best phone for photography

[peterb]

What case in point - more pot calling kettle black. You make up weird points to say how a compact or a cheaper phone won't work and to avoid actually talking about anything you make it about the person. I love how on purpose you forgot the OP is from India where the s7 is £530 and the phones i suggested start at £135 and are cheaper than in the UK.

This is about the best all round advice for the OP - you are annoyed since i suggested that your device is not the best for the job. I don't even own an rx100 myself (s95 will do the job). Heck even my phone is OLD. Even my suggestion of the Moto G is based on the cheaper Indian models there and does not include all the Chinese phones from oppo, huawei,etc which have a far more greater push there but i have less experience with them.. I mean i just looked at some pics from a P9 LITE yesterday which a relative bought and they are better than my phone. £125 from EE at the time.

To be fair, the OP didn't ask for the 'best value for money in the region I live' or ask for the best device for taking photographs - he specifically asked for the best phone camera for taking photographs in all conditions.

Such a wide remit is bound to generate a variety of responses because no smartphone is going to compete with a conventional camera in all conditions!

Asking a question like that is like asking what the best graphics card/hdd/sad etc is, without specifying the type of use it will get.

cptwhite_UK described what works for him and why, others (including me) have said what phones we use to give acceptable results for the use we put it. My smartphone is infinitely inferior to my Olympus C50 - when I am under 20 metres of water, simply because I have a waterproof housing for the C50, but not the phone. On the other hand, if I'm wearing a pair of shorts and a polo shirt, the phone slips into a pocket, while the C50 doesn't.

With such an open ended question, it seems reasonable to assume that the poster is not constrained by budget issues, although it is worth remembering that many medium priced phones will give results as good as or close to more expensive models.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

To be fair, the OP didn't ask for the 'best value for money in the region I live' or ask for the best device for taking photographs - he specifically asked for the best phone camera for taking photographs in all conditions.

Such a wide remit is bound to generate a variety of responses because no smartphone is going to compete with a conventional camera in all conditions!

Asking a question like that is like asking what the best graphics card/hdd/sad etc is, without specifying the type of use it will get.

cptwhite_UK described what works for him and why, others (including me) have said what phones we use to give acceptable results for the use we put it. My smartphone is infinitely inferior to my Olympus C50 - when I am under 20 metres of water, simply because I have a waterproof housing for the C50, but not the phone. On the other hand, if I'm wearing a pair of shorts and a polo shirt, the phone slips into a pocket, while the C50 doesn't.

With such an open ended question, it seems reasonable to assume that the poster is not constrained by budget issues, although it is worth remembering that many medium priced phones will give results as good as or close to more expensive models.

How is that any different from somebody coming here and saying they want a Titan XP and a Core i7 6800K for running WoW at 2560p and somebody else says,wait a second you can buy a £240 Core i5 7600K and a £400 GTX1070 should do the job for much less??

The OP needs to be made aware of what is available out there,and the disadvantages of even "high end" phones or even that a much cheaper phone might be sufficient too. Remember we have these questions all the time on here with computers - people thinking they need a £250 motherboard when an £80 one will be fine.

The thing is I have mates who have a whole load of "higher end" smart phones too including the S6 series,various iPhones,OnePlus models,Nokia 1020,etc. AT actually rated the S6 as having better image quality in a number of situations than the S7. I am not making the statement through just ignorance - I do that through actually looking at some pictures people have taken.

How do we know whether the OP has even considered a compact and thinks their ONLY option for a smallish camera is either a phone or an ILC of some sort?? A lot of people might not even be aware of 1" sensor compacts at all - I remember doing direct comparisons between the 1/2.3" and 1/1.7" Canon compacts of the same generation and it was noticeable how much better the latter cameras were. Most people's experience with compacts was not with the larger sensor models anyway.

The fact of the matter is you are comparing a sensor over 4 times larger,a massively bigger aperture(much more light),an F1.8 lens together with image stabilisation. The RX100 sensor can be pushed to much higher ISO and it will have better DR.

The thing is the difference is still huge - £350 to £400 going to a higher end phone. Phones are far more disposable than compacts - the RX100 has been built for nearly 5 years now,which shows how sound the basic design is. The Olympus C50 is like 13 years old and I had the Optio 450 and Canon S60 which uses similar generation Sony sensors so I know the image quality(got some good pics with them). Trust me when I tell you you can use the RX100 at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 and it blows my S95 out of the water once the ISO goes up(it also has OIS) and that is using newer tech too.

From the Imaging Resource review:

Though its official base ISO starts at 125, the Sony RX100's ISO 80 images looked good printed at 24 x 36 inches. Color was muted, particularly yellows and greens, as we also found in our MacBeth test target.

ISO 125 shots also looked quite good at 24 x 36, with excellent detail, but the muted color persisted.

ISO 200 images also looked very good at 24 x 36, if a little softer than ISO 125. Not enough to require a smaller print size.

ISO 400 images printed very nicely at 20 x 30 inches, with sharp detail.

ISO 800 shots were soft enough at 20 x 30 that we preferred the 16 x 20-inch prints, though we'd still call the 20 x 30-inch prints usable for most subjects. By ISO 800, the red leaf swatch appeared soft.

ISO 1,600 shots are usable at 13 x 19 inches, but look better at a still fairly large 11 x 14 inch size. The red leaf swatch was somewhat soft at this point.

ISO 3,200 images look good at 8 x 10 inches, with the exception of the difficult red leaf swatch.

ISO 6,400 images are a bit soft for 8 x 10 inch prints, but look quite good at 5 x 7 inches.

Overall, the Sony RX100 stands out as a pocket camera that can produce good quality 24 x 36 inch prints from ISO 80 to 200, and even its highest ISO of 6,400 outputs a good quality 5 x 7. Impressive!

Unlike most review sites,they still print their images.

To put that in context,an RX100 will produce a decentish A3 print at ISO 1600.

We need to consider Asia has different SKUs than here - the Moto G was a prime example of it. The Moto G Turbo was the same price as my OLD 3rd gen Moto G in the UK,but had the SOC from the Moto X Play which was £250+ and it also had quick charge.,etc.

Then you need to consider Chinese companies have far more market penetration too,so there is a huge range of phones to look at. I would say the sub-continent market is actually more crowded than here,so there might be actually quite decentish Chinese or local phones too.

This is why I mentioned it,as we are making assumptions based on UK positioning for example.

On a side note from the OP,one of my mates was all into upgrading to the latest and greatest iPhone every year,until I pointed him to an offer on a higher end X series prosumer compact. The thing is he keeps looking at the latest iPhone and thinks,his old X series camera is still better and nicer to use(people even on and off ask to have a go on it,since it looks olde worlde),and then he saw me using an XT10 at the latest comic-con,and the camera was doing far better under the challenging light than all the people with their smartphones and now he has pretty much sold on getting one,and going to use the iPhone until it breaks.

That is the main issue I have - its why I never bought a Nokia 1020(also the OS on that one too) or even the CM1(I could have got one for £250 new) - unless I want to stop updating my phone,I know as time progresses it will become a paper weight. The problem is if you don't update it,you will start to have issues running newer software and you will have more security holes. Then you are stuck replacing it with another expensive phone a few years later.

Then the other problem of phones - you have a much higher chance of dropping the thing anyway,and this is why you see so many people with cracks,etc on their latest iPhone,Galaxy S,HTC,etc especially with the sort of geocaching type of stuff I do. I found the "cheap" plastic phones seem to survive drops and bumps far better than the metal ones I had.

Plus a decade ago,you used to get the phones cheap via a 12 month subsidised contract,so you got a nice new higher phone every 12 months and it worked out much cheaper than buying a phone up front. Now you either have to stump a large amount upfront or get caught into 24 month contracts since the networks don't subsidise phones as much now.

Its why I look at these "high end" phones and seem to be continually disappointed by them - I personally think we need much more competition in the high end market. The marketing seems more than the sum of their parts sadly.

[peterb]

How is that any different from somebody coming here and saying they want a Titan XP and a Core i7 6800K for running WoW at 2560p and somebody else says,wait a second you can buy a £240 Core i5 7600K and a £400 GTX1070 should do the job for much less??

It is different because the OP didn't ask about specific models - he asked a general question. to use your example - had he asked "is x brand better than y brand" then your analogy would be true. It is unfortunate that the OP has not been back to clarify his requirement in the ligtof posts here though.

Its perfectly reasonable to point out the alternatives - but the OPs question was specifically about phones - and the 'best' - whatever that means.

Your arguments about not updating/buying a high end phone might be perfectly reasonable for you - but they might not be applicable to the OP.

And you are quite right about other phones available in the OPs area that are not in the UK market - but this is a UK based sight although we do have an international readership, but contributors can only comment on what they know and what works for them.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It is different because the OP didn't ask about specific models - he asked a general question. to use your example - had he asked "is x brand better than y brand" then your analogy would be true. It is unfortunate that the OP has not been back to clarify his requirement in the ligtof posts here though.

Its perfectly reasonable to point out the alternatives - but the OPs question was specifically about phones - and the 'best' - whatever that means.

Your arguments about not updating/buying a high end phone might be perfectly reasonable for you - but they might not be applicable to the OP.

And you are quite right about other phones available in the OPs area that are not in the UK market - but this is a UK based sight although we do have an international readership, but contributors can only comment on what they know and what works for them.

Except we get plenty of people asking for high end gaming rigs that they want to game at XYZ resolution for a few years - how many here will say,get a GTX1080TI instead of a Titan X/XP since it is 90% of the Titan XP or don't get this Intel CPU since this cheaper one is 90% of it for less. Oh I want the best £300 motherboard - here is a £150 which does most of it. Or that £400 RAM set - that £150 one does the same job.

I am sorry but I have not once recommended a Titan over a 80TI card EVER even on an uber budget build. I don't see the point of spending significantly more to get small improvements especially with the short lifespan of a lot of stuff. This is something I have not hidden for years.

Also, the whole not applicable stuff - remember when I started on Hexus,people were arguing with me when suggesting AMD CPUs,since they were not applicable to gaming since Intel was the only option as it was "the best". Yeah,I still remember the massive arguments over that too.

But the problem is again,I have tried many higher end phones out, making up a 100000 excuses why the alternative to one won't work - yet I am not the only one who actually has used smallish high end compacts(even back in the film days) and had no issues carrying them about.



Plus its all a moot point if people don't even print the image at a reasonable size- this defeats the whole objective of worrying about image quality especially when most social media sites compress them down more,so a cheaper phone will probably suffice.

Also don't try to make it about me - I am more perplexed since plenty of people have HUGE MASSIVE phones nowadays which need bigger pockets than most of the compacts I am talking about. Even some of the best selling high end phones are over 5.5" in screen size,the exploding Samsung was huge, with people carrying small external batteries to recharge their phone on the go,or these attachments:



or a selfie stick!! Yes,people do carry these bits around.

How did people manage before all these high end smartphones - when I actually lived in London and got some of these impromptu pictures when walking to work,etc. Apparently this is not possible since cameras are too large and big to use.

So again I am not sure why I need to be recommending a £500 smartphone,which will be obsolete much quicker than a decentish compact whilst ignoring cheaper phones in the same breath.

Sorry,I am not going to push something that costs more and has worse image quality just to keep up.

Oh another thing:

http://www.zdnet.com/article/smartph...g-your-iphone/

Big brands are finding it harder to persuade users to upgrade to the latest models, while cheaper rivals make a breakthrough.

This is what I have been saying all along - the new models are drip fed improvements over older ones,there is a lack of innovation and cheaper phones are eating away sales of high end ones.

If you look at why people are extending lifecycles -- it's about the innovation of today and the benefits of upgrading," Cozza said, arguing that many don't see a benefit in upgrading their iPhone or Samsung Galaxy on a yearly basis because vendors are losing the ability to "show value" in their yearly product updates.

However, while Apple and Samsung are struggling to convince us to buy their latest phones -- especially as high prices can put consumers off -- Chinese manufacturers Huawei, Oppo, and Xiamoi have experienced a significant growth in sales

In terms of predicting the future, it looks as if there's a growing divide between the dirt-cheap manufacturers and firms that are still producing higher-end Android phones. Huawei, ZTE, TCL and Micromax are all considered success stories having turned their attentions to India and other emerging markets. Sony, HTC and Samsung, to a lesser extent, are all marked down as losers that "struggled to achieve growth at the high end of the market."

Oh,wait what was I saying??

The fact that older phones can even compete,and that a number of old compacts are still better,should set alarm bells ringing and just shows how much Samsung,Apple,LG,etc are taking customers for a ride and the market is slowly starting to respond. They could easily have better cameras,zooms,etc considering how much money they have,but they choose not to since reheating what stuff they have lying around as the latest is far cheaper.

Seriously if somebody told me 10 years ago in 2017 people would be spending at least a £200 to £300(or more) premium on going from having a camera with a 1/3.2" sensor to a 1/2.3" one with no zoom,and a very basic lens design,even more money on extension lenses,etc I would honestly think they were joking.

However,considering how well Beats has done,I shouldn't be surprised!

Over and out!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

So I decided to check if I was being unfair about the cost of the cameras.

No I wasn't.

Samsung S7 camera

http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_gala...news-17222.php

The 12MP camera with Dual Pixel tech costs nearly $14

iPhone 7

http://uk.businessinsider.com/iphone...16-9?r=US&IR=T
https://petapixel.com/2016/10/22/iph...-26-9-5-phone/
https://www.dpreview.com/news/485202...-material-cost

The cameras come to around $20 to $26.

P9 Lite

http://blog.ihs.com/huawei-p9-smartp...nd-some-misses

Similar cost for the cameras.

Google Pixel

http://www.businesswire.com/news/hom...ost-Line-Rival

The cameras are just under $20.

These are all mass produced units in these phones and more importantly are probably not the pricing for large customers from the OEMs either(who probably order millions of these).

Even though marketing might say one thing I would argue that a fair chunk of the R and D cost for the camera modules is going to be borne by the OEMs who sell the completed units to the phone companies and have to be involved in the actual design process,and companies like Sony,etc who develop the actual imaging chips. Things like chip fabrication plants and optics factories probably have a large sunk cost on top of this and Samsung and Apple are known to drive OEMs hard on costs too.

In fact most of the increased BOM of a high end smart phone is down to things like processor,chipset,wireless bits and display.

[cptwhite_uk]

CAT, I appreciate your commitment to maximising value or required performance for a particular goal. I love the fact you go into so much depth and would argue your corner until the end of time. However you do need to take a couple of points on board, and instead of running off with cost analysis examples please give them a fair hearing and consider what I'm saying.

1) Your idea of best value, or best course of action isn't necessary the correct or best solution for everyone. For example I explicitly stated I simply want the best smartphone camera. For me, the Galaxy S7 is the ideal package for everyday use. The quality, in my opinion, is good enough. It also ticks all the other criteria I'm after. I appreciate it's not the best value, best quality in a given price bracket or your personal preference but for me, personally, it is.

2) Value for money isn't everything to all people. Yes I like a bargain as much as the next person, but in the case of the phone camera I carry with me at all times, I'm happy to spend the extra to get the very best quality. Even if on a cost/performance metric it's not the best. I want that that little bit better quality in low light and consistency the S7 gives as opposed to the Oneplus 3T, Moto X, LG G6, or Sony equivalent.

3) Try and not take things personally. I don't see any contradiction with the views I expressed, and it seems to me you implied some of my opinions by yourself that I didn't even state. Comments like:

You seem to be determine to push that the ONLY way forward to capture impromptu pictures is with a high end smart phone.

This isn't the case for everyone, but for myself it is my preferred solution due to the fact I don't want to carry around any kind of dedicated camera equipment full time, as I already expressed. I never stated it was the only way to capture impromptu pictures, you assumed this yourself.

I wish to draw a line to this ridiculous debate and have us just accept we have differences of opinion due to different priorities in our photography and leave it at that.

I'd appreciate you replying to address these points outlined, but just to be clear I won't be continuing this debate beyond acknowledging your response. I have a full time job and 2 kids, and simply can't dedicate the time and research to a debate that you apparently can. Try to chill out a bit, we're not enemies here.

Peterb - thanks for your contribution and sanity also.

[Mangomonkey]

Like everyone else says, a Mirrorless Camera or DSLR would be best but if you have to go for a phone camera, my vote would go for either the LG G5 or G6! Nice f1.8 aperture camera on the back of them and manual controls!

[snedger]

CAT, I appreciate your commitment to maximising value or required performance for a particular goal. I love the fact you go into so much depth and would argue your corner until the end of time. However you do need to take a couple of points on board, and instead of running off with cost analysis examples please give them a fair hearing and consider what I'm saying.

1) Your idea of best value, or best course of action isn't necessary the correct or best solution for everyone. For example I explicitly stated I simply want the best smartphone camera. For me, the Galaxy S7 is the ideal package for everyday use. The quality, in my opinion, is good enough. It also ticks all the other criteria I'm after. I appreciate it's not the best value, best quality in a given price bracket or your personal preference but for me, personally, it is.

2) Value for money isn't everything to all people. Yes I like a bargain as much as the next person, but in the case of the phone camera I carry with me at all times, I'm happy to spend the extra to get the very best quality. Even if on a cost/performance metric it's not the best. I want that that little bit better quality in low light and consistency the S7 gives as opposed to the Oneplus 3T, Moto X, LG G6, or Sony equivalent.

3) Try and not take things personally. I don't see any contradiction with the views I expressed, and it seems to me you implied some of my opinions by yourself that I didn't even state. Comments like:



This isn't the case for everyone, but for myself it is my preferred solution due to the fact I don't want to carry around any kind of dedicated camera equipment full time, as I already expressed. I never stated it was the only way to capture impromptu pictures, you assumed this yourself.

I wish to draw a line to this ridiculous debate and have us just accept we have differences of opinion due to different priorities in our photography and leave it at that.

I'd appreciate you replying to address these points outlined, but just to be clear I won't be continuing this debate beyond acknowledging your response. I have a full time job and 2 kids, and simply can't dedicate the time and research to a debate that you apparently can. Try to chill out a bit, we're not enemies here.

Peterb - thanks for your contribution and sanity also.

Aw, does that mean that you're not going to say what you ended up getting?
Such a shame when responders polarised views put a forum off topic - so few responses talking about camera on phone
I haven't got myself a new phone yet.
I've decided against the Google Pixel XL - handling one in a shop didn't impress me enough.
Half thinking about the Xperia XZ Premium, but if it's not available before my holiday in May, then I'll probably check the Note 8 later in the year - hopefully the dual lens rumours will come true.
I have just bought myself a new compact camera - not too awkward to carry around when you're wearing a coat, but I won't be generally using it when the weather is warm enough not to need a coat, unless I'm carrying a bag/backpack for some other reason - too used to the portable convenience of a phone's camera.
My always available Xperia Z3 is still taking very excellent snaps, so that'll have to do for now.

[Mangomonkey]

I personally love my DSLR and use it a lot, but there are so many times when I don't have it with my and see something that I have to photograph on my iPhone. It's nowhere near as good as my DSLR with a 24-70mm f2.8l lens on, but it's better then nothing. In-fact lots of famous photographers have done exhibitions from phone cameras!

Aw, does that mean that you're not going to say what you ended up getting?
Such a shame when responders polarised views put a forum off topic - so few responses talking about camera on phone
I haven't got myself a new phone yet.
I've decided against the Google Pixel XL - handling one in a shop didn't impress me enough.
Half thinking about the Xperia XZ Premium, but if it's not available before my holiday in May, then I'll probably check the Note 8 later in the year - hopefully the dual lens rumours will come true.
I have just bought myself a new compact camera - not too awkward to carry around when you're wearing a coat, but I won't be generally using it when the weather is warm enough not to need a coat, unless I'm carrying a bag/backpack for some other reason - too used to the portable convenience of a phone's camera.
My always available Xperia Z3 is still taking very excellent snaps, so that'll have to do for now.

[MrRockliffe]

Going back to the original question, Google's image processing is undoubtedly the best in the game. I find iPhone cameras to produce lack-luster images, with very bland colours; often described as neutral (but boring, nevertheless).

The S7 while good, I feel isn't as good as the Pixels, and certainly not as versatile as the G6 with its wide angle lens. So it's up to you, OP, as to whether you want point and shoot results with great image quality, or don't mind spending a little more time perfecting your shots (LG G6), but having a broader range of scenarios you can use it in.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Look down the market range especially in terms of AF and image quality. Look at the G5 Plus for example:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/len...essions-review

12MP CMOS sensor with 1.4µm pixel size
F1.7 aperture
On-sensor phase detection

Smartphones won't produce a decent image in all conditions - they lack DR,and they have to rely on various tricks,etc to try and produce decent images in low light. If you can run a smartphone with a largish screen,then I really honestly think people over estimate the size of cameras now.

People are selling the OP a dream which won't work out in reality. OP can have the best of both worlds on a £500 budget - those 1" cameras will can be used up to ISO3200 and have OIS.

Edit!!

Lets look at the size comparisons.

Here is the older gen phone I have with a 5" screen:



Many have screens which are much bigger.

That top camera in silver is a Fuji Tiara which I used to carry about before digital was affordable. My S95 was smaller than that and an RX100 slightly smaller. My wallet is bigger than the camera.

My phone is not big - yet I need bigger pockets to carry one than the camera. Most of the higher end phones are bigger.

That black and red box is an external battery which I carry around when geocaching,etc,since these destroy battery life and I walk sometimes a few dozen km with that in my pocket.

I am not a 6 footer so I don't have big pockets,but I still carry that and my wallet and my phone fine. I have seen plenty of people carry smaller power packs due to things like Pokeman Go,etc...in their pockets.

So I am trying to figure out how a small compact is suddenly a massive problem.

[MrRockliffe]

I get what you're saying CAT, and I agree with half the stuff you've said. But also, you must remember, not everyone carries a camera round with them, and the best camera you own is the one you have on you at the time. There ARE good cameras that do the job, but OP asked for the BEST SMARTPHONE camera.

For a smartphone, it's not all to do with the sensor, as I'm sure you know. LG have proven this, as have motorola, in opposite ways. LG's G6 uses a 'mediocre' sensor, a takes, in my opinion, fantastic pictures for a quick point and shoot, and the Motorola G5 Plus uses the same sensor as the S7, but takes very underwhelming photos in comparison.

I've contemplated getting an RX100 second hand to take pictures, but get put off by the thought of having to carry around another sizeable tech device, that I have to charge up and buy SD cards for.

I'd rather spend the extra cash on a phone, get 90% of the picture quality for a similar price, and not have the faff of carrying multiple devices around. If everyone bought the best device for each function, heck we'd be walking round with a music player, satellite phone, camera, multiple lenses etc etc, but people, on the whole, just want the one devices that's 90% as good. And you may argue why not just get a budget phone with cameras that are good enough, and it's because budget phones are budget for a reason, less time spent on software optimisation, and less on materials.

For me, 400 quid on an S7 edge over 200 on a budget phone and 200+ on a second hand camera.

[MrRockliffe]

Also, I've used a TZ70 as a point and shoot for a number of days, and while it's a great camera (Smaller sensor than an RX100 I know, but they're gold dust), I just didn't feel for every days quick shots, or 4K video recording it was as good. I had to play around with the settings more than I otherwise would and it's just hassle.

[cptwhite_uk]

Because it necessities the need to carry two items around with you, as opposed to one. Assuming like most people in the real world you do carry a phone with you at all times.

[peterb]

Ive just been comparing photos taken with my iPhone and the from my 2004 Olympus C50 at a then respectable 5 Megapixel. Its difficult to tell the difference for point and press - the Olympus has slightly more vibrant blues - but under good light the results are comparable. Zooming is much better on the Olympus - optical zoom so Im not sacrificing pixels for the zoom effect, and I guess low light performance would be better - but for convenience (as others have said) the phone wins because it is nearly always in my pocket - the Olympus (or my main camera, a Canon 5D) isn't. But if Im going out specifically to take photos - then its the compact or DSLR depending on the circumstance.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Because it necessities the need to carry two items around with you, as opposed to one. Assuming like most people in the real world you do carry a phone with you at all times.

People are carrying massive phablets - they need far more space,and what about all those extension lenses,selfie sticks and external batteries?? I see people carrying bits and pieces for their phones.

I'd rather spend the extra cash on a phone, get 90% of the picture quality for a similar price

Its very easy to compare. Most of the smartphones use 1/2.3" BSI sensors of 12MP~16MP which interestingly are similar to many of the consumer orientated compacts. The 1" sensors are 4 to 5 times larger - DR is not only better,but ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 are usable.

A lot of the cheaper phones are incorporating similar sensors to higher end phones - the Moto G5 Plus has phase detection AF and a 12MP sensor which looks eerily similar to the ones in certain high end phones. Remember Lenovo is Chinese,and the Chinese companies are really starting to push things.

And you may argue why not just get a budget phone with cameras that are good enough, and it's because budget phones are budget for a reason, less time spent on software optimisation, and less on materials.

Regarding build - not so sure. I tend to do actually do a reasonable amount of walking,geocaching,Ingress,etc. My phone is waterproof and long before that started being a feature on high end phones. It has survived drops on to cobble - my mate had the same model and was so drunk one day it slipped out of his hand,screen first onto some cobble. It had no case,yet not a scratch.

Yet my mate who had an iPhone dropped it once and it not only dented but the top bit of the screen shattered. Now,I don't deny an S7 Edge looks shinier but the build on high end phones needs to get better.

The older ones used to have more plastic and could actually survive drops much better.

Ive just been comparing photos taken with my iPhone and the from my 2004 Olympus C50 at a then respectable 5 pixel. Its difficult to tell the difference for point and press - the Olympus has slightly more vibrant blues - but under good light the results are comparable. Zooming is much better on the Olympus - optical zoom so Im not sacrificing pixels for the zoom effect, and I guess low light performance would be better - but for convenience (as others have said) the phone wins because it is nearly always in my pocket - the Olympus (or my main camera, a Canon 5D) isn't.

I had the Optio 450 and Canon S60 - the noise limit is probably not more than ISO 400.

Now you need to compare it to a more modern S95 which is smaller,has a 1/1.7" sensor and OIS,and upto ISO 800~1600 is usable. The RX100 is just another league above it - the sensor is a few times bigger and coupled with OIS its utterly wipes out the previous generation of compacts.

I mean sorry but by now we should have at least 1/1.7" sensors in £500 phones.

We should be having some degree of optical zoom.

Its almost like phone companies gave up after Nokia left the phone market.