshot and wish I had my "premium" camera with me.

Just to show how popular these small semi point are shoots are today I believe I paid about $300 for mine in 2014 and for an excellent copy they run about $350. Allas mine finally quit working last year as it no longer finds focus. This conversation has me considering getting another.

[Dogman]

Would I buy a phone without a camera? Hell yes! I hardly ever use the camera in my iPhone 16. When I do it's almost always at the request of my wife who has her own iPhone but refuses to learn how to use it.

I always carry at least one "real" camera with me everywhere. As I've said many times before, the ergonomics of camera phones is like that of a slab of drywall. I won't use a camera that isn't comfortable for me. In the past, I would carry something outlandishly heavy (Nikon D3) because it fit my handling so well. Today I would use a Nikon Z5 or Z6. They're small, full frame, have great image-making and they fit me pretty much perfectly.

A camera in a phone? Sorta like a Pocket Instamatic 20. Easy to carry and popular but not known for quality. However, compared to an iPhone camera, the Instamatic's handling was superior.

[Peter C]

Two thoughts. First, when I’ve traded in an older iPhone in perfect condition but four or five years old, the trade in value has been miserable - $100 or even less. So I think it’d be better to buy a new (or newish) phone. I’d get a Pro model with multiple lenses - you’ll use them.

Secondly, there are some situations when the phone is actually better than a ‘real’ camera: it probably has a much wider lens, sometimes very useful, and - as others have pointed out - it does make sharing images so much easier.

[Sroyon]

I had an interesting experience at a photoshoot last week. It was for a campaign in connection with Singapore's National Day, in a studio with backdrop, strobes, softboxes—the works. I was taking photos of an influencer, and as I took the first shot, we both realised that she was looking not at my camera, but at the phone which my assistant was using to film BTS footage. "Oops, I instinctively look at the phone," she said.

[Nicholas Hartmann]

"Would You Carry a 'Dedicated Camera' If You Didn't Have To?" No. And I believe that very soon I will not have to. Right now I take three kinds of photographs: images of monuments, landscapes, etc. that I then contribute to the Wikimedia Project; "personal pictures" that I think look pretty or interesting or surreal or whatever); and pictures for remembrance. Like many others who have commented, I too have spent far too much money on about-a-thousand-dollar high-end compact cameras that I thought I would take with me everywhere. Except I don't. And I do always carry my iPhone with me. In all three of my categories, even my current seven-year-old iPhone XS has taken pictures that have been good enough FOR ME. I am not a pictorialist; I want my images to be competent and readable and free of distracting flaws, but "image quality" doesn't make a boring picture any less boring. One of my Wikimedia pictures, taken with an even older iPhone, won a prize a few years back, because it was a good picture of a place that's not easy to get to; most of the pictures of our late dog were taken with the iPhone, because it was always in my pocket; and almost any of the images in my gallery of attempted "street photographs" (https://www.nhartmannart.com/Passersby) could have been taken, with no loss of visual impact, using a phone (and some were).

My current phone's only drawbacks as compared with a compact "real" camera are its limited dynamic range (unrecoverable blown highlights) and poor low-light capability, which sometimes become obtrusive. That phone is now due for replacement, and most of what I have read about its upcoming successor (iPhone 17, probably Pro) suggests that in combination with clever software from Apple or third parties, its camera(s) no longer have those shortcomings. Once I have confirmed that, my need for a "real" portable carry-everywhere camera will end, and my photographic life will become a bit simpler.

[Eric Anderson]

For a new iPhone with a simple ‘note taking’ camera you have the iPhone 16e. You would not use a pro level camera app with it.
For a new iPhone with a more upscale camera system, choose the Pro version and use an app like Halide or other with pro features.

[Merle]

...I've been lonely and depressed...

Reading Kirk Tuck's post from yesterday (Homeostatis of Joy) would boost your spirits a bit, I would think, if you haven't already done so.

I realize there is no cure for your condition, but time is a good remedy.

[Chris Kern]

It’s interesting that young people are snapping up Fuji X100Vs. Some are even experimenting with film. Is this revanchism? Or just rebellion—because they see so many of us old folks shooting pictures with our cellphones? I’ve provided all my grandchildren with “dedicated cameras” (nota bene: at their respective requests) and while they don’t use them as often as I make pictures with my iPhone, they seem to understand there’s a fundamental difference in the two types of photographic hardware.

[MikeR]

A smartphone, whether Apple or Android, is NOT a phone. It is a pocket computer, the "portable digital assistant" or PDA that was the focus of technical development in the 90's. The phone part is just one app of many on the device. The camera is just another.

Would I want a "phone" sans camera? NosireeBob. Whether well-implemented or not, that particular app+hardware is plenty useful for things other than making art.

If I were to force myself to carry a "dedicated" camera when I went somewhere, I'd have a bunch of decisions to sort through, leading to, which is the most suitable camera of my many to take with me? For Pete's sake, I'm just going out for groceries!

I dodged that question last year on a trip to Keuka Lake for a family gathering. I packed a box that included a Nikon D700, an Olympus E500, a monochrome camera, a Lumix GF1 modified for infrared, a Lumix GX8, all as a supplement to my Samsung Galaxy.

And speaking of the latter, the pictures from my Galaxy S24+ can be as usable as any from the above "big iron." I haven't tested it yet, but I've also downloaded and installed the "expert raw" add-on, which can write raw+jpg. I'm hoping that it may be comparable to the Adobe Indigo app.

[Daniel Speyer]

I carry a Pentax Q, with the 35mm equivalent (toy) lens--and the lens is actually no toy--and a 35mm Voigtlander optical viewfinder. I sometimes also carry the Q's fisheye lens, and a 6x12 camera optical viewfinder.

In my jacket pocket always, unless I am carrying something for bigger game. My finest image (in 60 years) was made with it.

The idea of an iPhone as a camera has nothing to do with image quality, the intuitive reaction/motion to take an (art) image is for me best served by a small well designed camera and an auxiliary optical finder. (AKA the Q, the way I have it dressed.)

[Hugh]

If you want people to see your photos you take them with a phone...

[SteveW]

My iPhone 15 Pro Max is my dedicated camera these days, and because of the trade-in value you mentioned I will upgrade to an iPhone 17 next year.

It's always with me, and I get photos I wouldn't get with my old dedicated camera (Fuji X-T5) because I never carried it everywhere, it was more for "purposeful" photography, but these days I'm just a happy snapper taking photos for myself.

[Roger Bartlett]

Your comment about feeling sad about doing things that used to involve your four legged friend made me think that perhaps you could start an activity that you never used to do together. Start an instrument for example.
There are many cognitive benefits for doing so and also the positive mood change that is induced from enjoying a tune performed by yourself. There is also the added side benefit of extended investigations about the intstruments that you could potentially purchase.
I have taken up the tenor recorder in the last year or so and it gives me great pleasure. The benefit of woodwind is that the instrument is easily kept in tune unlike strings, and I am not tempted to try and sing!

[Andrew Johnston]

I've said this before, but I'm not sure you've ever acknowledged it. For a significant subset of the population a phone is useless as a camera, for the simple reason we can't see it.

I'm short/near sighted - in my 60s I can read comfortably without glasses but I have worn them since childhood for looking at anything further away, like, to choose a completely random example, looking at scenery.

With my glasses on the back of my phone is a blur, as are the physical dials on the top of my camera. To use a phone camera, I have to take my glasses off, balance them somewhere, juggle the camera and then put the glasses back on. Hold up the viewfinder (optical or electronic) of any "real" camera, and the problem resolves itself. The perfect solution is something like the Sony RX100 - full capability camera in a tiny box, with an EVF.

I do own one dedicated camera without an EVF, and that's the Olympus TG6, which is going to be used with a snorkel and no glasses! Ask me to take a photo with my phone and it's essentially Russian Roulette...

[Yeah, I get that Andrew—with any camera we have to work out our own way of choosing/using it. I could never use TLRs because I just can't focus the dang things. I don't know why, but even with "bright" finders I just can see it well enough. When I used the Exakta 66 I had to use the little flip-up magnifier constantly, and even so it wasn't easy. --Mike]

[Bear.]

No. I’m either consciously shooting - in which case, I’m carrying the tool/s I want/need, just thinking about it (in which I’ll grab one of my go to fixed lens cameras according to my mood), or not - phone only.

[Keith S]

I have a dedicated camera with me most of the time. The existence of camera apps in phones has never had any effect on my usage of dedicated cameras. If dedicated cameras were typewriters, phone cameras would be post-it notes. Each has its place and neither one can really replace the other, for me.

I think the only thing that might make me carry a dedicated camera less often, or not at all, would be a loss of interest in photography. Or, more specifically, if I lost my interest in the subject that I've been photographing almost every day for the past 5 years.

I don't know if I would feel the same way if I'd been born at a time when most people take their first photos with a phone. Or if I weren't already familiar with Photoshop (I've been using it since 1992) and computers in general.

[bob palmieri]

Well... I gotta admit, my Barnack (IIIa with either Elmar or Summitar and glorious 1:1 50mm finder) slips right into the small slim shoulder bag that holds my wallet & glasses. This goes with me essentially everywhere, loaded with TMax 400 (shot at 800.)

I use my iPhone 15 a lot for this & that but the spectacular viewfinder and instantaneous response of this film camera can often be just the greatest.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I have descended to the point of not making much point to have the real camera with me all the time. I remember back when I had a "toy camera" that I sometimes carried when I didn't take the real camera. The phone now fills that role.

I didn't mostly take cameras to work, didn't mostly take them to class in college (did in Highschool). Took cameras to most parties.

These days I actively consider what to take to events, and sometimes decide not to take the real camera. If it's memory photos, the phone is often good enough—people cooperate a lot, and it handles landscapes and such fine. What it doesn't handle at all is action.