Quality of mobile phones changing amateur digital photography?

I have a Nokia 1020 phone. It has a 41 megapixel camera, Carl Zeiss lens, and a "real" flash instead of an led light.

However, most of the time, I prefer to shoot on b/w film using 30 - 70 year old cameras. Figure that out.
 
better sensor for a start, and the one with the sony sensor by canon, the sony one was better...
 
This is an interesting thread especially for me as a newbie. I've had numerous compact cameras over the years and until my first DSLR a Panasonic LUMIX bridge camera.

Most people I know without DSLRs don't own a camera, the mobile is their only camera. As others have said hardly any of these pictures are printed or viewed on a large screen. Typically they're uploaded to Facebook or Instagram or possibly emailed to family and friends. They may possibly stream them to a TV but that's about it. Smart phones appear to have killed the compact camera market.

I'm not a professional photographer but some of the results from phone cameras are impressive. However, in my experience it's not the kit that makes the quality of the pictures but surely it's down to the experience and expertise of the person taking the pictures? I.e. a DSLR in amateur hands doesn't make for professional output? One thing I will say I do get annoyed by the number of people that use tablets like iPads to take pictures at School plays etc!
 
Last edited:
I'm not a professional photographer but some of the results from phone cameras are impressive. However, in my experience it's not the kit that makes the quality of the pictures but surely it's down to the experience and expertise of the person taking the pictures? I.e. a DSLR in amateur hands doesn't make for professional output? One thing I will say I do get annoyed by the number of people that use tablets like iPads to take pictures at School plays etc!

Looking at my GF's pictures some do look good on the phone screen and even on the PC but some look... awful. Lower light ones can be very noisy, many are out of focus or have some weird colour / white balance issues. Another problem is when people use the digital zoom and when you look at the picture on a PC it's a postage stamp in the middle of the screen. Lots of the naff ones still do look good on a small phone screen though.

Today just for fun I took my old Canon Ixus 82 out with me and I found it easier to use than my smartphone and the pictures don't look too bad and I could even boost the shadows a bit without them falling apart. I haven't used it for years but I think I'll start putting it in my pocket.
 
a DSLR in amateur hands doesn't make for professional output?

Nonsense. There are many amateurs who can produce much better images than some professionals.

Looking at my GF's pictures some do look good on the phone screen and even on the PC but some look... awful. Lower light ones can be very noisy, many are out of focus or have some weird colour / white balance issues. Another problem is when people use the digital zoom and when you look at the picture on a PC it's a postage stamp in the middle of the screen.

So to answer the original question: Yes, mobile phones are changing amateur digital photography - by making it worse!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
I use a Nokia Lumia Windows phone and the pictures that the camera takes are quite acceptable and in good light they can be quite exceptional, however...

...when I go out with the intention of taking photos rather than taking snaps there is no way the phone will have anything more to do than receive calls and texts. I either use a Fuji X20 if I'm travelling light or my extraordinarily heavy D810 with 24-70mm zoom. The reason? Everything is faster, easier, higher quality, will cope with extremes of exposure and most of all...a viewfinder! Trying to take a picture while looking at a screen with ageing eyesight, trying to work my way round on-screen shutter settings an then hitting the on-screen shutter button without accidentally displaying previous photographs instead.

Camera phones will be brilliant when they look and feel like actual cameras, or you could use a camera.
 
Phones are great. Everyone is now shooting wideangle rubbish (well, mostly rubbish) and terrible selfies instead of decent portraits. Almost nobody now owns a compact let alone a dSLR. The market is ripe once again for high end photographic content.
 
Ben Von Wong is great. I assisted him on some shots last year and he worked with our lot on some fire shots. He can magic up, well, magic, from anything.
 
So to answer the original question: Yes, mobile phones are changing amateur digital photography - by making it worse!

Funny thing is I agree and disagree with this at the same time. But I will point out that you're answering the title on it's own rather than in context of the thread!

I agree with this in that taking the general question I was asking you do get a lot more bad amateurs thinking if they use some chromatic or vintage filter that they're now photographers.

I don't think that overall amateur photography is getting worse, because the opposite is true too. I've noticed some really good stuff being produced that before could only be done on DSLRs.
 
I don't think that overall amateur photography is getting worse, because the opposite is true too. I've noticed some really good stuff being produced that before could only be done on DSLRs.

Obviously, it's a general comment. The extremes of amateur photography have always been completely awful and fantastically good and this will be the case if using compacts, phones, DSLRs, film SLRs, wet plate colloidion, or whatever is/was being used.


Steve.
 
Edit - misread what I quoted!
 
Funny thing is I agree and disagree with this at the same time. But I will point out that you're answering the title on it's own rather than in context of the thread!

I agree with this in that taking the general question I was asking you do get a lot more bad amateurs thinking if they use some chromatic or vintage filter that they're now photographers.

I don't think that overall amateur photography is getting worse, because the opposite is true too. I've noticed some really good stuff being produced that before could only be done on DSLRs.

I do.

That's not to say that there aren't a TON of amateurs out there taking amazing pictures. Most of the people I follow on Instagram are enthusiasts and some of their stuff is mind blowingly good. To be fair though, the stuff you and I are talking about aren't produced by amateurs really. Enthusiasts would be more accurate.

But as for the rest of the population, most are taking blurry images on camera phones. That's not to say the camera isn't capable of taking better photos. Just that people aren't using them to their potential. If you give my dad a camera phone and an old film disposable, I absolutely guarantee he'll have better images from the throw-away. He'll end up with a tin full of printed images he'll keep for the rest of his life.... The phone will be sold a year later with no attempt to keep the photos.
 
I do.

That's not to say that there aren't a TON of amateurs out there taking amazing pictures. Most of the people I follow on Instagram are enthusiasts and some of their stuff is mind blowingly good. To be fair though, the stuff you and I are talking about aren't produced by amateurs really. Enthusiasts would be more accurate.

But as for the rest of the population, most are taking blurry images on camera phones. That's not to say the camera isn't capable of taking better photos. Just that people aren't using them to their potential. If you give my dad a camera phone and an old film disposable, I absolutely guarantee he'll have better images from the throw-away. He'll end up with a tin full of printed images he'll keep for the rest of his life.... The phone will be sold a year later with no attempt to keep the photos.

You're probably right, and I don't tend to keep an eye on half the mush out there to be fair. In my original point I was kind of referring to people that already had DSLRs, but I guess the phone camera market has kind of exploded the amateur scene a bit. I think I'd blame social media for that over phone cameras though.
 
I'd say that phone cameras are generally more difficult to take decent pictures with because they are hard to hold steady and fingers etc tend to intrude over the screen. Also the screens are often glossy, having problems with reflections, and often dimmer in bright light than that on a typical compact. It will naturally follow, therefore, that image quality will be lower for a typical snapper, simply because the chosen tool puts more obstacles in the way. Ironically iPhones may be better as cameras because they have a square edge, making them easier to grip compared to a typical smartphone with a rounded edge made of slippery material - the clunky shape works better!
 
A very interesting thread, having recently taken a trip up to Edinburgh with my iPhone6 and a borrowed Sony RX100 II, I can safely say I am happy with the iPhone6 snaps I took. Agreed that the photo IQ is better out of the RX100 but it was just easier to use my iPhone6 for quick snaps and hooked onto the selfie stick.
I have gone off the idea of buying a RX100 for now and sticking with my iPhone6, as newer smartphones get released with better and better sensor/lens elements for normal use / snaps they are good enough. :)
 

"With help from fire performance team Starlight Alchemy, some basic ND filters, a bunch of lights, the phone’s own light-painting function, and a whole lot of prep work, Von Wong was able to come through on Huawei’s request and capture these photographs:"

Hardly what your average smartphone user has at hand nor any amateur photographer with a 'real' camera either for that matter.
 
Oh I dunno. When I helped him out last time all of us were volunteers who'd got in contact with him via friends and acquaintances. We showed him how we created firewalls, he had volunteer MUA etc. The main thing it taught me is that anyone CAN create epic stuff if they try hard enough and really want to do it.

Nothing to stop you teaming up with friends and doing something spectacular...

You've got to admit, it's a fairly stellar phone camera shot.
 
You've got to admit, it's a fairly stellar shot.

Fixed. ;)

It is, but it's also the antithesis of phone-cam photography (a quick, minimal-effort and un-planned snap of what was in front of you without 'real' camera accessories). I wonder how many goes it took to get one usable image, and whether it would have been different/better using a more conventional camera?
 
No one, huawei oncluded, are implying that it's better than his d800 or Leaf Credo.
It's an advert that's meant to challenge preconceptions about phone camera's capabilities.

The person behind the lens is a lot more important than the camera attached to it... :)
 
They way I look at it is that Phones are for snaps and cameras are for photos - but the best camera is always the one you've got with you"!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
They will never be perfect of course, but nobody is saying they are. But when your phone can shoot an image like this, sometimes its hard to justify carrying an SLR.

p1098438559-5.jpg

I don't have to justify to anybody,to carry an camera around :)
 
In my opinion there can be a world of difference between photography and simply taking photos.

Having creative options available really matters to the enthusiast. But, yes, quality phones can record very good JPEGs and that can be useful. I'd rather rely on a quality camera, though -- my Fujifilm X10, for example.
 
They way I look at it is that Phones are for snaps and cameras are for photos - but the best camera is always the one you've got with you"!

TBH Most of the time, unless I know image quality is not important, I would rather not take the picture with my phone. I'd prefer not to have a picture at all than to have one I'm unhappy with and waste time trying to make acceptable. That's not to say my phone camera is especially poor as phone cams go:

Angrybase%201%20of%201_zpsx2szcrjj.jpg~original
 
I don't have to justify to anybody,to carry an camera around :)

Nor me, but when you have a 12hr hike ahead with 6000ft of ascent and you have to carry food, emergency shelters, first aid kits, spare clothes, 4litres of water and a whole host of other things, you start to question if the heavy camera gear is really necessary. For me, I've reverted to the Canon G7X and haven't picked my 5D3 up since. Love it.
 
I found myself going full circle with this whole argument.

I've got a Galaxy Note 3 with a half decent camera and a DSLR which I find a pita to carry around. So, I began using my mobile more and it's ok for family snaps, but the results are really unsatisfying when I want some measure of control or zoom (which is truly awful on phones).

So, I bought a compact (some cheap Sony model) and found the images not much better than my phone. In the end, I bought a Lumix FZ1000 bridge. With it being fixed lens and almost instant on/focused, I use it every day and never find myself using the mobile as I did when I only had the DSLR. Ok, with the FZ1000 I can't put anything on Alamy, but the convenience and speed with which I can whip it out :naughty: outstrips my DSLR for day to day use. I use my mobile less now than I did a couple of months ago and can't see myself going back to it. I also haven't touched my DSLR since getting the bridge.
 
Last edited:
Nor me, but when you have a 12hr hike ahead with 6000ft of ascent and you have to carry food, emergency shelters, first aid kits, spare clothes, 4litres of water and a whole host of other things, you start to question if the heavy camera gear is really necessary. For me, I've reverted to the Canon G7X and haven't picked my 5D3 up since. Love it.
I think this shows that it depends what you're trying to achieve. If your main goal is a good long hike / climb with a few photos along the way, that is your priority and you'll organise things around that, hence the G7X being ideal. If your main aim is to go up to take a particular shot and to get that shot as good as you can possibly make it, and leave again, then the 5d3 makes more sense.
 
I think this shows that it depends what you're trying to achieve. If your main goal is a good long hike / climb with a few photos along the way, that is your priority and you'll organise things around that, hence the G7X being ideal. If your main aim is to go up to take a particular shot and to get that shot as good as you can possibly make it, and leave again, then the 5d3 makes more sense.

Totally agree. I was just explaining why I sometimes "Do" have to make a conscious decision to leave the SLR at home. ;)
 
Nor me, but when you have a 12hr hike ahead with 6000ft of ascent and you have to carry food, emergency shelters, first aid kits, spare clothes, 4litres of water and a whole host of other things, you start to question if the heavy camera gear is really necessary. For me, I've reverted to the Canon G7X and haven't picked my 5D3 up since. Love it.

Nice one,some great lightweight kit around,when i want it really light weight i have an Panasonic LX-100 :)
 
This is why the original eos M is appealing to me when I go travelling - it's also the bargain of the century, £199 new while stocks exhaust themselves...

Or with the twin lens kit (18-55 and 20mm f/2) £230 from Digitalrev. Hmmmm.
 
Last edited:
The easier it has become for anyone to access photography on a spontaneous basis, and if you take the long view this runs along the lines wet plate -> roll film -> instant film -> digital -> phone camera, the more defensive those that regard themselves as "photographers" have become about photography.

Whether the technology other people are using produces good, bad or indifferent results shouldn't affect your own photography. If it does, the issue is with you - not the gear.
 
Whether the technology other people are using produces good, bad or indifferent results shouldn't affect your own photography. If it does, the issue is with you - not the gear.

I'd agree with this for myself as I'm an amateur but I think it does impact on anyone wanting to make money as everyone now thinks they can take good pictures and regardless of if they can or not this attitude dilutes the value and people may get paid less.

Not that I know what I'm talking about photography wise but my background is computers and service and certainly the explosion of people who said they could provide a service (even though they couldn't) brought the costs down and forced a lot of competent people and companies out of the game. I'm pretty sure the same happens in photography too.
 
640 Lumia takes really great pics even in low light. I seen quite a few of a friends who also uses a Canon DSLR which i think is a 600 and many of the mobile shots were far better than the DSLR shots! He is a good photographer and has been for many years. Ok, the person needs to know what they are doing with a DSLR and my friend does. Just amazed at the photo quality of the mobile!
 
640 Lumia takes really great pics even in low light. I seen quite a few of a friends who also uses a Canon DSLR which i think is a 600 and many of the mobile shots were far better than the DSLR shots! He is a good photographer and has been for many years. Ok, the person needs to know what they are doing with a DSLR and my friend does. Just amazed at the photo quality of the mobile!


We've got to be realistic here otherwise this thread loses credibility :) as good as it is for a phone camera, a Lumia 640 is no where near as capable a 1" sensor enthusiast compact, let alone an aps-c dslr, it just isn't (and that's without going into lenses)!

Try looking at the 640 image on a 22" screen, and go from there!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top