camera v. phone camera

[407370]

Phone camera technology has moved on to the extent that I use my NOTE 3 as much as my FUJI HS20 especially for things like my daughters flute recital. Much less intrusive than the plonker with the 5DMk111 on a tripod with separate flash / diffuser on another tripod moving parents / furniture out of the way in someones house to get a good shot of his daughter playing. Very annoying for the rest of us.

 

[Derrel]

I encourage people to use their phone. It's the camera they have. Often it's fully capable of producing excellent results, and even old phones can make interesting photos.

You can refine your seeing, the hard part, without worrying about technical details.

There's much truth in this guy's post.

Even the "old" iPhone 4, not the s, just the 4, has an f/2.8 lens, 80 to 1,000 ISO, backside-illuminated image sensor, and a shutter with speeds from like 1/15 to 1/10,800 second (yes, 1/10,800)...and huuuuge depth of field due to its very small sensor and short focal length lens.

With an application or two, like say Fast Camera, and CP Pro, the capabilities of a phone cam can be expanded a good bit.

 

[PPhoto]

Thanks for all the responses. I didn't expect so much information, and I appreciate it all!

 

[jorjadunsh]

Megapickles aren't the determinant of camera quality. If Mp were the only benchmark then the Nokia Lumia would be better than every DSLR and mirrorless camera on the market.

Sensor size, AF, lens quality, color depth, controls, etc. There are a lot of factors that determine a quality camera, megapixels is just one aspect; taken on it's own it doesn't mean much.

The perfect answer for me!


valuepointdistribution

 

[Solarflare]

I encourage people to use their phone. It's the camera they have.

My phone is fixed and has no camera.