> As in; for casual photography, you're pretty unlikely to see a clear improvement over your phone with a dedicated camera these days
Phones are great for panorama shots, but they can't zoom. It's a physical limitation, you _need_ larger lenses for that. Another big problem is the low-light shots. Software does wonders, but it's still limited by the amount of light that the sensor can gather.
> Snark aside; if you're looking at something like family photography
I love travels, and most of my photography are either wild nature or landscapes. For the wild life photos you _really_ need optical zoom, you don't generally want to come close and ask a bear (or a lion) for a selfie.
I kinda adapted, and each time I take pictures with my camera, I also take a couple of pictures with my phone, so I can later use it to get the GPS position and correct the timestamps.
And yeah, I really want camera makers to try and go after my market niche. They think that it's small, but I seriously doubt it. There is a lot of people who like to take better-than-a-phone pictures, but can't care less about exposure timings and ISOs.
> And yeah, I really want camera makers to try and go after my market niche. They think that it's small, but I seriously doubt it. There is a lot of people who like to take better-than-a-phone pictures, but can't care less about exposure timings and ISOs.
That may be the case, but many "compact" cameras, like the Sony Rx100 mentioned in this thread wipe the floor with phone cameras. But they're very niche. If there was a market for it, I doubt manufacturers would come up with a random reason not to tap it. I think there are actually very few people who want better than phone pictures and are ready to spend the money and lug around the resulting camera.
As GP says, I doubt you'll find a model that checks all of your boxes (especially the integrated GPS one). But you can probably go to a camera store and try out a few models. My camera with many dials and buttons ignores all of them when in "full auto" mode. It also ignores "picture settings" or whatever they're called (things like custom tone curve, white balance tweaking, etc.). It even has a physical lock on the mode dial, so this should prevent you from unwillingly bumping the mode dial and ending up in some weird under/over-exposed situation because you've also unwittingly bumped 9 times a separate dial. Sure, the camera may have a zillion options for you to configure, but if it ignores them in full-auto mode, it's basically what you're asking for.
My specific camera is an 8+ years old model, so you probably don't want this (olympus pen-f), but there should be newer models with a similar behavior. I'd look at the Panasonic S9, which I wanted to like but dismissed because of the lack of dials. It's a "full-frame" model, so be prepared to carry big and heavy lenses for it, though.
Phones are great for panorama shots, but they can't zoom. It's a physical limitation, you _need_ larger lenses for that. Another big problem is the low-light shots. Software does wonders, but it's still limited by the amount of light that the sensor can gather.
> Snark aside; if you're looking at something like family photography
I love travels, and most of my photography are either wild nature or landscapes. For the wild life photos you _really_ need optical zoom, you don't generally want to come close and ask a bear (or a lion) for a selfie.
I kinda adapted, and each time I take pictures with my camera, I also take a couple of pictures with my phone, so I can later use it to get the GPS position and correct the timestamps.
And yeah, I really want camera makers to try and go after my market niche. They think that it's small, but I seriously doubt it. There is a lot of people who like to take better-than-a-phone pictures, but can't care less about exposure timings and ISOs.