What Camera (still pics)

[derrick]

No phone camera currently on sale has the same sensor size as a £100 compact camera. Also a compact camera can be held properly, which reduces shake/vibration. The quality of the image may look the same on a phone screen, but look at it on a pc monitor and you will see distortion at the edges.
I used to have a great 5mp casio camera that took way better pictures compared to the supposedly 8mp camera on my galaxy S3

The OP is talking £80 camera.

 

[coffeejo]

Thoughts?

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/1026227.htm

 

[Peteaud]

Thoughts?

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/1026227.htm

I reckon my link (currys) is better spec.

 

[rualexander]

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-Powershot-SX160-Optical-inch/dp/B0090XM8EY
A bit bulky and heavy compared to some but that is no bad thing in my opinion, takes 2 AA batteries though which is very useful for a cycling camera, pop into any shop if you get caught with flat batteries, or easy to carry spares.
I had the previous version and it takes good photos.
Flickr is a good place to see what quality of shots you can get with any camera
http://www.flickr.com/groups/2049217@N24/

 

[derrick]

really? 16mp and 10x optical zoom.... does a 'half decent' phone camera offer that?


I'm actually quite gutted as a lot of these sub £100 cameras have a similar/better spec to the one i spent £250 on five years ago...

You can have as many pixels as you like, if you have not got a descent lens your wasting your time

 

[Cletus Van Damme]

If you have a half descent phone camera, an £80 camera is not going to be a great improvement.

Yes but surely you do not get an optical zoom with the vast majority of smartphones unless you pay through the nose. I got an Olympus SZ-31MR mainly because I wanted it's camcorder feature which is really, really good way better than my Samsung Galaxy S3. It's stills are better too and having a 24x optical zoom comes in pretty useful for both pictures and camcorder. Sure it's really a glorified point and shoot but it's way better than my mobile phone is. It cost me £150, but I'd much rather have a dedicated camera than a mobile phone. It's mainly the optical zoom at a reasonable price and better camcorder feature for me.

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/digital-cameras/1292086/olympus-sz-31mr

 

[derrick]

Yes but surely you do not get an optical zoom with the vast majority of smartphones unless you pay through the nose. I got an Olympus SZ-31MR mainly because I wanted it's camcorder feature which is really, really good way better than my Samsung Galaxy S3. It's stills are better too and having a 24x optical zoom comes in pretty useful for both pictures and camcorder. Sure it's really a glorified point and shoot but it's way better than my mobile phone is. It cost me £150, but I'd much rather have a dedicated camera than a mobile phone. It's mainly the optical zoom at a reasonable price and better camcorder feature for me.

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/digital-cameras/1292086/olympus-sz-31mr

I have a dedicated camera, an SLR, but the guy wants to spend £80. not £150.

 

[derrick]

While i am here i also have a compact, a Go Pro, and a couple of others, but if i am out on the bike the phone is good enough for me, unless we are touring then i would take the SLR.

 

[Cletus Van Damme]

I have a dedicated camera, an SLR, but the guy wants to spend £80. not £150.

Yes I know Derrick, but surely you get a better optical zoom on an £80 camera than a phone which costs way more. I guess I was just stating that the optical zoom is what is missing from the majority of mobile phones. If that is not an issue then I agree that a mobile is probably just a as good. Also the LED flash on the majority of phones is shite too, just like using a crap torch. Just saying

 

[derrick]

All i am saying is for £80 you will not get a significant improvement with an £80 camera. Spend a bit more and you will start to see improvements.

 

[Kies]

All i am saying is for £80 you will not get a significant improvement with an £80 camera. Spend a bit more and you will start to see improvements.

Fair point derrick - i will spend around £100 and let's hope the OP will also after reading this thread

 

[MontyVeda]

...

All i am saying is for £80 you will not get a significant improvement with an £80 camera. Spend a bit more and you will start to see improvements.

of course the more you spend delivers improvements... sensor size is the biggie with digital cameras. The camera i spent £250 on 5 years ago has a small sensor. The similar spec'd £70-£100 cameras these days will have a very small sensor too (compared to even a cheap DSLR)... but the size of a sensor in mobile phone is going to be titchy titchy tiny.. and then the focal length between the lens and the sensor is nothing, literally nothing compared to the telescopic lens on even a cheapo 'short' zoom. Sensor size (which is comparable to film size back in the day eg 35mm as opposed to 110mm, or crikey, the disc camera!), is where it's all at.... and even a small sensor on a budget camera is going to be bigger, better and as a result (maybe) less noisy than and titchy sensor in a phone... especially in low light.

 

[slowmotion]

I chose a cheap camera , not a phone. It doesn't ring and people don't constantly bend my ear.

I'm liking it.

 

[swee'pea99]

Ebay Lumix, Leica lens, google for reviews. £80 will buy you something staggeringly good.

 

[slowmotion]

^^^^^^^^^^
Yes.