Does anyone still use cheap, compact P&S cameras?

[adrianday]

Some years ago, I bought a Sony DSC-W800 as a replacement for a DSC-W70. It offered what I thought would be a significant upgrade: 20.7MP vs 7.3MP, 5x optical zoom vs 3x optical zoom and about 8 years age difference in release date.

I have to admit I was immediately disappointed with the W800. Significant noise and JPEGs that seemed crushed to within an inch of their lives. This camera was consigned to the drawer of socks I never wear.

Move on to this week. I came upon my W70 in the camera bag of things long forgotten. Charged the battery and rediscovered a small camera that allows me to set fixed focus distance, spot/centre/multi metering, EV compensation, B+W preset with variable contrast/sharpness and over 4,500 images on a 16GB card. I'm immediately re-smitten. Took delivery of a couple of new batteries and a swanky LED charger today. Have made some comparisons between the W800 and the W70 which has only confirmed my initial dislike of the W800. Increasing the image size and adding a little grain (+ some magic sauce) in LR is giving me images I'd have no bother printing up to 10" on their longest length.

So, I have to ask; am I the only person that thinks that there's still a place for compact cameras these days? Or should I perhaps be seeking medical advice?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

So, I have to ask; am I the only person that thinks that there's still a place for compact cameras these days? Or should I perhaps be seeking medical advice?

Not unless it will comfort you.

My question: is the £100 cutoff for new or second hand? If second hand, I'd definitely argue that a sub £100 camera can be a very good buy, be it compact or a hulking SLR.

A few years ago, I bought a Fujifilm SL300 for £5 from a charity shop. OK, I had to pay out another £12 for a battery and charger but for £17 I got a lot of pleasure. When I tired of it, I handed it in at another charity shop and I hope someone else is now reaping the benefits...

 

[f/2.8]

I dare say for most people the mobile phone camera has replaced the need for a compact camera mostly. A physical camera has still got advantages over a phone camera in terms of more control depending on the model, physical buttons and with some better zoom capability.

The advantages of using a phone though are hard to ignore, computational photography has changed the game quite a lot, it is much easier for your average Joe to get a photograph using a phone that is more than good enough for social media, sharing with family and friends etc. For printing 6x4 is good, and 8 x 10 is decent, even A4 isn't too bad at all. The ability to not have to faff about uploading photos to the computer is also a big advantage for your average Joe.

I have a decent amount of kit for work and if I wanted to shoot anything serious for myself would use that but for a normal day/nights out and even holidays unless it is a photo trip I just use my phone. A few years ago I would have brought a long a compact camera or a smaller APS-C mirrorless camera. Now days though the camera on my iPhone is more than good enough for stuff like that and it takes pretty decent video as well. There are lots of apps available now that allow much better manual control as well.

 

[realspeed]

what is forgotton is a camera phone you are continually paying line rental on top of buying it in the first place. With a camera compact or otherwise one bought you own with nothing more to pay.
I don't have a cameraphone or anything like, the cost of say £25 a month (just guessing) on top of buying makes it a very expensive way to take photos. I bought a Lumix compact not long ago and it is handy to grab hold of or keep in a pocket.

 

[sphexx]

what is forgotton is a camera phone you are continually paying line rental on top of buying it in the first place. With a camera compact or otherwise one bought you own with nothing more to pay.
I don't have a cameraphone or anything like, the cost of say £25 a month (just guessing) on top of buying makes it a very expensive way to take photos

There’s no line rental. You don’t even have to have the phone connected to the network and
can use it just on Wi-Fi. Used phones with good cameras are certainly sub £100.

However for most people who already have a smartphone the camera function is free.

eg an Apple iPhone SE is about £80 refurb from giffgaff, no contract and will run the latest iOS 15. There are even cheaper.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

However for most people who already have a smartphone the camera function is free.

Quite right. Many smart phone users make regular use of several facilities. so the camera is just a nice extra. I don't use mine as a camera very often but sometimes it comes in useful...

 

[f/2.8]

what is forgotton is a camera phone you are continually paying line rental on top of buying it in the first place. With a camera compact or otherwise one bought you own with nothing more to pay.
I don't have a cameraphone or anything like, the cost of say £25 a month (just guessing) on top of buying makes it a very expensive way to take photos. I bought a Lumix compact not long ago and it is handy to grab hold of or keep in a pocket.

There’s no line rental. You don’t even have to have the phone connected to the network and
can use it just on Wi-Fi. Used phones with good cameras are certainly sub £100.

However for most people who already have a smartphone the camera function is free.

eg an Apple iPhone SE is about £80 refurb from giffgaff, no contract and will run the latest iOS 15. There are even cheaper.

Exactly this.

 

[woof woof]

I've never had a phone contract, all mine have been PAYG.

I don't like holding an oblong screen two feet from my face whilst jabbing it with a finger plus there's the question if you can see the screen and for these reasons I always prefer a camera to taking pictures with a phone.

Years back I had a couple of Panasonic LXx cameras but gave up on them because they were so slow but they were fine for setting up and shooting zone / prefocus. I have a Medion compact and a Canon Ixus which has an optical vf, it's poor but it's there, both of these are pretty much credit card footprint. I've also had a Panasonic LF1 but stupidly gave it to my sister when she begged for it. As I missed that camera I bought a Panasonic TZ100 which is biggere than the LF1 but fits in my compact film cameras case. I did try a TZ90 but found the files a bit of a step down from the 1" sensor TZ100.

I'd like something smaller than the TZ100 and bought a reconditioned LF1 off a company on evil bay but unfortunately there was sensor contamination so it went back.

Medion, Ixus and LF1.

 

[fujilover]

Minimum i would get and have had several times are the Sony RX100 cameras. Those are decent cameras

 

[sphexx]

I don't like holding an oblong screen two feet from my face whilst jabbing it with a finger plus there's the question if you can see the screen and for these reasons I always prefer a camera to taking pictures with a phone.

There are several other ways to operate the shutter on phones including very cheap Bluetooth ‘clickers’. The screen on even expensive cameras is usually worse than the phone, the camera phone, partly because it’s in your pocket and on WiFi, is useful for a multitude of jobs like recording leccy/gas meter readings in awkward places (and give you timed record), reading that small print on a label at the back of the tv, copying documents, receipts, etc etc.

I guess I’m saying that generally a camera is good for making pictures but the camera phone is best for making a record and some other things.

 

[woof woof]

There are several other ways to operate the shutter on phones including very cheap Bluetooth ‘clickers’. The screen on even expensive cameras is usually worse than the phone, the camera phone, partly because it’s in your pocket and on WiFi, is useful for a multitude of jobs like recording leccy/gas meter readings in awkward places (and give you timed record), reading that small print on a label at the back of the tv, copying documents, receipts, etc etc.

I guess I’m saying that generally a camera is good for making pictures but the camera phone is best for making a record and some other things.

I assume with a bluetooth clicker you're still holding an oblong box 2ft infront of your face and hoping you can see enough to compose the shot?

I know people like and even love their phones but I just have no interest in them at all and I find taking pictures with them a joyless experience. As always, good luck to those who like them and at least they're possibly always with you

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I assume with a bluetooth clicker you're still holding an oblong box 2ft infront of your face and hoping you can see enough to compose the shot?

If it works, go for it. To me, all that matters is the result. How you get it is secondary at best.

 

[sphexx]

I assume with a bluetooth clicker you're still holding an oblong box 2ft infront of your face and hoping you can see enough to compose the shot?

I know people like and even love their phones but I just have no interest in them at all and I find taking pictures with them a joyless experience. As always, good luck to those who like them and at least they're possibly always with you

My bold

Now you’ve got it! The point is that when you are doing something that is essentially non-photographic you have that visual notebook handy and it can do thing you couldn’t easily do otherwise .

 

[tijuana taxi]

I quite often still use a Canon Powershot A720is 8mp compact
Runs for ages on 2 x AA batteries and even has a rudimentary viewfinder, basically just a glazed opening.
It was my work camera when I surveyed telephone exchanges for space to install extra equipment for Broadband
Still going strong, only plastic, but surprisingly durable and also works well for macro.

 

[garryknight]

About three years ago I was looking for a decent compact camera to take on holiday so that I could leave my Sony A6000 and lenses behind. After scouring the reviews I settled on the Panasonic TZ70, which had everything I wanted including a viewfinder. It cost a lot more than £100. I was happy with it until I zoomed in to the photos 100% and saw what I could only describe as "mush". It took me a while to get over this and realise that no one cares, except me. Viewing the photos using Fit to Screen, they looked good, even on my 27" monitor.

The camera stopped working but after the first lockdown I found another used TZ70 in a phone repair shop. They wanted £80 for it, so I nabbed it quickly. It was perfect for lockdown exercising, in the woods where some people think a bigger camera looks suspect.

But does it take good quality photos? Well, I think so.

Lockdown Diary

Lockdown Diary

Photos taken during the Covid-19 pandemic.

www.flickr.com

Lockdown in Mono

Lockdown in Mono

Photos taken during the 2nd and 3rd Covid pandemic lockdowns in the UK.

www.flickr.com

 

[woof woof]

About three years ago I was looking for a decent compact camera to take on holiday so that I could leave my Sony A6000 and lenses behind. After scouring the reviews I settled on the Panasonic TZ70, which had everything I wanted including a viewfinder. It cost a lot more than £100. I was happy with it until I zoomed in to the photos 100% and saw what I could only describe as "mush". It took me a while to get over this and realise that no one cares, except me. Viewing the photos using Fit to Screen, they looked good, even on my 27" monitor.

I think a lot of us do this. It is hard to take a step back, resist pixel peeping and instead think about final output size and viewing distance but if we can do that gear we may initially be tempted to write off may well be good enough.

 

[Lemaildetom]

I share with my 5 years old boy an Olympus TG5 that was £160 used. Very good at macro and totally waterproof. It's definitely not a match for full-frame camera but it fit very nicely in a pocket. If I go shooting for wildlife with a long lens I like having this in the pocket for pictures of plants and landscape.

 

[Nod]

About three years ago I was looking for a decent compact camera to take on holiday so that I could leave my Sony A6000 and lenses behind. After scouring the reviews I settled on the Panasonic TZ70, which had everything I wanted including a viewfinder. It cost a lot more than £100. I was happy with it until I zoomed in to the photos 100% and saw what I could only describe as "mush". It took me a while to get over this and realise that no one cares, except me. Viewing the photos using Fit to Screen, they looked good, even on my 27" monitor.

The camera stopped working but after the first lockdown I found another used TZ70 in a phone repair shop. They wanted £80 for it, so I nabbed it quickly. It was perfect for lockdown exercising, in the woods where some people think a bigger camera looks suspect.

But does it take good quality photos? Well, I think so.

Lockdown Diary

Lockdown Diary

Photos taken during the Covid-19 pandemic.

www.flickr.com

Lockdown in Mono

Lockdown in Mono

Photos taken during the 2nd and 3rd Covid pandemic lockdowns in the UK.

www.flickr.com

I looked at the TZ-70 when I was after a compact a few years back. As luck would have it, the assistant was trying to make the same choice so took a test shot of the same subject with it and the TZ-100 and printed both out at (IIRC) 9x6. The 100 was so much better that I (and she) went for that instead, despite the price difference.

 

[patr]

+1 for the TZ70.

Bought one from the Panasonic Refurb Ebay shop last month when the 20% off offer was on.

£119.50, delivered in a brown box the next day by courier and the camera and accessories were absolutely brand spanking new and sealed. 12 months Panasonic warranty included.

Its 15% off until tomorrow on the site so it is now £127.5. Still a bargain.

Cracking little thing that fits in a pocket and has an enormous zoom. IQ is more than acceptable for its size and portability.

 

[woof woof]

I've been tempted to one of these (TZ70) despite having a TZ100. I bought a used one off evil bay but unfortunately the controls were sticky and it had to go back.

 

[realspeed]

As I said I don't even have a mobile phone so don't have a clue on its usage.

 

[patr]

I've been tempted to one of these (TZ70) despite having a TZ100. I bought a used one off evil bay but unfortunately the controls were sticky and it had to go back.

I really like my TZ70 and as your post came in my finger was hovering over the 'Buy it Now 'button on a Refurbished TZ100 at £212.50


But I know the Chief of Staff will kill me as I have a Sony RX100 iv...."what do you want another 1" compact for?"

 

[woof woof]

I really like my TZ70 and as your post came in my finger was hovering over the 'Buy it Now 'button on a Refurbished TZ100 at £212.50


But I know the Chief of Staff will kill me as I have a Sony RX100 iv...."what do you want another 1" compact for?"

The TZ70 does have an advantage over the TZ100, the much longer zoom.

 

[patr]

The TZ70 does have an advantage over the TZ100, the much longer zoom.

Thank you,

I was looking at the TZ100 as it has the 1" sensor like the Sony but far greater reach (25-250mm) than the Sony (24-70mm). The TZ70 is a massive zoom but the little sensor, whilst very good, cannot compete with the 1" ones.

However I have gracefully retreated on my purchase having been persuaded that perhaps it was not in my best interests to proceed.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Thank you,

...but the little sensor, whilst very good, cannot compete with the 1" ones.

I'm not a subscriber to that opinion.

I use 1/2.3, Four Thirds, APS-C and full frame but really can't see enough difference between them to worry about. I don't think people understand the complex relationships between focal length, optical resolution and pixel count (I'm one) so they just buy into the marketing claims. You need to use different systems frequently to understand that, while there are differences, they are subtle and often not what you'd expect.

The size thing is a hangover from film days, when format was key to how much data you could capture. Hasselblads and Rolleiflexes demonstrably captured more detail at a given magnification than Leicas and Nikons, while a 5x4 just blew the others away.

Once you see the output from different digital sensors, printed to the same large size, it becomes clear that pixel count is the only real differentiator (and then again, not as important as you may expect). This is something I observed for myself in a travelling exhibition of A0 wildlife prints. The source cameras ranged from 1/2.3 format bridge cameras to full frame cameras and all the shots appeared equally sharp at that size.

Things like camera shake, poor focus or atmospheric conditions are far more relevant in most cases than sensor size.

 

[patr]

I'm not a subscriber to that opinion.

Good for you. I am.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Good for you. I am.

Can you explain your reasons for that opinion?

 

[TCR4x4]

what is forgotton is a camera phone you are continually paying line rental on top of buying it in the first place. With a camera compact or otherwise one bought you own with nothing more to pay.
I don't have a cameraphone or anything like, the cost of say £25 a month (just guessing) on top of buying makes it a very expensive way to take photos. I bought a Lumix compact not long ago and it is handy to grab hold of or keep in a pocket.

Never paid mobile line rental in my life!

I need a mobile phone anyway, so the cost of the data plan is something I would have regardless of my photographic interest.
Plus work pays for it, so doesn’t cost me a penny.

 

[woof woof]

Can you explain your reasons for that opinion?

I've had both the TZ70 and TZ100 and I've compared them and the 1" sensor definitely gives the better image quality. The only real discussion is how closely you have to look to see the improvement. Comparing MFT and FF, as in Panasonic GX80 and GX9 v my 1st generation Sony A7 again the difference is clear but again we could discuss how picky you have to be or how close you have to look.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

...but again we could discuss how picky you have to be or how close you have to look.

There's the rub.

For this discussion to make sense there need to be rigid criteria to describe what we're comparing and under what regime it's being tested. Perhaps if we agreed on a test like the 1951 USAF Chart ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_USAF_resolution_test_chart ) we could have a sensible exchange of information. At the moment, it's all down to subjective opinion.

If anyone knows better I'd be grateful for the information.

 

[Tunbridge]

I don’t think the vast majority of people would dream of buying a compact camera these days if they have a decent spec modern iPhone or equivalent.
Personally I’d always rather have a camera in my hand. While I don’t always want to take my D750 with me I also have an old RX100 for when I don’t like the bulk.
Maybe I’m just getting old?

 

[woof woof]

There's the rub.

For this discussion to make sense there need to be rigid criteria to describe what we're comparing and under what regime it's being tested. Perhaps if we agreed on a test like the 1951 USAF Chart ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1951_USAF_resolution_test_chart ) we could have a sensible exchange of information. At the moment, it's all down to subjective opinion.

If anyone knows better I'd be grateful for the information.

No, I'm not particularly interested in resolution as such as a measure of what's better than something else. For example crappy old film era lens on my A7 may still give a nicer looking and better file than a quite good lens on MFT. Better would I suppose need defining and there'll be a number of ways to decide what is better. All I can say is what I prefer to process and pixel peep. I'd guess that a lot of people on this forum realise and accept that the ultimate quality a system can deliver may not be readily and easily visible in many of their photographs unless they look closely or push the envelope of what's possible to extremes but as enthusiasts maybe looking at extremes and pixel peeping and seeing differences and wanting to see a level of quality are a part of it. I suppose this searching for of level of quality is present in many hobbies and interests, from watches to cars to Gosh knows what.

All I can say is that I see clear differences going from teeny tiny sensor cameras, through 1" and onto MFT and then FF.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

All I can say is that I see clear differences going from teeny tiny sensor cameras, through 1" and onto MFT and then FF.

The thing is, I can't see clear differences, so I'm looking for some guidance as to what the difference is that you can see between the different sizes. Perhaps you could show us some pictures that illustrate the differences?

That would be a useful resource for everyone who is concerned with quality issues.

 

[sphexx]

All I can say is that I see clear differences going from teeny tiny sensor cameras, through 1" and onto MFT and then FF.

It’s near impossible to test that objectively though because one is usually comparing some particular teeny sensor camera with some particular bigger sensor camera. You would need at least to use a range of different versions of the teeny size and ditto for the bigger and then swap lenses (don’t know how you could do that).

Resolution tests might be objective though a bit useless, sharpness being so bourgeois .

The only way in practice is something like what @AndrewFlannigan referred to with the A0 prints but performed double blind and then get a panel to select … but select for what? Maybe guessing which camera but there are other clues like colours and depths of field etc etc. Hopeless task I think .

 

[adrianday]

Not unless it will comfort you.

My question: is the £100 cutoff for new or second hand? If second hand, I'd definitely argue that a sub £100 camera can be a very good buy, be it compact or a hulking SLR.

A few years ago, I bought a Fujifilm SL300 for £5 from a charity shop. OK, I had to pay out another £12 for a battery and charger but for £17 I got a lot of pleasure. When I tired of it, I handed it in at another charity shop and I hope someone else is now reaping the benefits...

The £100 was for new. That said, I've just checked and I paid £151 for the W70 in 2006! In comparison, the W800 was £59.99 in 2015 (it's £78 today!)

As you've shown, there are bargains to be had second hand. Which I suppose, was the point I was eluding to. There's fun to be had for very little unless image quality is paramount and you want to post-process the bunghole out of the DNG.

 

[adrianday]

Minimum i would get and have had several times are the Sony RX100 cameras. Those are decent cameras

Not quite the camera I was eluding to, in fact, pretty much the polar opposite with regards capability and quality. I've got a Lumix LX5 somewhere which I bought in 2011, a year before the RX100 was released, if I hadn't I'm pretty sure I'd have opted for the Sony.

 

[Deleted member 34016]

I just use my Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra - if I need a compact type camera- which up to now I never have!

I can't see I personally would ever buy / want/ use a cheap compact - I already have many £1,000 's spent on Sony gear - so no real point for me

Les

 

[adrianday]

I just use my Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra - if I need a compact type camera- which up to now I never have!

I can't see I personally would ever buy / want/ use a cheap compact - I already have many £1,000 's spent on Sony gear - so no real point for me

Les

Are there never occasions where you'd feel uncomfortable flashing an expensive camera or phone around?

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Are there never occasions where you'd feel uncomfortable flashing an expensive camera or phone around?

Not me. I just love a bargain, an attitude I caught my from my wife! A few years back, I bought a Canon Ixus 70 for £25 from a shop in Reading. It's a jewel of a camera, not much bigger than the Minox C micro camera....



...and it produces much nicer pictures than I ever managed with my Minox ...

 

[adrianday]

Not me. I just love a bargain, an attitude I caught my from my wife! A few years back, I bought a Canon Ixus 70 for £25 from a shop in Reading. It's a jewel of a camera, not much bigger than the Minox C micro camera....

...and it produces much nicer pictures than I ever managed with my Minox ...

Another 7MP compact! I pleased to see I'm not the only one who rates them.