- Messages
- 2,764
- 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!
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!
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.
Best Nikon I've seen..... I'll get my coat....I wasn't happy with the image quality from my 'phone so I made some adaptaitions. (As per my avatar).
View attachment 403631
Sorry Dale could you explain what you mean here to a beginner photographer please?It will never offer me what I need though, it can't do 600mm and whilst the image quality is OK, there's virtually no, useful cropability. I would also like more control for landscapes.
Can I ask Keith, it seems you like film, would you consider using/ have you used the film camera emulators available on phones that give a similar aesthetic and even sometimes user experience ( to some extent)?I am quite happy to shoot on my phone day to day or even go out with a 35mm camera loaded with B&W film with the phone as a back up if I suddenly want to shoot colour. Granted most digital cameras can do colour and a reasonable mono conversion but phones do have other applications, the ultra wide angle on my iPhone is much wider than 11mm on APSC which I find useful. I also have a light meter app for the times when Sunny f/16 needs a quick check and the viewfinder app will let me frame a shot before changing lenses on the SLR, in my head I know what a 50mm or a 35mm can do, I am much less sure what the 25 or 18 will look like so a quick check on the phone helps.
I guess I don't really care what the format or technology is, the best camera in the world is the one in my hands at the time. The one I chose to pick up is often determined by how I felt before I left the house, did I want the tactile pleasure of my Leica M2, do I want the ease of use of a mirror less or do I just want to record my day with the phone.
Sorry Dale could you explain what you mean here to a beginner photographer please?
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.Can I ask Keith, it seems you like film, would you consider using/ have you used the film camera emulators available on phones that give a similar aesthetic and even sometimes user experience ( to some extent)?
Can I ask Keith, it seems you like film, would you consider using/ have you used the film camera emulators available on phones that give a similar aesthetic and even sometimes user experience ( to some extent)?
Sorry Dale could you explain what you mean here to a beginner photographer please?
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.I wonder if, in our replies, we have assumed too much understanding?
There are many examples on this site and elsewhere which disprove such a claim.Phones are fine for quick snapshots when no better camera is available, but not for serious photography!
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.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.
I agree.... there are others where the phone will fall far short of what is needed.
But many millions, possibly billions, of people use them for photography...they dont have the sensor size, they certainly dont have the manual controls and they dont have high iso capability.
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.
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.
Nor did I.I don't see any denigration of phone technology or the people that use it in @Faldrax's post.
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
What do you mean by 'serious' photography?......
Phones are fine for quick snapshots when no better camera is available, but not for serious photography!
......
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.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.
^^^ Only if you use digital zoom, which I don't.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.
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.
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.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?
As per my post #24, phone camera's do not come close to coping with the types of photo's I typically take.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?
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 aboutAs phone cameras improve every year the need for a dedicated camera decreases, especially for the budget conscious amateur photographer. I want to know what would a phone camera need to do for everyone to get rid of their expensive camera and just use a phone camera?
Then why would you join this discussion?...I don't care what anyone says.
As phone cameras improve every year the need for a dedicated camera decreases, especially for the budget conscious amateur photographer. I want to know what would a phone camera need to do for everyone to get rid of their expensive camera and just use a phone camera?
Because I can and I don't need your permission, Andrew.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.
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.
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.
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.
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);I must have imagined you quoting someone's post and using the term in response to their point then?
Phones are fine for quick snapshots when no better camera is available, but not for serious photography!
Then I extend my apologies to Andrew.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);
You can certainly ‘change’ those things, but let’s be honest about what those changes actually do.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.