My camera failed me... :-(

[shutterbug28]

I was on a day tour around the city today, and my Lumix FZ300 couldn't last more than 1 hour on 4k video. The shots were great outdoors, but struggled in low light indoors. I had the unlikely hero save the day... my crappy Android phone that shoots like **** but I thought it was better than nothing. I think I am up for a new camera. Only question is which one? Also using my crappy Android phone made me think of something... does it make sense even to splurge on a camera when I could invest in a better camera phone instead? I noticed even my crappy Android phone had better battery, it had minimal battery drain, and of course it's so much lighter and portable to use. For an amateur whose use cases are primarily social media sharing, would it be so bad to use a smartphone and still consider it real photography? I am just thinking out loud but it wouldn't hurt if some of you could discuss with me as a beginner

 

[Ysarex83 77]

I was on a day tour around the city today, and my Lumix FZ300 couldn't last more than 1 hour on 4k video. The shots were great outdoors, but struggled in low light indoors. I had the unlikely hero save the day... my crappy Android phone that shoots like **** but I thought it was better than nothing. I think I am up for a new camera. Only question is which one? Also using my crappy Android phone made me think of something... does it make sense even to splurge on a camera when I could invest in a better camera phone instead? I noticed even my crappy Android phone had better battery, it had minimal battery drain, and of course it's so much lighter and portable to use. For an amateur whose use cases are primarily social media sharing, would it be so bad to use a smartphone and still consider it real photography? I am just thinking out loud but it wouldn't hurt if some of you could discuss with me as a beginner

A phone camera is real photography and for many people it is the obvious and best choice. Whether it will serve your needs depends on how you want to use it and what expectations you have concerning the resulting images. Phone cameras have a substantial weight and portability advantage -- always with you. They have limited lens options and for most of them the very small size of their sensors imposes some limitations on the results they can produce. A phone camera can be a very good way to get started and if later it becomes too limiting you'll be in a better position to know what you need.

 

[petrochemist114 139]

For me any of my 10+ year old digital interchangeable lens cameras would beat any phone. Phones don't leave me engaged enough in the process to be fun. The results my wife gets from her phone may often be better than my landscapes & close ups, but it's simple not for me. In addition her phone would be unlikely to manage some of the effects shots I take let alone the long telephoto shots...

 

[Peeb68 5]

The computational photography available on phones now is amazing. The reason I stick with old-school is the amazing lenses that give real optical magnification and real optical bokeh. I like the intentionality too.

They don't need to be state of the art either. My most successful photo on flickr last year was captured on a 20+ year old canon with a very cheap vintage lens.

Having said all that- if your budget and time are limited- the phone is actually a great option.

 

[Tartness90941]

It depends on what you enjoy using really. I have mainly old cameras, a compact Nikon P7000 with a 28-200mm zoom, great for a almost pocketable camera, very sharp lens. A Fujifilm X-S1 bridge camera with a 24-624mm zoom, great all round camera to cover all possibilities and my main camera is a Pentax K70 DSLR which is obviously the best quality out of all my cameras, very ergonomic and enjoyable to use but you need to make a choice of lens for the day or carry them all with you, I tend to decide where I am going and then decide on one or two lenses to take with me. Lastly I have a Pixel 10 Pro mobile phone which has a very good camera on it and I have taken some really great photos with it but I just don't like the ergonomics of a phone camera.

 

[kayumanggisnapshot7 5]

I was on a day tour around the city today, and my Lumix FZ300 couldn't last more than 1 hour on 4k video. The shots were great outdoors, but struggled in low light indoors. I had the unlikely hero save the day... my crappy Android phone that shoots like **** but I thought it was better than nothing. I think I am up for a new camera. Only question is which one? Also using my crappy Android phone made me think of something... does it make sense even to splurge on a camera when I could invest in a better camera phone instead? I noticed even my crappy Android phone had better battery, it had minimal battery drain, and of course it's so much lighter and portable to use. For an amateur whose use cases are primarily social media sharing, would it be so bad to use a smartphone and still consider it real photography? I am just thinking out loud but it wouldn't hurt if some of you could discuss with me as a beginner

Honestly, I think your experience answers part of your question. If your main goal is social media, travel memories, and casual photography, it's hard to beat a good smartphone (or maybe a point & shoot digicam). It's always with you, has excellent battery life, performs surprisingly well in low light, and makes editing and sharing effortless. Dedicated cameras still have advantages in image quality, zoom, and creative control, but photography is about the person behind the camera, not the device, so smartphone photography is absolutely real photography. Sometimes the best camera is simply the one you actually have with you. I'd suggest thinking about whether you really need the extra capabilities of a dedicated camera or if investing in a better camera phone would fit your shooting style and needs just as well.

 

[KJ_North]

Camera phones...... Good god dont make me say it again.... Bring back my Blackberry from the past so i can have a PHONE ... and not a phone that thinks it's a camera.

 

[benhasajeep43 42]

My wife loves using her phones camera. Now S26 Ultra, recently upgraded from S23 Ultra. They both take excellent photos in automatic mode. And that's the trick, ease of user control. Cameras allow the photographer to take control easily and quickly. The photography industry has been retracting over the years because of cell phones. I don't know about the top end Apples, but top end Samsungs can capture very good pictures and videos. There is no denying that.

 

[RScottie111 25]

I cannot say that you will not get decent results from a camera in your phone.

For me, I prefer my DSLR for a number of reasons, mainly using a lens that gets me up to the action or wide enough to get all the action. I prefer optical magnification over digital, especially if I intend to do any cropping or enlargements of specific elements of the photo.

For me, I think that you have a lot more creative options with a "real' camera and not just one that was added as a feature to your phone.

 

[JoeW25 3]

First, anything that is mirrorless will run through batteries. That's true if it's a phone, a mirrorless camera. That is one of the pluses of a DSLR. So if you're going to use a phone or a mirrorless camera, you should plan on either having ways of charging your phone (electrical plug) or extra batteries (mirrorless).

Second, as to what approach works for you, it depends upon what you're shooting. I use my phone for a lot of a wide angle building and landscape photos. My iPhone (a 15 pro) has a high-end camera. Shooting wildlife and sports with it produces grainy, blurry crap. Anything at a great distance (that I'll need to crop)--not good. To put it another way, a phone (if it's high-end) is a great little point and shoot--portable but not very flexible. In low light, great distances, fast moving objects, extreme light (bright light, dark shadows) it's just not going to beat a decent mirrorless or DSLR. So be clear on what it is you are trying to shoot and then choose the right tool.