I agree, however for action shots and sports such as cycling where there are some advantages to a camera over a phone. There are also advantages of an eye level viewfinder over a rear camera screen. When photographing people a camera with an eye level view finder is less obtrusive than a phone or camera shoved at arms length at a person. I've taken pictures with a suitable camera that would be extremely difficult or impossible to get with a phone or some point and shoot cameras.

I think the questions are: what type of pictures do I want to take, i.e., sports, landscapes, people, travel, macro, or all of the above; what are the limits of physical size that are acceptable; how are the pictures going to be used, web, prints or publication; is the camera capable of meeting my present as well as my future needs and expectations; and what am I willing to spend?

nope, it does not. a good picture still has to sell a story, an idea .... and, it has also a good composition, use of room/space.

Ever hear of a "decisive moment?" Bresson's decisive moment where all of the above can occur naturally at the right time and with any individual. No photographic or technical knowledge necessary. All you have to do is be there to snap that picture. That's how halls get filled with award winning photographs taken by rank amateurs.

The real challenge is to recognize the potential and to "snap that picture" at just the right time. What would Bresson's photo of the guy jumping across (into) the puddle look like if he was a half second early or a half second late? It takes more than just luck, and an automatic camera.

yes thats sounds familiar to me ... "decisive moment" is even more difficult for a beginner.
here a little video of my work: stefan rohner - humans
all shot will Leica MP, Kodak trip 400 and printed on Agfa MCC111

3 pictures attached, more b/w work here: daily life

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...b6944a1362.jpg

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...6303e55569.jpg

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...b1ac228a07.jpg

I've got an AW-1, it is waterproof, rated to 15m.* But the lens choice to keep that waterproofness is pretty limited...basically the standard 11-27mm zoom supplied with the camera (approximately equivalent to a 30-75mm 35mm lens)* Last time I took it touring I hardly got it out because swapping lenses was such a PITA.* It also misses out on things like an intervalometer, which is disappointing. The instruction manual is pretty useless too, working out how to manually focus was trial and error. That being said, it is tough, feels chunky in the hand...*
I've just been using my Sony Xperia Z5, the camera on that seems pretty good does low light well for such a small sensor, has a 3x optical zoom.

Thanks for sharing some of your work here and on your website. Very nice!

Great work!

This is proof skill, a good tool, and film can equal magic.

I'd love too see your "bad" photos, especially if you're shooting 35mm film.

From a technical perspective, nothing digital (that I've seen) can compare to well shot film. So it's a little unfair to argue the tool doesn't matter, and then whip out this phenomenal portfolio shot on 35mm.

The rest of us mere mortals are operating at some divisible factor of 35mm capturing pixels and not photons.

It's like you've got to fight a bunch of zombies, most people are slinging automatic rifles with red dot sights, fighting recoil and magazine jams, and you're a highly trained ninja slashing through the horde with a finely sharpened katana looking back at the rest of us saying,"Why are you so tired? It's not hard, just aim for the head!"

Smooth mutha clicker. Smooth. ;)
(source for zombie argument: https://youtu.be/qQDWrQ285IM)

thanks Doug.

thanks BangoBang ... sorry ;) I read the name Henri Cartier Bresson

how about something like this?

Teepao Underwater Digital Camera 24.0MP Waterproof Dual Screen Full HD 1080P Shockproof Video Camcorder Point and Shoot Self Shot Camera with Flash Light (Blue)

moi aussi

I thought long and hard about a high quality camera to take cycling and hiking and ended up with a Panasonic Lumix GM5. It's the smallest Micro four thirds camera there is, has great AF, a great UI, interchangeable lenses (and a huge selection of lenses available) and to top it off a real viewfinder. Unfortunately they are getting a little hard to find since Panasonic seems to be phasing them out due to relatively low demand (too many folks didn't want to pay a premium price for such a small camera). However, you I love this camera. The kit 12-32 (24-64 35mm equiv) is really nice but I usually ride with the minuscule f2.5 14mm pancake attached so that I don't have to open up the lens and can shoot while rolling.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...2b1143bec8.jpg

Who said the tool doesn't matter? In fact, it varies. Sometimes its critical, other times it's insignificant: A photo of a crick in the pavement won't look any more spectacular from a Hasselblad as it would if you used a Polaroid point-and-shoot.

and as someone who worked in commercial photography long before the digital age, during the transition, and after film was dead, and who spent half my life in the b+w darkroom , I can reliably say that digital has gone well past film now far ages and ages.
Yes, there is a diff, but the tonal range and colour rendition of cameras, as well as the processing software, doesnt make much of a difference any more.

In the end, a camera is a tool, and diff cameras and levels of cameras have diff characteristics, and while some technical aspects come into play, it still comes down to shooting well, both from an aesthetic point of view, as well as a technical one.

but hey, we are talking about cameras to take on a bike trip, with the restraints of weight, size, wanting or not wanting to take an object of X value on a bike etc etc.

I have the similar sized Panasonic LX100. Since the 24-70 equivalent F1.7-2.8 zoom is built-in, it's probably smaller than your removable zoom lens setup.

It takes very good photos, especially in low light. And the results with raw files instead of jpgs is a lot better.

Riding with an enthusiast camera
I've brought it on rides, but it needs a small handlebar bag. And it's not dustproof or water resistant, so I need to be careful with it. My inexpensive handlebar bag makes it easy to unzip the bag, pull out the camera, and shoot. But I rarely do this while riding, I almost always stop.

Taking the time to get a reasonably good photo adds up during the day. I'll only bring it occasionally, when I have time to stop and shoot. These solo photography rides have a lot of stopping along the way. The few times I've brought it but only shot at rest stops, I was usually sorry that I skipped a lot of the good stuff along the way.

Perhaps a weather resistant, more rugged camera could stay on one of those shoulder strap rigs that holds the camera out of the way, but allows it to still be accessible. Not good in a crash, though.

Pocketable
I still have an old Canon SD800 that I used a lot on rides, before I got a waterproof smart phone. I bring it occasionally on group rides. The main advantage is that I can pull it out of my jersey pocket, hit the power button, and 2 seconds later take a set of photos without looking. It's photos are kind of fuzzy and lower res compared to contemporary cameras, but it's fast and doesn't make me stop riding. There's lots of dud photos with this technique, but enough usable ones that just need a little straightening and cropping.

This shooting while riding gets a lot of photos that would never be taken if I had to stop.

A modern water resistant pocketable camera would be very convenient. While riding, I can't comfortably pull out my Galaxy S5, swipe the start screen to launch the photo app, then click on the app to take pictures -- I need to look at the screen.

the antique SD800:
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...a9bb9f55f4.jpg

We did a a rough estimate of the time we spent taking pictures on a 3-month tour that we did in 2011. Using an average of 5 hours a day of actual riding time, we estimated that we used a little over 2 weeks of riding time or the equivalent of about 600 miles, for taking photographs:) Photography is an integral part of bike touring for us, and that is what we love about the bike, we can stop almost any time or place we want. We still get our 5+ hours of actual riding time a day regardless of how many time we stop.

On a tour this summer we were about the same as the 3-month tour, and this one was only 2 months long. I use about a minute a picture as the average, because sometimes I was shooting at 11 frames/ second. I also used half of the actual pictures we took for calculating the estimate, because we seldom take just one shot of a subject. However, I'm thinking that my estimates are still a little on the conservative side. I can think of several instances where I spent up to an hour shooting street "events" and maybe only ended up with 15-20 shots. After editing, that number will go down to 2-4 keepers (hopefully).

Taking picture and riding are two separate events. You need to plan to do one or the other to do either well. Good photography needs your undivided attention. I have a more recent, but still older version of the Powershot. When my Gopro was run over by a car, it became my sole portable camera. They may not be waterproof, but they're still rugged enough and easy to carry on a bike ride.

camera type non withstanding, bringing up the topic of how much time is spent shooting, and access to a camera , is a good thing to bring up.
Ive learned over the years of bike travelling, to have quick access to my camera in the handlebar bag. When I had zippered h-bags, it was even faster, often riding it partly unzipped, ready to grab the camera even while riding. The popper system on Ortlieb h-bags cant be done wtih one hand generally, so this adds a bit more time of stopping, getting it open and getting camera, but that aside, I generally take shots from the bike, ie standing with the bike. I rarely get off the bike, but it happens.
Ive tried to get the time spent to a quickly as possible, and having worked as a photographer for a long time, when I see something, I position myself and take it quickly, and dont always take multiple shots and variations--but again, while I really enjoy "looking" for good shots, its a mix of the bike adventure part, and doing the photography thing, but am aware of not wanting to take too much time stopping.

that said, its nice to stop sometimes, gives your arse and rest of your body a break, and generally I do take the time to stop and not let a shot go by, but within reason.....

Part of having the limitations of a point and shoot compared to a real camera, for me anyway, is that while I take taking photos seriously to an extent, theres a real freedom and "looseness" of using a limited camera with a given quality, and its nice NOT to be so focused on shooting--again, I did it professionally for a long time, so Im not interested in going all out and being all "photo", but just loose with what I do, and accept the limitations of what Im using.
I guess one day I'll get a much higher image quality "small" travel camera, and it will be nice, as Im sure I'll appreciate the improved image quality. Ive shot and worked with 35, med and large format, but I can live with what I use and live with its limitations, and certainly appreciate not worrying at all about my camera anymore, especially with some of the tours Ive done in the last years.

The LX100 was on my short list along with the Sony RX100iv. That is a really nice camera but believe it or not it is considerably larger than the GM5, especially when using a pancake prime lens.

True. I have been riding with the GM5 on a long strap dangling into one of my jersey pockets so that I can pull it around and shoot on the move. There are some better straps with magnetic buckles out there that would be better for this, but they're pricey. I think the LX100 may be too bulky and heavy to do this easily.

I also had an SD800. It was a good cam in its day but totally outclassed today. I do take moving shots with my iPhone since it's a single swipe to activate the camera. However, I should get some kind of tether since I'm sure I'm going to drop it one day.

Which points to their limitations, and is the primary reason why they don't make good action cameras. Although iPhones (and the like) can produce excellent photo quality, their design makes them unsuitable for rugged environments, and are therefore, best relocated to more pedestrian domains.

I disagree. Photography has been an integral part of all my activities since I was a kid when my dad used to let me run around with his Leica IIIf. I also had access to his darkroom. I have taken photos in every activity I've ever done, including parachuting, mountaineering, rock climbing, canoeing, flying, work, as well as cycling. Most of these activities do not allow "undivided" attention for photography. I may not be a great photographer, but I have been very competent in my other activities; and every once in awhile I do get a good picture. There are about as many ways to bike tour as there are bike tourists, and there is not a wrong way.

A scan of a picture of my wife taking a picture:)
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1848/...3a8d9bd87b.jpg

and again, sorry ... ;)
its the content of a pictures what has to tell us a story, let us dream, show us beauty, show us ugly ... and so on.
how to compose and how to "read" why a picture works may take years to learn. most never learn it.

and if one does not print BIG any tool does.

film versus digital, no digital black and white image beats the beautiful ample tonal range of a well made baryta paper print.

if all of the other factors come into play, ie shot properly, developed properly, printed properly.

again, as an ex long time professional black and white developer and printer, like anything in life, lots of attention to detail and all the factors I mentioned come into play. Even if I give the greatest negative to someone who is a so so printer, compared to a printer who has lots of experience and is a great printer, the final results on paper will be completely different.

but lets face it, already back in the day, really good b+w people were sort of rare, and nowadays its kinda like finding a dinosaur.

It's interesting how the commenters on this thread have widely variable goals. From just documenting a ride with snapshots, all the way to careful, fine photography. I think the whole spectrum is valid. I like to take a little more composed and edited photos than just firing off a quick smart phone shot. I especially like challenging lighting conditions when I have my good camera with me. But I'll do either type, depending on the day, and if I'm solo or not.

After your comment, I realized I have actual stats from my GPS.

I recently did a 66 mile, crushed rock surface rail trail ride, out and back, no baggage.
I took about 250 photos that day.
ridewithgps says:
Riding time: 5:15
Stopped time: 2:20. Included was 20 minutes for a lunch stop, and various sight-seeing pauses, not just photography.

That averages about 30 seconds each photo. Maybe half of the shots were just a quick document of what the trail was like. The rest were more composed and took longer. That's actually less time than I expected.

Or you can get it just by chance. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I agree, and am still trying to learn, but something I've never done with my digital cameras was open the back of the camera before I rewound the film:) It's a long story.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1841/...de78e63b_c.jpg

I was fortunate to have access to my dad's cameras and darkroom when I was a kid. I was also fortunate to help him, and watch him print. Unfortunately, even though he was a patient teacher, I was never as good as him. On the good side, I was the only 11-year old running around town with a Leica IIIf or a Rollieflex. He really wanted me to learn.

I found these dinosaur bones the other day when I was cleaning up the garage. They were left over from a distant past when I loaded my film canisters from bulk rolls.
https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1877/...9ba06052_c.jpg

Re bones. Not too many years ago I tossed out my reusable film canisters that I used to load b+w film in. I used to buy bulk 50 or 100ft rolls of tri-x, or hp5 and it was the cheapest way to shoot. We used to buy boxes of I think 50 rolls of b+w 400 asa film back when we did b+w press stuff, and I eventually gave up on self loading as my cannisters started to get a bit iffy for the ends to loosen if dropped, but had kept the best ones for no real reason.
i also finally got rid of some 4x5 dip and dunk tanks and holders too.
I don't think I ever ruined an entire roll by opening a back, certainly not any jobs or important personal work, but a handful of times we had the lab mess up some e6 chemicals so some slide film got messed up. We shot a lot in transparencies for magazine work, and I was a fast editor with a loup and a light table.
As always, funny to think of that era and how already it's been quite a while...

Good news, film is still alive and well, and any decent photography school still teach it. The point behind learning film is that it teaches you the art of preparation so you develop real talent. With digital you get to take as many pictures as you want to get it right at no extra cost. With film, you pay every time your click the shutter. You had better well know what you're doing or have real deep pockets.

After imagining the mystique behind film for years, I finally got to experience developing and printing for myself. Making post adjustments as you print takes practice. Although its not like you can't do post work electronically, but what you can't do when you develop chemically is undo. You only get one chance so you have to get it right the first time. That's the additional appreciation of the art that you don't get from digital photography.

As an old timer b/w fan, still have a small darkroom set-up, I identify with what you are saying.
However, this view reminds me of the objectors of say, automatic transmissions as they were beginning to take over in the auto industry. They were inefficient, dragged down fuel economy, took the "fun" out of driving, etc., etc. Some still argue the fun part, but all the rest is no longer true. Time and progress march on.
I do use digital cams now too. A Nikon D600, now ancient, and a recently acquired Coolpix B500 that has a fantastic zoom ratio from inches to shooting the moon, 40X. My D600 would require a huge, heavy, very costly lens to match 40X. This all comes at a price, lack of manual controls, a small image sensor which limits how large a print you can make, but enables the magnification. There's a model with even greater magnification now, but the B500 is enough for my needs.