I have been thinking about this issue a lot recently. Sometimes clutter seems unavoidable, such as when you want to learn or do something new. When I first got into photography, I started off with one DSLR and one lens. Then I kept adding lenses. Turns out I also need to clean the sensor since dust accumulates when you change lenses, so I ended up getting lens cleaning kit. Next, I had to upgrade my camera, because it was not sufficient for photoshoots (got invited to a few events non-professionally). Then you got to pay for websites, online storage, this and that. And then you get a bag, a tripod and the list is endless (I have been postponing buying the tripod). There was also a ripple effect. My laptop display was not only short for image editing, but it was displaying colors incorrectly. So I had to get a new monitor, and I had to spend extra time researching whether the colors will display correctly or not. All these add up. Sometimes I just want to sell everything and get one camera and one prime lens, but I am afraid of "missing out". May be thats not true. I haven't found the alternative. But for what its worth, I have had a good journey so far.
If one wants to reach a higher level than an amateur, it looks like extra items are unavoidable. Similar arguments go with say learning oil painting or say charcoal sketching. When you are a programmer, would you prefer to work with a single laptop or with an external keyboard+mouse+large monitor?
The post and your comment resonate somehow, as I recently set on to travel across a country and live out of a backpack. I used to own a DSLR for three years, but thinking it would be a bit bulky to travel I ended up getting a Fujifilm X100 (and I suspect any equivalent mirrorless with a prime lens would be about the same effect). It's a step up ISO-wise, but apart from that it's basically all downsides: sensor not as good as an equally-priced DSLR would be, fixed 20mm lens, somewhat slow operations...
But really, all of this doesn't matter. It's so small I take it everywhere. I love the pictures it takes. Creativity loves constraints. :)
Caveat emptor, I probably wouldn't use it as a pro tool, but then again I'm not a photographer so it doesn't matter.
Honestly, you can take good photos with a phone. It's about composition and timing. If you are a professional photographer, better than 98% of people in the world, an expensive kit might take you to 99%. As an amateur, the gap between your ability and a pro's will never be filled by the 1% improvement nice gear will make. So many of these "hobbies" are actually rich people giving themselves a reason to buy expensive toys.
Your percents are way off.
Sure you can take OK photos with a phone—maybe 2% of the time you can take a good photos with decent camera. As the name implies, photography is first about light. A good camera and lens immensly expands the definition of what acceptable light is. An off-camera flash
will make a night and day (pun intended) difference in your photos.
You mention timging. Autofocus speed and accuracy, shutter lag of DSLR and phone camera are not even comparable.
In short: moving from phone camera to an entry level DSLR with kit lenses will already be a huge step up in quality of your photos. If you understand what you are doing buying expensive lenses will add a noticeable increase to that as well. Then if you understand what are you doing and do it a lot buing a professional body will get you durability and the maximum control over the process (and ability to control aperture, shutter speed and ISO does matter too).
Yes, if you "get it" you can take a good photos with the phone if you are if conditions are favourable. But if you get it, then using DSLR will let you take more good photos, because the limits of favourable conditions are expanded a lot.
There is some truth in your last sentence, however from technical point of view, even is someone "does not get it" and would take crappy pictures on the phone then with an expensive kit he can have pictures of the same crap but with much higher quality.
You can take good phone pictures if you are outside in the daytime or are shooting stationary subjects. Any motion combined with less than daylight guarantees blurry pictures or that lovely cell-phone-flash look.
That being said: The big jump is from cell-phone to DSLR (even an inexpensive one). The jump from $400 DSLR to $4000 is less noticeable.
Sort of. You can take photos with a phone that look decent at small resolutions, but if you want to use them for anything else they're largely unusable.
I'm definitely not arguing that you need a high end DSLR, but even a relatively inexpensive Canon or Nikon will run circles around a camera phone.
I've gone through the same thing with photography and other hobbies, and for me, at least, that stage of acquiring lots of stuff is necessary. During that time I'll use all the new things -- I end up learning how it all works by making good use of it all. Later, after having more experience and perspective, I'm much better able to decide what's worth keeping and what's worth getting rid of.
And in case of photography it is the expensive stuff that is worth keeping. Actually it would save some money to skip the cheap stuff. Case in point—tripods. There is a good piece about it: http://www.bythom.com/support.htm
If one wants to reach a higher level than an amateur, it looks like extra items are unavoidable. Similar arguments go with say learning oil painting or say charcoal sketching. When you are a programmer, would you prefer to work with a single laptop or with an external keyboard+mouse+large monitor?