you will constantly be saying I wish I had my camera with me and yes you will be taking better photos than with your phone. Why have the camera if you are not going to use it on such a special trip as this? Sure things can get stolen...no one is telling you it can't...as said back those images up and you can replace the camera. Just watch your passport etc. Have a great trip.

<i><font color=#555555>"and yes you will be taking better photos than with your phone."</font></i>

I'd love to see proof of that, because most iPhone camera lovers and amateur photography enthusiasts would disagree.

Add the spontaneity a phone encourages to a good eye and the opposite may be true, better in their way than the camera.

So drop the dslr. Useless.

Revision:

I7 and be there.

The saddest thing about this thread: most people don't realize a camera is just a manufactured tool. If you leave the tool on "Automatic," the user surrenders all creative power and the tool decides how to interpret the scene you are trying to capture. It's a tool, without human eyes and a human brain. A digital camera sees a scene in black and white numbers. Would anyone let a cordless drill build something on its own? I don't think so.

Yet, consumer tourists are typically lazy. They want to capture photographic memories in a snap, so they buy a camera and expect the tool to do all the work, all the thinking. I get that. More time for sightseeing. Nobody wants to learn a complicated craft anymore. Just take a quicky picture and move on. After all, that's sort of how it was in film days.

Unfortunately, digital is far more complicated than the manufacturer's will admit in public. The camera companies do their best too fool consumers into thinking digital is easy. They're determined to convince every consumer that their camera is the knowledgeable artist, and not the person holding it.

Finally, no matter what camera you use, no matter what you paid for it, no matter the f-stop technology or how much you spent on a lens, if you shoot JPEG, your master "negative" will ALWAYS be just a JPEG. JPEG is a flawed file by default. It is not the first choice of anyone who takes digital photography seriously.

I prefer brainless comments to pontification.

Wo wrote:
I take pics by looking at the target and clicking.
Same as when I use a rifle actually.
Would there be more to it ?
________________

Could be, if more people die when you take pictures.
__________________________________________________ _________
But it is interesting in English we use the word shoot to describe action by the person using a camera and a rifle.
__________________________________________________ _____

I used to exhibit photographs and one trip to Europe I did not take my camera. Quite liberating.
____________________________

As far as inspiration is concerned I agree with Chuck Close, "Inspiration is for amateurs."

NYCFSnob has touched on the problems. It's the still version of movies vs cinema, that is, a snapshot vs a photograph. There have always been artists doing photographs, while the technology for the ordinary person was a Brownie for snapshots.

Now we have digital cameras that can do photography and, with a switch to program mode, snapshots. We want memories captured, and snapshots are the thing. Some of us want art, and they can take photographs, in RAW, with a zillion data points, and a nice sit down in a digital darkroom, followed by archival printing.

The downside of not taking the DSLR happens when the traveler says "I took a snapshot when I could have had a photograph."

The real problem with camera phones, is that the standard for photography has fallen. In 2012, 10% of the all photographs ever taken were taken that year. And I am sure the same mania has continued until now.

People know their photographs and their limited repertoire of funny faces but few know have an aesthetic for photography or know of the better photographers besides Ansel Adams.

Self-absorption is not a photographic standard.

IMDonehere on Feb 11, 17 at 11:03am
The real problem with camera phones, is that the standard for photography has fallen. In 2012, 10% of the all photographs ever taken were taken that year. And I am sure the same mania has continued until now.


That's a bit of a ridiculous argument. It implies that 1) the majority of people had standards to begin with and 2) that self absorption wasn't all the rage before the iPhone. My grandparents have dozens and dozens of photo albums of them on trips. Don't see a difference between that and my contemporaries' Facebook profiles. And then if you want to talk about self absorption...well, it was a popular souvenir of the grand tour to have a bust of yourself made. An 1800s selfie, imagine that

My relatively cheap digital camera takes much, much better pictures in low light than my iPhone. So I do miss my camera when I don't bring it. It also zooms better than my iPhone, so wildlife pictures tend to turn out better. I generally agree that phones have really good cameras and work for most people. But if you really like taking photos, I've found that a phone has definite limitations.

I rather liked what michelhuebeli wrote and think I'll explore that option.

Unless you need camera-ready quality, I believe the cameras in the new phones are quite adequate, nymphlys.

I have a large cross-body bag and it has space for my Olympus SP7 20UZ. I didn't stay in hostels, but have traveled on my own to Mardrid, London, Paris, Boston and New York without incident.

I set it on auto and get on with things. Here are Paris/Bordeaux photos:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/322199...57665874768923

Please report back about what you end up doing.

There's an easy answer to protecting your camera from theft while traveling, even if your hostel or hotel has no safe. A company called Pacsafe makes a line of very good bags which lock securely in a hotel room to furniture, plumbing pipes, etc. You can also lock them to baggage shelves on trains. The bags are light, and depending on the size chosen can also hold small things like money, passports, etc, or larger things like extra lenses or multiple camera bodies. I've used mine on photo shoots all over the world, and have found them to be excellent. Amazon is one place to buy them, and they also have their own website.

So I would echo some of the suggestions here that the OP consider bringing their SLR camera on their trip, as it will provide additional capabilities to a camera phone. And when you aren't using it, just leave it locked in the bag in your room.

As for the raw VS jpeg argument, I'd say there is some unwarranted "snobbery" going on in some of these comments. I've sold photographs shot in jpeg format to the major camera companies, which they've used as examples of what they believe is the "best" photography possible with their cameras. They didn't see any quality degradation in those images originating as jpeg files, and unless they had been printed at enormous size I doubt almost anyone else here would either.

I'm surrounded by sweet college kids when I work. My industry is flooded with eager interns, modern day slaves who sweat and toil for no money to catch a break in show business. They show me how fabulous their new iPhone camera is. They can't wait to show me all the fabulous photos they've taken with it. They're especially proud of their remarkable panoramas.

I enjoy looking at other people's photography efforts. I look at their pictures with sincere interest. I'm often impressed, at least by the successful compositions. I say to them, "Pick your absolute favorite and send it to me. Let's take a look at the file in Photoshop." In Photoshop, I zoom the image to 100%, the only way to properly analyze an image. Disaster. I can hear their heart sink. I can feel their disappointment. They momentarily hate me for bursting their delusion bubble.

On a small screen, backlit, at 72ppi, almost any image can look spectacular, especially with all the "Optic" marketing hype that computers are using these days. However, and the sad truth is, the vast majority of Instagram and Flickr "star" images will never pass muster when brought into Photoshop. These images will never look beautiful printed. It's just the way the digital world is right now, and most consumers have been duped. It's the dirty, ugly secret of digital camera sales.

<i><font color=#555555>"I'd say there is some unwarranted "snobbery" going on"</font></i>

Either a contractor knows how to build things with his cordless drill, or you've hired a guy who let's the drill do all the work. Sorry, I don't see how there is any snobbery when differentiating between an amateur and a professional.

<i><font color=#555555>"I've sold photographs shot in jpeg format to the major camera companies"</font></i>

I never believe everything I read on the internet.

It is true, you can sell JPEG images to someone. In this age of the internet and 24/7 viewing, there is constant need for new imagery that supports the 72ppi format. The rotation of images can't go fast enough to keep up with demand. But just how much is a JPEG really worth? We won't know until someone shares his or her invoice with us.

That's a bit of a ridiculous argument. It implies that 1) the majority of people had standards to begin with and 2) that self absorption wasn't all the rage before the iPhone. My grandparents have dozens and dozens of photo albums of them on trips
____________________
Please provide pictures of grandparents sticking their tongues out just in front of the Vatican and what they had for breakfast.

Foodsnob, hardly anyone prints, or prints for show even. Years ago I showed work at Photo LA. I had these prints that were taken with a Leica, Leica glass, the works. And I did casual prints of 3 iphone shots side by side on one print, almost as small as medium format contact prints: those sold, the Leica prints did not.

go figure.

I used to be all into RAW and doing lots of conscientious processing. Now that I have a Fuji X camera, I process RAW in camera, download the shots to my iPhone as jpegs, and upload them to storage. On assignment I don't even use a computer anymore.

I see that I made a typo by mistake.
I meant bring your smartphone - not your DSLR.
And get a lanyard that hooks on well so you don't have to worry about dropping it.

In my opinion the OP just wants to take some nice pictures - something easily accomplished using a smartphone.

I think most of the rest of this thread will be useless information and best kept for those who consider themselves to be professionnels - whether they are or not isn't the point.

<i><font color=#555555>"hardly anyone prints, or prints for show even"</font></i>

Why bother when you have Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, right? Pretty soon the movie studios in Hollywood will be out of business.

<i>I never believe everything I read on the internet.</i>

Sounds like you don't believe me, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over that.

But I am going to take a moment to correct a couple of things you're saying. I'm a professional photographer, and you are just plain wrong about some of the things you're pontificating about.

<i>But just how much is a JPEG really worth?</i>

My most recent sale of photos were to Nikon. All those photos were shot in jpeg format. They were carefully examined at Nikon both for technical quality and for aesthetic quality before they were bought. Nikon is using them to show off what their cameras can do.

But you are right that jpegs need a little extra care to ensure quality. The first thing I do after importing them into Photoshop is to change the files to a TIFF format. I don't change them back to jpegs until all edits have been completed.

Shooting in jpeg format has many advantages. The same is true for raw. They both have disadvantages, too. To make a blanket statement about the superiority of raw over jpeg is neither informed nor wise. In fact, a lot of professionals more talented than I am won't bother with raw anymore.

Hopefully this thread can continue now with information that the OP can actually use.