and help to keep the site free for all
Phone camera
- Thread starter Sue21
- Start date
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 25,742
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Hi Sue, the Pixel has a good reputation, and if the rest of the phone does what you want then I think you should be happy. Just don't over-think it - it's a phone camera after all, and if you wanted super control and huge prints you'd be buying a different kind of tool to make images, right? 
Reviews:
www.dxomark.com
www.dpreview.com
Reviews:
Google Pixel 7a Camera test | DXOMARK
Google Pixel 7a excels in DXOMARK Camera tests, showcasing improvement over Pixel 6a. Despite lacking a dedicated tele camera, it delivers excellent performance with Google Tensor G2 chipset
www.dxomark.com
Google Pixel 7a: A new owner's thoughts on the highest-resolution Pixel to date
Google's latest budget-friendly phone gives you most of the flagship 7-series – and in at least one respect bests them – for a fair bit less cash. Find out what this photographer thinks of his brand-new purchase!
www.dpreview.com
- Messages
- 97
- Name
- Annet
- Edit My Images
- No
I like Xiaomi, Poco x3 is the one I use for almost three years and I'm quite happy with the camera. There is also a modification of Google Camera app that you can find online and use instead of the default camera, it also works great and handles the colors better than the original one sometimes. Also I use Snapseed for mobile editing.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 18,267
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
They are all good enough for record / document shots from close range. That's basically what they are for. Larger sensor obviously wins, whatever phone and brand you are looking at. However I don't see the logic in spending so much money that you can basically buy a full frame camera or a very nice prime lens instead for the money, and a few crates of apples to spare.
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Pixels do have great cameras, probably the best of any phone brand at the moment. As a previous Pixel 6 owner I found the rest of the phone seriously lacking, with poor battery life, poor signal strength and several crippling bugs introduced with software updates. As always, an idea of budget and whether you're an Apple or Android user would help us give some advice.
For 99% of people a phone is their main camera, they are not just for document shots from close range and that's not what the OP is looking for. A full frame camera can't fit in your pocket, access the internet or do basically any of the myriad jobs a phone can do. It's not 2006 anymore, phone cameras are fine for most uses, and a phone is much more than just the camera.
- Messages
- 114,438
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
It seems that my recently acquired Samsung Galaxy has 3 cameras
A 50mpx camera ( )
A 5 mpx front ( selfie) camera
A 2 mpx macro camera.
I didn't buy it for that, so I've no real comment to make, as I've not really used them.
But a phone with over twice the mpx of my 7DII seems a bit extreme to me.
A 50mpx camera (
)A 5 mpx front ( selfie) camera
A 2 mpx macro camera.
I didn't buy it for that, so I've no real comment to make, as I've not really used them.
But a phone with over twice the mpx of my 7DII seems a bit extreme to me.
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 25,742
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
Well, at least the thread survived the weekend before deteriorating.
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
They combine several pixels into one to make a 12MP image. My S23 Ultra has a ridiculous 200MP main camera, but it still outputs 12MP images by default. I can take 200MP Raw images if I really want to but the file sizes are absolutely huge.It seems that my recently acquired Samsung Galaxy has 3 cameras
A 50mpx camera (
A 5 mpx front ( selfie) camera
A 2 mpx macro camera.
I didn't buy it for that, so I've no real comment to make, as I've not really used them.
But a phone with over twice the mpx of my 7DII seems a bit extreme to me.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 41,652
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I think they're awful for anyone who looks closely or cares about image quality.
I disliked carrying my 5D and Sigma 50mm f1.4 but these days I'm pretty happy to carry a small man bag with my Sony A7 and a compact prime inside. Years ago I didn't usually carry a man bag but these days I have so much stuff to carry that the options are to fill my pockets or carry a bag and I really don't like weighed down pockets (including a smartphone as they seem to just keep on getting bigger and my current one will not completely fit in any trouser or coat pocket I have) so a bag is my choice and if I have a bag I might as well take a relatively compact camera and lens.
So my advise is to if at all possible have a camera and a phone, the phone for doing what a phone does and the camera for taking pictures
- Messages
- 114,438
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
Interesting, as I said I rarely use it.
I'll have to try it, and see what size it actually produces, nothing more than a casual interest though.
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Entirely depends on the phone. A cheap phone yes, but a top spec phone from Google, Apple or Samsung is quite capable of taking very nice images. Will it be as good as a dedicated camera, no, but the days of phones having awful image quality are long gone. As the saying goes, the best camera is one you have with you. I was out with my wife on Saturday night when it started snowing. Now obviously I didn't take my Fuji X-T4 out with me for a meal and some drinks, but I did have my phone with me so came home with some lovely images.I think they're awful for anyone who looks closely or cares about image quality.
I disliked carrying my 5D and Sigma 50mm f1.4 but these days I'm pretty happy to carry a small man bag with my Sony A7 and a compact prime inside. Years ago I didn't usually carry a man bag but these days I have so much stuff to carry that the options are to fill my pockets or carry a bag and I really don't like weighed down pockets (including a smartphone as they seem to just keep on getting bigger and my current one will not completely fit in any trouser or coat pocket I have) so a bag is my choice and if I have a bag I might as well take a relatively compact camera and lens.
So my advise is to if at all possible have a camera and a phone, the phone for doing what a phone does and the camera for taking pictures
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 41,652
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I've never seen a picture yet from any smartphone and that includes the latest modern ones that can stand up to the scrutiny any of my camera pictures from 1" sensor and up can. Mrs WW is constantly sending and receiving pictures with smartphones and tablets and they can look good and even stunning on a phone but once they're on my pc the shortcomings are usually there to be seen and easily so.
"Awful" is I suppose difficult to define here but I'll stick with it and that's my opinion for image quality if we care about image quality. For me the answer is usually to take a phone and a camera in a man bag for the reasons above, my current phone is simply too big to fit comfortably in any even coat pocket and then there's keys and change for car parks and all the other shrapnel of daily life. Years ago I had phones that would comfortably fit in a trouser pocket but those days are gone. If anyone is happy with phone photography then I'm happy for them but none of it is for me starting with the awful ergonomics to the unacceptable to me IQ.
My advice is as above, if at all possible and if you interested in picture quality and wider photography take a camera and a phone.
- Messages
- 114,438
- Name
- The real Chris
- Edit My Images
- No
You only have to look at THIS thread to see the progression of phone cameras, and what they are now capable of.
- Messages
- 8,349
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
If you're a pixel peeper phones aren't as good as proper cameras, but the fact is only camera nerds ever look at photos at 100% pixel resolution. Normal human beings look at the pictures.
I have an article in a print magazine by a professional photographer, who always used to use an SLR then a DSLR for his fishing articles, which is all about using a phone. The pictures used in the article are as good as those from any other camera. Admittedly he knows what he's doing regarding shutter speed, lighting etc., whereas most people with phones don't, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with the printed images. I was convinced that today's phone cameras are more than good enough for a lot of photography.
- Messages
- 10,432
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've got the Samsung A52s 5g and I have to say I've very pleased with the camera. It's good in low light and takes really good pic. I often use it.
- Messages
- 9,466
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think they're awful for anyone who looks closely or cares about image quality.
I disliked carrying my 5D and Sigma 50mm f1.4 but these days I'm pretty happy to carry a small man bag with my Sony A7 and a compact prime inside. Years ago I didn't usually carry a man bag but these days I have so much stuff to carry that the options are to fill my pockets or carry a bag and I really don't like weighed down pockets (including a smartphone as they seem to just keep on getting bigger and my current one will not completely fit in any trouser or coat pocket I have) so a bag is my choice and if I have a bag I might as well take a relatively compact camera and lens.
So my advise is to if at all possible have a camera and a phone, the phone for doing what a phone does and the camera for taking pictures
agree with both, a phone camera is ok in good light and can take nice images up to a point but for anything that I care about I always carry a ‘proper’ camera
and if I don’t want to faff about carrying all my gear I pop my Sony RX100 in my pocket takes really nice shots
but the OP was asking about which phone has a decent camera so sorry for going off on a tangent
Last edited:
- Messages
- 414
- Edit My Images
- No
The best camera you can have is the one you have with you at the appropriate time. We always carry our phones.
Google pixel pro 8 gets my vote
Google pixel pro 8 gets my vote
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 25,742
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
TBH There are times when I can see a photo but will NOT use the phone to take the picture. I would rather have no picture than to have one that's disappointing.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 41,652
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't need to look at smartphone pictures at 100% or anything like it. They can look really nice on smartphone and even tablet screens though when the pictures are taken in sympathetic conditions.
I suppose it depends what you want. I take pictures for myself not anyone else and for me smartphones don't give acceptable quality on far too many occasions. I recently printed and framed two smartphone pictures and technically they are simply awful even when only printed 14cm wide and of course there was nothing I could do with them post capture, nothing, they were just too fragile and too much was just already lost. Mrs WW thinks they're great so there's that but ask anyone involved with any hobby if they'd be happy with what some non involved individual would be happy with and a fair few would doubtless say "No" and that's understandable as if you care, then you care.
My opinion of smartphone pictures shouldn't put anyone else off and to those who think the ergonomics are ok and the image quality good enough I can only say, Good for you, Fill your boots
- Messages
- 8,349
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
The majority of people who use their phone's camera feel exactly the same and are more than happy with the results. Even if they look crap to you or I. Although I'm not obsessed with technical perfection because it isn't what makes pictures good. If someone can't live with photos that aren't technically perfect they need to get a life. Better still give up photography.
As Ansel Adams would have said today: Better a fuzzy picture of a sharp concept than a sharp picture of a kitten.
- Messages
- 10,432
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 25,742
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
The breakpoint for me is where the inadequacy of the capture system overwhelms the content. And that's probably true for most of us, just at different levels.
The idea of technical perfection has been used recently on here as a blunt instrument to batter at those who aren't happy with technique so poor that it distracts from the photographer's intention (which may also not be 'sharp' enough to overcome a 'fuzzy' picture). Possibly the worst of all worlds is the fuzzy image of a fuzzy concept - if your picture is tedious then at least make it sharp.
My view is the technical quality of an image should be a way of making the message stronger.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
At normal viewing sizes there is little difference there. Yes if you pixel peep on a large monitor you can absolutely see the differences, but 99% of people won't view their images on anything other than a phone or tablet, and won't care or even notice the differences anyway. Phone cameras were bad 10 years ago, and even 5 years ago weren't incredible but they are absolutely fine for casual photography, days out, holiday snaps etc now for the vast majority of people.
Telling someone asking for phone camera advice to buy a full frame DSLR is like telling someone to buy a Ferrari when they want an everyday runabout car. Yes the Ferrari performs better, but it's also completely impractical in day to day life. I don't think anybody would ever say a phone camera would outperform a dedicated camera system, but they are now good enough for most people most of the time. You can also do a complete end to end workflow on a phone, from image capture, to editing and publishing. You can't do that on a dedicated camera.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 8,349
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
You're right there. I was talking to a woman at an agricultural show and she was telling a tale about a neighbour who had a Ferrari when she said something I'll not forget; "A Ferrari would be no good to me. I couldn't get a sheep in the back of it."
- Messages
- 9,466
- Edit My Images
- Yes
actually yes you’re completely right there , I was guilty of suggesting a ‘proper’ camera when that wasn’t what the OP was asking about
Fuji Dave
I'm in Clover
- Messages
- 21,611
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
I only use both my Galaxy S22 Ultra and Pixel Pro 8, don't own or miss any of my cameras I sold and I will not be getting anymore cameras at all. For me and only me I am very happy with the iq on both of these phones, as has been said you only have to look in the mobile phone image thread to see some great photography.
- Messages
- 4,348
- Name
- Kell
- Edit My Images
- Yes
@Sue21 - which phone do you currently have?
Do you expect to see a marked level of improvement by upgrading?
Or is it a case of not going for a phone which has the worst camera?
My last 4 phones have been iPhones (an iPhone 4, a 6, an XR and a 14) and TBH, I can't see much of a difference between the output from the XR to the 14 Pro. It's more useful as it has the triple lenses, so you get the 13mm wide angle which is wider than any of my DSLR lenses. And also has an optical zoom of 3X. I believe the 2X lens is done by software rather than optics.
I was expecting big things from it - with all the hype. And most of the time it's pretty good. But does leave everything looking rather artificial.
Do you expect to see a marked level of improvement by upgrading?
Or is it a case of not going for a phone which has the worst camera?
My last 4 phones have been iPhones (an iPhone 4, a 6, an XR and a 14) and TBH, I can't see much of a difference between the output from the XR to the 14 Pro. It's more useful as it has the triple lenses, so you get the 13mm wide angle which is wider than any of my DSLR lenses. And also has an optical zoom of 3X. I believe the 2X lens is done by software rather than optics.
I was expecting big things from it - with all the hype. And most of the time it's pretty good. But does leave everything looking rather artificial.