Photos from smartphones are a waste of time, their quality is terrible and they have huge limitations. Smartphones are very inconvenient to take photos with, you can't use an external flash, they're bulky, and they're bigger than a great camera like the Ricoh GRIII. Smartphone photos are plastic, lack of details, very poor dynamics, terrible distortions caused by very bad lenses, the only relatively useful ISO is 100. Do you ride bikes? So take a photo on the bike route. You may be surprised that one wheel is much larger than the other. Smartphone lenses have such terrible distortions. If I want something small to photograph, I take the Ricoh GRIII, which is smaller than any smartphone and takes fantastic photos. I would like to have nice photos from my holidays, so I never take them with my smartphone. I made the mistake of taking my smartphone on vacation once and I will never make that mistake again. These photos cannot be taken again. They were lost.
Folks that can't understand the difference between a photo from a smartphone and a FF camera aren't Real Photographers. Apple must be paying them well to state otherwise.
IKR. I have both. My Olympus M43 gear gets me out of the house to go take photos. Good exercise walking through nature. Meeting folks. Coffee shops. Walking my dog. It’s a fun hobby and relatively cheap with no film costs and processing fees nowadays. My camera is for artistic shots. But my iPhone gets the job done. (Just dorky to hold ) 🤣
Actually in this video I found the iPhone had most of the best results. -> For Me. Color rendition. HDR Dynamic Range. Skin tones. etc… Take a look at the Jeans Jacket comparison. iPhone nailed the hair detail too. 2:07
Not very best side by side comparison :o( I`ve seen better here. Missing closer look on the pictures details, noise and bokeh has diferent distance from subject or focal length person is not equally big on them. Iphone is nearly twice more Mpix 48 Mpx. Yes I agree FF is FF. But you got this in your pocket every day with you with not so bad picture quality and low aperture. You can have PRO version with optical zoom.
So content creators are just going to stop using their phone...and pick up a $1700.00 camera? When I am looking at shorts and sadly TikTok video I am thinking... if only they used a S9. Their 30 second video would be so much better...lol. I thought you were suppose to tell us this was an ad for the Panasonic S9? ;)
The LUMIX photos are blown out highlights. I liked iPhone way better. Wow. The highlights in this video is blown out major too. Even on faces. Maybe smartphones aren’t so bad
Yep, for beginner its hard to beat the dynamic range you get from smartphones. It would take a skilled photographer to expose each shot correctly to match the iphone which is something a beginner will struggle heavily to do. Resulting in them returning the camera and sticking to their iPhones since it does that hard step for them
Smartphones have horrible dynamic range but apply massive processing. Thats something to do for camera images too. Btw highlights exist- the phone pics look artificial
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI Phone camera dynamic range far inferior (which is understandable). Regarding any blown highlights in this video, they could've easily been avoided if the photos/video were shot in the highlight priority metering mode. Simply a matter of turning it on in the menu. No photographer needs to be skilled to do that. Just gotta know your equipment.
@@baihu4uYou are stating that phones have terrible dynamic range but are looking at photos from the iPhone whose dynamic range is stepping all over the S9? 😅 CineD did extensive Dynamic range testing on the iPhone 15 Pro Max and found that without HDR it manages to get 12 clean stops of dynamic range, which is right in line with todays modern Cameras (And more than the 10 stops the Nikon Z6 III gets)
Can't compare this to a phone. Phones stack photos and have auto HDR merging. If you did the same processing on a raw Lumix photo you'd absolutely destroy the iphone.
The video was purchased from Panasonic. But that doesn't make the S9 any better. Everything in the comparison applies to almost every other DSLM. Nice try, I hope Panasonic pays well? You're losing trust in your channel right now.
@@baihu4uhe is correct that this marketing video only repeat the usual pros of interchangable lens camera vs phone though. Like they should go deep into low light image, compact lens selection if actually do decent comparison😅
I just liked that they’re comparing the S9 to an iPhone because that camera is such a piece of junk cripple hammered by panasonic that a phone is really the only thing it can compete with 😂
no one would notice the difference in IQ of photos&videos taken with a iphone and s9 cam if they look at their smartphones..at least i can make phone calls with my iphone
Everyone or almost everyone says that the S9 is a terrible product. A camera with so many limitations that it is neither a camera nor a video camera. A promotion with the Osaka event that only gave Panasonic bad publicity. Still show the camera with that damn f8 manual lens. Panasonic should think about hurrying up and making the 18-40 and making a bundle at a reasonable price and stop using RUclips with inappropriate things.
The SIZE of the SENSOR has NOTHING do to with the quality. A 24mp bayer sensor on Full Frame, and a 24mp 1 inch Sensor will give the same detail level given that the glass or lens is of the same quality. The reason the iPhone looks worse is because of its processing (Among other things) I'm surprised that someone shooting for over a decade will start of the video with such a big lie to their audience! Please do better and learn how sensors works i.e. its circuitry that affects dynamic range, Pixel density, how Camera arrays like Bayer, X Trans, Quad Bayer, Foveon affect effective resolution vs pixel resolution before stating such falsehoods
Larger sensors absolutely produce higher quality images. They literally store more photoelectrons which is the biggest contributor to dynamic range. Google full well capacity and pixel saturation.
You are correct that color filters, silicon generations (die size), wiring, and other technologies affect image quality but sensor size absolutely affects image quality. To demonstrate this most clearly, do some research and look for comparison of film sizes. With film (135 vs 120 for example) you are equalizing the "sensor" quality/technology as the same film stock is available in different sizes (this is pretty rare in digital cameras). If you examine the comparisons you will find that as you move up in film size there is a definite (sometimes extreme, sometimes subtle) jump in image quality. Digital muddies the water because advances in silicon can (at typical sensitivity levels-what we still call ISO) negate the advantage of a larger capture area/sensor physically collecting more electrons than a smaller sensor. Hence in digital photography the size of the sensor has become just one factor among many that affects image quality (whereas in film it was one of the ONLY factors outside lens quality). Perhaps the presenters emphasized sensor size too much but they aren't wrong or perpetuating a "big lie".
@@Calibr21 Not only do I know that incorrect, ive done testing on all sensor sizes. From modding a Nokia 808 Pureview with a better lens (full 41MP after camera mod) to comparing 5.3k One R modded back bone camera to APS-C and Full Frame equivalents testing. It is one thing to know the tech behind it and its another things to actually put them to the test in a fair and honest way. And when I tell you that you would be hard pressed to see any difference between the smaller sensor 5.3k, 41mp or 7K RAW smartphone footage vs their Camera Equivalents it is coming from a place of extensive testing. Alot of the limitations stem from the smaller sensors having cheaper quality lenses and half baked software with sub par rendering. When those things are factored out and replaced with higher quality analogs you realize that sensor performance is far more similar regardless of size.
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI iPhone images are 10 bit files, full frame 14bit, medium format GFX is 16 bit. The larger sensors have higher bit depth because they can collect more photons. The 16bit file results in a technically better image than a 10bit file.
@@joeljrichards You know your stuff but you missed one thing. Film "resolution" was dictated by how well each stock packed in the silver halide crystals. Lets take a popular 35mm film stock like Kodak Supra 400, when measured by Zeiss back in 2004 it was determined that its "resolution" or line pairs (lp/m) was around 100. Now compared to a higher "resolution" film stock like Kodak T-Max 100 b&w you are looking at an equivalent of 180 lp/m which is almost a doubling of percieved detail giving you have a lens that can resolve that amount like the Canon EF 200mm f1.8 at f3.5. Thats the same size Film stock showing different detail levels where the limiting factor is the Glass you put in front of it. Going bigger in film did generally resulting in increased detail but only if the silver halide structure was of the near uniformity. Which means some 35mm film stock rendered more detail than some medium format 120 film. E.g. 35mm Adox CMS 20 II which had a theoretical "resolution" of 800 lp/m. Now for Digital you introduce the variable of (Pixel resolution vs effective resolution) and this is where Camera arrays come into play. Lets take Bayer for examples. Each pixel on traditional Bayer pattern array has 2 green pixels to 1 red and 1 blue pixel. Which is then interpolated by the camera or the software to produce an RGB Image. Now a 24mp bayer array will have a pixel resolution of 24mp but when taking into account that extra green pixel isn't giving true color detail like how you see on film (A True RGB format) you end up woth only 75% of the total resolution resolving in detail making a 24mp sensor give 18mp of effective resolution. That is regardless of if its a Full Frame camera, APS-C, MFT or a 1-inch Sensor. The differences you might see comes down how they decide to do the circuitry around the pixels, how the software interperates and interpolated the bayer array (which improves year by year) and the glass that is put infront of it. And since its harder to resolve detail through a smaller part of the glass you sometimes end up with worse detail in your images but when corrected for each of those factors the sensors will produce similar images
The comments thou. From so many who’ve not used the camera. 🤣
this comment section is hilarious xD
Photos from smartphones are a waste of time, their quality is terrible and they have huge limitations. Smartphones are very inconvenient to take photos with, you can't use an external flash, they're bulky, and they're bigger than a great camera like the Ricoh GRIII. Smartphone photos are plastic, lack of details, very poor dynamics, terrible distortions caused by very bad lenses, the only relatively useful ISO is 100. Do you ride bikes? So take a photo on the bike route. You may be surprised that one wheel is much larger than the other. Smartphone lenses have such terrible distortions. If I want something small to photograph, I take the Ricoh GRIII, which is smaller than any smartphone and takes fantastic photos. I would like to have nice photos from my holidays, so I never take them with my smartphone. I made the mistake of taking my smartphone on vacation once and I will never make that mistake again. These photos cannot be taken again. They were lost.
From a “street photography” perspective, an iPhone is fine, but if you want a few more ingredients, the camera delivers that bit!
Folks that can't understand the difference between a photo from a smartphone and a FF camera aren't Real Photographers. Apple must be paying them well to state otherwise.
but who are we kidding? all these photos wind up on Instagram anyway so there’s literally little to no way you can tell in that case.
@@airdailyx So basically you are making the CASE for AI and getting rid of the Real Photographer.
IKR. I have both. My Olympus M43 gear gets me out of the house to go take photos.
Good exercise walking through nature. Meeting folks. Coffee shops. Walking my dog.
It’s a fun hobby and relatively cheap with no film costs and processing fees nowadays.
My camera is for artistic shots. But my iPhone gets the job done. (Just dorky to hold ) 🤣
Talking about full frame dynamic range (showing completely white sky)
the dynamic range of the Iphone is waaaay better though.
Nice Tshirt, where i can buy one else?
and if you have both....BOOM
Actually in this video I found the iPhone had most of the best results. -> For Me.
Color rendition. HDR Dynamic Range. Skin tones. etc…
Take a look at the Jeans Jacket comparison. iPhone nailed the hair detail too. 2:07
Looking for a Z6III vs S5II head to head comparison.
Not very best side by side comparison :o( I`ve seen better here. Missing closer look on the pictures details, noise and bokeh has diferent distance from subject or focal length person is not equally big on them. Iphone is nearly twice more Mpix 48 Mpx. Yes I agree FF is FF. But you got this in your pocket every day with you with not so bad picture quality and low aperture. You can have PRO version with optical zoom.
So content creators are just going to stop using their phone...and pick up a $1700.00 camera? When I am looking at shorts and sadly TikTok video I am thinking... if only they used a S9. Their 30 second video would be so much better...lol. I thought you were suppose to tell us this was an ad for the Panasonic S9? ;)
Imagine running your filters (TikTok VFX) on the S9 😂
Comment section is producing more artistic content than
any Lumix S9 FF camera could. 😎
Over $1500 for a camera with a coldshoe. That’s a non starter for me. Really, what the heck were they thinking?
No EVF is more significant, cold shoe is meh
The LUMIX photos are blown out highlights. I liked iPhone way better. Wow. The highlights in this video is blown out major too. Even on faces. Maybe smartphones aren’t so bad
Yep, for beginner its hard to beat the dynamic range you get from smartphones. It would take a skilled photographer to expose each shot correctly to match the iphone which is something a beginner will struggle heavily to do. Resulting in them returning the camera and sticking to their iPhones since it does that hard step for them
Smartphones have horrible dynamic range but apply massive processing. Thats something to do for camera images too.
Btw highlights exist- the phone pics look artificial
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI Phone camera dynamic range far inferior (which is understandable). Regarding any blown highlights in this video, they could've easily been avoided if the photos/video were shot in the highlight priority metering mode. Simply a matter of turning it on in the menu. No photographer needs to be skilled to do that. Just gotta know your equipment.
@@baihu4uYou are stating that phones have terrible dynamic range but are looking at photos from the iPhone whose dynamic range is stepping all over the S9? 😅
CineD did extensive Dynamic range testing on the iPhone 15 Pro Max and found that without HDR it manages to get 12 clean stops of dynamic range, which is right in line with todays modern Cameras (And more than the 10 stops the Nikon Z6 III gets)
Can't compare this to a phone. Phones stack photos and have auto HDR merging. If you did the same processing on a raw Lumix photo you'd absolutely destroy the iphone.
The video was purchased from Panasonic. But that doesn't make the S9 any better. Everything in the comparison applies to almost every other DSLM. Nice try, I hope Panasonic pays well? You're losing trust in your channel right now.
You're hating pretty hard here. Did the S9 hurt your little phone feelings?
@@baihu4uhe is correct that this marketing video only repeat the usual pros of interchangable lens camera vs phone though. Like they should go deep into low light image, compact lens selection if actually do decent comparison😅
I just liked that they’re comparing the S9 to an iPhone because that camera is such a piece of junk cripple hammered by panasonic that a phone is really the only thing it can compete with 😂
I'll buy this cripple junk in December, and there ain't nothing you can do about it. :D
And you ll get good results from it too
What a terrible take.
А зачем ждать декабря, если они уже сейчас в продаже, да ещё и с бонусным объективом 26мм?!!)
Ради скидок что-ль?)
No one going to look at your pictures S9. iPhone wins in photography
All of us have a Helios lens at home 😅. As I look at my Helios 44-2 Lens, this part of the video had me rolling 😂
Haha same! Came with my Zenit-E.
No matter how much money panasonic spent on advertising the S9, the product turned out to be unsuccessful.
no one would notice the difference in IQ of photos&videos taken with a iphone and s9 cam if they look at their smartphones..at least i can make phone calls with my iphone
Yep, S9 still fully in stock in ALL colors... looks like people weren't fooled into buying this terrible camera
No matter ho many times you say that, it's wayyyyy to early to know.
Everyone or almost everyone says that the S9 is a terrible product. A camera with so many limitations that it is neither a camera nor a video camera. A promotion with the Osaka event that only gave Panasonic bad publicity. Still show the camera with that damn f8 manual lens. Panasonic should think about hurrying up and making the 18-40 and making a bundle at a reasonable price and stop using RUclips with inappropriate things.
The SIZE of the SENSOR has NOTHING do to with the quality. A 24mp bayer sensor on Full Frame, and a 24mp 1 inch Sensor will give the same detail level given that the glass or lens is of the same quality.
The reason the iPhone looks worse is because of its processing (Among other things) I'm surprised that someone shooting for over a decade will start of the video with such a big lie to their audience!
Please do better and learn how sensors works i.e. its circuitry that affects dynamic range, Pixel density, how Camera arrays like Bayer, X Trans, Quad Bayer, Foveon affect effective resolution vs pixel resolution before stating such falsehoods
Larger sensors absolutely produce higher quality images. They literally store more photoelectrons which is the biggest contributor to dynamic range. Google full well capacity and pixel saturation.
You are correct that color filters, silicon generations (die size), wiring, and other technologies affect image quality but sensor size absolutely affects image quality. To demonstrate this most clearly, do some research and look for comparison of film sizes. With film (135 vs 120 for example) you are equalizing the "sensor" quality/technology as the same film stock is available in different sizes (this is pretty rare in digital cameras). If you examine the comparisons you will find that as you move up in film size there is a definite (sometimes extreme, sometimes subtle) jump in image quality.
Digital muddies the water because advances in silicon can (at typical sensitivity levels-what we still call ISO) negate the advantage of a larger capture area/sensor physically collecting more electrons than a smaller sensor. Hence in digital photography the size of the sensor has become just one factor among many that affects image quality (whereas in film it was one of the ONLY factors outside lens quality).
Perhaps the presenters emphasized sensor size too much but they aren't wrong or perpetuating a "big lie".
@@Calibr21 Not only do I know that incorrect, ive done testing on all sensor sizes. From modding a Nokia 808 Pureview with a better lens (full 41MP after camera mod) to comparing 5.3k One R modded back bone camera to APS-C and Full Frame equivalents testing.
It is one thing to know the tech behind it and its another things to actually put them to the test in a fair and honest way. And when I tell you that you would be hard pressed to see any difference between the smaller sensor 5.3k, 41mp or 7K RAW smartphone footage vs their Camera Equivalents it is coming from a place of extensive testing.
Alot of the limitations stem from the smaller sensors having cheaper quality lenses and half baked software with sub par rendering. When those things are factored out and replaced with higher quality analogs you realize that sensor performance is far more similar regardless of size.
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI iPhone images are 10 bit files, full frame 14bit, medium format GFX is 16 bit. The larger sensors have higher bit depth because they can collect more photons. The 16bit file results in a technically better image than a 10bit file.
@@joeljrichards You know your stuff but you missed one thing. Film "resolution" was dictated by how well each stock packed in the silver halide crystals.
Lets take a popular 35mm film stock like Kodak Supra 400, when measured by Zeiss back in 2004 it was determined that its "resolution" or line pairs (lp/m) was around 100. Now compared to a higher "resolution" film stock like Kodak T-Max 100 b&w you are looking at an equivalent of 180 lp/m which is almost a doubling of percieved detail giving you have a lens that can resolve that amount like the Canon EF 200mm f1.8 at f3.5.
Thats the same size Film stock showing different detail levels where the limiting factor is the Glass you put in front of it. Going bigger in film did generally resulting in increased detail but only if the silver halide structure was of the near uniformity. Which means some 35mm film stock rendered more detail than some medium format 120 film. E.g. 35mm Adox CMS 20 II which had a theoretical "resolution" of 800 lp/m.
Now for Digital you introduce the variable of (Pixel resolution vs effective resolution) and this is where Camera arrays come into play. Lets take Bayer for examples. Each pixel on traditional Bayer pattern array has 2 green pixels to 1 red and 1 blue pixel. Which is then interpolated by the camera or the software to produce an RGB Image. Now a 24mp bayer array will have a pixel resolution of 24mp but when taking into account that extra green pixel isn't giving true color detail like how you see on film (A True RGB format) you end up woth only 75% of the total resolution resolving in detail making a 24mp sensor give 18mp of effective resolution. That is regardless of if its a Full Frame camera, APS-C, MFT or a 1-inch Sensor.
The differences you might see comes down how they decide to do the circuitry around the pixels, how the software interperates and interpolated the bayer array (which improves year by year) and the glass that is put infront of it. And since its harder to resolve detail through a smaller part of the glass you sometimes end up with worse detail in your images but when corrected for each of those factors the sensors will produce similar images