Photography Pros Review the iPhone 5's Camera

[faroZ06]

Originally Posted by cvaldes

I still keep my Canon PowerShot around, just in case I'm in a sketchy photo situation (like taking pictures from a kayak) or the few situations when I really need to use optical zoom.

The lack of optical zoom is the main reason I avoid using the iPhone camera. It really sucks to be without a zoom feature. I still take most of my pictures on the iPhone because I always have it in my pocket, and it's always charged. I don't understand why so few point-and-shoots charge over USB!

[the8thark]

Originally Posted by CBJammin103

For the photography snobs: The best camera is the one you have with you, and any shot you take is better than one you didn't.

This.
That makes the iPhone 5 the best camera out there. A ton of times I am like "I wish I had a camera on me but I didn't. If I owned an iPhone I'd always have a decent camera on me to take those photos.

[potsy4u]

I can envision a professional level camera being a very different thing. It would have a large sensor inside of a small box that attaches to the lens and provides a tripod socket. On the back is an LCD touchscreen panel, but its use is actually optional. As an alternative, the device could wirelessly (BT or WiFi) to some other device, such as a laptop or smartphone for remote control. The camera would come with a slot for flash storage, but also be able to transmit images wirelessly with BT or WiFi - perhaps even optionally with LTE.

Sony NEX cameras are heading that way.. but they aren't there yet.

I think the way that these smart phone cameras have really revolutionized the industry, and I think this is what the article was referring to, is the ability to share the photo you snapped on the internet directly.
How has it changed the industry? Canon 6D now comes with wireless file transfer and they are making apps to transfer directly to smartphones..
people want to share their shots straight away..
I think the time it takes to snap a shot and upload it is going to go down significantly in the next few years.. and soon it will only be the 24+ megapixel shots and the "yet to edit" shots that are passed over the traditional way...

[charlieegan3]

Originally Posted by CBJammin103

For the photography snobs: The best camera is the one you have with you, and any shot you take is better than one you didn't.

This is so true.

[george-brooks]

Originally Posted by nsayer

Ok, I don't get DSLRs anymore. I firmly believe they are fundamentally obsolete.

For day to day activities, sure. For professional photographers? No way! What will I do with my huge collection of canon and nikon lenses? Sure, I could spend $250 to get an adapter to put them on my iPhone but WHAT is the point of that? I could sell them all, but then what will I do when I really do need a 300mm telephoto lens for nature, concerts or sports? Perhaps the biggest feature the iPhone is lacking that no accessory exists for is a hot shoe. I use off camera flashes and profoto kits in the studio on a regular basis, and yet, the iPhone doesn't even have the ability to fire my cheap little $30 flash I use with my P&S cameras. What about video? I do a lot of video work and yes, I've used my iPhone as a B camera before, but it is by no means a professional video camera. Here's a list of CRUCIAL features for a professional photographer, or even an advanced amateur, that the iPhone doesn't have:

White balance control
Manual exposure control
Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority
ISO control, high ISOs
RAW files
Interchangeable lenses
AV I/O
Variable video frame rates
Tripod attachment
DOF preview
Hot shoe
etc., etc.

There are apps and accessories that take care of a few of these, but not to the extent that a DSLR does straight out of the box. Why would I spend hundreds on accessories and apps to bring my iPhone up to par with the DSLR I already have that will produce a better image 99/100 times? There is nothing obsolete about DSLRs, and a lot of what your OP touts as the advantages of the iPhone as a camera are present in mirrorless and M4/3 cameras like the Panasonic GH3, which is a far superior camera to the iPhone. And I can't stand electronic viewfinders. I will be keeping my mirror and pentaprism for a long time.

Sure, the iPhone has completely replaced my point and shoot, it is a FANTASTIC camera and I use it every day (I certainly can't say that about my DSLR) but it will not be replacing my 5DmkII any time soon. Camera phones are awesome and have opened up a whole new world of photo sharing, which I love. I love seeing my friends lives in pictures and that having an awesome camera in my pocket 24/7 encourages me to document what I'm doing and whats around me. But camera phones and DSLRs are very very different tools and the iPhone will not be putting Canon or Nikon out of business any time soon.

----------

Originally Posted by faroZ06

The lack of optical zoom is the main reason I avoid using the iPhone camera. It really sucks to be without a zoom feature. I still take most of my pictures on the iPhone because I always have it in my pocket, and it's always charged. I don't understand why so few point-and-shoots charge over USB!

This is super important. Optical zoom is essential for any halfway decent point and shoot. The camera is such a central feature of the iPhone, I always wondered why they couldn't put a nice zeiss 5x lens a a small REAL flash right where the apple logo is. Check this out. It doesn't have the greatest lens in the world, but it sure is small. Why isn't this in the iPhone? Apple is too concerned with thinness and not enough with quality.

[kahkityoong]

Originally Posted by nsayer

No one who has replied to my original post has actually refuted the point.

Can anyone actually make a cogent argument as to how a professional actually benefits from having an optical viewfinder? The closest I have seen so far is that someone mentioned that a pure optical viewfinder will save on battery life, since it means not lighting up an LCD screen. So far, that's the only point scored. However, if you simply trade the extra weight the reflex system and prism add for more battery, then I think you'd wind up ahead of the game using an LCD.

Most of the other arguments have been about the quality of dSLRs. I assert that that is not part of my argument. I never said that the iPhone was a professional level camera. What I said was that professional level sensors and photography do not benefit at all from the SLR feature in and of itself.

Lastly, some have tried to argue that the form factor of SLRs and dSLRs is some how optimal. I disagree. They are traditional. They are what we have become accustomed to. That's not at all the same thing as "optimal." SLRs are, in fact, optimized to be held such that the viewfinder is in front of your eyeball. But if you don't have a need to hold the camera up to your eye, then that optimization is specious.

I can envision a professional level camera being a very different thing. It would have a large sensor inside of a small box that attaches to the lens and provides a tripod socket. On the back is an LCD touchscreen panel, but its use is actually optional. As an alternative, the device could wirelessly (BT or WiFi) to some other device, such as a laptop or smartphone for remote control. The camera would come with a slot for flash storage, but also be able to transmit images wirelessly with BT or WiFi - perhaps even optionally with LTE.

That's because nobody gives a ***** about your pedantic rant about the term D-SLR. You're clearly a bigger genius than the engineers at Canon and Nikon so pitch your ridiculous ideas to them.

[george-brooks]

Originally Posted by nsayer

Sigh.
No one who has replied to my original post has actually refuted the point.

Can anyone actually make a cogent argument as to how a professional actually benefits from having an optical viewfinder? The closest I have seen so far is that someone mentioned that a pure optical viewfinder will save on battery life, since it means not lighting up an LCD screen. So far, that's the only point scored. However, if you simply trade the extra weight the reflex system and prism add for more battery, then I think you'd wind up ahead of the game using an LCD.

Lastly, some have tried to argue that the form factor of SLRs and dSLRs is some how optimal. I disagree. They are traditional. They are what we have become accustomed to. That's not at all the same thing as "optimal." SLRs are, in fact, optimized to be held such that the viewfinder is in front of your eyeball. But if you don't have a need to hold the camera up to your eye, then that optimization is specious.

This is a matter of personal opinion for me. I have tried many many many cameras with electronic viewfinders and have not liked a single one of them. Lets break this down into two categories: cameras with eye level electronic viewfinders like the Nikon 1 V1 and the Panasonic GH2 and cameras with no viewfinder and a large LCD display like the iPhone and pretty much every P&S on the market. Each of these types of cameras has its own set of problems I don't want to deal with.

First, though, there are a few clear advantages to this technology, I'll give you that. Without a mirror, the lens is able to focus more precisely, as it is focusing at the exact distance from the sensor rather than off of a mirror. In theory, you are composing exactly as your final shot will appear.

Now the disadvantages. The most obvious one, to me, is something you pointed out as an improvement. LCD screens allow us to compose in situations where you cannot physically put the camera up to your eye. This is great in hard to reach places, but by putting the camera up to your eye, the camera has 3 points of contact with the body as opposed to one or two, and this provides much greater stability, crucial when working in low light or with long lenses. Another disadvantage I see is that the camera is automatically adjusting exposure, white balance, etc, on the on screen preview, before you take the shot. Many times, the camera will take the shot with much different settings, shutter speed being the big one. The preview is not representative of the final image. My eye has become very well trained to see what the lens is seeing without going through a computer first, with the lens wide open, and adjusting exposure as necessary. Basically, I haven't shot with a light meter in years, I'm very good at judging exposure and how the lens sees the light, and setting the camera by that. This is me though. I am a trained photographer. This is not the case for everyone.

Basically, this is a personal choice. I like seeing what the lens is seeing, not what the camera's brain is seeing. Electronic viewfinders are slow to react and provide poor, pixelated image quality (small viewfinder type displays). The mechanical action of the mirror takes a small fraction of a second and I can see through the lens again in real time. I don't have to wait for the camera. I think electronic viewfinders are a solution for a few small problems that in turn creates a bigger problem. I hate all of these ridiculous features camera companies feel the need to put in their cameras to make them the next big thing. Cameras used relatively simple tools that accomplish one task, and for me, thats what I want. Leica still knows how to do that. I think my next purchase will be a used M9. Ironically, not a DSLR. So I guess in conclusion, maybe you're right, DSLRs aren't the be all end all of cameras, but I also can't stand electronic viewfinders and mirrorless cameras in general. There are plenty of professional non DSLR cameras out there that I would consider, but very very few of them use electronic viewfinders. I still consider this to be a feature of "amateur" cameras. And its very helpful for amateurs, but I don't think professionals will be giving up their DSLRs any time soon.

[John.B]

Originally Posted by nsayer

Can anyone actually make a cogent argument as to how a professional actually benefits from having an optical viewfinder?

Shutter lag, or lack thereof.

/thread

[Macist]

I'm a full-time professional photographer. People sometimes express surprise that when not 'on duty' I tend to shoot with my iPhone. I'm just not into being some prosumer with a massive back-aching DSLR round my neck for a quick walk in the park.

I only have the iPhone 4 but we've got some fabulous snaps from Mrs' 4S that we've blown up and printed A2.

[Fandongo]

Two things I think phone cameras need:

1) Enhanced optical stabilization for video (further non-destructive auto software stabilization).

2) Auto-block from posting blurry crap photos with no foreground/background in focus. Auto-block uploads of food pics.

Too many stupid people posting too many vomit-inducing shaky vids and terrible photos. The incompetent are wasting a valuable limited resource. Cars have emission standards to reduce *shhh* in the air... So should youtube and facebook.

[Fandongo]

Originally Posted by george-brooks

This is a matter of personal opinion for me. I have tried many many many cameras with electronic viewfinders and have not liked a single one of them. Lets break this down into two categories: cameras with eye level electronic viewfinders like the Nikon 1 V1 and the Panasonic GH2 and cameras with no viewfinder and a large LCD display like the iPhone and pretty much every P&S on the market. Each of these types of cameras has its own set of problems I don't want to deal with.

Haha yeah, the GH2 EVF is ATROCIOUS!!
I might rip the screen off and mount a small HDMI monitor in its place.

Originally Posted by george-brooks

Basically, I haven't shot with a light meter in years, I'm very good at judging exposure and how the lens sees the light, and setting the camera by that. This is me though. I am a trained photographer. This is not the case for everyone.

It's good to hear one person NOT say you NEED a light meter.

I'm not so pro, but have gotten much better at eyeballing it + the in-camera meter. If I'm using the LCD and Magic Lantern, the spotmeter is awesome for checking highlight levels, the LCD brightness can make it misleading.

I will say, one downside to the optical viewfinder--besides no access while shooting video--is wide-open focus judgement. I've used the EG-S in a 5Dii, which helps...but it's useless if you aren't in daylight.

Its limitations will likely lead to an onslaught of mirror-less full frame cameras.

[george-brooks]

Originally Posted by Fandongo

It's good to hear one person NOT say you NEED a light meter.

I'm not so pro, but have gotten much better at eyeballing it + the in-camera meter. If I'm using the LCD and Magic Lantern, the spotmeter is awesome for checking highlight levels, the LCD brightness can make it misleading.

I will say, one downside to the optical viewfinder--besides no access while shooting video--is wide-open focus judgement. I've used the EG-S in a 5Dii, which helps...but it's useless if you aren't in daylight.

Its limitations will likely lead to an onslaught of mirror-less full frame cameras.

The best way to learn to not need a light meter is to shoot with a camera that doesnt have one. I shoot mostly analog. My main cameras are a Leica M3, a Hasselblad 500C/M and a Zone VI 4x5. I always use my Sekonic 508 when shooting with the Zone VI since the film is so damn expensive and accuracy is key with large format, but for the smaller formats, I've found it unnecessary.

Growing up I shot on an inherited Minolta XD-11. The light meter in that camera is weird, it tells you which shutter speed to use for the aperture you've selected. I found it annoying and only used it about half the time. When I got my hasselblad at 16, I didn't own an external light meter, so I was forced to either carry around my DSLR as a light meter or learn to live without it. After a few months and plenty of mistakes, I gradually got a feel for judging exposure. It helps that 95% of the time I'm always shooting ISO 400. It also helps to think in stops rather than apertures and shutter speeds, and to know that each whole step is one stop. Just always remember the general rule is 125 f/16 in normal bright daylight. Get used to what that looks like, memorize the zone system, and judge how many stops under or over normal sunlight the scene is.

I usually shoot with auto exposure on my DSLR, but when I do switch into manual, which is fairly often, I only use the built in light meter for one shot out of 10. I also use the histogram and judge off the monitor, but thats cheating

[malnar]

Originally Posted by nsayer

Ok, I don't get DSLRs anymore. I firmly believe they are fundamentally obsolete.

I think you are completely mistaken. It's point-and-shoots that are fundamentally obsolete. What I see happening is that people are valuing GOOD pictures more and investing in better, higher quality cameras, and I see a lot more DSLR or DSLR-type cameras out there than lower-end p&s cameras. And that, to me, is a good thing. I'd rather see people either using extremely simple cameras like their phones or extremely good cameras like a DSLR. The in-betweens are such a compromise that most people are better off saving up and investing in some of the smaller-form DSLR (I'm a fan of Sony's NEX line, using the NEX-7 myself, alongside my iPhone 4S.)

[throAU]

Originally Posted by jrfive0

Still doesn't seem reason enough to upgrade from the 4s.....

If you plan to upgrade every single iphone version, there never has been a compelling reason to upgrade.

skip a version each time (which coincidentally happens to line up with typical carrier contract life) and the upgrade is much more attractive.



And as to the camera - the best camera is the one you have with you to capture the moment. For that sort of thing, mobile phones rock. Sure they'll never match a DSLR but that's not the point.

[nsayer]

Originally Posted by throAU

If you plan to upgrade every single iphone version, there never has been a compelling reason to upgrade.

We're drifting off-topic now, but I assert that gaining LTE in the 4S->5 transition was absolutely worth it even if it were the only thing that changed (which, obviously, isn't true).

LTE where I am is like a cable modem with no wires. It's astonishing. In fact, the same carrier is presently offering LTE home broadband in our market.

[spinedoc77]

I rarely get good pictures with my 4s, it's never more apparent when I go to print them out and they look awful. Lighting has to be absolutely perfect, or they have to be outdoor shots to look halfway decent, if at all when printing a large print.

Still, it's true that a crappy picture is much better than no picture. I don't ever carry my camera so if it wasn't for my phone I'd have no pictures.

[tbrinkma]

Originally Posted by nsayer

Can anyone actually make a cogent argument as to how a professional actually benefits from having an optical viewfinder? The closest I have seen so far is that someone mentioned that a pure optical viewfinder will save on battery life, since it means not lighting up an LCD screen. So far, that's the only point scored. However, if you simply trade the extra weight the reflex system and prism add for more battery, then I think you'd wind up ahead of the game using an LCD.

I can. Using the optical viewfinder gives you 3 points of bracing when holding the camera, which makes for a much more stable shot. A more stable shot means less shake. Less shake means a sharper image (even the best image stabilization systems have their limits). Less shake *also* means better images in less-than-perfect lighting.

Not every professional shoots all (or even *any*) shots from a tripod.

[tbrinkma]

Originally Posted by george-brooks

This is super important. Optical zoom is essential for any halfway decent point and shoot. The camera is such a central feature of the iPhone, I always wondered why they couldn't put a nice zeiss 5x lens a a small REAL flash right where the apple logo is. Check this out. It doesn't have the greatest lens in the world, but it sure is small. Why isn't this in the iPhone? Apple is too concerned with thinness and not enough with quality.

Well, it's about 50% thicker than the iPhone 5 (about 30% thicker than the 4/4s), costs $350, and doesn't have to fit phone internals. Personally I'd be *really* disappointed if it weren't a more capable camera than what you get in the iPhone.

[hamkor04]

no DSLR??? oo cmon guys, i din't want see bunch of pro photographs or paparazzi guys chasing celebs with new iPhone 5s.
that would be hilarious

[SteveJobs2.0]

Mirrorless cameras will make DSLRs obsolete. I had an NEX-5N and I sold it to get an NEX-6. For most prosumers, mirrorless cameras provide DSLR level quality without the bulk. I predict that in about 5 years you will see very few individuials using DSLRs other than for very specific, professional level uses. No more mom taking pictures of the baby giggling with a DSLR.

Point and shoot cameras are almost extinct. Their only saving grace are optical zoom, better flash, and a slightly more capable sensor. However, the rate of improvement in the phone cameras will overcome those barriers soon. Nokia Pureview already reaches that point of no return.

[nsayer]

Originally Posted by SWPROX

Ok so this unlock will supposedly help in making the camera better or care to explain how your post makes sense in this thread

Don't bother. He's just a spammer. Too bad there's no way to down-vote him into oblivion.

[rruben]

Originally Posted by mediaadvantages

My issue is with the iPhone Camera is the zoom distorts pictures terribly. I don't know if this is an issue with the iPhone 5 because I'm still stuck with the 4. Has it gotten any better?

Just don't use the zoom. It's a digital zoom so if you really want you can crop the images afterwards and the result will be exactly the same.

[MSM Hobbes]

Originally Posted by varunmaini2011

This is worth upgrading and certainly its well written...Coming down in price is one thing, coming down in size is another. The principle reason for not using a DSLR is having to lug the damn thing around with you everywhere.

lol - too true. On recent trip to China, I was bemoaning that I hadn't taken my DSLR (Canon 50D) and the multitude of lenses with me, as I got to experience some really cool places. However, being "free" of carrying the weight, the bulk, the worry, etc. of all that gear, but instead able to take snapshots, quickly and relatively free of all the cumbersomeness, was indeed freeing. Do I still wish I could have taken the Canon? Yes. But for the traveling, the 4S did a durn good job, allowing me to take to share many images.

[The Bogeyman]

To those people who wonder whether to upgrade or not, the answer is simple: ask yourself "am I happy with what I've got? Does it do everything I want it to do?" If the answer is 'no', then you need to upgrade. If 'yes', then great- keep what you have. Don't just upgrade because of peer pressure or hype. Remember that it's your hard-earned cash which is becoming harder to come by daily. I love my iPad 3 and my first ever iPhone is on order. I won't upgrade until my devices no longer fulfil my needs.

[gri]

Originally Posted by cvaldes

Absolutely.

When I bought my iPhone 4S, it replaced three devices: dumbphone, iPod touch (4th generation with its lousy camera), and a solid Canon point-and-shoot camera.

I still keep my Canon PowerShot around, just in case I'm in a sketchy photo situation (like taking pictures from a kayak) or the few situations when I really need to use optical zoom.

If I go somewhere where I will inevitably get great motives (say, Rome, Jerusalem, Grand Canyon) I try to bring my DSLR with me (currently a Panasonic GH1, soon a GH3), if I don't want to carry that weight (I got two lenses for the sucker) I bring a point-and shoot. For everything else I use the iPhone (currently 4, waiting for my 5), or also if I want to send a shot to the family. However the iPhone (and the Point and shoot) don't ever beat the DSLR images. Those at the right time with a high zoom and polarization filter can't be beaten.