Disagree. Smartphones just don’t have room for decent optics or a decent flash, except for the Nokia N8. Megapixels just don’t make up lousy optics. I was taking better pictures with my Nikon Coolpix 900 with 1.3MP in 1999 than 99% of the smartphone pictures I see.
Understanding that Photography (as opposed to ‘Pitcher Shootin’) is only a slightly more loaded topic than Religon, Macs Vs PC, and Audiophile equipment…
Have you SEEN photos taken by a modern phone?
and lest you think it’s skewed by Apple:
http://photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00Ze8A
http://campl.us/posts/iPhone-Camera-Comparison
This is from a 3gs:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33743995@N00/5745309176/in/set-72157626775510608
And from my 4s:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33743995@N00/6438058101/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33743995@N00/6438067303
(My webserver is down, if you want full res samples, let me know)
So YES, all things being equal, more glass = better picture…but damn if I’m not getting equal or better shots to my 5 year old equipment.
We still actively look for a camera that uses AA, for our everyday camera. My SO has large hands/fingers, and the thinner cameras just don’t feel comfortable to him. Almost all of the cameras that take AA batteries have a bulge at one end, to house them. That makes the fit much better for my SO.
In addition, we occasionally take trips that take us to places where it’s not easy to recharge a battery, either AA or proprietary. We are always able to find AA (non-rechargable) batteries though.
Also, keep an eye out for cameras that use a proprietary memory card. We have a Sony from about 4 years ago that has a special card that won’t fit anywhere else, and isn’t interchangeable with the SD cards from any other cameras. There may be an end-user advantage to that, but I can’t think of it…
That’s my biggest gripe about Sony. They sure can make an awesome piece of equipment…and then hobble it with some stupid lock-in media format.
Our last super-zoom camera was a Sony. I made sure to get a big enough memory stick that I’d never have to buy another. It’s effectively on-board storage as we never take I out. It takes some kick-ass low light pics, in-camera panoramas, and HD video (if there’s enough light)…sure wish it didn’t use duo flash, though.
Sony (and everyone else) has abandoned exclusive proprietary memory cards. SDHC and SDXC are supported by all compact cameras on the market, although Sony still supports their Memory Sticks as well.
Here is a List of all cameras that us AAs. If you ignore the Ricohs and throw out the one toy cameras in there, you’re left with some very basic models, a few compact ultrazooms, and a few remaining big ultrazooms. There are only three cameras on that list that I’d consider buying, the Canon A1200, the Canon SX150, and maybe the Fuji HS20. The rest, IMO, don’t match up well against the competition.
Three major reasons to use a lithium ion battery pack instead of standard AA batteries:
[ul]
[li]Weight — Li-ion batteries are much lighter and smaller for the power rating than any other commercially available technology that has a reasonable price tag.[/li][li]Form factor — You can get a battery pack made to fit where you need it. With AA batteries you’re wasting huge amounts of space not only with the cylindrical form, but also with the individual cores and shielding for each battery element when you could have only one for the entire battery pack.[/li][li]Power storage — the peak power output of most Li-ion batteries is about 3x that of standard alkaline, and about 2 to 2.5x that of NiCd rechargeables. The energy density is roughly 4x higher. You want that nice bright LCD display on the back, and the power-hungry processors needed to do in-camera filtering and processing without dying in 100 shots? You have only one reasonable choice; a lithium ion battery.[/li][/ul]
The short version is, manufacturers aren’t trying to fuck you. Virtually every camera uses battery packs now because alkaline batteries simply won’t provide the longevity and performance you’d need for what a modern camera does. If you want to go back to an old style camera with no display, a passive viewfinder, no on-board processing, etc. you can have a camera that might last a day with regular batteries. For anything that has a typical feature set now, you need a battery with much higher performance values than possible with alkaline.
For what it’s worth, my wife’s DSLR (Pentax K-r) has a battery pack, but can use regular alkaline batteries with an adaptor. Even turning off all the major power drains like active preview, she still only gets about 100 shots off 4 AA batteries. That means she burns through 12 batteries at a typical birthday party or barbecue; she can easily take 400 shots in a 1.5–2 hour period with lots of stuff going on. With her Li-ion battery pack, the camera is perceptibly lighter (considering how heavy it is overall, that’s saying something) and will easily last a full day even with heavy use. There’s simply no comparison; the Li-ion battery is a much more practical choice than alkaline.
But that’s not the choice; it’s Li-Ion vs low discharge NiMH. There’s no question that alkaline batteries make no sense in digital cameras. But I can easily get a full day of use on the snow with my Canon S3 that takes 4 AAs when shooting a ski festival. That’s on the order of 500-1000 shots plus video. Of course I turn off the LCD and use the electronic view finder, plus I have a spare set of batteries warming in my coat pocket. But on the whole the LD NiMH batteries function quite well.
I get roughly the same number of shots from my Canon SD700 with its Li-Ion battery, but I also turn off the LCD and use the optical view finder. For weight and size I agree that Li-Ion is the way to go. But when camping I have several electronic items that use AAs and having a small cache of rechargeable batteries that work for everything saves me weight, complexity, and money. It’s a trade off. I usually end up taking the smaller SD700 for backpacking to save the weight of my larger S3, but it’s a close call since the S3 gives me much more flexibility.
My ideal camera would be something like the new Canon 310 or S100, but with an optical view finder to save battery power and make it much easier to shoot moving skiers. If it had those features I wouldn’t care about power supply.
I think all the cameras I had were DCS-something. We stayed in the same line for several cameras, because we liked them.
See I have. I have a friend who has a 4s. It still isn’t as good as a decent P&S and most of my friends have a 3gs or whatever was they could get for free with a contract. By your own examples they suck. You can’y expect me to be impressed with pictures taken outdoors with bright sunlight. My Nikon Coolpix 900 could do great with those back in 1998. Show me something at night or indoors with ambient light.
Is the 2nd picture a mistake? It is actually pretty bad.
The Nokia N8 actually takes pretty decent pictures. It has Carl Zeiss Optics and a Zenon flash. Take a look at the pictures it can take indoors and at night.
http://www.phonearena.com/reviews/Nokia-N8-Review_id2543/page/3
[QUOTE=Unintentionally Blank;14520517
Our last super-zoom camera was a Sony. I made sure to get a big enough memory stick that I’d never have to buy another. It’s effectively on-board storage as we never take I out. It takes some kick-ass low light pics, in-camera panoramas, and HD video (if there’s enough light)…sure wish it didn’t use duo flash, though.[/QUOTE]
I found a duo-Microsdhc adapter. I had to format the cards on my PC, but microsdhc cards are a lot cheaper per GB.
Keep in mind you don’t have to buy the manufacturer’s Li-ion batteries. When I want a 2nd battery, then I will order a 3rd party battery. Stay away from the really cheap batteries. Those might be dangerous. I prefer a brand name like Lenmar.
Those are all DCS before the series name. Sony made a lot of different models, but until recently they always had models that took AAs.
Ok, but they also had models that were proprietary.
Fair enough. I still, though, maintain that in general, cameras used by serious photographers - amateur and professional alike - will accept multiple lenses, because it makes them more versatile.
Obviously you can’t define a “real” camera - it’s just a bit of rhetoric.
Preach it! I use Nikon’s CLS and the short life of AAs is killing me. Rechargeable or not, it’s a pain to keep changing batteries midway. I can’t believe they haven’t come up with a better idea (like a way to connect the to a wall socket or something).
Yeah, but you have to admit that if you are going to take lousy pictures it’s best to do that with a Hasselblad H4D-60 or at least a Nikon D3X. 
If you’re going to take lousy pictures, it’s better to do it with film. That way, you learn that every bad picture is a waste of money, and it forces you to work harder and concentrate on taking better pictures. This is why high school photography classes still have their students use film.
The second photo, if you were worth anything, photographically, is a photo with a WIDE range, from the blown out background to dark foreground. Left to their own devices, a lot of cameras wouldn’t take as good a picture.
Now. Divorce yourself from composition. The following was taken to compare Apples to Apples. So to speak.
iPhone 4s:
Dark Room, camera flash
And lastly, for comparison…kitchen, handheld, no flash
I could not hold, by hand, the other cameras in this comparison.
Nikon Coolpix 5400, no flash (circa 2004)
Sony DSC-HX1, no flash, multiple exposure (circa 2009)
And lastly, a Nikon D50 with a Nikkor ED lens (2005)
Say what you want, but I’d put the iPhone’s results up against any of the other cameras I have. And, yet again, Good photographers can take good pictures with any camera, and also, yet again, the Camera you have is worth more than that Penis compensator you left back at home.
(ETA: It’s important to note the iPhone cost less than any of the other cameras here. )