Are camera phones as good as digital cameras?

MF film has a gorgeous look as does the unique looks of some film stocks. On 35mm the grain of a 3200 speed film can overpower the image, on 645 or larger it is gorgeous. After shooting film for 40 years, I was like many of us, enamoured by how clean a digital image and made the switch in early 2000 but in about 10 years the sterile, clinical look of digital became just that to me and pulled out my film cameras and finally started developing my film at a cost of about $1.50/ roll instead of $20+ with Dwaynes lab- if you haven't seen the movie Kodachrome, it's one you shouldn't miss- and not quite "one hour" service but developed, dried and scanned in a few hours. My Mamiya rb67 entire kit, body, 4 lenses, 3 backs in pristine condition cost less than $1000. The tonal transitions, black and white from a 5 element lens, and the huge negative, not a "crop" medium format like so called medium format digital produces stellar images. One of the backs is 645 that gets 16 shots a roll instead of the 10 in 67. My Yashica mat 124 g is 6x6 and 12 shots and is lighter than a digital camera and on the street has me stopped 3 or 4 times with questions that morph into my elevator pitch and they approached me, not the other way around. Problem is film has gotten expensive and Kodak just announced a 25% increase after the first of the year. $14 for 35 mm but that works out to only about 30 cents a shot and the 6 7 about 80 cents a shot doing my own development. They no longer sell 220 twice the length of 120 so the reels for tanks can take 2 rolls at a time on the one spool. Interesting going back to a fixed iso and number of shots that you want to fill. At all times now, I have 7 rolls in progress. And it's just fun using the waist level finders on two of them and on the split screen focusing on the 35mm bodies, focusing manual focus lenses is a breeze, not to mention zone focusing for street to there is no need to focus and the film stock I use has 5 stops of useable image for over exposure. Try using a digital image 5 stops over or under exposed. And folks think film is hard.
 
Cell phone have incredibly piss-poor optics and take disgusting low-detailed images -- even under good light.

1640714225989.png

1640714288165.png



It's trash. stop fooling yourself.
 
Hey, Braineack, it's the classic they don't know what they don't know. It's why my meme is when good enough isn't good enough and I then explain the difference.
 
Cell phone have incredibly piss-poor optics and take disgusting low-detailed images -- even under good light.




It's trash. stop fooling yourself.
I agree there are lots of artifacts if you blow it up like your second picture. But for smaller sizes as in your first picture, it's fine. It depends what you want to do with it. I've found for off-the-cuff pictures and clips of video, it works fine. This is from a four or five-year-old Galaxy S7. Ignore the title picture. It isn't from the cellphone.
 
Ultimately, isn't the answer, as always, "It depends"? I mean, the original question is incredibly vague and broad, so of course, everyone is going to have different ways to approach and answer the question.
 
An aspect rarely explored in IQ has been the effect of enlargement of the final image. Which is the core of the argument, the reproduction of the image larger than the original actual image.

Now bear with me here for a moment.

Once an image is taken, that's it. What has been shot is shot.

What people forget is that the image when uber enlarged to the point where you see the pixelization, (some images will pixelate faster than others) its enlarging the final resolution period! There is no changing that.

Remember, the enlargement is enlarging not only the overall image, but the size of each pixel by the same proportion.

In film, speed of the film is determined by grain size. The same camera shooting 100 ASA/ISO will enlarge to a higher lever cleanly than will 3200 ASA/ISO. So a 24x36 enlargement of a 100 ASA frame will have a better and cleaner image than a 24x36 3200 ASA (considering all else is equal.)

BUT, the resolution in digital is EXACTLY THE SAME at both ISOs because the size of the pixel never changes in the camera. Your not switching out sensors. So 3200 ISO image in a digi. will have the same pixelization as a 100 ISO, just more noise.

This leads back to sensor size.

The larger the sensor, the more actual area and higher pixel count in a digi. and the same with grain in film.

You cannot change physics.

YES, a 6Mp. 42x36mm image sensor will have fewer pixels than a newer 24Mp 1/2.5 Samsung sensor. This is true. But once enlarged, your now talking enlargement ratios. And the Samsung will look REALLY GOOD on a 4x5 image, but enlarge it to a full 24x36, and its gone.
 
With a Samsung S22 Ultra
51806730251_49ba065d70_b.jpg
 
and closer
51807455325_6a66620519_o.jpg

No processing other than the crops. Looks pretty good to me. Not a replacement for my Kp or K3. But not bad.
 
and closer
51807455325_6a66620519_o.jpg

No processing other than the crops. Looks pretty good to me. Not a replacement for my Kp or K3. But not bad.
Galaxy S22 or A22 ???
 
Here's some pics from my Samsung s10, would have missed every one if I relied on a DSLR.
Can't compare with a DSLR resolution but I took and edited with Snapseed without the need of a computer.
Different tools.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20220117_171542.jpg
    IMG_20220117_171542.jpg
    754.2 KB · Views: 57
  • 20220117_132607-01.jpeg
    20220117_132607-01.jpeg
    661.7 KB · Views: 53
  • 20211228_100547-02.jpeg
    20211228_100547-02.jpeg
    2.7 MB · Views: 52
  • 20211226_154957-01.jpeg
    20211226_154957-01.jpeg
    894.4 KB · Views: 54
Here's some pics from my Samsung s10, would have missed every one if I relied on a DSLR.
Can't compare with a DSLR resolution but I took and edited with Snapseed without the need of a computer.
Different tools.
I like particularly the flower and the photo on the beach. Have you tried to print big any of these? I wonder how good would they be.
 
I want to extend my thoughts a bit. Not every dedicated camera is better than a smartphone. For example I shoot with a superzoom camera. I know that my camera is better in bigger focal lengths. But I know also that I have a small sensor. And many smartphones have better low light performance than my "dedicated camera". If we talk about DSLRS now,we have to consider that a 12MP print from a good smartphone close to a subject and with good light can stand the comparison with a print from a DSLR. Perhaps you cannot print as big as you can with a DSLR but you can still print big enough to hang to a wall. Don't forget that a few years ago DSLRS didn't exceed 10MPs! Not to mention earlier. Still you had good prints.
 
I like particularly the flower and the photo on the beach. Have you tried to print big any of these? I wonder how good would they be.
Thanks, I don't have any way of printing them except professionally, also have nowhere to hang them.
Feel free to download and print if you like
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top