pwa wrote:I can see why people take pics with their phones. They have the phone with them anyway, so the ability to record is there all the time in a fairly handy pocketable form. Compact cameras still give you more control and precision if you want it, and they too can be just about pocketable. But I would never go back to bulky SLRs. The bulk means that when you go out with one you go as a photographer first and everything else you are doing is for the photography. And that just isn't me. I do things and occasionally choose to bring back an image or two. I don't go out on an image safari. So for me a bulky camera would stay in a cupboard unloved and unused.
Many of the greatest photos that I never took where because I did not carry a camera at the time.
I love my cameras but would admit that some photos on the phone are just as good.
The only time I have ever been where the phones fail is chasing the Northern Lights in Iceland, Norway, Arctic Circle and Svalbard, these are the areas where the additional control is necessary
I felt sorry for the people who were trying to take the Aurora on their phones.
I now have (agaiin) a barbag (Ortlieb not Karrimor with my cycling renaissance) and went out - no camera in the barbag but a phone, a GPS majiggy, a cagoule, a pump, other odds and sods (no tools), and found the barbag (small - too small for the big camera) did affect the handlebars/steering (though I also need to lower the saddle a tad - the bike shop mannie had put it up from my ideal height while switching over the Euro brakes given they were hydrauliic? discs about which I know nothing).
I have bought a second hand Olympus OM D E-M 5 and 14mm - 40mm (42mm) lens for the holiiday in question but I do stiill want to take out my Nikon D7000 and telephotos if I go out locally eg to the Bird Reservatiions at (Montrose or St Cyrus*) or Crawton and am a bit stymied about how carry them safely (I got my son a Nikon D3500 for hisi birthday and that camera is so much lighter/smaller). I am unhappy about the thought of them in a barbag given the weight/iinterference (at least tiill I am full back up to speed/adeptness with cycling). *I'd probably get the train part of the way to Montrose if going for photo excursiion.
I know I could get an Ortlieb or Basil rackpack/trunk bag that is attached via a adapter/plate/click system rather than just the velcro of my Karriimor rack pack (that has its own mind at times, being rather older than newer) but also use the rack with the spring for a basket for shopping and the allotment, it being the only rack that that basket works on properly and does not have me shedding celeriac seedlings along the High Street as the basket flies off the biike. That being so I do not want a permanent attachment on the rack for such a trunk bag, which is suboptimal.
I can only think otherwise on an active sports camera backpack (nae cheap - the Lowe ones or the Thule ones, as in really nae cheap), and I am not keen either on cycling with a backpack for any distance/with any weight. Unless a bumbag.... Not taking a cargo trailer, not on these routes, for just a camera, plus it would get awfu jiggled about. I could have the body/small lens in the front and additional zoom in the bumbag (which leads to trying to change a lens in a windy, sandy location in NE Scotland).
I got all knowitall in another thread about barbag as a camera bag... before I tried it out after such a gap.