Beginner Phone vs Camera??

Citizen of Bath said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just a small point but some smart phones can record raw files.

FWIW I started a project using a iPhone5 later changing to a 12pro, the difference in JPG file quality was stunning, in fact too 'camera like' for a low light gritty project. You can have it too good.
 
zx9 said:
Just a small point but some smart phones can record raw files.

FWIW I started a project using a iPhone5 later changing to a 12pro, the difference in JPG file quality was stunning, in fact too 'camera like' for a low light gritty project. You can have it too good.
Click to expand...

I agree on the Raw in some phones, my S22 Ultra can shoot Raw and the detail it bangs out is great. Yet on my Pixel 7 Pro the Jpegs are great on their own.
 
Just my two penneth as a keen amateur.... As far as I'm concerned, the most important parts of any image are composition and lighting, whether I'm using a phone or dedicated camera.
I'd say most people on here realise that you can have a great subject plus great camera and produce a poor image but if you compose better and have better lighting even though you do happen to be using a phone then the final image will be better.
The purpose of the photo may dictate that one tool is more suitable than the other but ultimately the saying is very very true about the most important part being the twelve inches behind the camera.
 
i have done some 'raw' shooting on my pixel 6 so it saves as a dng rather than jpg and it's far better in raw as the jpg is very aggressively over sharpened probably done to look good on a phone screen but it looks terrible on a computer screen - phones are a bit too 'automatic' for me as i prefer to set everything manually (focus/aperture/shutter/iso)
 
A phone is just a computer that can also make phone calls, take photos and a few other things. The apparent image quality can be amazing, and is more than good enough for most people, most of the time, with many subjects, but the hardware parts - sensor etc - is very basic and the magic is all done with very clever software.

But, phone cameras have two major disadvantages. Firstly, they do all the thinking for us and we have no control - and it's the control that makes the difference.
And, secondly, they are the worst possible design for use as a camera, they're the wrong shape, it's hard to hold them properly and, with no viewfinder, can be difficult to see the screen in bright light.

But they have a massive advantage too, because, with most of us, the phone is always in our pocket and the camera is usually at home, so the camera that you have is always better than the one that you don't have with you.

When budget is a problem there are always old but fully-functional APS-sensor cameras available for around £100. These cameras have a decent-size sensor and offer full control, and the only problem is that you'll have to learn how to use it - but you can get a free copy of my new e-book here https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/free-e-book-about-photography-for-beginners.752112/
 
Garry Edwards said:
But, phone cameras have two major disadvantages. Firstly, they do all the thinking for us and we have no control
Click to expand...

I don’t think that’s true anymore though obviously they have limitations compared with bigger cameras.

Garry Edwards said:
- and it's the control that makes the difference.
And, secondly, they are the worst possible design for use as a camera, they're the wrong shape, it's hard to hold them properly
Click to expand...

True, but they’re not too bad held vertically, especially if you like 1:1 ratio.

Garry Edwards said:
and, with no viewfinder, can be difficult to see the screen in bright light.
Click to expand...

Come now, the same problem as view cameras, you just need a bit of black cloth :LOL: :exit:
 
sphexx said:
Come now, the same problem as view cameras, you just need a bit of black cloth :LOL: :exit:
Click to expand...
Yes, but Denholme Velvets went bust many years ago, they're building houses on their site now . . .:p
 
Garry Edwards said:
Yes, but Denholme Velvets went bust many years ago, they're building houses on their site now . . .:p
Click to expand...
Actually they seem to be still trading, maybe new site. I don’t know Denholme, only been a couple of times.
 
sphexx said:
Actually they seem to be still trading, maybe new site. I don’t know Denholme, only been a couple of times.
Click to expand...
I go there twice a month, clay shooting on the top of the moors behind their site.
 
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...
Hi Andrew

When I went from smartphone to bridge camera, it opened up a whole new world of options and photography.
You're not likely to see that taking pictures in the garden though.
Get out and about, learn the camera, find out what you're Finepix can do and use it in different scenarios.
Do the same with the smartphone.
Then you can decide which suits you better and which one suits the types of photography you like to do.
 
While using a 'phone for a photo-shoot, what happens if someone calls you ? - can't exactly have someone else answer it for you !!!
 
I actually used my phone cam rather than a proper camera a couple of times last holiday, despite the camera being to hand! Why? Well, a couple of people wanted to see the sort of views we had from our rooms/balconies so it was the easy-to-share option!
 
Fixer said:
While using a 'phone for a photo-shoot, what happens if someone calls you ? - can't exactly have someone else answer it for you
Click to expand...

One can have two phones.
 
Just read the entire thread, ignore all the advice given so far:police:

Get a proper camera, like the guy on the picture below.
R.jpeg
He looks like a guy that can take good pictures.

Don't forget to throw your phone in the bin (unless it's one of them dumbphones with no camera).
If the camera does not have a detachable lens, it's not considered to be a camera at all:giggle::giggle::giggle:.
 
Marino said:
Just read the entire thread, ignore all the advice given so far:police:

Get a proper camera, like the guy on the picture below.
View attachment 401848
He looks like a guy that can take good pictures.

Don't forget to throw your phone in the bin (unless it's one of them dumbphones with no camera).
If the camera does not have a detachable lens, it's not considered to be a camera at all:giggle::giggle::giggle:.
Click to expand...


He looks like a guy that can take good pictures.
Click to expand...

He gives me exactly the opposite impression :)
 
Marino said:
Just read the entire thread, ignore all the advice given so far:police:

Get a proper camera, like the guy on the picture below.
View attachment 401848
He looks like a guy that can take good pictures.

Don't forget to throw your phone in the bin (unless it's one of them dumbphones with no camera).
If the camera does not have a detachable lens, it's not considered to be a camera at all:giggle::giggle::giggle:.
Click to expand...

All lenses are detachable if you try hard enough!
 
My Samsung A52s has a really good camera... But I carry a cheap TZ80 compact not because it's better quality (it's not) but it has a proper zoom thats mental and it's "good enough" for I want from a EDC camera. I'd rather have the extra reach than the quality for fun pics.
 
The quality of photos taken with smartphone can rival the quality of shots taken with a $5000 camera...but the $5000 camera makes it possible to shoot using techniques and under a wider range of circumstances that would be not possible or difficult with smartphone alone.
 
wiltw said:
The quality of photos taken with smartphone can rival the quality of shots taken with a $5000 camera...but the $5000 camera makes it possible to shoot using techniques and under a wider range of circumstances that would be not possible or difficult with smartphone alone.
Click to expand...
In tests earlier this year, the quality of a 10+ year old 12MP M43 Panasonic was better the latest iphone.

It all depends on what you mean by quality and how you want to use that quality.
 
Sangoma said:
In tests earlier this year, the quality of a 10+ year old 12MP M43 Panasonic was better the latest iphone.

It all depends on what you mean by quality and how you want to use that quality.
Click to expand...
Indeed, a 12MPixel camera quality at ISO 100 can be difficult to visually discern from a 50MPixel camera at ISO 100, when the image is simply filling an 8X enlargement, because the advantages of the 50MPixel image are academic...unable for the human eye to discern! A similar comment could be made about a 12MPixel 4/3 format shot vs the smartphone shot of similar size...the human eye and brain cannot see a clear difference. Instrumentation is needed to quantify the 'advantage' of one over the other unless the photographic situation is especially demanding in some way and the 'advantage' becomes visible in some way. Can one see 'better quality' in one of this pair of shots?!
Bastille-3_zpsuyzjnuat.jpg

101-0132_IMG.jpg
 
Last edited:
wiltw said:
Indeed, a 12MPixel camera quality at ISO 100 can be difficult to visually discern from a 50MPixel camera at ISO 100, when the image is simply filling an 8X enlargement, because the advantages of the 50MPixel image are academic...unable for the human eye to discern! A similar comment could be made about a 12MPixel 4/3 format shot vs the smartphone shot of similar size...the cannot see a clear difference. Instrumentation is need to quantify the advantage of one over the other unless the photographic situation is especially demanding in some way.
Click to expand...
Exactly :) (well just about)
 
Don Fischer said:
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!
Click to expand...
Just because you like the photos you take does not mean they can't be improved upon. My D700 takes a nicer photo with less noise at iso 6400 than my D90 at iso 3200, for example.

Both cameras are more than capable of taking stunning photos, but the D700 has nicer colour rendition, better micro contrast and way better high iso performance which is partly due to the 134% larger pixel area.
 
dan00001 said:
Just because you like the photos you take does not mean they can't be improved upon.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't you have to define "improved on"?

I know that some people are very keen on matters such as sharpness and colour fidelity but my guess is that, however many people share such opinions, far more people have quite different opinions of what makes a "good" picture.

To take an example from the world of paint: would anyone seriously claim that Rembrandt is a "better" painter than Renoir (or vice versa)? The technical rendition is very different but both made paintings that are highly enjoyable.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Wouldn't you have to define "improved on"?

I know that some people are very keen on matters such as sharpness and colour fidelity but my guess is that, however many people share such opinions, far more people have quite different opinions of what makes a "good" picture.

To take an example from the world of paint: would anyone seriously claim that Rembrandt is a "better" painter than Renoir (or vice versa)? The technical rendition is very different but both made paintings that are highly enjoyable.
Click to expand...
Improved upon is specific to each individual, but you can be sure that the majority of individuals have their own definition of the term.

I did give some examples of how, to me, one of my cameras is an improvement over the other.
 
dan00001 said:
Improved upon is specific to each individual, but you can be sure that the majority of individuals have their own definition of the term.

I did give some examples of how, to me, one of my cameras is an improvement over the other.
Click to expand...
And to you that is all that matters. And quite right too.
If we all only cared about the lowest common denominator then civilisation would never have advanced. ;)
 
Just as there is one camera that is 'better' than another for a given shoot, the choice of smartphone or pocketable P&S, or larger bulkier bridge camera or dSLR or mirrorless or medium format digital depends not only upon technical considerations and flexibility of use, but also what is simply available to you in a given circumstance! There is not a 'universally best' camera in existence. What you have at the moment is better than what is not in your possession, better than nothing at all.
 
Last edited:
Citizen of Bath said:
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.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with this take. Sure, there are great photo editing apps like Snapseed, but the range of editing possibilities is still not the same compared to one of the RAW photo or even a simplest PC photo editor like Photoworks, let alone Lightroom, etc. Mobile photography has its place and meaning, but it's not comparable to camera experience. Both are great, but both serve different purposes.
 
Jared Polin youtube did a video recently where he compared a iphone 15 to a 10k sports camera set-up. Interesting to watch, cant work out how to link it here, my youtubes playing silly so and so's.
 
Topsy said:
Aren't they called Assistants?
Click to expand...
Did just under a year of that.

Never could understand why we needed the Hasselblad kit when we were taking the MPP and twenty double darkslides. The boss telling me it would "build up both my muscles and my character" really didn't help... :sulk:
 
As professional, of course, I use professional grade equipment that allows me to get photographs in situations that a mobile phones cannot handle. However, when I look through my personal photographs I have memories dating back to the very first camera phones that to me are priceless. Camera phones have certainly improved greatly over the years not just through technology but also through the increased size of the sensor. The last couple of holidays I've been on I have not taken a camera just my phone. After every holiday we print our photos at 7 x 5 and to be honest the photos look really good. As I said for professional work it's a different matter, one of my clients prints my photos up to 78 in.² the thing to mention is although I do photography for work. I also enjoy it as an hobby. Although the photos from my mobile phone are good, I find them a soulless tool to use. If money was no object, my camera of choice for personal work would be the new Nikon XF if a camera could be sexy, that's it :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top