knight rider

iTrader: (1)

I'm looking into possibly getting a pocket-sized camera. My intuition tells me that, even at the same resolution than my Galaxy S6's camera (16mp) that a P&S is better because the lens is larger and because of optical zoom. Is that true or would a P&S camera purchase be a waste of money? I'm no photo buff and 90% of the time a camera phone picture is perfectly acceptable for me. I'm trying to get that other 10% of the time where it is not (ie: less than ideal lighting, moving objects, shots from a distance). Again, doesn't have to be perfect but better than a cell phone camera.

Thoughts?
kr

TacoBello

I think they are better. They will likely pack features your cellphone camera does not have. You can also look for additional features, such as waterproof, shock proof, etc. Low light photos will likely be much better than your cellphone also.

I have a galaxy S6 myself, and while it can take nice photos, it still doesn't stack up to the $200 P&S Sony sport camera I bought like 4 years ago The S6 takes grainy as fuck low light photos. A P&S will definitely be better.

Cameras can pack some cool tech, even if they are just a P&S.

TacoBello

Oh, and their video capabilities will far exceed your S6 also.

doopstr

The look on peoples faces when they see you whip out a point and shoot camera will be priceless.

knight rider

iTrader: (1)

I bet. It'll probably make me look 10 years older too.

Mizouse

yes, imo P&S cameras are better, but people are willing to sacrifice image quality for the convenience of a smartphone.

im half tempted to pick up something like the Sony RX100 series, or Fuji X70 (or its replacement) as something I could carry around at all times, because honestly low light photos on all smartphones are IMO shit unless you're viewing them on the Instagram/Mobile.

jupitersolo

Try and find a used Fuji X30, so much better than a mobile phone.

Sarlacc

X70...even better.

That said, it depends on the camera...and the phone...and the conditions. Phones have become very powerful, but you have to know the limitations they have to make the most of them.

jupitersolo

I look at X70 as an advanced camera, X30 as what a P&S has been in the past, can’t remember range, but it’s a zoom lens.

brian2

wouldn't spend the money on a high end P&S when you can get a rebel or something like that for the same price

thoiboi

Rebels are so bulky and not built well though In his OP, he always wanted a pocketable camera, guess he's going to need bigger pockets

brian2

I just figured for 10% of the time, you don't need something that will go in the pocket. Love my SL1.... want to trade it in for the SL2.

Mizouse

is that a camera in your pocket...

thoiboi

glad you caught my thinly veiled joke

Mizouse

im also contemplating the SL2. Mainly for video. they're small, can use my existing canon glass natively, tilty flippy touch screen and dual pixel AF with continuous AF while recording. Sure no 4K, but I don't got the space and I don't think my 2012 i7 Mac Mini could handle it.

brian2

yeah... I want to trade because of the flippy screen and wifi

SamDoe1

Depends on the phone and the P&S. If you're talking a Sony RX series camera, it's definitely better than my Pixel 2XL. If you're talking some low end camera, my Pixel is probably a lot better. Same goes for a lower end phone. The Samsung S6 is pretty old at this point (relatively at least) so it won't be the pinnacle of phone camera technology.

That said, at this point I wouldn't buy a P&S with the phone I have now. If I want better quality, I'll go straight for the A7II.

Mizouse

Yea, low end P&S aren't worth it.

Most low end p&s cameras have a 1/2.5ish inch sensor. The pixel XL 2 has that same size.

Only time it would be better is if you need to zoom since almost all smartphones have a fixed lens and resort to digital zoom.

at the minimum if I were to carry around a P&S it would have to have a 1" sensor like the Sony RX series.

ChodTheWacko

Low end point and shoots? Probably not, which is why they are a dying breed.
I got my wife a Canon G5X a bit ago to suppliment her iphone and it's quite stunning. It's a bit bulky but it checks all the boxes and she always carries her stuff in a godzilla purse.

So the big advantages over an a regular smartphone
1) Low light photos. Completely destroys the iphone.
2) Optical zoom. I actually use her camera for the high zoom shots so I don't have to lug my monster zoom around.
3) Just plain ergonomics. One of the reasons for the g5 was for the viewfinder on bright sunny days.
And call me old school, but there's something quite nice about having a nice GRIP on the camera and still being able to shoot one handed.
4) Tilting LCD for odd angled shots.
5) Better flash, especially for selfie shots. (although more cameras have front flash)

As far as whether it's worth it - as with all upgrades, it's a matter of how many shots are you missing, and how much it's worth to you to get those shots (and/or with better quality).
And if you shoot a lot, ergonomics is a bigger factor. Something that annoys the hell out of you is tolerable once a day, and completely infuriating if you deal with it dozens of times a day.

knight rider

iTrader: (1)

All good point ChodTheWacko. I shoot a lot. Probably enough to where I should invest in a new "real" camera. I just hate lugging one around. My last (an existing) camera is a Canon PowerShot S3IS, which I no longer use. A whole 6 megapixels but it has a 12x zoom. That reminds me that I learned a lot of cool tricks on that camera over the years, but I still suck a photography so no need in getting a $500-$800 camera that I don't know exactly how to use.

sixsixfour

+1 on the low light. I love to shoot handheld. heck when my daughter was born I had an SL1 with a 17-55 2.8 with me in the operating room. thats my least bulkiest camera. not including the lens of course.

Sarlacc

I had my (at the time) D3 with a 24-70 on it...all the nurses were like WTF?

sixsixfour

yeah, the look on their faces was priceless. the SL1 is the smallest DSLR i have. I've scaled back over the years, my heaviest right now is just a 7D MkII. that would have been akward with the 17-55 in the hospital.

SamDoe1

Low light performance from Pixel 2 XL. Handheld (obv) and taken well after dark in a not really well lit street. No modifications, straight from camera.

sixsixfour

impressive for a camera phone but I can shoot handheld everyday if it were at 4mm wide, 1/20th at F/1.8 on ISO800


for reference, the shot below was taken at 28mm, 1/5th at F2.8 on ISO800. it's essentially half the light your phone let in, at a much slower shutter speed at a longer focal length.

SamDoe1

Sure, go for it.

At the end of the day, this camera is in my pocket and gives excellent results. Is it as good as my A7II with Zeiss Batis lens mounted on tripod at ISO100? Absolutely not but for whipping it out and hitting the shutter button, I'm perfectly content.

FWIW, the Pixel 2 camera is a ~28mm equiv f/1.8 lens.

ChodTheWacko

I like to simplify it like this:
If you imagine a 'map' of all the pictures that can be taken, Every camera has a range of pictures that it can take. There are some pictures it can take well and easily, and as you get farther away from the 'comfort zone', you have pictures you can take well with difficulty, then perhaps pictures that don't look great but are passible, and eventually it drifts off to pictures that you basically can't take at all.

Between two cameras, there is going to be some overlap. Static medium range shot on a bright sunny day? These days any camera can do that.
If your current camera can take pictures you are content with, with a reasonable amount of work, then upgrading gear is unlikely to improve anything.

As a photo enthusiast, it's when you get into the grey edge areas that upgrades get appealing, (and start becoming worth the money you pay for them).
I.e. the missed photos, or photos whose quality you are unhappy with.

SamDoe1

I think we are saying the same thing... You're absolutely right that all cameras have a range and I'd never suggest that a phone camera is better than a high end body with a high end lens. There's a reason those are as expensive as they are. When it comes to low-mid range point and shoots though...a phone camera, especially the new ones from Apple and Google, make a VERY compelling argument that they aren't needed anymore. You'd have to get up to the Sony RX4 and maybe Canon G series models before you notice a decent improvement in image quality over the iPhone X and Pixel 2.