Phone camera why not?

[RichardC27]

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.

Oh I know, and I've maybe used the manual controls a total of 5 times since I've got the phone, at most. It's not something that plays to a phone camera's strengths, they are designed to do it all for you and the computational processing gets the best out of what is still a very cheap, crappy lens in front of a tiny sensor. There just seems to be a perception from some members that all phone cameras are awful and take terrible images, which is not the case anymore, certainly for a high spec phone anyway. They are still nowhere near a proper camera, but they are much better than they used to be. As the saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you. My phone is pretty much always with me. My Fuji X-T4 isn't with me 95% of the time.

There are many things my phone can't do. I can't shoot motorsport with it, at all. Portrait mode, the fake bokeh, is still awful and I never use it as it invariably looks fake. But a modern phone is a decent photographic tool in its own right, as long as you're aware of the limitations.

 

[woof woof]

But a modern phone is a decent photographic tool in its own right, as long as you're aware of the limitations.

I'm not a smartphone fan so my phones have never been top end or anything like it, they're just for emergency use as phones when I'm out and for use as phones when I'm home as bizarrely and surprisingly making calls on them now are cheaper than using my land line.

The relative cheapness of the phones I've had has to be taken into account when I say the following...

None of my phones have ever provided the image quality I can get from a half decent compact never mind the 1" sensor compact camera I also have and this is before we get into handling issues, phone handling being IMO simply awful compared to any camera I've ever had. More than that, Mrs WW is constantly receiving pictures from friends and family and some must be taken on higher end phones but even so I've never seen anything that I'd be happy with once it's on my pc rather than being viewed on a phone or tablet screen.

I now feel anxious when leaving home without a phone in case anything happens but I'd much rather have an adequate phone and a decent camera than the best image quality a phone can provide and no camera.

 

[Kell]

Jack of all trades springs to mind, Master of none............. The phoe Nod ont you).

You know that phrase is actually designed to lift the Jack-of-all-trades above the master of one though, right?

“The complete saying was originally “A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes better than a master of one.” Formerly intended as a compliment, the phrase means that a person is a generalist rather than a specialist, versatile and adept at many things.”

This is the problem with our habit of shortening things. We don’t understand their original intention anymore. We shouldn’t ignore the old adage but the new one (in this case, at least).

The problem comes when you DO want a specialist (person or tool).

All those companies that produce 'adapters' to hold your phone like a camera already know that it's not a pleasant experience trying to hold a phone to take a pic.

I don't particularly like the idea of composing via a screen.

Even with my latest phone an iPhone 14 pro, I don't really see an improvement in image quality over and above my XR (4 generations previous) or even, really, my iPhone 6.

Fine for snaps. Probably way better than the cameras I used as a kid, but for anything more serious a dedicated camera is definitely a massive improvement.

 

[Topsy]

You know that phrase is actually designed to lift the Jack-of-all-trades above the master of one though, right?

But only at the all trades never at the one.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

You know that phrase is actually designed to lift the Jack-of-all-trades above the master of one though, right?

At my Glaswegian school we were told the saying is actually "a jack of all trades can be the master of none". I imagine that there are many other variations and many will conflict with another.

 

[Kell]

The point still remains that most of the time, most people would prefer to have one handyman around than having a specialist like a stonemason that can't wire a plug.

You're preaching to the converted here. So you're always going to get skewed answers.

But one browse through a facebook feed and you'll see dozens of blurred, under/over exposed, awfully composed phone pictures of someone's holiday and they'll be followed up with comments like "Amazing pictures".

Most people simply don't care enough to warrant spending the money on a camera or the time to understand it.

 

[swanseamale47]

I suspect for many a phone camera is "good enough", for many photographers (myself included) it's a handy every day carry camera and great for when we dont have a "proper" camera to catch a shot we'd miss otherwise. For others it's never going to be good enough regardless how good they get.

 

[nandbytes]

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.

Couldn't agree more.
The one manufacturer who appreciated this was Samsung and they left the camera business

 

[Marino]

Can you guess what kind of photography equipment was used for the following images??

Staff edit Please do not post images that are not yours, link to the source and credit the photographer by all means

 

[Citizen of Bath]

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.

Depending on the type of photography, these features are of little use. My field is wildlife photography (marine mammals) and all the changes I make while I'm on a boat are made using the buttons on the camera. Wandering through the menus takes too much time.

Nor do I ever see smarphones in the hands of photographers at football matches. I don't see how the 400mm and 600mm lenses they use at f/2.8 or f/4 could be replaced by phones. And it's the same problem in other areas of action photography.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Can you guess what kind of photography equipment was used for the following images??

I'm viewing on my phone, so it could be anything. Are there links through to full size images?

 

[RichardC27]

Depending on the type of photography, these features are of little use. My field is wildlife photography (marine mammals) and all the changes I make while I'm on a boat are made using the buttons on the camera. Wandering through the menus takes too much time.

Nor do I ever see smarphones in the hands of photographers at football matches. I don't see how the 400mm and 600mm lenses they use at f/2.8 or f/4 could be replaced by phones. And it's the same problem in other areas of action photography.

I completely agree. I do a lot of motorsport photography, which a phone is completely useless for. However if I'm on holiday walking around a lovely old town, do I want to be twiddling buttons and dials on my camera? Or do I want to point and shoot and get a nice looking image without taking myself out of my surroundings? Like you say, depending on the type of photography...

 

[anybabyinuk]

a

Yes. Sometimes it's impractical to take a dedicated camera, but I still want to capture the moment. I've done entire holidays using just my phone and been happy with the results. I usually take my camera, but not always.

and some places are very dangeous, so there is no point in bringing an expensive camera and lenses

 

[ShinySideUp]

I completely agree. I do a lot of motorsport photography, which a phone is completely useless for. However if I'm on holiday walking around a lovely old town, do I want to be twiddling buttons and dials on my camera? Or do I want to point and shoot and get a nice looking image without taking myself out of my surroundings? Like you say, depending on the type of photography...

But with modern cameras you have no need to fiddle with buttons or dials if you just want to wander and snap a picture, just use program mode or similar. Even with old manual film cameras you didn't need to fiddle, you just put in 400ASA film, set the aperture to F8 and your shutter speed to the same number as the focal length of your lens. You did have to manually focus but setting the focus to something a little less than infinity would probably get you a passable picture.

 

[Phil V]

Can you guess what kind of photography equipment was used for the following images??
View attachment 403805
View attachment 403806

View attachment 403807
View attachment 403808
View attachment 403809
View attachment 403811

unfortunately i don’t know who took the pictures and i do apologise for that. They’re not my pictures apart from the last one. But it’s interesting to see what people think

That couldn’t be a more pointless experiment

I’ve thousands of images on my phone; some of them I’d describe as half decent photographs.

But that doesn’t mean that this (in my hand) can take all the pictures I’d ever want to take (it definitely can’t) or that I couldn’t recognise an image from a specialist camera and lens combo. In fact I’ll even have a stab at guessing light modifiers.

But a bunch of random images (you don’t own the rights to) that you don’t know anything about isn’t a useful measure of anything.

 

[Kell]

The point still remains that most of the time, most people would prefer to have one handyman around than having a specialist like a stonemason that can't wire a plug.

You're preaching to the converted here. So you're always going to get skewed answers.

But one browse through a facebook feed and you'll see dozens of blurred, under/over exposed, awfully composed phone pictures of someone's holiday and they'll be followed up with comments like "Amazing pictures".

Most people simply don't care enough to warrant spending the money on a camera or the time to understand it.

BTW - that's not to say there are NO good phone shots. There's some fantastic stuff on instagram. it's also not to say that every shot taken on a FF DSLR will be 'better' than a phone shot.

I have currently got about six or seven cameras of various complication and age. My phone is by far the newest piece of tech and still rates as one of the ones I would WANT to use the least.

The one I actually want to use the least is a Waterproof Fuji I bought for trips away. It promised a lot, but the IQ is not great.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I don't see how the 400mm and 600mm lenses they use at f/2.8 or f/4 could be replaced by phones. And it's the same problem in other areas of action photography.

At the moment, that is the case.

In ten years time, the technology will probably be very different. This article gives a taste of what is currently claimed to be available in the shops...

Best 108MP camera phones to buy in 2023 - Smartprix

Photography in the mid-range segment has improved a lot in the last few years, thanks to the large resolution sensors that combine light gathered by 4 or more adjoining pixels. This evolution is also engined by computational photography and grinding hardware limits. Thus we saw the jump from...

www.smartprix.com

 

[ShinySideUp]

But isn't it possible, or even likely, that the only reason phones come put with ever-larger pixel counts is that they can use ever-more complex algorithms to throw away even more information in pursuit of a decent image. In the end though, if you are a poor photographer, all the pixels in the world won't help you.

Oh, just thought of another reason for high pixel counts and that is to try to think of something else to temp the gullible into changing their phone for the latest, and most expensive, model, as there is nothing else they can add.

The very best thing phone manufacturers could do which would increase sales, is to stop trying to impress people with the fact that your new phones battery will keep you going for a day and make the bloody things last a week; THAT would perk my interest in a new phone.

 

[Marino]

I'm viewing on my phone, so it could be anything. Are there links through to full size images?

Hello,
If i paste the links i give away the equipment used doesn’t really matter it’s just for fun

That couldn’t be a more pointless experiment

Hey Phil, it’s definitely not an experiment, it’s more like to keep the conversation going and keep it interesting.

But a bunch of random images (you don’t own the rights to) that you don’t know anything about isn’t a useful measure of anything.

No it’s not meant to be useful, which is ok. Not every conversation has to be serious.
.
.
But i do think it’s relevant to the conversation.
People keep comparing a phone to a camera(dslrs, telephoto lens and such)
You can’t really compare these two.
Really….
There’s no point.
It’s two different things.
.
.
If say i want to hang a picture on the wall i really like, or set an image as a background on my computer, maybe even use an image for advertising on a website (the list of why an image can be used is long) then the last think I’ll care about is what equipment was used. And phones now are capable of delivering good results.
.
.
So yeah, back to the tile of the thread.
Phone camera, why not?

 

[Fuji Dave]

For some jobs only a camera will do, as I would not think a wedding photographer would turn up with just a phone.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

...if you are a poor photographer, all the pixels in the world won't help you.

One man's "poor photographer" is another woman's "photographic genius".

 

[Phil V]

At the moment, that is the case.

In ten years time, the technology will probably be very different. This article gives a taste of what is currently claimed to be available in the shops...

Best 108MP camera phones to buy in 2023 - Smartprix

Photography in the mid-range segment has improved a lot in the last few years, thanks to the large resolution sensors that combine light gathered by 4 or more adjoining pixels. This evolution is also engined by computational photography and grinding hardware limits. Thus we saw the jump from...

www.smartprix.com

Can you précis that article and explain how the laws of physics are changed by any technological advances touted within?

Daft question - because you can’t, they haven’t, you don’t have a clue and you post nonsense hoping no one else understands.

Just to save others time.
The article is simply about a high resolution small sensor, in the intro it clearly states it’s a change of game for ‘mid range’ cameras (1/1.33) so it’s relevance here is negligible it’s neither relevant to phones, ILC’s or indeed 800mm lenses.

Bonkers.

 

[Phil V]

Hello,
If i paste the links i give away the equipment used doesn’t really matter it’s just for fun

Hey Phil, it’s definitely not an experiment, it’s more like to keep the conversation going and keep it interesting.

No it’s not meant to be useful, which is ok. Not every conversation has to be serious.
.
.
But i do think it’s relevant to the conversation.
People keep comparing a phone to a camera(dslrs, telephoto lens and such)
You can’t really compare these two.
Really….
There’s no point.
It’s two different things.
.
.
If say i want to hang a picture on the wall i really like, or set an image as a background on my computer, maybe even use an image for advertising on a website (the list of why an image can be used is long) then the last think I’ll care about is what equipment was used. And phones now are capable of delivering good results.
.
.
So yeah, back to the tile of the thread.
Phone camera, why not?

Have a read of the thread eh?

You might learn something useful.

 

[Marino]

@Phil V
yes I have already, it’s quite entertaining
I doubt I’ll learn anything useful in this thread btw

 

[Adam-G]

The megapixel race is an easy sell for the average consumer who just needs a higher number in a spec to justify an upgrade.

Look at the push for 8K TV's at the moment when there is next to no 8K content available and most people won't live in a home with a room anywhere big enough to put an 8K screen in that would benefit anyone at the appropriate viewing distance. If you're able to distill a complex set of parameters that make up an overall into a simple number, it's an easy way to market any device.

There's so much more to image quality than the amount of pixels that make it up but simplification and the promise of improvement with only financial outlay, not education and time spent will always appeal in the photography field to people who want a magic bullet solution that will never exist.

 

[Phil V]

@Phil V
yes I have already, it’s quite entertaining
I doubt I’ll learn anything useful in this thread btw

Well you clearly didn’t learn that the vast majority of people already understand that a phone and a camera are incomparable

 

[Marino]

@Phil V well you said it. The majority, the minority doesnt. Its actually mentioned in this thread, a member said the picture quality of his phone isn’t as good as one of his cameras. Isn’t that comparing?

 

[dan00001]

Well you clearly didn’t learn that the vast majority of people already understand that a phone and a camera are incomparable

One mans incomparable is another woman's comparable

If I had a decent phone, I would actually be interested in doing some comparisons between my D700 and a phone camera. I already know the outcome but would be interesting nonetheless.

 

[Faldrax]

@Phil V well you said it. The majority, the minority doesnt. Its actually mentioned in this thread, a member said the picture quality of his phone isn’t as good as one of his cameras. Isn’t that comparing?

The English language is full of apparently contradictory constructs - one of these is use of comparable / incomparable.
Incomparable can be used to indicate it is not possible for two things to be compared, but it is also common usage to indicate that the differences between two things are so great that a comparison is pointless - which is how @Phil V was using it.

 

[whyone]

a

and some places are very dangeous, so there is no point in bringing an expensive camera and lenses

Yes, another good point.

We were in Rio recently and advised in no uncertain terms not to wander about using an expensive camera.

I enjoyed taking pictures with my phone (and yes, I know that an expensive phone can also draw the wrong type of attention, but they are a lot easier to be discreet with than a 'proper' camera).

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

because you can’t, they haven’t, you don’t have a clue and you post nonsense hoping no one else understands.

You really are an arrogant and unpleasant person, aren't you?

 

[Citizen of Bath]

At the moment, that is the case.

In ten years time, the technology will probably be very different. This article gives a taste of what is currently claimed to be available in the shops...

Best 108MP camera phones to buy in 2023 - Smartprix

Photography in the mid-range segment has improved a lot in the last few years, thanks to the large resolution sensors that combine light gathered by 4 or more adjoining pixels. This evolution is also engined by computational photography and grinding hardware limits. Thus we saw the jump from...

www.smartprix.com

I completely agree about the uncertainty of the future. Twenty years ago, I was sure that watches wouldn't disappear anytime soon, but everyone around me now uses their smartphone as a watch, and so do I. However, the original poster wondered about the current situation, and my remarks were about that.

Maybe it all depends on experience. For example, I like very much Cliff Mautner's photography and I know, when I look at his pictures, that they've required expensive tools (such as a 85mm f/1.4 lens) as well as specific settings (such as f/1.4). But some of my friends only use smartphones and they don't even know what words like 'subject isolation' or 'underexposure' mean. This may explain why they don't realise the differences between smartphones and proper cameras.

 

[Phil V]

You really are an arrogant and unpleasant person, aren't you?

Did you read the article? And would you really like to justify why you posted it in response to this:

Nor do I ever see smarphones in the hands of photographers at football matches. I don't see how the 400mm and 600mm lenses they use at f/2.8 or f/4 could be replaced by phones. And it's the same problem in other areas of action photography.

Because if you can, I'll apologise unreservedly. But you won't you'll just put me back on ignore along with all the other knowledgeable people who continuously prick your bubble of ignorance.

 

[Phil V]

Twenty years ago, I was sure that watches wouldn't disappear anytime soon,

Everyone around me that didn't wear a watch 10 years ago now has a smartwatch (including me)

 

[JohnMcL7]

I understand the premise that as mobile phone cameras have improved, they've replaced cameras for many general consumers, as they continue to improve what point can they replace all cameras? I wouldn't say phone cameras have been improving for some time though as hardware improvements for image quality have levelled out for some time, instead for phone cameras it's the processing that's the main improvement. Those processing improvements have many caveats though particularly with the shallow depth of field effects never looking as good as the genuine effect and stacked images to improve low light or dynamic range cannot help with single shots. As much as I like using my phone camera I feel the processing is going a bit far and it's producing very samey over saturated, over sharpened photos which look fine on small screens but not on larger ones. That's been a motivator for me to use my dedicated cameras more as they have much more latitude in the files to process them to have the look I want.

It's likely the next step for phone cameras improving is using generative AI to 'improve' photos, we've already seen Samsung inserting stored moon image data onto low photos of the moon. Google are touting various AI driven features to improve their phone images and I can see it going much further where you'll be able to replace the sky, fill in details of the image for well known shots to the point the image the camera took could be little more than the angle the phone was aimed at,

With regards to technology improving I think the problem there is that technology improvements scale, if you have technology which can make a phone camera sensor better then you can also make a much bigger sensor better as well. I was thinking when I picked up a mirrorless FF camera and telephoto lens to take out this afternoon, for all the differences internally it's still the same design as camera from decades ago with a large lens projecting a large image onto the camera. Despite many improvements in technology over the years, FF cameras are still mainstream and haven't been superceded by smaller sensors, mobile phones are always going to have physics going against them being forced to use tiny lenses and sensors.

I do still like my phone camera and make good use of it to the degree I no longer carry a pocket camera like an RX100 with me but there's such an enormous difference in image quality even to a very old camera like the RX1R, I can't see the phone cameras being good enough to ever replace dedicated cameras.

 

[Nod]

a

and some places are very dangeous, so there is no point in bringing an expensive camera and lenses

A phone that could get anywhere close to giving the results that my old RX100ii would cost a hell of a lot more than the camera's worth today!

 

[wiltw]

But many millions, possibly billions, of people use them for photography...

And I use smartphone cameras, too. But they simply CANNOT DO what classic cameras can do with ease...try to take an architectural photo with no converging lines...while post processing can correct converging lines, the correction can readily change the aspect ratio of objects so they are distorted in X vs Y (vs. reality).

I can take three (or more) exposures on one piece of film to create a composite scene in a single image...and hold the shutter open to selectively illumination portions of the scene.
all those techniques were used to make this shot without any added work taking place after the shoot

while I might be able to electrinically composite three digital images into one, I cannot hold the camera phone shutter open while I manually flash in different portions of the scene, or 'paint' light locally in the scene with a constant source of light, as there is no Bulb mode on any smartphone, nor remote trigger.
The examples can continue on for a long list, where the smartphone simply cannot be made to do the job.
Could you attach the smartphone to a microscope, or overhead in a gymnasium to be triggered to take a photo at an appropriate time in the action?
Could you isolate the face of a subject against a very cluttered background, using shallow Depth of Field, when using a smartphone camera?! (Not until recent addition of creative blur in some smartphones, in which the image is processed to blur out portaions of the image)

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

And I use smartphone cameras, too. But they simply CANNOT DO what classic cameras can do with ease..

I agree.

My argument is that they suit many people who would not consider buying a "conventional style" camera and that they can do many of the things that their owners ask of them. Recent designs are encroaching further and further into conventional camera territory and sales figures appear to show that the phone cameras are "eating the conventional cameras' lunch".

 

[wiltw]

I agree.

My argument is that they suit many people who would not consider buying a "conventional style" camera and that they can do many of the things that their owners ask of them. Recent designs are encroaching further and further into conventional camera territory and sales figures appear to show that the phone cameras are "eating the conventional cameras' lunch".

...because they do not perceive any benefit to carrying around extra load (the dedicated camera), in part because they do not encounter situations for which the smartphone does not work sufficiently (and even I have found some situations in which the smartphone takes a very good photo where I might have to struggle more with a conventional camera!). The 'multipurpose tool' is simply too convenient to carry and use.

 

[Gremlin]

My main gripe with phone cameras is not having a view finder.
Try standing on Worthing pier in a bright sunny days with amazing cloud formations and you haven't bought your camera with you
So you decide to take some phone pics and you can't see the screen as no shade available
I know a lot of the new cameras have the flip out LCD screens but it's not something I ever use