New compact camera or iphone

[powling]

I have a mirror less camera systems, but recently went on holiday and didn’t want to lug all the body and lenses so thought I’d opt for the ‘trusty’ point and shoot compact camera that I already had.

However during the holiday, I found the images taken on my iPhone 13 Pro seemed better than those I’d taken on the 5-6 year old point and shoot, especially at night. I appreciate that there is a lot of tweaking of the images by the phone, but got me thinking whether there is any need for a compact camera any more ? It’s often said the best camera is the one you have with you …. And given we are always carrying our phones ?

I was originally thinking that I may look to replace my point and shoot with a Sony Rx100 or similar, but not sure if there is going to be any need .. especially if the camera gets upgraded again in the new iPhone 15 ?

So are there any real benefits to having a compact point and shoot ‘travel’ type camera ?

[Derek Smith]

It might be helpful if you explained what you use your images for.

I have a couple of M4/3 mirrorless cameras, a compact and, of course, phone and use each of them.

In other words, it's not either/or.

I much prefer my compact Lumix LX when travelling as I will often print the images. I also indulge in a bit of post-processing and find the compact images respond better. But that's personal preferences. The compact can be used under most conditions and produces very good images where my phone comes up with adequate. My compact is much quicker.

A phone is always with you, as you said, although I carry my compact in my car most of the time.

[Simpo Two]

Phone cameras/software are very very good - the only thing I don't like is the ergonomics. Trying to take a photo with what's effectively a rectangle of glass that feels like it's going to slip out of your fingers, then having to tap some random area you can't feel, doesn't work for me.

Not being a phone person, if I think I may need random snaps I take a Lumix XS3 which really does fit into a shirt pocket.

[powling]

Thanks for your comments …

I use a compact camera whilst travelling, so typically scenery, snapshots of family etc. occasionally I’ll print them to out the, on the wall, but no bigger than a4 really.

The most important thing for me is the quality of the picture and the reason I started the thread was that the pictures I took on my iPhone 13 max pro just seemed better than those on my point and shoot.

I would have thought that the lens / sensor in the point and shoot would have been superior to the iPhone, so is the software in the iPhone that good to make up for this ? If so, how come specialist camera companies seem to have been caught napping ?

[LuS1fer]

I have two compact cameras, a Panasonic 1"sensor thing and a Canon SX740HS. I actually use the Canon more as it has 40x zoom and a flip screen.

I also take "snaps" on my OnePlus 6 phone. Fine for Facebook but when I download onto my PC, a 27" monitor soon shows up the phone photos as markedly inferior. Not surprising with such a tiny lens.

[DibblyDobbler]

Any half decent camera will knock a phone for six when it comes to image quality IMHO... I occasionally upload a phone shot to my laptop for processing and they almost invariably look cr@p when you look closely. Not suprising really if you consider sensor size and lens size for a camera versus a phone...

[Derek Smith]

powling said:

Thanks for your comments …

I use a compact camera whilst travelling, so typically scenery, snapshots of family etc. occasionally I’ll print them to out the, on the wall, but no bigger than a4 really.

The most important thing for me is the quality of the picture and the reason I started the thread was that the pictures I took on my iPhone 13 max pro just seemed better than those on my point and shoot.

I would have thought that the lens / sensor in the point and shoot would have been superior to the iPhone, so is the software in the iPhone that good to make up for this ? If so, how come specialist camera companies seem to have been caught napping ?

Camera phones have all but destroyed the compact camera market apart from 'top end' compacts.

My daughter has a top end iPhone Pro and the images are very good. I was impressed. I forget the advertised mp but 50 seems ballpark. However, my compact has a Leica lens, for what that's worth, and gives 12mp images. They are obviously superior to my daughter's iPhone once blown up. Mine give A3 in most situations. Has a built-in stabliser (power OIS). Works remarkably well. Night time shots are very good. Remarkably little noise.

My daughter's iPhone has anti-shake, but it doesn't appear as good, and there's much more noise in night shots.

My zoom goes from 25 to 400mm (more or less) in old money. Full zoom gives a little distortion at edges but only at A3.

My camera is 12 years old. I use it a great deal. It cost around the equivalent of £400 which is less than £3pcm. My daughter's iPhone was over £1,000 but she p-exed her previous one. So £400 every 2 years? I know it isn't equivalent, as only part of the price is for the camera, but it's indicative.

I've two other Panasonics: a GH2 of around the same vintage, and a G9, a current model. If I had to be limited to one camera, I'd pick a modern compact with a quality lens. I'd miss my 50mm (equivalent) 1.4 Leica lens for the mirrorless pair though. It's stunning.

Go for what you want. Don't bother what people think of your choice.

[jamesbilluk]

I've recently bought a Samsung Galaxy S23 Ultra. I've been very impressed with it. We're on Holiday at the moment, Usually I would take my Ricoh GRiiiX along, or Sony RX1Rii but this is the first time I've not bought one of them along, and exclusively used the phone camera. The 3, and 10x zoom have come in very useful, even 20 or 30x zoom is very good indeed, and the 200mp mode is surprisingly detailed when the light is right.

[GetCarter]

DibblyDobbler said:

Any half decent camera will knock a phone for six when it comes to image quality IMHO... I occasionally upload a phone shot to my laptop for processing and they almost invariably look cr@p when you look closely. Not suprising really if you consider sensor size and lens size for a camera versus a phone...

This /\ (and I have the latest iPhone).

[dan98]

I was in the same boat - maybe at a lower budget than you - a few hundred quid for taking photos on holiday etc.

At the price, the UI and general operation on most cameras I looked at felt so clunky and behind the times, with very limited choice.

Ended up with a Huwai P40 Pro - no doubt worse than a dedicated high end camera if you start zooming in and looking really closely but just generally really nice and natural looking photos (Leica lens), with all the convenience of android for tweaking/editing and file management and upload / NAS stuff.

I use an iPhone as an actual phone, but the photos just look weird to me - over processed, artifcial, and way too much lens distortion.

[Noyzboy]

I have degenerated from photography to just taking snapshots.

I retired my Canon G10 (loved it 'cos it had a viewfinder but was still pocketable) and went to an Iphone14pro.

I agree with OPs comment about the shutter release and bought a bluetooth shutter release. It allows me to use my index finger to release the shutter "camera style". The iPhone 14 is great for snapshots. The super smart software enhances the image noticeably. The lack of a viewfinder means that on very sunny days you can't see your subject, just a reflection of your shirt.

Shutter release from Bezos

[gangzoom]

Use to have quite a bit of camera gear, haven't used anything but my phone for years now though. Quality from the latest phones is more than good enough for A1 size prints, probably can go to A0 for home use (I don't make a living from selling photos so no need for absolutely clarity).

[bcr5784]

Surprized no-one has mentioned a view finder. For preference you take photos with the sun behind you which can make it very difficult to frame the picture accurately unless you have a viewfinder. Also the UI of phones is pretty poor if you are wanting adjust settings. Phones are pretty much hopeless for serious bird photography. Don't get me wrong phones can produce some remarkably good shots - there are certainly times when I use mine (pixel 6a), but for "serious" photography they decidedly limited.

Edited by bcr5784 on Monday 12th June 09:16

[gangzoom]

bcr5784 said:

Phones are pretty much hopeless for serious bird photography.

I suspect so are most compacts, and even all DSLR/mirrorless bodies without a fast primelens.

But a 500mm lens is pretty useless at capturing a moment of just fun, when you are out and about. For most none professionals, camera phones are amazing.

[bcr5784]

gangzoom said:

I suspect so are most compacts, and even all DSLR/mirrorless bodies without a fast primelens.

But a 500mm lens is pretty useless at capturing a moment of just fun, when you are out and about. For most none professionals, camera phones are amazing.

I use a Sony RX10 iv - which (optically) zooms from 24mm to 600mm (35mm equivalent) , so you are unlikely to be caught with the wrong lens on. I do use the wide lens on the 6a on those odd occasions when I need something wider - but that's at most one in a hundred shots. There are quite a few zoom lenses with a similar wide range these days for interchangeable lens cameras - so if you are just out and about you are unlikely to be caught out. The days of being limited to a fixed focal length lens are long gone for most applications.

While some (but by no means most) professional photographers may use a fast prime lens for bird photos, the great majority of amateurs use zooms these days.

Edited by bcr5784 on Monday 12th June 13:41

[gangzoom]

bcr5784 said:

I use a Sony RX10 iv - which (optically) zooms from 24mm to 600mm (35mm equivalent) ........

......While some (but by no means most) professional photographers may use a fast prime lens for bird photos, the great majority of amateurs use zooms these days.

Your not seriously suggesting a 24-600mm zoom lens on a compact camera can come close the 'quality' of shots you can get with a Canon 1D body and Canon 400mm F2.8 L lens are you, oh just the thought of chronic aberration alone makes the whole thing a none starter

Seriously surely its laughable you can even begin to compare the two for any kind of serious wildlife photography??

The same 'debate' can be had with smart phone cameras

Edited by gangzoom on Monday 12th June 14:52

[BobToc]

I tend to think the best camera is the one you have available. I like my G9 a lot, but it’s not exactly pocketable. My GM1 is lovely, and a lot more portable, but a lot of the time I’ll only have my phone to hand and it’s serviceable. That said, I find the phone images overly processed and it’s hard to make too many adjustments in post. I think my G9 and GM1 will almost always take better pictures, but they’re not always available.

Edited by BobToc on Monday 12th June 15:12

[bcr5784]

gangzoom said:

Your not seriously suggesting a 24-600mm zoom lens on a compact camera can come close the 'quality' of shots you can get with a Canon 1D body and Canon 400mm F2.8 L lens are you, oh just the thought of chronic aberration alone makes the whole thing a none starter

Seriously surely its laughable you can even begin to compare the two for any kind of serious wildlife photography??

The same 'debate' can be had with smart phone cameras

Edited by gangzoom on Monday 12th June 14:52

[Derek Smith]

bcr5784 said:

I use a Sony RX10 iv - which (optically) zooms from 24mm to 600mm (35mm equivalent) , so you are unlikely to be caught with the wrong lens on. I do use the wide lens on the 6a on those odd occasions when I need something wider - but that's at most one in a hundred shots. There are quite a few zoom lenses with a similar wide range these days for interchangeable lens cameras - so if you are just out and about you are unlikely to be caught out. The days of being limited to a fixed focal length lens are long gone for most applications.

While some (but by no means most) professional photographers may use a fast prime lens for bird photos, the great majority of amateurs use zooms these days.

I'm an amateur (and it shows). I have just three lenses, two zooms from 2.8 to 600mm, an an (equivalent) 50mm 1.4 prime. It's the lens I favour for most types of images, and use it >50% of the time for stills. It is my only extravagance at £450, but a bargain for what it produces. The two zooms go from 2.8 to 600mm. It's enough for what I need. The quality drop is noticeable from the prime, but I end up cropping the prime images half the time, so on prints, even up to A3ish, there's little difference.

[bcr5784]

gangzoom said:

Your not seriously suggesting a 24-600mm zoom lens on a compact camera can come close the 'quality' of shots you can get with a Canon 1D body and Canon 400mm F2.8 L lens are you, oh just the thought of chronic aberration alone makes the whole thing a none starter

Seriously surely its laughable you can even begin to compare the two for any kind of serious wildlife photography??

Edited by gangzoom on Monday 12th June 14:52

Course I'm not but the lens you are talking about ALONE costs over £10000 (yes that is 4 noughts). Only professionals with deep pockets will be using that lens. Even then its size and weight would not make it my choice for taking BIF. It can be hand held - but I wouldn't want to.

What I am saying is that an RX10 iv (or lots of interchangeable lens cameras) are in a different league from ANY smartphone in terms of bird photography WITHOUT being unduly restricted in terms of zoom range for everyday casual photographs.

The original question was whether it was worth having a compact camera over a phone - the simple answer is yes if you are at all serious about your photography. The RX100 is perhaps a better starting point (if you don't want to take birds) which has all the UI and feature advantages over smartphones without being at all heavy or cumbersome.

Edited by bcr5784 on Monday 12th June 15:48