Level of smartphone photography

[jonnybaz]

Do you find, now, on 2023 the level of smartphone photography high enough to drop away your dedicated camera? It has the advantage of multiple stacking photos by far superior processors by the ones on cameras. It has AI to help as well. The bockeh effect, for me,it was always something relevant. Sometimes you don't want it at all. Others, the artificially made by the phone can be sufficient enough, aesthetically speaking. Maybe for zoom you still need a camera. Perhaps for low light. But do you find the gap still big? Please write your opinion.

 

[Jeff15]

I only use my phone for making calls or texting someone...

 

[smoke665]

Please write your opinion

If you believe any smart phone is superior to the modern offerings of digital cameras and glass on the market, then you are grossly misinformed.

 

[Strodav]

I'm not a big fan of the computational photography used in a smartphone cameras. Of course I use my iphone 14 pro max when I don't have a real camera with me and I have gotten some good results with it. Smartphone cameras have very small sensors, around 12mp, with cheap plastic lenses that cannot match the flexibility and IQ of of a larger sensor, higher resolution sensor with a good quality piece of glass. It's physics. Oh, and I mainly shoot birds, especially water birds where you can never have too much reach. A smartphone is pretty useless for this type of photography.

Tony and Chelsea Northrup recently took a vacation to Italy and decided to only use their smartphone cameras during the trip. A link to their video is attached. Spoiler alert, they will take real cameras with them on their next trip.

 

[jonnybaz]

I'm not a big fan of the computational photography used in a smartphone cameras. Of course I use my iphone 14 pro max when I don't have a real camera with me and I have gotten some good results with it. Smartphone cameras have very small sensors, around 12mp, with cheap plastic lenses that cannot match the flexibility and IQ of of a larger sensor, higher resolution sensor with a good quality piece of glass. It's physics. Oh, and I mainly shoot birds, especially water birds where you can never have too much reach. A smartphone is pretty useless for this type of photography.

Tony and Chelsea Northrup recently took a vacation to Italy and decided to only use their smartphone cameras during the trip. A link to their video is attached. Spoiler alert, they will take real cameras with them on their next trip.

I'm in knowledge of this video. I'm a subscriber as well. I agree with certainty that cameras are superior. I actually have one super zoom and one old aps-c. But an average person will shoot portrait and landscape photos. Isn't that the case? If you are on a trip or at home and you don't print big can you assume that with an iPhone or a Sony Xperia are you ok? In which occasions have you found yourself searching for a camera? Were there a lot for you till now?

 

[Rickbb]

Nope, not by a long shot. If you only want snaps to view on the computer, sure phone cameras are for you. If want to be really creative or make sizable crops and enlargements, your phone will disappoint you.

 

[jonnybaz]

Nope, not by a long shot. If you only want snaps to view on the computer, sure phone cameras are for you. If want to be really creative or make sizable crops and enlargements, your phone will disappoint you.

I'm trying to find arguments for the other side without necessarily supporting it. The reason I post this thread is because I'm having thoughts of buying a flagship smartphone and I want to understand if and in which extend I can be (photographically) be covered by it. What if I don't print more than 5"x7" ? Can I have good results from a good smartphone?

 

[Ysarex]

I'm in knowledge of this video. I'm a subscriber as well. I agree with certainty that cameras are superior. I actually have one super zoom and one old aps-c. But an average person will shoot portrait and landscape photos. Isn't that the case? If you are on a trip or at home and you don't print big can you assume that with an iPhone or a Sony Xperia are you ok?

No.

In which occasions have you found yourself searching for a camera?

Never. I always carry a camera -- my most used camera is a compact Canon G7. It's not much bigger than a phone. It's on my desk right now and if I leave the house it goes with me.

Were there a lot for you till now?

The last time I took a photo while out was two days ago. I walk regularly with my wife in a nearby park and we often sit and rest by the pond in the park. We were sitting on the bench and my wife joked, "you got your ducks in a row there." And I grabbed a snapshot. I posted it here for fun: Ducks in a Row

It's just a no-big-deal snapshot and yet no smart phone camera could have taken that photo as I did. Just the simple fact that as I processed the raw file I set two different white balance values -- one for the shaded foreground and another for the full sunlit background -- is well beyond the artificial ignorance software in the phone cameras. (40 years a photographer if I'm going to take a photo, any photo, I'm going to do at least a decent job.)

I know a phone camera can now save a raw file. I investigate that option about once a year and right now there's nothing available I would consider usable. My little G7 saves a 14 bit raw file and delivers DR nearly double what the phones produce. The phones have to take multiple exposures and create an HDR image (I don't) and then the artificial ignorance software kicks in. They also apply really crude noise filtering to those raw files and don't provide an option to shut that cr*p off (last I checked). Not even close yet.

 

[Ysarex]

I'm trying to find arguments for the other side without necessarily supporting it. The reason I post this thread is because I'm having thoughts of buying a flagship smartphone and I want to understand if and in which extend I can be (photographically) be covered by it. What if I don't print more than 5"x7" ? Can I have good results from a good smartphone?

Under limited circumstances. The phones take decent photos in good lighting conditions. I take any photo I want in nearly any lighting condition. Case in point my brother from Texas visited and we took him and his wife on the local winery tour. His iPhone did OK until we toured the wine cellars. The lighting down there shut his iPhone down but not my little G7.

 

[webestang64]

From someone who prints photos all day in a photo lab the "phones" are OK for internet and maybe a print up to around 8x10, I have seen some that look just OK bigger but most people do not give a crap about quality. The vast majority of people want cheap and easy. Why do you think Betamax tapes and laser disc did not last as long then the lower quality VHS......cheaper!
Why spend $150-800 on a PnS digital when the phone will do. Worst part for me as a lab tech is that phones have their own color space that does not always translate to a print. I hear way too often....."these prints do not match my phone". Pain in the ................!

BTW, Even though I have a really nice phone/camera I still shoot film, no digital and I always have a cam with me.

 

[Rickbb]

I'm trying to find arguments for the other side without necessarily supporting it. The reason I post this thread is because I'm having thoughts of buying a flagship smartphone and I want to understand if and in which extend I can be (photographically) be covered by it. What if I don't print more than 5"x7" ? Can I have good results from a good smartphone?

I have a S23+ phone and it takes really decent point and shoot pics. One of the best phone cameras out there. I also have a Cannon PowerShot that is only slightly fatter than a phone and takes vastly better images, even in auto mode. The S23 has a 3x optical zoom, the PowerShot has a 30x optical zoom, digital zoom is horrible on any device so never use it.

It all depends on what YOU want in your images. How much creative control do you want, go manual and adjust f-stop and shutter speed? Phones are limited there and a “real” camera will win that battle every time. Even if you only print 5x7 you may still want to crop the image, crop too much on a phone image and it can ruin the image.

If what you want is to take candid shots of the kids to send to grandma then then new phones will be fine.

If what you want is to do wildlife, action sports, art shots, etc, then the phone just won’t cut it.

 

[Hardus Nameous]

Oh $<"(>,% hell no my phone won't replace my DSLR. This stupid absolute piece of @&>/ phone can't even replace my TLR!
I just got a new phone a few weeks ago, a Samsung Galaxy A54, and I hate it.
Just a few hours ago I tried to use it to take a picture of a label on a bicycle. Granted, it was a relatively low light scenario and the label was on a round part of the frame. Since I didn't have the option to raise the ISO I had to use the flash. Since off camera flash or bouncing isn't an option all I could manage were some shots with the center of the tube blown out and the label illegible.
I ended up just typing the info on a note instead.
If all you want are cookie cutter snapshots for insta-face-witter or whatever the latest crap is, the phone will probably do.

Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot what an absolute pain in the #>"( it is to try to get a phone to focus where I want it to.

 

[hemlock1962]

nope. they can take great snape shots. but that's what they are. you are at the mercy of the program. and so limited to it.

 

[Soocom1]

Ill have to shoot some images again of the same thing with the iPhone, Canon and Phase one.


Tomorrow (as of this writing) is the eclipse here,.
Hopefully I can get a few shots off.

 

[Don Fischer]

Ya know, if your going shopping you can take the car or a horse and wagon. Both will get the job done! For myself, I take the car.