Are cell phones as good as DSLRs? My friend says 'yes'.

JerryLove · Oct 10, 2014

So this happened too: Shootout: How does a high-end smartphone camera compare to a $3,400 DSLR? | Ars Technica

My problem with these comparisons are that they are usually garbage.

For one: the article doesn't really take advantage of a single feature that the 5DmkIII has over the much cheaper 6D or 7DmkII, and except for high ISO, this could have been done with a T3.

For another: The article compares an f2.2 1/4th second shot (well: shots actually) on an iPhone to a f4 1/40th shot on the DSLR. Despite having a f/1.2 lens, the reviewer inexplicably gives up 75% of his light. He also claims that he has to use the faster shutter because the iPhone has so much better an image stabilization (though it seems an IS 50 should be shot 1/12th or so, and I think he was shooting 24mm).

But even given those odd choices: he never shoots anything with movement; which would have shown the problem with the settings; as well as with iPhone's lesser autofocus speed.

If I seriously wanted to rig a review to favor the phone I would do exactly the things he did. Though I'd try to get a 1D to make it look even more ridiculous.

*edit* Above "gives up 75% of his light" was just the F value. He actually gave the iPhone 40x the light that he gave the Canon.

CameraClicker · Oct 10, 2014

JerryLove said:
So this happened too: Shootout: How does a high-end smartphone camera compare to a $3,400 DSLR? | Ars Technica

My problem with these comparisons are that they are usually garbage.

For one: the article doesn't really take advantage of a single feature that the 5DmkIII has over the much cheaper 6D or 7DmkII, and except for high ISO, this could have been done with a T3.

For another: The article compares an f2.2 1/4th second shot (well: shots actually) on an iPhone to a f4 1/40th shot on the DSLR. Despite having a f/1.2 lens, the reviewer inexplicably gives up 75% of his light. He also claims that he has to use the faster shutter because the iPhone has so much better an image stabilization (though it seems an IS 50 should be shot 1/12th or so, and I think he was shooting 24mm).

But even given those odd choices: he never shoots anything with movement; which would have shown the problem with the settings; as well as with iPhone's lesser autofocus speed.

If I seriously wanted to rig a review to favor the phone I would do exactly the things he did. Though I'd try to get a 1D to make it look even more ridiculous.

*edit* Above "gives up 75% of his light" was just the F value. He actually gave the iPhone 40x the light that he gave the Canon.

I think he should take the cell phone to Alaska or Newfoundland and spend a day or two shooting whales. That cell phone's 4 mm lens will really work well for that. While away from civilization, perhaps he could get a few close-ups of a bear or two! I see he has a 600 EX RT flash and a 430 EX II, as well as a 70-200 L lens for the 5D, so I think a comparison of flash photos of something, say, 50 feet away, might be interesting.

Apple's specs page doesn't mention focal length, 4 mm is a guess -- which would mean a 1/4 sec exposure could be hand held using the 1/<focal length> rule of thumb.
From Apple's (Apple (Canada) - iPhone 6 - Technical Specifications page:
iSight Camera
New 8-megapixel iSight camera with 1.5µ pixels
Autofocus with Focus Pixels
ƒ/2.2 aperture
Optical image stabilization (iPhone 6 Plus only)
True Tone flash
Five-element lens
Hybrid IR filter
Backside illumination sensor
Sapphire crystal lens cover
Auto image stabilization
Auto HDR for photos
Improved face detection
Exposure control
Panorama (up to 43 megapixels)
Burst mode
Tap to focus
Photo geotagging
Timer mode

It's interesting optical image stabilization is only on the Plus version, according to the specs. But there is Auto image stabilization, anyway.

photoguy99 · Oct 11, 2014

You know what this thread needs?

More posts detailing special cases in which cell phones will not be a suitable tool. Ideally make the special case something really unusual.

Like, try to take a picture of a nebula with ur cellie, loser!!1q1

Or

If very that cell phone wouldn't work very well ON THE MOON

And why do we need more of this? Because there's no horse so dead it can't be beaten more, and no camera enthusiast who isn't desperate to justify his purchases.

JerryLove · Oct 12, 2014

photoguy99 said:
You know what this thread needs?

More posts detailing special cases in which cell phones will not be a suitable tool. Ideally make the special case something really unusual.

Your child's evening sporting event.
Your child's indoor sporting event.
Your or your child's indoor activity (birthday party, whatever).
Shooting anything outdoors during the 50% or so of the time when it's not "day".
Shooting anything fast moving (say: "your dogs playing in the yard")
Shooting at indoor places (The aquarium, Chuck-E-Cheese, etc)

[sarcasam]Yep. Those sound like really special cases [/sarcasam]

I mean: I could come up with special cases if you like. Macro photography, astrophotography, telephotography, underwater photography, etc.

photoguy99 · Oct 12, 2014

Talk about missing the point....

W.Fovall · Oct 13, 2014

Cell phones are better for up skirt shots..

4rum · Oct 13, 2014

I'll gladly make one concession and it is not mine. I read the remark in a popular photo mag. The author stated: "The best digital camera is the one you are most likely to have with you." Personally I took this to mean simply that any photo is better than no photo. A theory not without merit. Having said that, I don't make calls from my camera and I don't expect my cell camera to compete with a DSLR. Love all the observations.

'rum

Solarflare · Oct 13, 2014

I have my D600 with me - almost always. So - I guess that makes it a cellphone now ? I should really try if I can call somebody with it.

As a general rule of thumb: sensor size can only be compensated by bigger sensor size - until the camera is too big for you.

TheStunch · Oct 13, 2014

DSLR's are better than cell phones. that is all.

If expansion is needed, it's like this. Photo quality on snap shot is similar, but once we go beyond basic composition and auto exposure, that's where the similarity ends. Can you shoehorn a cellphone onto a tripod and make it a camera? of course, but that's like driving off road in a lifted mini van, rather than in a proper 4x4, jussst not the same. Cell phones represent the new frontiers of digital photography in many ways (superior wifi connectivity, app integration, super fast processors, improved user experience, etc.) and in that regard are light years ahead of the average DSLR, and may well dictate where the industry pushes the DSLR as a tool for making great photos (so keep a close eye on Samsung, and Sony), but other than being test beds for great ideas that the big guys (Canon and Nikon) refuse to integrate properly, cell phones just do not stack up, regardless of anecdotal photo or video comparisons. One of the biggest faults of cell phones, at least for the moment, is the the lens you have, is the lens you have (lens adapters don't count), also a major fault with point and shoot cameras, and while on the point and shoot subject, it should also be noted that the tiny sensors on cell phones, while they can be made better with software, simply lack the surface area to gather large amounts of light (ie: tiny imaging sites). and while this does not always yield a bad photo, the hardware itself is limited, and so, if you consider yourself a pro, or avid amateur photographer, you will come up on your hardware's limitations rather quickly (especially when doing higher level photography), and will end up with a DSLR, sooner or later, generally speaking.

If we want to make the cell phone comparison, here is a better way to consider it: cell phones have been well below the level of point and shoot cameras for many years, and now they have caught up, and in a few ways surpassed their point and shoot cousins, so, to me, logically the argument is better stated "Is my really nice point and shoot camera equal to or better than a DSLR?" Clearly the answer is no.

That being said, the best camera is still the one in your hand, lol

photoguy99 · Oct 13, 2014

Once again the argument goes:

DSLRs are objectively better because they do the things they do better, better.

Somehow the things cell phone cameras do better always (well, usually. Be attentive when Derrel writes) gets left out. Funny, that.

TheStunch · Oct 13, 2014

beyond selfies and phone calls i can't think of much they do better, beyond expanding the interface and connectivity, which is not inherent to the platform of a cell phone, as Samsung's Android powered Galaxy cameras prove. I guess 4k video is a nice feature, but it's not beyond the reach of a DSLR, but rather a feature that for some reason, like many other features that are great leaps ahead, just gets left off. Really the cellphone vs DSLR debate is almost a distraction from the bigger question, which is sort of an indictment, why wont Canon and Nikon integrate this new tech into their new DSLR platforms? The capability is there, they can make a smaller, smarter, more connected DSLR, with a better interface, more battery life, and a better user experience. they just haven't, and looking at this practically, I can imagine the issue is 2 fold, one being cost, since they can piecemeal these features out over time and save yearly dev costs and force you to buy the latest greatest features, or in Nikon's case, some kind of awkward adapter, and the other is reputation, and by that I mean, they can't afford mistakes in implementation. They make some of the finest DSLRs in the world. period, and messing up basic Android or iOS style functionality would be a tremendous black eye, while you can be certain that hard fighting rivals like Samsung, Fuji, or Sony (though Sony less so) will likely get right. Though I feel I've both threadjacked and gotten off topic, I'll sum it up cell phones are great because they are small, take nice pictures, nice videos, and are always handy, but that's it, at least for now, they are kindof a Swiss army knife in the photo universe, always good to have, can do a little of everything, and best kept in your pocket unless a proper tool is left at home. No sense in chopping down a tree with a pocket knife, though doing it that way does make the feat more impressive.

JerryLove · Oct 13, 2014

photoguy99 said:
Once again the argument goes:

DSLRs are objectively better because they do the things they do better, better.

Somehow the things cell phone cameras do better always (well, usually. Be attentive when Derrel writes) gets left out. Funny, that.

What, related to still photography at least (several people have pointed out the cell-phones far superior call-taking ability) do cell-phones do better than DSLRs (one supposes we must add "in general")?

Ummm. Selfies are easier because the unit is smaller (and relatively few DSLR's have screens that flip around completely).

Beyond that?

Nothing.

Every other advantage to the cellphone is going to be ergonomic ("you likely are already carrying it", "it fits in a pocket") or meta-photographic ("can post directly to facebook", "can do in-device editing").

*And no: Ars' low-light results are because of horrific choices in DSLR settings and hardware. That one can deliberately take a worse picture is not news.

photoguy99 · Oct 13, 2014

Extreme depth of field is the obvious technical 'pure photography' one.

Ergonomics, availability, and connectivity are not to be waved lightly aside, though. They are real things.

As I mentioned earlier, I think Derrel had covered these things.

TheStig · Oct 14, 2014

DSLRs are better because:
-manual controls
-lens options
-appealing depth of field
-focus speed and accuracy
-large sensor for noise performance
-battery life / shooting time

And many more. It's really not difficult to see the difference. Sounds like your friend has just never used a DSLR so they have no idea what they are missing out on.