Looking for a SLIM point and shoot that's better than iPhone cameras--anything better than the Sony WX350?

[uacd]

I'm not in the point and shoot segment, but I find it hard to believe that an 11 year old point and shoot camera will outperform a modern iPhone, even with optical zoom. I'm not a big phone photographer, but iPhone is going to have better lowlight performance with the computational aspect, and with the 8x zoom lens on the new 17 coupled with 48MP, you'll be able to crop quite a bit while maintaining a decent photo.

Sony DSC N1, 20 years old point-and-shoot. A 30 second exposure (real, non-computational), SOOC JPEG. Tbh more impressed than iPhone 16 Pro that I tried to take same shot size-by-side🙂

Sensor is 1/1.7, smaller than most smartphones but slightly larger than many old point and shoots which had 1/2.3.

Also, maybe all that computational processing is extra. Without it I can get the true colors, no artificial sharpening, even modern Sony cameras cannot compete

Ever since I dug out that old camera I’ve returned my joy in taking photos. The only disadvantage is proprietary data cable and port that are almost broken after many years of excessive use. Otherwise if there was a modern camera that shoots like that or better (bigger sensor), would have been my grab

 

[uacd]

Hi, I'm interested in buying my first dedicated camera and some advice would be very appreciated.

Portability is very important for me because I want to carry it daily in my fanny pack (cross body) and maybe sometimes my front pocket. A lot of the recommended PaS cameras I've seen so far are pretty chunky. I've decided about 25mm is the thickest I want to go, and I'll just accept the best camera I can get within that limitation. I'm still not sure about weight, but for now I'd say around 150g.

The top feature I'm looking for is zoom, as much as possible, since that is probably the biggest advantage dedicated cameras have over phone cameras. But I think it should probably have better low light performance and image stabilization than phones too, right? I'm not sure what other features to look for.

The best option I could find for me is the (discontinued) Sony WX350 which satisfies my portability limit, plus it offers 20x zoom which would be excellent. But there are possible issues, like supposedly it doesn't have good low light performance. But I don't know if that means it's worse than iPhones or just worse than other PaS cameras in its class. And then of course it's really old, so I'm wondering if it's just too outdated and lacks features that I don't know about.

Does anyone have any thoughts about the WX350? Is there another camera that might be a better fit for what I'm looking for?

Price isn't a huge concern since I plan to use this thing forever. Being able to capture fleeting moments on photo/video in as many situations as possible, with the highest quality possible, as conveniently as possible--are most important to me.

Thanks so much in advance!

Edit- I should clarify a bit more what my goals are. My top priority in photography and videography is capturing information; lower priority is aesthetic beauty (I don't post on social media or anything). That's why optical zoom is important to me, as is no blurriness, and ability to capture low light and high contrast. Accurate colors is not too important to me other than the occasional sunset photo, but I can live with compromise there. I won't be blowing up or printing any photos, they're just for viewing by me and people close to me, on phone/iPad/TV.

I should also note, I'm planning to get an iPhone Air, so that camera will be at my disposal as well, so the dedicated camera's main job will be to make up for where Air camera lacks, which again is mainly zoom. Macro would also be nice.

Your best best could be Panasonic TZ99 / ZS99 (name is different depending on market). It was released this year, has USB-C and 30x zoom capability. Although sensor is small like in all zoom compacts, but very compact camera.

I wanted to buy it but kinda scared of cheap build quality, though maybe will reconsider.

Other options are abovementioned G7X and RX100 VII, but they are very old. Cameras were released in 2019 and feature USB micro, not C, it would be very inconvenient to use in modern USB-C households, unless you have lots of USB micro devices at home too.

Otherwise out of these two I would choose RX100 but I would personally wait, maybe Sony finally makes a newer one. Although I can tell you I am not impressed with image quality of newer Sony cameras, they use so much sharpening that image looks so flat as if it was taken on a smartphone.

Other option for you (cheapes one) is to get 2nd hand point-and-shoot. Someone’s trash is other’s gold after all, many people selling these compacts for dirt cheap these days

 

[mollyc]

I asked this question to a user in post #11, but I'm still awaiting an answer--would love to hear from anyone else who might be able to answer:

I don't know the answer to this, nor how to mathematically figure it out.

However, I read your other post where you say you want the large optical zoom as you shoot what I will call "random things" (and I say this as a descriptor, not as a negative) because you want to use them as some sort of reference material. I am not sure if you are cataloging, or using them as art studies for drawing or whatnot. But, you also say you aren't using them for a seemingly normal photographic purpose (again, this is said without judgment, just going by how you've described your needs). If you are using thes photo as references for something, does it really matter if they are done via optical zoom vs whatever kind of zoom is in the new iPhone 17? Most active photographers I've seen using the new phone are blown away by the longest telephoto lens; I am not sure if it is a physical lens or some also digital cropping but if photographers think the zoom-ability of the new lens is really great, I'd encourage you to give it a second look.

The thing with "optical zoom" on point and shoots is that I personally never know what 7x zoom or 20x zoom is. It seems like kind of a made up number to me - what are they Xing to get to their number? The longest lens on the 17 Pro models seems to be a 200mm full frame equivalent, which I think you would be hard pressed to find in any small point and shoot (and likely even bulkier point and shoots).

Without really knowing your end goal it's kind of hard to say definitively that the iPhone would meet your needs, but I do think it might be closer than you think it is.

iPhone 17 Pro & Pro Max Review for Photographers: A Welcome Focus on Hardware

A completely new design and better hardware make the iPhone 17 Pro launch more than just an incremental change.

petapixel.com

 

[fortfive]

I'm late to this party, but it's a top result in google searches. I was on a similar search as you, I wanted event the simpler 16e, which was perfectly useful for every phone scenario I had except it took terrible picture of my kid on stage. I did some research and found a Lumix FZ80 for cheap at a pawn shop and figured it would be a low stakes way to experiement, and the D version (which supercedes only in its connectivity) is still recommended as the superzoom option on wirecutter.

The reality, even limiting zoom to 20x (the iphone 17 pro's max optical zoom), the OIS could not overcome my inability to hold the thing sufficiently motionless, and the imaes were blurry. Apparently a better photographer and/or a tripod lead to high quality photos, but I am not a better photographer and a tripod is worthless in an audience seat in a crowded school theater. My understanding is that the much more expensive recommended cameras in this space are scarcely better in this scenario.

In the end I just got the pro, for which I use no other of its fancy features and it is too damn heavy. But it takes amazing pics of my kid on stage, and I get to look like a wealth signaling fogey as a bonus.

 

[ChrisA]

Thanks for the suggestion and thoughts.

For general photo quality, I agree no point in getting a smallish sensor size, but would there be a point for optical zoom? I found several (used) ultra compact cameras (I'm really looking for ultra compact as much as possible because I know that's the only way I'll be willing to carry it around)

The sensor size determines how much light it can gather. Or really, the size determines its sensitivity to light. The tiny sensor on a P&S or a phone just does not colloect do much light. So you need longer exposures. But the long zoom lens will create blur by camera shake unless they include image stabilization. But stabilization can only go so far.

Camera design is always a compromise. If you want a tiny pocketable camera, then you don't get certain things.


One good solution is to simply get closer. Most beginners never learn this. You can see it all the time; look at how they shoot. They take the camera out, then use the zoom from wherever they happen to be standing. Look at the pros; they move to the spot, then take the photo; they use their feet.

If you must have a tiny camera, buy an iPhone. The next step up is an "APS-C" size camera with a 14x24mm sensor.

 

[subjonas]

Hi all, just to follow up with an update, I ended up getting two cameras--the Lumix ZS99 (new) that @uacd suggested (thanks!), and the smaller Sony WX350 (used).

There are basically two reasons to get a dedicated camera in addition to a phone--better image quality and better zoom. Unfortunately, as most of you know, in compact cameras you have to choose between one or the other. For better image quality, I probably would have gone for the Sony RX100 vii. But as someone who is mainly concerned with recording/documenting, I chose zoom. Both the Lumix and Sony have crazy zoom at 30x and 20x respectively.

The Lumix is much better than the Sony (zoom and UX), but it's a bit too bulky to comfortably pocket all day for most of my jackets, so I will generally only carry it in my fanny pack. I got the Sony to carry in my jacket pocket on days that I want to be more low key without the fanny pack. But it's a bit awkward to use with its lack of grip and tiny low res screen, so it's basically just there if I really want the zoom. Thankfully it was cheap and is so small that I usually don't even notice it. But only in my jacket pocket. I notice it in my pants pocket, so on the days I wear neither a jacket nor fanny pack, I'll most likely bring neither camera. On planned trips and events, I'll definitely be taking the Lumix.

I considered the Canon SX740, which is very similar to the Lumix, and with even more zoom at 40x, but being much older it's a bit dated and lacked a couple things that the Lumix has that I found outweighed the higher zoom, which were a sharper screen (especially important as neither have a view finder to ensure good focus), touch screen (easier manual focus/tracking), control ring (another good way to manually focus), updated Bluetooth, and USBC.

I also considered an iPhone 17 Pro as my dedicated camera. Zoom isn't nearly as high at only 8x but it has pretty much all other advantages with better sensor and computation and extreme ease of use, all while being almost as portable as the Sony. The 17 Pro was compelling, but in the end I opted for much higher zoom. (Also FYI, even if I did end up getting a 17 Pro, I wouldn't want it to replace my iPhone Air--I love the light and slim form factor for the 99.9% of the time I use my phone not as a camera.)

These are my first dedicated cameras, and I'm still getting to know them, but I'm really looking forward to being able to capture images, moments, and details that I never could before. Thanks, all, for the input.

 

[geta]

Hi all, just to follow up with an update, I ended up getting two cameras--the Lumix ZS99 (new) that @uacd suggested (thanks!), and the smaller Sony WX350 (used).

There are basically two reasons to get a dedicated camera in addition to a phone--better image quality and better zoom. Unfortunately, as most of you know, in compact cameras you have to choose between one or the other. For better image quality, I probably would have gone for the Sony RX100 vii. But as someone who is mainly concerned with recording/documenting, I chose zoom. Both the Lumix and Sony have crazy zoom at 30x and 20x respectively.

The Lumix is much better than the Sony (zoom and UX), but it's a bit too bulky to comfortably pocket all day for most of my jackets, so I will generally only carry it in my fanny pack. I got the Sony to carry in my jacket pocket on days that I want to be more low key without the fanny pack. But it's a bit awkward to use with its lack of grip and tiny low res screen, so it's basically just there if I really want the zoom. Thankfully it was cheap and is so small that I usually don't even notice it. But only in my jacket pocket. I notice it in my pants pocket, so on the days I wear neither a jacket nor fanny pack, I'll most likely bring neither camera. On planned trips and events, I'll definitely be taking the Lumix.

I considered the Canon SX740, which is very similar to the Lumix, and with even more zoom at 40x, but being much older it's a bit dated and lacked a couple things that the Lumix has that I found outweighed the higher zoom, which were a sharper screen (especially important as neither have a view finder to ensure good focus), touch screen (easier manual focus/tracking), control ring (another good way to manually focus), updated Bluetooth, and USBC.

I also considered an iPhone 17 Pro as my dedicated camera. Zoom isn't nearly as high at only 8x but it has pretty much all other advantages with better sensor and computation and extreme ease of use, all while being almost as portable as the Sony. The 17 Pro was compelling, but in the end I opted for much higher zoom. (Also FYI, even if I did end up getting a 17 Pro, I wouldn't want it to replace my iPhone Air--I love the light and slim form factor for the 99.9% of the time I use my phone not as a camera.)

These are my first dedicated cameras, and I'm still getting to know them, but I'm really looking forward to being able to capture images, moments, and details that I never could before. Thanks, all, for the input.

Congrats on your purchase! but personally I would choose good camera, in your case the Lumix, plus iPhone.

Anyway, looking forward to seeing some pictures from both.

 

[uacd]

Hi all, just to follow up with an update, I ended up getting two cameras--the Lumix ZS99 (new) that @uacd suggested (thanks!), and the smaller Sony WX350 (used).

There are basically two reasons to get a dedicated camera in addition to a phone--better image quality and better zoom. Unfortunately, as most of you know, in compact cameras you have to choose between one or the other. For better image quality, I probably would have gone for the Sony RX100 vii. But as someone who is mainly concerned with recording/documenting, I chose zoom. Both the Lumix and Sony have crazy zoom at 30x and 20x respectively.

The Lumix is much better than the Sony (zoom and UX), but it's a bit too bulky to comfortably pocket all day for most of my jackets, so I will generally only carry it in my fanny pack. I got the Sony to carry in my jacket pocket on days that I want to be more low key without the fanny pack. But it's a bit awkward to use with its lack of grip and tiny low res screen, so it's basically just there if I really want the zoom. Thankfully it was cheap and is so small that I usually don't even notice it. But only in my jacket pocket. I notice it in my pants pocket, so on the days I wear neither a jacket nor fanny pack, I'll most likely bring neither camera. On planned trips and events, I'll definitely be taking the Lumix.

I considered the Canon SX740, which is very similar to the Lumix, and with even more zoom at 40x, but being much older it's a bit dated and lacked a couple things that the Lumix has that I found outweighed the higher zoom, which were a sharper screen (especially important as neither have a view finder to ensure good focus), touch screen (easier manual focus/tracking), control ring (another good way to manually focus), updated Bluetooth, and USBC.

I also considered an iPhone 17 Pro as my dedicated camera. Zoom isn't nearly as high at only 8x but it has pretty much all other advantages with better sensor and computation and extreme ease of use, all while being almost as portable as the Sony. The 17 Pro was compelling, but in the end I opted for much higher zoom. (Also FYI, even if I did end up getting a 17 Pro, I wouldn't want it to replace my iPhone Air--I love the light and slim form factor for the 99.9% of the time I use my phone not as a camera.)

These are my first dedicated cameras, and I'm still getting to know them, but I'm really looking forward to being able to capture images, moments, and details that I never could before. Thanks, all, for the input.

Glad that you found something good to take photos! Looking forward to seeing some of your shots!🙂
I myself ended up getting 17 Pro. Accidentally destroyed display on my 11 Pro so had to consider smth new. Well, after honeymoon period I can definitely say that 8x is awesome in many scenarios. Unfortunately in low light it is definitely not the same as 1x. Camera has lots of computations, nevertheless images do not look as mushy as on my older 11 Pro at times. As for the ultrawide? As I said multiple times on this forum - it just sucks, despite all that 48 megapixels. It is bad in all lighting conditions, even for macrocrops. Overal I don't feel much of an upgrade in terms of OS, speed and usability after going from 2019 phone. Also the new phone feels kinda awkward in hand, too large comparing to my old 11 Pro, I often find it hard to hold in one hand, and my hands are not very small tbh.

What I learned the hard way - no more JPEGs. Camera seems to take worse images in JPEG than in HEIF for some reason