Features - QOTW: Has your smartphone replaced your point-and-shoot?

[Myss_tree]

Have never taken a photo with my Windows phone, can never remember taking a photo with any of my previous phones.
I would rather have a smartphone without a camera and fill the space with more battery or more storage (memory).
Hardly ever use a camera anyway.

[trevcjohnson]

If I want to take photos to keep I'll use a proper camera.

[Queelis]

Phone is just for accidental photos - low-light (outside in the evening, not night) is still horrible (I have an Xperia T), though I use it on holidays for (gimmicky) panorama shoots. Otherwise, an old 7 MP Canon is still better.

[iiee]

Yes unless im travelling (when i grab my trusty panasonic csc) then i will happily trust my sony z2

[=assassin=]

I don't have a fancy smartphone; I don't see the point in them. All I see is mindless zombies wandering around staring into them while walking out into a road, or crashing into people in a corridor. I know of people I see around my workplace constantly wasting time with random internet searches, and messing about with Facebook instead of doing their job. They promote laziness, and they should be banned. Phones should act as phones; end of.

Anyway, back to topic, I have a bridge camera, and the zoom is far in advance of any smartphone. I take my camera when I go to places I intend to take pictures. I've never felt at any other time that I needed a camera for generally doing day to day stuff, and most of the people who do, seem to be either voyeurs or snoops that take pictures of random stuff I wouldn't even dream of. The only time I could see it might help is if I were a passenger in a car, and wanted to make note of the registration of a bad drivers car. It's not like you're going to be bumping into someone famous every day, and wish you had a camera with you.

[Bambooz]

Since I've got a Moto G, definitely no.
The camera in there isn't even good enough for random snapshots.. and the awkward controls (Motorolas stock camera app) make it even worse..

For semi-serious photography (and pretty decent videos with a ridiculously sensitive microphone) I've got my Nikon Coolpix L820 (link for tech specs)

[Saracen]

I don't have a fancy smartphone; I don't see the point in them. All I see is mindless zombies wandering around staring into them while walking out into a road, or crashing into people in a corridor. I know of people I see around my workplace constantly wasting time with random internet searches, and messing about with Facebook instead of doing their job. They promote laziness, and they should be banned. Phones should act as phones; end of.

Anyway, back to topic, I have a bridge camera, and the zoom is far in advance of any smartphone. I take my camera when I go to places I intend to take pictures. I've never felt at any other time that I needed a camera for generally doing day to day stuff, and most of the people who do, seem to be either voyeurs or snoops that take pictures of random stuff I wouldn't even dream of. The only time I could see it might help is if I were a passenger in a car, and wanted to make note of the registration of a bad drivers car. It's not like you're going to be bumping into someone famous every day, and wish you had a camera with you.

I entirely agree, but the bit about "bumping into" is, to my mind, a good reason for having a camera on you at all times .... at least, while you're driving a car.

I had an accident a few years ago with a woman that pulled out of a private car park, right in ftont of me. We exchanged details, etc, and I sent off my insurance forms. A couple of werks later, I get a knock at the door. A pokiceman is standing there, and it turns out she's accusing me of dangerous driving, pulling out in front of her. So, the cop listens to my story, looks at the damage to my car (damage is on the wrong side to have happened how she claimed, and says he can't make an official decision but doesn't consider any charges likely, and it's mainly her word against mine as to which car was where, when it happened.

"Well, not really," says I. "Would the dozen or so photos I took help?"

He grinned, broadly, and said "Oh yeah. It most certainly would."

I had photos of her car, my car, damage to each, the exact position of the cars, at rest, after the accident, clearly showing position on the road, from several angles. I even had photos of three pedestrian witnesses, along with their names and addresses.

Quite how the hell she hadn't noticed me taking pictures beats me. I can only assume it was shock.

Anyway, the police threw the book at her, and she admitted in court that she'd lied. Apparently, she got home, told hubby what'd happened and the idiot told her to tell it so as to make it my fault, to avoid losing no claim's bonus. She ended up losing a lot more than that.

That, of course, was before the days of digital cameras. I always carried either a tiny (about half the size of a Snickers bar) little Voightlander 126 camera, or a 35mm Olympus compact that was almost as small. Apparently, those photos came as quite a surprise to her. And to the idiot she was married to.

[JP7152]

I haven't posted on here for quite a while but it's a topic that's been on my mind lately. The phone is so convenient and is usually with you.

I've had my phone 2.5 years now (Xperia S) and over that time I've always been pleased with the camera quality. It can be a bit grainy and sometimes lack detail though. The lack of zoom is definitely something I miss.

If you're interested click the caterpillar for are a few images I've taken with it.

[nichomach]

That, of course, was before the days of digital cameras. I always carried either a tiny (about half the size of a Snickers bar) little Voightlander 126 camera...

A Vitessa 126? Excellent. My Mum's always been a Voigtlander nut and has had a variety of Vitos over the years. A good few years ago, on a break in Prague I found her a 9150s Vito B with the proper Color Skopar lens for about £40, which she was thrilled with.

[Saracen]

A Vitessa 126? Excellent. My Mum's always been a Voigtlander nut and has had a variety of Vitos over the years. A good few years ago, on a break in Prague I found her a 9150s Vito B with the proper Color Skopar lens for about £40, which she was thrilled with.

I can't remember the model name, but I've still got it .... if I can find it. But it wasn't all that much bigger than the 126 cassette, just a bit longer. It must've been about 2cm deep (front to back), 1.5cm high and about 10cm long. The flash clipped on the end, adding another 5cm or so to the length. Maybe not tiny by midern standards, but it sure was for the 70s. Perfect for carrying about in the car, too.

[crossy]

Folks, the question says about smartphone camera's replacing point-and-shoot cameras, not some dSLR costing hundreds, (or thousands) of pounds (or dollars, or whatever your local currency is).

Anyone who'd use any smartphone camera when they'd got a dSLR, (or CSC or even a non-budget digicam), to hand is a plank in my opinion. And don't get me started on those "geniuses" who seem to think that using a tablet camera is a good idea. Please don't do it, you look like a complete moron.

I don't have a fancy smartphone; I don't see the point in them. All I see is mindless zombies wandering around staring into them while walking out into a road, or crashing into people in a corridor. I know of people I see around my workplace constantly wasting time with random internet searches, and messing about with Facebook instead of doing their job. They promote laziness, and they should be banned. Phones should act as phones; end of.

Don't agree with some of this. You don't see the point ... fine. And while I wholeheartedly agree with you on the phone zombies (used to be iPhones exclusively, but Galaxy S4's seem popular now) if it wasn't phones then it'd be iPod's or even Walkmen (remember them). Idiots is idiots. Oh, and can I add "zombies writing texts while trying to steer a supermarket trolley" to your list?

A smartphone used properly can be a useful tool. Mine is point-and-shoot camera, satnav, music player, password store (heavily encrypted), and doc reference. Could I do without it ... yes, but then I'd need an alternate way of doing what it does, probably a small tablet. I'm also trying to persuade my kids to use theirs as a tool to access the wealth of useful information out there. Case in point - was at my parents house yesterday and we couldn't remember Martin Landau's wife (like him also in Mission Impossible series), pulled out my phone and got the answer (Barbara Bain) and we were able to go "oh yes" and move the conversation along.

To use the old cliche:
Tools aren't inherently stupid, some of the people who use them definitely are!

[Jowsey]

As mentioned above in the last 70 or so comments, my phone camera has not replaced anything.

Mostly because I never owned a point and shoot and could never actually see the point in owning one ( I'm a 20 year old guy, taking pictures of things bores me, I want to experience the thing I'm witnessing, not taking a crappy photo of it that captures no of it's feel).

Though there is a nice convenience factor with phones. If I needed to take a picture of something then I do have at least a super basic camera with me. Bumping into a celeb on the street, seeing a funny street sign, those kind of situations.

I'll tell you one thing though.

Smartphones with there basic video capability has ruined the live gig experience for me.

I'm short and struggle to see things as it is without people sticking there hands in the air for a video they WILL NEVER watch again because it's complete garbage.

But on a serious note, if I wanted to take some pictures ( on holiday or a family birthday or what have you ) I have a Sony A58 for serious pictures.

[crossy]

Smartphones with there basic video capability has ruined the live gig experience for me.
I'm short and struggle to see things as it is without people sticking there hands in the air for a video they WILL NEVER watch again because it's complete garbage.

+1 on this. Last time I was at a concert (Madness) the blonde (bimbo?) in front of me spent the whole gig holding her iPhone in front of her (filming) and watching the screen of the phone rather than the actual concert.

And there's the small matter of the light pollution from the umpteen different screens cranked to max brightness. Cretins!

[mikerr]

Well there was a time I had my DSLR with 50mm pancake lens in my briefcase "just in case"
but nowadays a phone is good enough for casual use - they still need plenty of light though.

In terms of quantity - the camera on my wrist takes most pictures

I picked up a samsung gear for £90 on amazon on a whim (would never have paid £250+)
and it's surprisingly useful for being able to take a photo within a second of thought
quality isn't fantastic - but convenience wins out:

- swipe down on watch, then tap screen once.
photo has been taken, and is already in dropbox...

[Saracen]

Folks, the question says about smartphone camera's replacing point-and-shoot cameras, not some dSLR costing hundreds, (or thousands) of pounds .....!

Indeed, but for me at least, a P&S (though that's a term that's a bit ambiguous in itself) is an alternative to a dSLR (or 35mm SLR, for that matter). They're for different purposes. I use a P&S, or compact, depending on your definition, for times and purposes when I either don't want an SLR with me, or simply don't have it with me.

Put it this way. If I go, for instance, on a business trip to, oh, Prague, and I expect to get a few hours to myself, I'm going to want good quality photos, but I'm nit going to want to lug an SLR around. So .... a reasonably high end (by which I mean Canon, Olympus, etc, but not Leica) compact, is what I want.

There's no doubt that smartphone cameras are getting better, some much more so than others. There's no doubt that, for my expectations, a decent smartphone camera is good enough for 'snaps', like a group of friends at a get-together jn a restaurant. But it's NOT good enough, for my expectations, for a 'proper' photo.

See, it's about my expectations. I got my first SLR at age, oh, 13 or 14. I was developing my own film and prints by 14, and am quite at home in a darkroom. I currently do it all digitally, but have several photo inkjets at home, including an Epson R800 for day to day use, an A3+ inkjet, an Olympus dye-sub printer and several film scanners, and high end flatbeds, up to A3 in size.

I'm certainly not a pro photographer, although I have made some income from it over the years. But photography is a serious hobby for me. And THAT sets my expectations from a 'proper' photo, as opposed to a snap.

A smartphone could do some, but only some, of what I expect from a P&S. It could replace a P&S for those 'snaps', or indeed as a carry-about for car accidents, etc, but until they have far better quality lenses, stabilisation, optical zoom, etc, it's not going to replace my 'compact'. We could, however, argue about whether a relatively high-end 'compact' is a P&S. In my case, it depends on which compact I'm using, but I do have one no bigger than a typical P&S, and can be used in full automatic, but also has some manual control.

I agree entirely, too, that a smartphone can be a useful tool, used sensibly, and ignoring the 'zombies'. But, useful enough to justify the cost? Useful enough to overcome the risks of privacy loss? For me, it never has been useful enough, on either score. But that's my criteria, and no doubt other people make a different judgement.

I'm not bothered about having a smartphone at all, and it certainly doesn't replace my P&S.

[cheesemp]

Yes for all basic purposes. I's love a zoom on my phone but for 99% of pics its fine. I'm sure there is a place for a cheap point and shoot (such as going on holiday when you don't want the phone to be stolen) but mine are gathering dust. Heck even my decent bridge camera is too... Its just so good to see and moment and capture it without having to think where my camera is. Now I have a 9 week old daughter its all I use as finding a camera would mean losing the moment.