Going on a special trip this summer and am thinking about taking pictures. Because we will be hiking in serious terrain, a large camera is not really an option. Are small cameras materially better than an I-phone 6 camera, or substantially similar in terms of picture and zoom quality? [If yes, any specific suggestions?] If it matters, we will be seeing jungle and animals. Thanks all.

 

Iphones have won just about every compact camera comparison test I have read.

I honestly dont know why small camera makers bother

 

The quality of the manufacture in the lens, is paramount to the definition of the image

An iphone is a sophisticated toy......it is not a dedicated tool

I have never used better lenses than Leica......and I have literally used hundreds, and shot maybe, a million'ish images in my time

In terms of a compact camera, maybe try a Leica D-Lux (Typ 109)

 

Optics still rule the day.

 

Canon G series for the win! Not tiny, but great quality even on full automatic.

 

I say pick up a Sony RX100 for compact size, but if you want more reach (zoom) then definitely the RX10. Then again, I am biased as I had worked for them till fairly recently

Best combo of Optics and sensor; BTW, the iPhones use Sony sensors

 

Yes a quality camera beats the iphone all day long.
There are quite a few compacts that are excellent. If you dont mind a fixed lens the Leica Q is an amazing camera and ideal for travel.

 

Disagree 1000%
There is no way a camera with a lens the size of a pencil eraser (and a tiny sensor) will compete with a nice dedicated still camera.

The iPhone can compete in perfect lighting...but outside of that, its not even close

 

Used the wrong phrase I think? Not talking about a nice camera that someone who knows what they are doing might own. The op is not a camera nerd - apparently from what he wrote.

I am a bit of a camera nerd. And my wife has consistently taken better photos in the last few years than me. So I am not a very skilled camera nerd clearly. (I remain consistently baffled in this area)

I am glad to hear things have moved on. But last time I checked you had to spend as much as the IPhone to get a better camera, and then if you are like me, it might take the entire trip to get a working knowledge of how to use it, so that I actually got better photos than my wife with her iPhone did. Well I didn’t actually.

The other thing is that while I love the idea of carrying a good camera, because I am really unused to it, I never end up using it, whereas whipping out the iPhone is second nature to us all now.

And so our best travel pictures have all come from the iPhone. It pains my inner nerd.

After all, the most important part of a camera is the 6 inches behind it.

 

You know what they say...the best camera is the camera thats with you. And since our phones are always in our pockets they tend to be with us at all times...and the latest iPhones are exceptional cameras. But not even close to a good dedicated camera...and yes, you do have to spend as much or more to get a good camera...but thats to be expected as you get what you pay for.

The Leica Q I mentioned is a point and shoot "style" camera with full control and a fixed lens. The difference in quality between it and the iPhone is significant to say the least. The sensor is full frame, the iPhone sensor is the smallest one show in this chart. The lens differences are even greater.

 

It does matter...If its important to get close ups of wildlife, then you want a camera that has a longer lens. But this increases size.

 

The Sony RX100 recommended above is $368 on amazon right now. It's a point and shoot camera so no learning curve like a dslr might have which I'm guessing is what you were referring to. For the OP who might want to capture landscapes and especially animals that might be moving or at a distance where he would need to zoom in, it is head and shoulders above any phone camera.

 

RX100 is a cool camera, but its a 1" sensor and not the best optics. Its all relative to budget, but I wouldn't buy a small sensor camera.

 

This is what I use, quite happy with it.

 

1. I've got both of these -- used the Sony on a two-month hike in the Myanmar jungle. Great battery life, quick to point and shoot, excellent low-light shooting. The Canon has better macro if you want to shoot watches with it once you get back, but is slightly heavier.

 

You bastards


I want a full frame Leica now

 

Exactly, budget is the key. Due to the constantly evolving tech, there a lot of folks who don't like to blow a large amount of money on something that may be outdated/redundant within a year. Which is why it's important for people to focus on what they need, the use and then when that objective is crystallised, the rest becomes superfluous. Buy pretty much only for what you're really going to do with it as that's where one feels satisfied for getting their money's worth.

As my Granddad used to say, you only need to buy quality once; and so personally, I picked up the A7Riii (only because I got a great deal, else the normal A7iii was perfect), but spent most of my cash on the lenses. The Sony-Zeiss 55 f/1.8 (excellent), 90 f/2.8 Macro G (superb) and the new 24-105G f/4 which stays on the body most of the time and is ridiculously versatile with that Riii sensor and IBIS. All together it's not point-'n-shoot small by any means, but even with the ballhead, tripod, bag, other various bits of gear and water, I don't think I'm carrying more than 10-15kgs on my back when hiking.

OP, random tip, keep 2 or 3 sturdy plastic bags with you in case you encounter rain or an unexpected dip crossing a river, best to have your electronics dry!

 

Guys, thanks for the input. Will visit the camera store for some touch and feel and make a decision

 

Camera gear heads are the worst. Someone who is asking “should I buy a camera to travel or is my phone sufficient” is not gonna need a $4,500 full frame camera with a fixed 28mm lens.

@calalum yes, if you want to shoot animals I think it’s preferable to have a camera with a zoom. Modern compact cameras do offer better results than a phone in this situation. Since you want to shoot animals from far away you might need a strong one, but you have to balance that with how often you will use that later.

The RX100 and Canon G-series that have been recommended are excellent but I think the zoom is too short for that use. 70-100mm is what you would use for people portraits, for wildlife I think need at least around 200mm to make a difference.

I think the “travel” and “long zoom” sections in this website have good recommendations and if you read the pages for the individual cameras it will give you some tips on what to look for https://www.dpreview.com/buying-guides (keep in mind this is a website for camera nerds, so when they say things like “this lens is not as sharp as the other one”, it’s a minute difference at the top of the range).

 

I’m with Icono and Spacefruit on this one. Either take a
decent camera/lens, or use an iPhone. People take great pics, not cameras (although if you know how to use them and understand a bit about photography then your pics can be even better)...and the auto settings in the iPhone camera are pretty smart.

Thing I like most about iPhone camera is there is nothing to configure (like ‘auto’ on most cameras) AND it’s lens focal length is equivalent of a 35mm prime...so you can really just focus on your composition as opposed to getting lost in settings and messing with zoom, and ending up taking great pics. And you will always have it with you...unless you have some android phone that is (think eBay out of focus watch pics)...

Just my 0.002c.