@@darugdawg2453 it's a sensor that does pixel binning from 4x4 grid to one for 12mp and 2x2 for 50mp, the older 108mp sensor did a 3x3 grid to 12mp. there is no point putting that many pixels in such a tiny sensor and optics where light can't get to it properly, that's why low light images and videos on phones are so ugly and full of noise and night modes rely on long exposures and taking multiple shots and then combining them together, so it's not even the real frame you're looking at in the end. plus good luck capturing a fast moving object that way. Only serious cameras with big sensors and lenses will do, just thinking about it logically - a big sensor with less megapixels will have the best low light performance.
Yeah, I haven't seen someone do such a well-done 1:1 comparison. This guy did a 💯 job. Most people out there who compares cameras to this phone just shows a side by side with no zoom on the photos to show the detail in both cameras.
Agreed, nice and straight forward. Would love one of these a year. And would prefer comparisons with less phone software processing on the image, like the optional AI processing on the Samsung. I’m excited to see the day phone cameras truly can compete with DSLRs, maybe with just a lens adaptor added 😁
Agreed a lot of comparison clearly unfair since the camera is using a lens that no smartphone ever had, better angles on camera or the one who compared it have zero photography skills lol
Thing is, it really is mind blowing how good phones are. Obviously when boundaries must be pushed, the phones quality becomes Morecambe obvious. For me, a external camera is essential since astrophotography is photography of stellar objects using a telescope so camera choice is important. External cameras and cameras in general beat phones (dur to the mountinf system to lens). In the worst case, people brag about their fake x100 time zoom S23 and it is annoying and ridiculous but what ever.
@@bb-ioan you are laughable because the sensor in the Z7 II is actually better both at DR and noise that what SONY put in the A7 IV! It seems you don't know your stuff...
The sole purpose of this video is to show that any phone, in fact the most powerful phone with 3-4-5-6-7 cameras doesn’t have the capability to go against a real camera 😂
The main issue I've always had with smart phone cams is the dynamic range and the over sharpening. Kills images when going for Landscape shots. Great video
@@Maksp still the dynamic range, depth of field, the color science, the over sharpening and fake moon shots ( samsung) on a cellphone still have a long way to go.. compared to a simple point and shoot.. cell phones are unbeaten.. but an actual camera with a sensor at least 10 times the size of a cellphone is going to get alot more data from the picture than a cellphone will ever will... now if you like to do pictures for like instagram and facebook.. go ahead cellphone is the way to go! but if im taking pictures of my kids graduation,, a machine dedicated to capture lifes moments in its best form...a Canon, Sony, or Nikon is the way to go!
@@Maksp Well, it is only "good". The DR is directly determined by the effective size of each pixel. That is why phones are tailing far behind a real cameras.
Expert RAW is essentially computational RAW that outputs JPEG/RAW hybrids. That's why in the underexposure tests the Samsung falls apart introducing weird smudgy, blotchy artifacts and color casts when you push the exposure up while the Nikon doesn't. Photos from Expert RAW are definitely better than regular JPEGs but I wouldn't call them true RAW files as they have many characteristics of smartphone JPEG processing, which sort of defeats the purpose of shooting in RAW in the first place. It's really only useful for scenes with very wide dynamic range, low-light scenarios where Pro mode tends to introduce far more noise or shooting in 50MP as the 50MP samples I've shot just in Pro mode on my S23U are somehow less detailed than the 12MP samples even at base ISO and Expert RAW's processing seems to fix this issue. I'd personally steer clear of Expert RAW if you shoot in RAW often
Since Feburary 2023 ProMode does not produce useable raw any more, it has the same dynamic range as the jpg and Adobe De-Noise can't work them because they are to much preprocessed.
@@donnawetter1513 This is false for my S24 as of now, though. Also, you can disable most processing. Pro give you much better dynamic range than jpeg if you shoot raw, I haven't compared it to ExpertRaw though because on internet there are comparisons already and ExpertRaw is pretty bad on those, so this video should be remade.
@@spamare Expert RAW is already demosaiced as I understand (I have never done that process in my life so I think most if not all apps on PlayStore will shoot demosaiced already on S24 and S24 ultra) but just don't shoot on that Expert RAW shit, it ks pretty bad. Shoot on Pro Camera, I don't see anything that Expert RAW cam offer. Alternatively , if you want even better RAWs I did a in depth comparison of many RAW camera apps and it goes like this: Expert RAW < Pro Camera < Any RAW App < Open Camera. I don't know why, but Open Camera is giving the best RAWs, only drawback is that it doesn't give RAWs for the Telephoto, and they haven't fix this bug in month.
The simple fact that we can compare the S24 Ultra PHONE camera to FF Nikon Z7II speaks volumes. The FF sensor is more forgiving and has a better dynamic range, that is given. But with careful setting S24 (also S23) will give you very good to excellent images. If you want less default sharpening of the pictures you should download free Samsung Camera Assistant and with this app adjust sharpening to "Medium" (Picture softening), something that I use and recommend. P.S. I have Nikon D750 and Samsung S23.
@@Desert-edDaveMaybe if you print the picture, but if you're going to post it on social media like Instagram, it probably doesn't matter at this point. Your scene capturing skills are going to matter far more than the camera you're using.
This is mainly due to how nobody prints their photos. Like yeah no shit, if you only view your images on a phone screen it's going to look decent no matter the camera.
Just never either take photos in non-optimal conditions, or enlarge them. Phone cams have become really good precisely and only in the easiest use case, and for viewing on a phone screen.
@@moriyamakyon1067sometimes, they can. This is a €3000 camera againt a weaker camera phone. Compare a €1500 camera to a Vivo X100 Ultra, and the phone will probably win too.
your comparing a phone to a camera! to be honest i was expecting the nikon to look way better ! xD i guess when the iso goes up then the real test shows but its pretty nice to see where tech is going
Small sensors do great in good lighting. I have a small sensor bright camera with 1200mm zoom - in ideal light, it takes great pictures. But once the lighting gets poor, it falls apart.
You are right. Compare in Bad light condition and you will see that phones cannot beat physiks. In bad light condition a Phone needs Up to 3 Seconds frames or stack a Lot of frames where my 75 mm can make single frames
if the "mode" it is in matters, it's not an actual RAW file as is on a dedicated camera, but rather a processed mess that attempts to do what dedicated (actual) cameras do.
@@Desert-edDaveYou can get the raw file, but only in pro mode. It's not like the phone tries to create a raw file, it's the real raw file. The "expert raw" is more like a processed image than an actual raw file. Get it?
@@jonathasantoz I can guarantee you that it's not an actual raw file. It's still heavily processed, else it would be a noisy mess at anything other than the base ISO.
@@TechnoBabblehe's talking about unprocessed raw from pro mode from default camera app, not the crappy "expert raw" app. It saves real information from the sensor. You'll even have all the noises if the lighting condition is not perfect like back in the day with compact pocket cameras
To be honest is pretty impressive that from a professional photography standpoint, a camera phone is not really that bad compared to a professional camera that costs almost the double! And by the way, those places where you took the shots are simply amazing! Most of them looks like a painting. Very picturesque.
Samsung does have a "Pro" setting with ISO, shutter, EV, white balance settings and selective focus. People who uses cell phones wants that immediate satisfaction of having the pictures and sharing them to social media. I've blown up an image to poster size using a Samsung image and it held up well. Each camera has it's niche and using either one is fine.
It's been 10 years that smartphone companies are FOOLING people with their MegaPixel numbers, and people still haven't got around the fact that more MegaPixels doesn't mean better camera.
Bro, again, megapixel does not so much for picture quality. The sensor size means. An camera has a normal 1inch sensor. The phone in 2014 haves very very croped sensor, and if it will have 1 inch sensor, anyway it will be trash cause the proccesor and other, in 2014 they dont have so much power as now, so they just cant procces that image. Now we have almost 1 inch sensor in phones like vivo x100 pro, s24 ultra, and others. And we also have a good hardware, like snap 8 gen 3, much more ram, so the proccesor can handle that image. And that is that what really means in taking a picture. So the MegaPixels, is not that important. @@Exlomm
Finally someone competent to show a decent test between a camera and a smartphone... I liked the mention of the diaphragm informing that we get a greater depth of field in cameras and in smartphones the aperture is fixed. Nobody mentions this... You gained a subscriber!!!
Samsung used to have a bi-variable aperture in some of their older phones (e.g. Galaxy S9). With phones getting larger sensors I would like to see that make a return too, otherwise there can be insufficient depth of field.
amazing comparison, especially by using the RAW files of the S24 Ultra and the Nikon. If possible it would be interesting to see a similar comparison between the S24 Ultra and Iphone 15 Pro Max, using the RAW files of both with Dynanmic Range test.
The problem with phones is they don't create an immersive experience. As soon as you get into Photography with a phone you will be instantly be sharing your photos and you've lost the moment you've lost the pure joy of taking photos.
if only they'd remove the horrible sharpening. After all, Raw should be just that, RAW! They can photo stack all they want for color / dynamic range, but why did they have to sharpen a RAW file?!!
Thanks for the review! For the phone, the pictures are acceptable, but 5x is definitely behind the primary camera. I moved from a large camera to a Sony a6600, but in some cases, the camera is still not very practical (kids walk). Knowing that the phone is getting closer with quality is excellent. I will wait to swap my camera for a phone, but for quick walks, reasonable alternative.
Great video! 4:00 I take serious consideration to zoom in 200%, instead of 1:1 because a lot of professionals zoom into 200% when fine tuning their images. The power of large DSLR sensors is still impressive when viewing a perfectly sharp photo at double the size, which is where smartphone cameras will always fall short.
The problem with phone Photography is that it's not immersive it's instantaneously and have you ever seen anyone put their phone into Aeroplane Mode when they're taking photos no they will soon become distracted by that Instagram pop-up all that Facebook notification people instantly then reply to that and then go back to taking the photo this is why I do not recommend phones for Photography and it's got nothing to do with the quality of the photo or the image or the sensor or anything else it's the purpose of immersion.
Speaking as someone who still lugs a camera around, this was reassuring! It would be interesting to see a comparison of "straight" raw files (i.e not combined). With the under-exposed shots in particular, it looks like the phone's software just didn't have enough data to play with.
The fact that we have to zoom in and pixelpeep nowadays to definitely say which one is better speaks volumes. Of course they are not even close. But just how much power we can just carry with us daily in our pockets is amazing.
I'd say it's the other way around. That because most people now view photos exclusively on miniscule phone screens, an opening has been made to market devices that make most people think they take acceptable photos.
You don't if you're looking at the actual images on your own display, but on a compressed youtube video the pixel zoom is the only way to see it. It's more obvious in real world editing.
Thank you so much! This is the comparison I've been waiting for. It would be interesting to analyze the standard raw mode as well, to examine the dynamic range differences between standard and expert raw, and to see if, with fewer computational tricks, the 5x lens can capture more detail. Additionally, it would be interesting to review images downsampled to 25 megapixels, which is still an acceptable resolution for printing, and to see if the detail loss compared to Nikon is still noticeable.
Was also curious to see the standard raw. The AI blend of expert raw would make sense that finer details would be smoothed out was sort of disappointed we didn't get an apples to apples look at a single shot raw photo
The difference is that Samsung literally produces images (by calculating) while Nikon reflects the image in most accurate way possible with today's technology.
Aperture is king! If Samsung comes up with a phone with larger sensor and the option to attach an external 20-25mm lens to it for a more professional result, it will be a game changer for many photographers.
I'm glad you showed dynamic range and high ISO performance. So many of these comparisons seem to be hell bent on only showing situations in which you can almost match a dedicated camera. Thank you for not just doing wide angle, broad daylight portraits.
Exactly. In ideal conditions, it's very easy to say phone camera is basically on par with regular cameras, but outside of that, it does fall apart very quickly.
Достойный результат для телефона! Я думаю всем понятно что телефоны всегда будут отставать от хороших камер, но ониуже приблизились к качеству сьемки на камеру
Very good comparison. It would be interesting to see what happens with the regular RAW files since I assume that the over sharpening is part of the "expert" raw files function. In general - a phone camera is for posting small images to social media, unless you are shooting at daylight with a correct exposure
Why do you say that? It's not like you can't work with phones just like a pro camera. If you're shooting at night, you simply increase the exposure and always shoot at ISO 50. Exposure bracketed 50MP RAWs look great when stitched and processed manually.
@@MarkoMood Go ahead an adjust aperture on a phone lens... oh yea, there is none, it's entirely software-based. 😆No, you can't 'work' phones like a 'pro(re: real)' camera, try to 'work' another lens on there. 🤣. Also , FYI, ISO is more akin to a measurement of gain, not light sensitivity like ASA in the film days. Software emulating is always going to sacrifice something. There's a reason why cameras are used for actual (more than mere snapshots) photography and phones are considered toys by comparison. Live with both (e.g. have experience on the topic) and you'll only pick up the phone to snap a photo if you don't already have the camera nearby.
almost no one is carrying a full size camera around anywhere if they are not prefessional or very enthusiastic about photography to be fair, most people won't be able to really tell much difference at a glance
THIS. I saw that on ExpertRAW you get nifty features like the virtual ND filters etc. But we CAN'T disable the processing there. Sometimes it looks awful. Also. if you notice, the RAW files on the normal Pro mode is like CRAZY big compared to the ExpertRAW RAW files. It's like it's not actually a RAW file. I saw that for one of my picture, I got below 10MB of ExpertRAW RAW size, compared to like 40MB on the Pro mode RAW. I think there is something going on there
Professionals will always shoot with a fixed body and replaceable lenses. However, for the vast majority of the population, these new high quality phones, and there are a lot of them, do way better than many people want and most of them taken on a phone are rarely printed out. And the phones make it so much easier to travel with a good quality "camera" that fits in your pocket versus a big bag of bodies, lenses, filters, etc.
I would love to see a comparison of expert RAW vs. standard RAW from the Pro photo mode on the S24. The Expert RAW files are most definitely NOT RAW at all. I can take the same photo in Expert RAW and Pro mode on the standard camera app and the RAW from Expert RAW is 3-4 megs whereas the RAW from Pro mode is 40+ megs and is obviously a true RAW file. Great video and I look forward to seeing more from you on the S24.
Did you test the "virtual" ND-filters on the phone? I just came home from a week Snowboarding in Verbier Switzerland and made some amazing shots and 8k 30fps footage but did not test those ND settings yet.
@@UnderTakerSN1just the fact that the resolution of smartphones is essentially just marketing, especially for video. 8k video from smartphones usually looks worse than decent 1080p on a dedicated camera.
I just got a S24 Ultra and I'm glad I persisted with my search through YT for relevant videos. Firstly, thanks for a well produced, detailed and nicely paced comaparison of the S24 vs a decent mirrorless camera. Secondly I want to congratulate you on having a break through video on your channel! I'd love to have a video with over 100k views on my channel with 4.3k Subs and here you are with over 600k views at under 6k Subs - and it's well deserved!
That's just physics...there's only so much you can do with software (it became significantly better though). Bigger lense means it can capture more details.
Agreed. It’s an amazing phone, no doubt. But my a7iii plus my favorite prime lens ( 55mm f1.8) sells for a little more than this phone costs. I can take portraits of my kids that look like magazine shots and I’m a newbie.
Guys, please remember, this is a phone... This quality on a f*cking phone, is just superb. It is obvious that a full frame camera will be better, but think about it: If you're not a professional, the samsung camera will just be over your expectations, no matter the situation.
Not when the phone costs just as much as the camera which outperforms it in every metric, and outside of landscape photography? the z7 absolutely destroys the samsung. You can get better image quality on a £150 used decade old DSLR than a brand new samsung
@@striderwhiston9897 But you dont buy the phone just for the camera. You buy the phone for literally hundreds of different pursposes and of top of that as a bonus you have a great camera in your pocket. So it is really hard to compare prices here. A camera is just that - a camera. But how much the other things in your phone are worth to you ? The GPS, MAPS, Google services. Social networking, Mail, Thousands off different apps, Video calls , normal calls, Health monitoring etc etc. If the phone only had the capability to take pictures then we could compare prices and take a piss out of the phone. But then again it would not be a phone then , it would be just a camera.
@@telfer3388 you buy a top end phone for bragging rights. All my friends use Galaxy S24 and IPhone pro max, while I still use a poco phone. With my phone, I can do every essential task they can. I will rather pair this poco or a Moto G series with an used DSLR.
Anytime I edit with my camera vs phone camera, I always see the over processing the phone spits out. The small sensor just can’t do what a full frame or even an APS-C sensor can do. That being said, the phone cameras are pretty good for what they are and it’s honestly impressive that we can make this type of comparison these days. Still don’t see myself doing bird photography with a phone anytime soon.
I also just purchased the S24 Ultra to replace my S21 Ultra and I also own the Nikon Z7ii. The detail that the 1x lens on the S24 resolves is pretty impressive. Now for low light, or as your comparison shows dynamic range, the Nikon quickly pulls away, but you have to think that this is just a cell phone and how far technology has come. The largest improvement that the S24 brought compared to my S21 is that it nails focus. My 108MP mode shots on the S21 were great when they were in focus, but it missed focus 50% of the time and when you're in bright sunlight it's hard to see if you have a keeper. Thank you for the comparison, I enjoyed it!
Why is he talking so negatively about the Samsung results? The results are outstanding! Above all, with the S24 Ultra you can take photos in 200 megapixels or set everything yourself in Pro mode, etc.
Amazing comparison 😊 But we have to notice that when you making picture you are watching it how it is. You are not zooming it. Only when you want to print it as a big wallpaper or something. Otherwise for me some pictures looks better on samausung.
It's true. However, zooming in to 200% shows what is actually in the photo. The problem with cameras on phones is a significant loss of detail (blur). This test shows it perfectly.
Excellent video. I'm looking forward to having a camera in my pocket that can perform like that, even if it's not all that the Nikon could be. Just always having that luxury of being able to grab something at that quality on your person all the time is awesome.
P.S. I don't intend to spread misinformation, but I recently came across a comment on another video stating that the expert raw mode comprises a stack of 8-bit JPGs, whereas the normal raw mode is 12-bit. If this information is accurate, it could be really worthwhile to conduct a comparison of highlight recovery between the two modes.
If you look at Samsung's info on Expert Raw, they say "Expert RAW lets you effortlessly shoot in Linear DNG 16-bit RAW files with even greater clarity and a wider dynamic range than regular RAW files" www.samsung.com/uk/explore/photography/3-reasons-why-you-should-shoot-with-expert-raw/ I couldn't find info on any of Samsung's pages regarding the actual types of images used in the stacking process, but I saw that Tom's Guide says "Expert RAW's main benefit is that its images are made up of several RAW exposures blended together, instead of a single frame like standard RAW photos" www.tomsguide.com/features/why-i-love-samsung-expert-raw-in-galaxy-s22-and-how-it-beats-iphone-proraw Of course, not everything on the internet is accurate, but this is basically the info I have to go off of. If there's reliable info out there that gives more insight into how the ExpertRaw files are created, do please share. I do agree that it would be worthwhile to compare the two types of Raw files. I'll likely do that at some point in the not too distant future.
As someone who got into photography after buying a S23 ultra this video hits home. After 2-3 months of owning the s23u I bought a Sony A7 IV and the picture quality is just not even close. The samsung phones are pretty amazing and they can do some incredible stuff but it's still an enourmous gap between phones and professional cameras
@@Xiquinhodasilva99 it's bc smartphones have indeed come a long way and actually for people who create content for social media it's gotten to a point where a good phone can meet most of the needs
9 месяцев назад+3
Really interesting video about a subject people asked about. Thanks!
A great and realistic comparison. In the photo with the waterfall, I noticed that the Samsung tends to have small artifacts (in the water). I wouldn't do long exposures with it.
Try using the Pro mode on the Samsung. It shouldn't do any processing to the files and shouldn't look oversharpened like that. It will still be behind the Nikon, but I'm just curious how the Pro RAW files look compared to ExpertRAW.
All phones do to images is process them. They do not have interchangeable lenses, and the lenses they do have do not have a physical aperture. They use software to attempt to compensate for poor dynamic range and color accuracy. Phones only *try* their best through software to emulate what dedicated cameras do naturally, with sub-par results.
@WhatThePheel I did the comparison between my Nikon D5300 and my Samsung S23U nothing much of a difference unless I started heavy color grading my files, the D5300 held up well but when I edited the Samsung it fell apart after using most of the color wheels. A camera body does not really matter in terms of quality, it's the lens that gives it power while smartphones is the Ai, it also depends on what you are capturing. Phones will be a hard pass to sports and wildlife photography, it may be good for landscapes but it is due that landscapes are generally dependent on the editing and hoe you see the photo. Phones will never beat a professional camera in a mile, Fuji cameras have better colors than any phone could offer, Nikon is generally just average, Sony has better video features, Lumix offers good video while maintaining cost, Canon has good color science and overall good photo quality. While phones on the other hand can offer quick and easy snaps but can never have the same complexity as a Full frame or a Medium format camera
@@CMaxFlms Exactly, if it were to be a kit lens. I'm sure the quality wouldn't be on par with the Samsung phone. But if you're using a 1k-2k+ lens, it just defeats the purpose of comparison.
I own a Z7ii and the 24-120 is one of my favourite lenses. I am also impressed by the image quality of the Samsung though, it is truly amazing. Thanks for the great video!
As a pro photographer, I was curious to see how your comparisons would hold up. Obviously amazing differences once you cranked the ISO, and yeah it's pretty darned good for a phone, but I still prefer my big large camera, haha.
@@sharpasacueball "taking shots" is not really the intention of a "big large camera". Smartphones have however replaced point&shoot cameras, as was expected.
Excellent comparison! The fact that you're comparing a phone camera to a 45mp DSLR is just nuts. Samsung, like all phones, rely upon AI processing to fill out the details that are missed with the smaller sensors. But what an amazing phone the S24 Ultra is! If I'm hiking in those scenes, 100% I would rather carry a phone than a big bulky DSLR for minimal gains.
Phone cameras are fine to good for snapshots. I've heard the AI and improvements are going to pass real cameras in a couple years for over 5 years now. Still hasn't happened. As I've learned more in my hobby, I've found more and more that I can't do with a phone, or can't do as easily. The biggest thing is lack of controls on a phone means you're slow to change settings, which can mean missing shots, or going with a less than ideal default setting. They still don't handle zoom that well, and detail is usually lacking. OTOH, the immediate post processing in the phone really helps if you want to snap and share immediately.
Samsung and Apple are already using AI in their phones to optimise the data from the sensor. Its just not widly advertised. The Raw files are also not exactly Raw, as a lot of data manipulation , noise reduction, and presharpening is applied within the camera ( look at the section ( that he compares the sharpness in the video ). They are what they are and are here to stay, but not for me. I am sure other people will have their own opinion on this.
More and more people are learning photography (as in composing an image, managing lighting) than ever before thanks to the instant feedback these days. On screens and from friends.
In addition, there is a learning curve, knowledge, and experience required to use a "professional" camera effectively. Smartphone cameras enable general users to capture reasonably good images. It is likely that they would not be able to achieve significantly better results even if they used a "proper" camera. Whereas a 'professional' photographer will get better than average images using a smartphone. For me, these comparisons truly emphasize the remarkable progress that phone cameras have made. It is somewhat analogous to comparing the acceleration capabilities of a Ferrari and a Mini on a racetrack. However, in typical, everyday traffic conditions, there would not be any noticeable difference between the two.
This is a good explination of what makes photography specific cameras relative with today's phone cameras. I have the hardest time explaining to my friends and family why I still use a photography camera to take my images (Pentax K-3 Mark iii in my case). I've got a Pixel 9 Pro, and the images are spectacular, but the versatility just isn't there for the types of photography I enjoy most (Street, abstract, portraits, landscapes - etc...) .. Nice work, thank you ..
The difference is not so much if you remember one of them is just a phone with camera. If you will not print a billboard from that shot, the difference is not significant in digital platforms.
Great comparison! I am amazed by the photo quality of modern high end phones, but it was also interesting to see the cases where the quality broke apart
it just shows that as Google said, the quality of the software is becoming more important than the quality of the hardware. Considering most people never look at their photos on anything other than their phone most of the hardware benefits are irrelevant anyway. If it looks good on a 5" screen that is good enough! I print photos and it becomes pretty apparent that a real camera is best for large prints, but otherwise a phone these days is perfect for everything else.
Imagine, a dedicated video camera and a smartphone comparing , they are almost the same in quality, how much smartphones tech evolved these days, awesome
So basically modern phones are actually very good during optimal conditions: motionless, bright daylight while cameras are for the specific shots like fast action, night/low-light conditions, wildlife requiring a real zoom lens, and difficult lighting conditions.
I'm still amazed at how good phones have become at taking photos. Especially portraits. If you showed me photos from modern phones 10 years ago, I wouldn't believe it 😮
As long as you expose properly, that's pretty insane. And I think, if you're a person who develops raw files from your phone, you definitely know how to expose
It's good to see this comparison. I would like to get a good camera someday, but I love the samsung photography when I need to do quick shots or simple photography
Great video and representation of all those images is awesome, it's also interesting how far phone cameras have come. For true professional results you can't go past a dedicated pro camera with at least a full frame sensor, imagine the comparison of full frame to medium format, size always matters 😊
People nowadays forget that in the and of day this is a digital CAMERA. Just appreciate what an amazing quality photos you are able to make with a digital CAMERA!
I remember it not being too long ago, traditional camera users were saying 'it'll never happen', but, here we are. It'll only get better for smartphone photography.
I refused to get a camera phone until someone put out a phone that had a decent camera. That turned out to be a Nokia N73 in 2007. It was only 5MP, but it had a decent lens and took good photos. Phone cameras has come a long way since then, especially the sensors and computational photography enhancements. It’s quite amazing what a phone can do these days. That said, I just bought a Canon R10 (APS-C) camera because I really want the control you can get with a “real” camera and interchangeable lenses, plus the much greater light gathering capabilities of the larger lenses and sensors. It’s not nearly as convenient as the phone, which I always have on me, but for those times when I know I want to do some photography, I now have a solid option that I haven’t had since my 35mm film camera died. Opted for APS-C over full-frame or larger because of cost, size, and weight…and I’m not a professional photographer so I wouldn’t really get much more benefit from the full-frame or larger format.
Can you watch a vid, text or even phone someone from the Nikon? And why it's double the price for results comparable only at great magnification, that I would never use posting on Instagram or making 15x10 prints? Easy win but for Samsung, since the results will be the same in this scenario, or even better from Samsung because of the default oversharpening, which looks nice when downscaled to a stamp for social media.
I've actually wondered how the cameras compare. But I haven't been willing to spend the money to get a real camera. I greatly appreciate this video. I have also wondered about the RAW features of the camera as well. Very nice comparison.
This is the perfect way to show how things compare - using images side-by-side and just plain ol' common sense. While it's amazing that a phone (aka telecommunications device) can do, it still won't replace an actual camera with a huge sensor that has so much dynamic range and much more versatility at doing its job so well.
![ARGENTINA vs. PERÚ [1-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xtI25ENDDSY/mqdefault.jpg)
Check the video description for gear discounts, my gear list, and more. Thanks for watching!
even way older huawei beat the newest samsung HUAWEIs technology is miles better
so what is the 200M purpose in samsungs settings?
@@darugdawg2453 it's a sensor that does pixel binning from 4x4 grid to one for 12mp and 2x2 for 50mp, the older 108mp sensor did a 3x3 grid to 12mp. there is no point putting that many pixels in such a tiny sensor and optics where light can't get to it properly, that's why low light images and videos on phones are so ugly and full of noise and night modes rely on long exposures and taking multiple shots and then combining them together, so it's not even the real frame you're looking at in the end. plus good luck capturing a fast moving object that way. Only serious cameras with big sensors and lenses will do, just thinking about it logically - a big sensor with less megapixels will have the best low light performance.
Nice comparison. Finally someone who takes almost 1:1 identical shots for the comparison. Good work!
Yeah, I haven't seen someone do such a well-done 1:1 comparison. This guy did a 💯 job.
Most people out there who compares cameras to this phone just shows a side by side with no zoom on the photos to show the detail in both cameras.
Российский обозреватель «Филл» делал тоже самое на ютубе пару месяцев назад) Nikon vs несколько телефонов.
Agreed, nice and straight forward. Would love one of these a year. And would prefer comparisons with less phone software processing on the image, like the optional AI processing on the Samsung.
I’m excited to see the day phone cameras truly can compete with DSLRs, maybe with just a lens adaptor added 😁
@@ajnazatahm I don't think that's going to happen without a lot of AI processing, in the end it's simply physics that limit the smaller sensors
Agreed a lot of comparison clearly unfair since the camera is using a lens that no smartphone ever had, better angles on camera or the one who compared it have zero photography skills lol
People nowadays forget that in the and of day this is a PHONE. Just appreciate what an amazing quality photos you are able to make with a phone!
Thing is, it really is mind blowing how good phones are. Obviously when boundaries must be pushed, the phones quality becomes Morecambe obvious. For me, a external camera is essential since astrophotography is photography of stellar objects using a telescope so camera choice is important. External cameras and cameras in general beat phones (dur to the mountinf system to lens). In the worst case, people brag about their fake x100 time zoom S23 and it is annoying and ridiculous but what ever.
It's not a phone, far from it. It's a super compact, powerful computer
It is more a text computer then a phone. I don't see so many people who use this thing as a phone nowadays.
Yes, the fact that the it is a phone is amazing. Let's also not forget that the phone is about $1,000 less than the camera.
@OP, Nah, it's not just a phone, with a price tag of 1500€, it has to be more than a phone, to justify the cost of owning.
To be comparing any phone with the capability of going against a real camera is just mind blowing to me. Great job!
I second this@@Globetrotter-1
@@Globetrotter-1 compared to the Sony A7 IV, it does suck :)
please bothe of you ..go and suck outside please @@Globetrotter-1 @Arcticfox7
@@bb-ioan you are laughable because the sensor in the Z7 II is actually better both at DR and noise that what SONY put in the A7 IV! It seems you don't know your stuff...
The sole purpose of this video is to show that any phone, in fact the most powerful phone with 3-4-5-6-7 cameras doesn’t have the capability to go against a real camera 😂
The main issue I've always had with smart phone cams is the dynamic range and the over sharpening. Kills images when going for Landscape shots. Great video
Try it with another phone. Google pixel is good 🔥
@@Maksp still the dynamic range, depth of field, the color science, the over sharpening and fake moon shots ( samsung) on a cellphone still have a long way to go.. compared to a simple point and shoot.. cell phones are unbeaten.. but an actual camera with a sensor at least 10 times the size of a cellphone is going to get alot more data from the picture than a cellphone will ever will... now if you like to do pictures for like instagram and facebook.. go ahead cellphone is the way to go! but if im taking pictures of my kids graduation,, a machine dedicated to capture lifes moments in its best form...a Canon, Sony, or Nikon is the way to go!
@@MakspHave you ever use FF dslr or milc camera?
@@Maksp Well, it is only "good". The DR is directly determined by the effective size of each pixel. That is why phones are tailing far behind a real cameras.
the pixels can only output 12mp, which is a bit low for many use cases@@Maksp
Expert RAW is essentially computational RAW that outputs JPEG/RAW hybrids. That's why in the underexposure tests the Samsung falls apart introducing weird smudgy, blotchy artifacts and color casts when you push the exposure up while the Nikon doesn't. Photos from Expert RAW are definitely better than regular JPEGs but I wouldn't call them true RAW files as they have many characteristics of smartphone JPEG processing, which sort of defeats the purpose of shooting in RAW in the first place. It's really only useful for scenes with very wide dynamic range, low-light scenarios where Pro mode tends to introduce far more noise or shooting in 50MP as the 50MP samples I've shot just in Pro mode on my S23U are somehow less detailed than the 12MP samples even at base ISO and Expert RAW's processing seems to fix this issue. I'd personally steer clear of Expert RAW if you shoot in RAW often
Since Feburary 2023 ProMode does not produce useable raw any more, it has the same dynamic range as the jpg and Adobe De-Noise can't work them because they are to much preprocessed.
@@donnawetter1513 This is false for my S24 as of now, though. Also, you can disable most processing. Pro give you much better dynamic range than jpeg if you shoot raw, I haven't compared it to ExpertRaw though because on internet there are comparisons already and ExpertRaw is pretty bad on those, so this video should be remade.
@@lelouchlamperouge5910
Are you able to use the raw converter's own demosaicing method or is Expert RAW already demosaiced?
@@spamare Expert RAW is already demosaiced as I understand (I have never done that process in my life so I think most if not all apps on PlayStore will shoot demosaiced already on S24 and S24 ultra) but just don't shoot on that Expert RAW shit, it ks pretty bad. Shoot on Pro Camera, I don't see anything that Expert RAW cam offer. Alternatively , if you want even better RAWs I did a in depth comparison of many RAW camera apps and it goes like this: Expert RAW < Pro Camera < Any RAW App < Open Camera. I don't know why, but Open Camera is giving the best RAWs, only drawback is that it doesn't give RAWs for the Telephoto, and they haven't fix this bug in month.
The simple fact that we can compare the S24 Ultra PHONE camera to FF Nikon Z7II speaks volumes. The FF sensor is more forgiving and has a better dynamic range, that is given. But with careful setting S24 (also S23) will give you very good to excellent images. If you want less default sharpening of the pictures you should download free Samsung Camera Assistant and with this app adjust sharpening to "Medium" (Picture softening), something that I use and recommend. P.S. I have Nikon D750 and Samsung S23.
This simple setting is not carried out in any test or comparison. It would be embarrassing if a smartphone beat the expensive competition, right? 😉
@@riccizepmeusel6899 A phone physically can't beat it. Lol layman fanboys.
@@Desert-edDave but with software they might
@@Desert-edDaveMaybe if you print the picture, but if you're going to post it on social media like Instagram, it probably doesn't matter at this point. Your scene capturing skills are going to matter far more than the camera you're using.
This is mainly due to how nobody prints their photos. Like yeah no shit, if you only view your images on a phone screen it's going to look decent no matter the camera.
considering the prices of both, the ability to carry around, the progress made in the latest years, phones are getting really really good.
for me nothing will beat dslr. I own 2 mirrorless.
Just never either take photos in non-optimal conditions, or enlarge them. Phone cams have become really good precisely and only in the easiest use case, and for viewing on a phone screen.
@@GamingInfestedthats the point....
for everyday use - phones are great
but at the same time some individuals claim that they can beat dslr
@@moriyamakyon1067sometimes, they can. This is a €3000 camera againt a weaker camera phone.
Compare a €1500 camera to a Vivo X100 Ultra, and the phone will probably win too.
your comparing a phone to a camera! to be honest i was expecting the nikon to look way better ! xD
i guess when the iso goes up then the real test shows but its pretty nice to see where tech is going
Small sensors do great in good lighting. I have a small sensor bright camera with 1200mm zoom - in ideal light, it takes great pictures. But once the lighting gets poor, it falls apart.
I think if you can download the images on a computer and view them side by side, you’ll definitely see the difference
RUclips compression might helped Samsung's
You are right. Compare in Bad light condition and you will see that phones cannot beat physiks. In bad light condition a Phone needs Up to 3 Seconds frames or stack a Lot of frames where my 75 mm can make single frames
and nikon did way better actually, much more detail, samsung obviously not close to 50mp
I would love to see comparison with the standard RAW from Pro mode. They aren't oversharpened and they're more like RAW from an actual camera.
if the "mode" it is in matters, it's not an actual RAW file as is on a dedicated camera, but rather a processed mess that attempts to do what dedicated (actual) cameras do.
@@Desert-edDaveYou can get the raw file, but only in pro mode. It's not like the phone tries to create a raw file, it's the real raw file. The "expert raw" is more like a processed image than an actual raw file. Get it?
@@jonathasantoz I can guarantee you that it's not an actual raw file. It's still heavily processed, else it would be a noisy mess at anything other than the base ISO.
@@TechnoBabblehe's talking about unprocessed raw from pro mode from default camera app, not the crappy "expert raw" app. It saves real information from the sensor. You'll even have all the noises if the lighting condition is not perfect like back in the day with compact pocket cameras
@@rafisburganovoh the beauty of pro mode, holy cow. my eyes really commit die when looking at S20U raws
To be honest is pretty impressive that from a professional photography standpoint, a camera phone is not really that bad compared to a professional camera that costs almost the double! And by the way, those places where you took the shots are simply amazing! Most of them looks like a painting. Very picturesque.
Samsung does have a "Pro" setting with ISO, shutter, EV, white balance settings and selective focus. People who uses cell phones wants that immediate satisfaction of having the pictures and sharing them to social media. I've blown up an image to poster size using a Samsung image and it held up well. Each camera has it's niche and using either one is fine.
It's been 10 years that smartphone companies are FOOLING people with their MegaPixel numbers, and people still haven't got around the fact that more MegaPixels doesn't mean better camera.
mega pixels matters if you dont want your photos looking like it was taken back in 2014🤓
More is always good 🤓
Bro, again, megapixel does not so much for picture quality.
The sensor size means.
An camera has a normal 1inch sensor.
The phone in 2014 haves very very croped sensor, and if it will have 1 inch sensor, anyway it will be trash cause the proccesor and other, in 2014 they dont have so much power as now, so they just cant procces that image.
Now we have almost 1 inch sensor in phones like vivo x100 pro, s24 ultra, and others.
And we also have a good hardware, like snap 8 gen 3, much more ram, so the proccesor can handle that image.
And that is that what really means in taking a picture.
So the MegaPixels, is not that important. @@Exlomm
Yea your right, the phones these days (or 99% of them) stack multiple of the same image to create a higher resolution 👍
@@Exlomm Literally they don´t. You can rarely tell the difference between 25 and 45MP in a high end mirrorless.
I love that this was done with the same model of phone AND Camara I have. What a fun coincidence... Great vid btw
Haha that's awesome
Finally someone competent to show a decent test between a camera and a smartphone... I liked the mention of the diaphragm informing that we get a greater depth of field in cameras and in smartphones the aperture is fixed. Nobody mentions this...
You gained a subscriber!!!
Samsung used to have a bi-variable aperture in some of their older phones (e.g. Galaxy S9). With phones getting larger sensors I would like to see that make a return too, otherwise there can be insufficient depth of field.
amazing comparison, especially by using the RAW files of the S24 Ultra and the Nikon. If possible it would be interesting to see a similar comparison between the S24 Ultra and Iphone 15 Pro Max, using the RAW files of both with Dynanmic Range test.
Good idea, thanks!
I would be interesting to see the comparison once Samsung fixes their RAW files.
The problem with phones is they don't create an immersive experience. As soon as you get into Photography with a phone you will be instantly be sharing your photos and you've lost the moment you've lost the pure joy of taking photos.
if only they'd remove the horrible sharpening. After all, Raw should be just that, RAW! They can photo stack all they want for color / dynamic range, but why did they have to sharpen a RAW file?!!
@nevvanclarke9225 personally I disagree
I think that's more about the person (or what they're wanting to achieve) than the equipment.
Thanks for the review! For the phone, the pictures are acceptable, but 5x is definitely behind the primary camera. I moved from a large camera to a Sony a6600, but in some cases, the camera is still not very practical (kids walk). Knowing that the phone is getting closer with quality is excellent. I will wait to swap my camera for a phone, but for quick walks, reasonable alternative.
Wow, in good light these cameras perform so well for years already. Amazing what phone cameras can do.
Great video! 4:00 I take serious consideration to zoom in 200%, instead of 1:1 because a lot of professionals zoom into 200% when fine tuning their images.
The power of large DSLR sensors is still impressive when viewing a perfectly sharp photo at double the size, which is where smartphone cameras will always fall short.
Great comparison, thanks for doing this! I think the Samsung is delivering incredible results for the size of the sensor and lenses.
Thanks! Yeah I agree… great results considering the sensor & lens size on the phone
The problem with phone Photography is that it's not immersive it's instantaneously and have you ever seen anyone put their phone into Aeroplane Mode when they're taking photos no they will soon become distracted by that Instagram pop-up all that Facebook notification people instantly then reply to that and then go back to taking the photo this is why I do not recommend phones for Photography and it's got nothing to do with the quality of the photo or the image or the sensor or anything else it's the purpose of immersion.
agreed - wait until they introduce a new 1" sensor on the S25 :)
@@ZJMichaels simply amazing.. imagine hiking thru the woods and no having to carry a huge backpack and a massive Carbon tripod. Mind Blown!
@@LeeMansfieldS25 nebude mít 1".
Speaking as someone who still lugs a camera around, this was reassuring! It would be interesting to see a comparison of "straight" raw files (i.e not combined). With the under-exposed shots in particular, it looks like the phone's software just didn't have enough data to play with.
The fact that we have to zoom in and pixelpeep nowadays to definitely say which one is better speaks volumes. Of course they are not even close. But just how much power we can just carry with us daily in our pockets is amazing.
“The best camera is the one you have in your pocket” is a quote I live by
You don't have to pixel peep to see the camera is leagues better
Agree
I'd say it's the other way around. That because most people now view photos exclusively on miniscule phone screens, an opening has been made to market devices that make most people think they take acceptable photos.
You don't if you're looking at the actual images on your own display, but on a compressed youtube video the pixel zoom is the only way to see it.
It's more obvious in real world editing.
Real comparison by Real expert. This kind a video is what I was looking for
Thank you so much! This is the comparison I've been waiting for. It would be interesting to analyze the standard raw mode as well, to examine the dynamic range differences between standard and expert raw, and to see if, with fewer computational tricks, the 5x lens can capture more detail.
Additionally, it would be interesting to review images downsampled to 25 megapixels, which is still an acceptable resolution for printing, and to see if the detail loss compared to Nikon is still noticeable.
Was also curious to see the standard raw. The AI blend of expert raw would make sense that finer details would be smoothed out was sort of disappointed we didn't get an apples to apples look at a single shot raw photo
The difference is that Samsung literally produces images (by calculating) while Nikon reflects the image in most accurate way possible with today's technology.
Aperture is king!
If Samsung comes up with a phone with larger sensor and the option to attach an external 20-25mm lens to it for a more professional result, it will be a game changer for many photographers.
Its been only 1 year , your video quality grows everyday
I'm glad you showed dynamic range and high ISO performance.
So many of these comparisons seem to be hell bent on only showing situations in which you can almost match a dedicated camera.
Thank you for not just doing wide angle, broad daylight portraits.
Exactly. In ideal conditions, it's very easy to say phone camera is basically on par with regular cameras, but outside of that, it does fall apart very quickly.
Достойный результат для телефона!
Я думаю всем понятно что телефоны всегда будут отставать от хороших камер, но ониуже приблизились к качеству сьемки на камеру
Very good comparison. It would be interesting to see what happens with the regular RAW files since I assume that the over sharpening is part of the "expert" raw files function.
In general - a phone camera is for posting small images to social media, unless you are shooting at daylight with a correct exposure
Why do you say that? It's not like you can't work with phones just like a pro camera. If you're shooting at night, you simply increase the exposure and always shoot at ISO 50. Exposure bracketed 50MP RAWs look great when stitched and processed manually.
@@MarkoMood Go ahead an adjust aperture on a phone lens... oh yea, there is none, it's entirely software-based. 😆No, you can't 'work' phones like a 'pro(re: real)' camera, try to 'work' another lens on there. 🤣. Also , FYI, ISO is more akin to a measurement of gain, not light sensitivity like ASA in the film days. Software emulating is always going to sacrifice something. There's a reason why cameras are used for actual (more than mere snapshots) photography and phones are considered toys by comparison. Live with both (e.g. have experience on the topic) and you'll only pick up the phone to snap a photo if you don't already have the camera nearby.
almost no one is carrying a full size camera around anywhere if they are not prefessional or very enthusiastic about photography to be fair, most people won't be able to really tell much difference at a glance
Dude got touched @@Desert-edDave
Great video, thanks a lot! I personally know that I would love to see a video comparison between Samsung's "normal" RAW files and ExpertRAW
Expert RAW is better! I'M Using 23U, only shot ExpertRAW!
ExpertRaw is a gimmick for pro photographers. You get more dynamic range but it's very digital looking with more artifacts.
I do find expert raw photos bit artificial and oversharpened. Normal raw looks good. I use normal raw photos.
THIS. I saw that on ExpertRAW you get nifty features like the virtual ND filters etc. But we CAN'T disable the processing there. Sometimes it looks awful. Also. if you notice, the RAW files on the normal Pro mode is like CRAZY big compared to the ExpertRAW RAW files. It's like it's not actually a RAW file. I saw that for one of my picture, I got below 10MB of ExpertRAW RAW size, compared to like 40MB on the Pro mode RAW. I think there is something going on there
@@White7561every raw file is cooked, in every pro camera or phone. How much, depends on company...
Thank you for your time and effort to make this video and share your knowledge with us. Greetings from Croatia.
Professionals will always shoot with a fixed body and replaceable lenses. However, for the vast majority of the population, these new high quality phones, and there are a lot of them, do way better than many people want and most of them taken on a phone are rarely printed out. And the phones make it so much easier to travel with a good quality "camera" that fits in your pocket versus a big bag of bodies, lenses, filters, etc.
I would love to see a comparison of expert RAW vs. standard RAW from the Pro photo mode on the S24. The Expert RAW files are most definitely NOT RAW at all. I can take the same photo in Expert RAW and Pro mode on the standard camera app and the RAW from Expert RAW is 3-4 megs whereas the RAW from Pro mode is 40+ megs and is obviously a true RAW file. Great video and I look forward to seeing more from you on the S24.
This will be a good comparison to see.
Thanks. Yeah I am planning on doing a comparison like that
Did you test the "virtual" ND-filters on the phone?
I just came home from a week Snowboarding in Verbier Switzerland and made some amazing shots and 8k 30fps footage but did not test those ND settings yet.
I was wondering how to use them
"amazing" 8k shots, LOL
It's amazing from his experience and perspective,. What's with the "Lol"?? @@SMGJohn
@@UnderTakerSN1just the fact that the resolution of smartphones is essentially just marketing, especially for video.
8k video from smartphones usually looks worse than decent 1080p on a dedicated camera.
@@TechnoBabblecategorically false
I just got a S24 Ultra and I'm glad I persisted with my search through YT for relevant videos. Firstly, thanks for a well produced, detailed and nicely paced comaparison of the S24 vs a decent mirrorless camera. Secondly I want to congratulate you on having a break through video on your channel! I'd love to have a video with over 100k views on my channel with 4.3k Subs and here you are with over 600k views at under 6k Subs - and it's well deserved!
still cannot beat the nature of sensor size to get more lights and details.
Never mind lenses.
That's just physics...there's only so much you can do with software (it became significantly better though). Bigger lense means it can capture more details.
Not to mention the glass. The best of sensors will produce mediocre output when paired with poor quality glass.
That's why I just bought my first proper camera yesterday. No matter how good the phone, if you zoom it's a mess. Oversharpening is just so damn bad.
Really appreciate this comparison I was looking for 👍
Autofocus and low light capabilities would be nice to see
Agreed. It’s an amazing phone, no doubt. But my a7iii plus my favorite prime lens ( 55mm f1.8) sells for a little more than this phone costs. I can take portraits of my kids that look like magazine shots and I’m a newbie.
Its amazing to see that phones have gotten so good that people have to go to this length to find fault with smartphone pictures.
Given that the S24U is capable of much more than just taking photos, the image quality is astounding! 😀 Thx for a great comparison!
Guys, please remember, this is a phone... This quality on a f*cking phone, is just superb. It is obvious that a full frame camera will be better, but think about it: If you're not a professional, the samsung camera will just be over your expectations, no matter the situation.
Not when the phone costs just as much as the camera which outperforms it in every metric, and outside of landscape photography? the z7 absolutely destroys the samsung.
You can get better image quality on a £150 used decade old DSLR than a brand new samsung
@@striderwhiston9897 But you dont buy the phone just for the camera. You buy the phone for literally hundreds of different pursposes and of top of that as a bonus you have a great camera in your pocket. So it is really hard to compare prices here. A camera is just that - a camera. But how much the other things in your phone are worth to you ? The GPS, MAPS, Google services. Social networking, Mail, Thousands off different apps, Video calls , normal calls, Health monitoring etc etc. If the phone only had the capability to take pictures then we could compare prices and take a piss out of the phone. But then again it would not be a phone then , it would be just a camera.
@@striderwhiston9897What you’ve said is so stupid it’s not even worth expressing why.
@@telfer3388 you buy a top end phone for bragging rights.
All my friends use Galaxy S24 and IPhone pro max, while I still use a poco phone. With my phone, I can do every essential task they can.
I will rather pair this poco or a Moto G series with an used DSLR.
Great comparison! Please do another one with the regular pro mode, I feel like the pictures rather lose detail in expertRaw mode.
Anytime I edit with my camera vs phone camera, I always see the over processing the phone spits out. The small sensor just can’t do what a full frame or even an APS-C sensor can do.
That being said, the phone cameras are pretty good for what they are and it’s honestly impressive that we can make this type of comparison these days. Still don’t see myself doing bird photography with a phone anytime soon.
I also just purchased the S24 Ultra to replace my S21 Ultra and I also own the Nikon Z7ii. The detail that the 1x lens on the S24 resolves is pretty impressive. Now for low light, or as your comparison shows dynamic range, the Nikon quickly pulls away, but you have to think that this is just a cell phone and how far technology has come. The largest improvement that the S24 brought compared to my S21 is that it nails focus. My 108MP mode shots on the S21 were great when they were in focus, but it missed focus 50% of the time and when you're in bright sunlight it's hard to see if you have a keeper. Thank you for the comparison, I enjoyed it!
I wonder when smartphone producers start to realize that excessive sharpness isn't a good thing
Why is he talking so negatively about the Samsung results? The results are outstanding! Above all, with the S24 Ultra you can take photos in 200 megapixels or set everything yourself in Pro mode, etc.
Amazing comparison 😊 But we have to notice that when you making picture you are watching it how it is. You are not zooming it. Only when you want to print it as a big wallpaper or something. Otherwise for me some pictures looks better on samausung.
It's true. However, zooming in to 200% shows what is actually in the photo. The problem with cameras on phones is a significant loss of detail (blur). This test shows it perfectly.
The most detailed comparison between cellphone and FF 42mp above camera. Great work dude....
Excellent video. I'm looking forward to having a camera in my pocket that can perform like that, even if it's not all that the Nikon could be. Just always having that luxury of being able to grab something at that quality on your person all the time is awesome.
This video was put together really well. Amazing comparisons.
P.S. I don't intend to spread misinformation, but I recently came across a comment on another video stating that the expert raw mode comprises a stack of 8-bit JPGs, whereas the normal raw mode is 12-bit. If this information is accurate, it could be really worthwhile to conduct a comparison of highlight recovery between the two modes.
If you look at Samsung's info on Expert Raw, they say "Expert RAW lets you effortlessly shoot in Linear DNG 16-bit RAW files with even greater clarity and a wider dynamic range than regular RAW files" www.samsung.com/uk/explore/photography/3-reasons-why-you-should-shoot-with-expert-raw/
I couldn't find info on any of Samsung's pages regarding the actual types of images used in the stacking process, but I saw that Tom's Guide says "Expert RAW's main benefit is that its images are made up of several RAW exposures blended together, instead of a single frame like standard RAW photos" www.tomsguide.com/features/why-i-love-samsung-expert-raw-in-galaxy-s22-and-how-it-beats-iphone-proraw
Of course, not everything on the internet is accurate, but this is basically the info I have to go off of. If there's reliable info out there that gives more insight into how the ExpertRaw files are created, do please share.
I do agree that it would be worthwhile to compare the two types of Raw files. I'll likely do that at some point in the not too distant future.
Its crazy that you have to bump up the ISO or go to 100% zoom to really see a difference between it. Now imagine this comparison 10 years ago
It's all about the sensor size, not megapixels.
As someone who got into photography after buying a S23 ultra this video hits home. After 2-3 months of owning the s23u I bought a Sony A7 IV and the picture quality is just not even close. The samsung phones are pretty amazing and they can do some incredible stuff but it's still an enourmous gap between phones and professional cameras
Yes! I don't know why people keep comparing smartphones with Full Frame cameras or APSC .
@@Xiquinhodasilva99 it's bc smartphones have indeed come a long way and actually for people who create content for social media it's gotten to a point where a good phone can meet most of the needs
Really interesting video about a subject people asked about. Thanks!
These are the comparisons we need.
It takes an actual photographer to make them unlike somebody who just turns churns content
A great and realistic comparison.
In the photo with the waterfall, I noticed that the Samsung tends to have small artifacts (in the water).
I wouldn't do long exposures with it.
Just being able to compare both already says a lot about how far they've got. Good enough for most people
Try using the Pro mode on the Samsung. It shouldn't do any processing to the files and shouldn't look oversharpened like that. It will still be behind the Nikon, but I'm just curious how the Pro RAW files look compared to ExpertRAW.
All phones do to images is process them. They do not have interchangeable lenses, and the lenses they do have do not have a physical aperture. They use software to attempt to compensate for poor dynamic range and color accuracy. Phones only *try* their best through software to emulate what dedicated cameras do naturally, with sub-par results.
@@Desert-edDaveObviously! It has nothing to do with what was said above.
Useful review! Thank you for sharing and taking the time.
Considering the price of a pro camera is more than double the cost of a phone, it did amazingly well.
Can get better results from a camera that costs the same as the phone. ;)
Then consider that rhe sensor in a phone is tiny small compared to any system cameras, including Pentax Q.
@@Desert-edDave Make an comparison, lets see that theory
@WhatThePheel I did the comparison between my Nikon D5300 and my Samsung S23U nothing much of a difference unless I started heavy color grading my files, the D5300 held up well but when I edited the Samsung it fell apart after using most of the color wheels. A camera body does not really matter in terms of quality, it's the lens that gives it power while smartphones is the Ai, it also depends on what you are capturing. Phones will be a hard pass to sports and wildlife photography, it may be good for landscapes but it is due that landscapes are generally dependent on the editing and hoe you see the photo. Phones will never beat a professional camera in a mile, Fuji cameras have better colors than any phone could offer, Nikon is generally just average, Sony has better video features, Lumix offers good video while maintaining cost, Canon has good color science and overall good photo quality. While phones on the other hand can offer quick and easy snaps but can never have the same complexity as a Full frame or a Medium format camera
@@CMaxFlms Exactly, if it were to be a kit lens. I'm sure the quality wouldn't be on par with the Samsung phone. But if you're using a 1k-2k+ lens, it just defeats the purpose of comparison.
I own a Z7ii and the 24-120 is one of my favourite lenses. I am also impressed by the image quality of the Samsung though, it is truly amazing. Thanks for the great video!
As a pro photographer, I was curious to see how your comparisons would hold up. Obviously amazing differences once you cranked the ISO, and yeah it's pretty darned good for a phone, but I still prefer my big large camera, haha.
For me it's nice to be able to take shots with something I can fit in my pocket
@@sharpasacueball "taking shots" is not really the intention of a "big large camera". Smartphones have however replaced point&shoot cameras, as was expected.
Excellent comparison! The fact that you're comparing a phone camera to a 45mp DSLR is just nuts. Samsung, like all phones, rely upon AI processing to fill out the details that are missed with the smaller sensors. But what an amazing phone the S24 Ultra is! If I'm hiking in those scenes, 100% I would rather carry a phone than a big bulky DSLR for minimal gains.
Phone cameras are fine to good for snapshots. I've heard the AI and improvements are going to pass real cameras in a couple years for over 5 years now. Still hasn't happened. As I've learned more in my hobby, I've found more and more that I can't do with a phone, or can't do as easily. The biggest thing is lack of controls on a phone means you're slow to change settings, which can mean missing shots, or going with a less than ideal default setting. They still don't handle zoom that well, and detail is usually lacking. OTOH, the immediate post processing in the phone really helps if you want to snap and share immediately.
Samsung and Apple are already using AI in their phones to optimise the data from the sensor. Its just not widly advertised. The Raw files are also not exactly Raw, as a lot of data manipulation , noise reduction, and presharpening is applied within the camera ( look at the section ( that he compares the sharpness in the video ). They are what they are and are here to stay, but not for me. I am sure other people will have their own opinion on this.
@@lensman5762 yes. raw files on phones are a marketing lie
Not only for MP for the quality, lens size is the most important factor 😅
For the 99% of population this is black magic 😁 . 0.1% of the phone users know basics of the photography.
More and more people are learning photography (as in composing an image, managing lighting) than ever before thanks to the instant feedback these days. On screens and from friends.
For a casual non professional person the S24 Ultra is good enough with differences in costs of buying a high/pro quality camera and portability.
In addition, there is a learning curve, knowledge, and experience required to use a "professional" camera effectively. Smartphone cameras enable general users to capture reasonably good images. It is likely that they would not be able to achieve significantly better results even if they used a "proper" camera. Whereas a 'professional' photographer will get better than average images using a smartphone.
For me, these comparisons truly emphasize the remarkable progress that phone cameras have made.
It is somewhat analogous to comparing the acceleration capabilities of a Ferrari and a Mini on a racetrack. However, in typical, everyday traffic conditions, there would not be any noticeable difference between the two.
This is a good explination of what makes photography specific cameras relative with today's phone cameras. I have the hardest time explaining to my friends and family why I still use a photography camera to take my images (Pentax K-3 Mark iii in my case). I've got a Pixel 9 Pro, and the images are spectacular, but the versatility just isn't there for the types of photography I enjoy most (Street, abstract, portraits, landscapes - etc...) .. Nice work, thank you ..
I wish the brainless people who saying "why people still buying cameras" to see this video
Yes but can you try the pixel 8 pro? I heard the pixel take good pictures
The difference is not so much if you remember one of them is just a phone with camera. If you will not print a billboard from that shot, the difference is not significant in digital platforms.
Great comparison! I am amazed by the photo quality of modern high end phones, but it was also interesting to see the cases where the quality broke apart
it just shows that as Google said, the quality of the software is becoming more important than the quality of the hardware. Considering most people never look at their photos on anything other than their phone most of the hardware benefits are irrelevant anyway. If it looks good on a 5" screen that is good enough! I print photos and it becomes pretty apparent that a real camera is best for large prints, but otherwise a phone these days is perfect for everything else.
Amazing how great the camera is given the entire device is half the price of the other equipment!
the answer is simple. They're photographer... professional. Give them whatever phone they'll utilize it fully.
Amazing review👏👏, it is nice to see a proper photo comparison between smartphone camera vs full frame camera. I love it!
Do a print. You will be surprised how good the phone is.
phones suck at landscape bro good for close up shots and thats about it
Imagine, a dedicated video camera and a smartphone comparing , they are almost the same in quality, how much smartphones tech evolved these days, awesome
Fundamentally, the tiny plastic lenses on phones aren’t capable of resolving 50mp of detail.
@@enevii And smartphone lenses are the lenses getting the most design effort spent on. And the best levels of QC as well, it seems.
So basically modern phones are actually very good during optimal conditions: motionless, bright daylight while cameras are for the specific shots like fast action, night/low-light conditions, wildlife requiring a real zoom lens, and difficult lighting conditions.
its still a toy. not even close to real camera.
Better than Nikons whole Mirrorless for sure. Better autofocus, smaller, light weight and better battery life. Sounds like a win to me.
It’s a phone, not a toy. Of course it can’t compare.
Nikon Camera FTW!
All the way!
I use the phone camera for scouting and personal time use.
I use the Nikon for paid work. 💪😎👌
For the size. Today's Mobile devices are for sure amazing leap in camera technology. Not replacement but definitely handy and go to
Yeah but Nikon doesn't fit on my pocket, so no thanks to me.
I'm still amazed at how good phones have become at taking photos. Especially portraits. If you showed me photos from modern phones 10 years ago, I wouldn't believe it 😮
As long as you expose properly, that's pretty insane. And I think, if you're a person who develops raw files from your phone, you definitely know how to expose
It's good to see this comparison. I would like to get a good camera someday, but I love the samsung photography when I need to do quick shots or simple photography
Amazing video! 😎👏🏻
Great video and representation of all those images is awesome, it's also interesting how far phone cameras have come.
For true professional results you can't go past a dedicated pro camera with at least a full frame sensor, imagine the comparison of full frame to medium format, size always matters 😊
This gotta be the best comparison videos I've seen
People nowadays forget that in the and of day this is a digital CAMERA. Just appreciate what an amazing quality photos you are able to make with a digital CAMERA!
I remember it not being too long ago, traditional camera users were saying 'it'll never happen', but, here we are. It'll only get better for smartphone photography.
I refused to get a camera phone until someone put out a phone that had a decent camera. That turned out to be a Nokia N73 in 2007. It was only 5MP, but it had a decent lens and took good photos. Phone cameras has come a long way since then, especially the sensors and computational photography enhancements. It’s quite amazing what a phone can do these days.
That said, I just bought a Canon R10 (APS-C) camera because I really want the control you can get with a “real” camera and interchangeable lenses, plus the much greater light gathering capabilities of the larger lenses and sensors. It’s not nearly as convenient as the phone, which I always have on me, but for those times when I know I want to do some photography, I now have a solid option that I haven’t had since my 35mm film camera died. Opted for APS-C over full-frame or larger because of cost, size, and weight…and I’m not a professional photographer so I wouldn’t really get much more benefit from the full-frame or larger format.
I'm pretty impressed what S24 can do
From my experience, I feel the regular RAWs are more editable than ExpertRAWs.
ExpertRAWs start showing artifacts much earlier than normal RAWs.
No comparison, the Nikon wins hands down. Nice video
Can you watch a vid, text or even phone someone from the Nikon? And why it's double the price for results comparable only at great magnification, that I would never use posting on Instagram or making 15x10 prints? Easy win but for Samsung, since the results will be the same in this scenario, or even better from Samsung because of the default oversharpening, which looks nice when downscaled to a stamp for social media.
Excellent comparison. Thanks for the wonderful video.
I'm impressed; didn't think it would hold up that well.
I've actually wondered how the cameras compare. But I haven't been willing to spend the money to get a real camera. I greatly appreciate this video. I have also wondered about the RAW features of the camera as well. Very nice comparison.
This is the perfect way to show how things compare - using images side-by-side and just plain ol' common sense.
While it's amazing that a phone (aka telecommunications device) can do, it still won't replace an actual camera with a huge sensor that has so much dynamic range and much more versatility at doing its job so well.