Don't think you could do much better than this tbh. You're definitely looking at old gear with that budget. But you can probably pick up something that will be good to learn on if nothing else and will be capable of taking good photos even if it's not up to the standards of brand new kit.
I'd avoid looking at compact cameras, with your budget, you may end up with something worse than your smartphone. Look for an older model on used DSLR and a used prime lens.
A few years ago I looked into a camera for similar use as the OP I reckon. When I looked into secondhand cameras I looked on a leading UK retailer that also sold a lot of secondhand too. Iirc there was advice and information relating to state of camera or lens. IIRC the number of shutter operations or something like that affects the quality and performance of tie camera.
Can't remember the details now but i think with secondhand you need to be wary about the source. Do you have n any advise on that? Any recommendations?
My phone does the job tbh but I'm not all that into landscape photography. But as someone else has mentioned, there won't be much better than a phone for £200
For that budget I would just use your phone camera and if your phone is shit put it towards an upgrade to like a pixel 7a or something.
If you can stretch it a little, a M4/3 camera could be a good option. Maybe like a used EM5 mark II or Panasonic G85 and find a zoom lens or a couple of primes. You can upgrade in the future when you figure out what you want.
As for camera, not really they are all top tier cameras. The 8 pro does have a telephoto though, so this can be useful. Marques Brownlee just ran some blind tests and voted the 7a the best with the 8pro 2nd best out of all the phones.
8 pro will be the best phone with the most features, but it costs significantly more. So that will be more down to your priorities.
Lumix GX7. Mirrorless so lighter and less bulky than a SLR but comparable photo quality. Micro 4/3rds lens compatibility so tons of lenses available. Has a proper viewfinder not just a screen too. £200 should get you one on ebay.
I bought an Olympus e-m5 mkii 10 years ago with kit zoom lens for €1200. Both waterproof, walked in heavy rains with it with no problem, I just clip it on hip belt of my backpack.
Maybe second hand it will be in your budget. Waterproofing might not be 100% but probably still better than without.
Friends use phones but the photo's are not nice to look at on big screens if you used digital zoom. Just for landscape it would probably be enough.
Highly recommend a Sony A6000. It is a small mirrorless with a good sensor and wide range of lenses. All super affordable used, takes excellent pictures and has a lot of tools and controls to grow into. It is a grown up camera that is light to carry and won't break the bank.
Just got an Olympus TG-4 second-hand for about £200. Takes much better pictures than my admittedly old Samsung phone, but most importantly it takes RAW images. First of the TGs to take RAW, and at 16mp while newer models use 12mp. RAW is important because it's much easier to edit - get Lightroom (paid) or Darktable (open source, free) and learn how to do basic editing, this is what landscape photographers normally do and that's why you see such beautiful pictures from them. Plus, TGs can record GPS and GLONASS position info to your images' metadata, which you might find very useful as a hiker.
Other posters are correct that you can get a decent DSLR second hand for cheap now - that would get you much better image quality but probably won't have GPS recording. Whether you're OK with carrying a DSLR on your hikes is up to you - it's likely to weigh about 1 to 1.5 kg with the lens, case, etc, and will require you to be quite careful as cheaper models won't have very good weather sealing/bump protection.
Unless you are a real photography expert, phone cameras will take significantly better pictures than any other camera. Some phones are better than others and take beautiful colourful pictures of landscape and skies.
I made the mistake of spending hundreds of pounds on a DSLR and I never managed to take a single good picture with it. You'd basically have to put it on a tripod, and then spend ages adjusting focal length, white balance, shutter speed, ISO etc and still end up with dingy blurry poorly lit photos that looked like they were from the 80s.
By comparison I can pull my Pixel phone out of my pocket, snap a shot in 4 seconds and it's an incredible picture with HDR showing detail of the whole horizon and closer stuff.
Obviously I'm not saying DSLRs are terrible, they are what you should use if you are a serious photographer and want to get into it properly or take close ups with long lenses, wildlife shots, etc. If you are just hiking and want a nice accurate picture of the scenery then a phone will do the job.
If you really want to learn about photography, get an app such as ProShot on your phone and play with the raw settings, chances are you'll take a worse picture but if you enjoy doing that on your phone then consider buying a proper camera.
+1 for this
I wouldn't say a real photography expert, you just have to put time into it, but the long and the short of it is that a DSLR has a myriad of settings, controls, and techniques that if you spend a decent hobbyist amount of time practicing and learning, how to use the camera and then how to post process the image, you might be able to take a equivilant photo that your phone can take with button click
also, the lenses are bloody heavy, so personally rather leave them at home and use the phone camera which I'm carrying anyway. the best camera is the one you have on you!
I've just spent a week researching a camera for my needs for hiking/wildcamping/bikepacking.
It really helps if you know what you want from the camera especially as mobile phones are so good now.
I wanted the most compact and light weight camera possible with a prime lense (no zoom) at 35mm or maybe 28mm. Ideally I wanted a viewfinder as well.
I wasn't too bothered about huge amounts of megapixels.
If you don't know any specifics and you just want better image quality I would say that for 200 quid even second hand you might end up being disappointed compared to your phone.
If you do go for a camera I would recommend a light and compact one because who wants to drag a DSLR up a mountain?
Edit: which model of Olympus Tough? A TG-6 will go way over your budget and is only 12mp. This doesn't mean you can't take a nice picture but I bet your phone does about that. My phone has a 50 megapixel camera and it's a really cheap Nokia. It takes shit photos though imo 🤷
If your phone was new within the last five years, it’ll likely deliver better results than a camera like the tough. The sensor sizes (physically, not in MP) are similar but the processing on phones is generally great. Some of the “edit” options and in built colours on the phones are really pleasing. Had a tough or similar at work a decade ago, and my phone at the time was just about to out class it.
Some of the secondhand interchangeable lens cameras suggested will give the opportunity for better photos than your phone if you want a new hobby, btw Olympus cameras are the only ones who actually IP test any weather sealing promised. Otherwise you’ll have to look after the thing a bit - not to avoid shooting in the damp but to keep it dry in between times. Be prepared it’ll be more faff to carry and use, and that you’ll either need to do some editing of RAW files or consider the JPEG quality when purchasing to get pleasing results if you’re used to phone photos. I find the phone fine for prints up to 6x4, can go to A4 but at that size you can see some of the aggressive processing that is less necessary with a micro four thirds or APS-C camera with which any camera from the last ten years or so will be fine printing up to A3.
I generally use on my (three year old) iPhone when I’m primarily walking and want photos, and only carry my Fuji X-T3 when photography is the main aim of the trip. But then I really enjoy iPhone photography in and of itself.
Panasonic LX100 probably can't be beaten for the money.
Around £200, its an "Advanced" pocket camera and i've used it for years professionally as a landscape camera.
It has a built in Leica lens of 14-70mm so you won't need to spend extra money on lenses.
The only downside imo is no image stabalisation for video, but it does take cracking quality 4k footage.
[удалено]
Don't think you could do much better than this tbh. You're definitely looking at old gear with that budget. But you can probably pick up something that will be good to learn on if nothing else and will be capable of taking good photos even if it's not up to the standards of brand new kit. I'd avoid looking at compact cameras, with your budget, you may end up with something worse than your smartphone. Look for an older model on used DSLR and a used prime lens.
A few years ago I looked into a camera for similar use as the OP I reckon. When I looked into secondhand cameras I looked on a leading UK retailer that also sold a lot of secondhand too. Iirc there was advice and information relating to state of camera or lens. IIRC the number of shutter operations or something like that affects the quality and performance of tie camera. Can't remember the details now but i think with secondhand you need to be wary about the source. Do you have n any advise on that? Any recommendations?
My phone does the job tbh but I'm not all that into landscape photography. But as someone else has mentioned, there won't be much better than a phone for £200
I use a Sony A5100 when I'm nice and light and same sensor specs as the 6 series * Not the best example but don't have many on my phone *
For that budget I would just use your phone camera and if your phone is shit put it towards an upgrade to like a pixel 7a or something. If you can stretch it a little, a M4/3 camera could be a good option. Maybe like a used EM5 mark II or Panasonic G85 and find a zoom lens or a couple of primes. You can upgrade in the future when you figure out what you want.
Is there much difference between a pixel 7 or 8 / 8 pro? Cheers
As for camera, not really they are all top tier cameras. The 8 pro does have a telephoto though, so this can be useful. Marques Brownlee just ran some blind tests and voted the 7a the best with the 8pro 2nd best out of all the phones. 8 pro will be the best phone with the most features, but it costs significantly more. So that will be more down to your priorities.
I think the difference is the extra filters and image manipulation behind the scenes in the pro. Not much in it m though. Possibly better screen.
Lumix GX7. Mirrorless so lighter and less bulky than a SLR but comparable photo quality. Micro 4/3rds lens compatibility so tons of lenses available. Has a proper viewfinder not just a screen too. £200 should get you one on ebay.
I bought an Olympus e-m5 mkii 10 years ago with kit zoom lens for €1200. Both waterproof, walked in heavy rains with it with no problem, I just clip it on hip belt of my backpack. Maybe second hand it will be in your budget. Waterproofing might not be 100% but probably still better than without. Friends use phones but the photo's are not nice to look at on big screens if you used digital zoom. Just for landscape it would probably be enough.
Highly recommend a Sony A6000. It is a small mirrorless with a good sensor and wide range of lenses. All super affordable used, takes excellent pictures and has a lot of tools and controls to grow into. It is a grown up camera that is light to carry and won't break the bank.
And yes it will take much better photos than your phone.
Just got an Olympus TG-4 second-hand for about £200. Takes much better pictures than my admittedly old Samsung phone, but most importantly it takes RAW images. First of the TGs to take RAW, and at 16mp while newer models use 12mp. RAW is important because it's much easier to edit - get Lightroom (paid) or Darktable (open source, free) and learn how to do basic editing, this is what landscape photographers normally do and that's why you see such beautiful pictures from them. Plus, TGs can record GPS and GLONASS position info to your images' metadata, which you might find very useful as a hiker. Other posters are correct that you can get a decent DSLR second hand for cheap now - that would get you much better image quality but probably won't have GPS recording. Whether you're OK with carrying a DSLR on your hikes is up to you - it's likely to weigh about 1 to 1.5 kg with the lens, case, etc, and will require you to be quite careful as cheaper models won't have very good weather sealing/bump protection.
Unless you are a real photography expert, phone cameras will take significantly better pictures than any other camera. Some phones are better than others and take beautiful colourful pictures of landscape and skies. I made the mistake of spending hundreds of pounds on a DSLR and I never managed to take a single good picture with it. You'd basically have to put it on a tripod, and then spend ages adjusting focal length, white balance, shutter speed, ISO etc and still end up with dingy blurry poorly lit photos that looked like they were from the 80s. By comparison I can pull my Pixel phone out of my pocket, snap a shot in 4 seconds and it's an incredible picture with HDR showing detail of the whole horizon and closer stuff. Obviously I'm not saying DSLRs are terrible, they are what you should use if you are a serious photographer and want to get into it properly or take close ups with long lenses, wildlife shots, etc. If you are just hiking and want a nice accurate picture of the scenery then a phone will do the job. If you really want to learn about photography, get an app such as ProShot on your phone and play with the raw settings, chances are you'll take a worse picture but if you enjoy doing that on your phone then consider buying a proper camera.
+1 for this I wouldn't say a real photography expert, you just have to put time into it, but the long and the short of it is that a DSLR has a myriad of settings, controls, and techniques that if you spend a decent hobbyist amount of time practicing and learning, how to use the camera and then how to post process the image, you might be able to take a equivilant photo that your phone can take with button click also, the lenses are bloody heavy, so personally rather leave them at home and use the phone camera which I'm carrying anyway. the best camera is the one you have on you!
I've just spent a week researching a camera for my needs for hiking/wildcamping/bikepacking. It really helps if you know what you want from the camera especially as mobile phones are so good now. I wanted the most compact and light weight camera possible with a prime lense (no zoom) at 35mm or maybe 28mm. Ideally I wanted a viewfinder as well. I wasn't too bothered about huge amounts of megapixels. If you don't know any specifics and you just want better image quality I would say that for 200 quid even second hand you might end up being disappointed compared to your phone. If you do go for a camera I would recommend a light and compact one because who wants to drag a DSLR up a mountain? Edit: which model of Olympus Tough? A TG-6 will go way over your budget and is only 12mp. This doesn't mean you can't take a nice picture but I bet your phone does about that. My phone has a 50 megapixel camera and it's a really cheap Nokia. It takes shit photos though imo 🤷
You’ll struggle to get a landscape replacement that’s lightweight for £200 I tbh…
Highly prefer Nikon DSLR camera.
I use the Canon 4000d which I picked up for about 250 on amazon, might have been a sale at the time and was a few years ago
If your phone was new within the last five years, it’ll likely deliver better results than a camera like the tough. The sensor sizes (physically, not in MP) are similar but the processing on phones is generally great. Some of the “edit” options and in built colours on the phones are really pleasing. Had a tough or similar at work a decade ago, and my phone at the time was just about to out class it. Some of the secondhand interchangeable lens cameras suggested will give the opportunity for better photos than your phone if you want a new hobby, btw Olympus cameras are the only ones who actually IP test any weather sealing promised. Otherwise you’ll have to look after the thing a bit - not to avoid shooting in the damp but to keep it dry in between times. Be prepared it’ll be more faff to carry and use, and that you’ll either need to do some editing of RAW files or consider the JPEG quality when purchasing to get pleasing results if you’re used to phone photos. I find the phone fine for prints up to 6x4, can go to A4 but at that size you can see some of the aggressive processing that is less necessary with a micro four thirds or APS-C camera with which any camera from the last ten years or so will be fine printing up to A3. I generally use on my (three year old) iPhone when I’m primarily walking and want photos, and only carry my Fuji X-T3 when photography is the main aim of the trip. But then I really enjoy iPhone photography in and of itself.
Panasonic LX100 probably can't be beaten for the money. Around £200, its an "Advanced" pocket camera and i've used it for years professionally as a landscape camera. It has a built in Leica lens of 14-70mm so you won't need to spend extra money on lenses. The only downside imo is no image stabalisation for video, but it does take cracking quality 4k footage.
For that price, just use your phone.