Smartphone-vs-DSLR

[cgw]

Not exactly a cage match but worth a look:


Mini-shootout: $900 smartphone vs. $3,000 DSLR, round three

 

[nerwin]

Not exactly a cage match but worth a look:


Mini-shootout: $900 smartphone vs. $3,000 DSLR, round three

It's interesting I guess.

I just don't know understand why people bother spending the time comparing phones to DSLRs.

Sure. Phones have got better but they still can't outperform DSLRs that were released years ago, especially in low light.

 

[robbins.photo]

Not exactly a cage match but worth a look:


Mini-shootout: $900 smartphone vs. $3,000 DSLR, round three

It's interesting I guess.

I just don't know understand why people bother spending the time comparing phones to DSLRs.

Sure. Phones have got better but they still can't outperform DSLRs that were released years ago, especially in low light.

The other important consideration is the size of the output file.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk

 

[zombiesniper]

There are two reasons I can think of that these comparisons happen.

1. The smartphone companies want people to believe (and some do) that your phone can do anything that big bulky DSLR can do. They also want you to think it's as powerful as your computer. Neither are true but if it gets more sales.

2. The same people mentioned in the first reason try and defend their choice to shoot only with a phone.

Personally shoot with what you like but be real about it's capabilities. I shoot and APS-C body. It'll never be as good in low light as full frame. Just like phones will never be as good as one of the 5 dedicated devices they try to replace.

 

[nerwin]

I like how they always say "that big bulky dslr" - they make it sound like it's a cinder block. haha.

 

[Overread]

In general you'll find that these articles are often promoted by smartphone salespeople - marketing departments; sales pitches; advertising on the website; or heck just a reviewer trying to copy everyone else for the same advertising/market attention seeking online.

Sure smartphones ARE good for what they are; actually they are quite outstanding. But they are not going to beat a DSLR (except if you want easy great depth of field). It's basically small VS big sensor comparisons coupled with interchangeable VS fixed lens.

and this article says exactly what all the others say - yeah its good, its small and easy to use and ok in most situations and certainly impressive enough for happy snaps and heck use it right and you can get some neat shots; but the DSLR is going to beat it hands down for overall performance and subject isolation/background blurring.

 

[KmH]

Neither of the Sony cameras they used are a DSLR.
One is an SLT while the other is an MILC.

 

[nerwin]

Neither of the Sony cameras they used are a DSLR.
One is an SLT while the other is an MILC.

True, but mirror or no mirror the image quality doesn't change.

 

[Derrel]

Yes, the Sony A99 variant they used has a semi-transparent mirror: it uses ONE lens. It uses expensive, large, SLR-sysetm lenses. We can be pedantic, and try to disown it as an SLR, but...it is an SLR camera. Nikon and Canon had pellicle mirror SLR cameras decades ago. The fixed, non-flapping, semi-transparent mirror design SLR type has been around for decades now: Sony just put it into mass production, at an affordable price.

Anyway....looked through that. In MULTIPLE instances, the iPhone 7 actually made a better picture than the larger-format A99 dids. Deeper depth of field is very often a huge adavantage in reportage/documentary type, one-frame shooting.

Several shots, like the control panel shot: The SLR camera had a few inches worth of readable information,and then a buttload of out of focus mush; the small-senor camera offered incredibly deep depth of field, and made a much better picture. Anybody who is a serious shooter will recognize that achieving the type of deep,deep depth of field that a smart phone camera can get is something that can/may/does offer incredible utility in a lot of shooting situations, for a lot of people. Forty years of the f/64 Group idolized deep DOF images.

AND--this is something many people forget: with the newest phones, with FAST lenses, like f/2.8 on iPhone 4, and even-faster on newer models: due to sensor size, the phone cam can achieve deep DOF even at WIDE f/stops, like f/2.8, and FAST shutter speeds, at ISO 80 to 100. This is physically impossible to do with a larger sensor, at the same picture angle.

In some cases, the iPhone 7 made a much better picture than the Sony A99 did. With a professional photographer doing the shooting, a number of the comparison images were really quite illustrative of how FAR the iPhone 7 has brough phone camera photography.

If the idea that "a much better picture" means a sharp foreground subject, and then a huge expanse of background that has no detail and no real information in it, then yeah, the large-sensor d-slr is the tool for the job.

 

[nerwin]

Yes, the Sony A99 variant they used has a semi-transparent mirror: it uses ONE lens. It uses expensive, large, SLR-sysetm lenses. We can be pedantic, and try to disown it as an SLR, but...it is an SLR camera. Nikon and Canon had pellicle mirror SLR cameras decades ago. The fixed, non-flapping, semi-transparent mirror design SLR type has been around for decades now: Sony just put it into mass production, at an affordable price.

Anyway....looked through that. In MULTIPLE instances, the iPhone 7 actually made a better picture than the larger-format A99 dids. Deeper depth of field is very often a huge adavantage in reportage/documentary type, one-frame shooting.

Several shots, like the control panel shot: The SLR camera had a few inches worth of readable information,and then a buttload of out of focus mush; the small-senor camera offered incredibly deep depth of field, and made a much better picture. Anybody who is a serious shooter will recognize that achieving the type of deep,deep depth of field that a smart phone camera can get is something that can/may/does offer incredible utility in a lot of shooting situations, for a lot of people. Forty years of the f/64 Group idolized deep DOF images.

AND--this is something many people forget: with the newest phones, with FAST lenses, like f/2.8 on iPhone 4, and even-faster on newer models: due to sensor size, the phone cam can achieve deep DOF even at WIDE f/stops, like f/2.8, and FAST shutter speeds, at ISO 80 to 100. This is physically impossible to do with a larger sensor, at the same picture angle.

In some cases, the iPhone 7 made a much better picture than the Sony A99 did. With a professional photographer doing the shooting, a number of the comparison images were really quite illustrative of how FAR the iPhone 7 has brough phone camera photography.

If the idea that "a much better picture" means a sharp foreground subject, and then a huge expanse of background that has no detail and no real information in it, then yeah, the large-sensor d-slr is the tool for the job.

Then why don't you sell your DSLR and lenses and just get an iPhone?

 

[Derrel]

I already HAVE an iPhone...and an Android...the iPhone camera, and in fact ALL small-sensor cameras, solve one of THE oldest photographic problems for fixed cameras (fixed camera meaning those cameras where the lens or back plane cannot be articulated using "movements" to the camera), and that old photgraphic problem is how to achieve great depth of field, WITHOUT needing a TON of light, and an aperture of f/32 to f/64.

I shot some eBay images the other night with a tiny-sensor digicam, at f/3, and got deep DOF that takes f/32 with the 90mm Tamron and a d-slr... I could have shot them with an iPhone too and the modeling light from the studio softbox.

I dunno...have you seen the Samsung Galaxy high-definition video shootout versus the Canon 5D-III that's two and half years ago? The Samsung video is as good as the d-slr video...or better..

 

[nerwin]

I already HAVE an iPhone...and an Android...the iPhone camera, and in fact ALL small-sensor cameras, solve one of THE oldest photographic problems for fixed cameras (hose that cannot articulate the camera), and that is how to achieve great depth of field, WITHOUT needing a TON of flash, and an aperture of f/64.

I shot some eBay images the other night with a tiny-sensor digicam, at f/3, and got deep DOF that takes f/32 wqith the 90mm Tamron and a d-slr...

So you are saying small sensors are better when you need deep DOF. I understand that part.

But what about when you don't?

 

[DarkShadow]

A friend of mine shoots with a iPad and comes up with some real nice sharp shots with nice colors.There is no doubt the phones have come a long way and have seen some really nice images especially from the iPhones or higher end Androids. I lady friend of mine was shooting some beautiful sunrises with a Android Smart phone and other then some comp issues and tilted horizons the IQ was really decent. Different strokes for different folks,Personally I think my fuji X-T10 IQ is every bit on par with the D7200 sometimes better but where talking same size 1,5 and actually the fuji sensor is slightly bigger dimensions then what's in the Nikon D7200 in a much smaller lighter package. So the bottom line is shoot what with works for you, not everyone wants a camera that's heavier and won't fit in the jacket pocket.

 

[nerwin]

A friend of mine shoots with a iPad and comes up with some real nice sharp shots with nice colors.There is no doubt the phones have come a long way and have seen some really nice images especially from the iPhones or higher end Androids. I lady friend of mine was shooting some beautiful sunrises with a Android Smart phone and other then some comp issues and tilted horizons the IQ was really decent. Different strokes for different folks,Personally I think my fuji X-T10 IQ is every bit on par with the D7200 sometimes better but where talking same size 1,5 and actually the fuji sensor is slightly bigger dimensions then what's in the Nikon D7200 in a much smaller lighter package. So the bottom line is shoot what with works for you, not everyone wants a camera that's heavier and won't fit in the jacket pocket.

So what is the point in using a DSLR anymore? Kind of starting to feel like I wasted money if they are becoming useless.

 

[DarkShadow]

Because until a cell phone can keep up with fast action sports or wildlife such as birds in flight, have the FPS and buffer support the DSLR will always be the better tool for all around photography, but you know this already so IMO there should be no question of Cell vs DSLR.