A compact camera? What for?

[cguaimare]

Hi friends! Short ago I ask for a good compact camera. I got several advices like: Ricoh GR,Canon G15, X100s... But I read an article of

Ken Rockwell about iPhone 5. And the quality of the pictures it takes. My question is: is the quality of the pictures of these telephones so

good as to throw these cameras asíde? Thanks a lot for your answers

[andylynn]

To me, no. I understand where KR is coming from, but my X100 has optical finder, real shutter button, manual controls,

raw files, etc. and my iPhone 5 - which is really quite good in a pinch, I'll admit - does not.

[hjoseph7]

<p>Some of the iPhones take great pictures even in dim light, but they are not as flexible as a compact camera with a zoom lens. They are pretty good for snap-shots, close-ups and selfies but that's about it. </p>

[jean_yves_mead]

<p>And <a href="

shoots</a>, given the right conditions.</p><p>Camera phones are good and still getting better, but a good compact will give you faster handling, the full range of physical controls you

need, and a much greater chance of getting the photo you want when the conditions are against you.</p>

[cguaimare]

Interesting answers. Thanks a lot friends

[JDMvW]

<p>The iPhone 5 is really very good, as I discovered after buying a Canon Powershot just before I got the phone.</p>

<p>The main advantage of the iPhone is that it's more often "there", however. ("f/8 and be there")</p>

<p>Much depends on what you want and need.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>Don't you have an IPhone 5? If you do find out for yourself if it's good enough. You can also borrow one for a little while as many people do have them or try it out at the store. For me I simply don't know how to use it. </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>My question is: is the quality of the pictures of these telephones so good as to throw these cameras asíde?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No way.</p>

<p>And, for the record, KR is a known crackpot around here. Even he admits that half of what he says is BS.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>For those of us who don't want the telephone component of an iphone, I would have thought a camera would make a better camera.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>It's mostly a reflex/response time advantage to a good P&S camera. Subject to change with the next generation of smart phone cameras, which are getting better all the time. Some of the better smart phone cams have equalled P&S digicams in IQ. The main advantages to good dedicated teensy sensor P&S digicams are response time, ergonomics and optical zoom range.</p>

<p>This weekend I caught up with some cousins whom I hadn't seen in a year, including visiting some new babies added to the clan since last we met. Lots of opportunities for happy snaps. Most of my cousins have switched to current model Samsung Galaxies, which have excellent IQ. But my candid snaps with a Ricoh P&S digicam were generally closer to peak action. In part this is due to superior ergonomics too - a standard smart phone generally demands a two-hand hold for best photo results, unless a physical button along one edge can double as a shutter release. Tapping the screen one-handed to activate the shutter tends to increase wobble-blur, although someone with steadier hands might do well enough. A P&S digicam with good ergonomics can easily be snapped one-handed, either in landscape/horizontal or portrait/vertical orientation, including using the thumb on the shutter release button.</p>

<p>And I wasn't particularly happy with many of my snaps. The Ricoh and Fuji X-A1 I toted this visit weren't nearly as responsive as my Nikon V1, which has ultra-quick AF, shutter response and very good face recognition. Next time I'll tote the V1 instead.</p>

[jay a. frew]

<p>I don't have a cell phone or a smart phone. However, my two adult children (mid-thirties) and their spouses keep the latest & greatest smartphones in their pockets.</p>

<p>All I can say about smartphone cameras is that I am quite sure my kids will realize, when it is too late, that nearly all the memories of their children growing up, which they documented with their phones, are out of focus, badly exposed, poorly composed and nearly useless to look at.</p>

<p>I have first-hand experience with this type of disappointment. When we were raising a young family, my wife and I had a Kodak Disc camera for a couple of years. VERY FEW of those images made useful prints. So, we lost a couple of years of photo memories that we surely miss now.</p>

<p>Forget the phone cams. Get a camera.<br>

Cheers! Jay</p>

[phule]

<p>Why buy a bike when you can walk? Why buy a car when you can bike? <br>

For some an iPhone is fine. For others it's not. </p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Ken Rockwell is a bit a nutcase who likes to polarise opinions for no apparent reason. As in this specific case; in fact he *could* be right. And wrong. It just depends a lot.<br>

Your previous question was on high-end compacts. All those mentioned are better than any smartphone. But drop a bit in price, and things do get muddy. First of all, the iPhone 5 is not the benchmark in phone cameras; there are better specimens, but by all means all iPhones since the 4S have very respectable cameras. As do recent high-end Samsungs, several Sony Experia models and Nokia Lumia phones. Look at sample images from a Lumia 1020, and next check how much you'll need to spend on a compact to get similar quality - the phone is actually amazing cheap.<br>

There are things you sacrifice on a smartphone: the flash output is weak, there is no zoom. If those two things do not matter, than the high-end phones deliver as decent image quality as low-end compact cameras (those that cost between US$ 80 and 160). On the upside: you only carry one device, it has imaged editing, social media sharing etc. It really depends on your needs. My Lumia 920 renders my cheap compact (some Panasonic budget thing) completely useless, as it delivers better photos, focusses faster and amazingly works better in low light - all in a device I take with me anyway. For the kind of casual not-too-serious use, pretty much perfect.</p>

<p>There is still a lot of snobbery against smartphones, and also this thread show more naysayers than yes-sayers. I wonder how many actually gave their phone a serious try as a camera, and/or have a recent decent smartphone. They did come a long way, and they keep innovating fast (and a lot faster than compacts). Cameras as the Powershot G or Fuji X100s are still well ahead, though. But the market for compacts is eroding fast, and that's not only because all people have a low quality standard.<br>

Give your phone a try, see how you like it.</p>

[john_tran14]

<p>The way I see (around me here) the iphone 5 is a lot more expensive than my Canon G1X (mark I) so use the iphone5 as a camera is not an option for me. Besides, I think every thing the iphone can do, I replaced that ability by something else already.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

And there's no monthly charge on compact camera.

[vrankin]

<p>Whenever I'm in tourist areas here in the U.S., I mostly see smartphones and small tablets coming out for travel/vacation shooting. On our local and state PSA camera club outings, it's mostly DSLR and a few ILC. Everyone in our family but me has switched to iPhones. My new Nikon D3300 kit is on delivery today, or tomorrow. That's where my money goes.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>For years I carried a P&S on my belt and took vacation pictures as well as pictures on the fly. When I got a smart phone with a camera, I stopped carrying the P&S. So for flying around shots, I now use my cellphone. However, when I go on vacation or to an event like a family get together where I'm taking pictures, I'll take my P&S. It's just easier to focus, see the screen, get better pictures, telephoto, etc. But you can get decent pictures on the fly with a cell phone and it has some interesting creative edits you can play with in camera. Here are a few I took with a Samsun Galaxy S4; two that has camera creative edits.</p>

<p>https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/tags/galaxy/</p>

[frode]

<p>I have a Panasonic compact that is watertight. The pictures are about the same quality as phone pictures, but my phone cannot be submerged into water.</p>

<p>I also have a Ricoh Caplio GX 200. It bought that specific camera since it has RAW. I haven't yet seen any phone camera with RAW.</p>

<p>I would like to have a watertight mobile phone with a camera featuring full manual controls (as well as automatic modes), RAW and at least a 4/3 size sensor. I do want it to have an EVF also, but that is maybe to much to ask? ;-)</p>

<p>Best wishes,</p>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Frode<br /><br />It's not in a phone... but the Nikon AW1 features what you want in a camera. Waterproof to a certain extent with two lenses that are available now and more, presumably, to come later.</p>

<p>http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Nikon1/27669/Nikon-1-AW1.html</p>

<p>that said, to get that in a phone with EVF? I doubt you'll ever see anything close to that.</p>

[frode]

<p>And how do I phone home with the AW1 from under water? 8-D</p>

<p>Kidding aside: I have actually been looking a lot at the AW1. However, I don't think I can justify buying one now while my Panasonic FT4 still feels almost brand new.<br>

Still feels strange that you cannot get an EVF for a phone while you can get a fishfinder for it. And I wouldn't doubt a second if someone told me that I could get an iPhone with a built in fishing rod or even a refrigerator. But EVF? No, no, no. Not in a camera phone. No.</p>

<p>;-)</p>

<p> </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p> I haven't yet seen any phone camera with RAW.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, they do exist: Nokia Lumia 1020, 1520 and 930 - they create DNG files. It is rumored to be part of a next version of Android as well.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Last night I compared photo quality and shooting experiences with a neighbor while sitting outside on a very dimly lighted patio, around EV 3 or 4. Her Samsung Galaxy takes great looking photos. At high ISOs they're slightly noisier than the Ricoh GRD4, but there may be some way to tweak noise reduction in her camera phone.</p>

<p>The camera phones also have access to terrific editing apps, far beyond anything in most P&S digicams. And it's great being able to quickly share photos without having to run them through a computer. I'm usually hours or days behind other folks in sharing pix from the same family gatherings, because I'm using a "real" camera, while they're enjoying the immediacy of a smart phone cam.</p>

<p>Again, as I said before, the only significant differences were in the ergonomics and speed. The little Ricoh can autofocus quickly in very dim lighting, where the camera phone struggled. And the overall reflexes of the camera are better suited to spontaneous, candid, unposed snaps. The camera phones demand a more deliberate approach from both the photographer and subjects.</p>

<p>But in terms of image quality, for most folks in most situations, good quality cameras in smart phones have made teensy sensor P&S digicams redundant.</p>

[frode]

<blockquote>

<p>Nokia Lumia 1020, 1520 and 930 - they create DNG files. It is rumored to be part of a next version of Android as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My brain is getting to old. How can I overclock it? And were do I insert the 1 TB SSD with fresh new software?<br /> It was much easier back in the 70's/80's. When someone talked about the new telephone to put in your pocket with a camera and a global network in it you would laugh at them, telling them they had seen to many James Bond films. Nowadays you have to get up and get one yourself.</p>