I mean, I don't get this argument at all, I have several photos taken with my phone printed on A3 format and hanging around my house, I don't see any issue with them that would show they were taken on a phone. In comparison I have a few pictures printed out, taken with an old W1 Sony camera and they are awful, would take pictures from my phone over those any time.

Here's my latest printed picture: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h6P5ZbNjQ5FD9nkzdB_TnfsA4li...

And the actual source image: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iVenWHP4TesmhTWAY2qMDQs21u3...

Having said all of this - I find it incredibly rare for people to print photos at all, which is pretty sad in itself. I get not needing albums, but having pictures to hang on the walls is always nice.

I don't mean to be critical of your image - I'm always glad when someone is happy enough with any image to actually print it! That said that is an insanely ideal condition. It's during the day, with snow being a natural reflector.

It's well exposed but like pretty much all cell phone pictures it's oversharpened. This was taken during my first year doing professional photography, so don't be too harsh. It's probably a good comparison for that reason though: https://imgur.com/6qtTl89

That would have been with an D3200 or D610, both of which are pretty old tech nowadays.

Love that photo of yours. I will chime in and say that good photos are like good audio equipment, the people that care will notice but the general population is happy with average. It's like that programming or engineering adage, the first 90% takes 10% of the time.

you made the parent's point, your picture looks good, but still not as a good as a professional one, taken with a good camera

I have a mirrorless cameras, and time to time I use it... and the pictures I get with it are still much better than my iphonex

It’s the same for me. I have a quite cheap portrait lens for my old Sony Nex-3, and the pictures I get out of it are (subjectively) so much better than those taken with my iPhone XS, with actual bokeh and real depth.

I mean, can anything really ever be objective? Or are things just continually witnessed, from tens - to trillions - of times?

I would say if you perform a double blind study with a decent sample size, you will indeed reach objective conclusions, and you will even know the probability that your observation is correct.

Right, but the parent's point was specifically that pictures taken on phones don't look good in large size....and all I'm saying is that yes, they do sometimes. Obviously had this been in the dark, the result would be abysmal. But in conditions like the ones in the picture? The print is completely ok in my(non-professional) opinion.

Better gear = a wider range of “sometimes”

How big you can print depends a lot on how close you plan to look at the result. Subjectively I don't like cellphone pictures, even at small sizes where the resolution is entirely adequate: you can tell where there is less detail due to aggressive distortion correction, transitions between in focus and out of focus areas tend to be ugly etc.

https://i.lensdump.com/i/jpzeyr.jpg <- I took this with a camera from 2013 (a Sigma DP3 Merrill)

https://i.lensdump.com/i/jpzL73.jpg <- While I took this with a camera from 1996 and a lens from 1994 (Contax G2 and Zeiss Planar 2/45)

https://i.lensdump.com/i/jpzoID.jpg <- Camera from 1998, lens from 1990 (Leica M6 TTL, Elmarit-M 90/2.8), please ignore the dust on my scan and look at the transitions

(I should probably point out that these are all from relatively compact cameras, not even the size of a small full frame slr)

If you are only comparing number of details of photos made in standard conditions you are missing the point of a large sensor camera.

Actually, literally ANY camera can be used to make good photos. Cameras have sets of conditions they are good to work with. Smartphones, for examples, shine when you want really deep depth of field at standard lighting conditions.

As long as you know what the camera is good for it is possible for you to focus on the specific conditions and get nice pictures.

DSLR will allow for more freedom in the choice of conditions you can work with and still get good pictures and that is the whole point of using it.

Are you sure that that's the actual source? It seems to be suffering from compression artefacts slightly, and what might have been a somewhat overenthusiastic (i.e. sharp) downscaling.

so... it's a cellphone picture. and yeah this is exactly making the case in point. Photos are ok, but in good to perfect light every camera does this.

True but to some extent those problems could be alleviated if you could get to the actual source, which wouldn't have either of the problems I mentioned. Assuming I diagnosed things correctly, which is a bit tricky. The image has definitely been processed though, as evidenced by the ringing.

The only change I did to it was removing a sewer drain in front of the car in photoshop(hence why it's called wallpaper fix) - I haven't done anything else to the photo. Here's the original original file, uploaded right now from my phone:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16QEm_kxED2vASTgRv8UvyaV4yTA...

Apparently I can't access that file but I'll believe you. Although if the original was jpg as well then it was somewhat unfortunate to save it as jpg again as that would result in additional compression artefacts (lossless jpg exists, but isn't exactly common).

That said it's hard to tell whether it's compression artefacts or some 'smart' sharpening that's responsible for the artefacts. It would need to have been compressed pretty heavily to fit in just 4MB.

Ah, stupid drive permissions! I've enabled it for everyone now, if you'd like to have a look

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16QEm_kxED2vASTgRv8UvyaV4yTA...

Yes, a tiny cell phone sensor with a tiny lens will never come close to a large sensor with a large lens, if they are both based on the same technology.

You can buy a Canon camera with ISO 4 million. Slap a f1.2 or f0.95 lens on it, and no phone in the world can compare with, what is essentially, night vision.

The optics will not compare as well. The fake bokeh is cute, but it's full of errors even in flagship devices. And it can't possibly fake the complicated situations with multiple layers, especially if some are semi-transparent.

For me, the lens speed issue is the real killer that phones have never, and may never, come close to real cameras. Yeah, the bokeh can be simulated through software. However, for things like low light, anything far away, anything fast, (basically anything that needs information) you can't make up for it with software. <Insert CSI "enhance" joke>

I dabble in sports photography. There is no way I get the shots I get with a phone.

> you can't make up for it with software

Actually that's why the Pixel gave so good results in the evening scene in the blog post. Because of the tons of AI that Google has put into improving low light conditions.

https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/11/night-sight-seeing-in-dark...

With the impressive performances of generative AI I'd raises the interesting question of what people actually want when they take a photo. Is it preferable if it looks great, even if the details aren't actually true and imagined by a neural network?

There was some discussion about it a few years ago when one of huaweis phones had a 'moon mode' that afaik basically recognized the moon and pasted in a static picture. Complete fake, but actually a reasonable idea - it's not like the moon will look any different and that's what the people want after all.

Bokeh is aperture and distance to subject, yes... but also sensor size. Phones have smaller sensors than even crop cameras.

Some phones actually have quite fast lenses. The iPhone 11 pro wide lens is f/1.8.

f/1.8 on an iphone and f/1.8 on a full frame camera might be the same number, but they are totally different animals.

The amount of bokeh you get between the two sensor sizes, even with the same f/1.8, exposure, and ISO, is going to be vastly different.

And the amount of light that enters the sensor through the lens is insanely different. A couple of years ago I moved from a Canon G16 with a f/1.8-2.8 6.1-30.5mm (28-140mm FF eq) lens to a Olympus OM-D EM-10 with its pancake f/3.5-5.6 14-42mm (28-84mm FF eq) lens.

Long story short, the pancake gets almost 3 times as much light as the canon integrated lens, despite the higher f number, because of the areas and sizes involved on both. And if I had gone for an APS-C for FF camera, we'd be talking in the order of 5 to 10x more light (hence, better low light images, or the ability to use shorter exposures for the same results).

Phones f/1.8 cameras are great -- comparing to other phones. If you compare them to a camera (almost any camera), they're in trouble.

Even different lenses with the same aperture on the same camera can have decently different t-stops.

Yes, because the f number is a ratio between the effective aperture vs the length of the lens. A long lens with larger f number can focus more light into the sensor than a shorter one with a smaller number, say f/4.0 400mm against a f/2.0 50mm.

The factor is not directly sensor size but rather focal length of the lens. But with smaller sensors comes a smaller field of view on the same focal length, such that you need to reduce focal length to keep it the same. I think for phone cameras the factor is ~10x compared to 35mm sensors.

How do you feel about the rise of mirrorless?

A bit skeptical. The biggest advantage for me is the burst rate and live histogram, but the newest Canon 90D, released last year, matches mirrorless FPS and also has a live histogram. The weight's advantage isn't as big of a deal as a lot of people have claimed because many of us have to deal with big lenses anyway.

The low/night light features are cool, I think, but my "mentor" who's a professional night photographer, thinks it's all a gimmick. It definitely lowers the bar for entry in this field for people who don't do a lot of night photography. The vast majority of my shots are under full sunlight or heavy stadium lights, so it's not that big of an advantage for me.

There's going to come a time where mirrorless will reach beyond what mirrors can do, but I don't think we're there yet.

That Canon has far more features than I'd expect for a DSLR - thanks for sharing.

I'm also impressed by the 90D's Handheld Night Shot mode, where it can stitch a burst of shots together like my Pixel phone.

I find that mirrorless offers another advantage from its somewhat decreased weight (a result of mirrorless camera's decreased flange distance [1], for the curious): it's relatively easy to mount most DSLR-designed lenses to any mirrorless with inexpensive adapters.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

The real advantage of mirrorless cameras is that there are less things that can go out of alignment, for high resolution photography everything counts (before you dismiss this, look up shimming kits for medium format backs).

I've blown up plenty of cell phone pics to 8"x10" and they look fantastic. I'm happy to hang them on my wall. Sure, at 6" away I can tell they're from a phone, but no one looks at them that closely when they're on the wall.

I've worked on digital video systems for the majority of my career, and watching digital television usually drives me insane because I notice the artifacts from poor compression. Do you think a similar effect is at work here? You have an 'eye' for photography and know what to look for. Most people do not.

Cell phone cameras capture a dimension of life you just wouldn't get with a traditional camera because you wouldn't be carrying the camera all the time. Further, it seems like cameras are a hugh investment(someone suggests a Sony in this thread. That's $1000!), and something to store and maintain. Also, from what I've seen, cameras and lenses are a theft magnet.

All the negative points you mentioned are true, but there are plenty of times in people's lives that you can plan ahead to have a camera with. Personally, I feel the absolute best use of money is to capture memories, but I'm biased.

It's mainly the postprocessing to make up for such a small sensor's downfalls that are clearly evident to me, in particular sharpening. Cell phone pictures can come out fine in bright light, but anything dim or dark will be a muddy mess at larger sizes in my experience.

I know I used it as an example, but 8x10s are also quite small. For a wall in a decent sized room I usually recommend 16x20 or so.

At least in regards to the later point about the price of a camera. I think my old camera was about $3,000 with the lenses (7D mk ii). I had it for 5 years. In that time, I’ve bought 4 phones. The cheapest of which was $700, and the avg price which was $1000.

The kit is about $1500 on eBay these days. The body went from $1600 (new) to $700.

Lens technology is slow moving - at least for the middle prosumer market, and lenses keep their value. You can also upgrade the body and glass independently.

For a while, I thought we might get swappable sensors, but with IBIS and smarter chips that seems less likely.

These cameras retain their value pretty well, and thus so far, the camera tech in phones hasn’t turned into a race.

It is the 90% rule - when you really look at the quality of most works, 90% of the people won't notice differences in quality between "good enough" vs. "excellent". And 90% of the people who do notice do not care.

Professional photographers, and people who truly are into photography, are the 1% that do care. 1% isn't trivial - that is still more than 3 million people in the USA alone, for example. But when looking at overall consumer habits, the 99% eclipse them.

I think most people would notice on a subconscious level, at least. That's just under ideal conditions though; I've had plenty of scenarios in my professional career where a cell phone wouldn't have been able to get any usable image at all.

Alternative view from a very different kind of professional photographer -- I'm an in-house photographer who produces all of my company's marketing materials and product photography. I shoot mostly in a studio, and am using a 6D these days.

But my personal photo kit since 2010 has evolved from a pile of Nikon gear in a Pelican 1510 to a Lowepro shoulder bag, to a little body-and-two-lenses bag, to my current setup - which is an iPhone and a drone. And that setup covers about 98% of what I want to shoot.

Superwide? iPhone's got that. Panorama if I need wider. Stitching if I need even wider than that.

Nifty fifty? Got it. And Portrait Mode has gotten significantly better. Yay fake bokeh.

Underwater? I love that I can just stick my phone underwater and take photos. I had to carry a second Pelican case just for my old DSLR enclosure.

Telephoto? Ok so this is probably the biggest weakness. With a couple of exceptions where I got lucky, I've never been happy with the quality you get shooting through third party lenses or telescopes with a phone. But to paraphrase an old adage about how use a prime lens -- zoom with your drone!

I do agree that phone photos break down when you zoom in and pixel peep. They've got noise, artifacts, aberrations, all kinds of gross stuff. But you have to zoom to like 100% to see that, and the only person peeping pixels on my originals is me.

Edit: I also like that in questionable lighting conditions, my phone produces photos of a quality that would require multiple exposures and editing in photoshop to do with a regular camera.

Studio photography is a pretty different beast as you always have ideal conditions. I had a wedding outside last year on a cloudy night with only string lights lighting up the reception. I have flashes galore but just getting focus was difficult - I eventually had to turn on the modelling light on a strobe to be able to do my job at all. The ability to use flashes at all is a pretty big advantage of dedicated cameras. Video lighting equipment is great but it kills the ambiance in a lot of situations.

But yeah, absolutely. If you're viewing images on a phone (and most people are), phone cameras are just fine for most people most of the time and they have some distinct advantages, especially for the casual user. If you're going bigger than that the difference is pretty clear to me.

Wedding photography is like sports photography meets candid portrait session crossed with real estate photography, fine art, food shots, and cat wrangling. So you have my utmost respect for taking that beast on, and I'll grant that you need the best gear you can get, whatever that may be.

I think it's really a tradeoff for everyone's unique situation. You're being paid to show up in a setting you don't get to choose, and the client expects blow-it-up-for-grandma quality photos. So you're going to use the best possible gear you can, regardless of cost, weight, or bulk to compensate for the aspects you can't control.

As you say - being in a studio means strobes, which means I don't have much choice but to use a real camera. But when I do (ugh) social media content, or one of those ubiquitous photos of an employee hard at work for the background of the About Us page, I'll often switch to my phone because it gives me a comprehensive toolbox of photo and videography tools that are high enough quality for the intended destination.

And I'll also admit that whenever I do anything intended for print I shoot it in the studio with a DSLR and edit it down to the last pixel. Old habits die hard.

It certainly encompasses nearly everything, and thank you. To be honest I wish more people appreciated just how hard of a job it is, and the stress involved. It's a job where if you're not stressed out at least a little you're doing it wrong, and it can really wear on you.

The few times I've done product/food photography it's been nice. You can take your time, you don't have people to direct or kids that can cry... I envy you, at least a bit.

And I guess if the customer pays a lot, they don't want to see you show up with an iPhone doing snapshots of the wedding cake :-)

>I'm probably one of the only professional photographers on HN

I imagine there are thousands. I even know two professional photographers myself who hang out here.

This is what is great here. Every time a topic comes up, someone who specialises in the field pops up. The more obscure the better. It’s great.

Alright, but I'm clearly the best one ;)

I just figured it was rare to start out in computer science and move to photography full time. That said there's a big overlap in both fields, at least as a hobby. I think both attract people that like gadgets/tech.

I started in CS, moved to photography for about 10 years, and I'm now back in CS. The amount of customer interaction is ultimately what soured me on it.

Heh, I certainly don't blame you there. For the most part I really like my clients, but dealing with people and trying to keep up a happy energy for every shoot is tiring. This wasn't really the path that I chose, but I have some health conditions that make a 9 to 5 job impractical for me. I've found it to be rewarding in a lot of ways, though I do hate how little I use my brain while editing/retouching. I do app development during the winter - I'd love to do more during the summer but I find it really hard to switch gears.

Strictly personal observation.

I was a press photographer when I was a student as a side job, shooting film.

I used to like early mobile phone photos because their (horrendous) defects and imperfections could be used to their advantage. Part of their charm. Somewhat like 'toy' camera such as the Holga.

Now that phones are getting real good, I never use them. I like the tactile feel of my (compact) camera and for now the phone is no match for the glass. And for me, especially in print, the difference is still enormous.

I don't have a particular bone to pick. If you enjoy shooting pics then do so.

There are actually quite a few professional and advanced-amateur photographers on HN. A lot are from the generation that had to make their own websites to self publish, hack apart wordpress for client sites, and were part of the old photoblog engine open source era. I doubt many younger photographers have to get very technical these days. Nobody cares about metadata/IPCT and extracting variables for workflow anymore.

Yes, I think a bit part of the societal change is that we just don't need extremely high-resolution pictures any more. We're consuming the photos on our phones, or if we happen to view them on a TV or a desktop/laptop monitor, we're willing to not look super close and criticism the resolution (after all, we know the photos are intended for phone screens!).

It's closely related to "quantity over quality," and I don't mean that in a bad way! If our personal photos are primarily for capturing memories, then having more memories captured is actually great, even if each memory doesn't have the resolution to blow up to a poster and hang on your wall. Another common way to phrase this is "the best camera is the one you have with you" (which, yes, I realize is considered overly dismissive by lots of photographers and camera enthusiasts).

I have a 5 year old, and bought a new mirrorless camera back around then too. When I look back through photos, there's a lot of photos with that camera in the early years, but some of my favorites are still the spontaneous ones snapped on the phone that was in my pocket. 1 year olds don't understand "wait! Hold that cute pose well I run and get the good camera, make sure the battery is in and the right lens attached!" (and 5 year olds understand, but have neither the patience nor tolerance for that nonsense).

As time had gone by, more and more of our photos are from a cell phone. A few weeks ago I got some really great pictures while we were out on a bike ride and found a neat rocky area off the path, and the sun was hitting everything just right. I wasn't planning on pictures, so never would have taken the camera with us anyway, but and chances are if I had the light wouldn't have cooperated as perfectly as it did.

I agree, but for people that can afford it I would still push them to get a decent camera for moments that you can bring it with you. Vacations, kid's birthdays, etc.

Well, that and if they're going to remember to back up the images somehow, but that's a whole 'nother can of beans.

> Cell phone pictures to me are the equivalent today of what disposable camera photos used to be.

I think a closer comparison is to point-and-shoot cameras (ones without interchangeable lenses). I have a couple of those hanging around, but really haven't used them in years, and just use my cell phone instead. The lens is undoubtedly better than any cell phone, and I'm sure the current ones are better overall, but the trade-off just doesn't seem there: how much better is the picture really?

If I'm going to take the burden of carrying something that doesn't fit (or barely fits) in my pocket, it might as well be a DSLR/mirrorless so at least it's a dramatic improvement in quality.

> blow it up to an 8x10 or a 24" monitor and you'll quickly see how poor they are.

And yet Apple has billboards all over the place showing off iPhone photos enlarged to several meters by several meters and has for years

https://www.adweek.com/creativity/apple-revels-beautiful-ric...

https://www.google.com/search?q=shot+on+iphone+billboards&tb...

Billboards aren't seen up close, resolution requirements aren't that stringent.

Guess you didn't click the first link. It shows a hallway in a subway with several wall size photos an people walking directly next to them.

Yes, that's marketing. For people looking at something up close you need at least 300 dpi. They'll look ok-ish as long as people are distant enough to see the whole image.

Those are often done with external lenses, they're composites of multiple shots, and/or have had a ridiculous amount of post processing work done to look good.

And of course they're done with studio lighting. Huawei has been caught at least twice using DSLR shots as phone pictures as well. Samsung was caught once.

https://fstoppers.com/originals/can-you-really-claim-it-was-...

I guess if lighting is good, you put the phone on a tripod and manually set up the shot, you can capture these things. The amount of work involved ist staggering though, and the pocketability of the solutions and using stuff without an assistant... well - forget it.

I guess if lighting is good, you put the phone on a tripod and manually set up the shot, you can capture these things. The amount of work involved is staggering though, and the pocketability of the solutions and using stuff without an assistant... well - forget it.

I went and looked at your work and I don't think you're necessarily selling the need for people to use "Pro" gear very well. I'm not trying to be harsh here cause you're just doing the same thing as so many photographers. There's no barrier at all to being a "Pro" these days, you just buy a camera and make a website/social accounts and hang your shingle out. It's basically a gig/freelance occupation at this point.

You need pro gear for the types of shots you sell because there is an expectation you have the gear to "appear Pro" as opposed to a real need for this style of photo. Same thing with the idea that you need to take thousands of shots and cull them down with hours spent on the computer.

If your reputation & people skills & marketing are strong enough this style of photo business can be done with a smartphone and with 10s or hundreds of shots per job as opposed to thousands and the business can be successful & more profitable.

There's near 0 barrier to launching this style of photo business these days. If you have nothing else to show your serious you can show the customers that you put a lot of money into gear.

I bet not that many of your sold photos are getting printed huge.. it's the standard work so many families buy and they put it in an album or throw some 8x10s up on the wall until they get bored.

I don't think you've seen enough photographers if you think what I'm doing is average. You're right that the barrier to entry is low, but so is the skill level of those just starting out. In my experience most don't have the drive to improve themselves much either. They just putter along, and their family and friends feel like they need to use them and that's enough gigs to suit them until they bore of it.

Make no mistake, if you gave my gear to someone that had little or no experience they wouldn't get the shots that I do. They would have no idea how to find good light, or in the absence of that use strobes or reflectors to create good light. Just posing people is a huge task. Some people are naturals, but most are far from it. Even if you know exactly how a person 'should' be posed, getting them to do it and be comfortable in front of the camera is tough.

After that is editing and retouching. Most low tier photographers throw on a preset and call it a day, and wouldn't have the first clue how to do anything in Photoshop.

I've had multiple couples that have done an engagement with me, and I later went to their house on their wedding day and they had several large prints up. Families have also ordered large prints of their shoots from me.

Most of my work isn't particularly unique, but I'm in a rural area where I don't have the amount of potential customers where unique work would sell. My strobe lighting is unique though - very few photographers use anything more than a speedlight. That lets me pull off shots that other photographers could never do. If you ever see a photographer claim to be a "natural light photographer" that means they have no idea how to use any artificial light at all. They're literally using ignorance as a selling point, and it's not uncommon.

One of the bad aspects of marketing in this job is that even bad photographers get lucky sometimes, which with enough shoots can equal an OK portfolio. There's also a disgusting trend of "workshops" where good photographers set up a shoot with lighting and paid models and photographers pay to take those photos for use in their portfolio. It's rare that I get asked to see a full wedding when someone is inquiring and it's by far the most important evidence of the skill of a wedding photographer.

I'd put up my senior photography against the best in my state, and I've been hired by companies like Hormel to do photography even though they have an in house team.

> Cell phone pictures to me are the equivalent today of what disposable camera photos used to be. They're easy to use and get decent results in the right circumstances. In the wrong circumstances, they're absolutely terrible.

I dunno about that. Disposable cameras got pretty bad results in almost all circumstances, and were barely passable in ideal circumstances. Modern cell phones get really surprisingly good results in most circumstances. Even in low light, I can take passable photos with an iPhone 11.

It's not a 1:1 comparison, just that they both work "ok" under ideal circumstances.

I have the same phone and just compared two pictures I took in broad daylight, one with the phone and the other at a wedding with my D850 that was downrezed down to 2048px on the long end for social media posting. Even zoomed out the difference is pretty evident to me. Zoomed in to emulate a larger size it's very clear. I'm obviously more critical than the average consumer, but low light photos? Even with the recent advances it's not even a fair comparison.

I still use my cell phone camera though. Just last weekend I was out in a canoe with my wife and dog and used it for some great shots. I would have loved to have a better camera with but canoes are tippy.

> One thing that I don't think gets mentioned enough is that cell phone pictures generally look good on a cell phone, but blow it up to an 8x10 or a 24" monitor and you'll quickly see how poor they are.

This is so true. Those small but glorious OLED screens really do flatter.

> really great cameras are quite cheap

For somebody like me who can't remember what an f-stop is, what are a couple of suggestions?

Maybe I should take a photography class one of these days...

It all depends on how "in" to photography you plan to get. If you're not ever going to buy a lens, don't get a DSLR or ILC mirrorless. If you want something pocketable, the RX100 or Ricoh GR III mentioned in the other comment are great choices. If you don't care about pocketability, I'd recommend the Fuji X100F. That's a great camera to learn photography on due to all the physical controls it has, plus it's stylish enough to practically be an accessory.

If you do want a DSLR, the D750 can't be beat for the price it goes for now. If you'd rather do mirrorless (which I would recommend for someone new nowadays) the general suggestion is to go Sony, but both Canon and Nikon's options are fine for a nonprofessional too.

It's generally hard to suggest anything to anyone without knowing a little bit about them.

Having said that, my "stock" recommendation is something really small (i.e. something that you'll still carry with you after the honeymoon period and the novelty is over), and for me, that's something like a Sony RX100 (Panasonic and Canon also have cameras using Sony's 1" sensors with a similar form factor).

1" sensor fixed-lens cameras are "barely" pocketable, and not necessarily cheap, but I feel that recommendation tends to be better than a mirrorless like an A6x00 or an SLR.

I have seen too many people get bored/tired of lugging an otherwise fantastic camera around and then it just starts collecting dust.

I would recommend the Ricoh GR II/III over the RX100. It has a crop sensor in a pocketable body.

My recommendation is as an all purpose camera for stills and video.

So while the GR series are nice cameras, I don't consider them to be as versatile, especially with that fixed 28mm equivalent lens.

I tend to think the GR series is more appropriate for people who know what they're doing (and what they want) than people who think they might want to get into photography.

The most important piece of equipment to improve is between your ears.

Take lots and lots of photos with your phone. Get a gorillapod tripod for it. Get down on your knees - people mostly look best when the camera is at chest height. Kids look best from the floor. A lot of other things look better from these angles, too.

Look at your photos a lot. And them some more.

Start to see your preferences--the kinds of photos you like taking, and things in your photos that you want to fix. Youtube is a fantastic resource if you want to get better.

After six months or a year of this, you'll have an idea of what you want out of lenses (and therefore a camera).

Buying a camera before doing this is wasting money -- but hey, it keeps the manufacturers in business. :-)

I'm a birdwatcher. I recently got a spotting scope and cell phone mount for it, and can take excellent (daytime) pictures. The biggest problem with cell phone cameras isn't the sensor (though that small size is an issue, especially in low light), it's the optics.

Phones are really not ideal for viewing photos. But I've also been wondering lately, what would be the ideal way of viewing digital photos? I have a few ideas and I'm working on a project for that. Is there a way to contact you? I'd love to get feedback from a pro.

Sure, I'd be happy to help. My email is [email protected]

Why do you feel that phones aren't an ideal viewing device? The resolution and color gamut generally can't be beat. Is it the tiny overall size that turns you off?