It takes a camera

Smart phones are handy, but they can’t do it all

The evidence is indisputable. Smart phones are quickly elbowing aside basic point-and-shoot cameras as the device of choice for sharing everyday experiences.

Flickr, the photo-sharing website to which consumers have posted more than 5 billion photos, recently ranked Apple's iPhone 4 as its users' second most widely used device after the Nikon D90, an SLR. Smart phones make it a snap to upload photos to social networks. In almost half of U.S. online households, members post photos of themselves or their children on Facebook, according to the latest Consumer Reports State of the Net survey.

But for important occasions, our tests of stand-alone cameras and camcorders show, there's still no substitute for the image quality and shooting versatility of a dedicated device.

No, most stand-alone cameras don't have features that smart phones have. Those include the ability to message photos to other phones or upload them to the Web wirelessly, and they use free, or very inexpensive, apps to edit photos on the spot. (Tablets are not widely used for photography, but the latest models include cameras and webcams, and use apps similar to those on smart phones.)

Given smart phones' capabilities, it might be tempting to use one to shoot just about everything. But here's what we found when we tested eight standout smart phones, plus dozens of cameras and camcorders:

Cameras lead on many fronts

Even the simplest has an optical zoom, and many have wide-angle capability. Smart phones don't offer either. Most cameras also have greater resolution than smart phones, making their images better suited for large prints, such as 11x14s.

Our tests examined two areas in which cameras edge out smart phones. Many cameras, especially advanced ones, can tailor flash strength to the ambient light and subject matter. But although most of the smart phones we tested shot decent flash photos of a subject 5 feet away, images were often too bright at 3 feet and dim at 10.

When it came to cranking up their ISO settings to increase their light sensitivity, quite a few basic cameras produced a good quality image at 400 ISO, a moderately sensitive setting. But the phones' image quality at that setting was more uneven, with some producing poor images. Most advanced cameras, and some basic ones, captured very good images at a more sensitive ISO 800, but the smart phones' images at that setting were generally poor.

Our tests also show that you don't need to pay a lot for high-quality still images and video. Several subcompacts priced at $250 or less had very good image quality across the board. We also found that you can get overall performance comparable to that of an SLR for a lot less. The top-rated SLR-like camera (one that accepts detachable lenses but is smaller than a true SLR), the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2K, equaled the top-rated Canon EOS 60D SLR in most tests, yet at $500 it costs less than half as much.

SLR-like models are matching SLRs in features, too. Three 16-megapixel SLR-like models recently introduced include the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3, $700, Sony NEX-C3K, $650, and Sony SLT-A35L, $700. We haven't rated those models.

Basic cameras continue to evolve. For example, Casio's Tryx, $200, which combines the capabilities of a subcompact camera and pocket camcorder, has a special frame around it that acts as a built-in tripod to reduce blur and improve video. Even cameras' lack of built-in wireless capability can be overcome—for a price. (See First Look: Eye-Fi Mobile X2 wireless memory card)

Smart phones upgrade features

The T-Mobile G2x beat all the phones overall at shooting stills and was among the best for videos. But in many shooting conditions, it couldn't match the image quality and versatility of a basic point-and-shoot camera or a camcorder. (See One birthday, six kids, and five gadgets)

Still, phone makers have upgraded many phones' capabilities by borrowing sensors, other technologies, and software from basic cameras, producing better displays and image quality than in earlier phones, and adding features such as autofocus and face detection. Some smart phones also boast 8-megapixel photo resolution and 1080p HD-resolution video. And some smart phones' touch-screen controls are far more intuitive than the buttons and menus most cameras use.

Camcorders are tops in video

Their video quality was better than all the smart phones and cameras, including all of the SLRs tested. In particular, camcorders were better in low light, preserving details in shadows, and better able to avoid overexposing a scene's brightest portions.

The best-performing high-definition camcorders, our tests found, were those with the lowest optical-zoom range, most often just 10x. But if you need more zoom and are willing to trade off a bit in low-light image quality or autofocusing performance, a high-definition model with 15x or greater will actually save you money. Standard-definition models offer a lot more zoom for a lot less, but high-definition models offer better picture quality.

We tested the 3D-recording capability of two high-definition models. The JVC Everio GS-TD1, $1,700, had very good 3D effects, and the 3D effects of the Panasonic HDC-SDT750, $880, were not as good.

Another new feature in camcorders is the ability to project images onto a surface. Sony models we've tested with that capability include the HDR-PJ10, $700, and HDR-PJ30V, $950. Simpler pocket camcorders are also feeling the competition from smart phones. In fact, some credit smart phones with prompting Cisco to kill off its widely used and innovative Flip line. So pocket-cam makers are innovating by adding projection capability (3M's Shoot 'n Share CP40, $250) and 3D recording (Sony's Bloggie MHS-FS3 3D HD camcorder, $250).