Phones vs DSLRs

[mrsL3MONade]

Nowadays, cell phones have as much technology as our Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) cameras and it begs the question, "Which is better (or more necessary as a photographer's accessory), the highly portable and convenient-because-its-always-in-my-hand smart phone with a camera, or the much higher quality (although its a little heavier) and more-fun-to-use-because-of-the-more-convenient-and-professional-features DSLR camera?"
Most professional photographers still lug around the slightly heavier but better quality DSLR because they feel like they are not seen as a professional photographer unless they have a large intimidating lens, some still carry their cameras because they prefer to use the camera for what its made to do and use the phone for what its made to do (make calls), and some photographers enjoy the convenience of not having to carry around a heavy camera and bag and accessories but instead, carry around their smart phone and shoot happily with that because its convenient and they can carry it in their back pocket.
Where do you stand on this issue?

 

[Trever1t]

Interesting first post....hmm. I havnt found a cell phone that can do what I can with my DSLR.

Seems the site is under attack lately?

 

[mrsL3MONade]

Why does it seem like its under attack? I don't intend to be attacking anyone, just asking a question of opinion...

 

[weepete]

Sigh.

This topic has already been covered a few times. Mobile phones offer a convienent way of capturing photos, however despite offering megapixels, because of design reasons they don't offer either the quality or the flexibility of any SLR or a resonable interchangeable mirrorless system.

The reason why pros use these systems is not because that a big lens makes them look like a pro, but the quality of a big, fast lens is generally better than a small lens.

It's like saying why would you buy a car when a bicycle will do.

 

[Designer]

Why does it seem like its under attack? I don't intend to be attacking anyone, just asking a question of opinion...

There have been several posts and threads lately from new-comers with some odd viewpoints. Not that yours is so odd, that same question pops up from time to time.

Think nothing of it.

Welcome to the forums!

O.K., how about this one: "The BEST camera is the one you have with you." Sure, I've taken photographs with my phone, but none that I have actually set out to do. I'm an amateur photographer, and enthusiast of photography and several other interests. So why would I carry around a larger camera if my cell phone would suffice? The answer, of course, is that the cell phone technology, while it sounds impressive, simply cannot do what my camera can do.

 

[fjrabon]

First, I *hate* the "looking like a pro" aspect of a DSLR, with the possible exception of shooting sports where a big lens and a big camera body (or three) will grant you more access, no questions asked. Then the fact that I don't have to fiddle with credentials often makes up for my annoyance of the way you are perceived with a big DSLR. For day to day shooting I disdain the way that a DSLR immediately labels you as an outsider.

Cell phone cameras are great. They've made leaps and bounds to the point of making staples of electronics stores, the piece of crap point and shoot, irrelevant. However they tend to have two major limitations that won't go away because of cell phones' tendency toward ultra light design: small sensor and small lens.

These two limitations mean they'll always struggle at certain thing dslrs do well. I don't see a day any time soon when a cell phone can shoot sports or wildlife well, amongst many other genres.

There's also another segment that's making major headway: large sensor mirrorless cameras. They aren't anywhere close to being as big as dslrs, but match them in image quality, and come close to matching them in features. And some even have features that dslrs lack (leaf shutter with 1/4000 x sync speed in the fuji x100 series is one example).

My approach is three tiered: cell phone for quick, in the moment stuff, portable aps-c sized camera for most day to day shooting (x100t, which I carry pretty much with me everywhere) and then DSLR for specialist applications.

Now what I do one day envision is a 3 part system where you have a lens, a sensor and a phone. Lenses would be interchangeable, essentially just slip a sensor disc in the lens. Your phone then serves as everything else that the camera does: the controls, the display, the viewfinder, the processor, the autofocus system, etc. the phone would connect via either a hard connection (lightning connector or similar) or wirelessly.

This has the advantage of making the system completely modular. You'd get body upgrades as you upgraded your phone. You could upgrade just your sensor whenever a new sensor technology came out. Lenses would be basically the same design as they are now.

 

[Braineack]

I hate txting on my Nikon, they really need to improve the UI.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

I hate txting on my Nikon, they really need to improve the UI.

IK right?? the IOS D890 is soooo last year.

 

[waday]

OP: like others have said, we've seen these threads pop up enough that we usually roll our eyes... or the thread ends in a fistfight and has to get closed by the mod gods.

Quick search of the site:
Smartphone cameras vs semi pro cameras Photography Forum
Are DSLR s Dying Photography Forum
Are cell phones as good as DSLRs My friend says yes . Photography Forum
An ah-ha moment. Photography Forum
The Short Answer s Smartphones-vs-Cameras Photography Forum
The end of DSLR Photography Forum
DSLR or Cell Phone Photography Forum

 

[fjrabon]

I hate txting on my Nikon, they really need to improve the UI.

you're essentially paying a thousand or so dollars extra for features that you already have better versions of on your phone. The processor in your phone is more energy efficient, more powerful, and more elegantly designed than the one in your camera. And that gap is only going to widen. Wade through your menu system on your nikon and tell me it's better designed than a typical modern smart phone. Touch has made menus a bit easier to operate, but again, phones already do this better by leaps and bounds.

Camera companies are awesome at making lenses and sensors. The rest, meh. I could see some sort of modular grip system with buttons and dials that work sort of like how a third party video game controller works on phones these days.

As nearfield wireless communication speeds up and battery technology gets better every year, I don't see any reason why, several years from now, you'd have a separate, inferior computer in your camera, when it could just farm out the power of your phone.

GPS, automatically included. Wireless, automatically included. instant upload to flickr or whatever else, automatically included. instant live view broadcasting straight from your camera, possible. in the cloud transfer/syncing of all your photos, now something that happens automatically instead of taking an hour or so to upload after a few days of shooting. That's to say nothing of having a better interface, touch screens, remote shooting capabilities with live remote viewfinder, more powerful processor and the possibility of simply having to carry around less stuff with you.

 

[Derrel]

Cameras would be handier to use if they did have instant upload to Facebook/Flickr/FTP site/DropBox in an easy-to-configure, easy-to-use manner, and if they could accept Apps for various tasks, but it seems that the Japanese camera industry has almost zero clues about the Internet Age, so I do not expect any rapid movement in this direction until leadership changes occur at the various camera companies. However--the Nikon D7200 now comes with built-in WiFi and built-in NFC capability, so...that's a two-part nod to the modern era. Baby steps, I guess one could say, baby steps.

 

[waday]

I hate txting on my Nikon, they really need to improve the UI.

you're essentially paying a thousand or so dollars extra for features that you already have better versions of on your phone. The processor in your phone is more energy efficient, more powerful, and more elegantly designed than the one in your camera. And that gap is only going to widen. Wade through your menu system on your nikon and tell me it's better designed than a typical modern smart phone. Touch has made menus a bit easier to operate, but again, phones already do this better by leaps and bounds.

Camera companies are awesome at making lenses and sensors. The rest, meh. I could see some sort of modular grip system with buttons and dials that work sort of like how a third party video game controller works on phones these days.

As nearfield wireless communication speeds up and battery technology gets better every year, I don't see any reason why, several years from now, you'd have a separate, inferior computer in your camera, when it could just farm out the power of your phone.

GPS, automatically included. Wireless, automatically included. instant upload to flickr or whatever else, automatically included. instant live view broadcasting straight from your camera, possible. in the cloud transfer/syncing of all your photos, now something that happens automatically instead of taking an hour or so to upload after a few days of shooting. That's to say nothing of having a better interface, touch screens, remote shooting capabilities with live remote viewfinder, more powerful processor and the possibility of simply having to carry around less stuff with you.

I don't have a Nikon. Or were you referring to @Braineack and his comments?

GPS and wireless are included, yes. For a fee. I (and mostly everyone with a cell phone) pay a monthly fee for my phone. If I didn't have to pay monthly for cell phone, I'd save that monthly fee and buy a new DSLR.

 

[fjrabon]

I hate txting on my Nikon, they really need to improve the UI.

you're essentially paying a thousand or so dollars extra for features that you already have better versions of on your phone. The processor in your phone is more energy efficient, more powerful, and more elegantly designed than the one in your camera. And that gap is only going to widen. Wade through your menu system on your nikon and tell me it's better designed than a typical modern smart phone. Touch has made menus a bit easier to operate, but again, phones already do this better by leaps and bounds.

Camera companies are awesome at making lenses and sensors. The rest, meh. I could see some sort of modular grip system with buttons and dials that work sort of like how a third party video game controller works on phones these days.

As nearfield wireless communication speeds up and battery technology gets better every year, I don't see any reason why, several years from now, you'd have a separate, inferior computer in your camera, when it could just farm out the power of your phone.

GPS, automatically included. Wireless, automatically included. instant upload to flickr or whatever else, automatically included. instant live view broadcasting straight from your camera, possible. in the cloud transfer/syncing of all your photos, now something that happens automatically instead of taking an hour or so to upload after a few days of shooting. That's to say nothing of having a better interface, touch screens, remote shooting capabilities with live remote viewfinder, more powerful processor and the possibility of simply having to carry around less stuff with you.

I don't have a Nikon. Or were you referring to @Braineack and his comments?

GPS and wireless are included, yes. For a fee. I (and mostly everyone with a cell phone) pay a monthly fee for my phone. If I didn't have to pay monthly for cell phone, I'd save that monthly fee and buy a new DSLR.

yes, I was responding to the person I responded to?

That was kind of my point, in this day and age we basically are forced to pay a cell phone bill, so might as well get as much usage out of those features as possible.

 

[waday]

yes, I was responding to the person I responded to?

It was meant to be a joke.. you said, "Wade through your..." My name is Wade. Joke lost. Now it's embarrassing.

That was kind of my point, in this day and age we basically are forced to pay a cell phone bill, so might as well get as much usage out of those features as possible.

I do. I also get as much out of my DSLR which also cost a lot.

 

[RDenhardt]

Cell phones simply cant do what a DSLR can, different devices for different applications