Quality of mobile phones changing amateur digital photography?

[karmagarda]

In the last 6ish months I've noticed that my photography habits have changed massively. And I wonder if other avid hobbyists have noticed something similar happening to them.

About 8 months ago I purchased an iPhone 6. A couple of months after I did that, I kid you not, my D700 has started gathering dust! Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that an iPhone 6 replaces a D700, I know the capabilities of the D700. I have taken it out a few times, dusted it off, and done some general kiddie photography for friends. But what I will say is the camera on the iPhone 6 is such a leap in quality in comparison to older iPhones. Even iPhone 4s and 5s I found were still lacking too much for me to put down a DSLR. But the iPhone 6 seems to have crossed some line where the combination of convenience and quality surpasses what the D700 can offer me for a walkabout camera.

Even in the house for snaps of my son doing different things I have my phone ready rather than having the D700 close by.

I know that people with the Nokia Lumia must be experiencing something similar (I can't remember the model, but it has potentially the best smartphone camera on the market). A friend of mine has a D90 and it hasn't seen the light of day since he picked up his Nokia Lumia.

Another friend of mine jumps between film and iPhone for street photography now. He even said to me recently that he considers camera phones potentially the best way to shoot street.

I've even noticed it affect a few pros. Another friend who's a wedding photographer only uses his big trusty Canon during weddings. Outside of that he shoots on his iPhone.

So here's my question. And forget about replacing professional photography or amateur wildlife / sports photography for a minute, I'm talking about day to day/street/walkabout photography. If you spend your days shooting with a fixed lens during the day time have you found yourself leaving your camera at home and just using your mobile phone instead? Has the combination of convenience and quality crossed some kind of line that has made you put down your DSLR?

It's got to the stage where I'm even considering selling my D700. I still love film so I'll probably keep all that equipment and use that as my general day to day photography where I want more than just an iPhone. But for digital I find that the quality of smartphone cameras are fantastic.

 

[dan_yell]

Up front: I don't own a smart phone - but just another query to add to the original post - what do shots from the best smartphones come out like when printed - on a lab, not a photo printer or instant printer machine - are they good enough to do a3?

I feel like i'd be happy to use a camera phone for day to day stuff if it was only ever viewed on a screen, but if it was something i might in the future want printed, i wouldnt like it. i think the screens on phones and some compacts are deceptive and make the photo appear better than it is when you view it on a computer (just cos its smaller i guess, but just the increase in quality of screen from say, 8 years ago)

 

[pingu666]

can be mushy. Iphone pics are also heavily processed by default.

the 1020 iS nice but the camera app is slow to load

a compact like richoh gr sigma dp rx100 would give u small size great quality

 

[KIPAX]

So here's my question. And forget about replacing professional photography or amateur wildlife / sports photography for a minute, I'm talking about day to day/street/walkabout photography. If you spend your days shooting with a fixed lens during the day time have you found yourself leaving your camera at home and just using your mobile phone instead? Has the combination of convenience and quality crossed some kind of line that has made you put down your DSLR?

Going out for the day with the missus next week,.. no way am I lumping a dslr around and one maybe 2 lens when i can get shots on phones which for social media do as good a job .. lets face it.. who goes out for the day and prints big pics out from the snaps.. its all social media..

I see this as a good thing not a bad thing.. i dont care what i use.. phones are hand small light... dslr as you say for stuff phones cant do

 

[karmagarda]

Up front: I don't own a smart phone - but just another query to add to the original post - what do shots from the best smartphones come out like when printed - on a lab, not a photo printer or instant printer machine - are they good enough to do a3?

I feel like i'd be happy to use a camera phone for day to day stuff if it was only ever viewed on a screen, but if it was something i might in the future want printed, i wouldnt like it. i think the screens on phones and some compacts are deceptive and make the photo appear better than it is when you view it on a computer (just cos its smaller i guess, but just the increase in quality of screen from say, 8 years ago)

Absolutely printable. On A3? I don't know. For day to day stuff I've never printed even as big as A4. Even if I myself wanted to print on A3 I'd shoot D700 or film.

 

[dancook]

I tried using my Sony Z1 xperia phone camera for street photography, it wasn't any good for capturing the 'moment' - because of the tremendous shutter lag.

 

[karmagarda]

Absolutely printable. On A3? I don't know. For day to day stuff I've never printed even as big as A4. Even if I myself wanted to print on A3 I'd shoot D700 or film.

Just to add to this, I have many shots around the house that I have printed from the iPhone. Printed at 6x4 or 7x5 you really need to look close at a lot of them to spot the iPhone shots.

 

[juggler]

Perversely, I'm really enjoying the limitations of my iPhone 4S at the moment. It's forcing me to think a bit more about what & how I shoot.

 

[Willo]

You have probably seen this by Apple promoting iPhone photos:

http://www.apple.com/uk/iphone/world-gallery/

They have photos blown up for billboards on the underground, obvioulsy they have been tweeked for print but still very inpressive. My phone has definietly taken over as my main camera but when I shoot something specific I always go for a DSLR.

 

[Steve Smith]

They have photos blown up for billboards on the underground, obvioulsy they have been tweeked for print but still very inpressive.

They have the benefit of being intended to be viewed from a distance. Kodak used to make huge prints from 35mm Kodachrome which were put up at railway stations in the US.


Steve.

 

[Nod]

For snaps and most web uses, a phone camera is often good enough but for more serious use, a 1/2 decent compact will trounce it, especially at prints over 6x4. My old Sony phone had a decent camera but would only print well up to A5. A4 was possible but not really good enough to bother with. Have a look at MrGubby's Iceland phone pics at full size on Flickr - not too bad on the forum when reduced but the colour banding is quite obvious at full res.

 

[karmagarda]

You have probably seen this by Apple promoting iPhone photos:

http://www.apple.com/uk/iphone/world-gallery/

They have photos blown up for billboards on the underground, obvioulsy they have been tweeked for print but still very inpressive. My phone has definietly taken over as my main camera but when I shoot something specific I always go for a DSLR.

I hadn't seen that so thanks for sharing! There are some very impressive shots in there.

I agree with some people when they say some shots can be "mushy" but I've been finding that only occurs when you're struggling a bit for light.

 

[Carl Hall]

I never considered smart phones cameras to be anywhere near as good as DSLRs, but then I sat on my old iPhone 5 and bent it (yep, the non bendy one. Impressive, eh?), forcing me to upgrade. I went for the Galaxy S6 and my God, the camera blew me away. I've yet to use it properly out and about, just took a few shots in the garden after I got it, but it's staggering how much progress has been made since the iPhone 5 came out 2 and a half years ago. Next time I go on holiday I'll likely leave the DSLR and EOS M at home and take the phone and a film camera of some kind. This all makes me wonder where smart phone cameras will be at in another 2-3 years :O

 

[Alastair]

Up front: I don't own a smart phone - but just another query to add to the original post - what do shots from the best smartphones come out like when printed - on a lab, not a photo printer or instant printer machine - are they good enough to do a3?

Most people taking photographs don't print images. So what they look like when printed is generally not a relevant concern. If it looks good on Facebook it's plenty good enough.

And for those that do print and print to A3 or larger, remember that the sort of "image quality" discussions typical of this forum are so far up the autistic-geek spectrum that they cease to be relevant to most people who just want a pretty picture of the kids playing on the beach to hang on the wall.

 

[karmagarda]

I never considered smart phones cameras to be anywhere near as good as DSLRs, but then I sat on my old iPhone 5 and bent it (yep, the non bendy one. Impressive, eh?), forcing me to upgrade. I went for the Galaxy S6 and my God, the camera blew me away. I've yet to use it properly out and about, just took a few shots in the garden after I got it, but it's staggering how much progress has been made since the iPhone 5 came out 2 and a half years ago. Next time I go on holiday I'll likely leave the DSLR and EOS M at home and take the phone and a film camera of some kind. This all makes me wonder where smart phone cameras will be at in another 2-3 years :O

Yeah, that's almost exactly what happened me. There's been a very distinctive shift in balance just over the last few years. iPhone 6 users have noticed it too. I think when Nokia released the lumia model I speak of (I think Paul is right I believe the 1020 is the one I'm on about) it definitely was a game changer.

Don't get me wrong, it won't replace DSLRs. But I just don't feel the need now for a D700 in my collection when I've got my iPhone 6 for digital and I have a stack of film cameras for anything a bit more serious/adventurous.

 

[karmagarda]

Most people taking photographs don't print images. So what they look like when printed is generally not a relevant concern. If it looks good on Facebook it's plenty good enough.

And for those that do print and print to A3 or larger, remember that the sort of "image quality" discussions typical of this forum are so far up the autistic-geek spectrum that they cease to be relevant to most people who just want a pretty picture of the kids playing on the beach to hang on the wall.

I agree. Even A4 is beyond what I'd call "day to day" stuff. If it prints well on 7x5 then it's plenty good enough.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Curious conversation. I don't mean this to be insulting, but if a phone cam works for you most of the time, wouldn't you have been better off buying a mid-range compact a few years ago instead of a DSLR & some nice lenses?

 

[dan_yell]

Most people taking photographs don't print images. So what they look like when printed is generally not a relevant concern. If it looks good on Facebook it's plenty good enough.

And for those that do print and print to A3 or larger, remember that the sort of "image quality" discussions typical of this forum are so far up the autistic-geek spectrum that they cease to be relevant to most people who just want a pretty picture of the kids playing on the beach to hang on the wall.

I didnt expect it to be the concern of most people & know most people dont print these days - as a non smart phone user, it was a question added to the original posters to get an opinion as i have no experience of the quality of smart phone.

I'm not on the autistic-geek spectrum on print quality, but i do print larger than a4 on occasion. Just a general wondering to folks to are sharing their experiences in this topic

 

[Box Brownie]

As a sidenote ~ on the Radio 2 Jeremy Vine show yesterday he was talking about the "Artist in Residence" they are looking for and in his usual dumbing down 'style' he said "no photographers as surely we are looking for someone with a blowtorch and photography is not art......as everyone has phone....!"

As has been oft discussed hereabouts the 'landscape' of photography has changed and more so it seems in social media related spheres. Good thing or bad it has happened but for Jeremy Vine to add to the belittling of photography as a craft/art or any other public figure who does the same all that does is lower the value (real or perceived) of photography in general including in regard to the copyright question and how to protect it!

 

[Overexposed]

Do you still reckon they are as good in low light?

 

[Brazo]

I took some recent snaps with my 6 in low light and there absolute mush!

That said not bad in good light at least until you zoom in, I even forced some 'bokeh' from my iphone! We should have a phone can bokeh comp!

 

[karmagarda]

Curious conversation. I don't mean this to be insulting, but if a phone cam works for you most of the time, wouldn't you have been better off buying a mid-range compact a few years ago instead of a DSLR & some nice lenses?

Well, to be honest it, even though it might have been unintentional, it was a bit insulting

Firstly, you've slightly missed the point. A few years ago smart phones weren't anywhere close to the quality of a DSLR so to answer your question, no. I wouldn't have been better off. I wouldn't have dreamt of starting this conversation even 2 years ago. Besides that, I could go on and give you several other reasons why a few years ago it wasn't suitable. I was a lot more into lighting and I was also dabbling with wide angle landscape photography.

So 2 years later? DSLRs still take a better photo, I'm not questioning that. My point is the combination of convenience + quality for a walkabout camera has brought smart phones suddenly into the discussion. If I had to choose between running around London with a D700 and some lens of choice (possible a 50mm)... I'd choose my iPhone. Not because it takes a better photo, but because it takes a decent enough photo for me to consider it. On the other hand, a friend of mine asked me a few months back to take some family photos. Did I do it with my iPhone? Hell no. I took out my D700, threw a few soft boxes up and did a proper shoot.

 

[karmagarda]

Do you still reckon they are as good in low light?

Nope. They suck in low light. That's 1 area the DSLR beats the hell out of them still. I don't think we'll ever see phones (in my lifetime) replacing the big boys in this area

 

[ancient_mariner]

Well, to be honest it, even though it might have been unintentional, it was a bit insulting

Firstly, you've slightly missed the point. A few years ago smart phones weren't anywhere close to the quality of a DSLR so to answer your question, no. I wouldn't have been better off. I wouldn't have dreamt of starting this conversation even 2 years ago. Besides that, I could go on and give you several other reasons why a few years ago it wasn't suitable. I was a lot more into lighting and I was also dabbling with wide angle landscape photography.

So 2 years later? DSLRs still take a better photo, I'm not questioning that. My point is the combination of convenience + quality for a walkabout camera has brought smart phones suddenly into the discussion. If I had to choose between running around London with a D700 and some lens of choice (possible a 50mm)... I'd choose my iPhone. Not because it takes a better photo, but because it takes a decent enough photo for me to consider it. On the other hand, a friend of mine asked me a few months back to take some family photos. Did I do it with my iPhone? Hell no. I took out my D700, threw a few soft boxes up and did a proper shoot.

I was suggesting a midrange compact a few years ago - which is roughly where phonecam quality is now - rather than a phonecam a few years ago.

Couple this to:

Most people taking photographs don't print images. So what they look like when printed is generally not a relevant concern. If it looks good on Facebook it's plenty good enough.

And for those that do print and print to A3 or larger, remember that the sort of "image quality" discussions typical of this forum are so far up the autistic-geek spectrum that they cease to be relevant to most people who just want a pretty picture of the kids playing on the beach to hang on the wall.

Again I'm puzzled. Photography, to me, is about a process that starts with the scene in front of me and ends with a print in my hands. The image quality discussions of this forum are about photographers concerned with creating photographic images that can be displayed, surely? So far from being autistic geeks, most of the guys are (hopefully) concerned about how their images might look hanging on a wall or (at worst) used as wallpaper on their computer desktop.


In a way I don't really care *that much* about the resolution - it wasn't really an issue when sensors could only manage 6-8MP, but it's the fine tones, the control of DoF, bokeh and subtle richness that you can't (yet) get with a tiny sensor and lens.

 

[karmagarda]

I was suggesting a midrange compact a few years ago - which is roughly where phonecam quality is now - rather than a phonecam a few years ago.

Couple this to:


Again I'm puzzled. Photography, to me, is about a process that starts with the scene in front of me and ends with a print in my hands. The image quality discussions of this forum are about photographers concerned with creating photographic images that can be displayed, surely? So far from being autistic geeks, most of the guys are (hopefully) concerned about how their images might look hanging on a wall or (at worst) used as wallpaper on their computer desktop.


In a way I don't really care *that much* about the resolution - it wasn't really an issue when sensors could only manage 6-8MP, but it's the fine tones, the control of DoF, bokeh and subtle richness that you can't (yet) get with a tiny sensor and lens.

Ok, I see what you meant now about the midranged compact from a few years ago. But again that's still an extra camera to carry around which isn't going to give me any extra quality. If I'm carrying my phone anyway it has become a question of why bother carry yet another piece of equipment when the phone already in my pocket takes a pretty decent quality photo.

I agree with the rest of what you say though. When you're looking for something specific (as opposed to just getting some really nice photos) then quite often you just need a proper camera to do the job.

Also, I print a lot of my iPhone shots. I just don't print bigger than 7x5. They do require some editing and teasing because of reasons you've mentioned, but I have some really nice shots on my wall (if I do say so myself) that were taken with an iPhone 6. And I'd bet most people would have to look quite close before they could tell it was taken on a smartphone.

 

[woof woof]

So here's my question. And forget about replacing professional photography or amateur wildlife / sports photography for a minute, I'm talking about day to day/street/walkabout photography. If you spend your days shooting with a fixed lens during the day time have you found yourself leaving your camera at home and just using your mobile phone instead? Has the combination of convenience and quality crossed some kind of line that has made you put down your DSLR?

I have a Samsung smart phone but I find it pretty useless for taking pictures with... open its little case, wake it up, select camera, squint and screen and get it in a position in which I can see it... PITA most of the time and I only use it for occasions when I haven't taken a camera and didn't expect to be taking any pictures.

My GF used to snap away like crazy (latest top of the line Apple thingy) and take lots of little vids too and she sends these to her family and friends... but something happened recently and when she's out with me she's stopped and when I asked why she said that she was embarrassed at the difference in quality between her smart phone pictures and my camera pictures and we're just talking electronic images shared over the net. I don't snap like crazy in the street like she used to but if we are going somewhere and think that we'll want a shot or three to send to family and friends I take a camera and in fact if it's looks like I'm not going to bother she says "Remember your camera." She still takes pictures when she's out with the girls though. She's tried taking a camera, an LX5, but she says it's too bulky so she still uses her phone for that.

 

[Nod]

Most people taking photographs don't print images. So what they look like when printed is generally not a relevant concern. If it looks good on Facebook it's plenty good enough.

And for those that do print and print to A3 or larger, remember that the sort of "image quality" discussions typical of this forum are so far up the autistic-geek spectrum that they cease to be relevant to most people who just want a pretty picture of the kids playing on the beach to hang on the wall.

Firstly, I object to being labelled "up the autistic-geek spectrum", as (I would guess) would most people who print large. Don't want/need big prints? Use a 2MP compact or indeed a smart phone, it's all you need. I also wouldn't stick a "pretty picture of the kids" up on the wall - apart from anything else, we don't have any kids.

I agree. Even A4 is beyond what I'd call "day to day" stuff. If it prints well on 7x5 then it's plenty good enough.

A4 is my normal small print size for sharing and showing to people. A 7x5 print may be good enough for you but it isn't for me.

 

[karmagarda]

I have a Samsung smart phone but I find it pretty useless for taking pictures with... open its little case, wake it up, select camera, squint and screen and get it in a position in which I can see it... PITA most of the time and I only use it for occasions when I haven't taken a camera and didn't expect to be taking any pictures.

You see the useful thing about the iPhone 6 is you can set it up so that you access the camera directly from the lock screen. So it's just swipe up and camera is on!

 

[boliston]

phones are fine for taking good quality pics but the interface is normally terrible - no viewfinder, manual focus awful, manual exposure awful, shutter lag awful - will not replace my leica anytime soon

 

[karmagarda]

phones are fine for taking good quality pics but the interface is normally terrible - no viewfinder, manual focus awful, manual exposure awful, shutter lag awful - will not replace my leica anytime soon

I can't speak for other phone models. But I will argue a few of your points in favour of a smartphone! For an iPhone 6 as a walkabout camera:

- Viewfinder is personal preference. If I want to take an arty shot of the Shard in London whether or not my camera has a viewfinder really doesn't matter to me
- Manual focus is something I never use on walkabout. But if that's important to you then I can't argue that one. You can use selective focus on an iPhone 6, but not manual focus. (You can also AE/AF lock on an iPhone 6)
- Manual Exposure - easy on an iPhone 6. I reckon I could get the camera on, manually change the exposure and take a photo in about 7/8 seconds. That to me isn't awful! Slower than a DSLR, but not awful.
- Shutter lag - Granted, it's a problem if you're dealing with a constantly moving object. For still live / architecture / or somewhat stationary people/objects shutter lag on iPhone 6 is unnoticeable.

 

[pingu666]

didnt panasonic do a big camera phone thing? but the nokia line of top end cameras have been the best at image quality, iphone is very fast and i am abit jealous of that

but they do fall down on being all 28mm f9 to f22 equivilent, physical controls and creative adjustments, no apature adjustment. i think nokia missed a trick as i can only go down to iso 100, while other phones do 40-50iso, which helps lower noise

the 808 probably still best phone camera still.

 

[karmagarda]

didnt panasonic do a big camera phone thing? but the nokia line of top end cameras have been the best at image quality, iphone is very fast and i am abit jealous of that

but they do fall down on being all 28mm f9 to f22 equivilent, physical controls and creative adjustments, no apature adjustment. i think nokia missed a trick as i can only go down to iso 100, while other phones do 40-50iso, which helps lower noise

the 808 probably still best phone camera still.

Yeah, Nokia (I believe) are still considered to have 1 of the best camera phones out.

FYI though, with the help of apps you can control the aperture on an iPhone. In fact, I posted my argument above far too soon, because I just found out you can also do manual focus with the help of an app!

For anyone interested look up VSCO cam. Have only just started playing with it now.

 

[Willo]

Again I'm puzzled. Photography, to me, is about a process that starts with the scene in front of me and ends with a print in my hands. The image quality discussions of this forum are about photographers concerned with creating photographic images that can be displayed, surely? So far from being autistic geeks, most of the guys are (hopefully) concerned about how their images might look hanging on a wall or (at worst) used as wallpaper on their computer desktop.

This is where things have moved on. It used to be taking pictures, printing them and then share them. But for me it's more about sharing them quickly and conveniently. I can take a picture with my DSLR, PP them and upload them to the cloud where I can share them with family across the country. I still want to maintain quality which phones cannot provide.

 

[Alastair]

Firstly, I object to being labelled "up the autistic-geek spectrum", as (I would guess) would most people who print large. Don't want/need big prints? Use a 2MP compact or indeed a smart phone, it's all you need. I also wouldn't stick a "pretty picture of the kids" up on the wall - apart from anything else, we don't have any kids.

Well that appeared to hit a nerve with a couple of people, despite being not aimed at anyone individually.

Maybe a clarification, on TP the print discussions tend towards infinitesimal improvements in sharpness and fidelity of reproduction and tend to ignore whether the image is a pleasure to look at in the first place. There's also a rather snobbish/tampax assumption that using a phone camera isn't "proper photography". My contention is that outside the realm of camera clubs and forums, most normal people with cameras that don't label themselves as "photographers" have other concerns. And a better-than-average phone camera meets their needs very well.

I have no children either, and I'm very happy to take the shot with whatever comes to hand - phone camera, compact, film or CSC. I'll make the best of whatever result I get if I decide it's a shot I want to print.

 

[big soft moose]

I have a Nokia 625 that work bought me - going from specs i thought it would make a decent walking arround camera , unfortunately the lens is terrible and the 'shutter' laggy - its okay for record shots of damaged site infrastructure but crap for anything better.

I now carry my TZ35 in a pouch on my belt as well

 

[TheBigYin]

A4 is my normal small print size for sharing and showing to people.

Same here - used to be 10x8's when I printed my own film stuff, and I just prefer prints that size as a minimum... anything for the wall however has to be properly BIG.

 

[simonblue]

Dont use my phone for photos here,have a few ccs cameras i take one of theses setup wherever i go,the weight is no problem

 

[woof woof]

You see the useful thing about the iPhone 6 is you can set it up so that you access the camera directly from the lock screen. So it's just swipe up and camera is on!

It's the same with my Samsung but as it's a phone I normally have the contact page as my main page. Have it set as the camera and I'd have to swipe it to make a call or read a txt. I do see your point though.

I was just thinking about camera/camera phones yesterday. I have a Canon Ixus which takes ok pictures and it's very small, just a credit card footprint, and I think I'll start putting it in my pocket as at least it has a VF which can be used if the light is very strong and I can't see the phone screen as happened to me in York recently... we were just stood waiting and I thought I'd snap an nice archway but couldn't even see enough on the screen to frame the shot

 

[dan_yell]

As a sidenote ~ on the Radio 2 Jeremy Vine show yesterday he was talking about the "Artist in Residence" they are looking for and in his usual dumbing down 'style' he said "no photographers as surely we are looking for someone with a blowtorch and photography is not art......as everyone has phone....!"

As has been oft discussed hereabouts the 'landscape' of photography has changed and more so it seems in social media related spheres. Good thing or bad it has happened but for Jeremy Vine to add to the belittling of photography as a craft/art or any other public figure who does the same all that does is lower the value (real or perceived) of photography in general including in regard to the copyright question and how to protect it!

he is so irritating and now i think he's even more of a knob.

Well that appeared to hit a nerve with a couple of people, despite being not aimed at anyone individually.
There's also a rather snobbish/tampax assumption that using a phone camera isn't "proper photography". My contention is that outside the realm of camera clubs and forums, most normal people with cameras that don't label themselves as "photographers" have other concerns. A.

what is a tampax assumption??

 

[Overexposed]

I took some recent snaps with my 6 in low light and there absolute mush!

That said not bad in good light at least until you zoom in, I even forced some 'bokeh' from my iphone! We should have a phone can bokeh comp!

Ive got a 6 too and mine sucks in low light theres no substitute for decent glass and a proper sensor