[salish]

Hello, I am looking for the best cheap point & shoot camera that will fit in your shirt pocket. Something that takes decent photos and vids. Any suggestions? Thanks! Cliff

[Schroder]

cell phone?

[salish]

Nope, I'm still a flip-phone user with a crummy camera. Haven't jumped on the smartphone bandwagon.

[Tom]

Time to jump then. Cell phone with a good camera will be cheaper than any camera that will fit in your shirt pocket and will take better pics. I recommend a Pixel 3. Excellent phone and camera for a little over $100. Good battery life. Wireless charging. No other phone will touch its camera quality in this price range. You don't need to use the phone but why wouldn't you? https://www.ebay.com/itm/363793450990

[Schroder]

The camera you describe has gone the way of the ipod since the phones cover all the functions. I've been reading that consumer SLR cameras are going to be obsolete pretty soon.

[neek]

You can even keep the flip phone if you want and just use an "old" smartphone (say from 3 years ago) for photos. People are giving them away or selling them for cheap all the time. In fact I'll be giving away my pixel 3xl in a couple months (charging port is broken, but wireless charging still works). You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between my phone, point & shoot, and DSLR for many of my pics. Also even without a data plan you can use an old smartphone for gps tracking and navigation.

[Tom]

FWIW, I picked up a new Pixel 6 Pro in the fall. Ended up sticking with my Pixel 3. it's just so much lighter and more compact which I prefer. Just not a fan of big phones. If anyone wants a Pixel 6 Pro for a good deal let me know.

[Chief Joseph]

[fairweather friend]

I agree with Tom. You can buy a cell phone that takes MUCH better photos for less money than you'll pay for a "shirt pocket" camera. A phone camera may have a smaller sensor but it has a much bigger processor than a cheap camera, which means it can utilize computational photography to get you better results. I bought a Pixel 4a when they came out a couple years ago and I've been very impressed by its camera. I even did some side by side comparisons with my old Nikon D5300 DSLR (which has a 24 megapixel sensor) and in low light conditions, the Pixel actually performed better. I also got better results with in-camera (or in-phone, as the case may be) focus stacking. Subjects in the very near foreground were in focus using the phone camera, while the background was also in focus. If you want to do this with a DSLR or mirrorless camera, you have to take multiple shots and blend them in Lightroom, which can give you fantastic results but it takes a lot of time and effort, not to mention the fact that you have to pay for a subscription to Adobe's photo-editing software! It's been a while since I compared Android to Apple products, but I recall that Apple's SE phones also put a high emphasis on the camera's capabilities in a mid-priced phone. In other words, you can buy a fantastic phone camera without paying for all the bells and whistles present on the latest and greatest phone models. Yes, it does take a little time to get used to taking photos with a phone versus taking them with a camera, but you'd be surprised by how quickly you adapt.

[domaz]

[InFlight]

The inexpensive Point and Shoot cameras with small sensors have disappeared as a category, having been replaced by cell phones. Newer phones with multiple cameras are even more capable. Due to the small sensor sizes, these phones have equivalent apertures around F6 to F8. The argument for higher end pocket-sized compact cameras is longer zoom ranges, better picture quality, and improved low light performance. Sony Cyber-shot DCC-RX100 V1 (1" sensor, 20 MB) 24-200mm equivalent F2.8-4.5 lens Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS100 C (1" sensor, 20 MB) 25-250mm equivalent F2.8-5.9 lens Canon Powershot G7 X Mark II (1" sensor, 20 MB) 24-100mm equiv. F1.8-2.8 lens There are some very good APSC cameras with a fixed focal distance (Fuji X100V, and Ricoh GR3) that are also pocket sized.

[OwenT]

The phone is certainly best if you don't want to think about it too much. If you're still not convinced to get a smartphone then maybe something like the Olympus Tough or Ricoh Rugged cameras would be of interest. I don't know much about them but they look very compact and I suspect the image quality is at least on par with the good phone cameras. They certainly look indestructible which is nice and I think that's their main selling point. +1 for the RX-100 if you want to play around with photography more. It's what I've been using for the last few years and it's very capable. I keep it in a small soft case attached to my backpack strap usually. I have the mark 1 but am considering upgrading to the mark III at some point as it seems to be the best value, however, the newest versions have much longer zoom.

[Chief Joseph]

[Tom]

[Bowregard]

Used to be you could find an early model RX100 for under $300 if you looked but not sure that is still true. If you really want a camera you need to prioritize best or cheap. Small sensor cameras can be found cheap and take good enough photos in good light. Large ~ 1" sensors like found in the RX100 take very good photos in most lighting conditions but are hard to find in the cheap category.