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

[HEXUS]

Or is image quality not quite there yet?

Read more.

[aidanjt]

Yup. Even my ancient Galaxy Nexus and its crappy motion sick sensor gets the job done just fine. Basically, the camera you use is the camera you have on you, which is pretty much smartphones these days. But the good thing is current smartphones are very capable for non-professional use.

[nichomach]

A lot of the time yes, but not if I know I'm going to be taking photos on holiday or at an event; I'll take along my Fuji compact.

[Brian224]

Not for me, but I wouldn't buy a camera without an optical or electronic viewfinder. My smartphone has replaced the "camera I left at home" on a lot of occasions though.

[3dcandy]

For me most of the time my Note 3 has replaced a point and shoot. However if it's a serious subject, ahem, I take the DSLR

[Jiamenguk]

I take a Fuji CSC and a bright prime lens, there's just no point in trying to use the phone camera indoors (phone flash is horrible as well).

[shaithis]

Not really....

For work stuff, the phone gets used.....if I want to use a camera for personal stuff, the old Canon 30D comes out

[Saracen]

Yup. Even my ancient Galaxy Nexus and its crappy motion sick sensor gets the job done just fine. Basically, the camera you use is the camera you have on you, which is pretty much smartphones these days. But the good thing is current smartphones are very capable for non-professional use.

Entirely agree with the bit I bolded. And most people have smartphones with them.

But for me, no, it hasn't replaced my P&S.

It all, in my opinion, depends what your expectations are?

Most people take snaps, not considered "photos". And for that, a phone with a decent camera does the job.

But if you want high-res, and a pin sharp image, and an optical zoom with a good range, and good IS, a reasonable flash, and so on, then you not only want a P&S, but a good one.

So for me, a camera facility in a smartphone is a good thing, and csn be very useful, and I wouldn't knock it, but replace my compact, which is actually not a basic P&S, nope.

[Otherhand]

"Has your smartphone replaced your point-and-shoot?"

Yes

"Or is the quality not quite there yet?"

Yes

[Ttaskmaster]

Basically, the camera you use is the camera you have on you, which is pretty much smartphones these days. But the good thing is current smartphones are very capable for non-professional use.

^ This!

I have a proper 10mp camera, or whatever, but rarely even took it with me out of the house. Last use it got was at my wedding when I gave it to one of the BrideKnights and the time before was about two years earlier when I took her away to propose.

Even now, I rarely take pics. Most of the time it's just of my dogs, PC or motorcycle and I'm far more likely to download some artwork to use as wallpaper than snap a shot of something.
I regularly have amazing experiences, but I'm just too busy experiencing them to stop and take out a phone to snap a pic.

[Percy1983]

If I need to take a quick picture and my phone is all I have I will use it, if I expect to be taking pictures then the slim point and shoot or DSLR come along.

[TooNice]

Mostly. However, I have my SLT on me pretty much every day so it has to be something I do not really care enough to use it. Additionally, if I am on a holiday, I may still sometime take my old P&S as a backup (it's not super compact, but compact enough to fit just about anywhere). As far as I am concerned, my good old P&S does take better photos than my phone can, and holds better in my hands (which also translates to better photos

[crossy]

For anything that needs zoom the answer is an emphatic "no" - heck even my donkeys years old Canon Powershot S1-IS @3.2Mpix can deliver a "better" photo than any of the "top of the line" smartphones I've tried. Any yes, I know smartphones mostly are digital zoom. But for those quick snaps, definitely the smartphone is a natural choice.

Case in point, on a recent family holiday we took smartphones, a Fuji "rugged" (dust and waterproof) and a proper Lumix "bridge" camera and ended up using all three. Granted the smartphones ended up taking the bulk of the photo's but for some circumstances, (like the aforementioned need for zoom, or low-light situations), a real camera was a must.

Next family holiday is probably themeparking in Florida, so we'll probably leave the bridge camera at home and rely on smartphones and that pocketable rugged model - from past experience these'll be good enough to give acceptable quality.

Is it just me or is camera quality becoming a lot more important to smartphone makers in general? It seems - to me at least - that it was only Sony that initially made a big deal (and still does) over their phone cameras. Now everyone seems to do it, case in point being my latest buy - LG G3 - playing it's 13Mpix optically-stabilised snapper with laser focus as a big selling point. Coincidentally it actually takes pretty good snaps - took 275 on that holiday and discarded 4 when I "audited" them on the PC screen. Miles better than the Galaxy S3 that it replaced.

[Jingee]

I wouldn't recommend a HTC One: Great in daylight, abysmal in low-light.

[Meowdance]

Nexus 5 and the camera isn't the best but certainly does well enough to capture funny moments with friends or a cool car I wander past etc. Never carry a camera with me. We use a Canon 5D at work but that's just static shots. I can't see why I'd ever need to take a DSLR out with me.

[Lucio]

I've certainly been impressed with the results my new Nexus 5 delivered whilst on holiday. Certainly on the phone screen, with HDR enabled, it let me shoot in most light conditions, both indoors and out, without needing an obvious flash (very useful at Edinburgh Zoo).

I'd certainly not spend money on a digital compact, as most of the photos I take aren't intended to be professional quality, they're memory joggers for the future and thus, all the detail I need is something up to the quality of a HD TV (something the Nexus achieves easily).