Need a carry camera

Nothing wrong with belt pouches fanny packs bum bags or whatever name you choose to use. I have several
Tim Williams said:
Ok guys so I'm not classifying this correctly. I want a camera, that if I have to I can put in a belt pouch, although if anyone takes a picture of me with said belt pouch:boohoo:. Still looking.
Click to expand...
 
my go everywhere camera is the original X100. Obviously it's not weather-resistant or tough, but I don't like cameras that are smaller than that form factor. And it's small enough and light enough that I never find it to be a bother.
 
As a carry everywhere, I finally found a camera that is a good match for the Panasonic 20 1.7: the GM5. The total package is very small, even a Pen feels huge compared to that. From the specs, it only feels like a small difference in every direction, but the total package feels totally different. But the quality is still there. There’s no need for a smaller sensor camera now. If even the GM5 is too much bother, the iPhone will have to do.
 
I don't understand the prejudice against cell phone cameras. They are cameras. Lens, shutter, viewfinder, etc.

I think those who don't like them are being Luddites or have some issues of self-esteem. :popcorm2:

Just because they are built into a multi-function device doesn't make them inferior or any less of a camera.

I'm as much of a vintage camera nut as anyone else here (if you follow my other posts and threads. I like shooting with Leicas, Nikon rangefinders and Hansa Canons, etc as well as phones)

This is the same kind of talk that large format camera users hurled at Leica adopters in the early 1930's. "Not a real camera". "Toys". "Only for snapshots". "Small film format not capable of taking sharp photos"."The miniature camera cannot create art", etc. etc etc. The vitriol and controversy was endless.

If you read the old photo magazines of the era, it is quite enlightening.

It took WWII and the explosion of combat photography to finally kill that debate.

Actually, smartphones are the spiritual descendants of the original Leica. The Leica was loved because you could always have it with you, it was small and fit in a pocket, you could mostly "set it and forget it". It brought photography to the masses. In other words, a smartphone. Today, EVERYTHING is recorded. A tsunami of images. Good or bad, that is the de facto state of photography today.

In reality, what is wrong with smartphone cameras? Someone give me a valid and logical argument for poo-pooing them.

* With any modern digicam, you are not "making" pictures, you are "taking them". They are all very powerful little computers with a lens attached. :cool:

(and I bet you hate emojis too!!)
 
Last edited:
Interesting points @M. Valdemar and I agree that there is still "snobbery" around camera (sensor size etc) and I was guilty of being anti-mirrorless for a long time (DSLR or it doesn't count) before I actually picked one up.

However, my personal problem with using smart phones is all to do with ergonomics - I just don't get on with them as a picture taking tool, which is also true of many other cameras for me at least.
 
Tim Williams said:
I do not like cell phones. I will never use one as a camera. The end.
Click to expand...
You know, this is a totally valid point. Smartphones may have good cameras these days (within a limited sphere) but they are not cameras. unless you like using a touchscreen and nothing else then a phone is not a replacement for a camera. I use mine more as a desperation cam than something I choose. The idea that not wanting to use a smartphone camera is somehow regrettable is ridiculous.
 
Luke said:
my go everywhere camera is the original X100. Obviously it's not weather-resistant or tough, but I don't like cameras that are smaller than that form factor. And it's small enough and light enough that I never find it to be a bother.
Click to expand...
I'd not recommend the original X100 unless you're already super attached to it... I tried one out recently and it was super, duper slow... good for "meditative" photography when you don't mind waiting on sluggish menus and image review, along with not-great AF speeds in good light.
 
Whatever the user interface may be, smartphones are most definitely cameras.

So then therefore all touchscreens should be removed from Sony cameras, for example?

Is an Airbus or a Boeing that "flies by wire" with electronic touch displays not a plane because it does not have a manual set of controls and gauges like the 1930's?

Let's be real, you all want cameras that "look like cameras".

Here you go:

cm10.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Check out this thread: Huawei P20 Pro
 
Last edited:
M. Valdemar said:
In reality, what is wrong with smartphone cameras? Someone give me a valid and logical argument for poo-pooing them.
Click to expand...
Noise. There is a noticeable difference in image quality between my iPhone 7 and my Sony A7R2. May have to do something with sensor size. That said, I will use my phone if I don't have any other camera with me and now that I can use raw, it's something of a viable proposition in some cases.
 
M. Valdemar said:
Whatever the user interface may be, smartphones are most definitely cameras.

So then therefore all touchscreens should be removed from Sony cameras, for example?

Is an Airbus or a Boeing that "flies by wire" with electronic touch displays not a plane because it does not have a manual set of controls and gauges like the 1930's?

Let's be real, you all want cameras that "look like cameras".

Here you go:

View attachment 183261

Check out this thread: Huawei P20 Pro
Click to expand...
Whatever you say! I'm not into spending my time arguing over whether a thing is actually a different thing (even though the other thing has been well established in design and features for over a century). Smartphone photography is full of so many inherent limitations that pushing people towards them is impractical at best. Also, looking at finished images alone doesn't dictate how good a tool is at capturing the kind of images a photographer wants to capture. Image quality doesn't make a camera.
 
I've been using iphones and their cameras since 2007, and whilst i sometimes like using them to take a pic, I'll always choose a proper camera if I have one with me.

Been looking at waterproof and am currently considering the Sealife DC2000. DPReview has done a recent review The SeaLife DC2000 is the best tough camera you've never heard of

Its nearly $1000 here in Oz but it sounds like just the ticket for tough, and decent images.
 
Here's my take. I have a Swiss Army knife. It is a wonderful tool. It can do many things. But it is not the only knife I own, or have a use for. I have a Stanley knife (box cutter), a wooden handled Opinel. A Laguiole. A Leatherman. In the kitchen I have a multitude of knives; a bread knife, a cleaver, paring knives, carving knives and so on. They can all cut. They are all ergonomically designed and comfortable to use. But I would not use my Swiss Army knife to carve the Sunday joint any more than I would use the cleaver to prune the roses.

A portable telephone is a marvel of design and multi-function capability, but a dedicated camera it ain't. It can take pictures, but it has the ergonomics of a slice of toast. It isn't great at macro, portrait or sports. It's close to useless at an airshow or a cricket match. It's great as a notebook, capturing things I need or want to remember but it is more compromise than anything else. Consider this; if I rely upon my portable telephone to take pictures I have one device, one battery, no viewfinder, the aforementioned compromised ergonomics, no true interchangeable lenses, no true depth of field. The vast majority forget the settings when you turn them off; they shut down when they overheat, they have touchscreen controls, no tripod socket, no...

A portable telephone is not a camera in the same way that a car is not a bed. True, you can take pictures with one and sleep in the other, but both will cause you pain, frustration and regret.

So why do I have a portable telephone with a 20mp camera and still slip a 16mp Ricoh GR into my pocket when I go out? Because one is a barely evolved lifestyle device and the other is a highly evolved picture taking machine. The results I get with the Ricoh are infinitely superior to those I get with my Sony Xperia because it is designed from the ground up to be used as a camera and because I enjoy using it.

YMMV.

Two parting comments.

1. I had one of those Panasonic CMs you show in your picture. It was a mediocre camera and a mediocre portable telephone. Each function was compromised at the expense of the other. It was neither fish nor fowl, neither business tool nor competent image capturing device and therefore neither use nor ornament.

2. You are absolutely right. I don't like emojis. The reason I don't like emojis is because their excessive, incessant use impoverishes us all. Language has evolved to enable and facilitate communication of complex concepts, delicately constructed arguments, great literary works, nuanced poetry... emojis have evolved to allow tongue-tied millennials to express their desire for a pizza.
 

Similar threads

S
Need help choosing a compact camera for travel and carry-around
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
john m flores
john m flores
drd1135
Straps How to carry a Camera
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
gryphon1911
gryphon1911
drd1135
Always-Carry Camera
2
Replies
20
Views
3K
davidzvi
davidzvi
Back
Top