UKC

My phone has a good camera, its a sony experia z3 compact. Resolution is 20mp. This summer we are going for a trip to the Altai mountains, and I am toying with the idea of getting a real camera. I would probably only have a budget of around £200. At this price, am I as well sticking with the phone camera?

In reply to girlymonkey:

Depends. If you like the images taken with your phone then happy days.

Please excuse the following, if I am trying to describe how to suck eggs.

However the more pixels on a sensor does not always make for a better image. In fact too many pixels on a sensor can make the image look worse. This is because the pixels generate heat when capturing an image and if too many are crammed together then you get a granny image which is called noise.

It is always better to get as big a sensor as possible to capture images so that the pixels have room to breath, so to speak.

The next part of the capture process is the lens. A bigger lens is always going to be better because it can capture more light and focus it onto the sensor beneath it. I'm guessing that your camera can zoom in on the subject and I am also guessing that the 'zooming in' will be done digitally. This means that your phone will mathematically fill in the gaps when trying to 'zoom in'. If you bought a camera, even a compact camera with a zoom feature, this will always improve the image because the lens will be bigger and can physically 'zoom in' so that it can get a s best a possible image in the sensor.

Your phone has a half inch sensor and 20mp pixels crammed into it. My Nexus 5x has the same size sensor however it has less pixels, 12.3mp. This may or may not be better depending on how good our respective lenses are, however I am betting that I will however have less noise when taking images in a dark environment like a bar or mountain hut.

Now our sensors are blown away by the respective physical size of a compact camera or even dSLR cameras which can go all the way up to 35mm. Add a bigger lens and then the image quality can be vastly superior to both your and my phones respectively.

Your phone will capture happy memories however even stepping up to a compact will give better results and your budget of £200 will get you superb camera, especially if you give some serious thought to a second-hand camera.

Quite a few on here rave highly of a Canon G series while others go for Nikon's flavours. Personally I would and have bought second-hand cameras and got better bang for my bucks.

In reply to girlymonkey:

£200 gets you one of these. No brainer.

http://www.google.co.uk/shopping/product/16177353056557658947?lsf=seller:80...

In reply to The Lemming:

Wow, great answer, thanks!

I didn't really know about the sensor size etc.

Most of the time, I am happy with the phone camera. I usually just put the pics on Facebook or send them to people. However, capturing the subtleties of mountain lighting etc might be better on a real one. I might want to print some of these , or at least store them in a proper album somewhere.

I have a couple of months to decide, I will keep pondering!

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

Looks good, thanks for the suggestion

In reply to girlymonkey:

It is a very good question. Phone cameras are quite good now. Basically I'd say image quality on a Z3 phone will be about the same as a compact camera. But a camera will give you:

optical zoom
better ergonomics for photo taking (probably)
it might have a screen that is easier to see outside on sunny day
a battery that is independent of your phone (which is probably better)

Only you can say if these things matter

my personal preference is a cheaper phone and a better compact. I use an Sony RX100 which cost £250. Compared to a phone I get

much better low light photography (mainly a wide angle)*
much better screen visibility in bright light
files that are better for post processing particularly in B&W*
zoom (bout not lots)
much better handling

The one with a * apply to cameras with a small sensor as well (1/2.3")

A phone is better for

Post processing on the go (try snapseed)
Posting photos to social media while you are away
Viewing images

it is worth going into a shop and trying the cameras against your phone

In reply to girlymonkey:


I think this is really important issue - what will you do with your photos. My phone has an OKish camera on it, if you use the HDR option also gives a slightly artificial but rather attractive look to the photos as well. From my phone I can load them straight up to instragram, facebook etc. where I know friends actually enjoy looking at them for a few seconds. Most of the pictures I take on my "proper" camera don't get shared, so actually less people are likely to see them except for the odd few that get used for a UKC review of similar. If you blow the phone pics up to a full screen of even a laptop you start to see all the problems with them - but for friends scrolling down their instagram feed when sitting on the bus (or loo probably!) the pics look absolutely fine.

But as you say, if you want to print them, or there is the possibility of you having them in a magazine or similar, then yes you need a better camera.

Here's one I took of Stanage last monday - https://www.flickr.com/photos/toby-northern_light/26990537091/ any photo buff looking at it on their computer will see all sorts of things wrong with it, but I think particularly on a phone screen it looks really quite nice.

In reply to girlymonkey:

Ok, so if we assume for now that I do go down the new camera line (Im still unsure. It's an expensive trip, so on one hand ot would be good not to spend on a camera, but on the other it would be good to capture some really good memories).
Can I tell by looking at the specs if it will be good, or do I really need to go and play with them?

This looks like good camera for the money to me, do you guys think it is too?
http://www.argos.co.uk/m/static/Product/partNumber/4294623.htm?_$ja=tsid:59...

In reply to girlymonkey:

A quick look on Gumtree Stirling, shows a nice, mint Fuji compact for £40. Depends if you want one that slides into a pocket, when the lens is retracted, or a 'bulgy' lens type, that can be a nuisance when your climbing?.....
With your budget, you should easily get something ideal for a trip, and have the phone as a backup!

In reply to girlymonkey:


DP Review is your friend here. Excellent site with more reviews than you can shake a stick at.

http://www.dpreview.com/

http://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/compacts/canon_sx410is

In reply to girlymonkey:
Modern Smartphones are really good at capturing images quickly and without fuss and they cope well with 90-95% of the situations they are asked to deal with.
However some of the most evocative and satisfying images come out of the 5-10% of situations that fool them.
That is when the photographer has to take control of the process and make adjustments to get the result.
For this a camera is essential and one which allows that control to take place. You don't need an expensive SLR to to get it as many compacts give you the essentials.
Features that you might use to take control are as follows:
Zoom lens so you can frame just what you want.
Selective focus so you can choose exactly what is sharp and what is blurred
Macro for close ups of eg flowers, insects
Flash you can switch off & on
ISO adjustment to give you low light potential & indirectly adjust aperture/depth of field eg waterfalls
Compensation +/- that allows you to adjust exposure for difficult lighting eg directly into a sun rise over El Cap.
All of these are available on most decent zoom compacts. I bought a Nikon S7000 last summer in Sainsburys Sale and it cost £70 and does all this.
Pay more and you get even better control and better quality.
I love my Nikon DSLR but when weight needs to be pared down I revert to a much lighter zoom compact.

In reply to The Lemming:


Your "granny" or mine - mine was quite quiet?

Seriously, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't think image noise resulted from hot pixels. I thought it was a quantum effect (one of the few such effects that manifest themselves in everyday life). Small pixels means fewer photons per pixel (especially in low light), and a smaller number of photons means more chance for quantum fluctuations to manifest themselves as unexpected colours.

Martin

In reply to girlymonkey:

With the exception of the giant sensor and lens in one of the Nokia's, having more than ~8 mp in a mobile phone is going to make the image quality worse (really, it is), rather than better, and only exists as a Large Number for Marketing Purposes.

What do you want to take photos of in the mountains? If it's close ups of flowers and wide angle landscapes, a cheap compact won't make much difference to your phone. If you want to zoom in on distant peaks, almost any compact with a zoom lens is going to be far superior to your phone. If you want to take low-light photos at dawn or dusk, a decent compact is likely going to be better than your phone.

Do you want to be regularly handling your phone and thereby risking dropping it whilst also running the battery down when you're in the mountains? Or are you better off with a separate and much harder to drop camera, with your phone in a waterproof bag in your rucksack, keeping its battery more full? Cameras have lanyards, phones don't. Cameras have grips, phones don't. I've never lost a camera or a phone, but I know which I'd rather loose!

For £200 you can get all sorts of awesome cameras 2nd hand from ebay etc. After my SLRs, my favourite camera for walking in the mountains is my Canon Powershot G12 which can be had for under your budget 2nd hand.

In reply to Martin Hore:


You are correct.

There are broadly 3 sources of "dynamic" noise - that is noise that varies frame to frame in a consumer digital camera

(1) Dark current - this is a result of the temperature of the pixel array, and is a signal that builds up over time. It builds up at a different rate in each pixel, leading to a noisy look. However, it only becomes an issue on very long exposures (think astrophotography, not night time cityscapes). It can be compensated for by subtracting a 2nd image taken immediately after the first, but with the shutter closed. This is not a problem for consumer compact cameras at all. It arrises of ~ 5 second or longer exposures on dSLRs.
(2) Shot noise - quantum noise in the number of photons of light arriving per pixel per exposure. This gets worse, per pixel, as you put more pixels into a fixed sensor size because you have fewer photons per pixel per exposure, and the signal to noise of shot noise gets worse for smaller signals. However, averaging multiple nearby pixels to produce a lower resolution improves the signal to noise ratio in the averaged pixels, equivalent to having had fewer pixels in the first place
(3) Read noise - quantum noise in the electronics that convert the signal from each pixel in the sensor array into digital numbers. There is a fixed amount of this per pixel, so more pixels in an image means more of this kind of noise. It is not fully compensated for by averaging pixels.

Depending on conditions some combination of (2) and (3) dominate for modern consumer cameras (mobile phones, compacts and dSLRs)

"Hot pixels" are something else entirely - individual pixels that are borked and always report a high intensity of light. These are typically identified by looking for bright pixels in an image of very short, or zero, exposure, and then the value reported by that pixel is discarded and replaced with an average of its neighbours. This happens behind the scenes in many cameras; when you think about it if you produce an array of 20,000,000 pixels, it is very unlikely that all off them will be produced error free if there is even the smallest possibility of an error occurring in a pixel.

In reply to girlymonkey:
Can you swap the battery on your phone? If you are out for a while then the ability to swap batteries may be a bigger deal than the technical quality of the camera.

On a related note: When I am in remote places I prefer to keep my phone, camera, gps etc separate for safety reasons. I don't want my recreational camera draining the battery I need for my emergency communication gear. OTOH that looks as though it may not be relevant to your trip.

In reply to girlymonkey:

I've just bought a Canon G16 which I'm really impressed with. It has a 1/1.7" sensor and a bright f1.8-2.8 lens so good in low light.

It has full manual controls and a 28-140mm (equivalent) zoom lens.

The only limitation I've found is the relatively small sensor is not amazing for astrophotography, but I use it for climbing and mountaineering.

I've heard good things about Sony's RX100 camera (get the latest model you can afford I - IV), although the Canon G series does get good reviews on UKC.

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

Suffers from the same issues all panasonic superzooms have, lack of detail in the images.

In reply to Alpenglow:

To get the Mark I will cost you about £250 new and is very good value for excellent image quality now that the later models exist. The big sensor (in a genuinely compact camera) means that it's great in low light. Only drawback might be the relatively short zoom - but I think you probably generally compromise quality a for a long zoom.

In reply to girlymonkey:

What ever camera you go for, may I suggest that you are able to use it single handed.

And for an added bonus, while wearing gloves.

You are more likely to take your camera on a route or out during the winter if its easy to use.

In reply to girlymonkey:
The 3 things you need to know are
1, If you don't have a camera with you you-- cannot take photos
2, if you don't get it out and use it --- cannot take photos
and
3, you have to ask yourself , Am I going to carry and use it? if the answer is yes then get one, lot of Teck talk, but that aside holding and using a camera is different you have a view finder to look through, as well as the controls that may well have knobs, and buttons, and of course your not going to throw out the phone, so you have the best of both.

Small compact not bridge or SLR keith-ratcliffe has it about right for what to look for.

AND one last thing get a good lens cloth and keep it clean, the lens not the cloth, but keep that clean to or by tissues, that's lens tissues.

In reply to The Lemming:

What ever camera you go for, may I suggest that you are able to use it single handed. And for an added bonus, while wearing gloves.

There's depravity, then there's depravity!

In reply to The Lemming:

I'm not saying your wrong but last year I went to India and took an iPhone 5s and a quite compact cannon with zoom with is a few years older. In 90% of the pictures the 5s are better and sharper. It isn't so good in the dark though. I put this down to the software in the chips and how it interacts with the hardware. It's very good at focusing the picture. Perhaps a newer canon would be better?

In reply to girlymonkey:

Are you happy with the pics your phone takes, this is the real question.

In reply to Name Changed 34:

Why not bridge? I am new to the world of proper cameras!

To everyone else, thanks for all the advice too Im current scouring ebay and gumtree to see what is there

In reply to girlymonkey:

We found an Olympus TG4 on offer for £240 which gets good reviews for photo quality and has the benefit of being water/shock proof.

In reply to girlymonkey:

My four pence worth of advice and this would be highly subjective, on suggesting a compact camera would be to buy the best compact that is available on the market right now. Otherwise you run the risk of going 'meh' when putting your phone's images up against an average compact camera and not being able to discernibly notice any improvements after throwing cold hard cash at the project.

There is a reason that the compact camera market is falling over a cliff and its because phones are getting better. A few years ago I bought a second-hand Canon S 90 from this site and loved it because, when required, everything could be turned to manual. Also the images were in the 'wow' category when compared to my £40 compact or my first ever Smart-phone Samsung Galaxy Ace.

However times move on and my Canon S90 now gathers dust in a drawer all unloved, simply because my current smart-phone is more versatile and takes just as good images in point-and-click situations.

So if you are going to get a compact then you have to ensure that it will outperform your phone otherwise you may end up with a bitter taste in your mouth from the experience.

The Canon S series is small and after reading a few reviews of the newer models still produces excellent results. However from time to time this site recommends Sony RX100 cameras. I've never handled one but from reading a couple of reviews including from DP Review this may be the camera to save all your pennies for mainly because of its huge camera sensor. Hopefully somebody who owns a Sony can shed some more light on that assertion.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

Same for me. My current phone takes as good images as my six year old Canon S90.

A more up-to-date compact may compete better with a modern phone with all its tech advances.

In reply to The Lemming:
I think that advice is spot on. My camera which was about 200-300 pounds is now not as good as my smart phone in most situations which is only a few years newer tech. Its not the lens or the mega pixels its the way the software on the chips works with the hardware (and probably also some post processing I guess)

Personally I'd only get a better camera if the op isn't happy with the pics their phone takes.

In reply to girlymonkey:
Unnecessary bulky, its nether one thing or other, you [forgive me] may find it over complected and would not use to its full. If it has interchangeable lenses, will you cray then? ]no]
a good compact will be lighter less faf n fuss and deliver as good if not better result, in that you have a result because
it was in you hand, not in the case, in the pack, on your back.
large camera do just the same as small in THAT they let light in for the time you ask, the amount you ask for and record it on XXXXX [to teck for me that bit] the best SLR is no better if you have a lens that is second cousin to the bottom of a Coca-cola botttle, better to have a fair to midd compact than low cost SLR bridge.

other will differ in opinion


edit
A camera has a view finder you will be able to hold it steady, and not at arms length, and frame the frame, even in the sunlight
It will also have tripod mount, or you can set it down on a base and walk away smart phone ?
you can take out the sd card and therefor not all is lost, if you slit the trip between two or more cards, big cards are not necessary and put all eggs in one basket

First principles sun behind, get it on a tripod or mount

In reply to Mike-W-99:


Says who? I bought it last year and use it regularly. Fantastic camera for £200. And much better results than from a phone.

In reply to girlymonkey:

Am I the only one who cares that phones don't come with a wrist strap?

I would just never use a phone on a climb, or a boat, or anywhere if you drop it you're stuffed!

In reply to CurlyStevo:


That matches my experience of Samsung Note 1 and a Canon IXUS

I'll repeat my advice to buy a Sony RX100 as that is a huge leap ahead for £250. Basically the same image quality as a raft of cameras costing upto £760

Here is a review to excite you.

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/07/26/the-sony-rx100-digital-camera-revi...

Other cameras are now as good and better in same ways like 4k video. but the cost more

I's also be looking at say a Canon G15

But even used they aren't much less than the RX100

If you look at my Flickr you can see my efforts with the RX100. health warning i post process alot. I think it's all photos back to 3 people pulling faces at a phone

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:


Completely stuffed - imagine not being able to up date your Facebook status after every pitch!

But seriously, having your camera physically attached to you on a climb is essential in my opinion. And I think the point about batteries is important when out in the wilds. Even if I owned a smart phone, I wouldn't contemplate relying on it for photography on a trip however good the photos were.

Someone mentioned being able to use the camera onehanded (presumably when belaying). You're probably going to be sticking to auto mode when belaying, so this is what you need to try out/consider. I've got big hands and find my RX100 ok - with your "girly" hands you ought to be fine

In reply to girlymonkey:

Several mentions of the Sony RX100. I have the Mk 1 version which I bought when it was the latest version so paid around £350 for. If you can get one at your budget then I would seriously consider it. It should be noticeably better image quality than your phone and does come with wrist strap (that I've modified to make a shoulder strap or an attachment to my harness). It also allows you to adjust the settings. I mostly do point and shoot in program mode, but I do find some more advanced features really useful - like being able to hold the exposure for one part of the picture while focussing on another, or adjusting the aperture / shutter speed balance to increase depth of field, or going for bracketed exposures in tricky lighting conditions. All these are fairly easy to learn and do.

A downside of the RX100 series is that some of the controls are quite fiddly so if you will need to use it with gloves this may not be the best camera for you. I believe the Canon G7X with similar spec has chunkier controls but I've not used it. I'm not sure you'll get any other compact of RX100 quality for around £200 though. Sony have a policy of keeping their older models on the shelf at reduced prices. As others have said, most compacts at £200 may not be a significant improvement on your phone.

Hope that helps

Martin

In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):

Oops I forgot the link to the Flickr area

https://www.flickr.com/photos/john_clinch/

In reply to girlymonkey:

I think the only benefit of a compact on a expedition type trip is battery and buttons. Touch screens are a pain in the cold and or with mitts on and you can have multiple charged batteries stashed on your person for the camera rather than recharging your phone every night. I bought a S120 for a trip to India last year. I hardly used it around town, but it got battered out on the trip. Its not been used since, even though I've endeavoured to improve my photography the phone comes out almost every time. DP review do a phone camera review. I'd imagine by the time the trip comes around you can get an almost perfect camera phone for less than £200.

D

In reply to girlymonkey:

I have the same phone as you and had the same dilemma last autumn.

I eventually got a Panasonic dmc tz70.

The camera is way better than the phone.

Ease of use, flexibility and picture quality, I would go for the camera.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yeah I agree with that - I don't use my phone for pics on a route either. I want something attached to me.

In reply to girlymonkey:

The best camera is the one with you...

In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):

Yeah my cannon was also an IXUS.

In reply to steveliput:

What about the one having the most fun?

In reply to girlymonkey:

Thanks for all the help folks. I think I might have chosen a camera. The Nikon Coolpix S7000 seems to do well in reviews, and is available for £90. Sound like a good option?

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

Agree completely.

I use a metal bumper case which takes a strap and have that clipped to my belt or pocket. Helps that the phone is waterproof as well.

Even the new DeWalt phone looks as if it doesn't have a hole to fix a strap or cord.