Are digital cameras still worth a shit?

[South Austin 53222]

I’m not talking about expensive professional digital cameras. I mean small hand-held cameras. I know smart phone camera technology has vastly improved, but was wondering if stand-alone digital cameras still take significantly better photographs and are worth the extra money beyond an iPhone.

Thoughts? Recommendations? Pics of wives from digital cameras?

[elfenix 34749]

the travel zoom ones are (8x+ zoom ratios).  i don't think the standard 3x or 4x zoom ones for a hundred or two are better enough.  the 1"+ sensor models are much better in low light than phone cameras.  but those are $500-$1000 usually. sony RX, panasonic LX, and canon G are the usual suspects among those.  nikon probably makes some as well but fuck if i know anything about nikon.  olympus also makes the tough series which are water/drop resistant.

Edited March 31, 2019 by elfenix

[Your Mom 4969]

I've been wondering the same thing.  I'm interested in something like this.  20 MP, 10x zoom, and a bunch of other abbreviations I don't know much about.  I'm taking a camping trip this summer during which I'll be leaving my phone behind for a week.  I have a GoPro but the zoom would be nice to have.  $150 seems cheap but I don't know much about camera technology.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/canon-powershot-elph190-20-0-megapixel-digital-camera-blue/4866810.p?skuId=4866810

 

[TwiceHorn 32076]

One thing that even a compact, cheap camera will give you that a phone camera doesn't have is some focal length, which requires some distance between the lens and sensor.

That, in turn, gives some depth of field, meaning you can shoot a photo with the subject in focus and other, nearby objects out of focus. Kind of a geek out thing, but noticeable often comparing camera photos to phone photos.  Also creates "bokeh," which a lot of people like.

The sensors in fones are probably as good or better than what's in a cheaper compact camera.  Also the image processing, which compensates for some of the physical limitations of the camera phone, but in some cases you just can't escape optics and geometry.

[Anton Chigurh 3335]

Sony RX-100s are the gold standard (I say this as a Canon guy), but can be pricey.

 

You can get an older one for cheaper, though.

 

Just get this one:

 

https://www.sony.com/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx1-rx1r

 

[elfenix 34749]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

One thing that even a compact, cheap camera will give you that a phone camera doesn't have is some focal length, which requires some distance between the lens and sensor.

i guess from the front of the lens, yes, but the rear element on compact cameras is damn near touching the sensor

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That, in turn, gives some depth of field, meaning you can shoot a photo with the subject in focus and other, nearby objects out of focus. Kind of a geek out thing, but noticeable often comparing camera photos to phone photos.  Also creates "bokeh," which a lot of people like.

depth of field is a property of absolute aperture (not relative aperture, which is f-stops) and subject distance.  bigger lenses have bigger absolute apertures. nearer subejcts have a narrower dof window.  digicams don't have lenses big enough to give much depth of field until you get up to the 1" sensor models, typically, unless you're right on top of the subject.  works ok for flowers, not really for people. 

[dingleberryswitzer 2724]

I've gone though this Myself.  I determined it wasn't worth it.  

This was after I got suckered into the micro 4/3 bullshit.

[Anton Chigurh 3335]

depth of field is a property of absolute aperture (not relative aperture, which is f-stops) and subject distance.  bigger lenses have bigger absolute apertures. nearer subejcts have a narrower dof window.  digicams don't have lenses big enough to give much depth of field until you get up to the 1" sensor models, typically, unless you're right on top of the subject.  works ok for flowers, not really for people. 

 

This is definitely correct, but at the same time, computational photography in smartphones is advancing almost hand over fist whereas it’s basically unused everywhere else.

[ztejas 44228]

2 hours ago, Anton Chigurh said:

Sony RX-100s are the gold standard (I say this as a Canon guy), but can be pricey.

 

You can get an older one for cheaper, though.

 

Just get this one:

 

https://www.sony.com/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx1-rx1r

 

Is this a fucking joke or are you actually recommending he drop $2400 on a camera 

[Anton Chigurh 3335]

Is this a fucking joke or are you actually recommending he drop $2400 on a camera 

[RPM 26622]

 have a Canon DSLR that's over 5 years old. It takes great pics and HD video. My phone has a camera that has more megapixels and memory. They're still useful, but easily replaced.

[52-80 19377]

7 hours ago, dingleberryswitzer said:

I've gone though this Myself.  I determined it wasn't worth it.  

This was after I got suckered into the micro 4/3 bullshit.

Answer to thread is no.  Someone pointed out that having different focal length was lacking...which is true but recent generation models are packed with literally 2,3,4 different lenses like wide + telephoto.  I have such on my Huawei and they are actually super useful.

If your purpose of a camera is simply to 'capture images', a modern smartphone is great.  If you want to geek out and do advanced stuff like long shutters, astrophotography, macros, etc, get a "real" camera.

And micro 4/3 is fucking awesome for that stuff

 

[dingleberryswitzer 2724]

Really the regret with u4/3 is I should have just spent the extra 100 and gotten a full sized DSLR.  

[Buzzrock 15136]

For the casual user I think digital cameras have exhausted their useful lives. I have a basic DSLR (Nikon 4200) that lives in its case. It’s just not worth the hassle to me. I need to sell it.

I will say that the camera phone model makes a difference. I drowned my iPhone 8 Plus on a camping trip in February, and replaced it with a XR because I just couldn’t see where the XS was worth $250 more. But I’m finding I’m really missing the 2x optical zoom that the 8 Plus (and XS) has.

To me a big part of the appeal of the camera phone is the connectivity. I can take a picture I like and within seconds distribute it to any contacts or social media platforms I want. Also the photo is automatically backed up. Even with a Bluetooth attachment for my DSLR that’s all a hassle.

[Nueces River Rat 5796]

 

13 hours ago, Your Mom said:

I've been wondering the same thing.  I'm interested in something like this.  20 MP, 10x zoom, and a bunch of other abbreviations I don't know much about.  I'm taking a camping trip this summer during which I'll be leaving my phone behind for a week.  I have a GoPro but the zoom would be nice to have.  $150 seems cheap but I don't know much about camera technology.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/canon-powershot-elph190-20-0-megapixel-digital-camera-blue/4866810.p?skuId=4866810

 

Seems like this would be a good alternative to have especially if you are hiking or doing something where you need to preserve battery on your phone for communication purposes.

This one  allows for transfer from camera to a phone or other device via WiFi,  but some of the comments on the reviews suggest it can be  hit or miss.  I guess that means if you are trying to transfer over something like a hotel WifI you might have issues?   

Edited March 31, 2019 by Nueces River Rat

[52-80 19377]

theres not 1 camera with a decent wireless interface.  theyre really in the stone-age when it comes to software.  a few camera makers have tried building a camera on top of an android core, but those were flops also.

 

the problem with phones were that they were laggy/unresponsive, have low battery life, fragile (no weather proofing), and especially terrible in low light.  those problems have been rectified. 

 

the only "small" standalone camera worth considering is a Rugged camera for beating up (though you can do this with a rugged case), or a compact superzoom if you need it

 

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-waterproof-cameras

[Red Six 131]

If you want snapshots, your phone is perfect, and the quality of phone cameras is improving every day.

If you want to engage in "photography," then you need a DSLR.

The only reason you would need a stand-alone point-and-shoot is if you don't want to deal with a DSLR and you don't want to/can't use your phone for whatever reason. Beware that P&S cameras have essentially been abandoned by manufacturers and the build quality is garbage.

[elfenix 34749]

On 3/31/2019 at 7:55 AM, dingleberryswitzer said:

Really the regret with u4/3 is I should have just spent the extra 100 and gotten a full sized DSLR.  

what u4/3 stuff did you get?

Edited April 1, 2019 by elfenix

[XYZ 2154]

A friend just bought a Nikon P900, looks like a DSLR but it’s not. It has a big-ass 86x zoom lens. It can take macro pictures with the object almost touching the lens. I’d say it can do much more than a phone camera can.

[South Austin 53222]

As a relative Luddite, I appreciate all of the responses.  Seems like a camera would be a waste of money for me.