Why smartphones are killing compact cameras

[@branhall4984]

I haven't seen a point and shoot camera since 2009. That's a long time

[@mesha76]

Same for me and I never owned one

[@iappreciatethat7184]

Go to a wedding then... people come with them thinking they will take better pictures.

[@iappreciatethat7184]

@John Hooper The good ones...

[@MassimoTava]

Very unfair to Sony RX100. Real camera manufacturers don’t “cook” the image as much as cel phone vendors do. This gives huge flexibility in editing. This video makes people think the cel phones are actually better than a 1 inch sensor. What a joke.

[@israelramirez0202]

Yeah this comparison is heavily flawed. Even in the low-light images, the smartphone shots have a ridiculous amount of noise compared to the Sony. He is improperly giving positive sentiment to the smartphones' images for being "well exposed in the shadows", which is simply being biased towards that fake HDR look that people who take photos on real cameras roll their eyes. He needs to take a lesson or two in photography composition to learn that overexposed shadows and underexposed highlights are not always good in every shot, especially if you want a unique and pleasant image. Fake HDR is very cringe and dated in the photography world.

[@steveyknoxville]

Well said, couldn't agree more...

[@darkvader125]

@@israelramirez0202 excalty this is the reason I don't trust the smartphone camera smartphone camera is just the marketing gimmicks

[@smashbro5]

Hey genius, did you watch the video? He's not talking about editing photos. The point of the comparison was to see which device spits out the best image with just pointing and shooting. That's what the vast majority of people are going to do.

[@MassimoTava]

Ryan T because I’m a photographer and that is not how we use cameras. Most of use don’t even use JPEG. They are different kind of tools and require different workflow. Phones are true point and shoot devices that process and massage the output to get ”good” quality. RX100 default settings (for jpeg) are aimed to be natural and neutral. This is not going to wow anyone and that is why NO one buys a $1000 camera and just leaves it on auto.

[@Wei-ym6bs]

Replacing point and shoot: yes DSLRs? No

[@stevenwatson8295]

Mirror less cameras are great too. Faster than DSLR. I love my Sony a6000. Older but good.

[@Wei-ym6bs]

@@stevenwatson8295 yep but phones cannot replace these right now

[@jaimemoreno8866]

@@Wei-ym6bs Just give it time, they will in a not so far future

[@noahw5887]

@@jaimemoreno8866 the camera sensors are very small compared to DSLR sensors. DSLRs are King in terms of photo quality. Also lens quality with DSLR is much higher than any phone. Phone cameras are essentially good enough for most people though.

[@69addict]

@@stevenwatson8295 i have alpha6000 also, very2 fast

[@DreamsOfLegend]

The last point and shoot camera I bought was in 2008... Wow!

[@NehemYah810]

Haven't had one since my birthday present in 2006 lol. It's insane how cool they were and how quick alot of us completely forgot 😂 but even back then I was willing to trade camera quality for convenience. If you have a phone in your pocket you don't wanna in that "take a picture!!" moment,say "lemme run in the house and grab the camera".

[@PhongPham-lt7rr]

@@NehemYah810 it's 14 years so i don't think that is "quick"

[@NehemYah810]

@@PhongPham-lt7rr I don't know anybody that's used one since 2009 at the latest. I haven't seen any in the wild or anything. Now I'm not speaking for the whole world,but considering camera phones pretty much knocked out stand alone camera advertising too. It's pretty clear how the market went. Even before smart phones I had a 2mp sliding phone that took pics nearly as good as my 12mp digital camera.

[@lobsterwhisperer7932]

Same here, my Samsung 1060 with 10.2 megapixels, surprisingly takes better photos than some smartphones ive owned with double the pixels.

[@jorgenmalmo]

The best camera is the one that you have with you. Mostly the smartphone.

[@shidharthrouth]

Well put my great sir

[@1MarkKeller]

Film cameras died a similar way ... the digital cameras were horrible when they first came out, but the convenience of having you pics immediately after taking them AND not having to buy film anymore made it catch on quickly. Then the technology got better and better and now film cameras are a nostalgic novelty. Digital cameras cannot compete with the "Swiss Army knife" versatility of cell cameras, few if any over the air updates (or even plug in ones) for digital camera. Digital cameras will go the way of film cameras, just like the music players did and the plain no camera cellphones. SUVs are killing the car market because they are versatile vehicles. The cellphone camera is killing the compact camera market for similar reasons.

[@neoalex]

SUVs are not killing the car market. Most people don't use or even need that level of versatility.

[@1MarkKeller]

@@neoalex lol. Ford is killing off their cars. SUVs outsell cars for nearly all manufacturers.

[@branchprediction9923]

@@1MarkKeller whered you see that?

[@1MarkKeller]

@@branchprediction9923 just Google "Ford killing off cars for SUVs"

[@dwaipayandutta5441]

Missing you in speedtest g videos

[@sonnyyyaji16]

anyone else thinking that he's wearing MKBHD shirt? lol

[@Peterstarzynskitech]

That's cuz he is. Lol

[@allaboutgamer1120]

Yaah

[@Winston-1984]

I don’t agree with the methodology at all. Terrible comparison

[@shaolin95]

yep pathetic for sure

[@jesselam5867]

Your comparing a point and shoot three generations old, with the latest smartphones

[@Winston-1984]

Jesse Lam this isn’t my comparison, it it was I’d at least test the cameras ability’s. the RX100 isn’t a basic point and shoot, it’s an enthusiast camera. You don’t just take photos in jpg and leave it on auto and don’t bother editing it. This comparison isn’t an actual test of the cameras, just their basic jpg processing. It’s like getting a tool, using it incorrectly then wondering why you got bad results. The tests should have been in raw with post processing; that’s what people do with RX100s, the cop out excuse is just to use narrow parameters which helps the “reviewer” because he doesn’t seem to know much about the subject.

[@LegionZGaming]

ok boomer

[@JoanAvilez]

If you’re going to be using the latest phones for this comparison you should be using the latest point and shoot cameras which in this case would be the Sony rx100 m7

[@utkarshtiwari2089]

imagine a samsung galaxy zoom 2 with all this software improvement

[@pwhittak88]

King of smartphones vs camera “from a couple of years ago.” Sounds flawed to me. Use the RX100 VII or don’t bother.

[@vincentledvina]

RX100 IV has the same sensor so it really doesn't help to upgrade here. Even still this video is bullshit. Bad comparison and means nothing.

[@pwhittak88]

@@vincentledvina that's incorrect. It's the same resolution and even size (1 inch) but certainly isn't the same sensor.

[@vincentledvina]

@@pwhittak88 the old model has better dynamic range so it's moot point www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

[@TechInspected]

Traditional cameras aren't designed to post-process the image like smartphones do. That's why this comparison is stupid. Cameras are supposed to produce as raw an image as possible so the user can edit it to their liking. And that's why this comparison makes no sense. Its like comparing an uncooked dough with some pepperoni and cheese on the side vs. a cooked pepperoni pizza. You can cook the dough, pepperoni and cheese any way you like and make it taste like anything you want. But the cooked pizza will always taste the same.

[@disatpathy]

Comparing a smartphone and a point & shoot camera with a same price range should be better

[@mytube30005]

Yes or no. Sony just released the RX 100 Mark VII and it's even more expensive than before. Why? Because they still can sell them at a premium price, not discount price. They're not dead. For most people, cellphone camera is good enough, but others still prefer one with optical zoom lens with larger image sensor.

[@TheAlbaniaGaming]

Ok boomer

[@Josh-oc7ib]

Ok boomer

[@mii7929]

Ok boomer

[@jasonk.]

Okay Boomer.

[@whothou]

why not just get a dslr or a mirror-less at rhat point???

[@BobbyCoggins]

Imagine what you could get if you paired the image processing on the smart phones with the lenses and sensors on the point and shoot cameras...or DSLRs and mirrorless cameras?

[@amermeleitor]

I hope Google make a DSLR o mirrorless camera with a full frame sensor and Google camera software. Wooooo... It could be incredible

[@amermeleitor]

But, profesional photographers dont want Google software, cause they edit afterwards. The need RAW images, a good editing software in PC or Mac and their talent

[@BaumInventions]

Samsung Galaxy K Zoom

[@vincentledvina]

Computation photography is slowly making its way into DSLR and mirrorless cameras. Once that happens we will see another leap in image quality. Of course none of it is going to be gimmicky fake bokeh like smarthpones have, it will truly enhance the RAW files.

[@jefferyjames8292]

@@BaumInventions k zoom kill it self for over price and after market Samsung problem.. well same with Asus both run Android.... better buy real camera and good PC or laptop... smart phone for tiktok or Instagram okok hahaha

[@WilliamNau]

Why did you compare a 5 year old camera with current smartphones? Pointless comparison.

[@Quoutub]

From what I have seen, the latest Rx100 cameras don't really take better auto photos. It wasn't advertised by Sony either.

[@WilliamNau]

@@Quoutub Maybe, maybe not. But it's not a vaild comparison. A $1300 camera is not a point and shoot. A valid test comparison would have been something like the Canon PowerShot G7 X Mark II. What we have here is a hypothesis with a invalid test procedure.

[@dapster]

Because there is no comparison. The RX100 Mark VII would wipe the floor against these so-called "better image quality than a camera" smartphones.

[@dapster]

@@WilliamNau "A $1300 camera is not a point and shoot." So what is it then? It's certainly not a DSLR or mirrorless camera. If you go to B&H's website you'll clearly find it under "point & shoot cameras." Price does not determine the type of camera it is, because there are plenty of $500 DSLR and mirrorless cameras.

[@MrJed_s]

@@dapster compact camera. Also mirrorless.

[@PopVlad]

Why not test against the RX 100 Mark VII?

[@Carnyzzle]

I bet it's because the VII would wipe the floor with both the pixel and p30 lol

[@darkvader125]

@@Carnyzzle heheheh right

[@3dr14ng4]

They make do of what's currently available on hand.

[@4saken404]

I doubt it would matter. Pretty sure they have the same sensor. Only the optics in the VII is much different than previous models.

[@scottsews]

Point and shoots will always be available as who want to risk losing their £999 phone when a point and shoot is cheaper and localised loss of photos only should the worst happen.

[@Postal_Pnoy]

Computerized bokeh and optical zoom is still not there imo.

[@-_--le3zk]

very soon dude,very soon,we will be there at the level of dslrs

[@Wei-ym6bs]

@@-_--le3zk good luck fitting such a huge sensor and advanced lens into one tiny body

[@stevenwatson8295]

Is why I'd rather have a mirror less camera. Mine is a Sony a6000

[@MrAyybee2cold]

Nuno Herdeiro wtf does 10X zoom even mean? 13-130mm? So stupid lol

[@stevenwatson8295]

@@MrAyybee2cold zoom on a smartphone through software is not actual zoom. It's cropping of the image in live time. The advantage of mirror less and DSLR. Is the quality in the zoom. I can zoom in on my camera no loss of details. And looks like I'm up close when I took it far away. My smartphone comes in blurry. With no additional lens. Smartphones have come a long way but still many years to go before it gets even close to a full sensor in my opinion.

[@kissanpennu9164]

I didn't agree with you most of the time when comparing which looks the best

[@p0ntah]

I agree, many photos looks like HDR and very unnatural

[@zielak891]

I have the RX100MK4 and I prefer it by far while photographing my daughter over the iPhone 11 Pro. The 1" sensor does the job simply better.

[@Justaniceboy31]

@@p0ntah 100% agree

[@03Chris25]

@@zielak891 Yeah I agree. I was baffled with some of his preferences. Maybe the reason why he said the pictures looked good is because he was seeing the device with his phone screen? Smartphone cameras do about 80 percent of most photography for me, but in low lights, I really rely on my RX 100 mk4 as well.

[@lukamih]

For the ASDA shot. Am I the only one who noticed how overall trash the Pixel image was with all of the noise? I don't understand how it flexed anything?

[@AlexandrKovalenko]

It was not shot in Night Sight mode, just standard one - you will have a bit of noise there.

[@lukamih]

@@AlexandrKovalenko I understand that bit the P30 pro was also not with night mode and it preformed so much better.

[@wildfireDZ]

I strongly disagree in many cases. According to you, the brighter the image , the better. 04:10 Pixel 4 night shot , we can clearly see noises and looks washed out. P30 and rx100 did much better to me. 04:44 : RX100 is the only one with natural bokeh, the other 2 clearly look artificial and made-in-china. Also 05:24 , pixel 4 looks like its brightness was cranked up. P30 did better here

[@onee]

I agree, the bokeh looked really ugly in the picture taken by the Pixel 4 at 4:46. I like the night shot of the Pixel 4 though at 4:10. Even though it has more noise. The artificial look the Pixel 4 gives many of these images looks just wrong. But I've heard that the newer Pixel 6 is much better. This is also not a fair comparison at all. He's using a compact camera from 2015 while the smartphones are from 2019. So, the smartphones have an advantage of 4 years. That's a huge amount of time in the tech world. What's also a fun fact is, I'm 99% certain when he films himself, that he isn't using a "superb" smartphone, but something like a DSLR instead.

[@DylanChng]

I still carry a point and shoot, more specifically a 5 year old Olympus because of the zoom capabilities and because my phone is low end. However I understand that even a 2018 mid range phones have better auto focus, auto white balance and overal superior image quiality.

[@Misigun99]

If you want to shoot in auto mode, well, choose the phone. If you care about photography, choose the camera. Yeah, at first glance it seems like that the phone provides better dynamic range. But the phone takes several images with different exposure values and bakes them together. The camera? Just shoot in raw and then you can play with the exposure as you wish. Not to mention the really small sensor size. Well if you choose the camera you'll get so much better low light performance. And video quality is superior on the camera because the higher bitrate it uses, it wont cause as many compression artifacts.

[@xtremefunnyvibes9395]

I think he is wearing MKBHD T-shirt

[@desirewithinus]

There are so much benefits of having a separate portable camera, and not relying on your smartphone all the time. 1. Saves your Smartphone's battery (especially during travel) 2. Higher Quality Photos. (most smartphone photos only look good on smartphones, you will see massive difference when you compare it on big screen or printing) 3. More manual control over your photos. 4. Natural Depth of field. 5. Uninterrupted shootings. 6. Cameras can last a decade if you take good care of it. 7. Smartphone camera's tiny sensors can only do so much. I like having both, more options depending on the situation.

[@Alyrricyst]

As a person who owns a Nikon D5, I thought he was going to say professional cameras in General lol.

[@TheOxiongarden]

You compared a 5 years old point and shoot with current 1000 bucks smartphones ? Really ?

[@TechInspected]

This comparison is a little misleading and somewhat inaccurate. Traditional cameras aren't designed to post-process the image like smartphones do. Cameras are supposed to produce as raw an image as possible so the user can edit it to their liking. Its like comparing an uncooked dough with some pepperoni and cheese on the side vs. a cooked pepperoni pizza. So a smartphone can cook pepperoni pizza automatically and most people will like it. But creatively it doesn't offer the same freedom as a traditional camera which can cook the pizza any way you'd want it. If you only care so much about photos like you'd want someones pre-cooked Pepperoni Pizza, then this comparison is relevant to you. But if you want to become creative and control the outcome, then this isn't.

[@StarryNightGazing]

If you want to become a creative then sure as hell you are not getting a point-and-shoot camera.

[@dhanarputra555]

This is very accurate. Who would buy $500 point-n-shoot camera that has worse image quality than $600 smartphone that basicly can do anything and much better? Point-n-shoot camera has been left by modern flagship smartphone in the dust in every single department.

[@nerovanguard846]

You're misunderstanding the point of this video So if I'm a customer looking for some pepperoni and pizza, would I go to a store that will sell me those ingredients and have me cook it for myself instead of going to a store that sells an actual pizza that's ready to eat. I'm no professional cook I'm just your average Joe who's hungry You're overthinking and he specifically mentioned at the end of the video that dedicated cameras can still preserve much more detail, therefore better for editing. But then again, that's for professionals and this video represents average users I don't think an average user would like to fiddle with contrast or dynamic range or color temperature every single time theytake a photo Go elsewhere, your comment is irrelevant

[@isellkidsforweed9851]

Stopped taking Android Authority videos seriously after they named Realme X2 pro the "best smartphone of 2019" Realme? The same company that now has enabled ads in UI like MIUI? No more updates if you unlock bootloader and fingerprint scanner stops working too. That realme? Lmao

[@Sunrazor]

Smartphones are replacing the dumb point and shoots. Much like a smartphone replaced the dumb phone. But an enthusiast compact camera like e.g. RX100-series laughs pretty hard at a phone. Optics are better. Sensor is bigger and way better in dynamic range and color depth. It can track objects better. It produces raw files for editing and producing high quality prints. It can get bokeh without artifacts. For the average idiot on Instagram it will probably not matter as the knowledge to take good pictures is lacking anyway. Honestly, smartphones take very crappy photos if you try to print them. The sensor is simply to small and the plastic lenses to tiny to produce quality images.

[@DragonsFan.]

I agree. There many Comparison where people think Smartphones are as good as the rx100, these are people that aren't expreinced in photogeapy, in my Option even a low end compact camera has so much more Potential than the best Smartphone camera.

[@HeroQuestFans]

the problem is most people don't know how to take good pictures with their phone. you'll never get rid of professional quality cameras...

[@jasonrafael5945]

I recently took some photos with my iPhone and my Powershot g1x mark iii, and the roll off of the bokeh was much better with my point and shoot. There was a lot of elements that would make the portrait mode look terrible on the iPhone. And in post, I was able to get great dynamic range.

[@moruzx]

The images from phone are already heavily processed by software, which can be bad or good, depending of what you want. The phones leaves you a little room for post processing (even in RAW). Straight from the camera, the phones can beat even the low entry DSLR / mirrorless, but with post processing software, the cameras easily beats the phone. Also, this is applied to high end compacts vs DSLR. But, still, that is no excuse for such underexposed photos from a compact camera, a camera that was designed to do things easier. It also costs a lot of money for the performance you get. This is not about Sony, all the premium cameras are about the same. At least they should develop a better auto mode, comparable to the smartphones, and leave the PASM as it is today. In these days you have anything you need from a premium compact camera (and even more), on a smartphone, that can be cheaper than the premium compact. You have ultra wide camera, standard angle camera with bright aperture (26mm / 1.5 - 1.8 etc), and even tele A strong image processing in a device that you carry with you all day. For me that sounds like all ingredients to a perfect camera companion, when you don't want to carry your big APS-C / FF camera with you. This is why compacts will vanish.

[@ndennan67]

A better comparison would have been to compare the two smartphones with a Sony point and shoot camera from 2019 rather than one from a couple years ago.

[@jasonk.]

A better comparison would have been to compare the two smartphones with a Sony point and shoot camera that has similar pricing to the two smartphones rather than based on the year manufactured.

[@ndennan67]

@@jasonk. smartphone offers more than just the camera though. I would assume a point and shoot camera that costs nearly a 1,000 dollars is gonna out perform a 1,000 dollar smartphone that has to be good at numerous things rather than just photography.

[@MrAyybee2cold]

Noel Dennan the phone is a depreciating asset that doesn’t make you any money. An 80D with a kit lens will make you back 1000$ and a 11 Pro max after a couple shoots

[@LocalhostTube]

Smarphones are better only on fixed focus length, they still cannot provide a smooth OPTICAL! zoom during video recording by design, they cannot use optical zoom numbers different from fixed 1x/(2x or 3x or 5x depending on model) because they are using a fixed focus lenses. And in actual world most of the time 1x and even 2x is not enough 3x is good, but 5x is completelly useless in real world. And in many cases you need something like 1.5x or 2.5x or sometimes 6-7x zooms. So, all these means that compact cameras and especially ultrazoom cameras with 1x-50x OPTICAL!!! zoom will be never defeated. It is nearly impossibble to implement such kind of optical zooming in tiny smarphones.

[@wroo8786]

I have Sony Rx100 V and Samsung Galaxy S10. Difference between these two is huge, Rx100 V takes much more accurate and detailed photos.

[@DebCampos]

I absolutely disagree with your comparison!!! The Sony camera delivered a much more Superior and realistic image and video! Even though I own a Galaxy S10 and love my phone, it's image is so plastic and artificial. Just like the phones you used here. Sorry but you're completely off here.

[@jeffriart]

The RX100 series isn't really a "point and shoot" I think. It is catered to photographer (pro or hobbyist) at that price point, so they can have a camera that fit in their pocket. Shooting auto, the smartphone with superior processing can already outperform compact camera for sure. But there's more creative freedom with compact, as manual control in smartphone isn't that useful. Zoom range, while smartphone already have dedicated zoom camera, were usually fit with smaller and lower quality sensor compared to the main camera.

[@gericjohnm.olivar9563]

*why is this channel dying?*

[@esterhammerfic]

Here's why I think this video nails it: Yes, you can get more out of the point and shoot RAW files... In *post*. But that's not how your average amateur photographer uses cameras. And people who know how to process RAW are generally not using compact point-and-shoots at all anyway, they reach for interchangeable lenses. This video asks the question: how well do point and shoots, with years of development for providing a good image in auto, stand up to a phone camera? And they don't do well, which is why compact cameras are dying a pretty rapid death. (And keep in mind, those phones can shoot in RAW as well).

[@del.see.oh.89]

I remember a few years back when reviewers would say things like: "The camera is good but it won't replace your point and shoot just yet" We've come a long way.

[@nine958]

When it comes to just Point and Shoot nothing will beat a Smartphone. Even a Fullframe or APSC cameras are no match to a Smartphone when it comes to Point and Shoot shooting JPEG. But when you shoot RAW, you will see the real advantage of a camera with a bigger sensor like 1" sensor from RX100. That bigger sensor will give you so much more data to work with.

[@MrWhoIsTheTraveler]

But do cameras lose value slower than smartphones?

[@DanielKastner]

I wish more people reviewed old, powerful cameras in their auto settings lol

[@jefferyjames8292]

Lol

[@RealTechnoPanda]

I want a Sony A6400 camera with Google Pixel computational photography smarts. Now go make one!

[@truenoong]

I still always carry my RX100 with me

[@rpvfr]

Interesting video, with many interesting comments. Being a keen amateur photographer and mobile phone "geek" here are my thoughts. I have a pocket friendly Canon SX740 with a 40x zoom; sensor size is smaller than my Mate 20X; camera is smaller than the phone! I always carry a phone Mate 20/ Mate 20X/ Sony XA Ultra; so can always take a photo. The Canon is always better for distant shots; but I don't always carry it. If I'm on a trip out I'll take a Canon G3X or Nikon B700, but these are planned days. Phone cameras are really good now and have replaced the lower end point and shoot; but maybe not so good for zoom photo quality.

[@jonathanraecrisanto5912]

Things that will make me buy a compact camera: 1.) Larger sensor 2.) Better optics 3.) Computational photography capabilities 4.) Smartphone-like apps So for me, in order for the compact camera to become relevant again is to copy what smartphone manufacturers are doing with their camera technology. But a dedicated compact camera will always have one advantage; image sensor size. Yes, a smartphone can have a 1-inch sensor, but design wise it will not look like a smartphone.

[@UteGirlz]

Compact point and shoot should be demolishing smartphone camera for the simple reason that they have more space/volume to work with. Ie space to put in a bigger/better sensor, lens, processor etc. I can only see this as camera companies becoming lazy. They better get their act together. And add more smartphone features too like GPS, 4k60, Apps, water resistance, SIM/data, high res multi touch screen. Some cameras have some of these but all cameras should have all of these. And take much better advantage of the bigger device size you have than smartphones.

[@lazarusblackwell6988]

If you are serious about photography you will always use a camera and NOT a smartphone. Smartphones are toys that will be extinct in a few years.

[@contractki11er]

Phones do a lot of processing to get a good photo. But there’s no changing the fact that you’re getting more information from a 1” sensor in a point and shoot than the 1/3” sensor in phones. Post processing of point and shoot will give you just as good photos.

[@esterhammerfic]

Right, but how many people want to do post-work when they could have the image right immediately?

[@rudkoihor8248]

@@esterhammerfic 87%

[@NehemYah810]

If I had to guess without watching a second of this video:people have to have phone regardless,but people want save money. Camera on phones improve so much in last decade the phrase "the best camera is the one you have with you" becomes reality. Now we have more pocket space and more money,the end.

[@willgiovi]

This video comparing an older point-and-shoot camera to a modern smartphone is kinda flawed out the gate. It's actually a positive to have an older digital camera still have some pull with these phones. To whoever is reading this, the RX100 VII has a larger zoom range, more slow motion options, and autofocus feature that still surpass most smartphones. If this review was done with that camera, the results may have been different. But hey, this is an android channel, what are ya gonna do...

[@cream6936]

Phones cant compete with the sony rx100 7video it's not even close rx100 shoots video just like the mirrorless cameras

[@thefowlyetti2]

yeah, the guy should compare it to the latest model, rather than one from 2015.. no point in making this video really

[@cream6936]

@@thefowlyetti2 the video on smartphones now still doesn't compete with the old rx100 people just see what people put on KZbin

[@shaolin95]

Android Authority, better take this crap down and have someone with knowledge (and an actual NEW Sony camera) do this.

[@HeroQuestFans]

they still sell gpses, cameras, music players, video players and portable game consoles, calculators, watches, calendars, daily planners and fit bits. most people don't replace their tv every 2 years, and for the same reason they won't be willing to throw away their camera every 2 years (unless all they use it for is stupid selfies for social media). imagine having to buy a clunky phone and a contract every time you wanted to use one of those devices...

[@unknownchannel8172]

Smartphones donot have the perfect background blur bcoz they use software to blur the bg but camera has natural background blur

[@Phynix72]

Just the matter of convenience & access to share instantly.

[@S-I-R-E]

With a camera you're supposed to be in control and the regional "point and shoot" RX100(X) does that beautifully. True capabilities of a dedicated camera is unleashed when the user is willing to put in some time and effort to the pictures captured and for the time being there is no phone camera that can do a better job than any dedicated camera. The competition is very different. I don't think anyone buying a phone over a camera for simple shots without much time to spare for editing or even learning how to shoot with dedicated cameras is making a bad decision but to argue that it is better is downright unwise. While phone cameras are indeed better at point and shoot, for which I don't care. The RX100(x) is not competing against the phones but bridging the gap between professional cameras which can cost up to a car and more. Point and shoot cameras do not have to be social media ready, they just have to be good because it gives a better canvas to a photography enthusiast or even a professional photographer. You see my point here? The Lumia 1020 with a 41 MP 1/1.5" sensor, 1.12μm pixel size and a resolution of 7728x5368p can easily beat any of the current phones with 48 MP IMX586 sensor with a measly 0.8μm pixel size and a resolution of 8000x6000p given to a person with good photography and editing skills.

[@S-I-R-E]

@Nuno Herdeiro I'm glad you mentioned lighting conditions and specifically low light performance. If you remember there was a app called 'NOKIA PRO CAM' which was miles ahead of the competition in terms of manual controls. ISO/EV/MF/WB/SHUTTER SPEED, you could control everything and most of the budget phones these days do not have a dedicated manual mode or at least not so extensive. I won't argue that right out of the pocket the current devices will tale more visually appealing pictures with software doing all tge heavy lifting but my argument was to give time and effort to begin with. I'm NOT saying that a person should not buy a phone over a camera for casual clicks but despite the clash in the markets the competition for these classes of products are very different. Companies are making better phone cameras resulting that someone who doesn't need/want to spare a lot of time on understanding a dedicated camera and still be happy and these compact cameras are bridging the gap between professional cameras and people who are simple enthusiast about photography. The RX100(X) has a range 0.62" - 1" sensor and a very respectable resolution of 20.1 MP and Zeiss optics. Yes phone cameras put out pleasing images but one shouldn't go around flexing their muscles unless they're picking a fight and you know that if a capable person flexes even a little bit on the RX100(X) it'll literally demolish any smartphone camera. At least in the current state of technology.

[@4saken404]

I think it'a pretty telling that most of the negative comments here are pretty much trying to say how DSLRs are better than modern smartphones. And only because you can manually edit the RAW files yourself. Which is kind of damning because you NEED to edit those files in the first place in order to get a better image. Or they complain because a dedicated camera has a better sensor whereas a smartphone relies on processing. YEAH THAT'S THE EFFING POINT. The software is rapidly catching and in some cases surpassing regular cameras. I used to own a Sony myself (mk II) and loved it but that was a couple years back when smartphones still could barely compete. I was even considering getting an RX100 again until I saw this. After watching this I'm frankly shocked at how poorly it performed, especially in regards to things like dynamic range which I thought a proper camera would in hands down.

[@jasonk.]

A better comparison would have been to compare the two smartphones with a Sony point and shoot camera that has similar pricing to the two smartphones rather than based on the year manufactured.

[@ultrastore2696]

Things some mobiles can do: 1. Break bones 2. Takes DSLR like photos 3. Explodes like TNT 4. Supports 5G

[@darrel6724]

Yep

[@jordan_ojl]

We all buy phones for the third feature

[@Josh-oc7ib]

Break bones?

[@Wei-ym6bs]

What phone takes DSLR like photos? Good luck with that. Don't see phones replacing DSLRs anytime soon. If you want proper photos you need a proper camera

[@ultrastore2696]

@@Josh-oc7ib nokia 😁

[@imrankhan-ob3es]

I've installed the gcam app on my Motorola g7 plus and my mates who own a iPhone always tell me to take their pic's. Phones have come a very long way and every phone camera will be brilliant with good software.

[@blueshanks1]

What iPhone do they own? 6 or 7? Cause no way your camera is better than an iPhone x

[@imrankhan-ob3es]

@@blueshanks1 they own a iPhone X and X's, recently purchased a 11 pro. The 11 pro is amazing. You will be surprised, the ones who own a X and X's are the ones who mainly tell me to take their pic's 😂 Remember the Moto g7 plus has the same camera sensor as the one plus 6t. Gcam has proved that with the right software algorithm, anything is possible. I also have a p30 pro and I still use my Moto g7 plus with gcam more than my p30 pro.

[@sajid4482]

@@blueshanks1 ofcourse there's alot of phones with camera better than an iPhone X or whatever 👀

[@drnamankhatri]

Pixel is a beast when comes to photography! 📸📸

[@MisterFuturtastic]

Even though point and shoot cameras are called point and shoot I don't think it does them justice to just use the auto mode. It's wasting the potential of the camera it seems like. Auto can be used in some situations but I they are meant to give the user more control than phone cameras. I would like to see how the point and shoot stacks up when operated by a really competent camera operator.

[@Rouxenator]

My last camera was a Kodak Z1015is in 2010 and I replaced it with a Nokia N8. Never owned a camera since and between then and now I did shoot with a Nokia C6-01 and Motorola G1 - way better than a dedicated camera.

[@TheZiPUKAsSs]

Wow this video is really terrible...... This "reviewer" probably used a camera that isnt a smartphone for the first time in his life....

[@DragonsFan.]

If you just the kind of guy to take a picture and thats it, like most of us, Smartphones are taking over. But if you are a professional photograper and you anderstand cameras you can do so much more with a camera, even low end compact cameras

[@Quoutub]

I compared a Pixel 3a in Night Sight mode with a Canon M50 + stabilized kit lens in a very dark room. It was so dark that the M50 needed Iso 50.000 for a bright 1s f/3.5 17mm photo. The Pixel 3a chose 0.8s per frame as I held the phone very steady. The results were similar, but the 3a had better colors and much less color noise. Even when I used Canon's multi shot noise reduction, which combined four 1s exposures, the M50 had more color noise.

[@Quoutub]

Though I have to say that Google's white balance got much worse in recent years (especially the machine learning white balance is bad), while Canon offers now a much better white balance setting (white priority), which is much better than the Pixel 3a's automatic white balance (no matter whether machine learning white balance is used or not). That's surprising because for example the Google Nexus 5x (which has a much better white balance than the 3a) had a much better white balance than the Canon M6

[@PM-yz8fx]

it's like having a race with three runners, one is Bolt but he has his legs tied with a chain...I see your point though, people can't be bothered to learn to use a camera properly...point and shoot, like everything else. By the way that rx100 model you used is now 5 years old.

[@onee]

Not exactly a fair comparison. The point and shoot is from 2015! Wished that you used a more modern point and shoot. But then again, companies like Canon are getting really lazy nowadays. Their last released cheaper PowerShot, the PowerShot SX740 HS was released in 2018. 4 years ago!

[@cikenot90]

initially i bought the compact camera sony dsc-wx 500 for it's optical zoom, but from there i started to learn using manual modes. Sure my smartphone (samsung A50) does produce more desirable picture without sweat, but my cheap compact camera has the advantage of powerful optical zoom and wider range of manual control (which allow me to shoot starry sky) compared to my slightly pricey smartphone. Another one of my compact camera is fujifilm xp130, although it produce less than average quality picture compared to my smartphone, it has the advantage of being waterproof. I use it for shooting in bodies of water or in dirty situation (where it can be cleaned with running water later). You can always get a better bang for buck with compact camera than smartphones.

[@Quoutub]

It's true that smartphones take better auto mode photos. But for example a Pixel 3a has a really bad white balance (much worse than the Google Nexus 5x, also worse than Canon's white priority white balance, which is better than Canon's default white balance). When I use manual settings with a Canon M50 (manual exposure, manual white balance, Highlight Tone Priority, low contrast setting, increased saturation setting, low noise reduction setting, Fine Detail) I can achieve much better photos indoors.

[@23lijah50]

Anyone else notice he's wearing an mkbhd shirt

[@simonlachsl]

I don't like the comparison I have to admit. It should compare what you can do with the different devices. I have a Note 9 and the RX100 and the shots I can make with the RX100 with a little bit of post-processing are amazing. This video shows that smartphones do damn good job in post processing instantly but the RX100 can just capture more light in dark environment or can be switched to manual mode to capture some stars or fast moving scenes like the river.

[@rumpertthejester3491]

Artistic imaging has ALWAYS been about “trickery” whether we’re talking about cinematic film (watch film noir of the 1940’s - 1960’s) or photography. So, “processing” (particularly when done by the genius of Pixel phones) doesn’t bother me at all. If all you want to do is take “realistic” photos, well, where’s the artistic expression in that? Let the camera do it’s job (the trickery) and I’ll do mine as the photographer (the choosing of the subject(s), shooting mode and framing).

[@AjaySatpute27]

This is true to a large extent. On our last Malaysia trip, it was the first trip without a proper camera. My S8+ and wife's S10 did the job for us throughout the entire trip. The only limitation of mobile cameras is the telephoto which is still far far off from a DSLR with telephoto lens quality. But you can easily cover 90% of your trip with these fantastic devices from Samsung.

[@BackyardSpaceProgram]

After going through a some DSLR's (Nikon, Sony, Canon) and a few "semi professional point and shoot's (Sony, Nikon)" over the last years I've decided that that the best camera is the one that I always have with me, my Note 9. My DSLR's rarely went outside since they were too bulky to carry around, and the lenses always had to be changed, for portraits or landscapes or whatever, the lenses were also to expensive to expose them to some elements, like water/rain/snow etc. When it comes to the semi professional point and shoot's, I really didn't bother take them with me since my Note 9 does the same job unless I would use the pictures in a professional setting. So therefore, my daily driver as a camera is my Note 9. When it comes to quality or sharpness, a "real" camera is better than a phone, but the phone is always there, ready to take that picture, unless you want to crop the shit out of the picture.

[@pedrothevenard]

People saying that cameras are better if you shoot raw and edit later are freaking missing the point, this video is about a POINT AND SHOOT camera, meaning not editing not messing around not doing anything at all period, versus a phone, that's the reality of 99% of users and they are way better served with a phone, and the other 1% are far far far better served with DSLRs or mirrorles cameras with interchangeable lenses, that with a lot of work will get a much better quality picture, but are bigger, heavier, pricier, and need more knowledge and effort to work properly, there's still a market for really expensive, high quality, point and shoot specially for vloggers and some other very specific public, and that might keep a couple of models alive, but the bulk of point and shoot cameras are pointless nowadays.

[@JacReviewsStuff]

Phones are killing compact cameras because they have similar low light video performance... Oh wait....

[@Quoutub]

Already the Google Nexus 5x in HDR+ On mode took much better looking auto mode wide angle photos than a DSLR 4 years ago. Actually the Nexus 5x even takes better looking photos than a Pixel 3a (I have both) (due to much better white balance), unless you zoom/pixel peep or shoot in extreme darkness. The 3a doesn't show a higher dynamic range of the scene than the Nexus, sometimes rather worse. But the Nexus has no chance when compared with an Aps-c DSLR with manual settings in extreme darkness, while the Pixel 3a in Night Sight mode can be even better than a Canon M50 with 1s exposure and f/3.5 lens in extreme darkness.

[@dragonfist25]

Hey man, when doing comparison photos you need to actually take proper photos. For example, try taking a sunset photo, food shots, flowers, landscape, city scapes and a real portrait in the shade with trees or about an hour before sunset when the light is softer.

[@lalitbhati7157]

Because camera manufacturers are not giving us the updates in their processing intentionally. For example their point and shoot are still with 1/2.3 sensors whereas they can easily give 1inch but they wont. Wifi and Bluetooth were very cheap but only now they have started giving it to cameras. They will not update firmware to improve image processing they will just launch new camera that too after 2 years. They should just put a last year soc like 845 and 1inch sensor give us upgradable camera with computational photography.

[@georget10i]

I think you concentrated too much on the exposure. While Pixel did not overexposure ASDA at night, it snuck in magenta into the picture, and look at the sky, it's full of noise. I prefer the P30 Pro photo. Pixel tries to "pull details out of the shadow" where there simply should be a shadow and it ends up looking bad. I also HATE HDR, it makes images look unreal, which defeats the whole point of the image. But general public loves it, so manufacturers keep adding HDR that makes images look like they were taken on another planet. Good video overall though. Yes, as some have already suggested RX100 would easily beat out smartphones in capable hands, but most people are not capable and they shoot everything in auto. Smartphones take very good images, in fact the only saving grace of P&S cameras is that 1" sensor. That's why RX100 and G7X are still relevant, everything else is irrelevant.

[@hardcorememes]

But they aren't... Smartphones will never beat a DSLR

[@thatrand0mnpc]

You can never make such a prediction about technology 😂

[@xJohnNguyen]

Don't be so sure. The Snapdragon 865 is making headway in this area fast.

[@daniel14871]

Yes... They already beat DSLR in night mode photos

[@Max.527]

Sensors mean everything ❤️

[@xJohnNguyen]

@@Max.527 Wouldn't worry about that too much then either. Sensor sizes on phones are getting a bump up. With HDR+ algorithms, this makes them that much more competitive.

[@personaview5789]

you did mention raw but forgot to show what that looks like on all 3 of them, i bet the result would be shocking, ai does a great job hiding the flaws of those tiny sensors, would be fun to see how even an old rx100 raw image looks in comparison to the latest high end phones, and also the video can be shot on manual mode on compact cameras unlike phones which also makes a huge difference in low light situations

[@crimsonstang]

This is not how the RX100 is made to be used. I can show side by side comparisons of my OnePlus 7 Pro's camera and my RX where it's evident that phones have nothing on the cameras.

[@furatceylan8]

i even prefer my phone over my dslr at times, because it's much more convenient. however, if you are going to use the photos for anything else than social media (let's be honest, how many people make albums or photographs professionally), a compact camera and of course a dslr will always win out over the smartphone - sensorsize, stabilisation and modifiability on an actual lens matter. they matter a lot. regarding computational photography - point and shoot from smartphones has become incredibly good these last few years and certainly killed a large chunk of the compact camera market. i think action cams have taken the place of compact cams, and even drones. also there are/ were weird hybrids of smartphones with attachable lenses like from sony and nokia. i believe practicability won out over quality.

[@HazaraTechnic]

I prefer SONY Compact camera

[@Niceone11202011]

The P&S camera could've had a future when Samsung came out with the Samsun Galaxy K Zoom a hybrid of smartphone and camera, but it didn't fly well and never continued. Wish it could've continued to innovate and we wouldn't talk about 3-5 camera setups in a smartphone. It's possible to do a smartphone and camera hybrid. The technology is not their yet or the camera companies dont want to do it because it may drop sales on Inter-changeable lens camera or DSLRs.

[@iamdave84]

The Panasonic CM1 was a promising hybrid

[@Niceone11202011]

@@iamdave84 There were a couple of promising hybrids but never continued on

[@connolec]

Sony, in their Point & Shoot and their Mirror-less cameras have a setting called Dynamic Range Optimisation to really improve dynamic range in jpeg shots. If he turned that on to maximum, then the sony camera could kick the pants off the smartphones in every test. Picture profiles also exist in the sony camera to change the sharpness, contrast, saturation, white balance, etc in the camera without the need for editing afterwards.

[@AlmightyRocko]

why are the smartphone video caps all wonky?

[@MrJed_s]

Pity you didn't also throw in an edited RAW from the sony-I think a lot of people who buy a premium compact would still be doing basic edits. And when the computational background blur works, it can look ok in some scenarios, but it misses way too often. Still, I wouldn't pay that much for the RX100

[@jamie74gemini87]

11 months ago phones were walking all over compact cameras.. Today they’re all over bridge cameras... DSLRs aren’t safe..

[@hillsongbest3818]

But smartphone camera can't zoom as well as digital cam point and shoot.so how would it kill ?

[@sydguitar99]

Why does this video exist at this point in time. It's like releasing a film in 1950 called "why cars are replacing horses"

[@bhbh852]

I don't know how to explain when people prefer fake bokeh effects which try so hard to copy bokeh from real optical effects over real optical bokeh 🤔🤔🤔

[@ajayn7572]

Can you do a gaming comparison between the following mobiles - ROG2, red magic 3s, IPhone 11 pro & Real me 2 pro

[@nerovanguard846]

Interesting comparison, I always thought what about point and shoot digital camerasand how would they fair against the modern smartphone And for any dimwit that will say that dedicated cameras can preserve more detail for editing, yes I agree but that's not the point of the video I'm no professional photographer so I mostly fiddle with auto modes only and that's the point of this video. Aim your camera, take the shot, leave it at that

[@nout1972]

You could have set AUTO HDR in Sony's RX100. You only have to set this one time, so it is practically still auto/point and shoot.

[@LocalhostTube]

And also I'm tired to pay astronomic summs of money for newest smartphones with tiny improvements in making photo. And yes, the more I'm making photos on smarphone the more I want to buy a normal photo camera with ultrazoom lenses.

[@MrAyybee2cold]

DragonFly1001 that’s what got me a couple years ago. Still have an 11 Pro though.