I'm an old-timer. Shot film, then got my first dSLR in 2005 (a Canon Rebel XT), shot lots of Canon crop, then FF, eventually moved to Fuji. Recently I've used a Nikon Z6. Always loved my Fuji X gear though.
Recently, my wife upgraded her iphone. I've always been a hater of phone photos.....but I have to say they are definitely getting better. I know, I know.....real photogs hate the fake bokeh, but even that is getting better.
Not trying to say that a phone is going to produce output equivalent to APS-C camera, but I thought the comparison was interesting.
Here is my Fuji 34mm f/1.4 at 1.4 vs my wife's Iphone 11 Pro at 6mm (50mm equivalent) at f/2. Both edited in LR.....
I assume you did not disable the iPhone's computational ability by shooting raw. Is the bottom photo the iPhone due to the (Auto HDR) superior dynamic range capture on the sign? The (Portrait) bokeh is smoother also. Too bad this site so severely limits the size of the photos we can upload so we could do a meaningful in-depth image quality analysis.
I just went to Hawaii with my new iPhone 11 Pro and my Fuji kit - xh1 and the 14/16/35. The iPhone did amazingly well especially with the ultra wide angle. When the light goes down the tables turn.
Clearly getting better, but not even close to a cheap P&S. My theory, iPhone cameras are being optimized for iPhone viewing. Open in LR of PS and compare to a cheap P&S and it all falls apart.
AndrewNYC wrote:
Clearly getting better, but not even close to a cheap P&S. My theory, iPhone cameras are being optimized for iPhone viewing. Open in LR of PS and compare to a cheap P&S and it all falls apart.
Exactly...I use P30 Pro, and in some good light looks pretty good on the phone, but on 27" screen looks very poor.
It depends how you use your photos.
Just about any smartphone today is a better camera than the old-school basic film point-and-shoot cameras of a couple of decades ago.
Considering their relatively small size and their convenience, plus the ability to upload photographs to store and share (and post and text and email and blog...), they are quite amazing little tools.
A group of us who do pretty sophisticated photography and who run our own large format printers meet regularly to review our prints. At one meeting a member put a 12" x 18" print up for us to look at, mentioned that there was "something different" about it, and wondered if anyone knew what it was. No one figured out that it had been shot on an iPhone. (In retrospect, there were some hints, but most people would not notice.) We were all impressed at what one could get from a phone at that print size.
A mirrorless or DSLR camera on the other hand...
- provides much greater image quality potential, largely on the basis of the larger sensor.
- provides much more flexibility as to lens choices.
- can be designed for operational efficiency as a camera – phones are somewhat awkward to operate that way, especially if you go beyond the point-and-shoot intentions.
- can work more effectively with tools like electronic flash, tripods, etc.
So, are smartphones amazingly good? Sure. Are they as good as dedicated cameras? No.
The posted photos above are waaay beyond "good enough" for 90+% of the people and that is why there has been a near total collapse in sales at the traditional camera makers.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Just about any smartphone today is a better camera than the old-school basic film point-and-shoot cameras of a couple of decades ago.
Considering their relatively small size and their convenience, plus the ability to upload photographs to store and share (and post and text and email and blog...), they are quite amazing little tools.
A group of us who do pretty sophisticated photography and who run our own large format printers meet regularly to review our prints. At one meeting a member put a 12" x 18" print up for us to look at, mentioned that there was "something different" about it, and wondered if anyone knew what it was. No one figured out that it had been shot on an iPhone. (In retrospect, there were some hints, but most people would not notice.) We were all impressed at what one could get from a phone at that print size.
A mirrorless or DSLR camera on the other hand...
- provides much greater image quality potential, largely on the basis of the larger sensor.
- provides much more flexibility as to lens choices.
- can be designed for operational efficiency as a camera – phones are somewhat awkward to operate that way, especially if you go beyond the point-and-shoot intentions.
- can work more effectively with tools like electronic flash, tripods, etc.
So, are smartphones amazingly good? Sure. Are they as good as dedicated cameras? No....Show more →
Give me 35mm film and a stylus epic and my scanner and it will wipe the floor with any smartphone
And, speaking as a guy who did BW and color film photography for decades, a lot of it with 35mm film (including the Olympus Stylus, a Rollei 35 and a bunch of other stuff)...
... my Fujifilm system is even better. :-)
But, as I was suggesting in my longer post, it is true that smartphones do remarkable things that surpass what basic point-and-shoot cameras did for folks back in the film era*... yet there are plenty of things that they don't do, some of which are likely intrinsic to their smaller formats and need to be multifunction devices.
For me, the smartphone is still (almost) always my "happy snap" camera, used to grab a shot quickly that is "good enough."
Dan
*As someone suggested, those sample photographs at the start of this thread really do look quite good for a lot of purposes, and it would be very hard to tell by online postings that they were made with a smartphone.
rattymouse wrote:
The posted photos above are waaay beyond "good enough" for 90+% of the people and that is why there has been a near total collapse in sales at the traditional camera makers.
But, it appears that is mostly manifested in fixed lens cameras. It appears that interchangeable lens cameras have held steady.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Just about any smartphone today is a better camera than the old-school basic film point-and-shoot cameras of a couple of decades ago.
Um.
How many decades exactly ?
Assuming "couple decades" is at least 3 decades, well thats shortly after the introduction of autofocus and still deep into the film area.
AndrewNYC wrote:
Clearly getting better, but not even close to a cheap P&S. My theory, iPhone cameras are being optimized for iPhone viewing. Open in LR of PS and compare to a cheap P&S and it all falls apart.
It does not seem that the cameras are being optimized for mobile viewing, but they are not being optimized for large format printing either. The sensor and chipset technologies are converging on augmented reality -- the lens technology itself hasn't changed all that much. That being said most people now browse the internet on a mobile device, and 100 million photos per day are uploaded to Instagram (I imagine that makes Instagram by far the most popular way to view a photograph on the Internet today).
AndrewNYC wrote:
Clearly getting better, but not even close to a cheap P&S. My theory, iPhone cameras are being optimized for iPhone viewing. Open in LR of PS and compare to a cheap P&S and it all falls apart.
I just shot a quire concert in a church with X-T3/16mm f1.4/56mm f1.2 without speedlight. Try to do it with your iPhone, so we can compare results.
I used my P30 Pro a lot last summer during sunny daylight, and I was quite happy, but for any critical shot, I pulled out my X-T3.
BTW, if you can't justify owing Fuji, and you're so happy with results from your iPhone, just sell it, simple as that.
I think we're aware of the phones are getting better and better, not just iPhone, there are some other phones released before iPhone 11, but they can't replace real camera yet, at least for me.
