Should I get a real camera?

I've always found my Nokia Lumia 900 to be handy under most circumstances, but sometimes, I just need the performance during night-time shots without spending a lot of a new phone - and less noise in most shots, too.

Now, that makes me wonder whether I should start saving up for a new camera: even a cheap point-and-shoot will do, as long as it does one thing well - take photos.

Or should I just do software magic?

Every time I look at the photos taken with my phone, somtimes things get a bit... underwhelming. It's either the noise or the detail, Anything less than perfect sunlight, and things go awry. Sometimes I get the dreaded pink blob; other times, the green blob; and finally, my videos always have a bad "Instagram effect".

OK, let's see my options here:

• A $150 or less digicam will probably give me something better than my smartphone and will fit in my pockets along with my smartphone, wallet, and keys without carrying any bags.
• I can also take an older Olympus from my old home, though it's kinda bulky, and doesn't tolerate shake at all, and it uses xD for the cards instead of SD or internal flash - very impractical. I will need a bag for this.
• Or I can get an old film Canon (better get used to NOT impulse-shooting) that is really, really good, but also inconvenient. I'll need a bag AND materials. And there's the matter of getting film...

What should I do?

Evaluate if it really matters all that much to you. If it does, go the route that's the cheapest and easiest in the long run.

I don't have the same phone as you, but I find my phone takes good enough photos. I plan on getting a DSLR later this month for when I want to be serious about photography. I took photography classes and I would consider my self an amateur photographer. My phone is good enough just to have a me for when I need to take a picture spur of the moment. A cheap point and shoot isn't going to be much better than your phone.

Find a film camera if you want some ability to create "retro" pictures (not like Instagram pictures, though; it's a different kind of "retro" from that), which are very beautiful if you do certain things, such as taking transparency film and treat it as normal film (called cross-processing, I'm sure you're not stupid though). Find yourself a good camera, but frankly the only way you're going to find one is if you go find one. So buy a couple cheap cameras from a second-hand shop and just take some quick test pictures (doesn't need to be top-notch, just needs to be in focus and stuff) and see how you like the result. If you don't like it, find something just a bit more expensive (I mean, better). Frankly you only need one of those old disposable-type cameras, if you can make everything else right.

If you're just going the "oh pwetty pictaw" route rather than the "I'm gonna get these sold" route, here's a good camera. It's 16 MP, but that's besides the point. They have easy pictures, but compared to, like, a real $3000 top-notch DSLR, and it's still pretty good in comparison, considering you're shelling out only $130. You have minor control over the ISO, aperture, and focus (through manipulation, of course), but it's not fully free yet, since, remember, this is just a point and shoot camera. Everything can also be automated, and night pictures are pretty decent compared to others (they have a low-lighting setting too, so that's something.) If you want to see some pictures, my gallery here on PC is by only that one camera. Check it out, and see if you like it.

Or I can get an old film Canon (better get used to NOT impulse-shooting) that is really, really good, but also inconvenient. I'll need a bag AND materials. And there's the matter of getting film...

Click to expand...

I'd rather not get those six-foot lenses and become a "macho" photographer, personally, but if you can find a good film it's all worth it, and by all means go for it (I mean, you didn't rent this, so make use of it).

Convenience plus decent usability might be something that you are looking for based on your descriptions. If this is so, go for the first option: the $150 digicam. You could bring it everywhere with you and conveniently snap a quick moment as compared to the other options where you have to set up equipment which sounds rather time-consuming and complex and might cause you to miss that perfect moment.

On the other hand, if you are looking for a camera which takes better quality photos, go for the Olympus or the old film Canon. I'd say that the quality of the pictures compromises for the inconvenience and bulkiness of the equipment and other required set-up materials.

In the end, it's your choice. Just go for what you think suits your needs the best and you'll be all good to go. :)

Kay, I got back home, and as it turns out, the Canon Prima Super 28N/Caption had a stuck lens mechanism, so it's effectively a brick (bricked film cameras? xD)

This leaves me with an old 7.1 MP Olympus that has a memory card that nobody uses. The screen isn't the nicest thing, too, but I think I'll give it a test-drive tomorrow. I have to, because I'll be out on the real vacation this Friday, and tomorrow's Thursday.

Oh well. I was hoping that I'd get a taste of film photography.

Hey, at least I get to pick a camera of my choice after I get back to where I live now. $150 suggestions?

I picked up a Canon T3i mainly for HD and shallow depth of field features. Its worth it. Pictures are stunning! But it's not cheap either for a DSLR.