/p/ — Which compact cameras take better photos than modern flagship phones?

>>4489617 (OP)
market price, not sale price
>$200ish
Lumix LX3/LX5/LX7
Nikon CoolPix P330
Olympus XZ-1/XZ-10
PowerShot G10
Samsung EX-1
>$350ish
Ricoh GR Digital I
Canon PowerShot S120
Olympus Stylus XZ-2
Nikon CoolPix P340
Samsung EX2F
Lumix LF1
Fujifilm X10
Fujifilm XQ1
>$500ish
Lumix LX100 I
RX100 III
PowerShot G15
Pentax MX-1
>$700
You probably don’t need to spend this much money.

>>4489626
Thank you, knower

>>4489617 (OP)
rx100 is the only good one and any of the old models are fine and cheap

Fuji X30 slow af
Canon Ixus155 20mp ccd sensor
Ricoh WG-80 water and shock proof

You take photos not camera

>>4489626
Are there any under $500 that don't look like a Fisher Price toy?

>>4489933
Guns don't kill people, nuh uh
I kill people
With guns

>>4490075
You could try not being poor or just use your phone if you’re gonna whine.

>>4489626
>none of them weather sealed
luhmow

>>4490750
Can we see some of the poor weather type shots you do?

Used Lumix dc tz99e
>>4489665
This one too

File: GR001527.jpg (4.98 MB, 3651x2053)

The Ricoh GR 3/3x/4 are the only cameras that remain pocketable with reasonable IQ. The rx100 series are a close second, but you'll be trading down in IQ (but trading up in AF).

The GR is notorious for sucking dust into the sensor, so if your target environment has a polluted atmosphere, avoid, unless you have a Ricoh service center close by.

I found an LX100 in mint condition for ~360 on mpb. You'll find some decent deals if you're patient, but again, the IQ will be a step down from even the RX series despite the larger sensor.

The other models mentioned will only make you want to kys when you compare the IQ and shooting experience to that of a phone.

If you are really committed to something timeless with decent IQ, film might be the way to go.

Picrel, the GR is the GOAT in pocketable digital compacts.

>>4490075
No :(
Sounds like you should just use your phone instead :(((

>>4490178
i can sing this in my head but i dont remember what its from

>>4490075
Digital? Unlikely. If you want to try film, there are many options

>>4489617 (OP)
I want to punch her boobies
>if you know what I mean

>>4489617 (OP)
Sony ZV-1 not big shots but is a great video camera

for strictly photos it's not 1:1 as modern phone software averages frames for low light (and for this definition it's like normal indoor lighting not crazy full frame pulling full detail in the darkness)
I mean you could do this manually with a compact in post but only if nothing moves
so the still small 1/1.5? sensor punches above its size in phones and is basically on par with 1" or more now
tldr just sensor size now, 1"+
which leaves you with rx100 series and ricoh gr and zv1F for extant
actually that one sony action cam too
I wish panasonic still made their compacts
for video though you can just go with similar sensor sizes as long as bitrate is good enough

>>4495056
Very helpful

>>4490766
This cope is so stupid. Did you know that all of those cameras will be fucked permanently by a bit of dust getting in? "Weather sealed" is a lot more than "able to take shots in the rain." For a fixed lens camera in particular it should be a given.

>>4496638
Oh, in that case, can we see some of your examples where dust ingress has impacted you?

>>4496673
Can I see some examples of needing other people to have examples to have an opinion?

>>4490766
reminder this is corgifag having a perma buyers remorse meltdown because fuji weather sealing is so trash he must imagine no one actually needs the same basic environmental protection phones have

He will apply the same cope to anything, autofocus, etc, and INSIST you never hold these expensive ass cameras to standards unless you can post all your ___ shots for him (he will call them shit and say you dont need more than an xt3)

BTW Why is it ALWAYS a dogfaggot?

>>4496673
Never, because I use weather sealed cameras, and I always have. Nikon DSLRs had pretty decent weather resistance, shitty non sealed cameras costing thousands are a new thing driven by Sony.
Fixed lens compacts have never been well sealed. Just not worth it to me, I don't like buying ewaste even if it's cheap.
If you genuinely are interested just look up "dust ricoh gr." Tons of examples.

>>4496692
that dog in the middle looks kind of familiar

File: AUB0F1GC2T7S-0d501b67-f8c8-4663-869f-c93ad87386e6.jpg (82 KB, 1000x1000)

Thought on the olympus tg7? I've heard that you can take better pictures with the iPhone 12, but it looks fun and I was planning in buying one.
What do you guys think?

>>4498441

>>4498336

>>4489665
>cheap

Yeah, I'm seeing them selling from $300-$1,000 on ebay. What the fuck? I remember small digital cameras being like $150 about 15 years ago and they took great shots.
Like any hobby, there will be a bunch of snobs here who will tell you to fuck off unless you want to drop a grand on a fucking camera that probably doesn't even match what phones have now.
That's why I don't like 4chan. Everyone is such a superior asshole instead of being helpful.

File: cam.png (136 KB, 616x300)

I'm getting this. I'm sure it will be fine.

>>4498443
>I remember small digital cameras being like $150 about 15 years ago
Faggot zoomer retro hipster tax.
These 20 year old retards who never used anything except a touchscreen and AI get told by youtoobers that they'll be cool and take better photos than their iPhone 17 if they gobble up all the 15 year old digishits and anything remotely retro looking.

>That's why I don't like 4chan. Everyone is such a superior asshole instead of being helpful.
Yeah I feel that. Putting in effort and trying to help people usually results in being ignored at best and more likely shit talked for minor reasons.

>>4498444
It will be. When you go the compact P&S route the form factor and portability are your main concerns. Nah you wont match some chud/chad with his 5DII and 70-200mm f/4, but if you're having fun then everyone else can eat sand.

File: SX50 HS.png (659 KB, 534x691)

>>4498445
I ended up looking around a bit more and opted for this instead for a bit less money. Not as compact, but it's more of a real camera like my first A-1 in the 90s. I have an iphone mini if I need a small camera.

>>4489626
I own an EX1. Its the shit.

>>4498443
$1200 original msrp. If you want a $150 msrp camera from 15 years ago then actually look for that, but it's ewaste and will take worse pictures than a smart phone.

>>4498443
Inflation plus an influx of zoomers who have never used a dedicated camera who find the compacts cute and want them thus driving the prices up combined with the fact that they are no longer being produced at all except for some chinese cameras that are equivalent to budget cameras from 2006.

>>4498443
You’re right. The rx100s shouldnt be more than $50. What the camera market puts up with is unjustifiable when applied to mass produced plastic electronics. Those shitters aren’t even better than a phone, just more philosophically palatable to anti-AI slacktivists.

The pocket camera market offers you two sane choices:
Ricoh GR
whatever working PNS you can find for <$50

>>4505499
>they are no longer being produced at all except for some chinese cameras that are equivalent to budget cameras from 2006
you lost me there. rx100 is still in production.

>>4505559
Well, yes, but how old is it and at what price?

>>4505640
The latest one was released 2019. or have a ricoh gr iv from 2025, they're the same price.
personally i don't care about cameras being that small. at that point it's a fashion thing like a phone.

>>4491769
Of course, a GR-series camera would be excellent for OP, but it won’t cost him $700 or less. Maybe a GR1? If that’s the 16MP one, I just found a listing for one… $899… let alone the ones you’ve mentioned.

>>4505788
>$899 for a gen 1
even the gen 2 and 3 are getting around for that much or less

>>4489617 (OP)
any

Isn't there those new(ish) digital cameras that looks like candy bars?

>>4489665
these break too easy