[cyberax]

> Not necessarily. You might be looking through the viewfinder, which will almost always have better contrast

Most mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders. They are _worse_ than a phone screen. And they still show you only an approximation of the final image, filtered through an underexposed sensor and whatever processing steps the camera has.

And if the viewfinder is purely optical (in a mirrorless camera) then it won't show the autofocus feedback.

> if you're using the display, fumbling through a touchscreen interface will always be slower than doing the same with a haptic interface you're used to.

Except that you bumped the control wheel on top some time earlier during the day, and it's now at +3 exposure instead of "0". You don't see that in the viewfinder, and find out only when the pictures are downloaded to your computer 2 months later.

Ask me how I know about this scenario.

Oh, or another one I learned at school while taking pictures for the class: if you don't have a perfect vision, and you focus the optical viewfinder until the image is in focus, the actual film image will demonstrate to everyone else exactly how you see the world with your imperfect vision.

> The goal often isn't to maximize the use of technology to get the best possible photo _technically speaking,_ but to use your own familiarity with techniques and tools to make something great _yourself._

And for me, the goal is to take good pictures for my memories, utilizing as much technology and automation as possible. I don't want to spend time learning every function of that 15 knobs on my camera. I want optical zoom and a full-frame sensor, but the same UI experience as on my phone.

[verandaguy]

    > Most mirrorless cameras have electronic viewfinders. They are _worse_ than a phone screen. And they still show you only an approximation of the final image, filtered through an underexposed sensor and whatever processing steps the camera has.

Not in newer designs. Modern cameras have similar or higher perceived pixel density, with very little or no perceptible screen dooring. Latency on later-gen cameras is also very low to the point of being imperceptible.

    > And if the viewfinder is purely optical (in a mirrorless camera) then it won't show the autofocus feedback.

I think what you're describing is a rangefinder, as seen on some Leicas for example. This is correct, but rangefinder cameras are a niche within a niche. Frankly I don't know how rangefinder users make use of that in the first place.

> Except that you bumped the control wheel on top some time earlier during the day, and it's now at +3 exposure instead of "0". You don't see that in the viewfinder, and find out only when the pictures are downloaded to your computer 2 months later.

I mean, I can't help you here, this kind of misinput is just as likely if not more on a touchscreen in my experience. The fact is that:

- Normally, on any camera I've used between Sony and Nikon, one click of the control wheel is +/- 1/3 EV. Hitting it nine times and failing to pay attention to the live preview or EV metering scale sounds like user error to me.

- If it takes you 2 months to unload your photos, you probably aren't the target audience for these cameras to begin with, to be blunt.

- Assuming it was _less_ than 3EV, most modern cameras shooting in RAW will, for most scenes, be able to give you the dynamic range to still work with the photo in post.

[cyberax]

> Not in newer designs. Modern cameras have similar or higher perceived pixel density, with very little or no perceptible screen dooring. Latency on later-gen cameras is also very low to the point of being imperceptible.

Wow, so just like my phone! My point is, the viewfinder is _still_ electronic. It doesn't really provide much advantage compared to just showing an image on the screen. That's why some of the mirrorless cameras don't even have a viewfinder anymore (e.g. EOS M6 Mark II).

> I mean, I can't help you here, this kind of misinput is just as likely if not more on a touchscreen in my experience.

It can be shown on the screen, and the UI can more faithfully reflect the settings.

> - If it takes you 2 months to unload your photos, you probably aren't the target audience for these cameras to begin with, to be blunt.

Sure. That's why I want GPS, on the photos. But I still want a good optical system, there's just no way around the sensor size and the lens quality.

[verandaguy]

    > Wow, so just like my phone! My point is, the viewfinder is _still_ electronic. It doesn't really provide much advantage compared to just showing an image on the screen. That's why some of the mirrorless cameras don't even have a viewfinder anymore (e.g. EOS M6 Mark II).

I guess? Superficially?

It's normally better than a phone screen since it's hooded, meaning you can get consistently high contrast and good colour representation in a wider range of environments without worrying about glare.

I'd also say that it's not a question of "some mirrorless cameras don't have viewvinders anymore" so much as there exists a segment-within-a-segment which doesn't have viewfinders.

Sigma's fp fits in there (though there's an optional viewfinder attachment); so does Nikon's Z30 and Sony's ZV-E10. It's not a popular design choice to remove the viewfinder since most users of ILCs do get use out of the viewfinder.

    > It can be shown on the screen, and the UI can more faithfully reflect the settings.

This doesn't address the issue of having to navigate multiple layers of menus or having to do weird on-screen gestures to get to settings, all without haptic feedback; besides that, it's not like this information's hard to read on a traditional-layout display. 1/40, 5.6, iso400, and an EV scale pointing to 1.3 is pretty intuitive if you have a basic understanding of photography concepts. If you don't care about that stuff and spend most of your time in auto, most cameras offer layout options to hide that information.

   > Sure. That's why I want GPS, on the photos. But I still want a good optical system, there's just no way around the sensor size and the lens quality.

The hard truth is that you'll have to compromise on something here.

- GPS used to be a popular option for halo-product cameras. I used to own a Sony SLT-A55 which had it, but it was often unreliable and battery life took a hit whenever I had GPS turned on. It was a decent camera otherwise. Nowadays, most cameras just don't ship with GPS built in. Some will offer a hot-shoe attachment, but these still have reliability and battery drain issues. Others rely on a phone link to encode that into the EXIF. Modern phones are pretty good about using standalone, unassisted GPS, so shooting in remote locations while using your phone as a location source is generally an okay solution. If this is a hard requirement for you, you'll have to resort to a camera design that's a few years old, partly because this feature has kinda fallen out of style, and partly because camera generations move slower than smartphone generations (for good reason; outside of professionals in demanding areas like sports or event photography, the value add has to be clear from generation to generation for the bigger enthusiast market to buy in).

- You seem to be hell-bent on having as few physical controls as possible, and even no viewfinder. This cuts out most high-end, midrange, and even most entry-level ILCs, and leaves a small segment of vlog ILCs, plus point-and-shoots (though there are some very respectable higher-end options in that market these days, like the Sony RX100 series, which has a cult following at this point).

- You still want interchangeable lenses and a bigger sensor than what you can find on phones. The latter's easy, most dedicated cameras have a bigger sensor than phones; the former less so given your other constraints, since most cameras with interchangeable lenses will fail on one of your other constraints. Out of the major manufacturers, this basically leaves you with the Sigma fp, Nikon Z30, EOS M6 Mark II, and the Sony ZV-E10, all of which, regrettably, have that control wheel that you might still accidentally hit nine times and bump your exposure up by +3.0EV.

- If you want _specifically a full-frame_ sensor, and you don't want to pay for niche products like Leicas, Zeiss halo products, or something weird like the Sigma fp, the unfortunately the camera you're looking for doesn't exist. The feature set you want represents a tiny sliver of a niche that's mostly been eaten up by smartphones at this point.

- You also want computational photography built in, which, to be honest, as it's currently implemented in phones, largely negates the limitations of the small sensors and cheaper lenses. As in; for casual photography, you're pretty unlikely to see a clear improvement over your phone with a dedicated camera these days, whether or not it comes with phone-style computational photography built in. I can't underscore this enough. If you take pictures of challenging scenes, or if you're going for a specific style, then yeah, phones are outclassed, at least as difficulty of the shot goes -- but for casual stuff? Phones are the way to go, almost unquestionably.

Snark aside; if you're looking at something like family photography, I strongly recommend something like an RX100 or a Z30 or Z5. The RX100 is a point-and-shoot, but it's best-in-class in a lot of ways even if the current rev is from 2019. It's also small enough to fit in your pocket and has a solid lens with a good zoom range. The Z30 and Z5 will probably lock out the control rings for you if you're in auto mode, which should help prevent any accidental overexposure. They also benefit from recent-gen sensors and image processors (though the sensors are APS-C). If you want a full-frame, stacked, or BSI sensor it'd likely break the bank while committing to using more conventional controls since you're looking at an enthusiast camera at that point. No two ways about it.

The GPS thing is the biggest hurdle you'll still have to clear. I don't have a great solution for you. The Z30 and EOS M6 MkII both probably have good smartphone app integration and they'd likely be able to sync location from there, but that can be finnicky, and it tends to be a battery hog.

On the other side of the spectrum I guess you could look at something like Beastgrip. I hear it's what they're using to rig up iPhones for the new 28 Years Later movie.

[bayindirh]

> The GPS thing is the biggest hurdle you'll still have to clear. I don't have a great solution for you.

Sony also has a great smartphone app which doesn't eat any battery at all. It waits for your camera to connect and activates the GPS when it connects and feeds data to it. I have never seen it eat my battery more than it should on my old iPhone X.

Sony's app also can do remote shooting and image transfer via WiFi and it's not half bad at either.

[cyberax]

> 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.

[vladvasiliu]

> 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.