For the average person, is there really a need for a dedicated camera anymore?

[nOOky]

I'm not an average person. Is anyone? I don't have or want a cell phone. (Occasionally I'd like to have the driving directions app) I want a camera with an optical viewfinder that uses double A batteries and costs less than $200. 8 megapixels is/are plenty. The best options I can find are old used cameras on Ebay

I have an old Canon S3IS sitting in a drawer that I don't use anymore. I should get it out and see how it compares to my current cell phone.

 

[CuriousMike]

I have an old Canon S3IS sitting in a drawer that I don't use anymore. I should get it out and see how it compares to my current cell phone.

Don't even bother. A modern smartphone will take much better photos.
The only thing that Canon has going for it is real optical zoom.

 

[jsalpha2]

nOOky, that sounds like a great camera. I was tought way back when to hold your elbows to your chest and your eye firmly to the camera. Your body would not wiggle and image stabilization would not be needed. That was an expensive camera new. It should still take great pictures. If you don't want it...

 

[jhansman]

To the OP's question, yes, phone cameras are now probably good enough for the "average person," but in the end, it depends on what you are after.

I was just thinking about images I took when hiking in the Eastern Sierra a couple of summers ago. I had my dSLR with my on the trip, but that day I chose to rely on my smartphone. Big mistake; the images I got were very nice, but JPEGs nonetheless, and any post production I attempted with them was a joke compared to what I could have done with RAW images. Not long after, I upgraded my phone to one that supports RAW images, and while these are much better, they still do not compare (IMO) with those that can be had with glass that is meant for landscape/close-up shooting. The cameras in phones now are better than ever, but remember that little lens can only do so much. My GS9+ takes excellent photos, but still nowhere near what I can get with my D7000 and Nikkor glass. Its a trade off, and I wouldn't rely on even the best phone camera for anything other than snapshots and selfies. All my shots that made it to a frame and are mounted came from my dSLR. Once you start taking photographs for something more than showing on your phone or TV, the game changes.

 

[DontMessWithJohan]

No, probably not. The harsh truth is that, for the average user, dedicated cameras are an obsolete product designed before the advent of smartphone cameras. The clunkiness and inconvenience of another gadget is a far worse trade-off over some extra photo options.

That being said, past a certain point, smartphone cameras just can't cut it (but here we are talking about SLRs and the like).

 

[ElFenix]

very few people ever carried around a dedicated camera prior to tiny digital cameras getting dirt cheap anyway. SLRs were something you bought when you had your first child or were going on a big vacation. other than that it was stuffed into the closet most of the time for most people. the shift to digital and the rapid improvement and cost-cutting during the decade following the first digital rebel spiked SLR sales (unlike film, you have to buy a new camera to get better IQ with digital), and that's going away (IQ improvements over the last few years seem to be middling). but i don't think big sensor cameras are going away, it's just that sales will go back to about where they were in, say, the early 90s where you bought one and then just had it.

No, probably not. The harsh truth is that, for the average user, dedicated cameras are an obsolete product designed before the advent of smartphone cameras. The clunkiness and inconvenience of another gadget is a far worse trade-off over some extra photo options.

That being said, past a certain point, smartphone cameras just can't cut it (but here we are talking about SLRs and the like).

i am thumbsuping this post solely because you used "SLR" instead of "DSLR"

 

[nOOky]

Just returned from a 2 week vacation in Patagonia. I carried my Pansonic 4/3 with a 20mm pancake lens, and my LG V40 smartphone. The LG is definitely more versatile with it's 3 cameras and availability in my pocket at all times. The 4/3 was about as small a camera as I would have wanted to carry around my neck trekking for over 100k kilometers. I was wishing for my other lenses a few times, mainly for bird or flower shots. The Panasonic definitely blew away the smartphone camera in IQ, I don't think any smart phone would be close, but I had to carry it along with a 15kg pack ugh.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Ugh repost.

 

[mooncancook]

Personally I don't see a point for those tiny sensor p&s cameras anymore. Phones are good enough for everyday snapshots. Though I would never give up my a6300 for the one or two out of country trips a year. When I look back at the vacation photos and videos I feel it's totally worth it.