Are these small compact cameras better than my phone?
Discussion
Looking at small compacts that can easily fit in a jacket pocket.
Just wondering if these will provide image quality better than my Samsung Galaxy phone?
Mostly used for street photography, and outdoor car shows.
https://www.dealmonday.co.uk/canon-ixus-285-hs-ixy...
https://www.argos.co.uk/product/4564384
Any other suggestions, under £500 and new.
Just wondering if these will provide image quality better than my Samsung Galaxy phone?
Mostly used for street photography, and outdoor car shows.
https://www.dealmonday.co.uk/canon-ixus-285-hs-ixy...
https://www.argos.co.uk/product/4564384
Any other suggestions, under £500 and new.
Dinoboy said:
Looking at small compacts that can easily fit in a jacket pocket.
Just wondering if these will provide image quality better than my Samsung Galaxy phone?
Mostly used for street photography, and outdoor car shows.
https://www.dealmonday.co.uk/canon-ixus-285-hs-ixy...
https://www.argos.co.uk/product/4564384
Any other suggestions, under £500 and new.
Which Samsung do you have?Just wondering if these will provide image quality better than my Samsung Galaxy phone?
Mostly used for street photography, and outdoor car shows.
https://www.dealmonday.co.uk/canon-ixus-285-hs-ixy...
https://www.argos.co.uk/product/4564384
Any other suggestions, under £500 and new.
Do the cameras have a 1inch sensor?
I went through the same thought process recently. I had been using a LUMIX TZ100 which has a 1 inch sensor but at 6 years old was having a few glitches (zoom lever sticking for example)
Since my old phone was also 5 years old I decided to that a Samsung S 25 would do the job of both.
On a recent holiday I think that for most of the time the phone is just as good for my use although at longer zoom lengths, the bigger sensor allows a clearer digital zoom.
I've had an old 12mp TZ25, bought new 12 years ago. I also have a Pixel 8 pro, supposedly 50mp.
The images are more or less identical. There's little difference in quality, although the mobile's images look a wee bit artificial at times.
Where the mobile scores is in availability. I always carry it. However, I keep the TZ in my car and it's pocketable, and light. The images are easily posted on social media (whatever that is). However, some of the modern compacts can connect to a mobile my wifi, negating that advantage a little.
The TZ is significantly more handy, easier to control, has more functions, which are easy to access. For something like street photography, the TZ scores. For touristy things, again the TZ scores. The zoom is better and functions easier. It's quick to use as well. If a good shot appears, I can take with my TZ and return it to my pocket quicker than either of my iPhone using daughters.
One aspect, which is easily ignored, is that my TZ is 12 years old - and currently used by a granddaughter - and the images are equivalent to my 2-year-old mobile. Compared to the camera phones back when I bought it, it was the business. Also, I replaced the mobile I was using at the time, and that replacement was replaced by my Pixel 8. All costing a fair bit. I haven't bothered to work out how much I could have saved just by buying a phone phone.
I prefer using my TZ. With my granddaughter now in possession of my TZ I'm seriously considering buying a replacement.
The images are more or less identical. There's little difference in quality, although the mobile's images look a wee bit artificial at times.
Where the mobile scores is in availability. I always carry it. However, I keep the TZ in my car and it's pocketable, and light. The images are easily posted on social media (whatever that is). However, some of the modern compacts can connect to a mobile my wifi, negating that advantage a little.
The TZ is significantly more handy, easier to control, has more functions, which are easy to access. For something like street photography, the TZ scores. For touristy things, again the TZ scores. The zoom is better and functions easier. It's quick to use as well. If a good shot appears, I can take with my TZ and return it to my pocket quicker than either of my iPhone using daughters.
One aspect, which is easily ignored, is that my TZ is 12 years old - and currently used by a granddaughter - and the images are equivalent to my 2-year-old mobile. Compared to the camera phones back when I bought it, it was the business. Also, I replaced the mobile I was using at the time, and that replacement was replaced by my Pixel 8. All costing a fair bit. I haven't bothered to work out how much I could have saved just by buying a phone phone.
I prefer using my TZ. With my granddaughter now in possession of my TZ I'm seriously considering buying a replacement.
ExBoringVolvoDriver said:
I went through the same thought process recently. I had been using a LUMIX TZ100 which has a 1 inch sensor but at 6 years old was having a few glitches (zoom lever sticking for example)
I also have the TZ100 but on our recent US road trip I didn't get it out of the bag once and just used my iPhone 16 Pro. I tried project indigo and it solved most of my issues with the Apple processing making photos look like mosaics although if I was going to crop in and print out I think I'd still use the Lumix.The main advantage, for me, as a "snapper" rather than serious photographer, is my TZ100 provides better photos because the lens is bigger so you get less fisheye effect. It is also better in low light as it has a "1 inch" sensor though this limits the zoom to 10x. I have a Canon with 40x zoom but the video is obviously worse than the TZ.
I don't tend to keep my photos on my phone but rather transfer them to my computer.
That said, the phone has to be carried anyway so for most tasks, gets the nod (OnePlus 12).
I don't tend to keep my photos on my phone but rather transfer them to my computer.
That said, the phone has to be carried anyway so for most tasks, gets the nod (OnePlus 12).
LuS1fer said:
The main advantage, for me, as a "snapper" rather than serious photographer, is my TZ100 provides better photos because the lens is bigger so you get less fisheye effect. It is also better in low light as it has a "1 inch" sensor though this limits the zoom to 10x. I have a Canon with 40x zoom but the video is obviously worse than the TZ.
I don't tend to keep my photos on my phone but rather transfer them to my computer.
That said, the phone has to be carried anyway so for most tasks, gets the nod (OnePlus 12).
Like you say, it really depends on what you do with th results. If they stay on your phone or on a laptop at the native resolution of the phone's camera then a camera with a larger sensor won't show a major advantage. However if you use digital zoom on your phone or crop your pictures heavily, then the camera's advantage increasingly shows. There's really no comparison when you start pixel peeping. I don't tend to keep my photos on my phone but rather transfer them to my computer.
That said, the phone has to be carried anyway so for most tasks, gets the nod (OnePlus 12).
I have a oneplus Fold and a Google Pixel (both with well-regarded cameras) and I would put the resolution advantage of my Rx100 vii at about 3:1 over either. True the Rx100vii is a £1000+ phone so it culd be argued that it isn't a fair comparison. However the Rx100 iii is still available new and only just outside the OP's budget - and I'm sure the same advantage would apply.
Although I have seen phones used with tripods, it does seem to defeat the size advantage a phone has.
The other advantage cameras have is control over the settings - which phones often take away from you. That said Oneplus and (I'm told) Sony phones do give users quite a lot of freedom in choice of aperture, shutter speed, Iso and the like.
I find once people learn how to actually use the phone camera and how to take a decent photo, the photo quality is decent.
My mate for example insists every year on upgrading to the latest Samsung pro phone, and then stands there taking photos point and snap and then wonders why they all look s
t.
My mate for example insists every year on upgrading to the latest Samsung pro phone, and then stands there taking photos point and snap and then wonders why they all look s
t. the-norseman said:
I find once people learn how to actually use the phone camera and how to take a decent photo, the photo quality is decent.
My mate for example insists every year on upgrading to the latest Samsung pro phone, and then stands there taking photos point and snap and then wonders why they all look st.
I think there's a lot in this.My mate for example insists every year on upgrading to the latest Samsung pro phone, and then stands there taking photos point and snap and then wonders why they all look s
t. I got an iPhone 17 Pro a few weeks back and watched some of the camera reviews and videos.
The camera is stunning.
The way a fool like me uses it is the issue.
I find that photos from phone cameras generally look good on a phone screen, but fall apart when you view them on a larger screen and start noticing the details.
I've noticed a consistent pattern that I see a photo on a platform like Flickr and think it looks good from the small preview, open it for a better look and... ugh. Blotchy smudged details, gritty over-sharpening, haloed edges, unnatural colours, often either crushed shadows or HDR flattened dynamic range, etc... let me guess its from a phone, check the camera info and sure enough.
If you're just using the photos for viewing/sharing on phones and social media then a phone camera might be 'good enough' and not an issue for you at all, horses for courses. Newer (especially higher end) phone cameras are much better than old ones were, enough so to be having this discussion.
But if you want something more from your photos then chances are you'll be perpetually disappointed with phone cameras and better off using a dedicated camera for the photos that matter.
I've noticed a consistent pattern that I see a photo on a platform like Flickr and think it looks good from the small preview, open it for a better look and... ugh. Blotchy smudged details, gritty over-sharpening, haloed edges, unnatural colours, often either crushed shadows or HDR flattened dynamic range, etc... let me guess its from a phone, check the camera info and sure enough.
If you're just using the photos for viewing/sharing on phones and social media then a phone camera might be 'good enough' and not an issue for you at all, horses for courses. Newer (especially higher end) phone cameras are much better than old ones were, enough so to be having this discussion.
But if you want something more from your photos then chances are you'll be perpetually disappointed with phone cameras and better off using a dedicated camera for the photos that matter.
Edited by GravelBen on Friday 31st October 21:03
I went to a talk by Jet Black Square mobile photography. I enjoyed it. It was interesting.
The images were generally of high quality, although no better than I could get from an ancient TZ25. And with less faffing about. The presenter produced the add-on lenses she used: wide angle and telephoto. Yeah, great. But they clipped on, so I wondered about quality. We were told that certain images could not have been taken by a DSLR, by which I assumed she included mirrorless. But not only could they, but the one where she first stated it, I had an identical one I'd taken with my Panasonic G9. And it was of higher technical quality. So a bit weird.
I came away with the idea that a mobile is great if it is all you have with you.
Her images were, if memory serves, 50mp. My TZ, 12mp. But the quality of mine was, if anything, better (in my opinion). My TZ is a dozen years old (and still going strong). A modern compact would, I assume, give better images. The presenter had the then current iPhone, 16, costing over £1000 with the memory. My TZ cost the equivalent, back in the day. Will her phone last as long? I keep my mobiles for five years at least, and am much derided for doing so by my kids, two of whom use iPhones. That makes a compact cheaper I think. It is certainly handier, better to hold, has a superior UI, and can catch a shot much quicker.
Whatever floats your boat. A compact suits me. My Pixel 8 Pro I carry with me for when it is convenient.
The images were generally of high quality, although no better than I could get from an ancient TZ25. And with less faffing about. The presenter produced the add-on lenses she used: wide angle and telephoto. Yeah, great. But they clipped on, so I wondered about quality. We were told that certain images could not have been taken by a DSLR, by which I assumed she included mirrorless. But not only could they, but the one where she first stated it, I had an identical one I'd taken with my Panasonic G9. And it was of higher technical quality. So a bit weird.
I came away with the idea that a mobile is great if it is all you have with you.
Her images were, if memory serves, 50mp. My TZ, 12mp. But the quality of mine was, if anything, better (in my opinion). My TZ is a dozen years old (and still going strong). A modern compact would, I assume, give better images. The presenter had the then current iPhone, 16, costing over £1000 with the memory. My TZ cost the equivalent, back in the day. Will her phone last as long? I keep my mobiles for five years at least, and am much derided for doing so by my kids, two of whom use iPhones. That makes a compact cheaper I think. It is certainly handier, better to hold, has a superior UI, and can catch a shot much quicker.
Whatever floats your boat. A compact suits me. My Pixel 8 Pro I carry with me for when it is convenient.
butchstewie said:
the-norseman said:
I find once people learn how to actually use the phone camera and how to take a decent photo, the photo quality is decent.
My mate for example insists every year on upgrading to the latest Samsung pro phone, and then stands there taking photos point and snap and then wonders why they all look st.
I think there's a lot in this.My mate for example insists every year on upgrading to the latest Samsung pro phone, and then stands there taking photos point and snap and then wonders why they all look s
t. I got an iPhone 17 Pro a few weeks back and watched some of the camera reviews and videos.
The camera is stunning.
The way a fool like me uses it is the issue.
I've seen excellent photos taken with terrible phone cameras, and terrible photos taken with very expensive cameras. The skill in taking any photograph is in understanding the light and the subject, and knowing how to make the best technical use of the equipment you have to capture the scene before you. High end phone cameras are capable of even better results if used thoughtfully and if proper use is made of the myriad controls and apps available. Many people do not read the manual or explore those settings before just pressing the shutter button.
tog said:
This, this, this.
I've seen excellent photos taken with terrible phone cameras, and terrible photos taken with very expensive cameras. The skill in taking any photograph is in understanding the light and the subject, and knowing how to make the best technical use of the equipment you have to capture the scene before you. High end phone cameras are capable of even better results if used thoughtfully and if proper use is made of the myriad controls and apps available. Many people do not read the manual or explore those settings before just pressing the shutter button.
This was one of the videos that did it for me.I've seen excellent photos taken with terrible phone cameras, and terrible photos taken with very expensive cameras. The skill in taking any photograph is in understanding the light and the subject, and knowing how to make the best technical use of the equipment you have to capture the scene before you. High end phone cameras are capable of even better results if used thoughtfully and if proper use is made of the myriad controls and apps available. Many people do not read the manual or explore those settings before just pressing the shutter button.
I think some of it is in the post processing too but presumably that applies to a dedicated digital camera too.
Incidentally random question but does anyone struggle psychologically with the whole 'it's digital just delete what you don't want' thing?
This is going to sound absolutely mad but for some reason I think subconsciously I'm almost counting up to 36 sometimes because I grew up with film.
butchstewie said:
This was one of the videos that did it for me.
I think some of it is in the post processing too but presumably that applies to a dedicated digital camera too.
Incidentally random question but does anyone struggle psychologically with the whole 'it's digital just delete what you don't want' thing?
This is going to sound absolutely mad but for some reason I think subconsciously I'm almost counting up to 36 sometimes because I grew up with film.
I grew up with 120 film in a twin lens reflex. I still think in 12s. Every image has to be spot on technically. It's only been in the last few years that bracketing has seemed excusable. I find it difficult to accept that taking a dozen images isn't a sign of the amateur.I think some of it is in the post processing too but presumably that applies to a dedicated digital camera too.
Incidentally random question but does anyone struggle psychologically with the whole 'it's digital just delete what you don't want' thing?
This is going to sound absolutely mad but for some reason I think subconsciously I'm almost counting up to 36 sometimes because I grew up with film.
tog said:
I've seen excellent photos taken with terrible phone cameras, and terrible photos taken with very expensive cameras. The skill in taking any photograph is in understanding the light and the subject, and knowing how to make the best technical use of the equipment you have to capture the scene before you. High end phone cameras are capable of even better results if used thoughtfully and if proper use is made of the myriad controls and apps available. Many people do not read the manual or explore those settings before just pressing the shutter button.
I wouldn't disagree that the photographer is more important than the camera.I think a problem with a lot of phones is that they DON'T have even basic controls like Aperture, Shutter Speed and ISO. My Google Pixel is deficient in that respect - even thought the camera itself is well regarded. In addition, although phones can often save RAW files, software to process the filles is thin on the ground. You can do a lot more with a RAW file than you can with a jpeg.
GravelBen said:
I find that photos from phone cameras generally look good on a phone screen, but fall apart when you view them on a larger screen and start noticing the details.
I've noticed a consistent pattern that I see a photo on a platform like Flickr and think it looks good from the small preview, open it for a better look and... ugh. Blotchy smudged details, gritty over-sharpening, haloed edges, unnatural colours, often either crushed shadows or HDR flattened dynamic range, etc... let me guess its from a phone, check the camera info and sure enough.
If you're just using the photos for viewing/sharing on phones and social media then a phone camera might be 'good enough' and not an issue for you at all, horses for courses. Newer (especially higher end) phone cameras are much better than old ones were, enough so to be having this discussion.
But if you want something more from your photos then chances are you'll be perpetually disappointed with phone cameras and better off using a dedicated camera for the photos that matter.
This.I've noticed a consistent pattern that I see a photo on a platform like Flickr and think it looks good from the small preview, open it for a better look and... ugh. Blotchy smudged details, gritty over-sharpening, haloed edges, unnatural colours, often either crushed shadows or HDR flattened dynamic range, etc... let me guess its from a phone, check the camera info and sure enough.
If you're just using the photos for viewing/sharing on phones and social media then a phone camera might be 'good enough' and not an issue for you at all, horses for courses. Newer (especially higher end) phone cameras are much better than old ones were, enough so to be having this discussion.
But if you want something more from your photos then chances are you'll be perpetually disappointed with phone cameras and better off using a dedicated camera for the photos that matter.
Edited by GravelBen on Friday 31st October 21:03
My MiL and her husband are both very successful artists with much of their work being photography based, neither have compact cameras and use iPhones for their day to day shots. Obviously they have all sorts of kit for stuff that’ll end up in a book or blown up to a huge print on a gallery wall but for the normal stuff they appear more than happy with what they get off their phones.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff