The Best Point-And-Shoot Digital Camera
Which point and shoot camera is the best? With technology constantly changing digital cameras into complicated little devices, it's nearly impossible to keep up. So we took the top eight point and shoots worthy of your adventures and put them through real-time testing, finding out which ones excelled in image quality, low light performance, ease of use, video quality, and flash performance.
Read the full review below >
Test Results and Ratings
|Displaying 6 - 8 of 8||<< Previous | View All | Next >>|
Analysis and Award Winners
Analysis and Test Results
How do you choose the best point and shoot camera to take on your adventures? With the techy nature of camera equipment, in combination with the new technologies continually changing the game, choosing a digital camera is a massive task. We took the eight best competitors in the game and put them through everything we could think of to give you a real-time comparison.
Digital cameras started to be seen in professional markets in the mid to late 90s, but few of us made the leap from the film days over to the then lesser quality images produced by early digital sensors. But despite the naysayers, modern digital cameras produce fantastic images that actually beat the film variety in a lot of ways.
At OutdoorGearLab, we aim to not only lead you through the things you need to consider throughout the buying process, but also educate you about the industry terminology and how that affects your purchase.
Why Get a Digital Camera?
There are tons of options in price range, portability, size, and features of a digital point and shoot. So where do you start? For many people, an iPhone gets the job done. But if you're feeling trapped by the lack of features, crunchy images from compression, and lack of optical zoom, then it's time to solve your problems with a digital camera. In choosing the digital cameras to test we omitted the cheaper, smaller digital versions because high-quality smartphones are largely eliminating that market. We wanted to test the next step in digital photo addiction; advanced point-and-shoots.
The Resolution War
Camera manufacturers realize that consumers hone in on certain specifications that they think determine an item's quality. The old adage of "you can blow a film photo up really big" transferred to digital, and resolution became the foremost deciding factor for most consumers. However, we're here to tell you that it doesn't really matter. In 2001, Canon produced the first professional-grade digital camera in their 1 series—the Canon 1D, which boasted a 4.1 megapixel sensor, an absolute beast at the time. The images looked great and many of them still do. I've won a number of shows, even recently, that were shot on my trusty 1D, even at print sizes up to 30 inches wide.
The takeaway? Resolution doesn't matter unless you're going to be cropping tons off the image or printing them huge. Modern digital cameras have between 10 and 20 megapixels. This is plenty; only in rare situations will you notice the resolution difference between megapixel amounts. Unless the pixel count is way under the general competition, it's not a factor.
So if it wasn't resolution, what made images off that older film devices so nice? Good lenses, high dynamic range, a large sensor, and good ISO performance - which is a derivative of other internal functions. Don't know much about any of those things? We're here to step you through them.
Image Quality based off Lens
With all of the digital distractions with camera design these days, we often forget about lenses. Some of the sharpest lenses with great color reproduction and contrast of all time were made in the 40s by Leica. Similarly, companies like Zeiss have been making cinema lenses for decades that many rental houses haven't bothered to update. Lenses are still king when it comes to image quality. A camera with a great sensor, processor, ergonomic design, quick function, instantaneous auto-focus, and ten billion frames per second would be worthless if it had terrible glass. In the point and shoot category, some models ask a lot out of their lenses. For example, the Canon SX50HS has a 24-1200mm (35mm equivalent, see below) lens. If lenses with this large a range functioned as well as lenses dedicated to a smaller range, don't you think professional photographers would have much smaller bags? While the mega-zoom lenses featured on the Panasonic Lumix FZ200, Canon SX50HS, and Nikon L820 digital cameras cover a lot of ground in a pretty small package, there are drawbacks to trying to cover a huge zoom range in a little point and shoot. All of these details are covered in the individual reviews.
One of the easiest flaws to pick out in a lens is ghosting, seen below.
Sharpness of a lens and sharpness of a photo are not the same, but if you eliminate enough factors you can figure out if it's the lens. Here's an example:
For this test we eliminated focus issues, shake issues, and motion blur by shooting a stationary object using a tripod.
Lenses also affect color and contrast, but with fixed lens digital cameras like the ones we tested, it's difficult to determine if color biases come from the camera or the lens.
Range and distortion
We tested a huge range of lenses on our group of products — from the prime 24mm (aka fixed) lens on the Fuji X100s to the mega-zoom of the Canon SX50HS. For many people, fixed lenses like those on the Ricoh GR and the Fuji X100s are a huge disadvantage, although others may not be bothered by it.
Lens distortion is when the image appears to be bent — straight lines, like on the greenhouse below, appear to be curved.
This is typically an undesired feature, though extremes have been creatively used in the past, such as every 90s skate film with copious amounts of fisheye barrel distortion, as demonstrated by the photo below:
Sensor size is the secret ace-in-the-hole for image quality. Why are the images shot by professional photographers so sharp and clear? Sensor size is the most commonly overlooked feature to affect image quality. One of the big things that sets photographs apart is the background separation. For example, this image of the X100s, shot with a 5D Mark II and a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens.
Traditionally, depth of field is controlled by: 1) aperture (size of the lens opening), 2) distance from the photographer to the subject, and 3) distance from the subject to the background. But this was in the days where everyone was speaking the same language — 35mm film. While other formats absolutely exist, the norm was 35mm W x 24mm H. While we no longer shoot with film, digital sensors now represent the film plane, and the physics are almost identical. However, the high cost of building a large sensor and a camera to house it has plagued digital cameras since their advent. The products we tested ranged from 1/1.8" up to the popular DSLR "APS-C" size.
A lens focuses beams of light into a cone of light, which gets projected onto a plane. The sensor then captures it as RGB components, and then the processor turns it into an image we can see. When using a small sensor, you're only capturing part of that cone of light, much like moving a projector closer or further from a wall. The takeway: bigger is better when it comes to sensors.
Manufacturers are starting to listen. Full frame (sensors the same size as 35mm film) sensors have been introduced into more DSLRs for less money, and point and shoots are starting to use larger sensors as well. It's no surprise that the Ricoh GR and the Fuji X100s - the products in our testing group with the largest sensors, exhibit the best image quality of all the digital cameras we tested.
Another unspoken hero of digital quality is dynamic range — the camera's ability to capture both the bright and dark areas of a given situation. For example, if you took a photo of a white car in bright sunlight, the wheel wells would be incredibly dark, while the top of the car would be exploding with light. A larger dynamic range can capture this more effectively. This statistic is rarely published for still cameras, but it's incredibly important. When you finally summit Mt. Whitney while ski mountaineering, you don't want blown-out snow, shadowy faces, and a mediocre backdrop. That photo better be awesome! A point and shoot boasting a larger dynamic range will allow your faces to be seen, the landscape to be stunning, and hopefully a little detail in the snow, too.
You can hear the sales pitch, "You don't even need flash any more." Digital sensors have become very sensitive and can have high ISO's, which is a simple and standardized way to list a sensor's sensitivity to light. In the film days, this was known as ASA or film speed. In addition to shutter speed and aperture (lens opening), ISO is a basic control for exposure. You can set adjust this on the camera (typically listed as 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 and so on) - the higher the number, the more sensitive to light.
But here's the caveat: since the film days, and still in the digital era, higher ISO's produce digital noise—the nasty, grainy, specs of color that ruin pictures. The ability to silence this digital noise is crucial to overall image quality, especially when shooting in low light situations. If you use your point and shoot only for summit pictures on bluebird days, ISO performance won't be as critical.
A Word About Color and Contrast
With the current ease and simplicity of editing software, almost any image can be edited in color and contrast. Cameras use color profiles, which help the device's processor decide how to process and reproduce colors, inherently making photographs look different straight out of the camera, depending on the profile designer's taste and the manufacturer's desires. Don't let these differences influence your decision. Color profiles can be altered, and you can fine tune color tone, saturation, contrast, and sharpening in any post-processing software, even in freeware programs. For most situations, we did not edit the images in order to let you see the original image.
Throughout the review we've used side-by-side photos to help you directly compare and see how we judged these point and shoots. Click on the photos and see them at full size to get a feel for the differences. You can also see all of the side-by-side comparison photos here on our photo comparison page, also accessible by the tab at the top.
We don't want to flood you with useless bits of information, like the proprietary name of Camera X's processor. And we're not going to copy and paste stats from a manufacturer's website. Instead, we aim to guide you to the best digital point and shoot for your own needs based on experience from our actual use of them in the field.
Selecting the Right Camera
Types of Cameras
We all know that there are tons of options out there. At OutdoorGearLab we believe that the best category of cameras for outdoor adventures and travel generally are compact point and shoot digital ones, mainly due to their smaller size when compared to DSLR's, better image quality compared to cell phones, durability, and overall ease of use.
There are subcategories within digital point and shoots, which we've broken down into compacts, super zooms, and prime lensed bodies.
Super Zoom Point and Shoots
Canon SX50 HS, boasts massive zoom ranges, which is great in some ways and not in others. Typically, the more specialized a lens, the better optical quality it will produce. Professional photographers and cinematographers use primes (lenses that don't zoom) as much as possible because they offer stunning results in terms of sharpness, color, contrast, and maximum aperture openings. Super zooms forgo insane sharpness and trade it for insane zoom ranges, which can be a huge advantage when looking for a device that's going to be a "one-camera quiver."
Most of the super zoom versions we tested zoom from 24mm to 1200mm (35mm equivalent). For reference, those massive lenses you see on TV next to the football field? Those are 400mm lenses. For the pros to go bigger, here is a 1200mm lens for a Canon DSLR, and it costs $120,000. That's the price of a decent house.
Yet, super zoom cameras can accomplish this equivalent in one lens that also shoots very wide. This leads to optics that are of lesser quality, but have great versatility. While the lenses don't come up to your waist like the Canon above, they do add some bulk and weight to the product compared to other point and shoots. Within our group of products, these are the heaviest and largest in size, but you can still fit them in a big ski jacket pocket. If you're going to be shooting wildlife or other distant objects, these zoom ranges can help you out, but in most situations offer little advantages in any other areas when compared to point and shoots in the compact/standard or prime lensed categories. Otherwise, stick to the old photography proverb: zoom with your feet.
Compact Point and Shoots
Point and shoots are the solution to this problem. And with the advent of new technologies, they are better than ever.
Prime Lensed Point-and-Shoots
Fuji X100s and the Ricoh GR, both have prime lenses. While it would not seem like a big enough difference to categorize them differently, it totally affects your strategy, how you need to shoot, and what skills you need to bring to the table. As a professional photographer, I love shooting primes. I don't mind being stuck at 24mm all of the time, and being forced to "zoom with my feet." But it significantly limits creative abilities when you're stuck at 24mm and can't changes lenses, ever. Even portraits become a bit difficult. However, some people really love shooting with prime lenses, and they absolutely do have their advantages. Decide how important zoom is to you before deciding which camera you want to buy; a prime lens version with the best image quality may not satisfy your needs.
Criteria for Evaluation
We tested these point and shoots aggressively through field observations. We picked the five areas that are most important: image quality, low light performance, ease of use, video quality, and flash performance.
Image quality obviously is a massive determinant for how your photos are going to look at the end of the day, but it encompasses many things that people don't often think about. Image quality comes from a number of physical elements of a digital camera, from the lens quality to the sensor, the processor to the wiring. It's intensely complicated and we'll leave the full understanding to electrical engineers and instead focus on the actual performance.
Image quality is best seen through the image on a computer, viewed at the same resolution, and comparing the pixel structure, sharpness, dynamic range, color gamut, and other aspects. We disregard color saturation and contrast, because this is drastically affected by the models' built-in color profiles, which are proprietary, and can be adjusted to personal preference.
We were blown away with the Fuji X100s for image quality. This model was comparable to a full-sized DSLR with its smooth, sharp, and colorful images. Additionally, the built-in high dynamic range setting worked very well and provided smooth sky gradations even when we had dark subjects, without seeming too manufactured or artificial. Fuji's proprietary prime lens provided great sharpness and contrast to match the bomber sensor and processor.
Low Light Performance
Larger sensors handle noise better and it came as no surprise that the Fuji X100s took the top spot in for low light performance. The APS-C sized sensor provided beautiful images even as the falling sun turned to darkness. Even though the X100s is not equipped with optical image stabilization, this model was easy to handhold and could achieve shutter speeds as slow as 1/15th routinely, further making the X100s a low-light powerhouse.
Ease of Use
We not only tested these point and shoots to see how easily they functioned in more traditional modes (Manual, Shutter Priority, and Aperture Priority), but we also tested the efficiency of their auto modes. Some models, such as the Sony RX100 II have impressive intelligent-auto modes that have scene detection that helps it make decisions based on what you are shooting.
Manufacturers have realized that we're tired of complicated cameras. The need for simplicity is amplified when you're standing on a tiny rock ledge, or a 45-degree slope on your skis. The simpler a point and shoot, the more likely we'll be to pull it out when the going gets rough or crazy. Out of the our product field, the Sony RX100 II and the Canon G16 were the easiest to use due to many different modes, fast frame rates, easy autofocusing, and the basic layout of menus and buttons.
Gone are the days of separate devices for video versus still photography, especially in the consumer market. Instead, these little point and shoots offer impressive video quality. All of them shoot 1080p and most shoot up to 60 fps for slow motion. However, manufacturers have managed to make these multiple-use devices possible by slamming high-compression "codecs" on these models, which downgrade the image quality. If someone thinks a $300 point and shoot with 1080p is going to offer the same quality as a $60,000 RED Epic, they are out of their mind. And similar to mega-pixels in the still models, video resolution isn't all of the equation for image quality. Additionally, some point and shoots don't have all of the control you need for shooting super-high quality videos, such as manual controls.
While categories like Ease of Use make a pretty small split in the pack, Video Quality was huge. At the top of the pack the Panasonic FZ200 impressed us with its versatility, multiple frame rates, and control. Combined with a smooth zoom and a pivoting LCD screen, the FZ200 was a clear winner for video performance. We even started carrying this model around to mix in with our DSLR shoots based on its frame rate options. Though it still doesn't have an input for a microphone (this plagues DSLRs, too), the on-board audio was ample to at least get a sync track or basic ambient sound. Take a look at the FZ200's versatility in this video:
Flash can be a bit nasty sometimes, but if it comes down to 1. Get the shot or 2. Don't get the shot; we prefer the first option, which makes flash necessary from time to time. We not only wanted to see how well the flash worked, but whether the cameras were smart enough to deploy pre-fires for focusing, and if the camera would decide to force fill flash in action. Additionally we wanted to make sure we could disable the flash.
A few point and shoots, such as the Canon G16, sport hot shoes that give the ability to use external flashes. In addition to external flashes, these hot-shoes also support equipment for using off-camera flash. With off-camera external lighting, the possibilities are endless. We even took our full-powered studio strobes and ran them with our Pocketwizards on the G16 for some interesting results.
While most of the our tested models offered the more or less same performance in flash, the Fuji X100s was again the clear winner, with surprisingly soft fill flash and the ability to manually dial in the flash power. Additionally, the X100s has a hot shoe and Fuji offers a line of hot shoe mount flashes.
How we Test
One aspect of testing cameras is that we can perfectly replicate scenarios and then compare them side by side. For image quality, each model was put through the same tests, at the same time, with the same light. External factors such as shake and focus issues were eliminated. For image quality we used a few different scenarios, which also overlapped with low-light performance:
Landscape photos will most likely be a big part of what OutdoorGearLab readers will be shooting. A daytime landscape test eliminated the need for high ISO, and also let us stop the lenses down to f/8 (highest across all models) to try to eliminate lens issues. After shooting each scenario, we did not process the images at all to make sure we were comparing unaltered photographs, and viewed them at similar resolutions on a computer.
We studied the photographs at 100 percent through detail areas, looked at the dynamic range in harsh shadows and highlights, and examined wide lens distortion and vignetting. We also looked at lens quality through fringing, chromatic aberrations, and overall sharpness.
Sunset Over Lake
We've got a crush on Donner Lake so we went down to the shores and shot into the sunset as it fell over Donner Summit. We compared the images mainly for dynamic range, which is the camera's ability to capture highlight and shadow detail at the same time. We shot this as well on manual settings. While we looked at color reproduction, as previously mentioned, overly saturated and contrasty images didn't gain any points since this is all software oriented. We studied the images for fringing extensively towards the horizon line, and we also checked the noise in the shadow areas.
We took a model and then destroyed the scene for any resemblance of good light. There was some nice window light coming in from both sides, so we decided to really make the cameras go through a whirlwind, and closed the side lights, and opened a blind behind the model to totally screw up the cameras. We wanted to see which product would be able to pick apart the situation. Ideally, the device would know to expose for the model, not the background. Additionally, this would be prime time for a bit of fill flash, so we tried to force them into flashing some fill light through their auto modes.
A lot of people want a fast "burst" mode for action, which will enable them to shoot many frames of a moving subject and later pick the moment. This is useful in anything moving fast, whether it's a football player, skier, mountain biker, etc.
Building at Night
We found a cool plant conservatory with odd little mushroom sculpture lights out in front of it. Not only were each of our test group products confronted with a sinking sun and low light requiring a high ISO, but there were also bright highlights from the interior lights. The models that were worse would blow out the highlights and block out the shadows, while better cameras would show the scene more like we were seeing it — with detail in the lights and in the sky.
The scope of video performance on these digital cameras was drastic. Some had video immediately usable via a button, while others had scores of menus required just to find the option. Many didn't allow for manual control, which is an immediate turn off.
Ask an Expert: Lincoln Else
Lincoln Else is a professional photographer, cinematographer, and director based in the San Francisco Bay area. He's worked on documentaries for National Geographic, PBS, and the Discovery Channel, and his client list also includes Red Bull and Apple. Lincoln got his start in the outdoor adventure film world by first working as a climbing ranger in Yosemite National Park for six years. In fact, when this interviewer first met Lincoln a decade ago on an El Cap rescue, she noted that he was more concerned with taking photos than minding the safety line! Much of the work that he does now draws on the skill set he developed while working and climbing in Yosemite, as can be seen in the amazing footage he shot during David Lama's free ascent of Cerro Torre. Lincoln shared his advice on what features and techniques might help you better capture your next adventure.
Is there a particular brand or style that you prefer?
To be honest, these days I find myself tending towards the two ends of the equipment spectrum – either shooting with a big professional DSLR, or my iPhone. It's cliché to say, but the best camera is the one you've got in your hands and for me that tends to be one of the two extremes.
Professionally, I primarily use Canon gear for still photography, with some Nikon equipment mixed in at times. For video work I use a wide range of brands: Sony, Canon, Red, Arri, GoPro, etc.
Do you use or prefer prime lenses?
In terms of image quality, absolutely, prime lenses win. But, for outdoor and adventure work where speed and flexibility are key, I usually use a model with zoom lenses. Shooting in challenging environments is always a balancing act – weighing technical image specs against the need to actually get the shot in the time you've got available. That often means leaving the set of primes in the studio. When working with a DSLR, where changing lenses is a central part of the photo making process, it's often possible to have my cake while eating it and I will carry a mix of zooms and primes.
What are the top features that you look for?
For outdoor adventure shooting, hands down it's ergonomics and ease of use. Ideally you want to be able to shoot with as little thinking as possible, without wondering where that certain function was in the menu, or exactly which button does what. It's possible to pull this off with lots of different models, but there are some that inevitably give you a leg up when it comes to getting the shot as quickly as possible.
After ergonomics and ease of use, I'd say glass trumps most everything else. The quality of the lens will inevitably set the bar for how great your image can (technically) be, so putting your money into the best glass possible is always a good bet.
What's one feature that you think people should pay more attention to when selecting a model for the outdoors?
Again I'd say "ease of use." If it has fourteen thousand different radical settings and interchangeable finger grips with a customizable eye cup, that all doesn't mean much if you aren't going to change 99% of those settings most of the time. If you truly are going to primarily "point and shoot," then features like start-up time, shutter delay, and ergonomics matter way more than deep menu items.
Also, think through your actual workflow for what you are going to do with the shot "after" you take it. I live in a totally RAW world for professional work, but when it comes to personal snaps, I don't want to deal with processing images – I want to insta-tweet-book that to my bro's asap. Hence shooting JPG's or iPhone snaps is best.
There are huge ranges in price when it comes to digi cams – what are you comfortable spending on the model that you personally use for non-work related outdoor adventures?
That's a tough one. For me, since my professional life revolves entirely around cameras, I tend to spend way more on than your average person, whether it's for personal or professional use. The real questions to answer are how often you'll actually use the camera, and how much time you are HONESTLY going to spend at a computer editing, tweaking, and looking at the images you shoot. If you love playing with photos on your computer, then it's worth paying for a model that will get you better images to manipulate. If you aren't going to spend time on a computer evaluating which of the 12 different autofocus options worked best on that last shoot, then paying for 12 autofocus options is a waste of money.
//How do you maintain/clean your equipment?//
For point-and-shoot models, beyond keeping them protected and dry, the main thing to clean is the lens. Using lens tissue and lens cleaning liquid is best, though any outdoor photographer who denies having cleaned their lenses with a dirty t-shirt at some point is a liar, or a way more organized photographer than me.
For DSLR's, cleaning your sensor can be a key part of its maintenance. It's not a hard thing to do and can be hugely important, though it requires some (relatively inexpensive) equipment and some how-to knowledge.
//How many different bodies/lenses do you take with you on an expedition?//
It totally depends on the shoot. Sometimes I'll have a massive pile of pelican cases and painful headaches at the airport with customs; while other times everything I need fits in a shoulder bag. When shooting David Lama for Red Bull, weight was the central factor. I had to carry everything I was going to shoot with on my back up the West Face of Cerro Torre, so light and fast trumped most other technical questions. On that trip, I shot video and stills with just one Canon 5D and two lenses, with a Canon 7D body as a backup.
Do you usually end up shooting much video on your DSLRs or do you use a dedicated video recorder?
While I've shot tons of DSLR video footage, these days I shoot the vast majority of my professional video footage on larger models (Sony F55, Canon C300, Red Epic, Arri Amira).
That being said, today we live in a world of total format anarchy, where Go-Pro and iPhone footage is cut with Red Epic footage. The bottom line, as always, is that story trumps all. It's not the camera; it's what in front of it that matters.
What are your thoughts on the "auto" setting? Do you use it much or always prefer to manually adjust your shots?
I usually live in a hybrid world, using aperture priority for quick exposure control, and then switching to manual if the setting/time allows. Same for focus. The main thing is knowing your gear: how the auto functions work, how they react and how you can use them effectively. Same thing is true for an iPhone. Once you understand how any camera reacts to different light, you can trick it to do what you want.
Any tips on getting great action shots in the outdoors?
Planning and working hard. Sure, once in a while you'll be in just the right place when the light's perfect and your friend lands that jump just right. But most of the time good shots take planning and effort. By that I don't mean orchestrating a complicated staged photo (though sure, that's one way to get a killer shot). I mean always thinking as a photographer with at least part of your brain. For outdoor sports action that means having a camera at the ready, and maybe running ahead of the group at the next bend to get a good shot looking back. Shooting people getting up means getting up before them. Good shots take work, and when you put that work in and it pays off with the image you were hoping for, it's always worth it.
History of Digi Cams
Digital cameras are the product of many inventions originally intended for other purposes. The technology is the process of electronically storing information encoded in a series of 1's and 0's. The first device capable of making a scan of a photograph and encoding it digitally was constructed by Russell Kirsch in 1957 at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology. The technology was used in spy satellites and by NASA in space exploration photography using something called a camera tube; the digital information was stored on devices such as cassette tapes.
In 1973, Fairchild Semiconductor released a new technology called the CCD image sensor chip, which is still integral to cameras today. CCD stands for "charge-coupled device," and works by capturing light on a sensor and converting it into voltage, which can then be converted to digital information to be stored on a hard drive, memory card, or flash drive. Shortly afterward, in 1975, Bryce Bayer developed what is known as the Bayer mosaic filter for Kodak which allowed CCD sensors to capture RGB color images, an improvement over the original gray scale. Around the same time Steve Sasson, also working for Kodak, developed the first digital device using a CCD sensor, but it could only capture 0.01 megapixels (100 x 100 pixels) of information, took 23 seconds to capture an image, and was designed simply as a technical exercise.
It wasn't until 1986 that Kodak developed the first 1.0 megapixel CCD, allowing for printing of a 5x7 inch photograph. 1988 saw the standardization of the JPEG and MPEG methods for compressing large amounts of information. These new developments led to production of consumer models, with the first U.S. release around 1990. Over time these digital designs became so popular that they caused the phasing out of the old film technology. In 2008 Polaroid stopped making instant cameras and in 2009 Kodak halted production of its Kodachrome 35mm film.
Today, even more ubiquitous than the camera is the camera-phone. Between 1993 and 1995 the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (a part of NASA run by Caltech) developed CMOS image sensors, also known as active pixel sensors. CMOS sensors, in many ways comparable to CCD sensors, are cheaper and easier to manufacture, paving the way for the installation of cheap cameras within phones. The first recorded public sharing of a photo taken with a phone occurred in 1997, and the first commercially available phone that included a camera hit the market in 2000. Who can imagine what our hyper-connected society driven by social media would look like without these technological progressions?
— Tommy Penick
Table of Contents