iPhone camera vs stand alone digital camera

[scaredpoet]

Then true photography is in serious trouble.

No, professional photography is in serious trouble. True photography is actually experiencing a renaissance.

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.

If you define "skill" strictly that way, or by demanding a high barrier to entry with expensive equipment and glass, then sure, the "artform" is dead. But that's far from the case if you define "skill" by the true meaning: the ability to effectively frame and compose a shot; knowing the rule of thirds and when to break it; knowing how a subject must be lit for the image to express the way you want it to (which no auto exposure setting can account for); understanding the workings, capabilities and limitations of the device you hold in your hand and how best to leverage it.

Make no mistake, a badly composed, poorly-thought-out shot will still look bad, no mater what Instagram filter you slap on top of it. But if "true photographers" feel the need to snort at anyone who dares try to take good pictures with anything but the finest dSLRs and lenses, then I submit that the "artform" they practice absolutely deserves to die.

Such people have forgotten the roots of the artform and its history. The basic Camera Obscura and Brownie camera were the historic building blocks of this form of expression, and they were available to the masses and offered the bare minimum of capabilities, far less than the modern smartphone camera, and yet they can take the most expressive, artistic photos in the right hands. And if you rely solely on "professional" glass to make your shots perfect, then you're no better to me than someone who slaps digital filters on their pics and calls it a day.

 

[scaredpoet]

Well we can certainly debate if the comprehension is a problem for the writer or reader.

We can, but the words you wrote were pretty plain. And so was your attempt to change the meaning. So that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?

However, a photographer would understand what "more forgiving" means;

Yes, they would... which is why it's pretty confounding why someone would focus - after the fact - on a specific aspect of photography to define "more forgiving" instead of just outright expressing what they meant in the first place. Unless of course, they were trying to back out of a position and still "win" a discussion.

 

[meistervu]

The fact that we have this conversation is a testament of how far mobile phone cameras have come.

I started getting into photography more than a decade ago with my purchase of a waterproof PS Pentax 35mm film camera, then a 35mm Canon SLR. I spent a good chunk of time and money on film and processing fee. In the end by my standard, I didn't get a single shot that I consider great. I am a bit picky.

Then I switched to digital cameras, starting with a couple of PS Sony. The noise drove me nut, but I learn to live with shooting under more forgiving condition. I got a couple of shots that I like.

Then I got a Canon digital SLR and a few good lenses. Shot it for a few years, then traded up to a better model every few years. I finally got the shots that I liked.

In the early days of mobile phone camera, I used their photos for record keeping. But in the last couple generation of iPhone cameras, the results have improved to the point that I start enjoy using them for snap shots. I love the responsiveness, and the noise is not too bad to be distracting. To me, they are miles more enjoyable than my early days with film and digital PS.

I would have been glad to pay $1500 for a digital camera like this then.

Compared to my SLR, if I have to pick one thing, it's the shallow depth of field shots like the one from my 50mm f1.4 lenses that set my SLR apart. For the type of snapshots with really deep depth of fields, I find the iPhone 6 camera suffice. Also, if I were to shoot a landscape (not a snapshot), I would use my SLR instead.

One thing I miss about the days before I got into photography was how simpler life was. To go on a hike, I just brought some water, not a back pack of heavy camera and lenses. At important events, I got to experience them first hand instead of through the view finder. Over the years, I have learnt to strike a balance between shooting and not shooting, and when I shoot, I knew exactly what type of shot I want so it takes less time. My mobile phone does a pretty good job that on many occasions I knew I didn't have to bring my SLR and the heavy lenses and my tripod. Life is great. I don't miss the film days.

 

[I7guy]

We can, but the words you wrote were pretty plain. And so was your attempt to change the meaning. So that would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?



Yes, they would... which is why it's pretty confounding why someone would focus - after the fact - on a specific aspect of photography to define "more forgiving" instead of just outright expressing what they meant in the first place. Unless of course, they were trying to back out of a position and still "win" a discussion.

To me the phrase "more forgiving" with respect to film has one meaning in the context of this conversation. Since this is the Internet and we are having a discussion and there was some ambiguity on the other side i clarified the meaning. If there is some discussion about "winning or backing out" it's irrelevant to me as you got the point.

The main thrust of this conversation still stands about the capabilities of the hardware intersecting with the scene and the photogs skill level. You can always improve your technique but are stuck with the hardware used to shoot the scene.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

No, professional photography is in serious trouble. True photography is actually experiencing a renaissance.

I know, I was being a little sarcastic I must admit.

If you define "skill" strictly that way, or by demanding a high barrier to entry with expensive equipment and glass, then sure, the "artform" is dead. But that's far from the case if you define "skill" by the true meaning: the ability to effectively frame and compose a shot; knowing the rule of thirds and when to break it; knowing how a subject must be lit for the image to express the way you want it to (which no auto exposure setting can account for); understanding the workings, capabilities and limitations of the device you hold in your hand and how best to leverage it.

Make no mistake, a badly composed, poorly-thought-out shot will still look bad, no mater what Instagram filter you slap on top of it. But if "true photographers" feel the need to snort at anyone who dares try to take good pictures with anything but the finest dSLRs and lenses, then I submit that the "artform" they practice absolutely deserves to die.

Such people have forgotten the roots of the artform and its history. The basic Camera Obscura and Brownie camera were the historic building blocks of this form of expression, and they were available to the masses and offered the bare minimum of capabilities, far less than the modern smartphone camera, and yet they can take the most expressive, artistic photos in the right hands. And if you rely solely on "professional" glass to make your shots perfect, then you're no better to me than someone who slaps digital filters on their pics and calls it a day.

I am not a photography snob by any means and a good photograph is a good photograph regardless of what it was taken on within reason. My point is phones are limited to what they can do and will never have the flexibility a DSLR will have with a collection of lenses and lighting available. Having the best kit does not always mean the user is any good at photography either. I have seen quite a few people spend 2 or 3 grand on a Canon 5D MKII with a series of L-Lenses and not have a clue how to compose a picture.

My original point was about a culture on social media where people take a poor photograph on their iPhone and stick a filter over the top and they get so many compliments because it appears artistic. You also get those who take fantastic photographs etc. I wasn't suggesting they are all bad. I wouldn't even claim to be a pro because I am far from it. I just have an interest in photography and would class myself as an enthusiast who just so happens to have sold a few of my own pictures and had one published in a magazine. I was quite proud of that at the time. That doesn't mean I think every phone picture is crap but I thought I would share my opinion on having the right kit for the right conditions.

 

[geoff5093]

Phones are great for taking day-to-day photos. You will never use phones for action sports which require fast telephoto lenses, low-light photography which requires ultra fast lenses with high ISO, portrait photography which use very wide aperture lenses, etc.

Phones are good for taking photos walking around the city or at a party, but they are limited in their use.

 

[Attonine]

Phones are great for taking day-to-day photos. You will never use phones for action sports which require fast telephoto lenses, low-light photography which requires ultra fast lenses with high ISO, portrait photography which use very wide aperture lenses, etc.

Phones are good for taking photos walking around the city or at a party, but they are limited in their use.

Surely all cameras are limited in their use?

 

[geoff5093]

Surely all cameras are limited in their use?

Not cameras with interchangeable lenses.

 

[Bearxor]

One thing I miss about the days before I got into photography was how simpler life was. To go on a hike, I just brought some water, not a back pack of heavy camera and lenses. At important events, I got to experience them first hand instead of through the view finder. Over the years, I have learnt to strike a balance between shooting and not shooting, and when I shoot, I knew exactly what type of shot I want so it takes less time. My mobile phone does a pretty good job that on many occasions I knew I didn't have to bring my SLR and the heavy lenses and my tripod. Life is great. I don't miss the film days.

I agree. One thing I learned to hate was how I had to feel over-prepared when I went anywhere. I couldn't just go enjoy something I had to worry about gear and capturing.

But now, I'm just like you. I don't carry gear everywhere and try to live the moment. If I go to take a photo I know pretty much exactly what I want to take and can take it quickly and that's where my phone comes in really handy. I can be from pocket to shot in about two seconds.

I'm actually holding out this year for a Lumia 1020 successor. If they release something as nice as that this year that is a lot faster with a dedicated camera button, I'll probably switch to WP just for the camera alone.

And I've been seriously considering those Sony camera modules that connext to your phone over wifi but am a little iffy about wanting to carry one around.

 

[Attonine]

Not cameras with interchangeable lenses.

Really, wow! So if I buy an interchangeable lens camera, it can do everything? Really? All interchangeable lens cameras, right? They have no limitations at all, right?

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Really, wow! So if I buy an interchangeable lens camera, it can do everything? Really? All interchangeable lens cameras, right? They have no limitations at all, right?

They are not going to order you a pizza but surely you can accept in photography terms a DSLR with interchangeable lenses has a lot more options than an iPhone? I have about 17 lenses with my camera ranging from vast focal lengths, fisheye, wide angle, telephoto etc etc. For these types of cameras you can get anything from a pancake lens to a 1000+mm. The tone of your post suggested you don't believe any of this?

 

[Attonine]

They are not going to order you a pizza but surely you can accept in photography terms a DSLR with interchangeable lenses has a lot more options than an iPhone? I have about 17 lenses with my camera ranging from vast focal lengths, fisheye, wide angle, telephoto etc etc. For these types of cameras you can get anything from a pancake lens to a 1000+mm. The tone of your post suggested you don't believe any of this?

My tone suggested that geoff5093 had written a ridiculous post as fact. geoff5093 has stated that interchangeable lens cameras do not have limitations, this is just not correct. Try using a Leica M with a 600mm lens, a Hasselblad in a conflict zone (OK totally possible, but would you really want to?).

Of course DSLR's are more flexible, but they, like all cameras, have limitations. For example, despite all of your equipment, could your DSLR be used as a button hole or spy camera? See there is a limitation. A ridiculous example, yes, but no more ridiculous than posters saying things like "I can't use an iPhone to shoot a ball game with a 300mm 2.8 lens." All cameras have limitations. You wouldn't consider using a DSLR as a spy camera, just as you wouldn't consider an iPhone to shoot a ball game. You choose the right tool for the job!

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

iPhone camera vs stand alone digital camera

I misunderstood the sarcasm and didn't take note of you username from previous discussion, apologies.

 

[meistervu]

Sure, SLR and all the lenses have their limitation due to complexity. The reason you get those lenses is that they each have their strength, so when you go out, you have to pick which lenses to bring and which bag to pack them in.

On location, you have to decide which lenses to have on your camera (or cameras if you decide to shoot with multiple bodies)

Then while you are shooting, if you have the wrong lenses on, it sucks. I remember being stuck with a 70-200 IS trying to capture a shot in tight quarter.

 

[FieldingMellish]

Then while you are shooting, if you have the wrong lenses on, it sucks. I remember being stuck with a 70-200 IS trying to capture a shot in tight quarter.

Which brings up the specter of dual bodies, one with a wide range; one with tele.


... or, we can be like this guy:

 

[Jimmy James]

My 5 year old point & shoot is quite a bit better than my iPhone 6. Let alone my dslr. Sensor size and lens quality.

 

[meistervu]

My 5 year old point & shoot is quite a bit better than my iPhone 6. Let alone my dslr. Sensor size and lens quality.

My pinhole camera shoots better than any any camera with a glass lenses.
My X is better than your Y.


See how easy it's is easy to make a statement. I wish you could show an example how "quite a bit better" it is.

 

[I7guy]

My tone suggested that geoff5093 had written a ridiculous post as fact. geoff5093 has stated that interchangeable lens cameras do not have limitations, this is just not correct. Try using a Leica M with a 600mm lens, a Hasselblad in a conflict zone (OK totally possible, but would you really want to?).

Of course DSLR's are more flexible, but they, like all cameras, have limitations. For example, despite all of your equipment, could your DSLR be used as a button hole or spy camera? See there is a limitation. A ridiculous example, yes, but no more ridiculous than posters saying things like "I can't use an iPhone to shoot a ball game with a 300mm 2.8 lens." All cameras have limitations. You wouldn't consider using a DSLR as a spy camera, just as you wouldn't consider an iPhone to shoot a ball game. You choose the right tool for the job!

Took that comment and went from the ridiculous to the sublime. Talking about general photography needs not spy cameras.

In the realm of general photography, unless you are talking selfies, a Leica, Hasselblad, iphone 6, note 4, canon, Nikon, pentax can all virtually take the same shot. There might be some situations where one piece of hardware is not usable in a given environment without some consideration, such as pouring rain, which necessitates waterproof equipment; sub-zero temperature, in which an iphone will stop working due to cold, etc but in general I agree...right tool for the right job. The fact is the iphone as a camera is a bigger compromise than let's say a high-end dslr with a bevy of lenses. Substitute portability for overall less compromises.

 

[Jimmy James]

My pinhole camera shoots better than any any camera with a glass lenses.
My X is better than your Y.


See how easy it's is easy to make a statement. I wish you could show an example how "quite a bit better" it is.

An easy statement to make, sure. In this case still true.

1. Optical zoom. This alone makes a camera better for a multitude of uses.

2. In terms of pure IQ - Noise. The 6 is still very noisy compared to a bigger sensor compact. I don't think this is in dispute.

 

[meistervu]

An easy statement to make, sure. In this case still true.

1. Optical zoom. This alone makes a camera better for a multitude of uses.

2. In terms of pure IQ - Noise. The 6 is still very noisy compared to a bigger sensor compact. I don't think this is in dispute.

Optical Zoom

Not necessarily. I use a few fixed lenses on my SLR because I like the quality. There are good zoom lenses out there, but there are many mediocre ones. It's easier to make better fixed lenses. Zoomed lenses on PS are compromises in my opinions as they tend to be slow.

In terms of pure IQ - Noise.

That is true, but the question I would ask is how does the end results compared for the intended purpose. I would argue that for most shots it doesn't make a difference for the intended purpose like posting online or viewing on the screen at normal zoom level (not pixel peeping). And if there is noise, the noise isn't as distracting as old digital camera noise used to be, so you can see the content for what it is.

 

[Jimmy James]

I think this gets to the heart of my issue with the camera on the 6. I find that indoor pictures without the flash look over processed. They've turned up the noise reduction. People can start to look a bit plastic. I used to use a program called Neat Image with pictures from my older cameras because the noise was so intrusive. When I went too far I got the same look.

 

[meistervu]

I think this gets to the heart of my issue with the camera on the 6. I find that indoor pictures without the flash look over processed. They've turned up the noise reduction. People can start to look a bit plastic. I used to use a program called Neat Image with pictures from my older cameras because the noise was so intrusive. When I went too far I got the same look.

I used to play around with noise reduction program myself, but I never liked the results. I chose instead to shoot in condition where noise was less of an issue. Eventually the SLRs I upgraded to get to the point where noise was no longer an issue for me. Some camera's noise is better than others. The early digital PS cameras noise was the worst. I could not stand them.

It is strange that I haven't noticed the over processing noise reduction issue you mentioned. I am normally pretty critical of that sort of thing.

 

[FieldingMellish]

There's been threads on these board all a-rage over noise and plasticity / scrubbed detail in iPhone 6 images.

I've not seen it myself. But I'm not shooting pics in low light with the iPhone 6 either. I did try a head-to-head comparison of the iPhone 6 and a Fuji X100S in good daylight mid morning scenes. Results were comparable under those perfect conditions. Though with the Fuji, if some pics wound up keepers, I could do more with them, such as blow up large, or crop and still have lots of pixels to work with. Or use the raw image from it and enhance the image further with the huge latitude that raw presents.