Seeking recommendation: what used camera to buy that's better than a smartphone camera?

Newbie here. The wife and I are going on a trip soon and I'd like to buy a digital camera that takes better pics than my S23 Ultra smartphone. Specifically, I'm hoping to buy something used that can take great high-quality pictures in 'auto-mode', but would be cheap to buy due to its age - the kind of camera an experienced "in the know" photographer would know about but the average ignorant Joe Q. Public (like me) would overlook. My only requirements:

1. It's got in-body image stabilization.

2. It's relatively compact. So, no SLR.

3. It's got a 3x optical zoom (the more the merrier).

4. It takes better pics than my S23 Ultra.

Video isn't a priority for me. Just want to take nice high quality colourful snaps using a camera that takes great pics on auto mode. Thanks in advance for your advice!

What is your budget?
Once you narrow your search down, look at these places to buy used (if you’re in the US): MPB (also has locations in other countries), KEH, UsedPhotoPro and the used section of B&H and Adorama.

Marie

w00dmann said:

Newbie here. The wife and I are going on a trip soon and I'd like to buy a digital camera that takes better pics than my S23 Ultra smartphone. Specifically, I'm hoping to buy something used that can take great high-quality pictures in 'auto-mode', but would be cheap to buy due to its age - the kind of camera an experienced "in the know" photographer would know about but the average ignorant Joe Q. Public (like me) would overlook. My only requirements:

1. It's got in-body image stabilization.

2. It's relatively compact. So, no SLR.

3. It's got a 3x optical zoom (the more the merrier).

4. It takes better pics than my S23 Ultra.

Video isn't a priority for me. Just want to take nice high quality colourful snaps using a camera that takes great pics on auto mode. Thanks in advance for your advice!

Click to expand...

This is a very difficult question to answer...

You want it to be compact, but how compact? Not all mirrorless cameras are compact, especially if you attach a large lens to it.

What are you prepared to do when it comes to processing your images? If you like to do post processing with RAW files, you might be okay even with a very old camera, but if you only want to shoot JPEGs, let the camera do the work and not do any post processing, then chances are that the image stacking you find in phone cameras is going to deliver better images.

I don't understand the 3x optical zoom thing. 3x compared to what? a 12-36 is a 3x optical zoom, just like a 100-300 is a 3x optical zoom.

Do you want a camera with interchangeable lenses, or do you want one with a fixed lens that would save you some lens decision headaches?

Also, you didn't specify a budget. Sound to me that considering your requirements (stabilization, small, great colorful snaps in auto mode), a high end smartphone is what I would recommend, and the S23 Ultra is already a killer phone for that.

w00dmann said:

Newbie here. The wife and I are going on a trip soon and I'd like to buy a digital camera that takes better pics than my S23 Ultra smartphone. Specifically, I'm hoping to buy something used that can take great high-quality pictures in 'auto-mode', but would be cheap to buy due to its age - the kind of camera an experienced "in the know" photographer would know about but the average ignorant Joe Q. Public (like me) would overlook. My only requirements:

1. It's got in-body image stabilization.

2. It's relatively compact. So, no SLR.

3. It's got a 3x optical zoom (the more the merrier).

4. It takes better pics than my S23 Ultra.

Video isn't a priority for me. Just want to take nice high quality colourful snaps using a camera that takes great pics on auto mode. Thanks in advance for your advice!

Click to expand...

Without a budget, we cannot proceed in a useful way. Since this is an international website, knowing your country or region would also be helpful.

It sounds like you're looking for a bargain. However, DSLR cameras are where the bargains are easily found these days. Some capable beginner DSLRs may not be as large as you think (example).

Finally, Joe Q. Public may believe that buying a real camera will automatically create National Geographic-quality images. That's just not true. It's easy to find complaints in the Beginners forum that Mr. Public's shiny new camera takes photos that are worse than their cellphones. Any real camera can take National Geographic-quality images, but it does require some knowledge of photography and intervention by the photographer.

--
Lance H

About the time that phones started to take over casual photography, Auto or I-Auto on cameras started to receive little attention, so you would be better getting a better phone. Small cameras that perform better than phones seem to have become hot over the last couple of years, so this is the most over priced (as in doubled over 2 years) segment of the used market.

IBIS is a bit of an issue because very few mirrorless cameras had a good implementation until a few years ago.

With all of that intro, I’d get a used Olympus EM1.2 with a used 12-45/4 and used Olympus (not Panasonic) 25/1.8. Then learn to shoot in Aperture mode and experiment with the free RAW processor (OM Workspace). You should be fine to start with using Auto-ISO and Auto-WB.

Buy from a reputable used dealer that offers a 6 month warranty. Price around and don’t be afraid to buy items in Good or Excellent condition - condition is mostly cosmetic.

The EM1.2 has excellent IBIS, PDAF focussing and good weather resistance. The 12-45/4 is about the smallest Pro lens (also WR). The 25/1.8 will allow you to try subject separation and FaceEyeAF on a budget.

If you want smaller and very slightly better, a used OM5 is the next step. I have owned an EM1.2 and my everyday camera is an OM5 with 12-45/4. I also shoot full-frame so the EM1.2 is not a casual recommendation.

My wife is very good at subject engagement and composition but uninterested in cameras. She was happy with a series of Sony and Panasonic point-and-shoots until I-Auto stopped doing a good job. Since then, it’s phones all the way.

She just upgraded to an iPhone 16. We shot at the same time recently. When the iPhone was good, it was very very good. When it was bad, it was horrid. In other words, my usage of the OM5 is more reliable than an iPhone 16, but not necessarily better.

If you have a very big budget, there is other kit that might be what you want but it was never designed with I-Auto in mind.

Andrew

--
Infinite are the arguments of mages. Truth is a jewel with many facets. Ursula K LeGuin
Please feel free to edit any images that I post

I will echo some of the ideas posted by others here.

How much do you want to spend? $200? $500? $1,000?

I just got a Samsung Galaxy S22 Ultra. Yeah, I know it came out 3 years ago, but I got it at a very good price. I got it for the 10X optical zoom. It also takes pretty good pictures in low light. Where it beats average digital cameras is in dynamic range. The better smartphones from the last 3 or 4 years are good at combining multiple shots. On the screen of a smartphone, they look almost flawless. However, if you look closely at these images on a larger screen, you may notice more noise (like static).

I like superzoom cameras. I had a Nikon P950 - 24-2000mm. That's 83X zoom. No smartphone can match that. However, it's way too big for you. There are many older and smaller cameras with zooms up to 30X that are cheaper and easier to carry around. They will enable you to take pictures of distant people and objects. How much zoom range do you want?

Another thing to consider is the ease of transferring the pictures you want to the Internet or the phones of friends and acquaintances. When you take a picture with a smartphone, it's very easy to send it to somebody within a minute. You take a picture with some otherwise decent digital cameras and you have to take the memory card out of the camera and put it into a card reader or the SD card slot on your computer. Then you have to open it up and send it to your recipient via email. I don't mind that, but lots of younger people don't have the patience for it. Even if your camera has wireless transfer of images to your computer, it usually takes longer than a smartphone.

If I were taking a family portrait, or pictures of kids playing various sports, or shots of wildlife from afar, I would get a dedicated digital camera and not rely on my smartphone.

I advise you to go to a camera store and try out some cameras. Buy yourself an SD card and take it with you. Most retailers will let you take a few pictures with the cameras on display. Then take those images home to your computer and judge for yourself if the image quality is what you are looking for. You can also get a feeling for how big is too big for you.

I have a Casio EX-100, and a Sony RX10 IV. The former is hard to find outside of eBay, and the latter is probably too big for you. The former costs upwards of $300 on eBay (and don't forget the tariffs on items shipped from Japan) and the Sony, if you can find it new, is at least $1,700 US and it's probably too big for you. I was going to recommend the Sony R100 series (numbers II through V) but I am not sure they are what you want.

In any case, good luck. Look around a little before you buy.

Check out KEH, MPB, and eBay.

A sony or Olympus mirrorless with a kit lens would do the job.
Pretty much any model with a m4/3 or aps-c sensor after 2010 will be better than your phone.

Make sure it has image stabilize at body or lens.


I will suggest some starting models and you can see their newer ones too if they fit your budget

Sony nex 3n
Sony nex 6
Sony a5000
Sony a6000

Olympus e-pl6 - pl7 - pl8

These models are pretty small, work fine in auto mode

InkedMarie said:

What is your budget?
Once you narrow your search down, look at these places to buy used (if you’re in the US): MPB (also has locations in other countries), KEH, UsedPhotoPro and the used section of B&H and Adorama.

Marie

Click to expand...

And Facebook marketplace for a local hook up. I have bought from MPB and Canadian photo stores from their used sections and have been happy with every purchase. I prefer purchasing locally as I can hold the product in my hand, test it out, then pay. If it is a big ticket item, the most was $2000, I meet at a local McDonalds during rush hour. I show up 15 minutes early and go in so I won't be waylaid pulling into the parking lot. With a large purchase, I will wait a bit as I watch the person go to their car and leave, then I leave.

I have bought studio lights and stands, six lenses, two cameras, photo bags, filters, et. al. used and everyone of them have been in excellent condition and worked well. Most amateurs use their equipment lightly.

w00dmann said:

Newbie here. The wife and I are going on a trip soon and I'd like to buy a digital camera that takes better pics than my S23 Ultra smartphone. Specifically, I'm hoping to buy something used that can take great high-quality pictures in 'auto-mode', but would be cheap to buy due to its age - the kind of camera an experienced "in the know" photographer would know about but the average ignorant Joe Q. Public (like me) would overlook. My only requirements:

1. It's got in-body image stabilization.

Click to expand...

That means a model of the last 6-7 years.

w00dmann said:

2. It's relatively compact. So, no SLR.

Click to expand...

So a mirrorless

w00dmann said:

3. It's got a 3x optical zoom (the more the merrier).

Click to expand...

Integrated or any zoom lens?

w00dmann said:

4. It takes better pics than my S23 Ultra.

Click to expand...

That'll means a sensor significantly bigger, so at least a MFT

w00dmann said:

Video isn't a priority for me. Just want to take nice high quality colourful snaps using a camera that takes great pics on auto mode.

Click to expand...

That doesn't exists. For brainless auto mode, use a smartphone.

Overall I'd look at an old Olympus EM

Thanks Marie for your response, my budget is about $750.

Thanks MJ, I appreciate your questions and have responded below.

You want it to be compact, but how compact? => I'm flexible on this. Ideally I would get something I could stuff in my pocket, but I know that may not be realistic. I would say anything smaller than a full-on SLR sized camera would work. In other words, I hope to be able to put the camera into a pocket in my backpack versus having to carry its own dedicated bag.

What are you prepared to do when it comes to processing your images? => hopefully nothing. I don't do any processing to my smartphone pics so, hoping for something equivalent but in a better camera.

I don't understand the 3x optical zoom thing. => my smartphone has 2x, 3x, and 10x optical zoom. I don't expect to get a nicer camera with that high of an optical zoom but I also don't want camera that has NO zoom, so I figured 3x was a good compromise.

Do you want a camera with interchangeable lenses, or do you want one with a fixed lens that would save you some lens decision headaches? => ideally the latter, but I'm open to the former.

Also, you didn't specify a budget. => say $750

Sound to me that considering your requirements (stabilization, small, great colorful snaps in auto mode), a high end smartphone is what I would recommend, and the S23 Ultra is already a killer phone for that. => haha you may be right! But in my naivety I'm hoping to find something that takes nicer shots with minimum fuss.

Thanks Lance, I appreciate you writing in. My budget is $750 ish and I'm in Canada.

DSLR cameras are where the bargains are easily found these days. => ah ok, could you kindly recommend one? Or was your link to the Canon cameras that recommendation?

Finally, Joe Q. Public may believe that buying a real camera will automatically create National Geographic-quality images. That's just not true. => good point! It's possible my search is a folly; we will see. This is how my naive mind is working: "can't I buy a nicer camera with a bigger lens, bigger CCD, and more sophisticated picture processing so that if I were to snap a pic with this fictitious camera + snap the same pic with my smartphone, and compare pics side by side, the nicer camera would naturally produce a sharper image with better dynamic range?" If this isn't realistically achievable, then I'll end my hunt for the Red October.

Thanks ahaslett! I appreciate your recommendation and will check out the Olympus. Your comment about the iPhone camera's performance, tho', was sobering. :\ Makes me wonder if my quest is unrealistic unless I learn how to properly shoot using manual settings and I lack that knowledge.

Thanks so much robbo, I appreciate your recommendations and will check them out! Btw my budget is $750 ish and I'm in Canada.

Thanks so much Alex! I appreciate your recommendations and will definitely check them out.

Thanks Mountaingrapher, I appreciate the recommendation. Also, my comment about IBIS shows my ignorance - I didn't realize that optical image stabilization could be in a camera body or the lens. So long as I've got OIS I'm happy.

Thanks again

w00dmann said:

if I were to snap a pic with this fictitious camera + snap the same pic with my smartphone, and compare pics side by side, the nicer camera would naturally produce a sharper image with better dynamic range?" If this isn't realistically achievable, then I'll end my hunt for the Red October.

Click to expand...

Recent smartphone leverage HEAVILY on computational photography to achieve their results and they are quite good at it If you took a photo with a top line camera and one with a modern smartphone like your S23 and just watch them like than on a smartphone display, I bet you'll find the one taken by the S23 "better".

Sharpness will come from a better lens, not sensor. Tonal gradation and dynamic range will be helped by sensor size, but once again modern smartphone can leverage computational tools and sensor technologies that make them incredibly good for their size.

So if you want a visible jump, you'll have to go for larger sensor than 1" (what top of the line smartphone now have, though not the S23).

Now if it has to be pocketable, not a lof of options: Fuji X100 serie? Ricoh GR ? Sony RX100?

Forget about zoom, you'll zoom with your feet.

w00dmann said:

Video isn't a priority for me. Just want to take nice high quality colourful snaps using a camera that takes great pics on auto mode. Thanks in advance for your advice!

Click to expand...

Most mirrorless cameras will loose to your samsung in auto mode. really, you will be dissapointed. But dedicated camera, even 10yeras old have some huge advance over smartphone:

1) Ergonomics. Flip out screen and EVF gives you great boost and improve your shooting process. Especially in bright day or shooting from low and high points etc. Better grip your hands says "thanks".

2) Ability to change lenses. But good lenses is expensive and big. Modern smarthones with wide, normal and tele lenses will beat most cameras kint lense.

3) Better details. Also if you need it, and only with good and expensive lenses

4) May be really big advance, that modern smartphones is behind MILC is ability to shoot movements in low light. Running child, moving peoples. But also you need fast lenses.

w00dmann said:

Thanks ahaslett! I appreciate your recommendation and will check out the Olympus. Your comment about the iPhone camera's performance, tho', was sobering. :\ Makes me wonder if my quest is unrealistic unless I learn how to properly shoot using manual settings and I lack that knowledge.

Click to expand...

That is the essence of your question. If you want to take better pictures you need to understand the basics of photography. Only the basics, unless you want to do something challenging.

I see that phones are starting to add AI to help with framing and composition.

It’s not that hard to learn the basics if you have the right support and a few weeks of daily practise taking photos. You must have the motivation, otherwise you wouldn’t have asked the question.

A

w00dmann said:

Thanks MJ, I appreciate your questions and have responded below.

You want it to be compact, but how compact? => I'm flexible on this. Ideally I would get something I could stuff in my pocket, but I know that may not be realistic. I would say anything smaller than a full-on SLR sized camera would work. In other words, I hope to be able to put the camera into a pocket in my backpack versus having to carry its own dedicated bag.

What are you prepared to do when it comes to processing your images? => hopefully nothing. I don't do any processing to my smartphone pics so, hoping for something equivalent but in a better camera.

I don't understand the 3x optical zoom thing. => my smartphone has 2x, 3x, and 10x optical zoom. I don't expect to get a nicer camera with that high of an optical zoom but I also don't want camera that has NO zoom, so I figured 3x was a good compromise.

Do you want a camera with interchangeable lenses, or do you want one with a fixed lens that would save you some lens decision headaches? => ideally the latter, but I'm open to the former.

Also, you didn't specify a budget. => say $750

Sound to me that considering your requirements (stabilization, small, great colorful snaps in auto mode), a high end smartphone is what I would recommend, and the S23 Ultra is already a killer phone for that. => haha you may be right! But in my naivety I'm hoping to find something that takes nicer shots with minimum fuss.

Click to expand...

Okay, so after some thinking, it sounds to me like a nice premium compact camera would fit the bill just fine. However, be aware that cameras don't play the resolution game like phones do : a lower resolution (12-16MP) might very well deliver sharper results than a 50MP smartphone camera. So don't take the resolutions at face value comparing them with smartphone sensors.

So to look at your criterias, you want :

a small-ish camera that has preferably a fixed lens, a 3x zoom (I've done some research in the meantime, and the "1x" lens on most phones is about 24mm equivalent, so a 3x zoom would be equivalent to a 72mm or something similar), under $750.

There aren't a ton of cameras that fit those criterias AND have better image quality than a samsung S23 Ultra, but there are a few.

The first two obvious ones to me are the premium range of Lumix compact cameras, like the LX100 mark II and the LX10/LX15.

The LX100II has a larger 17MP sensor (which is a cropped micro four thirds chip) compared to the LX15 that has a 1" sensor. That being said, the LX15 has a wider lens, so the difference in image quality is well compensated there. Both lenses have a lens with arounx 3x zoom capabiltiies (the LX100 has a 24-75mm equivalent, with f/1.7-2.8 apertures, so overall pretty good ; the LX15 has a 24-72mm equivalent lens with an f/1.4-2.8).

The LX15 is ligher, smaller and cheaper than the LX100II, but the LX100II has better controls, a hotshoe to connect extrernal flashes, and a vewfinder. On the other hand, the LX15 has a tilt screen and a pop-up flash, but no ability to connect an external one. Neither camera has IBIS, however both feature optical image stabilization in the lens.

The last one I'd recommend is something like a Sony RX100 mark IV or mark V. Both of those models have a 24-70mm equivalent lens (so about 2.9x zoom ratio) with an aperture of f/1.8-2.8 (very similar to the other two). Autofocus and burst rates will be better than both the Lumix cameras, and unlike the Lumixes, that have either an EVF or a pop up flash, the RX100IV and V have both. The difference between them is mostly about AF performance and video (and price).

Considering your requirements, this seems like the three best options available on the market short of getting into ILC territory.

In terms of image processing, I feel like the Lumix options give you more for your money when it comes to image profiles, color correction etc compared to the Sony, but definitely go look at reviews for both of them.













--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)