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

[TCampbell]

Well, I know one thing. You can call your friend on your cell but not on your DSLR.

I would submit that on some carriers... your DSLR can probably can make phone calls about as well as your cellphone. ;-)

 

[photoguy99]

But TCampbell, my point is that Facebook (social media, more generally) is the standard.

You simply wave that away and then trundle out the same fallacy as everyone else: DSLRs are better because they do the things DSLRs do better.

There is more to photography. I submit that the things DSLRs do well, while important to you, are not important to the vast majority. Better for you, sure. Objectively better ... No. Simply, objectively, demonstrably, no.

 

[Scatterbrained]

Scatterbrained, you've clearly not understood my post. We're not literally in a world where almost nobody cooks. We're in the photographic equivalent.

Double negative aside, I was making a lighthearted jest at the thought that no-one knows how to cook. Beyond that I think Tim's example parallels my own. The cell phone camera is like the McDonalds or Hungry Man (frozen dinners) of the photography world. Something for when you're eating out of necessity rather than pleasure. That doesn't mean that people don't recognize that there is a higher level of quality available. I know that when I carry my main camera with me (usually a gripped 5DII with either a 24-70 2.8 or 70-200 2.8 ) people in the crowd tend to yield space to me for shooting. If I have my M or my phone that doesn't happen.

Beyond that, I would dare say that the cell phone camera is likely to be a term boon to the enthusiast photography market. It's like a "gateway drug" in that it sucks people in. I've seen first hand how some people get sucked into photography through their cell phone cameras, then move up to some interchangeable lens system format.

 

[Scatterbrained]

But TCampbell, my point is that Facebook (social media, more generally) is the standard.

You simply wave that away and then trundle out the same fallacy as everyone else: DSLRs are better because they do the things DSLRs do better.

There is more to photography. I submit that the things DSLRs do well, while important to you, are not important to the vast majority. Better for you, sure. Objectively better ... No. Simply, objectively, demonstrably, no.

Facebook is simply the new Polaroid picture album of the digital age, just as cell phone cameras are the new disposable/instant cameras of our times.

 

[Scatterbrained]

But TCampbell, my point is that Facebook (social media, more generally) is the standard.

You simply wave that away and then trundle out the same fallacy as everyone else: DSLRs are better because they do the things DSLRs do better.

There is more to photography. I submit that the things DSLRs do well, while important to you, are not important to the vast majority. Better for you, sure. Objectively better ... No. Simply, objectively, demonstrably, no.

Meh, subjectively they may not matter to many; objectively the differences are quantifiable. I'd dare say the burgeoning wedding/portrait/senior/newborn/delivery(birth)/birthday party/funeral, etc services prove that more people than ever are gaining an appreciation for images of a quality that they themselves can't produce. Think about it, in the age of instant, automatic everything more people are hiring professional wedding photographers than ever before. Get engaged? Better hire a photographer for an engagement shoot. Maternity shoots are becoming an expected aspect of pregnancy. There is a whole franchised industry of delivery documentation. Senior portraits? That wasn't a thing when I was a kid. How about funerals? Yep, there is actually a growing market for photographers at funerals. Bar/Bat mitzvahs, quinceaneras, proms. You name it and parents are now hiring professional photographers to document it. This shows that there is a recognized distinction between quality photography and random snaps. The digital age hasn't changed that. What was done with Instamatics and disposable cardboard cameras, then hung on refrigerators or stashed in shoe-boxes; is now being plastered all over Facebook. Facebook and Instagram have become our digital refrigerator doors.

 

[photoguy99]

There's clearly no way to get this through to you guys, so I'm going to stop now.

 

[Scatterbrained]

There's clearly no way to get this through to you guys, so I'm going to stop now.

There's clearly no way for you to see that the transition to digital has moved the Instamatics/Polaroids/Brownies/etc snap and share mentality from wallets/fridges/and coffee tables to our modern digital equivalents. I imagine this same discussion was going on when Polaroid came out with instant developing film.

 

[photoguy99]

Oh, I do see that. That is precisely the point.

What you are missing is that there Polaroid/instamatic approach to photography is photography now. Airily waving it away as mere snaps and therefore irrelevant is simply wrong.

What you think of as 'photography' is now a tiny enthusiast niche. What you think of as irrelevant snaps by the unwashed masses, that's 'photography'.

Cue airy waving away and some discussion of how sports are impossible to shoot with a cell phone, and the beat goes on.

I've made my argument, I can't make it any clearer or more obvious.

 

[Scatterbrained]

What we think of as photography has always been a niche. That's my point. People who were using instant cameras didn't see themselves as photographers. It's the same thing nowadays. A majority of bicycles sold are simple commuter bikes and cruisers. The people riding them don't consider themselves to be "cyclists", they just happen to be riding a bike.

 

[Derrel]

I found a great article that really helps shed some light on this topic!

Trolling for Dummies | New Camera News

 

[JerryLove]

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

The same DoF can be done on a DSLR. So that's wrong.

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

And they are all accepted (though ergonomics are generally *far* better on a DSLR.

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

That "you are more likely to be carrying the cellphone" was mentioned several times in this thread; and no one has denied secondary advantages (size, weight, receiving calls). While no one has, on this thread, directly mentioned that the internet connection lets you publish to facebook; it's not something avoided.

Of course: typically people who have gone DSLR have something other than posting unedited photos to facebook in mind.

 

[JerryLove]

Photography isn't the thing you do with a DSLR any more. Sure, the formal portrait thing still exists. Sports photos are still taken. More than ever, really.

But in terms of photography as a whole, that set of things you do with a DSLR is a tiny blip. It barely moves the needle.

Photography is immediate. It's now. It's at least as much about frictionless sharing as anything else. Shallow depth of field doesn't even register as a relevant feature, except to a tiny little corner of the population.

That thing you do with the DSLR? It still exists, it's still pretty great. But it's only slightly more relevant than wet plate.

So defining 'better' as 'that which a DSLR can do' isn't just cheating, it's wrong.

What you have done is called "moving the goalposts".

Go back to the articles cited. They did not compare the iPhone's connectivity to Faceboook with that of the 5DMKIII. They compared picture quality. So that's what we've discussed.

Contrary to some assertions: the capabilities, in regards to photo production, are far higher on a DSLR than on a cellphone.

Now you are discussing entirely different points. Which has had a bigger impact on photography? I'd say the Polaroid, Point-and-click digital, and cellphone have had a far bigger impact than the DSLR.

Which is in heavier use? Clearly the smartphone.

Which is more capable as a *camera*? The DSLR.

 

[astroNikon]

I tried to take a photo of a 747 flying over head with my cell phone on an over cast day

the photo sucked. My cell phone needs manual controls for less than perfect conditions, and a much longer lens

 

[astroNikon]

Though I still use my cell phone *alot*
I just don't have the same expectations as with my dslr

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

When hiring cell phone shooters to do paid work becomes the norm, I'll worry.

Actually, as a working pro, I don't mind the belief that cell phone photography (Facebook, Instagram, etc) has become the norm. I've spent 52 years not being "the norm", so I sure as Hell don't want to start now. At the end of the day, I know the cell phone quality photo isn't going to surpass the quality of the DSLR.

Just because something has become the norm doesn't mean it's "better". Often, "the norm" is simply what has become most attainable.

I take photos with my DSLR's, and I take photos with my iPhone. If I had to choose one or the other, no way in Hell do I choose the iPhone.