[Markfran60]

They say the bast camera is the one you have with you.

That’s true

[reh321]

Smartphone cameras do have their (physical) limitations like sensor size etc. but I think in the long term software and processing power will help minimize or even overcome those limitations.

There are several realities that smartphone developers cannot program around

(1) no viewfinder - When I was first thinking about getting a "Q" a guy showed how silly hats could overcome the lack of a viewfinder. After 3-1/2 years of experience with my Q-7, I can say with certainty that he was wrong. In the sun and certain other circumstances, nothing can replace a real viewfinder.

(2) soft controls -no one is going to tolerate lots of buttons, dials, and levers on a phone, so they use soft controls and make claims for them, but nothing can replace real controls

(3) interchangeable lenses - when I first went digital, I tried a compact camera - one that had all the features of an ILC but had only one lens, and that built in. 9 months later, I declared that to be a failed experiment. In Fifty years, I have had only two cameras that I declared to be a "failure"- one that died after 18 months, and the compact camera.

[photoptimist]

Excellent review, biz-engineer.

It is truly amazing how much power can be packed into a modern smartphone despite the severe dynamic range and IQ limitations of the tiny sensor. The user interface of a phone is both limiting (in lacking dedicated physical controls for photographic parameters) and unlimited (in giving the camera software designer free reign to create an interface of pokes, swipes, and multi-finger gestures).

As for interchangeable lenses, I find it amusing that we've had several threads discussing "what-if you had to pick one lens" with almost half picking a single prime. And then there are cameras like the GR and other non-ILCs with a single focal length lens.

Overall, the amount of photography that can be done with a smartphone is steadily increasing. But will never reach 100%. The ergonomic, optical, and sensor limitations make ILC superior (and more desirable) in a wide range of scenarios.

[catfishjohn]

Maybe we can convince Pentax to make the worlds first smart camera. How hard could it be to add a cell phone to a camera. Add a few apps such as email, music and streaming video. E-mail or post to web directly from the camera. Then gold plate it so you can wear it around your neck like jewelry.

Great idea. Put your K1 to your ear and talk into the DFA 150-450. While we are at it lets make a diaper that can be used as a hanky and a car which doubles as a submarine. This reminds me of people who buy and review a new lens and say " Its just great but should be smaller, lighter and faster, also come in various colors" . A phone is a phone is a phone, the same can be said about a camera. Everything cant be all things. I am seventy years old and can well remember when we had to make do with sticks and pine cones. Carry both phone and camera and be happy.

[HoutHans]

I totally agree but if it’s a Pentax you could https://youtu.be/Eo61t5fH6Qw

---------- Post added 21st Jun 2018 at 10:05 ----------

Smartphone cameras do have their (physical) limitations like sensor size etc. but I think in the long term software and processing power will help minimize or even overcome those limitations.

I know that I could, but still.... I’d father not tempt fate, I guess, or perhaps it is due to growing up with Canon camera’s that were anything but water and dustproof?

[Rondec]

There are several realities that smartphone developers cannot program around

(1) no viewfinder - When I was first thinking about getting a "Q" a guy showed how silly hats could overcome the lack of a viewfinder. After 3-1/2 years of experience with my Q-7, I can say with certainty that he was wrong. In the sun and certain other circumstances, nothing can replace a real viewfinder.

(2) soft controls -no one is going to tolerate lots of buttons, dials, and levers on a phone, so they use soft controls and make claims for them, but nothing can replace real controls

(3) interchangeable lenses - when I first went digital, I tried a compact camera - one that had all the features of an ILC but had only one lens, and that built in. 9 months later, I declared that to be a failed experiment. In Fifty years, I have had only two cameras that I declared to be a "failure"- one that died after 18 months, and the compact camera.

I agree for the most part. The biggest negative of smart phones have to do with ergonomics. Having a light flat object held a little away from you is uncomfortable. The buttons are not easy to activate (I don't really like touch screens).

Accessories are another issue. Sure, you could probably figure out how to use a bounce flash with one, but it sure is a lot harder than just sticking one in the hot shoe of an ILC. Tripods are another thing that are tougher to use with most smart phones.

As you mention, you are stuck with the lens that is on the smart phone. You are also unable to use filters easily, I would add. GND/Neutral Density/Circular Polarizers are all things that I use pretty frequently. Tough to use on most smart phones.

The final thing is that they just don't do very well in situations where (a) you need a lot of dynamic range and (b) need to shoot high iso. My experience with smart phones (at least with straight out of camera jpegs -- I haven't used RAW on my iphone 6) is that they default quickly to HDR and even there, they struggle to capture anywhere near the dynamic range I could have gotten with any SLR I own. They bump up saturation and over-sharpen images out of camera and the end result is images with a bit of pop but that can't be processed much after the fact.

It may sound like I hate smart phones but I use mine a lot for snapshots. I just don't see them taking the place of ILCs for most serious photographers. Could use one on a portrait shoot? Sure, but the idea of shooting a wedding with one sounds miserable to me, even if it could be done.

[VoiceOfReason]

I use the crap out of the camera on my Galaxy S6 and I can get great results that give great images for Instagram, but when you look at them full size even compared to any of my older DSLRs (Kx, K5) you will find them lacking. Still, the camera you have in had is the best camera to have!

[alpheios]

There are several realities that smartphone developers cannot program around

(1) no viewfinder - When I was first thinking about getting a "Q" a guy showed how silly hats could overcome the lack of a viewfinder. After 3-1/2 years of experience with my Q-7, I can say with certainty that he was wrong. In the sun and certain other circumstances, nothing can replace a real viewfinder.

(2) soft controls -no one is going to tolerate lots of buttons, dials, and levers on a phone, so they use soft controls and make claims for them, but nothing can replace real controls

(3) interchangeable lenses - when I first went digital, I tried a compact camera - one that had all the features of an ILC but had only one lens, and that built in. 9 months later, I declared that to be a failed experiment. In Fifty years, I have had only two cameras that I declared to be a "failure"- one that died after 18 months, and the compact camera.

I get what you're saying but I was purely talking about image quality. I didn't mean that one day smartphones will replace professional cameras. But they will replace a lot more cameras than they already do today. There will also be new hardware technologies but as I said computing and AI will be a big part of photography in the future. Not that everyone wants that. I love the manual controls and all the buttons and the process of taking an image. But it is a change that will come.

But let me get to your points:

(1) Yes I also love my viewfinder but display technology has undergone some amazing development in the last few years. The difference between your Q-7 display and todays OLED tech is huge. And it's gonna be even more amazing in a few years. Display in sunlight? not a problem.

(2) As I said before I really like all the buttons and hardware controls on my camera. But the next generation of photographers grow up in a world where everything is touch based. They are used to it and I think this will also change the way cameras look and are being controlled in a few years.

(3) Interchangeable lenses are great but will we really need them in a few years from now for most everyday shooting? Maybe we will have sensors and image processing tech that is so amazing that you don't need to change lenses. If resolution is high enough you can just crop digitally for most shots. And if bokeh and subject separation is what you're after you can also do that with processing. We're not quite there yet but you can see the beginning and where it will probably be going.

[lesmore49]

They say the best camera is the one you have with you.

Quite true.

I'm waiting for the new Pentax K-1 iii to be introduced. I'm hoping Pentax brings out the iii with an integrated cellular phone.

[TER-OR]

There are advantages. The huge depth of field from a tiny lens can be helpful for many tasks.
And, as said, the best camera is the one you have with you. Certainly we're not comparing identical tools. Similar, sure.

I have numerous knives, not all suitable for all tasks.

[shardulm]

But it looks like the processing power of the snapdragon 845 is amazing.

Wonder if it can replace the processor on the K-1s. It may be cheaper too. The upgrade currently is in the ball park of $500 which is not exactly cheap.

[clackers]

Wonder if it can replace the processor on the K-1s. It may be cheaper too. The upgrade currently is in the ball park of $500 which is not exactly cheap.

You probably need a newer, more expensive motherboard on the K-1 ... the price is nice because it's the older Milbeaut like the K-3.

[micl161]

Recently I purchased a new mobile phone, the Samsung S9, choice was based on OS, CPU power, use experience and image quality comparison with some of the other best smartphones. Now, how do images stack up against Pentax K1? Interesting... At first, yes, the smart phone deliver stunning images when viewed on its own high res. OLED display, even zoomed in. Comparison with Pentax K1 images OOC Jpeg downsized to the same resolution as the phone and the phone images look as good as images from the Pentax K1. On the other hand, comparing the 36Mp output of the K1 to the S9, the K1 is vastly superior (K1 files are orders of magnitudes better than file from the S9). Also, the K1 is nearly unlimited with regards to the choice of focal length as opposed to the S9 being limited to a wide angle and a zoomed in option (not sure if this is a digital zoom or optical zoom). From that experience, I came to the conclusion that taking photographs with a smartphone is like digging the ground with a spoon while you could do it better and faster with shovel. There is a lot of advertisement for the Huawei P20 Pro, looks compelling at first, but to me it's more of a stretch of a phone into camera territory without quite reaching the capabilities of a true camera device. On the other hand, I find the software of my K1 rather rudimentary compared to the phone, and that doesn't mean I'd like to have my K1 bothering me with notifications and updates from the network coming all the time (annoying..). But it looks like the processing power of the snapdragon 845 is amazing.

We all know they are different animals and have different usage, so whats the point to compare

[BigMackCam]

We all know they are different animals and have different usage, so whats the point to compare

I think it's an interesting comparison. The technology and image quality in camera phones is increasing at a significant rate, and many people are choosing to shoot with them as their main camera. We get posts on these forums occasionally from people claiming that you can't tell the difference between their DSLR and high-end camera phone images (someone recently challenged me to do just that, but didn't provide the photos for me to do so). So the OP's post provides useful balance to those claims, as even though most of us realise any comparison is a foregone conclusion, a few don't

[photoptimist]

I think it's an interesting comparison. The technology and image quality in camera phones is increasing at a significant rate, and many people are choosing to shoot with them as their main camera. We get posts on these forums occasionally from people claiming that you can't tell the difference between their DSLR and high-end camera phone images (someone recently challenged me to do just that, but didn't provide the photos for me to do so). So the OP's post provides useful balance to those claims, as even though most of us realise any comparison is a foregone conclusion, a few don't

I think it's an interesting and useful comparison, too.

As a curious photographer, it's natural to look at a image and wonder how it was made. What camera, focal length, aperture, shutter speed did they use? How might I replicate that image or that kind of image if I found my self looking at a similar composition or scene? Is it even possible for me to replicate that image with one of my cameras with either difficulty or ease?

In some cases an image taken with one camera-lens combination might be nearly impossible to replicate with another for reasons of focal length (e.g., 12 mm equivalent on 4x5), aperture (e.g., extremely shallow DoF with a small-format sensor), ISO (e.g., astrophotography with a smartphone), or perspective manipulation (e.g., replicating view camera tilt & shift in another format), etc.

That inevitably leads to assessing how some cameras as more or less versatile than others by virtue of their lens systems, control features, and sensor performance levels. And if one is deciding which camera to carry, then there's the question of trade-offs between photographic versatility, physical portability, and ergonomic ease-of-use.

Smartphones are clearly extreme portable and carrying a camera is clearly a big first hurdle to making an image. Smartphones have growing photographic versatility within the limits of their fixed focal length lenses and tiny sensors. But smartphones have poorer ergonomics especially if one wants more control over exposure and image parameters.

Overall, the point is that a growing percentage of images can be replicated with smartphones especially if the goal is social media sharing. And if a photographer is willing to accept the limitations of the format (no true shallow DoF, limited DR, poor low-light performance) and device (one prime lens, no physical controls, no viewfinder), then they really can do an incredible amount of high-quality photography with today's smartphones.

P.S. Here's an image taken with an iPad(!!!) that could not be taken with a DSLR:



Although a DSLR could easily replicate the 35 mm equivalent focal length and f/20 equivalent aperture (and smoke the iPad on IQ), this exact image perspective required the front entrance pupil of the lens to be 1 cm from the interior wall of the aircraft. Only the tiniest of camera bodies could get that close. Smartphones and tablet cameras can often be positioned where larger cameras simply cannot go.