please empty your brain below

I normally read via feedly/RSS but quite often click on open in browser to see the photos. Now I know why you don't have more images in your posts - what an annoying limitation.

As for the camera, I suggest you look at a Panasonic lumix tzXX camera. There nice and small but packed with features. Easily get a good one for your budget-especially if you consider 2nd hand.
I read via RSS on my iphone, and prefer the 400 pixel wide photos. The quarter photos also work fine for me. I don't click on the Flickr links, but read for the text rather than the photos.

As a keen photographer I would advice you to stick with the iphone. I think you have to spend more than your budget to get something with a big marginal difference over your phone that justifies the cost and carrying two devices.
Aye to the iPhone
Like the postcard feel of quartered photos and the iPhone takes great pictures!
The iPhone takes great photos - each model getting better. Point and shoots are going the way of the dodo.

As much of your photography DG is taken outside then the iPhone should be more than sufficient - your Waltham Abbey photo for example - imagine taking that on a phone 10 years ago (!)
I love my Canon Ixus. Lense hides away inside the camera when not in use and fits in a pocket (as long as your jeans aren't too tight). Battery life is good and easy to charge when needed. Has point and shoot options but also fancier ones if you want to fiddle around. Flash not great but easy to switch off. Downloads easily to my computer.
I also endorse the Canon Ixus for a camera to fit in your pocket.
I also use an iPhone for most photos, but if I am going any were a bit special a Panasonic Lumix TZ series are very good value.
Lumix's TZ series cameras are great, because 1. small 2. brilliant zoom ... e.g. this at top of tower in Caledonian Market (ok this particular photo is a bit too glare-y, but the ability to spot detail is great ... you often notice new things after taking the picture and looking at it when you get home)
Another vote for Panasonic Lumix TZ series. Like you I left my camera at home and used the phone, but missed the camera. The Panasonic Lumix is small enough and I find I can handle it better than a phone. I say get a Panasonic Lumix. It's you.
iPhone pics look good enough for me.

Or better still get a new phone - Samsung Galaxy S5 (quickly close can of worms).
I needed to buy a replacement camera about a year ago. What amazed me is how much better than the old one it was despite being outwardly similar. Camera shake was gone and low light conditions much better. It was a different make but I suspect if your camera is a few years old then just buying a replacement will actually be a substantial improvement.
Canon powershot. I have an S95.
Another fan of the Lumix TZ range. We bought a TZ31 abroad a couple of years ago (marketed as TZ30 in the UK) and are very impressed, having also used one of their bridge cameras before. I'm not sure of current prices or latest models but worth considering.
Advertising it's an iPhone you have? What's this - product placement in an otherwise ad-free environment?

The Lumix TZ range are good for all the reasons others have listed. I've had a few.

But the Lumix LX series (3, 5, 7) are very good indeed, nice Leica Summicron lens. They are small and produce lovely shots.

The LX5 cost in the order of £400 when first released. It's been superseded by the LX7 at around the £300 mark. You should be able to pick up a secondhand LX3 or LX5 in good nick for about £100.
Panosonic TZ40 is an incredible camera. SHould be able to pick this for just under £200 especially if you are happy to wait until the price drops - camelcamelcamel is great for that.
Re: the Lumix LX series... I should have written Leica Summilux lens, not Summicron...
The key thing with compact cameras in particular is sensor size, not mega pixels. In fact a small sensor and a high mega pixel count is particularly bad.

Too many pixels crammed into a smaller space usually means you get worse dynamic range (essentially the range a camera can capture, so low dynamic range means it's more likely a sky will wash out to white, for example) and worse noise (image grain).

Not sure you will get a camera with a larger than normal sensor in your price range, though.
My money would be on a Nikon Coolpix compact: mine is a (now discontinued) S8200, which has surprised me time and again for punching above its weight. The nearest current equivalent is the S9500: they generally sell for about £220 (eg Asda £227) but they can be found - on eBay, for example - at well under £200.
(I'm not into smartphones)
I second the Nikon Coolpix suggestion. Phones are good for pictures like your Waltham Abbey masterpiece: good light, not a huge dynamic range, nothing moving fast, but the Coolpix does much better if these conditions don't hold. My S9100 is smaller in height and width than my Nexus 4 phone, but about 3 times as thick. It weighs about the same as the phone and easily fits in a pocket, though I usually have it in a pouch on my belt.
I have a camera but I can't remember the last time I used it - my i phone takes better pictures and it's easier to have just one device with you when you're out and about
Your iPhone is good enough for me (and so is mine). I've not used a real camera for years. Your pictures are illustrative, you don't appear to be entering any photographer of the year contests - keep it simple.
Only go to Flickr if the post holds something of particular interest or detail (not that I'm suggesting some don't!) and it is worthwhile addition to flesh out some of your posts given the Blogger limitations. Not too mad about smaller thumbnails and quartered photos but sometimes they lead me to connect to Flickr.

I read this usually from home PC with 21 inch HD screen and the iphone photos look great I would not bother with separate camera unless you are not happy with quality yourself.
I read via a reader too (feebly and Pocket), and so it's rare I see the Flickr photos... Only when something really catches from the description. So the 400 pictures are best for me.

I love having a good camera, but these days it rarely gets an outing. Your iPhone shots are definitely good enough.
The iPhone produces good images but that zoom is not a proper optical zoom (just a digital zoom) so you may want to consider a compact such as a Canon Ixus if that is important.
Lumix TZ series is phenomenal. My TZ30 has 20X zoom and great lens. Also fab for close-ups. Never had so much fun with a camera in my life. Tucks into small pocket nicely. TZ20 also very good. You might get a 'last year's model' at knock-down price at small camera shop like T&B in Romford. SD card holds hundreds of photos. Battery lasts a few hours (I got another online to carry as standby). Dim light no problem, I hardly ever use flash. I take loads of pix in London of strange odds and sods to give talks to sods and odds.
A bigger, more expensive camera doesn't necessarily equate to better photos as many top photographers have said before. A camera that is portable and "good enough" for the purpose is all that anyone needs. I would stick with the iPhone as the photos are perfectly good enough. Some high profile photographers use the iPhone such as Benjamin Lowy and Chase Jarvis.
I think the photos taken on your iPhone are fine, but then I'm only looking at your photos as illustrations to your blog post and am not particularly looking at them from an artistic point of view

thinking of your photos from the point of view of admiring them as works of art, then I think a better camera would probably be very useful for you

so I guess the question is really what do you want ... do you just want snaps to illustrate your blog, or do you want something of a higher quality that you personally would enjoy?

if it's any help, another blog that I read (life at the end of the road), Paul swears by his Panasonic DMC FZ48 (I think he's had this camera a year or more now so the model number might have changed by now)
Additional vote for Passasonic/Lumix here.
The quality of the best pictures from modern smartphones is amazing. However, there still seem to be a big step from smartphones to compact cameras, and another big step from compact cameras to a bigger camera with changeable lens.

Unless the smartphones and compact cameras has gotten far better the last year or two, you still get a camera thats faster and better at handling low light situations if you go with a "big" camera. Manually rotating the zoom on a big lens is faster than any compact camera motor zoom or most smartphone "fake"/software zoom. The autofocus is usually far faster on a big camera, especially if you set it to only focus on one point. (You get used to pointing at some object at the desired focal distance when you do the first half of the button pressing, and then aiming correctly when pressing the button completely to actually take the picture).

Also as others pointed out, a bigger sensor gives better pictures, especially with a camera with many pixels.

In good light contitions my 1½ year old smartphone (Samsung galaxy S2) is almost as good as my 10 year old compact camera (Canon Ixus 400). If the picture contains anything that begs for brightness/contrast/colour level editing (especially forcing a non-linear curve or even making a "fake HDR" picture from only a single original) the result from my DSLR (Canon EOS 450D) is superior.

In low light conditions my smartphone actually outperforms the compact camera when they are handheld. Standing on a steady surface the old compact camera outperforms the smartphone. Of course my DSLR outperforms both in this area too. I'm especially impressed with the performance when using it handheld. On a reasonably lit street at night almost every picture come out sharp, atleast if I force max ISO (1600). Even in extremely low light conditions I'm usually able to take a steady picture if I have possibility to snap a few pictures until one comes out good. I've even managed to take some reasonably sharp pictures in places where it's been so dark that it was a bit hard to walk as it was a bit hard to see the ground clearly.

Obviously in those extremely low light conditions the camera settings must be tweaked a bit, manual shutter speed and max lens opening, max ISO and prioritize fast enough shutter time to get a sharp picture over correct exposure, and afterwards adjust contrast/brightness (and using RAW mode), and accepting a bit more noice than on most other photos.

If you want a small enough camera but still good performance perhaps you should have a look at the cameras that have interchangeable lenses but doesn't have any mirror or optical viewfinder. The best picture quality would of course be achieved if you somehow change your mind and give a "big lens around your neck" a shot :)

I'm far from any kind of expert, but I think that there is usually a reason that some product is on sale. Make sure that the reason isn't that the next model takes far better pictures.

P.S. digital cameras get outdated rather fast, but as long as its technically possible to use an old lens on a new camera, the old lens is usually just as good as a new in the same price/quality range. (However be aware that the first mass produced zoom lenses were usually inferior to both todays zoom lenses and contemporary fixed lenses. On the other hand, there were some good fixed lenses made even 50 years ago. If you plan on using some old lens, make sure that the modern camera are reasonably userfriendly with old lenses. For example the optical viewfinder on my EOS 450D is crap at manual focus, I have to view the picture on the small LCD and use 10x zoom to focus perfectly, really tedious).

Sorry that this comment somewhat is an infodump :)

TridentScan | Privacy Policy