I've got over 15,000 photos on my phone by now and I don't know where to back them up anymore. Some friends recommend iCloud, others say it's way too expensive. I've also heard about local Synology solutions where you store the data at home.
Google Photos is probably the best solution for you if you want to keep things simple. With 15,000 photos you're basically unlimited with the free version (with compression), because older Google accounts still have the generous "Storage Saver" option. If not, you pay relatively little for extra storage - usually around 2-3 euros a month for 100 GB, which is totally sufficient. The thing is simple: upload, available everywhere, and your photos are safely stored.
iCloud is honestly expensive if you need more than 5 GB. For you that would quickly cost 3.99 euros a month (50 GB) or more, depending on how it grows. That adds up to significantly more than Google over a year. However, iCloud has the advantage if you're living in the Apple ecosystem anyway and everything syncs seamlessly. Synology, on the other hand, is a completely different category - that's for people who'd rather control everything themselves and are willing to invest in hardware. You need a NAS device at home for that (from about 200-400 euros), and then you sync your photos locally. It's secure, but also more work to operate and not as convenient if you want to access your photos on the go.
My recommendation: go with Google Photos. It's cheap, reliable, and exactly right for your situation. The encryption is solid, and even if you later need 200 GB, it won't break the bank. Synology is more for people who need a lot of storage for family or bigger projects and are more tech-savvy.
It really depends on what matters to you. With Google Photos you pay for storage, but the search is pretty good and it works across platforms if you're not just using Apple devices. iCloud is actually expensive - 50GB already costs €0.99 a month, and for 15,000 photos you'd rather want the 200GB or 2TB option. It adds up. Google is cheaper if you use the free storage (used to be 15GB, now less) and then pay extra as needed.
A Synology is a whole different ballgame. That's an investment of several hundred euros for the NAS box itself, plus hard drives, but after that you basically don't pay anything - your data stays at home. Great if you're a bit tech-savvy and like setting those things up. I personally like the concept because I prefer to keep my stuff under control and not be dependent on a subscription. Though you do need a decent internet connection if you want access from outside, and the Synology has to be running - electricity costs something too.
Honestly, for most people Google Photos is the best compromise - it's cheap, reliable and uncomplicated. But if you already have a good IT infrastructure at home or feel like getting into it, a Synology pays off in the long run. I'd only recommend iCloud if you're already completely in the Apple ecosystem and don't mind spending the money.
If you want a local solution and care about your privacy, a Synology is really worth checking out - I know several people who use one and they're super happy with it. 🎣 The upfront costs are higher, but then you don't pay anything monthly and your photos stay at home with you.
Though you do need a stable internet connection if you want to access it while you're out and about, and the setup isn't quite as straightforward as Google or Apple.
For my 15,000+ photos of the kids and my ice fishing trips over the years, I wouldn't have gone that route because the simple solution was more important to me - but if you care about having control and you're tech-savvy, give it a try! 😊
At 15,000 photos you really need a solution that actually scales now 😅 I've been through something similar - eventually the storage was full and I had to make a decision, and honestly the answer depends a lot on how tech-savvy you are and how paranoid you want to be about data privacy.
Google Photos with compression is honestly the most relaxed option for most people. You don't pay anything for unlimited compressed storage (the quality is still really good, not like back in the day with extreme compression), the search works incredibly well - you can search for "dog" or "beach" and it actually finds the right photos - and it works on Android, iPhone, everywhere. The catch: your data is with Google, and if you want original quality you do have to pay for storage. A lot of people think that's totally fine, some don't.
The Synology route (or other NAS systems too) is more for people who want to keep their data at home and have a stable internet connection. But you also need some basic knowledge - buying a NAS, setting it up, maintaining it regularly isn't complicated, but it's also not zero effort. In return you get full control, zero subscription fees in the long run, and your photos never leave your home. Though you do need a backup of that backup 😅 (a second external drive or something), because a single NAS is just a single drive.
My honest take: if you don't already have a tech setup at home, start with Google Photos. It's maintenance-free, available everywhere, and you don't have to worry about power outages or hardware failures. You can always switch later.
The question isn't really that straightforward to answer, because the best solution depends less on which provider is cooler and more on what your overall setup looks like. If you only have Apple devices, iCloud is obviously tightly integrated - but yeah, costs can add up quickly with so many photos. Google Photos with compressed quality would theoretically run free, but storing 15,000 photos without a plan is never relaxing. But here's what nobody's mentioned: you could just combine them. Use a cheap solution for backup (Google or iCloud with a smaller plan) and store older photos in parallel on an external hard drive - they cost almost nothing, and you've got an offline backup that no cloud provider can take away from you.
If you're willing to put some time into setup, Synology is actually smart, especially if data privacy matters to you and you need a NAS anyway - but honestly, for just photo management it's a bit overkill unless you're planning to do other stuff with it. The problem with Synology for beginners is more the learning curve and the fact that you have to handle updates and backups yourself. My tip: first check out which devices you actually use, then decide between Google (works everywhere), Apple (if you're in the ecosystem), or Synology (if you want control over your data and you're willing to put in the work). But an external hard drive as backup makes sense in any case.
I had a similar problem and ended up landing on a hybrid approach that saved me a lot of headaches. The decision really comes down to whether data protection or convenience matters more to you - and honestly, you don't have to see it as either/or.
Google Photos with the free compressed version is actually practical for a massive amount of images, but the difference between Google and Apple is quickly explained: Google automatically searches through your photos for content (which is convenient, but also means algorithms are analyzing your images), while Apple does more of that locally on your device. But with 15,000 photos you'll be paying for extra storage pretty quickly with Apple, since those free 5 GB disappear ridiculously fast. Synology, on the other hand, is the only solution where you stay completely independent - no subscription, no monthly bill, but also a small hardware investment upfront and you have to handle updates yourself.
Here's my practical tip that I haven't heard anywhere else: use Google Photos as a working copy for your active photos from the last 1 - 2 years (the search function is just too good for that), but set up a cheap NAS or an old computer with an external hard drive as a backup running parallel to it. Synology offers solid software for that, but even an old Raspberry Pi with a backup script works. That way you get convenience for everyday use and your important memories physically under your control. With 15,000 photos you don't even need a big hard drive - we're talking maybe 100 - 200 GB completely uncompressed.
Log into answer.
