Mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera are actually getting more and more popular with professionals. I don't think SLRs will disappear, but I suspect overtime many photojournalists will be switching to a combination of a good MILC and a smartphone for work on the field.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone camera vs stand alone digital camera
- Thread starter Samtb
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera are actually getting more and more popular with professionals. I don't think SLRs will disappear, but I suspect overtime many photojournalists will be switching to a combination of a good MILC and a smartphone for work on the field.
This statement reeks of lack of practical experience, OR a protectionist attitude towards professional gear.
The simple fact is, a good photographer can work within the tools given to them through creative thinking and application. And there's a huge difference between having to compromise over a shot that can't be taken the way you intended, and not being able to take the shot at all.
This isn't to say that photographers should entirely ditch their dSLRs. I use my Canon dSLR when I can, and enjoy the superior optics and features. Clearly I can do more with it, when I have it with me. But therein lies the problem: I CAN'T always have it with me. And my iPhone with its camera is with me a lot more often than the dSLR.
They've moved on for a reason: practically, no, film is NOT more forgiving than a digital sensor. Film brings permanence, requires patience to see the results, and is consumable. That demands either lots of experience and skill to take the shot just right the first time, or lots of money to account for the lots of bad shots you'll have to discard to get the one good shot.
With film, the estimated 880 BILLION photos posted every year (and uncounted deleted ones) would simply not be possible: it would be too expensive to buy all that film, and take too long to process.
With digital, the barrier to entry has been lowered such that people who wouldn't have dreamed of trying photography now do it every day, as a regular part of their lives. And if you don't like the shot you took, you delete it and try again, and it costs practically nothing but time and a tiny bit of electrical energy to do this. That's about as forgiving as it gets.
I for one, would like to see examples of shots taken from your 4MP Canon, and your iPhone 6.
So they look like this? Or, even like this?
No sir, the statement "reeks" of practicality. I've been involved in photography for a very long time and while I am not a paid professional I have a love for art. You are at the mercy of the lowest common denominator of the what you are shooting and the capability of the equipment. If anything your post implies a practical lack of experience.
Rather than turning this into a battle ground of whose opinion is correct I'll disagree with your post and move on.
Film is much more forgiving than a sensor as the cutoff for blown out highlights is gradual rather than sharp. Again I'll disagree and move on. This is not a debate on why digital is better than film it's a statement regarding the qualities of film vs digital.
The output from a number of photographers on iPhones and other simple devices both speaks for itself, and strongly disagrees with you. It's fine to advocate for tools that you have a vested interest in. It's another thing entirely to suggest that anyone who gets results that contradict your own are somehow wrong or inexperienced, particularly when the results I and others get and have demonstrated are pretty compelling.
The fact is that there are people getting great results on iPhone cameras, and they vary from the highly experienced to the totally novice. If that's not you, fine; don't take pictures on an iPhone. But it's utterly wrong to suggest that it's universally the case that any photo taken with an iPhone is junk, and the only "practical" way to get good results is to use more "professional" tools, all the time. Even professional, paid photographers don't find consistently carrying their top gear a practical scenario.
If you're going to insist that your way is the only way, then "leave it at that," you can't simply expect to be let off so easy.
Sure, film has a dynamic range that digital has yet to fully emulate, but that is only one parameter, and far from declaring film the winner in terms of being "more forgiving." Dynamic range goes only so far when the feedback for a photographer gaining experience is delayed, and the punishment for mistakes is a real, economic penalty in terms of consumables used.If you're going to make a statement, you need to be prepared to back it up when someone disagrees with you. This is a discussion forum. Guess what? That means we're going to discuss.
Last edited:
The output from a number of photographers on iPhones and other simple devices both speaks for itself, and strongly disagrees with you. It's fine to advocate for tools that you have a vested interest in. It's another thing entirely to suggest that anyone who gets results that contradict your own are somehow wrong or inexperienced, particularly when the results I and others get and have demonstrated are pretty compelling.
The fact is that there are people getting great results on iPhone cameras, and they vary from the highly experienced to the totally novice. If that's not you, fine; don't take pictures on an iPhone. But it's utterly wrong to suggest that it's universally the case that any photo taken with an iPhone is junk, and the only "practical" way to get good results is to use more "professional" tools, all the time. Even professional, paid photographers don't find consistently carrying their top gear a practical scenario.
If you're going to insist that your way is the only way, then "leave it at that," you can't simply expect to be let off so easy.
If you're going to make a statement, you need to be prepared to back it up when someone disagrees with you. This is a discussion forum. Guess what? That means we're going to discuss.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere. You agree the dynamic range of film is better than digital.
that's all I was saying; no more no less.As for the capabilities of the iPhone you are still debating the statement that with all cameras the shot is the intersection of the scene and hardware.
For example, shoot a still picture of your kid on the grass at midday on your iPhone, probably would come out great. Now try to freeze a closeup of the ball from a pitch at a baseball game with your iPhone 6, probably not a great shot. All of the experienced photographers in the world won't be able to get that shot with an iPhone.
So you use the right tool for the job!
There have been several threads recently that are broadly iPhone vs whatever. It's getting boring. Check out January's National Geographic cover, John Stanmeyer, iPhone. Check out Michael Christopher Brown, Magnum Photos, iPhone. There are many Photojournalists using iPhones by choice, even conflict photographers. There are young photographers, making money through photography who have never used a "traditional" camera, only iPhones. There is some truly fantastic work from mobile photography.
If you are interested in the technical details of DR in film vs digital, like pixel peeking, fine, knock yourself out. That's not what photography is about though. It's about communication, images. You simply choose the tool you need for the job at hand. Need a 600mm lens, a Leica M, Fuji X or iPhone is the wrong tool, need to be discreet in a crowd Nikon D4s and 24-70 isn't be best choice.
read John Stanmeyer's opinion if you don't like mine.
http://stanmeyer.com/blog/3032/instagram-its-about-communication/
This is exactly the point, not whether iPhone can take good snaps, wrong tool, wrong job no snaps.
The iPhone does fine when shooting pics in good light and at the times of day when the sun is not directly overhead.
But if you need quality results under less favorable conditions, a proper camera and experience will help you get the shot.
But if you need quality results under less favorable conditions, a proper camera and experience will help you get the shot.
I think smartphones in general have convinced far too many people they are good photographers when nothing could be further from the truth in many cases. Slap an Instagram filter on a picture and it's all of a sudden a printable picture. I don't think the majority of people realise how much skill is involved in real photography with real cameras. iPhones are great for having on you all the time and for convenience but are no substitute if you want genuinely good results IMO.
There are two points here. First, most people do not know what a good photo is. They do not study photos, do not buy or peruse photographer monographs, visit galleries and exhibitions, even the internet. They simply do not take the time to educate themselves. Being into photography usually means being into cameras. So here I agree with you, slapping on a filter etc does not make a photograph suddenly good. And yes, photography is hard!
The second point "genuinely good results"? What does this mean? Good results as in technically good, DR, sharpness etc. Or good results as in aesthetically, artistically good? If you need biting sharpness and great DR in pitch darkness, then certainly use a tool other than a smartphone. Artistically, there's no real reason smartphones are not suitable. As I've mentioned many times in various threads, there is some truly fantastic work being created with smartphones.
Last edited:
Genuinely good results as in composition and technically good I meant. I wasn't saying you can't get satisfactory results with a smartphone but some people assume it's great if it looks good on their screen. I have photos printed in the wall in my house that were taken with an iPhone but I still wish I'd had one of my DSLR's at the time of taking. I am not s pro or anything but I like to think I can tell a good photograph. I also part own a stock photography website. None of our pictures have been taken on an iPhone though because the detail just isn't there.
This statement always irks me. Sure the best is the one you have with you, but if you're going to be at a place or in a situation that is worth taking pictures of and want the absolute best quality, you'd typically have your best camera with you.
Genuinely good results as in composition and technically good I meant. I wasn't saying you can't get satisfactory results with a smartphone but some people assume it's great if it looks good on their screen. I have photos printed in the wall in my house that were taken with an iPhone but I still wish I'd had one of my DSLR's at the time of taking. I am not s pro or anything but I like to think I can tell a good photograph. I also part own a stock photography website. None of our pictures have been taken on an iPhone though because the detail just isn't there.
As far as composition goes, a smartphone should be no different than using any other fixed focal lens camera or system camera with a fixed focal length lens. It's down to you using your feet! On the technical side it really depends what the image is needed for. A fashion spread in a glossy magazine, product photography, documentary work for a charity etc. Do you need to see every hair on the model's head, or do you want gritty realism in a junkie squat? Here you need to make choices regarding the tools for the job, what is appropriate.
----------
Or the right camera for the situation? If you own a Leica S2 and an iPhone, which would you take to document a protest? The S2 undoubtedly takes technically superior images, but is it really the most appropriate for the job at hand? Conversely, if you are going to Terra Del Fuego for some landscape work..........
I know the formula for taking a good photograph and the rule of thirds. And yes I know the equipment doesn't give you the composition. I wasn't suggesting that. You are never going to get the background detail and crispness with a smartphone as you would with a proper camera. As a point and shoot they are fine but you wouldn't take a landscape shot that demanded any form of studying or wedding pictures on your iPhone. They are great for facebook or Instagram lol. I've made my point anyway.
I know the formula for taking a good photograph and the rule of thirds. And yes I know the equipment doesn't give you the composition. I wasn't suggesting that. You are never going to get the background detail and crispness with a smartphone as you would with a proper camera. As a point and shoot they are fine but you wouldn't take a landscape shot that demanded any form of studying or wedding pictures on your iPhone. They are great for facebook or Instagram lol. I've made my point anyway.
The problem is people are doing landscape and wedding. People are constantly pushing the boundaries and coming up with some great stuff, really great stuff.
People have to stop with this "only good for Facebook and Instagram" stuff. January's cover of National Geographic magazine, Conflict photography, Photojournalism, Magnum Photographer (Michael Christopher Brown), Street and Documentary Photography. Smartphones shots have been published in serious magazines and journals the world over.
Then true photography is in serious trouble. If a phone gets to the point where it can automatically select exposure and take all the skill out of it by adding a filter over the top, then photography will be a dead art. I have seen some amazing photos taken on smartphones but until now the glass has been the issue stopping them from being great. I know what you are telling me though.
The digital camera industry is shifting away from compact point&shoots because modern smartphones have made them irrelevant. The current iPhone should be way better than a 10-year-old point and shoot, but I bet the OP is just taking crappy pictures to begin with.
Anyway, mirrorless cameras are eroding way at DSLR sales. One of the main advantages that the high-end full-frame DSLR's still have is autofocus speed, but other than that you can get most of the same functionality in a smaller mirrorless package.
What we're seeing from camera manufacturers these days are an increasing number of enthusiast compacts, pro-grade compacts (like the Sony RX1R), basically with capabilities that phone cameras can never match due to the laws of physics. Meaning large sensors and quality lenses.
Also, very important, RAW capability. You can do a lot with an iPhone camera of course, as it mostly comes down to the photographer rather than the equipment, but RAW certainly gives you more flexibility and a large sensor combined with fast lens means you can take great indoor photos without a flash.
My most used camera is still my iPhone but my others are a Fuji X100S and Olympus EM-10 with a couple primes and a zoom.
BTW, if you want to get more out of your iPhone camera and know a bit about manual exposure, the "Pro Cam" app is pretty sweet.
I've always found with photography you invest in the glass because camera bodies are changed way more frequently. iPhones can't take panning shots at motorsports events, wide angle landscape shots or produce the type of shots a decent DSLR can take in doors with a speed light. My iPhone is handy to have on me all the time but I wouldn't choose it in the moment over an alternative, nobody would. It's a convenient point and shoot with decent image quality for a mobile phone. It can also compete with most compact cameras at the budget end.
It will never replace the camera because I don't think our standards are that low and it can't produce the results across the range of purposes. Both iPhone models suffer badly with noise in low light but that is the same for nearly every smartphone. It's not so noticeable on webpages or smaller images.
It will never replace the camera because I don't think our standards are that low and it can't produce the results across the range of purposes. Both iPhone models suffer badly with noise in low light but that is the same for nearly every smartphone. It's not so noticeable on webpages or smaller images.
Autofocus speed I would think is an important attribute of a dslr; of course photography is all about trade offs.
Agreed. I once had a low-end point and shoot with me when an amazing light and cloud formation occurred at the beach. My lens wasn't wide enough and I had insufficient dynamic range. So it was the "best" camera I had with me, but the resulting shots were unsatisfactory and demoralizing.
Okay, now we are getting somewhere. You agree the dynamic range of film is better than digital.
Actually, what you said was "film is more forgiving than digital." Only, it's not. Then you decided to conflate dynamic range with such a broad statement.
When you change the meaning of your words, sure, you can win any debate you want.
Actually, what you said was "film is more forgiving than digital." Only, it's not. Then you decided to conflate dynamic range with such a broad statement.
When you change the meaning of your words, sure, you can win any debate you want.
Well we can certainly debate if the comprehension is a problem for the writer or reader. However, a photographer would understand what "more forgiving" means; which it is. It's has a different to al quality and doesn't have such sharp cut offs with respect to blown highlights and dark areas. Another way of saying that in general is better dynamic range.