Beginner Phone vs Camera??

Carpy2001

Carpy2001

Messages
256
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all. it's me yet again lol. Just out of couriosity I took a few pictures in the garden with my mobile phone, and when I compared them to images taken with my Finepix s4200 bridge camera, I really struggle to see any difference in image quality, this has now got me thinking whether I should just use my phone lol, I could sort of understand it, if it was a newish phone but it is a Samaung Galaxy S4 mini, that is around 10 years old. It has the same size sensor (1/2.3) but only 8 MP compared to cameras 14MP, so apart from the zoom and a few controls on the camera, am I just going to use the camera for learning on rather than trying to get a good image ( clear and good IQ).
 
The Bridge camera is also about 10 years old, and as you say, has the same small sensor size - so you would expect them to have a similar level of quality in terms of noise - the camera will have a better lens, but the smartphone will have better image processing, so I'm not that surprised they look similar overall - particularly if you are just viewing he images on a standard HD display - as HD is only 2.1 Mp, so both images will be downscaled significantly.

The bridge camera, however, should allow you to take control of the images - selecting Aperture or shutter speed to give the effect you want.
Once you've learnt how these work, you can consider upgrading to a more modern camera, with a bigger sensor, and then you can start to appreciate the advantages a dedicated camera can bring.
 
You are on photography forum so you must be looking for more than a mobile phone camera otherwise why would you be here? You need to compare your phone with something a little more modern and view it in such a way that the differences become all too apparent. If all you are going to do is take snaps and post them on social media you should stick with your phone, that is what they are designed for and they do a bloody good job these days. If you want more creative control, more detail, greater ability to crop and adjust, view pictures on anything more than a six inch display, then you'll have to start spending money as a phone camera is just not going to cut it.

In the end though, it's whatever floats your boat. I have spent thousands over the years and still look at some people's phone camera pictures and think 'wish I'd taken that', but by the same token, phone users have looked at some of my pictures and wondered how the hell I've managed to get this or that image.
 
Thanks Faldrax, but upgrading from this camera is not likely to happen lol, having looked around at prices, I cannot even afford a used Panasonic fx82 lol, and that is not a lot better than the one I already have. Perseverance is the key I guess.
 
Thanks ShinySideUp, but being totally new to the world of photography ( first picture taken 10 days agao) I have no idea what I want from this hobby, yet. I must say that some of the close up images of bug I fine fasinating. Whatever I end up doing, it will be just for my enjoyment, social media can kiss my butt lol, just full of negativity. For now I just store my images on my PC, and sometimes play around with them on my little editing program,I am ultimately looking for a hobby I can enjoy doing alone or with othjers, but that implies having friends to go out with, which I do not lol. So we shall see where this photography goes, at the moment it is fun, but frustrating due to my lack of knowledge.
 
boliston said:
i find phones are quite fiddly to use as there is no viewfinder and the sensors are very small - my pixel 6 has a reasonable sized sensor but it still has a crop factor of about 3.6 vs 1.33 for my standalone camera - this shows how tiny phone sensors are https://designreviews.com/digital-camera-sensor-size-chart/
Click to expand...
You see now I am a bit lost lol, I think crop factor is to do with sensor size, but ratio's ??, at my level of knowledge I am happy with a good clear picture lol.
 
Modern phones are actually pretty goods cameras but they have very small sensors which has it's limitations when it comes to noise etc.

Older Point and shoot cameras and bridge cameras also have very small sensors and from what you say your bridge camera has the same sensor size as your phone but they have crammed an extra 6 million pixels on it which means that each pixel is smaller than that of your phone. This also means that your phone will actually be better at collecting light and better at handling noise than your camera. Remember that Megapixels is mostly a marketing thing and does not mean you have a better camera if you have more Megapixels. A 12MP DSLR will take a much better quality image than a 48MP phone.

Your phone is also a computer and will be applying a load of post processing to your image within a split second of you pressing the shutter button. Sometimes even taking multiple exposures and blending them together to give you a perfectly exposed image. That's what most phone users want, an instant image that can be shared on Instagram.

Cameras, when shooting in jpg mode will post process to a point but never to the extremes that a phone will and when shooting in raw you get nothing but the raw data to process yourself. While you don't get that instant perfect picture you do have far greater control on how the image is processed.

As a beginner I would highly recommend some Mike Brown videos. He is an excellent teacher for beginners
 
Last edited:
ShinySideUp said:
You are on photography forum so you must be looking for more than a mobile phone camera otherwise why would you be here?
Click to expand...

That’s a bit harsh, there are several posters here who use mainly or exclusively their phone cameras and I don’t see how using a phone cam disqualifies you from being a “photographer” — thats more to do with mind set than equipment.

But I agree with the rest of your post.
 
Carpy2001 said:
I think crop factor is to do with sensor size, but ratio's ??,
Click to expand...
Crop factor is just a way of describing the apparent magnification of a lens on a smaller sensor.

The focal length of a lens is (for our purposes) a fixed value i.e. a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, no matter what camera you put it on.

If you put any lens on a 36 x 24 mm "full frame" camera, you will see a given part of the scene. if you then put it on a APS format camera you are seeing only the centre of the image. and that's known as a cropped image. The crop factor is just a rough multiplier that tells you (more or less) how much you are "magnifying" the image by using the smaller sensor with that same lens.

Carpy2001 said:
at my level of knowledge I am happy with a good clear picture lol.
Click to expand...
...and so are the vast majority of people! (y)
 
Carpy2001 said:
Hi all. it's me yet again lol. Just out of couriosity I took a few pictures in the garden with my mobile phone, and when I compared them to images taken with my Finepix s4200 bridge camera, I really struggle to see any difference in image quality, this has now got me thinking whether I should just use my phone lol, I could sort of understand it, if it was a newish phone but it is a Samaung Galaxy S4 mini, that is around 10 years old. It has the same size sensor (1/2.3) but only 8 MP compared to cameras 14MP, so apart from the zoom and a few controls on the camera, am I just going to use the camera for learning on rather than trying to get a good image ( clear and good IQ).
Click to expand...

There wil be some things (distant or close up for instance) that the Fuji will do better than your phone and vice versa in other cases. Using the Fuji will probably teach you more about the technicalities than a phone cam will, particularly an ancient one which I guess doesn’t allow you alter setting manually.

Prices of used gear fall all the time so I wouldn’t rule out being able to buy a better phone or camera some day — always look on the bright side :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: zx9
sphexx said:
I don’t see how using a phone cam disqualifies you from being a “photographer”
Click to expand...
Me neither.

There is, so far as I'm aware, no legal definition of "a photographer". In my book, anyone who records an image through a lens is "a photographer".
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Me neither.

There is, so far as I'm aware, no legal definition of "a photographer". In my book, anyone who records an image through a lens is "a photographer".
Click to expand...
Obviously that’s true but really most people (and most people take photos these days, wouldn’t say they are photographers or that photography is their hobby. I rather think it’s up to ypthe person to define themselves, as with artists etc, — others may have an opinion on whether they are “good” or not.
 
Your comparing a 10 year old phone with a ten yearl old camera. I'm courious to know if your phone has the same long range zoom the camera has? Mine certainly hasnt.
Yes phones are good, modern ones very good, my A52s has a cracking camera, but I still carry a TZ80 compact around for pictures when I'm not "tooled-up" with a full size DSLR camera. A good phone may be a fair match for a compact, but usually the compact wins on zoom and easy of use.
It's horses for courses. If your phone does what you need, thats great. if it's lacking and you find yourself limited, thats time to think about a compact or bridge, or even a DSLR depending on what YOU want and need. Dont get pushed into buying stuff you dont want or need by the gear collectors club (most photographers, myself included) You'll know when you "got the photographic bug" your bank statements are hand delivered.... :exit:
 
A recent test put a GF2 as rated better than the latest iphone.
But as was said, if you just looking at the whole image on a PC screen, it doesn't really matter.

Try zooming in to a small area, and you will see why this has been said.
 
The phone or camera question really depends on want to want to take photos of.
General stuff that is within 10 meters a phone is ideal, nights out, city breaks, beach holidays, parties all good phone territory.
Would I take a phone to a African safari, bird shoots, motorsports, airshows. Well I think a smartphone is going to struggle, along with a 10 year old bridge camera with a small sensor !

My Canon R7 will do me with a ef 100-400L mkii lens as my Samsung S9 is going to struggle,...alot !

Horse for a course !
 
Last edited:
Tysonator said:
My Canon R7 will do me with a ef 100-400L mkii lens as my Samsung S9 is going to struggle !


Horse for a course !
Click to expand...
I would love something like that or even a Panasonic G MFT, but then the cost of lenses on top, best option for me would be a bridge I think, but which one, FZ330 looks ok, but FZ1000 (original not mk2, and both used) has bigger sensor, one is weather/dust sealed the other not, choices, choices, lol even worse when you don't know what you are doing lmao.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
There's nothing wrong with small sensors, as many images show.
Click to expand...

This needs qualifying and explaining because as a stand alone sentence this could be highly misleading for someone new to all this.

Assuming we're taking about small sensors in phone cameras and small sensor compact cameras in my opinion "there's nothing wrong with small sensors" if you're taking pictures in good light and don't care about limited depth (getting a sharp subject whilst other areas of the picture appear blurry.) You could possibly add that you're going to view whole pictures on small screens and you're not going to pixel peep or view large pictures closely.

If you want to do anything that takes you beyond those caveats you may quickly see the limitations of small sensors.
 
Carpy2001 said:
Thanks ShinySideUp, but being totally new to the world of photography ( first picture taken 10 days agao) I have no idea what I want from this hobby, yet. I must say that some of the close up images of bug I fine fasinating. Whatever I end up doing, it will be just for my enjoyment, social media can kiss my butt lol, just full of negativity. For now I just store my images on my PC, and sometimes play around with them on my little editing program,I am ultimately looking for a hobby I can enjoy doing alone or with othjers, but that implies having friends to go out with, which I do not lol. So we shall see where this photography goes, at the moment it is fun, but frustrating due to my lack of knowledge.
Click to expand...
I think your problem is you dove in over your head and haven't even learned to swim yet. Been seeing a Minolta point and shoot on the computer for $129 that might be a good entry point for you. You can go up from there. I use a P&S, carry it with me everywhere I go. My Dslr get's taken out when I know there's something special I want. No idea why I do that, my P&S is a 20mp camera. But new it runs $597. Got mine used for $430. Have blown up a couple photo's from the P&S to 9x19 and they come out great. Don't have changeable lens's for it but can always go back with my DSLR later. Truth be known picture's I shoot I could get by without a DSLR! Cost wise for what you do you should look at good P&S cameras or entry level DSLR's.
 
Don Fischer said:
I think your problem is you dove in over your head and haven't even learned to swim yet. Been seeing a Minolta point and shoot on the computer for $129 that might be a good entry point for you. You can go up from there. I use a P&S, carry it with me everywhere I go. My Dslr get's taken out when I know there's something special I want. No idea why I do that, my P&S is a 20mp camera. But new it runs $597. Got mine used for $430. Have blown up a couple photo's from the P&S to 9x19 and they come out great. Don't have changeable lens's for it but can always go back with my DSLR later. Truth be known picture's I shoot I could get by without a DSLR! Cost wise for what you do you should look at good P&S cameras or entry level DSLR's.
Click to expand...
I can't help but to agree to an extent.

Instead of trying to find a camera that will do what you want, why not try to establish what you want to do in order of priotity.

Use what you have, the camera and the phone and go out and take photos. Look on youtube and learn a bit about composition and basic camera functions, but go out and take photos.
You will gradually find your direction, which might decide your camera choice.
Doesn't matter which opinion you look at on here, they are all valid, but none will give you what you think you need now.

Rather like the 100 car of the late 70s, travels at 100mph, does 100mpg and costs £100.
Just doesn't exist, just like one camera that does it all and to a budget.

Enjoy what you have and let the experience gained guide you, and I'm sure your frustration will be replaced by enjoyment :)
 
In my opinion, comparing phones to proper cameras is like comparing bicycles to cars. Both are great tools, but they are different. As Tysonator said, how could you take a picture of a bird that is 100 metres away with a phone? Or the Milky Way? Or a portrait of the bride and groom with a nice creamy background that makes them stand out? Etc.

And also, the image quality of Raw files is sooo much better than that of doctored Jpeg images from smartphones. For post-processing, the difference is night and day.
 
woof woof said:
This needs qualifying and explaining because as a stand alone sentence this could be highly misleading for someone new to all this.
Click to expand...
It's not in the least misleading.

Many millions of people use small sensor cameras and phones and produce pictures which they and others enjoy and/or find useful.
 
Sangoma said:
Use what you have, the camera and the phone and go out and take photos.
Click to expand...
This is the best advice yet.

I'll say it yet again: the best camera in the world is always the one in your hand, when the picture is in front of you.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
It's not in the least misleading.

Many millions of people use small sensor cameras and phones and produce pictures which they and others enjoy and/or find useful.
Click to expand...
Seem's to me there a thread on here somewhere about sensor sizes and I just don't get it. Sensor size should not make any difference at all to less than a pro or someone looking to sell photo's and then I suspect it still doesn't matter. Comparing a 1" sensor to a larger one is actually pretty meaningless to me. If you like the picture's your getting with the smaller sensor, what's the purpose for changing? It's a strange thing but here in this country I see that happening a lot. People using something that works well for them then they hear that this other product is better so they throw away the item they were using and happy with to get something they think for some reason is better! In that article it think it was the lens for an APS camera they compared to an FF camera with a bigger sensor. It made a point that a 50mm lens in an APS camera was equalivent to I think it was an 85mm lens in a FF camera. I need to know, so what? People using an APS camera should find something somewhere that they like even if it's with a different lens! I'm thinking there's a 35mm difference between the APS and the full FF so can't you simply drop 35mm from the APS 50mm and dupe the 50mm FF? And even if your gonna chase that dog, what real different is there if you like what your getting with the APS 50mm? I think with comparing those things the whole real value in the difference is it gives people something to talk about! APS is not Full Frame, don't compare them and life get's easier!
 
sphexx said:
That’s a bit harsh, there are several posters here who use mainly or exclusively their phone cameras and I don’t see how using a phone cam disqualifies you from being a “photographer” — thats more to do with mind set than equipment.

But I agree with the rest of your post.
Click to expand...

It does sound a bit rude doesn't it? It's not meant to be. I was just trying to get a point across about the usual use of cameras in phones and how they are only usually only used for 'popular' photography.
 
Carpy2001 said:
I would love something like that or even a Panasonic G MFT, but then the cost of lenses on top, best option for me would be a bridge I think, but which one, FZ330 looks ok, but FZ1000 (original not mk2, and both used) has bigger sensor, one is weather/dust sealed the other not, choices, choices, lol even worse when you don't know what you are doing lmao.
Click to expand...

decide what you want to shoot and buy gear accordingly !
Most of my kit is used which gives me more bang for buck, and I use that kit to the max. Instead just buying another bit of kit just to perform a niche area of use.
 
Carpy2001 said:
I would love something like that or even a Panasonic G MFT, but then the cost of lenses on top, best option for me would be a bridge I think, but which one, FZ330 looks ok, but FZ1000 (original not mk2, and both used) has bigger sensor, one is weather/dust sealed the other not, choices, choices, lol even worse when you don't know what you are doing lmao.
Click to expand...


The best option for what?

I've lost track of what your budget was, but comparing with the prices of the bridges you talk of....

A Panasonic G3 with 14-42 (Or the older 14-45) lens can be found on ebay for 80-140 or a G5 which has several advantages for slightly more most days of the week and a 45-150 lens for £100-140.
The 45-150 lens is very useful and inexpensive, it can be updated to give dual OIS when used with the later Panasonic cameras that supports Dual OIS, and used with a screw on close up lens, gives very good close ups of bees, butterflies and flowers etc without getting too close to disturb them.

However if you want good sharp photos of flying things and the moon etc. then yes, the lens becomes pricy. But most affordable bridges do a poor job of these anyway, they look OK at a quick glance, but overall quality is sadly lacking.


If you are patient, they come along at good prices. (the cheapest I have bought on ebay was £20 for G3 and £25 for a G5, and £32 for a G3 with lens)

I personally think that you might trim the "flying things and the moon etc" from you wish list, and look for the best choice without that, as it will either be too expensive, or very disappointing.
It will also allow you to look at more choices. I suggest Panasonic M43 as I use now it (previously Pentax, then Canon APS-C), but I'm not saying it is the best or only choice.

This is why I don't think small sensor super-zooms are the best solution for distant shots that don't fill the framemnfz82s.JPG

The moon was small in the frame anyway, but it doesn't look too bad until you look at the detail as per the insert.

I find this become very discouraging on many subjects, and often negates the supposed advantage of a long zoom.

If this is what you are expecting, that's fine, but if you are expecting more, small sensor super-zooms are not the answer.
 
Sangoma said:
The best option for what?

I've lost track of what your budget was, but comparing with the prices of the bridges you talk of....

A Panasonic G3 with 14-42 (Or the older 14-45) lens can be found on ebay for 80-140 or a G5 which has several advantages for slightly more most days of the week and a 45-150 lens for £100-140.
The 45-150 lens is very useful and inexpensive, it can be updated to give dual OIS when used with the later Panasonic cameras that supports Dual OIS, and used with a screw on close up lens, gives very good close ups of bees, butterflies and flowers etc without getting too close to disturb them.

However if you want good sharp photos of flying things and the moon etc. then yes, the lens becomes pricy. But most affordable bridges do a poor job of these anyway, they look OK at a quick glance, but overall quality is sadly lacking.


If you are patient, they come along at good prices. (the cheapest I have bought on ebay was £20 for G3 and £25 for a G5, and £32 for a G3 with lens)

I personally think that you might trim the "flying things and the moon etc" from you wish list, and look for the best choice without that, as it will either be too expensive, or very disappointing.
It will also allow you to look at more choices. I suggest Panasonic M43 as I use now it (previously Pentax, then Canon APS-C), but I'm not saying it is the best or only choice.

This is why I don't think small sensor super-zooms are the best solution for distant shots that don't fill the frameView attachment 400169

The moon was small in the frame anyway, but it doesn't look too bad until you look at the detail as per the insert.

I find this become very discouraging on many subjects, and often negates the supposed advantage of a long zoom.

If this is what you are expecting, that's fine, but if you are expecting more, small sensor super-zooms are not the answer.
Click to expand...

Very interesting information! Seeing that less-than-sharp moon, another solution might be a second-hand Canon or Nikon DSLR. A friend of mine just bought a Nikon D3300, with 18-55 and 55-200mm zooms, all in pristine condition, for £189.

At this moment, my friend is in the Middle East and I can't check, but I think the moon taken with her 55-200 zoom would be sharper than the one in your message. The OP talked of taking pictures of insects (and birds?) in his garden. The DSLR solution may be better for that type of things as well,
 
Sangoma said:
If this is what you are expecting, that's fine, but if you are expecting more, small sensor super-zooms are not the answer.
Click to expand...
Entirely true...BUT... the FZ82 is a good example of a relatively compact compact piece of kit that does most things well enough and can do some things badly.

Like all the superzooms, one of its major selling points is that the things it does badly, alternatives cannot do at all. So it comes down to whether the compactness and price over-rides the alternatives and that's something each of us has to work out for ourselves, whatever camera we choose to buy.

Here's a picture that illustrates many of the flaws of the lens at full extension but it's a picture I wouldn't have made with anything else, because I didn't have anything else with me at the time...

Small brown bird through window FZ82 P1010324.jpg
 
Sangoma , I like the MFT idea,, you mention the G3 and G5, can I ask, what is the difference between the G, GH, and GX models ??, then there is DMC and DC lol.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Entirely true...BUT... the FZ82 is a good example of a relatively compact compact piece of kit that does most things well enough and can do some things badly.

Like all the superzooms, one of its major selling points is that the things it does badly, alternatives cannot do at all. So it comes down to whether the compactness and price over-rides the alternatives and that's something each of us has to work out for ourselves, whatever camera we choose to buy.

Here's a picture that illustrates many of the flaws of the lens at full extension but it's a picture I wouldn't have made with anything else, because I didn't have anything else with me at the time...

View attachment 400183
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the camera is not useful, it is, the point is if you know its limitations and decide to get one, you won't end up thinking you bought the wrong camera, as you might if you had expected more.
I do find I hardly ever use the FZ82 though, it is no smaller than an M43 camera and medium zoom, and if I want something small, the TZ60 does what I want, and has a better lens (within its zoom range) than the FZ82, and I don't often miss the very long zoom.
The FZ82 seems stuck in the middle somewhere :)

Your photo of the bird isn't as badly affected by the noise as other subjects may be, as the noise often seems to add some false clarity to textures like those feathers, or at least is partially obscured by the texture.
 
Carpy2001 said:
Sangoma , I like the MFT idea,, you mention the G3 and G5, can I ask, what is the difference between the G, GH, and GX models ??, then there is DMC and DC lol.
Click to expand...

They are different ranges, like the G5 is 16MP and the GH5 is 20 MP, very different camera, the GH range is a higher level range, the GX range are more like rangefinder cameras (smaller bodies) and the GF range are similar but without viewfinders. Very broad description.

In the plain G range the G5 was the first with an electronic shutter and artificial horizon.

All the Panasonic M43 range take the same lenses (with slightly different features depending on camera), I can use the same lenses on my G1 as on the G9s and all inbetween.

From the G80 (on the SLR type bodies) the camera itself has in body stabilisation, whereas previous ones up to the G7 only had stabilisation in the lenses.
Some lenses combines with the IBIS bodies can use both stabilisation systems (dual stabilisation)

The G7 (as do a couple of others) has a slight problem for some people with the mechanical shutter making the picture slightly soft at speeds around 1/100, I have never noticed it, and many sources say that although there, it has been very overplayed. Some people claim to see it very badly and give the impression it is a major problem :) Most the reviews say it is only ever noticeable when comparing two photos, and there are ways to work round it in nearly every situation.

From the G80 onwards, the shutter was re-designed to prevent this. (It was probably worse on many older dSLRs with mirror shake :) )
 
Sangoma said:
I do find I hardly ever use the FZ82 though, it is no smaller than an M43 camera and medium zoom,
Click to expand...
Agreed. In fact my GM5 with the 12~32 is a lot smaller and the same camera with the 35~100 is certainly no bigger than the FZ82,
Sangoma said:
and if I want something small, the TZ60 does what I want, and has a better lens (within its zoom range) than the FZ82, and I don't often miss the very long zoom.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that the FZ82 is less good than my TZ70 up to 720mm equivalent but then again, as I won't be taking test pictures on a tripod, I'll never know. :naughty:
Sangoma said:
Your photo of the bird isn't as badly affected by the noise as other subjects may be, as the noise often seems to add some false clarity to textures like those feathers, or at least is partially obscured by the texture.
Click to expand...
Yes. It's a good example of circumstances altering cases. A picture of, say, a shiny car at that magnification would almost certainly seem less satisfactory, at least to some viewers.
 
Sangoma and AndrewFlannigan, if I decide that the MFT is the way to go for me , can I contact you both for advice ??
thanks Andy
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I'm not sure that the FZ82 is less good than my TZ70 up to 720mm equivalent but then again, as I won't be taking test pictures on a tripod, I'll never know.
Click to expand...

It is more at the wide end I have found it better, less distortion and sharper.
The TZ60 overall seems better than the 70. It is basically the same except the sensor, I bought a 70 as I thought it would have less noise than the 60, but it did not, in fact the higher resolution of the 60 mad a big difference when cropping. Gave the 70to my daughter as a pocket camera when her Samsung 650 failed :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top