[Wheatfield]

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 ".
Can this possably be ?
It has lots of mega - pickles and is therefore better according to him.
Me I'll wait for real facts.
May the discussion begin

It isn't.

[BigMackCam]

they use computational photography tricks to enhance the way the images look. This can be fantastic when your vision of the image matches that of the creator of the enhancement - not always the case.

This is really the crux of the matter for me. If we could see the uncooked, unprocessed raw image from even the latest phone camera sensor at 100% reproduction, it would be garbage compared to the raw from a modern DSLR, especially for shots taken above base ISO.

Instead, the phone cleverly delivers an image that has been automatically and pseudo-intelligently subjected to mind-boggling amounts of processing and computational transformation - in real-time and post-capture - to produce something it thinks will look impressive at modest reproduction sizes... all with little effort or skill on the user's part; which is perfectly fine, as that's really the whole point of such devices.

For a reasonably broad but nonetheless quite limited set of use cases, the latest phone cameras will produce great looking images at modest reproduction sizes, with little or no effort. Indeed, to produce the same results at the same reproduction sizes with a DSLR will usually require considerably more knowledge, skill and effort from the photographer.

Where DSLRs excel, though, is in the range of use cases they can handle, and the potential for excellent image quality at larger reproduction sizes. Of course, leveraging these capabilities requires - you guessed it - knowledge, skill and effort... but the reward is the satisfaction of having applied one's craft to produce a technically and artistically competent result, rather than having a machine give you what it thinks you wanted.

[LeeRunge]

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 ...

I wonder if with that Lidar sensor and augmented reality that someone won't add a mobile strobe system for iPhone that will show you in aug reality where to place them and then what the effect will be on the portrait. Sorta making an auto mode for portrait lighting. That would take all the skill out of placing strobes. It would work the same for a DSLR or Mirrorless I guess.

---------- Post added 10-20-2020 at 06:58 AM ----------

This is really the crux of the matter for me. If we could see the uncooked, unprocessed raw image from even the latest phone camera sensor at 100% reproduction, it would be garbage compared to the raw from a modern DSLR, especially for shots taken above base ISO.

Instead, the phone cleverly delivers an image that has been automatically and pseudo-intelligently subjected to mind-boggling amounts of processing and computational transformation - in real-time and post-capture - to produce something it thinks will look impressive at modest reproduction sizes... all with little effort or skill on the user's part; which is perfectly fine, as that's really the whole point of such devices.

For a reasonably broad but nonetheless quite limited set of use cases, the latest phone cameras will produce great looking images at modest reproduction sizes, with little or no effort. Indeed, to produce the same results at the same reproduction sizes with a DSLR will usually require considerably more knowledge, skill and effort from the photographer.

Where DSLRs excel, though, is in the range of use cases they can handle, and the potential for excellent image quality at larger reproduction sizes. Of course, leveraging these capabilities requires - you guessed it - knowledge, skill and effort... but the reward is the satisfaction of having applied one's craft to produce a technically and artistically competent result, rather than having a machine do it for you.

Yes, the machine learning is probably using photo's from Instagram and the end result will be they all look like that.

I'm playing around with Luminar and while I think it does that and I have no interest in fake skys etc. The algorithms do a really good job at adjusting shadows and highlights so they cut down workload. I imaging something like that in a natural manor, kinda like using slog or one of the video editing modes that produces a muted but neutral image that's like clay to be molded but with way more data would be appealing to those of us here.

Instead of one RAW worth of data the AI could merge 10 into one super editable file that would start out looking as natural and accurate to true life as possible. From there you run with it. This is what the Aurora HDR program does, you feed it multiple RAWs and it combines them. For now that's just lots more work. Apple is basically doing this with no effort to the end user with the 12's ProRAW feature.

I want the computational techniques and the customization of them. This isn't a vs. situation as I see it, more a tools in the box and more options. AI can save a ton of time in editing and you can still customize the results in a unique way to how you see things.

Having software take 10 RAW's and edit out noise by picking the good pixels and then merging into a noiseless RAW would be good AI at work. Same with it detecting the sky or highlights and individually exposing and merging those into a photo, like what HDR modes do but on steriods. In the end this could all just boost the larger sensors by cherry picking the best data out of a basket of images and handing us a really nice RAW file to play with.

It doesn't have to mean you get this type image and it looks like everyone else's. If that makes sense.

[BigMackCam]

Yes, the machine learning is probably using photo's from Instagram and the end result will be they all look like that.

I'm playing around with Luminar and while I think it does that and I have no interest in fake skys etc. The algorithms do a really good job at adjusting shadows and highlights so they cut down workload. I imaging something like that in a natural manor, kinda like using slog or one of the video editing modes that produces a muted but neutral image that's like clay to be molded but with way more data would be appealing to those of us here.

Instead of one RAW worth of data the AI could merge 10 into one super editable file that would start out looking as natural and accurate to true life as possible. From there you run with it. This is what the Aurora HDR program does, you feed it multiple RAWs and it combines them. For now that's just lots more work. Apple is basically doing this with no effort to the end user with the 12's ProRAW feature.

I want the computational techniques and the customization of them. This isn't a vs. situation as I see it, more a tools in the box and more options. AI can save a ton of time in editing and you can still customize the results in a unique way to how you see things.

Having software take 10 RAW's and edit out noise by picking the good pixels and then merging into a noiseless RAW would be good AI at work. Same with it detecting the sky or highlights and individually exposing and merging those into a photo, like what HDR modes do but on steriods. In the end this could all just boost the larger sensors by cherry picking the best data out of a basket of images and handing us a really nice RAW file to play with.

It doesn't have to mean you get this type image and it looks like everyone else's. If that makes sense.

The problem is, I don't want to pay for development and inclusion of those capabilities in my cameras. In fact, I'm already paying for a lot more than I want and need. Just give me P, Sv, Tv, Av, TAv, M and B modes (or even just Tv, Av, TAv and M), single / bracketed / continuous shooting, dual cards, good device connectivity for lighting and remote, great viewfinder and - most importantly - the best possible sensor and image stabilisation.

I don't mind if the computational module is an optional add-on, as has been suggested in another thread by at least one of our members. In that case, folks like yourself who'd value the capability can pay for it, and I'm not charged for something I don't want or need...

[LeeRunge]

The problem is, I don't want to pay for development and inclusion of those capabilities in my cameras. In fact, I'm already paying for a lot more than I want and need. Just give me P, Sv, Tv, Av, TAv, M and B modes (or even just Tv, Av, TAv and M), single / bracketed / continuous shooting, dual cards, good device connectivity for lighting and remote, great viewfinder and - most importantly - the best possible sensor and image stabilisation.

I don't mind if the computational module is an optional add-on, as has been suggested in another thread by at least one of our members. In that case, folks like yourself who'd value the capability can pay for it, and I'm not charged for something I don't want or need...

I guess they could make it a paid software upgrade. Or just open up the internal software and let people develop it outside the camera manufacturer. Similar to how you can buy Litchi for example to fly a DJI drone vs DJI's own software. That would be the lowest cost option for the manufacturer and keep the hardware price down. I'm not sure Pentax has enough market share to be profitable for an App developer though. That would probably be a Canon/Sony thing to work.

[BigMackCam]

I guess they could make it a paid software upgrade. Or just open up the internal software and let people develop it outside the camera manufacturer. Similar to how you can buy Litchi for example to fly a DJI drone vs DJI's own software. That would be the lowest cost option for the manufacturer and keep the hardware price down. I'm not sure Pentax has enough market share to be profitable for an App developer though. That would probably be a Canon/Sony thing to work.

It would require a lot more processing power than the current cameras possess. Indeed, I'm not certain that at least some of the computational imaging technology in phone cams isn't actually integrated as part of the sensor module rather than the core phone architecture. If that's the case, it would have to be developed for APS-C and/or full-frame sensor modules too... and then I'm back to square one in paying for something I don't need.

It's a cool idea, though. I can see why you and some other folks might find it useful. It's just not for me

[HippyHippo]

For a reasonably broad but nonetheless quite limited set of use cases, the latest phone cameras will produce great looking images at modest reproduction sizes, with little or no effort. Indeed, to produce the same results at the same reproduction sizes with a DSLR will usually require considerably more knowledge, skill and effort from the photographer.

Where DSLRs excel, though, is in the range of use cases they can handle, and the potential for excellent image quality at larger reproduction sizes. Of course, leveraging these capabilities requires - you guessed it - knowledge, skill and effort... but the reward is the satisfaction of having applied one's craft to produce a technically and artistically competent result, rather than having a machine give you what it thinks you wanted.

Exactly.
If you want ‘good’ images in most everyday situations, the phone wins.
If you consistently need excellent images (as defined by meeting/exceeding either your, or your customer’s pre-visualised expectations) you need a ‘proper camera’ that can cope with extremes of lighting, DoF, etc (whether this is achieved or not is down to the person operating it - but that’s another matter! The camera has the potential).

Also, some very good points made by others about machine learning and inevitable normalisation. How does your phone toting friend measure ‘better than’? It is certainly better at driving aesthetic convergence...

[MossyRocks]

Here's why I like my camera over my phone: it doesn't take phone calls.

That is a very big plus too.

[Bob 256]

Sometimes an optical viewfinder is a must. One issue is that with the LCD screen, glasses are usually a requirement for older users who can't see up close without them. AN OVF can be adjusted to one's vision so no glasses are needed. Then there's the looking at the LCD in full sunlight. Big improvements in brightness have been made but screens can still be hard to see (and evaluate) in bright sun. Just to list one consideration between DSLRs and phones.

[gatorguy]

This is really the crux of the matter for me. If we could see the uncooked, unprocessed raw image from even the latest phone camera sensor at 100% reproduction, it would be garbage compared to the raw from a modern DSLR, especially for shots taken above base ISO.

Instead, the phone cleverly delivers an image that has been automatically and pseudo-intelligently subjected to mind-boggling amounts of processing and computational transformation - in real-time and post-capture - to produce something it thinks will look impressive at modest reproduction sizes... all with little effort or skill on the user's part; which is perfectly fine, as that's really the whole point of such devices.

For a reasonably broad but nonetheless quite limited set of use cases, the latest phone cameras will produce great looking images at modest reproduction sizes, with little or no effort. Indeed, to produce the same results at the same reproduction sizes with a DSLR will usually require considerably more knowledge, skill and effort from the photographer.

Where DSLRs excel, though, is in the range of use cases they can handle, and the potential for excellent image quality at larger reproduction sizes. Of course, leveraging these capabilities requires - you guessed it - knowledge, skill and effort... but the reward is the satisfaction of having applied one's craft to produce a technically and artistically competent result, rather than having a machine give you what it thinks you wanted.

My smartphone is the Pixel 4 which was already at the top of the heap in mobile photography, outclassing even the iPhone by most measurements and doing so with fewer elements....
but I almost never use it for photos except for snapshots, quick finished project images and reference shots, or that rare time I need night-sight. Night-sight by the way has been surprisingly good. I'm impressed.

Anyway, IMO a smartphone is fine for general non-critical uses, but if I wanted my photos to be pre-processed for me I'd shoot JPEGS on my DSLR instead of RAW. I truly enjoy the creative process, not at all a snapshot guy, and often discover a wonderfully hidden photo op in a larger image but which requires cropping in the creation and a good amount of dynamic range doesn't hurt either. Oh, and I'm a stickler for quality even zoomed in.

Smartphones have their place. So do standalone cameras.

[Wasp]

I only use my smartphone for memo type pictures. If I am going to take a proper picture, I want full control of exposure, depth of field, motion blur, noise levels etc. My phone doesn't give me that. A better phone might give me more control and better IQ but I don't care. I would rather spend the money to upgrade my camera than on a new phone.

[BigMackCam]

I only use my smartphone for memo type pictures. If I am going to take a proper picture, I want full control of exposure, depth of field, motion blur, noise levels etc. My phone doesn't give me that.

Some phone fans will, of course, mention that shallow depth of field images can be produced with them - but of course this is implemented artificially through image processing... rendering what the phone thinks we want to see, rather than directly capturing the image as the lens and sensor see it...

[awscreo]

Big advantage of a bigger sensor is dynamic range and color fidelity. All the phone photos I've seen, and photos coming out of my smart phone, look over processed and acidic in color. It's a small sensor, not much you can do.

I also worked with raw files that my phone is able to produce, they're are more flexible than jpegs for sure, but the amount of noise in the shadows is crazy, even at iso 100.

Sure, it's better to have a camera in the pocket than not. But that's why I bought GRIII I only use my phone as a utility, like taking a photo of some document (instead of scanning).

[LeeRunge]

Looks like reviews are coming out with sample photo's. Overall it just looks like a minor improvement over the iPhone 11 and it's not going to compete with a DSLR/Mirrorless.

Nice to have some improvements overall in the phone.

The biggest improvement for me would be the larger/better screen and cpu for processing RAW files from my camera's

[normhead]

12 MP, my still sometimes used K-x is 12 MP. A pro wedding photographer one told me 12 MP was all he needed, and my most used viewing platform is 8 MP. There's some truth to it.

Not to mention no camera company could ever afford the engineering R&D that went into the iPhones.