I miss my Pentax Spot-o-Matic but must choose a camera for amateur nature photography; get a new iPhone or an actual camera?

Question

I need help deciding between a phone and an actual camera for amateur nature photography. I need something that can be ON by the time I've raised it and quick to focus when I'm in a hurry, and will be able to manage residual motion when I don't have time to steady myself because the thing's gonna fly away any second.

The main constraint is that I am relatively poor (by choice) and so this needs to be an either-or situation.

My background and context in photography come from these three cameras:

1. Asahi/Pentax Spot-o-Matic with I think a very nice 50 mm f/1.8 lens. I didn't care about grain. I shot (what seems like) kilograms of high ASA film, developed the B&W myself and dropped the ASA 400 Ektachrome off at the corner drug store. I was so happy with my photos!
2. Sony DSC-W55 (2007, 7.2 megapixels, NO Manual Mode, 3× optical zoom) ugh. Every time I turned it on it needed to reboot the computer, and couldn't put it in my pocket until it was powered down and the lens retracted.
3. iPhone 6 vanilla (i.e. no photo app, lots of fumbling with screen controls)

Case in point. I think this orange dragonfly species is either a younger version of the red or a cousin, but they are much, much more sensitive to motion and get spooked at much farther distances than the red one:

• Identify this dragonfly with orange body and orange wings? took me 10 minutes to get even this close to it.
• Why exactly are the reflections of sunlight in this dragonfly's eye hexagonal? I could just walk up, hold my phone up close, fumble with focus, no problem.

All photos with my iPhone 6.

I have lots of blurry pictures of very colorful lizards running away because they've noticed that I've gotten too close, and some beautiful birds recognize my gaze and flee when they are only 100 pixels tall.

I need to decide soon if I should upgrade to an iPhone 11 or 12 with their better cameras than the 6 and actual optical zoom, or buy a used or new point-and-shoot or better actual camera.

Question: What are the key points I need to consider when choosing a point-and-shoot that I can use quickly with a fast lens (low f/no) and is also fast to focus and control, (used or new) and how can I compare that to getting an iPhone 11 or 12 with its better camera and optical zoom? Are there specific types of features that will allow people like me to shoot jumpy, skittish wildlife at a farther distance than I can do with my current phone?

note: per @Orbit's question in comments: I am walking in nature twice a day on my normal route, so the camera I use needs to be something I can carry with me all the time without being cumbersome or interfering with my daily activities. I need either a phone or smaller digital camera form factor so that it can be readily transferred between pockets and necks straps several times a day. I can't integrate the normal DSLR-sized camera form factor into my daily lifestyle and workplace for several reasons. Sooner or later I'll take it off and forget it or bang it on some equipment, and where I live and work if I always carried a big SLR in front of me ready to shoot it may make others uncomfortable. It is not rational because everybody has an excellent camera in their phones of course, but where I live and work it will simply be off-putting to others and that's beyond my control.

Answer 1

The iPhone 12 Pro advertises a 5x zoom range, but in my look they didn't give a 35mm equivalent focal length. I would guess the range is something like 30-150mm or somewhat shorter. That is very short for wildlife, even lizards. It is hopeless for birds.

The point and shoot cameras have gotten extremely long lenses now, which is great for birds. It takes some practice to be able to find the bird in the narrow field of view and to hold the camera steady enough, though the image stabilization has gotten very good. When I am out I just leave the camera turned on all the time. My experience is that battery life is more determined by on time than number of photos for these cameras, so I always carry a spare battery. These cameras do not focus as fast as a dSLR, but they are pretty quick. The tiny sensor makes them somewhat more noise susceptible when the light gets low and you can't stop down to get depth of field, but they are much lighter and less expensive than dSLRs with long lenses.

Answer 2

Bias warning: I've been a film photographer for about fifty years, and never really taken to digital; further, I use Android on my phone.

My advice: get another Spotmatic or other, more sophisticated film SLR. If you still have M42 lenses, so much the better. M42 hardware is inexpensive (even now, with prices on the rise as younger photographers "discover" film), in large part because it's old and lacks the sophistication that's more in demand among those who learned on fully-automatic digital equipment.

There are excellent very long lenses for M42; I have one at 400mm f/6.3 that, when I bought it, cost almost nothing (it'd probably run under $100 even now). Film is better now than it's ever been -- Kodak's Portra 800 is fast enough to let you stop down to your lens's sweet spot and still have enough shutter speed for a long lens. Add to that a "photo sniper" setup (commonly found for Zenit M42 cameras, including a long lens with good optics) and you can "hunt" your dragonflies from far enough away that they won't spook, and do it in color.

Then get C-41 processing chemicals and process that film yourself, as well -- it'll save the cost of the chemical kit after only a couple rolls, vs. dropping the film off and waiting a week or two to get it back (and possibly not having the option to receive the negatives for your own archiving and storage).

If you're a hybrid worker, shooting film but scanning and post processing in digital, be aware that I'm getting 30 megapixels from a 10 year old used Epson 4870 flatbed scanner -- a modern scanner like a V700 will get more than twice that, though there's considerable disagreement on where the optical limits are for those scanners (hint: if maximum scan resolution is important, look into multi-sample and fluid mount).

Bottom line, an M42 body, good lenses, C-41 chemistry to use with your existing B&W processing equipment, and a flatbed scanner will set you back less than a two year old DSLR or mirrorless, give comparable final resolution, and (IMO) be more fun.

Answer 3

Get another iPhone or stick with the one you have for a bit longer. It's up to you if you'd rather get a compact camera, but your complaints about the iPhone and Sony compact camera also apply to current camera models.

---

I have lots of blurry pictures of very colorful lizards running away because they've noticed that I've gotten too close, and some beautiful birds recognize my gaze and flee when they are only 100 pixels tall.

You would still have this problem with a majority of compact cameras.

... couldn't put [Sony DSC-W55] in my pocket until it was powered down and the lens retracted.

This will be an issue with cameras with larger zoom ranges you would need to stay far enough from critters to avoid startling them. Compact cameras without an extended zoom range will be no better than an iPhone.

I need something that can be ON by the time I've raised it and quick to focus when I'm in a hurry

Nothing will be faster than already on.

... took me 10 minutes to get even this close to it.

Weren't you in a hurry?

I need to decide soon...

Why are you in a hurry?

What are the key points I need to consider when choosing...

You've already listed the criteria that are important to you.

Are there specific types of features that will allow people like me to shoot jumpy, skittish wildlife at a farther distance than I can do with my current phone?

Longer lenses on larger cameras, including superzoom compacts. But you've already ruled out that option.