If you’re taking selfies exclusively and only want to share them to other people’s phones, definitely not. You won’t be able to enjoy the quality of your new camera on a screen this small and you’ll also need the extreme wide angle that phones usually have. Buy a new phone, it is more than sufficient for that application. Also, if you’re living in the EU, starting February 18th, 2027, batteries will be replaceable again, so you should wait for that, if you can.

If you want to enter the hobby or the profession of photography, the answer would be different. But if it is, again, just for phones, phone cameras are perfectly sufficient for that.

The main thing is, an RX100M3 can zoom (optically) to any arbitrary angle within its range. The vast majority of phones cannot do that, all they can do is switch between cameras and zoom digitally (= cropping).

There are areas of photography where that is important, but I am not sure yours is one of them; for “selfies with your girlfriend or friends or family” you probably want a wide angle similar to the default one on most phone cameras anyway? If that is so, stick with your phone.

I don’t have that Sony but going by the specs it has a lens that covers 84 degrees. For comparison, your Moto wide angle lens does 118 degrees.

It’s going to take much better pictures but selfies will be harder because the lens doesn’t go as wide.

I’ve read a bit about the topic, and it seems like the consensus is that recent phones (less than 5 years) will take better selfies and general pictures than point and shoot cameras.

Is this true?

Like the old internal combustion days, there’s no replacement for displacement. Time and technology made that less true with turbo/superchargers as well as hybridization.

In the camera world, large sensors gather more light so they will have less noise. Phones generally have smaller sensors, so they have more noise per image taken. Phones work around this by compositing multiple exposures into a single photo. This helps reduce noise and increase dynamic range. Sensors themselves have had some advances like dual gain, lower noise, etc so when comparing an “old” to “new” sensor of a similar size you’ll generally see some improvement in performance.

That said, there are limits.

The first big limit comes with motion. If your subject is moving your phone won’t be able to image stack without bluring the photo. This is only really an issue in lower light (indoors, dusk outdoors, very cloud days, etc).

The second limit is depth of field. Phone are getting better at faking this, but IMO don’t replace a dedicated camera + lens combo. Bigger sensors have the potential for shallower depth of field.

The final is reach. Phones only have so much magnification to offer and if you’re photographing something far away there’s no substitute for optical reach. Some phones do now have a telephoto lens, but they’re generally not that long thanks to physics.

The RX100 III has a 1‑inch format, 13.2  ×  8.8mm sensor. Your phone has a 1/1.5" (~ 8.5 x 6.5 mm) sensor. So in terms of surface area, the RX100 III is basically twice as large. I don’t know that I would make that tradeoff, especially with the gains in sensor technology that have occurred in the past decade.

If you wanted to look at a camera, I would look at APS-C offering. Their sensors are ~22.2 mm x 14.8 mm, which is six times more surface area. Full frame is another step up (15.6 times mor surface area), but that’s going to mean larger camera bodies and lenses. A Sony a6xxx, or Fujifilm xt3/xt4, might be worth looking at. It will be bigger than a point and shoot, but it will be more capable.

/A dad that carries around a full frame body despite having a OnePlus 12

Honestly IMO, carrying cameras around is really burdensome and I usually always have my camera when I don’t need it and never have it when I do!

I wish I had just waited and upgraded to a phone with a better camera.

Obviously if you want to make a genuine hobby where you spend hours a week taking pics it’s a different question.

But a phone with an okay camera + borrowing my friends one when I really wanna get some high quality pics (rare) (which is what I do now that I sold my camera) was a much better use of money IMO.

350eur seems a quite overpriced, and you can probably get a very decent mirrorless DSLR at that price range, which means interchangeable lens etc. And it won’t necessarily be much larger depending on the lens.

For example:

https://www.ebay.ie/p/Sony-Alpha-A5100-24-3MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Black-Kit-with-E-PZ-OSS-16-50mm-Lens/219510002?iid=276805429375

If you only ever want to do selfies and close photos, stick to your camera phone, convenience will almost always make it a better option. Just make sure your happy with the image quality (some camera phone photos are extremely aggressively processed, and it can look terrible on a larger screen). If you occasionally want to be able to get a better quality photo, or want a gateway drug to photography, something like the a5100 above is a good complement to your phone.

Edit: the a5100 screen turns right around, which makes it more usable for selfies than the camera you were looking at.

Edit2: I can see the response on Lemmy. World, and sopuli.XYZ, but not my home instance, so responding here:

I saw a photo on wikipedia, that showed the screen stopping at 90°, but if it goes to 180, looks pretty much the same.

You mention that your partner has an a6000, if I were in your position, I would just use that whenever the camera phone doesn’t cut it. If its too bulky to carry around, then the a5100 is a bit smaller, but not significantly. Maybe a smaller lens and a small camera bag for the a6000 might make it more usable?