[Brisboy]

Phone cameras have come a long way and can do some amazing things.

One thing he probably won't talk about is price. I just picked up a K-5 which is an incredibly capable imaging machine for AU$500. How many excellent lenses could I equip myself with for the difference between that and a new iphone? A quick search suggests another $700-1000 easily to spend in lenses. Meanwhile, my $150 phone is fine as a phone and portable internet device etc. and is cheap enough I don't have to worry about insuring it.

[awscreo]

If you think Verge actually know what they're talking about - check this (warning, some raunchy nerd humor)

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[LeeRunge]

The real problem is that the majority of people will only ever see an image on their phone, and likely not even at full screen. At these sizes the images from my circa 2005 3mpix point and shoot cameras look amazing. The bar for cell phone cameras to look good is incredibly low. The reality is when you pull the full size image off the phone and put it side by side with an ILC image the difference become obvious (yes, even from the latest iPhone 11/12). You can see the grotesque over smoothing, the poorly finished edges where the fake blurred background is badly stitched in, the poor iso noise performance and serious smudging, the list goes on. But... no one but serious photographers ever does or even would look at that. That is why the camera industry is in trouble. Even the best phone pictures are technically garbage, but they are tailored to their viewing platform where they look amazing (really anything does including old faded 1970s scanned in prints).

This is why you should shoot for yourself and not worry about others, and print and hang your work. It's so much nicer than a tiny over saturated, over bright, handheld screen.

People used to view most photo’s as a 4x6 or though a projector. I think the iphone would hold up fine there.

Really it just doesn’t have effective telephoto options......yet.......

This guy blew up his iphone images and standing back 6 feet, not much difference from a Z7. Same thing happens with 4k TV viewing distances, move back 12 feet and it’s difficult seeing the difference between 1080p and 4k. Some of those huge billboards used to be made with much lower than 12 mp shots. For sure you can see the difference if you zoom in 100% and look on a monitor, not so much at a typical distance in a room though. The average person probably wouldn’t notice honestly.

https://petapixel.com/2020/04/22/i-tried-printing-iphone-photos-really-big/


In the end these are just tools to take a photo and the skill matters more than the device. Mirrorless and DSLR will continue to shrink in market as these phones get better sadly.

I can see the difference on my 12,9 inch iPad in an image from the iPad (same camera as a iPhone X) and the DSLR. I dont think i could see it though standing back where a photo would hang on the wall in a print the same size though.

There will always be all of us here who love photography and/or professionals needing the best tools but i think most of the compact camera’s including things like the RX100 will disappear in time as the phones overtake them or the images are nearly the same.

ILC cameras will be a small market in comparison, unfortunately Canon, Nikon, Pentax etc used to make a lot of money on those point and shoots.


\

[Aussie Matt]

Phone cameras have come a long way and can do some amazing things.

One thing he probably won't talk about is price. I just picked up a K-5 which is an incredibly capable imaging machine for AU$500. How many excellent lenses could I equip myself with for the difference between that and a new iphone? A quick search suggests another $700-1000 easily to spend in lenses. Meanwhile, my $150 phone is fine as a phone and portable internet device etc. and is cheap enough I don't have to worry about insuring it.

So the pics look great on a phone or a tablet: Cool. And that's important, because it means a great result has been achieved.

But!

The reality is photography is about capturing light at a moment(s) in time.

The bigger the capture surface (film/sensor) the more light per image can be captured per unit of time. It's just physics.

So the theory goes that a huge aperture lense can let more light through in the same period of time as a smaller aperture. More light means a better image.


This is why a pro sports photographer has a huge physical lens, with a massive front element, even though it might only be a 70-200mm lens. The more light they can get per unit of time the better the shot: And for sports shots to be clear, you need super fast shutters... so with a smaller aperture, the shot is dark, blurry, noisy. With a huge aperture lens the image is bright, clear, sharp, even though the shutter speed is super short.


That can't be done with an iPhone. It's just physics.

Do we see the pro photographers with iPhones??? Is the tour-de france filmed from a scooter with an iPhone? Do current wedding photographers use iPhones???

No of course not.

No doubt they CAN get good shots, but a proper, large sensor APS-C/Full Frame or medium format camera can achieve much better results much easier, without as much 'luck' being involved.

(and let's not even get started on the bokeh thing and why smart phones need 2 or more sensors to imitate bokeh with fancy processing: Only a large aperture can truly achieve that)

Perhaps, if your friend is interested in what we mean, get him to watch the Jarod Polin nikon p1000 video on YT. It's practically a phone sensor with a crazy lens, but he shows side by side, how even though the P1000 takes a great shot, it's never, ever going to match his pro setup in terms of pure image quality.

[vector]

People used to view most photo’s as a 4x6 or though a projector. I think the iphone would hold up fine there.

Really it just doesn’t have effective telephoto options......yet.......

This guy blew up his iphone images and standing back 6 feet, not much difference from a Z7. Same thing happens with 4k TV viewing distances, move back 12 feet and it’s difficult seeing the difference between 1080p and 4k. Some of those huge billboards used to be made with much lower than 12 mp shots. For sure you can see the difference if you zoom in 100% and look on a monitor, not so much at a typical distance in a room though. The average person probably wouldn’t notice honestly.

I Tried Printing iPhone Photos Really Big


In the end these are just tools to take a photo and the skill matters more than the device. Mirrorless and DSLR will continue to shrink in market as these phones get better sadly.

I can see the difference on my 12,9 inch iPad in an image from the iPad (same camera as a iPhone X) and the DSLR. I dont think i could see it though standing back where a photo would hang on the wall in a print the same size though.

There will always be all of us here who love photography and/or professionals needing the best tools but i think most of the compact camera’s including things like the RX100 will disappear in time as the phones overtake them or the images are nearly the same.

ILC cameras will be a small market in comparison, unfortunately Canon, Nikon, Pentax etc used to make a lot of money on those point and shoots.


\

Yeah, the images from my old cameras also look great on a 65inch TV, and they look great as 4x6 and on a smartphone. So do my film scans. I can tell them apart from my better cameras, but really they look just fine. Maybe I didn't fully explain my opinion that image quality has long surpassed the average persons needs. Pixel peeping, the quality deficiencies are obvious but for normal viewing it takes a bit of skill and experience to tell the difference. There is a link earlier in this thread where iPhone vs ILC images are compared side by side and the author asks you to guess which is which. Honestly they both look fine but I could pick out the iPhone in all of them, even at their very small size, and I am certainly less skilled and experienced than most on this forum. The small sensor and the lenses are the giveaway. The out of focus transitions and bokeh are computer generated and don't match what you get from larger sensors. As telephoto options get added to phones they can get a little closer but the tiny sensor limits how much real subject isolation will be possible. Computational image generation will continue to improve what these phones can produce but it's still not natural looking yet. Still, the phones are more than good enough for most use cases. It doesn't change the fact that I appreciate what my K1 can do, and I have a growing collection of lenses because I can tell their differences and capabilities and I enjoy learning to use them, far more than I have ever enjoyed tapping the shutter button on my phone. That's why I said, shoot for yourself and stop caring what everyone else is doing. I am just going enjoy the hobby and maybe that includes shooting on a phone, but it's unlikely to not include ILC cameras any time soon.

[Gerbermiester]

In fairness, your colleague may indeed have a better camera than your DSLR for his purposes.

If he's uninterested / unwilling to learn how to use an ilc, but wants technical improvements to the photos he takes, a new flagship smartphone is likely the right choice for his needs.

From my own experience, when I bought my first DSLR, I immediately began taking worse photos than my point and shoot had been delivering. Only after investing time into learning more about photography did I start to be pleased with the photos I was taking. But, there was a lot to learn between the time of purchase and my first successes! I'm still learning ten years on.

If an iPhone is what it takes to light a fire in your colleague to discover photography for himself, I say all the power to him. If, later on, he feels that he wants more than his smartphone can deliver, he'll have a friend at work to help show him the ropes.

[timb64]

A work colleague has ordered the new Iphone 12.
Knowing that I use a dslr opens up with " my iphone is better than your dslr ".

I expect his Dad’s bigger than yours too

[repaap]

These new phone cameras are great, and they have everyhing in small paggage which can be used very well up to the point when it is just better to put that thing back to your pocket. I'v met this same thing from some people. They say that my photo looks so much better than your picture on your screen(his phone, my camera display) My photo is unedited(preview jpe) his photo is cooked. Now did he ever come back to see the final image where I actually have all the post process done(because I can do A LOT, versus phone pictures which is what it is.

I'd belive that if one is not worried of post process and want to have pictures online ASAP and make impact like that(and is happy of 28 mm equiv. picture with it's distortions, yes, there are multi lens devices too)...ten why to buy a proper ILC or video camera. it will not ever work as well for that. Also phones have (new expensive models(iphone 12 pro is 1200€!!! and other ones are not for free either))decent image quality for screen. You do not have to have know how, but you will give -auto- mode some of sometimes critical things considered of your out put.


We all know perks for the ILC. But it takes a lot of effort to make images look good and one has to have skills in PP and as well with camera. You will be lugging around big bag, some times tripod, speedlights, microphones...and lenses, worth of 1-5000€. Sometimes even more. But you will have full controll over what is being recorded as well as what is the end product.

This is the thing what has not changed and wont change.

[ffking]

Why did I first buy an SLR as opposed to the point and shoots of the day? Because I wanted to be able to control every aspect of the image independently.

That's also why I buy DSLRs.

[BarryE]

iPhone xx can take better photos than DSLR, or vice versa ? So what. For me, and I suspect most users of advanced DSLRs, it's the photo taking experience that counts, sometimes as much as the final result.

Capture a shot in good conditions with a mobile/phone and it's likely to be fine, technically, but a good shot? That's up to the photog that's pressing the buttons. However, in less than idea conditions and with considered post production, the gap is closing, no doubt, but some way off at present.

I smile at the thought of professional photographers, at a major sporting event, waving their iPhones around at the end of their arms, hoping to match their DSLR kit. Some way off, me feels ...

... but then, you've got to put up with all the nonsense that goes with hand-held computerettes. (Calling 'em "cell phones" because they have application software that works the hardware to do that is like calling 'em "notepads". It's something they can do, but it's not what they are.)

[Rondec]

The number one issue with cell phones for photographs is ergonomics. It just really sucks to use a thin device with no physical controls to take anything more than snap shots. It is light enough that it isn't easy to stabilize it and I do worry about dropping it. Using such a phone with an external flash or a tripod is not easy as well -- I know there are attachments for some of these things, but they are a kludge at best.

Looking at the images Lee Runge linked to, they are decent, but you can see graininess in many and lack of detail that I would be upset by in my K-1 images. Further, I don't see any of what I would call high dynamic range images. I happen to like the fact that I bring up shadow levels three to four stops in a K-1 image without needing to use HDR and you definitely can't do anything like that with an iphone native image.

I like having an actual viewfinder and find I compose better with that. Having things like telephoto lenses and dedicated macros and ultra wides available is nice too.

I guess a final thing to mention is that I actually make calls and text on my cell phone and if I do too much shooting with it, I don't have battery life for the important things.

Computational photography is great. For Facebook and Instagram posts it is more than adequate, but for many, a dedicated ILC will still be needed to get the control and enjoyment they really want out of the photographic experience.

[HippyHippo]

When I’m faced with no light, a wedding party and a need to get a shot with good dynamic range, low noise and without resorting to direct flash I still need a big sensor camera like the K1, not an iPhone. Equally, when I need smooth graduation of tone in a fine art image.

There’s still a case for ‘proper cameras’.

But then it gets more nuanced, especially with smaller sensors. Phones are certainly catching up, are more convenient and address the needs for immediacy and smaller enlargements. In the last few years we’ve had wider, longer lenses, raw, low light and pseudo bokeh capabilities from computational computing. Many uses don’t need large blow-ups or gallery perfection.

I wonder if phones are starting to pick at the smaller sensor/mirrorless market for amateurs in the way they decimated compact cameras. The ‘proper camera’ would be a more specialist tool for demanding applications and enthusiasts. Will this drive more to full frame? Or will people expect more portability and so want the full frame quality (aided by computational photography) in a smaller ILC body? In 5 years time, instead of ‘#nofilter’ on Instagram will we see ‘#nocomputational’?! I note the very progressive direction Ricoh is taking on this with the Theta brand. Also how it is carving out a niche for Pentax for those specialists that want to look through a prism, rather than at a screen.

Very interesting times....

[mohb]

What phone enthusiasts miss out on (beside the quality of the image) is the process involved in using a DSLR. They probably see the whole process as unnecessarily complicated yet for those of us to whom the process, and choices we make in the settings, are all part of the enjoyment.

[bobmaxja]

Sory guy but the best camera is the one you have when you need it.... Are you carrying your DSLR all the time with you, 99,9% sure not.
THis fight between Cell phone and DSLR is absolutely stupid and irrelevant