- Messages
- 2,699
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- No
But only at the all trades never at the one.Jack of all trades is a master of none....
..... but oftentimes better than a master of one!
Phone camera why not?
- Thread starter camerajamie
- Start date
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The camera on my S23 Ultra is ok, certainly nothing like as good as the marketing would have you believe and nowhere near the quality of my X-T4. But, it's fine for snapshots, holiday snaps etc. I've got a choice of 13mm, 26mm, 78mm or 260mm equivalent focal lengths (although the two telephoto lenses are awful), I can shoot Raw if I really want to and process the shot directly on the phone in Lightroom. The quality is better than a dedicated compact camera from 10 or 15 years ago. What I would love to see is the option to shoot a Jpeg without all the sharpening and saturation boost applied automatically. Here's some recent shots from my S23. The one of the lake was a Raw but the other is an edited jpeg. Are they as good as images I could get from a dedicated camera? No, but they're not bad either.We're all different.
My present phone is the least bad of all I've owned, and while I do use it for snaps to email with immediacy or to record information, could not imagine using it for a photo that mattered. If I can't get a picture that I'm happy with then I would prefer not to take a picture at all than have a drive full of images that were disappointing and frustrating.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,819
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Best Nikon I've seen..... I'll get my coat....
- Messages
- 9,819
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ok to be fair my phone takes a really great photo, and I use it a lot for shots when I'm out and about and dont have a proper camera. Most of the time I carry a Panasonic TZ80 in my pocket not because it's better, but it has better "reach" Optically I'd argue the phone is better even though I suspect the sensor is smaller than the TZ80. For close up and longer range stuff ithas the edge, in low light the phone blows it away no bother.
That said neither will replace my DSLR, that changing lens option is a deal breaker for me, that and the bigger sensor.
That said neither will replace my DSLR, that changing lens option is a deal breaker for me, that and the bigger sensor.
- Messages
- 288
- Name
- daniel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There is nothing that could be done to make me swap my 'real' camera for a phone as I enjoy using a 'real' camera.
Also, I don't understand your comment on 'budget conscious'. I've just paid a total of £220 for a Nikon D700 and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D. Any phone with even a half decent camera costs more than that, and will get nowhere near the picture quality and colour rendition.
Also, I don't understand your comment on 'budget conscious'. I've just paid a total of £220 for a Nikon D700 and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8D. Any phone with even a half decent camera costs more than that, and will get nowhere near the picture quality and colour rendition.
OP
- Messages
- 24
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sorry Dale could you explain what you mean here to a beginner photographer please?
OP
- Messages
- 24
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Dale.
Bo Derek
- Messages
- 12,060
- Name
- Dale.
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No problem.
A lot of my work consists of wildlife, where reach is almost always important. I'd say 90% of my work is done at the longest end of my lenses, so either 400mm on a crop sensor or 600mm on a full frame. There are times when I go shorter for wildlife but I am usually at the far end of my lenses.
Cropability.... well, higher megapixel cameras tend to be more forgiving when I need to crop in. That said, I don't have really high MP cameras, my highest being 33mp (R7) and my 5Div is 31mp. I find phone camera images (or files) tend to fall apart much sooner when cropping. There's caveats of course but that is my general perception.
I also enjoy landscapes, I use the same cameras but the opposite for reach is usually true, as generally speaking, landscapes tend to be at shorter, wider focal lengths and I rarely find cropability an issue with landscapes.
This is a bit of a Heath Robinson of an explanation but hopefully goes someway to explaining my thoughts.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 432
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I am generally not that keen on the 'insta' filters for want of a better word, I will use silver light (native to iPhone) for a mono conversion and play with a vignette, contrast, black point etc. Often as a way of passing time, my version of playing Candy Crush if you like.
I do like to do conversions in Photoshop using Nik Silver EFX pro usually picking one of the Kodak sensitivity curves which is odd because I have always been an Ilford or Agfa user , again I will add a bit of vignette, do local adjustments and probably then use Camera Raw filter if I still want to play.
I have albums for Black and White Film , Black and White Digital and DIY Colour as well as Phone Pics on my Flickr which you are welcome to look at , you will see that most of my photography is observing where I have been and what I did and who I did it with. Not exactly art work are they, when I got out of photography twenty odd years ago I remember thinking that photographically all I want to do now it to take the best possible snap shots that I can.
The second part of your question is interesting because yes using a phone camera is very much like using my first camera which was a 35mm zone focus auto exposure compact. I did not even have different focal length lenses available to me so in a way the phone offers more than the camera I discovered photography with.
Today I would place my iPhone next to my Olympus XA for the getting back to basics way of shooting.
Last edited:
ancient_mariner
Moderator
- Messages
- 23,574
- Name
- Toni
- Edit My Images
- No
I wonder if, in our replies, we have assumed too much understanding?
While photography is simple enough, at least apparently, there are a lot of much more complex factors involved than people imagine which all contribute to the way a finished image looks. So using a film emulator with a digital photo may make something that sort-of looks a bit like a film photo, but just using the software in the camera or phone will make a poor job at best. And a big part of all those fantastic monochrome and colour pictures you have seen created on film was down to hand printing the image.
There's another factor too that your question to Dale almost touches upon - the issue of focal length and sensor size.
So when Dale mentioned 600mm and 400mm, were you aware he was talking about lenses. The lenses we use profoundly affect how our pictures look, and it's not just magnification of distant objects or wide angles fitting a lot in, but it's also the actual choice of lens and the aperture we choose (the size of the hole light shines through). On top of that, the physical size of the sensor or film that we focus the light on also makes a difference.
A phone has a tiny sensor, and this affects how a phone picture looks. While it's possible to fake the behaviour of a larger sensor and different lens type in software, it will usually look like a fake - like the film emulators.
In my case, I choose certain lenses and camera types because they give the image a sense of depth, like you can almost step into the picture.
This is 'why not' a phone camera.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 432
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Possibly but hopefully there is enough information in those replies for an inquisitive mind to spend quite some time learning some new aspects of the art, science and emotion of photography. At the end of the day, I don't care if camerajamie came here for answers to a GCSE (what ever they are called these days) photography question or if they are doing a psychology masters in discretionary spending for amateur photographers. Perhaps a better understanding of what photography means to a selection of people will spark an interest either in photography in general or some aspect of photography they had not thought of.
Last edited:
Phone cameras suffer from too much delay from the time you press the shutter release button until it finally grabs the shot. I tried to take photo of a grandchild on a merry-go-round in a children's park, and if I pressed the shutter just as he came into view at 9 o'clock, the camera would not grab the image until he reached 6 o'clock or even 5 o'clock...I had to finally shoot video just to grab one frame!
Phones also do some hidden processing to accentuate the apparent sharpness in an image. In shooting a test of dSLR vs. smartphone, I photographed a test target to compare resolution in the two cameras. After posting the targets, someone else boosted the images and discovered this...a black edge enhancement around what was a black geometric shape in the test target!
Phones are fine for quick snapshots when no better camera is available, but not for serious photography!
The test target looked like this (I am not sure if this shot was actually taken with smartphone)
Finally, while phones might have several lens (actually separate sensor with each lens), they resort to pixel-decimation cropping to mimic 'zoom', which loss of pixels in the shot.
Phones also do some hidden processing to accentuate the apparent sharpness in an image. In shooting a test of dSLR vs. smartphone, I photographed a test target to compare resolution in the two cameras. After posting the targets, someone else boosted the images and discovered this...a black edge enhancement around what was a black geometric shape in the test target!
Phones are fine for quick snapshots when no better camera is available, but not for serious photography!
The test target looked like this (I am not sure if this shot was actually taken with smartphone)
Finally, while phones might have several lens (actually separate sensor with each lens), they resort to pixel-decimation cropping to mimic 'zoom', which loss of pixels in the shot.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,309
- Edit My Images
- No
There are many examples on this site and elsewhere which disprove such a claim.
I write as someone who very seldom captures images with my phone.
It's very much a case of different tools being suited to different situations - there are areas where a smartphone will do the job perfectly well (and often be quicker and easier than trying to get the same result using a DSLR/Mirrorless), there are others where the phone will fall far short of what is needed.
- Messages
- 9,309
- Edit My Images
- No
I agree.
However, there are now phones which, if you are that way inclined, can do many things for which a more specialised camera would have been required only a few years ago. As I wrote above, I'm not someone who uses a phone for photography very often but it's foolish to denigrate the technology or the people who use it.
- Messages
- 9,309
- Edit My Images
- No
But many millions, possibly billions, of people use them for photography...
- Messages
- 361
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't see any denigration of phone technology or the people that use it in @Faldrax's post. Just a simple statement that there are limitations of phone technology when trying to capture certain types of images.
Yep, the gap is shortening every year but computational photography can only bridge the gap of physics and light gathering so far before what is captured ceases to be a "photograph" in the strictest sense.
Even saying that, I don't envisage a day whereby every photographer is sat behind the goal in a Premier League football match or on the F1 grid clutching an iPhone 25 Pro Max.
- Messages
- 361
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Another thing I think that rarely gets talked about is that camera manufacturers could learn a lot from phone technology too.
In terms of operating systems, connectivity and general software functionality I've not used a camera that is in any way as intuitive and connected/convenient as a phone can be. The ability to share a quick jpeg to social media for example, such a simple thing but seemingly a feature I never see.
Modern day API's have never been better in terms of tethering and connectivity/sharing across multiple standards/builds. It seems camera manufacturers are often lagging behind this and I think it's a major reason why many people who see their phone as 'good enough' don't make the jump to cameras aimed and marketed towards 'content creators' or people wanting to learn how to use a camera.
There's a lot of desire amongst camera manufacturers to claw back some of the entry level, consumer market that has been obliterated by phones, but until they acknowledge the good parts of the experience and borrow from it rather than just parroting what's bad, the traditional camera brands will struggle to sell to that younger market in my opinion.
In terms of operating systems, connectivity and general software functionality I've not used a camera that is in any way as intuitive and connected/convenient as a phone can be. The ability to share a quick jpeg to social media for example, such a simple thing but seemingly a feature I never see.
Modern day API's have never been better in terms of tethering and connectivity/sharing across multiple standards/builds. It seems camera manufacturers are often lagging behind this and I think it's a major reason why many people who see their phone as 'good enough' don't make the jump to cameras aimed and marketed towards 'content creators' or people wanting to learn how to use a camera.
There's a lot of desire amongst camera manufacturers to claw back some of the entry level, consumer market that has been obliterated by phones, but until they acknowledge the good parts of the experience and borrow from it rather than just parroting what's bad, the traditional camera brands will struggle to sell to that younger market in my opinion.
- Messages
- 9,309
- Edit My Images
- No
Nor did I.
- Messages
- 3,839
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have full manual control on my phone if I want it. I can change shutter speed, ISO, focus, white balance, resolution, metering mode. I can do multiple exposures, astro photography, and star trails. All captured in Raw and editable right on the phone.they dont have the sensor size, they certainly dont have the manual controls and they dont have high iso capability.
there are ALOT of they dont have that i could list but im too lazy to list it all
Attachments
- Messages
- 806
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What do you mean by 'serious' photography?
- Messages
- 806
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Likewise....I guess some folks posting here either don't have camera-phones with this level of control or have not discovered this functionality on their devices.
Whatever the case, to make the sort of blanket statement @fujilover did is just plain incorrect.
- Messages
- 288
- Name
- daniel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think we have to take it as personal opinion/personal preference My personal opinion is that a phone camera is great for taking family snaps, day to day things that I simply want to make a record of, but If I'm going out specifically to do photography, I'm taking my camera.
I also am not interested in connectivity to upload photo's straight to Facebook etc. but I could see the attraction for some people.
I also am not interested in connectivity to upload photo's straight to Facebook etc. but I could see the attraction for some people.
- Messages
- 432
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
^^^ Only if you use digital zoom, which I don't.
Though I have to say my Son's Pixel Pro (5?) has a massive digital zoom with very effective processing, in this respect it is far better than my iPhone 12 pro.
- Messages
- 84
- Name
- Lunkwill
- Edit My Images
- No
One might flip the question. Why own a conventional camera if your phone is so capable? Is it worth spending 'real camera' amounts on money on a phone to take pictures?
- Messages
- 288
- Name
- daniel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Phones are definitely less capable, I don't care what anyone says. They also lack the the user experience, charm and character, if you're into that sort of thing.
- Messages
- 806
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As per my post #24, phone camera's do not come close to coping with the types of photo's I typically take.
What I was taking issue with was the incorrect claim that certain functionality does not exist on phone-cameras.
- Messages
- 23,720
- Name
- Toby
- Edit My Images
- No
Bigger sensor, a range of lenses from 16-600mm, better ergonomics, better AF, viewfinder, more controls and buttons, and probably a few other things I’ve forgotten about
- Messages
- 9,309
- Edit My Images
- No
Then why would you join this discussion?
It seems to me that everyone has a different opinion and we should care what that opinion is. We might even learn something we didn't previously know.
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,809
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I hope you realise that some perfectly good camera and lens combinations cost less than a decent smartphone with a good camera? And despite being relatively cheap they'll provide image quality that no camera phone can match.
- Messages
- 288
- Name
- daniel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Because I can and I don't need your permission, Andrew.
Besides, just because I don't think phones are as capable as a dedicated camera, and this can be backed up by facts, as they have done in this thread, does not mean that the conversation does not interest me.
Are you purposely trying to be argumentative? Is it anything to do with our disagreement regarding principles around street photography?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 361
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I must have imagined you quoting someone's post and using the term in response to their point then?Nor did I.
You need to check back through the series of posts / replies - Andrew was (I believe) referring to an earlier comment by wiltw (a few messages back);
As a side note, a few years back when I was working on the software for some custom machines, there were a number of in-house pcb's in the machine - there were a number of occasions where I was able to slide my smartphone into the machine to photograph a PCB (to capture a pattern of diagnostics LED's for example) - something that would have been physically impossible with a more 'traditional' camera.
- Messages
- 361
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Then I extend my apologies to Andrew.
Fuji Dave
I'm in Clover
- Messages
- 22,088
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
Over the years I have had Nikon/Fuji/Canon and then Sony full frame, all great cameras when I knew how to use them. Now I only own my little Sony RX100 III as it's small and light when I do use it, but looking at some of my images you could ask could I have done it with just a mobile phone camera instead NOT a chance at all. High iso and the rest is not as good as the cameras I've had, but for me and the main thing is at the end of the day I am happy with either of my phone images that I now take.
- Messages
- 25,344
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
You can certainly ‘change’ those things, but let’s be honest about what those changes actually do.
The very largest apertures will not give you a shallow DoF unless you’re shooting at macro distances (so genuinely all images have a fairly large DoF). Macro is something phones are good at btw, let’s play to their strengths . Shutter speeds other than ‘fast enough to avoid shake’ aren’t really useful, and high iso images are a muddy mess due to sensor size.
So Yeah great we have ‘control’ but just like bridge cameras, they’re not useful in the same way that they are on an actual reasonably sized sensor.