Camera Phone vs. Compact Camera

[MikeT66]

I'm a bit behind with technology, and have long espoused the merits of a decent compact camera over phone cameras in terms of quality. To be honest though, my 'mobile' is still an old Nokia 6233 that I've had since about 2005.

Just recently though I've been seeing great photos taken with phones - admittedly, they may be top-end/expensive phones, but it's made me wonder what my next 'investment' (though they always lose money!) should be. Current compact is a five-year old Canon Powershot, and the photos are... OK. It fits in my pocket, though, but obviously technology has moved on somewhat. Online reviews are now saying that phones have bypassed compacts for quality... but these seem to be £1000 phones.

Given a theoretical budget of £500-£600, what would be the choice amongst the PH Photography crew? New compact? New Phone? Used Phone?

I know absolutely nothing about 'smart' phones/Apple, etc. by the way!!!

TYIA

[StevieBee]

Much depends on what you need a camera for and your level of enthusiasm in taking photos.

The image quality you get from a camera phone is indeed very good and as you point out, some of the higher end phones are superb. If it's a case of a device to capture the odd pic every now and then, any smart phone will serve you well in this respect.

Personally, I don't like the ergonomics of a phone as a camera and the lens can get mucky.

It's when you start to explore the more creative aspects of photography that you start to find limitations with the camera phone. At that point, you'll also find compacts wanting in this respect.

[S6PNJ]

If you are 'serious' abut your photography and want some hardware that can take great shots, look at the Sony RX100 series (link to John Lewis for examples of prices for new) https://www.johnlewis.com/search?search-term=rx100

More details on how each model differs here: https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7237085229/which...

Second hand will clearly get you more camera for less money.

[MikeT66]

Thanks for the replies, chaps. I have a Canon 650D for 'proper' photography (Goodwood Revival/racing/etc, and studio stuff), which I think is still pretty good (for me, anyway!). I've also got a Fuji 'bridge' camera with interchangeable lenses for holidays (DSLR too big, compact too small), so it was something decent that is also 'pocket-sized' - hence a few friends mentioning phones.

I was just unsure if a proper pocket-sized compact would lose out to a decent phone for those moments you see something and want to capture it.

[S6PNJ]

If I'm carrying a camera (I have one on my phone but it's not great) it will be my Sony Cybershot DSC-TX55. Any of the 2 digit DSC TX range are pretty good and you can pick one up for probably less than £50 via any generic auction site!
https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/so...
small, compact, image stabilised and 16 megapixels etc.

[eein]

A compact will still spank the pants off any phone, assuming the user has graduated beyond selfi skool. That being said, if you already have a bridge and SLR, I would guess the siutations you only have a pocket option are going to be more in the snaps situations, in which case a phone will do a very decent job (indeed very impressive for what they are).

Personally I have a full frame mirrorless (can I call that an SLR?!) and a RX100 and a phone. I often carry the RX100 when I dont want to lug the full camera and lenses around, but increasingly find I still just reach for my phone. The RX100 is fantasic and you can control everything like you would on an SLR, but if I'm taking that amount of time taking a picture I'd rather have my SLR with me. The phone (I currently have a Google pixel 4 but have had various top and mid range in recent years) takes great snaps - the 'manual' settings are a bit of a waste of time (regardless of marketing or insta fanboy hype) however they'll take a very presentable pic in most conditions. They tend to overprocess a lot on colour, sharpness, etc, but I accept if I want better I'll SLR.

[tog]

Phones take great pictures and give excellent results. Most struggle in low light, though the best are now very good with that too. If you want to make big enlargements or need very fine resolution the images usually fall to pieces if you look close up, but if you want a camera that you will always have with you and that will take good photographs with no need for post-processing and that you will most likely only ever look at on a screen then a phone is the answer.

I can't see myself buying another traditional compact camera. I have a pair of Canon 5DIVs and a EOS M100 with a 22mm is my 'compact'.

[gangzoom]

The best camera is the one you have on you.

I use my Samsung S9 (2 years old phone, single Lens, about £300 new now) to take 99% of our family photos now. I still have an Olympus EM5 II with x3 different lens, but my phone is on me all the time, the Olympus isn't.

Here are two shots of the same subject, can you tell which is taken on the phone versus a mirrorless camera? Overall both devices produce nice photos.

Personally am very happy with my S9 given my photos are for family viewing not professional printing. The latest phones are meant to be even better, but am a tight git so am reluctant spend £1000 on a new phone versus the £190 upfront + £15/month cost of my current S9 .

Edited by gangzoom on Saturday 8th August 05:11

[gangzoom]

In additional to been with you all the time, the other advantage of a phone versus compact is actually the software. Smart phones these days do wonders with 'fake' back ground blur, and nightsight type software processing really does wonders with noise control at high ISOs.

My S9 is quite old on that front interms of phone tech, and doesn't have a depth sensor but still does a good job, and will let you do some reasonable effects. A compact camera cannot compete on the software front.







My Olympus isn't that big when using a small lens (similar size to a compact) but versus a smart phone its still massive. I stil occasionally use it, but my next 'camera' purchase will be a newer smart phone with a depth sensor + wide angle lens rather than another lens for the EM5.



For a budget of sub £500 I would get a Pixel 4a, its cracking value for money, and despite only having one lens the reviews consistently put the Pixel camera at near top of the class. The magic is the software Google deploys in the background, but who really cares about how it takes good photos as long as it takes good photos .

https://www.cnet.com/news/review-google-pixel-4a-o...

Edited by gangzoom on Saturday 8th August 09:54

[irocfan]

gangzoom said:

The best camera is the one you have on you.

This ^^^

I'm quite chuffed with this pic I took of Mrs. Iroc's car the other day, I suspect it would have been a lot better if:
- I knew what I was doing
- had a nice camera
- knew how to touch-up afterwards
But it's good enough for me.



One thing i DO miss compared to a 'proper' camera is telephoto - i do use that a LOT more than I'd realised

[gangzoom]

irocfan said:

This ^^^

I'm quite chuffed with this pic I took of Mrs. Iroc's car the other day, I suspect it would have been a lot better if:
- I knew what I was doing
- had a nice camera
- knew how to touch-up afterwards
But it's good enough for me.

I think you would be surprised how hard it would be to get a similar shot on a mirrorless or DSLR.

I took this with my S9, I recon I would have needed about 5 minutes+ of playing with setting/trial error with my EM5 to get a similar shot.

Some people will enjoy playing with settings, am too lazy and just want photos that I will enjoy looking at.

I remember a saying I saw on a photo tutorial website that said professional somethings joke the 'P' auto mode on DSLRs is short for 'professional' .

[jamesbilluk]

I used to take my RX1 with me all time, and more so with our new addition to the family, but I found the photos were uploaded on to my imac, not to be seen again.

I've recently purchased a Huawei P40 Pro Plus from Hong-Kong , not cheap, but it's the best camera phone I've ever used, coming from a pixel 4XL very detailed, and great colours. I must admit, I've been using that far more than my camera now as the photos coming from the phone are fantastic, and with a very clever 10X optical Zoom, that has come in very useful, not as good as the Sony, but this is always in my pocket.

Edit, sorry, I've just re read the OP, and seen the budget,

I used to have a Huawei P30 Pro, that also has a very highly regarded camera, and a 5X periscope zoom, that can be had for £600

Edited by jamesbilluk on Sunday 9th August 16:58

Edited by jamesbilluk on Sunday 9th August 16:59

[MikeT66]

gangzoom said:

The best camera is the one you have on you.

I use my Samsung S9 (2 years old phone, single Lens, about £300 new now) to take 99% of our family photos now. I still have an Olympus EM5 II with x3 different lens, but my phone is on me all the time, the Olympus isn't.

Here are two shots of the same subject, can you tell which is taken on the phone versus a mirrorless camera? Overall both devices produce nice photos.

Personally am very happy with my S9 given my photos are for family viewing not professional printing. The latest phones are meant to be even better, but am a tight git so am reluctant spend £1000 on a new phone versus the £190 upfront + £15/month cost of my current S9 .

[Img]https://live.staticflickr.com/4844/45995231351_b59a3a7097_k_d.jpg[/thumb]

[Img]https://live.staticflickr.com/4840/45945970592_6bb79f477e_k_d.jpg[/thumb]

[Img]https://live.staticflickr.com/4857/45117089135_ff6a059abb_k_d.jpg[/thumb]

[Img]https://live.staticflickr.com/4868/45304649354_12f29d4aaa_k_d.jpg[/thumb]

[Img]https://live.staticflickr.com/4836/32160408448_94a2c07bf0_k_d.jpg[/thumb]

[Img]https://live.staticflickr.com/7082/7159807446_83b171a4f3_k_d.jpg[/thumb]

Edited by gangzoom on Saturday 8th August 05:11

The colour in the first photo looks slightly more saturated, but beyond that not much difference that I can spot. Were the two skyscraper images taken at the same time,as there's a big difference there?

I'd agree with the point about the best camera is the one you have with you, which sums up my original query, I suppose. I did read that a few camera manufacturers are slowing down development of compacts due the marketplace dominance of phones - I can imagine that they possibly don't sell many these days, and wondered if that was were the perceived quality imbalance was perhaps beginning to show.

Possibly the other thing that skews my viewpoint is looking at photos on friends' phones - yes, they look good 'on screen', but I'm not sure of how that translates into a decent sized and decent quality photograph in reality.

Thanks for all the answers - certainly given me something to think about.

[eein]

MikeT66 said:

gangzoom said:

The best camera is the one you have on you.

I use my Samsung S9 (2 years old phone, single Lens, about £300 new now) to take 99% of our family photos now. I still have an Olympus EM5 II with x3 different lens, but my phone is on me all the time, the Olympus isn't.

Here are two shots of the same subject, can you tell which is taken on the phone versus a mirrorless camera? Overall both devices produce nice photos.

Personally am very happy with my S9 given my photos are for family viewing not professional printing. The latest phones are meant to be even better, but am a tight git so am reluctant spend £1000 on a new phone versus the £190 upfront + £15/month cost of my current S9 .

[Img]https://live.staticflickr.com/4844/45995231351_b59a3a7097_k_d.jpg[/thumb]

[Img]https://live.staticflickr.com/4840/45945970592_6bb79f477e_k_d.jpg[/thumb]

[Img]https://live.staticflickr.com/4857/45117089135_ff6a059abb_k_d.jpg[/thumb]

[Img]https://live.staticflickr.com/4868/45304649354_12f29d4aaa_k_d.jpg[/thumb]

[Img]https://live.staticflickr.com/4836/32160408448_94a2c07bf0_k_d.jpg[/thumb]

[Img]https://live.staticflickr.com/7082/7159807446_83b171a4f3_k_d.jpg[/thumb]

Edited by gangzoom on Saturday 8th August 05:11

The colour in the first photo looks slightly more saturated, but beyond that not much difference that I can spot. Were the two skyscraper images taken at the same time,as there's a big difference there?

The two pics of the Burj sky scraper are taken at least 5 years apart! The mall extension is not even started in the second one and the half of the farground towers are not complete!

[gangzoom]

MikeT66 said:

Possibly the other thing that skews my viewpoint is looking at photos on friends' phones - yes, they look good 'on screen', but I'm not sure of how that translates into a decent sized and decent quality photograph in reality.

How big prints do you make, be realistic about how important pixel peeing it for you. A full frame camera with a ££££ lens with produce far shaper and detailed images but most of us don't need that amount of quality.

This is the full resolution on my S9, taken by hand in the dark. Am pretty sure you can print that to decent size with no issues, and my S9 is ancient by mobile phone camera standards.

I see little reason to buy a compact camera over a phone camera.

[Tony1963]

gangzoom said:

be realistic about how important pixel peeing it for you.

[Img]https://live.staticflickr.com/1920/44946039902_622e5da5c1_o_d.jpg[/thumb]

I bet that’d sting.

[gangzoom]

Really well written piece, I didn't even realize in some areas the current generation of smart phones cameras are better than FF!!

Might tempt me to splash out on the Pixel 5 or next Samsung/Apple smart phone just for the camera.

https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones-vs-cameras-clo...

[David_M]

In my experience photos taken on phone cameras look great on a phone screen (which is where 99% of them will end).

If you want them printed, or even to look at on a big screen, a photo from any "proper" camera will look much better.

[gangzoom]

David_M said:

If you want them printed, or even to look at on a big screen, a photo from any "proper" camera will look much better.

Why? The photo resolution on my S9 is 4032x3024 pixels, that will print to a size of 34x25cm at 300DPI.

My EM5 Mark II has a resolution of 4606x3456, at 300DPI that's a 39x29cm print, so bigger but not much.

Both produce fine print to much larger size at lower DPI, I believe most billboards only require 5MB photos, so there is no reason why you cannot print the photo taken on a smart phone upto billboard size if that's what you want. Conversely viewing on a smart phone screen at 500PPI actually requires much more resolution/detail to take full advantage of the screen. The chances are if it looks good on a 1:1 scale on a phone its more than good enough for any kind of printing.

I recon the cost of my EM5+ a few f2.8 lens is well over £2K+ if bought new today, my S9 cost me £200 upfront and £15/month including data. I pick up my EM5 once every 6 months, I take photos nearly everyday on my S9, there is no competition when it comes to value for money interms of photographic equipment.

Edited by gangzoom on Wednesday 12th August 13:56

[David_M]

gangzoom said:

I reckon the cost of my EM5+ a few f2.8 lens is well over £2K+ if bought new today, my S9 cost me £200 upfront and £15/month including data. I pick up my EM5 once every 6 months, I take photos nearly everyday on my S9, there is no competition when it comes to value for money interms of photographic equipment.

I agree with this 100% re cost, value per use and most importantly "the camera that you always have with you" (and my own usage stats are essentially the same).

gangzoom said:

The photo resolution on my S9 is 4032x3024 pixels....so there is no reason why you cannot print the photo taken on a smart phone up to billboard size if that's what you want.

While this is all correct / rational, and I am sure that it has been done, as I said my experience is that photos that look great on a small screen do not look as good on a big screen.