Now the bit everyone will want to know about. (Although if you managed to afford one of these phones during the last eleven months, you'll already guess what I'm going to say. Just skip this post)
The Samsung Galaxy S20+ has three camera lenses, the main one having a 26mm focal length (in full-frame terms) and an f/1.8 aperture, which yields a 12 megapixels image. That's the lens to use most of the time. There is also a 28mm-840mm f/2.0 zoom lens, also 12 megapixels - although you can switch to 64 megapixels instead, which gives you High Definition, good for very distant subjects. Then there is a super-wideangle lens, with a 13mm focal length; I'm not sure about its aperture, nor how many megapixels. Presumably f/1.8 and 12.
There are optional one-tap zoom presets for speedy operation. These produce pictures at the following focal lengths (in full-frame terms):
0.5x, as if using a 13mm prime lens
2x, as if using a 56mm prime lens
4x, as if using a 112mm prime lens
10x, as if using a 280mm prime lens
20x, as if using a 560mm prime lens
30x, as if using a 840mm prime lens
If using the HD setting, the S20+ can manage a 6x zoom, as if using a 168mm prime lens, but nothing longer. But then all those extra pixels allow additional magnification, or cropping without much falloff in quality.
The S20+ achieves these zoom settings partly by optical means, partly by amazing in-camera processing. The intention is clearly to produce a finished picture that needs no further attention before instant (maybe even automatic) sharing on social media. Nothing wrong with that aim. It's what many people want, after all. To create a shareworthy or publishable picture, however, various enhancements are made to make the shot look bright, clean and crisp. Every shot is a composite of a rapid burst of shots: the phone analyses what it captures, selecting only the 'best' pixels from each part of the picture, and binning what seems indistinct. The technique produces shots that are undeniably pleasing.
But a conventional camera would capture all the little things that have been discarded. Such as subtle facial blemishes. Samsung's phone cameras will smooth most of those away. Does it matter? Not if you want a flattering shot! But if you're brave enough to want a totally honest and truthful rendition of a face that age has withered and custom has staled - your own, it may be - then a 'proper' camera like my little Leica is the one to use. Putting that differently, if I wanted my doctor to have a clear and realistic shot of a rash or cut, I'd use the Leica. If I wanted to convey the true colour of a piece of fabric, or a carpet, I'd use the Leica.
It's horses for courses. I'm impressed with Prudence's zoom abilities, up to 10x anyway. I intend to use them when I need a closer view, and it's inconvenient or impossible to move myself nearer.
But for nearby shots that don't need a zoom, Prudence has little advantage over the Leica. The Leica's output is definitely more natural-looking, with more accurate colours. And at all times, the Leica is the better device to hold and operate.
On my first evening with Prudence, I took a few shots, just to see what she could do in the subdued lighting conditions close to midnight. Here are two of them.
