I agree entirely. However the experience of lugging around a camera bag is vastly less enjoyable.
A camera should be nice and compact, then it won't be a hassle to have it with you.
The problem with modern cameras is they are heavy, bulky, junk build quality, have awful menu systems and don't play nice with your phone or your computer. What a wombo-combo of pain, just to get a nice photo!
If you can afford a Q2, all of those problems are addressed.
Modern cameras are like writing corporate software in Java. Leica Q2 is like writing short programs in Python. Phones are like using Squarespace to build a website.
After falling in love with the whole photography universe, I hope one day I can experience the COBOL-like world of film. I did grow up when film was around, in the 90s and all that, but my family was too poor and I only ever messed around with disposable cameras and Polaroids. Polaroids themselves are a whole other insanely awesome universe to explore.
But you can’t argue with dslr results though. And when we talk about pro sport photography, well exactly same demands for large aperture, large and variable focal length, high iso with low noise, fast focusing and fast shooter speeds also apply to us amateurs taking pictures of our kids in poorly lit indoor sport events.
Also, jpeg straight out of camera can be ok if you're controlling circumstances and have time to take test pictures and adjust parameters. And not change entire scene in a seconds. Once I went to RAW I could never come back. Now you don't have to worry about white balance or even exposure in the heat of moment. It allows you to really save a lot of these shots which would be lost in jpeg. Price you pay is staring in 300 raw images afterwards.
I must admit this affects my desire to use DSLR in the first place. I tend to use only if absolutely necessary.
My 4/3rds setup with flash, 5 lenses, and a few batteries was only 2.2lb. I don't even notice I'm wearing it.
The latest and greatest m4/3 camera today doesn't really take still pictures any better than an Olympus EM-5 from 2013 (the increase from 16 to 20mp makes little "real world" difference), cellphones improved _enormously_ over the same period. With a modern iPhone, I get an extreme wide angle, "standard" and reasonable portrait focal length lens all in one device, with the files in Lightroom immediately after taking them. Yes you can argue for days about "fokeh" vs the real thing, but m4/3 isn't the platform you want to be on if rich bokeh was your primary objective in the first place. I've also yet to find a three lens kit that covers the range of a modern iPhone I can fit in my jeans pocket too, even in m4/3!
I think in some cases, many people just like the "ritual" of using an interchangeable lens camera as much as they practically get any better images than with a decent phone, which is fine! For some reason it's not fashionable in photograhy circles to admit this, I guess the fear of looking like a dilettante etc.