Buy an entry level camera or just pay a little extra and get Galaxy s20 Ultra?

[Chazz262]

Hi all, I'm looking to upgrade my camera game and had a question. For mid-entry level cameras like the Sony a6000 I noticed that the mega pixel count is only 24, but the upcoming Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra will have like 108 or something. Question is, is it worth it to drop $500 on a sony a6000 or take that money and buy the s20 Ultra that appears to have a better camera anyway.

 

Thanks! 

[Dayong]

I choose s20 ultra, i'm not a professional photographer, phone is much easy to use and much convenient. The camera on s20 ultra is way enough to use, 108MP and 100x zoom, maybe more powerful than some camera, and u can direct edit your photo on the phone.

Spoiler

 

 

[For Science!]

What do you intend on photographing and do you intend on printing large or scrutinizing fine details (pixel peeping)? Smart phone cameras can be very good for when used within the intended case scenarios. But a good mirrorless/dslr will still be better in extreme cases such as low light and fast action as you have more control, although usually you have to also put more effort in post processing

[aisle9]

Megapixel count is not everything. If you really want to upgrade your camera game, very few phones will beat any halfway-decent DSLR--if any. Think of it this way: a phone is a Swiss Army knife, and a camera is a scalpel. If you just need to cut the tag off of a pair of pants, the Swiss Army knife is your friend. If you're going to operate on someone, you'd damn well better have something more specialized for the job.

 

Same principle applies to cameras. If you just want to use the basic settings, digital zoom, limited ability to customize F-stops, aperture, WB, etc., and use the simple interface in your phone to save the .jpgs that you really shouldn't be trying to edit ever again, then yeah, but a phone. It'll suit you much better in everyday life. If you want to take high-res raw images with highly customized camera settings that you can pull into Photoshop later and edit to your heart's content without worrying about image degradation in the process, get a decent camera with a good lens. I tried to replace my Nikon D5100 with a Pixel 2...nope. Tried to replace it with an iPhone 11 Pro...still nope. The Nikon is so much better for pure photography that I don't know if any phone will be able to touch my 7-year-old DSLR anytime soon.

[nick name]

Marketing seems to have steered you in the wrong direction as to what matters.  A very expensive smartphone can produce better photos if you're starting with some weak equipment, but a phone will be much more limited as to what it can produce.  

 

Light is probably the most important thing in photography and a phone will severely limit how you can use light.  Lenses, flashes, tripods, exposure, sensor, etc. are all something an actual camera will do better than a phone.  

[Chen G]

27 minutes ago, Chazz262 said:

Hi all, I'm looking to upgrade my camera game and had a question. For mid-entry level cameras like the Sony a6000 I noticed that the mega pixel count is only 24, but the upcoming Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra will have like 108 or something. Question is, is it worth it to drop $500 on a sony a6000 or take that money and buy the s20 Ultra that appears to have a better camera anyway.

 

Thanks! 

I have here an old A7SII I'm trying to sell, it has 12 megapixels.

Take any scene you want, I bet you that I can take a better picture with this 12MP camera than your 108MP camera.

 

Megapixels is utterly and completely useless in terms of increasing overall image quality past ~3MP. They have other uses, but none of those are useful on a phone. Anything beyond 12MP on phones is there for marketing purposes pure and simple.

[GDRRiley]

the mega pixel isn't exactly the same. And it doesn't define how well a camera will look.

grab a used older higher end like a 77D or 80D, get a 18-135 or go for 2-3 cheap primes. B&H right now has a high grade m6 for under 400$ Adoramba tends to have more used and a better selection

 

I ran a canon t5 for a while, I moved to a sl2. I've shot on almost every canon Rebel DSLR and a 60D.

[Razor512]

The high megapixel counts are largely designed for pixel binning and digital zoom. When it comes to SNR, a larger pixel/ photosite is better than multiple smaller ones, since the surface area of the photosite is not used with 100% efficiency, and the micro lens array results in a good portion of the light hitting the photosite to be lost.

 

The reason why Sony and Samsung has been pushing it, is for digital zoom where you can change the binning of pixels to in effect do a crop with less image data being lost.

The effect isn't perfect because it is nearly impossible to get a lens to resolve enough detail to deliver on 100+ megapixels. Even expensive medium format cameras and lenses struggle in that range.

 

With the camera module being often in the $12 to $15 range they you will not get super high end optics. Lenses that can deliver detail fitting of a high res sensor for ILC cameras are often well over $1000, with some of the best being in the $5000-$20,000 range.

 

Overall, the higher resolution gives diminishing returns, but there are tanga le benefits in digital zoom that device makers are prioritizing over further improvements to low light performance.

 

A proper ILC camera with an APS-C sensor or larger, will offer far better quality than a modern high end smartphone, though you will have to consider your needs. What kind of pictures do you take each day?

 

I currently stick with the upper mid range of smartphone cameras, and have a dedicated ILC that I bring with me on days when I am not working. The reason is that during a normal work week, most of my images are of basic things that will not be shared, e.g, I photograph where I parked so that if someone damages my car and drives away (such as slamming their door I to the car), I can use the image and security camera footage as proof when reporting and getting their insurance to cover the damage).

 

Stuff like that does not need a high end camera.

 

If I am doing a photo walk or taking pictures of cute birds, squirrels, and various other cute animals, I will have my camera and a few lenses. It is more bulky but the quality can not be matched by any current smartphone.

[Teradore]

the galaxy s20 is definitely NOT 108 MP most pro cameras don't even go half that high, besides the sony A9 sony's most expensive and high end camera for photos is only 34 mp if you don't plan on learning photography get a phone because if you leave a camera on auto exposure... it's not going to do much better. real cameras are complex tools, you can get amazing pictures out of cameras... but you need to know how to use your tools.  if you are planning on getting into photography get an actual camera (a6000 is a great choice) and learn it. if you want to just snap a pic and have it look pretty good... get a phone. it all depends on what you plan to use it for.

[Razor512]

Wanted to also include this for more info on the sensor. https://www.dpreview.com/news/0799990809/samsung-officially-unveils-108mp-isocell-bright-hmx-mobile-camera-sensor

 

Basically, since it is not hardware binned, it is possible to get 108mp output on the luminance channel, though the color resolution will be quite low since the CFA does not follow the standard bayer pattern.It is effectively a 27 megapixel bayer sensor, since anything higher and the color channels need to be heavily interpolated which harms image quality.

But interpolated color but a 1:1 luminance channel can make for better digital zoom since within a certain range, you are only interpolating the color channel but adjusting the binning and crop to get closer to a 1:1 crop of the sensor as you zoom, then at 1:1, you can switch to a zoom lens on a smaller camera module.

While the lens from current sample images cannot even deliver on anything close to 27 megapixels  (not surprising considering that it becomes quite expensive to increase the resolving capability of a lens https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/

Q decent quality smartphone camera lens should be able to deliver on 4K video and digital zooming without interpolating the luminance channel up until you reach the nyquist frequency (in terms of lines per inch of the given optic)

 

I will try to see if i can find a sample raw file from the main camera which will make it easier to show these limitations and benefits.

 

PS this mobile trick has been available on full frame cameras for a while, basically if you need more reach on your full frame lens, but cannot optically zoom more, then you can place the camera into a crop mode and record video like that, and instantly get an additional 1.5X zoom without interpolating the video via a traditional digital zoom.

 

Some crop sensor cameras may also offer additional crops which help for video.