[Mistlefoot]

There are no shortage of people who buy a good camera so that the camera will take better pictures. The camera is left on auto and the new owners spends 15 minutes learning how to use it, never changing from the kit lens it came with. The iphone camera is probably a better option is some instances.....

[jawsy]

I recently spent a few weeks working on a technical job where low light images of machinery internals were required. They're ultimately selected and used based on the ability to analyze (magnify/scale) after the machinery is put back together again. The proof was in the eating with K20D vs iphone/tablet about 100:1. The iphones are good for taking snapshots of handwritten notepads, timestamping activities or taking short videos, but not for then using trying to analyze or publish the images at a later date, i.e. where image quality is important.

Most images on the K20D have been ISO1600 f3.2 with shake reduction. The ability to take clear images using natural and flash light is important as the flash gives detail but reflects off steel too heavily. iphones can't do either very well.

The only thing I have noticed is that the tablet cameras have more dynamic range, albeit at the expense of sharpness.

They all have their place and uses but it's silly to pretend they're directly comparable.

[NicoleC]

They all have their place and uses but it's silly to pretend they're directly comparable.

Exactly. My Lumia smartphone is good enough to replace the things I used my P&S for. I use it for "here's me working in the field" or "this is the thingy for sale." It's the right tool for that job.


But it's not the K3. It's never a decision about which one I should use anymore than I'd try to hammer a nail with a pair of pliers.

[Venturi]

The Instamatic, as the iPhone et al, was ubiquitous. It was the fate of American teenagers to be recorded "all dressed up" for the Prom and later, for boys in uniform as they were home after recruit training. The images did create a record, a document, but didn't relate much about the moment. Everyone thought it was just fine.

If it were not for the Instamatic (specifically the X-15) I might never have caught the shutter bug; certainly not in 1972. For the record, the myriad photos made of my hamsters using that gem of photographic engineering brilliance were every one a masterpiece!

[shaX 07]

This is a dumb article. The iPhone pictures are terrible compared to the 5d, and it's not even close.

[sadatoni]

I get your point and I agree to a point. As I wrote above, whether the author knew it or not the iPhone is the correct device to choose for this kind of article because it is as commonly owned as the Instamatic was 50 years ago, so comparing iPhone and 5D would be akin to comparing Instamatic and Canon F1 or a Nikon F2. For certain kinds of images an Instamatic was remarkably competent - it was optimized to take the photos its target users (my grandmother) commonly took.

Believe it or not, street-stock economy car timed competition in a mall parking lot is a very big deal. Autocross is an organized, Sports Car Club of America-sanctioned sport, with officials, rules, events, amateur judges, coaches, fans - sponsors - the whole she-bang.

Speaking of the Instamatic... my folks were using one (they gave me their "Brownie") until a friend got them a 35mm rangefinder camera (I forget which model of Yashica it was). The Instamatic never came out of the drawer after that. The difference was incredible.

In the comments section of the Ars article I asked about noise performance. All I got in answer was down marks (last I checked). I found the comparison featured only the good points of the iPhone. That's probably why I got marked down.

[monochrome]

I just read the iPhone6+ has optical image stabilization.

[Schick]

From the article:

...especially when the Internet is full of examples of pro photographers going the opposite direction, ditching bags of expensive gear in favor of smartphone cameras for most applications...

Sounds like I need to rethink my recent K-50 purchase.

;-)