Camera or good smartphone camera?

I have an RX100 Mk 2 and it is indeed an excellent camera. But for backpacking I often use my lady's Sony HX50 as it has a big zoom capability of 30x which is great for wildlife and distant crag features etc. It all depends on whether you want to make big prints or just post small images on the net or view onscreen at home. If the latter and mainly for landscapes, a good phone cam with a fairly big resolution will do, as you can crop into the image to 'zoom' the section of interest. If the former, you need a separate camera. If you go for the phone option, get one you can swap out the battery on the move, and carry spares. Running out of juice just when that magnificent sunset occurs is a royal PITA. If you want your camera available quickly, your phone will be switched on all the time. Put it in aircraft mode so it doesn't waste juice hunting for signal in backwoods locations.

Where I draw the line is that if I want higher quality pictures enough to spend money on a good camera (like the RX100 Rog mentioned). and you are willing to carry the extra weight, then get the camera. I wouldn't bother with the lower end point and shoot cameras, the latest generation of phones produce pictures of similar quality. I sometimes carry the NEX-5, (adds 1.1 pounds with spare battery and cable) especially when hiking new areas or in the Sierras. For day hikes, I just use the phone camera.

Agreed. And sometimes it depends on how you like to take pictures. I personally prefer an OVF or EVF over any type of display. I will take tons more pictures on eye and feel versus using my cell phone camera to grab a shot. That being said, if it's mostly for selfie or group shots that you are going to post online or electronically share, the cell phone camera works better, IMHO.

iPhone 5s has a surprisingly good camera (and software helps too I suspect). Unless you are willing to carry a larger sensor "real" camera (like an m43, APS-C or full frame), I would not bother with a point and shoot. Definitely would not bother with a typical P&S with a tiny sensor (and Sony RX100 is NOT that). I think it's not long now that P&S cameras will be gone entirely since phone cameras essentially caught up. A phone is often handy in your pocket and, if you use navigation or carry trail descriptions, chances of snapping a good shot are higher.

That's helpful, thanks. I agree, I wouldn't consider a point and shoot unless it's significantly better than a good phone camera. The RX100 series seems to stand out, as do some of the better Lumix series. I'd be wanting it for landscapes and nature shots, the odd portrait, but not really selfies and the like. I haven't carried a decent camera since I sold my old Nikon 35mm, and have been relying on phone cameras ever since. I feel I'm coming back from trips quite sorry for not having a decent camera, as the phone shots I come back with are always disappointing. But now my phone has died I can research a bit into what's best. As I said in my original post, I really would like keep the weight down, and I just don't like taking too much tech into the wilderness as for me it sort of defeats the object of going outdoors! If I could get away with one do-it-all device that'd be wonderful, but it'd probably mean sacrificing decent photography.

Depends. My Samsung S5 Mini takes pretty good pics, and I debated a little about whether to take my camera to the Sierras for the next couple of weeks vs. a way to keep the phone charged. Between crappy lighting due to tree cover and wanting to blur waterfall shots while maintaining picture quality, a decent P&S is a no-brainer here at home. I think if I were out West, I might be more prone to consider just using the phone, since most of my stuff is just getting downsized and put on a forum or facebook, anyway. Regardless, my little Nikon P310 weighs 7oz with battery and memory card, and gets triple the claimed 200 shots/battery charge, so I decided it's going. I get some good shots with it, and while it's enough to keep me happy, there are much nicer P&S options available. I find a dedicated camera more user-friendly, too, but that may just be because I'm so used to mine. On my third one of the same discontinued model-tend to drop or drown them, which lessens the appeal of spending more $$ on a nicer one. I'll take pics with both on this trip to compare, but it'll be a few weeks…

If you decide to go the cell phone camera route, I have heard that the LG G4's camera is great. Bonus: the battery is removable.

I just picked up the Olympus TG-4 and will be taking it with me on my next hiking/backpacking adventure rather than trying to lug around my Canon EOS 40D. The real upshot to the Olympus that was important to me is that it takes photos in RAW file format. Eric

Smartphones are certainly capable of creating some excellent images but the RX100 is going to give you better image quality over a larger range of lighting conditions. I've recently upgraded to the iPhone 6, which does not have the 6+'s image stabilization. It's certainly a better camera than the iPhone 3, 4, and 5 I owned before it, but if image quality is my priority, I bring my A6000. If you go the smartphone only route and want to pimp up your photography, I'd suggest purchasing the following… *Pro camera app. The Apple Camera app is great but I like having the upgraded controls over focus, shutter speed, ISO, and white balance that comes with Pro Camera. *Consider a tripod. You're working with a small sensor, and to my knowledge (for the iPhone), no real way to control aperture. You're stuck with adjusting your ISO and shutter speed, often times resulting in a slow shutter speed and blurry pictures on foggy days or in the shade of trees. Yes this is a UL forum and you can use a delayed shutter and rest the phone on a rock or whatever, but I find there are times when nature doesn't provide and a tripod to be invaluable. I tried the Joby iphone mount and really didn't care for it as it didn't do a very good job of securing my phone, especially when I was making adjustments to my composition. I'm now using the Reticam Smartphone Mount and couldn't be happier. As far as the tripod goes, there are a few good options out there, like Trail Pix which uses your trekking poles, but I'm currently using just a plain ol' Gorilla pod which allows me to secure my phone to stumps, tree branches, whatever and still fine tune adjust my composition. *Add a lens. I'm currently using the Ollocip 4 in 1 lens system; there are others out there but this is the only one I have experience with. The macro and fisheye options are great, but I use the wide angle lens 90% of the time. I lost a few shots on my last backpacking trip because the lens was knocked out of alignment (I just leave it on), and it was too bright for me to notice this on my phone's screen until I got home. I've since learned to double check the lens prior to taking any shots.

Amazon firephones were going for 130 bucks including amazon prime membership, so ending up costing about 30 bucks for a decent camera.

I have yet to see a phone which has a decent amount of good glass out front. They just don't have the aperture. But I am biased of course. Cheers

No, they don't have the aperture, the quality glass., nor a high quality sensor. But they work fine for snapshots and capturing memories so long as there's enough light. The quality difference between them and a large sensor DSLR or mirrorless camera is significant, especially in low light.

Tom mentioned it above but the NEX5R is well worth consideration. Body only options used on Amazon right now for $150. There are quite a few lenses you can pair up with that APSC camera. A5000 is starting at $300 used with kit lens. Sony should announce it's next generation APSC mirrorless cameras so I suspect the prices will drop across the board on all previous generations, although the A6000 just recently dropped to $448 so I don't expect a significant price drop in the near future.

"iPhone 5s has a surprisingly good camera (and software helps too I suspect). Unless you are willing to carry a larger sensor "real" camera (like an m43, APS-C or full frame), I would not bother with a point and shoot. Definitely would not bother with a typical P&S with a tiny sensor (and Sony RX100 is NOT that). I think it's not long now that P&S cameras will be gone entirely since phone cameras essentially caught up. A phone is often handy in your pocket and, if you use navigation or carry trail descriptions, chances of snapping a good shot are higher." Awesome advice right there. The best camera is the one you have with you. Ive gone from a 20D with three L-Series lenses and a 4lb manfrotto tripod back in 2006 to nothing but an iPhone 5s, a small gorilla pod, and a clip on lens today. And its quite hard to tell the difference really, except in low light (which, to be fair, the best lighting is morning and evening when the shadows are deep, so its a trade off). Check out some recent work with the 5s http://www.hobogreg.com I too think P&S will be gone, because it is a pointless in between. Iphone works for most people most of the time and DSLRs fill in the rest. I mean there are even pro photogs out there using nothing but phones and making really amazing images, and since most photos dont go to print anymore, its ok if the resolution isnt so great and the noise is higher than one might like. Someone said the difference between SLR and phone is significant, but I havent found that to be the case, other than in low light. (and if I were to be asked why my opinion perhaps carries more weight I might say that I've been published by the NY Times :)

"Someone said the difference between SLR and phone is significant, but I havent found that to be the case, other than in low light. (and if I were to be asked why my opinion perhaps carries more weight I might say that I've been published by the NY Times :)" This is like asking what the best shoes are. Best shoes for hiking, running, climbing, dancing, construction, …? Comparing cameras in perfect lighting is a bit disingenuous. If you have time and light on your side in an urban environment, or shooting landscapes, the gear is limited by the photographer and not vice-versa. Yes, most smart phones are very capable in certain conditions. That all goes out the window when a Mountain Goat runs out in front of you on the trail on a foggy day and you have less than 10 seconds to get the shot before he disappears into the trees. With IS/VR/OSS, yeah you can probably pull it off in full auto. No image stabilization and shooting full auto… good luck with the super slow shutter speed the phone is going to default to. I prefer to have full control over my shutter speed, aperture, and ISO for these oh $%!+ moments when I don't want to be left at the mercy of the auto setting. How about shallow depth of field with an iphone? Sorry but compared to a 1", APSC, or full frame senor paired with a fast lens, there's no contest, a few phones like the Nokia 1020 and Panasonic CM1 being exceptions. (I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night)

I did not stay at a Holliday Inn, so I should probably just shut up, but I'll take. Youre 100% right about the goat situation, and lots of other photo situations that can only be captured with an SLR (star photog, action, etc), but I can count on one hand the amount of shots Ive missed from not having the lenses, but how many more did I capture because I was hiking faster and more unencumbered? THat awesome once in a lifetime NatGeo cover shot is rare enough that I dont wanna lug the gear on every hike for that one single moment. So it mostly depends on one's goals, like you alluded to with the shoe analogy. I often bring the SLR when Im gonna sit in one specific spot all day a la Ansel, waiting for that one moment, but if Im moving, especially on adventurous 4th class hikes and such, I love having the quickness of the phone. And I think for most people, they are not going to be Anseling in one spot all day, or shooting epic nighttime photos. They just need the standard vacation shot stuff, which I love shooting as well, and for that, phones more than do the trick. Just my cents.

I say without snark, my $.02 currency doesn't exchange at a 1-1 with yours. I'm very much an amateur and still on the learning curve. There are so many directions you can take photography on the trail such as star shots, wildlife, landscape, long exposure ala ND filter, or just run and gun snapshots, that it'd be easier to answer the OP's question if we had a better idea of what he wants his camera to do.

Well the way things are going, perhaps we arent long from a phone sized camera that really can do everything. BTW my post above obviously meant to say you were 100% right. Edited as such.

I'm really, really happy I made the sacrifice to my baseweight to start carrying the RX100. It's 240 grams and the quality over my phone is amazing. I'm not the most educated at all, but I'm personally not aware of another camera that can compete at that weight and let you take home photos that people are actually impressed by. If you've hit the bottom of ultralight and are ready to rebound up to luxurylight, I would 100% recommend it.

"And I think for most people, they are not going to be Anseling in one spot all day, or shooting epic nighttime photos. They just need the standard vacation shot stuff, which I love shooting as well, and for that, phones more than do the trick."

---

Yes, they will do the trick for most people, myself included most of the time. I've always believed that the camera is just a tool anyway, that the person behind it is what makes the picture. A DSLR/Mirrorless is just a more capable tool, but do you want or need that extra capability? Most people don't. Quite frankly, I don't like carrying the weight of the heavier camera unless I anticipate seeing wildlife. But there are times when I'm glad I carried the better camera, as there are many shots that you just can't get with a phone camera, either because of distance, lighting/shadows under tree cover, etc. I'm actually more of a video guy than a still photo guy, but there are a few advantages for the more serious amateur of carrying a DSLR or mirrorless camera, even in good light: 1. Manual controls (again, most people do not need or use them) 2. Dynamic range (this is a biggie, especially outdoors on sunny days) 3. Telephoto or wide angle capability. For wildlife shots, you need some reach. 4. Video (modern DSLR's and mirrorless cameras shoot much better quality video throughout the light ranges, and you have control over frames per second, aperture, shutter speed, etc.) 5. Ability to shoot "Flat". (for both photos and video, you can generally turn off or greatly reduce in-camera manipulation such as sharpness, saturation, and brightness/contrast. This leaves more room to manipulate later in your editing software) 6. Sensor and lens quality (on most snapshots, family shots, etc. most people probably can't tell the difference. For more serious shots, avid amateurs will start to see the difference. That being said, I'll be carrying just my iPhone 6 camera (as I usually do) when I head out on my hike day after tomorrow.

Lately I have been using a Nikon Coolpix AW110 and leaving the phone in the car. The phone is more expensive than the camera and unlike the camera is not waterproof and shockproof. It does not have the lense of some of the others mentioned, but does a good job without the worry of breaking it. Since I spend a lot of time on the water fishing, something that is waterproof is a must for me.