Compact cameras vs. high end cell phones

[ishwanu]

I'm curious about the role of compact cameras, for example, the Sony Rx100 line vs. high end cell phones with sophisticated cameras. What advantages or benefits do these cameras provide? For those that continue to use them, why do you do it?

It's all in the user's head for the most part. They mostly provide no benefit or road blocks.

'Most part' ... 'mostly' ... are qualifiers that mostly let you off the hook, but they acknowledge that yes, there are differences that matter.

There have been a couple dozen responses posted in the thread other than yours. Kindly point out the ones that are only in the posters' heads.

What camera did I use to make this image? My Rx100, my cell phone, my Olympus E-m1 or Nikon 850?

Which camera would have allowed me to make it or not allowed me to make it?

Showing an image and asking What camera did I use? is mostly irrelevant when the viewed result is only one of the factors that some of us care about.

But I do have a question: How did you get a 48MP image to look so bad on close inspection?

 

[jesbe]

I'm curious about the role of compact cameras, for example, the Sony Rx100 line vs. high end cell phones with sophisticated cameras. What advantages or benefits do these cameras provide? For those that continue to use them, why do you do it?

Better results from RAW, better results across the available focal range, (especially with something like an RX100vii), better at freezing motion, easier to set manual parameters, better bokeh control, lack of HDR-stacking DR flatness, real flash, the nature of holding a dedicated camera encourages more picture taking than a phone, etc...

Really, to me, the cellphone's only advantage is convenience. If I were an auto or program shooter, maybe it'd also be the ease of always getting "good enough" images.

If a cellphone had it's best sensor behind a focal length I liked (I'm not into 24mm equivalent as a main FL), or had equally excellent results throughout their lens range as they do at the wide end, I could switch completely, but I'd still be editing images to have more contrast, and I'd always miss manual controls. I'd love a phone case that had 3 programmable dials (exposure triangle) and a shutter button on one edge.

 

[Thirsty_Fox]

Glad Henri Cartier-Bresson, Olga Karlovac weren't worried either.





As for ergonomics how ergonomic was the camera used to create this photograph?



Technicians are worried about the gear, photographers go make pictures.

I think it's fair to assume those (and other) photographers back in the day did indeed worry about their gear. It's also very unreasonable to compare the most iconic photos from a time when photography was in its infancy to anything modern.

Many of the photos taken back then that we still look at today wouldn't get a second glance in the modern saturated market. The main appeal of those old photos is that they are a glimpse into another era -- one where there are are many orders of magnitude fewer photos; those photos had lots of expensive and effort put into them; and film generally compares quite favourably, despite being old, by its inherent resolution.

The biggest part is the effort taken to ensure an interesting photograph, first by finding an interesting subject. Phones can take all kinds of interesting photos when photography skills are applied and an interesting scene or subject is captured. Some of my favourite photos I have in my collection were taken with my basic iPhones (4S, 6, and 8). It's typically the only camera I take on vacations since the kinds of snapshots I take are adequate for me on trips, compared to the extra bulk and risk of taking dedicated camera gear.

Having said all that, the fact that iPhones make up the top 9 of the top 10 on flickr doesn't really say anything about photography in my view. I make a distinction between general snapshots to capture moments and photography as an art.

The fact that a billion people can spam the shutter button and flood it to a variety of websites means the signal-to-noise ratio is worse than ever. Yes iPhones can take great photos (albeit in limited environments) -- but how many of the photos from those devices are you going through and enjoying? How many are repetitive, low-effort/quality snaps of uninteresting (at least to an outsider) scenes?

As for compact cameras vs cell phones: I do wish we had options for high-quality compact cameras. I still use my now vintage Fuji F30 with its 6MP CCD sensor. The main reason over the phone is the lens lets me zoom, and the flash gives it that early-00's look that can be fun (also works well for fill).

I don't like to obsess about specs even though it always comes up with other photographers since my main is an APSC a6700 -- they always assume I must be a beginner who knows nothing and that I must be saving up for a fullframe to be a "real" photographer. They start to drop it when I ask to compare photos

 

[gary0319]

I use my cell phone for things my camera can’t do. Find a restaurant near me, check a competitor price, answer or send text, navigate my car….. maybe even make a phone call. Other than a quick snap to record a reference image to take to the hardware store, or to take a group selfie, I never use my phone for any photography.

My compact camera(s) are not an alternative to my phone, but rather a photographic alternative to my larger camera kits. The compacts are smaller, lighter, have technology that is not only different, but sometimes better than my other cameras, are easier to use, and more acceptable in social gatherings (just like a phone).

 

[tbcass]

Technicians are worried about the gear, photographers go make pictures.

I think it's fair to assume those (and other) photographers back in the day did indeed worry about their gear. It's also very unreasonable to compare the most iconic photos from a time when photography was in its infancy to anything modern.

Many of the photos taken back then that we still look at today wouldn't get a second glance in the modern saturated market. The main appeal of those old photos is that they are a glimpse into another era -- one where there are are many orders of magnitude fewer photos; those photos had lots of expensive and effort put into them; and film generally compares quite favourably, despite being old, by its inherent resolution.

These photographs are more about the bravery of the photographer than the gear used.

--
Tom

 

[mfinley]

Distilling things down to the essence, and yes, to here also to repeat an often recited mantra: it's not the gear that makes a successful, compelling, intriguing image....

What is the real magic behind outstanding photography? Images which captivate the viewer?

IMHO, in a nutshell:

Creativity. The ability of someone to notice and immediately "see" an image, no matter when or where or whatever tool he or she might have on hand to record a particular scene right then and there.....

100%

 

[mfinley]

Technicians are worried about the gear, photographers go make pictures.

I think it's fair to assume those (and other) photographers back in the day did indeed worry about their gear. It's also very unreasonable to compare the most iconic photos from a time when photography was in its infancy to anything modern.

Many of the photos taken back then that we still look at today wouldn't get a second glance in the modern saturated market. The main appeal of those old photos is that they are a glimpse into another era -- one where there are are many orders of magnitude fewer photos; those photos had lots of expensive and effort put into them; and film generally compares quite favourably, despite being old, by its inherent resolution.

These photographs are more about the bravery of the photographer than the gear used.

Yes, it is 100% about the photographer and his abilities, the success of the image has nothing to do with the camera he owns and all to do with his ability to bring everything together through his skills and vision to create a compelling image.

 

[Ysarex]

Of course, they would do the best they could with what was available. But saying that tools don't matter is old tired nonsense. The arts require tools, a musician needs an instrument, a ceramicist needs a wheel and glazes and a kiln, a painter needs paint, etc. You think a concert guitarist is going to Walmart to shop for a guitar?

Of course its not about the tools it's about the work and how effectively the work expresses the artist's intent but tools can't be dismissed. There's a reason a concert guitarist is going to buy a Ramirez guitar and not the one at Walmart. The tools can either enhance the work or tarnish it. Same goes for cameras and photographers.

The phone camera can be fine for some people and many types of photographs. For me it would tarnish my photos and interfere to the point of preventing me from taking the photo I want to take. Stopping me from taking the photo is a line not to cross.

We are close on agreement but what separates us the use of extremes as examples.

The cameras in question here are not at the extreme ends of each other but very close together in terms of what they can accomplish based on their abilities. They have much more in common than what they have in difference.

It's quite one thing to show up at a real estate shoot for pictures to be put on the MLS for a home listing with a pin hole camera made from a shoe box versus a Nikon D 850, it's not that much different showing up at a real estate shoot with a Compact camera or a high end cell phone.

Yes, there are some genres of photography that the results will be not attainable without some very specialized gear, but for the other 95% of photography, and the other 99.9% of the population of non-professional photo enthusiasts this just really just isn't the reality. It's self-inflicted wants versus realistic needs, but that's the joy of this hobby for most because it's all driven on disposable income with no pragmatic requirements really, but our own personal whims and fantasies driving what we "need".

There's no fantasy involved in my understanding what's required to take the photos I want and the tools necessary to do that. Photography became my sole source of income over 40 years ago. Now that I'm retired I still take photos constantly. I go for walks three or four days a week and take photos along the way. If you're suggesting that a phone camera could handle 95% of what I photograph that's way off the mark. I'm just taking landscapes and cityscapes as I walk. And multiple times every week I take photos that a phone camera would prevent me from taking -- beyond the phone camera's capability. It's a lot more than 5% and why should I give up taking those photos? My compact can take those photos.

The differences in capability between a phone camera and a high-end compact are not fantasy; they are very real and in way more than 5% of the photos I take those differences matter.

We're snowed in for the last ten days and I can't get out. Back to the first week of January I walked in one of our local parks. I took six photos that day three of which could have been taken with a phone camera. For the other three the phone camera would crash and burn. That's 50%. My compact could handle all six of them.

Here's two -- they were taken one after the other:





Both are backlit and required post processing. Nine stops of DR in the bridge and ten stops of DR in the river. Phone cameras can't record that much DR in a raw file. My compact can and I do it all the time.

In another thread here Flicker reveals the top 10 cameras used for the pictures posted on the site, with only one "real" camera even making the top 10. Flicker boosts a pretty well regarded photo enthusiast user base with a sprinkling of professionals and semi professionals, and something such as this thread where people are pooing a high end cell phone doesn't have enough quality over a high end compact camera... well the high end compact camera doesn't even make this list yet 9 cell phones do.

As tbcass noted popularity is meaningless. Way back before I was retired Kodak instamatics vastly out numbered we Hasselblad users.

 

[Ozzie SD]

Technicians are worried about the gear, photographers go make pictures.

I think it's fair to assume those (and other) photographers back in the day did indeed worry about their gear. It's also very unreasonable to compare the most iconic photos from a time when photography was in its infancy to anything modern.

Many of the photos taken back then that we still look at today wouldn't get a second glance in the modern saturated market. The main appeal of those old photos is that they are a glimpse into another era -- one where there are are many orders of magnitude fewer photos; those photos had lots of expensive and effort put into them; and film generally compares quite favourably, despite being old, by its inherent resolution.

These photographs are more about the bravery of the photographer than the gear used.

Don't be fooled. I'm sure it's just Photoshop! :-D ;-)

 

[Ocoloy]

From mark iii in the Sony RX they all got EVF & tilt screen. The sensor is bigger than most phones and the lens is more advanced = better dynamic range and better/bigger prints

No Apps, no social media, no stress. If battery is drained just put in a backup.

Less distractions etc...

 

[mfinley]

I took six photos that day three of which could have been taken with a phone camera. For the other three the phone camera would crash and burn. That's 50%. My compact could handle all six of them.

I see nothing in the two snapshots you uploaded that are beyond a cell phone cameras' abilities.

 

[Ysarex]

I took six photos that day three of which could have been taken with a phone camera. For the other three the phone camera would crash and burn. That's 50%. My compact could handle all six of them.

I see nothing in the two snapshots you uploaded that are beyond a cell phone cameras' abilities.

I am not in the least surprised to hear that. That's why I told you why a cell phone camera couldn't take them: "Both are backlit and required post processing. Nine stops of DR in the bridge and ten stops of DR in the river. Phone cameras can't record that much DR in a raw file."

To be accurate, the phone cameras on the list you list you provided and the ones typically being referred to here -- iphones and Samsung Galaxy phones, etc. can't deliver a raw file with 9+ stops of DR. There are now some specialty phones getting close like some Xiaomi models. But I don't think that's what the OP was asking about.

 

[mfinley]

With cell phone cameras producing this much detail, I would feel very ridiculous complaining about them in 2025, especially in regard to comparing them against a Sony Rx100.

View attachment 954e3421feb94c588f49e471f2152965.jpg







Any preferences are simply gratuitously personal, especially with statistically 100% of viewing of photography today is on 3"x5" cell phones, tablets and computer monitors.

There might be someone here who printed a 40"x60" print in the last year but they are certainly the extreme minority.

Add to this the state of software today like Topaz Photo Ai and it's really all quite silly.

 

[ishwanu]

Any preferences are simply gratuitously personal ...

Of course preferences are personal. The question posed here was about personal choices. If you think personal preference is gratuitous (lacking good reason; unwarranted), no wonder you seem fixated on what's most popular; everyone should choose the same thing, right?

 

[Thirsty_Fox]

I took six photos that day three of which could have been taken with a phone camera. For the other three the phone camera would crash and burn. That's 50%. My compact could handle all six of them.

I see nothing in the two snapshots you uploaded that are beyond a cell phone cameras' abilities.

I am not in the least surprised to hear that. That's why I told you why a cell phone camera couldn't take them: "Both are backlit and required post processing. Nine stops of DR in the bridge and ten stops of DR in the river. Phone cameras can't record that much DR in a raw file."

To be accurate, the phone cameras on the list you list you provided and the ones typically being referred to here -- iphones and Samsung Galaxy phones, etc. can't deliver a raw file with 9+ stops of DR. There are now some specialty phones getting close like some Xiaomi models. But I don't think that's what the OP was asking about.

Landscape scenes like that are the best suited for bracketed exposures anyways (even with higher DR sensors), which phones can do quickly and easily. As long as nothing in the frame is moving, bracketed is the way to go if you're looking for DR regardless of the camera.

 

[Ysarex]

I took six photos that day three of which could have been taken with a phone camera. For the other three the phone camera would crash and burn. That's 50%. My compact could handle all six of them.

I see nothing in the two snapshots you uploaded that are beyond a cell phone cameras' abilities.

I am not in the least surprised to hear that. That's why I told you why a cell phone camera couldn't take them: "Both are backlit and required post processing. Nine stops of DR in the bridge and ten stops of DR in the river. Phone cameras can't record that much DR in a raw file."

To be accurate, the phone cameras on the list you list you provided and the ones typically being referred to here -- iphones and Samsung Galaxy phones, etc. can't deliver a raw file with 9+ stops of DR. There are now some specialty phones getting close like some Xiaomi models. But I don't think that's what the OP was asking about.

Landscape scenes like that are the best suited for bracketed exposures anyways (even with higher DR sensors), which phones can do quickly and easily. As long as nothing in the frame is moving, bracketed is the way to go if you're looking for DR regardless of the camera.

You're talking about having the phone use an HDR mode and produce a composite correct? That's not acceptable to me. If you look at both of those photos there's sunlight in the backgrounds along with blue sky -- that's daylight WB and those regions of the photos have daylight WB set. The foregrounds of those photos are in open shade which is very blue. They're not blue in my photos because those regions have a different WB set. Will the phones do that as well?

I process raw files because software in the cameras (phones included) can't produce the photo I want. In the case of the phone composites I get no raw file -- that's a no go.

 

[Thirsty_Fox]

I took six photos that day three of which could have been taken with a phone camera. For the other three the phone camera would crash and burn. That's 50%. My compact could handle all six of them.

I see nothing in the two snapshots you uploaded that are beyond a cell phone cameras' abilities.

I am not in the least surprised to hear that. That's why I told you why a cell phone camera couldn't take them: "Both are backlit and required post processing. Nine stops of DR in the bridge and ten stops of DR in the river. Phone cameras can't record that much DR in a raw file."

To be accurate, the phone cameras on the list you list you provided and the ones typically being referred to here -- iphones and Samsung Galaxy phones, etc. can't deliver a raw file with 9+ stops of DR. There are now some specialty phones getting close like some Xiaomi models. But I don't think that's what the OP was asking about.

Landscape scenes like that are the best suited for bracketed exposures anyways (even with higher DR sensors), which phones can do quickly and easily. As long as nothing in the frame is moving, bracketed is the way to go if you're looking for DR regardless of the camera.

You're talking about having the phone use an HDR mode and produce a composite correct? That's not acceptable to me. If you look at both of those photos there's sunlight in the backgrounds along with blue sky -- that's daylight WB and those regions of the photos have daylight WB set. The foregrounds of those photos are in open shade which is very blue. They're not blue in my photos because those regions have a different WB set. Will the phones do that as well?

I process raw files because software in the cameras (phones included) can't produce the photo I want. In the case of the phone composites I get no raw file -- that's a no go.

Of course they can do that. Or you can just set it to keep all the bracketed exposures and do it yourself in post, anyways. If it's not to taste, it's pretty easy to fix, too.

Regardless of the camera, for landscape shots it's still best to use bracketed to recover highlights and shadows instead of trying to recover them from a single image.

 

[Thirsty_Fox]

Technicians are worried about the gear, photographers go make pictures.

I think it's fair to assume those (and other) photographers back in the day did indeed worry about their gear. It's also very unreasonable to compare the most iconic photos from a time when photography was in its infancy to anything modern.

Many of the photos taken back then that we still look at today wouldn't get a second glance in the modern saturated market. The main appeal of those old photos is that they are a glimpse into another era -- one where there are are many orders of magnitude fewer photos; those photos had lots of expensive and effort put into them; and film generally compares quite favourably, despite being old, by its inherent resolution.

These photographs are more about the bravery of the photographer than the gear used.

Yes, it is 100% about the photographer and his abilities, the success of the image has nothing to do with the camera he owns and all to do with his ability to bring everything together through his skills and vision to create a compelling image.

Are you able to support the idea that the photographers who took these were unconcerned about their photography gear? I struggle to believe they would go through all that trouble to create something great while not considering the equipment that actually captures the photo.

Back then, photographers were practically photo technicians as well as artists. It was expensive and niche rather than something quick and easy. Acquiring all the gear necessary, learning to use it all, including all the various film stocks and speeds, darkroom development laboratory with its own set of skills and knowledge required -- it was a very involved processs compared with anything modern.

I've always maintained that content is king: the subject, the composition, the lighting, the facial expressions, colours, etc... so long as it's in-focus and properly exposed, with sufficient resolution to be worthwhile. As a primarily APSC user, believe me when I say I'm constantly told gear is the only way to get good photos by people who seem to have few, if any, yet own more expensive gear. There's still no denying having appropriate gear for the photographs you intend to capture (and having it with you) only increases your chances of getting the best results.

When it comes to these iconic photos, they're iconic entirely because of the content: taken in a time when there was a relatively low volume of photos, so the signal-to-noise (interesting to bland) was very high. It was expensive and done almost exclusively by people who really understood it and went to great effort to get timeless shots. It's also from an era where all kinds of new and interesting things were happening worth recording -- ie. steel-framed skyscrapers were a new thing. It's still interesting today because it's a glimpse into a time from long ago, depicting something you'd never see. I reckon great care was taken in selecting and learning to use the equipment and in developing the photos.

 

[Ysarex]

I took six photos that day three of which could have been taken with a phone camera. For the other three the phone camera would crash and burn. That's 50%. My compact could handle all six of them.

I see nothing in the two snapshots you uploaded that are beyond a cell phone cameras' abilities.

I am not in the least surprised to hear that. That's why I told you why a cell phone camera couldn't take them: "Both are backlit and required post processing. Nine stops of DR in the bridge and ten stops of DR in the river. Phone cameras can't record that much DR in a raw file."

To be accurate, the phone cameras on the list you list you provided and the ones typically being referred to here -- iphones and Samsung Galaxy phones, etc. can't deliver a raw file with 9+ stops of DR. There are now some specialty phones getting close like some Xiaomi models. But I don't think that's what the OP was asking about.

Landscape scenes like that are the best suited for bracketed exposures anyways (even with higher DR sensors), which phones can do quickly and easily. As long as nothing in the frame is moving, bracketed is the way to go if you're looking for DR regardless of the camera.

You're talking about having the phone use an HDR mode and produce a composite correct? That's not acceptable to me. If you look at both of those photos there's sunlight in the backgrounds along with blue sky -- that's daylight WB and those regions of the photos have daylight WB set. The foregrounds of those photos are in open shade which is very blue. They're not blue in my photos because those regions have a different WB set. Will the phones do that as well?

I process raw files because software in the cameras (phones included) can't produce the photo I want. In the case of the phone composites I get no raw file -- that's a no go.

Of course they can do that.

They can make the composite from the brackets but they can't set two different WB values in different sections of the photo.

Or you can just set it to keep all the bracketed exposures and do it yourself in post, anyways. If it's not to taste, it's pretty easy to fix, too.

That's unnecessary work I don't have to do. I just need one raw file that can capture 10 stops of DR.

Regardless of the camera, for landscape shots it's still best to use bracketed to recover highlights and shadows instead of trying to recover them from a single image.

I disagree. A single raw file is fine for all but extreme cases and I prefer that. 10 stops of DR is usually the most I find necessary and I have cameras that easily handle +12 stops if I need that. My compact G7 nearly manages 10 stops of DR.

 

[mfinley]

Are you able to support the idea that the photographers who took these were unconcerned about their photography gear? I struggle to believe they would go through all that trouble to create something great while not considering the equipment that actually captures the photo.

I never said that. There is a sentence associated with picture that you must have missed.