The one you have? OK, fair enough, it’s more of a clue than I have at the moment.

My current 3 year old basic Samsung is getting painfully slow and I want to replace it before I throw it at something more valuable in anger. I have no idea where to start.

I’m not really interested in the latest greatest phone, but as an enthusiastic, if not talented, photographer, I’d like one with a really good camera. I’m seeing shots out of modern camera phones that are unbelievable, even compared with my brand spanking new mirrorless camera.

So if I wanted the greatest proportion of my spending possible to go on the camera end of things, with minimal other features, what would I buy? Realistically I’m going to find it hard to stomach spending much more than £200 on a phone, but shoot me down if that’s unreasonable for what I’m after.

Sony XA2

I’d probably say a Sony. They are pretty terrible at other aspects of being a phone but the cameras are usually decent for the price.

Pixel2 it’s pretty awesome.

Was just about to say Pixel 2 as well. To be honest though you’ll struggle to find a phone with a bad camera. OnePlus 6 and 6T take really nice photos, and you get Night Shot in all the newer Huawei phones.

Google’s Night Sight is something new though and needs a Pixel phone to work properly.

I’m eyeing up one of these for my next phone https://mobile.mi.com/uk/mi-a2-lite/ now available direct in the UK.

Pixel 2 camera has really impressed me. And the new night vision stuff is bonkers.

My friend’s wife had a Huawei p20 and that seems to take some bloody good shots as well.

Huawei P20 is a good call for photos.

Samsung Galaxy zoom.  It’s an old phone but the camera is proper.

Huawei P20 if you weren’t budget constrained

saying that, I’m well impressed with the camera on my iPhone Xs

The Xiaomi Mi A2 looks to be one of the best cheapest smartphones about

Dunno how good the camera is but overall it’s maybe 8 times cheaper than an XS Max

I bought a Pixel 2 because I wanted a phone with a decent camera, and the quality of the photos has amazed me. The software is really clever about getting the optimum settings, whatever you point it at, and you can get a very effective blurred background in portrait mode. I haven’t used my conventional camera since I bought it.

This is a picture of a wasps’ nest on my shed taken with the Pixel 2, and you can see that the phone has done a pretty good job of catching the wasp in flight and blurring the background:

The downside is that they are not cheap. The new price was too much for me, but I got a pristine second hand one from CEX for £200 less than the new price. That’s still well over your suggested budget, unfortunately, but if you can stretch to a decent second hand Pixel 2, I don’t think you’ll be sorry with it.

Here’s an idea, buy a proper camera (sounds like you already have one!) and a cheapish android phone for £200 or so.

I find it strange that you’re getting into photography and the first thought is a camera phone? Yes phones like the Pixel 3 will give great results in perfect conditions, but the lack of manual controls, decent optics, a good sized sensor etc. etc. etc will hold you back. Learn to use your mirrorless camera. Unless you spend £800+ on a phone you won’t get one that’ll match a proper camera (maybe in the right conditions, but even then… software depth of field. You need to learn real depth of field, and how aperture and focal length affect it, not press a button and the phone do it for you.

But the huge advantage of a smartphone, if you enjoy taking photographs, is that it is always in your pocket.

Glad I read this!

I’ve got the first been Pixel XL and hadn’t head of Night Sight.

Just updated the camera and tried it.

That is ridiculously impressive! Almost “magic”!

I find it strange that you’re getting into photography and the first thought is a camera phone

Why? A phone is a perfectly valid camera to any photographer at whatever level.  Any way, I’m not sure it was his ‘first thought after getting into photography’.

OP – what phone so you currently have? I’m very impressed by the camera on my work–issued Galaxy S7.  I even bought my other half a ‘nearly new’ on eBay for £160 recently.

Far far  better than any other recent phone I’ve used – one plus 3, 5, Moto g 5, iPhone se etc…

https://www.instagram.com/p/BqN6qUJDBKL/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=10mlpk7xkq65d

Thanks all. Seems like the Pixel 2 (which I’d never heard of) is as close to a consensus as you’re likely to get on STW, but I haven’t yet gone off to look at the price tag…

I’d heard Sony’s were fairly good for their cameras – and some of them are a bit more weather-sealed which is a nice feature.

Here’s an idea, buy a proper camera (sounds like you already have one!) and a cheapish android phone for £200 or so.

This is exactly the situation I already have.

I find it strange that you’re getting into photography and the first thought is a camera phone?

I’ve been “into” photography (not seriously, but enough that I carry a proper camera most of the time) for at least a decade so it’s not my first thought, but as I say, I’m seeing photos that come out of modern camera phones and thinking it would be another valid tool in my photography toolbox. I very rarely go out without a camera (including riding) – I’ve lugged a heavy old DSLR and multiple lens up mountains and on multi-day bikepacking trips – but occasionally my phone is the only thing I want to carry, so it might as well have decent camera in it. This basically:

But the huge advantage of a smartphone, if you enjoy taking photographs, is that it is always in your pocket.

Also, taking photos of people can be quite rewarding, but people sometimes find it weird when you pull out a big camera and start taking photos. Smartphone photography is a much more accepted part of life these days, and most people don’t bat an eyelid, which often makes for better “candid” photos. Just a small point though.

As an example, a mate sent me a photo of a clear night sky he’d taken on his smartphone recently. It had actually picked out the stars, without a trace of motion blur. That’s amazing! On a phone! I went straight out to try and capture similar on my new mirrorless camera. Granted it wasn’t quite so clear where I was, but there were visible stars and I couldn’t get close.

OP – what phone so you currently have?

A Samsung Galaxy Core Prime. I had to look that up. I think it cost me £120 brand new about 3 years ago. It struggles with such advanced procedures as “autofocussing.” 🙂 It really doesn’t take good photos (not that I was expecting it to).

I find it strange that you’re getting into photography and the first thought is a camera phone?

Why? Someone I know well has a very successful business taking pictures on a phone and Instagram-ing them (on his clients’ accounts) for large businesses such as Land Rover and catwalk fashion labels. He gets to travel the world and makes very good money.

But the huge advantage of a smartphone, if you enjoy taking photographs, is that it is always in your pocket.

I sold my Nikon D7000 as I used my iPhone more often and for most things the phone was good enough.

Lightroom Mobile. That is how you get the good pics to look awesome….

Maybe I’m just old school in my thinking that learning photography should be with a manual camera and experimenting with aperture, shutter speed etc etc. Not the modern method of point and click then add filter.

It’s good that good quality pics can be taken with a phone, and that it’s been opened up to the masses, but it’s also bad. Why hire a professional tog for a wedding shoot when there’ll be 30 phones taking pictures?

Back to the original question though OP, expect to spend a few hundred minimum to get a phone with a decent camera.

Smartphone photography is a much more accepted part of life these days, and most people don’t bat an eyelid, which often makes for better “candid” photos. Just a small point though.

I think that is a big point.

I have an SLR and a compact camera and a Moto G4 and find they all have their uses. I actually prefer the colour balance on the phone over the compact though the compact is better in most other respects. The phone is fine for most uses and I think it has a pretty good camera as cheaper phones go.

The reason a phone might take “better” shots than an SLR (e.g. those stars) is most likely the software processing. Obviously those tiny little lenses are limited, but the software is coming on in leaps and bounds.

Maybe I’m just old school in my thinking that learning photography should be with a manual camera and experimenting with aperture, shutter speed etc etc.

There’s a lot to be said for that. My first proper camera was a 35mm fixed lens fully manual. Then I bought a 35mm SLR with a couple of fixed primes – still run film through it occasionally, but less these days. I’ve actively tried to make more use of the aperture- and shutter-priority modes on the new camera – my old DSLR was never out of manual mode.

But saying that camera phones don’t have a role to play in “serious” photography these days is a bit like saying “this new-fangled digital thing’ll never catch on.”

Maybe I’m just old school in my thinking that learning photography should be with a manual camera and experimenting with aperture, shutter speed etc etc.

Clearly there’s 2 aspects to photography, the art & the technical. Obviously you can take enjoyment in the tech aspects if you like, but the former is what is actually important. I can understand why you’d be annoyed though, as you’ve wasted all that time learning boring stuff only to have people snap just as good a pic with a phone. 🙂

<span style=”font-size: 0.8rem;”>

The reason a phone might take “better” shots than an SLR (e.g. those stars) is most likely the software processing.

This was really well demonstrated in the launch for the latest iPhone (other phones are available with the same features no doubt). The processing power is so massive they can take multiple shots, alter colours, isolate foreground features etc then composite the images in real time, so even a rank amateur can take an awesome looking photo.</span>

It’s good that good quality pics can be taken with a phone, and that it’s been opened up to the masses, but it’s also bad. Why hire a professional tog for a wedding shoot when there’ll be 30 phones taking pictures?

doesn’t really sound like there’s a downside to me, not being a professional photographer 🙂

This was really well demonstrated in the launch for the latest iPhone (other phones are available with the same features no doubt).

I think that was the one that used the *With lots of extra software and other things added to get all of these shots, not just done with a standard phone out of the box….

I’m not disputing the pics are good though, but there are points where the phone camera despite all the software just doesn’t have the lens and sensor to capture the full image as you might want it.

It does however work as the bet camera is the one you have with you.

Why hire a professional tog for a wedding shoot when there’ll be 30 phones taking pictures?

Because a professional is more than the camera they are using, they are also doing editing and colour correction off line after and preparing the best pics of an entire day for you. They are also not getting drunker as the day goes on.

This is a picture of a wasps’ nest on my shed taken with the Pixel 2, and you can see that the phone has done a pretty good job of catching the wasp in flight and blurring the background:

And from someone else

The reason a phone might take “better” shots than an SLR (e.g. those stars) is most likely the software processing. Obviously those tiny little lenses are limited, but the software is coming on in leaps and bounds.

It is indeed all ‘fake’.

All but the flagship samsung phones have a fixed aperture and all have a tiny sensor. But most smartphones have more computing power than even a pro level DSLR. The way they mimic a big sensor and fast lens’ depth of field is by taking one pin sharp image which probably has most of the scene in focus, both foreground and background, then using the second lense to create a 3D depth map of the whole scene, the software then softens the rest of the image in proportion to the desired depth of field and applies bokeh.

They’re also highly optimised for viewing on a 5″ 4K or whatever screen, so it’s entirely possible to take photos on an iPhone which look better than anything on Flickr on your iPhone, but that won’t necessarily translate into prints.

I got the OG Pixel XL for £200 off ebay in like new condition.  Camera is superb, although improved on newer models.  As mentioned Night sight is unreal!

But saying that camera phones don’t have a role to play in “serious” photography these days is a bit like saying “this new-fangled digital thing’ll never catch on.”

Not saying that at all, with the modern digital media GoPro and smartphone cameras have a huge place.

Now the OP has explained that’s he’s done the proper camera stuff this doesn’t apply, but basically my main gripe is that these days, generally, if someone wants a decent camera it seems the first thought is to spend more on a smartphone. And yes, for a lot of people they are the best option as they just want to point and click with no interest in the creative side or learning more.

I wouldn’t be surprised if, in 10 years time, cameras under £500-1000 just stop existing – it’ll be smartphones then pro mirrorless/SLR cameras as the next step.

Almost any Sony, this was taken on a 3or4yr old z5mini.

OP does your current Samsung have the pro option on the camera ap? A friend of mine- who knows photography – gets some amazing pics on his S8 as he can set iso, aperture, exposure manually .

My s6 has this, I just don’t have the knowledge or skill!

You can set aperture and exposure with a free app called open camera on any android phone.

OnePlus 6 and 6T take really nice photos, and you get Night Shot in all the newer Huawei phones.

From all I have read (when researching similar), if you don’t want to spend Apple money then these are the best options.

You can set aperture and exposure with a free app called open camera on any android phone.

On a fixed aperture camera? You sure? 😛

then using the second lense to create a 3D depth map of the whole scene

The Pixel doesn’t even use two lenses; single lense and dual pixel sensor, I believe.

There are obvious limitations to the optics of a phone camera, but i was surprised how much computational photography is narrowing that gap.

On a fixed aperture camera? You sure?

It’s digital / faked, not like an slr but provides the same/similar effect – but yes.

Oddly I’ve just been asked the same question the OP posed by my Mum – Dad is a mad-keen photographer (and a very good one). She’s looking to get him a replacement phone with a decent camera so he’s always got one with him – rather than just his Sony kit. The only additional consideration for me is that inevitably I’ll end up acting as 1st-line support for the bloody thing.

so it’s entirely possible to take photos on an iPhone which look better than anything on Flickr on your iPhone, but that won’t necessarily translate into prints.

I’ve just sold the last of my Fuji X mirrorless setup – I found I was using my phone 99.99% of the time and the output in the main didn’t justify keeping it. Some of the money I got from it I’ve sunk into an old, bargain-tastic Hasselblad 500c/m – being forced to slow down the photographic process is hugely enjoyable and sits in huge contrast to the immediacy of using my phone (which I’ve also found myself doing a lot more). The 6×6 negatives translate into amazing large-scale prints though the costs can be a bit painful.

It’s all relative mind you – last year I bought my wife a print of her favourite Cornwall beach – taken with a large-format camera – it’s about 4ft x 3ft and pin-sharp.

And yes, for a lot of people they are the best option as they just want to point and click with no interest in the creative side or learning more.

There are a lot of camera enthusiasts who cart around a sackful of machinery and bang on about bokeh and shutter speeds who aren’t very creative. Sometimes their creativity is hampered by their enthusiasm for the machinery. At the other end of the scale you have David Hockney (and no doubt others less feted) who can make the machinery dance to their own tune, whether it is an Olympus OM1 or an iPhone. There’s some pretty sophisticated software involved in taking pics and it’s in the photographers brain.

woffle 

It’s all relative mind you – last year I bought my wife a print of her favourite Cornwall beach – taken with a large-format camera – it’s about 4ft x 3ft and pin-sharp.

Being nosy. A Cornwall lover here. Which beach mate? 😃

I haven’t bothered with a “proper” camera since, err probably my iPhone 4 I think. I know have a Huawei Mate 10 Pro with Leica lens and the pictures are as good as I’ll ever take regardless of what I use.

I’d recommend the mine and the new Mate 20 and the P20/P20 Pro but you won’t get them for £200. Amazon and Carphone Warehouse have got the Sony Xperia XZ Premium for only £229 unlocked and SIM-Free which is a bargain if you want a good camera (and good hardware generally) and aren’t phased by the unfashionable bezels.