Phone camera why not?

[Ed Sutton]

Then I’d have to ask how you managed to find and join a forum called ‘talk photography’?

Why would you be interested if you’re not a photographer.

Because I use cameras to make pictures. I'm interested in pictures. Mostly I use cameras to make them, but not always.

"But not as good as the camera you SHOULD have with you."

You still don't understand what 'good' and 'better' mean when applied to pictures. You're a lost cause.

Someone on TP posted something to the effect that no matter how good a photograph was in aesthetic or documentary terms a photograph was they couldn't consider it to be 'a good photograph' if it was technically flawed. Complete crap. Technical perfection in most cases is very low on the scale of what makes pictures 'good'.

 

[ShinySideUp]

Have a look at these pictures, they are the stuff of envy and not a digital camera or phone to be seen anywhere and certainly not technically perfect but they are the sort of thing I would love to be able to take, if I only had the eye.

Old photos

 

[whyone]

9

....a dedicated camera will take a better photo than any mobile phone currently on the market.

Not all the time in every situation.

For example, the photo I put in post #24 just couldn't have been taken as well with a 'proper' camera given it was not possible to use any method of camera support, and time to set up, frame.and take the photo was limited to less than a minute.

Granted, it is much, much easier to find photos which couldn't have been taken as well with a camera phone.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Have a look at these pictures, they are the stuff of envy and not a digital camera or phone to be seen anywhere and certainly not technically perfect but they are the sort of thing I would love to be able to take, if I only had the eye.

Old photos

It is their history that gives them interest primarily. Some are interesting as photos, but some are not outside of the novelty of their subject.

 

[Phil V]

Because I use cameras to make pictures. I'm interested in pictures.

I’d have thought that was close to the dictionary definition of ‘photographer’.

Someone on TP posted something to the effect that no matter how good a photograph was in aesthetic or documentary terms a photograph was they couldn't consider it to be 'a good photograph' if it was technically flawed. Complete crap. Technical perfection in most cases is very low on the scale of what makes pictures 'good'.

I completely agree with this, and it’s a failing of many ‘photographers’ and likely why you don’t wish to associate as such.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I completely agree with this, and it’s a failing of many ‘photographers’ and likely why you don’t wish to associate as such.

Some years back the manager of a local camera shop said I wasn't 'a normal photographer'. I took it as a compliment!

 

[dan00001]

Because I use cameras to make pictures. I'm interested in pictures. Mostly I use cameras to make them, but not always.

You still don't understand what 'good' and 'better' mean when applied to pictures. You're a lost cause.

Someone on TP posted something to the effect that no matter how good a photograph was in aesthetic or documentary terms a photograph was they couldn't consider it to be 'a good photograph' if it was technically flawed. Complete crap. Technical perfection in most cases is very low on the scale of what makes pictures 'good'.

Are you getting personal?

Take a photographer, any photographer, taking the exact same photo. Could they take that phot better with a mobile phone, or a dslr?

 

[wiltw]

I would bet that you would struggle to tell the difference between an image taken on a film camera and an AI which uses style image transfer to emulates film

The AI-generted one can be pretty darned good...

 

[dan00001]

9


Not all the time in every situation.

For example, the photo I put in post #24 just couldn't have been taken as well with a 'proper' camera given it was not possible to use any method of camera support, and time to set up, frame.and take the photo was limited to less than a minute.

Granted, it is much, much easier to find photos which couldn't have been taken as well with a camera phone.

All of those photos would have been a better photo had they been taken on a dslr.

 

[Phil V]

The AI-generted one can be pretty darned good...

It’s a strawman argument as I’ve already pointed out several times.

The question isn’t answered by ‘here’s an example of an AI image that’s convincing, because there are millions of phone photos in existence that ‘prove’* just as convincingly that phone images are garbage.

*obviously equally untrue

 

[wiltw]

It’s a strawman argument as I’ve already pointed out several times.

The question isn’t answered by ‘here’s an example of an AI image that’s convincing, because there are millions of phone photos in existence that ‘prove’* just as convincingly that phone images are garbage.

*obviously equally untrue

Yes, it is a strawman. 'Better' is very subjective, and actually being able to DIFFERENTIATE 'better' is at question, too. Unless one enlarges for very large size, or shoots at ultrahigh ISO, the 'better' may not be differentiable, even if higher res or lower noise...compare any two images on a 10" tablet, and can one detect a difference if exposure is perfect and the scene is not a demanding high dynamic range shot?! I merely posted shots to exhibit how differences are minimized to the point of not being able to discriminate...it was not a true 'challenge'.

 

[Phil V]

Some years back the manager of a local camera shop said I wasn't 'a normal photographer'. I took it as a compliment!

Also unfortunately I’m a ‘technician’ by nature*, and whilst I absolutely appreciate art, my approach to photography is terribly technical.

Or maybe just terrible.

*former mechanic, worked for years in it currently a data analyst.

I also love literature but my written prose is always formal.

 

[Phil V]

Yes, it is a strawman. 'Better' is very subjective, and actually being able to DIFFERENTIATE 'better' is at question, too. Unless one enlarges for very large size, or shoots at ultrahigh ISO, the 'better' may not be differentiable, even if higher res or lower noise...compare any two images on a 10" tablet, and can one detect a difference if exposure is perfect and the scene is not a demand high dynamic range shot?! I merely posts shots to exhibit how differences are minimized to the point of not being able to discriminate...it was not a true 'challenge'.

I don’t shoot ‘scenes’ and AI has yet to master the seemingly simple art of drawing a human with hands

 

[whyone]

All of those photos would have been a better photo had they been taken on a dslr.

Did you bother read my posts?!

"All of 'those" photos?!?

I was referring to a single photo.....only the Antelope Canyon image was taken with a phone.

The other two clearly are shown and clearly cited as example of photos a phone cannot, IMHO, come close to replicating!

I also specified a set of circumstances regarding the Canyon image - no facility to support a camera and less than a minute to take the photo,

 

[Ed Sutton]

Take a photographer, any photographer, taking the exact same photo. Could they take that phot better with a mobile phone, or a dslr?

That would depend. As already shown in this thread there are places a phone can go that a DSLR can't. And also what is meant by 'better'.

Also unfortunately I’m a ‘technician’ by nature*, and whilst I absolutely appreciate art, my approach to photography is terribly technical.

I know just enough of the technicalities to get by most of the time. At other times not quite enough!

 

[wiltw]

I don’t shoot ‘scenes’ and AI has yet to master the seemingly simple art of drawing a human with hands

Certainly most AI characttures seem cartoonish, but a photo of the Pope in a puffy ski jacket hardly seemed to be AI generated!

 

[dan00001]

Did you bother read my posts?!

All of 'those' photos?!?

I was referring to a single photo.....only the Antelope Canyon image was taken with a phone.

The other two clearly are shown and clearly cited as example of photos a phone cannot come close to replicating!

You apparently not.

I also specified a set of circumstances - no facility to support a camera and less than a minute to take the photo,

Sorry, I didn't read your post on page 1.

I believe some are not understanding the point I am trying to make. I am not saying that every photo taken on a dslr is better than every photo taken on a mobile phone, that is largely down to the person behind the camera, as I have already pointed out in one of my comments. But the same photo taken on both a mobile phone and a dslr, the dslr will take the better photo. The dslr will have greater dynamic range, greater colour depth, greater tonal range, better colour rendition, more detail, sharper, clearer images, handle noise better, better lens, bigger sensor, much larger photosites (for example the largest photosites on your Galaxy s22 are 1.4 microns, in the D700 they are 71.7 microns)

 

[Petey]

Nothing wrong with taking photos using smartphones. I know several people do and they take stunning images. But I enjoy taking photos with a camera. I like the buttons, dials, viewfinders and grip that you get on cameras which are missing from smartphones. Put that on a smartphone and it’s no longer a convenient, pocketable device.

 

[Petey]

Nothing wrong with taking photos using smartphones. I know several people do and they take stunning images. But I enjoy taking photos with a camera. I like the buttons, dials, viewfinders and grip that you get on cameras which are missing from smartphones. Put that on a smartphone and it’s no longer a convenient, pocketable device.

Not to mention the variety of lenses available for an interchangeable lens cameras

 

[ShinySideUp]

Not to mention the variety of lenses available for an interchangeable lens cancers

oops!

 

[Petey]

oops!

Thanks for spotting that. That’s what I get for using predictive swipe to text on my “smartphone”

 

[Phil V]

Certainly most AI characttures seem cartoonish, but a photo of the Pope in a puffy ski jacket hardly seemed to be AI generated!

There’s so many straw men round here it’s becoming a fire hazard.

 

[gman]

"Phone camera why not?"

Limitations would be my answer. As versatile as phones are, the camera is just one part of it and as much as I like it I still see it more as a standard tool rather than a creative tool.

I wouldn't have got in with my camera, so without my phone I would never have got this shot, which looks fine on a phone or reduced size on a computer.






But when looking at it 100% (or even larger) I would have preferred to have had my DSLR... eeek! Limitations...

 

[sirch]

Phone camera quality is heavily dependent on light levels. A friend of mine who is a very experienced photographer was bemoaning the fact that he had been out for a walk and he and his wife had shot the same scene, him on an Olympus EM10 iii and she on her phone. He blew up both shots and printed a section at 100% only to be dismayed that he couldn't really see the difference. But that was in day light.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Whatever suits you is the device to use.

 

[gman]

Phone camera quality is heavily dependent on light levels. A friend of mine who is a very experienced photographer was bemoaning the fact that he had been out for a walk and he and his wife had shot the same scene, him on an Olympus EM10 iii and she on her phone. He blew up both shots and printed a section at 100% only to be dismayed that he couldn't really see the difference. But that was in day light.

Definitely. A good example here in strong light. Same reductions etc as above. It also helps that she isn't moving fast.

 

[sirch]

I still consider this type of conversation unhelpful.

Whatever suits you is the device to use.

Well there is really no need for you to contribute then is there? You can always just walk-on-by

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Well there is really no need for you to contribute then is there? You can always just walk-on-by

Point taken.

Sorry

 

[LCPete]

"Phone camera why not?"

Limitations would be my answer. As versatile as phones are, the camera is just one part of it and as much as I like it I still see it more as a standard tool rather than a creative tool.

I wouldn't have got in with my camera, so without my phone I would never have got this shot, which looks fine on a phone or reduced size on a computer.

View attachment 405383




But when looking at it 100% (or even larger) I would have preferred to have had my DSLR... eeek! Limitations...

View attachment 405384

yes know what you mean I’ve tried to take concert photos on my phone and normally been disappointed, photos taken outside in good light are fine I’ve taken some nice ones while out on the motorbike and couldn’t be bothered to carry my camera

 

[gman]

yes know what you mean I’ve tried to take concert photos on my phone and normally been disappointed, photos taken outside in good light are fine I’ve taken some nice ones while out on the motorbike and couldn’t be bothered to carry my camera

I never particularly liked carrying gear whilst riding as I would worry that if I crashed then not only could it get broken but it could also break me! I used to strap a camcorder to the tank of my Ninja in the early days because I recorded the rides for everyone (must have been about 30 of us). Progressed onto a bullet cam attached to my helmet before giving up biking. Crickey, that must be over 20 years ago...

 

[swanseamale47]

a

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

While you have a point for less than a new Iphone 15 pro max I can get a used Canon 5d4 and a 24-105 L lens. Mind the Iphones easier to hide....

 

[Phil V]

I’ve been thinking a bit recently about this.

And it just occurred to me that whilst my iPhone has 3 lenses, it’s only the 24mm wide angle that offers me fake bokeh.
So if I want to fake a ‘portrait’ it’s with a 24mm lens rather than the 75mm lens id realistically choose as it’s more flattering.

Why do that?

I’ll tell you why. The 24mm lens is attached to a 48mp sensor, so that’s the one with enough resolution to give the AI something to work with.

Whereas both the WA and telephoto lenses are only attached to 12mpix sensors.

So there’s another thing, my iPhone ‘camera’ is 3 cameras, a decent one and 2 inferior ones.

 

[davholla]

While you have a point for less than a new Iphone 15 pro max I can get a used Canon 5d4 and a 24-105 L lens. Mind the Iphones easier to hide....

Good point.

I’ve been thinking a bit recently about this.

And it just occurred to me that whilst my iPhone has 3 lenses, it’s only the 24mm wide angle that offers me fake bokeh.
So if I want to fake a ‘portrait’ it’s with a 24mm lens rather than the 75mm lens id realistically choose as it’s more flattering.

Why do that?

I’ll tell you why. The 24mm lens is attached to a 48mp sensor, so that’s the one with enough resolution to give the AI something to work with.

Whereas both the WA and telephoto lenses are only attached to 12mpix sensors.

So there’s another thing, my iPhone ‘camera’ is 3 cameras, a decent one and 2 inferior ones.

I didn't know that (I have android but I guess it is similar for many android phones).

 

[nandbytes]

I’ve been thinking a bit recently about this.

And it just occurred to me that whilst my iPhone has 3 lenses, it’s only the 24mm wide angle that offers me fake bokeh.
So if I want to fake a ‘portrait’ it’s with a 24mm lens rather than the 75mm lens id realistically choose as it’s more flattering.

Why do that?

I’ll tell you why. The 24mm lens is attached to a 48mp sensor, so that’s the one with enough resolution to give the AI something to work with.

Whereas both the WA and telephoto lenses are only attached to 12mpix sensors.

So there’s another thing, my iPhone ‘camera’ is 3 cameras, a decent one and 2 inferior ones.

Is this the case with the latest iPhone 15 also?

 

[Phil V]

Is this the case with the latest iPhone 15 also?

More or less the same spec:

iPhone 15 Pro

• Pro camera system
• 48MP Main: 24 mm, ƒ/1.78 aperture, second‑generation sensor‑shift optical image stabilization, 100% Focus Pixels, support for super‑high‑resolution photos (24MP and 48MP)
• 12MP Ultra Wide: 13 mm, ƒ/2.2 aperture and 120° field of view, 100% Focus Pixels
• 12MP 2x Telephoto (enabled by quad‑pixel sensor): 48 mm, ƒ/1.78 aperture, second‑generation sensor‑shift optical image stabilization, 100% Focus Pixels
• 12MP 3x Telephoto: 77 mm, ƒ/2.8 aperture, optical image stabilization
• 3x optical zoom in, 2x optical zoom out; 6x optical zoom range
• Digital zoom up to 15x

 

[Phil V]

Good point.

I didn't know that (I have android but I guess it is similar for many android phones)

different but better (Google Pixel 8 Pro)

50 MP Octa PD wide camera 1.2 μm pixel width ƒ/1.68 aperture 82° field of view13 1/1.31" image sensor size 48 MP Quad PD ultrawide camera with autofocus13 0.8 μm pixel width ƒ/1.95 aperture 125.5° field of view13 Lens correction 48 MP Quad PD telephoto camera 0.7 μm pixel width ƒ/2.8 aperture 21.8° field of view 5x optical zoom Super Res Zoom up to 30x13 Multi-zone LDAF (laser detect auto focus) sensor Spectral and flicker sensor Optical + electronic image stabilization on wide and telephoto

Front camera

10.5 MP Dual PD selfie camera 1.22 μm pixel width ƒ/2.2 aperture Autofocus 95° ultrawide field of view13

 

[RichardC27]

I’ve been thinking a bit recently about this.

And it just occurred to me that whilst my iPhone has 3 lenses, it’s only the 24mm wide angle that offers me fake bokeh.
So if I want to fake a ‘portrait’ it’s with a 24mm lens rather than the 75mm lens id realistically choose as it’s more flattering.

Why do that?

I’ll tell you why. The 24mm lens is attached to a 48mp sensor, so that’s the one with enough resolution to give the AI something to work with.

Whereas both the WA and telephoto lenses are only attached to 12mpix sensors.

So there’s another thing, my iPhone ‘camera’ is 3 cameras, a decent one and 2 inferior ones.

The main camera always has by far the best and largest sensor in a modern phone, as it's the most used. The Ultrawide lens usually has a tiny sensor as fine detail is less important in a UW image, Many UW cameras, and front cameras for that matter, don't have any focussing ability. The focal length is that short that basically everything is in focus all the time. The first iPhone with AF on the ultrawide was the 13 Pro from 2021. Before that the Ultrawide was a fixed focus lens.

The telephoto camera will have a tiny sensor so it has a massive amount of crop factor and they can get a 75mm equivalent focal length using a very small actual focal length.

Taking my S23 Ultra for example, the available equivalent focal lengths are 13mm, 24mm, 70mm and 230mm (0.6x, 1x, 3x and 10x zoom)

Looking at the specs, we can see the sensors for the two telephoto cameras in particular are tiny compared to the main sensor (and you can tell, the output is not the best)

MAIN CAMERA	Quad	200 MP, f/1.7, 24mm (wide), 1/1.3", 0.6µm, multi-directional PDAF, Laser AF, OIS 10 MP, f/4.9, 230mm (periscope telephoto), 1/3.52", 1.12µm, Dual Pixel PDAF, OIS, 10x optical zoom 10 MP, f/2.4, 70mm (telephoto), 1/3.52", 1.12µm, Dual Pixel PDAF, OIS, 3x optical zoom 12 MP, f/2.2, 13mm, 120˚ (ultrawide), 1/2.55", 1.4µm, Dual Pixel PDAF, Super Steady video

So the actual, real focal lengths of the lenses are:

13mm Ultrawide - 2.2mm
24mm Wide - 6.3mm
70mm Tele - 7.9mm
230mm Tele - 27.2mm

By using tiny sensors for the tele cameras, we have a crop factor of about 8.5x on both lenses, which is how smartphones achieve telephoto focal lengths in such a tiny body.

 

[RichardC27]

Is this the case with the latest iPhone 15 also?

Yes. Gsmarena is a great website for looking at actual phone specs, as it gives you the sensor size as well as the MP count. As you can see for the iPhone 15 Pro, the main camera sensor is much bigger than the UW sensor, in both physical size and resolution, and absolutely massive compared to the tele sensor. It's also basically the exact same hardware as any high end Android phone, despite all the Apple marketing about 'Pro' cameras

MAIN CAMERA	Triple	48 MP, f/1.8, 24mm (wide), 1/1.28", 1.22µm, dual pixel PDAF, sensor-shift OIS 12 MP, f/2.8, 77mm (telephoto), 1/3.5", 1.0µm, PDAF, OIS, 3x optical zoom 12 MP, f/2.2, 13mm, 120˚ (ultrawide), 1/2.55", 1.4µm, dual pixel PDAF TOF 3D LiDAR scanner (depth)

 

[nandbytes]

Yes. Gsmarena is a great website for looking at actual phone specs, as it gives you the sensor size as well as the MP count. As you can see for the iPhone 15 Pro, the main camera sensor is much bigger than the UW sensor, in both physical size and resolution, and absolutely massive compared to the tele sensor. It's also basically the exact same hardware as any high end Android phone, despite all the Apple marketing about 'Pro' cameras

MAIN CAMERA	Triple	48 MP, f/1.8, 24mm (wide), 1/1.28", 1.22µm, dual pixel PDAF, sensor-shift OIS 12 MP, f/2.8, 77mm (telephoto), 1/3.5", 1.0µm, PDAF, OIS, 3x optical zoom 12 MP, f/2.2, 13mm, 120˚ (ultrawide), 1/2.55", 1.4µm, dual pixel PDAF TOF 3D LiDAR scanner (depth)

different but better (Google Pixel 8 Pro)

50 MP Octa PD wide camera 1.2 μm pixel width ƒ/1.68 aperture 82° field of view13 1/1.31" image sensor size 48 MP Quad PD ultrawide camera with autofocus13 0.8 μm pixel width ƒ/1.95 aperture 125.5° field of view13 Lens correction 48 MP Quad PD telephoto camera 0.7 μm pixel width ƒ/2.8 aperture 21.8° field of view 5x optical zoom Super Res Zoom up to 30x13 Multi-zone LDAF (laser detect auto focus) sensor Spectral and flicker sensor Optical + electronic image stabilization on wide and telephoto

Front camera

10.5 MP Dual PD selfie camera 1.22 μm pixel width ƒ/2.2 aperture Autofocus 95° ultrawide field of view13

thank you very much.
so the fake bokeh system only works with 24mm even on the iPhone15?
missus wanted to get an iPhone for this feature and we were looking at the pro versions (because it has telephoto lens) but looks like there you can get it on the base models then since this feature is only available on the 24mm lens?

 

[RichardC27]

thank you very much.
so the fake bokeh system only works with 24mm even on the iPhone15?
missus wanted to get an iPhone for this feature and we were looking at the pro versions (because it has telephoto lens) but looks like there you can get it on the base models then since this feature is only available on the 24mm lens?

That would be odd. Portrait mode on my S23 Ultra defaults to the 70mm 3x lens as this is a portrait focal length, but I can choose the main camera if I like. To be honest I never use it, it looks exactly like what it is, fake bokeh. The main camera sensors have got large enough now that you get a little bit of natural bokeh at normal shooting distances and it looks much, much better. None of the phone manufacturers have been able to replicate the fall off in the out of focus areas. They just blur the background, forget to blur the foreground and it just looks terrible.