New compact camera or phone - which one?

[Didge]

Hi guys, I've been looking extensively at the various compact cameras for around $1200 and under and had pretty well settled on the Sony DSC RX100 mark 3 or maybe mark 4. A couple of reviews and the camera shop guy said the m4 wasn't really worth the extra $400. I'd looked at the Panasonic Lumix LX100 and TZ110 but neither were as pocket friendly as the smaller Sony.
THEN, I saw a couple of youtube reviews comparing the Sony RX100 M4 to a couple of good phones - the Samsung Galaxy S7 & S7 edge vs LG G5 vs iphone 6s plus vs HTC something, etc, etc and the reviews seem to show the phones up as being as good as, or better than the dedicated camera.
So now I'm a bit confused.
Does anyone have any thoughts or experiences on what would be better for general photography - family happy snaps, some scenery, some travel/ 4wd video and shots, etc - the lenses and sensors seem to be that good that you don't really need super long zoom capabilities any more because you can post edit photos on your computer.
Thanks in advance for any advice
cheers Gerald

[lebanon]

The sensor size on a mobile phone could never be as large as the one on a camera.

[Didge]

yeah, they're not within a bull's roar of the size yet the video and images that show on youtube look as good or better - my concern is what they'd be like if I had a pic printed onto say A3 size - would the seemingly good phone image at that size be inferior to the phone? :)

[Homestar]

If you are blowing any pic up that size, a phone won't cut it. Phones take good happy snaps in decent light, but I am continually disappointed by the results my phone gives when I post them up here - go look at the last few pages of the 'show us your pics' thread - I come across some great subject matter, but at work only ever have my phone with me. They look ok on the phone screen, but even enlarged on an iPad, they look crap.

Do yourself a favour and get a camera, even my 8 year old point and shoot takes better pics than my brand new phone.

[Didge]

Thanks Homestar, I do tend to lean towards the small Sony RX100 as it has been touted as one of best ever pocketable compact cameras for around $1000 - and I already have a phone albeit a cheap one. BTW, what sort of phone do you have?

[Homestar]

My work phone is an iPhone 5S and some of the pics I've posted have been taken with this and some with SWMBO iPhone 6S they are both much of a muchness when you enlarge the pic.

[Didge]

Mmmh, thanks - that's interesting cos one of the phones being compared to the Sony camera was obviously the iphone 6 as well as the Galaxy, LG G5, HTC something and another one I can't recall. The iphone ranked very well but your feedback is valuable to my decision and greatly appreciated. I also think I feel more confident in what I'm framing when I have a camera as opposed to a phone.

[Rok_Dr]

I have the previous Sony RX100 M3 as my point and shoot and am pretty rapt with its performance. Yes my iPhone 5 camera is not bad but its not in the league of the Sony.

Cheers

Steve

[rar110]

The 6s plus is pretty good with a 12 mp camera, image stabilisation and live image (which could be a bit gimmicky). For a phone it does this stuff quite well.

Ultimately with a bridge camera I think it comes down to MP capacity and lens quality. It also depends how compact it needs to be and whether lens zoom is important. Wifi is another great feature of a modern bridge camera.

I still like the old canon G9, although a G10 would be good. A very good quality compact camera.

[Didge]

Thanks Steve and rar110. What's a bridge camera?? a backup to a DSLR?

[Disco-tastic]

Hey didge.

I bought a Panasonic lumix LF1. It is MILES ahead of my samsung galaxy S5 in terms of picture quality. Not only is the picture quality better, but the colour rendition is better.

From memory the LF1 has a 1/1.7 inch sensor and a f2.0 lens with 7x zoom

The sony RX100 is another league above. The full inch sensor and fast lens (f1.8?) Make it great for low light shots. Plus it'll fit in your tights pocket :p oh and it also shoots .RAW.

If you want to make calls get a phone - if you want to shoot pictures i would definitely get a dedicated camera.

In the sub $1000 bracket there are also great cameras like the olympus OMD10 its a bit bulkier but has an even larger sensor and produces some great photos.

Have fun shopping :)

Cheers

Dan

[Didge]

Thanks Dan, yours and the other guys answers have pretty much confirmed my initial feelings towards the Sony. The Lumix LX100 has a 4/3" sensor which is apparently 1.9 x larger but the way it is used means its only effectively 1.5 x larger than a 1" sensor. The zoom on the Sony is only 24 - 70mm (as is the LX100 or very close to it) but editing on the computer will help. Yes RAW is the way to go, my graphics designer sister tells me (and she also has an OMD10 that I can borrow at any time), so it looks like I'll be heading off to the "Digital camera warehouse" in Sydney tomorrow morning to spend a few bob. Now to decide between the RX100 IV or III - mmmmhhh!

[rar110]

Thanks Steve and rar110. What's a bridge camera?? a backup to a DSLR?

I think bridge camera is technically a camera between a DSLR and compact digital camera. I liked the old canon G series as the lens fully retracted making it very compact for such a full feature digital camera with a large light sensor.

[Disco-tastic]

Have fun choosing. :p

If you're like me tho, i rarely use RAW, though it is nice to have for when you get a good shot. I don't have time to fiddle with every photo I take.

One of the features i love about mine is wifi - i can transfer pics straight to my phone. Dont know if thats something you care about but i find it awesome. I can also control the camera remotely with it.

Enjoy it :)

Cheers


Dan

[StephenF10]

I bought a Sony RX100M2 two years ago for an overseas trip. The results from the 1? sensor are excellent. The flip-out viewfinder screen is useful for taking waist-level shots where you can rest the camera on a rail or ledge or even against your body for stability. I used it in the Paris Catacombs with available light and very few shots were ruined by motion blur. The only complaints I have are that the viewfinder screen is difficult to see in sunlight so framing shots can be a bit hit-and-miss, and the lens is not quite wide enough for interior shots (although the later models have fixed this).

It was amusing to see the range of photographic equipment used by tourists. There were those who probably spent a lot of money on their trip but were too cheap to buy even a compact camera and used their phones for everything, and those with big DSLRs and big lenses and big bags who were weighed down with equipment but whose pix were probably only marginally better than those from the little Sony in my belt pouch.

[biggin]

Hi Didge,
I'm making the exact same decision as you. Let us know how you go with the purchase.

[Didge]

Well, a big thanks to all of you for your valuable input. I bit the bullet and went with the Sony DSC RX 100 IV - from Digital camera warehouse in Sydney. Cost was $1188 + $24 screen protector +$70 2 year extended warranty + $116 superfast 64Gb sd card - (cant recall exact details but need it to shoot 4K video) so total was a smidge under $1400 which seems like a lot for such a small unit. Right next to it in the display case was a Sony SLR of some description that was the size of half a brick. $10 dearer and had the same size sensor. Showed the camera to a photography nut (he has a special rucksack designed just to carry his big Nikon and lenses) at work who was super impressed with my purchase and thought it was a very wise decision. Thanks again all -I'm now trying to learn how to use it properly - not much point having the electrickery and features if you set it on auto :)

[Bytemrk]

Didge, I'm a bit late to the party, but you will not regret buying the RX100.

I bought my son a version 3 just before he left for backpacking around Europe and the images he is producing are amazing.

Great camera...:thumbsup:

[Didge]

I downloaded the 44 page instruction manual - wow, got a bit to learn now :) Mark the young ones have no idea how hard it was when we had to get our pics processed and then found out they were mediocre or poor (that's just me being an old fart and thinking they've got it so easy) :)

[stewie110]

Hi guys, I've been looking extensively at the various compact cameras for around $1200 and under and had pretty well settled on the Sony DSC RX100 mark 3 or maybe mark 4. A couple of reviews and the camera shop guy said the m4 wasn't really worth the extra $400. I'd looked at the Panasonic Lumix LX100 and TZ110 but neither were as pocket friendly as the smaller Sony.
THEN, I saw a couple of youtube reviews comparing the Sony RX100 M4 to a couple of good phones - the Samsung Galaxy S7 & S7 edge vs LG G5 vs iphone 6s plus vs HTC something, etc, etc and the reviews seem to show the phones up as being as good as, or better than the dedicated camera.
So now I'm a bit confused.
Does anyone have any thoughts or experiences on what would be better for general photography - family happy snaps, some scenery, some travel/ 4wd video and shots, etc - the lenses and sensors seem to be that good that you don't really need super long zoom capabilities any more because you can post edit photos on your computer.
Thanks in advance for any advice
cheers Gerald
We had the same discussion a year ago. We ended up buying the compact camera (Sony rx 100 mk?) the phone still gets used but when we are away etc the quality of the Sony images outshines all the phones I have ever seen.

With that it mind it depends on what quality shots you have as your baseline.. If you don't care about quality (unlikely given this question) a phone will do.

The other point about a compact is that you can generally buy more storage in country towns. Which you can't with an iPhone. You also can't sync on sh$& internet. We have had to buy more storage on several trips because we took more photos than we expected

[stewie110]

Thanks Homestar, I do tend to lean towards the small Sony RX100 as it has been touted as one of best ever pocketable compact cameras for around $1000 - and I already have a phone albeit a cheap one. BTW, what sort of phone do you have?
Shop around we bought our rx100 for around 750 including a hard case and 64gb

[Didge]

Thanks Stewie but have already bitten the bullet and got the latest version - whether I wasted money getting the latest version seems to be a matter of debate and time will tell. I noticed on one youtube video that the Mark 4 has a lot of extra menu options over the Mark 3 - hoping to learn how to use them all.
What I have learned already is that this camera is more like a high end computer in a small box, with a good quality lens tacked on the front. I've just downloaded the timelapse app with an angle shift app that allows you to do the whole Ken Burns effect within the timelapse film - pretty cool stuff. Thanks again to all and sundry for your help and advice :)

[stewie110]

Thanks Stewie but have already bitten the bullet and got the latest version - whether I wasted money getting the latest version seems to be a matter of debate and time will tell. I noticed on one youtube video that the Mark 4 has a lot of extra menu options over the Mark 3 - hoping to learn how to use them all.
What I have learned already is that this camera is more like a high end computer in a small box, with a good quality lens tacked on the front. I've just downloaded the timelapse app with an angle shift app that allows you to do the whole Ken Burns effect within the timelapse film - pretty cool stuff. Thanks again to all and sundry for your help and advice :)
Those are cool features that I am sure I would use if I had them. I look forward to your images showing off the new tech..

[Disco-tastic]

Those are cool features that I am sure I would use if I had them. I look forward to your images showing off the new tech..

As they say around here didge...

It didnt happen without pics! :D

Cheers

Dan

[Didge]

They'll be coming - just did a timelapse sunset (sort of) late yesterday but it was a bit of a letdown. They're coming :)

[Didge]

As they say around here didge...

It didnt happen without pics! :D

Cheers

Dan

Well, here are a couple I've done whilst playing around with the new toy. Still experimenting :)

[Didge]

Little time lapse sunset :)

[emerald888]

For a camera phone, I'll suggest you to pick an iPhone 6s plus. We have that and I think any iPhone model has a good camera. (In my own opinion only)

[AK83]

top ranked phones in terms of quality of images and ability are:
= 1/. HTC 10 and Samsung Galaxy 7
= 2/. Samsung Galaxy 6(edge)Plus and Sony Z5
= 3/. LG G5, Galaxy Note V and Galaxy edge 6
= 4/. iPhone 6s, Google Nexus, Moto G plus, Moto Droid Turbo 2

if it were my money, I'd go with the S7 for it's more all rounded nature.
What it loses in terms of outright detail capture ability, it gains in terms of noise quality.
We can't always shoot in great light, so all things should be considered when deciding.

ps. I'd have advised to the OP to go with the Rx100IV too.

[Mercguy]

Going to upset the apple cart with this reponse perhaps...

Personally I would look at the issue from 2 angles.

1. Do I actually want a camera?
2. Do I want to lug 2 electronic devices around with me everywhere I go?

in response to #1: If you want a camera specifically (and I think this is a very tough decision in this area of electronic consumables) then I would not personally pursue a 'compact' camera. I would not necessarily say choose a humongous (sp?) DSLR either, or even a mirrorless / rangefinder either. This is a complicated question to answer, but as an experienced waster-of-copious-sums-on-cameras, I can offer some advice.

Don't buy a compact.

It will be obselete in 6 months. It will have a useable lifespan of about 3 years, if you don't ever drop it, and you keep it out of moisture / dust.
In 12 months, that (up to 1K) you just spent on the camera will depreciate to $0.00

Don't buy a phone based on it's camera specification.

This is an absolute truth. Software has a funny way of changing peoples perceptions, and if you adopt the manu mantra: i.e. " We have an App for That"
then you will be somewhat disappointed by any phone you choose.

So, here is my harsh, self-opinionated, overinflated, ego-driven diatribe...

Buy a phone that you can use as a phone. If it does some other things that you like, that's great. Don't expect any of them to have great optical quality.

That is not to say the camera on my iPhone 6s isn't great.... it's bloody fantastic for a point-and-shoot 'quick-response' solution.

But, I don't fap about on instagram, facebook or any of that mindless drivel hashtag bullsh**.

If you do, then a phone is for you. Don't forget to #nofilter, #selfie, #imaposer, #tourist, #idiotwithphonewhothinkshesaprotog

So here is where I'll get really opinionated.

If you're an apple-hater, go read something else now.

There is a lot to be said about packaging, usability, integration, functionality, stability and above all - security. Of your personal data, your possessions, everything.
Despite the nay-sayers, Apple has managed to produce a product which does most everything we 'want' (debateable) and package it into a neat little intuitive device called iphone.
it does it securely too. That is an issue for Android owners and windows phone owners to address on their own.

I've worked in IT for a couple of decades, and security is one of the areas I specialize in, and it is always at the forefront of my daily job.

I've learned to place only a small degree of trust in any electronic device that purports to be secure. Having said that, the degree of stability and security in iOS, is undeniably far better than any of the competitive offerings in that 'space'.

I would not make any other positive assertion in regards to any of the products, other than to say it is a simple and easy to use electronic device. But it is not for everyone.

the iPhone camera is a very intelligent piece of hardware, with excellent software behind it. But it can in no way match a larger sensor, and a well-made piece of glass.

The technical argument is called 'pixel density' and DSLR fans are all over it like a rash. There comes a point where the number of pixels within a predefined space reaches a limit. That limit is when the image quality starts to decline, despite the number of pixels in that defined area increasing.

Reality says, if you are posting pictures on the internet, for on-screen viewing, then the largest possible image you want is a "4K" , whether that be the 3840x2160 variety, or the full 4096 pixel variety, then you only need a camera which can output a file in jpeg format at that size.

That's not a big ask.

The problem comes when you have a fixed focal length, and cannot fill the frame with the object of your photograph - for example, birdwatching. (always a great leveller) Then you have to crop the image, so the object in the frame is of a reasonable size.
This process creates it's own problems, and for the purposes of this discussion only should simply mean that the resulting image, whatever the crop, still needs to be that maximum of 4K, for web-based viewing.

If you are printing, that is a completely different discussion, and one would argue beyond the price boundary of 'compact' market segment digital cameras... by that I mean, you're not going to go out and buy a camera for $600 and expect that it can print an entire billboard of your sunset in Uluru (far too common picture anyway).. No, you're going to need a $50K Phase One or Leaf to get enough to print that big.

So, what is a good figure to spend on a camera for web-based pictures?

Well.... size matters, as does price.

You could do far worse than purchase a Fuji x-pro2, a Canon G1Xmk2, Nikon 1V2, Leica C or D-lux, Panasonic GX8 series, Olympus OM-D or a Pentax/ricoh GR2.

Any of those cameras represent excellent image taking ability and quality, lots of functionality and all are arguably more-or-less equal in quality, should last you at least 5 years before they are completely obselete.

And this is why my argument for the phone wins....

it's a single device, that combines multiple tasks.
It is also a single point of failure. Can be an issue if travelling remotely.
You will on average, replace your phone every 3 years, regardless.
Digital cameras have a built-in obselescence of 2 years (roughly) before a new and improved version replaces the one you just dropped a bundle on.

Digital cameras have only one purpose - to capture images, you can't navigate with them, or call other people with them.

But they are better than a phone at taking pictures. Of that there is no question.

Would I buy a compact? I did. some years ago. It's still fantastic and better in my own opinion than my iphone 6.

I bought it when I had an iphone 3, and the difference was day and night. Now that I've had 3 phones since then, the difference is not tremendous. The iphone wins, because I can use the phones other functionality to make it more versatile when handling the photos - uploading them to icloud for instant family sharing, or saving to my online flickr album, etc ad infinitum.

fwiw, I have had my leica compact for 6 years and it's hardly used now - because I have reverted almost 100% to 35mm & 120 format film...

And this is the problem I have with the march of technology. While I embrace it, I also seek to loathe it's interference with my life and how I now seem to be forced into the use of technology, where it really has no place, and that is in the creative expression of pure photography.

Because for me, photography is as much about the nuances of the process, as it is about the format and the results you get from them.

I'm firmly in the camp that says "Digital is a great medium for people who have no time, or whose workflow demands an instant output". Obviously that is not me!

If you're the person who can afford to take your time, you have patience, a desire to be constantly challenged with the variables of film photography and processing techniques, then no digital camera will ever satisfy you ever.

But they are absolutely fantastic as a modern 'instamatic' when you have wifi and internet.

There you go.... a bit of a rant, but I think it might make your choice more defined, if more difficult. Sorry about that.

I cannot justify purchasing a compact at this point, because the phone tech has more or less equalled compacts in many (not all) areas.

But if you were to say compact Micro four thirds - then I would go for any established brand I mentioned previously. maybe Olympus OM-D, or Nikon 1V2, But since I'm already in Nikon / Mamiya / Leica "prisons" I'd buy the nikon 1v2 and an F-mount adapter, a leica M adapter and shop around to see if there are any RZ adapters for micro four thirds - IF, and only if, I wanted to go there again.

I'm pretty sure an area such as this requires a number of detailed unbiased reviews before contemplating a purchase, as you can find yourself disappointed quite easily by the purchase of a digital compact camera.

Whereas the phone option just leaves you stuck for 3 years with a camera that can navigate and call your friends....

Does that make the decision any easier?

[Disco-tastic]

Haha the OP has already made a decision and bought a sony Rx100;)

Thanks for the comprehensive response - hopefully it will help others!

Cheers

Dan

[Didge]

Yeah thanks Mercguy but where were you a couple of months ago?? just joking - yeah, I wanted something I could easily pocket and so far it's been pretty good - BUT I got caught out setting it up on a tripod for the daughter. I put it on auto mode but the focus was on manual and it overrides the auto select - trap for new players. As I said in an earlier post - lots of learning to do as we all do when we get a new toy. Thanks again for your comprehensive report. :)
ps I didn't know you could still get film???? where can you get it processed?

[Mercguy]

ps I didn't know you could still get film???? where can you get it processed?

Film is easy to get, but you just need to know where to look to get it fresh AND cheap.

I almost exclusively buy my filmstock from Melbourne, and for developing I have my E6 processed in redfern (in bulk runs of 10-20 rolls). B&W I do myself, or send up home to my Dad, who still keeps his eyes in use :D

Biggest issue is with processing chemicals obviously. Chems are not always in ready supply and the local agents charge like wounded bulls, so generally speaking, when processing non-critical B&W, I'll use rodinal, (real agfa rodinal, not the new stuff) a bottle of which I still have after 20 years... works perfectly @ 100:1
For the Delta 3200 though, I use ilfotec ddx, which is about the only thing that will develop 3200 without graining it. It's quite a fussy process though, and requires very precise times, thorough rinses as well.

E6 is just full of evil, so I let a professional lab deal with it. They have a huge dip and dunk e6 machine. I can get a 2 hr turnaround if I need it. quite funny really, because you used to be able to get 1hr photos from C41 auto processors and E6 you used to send away in bags and it took a week and a half to get it back.

now it's the other way around! I hate C41 with a passion, and it's absolute junk for my workflow, so I'm almost exclusively shooting Velvia 50/100 when doing colour work on MF. on 35mm, Agfa (rollei) still do E6 in 100asa. Called CT100 prescia, it is exactly like the old agfa slide films. It's far less saturated than velvia. I would describe ct100 as 'WYSIWYG' especially with regards to green shades of the australian bush in full sun. It can have a slightly red cast if it is underexposed too much, but it recovers well in post processing from a scan.

Scanning is done here, on an epson, when I have time or a specific desire, otherwise the negs just stay in their sleeves until I bother picking out frames I want to look at. I periodically keep looking for a coolscan 9000, but the prices of them are also hyperinflated now. It's a joke. I won't bother anymore.

Occasionally I'll send film away for professional scanning. Know a couple of labs that use Flextight scanners, and they are quite expensive to own, more than my budget allows for anyway. costs for 6x7 scans aren't exactly cheap, so I really limit those to images I'm committing to a workflow, be it printing on canvas or vinyl or whatever other excuse I need to justify to myself.

If you need to buy film, let me know. I can put you in touch with a guy who is very good to deal with and has quite a good stock.