My biggest complaint with the smartphone photography is the image processing. Don't know why but they always look over processed (heavy hdr, saturation and sharpness). This wasn't the case tho 5-6 years before, nokia 808 & 1020 were the epitome of quality, images taken from them had 3D pop, plenty of micro details and colour accuracy. If decade old smartphones can do this why can't current one?
Because people prefer the overly processed image more.. just like a brand new photographer for the first time in light room slides everything to the max :D
@@michaeldimitrov1444every single time!! ALL THE CLARITY! I look back at people's hair in photos from 6 or so years ago and it looks like they had wigs made out of straw on.. Oops!
That's because the general population like filters, high brightness/saturation, and that extra 'pop' you get from HDR, regardless of whether or not HDR is appropriate. It's more about those things mentioned and less about actual image quality and high detail. Interestingly, people praise iPhones for being 'real' and 'true to life' and 'what photographers prefer,' but Apple is just as guilty as Samsung and the rest when it comes to creating overly processed images.
If you really love photography, the question is not whether to buy a ‘real’ camera, but how much money you can save on your smartphone to buy a ‘real’ camera. Now there are many people whose smartphones are more expensive than some ‘real’ camera, but they don’t have ‘real’ camera.
thats what i did. went with a base model iphone and an aps c camera. still cheaper than the pro iphones or top of the line flagships. got kit lens and a 50mm F2 and that covers most of the focal range one would need.
The issue is that you can't decouple other features from the better camera in the more expensive phones. I want the better screen and battery life on the higher end models but I don't really care for the highest end cameras.
@@mrsparkle3372 In fact, there are already some cheap Android phones that do both, great screens and battery life. The iPhone needs to wait for a while, like waiting for the iPhone 13 Pro to drop in price.
@@iSirTaki The premise is that if people want to take pictures with a camera instead of a mobile phone, he must carry a camera. People who like photography often want to use cameras, and professional photographers almost only use cameras for their work. It’s like when people need to use a mobile phone, they must bring a mobile phone. Carrying a mobile phone is always bulkier than not carrying a mobile phone, but there is no way, people need to use a mobile phone, it’s as simple as that.
For me the biggest advantage is the low light, especially low light videos, the difference a bigger sensor +aperture makes is so much more apparent and it's something that's a lot harder to bump up with computational photography
The fact is that the low-light shooting capabilities of smartphones have improved a lot over the years, although it is by software algorithms. Although the camera is good enough, it needs more money to buy a camera with a larger sensor and a faster lens to improve it. Why can't it use software algorithms to achieve better low-light performance at a lower cost like a smartphone?
@@manaphyex'cause it'll be like producing orange juice from the lab, with amount and efficacy as similar as the "real" orange juice. Yes, it IS an orange juice, but it won't be as good as orange juice straight from the "real" process. Eventually, it depends on how you want to taste it. If you only want to taste orange juice instantly, then commercial "lab-made" will do
I think it all comes down to how much one cares about all this “image quality” differences. Also, a lot of people think “low light” is night time scenarios, but it’s really just anywhere indoors even during the day.
Spot on conclusion. Cameras are great if you enjoy the process of making pictures and geek out over having control of the outcome. I'd also add that sometimes the phone's software gets it wrong or muddles a great scene. Taking a sunrise or sunset picture with my iPhone 12, I can see where the camera is trying to artificially emphasize the orange colors and in the end, the scene often looks just a little off.
I have an iPhone 12 as well, and when I take sunset/sunrise photos, they don’t just look a little off, they look outright cartoonish sometimes. Bright saturated reds, oranges and yellows, with little or no subtlety between.
The 12 is a couple of generations older. Can you shoot raw with it? Too many people aren’t making use of smartphone editing software or pre capture controls
@@rcpmac you can shoot raw, but if I’m going to shoot raw and go back and edit my photos, I might as well use a camera with better resolution, lenses, low light capabilities, etc.
The average consumer doesn't care about the cartoony, oversaturated, over cooked look. Many don't even notice. As long as they can snap and share the image with other average consumers who also won't notice.
@@iLLSinceProductions I’d say the average consumer actually prefers it because people respond to bright colors more so than accurate ones. I’ve seen posts on Facebook photography pages where, in my eyes, the photo is absolutely ruined because they pushed the saturation and clarity all the way up, yet they will get hundreds or thousands of likes. It’s very frustrating when I see beautiful photos by competent photographers that get virtually ignored.
Honestly the main advantage is the user experience, devices dedicated to one thing tend to be a lot nicer to use than devices that try and do everything
I completely agree. Smartphones are expected to provide the modern user with every conceivable functionality, which means each of those functionalities is sub-optimal. I use dedicated cameras, cycling computers, timers, etc. even though "there's an app for that."
@@rangersmith4652 So the choice is simple: carrying around one suboptimal device but still good enough for every purpose for the vast majority of people or 10 separate devices optimal for every individual purpose. In the old days I used to prefer the latter but as the smartphones get better and better, I'm not so sure anymore.
I think the main reason I personally enjoy using a camera instead of my phone is not even something technical like all you mentioned. My mindset is completely different when I am operating my camera than when I am using my phone, which I use for many things. My focus and my way of seeing around me changes if I have the camera in my hand, let alone having to actually learn a bit about photography to use it. Even if I had a phone/camera with large sensor and interchangeable optics all in one device... I think I would prefer the dedicated camera. Really good video and made me think a lot! Cheers and greetings from Mexico City!
@@TheLTak3r hey there. Yeah, they are awesome cameras. I love that sensor. What I didn't love though, was the AF. I found it very unreliable in low light or when a subject was in the shadows. It's a pity Nikon never released a D400. A D300 type body, with the 51 point AF module, 7 or 8 fps, weather sealed mag alloy, bigger buffer all built around that 16mp Sony sensor of the D7000. That would have been an instant classic
Honestly, dynamic range and color reproduction is pretty much my biggest one. I've never seen a smart phone camera even approach the kind of performance in difficult lighting situations that my trusty APS-C camera with its massive lens does. And let's be honest, the difficult lighting situations are quite often the most beautiful ones (sunset, sunrise, golden hour). All the scenarios where you don't have a ton of light and most cameras struggle to process colors accurately.
An often overlooked option is the superzoom camera. Usually the sensor is not much bigger than what you find in a smartphone but the range of lenses can often go from the 35mm equivalent of a 21 or 24mm lens to 800mm's or longer. The more expensive versions offer 1-inch sensor like the Lumix FZ1000 (25-400mm optical) and produce video and stills at the same time. I've used such a camera to easily produce prints larger than 16x20. Not bad for a camera that is basically a pocket system.
I own a few Lumix cameras - T70, TZ90 and TZ100. I lost my TZ30 while cycling a few months ago. I also own Samsung Galaxy S20FE 5G and recently got the S23 Ultra. Since I cycle a lot, I don't want to carry to much, and after losing the TZ30, the S23 Ultra has been a great replacement. It is better than the S20FE 5G in all areas, especially telephoto. I have compared the S23 Ultra telephoto photos with my Lumix cameras and the gap gas closed a bit. The best camera is the one you have at the time. My Lumix cameras are still.
When it comes to real cameras vs phones, one of the main criteria I’ve always kept in mind is access to reach. Super zoom cameras can really provide that. I know cameras like this often get snubbed within the community, but they offer a capacity that can be incredibly useful.
I own a Sony RX-10 and an RX-100. They are the best cameras for a family trip or even a solo hike versus my professional gear that I just don't want to lug around for a few 'found frames'. The RX-100 fits neatly in one of my jacket pockets or even on an oversized strap around my neck. Handier than my phone. 😅
I explained to my family last Sunday that the difference between a good camera and a phone is substantial unless you only look at pictures only on your phone. They were not convinced. However, they saw that the photo albums printed by a pro grade printing company looked fantastic.
Do you ever zoom in on your pictures? Do you find them to always look a bit 'smudgy' when you zoom in? A real camera doesn't have that. There it stops with me. I don't go further 😉. If any of these questions is answered 'no' then I don't bother at all :). I can try to explain the 'photographic experience' that for me is important (having an EVF, a shutter button, dials...). But I know that isn't relevant at all to someone who's just using a phone camera.
And that's exactly the point. The main reason why smarthones "killed the camera market" is not that they produce so (technically) good images. It's that they fundamentally changed the way vast majority of photography is consumed. As long as most people only watch the images on 5-7" displays and mostly spend only few seconds on each, there is little point trying to waste too much effort on image quality. If you are willing to take your time and watch prints or at least use a reasonably large and tuned screen, it's a completely different story.
@@iSirTaki The image difference is substantial. I compare an image from my Samsung Note 9, yes, it is old but it is good, to a Sony a7R3 with a 42mp sensor. The phone image breaks up very quickly when enlarged. No so with the Sony, or any other high pixel camera. I discovered long ago when I first got into digital after decades of film photography, an enlarged digital image eventually breaks down completely. On film, the grain gets bigger and bigger. That is the reason I love high pixel count sensors, to not suffer from image breakdown. It' like using super fine grain film on a 4x4 or larger camera.
One thing that is important to mention regarding Megapixel count, is that pretty much all phone sensors use pixel binning to end up with a 12MP shot. This does make sense though, since 180MP shots from a tiny phone sensor will probably hardly look good in any other condition than bright sunshine.
fun fact: the "108 MP" sensor in flagship samsung phones is actually just a 12MP equivalent sensor but each "pixel" is made up of 9 photosites, but the bayer filter isn't any finer (so you basically have 9 "pixels" of the same color in a group, you don't get any finer color information than you would in a 12MP sensor.
@@techtt6213 I have a Samsung S22 with a "50 MP" camera and a Sony A7R2 with 42MP and the best case I have for the S22 camera is RAW and manual prosessing, otherwise it's pretty garbage in my eyes in more or less everything, and the raw is 12MP.
@@techtt6213 no it isn't. The difference u see in 12 and 50mp images is merely due to an over sampling. Quad/nona bayer sensors can't capture high res images due to inability to do guess work as same color pixels situated side by side. This makes near impossible for image processor to apply exact colour on each pixel in the final image.
I do take many pictures with my phone (Pixel 7) and the quality is always impressive... Until I view the pictures on a larger computer screen. Impossible to crop, very noisy (or automatically denoised into mush). It's fine for casually capturing a scene when I'm not carrying my "big" camera, but the difference in quality is still obvious.
Make this a start of a series. For example, Nighttime photos are getting better on smartphones, but if your aim is to capture more of the nightlife, then highlight how a dedicated camera can help you dial in the better shot compared to crossing your fingers that your smartphone took a decent one.
The main reason why I love my D7200 and often prefer it over my iPhone 14 Pro is first the bigger flexibility especially with longer zooms and also that smartphones nowadays are just taking it way too far with their processing. Sometimes I think "oh this shot looks really great" but then as soon as I look at the image from my D7200 the shot from the iPhone looks absolutely terrible in comparison...
I like photography as a hobby. I bought a real camera cause upgrading a phone every year seems to be more expensive than buying a camera one time. I still own my camera for 4 years and same with my phone. My friends kept upgrading their phone every year and always says that their new phone has better camera.
All your arguments are valid BUT to get a good picture from a good camera you need everything you mentioned. For each situation you need a suitable lens, settings, lights, softbox and so on and so on. That one beautiful picture costs you literally thousands of dollars and years of experience. Buy a phone that automatically selects settings, press a button and that's it. 90% beautiful picture. Not to mention that any Action camera has 10x better image stabilization than any camera with a lens! So unless someone has big plans for photography, I always say buy a better phone and you'll be happier. P.S. I recently bought my first serious camera (X-T4) and I am very happy with the choice. At this point, I have already invested more than 3500 USD in just the camera, 2 lenses and basic equipment. But until I have gained experience, any iPhone takes better pictures...
It's truly bizarre that after reading your 1st paragraph, you then decided to buy that "serious" Fujifilm camera. I have a feeling the extra effort needed here might be too much?
I've had people tell me Micro 4/3 aren't 'real' cameras because their sensor is too small, and then in the same conversation claim that a phone can take pictures just as well as a larger camera. For those curious, last time I looked up specs, the biggest sensor on a phone(whatever the top iPhone was at the time, a couple years ago) was 10% the size of a 4/3 sensor, or about 2.5% the size of a FF.
The backpacker here. The one thing I absolutely love my phone camera over my "real" one is the waterproofing. When I'm hiking and it's down pouring, I put my xt4 away and break out my s21, and I don't have to worry. Other than that, I have come to be grossed at the images that come out of my phone they're so digitally enhanced that they no longer look normal. Maybe they parts just me great video, yall
Pentax k3 and k1 are weather sealed and have wr lenses. Resistant, but not proof. Olympus tg is another alternative. I think it's mft or 1 inch sensor, but it should be able to shoot raw too, and it is waterproof. But most phones aren't really waterproof either. Let them spend enough time in water, and they will suffer damage too.
@@MyChevySonic Both my Xt4 and my lens are weather sealed, but hiking out here in the south where it can downpour for a week, my camera gear isn't made for that. My phone however can be submerged (with my waterproof case) and it no problem. Also to change my entire system in order to have "waterproofing" is an insane take. Why would I sell my current setup to buy a waterproof camera system, when my camera is already waterproof. I dont understand the point of your comment. "most phones aren't waterproof"... correct...but mine is as resistant as they come.
cheapo tip next time you are at a hotel grab a shower cap pop a hole in the middle and with a rubber band you've got yourself an effective cover, might be low-tech but it's helped me when hiking.
All flagships smartphones today (except the specialized ones like foldables) are IP67 and above, way better sealed than any modern mirrorless could get. and Pentax cameras, they don't have mirrorless, so you're telling a backpacker to get a bulky DSLR when he could just settle with a phone camera and save a lot of space and weight.
Here is the thing, a few decades ago people were shooting video on actual film and then digital videography began to spring up. The film boys claimed it would never replace film videography and lo and behold it has. Now, mobile film making and photography is vastly improving. I can get exceptional results with an iphone pro max on pro res and lumafusion to where you’re average person can’t tell the difference. What do you know, pro digital camera guys are sweating it and saying “mobile film making will never replace digital cameras!”
I bought an iPhone 14 Pro recently and for "the camera I always have in my pocket" it's pretty good. Personally I leave it in 48mp RAW not because I want 48mp images, but because it doesn't do the bonkers oversharpening stuff in that mode. However, I also bought a Lumix G95D recently and the comparison between taking pictures on them is just so illuminating. Intentionally taking pictures with the iPhone is limiting and annoying. Intentionally taking pictures on the Lumix is great. I can position myself in many different ways, I have control over everything, and I can still set it up so I'm in a point-and-shoot mode at the twist of a dial (I leave it in black and white when I do that.)
If I wasn’t already into photography as a hobby, just the handling alone would get me to buy a camera. I’ve never taken many phone pictures because of that. Other than landscapes if I’m out cycling and have minimal stuff with me. But it was never really fun like using a camera is.
I am hobbyist photographer and 70 years old, I been using a camera for most of my life; film, DSLR and now mirrorless camera. So I prefer a stand alone camera versus my iPhone camera. But my adult daughters, who have children, they use exclusively an iPhone for all their photography and videos. The main reason, they can immediately post their videos or photos to a text message, Facebook, Instagram etc.. They never print a photo, since they don't own a printer, so they come to dad for prints of photos that I have taken or in rare case get a photo printed thru some sort of service. These days it's rare to see young adult and young parents at Disney, parties, vacationing, etc. with a stand alone camera. It's the time we live in, I guess....
Very true. Whenever I see someone using a "real" camera when I'm on a trip, I stop and say "wow!" to myself. I don't know why camera manufactures can't enhance their wifi with WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook integration.
I think most people who like photography in a more serious way don’t have the urge to post immediately and some even sell prints, so I think it’s a different target. I personally enjoy to sit and take my time curating my pictures after a long photowalk, and then people always ask how is it possible that I capture such moments in such quality. Well, for starters, because I’m not in a hurry.
@@abelardojeda : Exactly! I'm the same way. After a trip with friends, I take time curating and processing my best images for display. In the meanwhile, my friends who use only their phones blast out dozens of pictures immediately on WhatsApp, only to be glanced at and forgotten.
There is a bit of a generational thing involved. Youngsters are obsessed with their phones, and regularly 'upgrade' them. They're not going to sink money into an SLR that could go into the next phone. To illustrate: My 86 yr old dad has a full frame DSLR and a ten yr old iPhone. I have a basic DSLR and a 3 yr old phone. My daughter has a fancy new phone, but no SLR.
Great video, as always. While on holiday I compared how long it took me to go from wanting to take a picture to taking it. Since I use a mid-price Samsung (A53), I might not have the best example of a mobile phone to hand, but even so, I found that I was missing numerous photo opportunities waiting for the mobile. Then, if I was in a great rush, I might touch the wrong part of the screen and switch to the front-facing camera or video. In comparison, my camera is ready almost instantly. My two cameras for comparison were a Sony RX100vii and a Fuji X-T30.
Hey on a Samsung phone go to settings->advanced->side key and you will be able to change the behavior of the power button so that, if you double click it, it will automatically launch the camera app, even if the phone is locked. In the last 8 years all my phones have had this feature, and it's amazing, you never miss the shot
I’m 100 % with you regarding actual cameras vs phone cameras, but I wanted to mention a few tips regarding the iPhone (14Pro Max in my case). I use the photo mode, not portrait, with Live off, RAW on, and solely the 1x lens, without zooming. I’m careful to hold the camera “square” to the subject and I concentrate on slowing down and minimizing body movement. When used that way, the 48 MP RAW images are impressive, although you also have to be careful when transferring them in order to avoid unintentionally converting the format.
@@Perceptence Sure, and I still prefer “real” cameras. You can crop the 48MP images substantially, effectively zooming in, in post. The quality is pretty amazing for such a small camera.
I was always inclined and even defended mobile photography (i still somewhat do). I did shoot a lot of things using my mobile phone for years and i even have thats really good in terms of camera but one day i picked up my 15 yr old dslr and realized mobile phone cameras are decades behind real full frames and crop sensors. Thus, i bought a mirrorless just recently, lol
Smartphone camera sensors will ALWAYS be behind real camera sensors, the laws of physics dictate that, there is no getting around the laws of physics. The tiny size sensor in a smartphone camera when put up against an APSC sensor, full frame camera sensor, and ESPECIALLY A MEDIUM FORMAT CAMERA SENSOR will NEVER be able to match any of those, that's the laws of physics.
@@Hardin9 as we don't challenge the laws of physics. But pretty much yes. Cameras are still relevant regardless of what phone. Although, film cameras especially medium format cameras are potentially eaven more powerful (as it relies on a chemical reaction by light tough the grain plays a important role).
@@photonik-luminescence I fundamentally disagree, now that digital camera sensors finally surpass the resolution of film (full frame cameras, and some APSC camera like mine which is a Canon 90D SURPASS the resolution of 35mm film, and medium format cameras like those made by Fuji and Hassleblad DWARF the resolution of medium format film), digital cameras have rendered film cameras obsolete.
@@photonik-luminescence The Canon 90D is 32mp, 35mm film is 20mp, full frame cameras are now up to 50mp, and medium format cameras like Hassleblad's and Fuji cameras are over 100mp.
One big question you should ask is also: Do I want to edit my pictures after I took them? With a smartphone, once you take the picture it is "done", no further editing is needed. With a bigger camera, it makes sense to shoot raw and edit your pictures. That gives you much more control but is also more work and takes time - so for instant posting on Facebook you'll likely continue to use the phone. With a phone you can easily use iCloud or Google Photos to store all of your photos. With a dedicated camera, something like Adobe Lightroom makes more sense. About the image quality of smartphones vs. bigger cameras: One pretty striking example is the portrait of Chris at 5:03. You can see the huge amount of noise reduction applied by the iPhone, while the Canon picture is so much more detailed. There is a really big difference in the "effective" megapixels of those two images.
Disagree. Smartphones can take flat, RAW images and you can get some amazing results taking them into LR Mobile. May not be to the EXTENT of a real camera, specifically shadows and highlights, but you'll surprise yourself. Taking my Pixel 7 Pro photos into LR is a lot of fun
I'm not a beginner, but watching this was still helpful in terms of getting points I could use to other people claiming there is no need buying a dedicated camera anymore. Well, depends on the person of course.
One extra advantage of a camera: you can be shooting photos in peace, knowing you won't be disturbed by all kinds of messages, popups, calls, updates, etc. Much more zen.
Try the Samsung Z Flip 5 and use Flex mode as a tripod, use it in camcorder mode for great ergonomics, and use the cover display to take selfies using the main cameras. It doesn't have a zoom but still takes good pictures. But it doesn't replace a real digital camera.
The main thing for me is the malleability of the files. Small sensors are getting better but bigger always has and always will be better. The bigger sensors look more natural or even "filmic" if you will.
This is my first video of Petapixel after you guys shifted from DPReview. I was a regular of your videos in DPReview throughout the years and I also bought two of my cameras Nikon and Fuji based on your recommendations and reviews. I absolutely love your videos and efforts of the whole team. Wish you guys fantastic years ahead.
I appreciate how a significant portion of this video was actually saying how good cell phone cameras were, and that for most people who don't follow chiseled adventurous Canadians they probably are enough. As a photographer it's something I've been telling coworkers for years.
To disagree a bit, many of the advantages of a camera over a smartphone are much less pronounced if you only use an entry-level camera with its kit zoom lens as demonstrated in this video. Especially for Canon's APS-C cameras, this is currently a problem, since only slow zoom lenses are natively available for the system. Of the 7 reasons mentioned in the video, 4 (lenses, depth of field, image quality, selfies) aren't dramatically better on a Canon R-Mount APS-C camera with the available APS-C zoom lenses than on a high-end smartphone. In fact, I'd argue that novice photographers take better pictures with smartphones because of their prime lenses. The quality of amateur photography - on Instagram and elsewhere - has generally improved now that most people compose their images by moving their bodies and the camera, rather than framing by zooming. Another "dirty secret" is that many smartphones, due to their better (AI-based) computational photography, have better auto white balance, color science, auto exposure and (due to their in-built multi-exposure HDR) even better dynamic range in bright light situations than traditional cameras. Many of the disadvantages of smartphones - such as oversharpened/overprocessed images - can be avoided by switching the camera app to raw and processing the raw files in Lightroom Mobile. I'd advise any amateur photographer to get the most out of their smartphone before considering switching to a camera.
Avid camera user but have to agree here that smartphones have come a very long way and honestly wins over a camera in most cases. The convenience to bring everywhere, computation photography and ease of sharing the photos is unmatched and outweighs the 7 reasons mentioned. Unless you are wanting to edit hard in post, photos taken out of camera from smartphones honestly is more pleasing and looks better most of the time. The computational algorithms in smartphones don’t get enough credit. Besides low light/action and large prints, smartphones are my choice 99% of the time.
I’m not entirely sure about that. If you take an APS-C camera with an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kitlens, you get a zoom range from 28-85mm f/5-8 eq. On the iPhone 15 Pro, the only way to get to 85mm is to use the 3x lens. But that is equivalent to something like a 77mm f/22. F/8 vs f/22 means you lose 4 stops of light. And at f/22, you’re already in diffraction territory. Not sure how much computational photography can compensate for these things.
@@girlishoon181 so why dont the big brands have cameras for beginners with just as good computanional processing and nice UI where "normal" people can just shoot on "auto" mode like on an iphone???
so why dont the big brands have cameras for beginners with just as good computanional processing and nice UI where "normal" people can just shoot on "auto" mode like on an iphone???
High end Smartphones are amazing for photo and video. But the ability to manually adjust dials and taking the time to frame the shots properly takes practice and is more fun with dedicated cameras.
Which camera to use will depend on the purpose of your camera. If you take only a few causal photos(maybe 50 or so) in bright or adequate light, a phone camera is enough. For everything else, it would be better to get a standalone camera. ETA I carry around a Sony RX100, it is small enough to slip in to a pocket, and has most of the features of a larger DX-camera.
Screen glare is the main reason why I only use my phone for casual shots. I find it also handy for photographing bits out of magazines and newspapers that could be of later interest.
Try to use multiple flashes on a smartphone controlled by the main camera as with the Nikon CLS (Creative Lighting System). WIth a camera you can adjust the amount of ambient and flash light.
You can't beat the convenience of a phone, the ability to take a shot whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself. My real camera has been in storage for ages.
This video makes quite sense. People buy iPhones arguing that they want better photos, but there's a 1% difference across iphone and other phones, compared to a much higher percentage of quality if you compare iphone with actual DSLR or special purpose camera or a drone camera
The truth is: Smartphone photos look only good in bright sunlight. If the amount of available light drops your photos get heavy noise processing or the camera slows down to multi-shot with long exposure that leads to blurry photos. It 's the nature and law of physics. You can't have it all with such tiny lenses and sensors on a smartphone that can't collect much light that well.
I use them together. I find colors are better through well-chosen glass, but sometimes I can just get the phone out faster. To compose and work a shot the camera is always the way to go for me. But I also use the phone to work out some compositions along side it.. The end purpose for the photo is part of deciding which tool to use.
would love to see you talk more about used cameras. i know dpreview was funded by amazon but now that you're at a more independent publication supported by sponsorships, you should use fewer low end cameras that cost upwards of $1,000. as far as just taking pictures goes, any decent entry level camera from 10 years ago is going to serve a beginner just as well and is going to be 1/4 the price, and any older, moderately professional gear is going to blow a cheap new camera away
@@Perceptence i said older professional gear OR entry level gear lol. give them a rebel t3i they'll do just as fine for 1/4 the price more serious people can get proper professional gear
@@GOekks IQ can't be the same because of the huge difference in the physical size of the sensor - not the megapixels, but the actual dimensions. It's the same with cameras where medium format can yield better IQ than FF, and FF better IQ than APS-C, and APS-C better IQ than M4/3. So, bigger sensors have bigger photo-sites and bigger photo-sites mean better dynamic range, which then means better colour/tonal accuracy and transitions = IQ. It's not MP either - just the physics of sensors.
As far as touching the smartphone screen for taking photos is concerned, you can just set a timer of three seconds and keep it stable. Gimbal will make it even better. But the electronic viewfinder and fully articulated screen on the cameras are game changers. Some may argue that we do have pro settings in smartphones but the sensor size again makes it difficult to compete with the actual cameras.
Personally I am still super impressed by the photos I take with my S22 Ultra. When I got it I expected the 10x telephoto lens to be more like an afterthought. Just one more big number to put into the ads to make the phone look good. Turns out it produces pretty sharp images though! It can't compete with my 200-500 but in a pinch I'm happy with it. I also mainly use my phone for taking videos and switching between the 4 lenses is great.
In bright daylight, there is barely any difference but in lower light is really where the "real" cameras quickly show their value. A tiny bit of movement messes up the phone's algorithms and results in smudgy results. Using a flash lets me shoot in pitch black if I want with a camera. Now, APSC vs full frame is where it gets tricky. I always grab my APSC camera due to the small size and weight of the fast lenses and the results are indistinguishable at equivalent settings. Sure, you can go much faster with FF but the size and weight become such that I barely use the FF camera anymore.
Great video! I think the main advantage of an iPhone that trumps all the advantages of a pro camera is its portability. Hauling a large camera when traveling or visiting friends is simply not practical. I gave up my SLR years ago as I discovered that for most situations an iPhone works just fine. When I need a pro camera with powerful lenses for a graduation or a safari I rent one which is much more affordable and I also get to use the latest technology!
Can you consider this as a way to start a series on how to move on from mobile to an dedicated camera. Since many of us were not camera users when there was no cellphones available, and now we are having the phone on hand to start taking pictures, in some moment you get interested to do more with the existing tool (smartphone), and with that you are getting more interested to jump to a "real" camera. That could be the idea of the future videos
Comparing phones with a camera like an R10 will make any average person say I prefer the phone. It's an enormous size and weight difference. If cameras want to stay relevant for non professional photographers and videographers, they have to invest in form factors like the one of Ricoh GR or Sony a7c and lighter smaller but equally powerful interchangeable lenses.
It's not that impossible. There are good compact primes from sony, sigma, samyang. Pentax produced great pancake lenses. And progress can continue to be made in optics, it's not all invented already. The first mirrorless cameras actually were in the right track of miniaturization but no, real photographers thought they were just toys, and the industry started producing SLR big mirrorless cameras and lost a lot of time.
Thank you! I get asked this question often, especially when I post both large-camera photos and smart camera photos to social media and the average viewer can't tell the difference.
I would loooooove to see an in depth comparison of full frame and medium format image quality. Primarily on the saturation point of the photo sites since they are much bigger! Great vid as always
They aren't much bigger. Individually speaking, the photosites of the sensor in my GFX 100S are the same size as those of the Sony A7R V (35mm) and the Fuji X-S20 (APS-C).
Definitely zoom and low light for me. Had a laugh at the selfie though, i always struggle to even take them with my phone, but the camera method actually looks easier :-)
I invest quite a lot of time in custom cameras for Android. Its remarkable how much extra performance you can get out of them. Even video wise (Jordan) I'm talking opengate, RAW video. True RAW video, not some fake log or ProRes video.
@@amagombo1 Yeah for sure, for photography, a good customized gcam (essential is a modified lib in 99% of the cases). For video, MotionCam is next level, but takes some effort
Very good comparison. The HDR comparison is missing in this video - smartphones overperform DSLRs/Mirrorless thanks to software processing. With a DSLR you can overperform the smartphone only after editing or after creating a manual HDR photo, and is difficult to do this in filmmaking without cameras that records in RAW.
I've never gotten on with smartphone cameras - everything is basically ultra wide to wide angle, for "normal" you end up cropping massively and it all ends up looking like junk - Google/Android (?) colours are absolutely bonkers saturated out of the box - All the AI / computational stuff gets irritating. Google routinely offers to take things out of shots that I wanted in, or offers to crank up the saturation to 11 from the 10 it chose in the first place. (admittedly, I can probably mostly turn all that stuff of)
I couldn't imagine trying to photograph a rally car flying by me with a smartphone and still have proper motion blur in the background and wheels: so-called panning shot, the hardest shot to pull photographing motorsports.
The first time I got exposed to proper settings on a smartphone was with the Nokia Lumia 1020. 41 MP with a Zeiss lens, and you can have it on manual to change the shutter speed, ISO, and exposure. I was able to create long exposure shots off the highway. Now I have the sony a6000 and the a7iv. Great cameras for my professional work.
It’s a little ironic choosing a Canon RF APSC camera when there are very few lenses for that particular mount and sensor size, honestly MFT would be a more compelling step up from mobile phones especially given the lens choice from super macros to anamorphic glass. Isn’t OM Digital Solutions a sponsor too?
@@invalleria there’s nothing I said to “eh?” about yeah use FF lenses on smaller bodies but it is expensive, bulky and not something to I’d recommend to someone coming from a smartphone. MFT, Fuji or Sony would all be better. That’s not a slur against Canon or any Canon shooter either, I’ve owned 2 Canons still own one of those so I’m not fanboying against them.
How much better is low-light performance on the "Real" camera? Thanks for explaining how the smartphone merges the best bits of a number of shots to approach the "real" quality. I am wondering if it is dark, maybe, regardless of how many shots are available, none of them are going to draw as much light through the smaller lens onto the smaller sensor so there won't be any shots as good as the "real" alternative for the smartphone to select from. I suspect this is true and puts the smartphone at a disadvantage, but have no sense of how much. At what point as dusk turns to night does the "Real" camera start to show a noticeable advantage? Thanks again for the best explanation I've seen on this topic.
You pinpointed something I have felt since I picked up that first camera when I was ten years old. I like the way they feel, and I like to do the adjustments... basically everything about a camera is fun to me. I'm 73... I was just in my yard, messing with my camera. 9/29/23
I just found my Canon 7D MKII and Tamron 24-70 2.8 di in the closet I'm trying to remember all the settings and controls. This video makes me want to learn how to take good photos again. Should I get a new body or stick with the 7D
Here's my pitch for the smartphone killer entry level camera that I need personally: 1. Compact. It shouldn't be way bigger than the phone. That means nice compact primes, and light weight body I can chuck in a purse or jacket pocket easily. It's a camera that doesn't feel annoying to carry even if you ended up taking zero photos that day. 2. IQ - Honestly just no crunchy digital sharpening, and some nice high efficiency jpegs, with the standard latitude in dynamic range you can expect from apsc right now. Just enough that it doesn't fall apart quickly in non-ideal light. Plus, a pleasing no edit colour look like Canon, Nikon, Leica, or Olympus have. Maybe not as unfiltered as Sony with it's exactitude or Fujifilm with it's sometimes over-stylization. 3. AF - it doesn't need to blow my socks off, but it would be nice if it was somewhere in the range of S5II to A7IV. Canon would be great high middle to shoot for. 3. Selfie flip up screen. I can mount mics elsewhere, like on the side of the tripod head, use a cage or cold shoe adapter, or use lavs. Looking naturally up at the camera really helps us not have family vacation photos all looking like this: 🐶😏😒 100% not being able to use the best lens in selfie mode is terrible. The front camera is always mushy, crunchy, and noisy. 4. Ergonomics and UX. It should have a fantastic P mode with intelligent options to set limits on ISO and shutter speed. M mode is a given, but I suggest an M mode that has a tappable A setting for each of the exposure triangle to achieve P, A, or S. I hate locking and dragging sun icons to miss my shot anyway. Just copy the Ricoh GR for all the great one touch snap distance priority, tap to focus override, one touch AE when in manual mode type settings. Those are some of the best user centered designed cameras I've ever used. 5. Full touch operation, and a solid quick menu to avoid screen clutter. With a couple custom modes on a dial to let us jump to essential setups while the camera is off, so we can just power on and hit the shutter if needs be. All the swiping around on a tool not built for purpose is why I hate missing shots on my phone. 6. USB-C charging. If the batteries have to be tiny, give us little plastic cases for them to protect them from the elements when kept in pockets. I don't mind swapping out batteries like I'm reloading in call of duty, but I don't want them loose and raw in my pocket . 7. Fair stabilisation. I don't mind if it's mechanical, optical, or electronic tbh. Other people might though. If the body is small enough for a small mobile gimbal the basic stabilisation doesn't need to be unholy quality. Just enough to get you by at 1/8 of a second, or take out the micro jitters in handheld footage. 8. An app that works and is clean. All I want to do is open it, turn on the camera connectivity, hit connect on the phone, and then scroll through the gallery, multiselect and import. Idk why this is so hard. Alternatively give us a USB-C connection that auto opens the app when plugged in and can read right off the card for import. 9. Light and plastic is fine, like a phone. Just make the mount metal at least. Maybe sell tough cases/grips for the butter fingers, or if you want to slap it on as a pre-adventure precaution. Bonus points if they help with splash resistance. 10. Try to keep it under $1k USD if possible. I'd easily prefer to skip the $1k iPhone for a $200 entry level Samsung and then spend the difference on a camera that doesn't make me want to kill myself and then everyone else. This sounds bleak, but I have had a few cameras that came pretty close to this, but all missed the mark just a little. G7XII was super close it just needed DPAF and I'd be mostly happy, EOS M6II would be perfect for me if they had made any lenses, Z30 / Ricoh GR / A7c / ZV-E1 would be great if they had the flip up screen for more discreet low angle perspectives that don't draw attention to me, and ruin candid moments of pets and kids who suddenly become interested in my swively twisty transformer toy. The point is: We're close. I think camera companies need to invest in proper UX (not just UI) and also software a bit more. We need them to start thinking like they make devices not just cameras. /listicle
Have you compared how the mobile phones vs cameras are doing the pictures in auto mode, P, S and A? Is there any camera that does HDR pictures and stack the pictures right away like the software of the phones?
Interesting video since I have this exact combo, an iPhone 13 Pro and an R10. Ive been a professional portrait/fashion photographer nearly 20 years and my iPhone remains my most used camera, by far. There are grips for the iPhone and Godox makes a great flash. I have 3 really good lenses in my iPhone and when the 15 comes out, I will have even better ones with larger sensors, faster apertures and a 46 megapixel main sensor. I also have apps to do things no "real" camera could ever do. Like the FIMO app, which gives me the ability to shoot dozens of classic film simulations and get a great variety of looks, everything from slide film to large format.I can also use an app like NOMO that emulates dozens of classic film cameras, everything from disposable toy cameras and Polaroids to pinhole and large format cameras. Photos from both these apps are very similar to the original film/camera look. IMO, the one and only advantage for a dedicated camera is if you need large prints, but I havent had to do those in ages. Most my work goes on websites and social media these days and smartphone photos are more than capable. Ive done entire clothing shoots for clients outdoors using an iPhone and most love it. Especially since I can Airdrop the photos to them at the shoot and they can edit and post them before we have even finished. The day is fast approaching where I won't even need a dedicated camera any longer.
You like that Godox phone flash? Didn't Godox discontinue it? I have had basically zero success with mine... you can't really stop down the phone's lens at all, so you have next to no control over the mix of flash and ambient light. If you're getting good results with it, I'd love to hear how!
Thank you Sir... You've just solve my problem... I almost took a wrong decision of buying phone instead of real camera... Please, what's the name of the camera you are holding?
I have a Pixel 6 that still is considered to have one of the best smartphone cameras. But it sucks. everything looks like a HDR. The level of detail is bad. the colors washed out. and the lens is bad, it makes very strong and ugly flares against the light and looses contrast dramatically. for a snapshots ok. for serious stuff not. even a 15 year old APS-C outperforms a modern smartphone in most daylight situations by far. and also in the night with a tripod.
Another thing many d-SLR cameras have image stabilization, most of Sony and many Cannon models have stabilization that compensate for camera shake by shifting the image sensor or shifting an element in the lens.
For professional work making content for social media, I use an iPhone 90 percent of the time because it is small, good enough and no one cares. When I don't get paid I prefer the R5 with f1.2 primes, because of the joy.
I use my Apple 14 Oro Max a lot doing photography. I also carry a Olympus TG 6 because it is water proof ( it rains in Oregon, a lot, where I live. My purpose here is time to invest in the TG 7? Now in hear there is a Ricoh WG 7 too! How many other “tough” cameras are there?
I consistently take better photos with the camera. Maybe partly because I’m in photographer mode when I’m holding a camera. I frame and compose better. On my last family trip I only bought the iPhone, thinking to save gear and that it would be good enough. But all photos feel over sharpened and has no vibe at all. They almost all have an artificial look to them, and don’t portray the beautiful holidays in a nice way at all. But the iPhone consistently takes better group photos in shitty lighting. Backlit people in front of a window, you got it. People in overcast, you got it. But in good lighting the dedicated camera group pictures are potentially even better. They just look more like true documentation, and representing my memory in a much better way. For videos though… I think iPhone wins in most uncontrolled scenarios.
Good video but a couple of more advantages for the phone: Weight , sure more lenses but the weigh and having multiple ones takes also more space, not exactly pocket friendly. Cost: A dedicated camera even with a couple of good lenses surpasses the expensive phone today. Nightphoto: phones are generally better at this today and we need camera manufacturers to start using what the phones does. I think OM Systemes has some computaional capabilities regarding for instance ND filters.
I am currently going in the other direction. There is often no need anymore to take a separate camera with me since I've got the S23 Ultra. And as we all know, the best camera is the one we can have all the time with us.😊
Agreed. Got one relative recently to replace my iPhone 12 Pro, I'm blown away by the image quality. It's nowhere near as good as my FujiFilm setup, and I will always love my real cameras, but the S23 Ultra takes photos better than I imagined any cell phone ever could.
Nah, more megapixel and AI work, less reality. I have a sony DSC F717 which is 20 Years old (unfortunately it barely has lenses that fit it but whatever) it has prooven to be better at literally anything of what my phone can. From 2 cm near macro shots, to x10 telephotos to absolutely normal pictures. No AI, just the power of a great camera. Also, i hate the AI that edits and photoshops the moon on a S23, that's so mean.
Handling: ( just buy photography kit for your phone? - Like Xiaomi 14 Ultra ) / viewfinder: ( no reflect glass on s24 Ultra does it for most part - you capture what you see ) - Flash: ( you can buy external flashes for phones too! ) so 3 points eliminated.. the rest is true BUT Lense: ( 1. a good lense costs a lot??? 2. you can buy lense for phones too now + ND filter and etc. and they are much cheaper ) and for selfie .. I wont rotate my camera and hold it in my face in public.. with phone they might not even notice me taking photos of myself.. anyways is your camera as compact as a phone? can it do calls and play games or watch youtube??? for the price of 1400€ which is the best phone in the market you will get a trash camera which cant even do 4k 60fps.. not mentening the lense cost ..
My main reason is that cameras are fun! Photography is neat and using a camera with manual controls teaches you how that process works. I love smartphone photography and I think it's amazing that we all have access to great cameras in those devices, but using a "real" camera teaches you photography as a craft. It places the emphasis on photography as a fulfilling process, rather than just the end result product.
Funny this coming up cause I literally had this topic coming up in my "suggested for you" Instagram section. And my opinion: I love using my Sony A6300 in any possible situation (EVF is a big plus) - the smartphone screen sucks as a viewfinder. Another reason: haptic feedback. I prefer pushing a hardware shutterbutton instead of software... 3rd reason I love the A6300 w/ usually the SEL55-210mm: ZOOM! I hate these ultra wide smartphone lenses so much! Only useful for seriously close up subjects (Have you ever tried snapping a photo of a flying aircraft with a smartphone?). I´d rather take the SEL55-210mm to shoot aircradt photos (although 210mm can get too short as well).
Perfect. Do not waste on pricy Smart phones considering Camera Quality or photography. Just use smartphone for office /personal contacts mails or chats etc... a dedicated camera is always better no doubt about it. In fact there is no need of such hype on smart phones promotion in terms of photography.
These are all good points, but for me the "handling" angle is the game-winner. For a quick shot a smartphone is manageable, especially if you use the side button as a shutter release (although if you're fumble-fingered it does raise the risk of pushing the opposite-side button as well and accidentally calling the cops) but if you're serious about photography, eventually you're going to get into situations in which you want to hold the camera up for 10 or 15 minutes at a time, watching the situation develop so you can catch the peak moment, and this is a painfully finger-cramping experience with a phone. Plus, what do you do if you get a text from bae just as the "decisive moment" arrives?
Reqction time is the main advantage, when i take a photo on my phone the subject has moved before the photo actually captures, where as my dslr captures instantly when i hit the trigger
I use both types of camera. For me, smartphone camera are good for the time when you want to shoot unplanned pictures like someone funny expressions while hanging out or last moment notice taking pictures in an company event. Most of the time we have our phones on hand. On the other hand, “real camera” comes in handy for situations where you already know you will be going to an event. Like prize giving ceremony, sport events, or birthday party. Also, it depends on the final viewing device. Will it be send to social media or WA or telegram or get printed or display on tv or the like. Again, i use both and I utilise both on different situations 😊
The shallow depth of field has a lot to do with the extra small sensors on the phone. They can be 5mmx5mm so even when the lens is fully open, the DOF is significant. Out of focus is done digitally.
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
My biggest complaint with the smartphone photography is the image processing. Don't know why but they always look over processed (heavy hdr, saturation and sharpness). This wasn't the case tho 5-6 years before, nokia 808 & 1020 were the epitome of quality, images taken from them had 3D pop, plenty of micro details and colour accuracy. If decade old smartphones can do this why can't current one?
Because people prefer the overly processed image more.. just like a brand new photographer for the first time in light room slides everything to the max :D
Hdr and over-saturation is what masses like.
@@michaeldimitrov1444every single time!!
ALL THE CLARITY!
I look back at people's hair in photos from 6 or so years ago and it looks like they had wigs made out of straw on.. Oops!
That's because the general population like filters, high brightness/saturation, and that extra 'pop' you get from HDR, regardless of whether or not HDR is appropriate. It's more about those things mentioned and less about actual image quality and high detail. Interestingly, people praise iPhones for being 'real' and 'true to life' and 'what photographers prefer,' but Apple is just as guilty as Samsung and the rest when it comes to creating overly processed images.
Just edit in Raw.
If you really love photography, the question is not whether to buy a ‘real’ camera, but how much money you can save on your smartphone to buy a ‘real’ camera. Now there are many people whose smartphones are more expensive than some ‘real’ camera, but they don’t have ‘real’ camera.
thats what i did. went with a base model iphone and an aps c camera. still cheaper than the pro iphones or top of the line flagships. got kit lens and a 50mm F2 and that covers most of the focal range one would need.
The issue is that you can't decouple other features from the better camera in the more expensive phones. I want the better screen and battery life on the higher end models but I don't really care for the highest end cameras.
@@mrsparkle3372 In fact, there are already some cheap Android phones that do both, great screens and battery life. The iPhone needs to wait for a while, like waiting for the iPhone 13 Pro to drop in price.
the other question is "Do you want to carry an bulky extra with you all the time, beside your phone, keys and wallet.
@@iSirTaki The premise is that if people want to take pictures with a camera instead of a mobile phone, he must carry a camera. People who like photography often want to use cameras, and professional photographers almost only use cameras for their work. It’s like when people need to use a mobile phone, they must bring a mobile phone. Carrying a mobile phone is always bulkier than not carrying a mobile phone, but there is no way, people need to use a mobile phone, it’s as simple as that.
For me the biggest advantage is the low light, especially low light videos, the difference a bigger sensor +aperture makes is so much more apparent and it's something that's a lot harder to bump up with computational photography
The fact is that the low-light shooting capabilities of smartphones have improved a lot over the years, although it is by software algorithms. Although the camera is good enough, it needs more money to buy a camera with a larger sensor and a faster lens to improve it. Why can't it use software algorithms to achieve better low-light performance at a lower cost like a smartphone?
@@manaphyexphysics. Being able to collect more light in lowlight conditions will always be better. No amount of software can replicate that.
@@manaphyex'cause it'll be like producing orange juice from the lab, with amount and efficacy as similar as the "real" orange juice. Yes, it IS an orange juice, but it won't be as good as orange juice straight from the "real" process. Eventually, it depends on how you want to taste it. If you only want to taste orange juice instantly, then commercial "lab-made" will do
I think it all comes down to how much one cares about all this “image quality” differences.
Also, a lot of people think “low light” is night time scenarios, but it’s really just anywhere indoors even during the day.
I agree, but my Pixel's Night Sight is pretty insane coming from a tiny smartphone camera.
Spot on conclusion. Cameras are great if you enjoy the process of making pictures and geek out over having control of the outcome. I'd also add that sometimes the phone's software gets it wrong or muddles a great scene. Taking a sunrise or sunset picture with my iPhone 12, I can see where the camera is trying to artificially emphasize the orange colors and in the end, the scene often looks just a little off.
I have an iPhone 12 as well, and when I take sunset/sunrise photos, they don’t just look a little off, they look outright cartoonish sometimes. Bright saturated reds, oranges and yellows, with little or no subtlety between.
The 12 is a couple of generations older. Can you shoot raw with it? Too many people aren’t making use of smartphone editing software or pre capture controls
@@rcpmac you can shoot raw, but if I’m going to shoot raw and go back and edit my photos, I might as well use a camera with better resolution, lenses, low light capabilities, etc.
The average consumer doesn't care about the cartoony, oversaturated, over cooked look. Many don't even notice. As long as they can snap and share the image with other average consumers who also won't notice.
@@iLLSinceProductions I’d say the average consumer actually prefers it because people respond to bright colors more so than accurate ones. I’ve seen posts on Facebook photography pages where, in my eyes, the photo is absolutely ruined because they pushed the saturation and clarity all the way up, yet they will get hundreds or thousands of likes. It’s very frustrating when I see beautiful photos by competent photographers that get virtually ignored.
Honestly the main advantage is the user experience, devices dedicated to one thing tend to be a lot nicer to use than devices that try and do everything
I completely agree. Smartphones are expected to provide the modern user with every conceivable functionality, which means each of those functionalities is sub-optimal. I use dedicated cameras, cycling computers, timers, etc. even though "there's an app for that."
like a Katana vs swiss army knife
@@rangersmith4652 So the choice is simple: carrying around one suboptimal device but still good enough for every purpose for the vast majority of people or 10 separate devices optimal for every individual purpose. In the old days I used to prefer the latter but as the smartphones get better and better, I'm not so sure anymore.
I think the main reason I personally enjoy using a camera instead of my phone is not even something technical like all you mentioned. My mindset is completely different when I am operating my camera than when I am using my phone, which I use for many things. My focus and my way of seeing around me changes if I have the camera in my hand, let alone having to actually learn a bit about photography to use it. Even if I had a phone/camera with large sensor and interchangeable optics all in one device... I think I would prefer the dedicated camera. Really good video and made me think a lot! Cheers and greetings from Mexico City!
Yes! I couldn't articulate this, but you've done it beautifully for me!
Smartphones images are good when viewed on phones....when u try to view them from a laptop or bigger inch screens then image falls apart
Amen. I have A0 prints made of images I took with my D7000 & a kit lens. I haven't printed any cell phone image larger than post card size
@@alwynsmit3546fellow d7000 user spotted in the wild?
@@TheLTak3r hey there. Yeah, they are awesome cameras. I love that sensor. What I didn't love though, was the AF. I found it very unreliable in low light or when a subject was in the shadows. It's a pity Nikon never released a D400. A D300 type body, with the 51 point AF module, 7 or 8 fps, weather sealed mag alloy, bigger buffer all built around that 16mp Sony sensor of the D7000. That would have been an instant classic
Honestly, dynamic range and color reproduction is pretty much my biggest one. I've never seen a smart phone camera even approach the kind of performance in difficult lighting situations that my trusty APS-C camera with its massive lens does. And let's be honest, the difficult lighting situations are quite often the most beautiful ones (sunset, sunrise, golden hour). All the scenarios where you don't have a ton of light and most cameras struggle to process colors accurately.
I already bought a camera but I'm just here to see Chris Niccolls talk
An often overlooked option is the superzoom camera. Usually the sensor is not much bigger than what you find in a smartphone but the range of lenses can often go from the 35mm equivalent of a 21 or 24mm lens to 800mm's or longer. The more expensive versions offer 1-inch sensor like the Lumix FZ1000 (25-400mm optical) and produce video and stills at the same time. I've used such a camera to easily produce prints larger than 16x20. Not bad for a camera that is basically a pocket system.
I own a few Lumix cameras - T70, TZ90 and TZ100. I lost my TZ30 while cycling a few months ago. I also own Samsung Galaxy S20FE 5G and recently got the S23 Ultra. Since I cycle a lot, I don't want to carry to much, and after losing the TZ30, the S23 Ultra has been a great replacement. It is better than the S20FE 5G in all areas, especially telephoto. I have compared the S23 Ultra telephoto photos with my Lumix cameras and the gap gas closed a bit. The best camera is the one you have at the time. My Lumix cameras are still.
When it comes to real cameras vs phones, one of the main criteria I’ve always kept in mind is access to reach. Super zoom cameras can really provide that. I know cameras like this often get snubbed within the community, but they offer a capacity that can be incredibly useful.
I own a Sony RX-10 and an RX-100. They are the best cameras for a family trip or even a solo hike versus my professional gear that I just don't want to lug around for a few 'found frames'. The RX-100 fits neatly in one of my jacket pockets or even on an oversized strap around my neck. Handier than my phone. 😅
But you can already do that, there are cameras on films with 20x optical zoom and 200 megapixel sensors
Or if you can afford space, there's Nikon P series. Both the P900 and P1000 can zoom all the way to the moon with their huge zoom lenses.
I explained to my family last Sunday that the difference between a good camera and a phone is substantial unless you only look at pictures only on your phone. They were not convinced. However, they saw that the photo albums printed by a pro grade printing company looked fantastic.
Do you ever zoom in on your pictures? Do you find them to always look a bit 'smudgy' when you zoom in? A real camera doesn't have that. There it stops with me. I don't go further 😉. If any of these questions is answered 'no' then I don't bother at all :). I can try to explain the 'photographic experience' that for me is important (having an EVF, a shutter button, dials...). But I know that isn't relevant at all to someone who's just using a phone camera.
@@jorismak only pixelpeeper zoom in, at 100% the difference is small
And that's exactly the point. The main reason why smarthones "killed the camera market" is not that they produce so (technically) good images. It's that they fundamentally changed the way vast majority of photography is consumed. As long as most people only watch the images on 5-7" displays and mostly spend only few seconds on each, there is little point trying to waste too much effort on image quality. If you are willing to take your time and watch prints or at least use a reasonably large and tuned screen, it's a completely different story.
@@iSirTakianything zoomed in where you easily see the difference. Even on portrait lense let alone distant photography or more so wildlife
@@iSirTaki The image difference is substantial. I compare an image from my Samsung Note 9, yes, it is old but it is good, to a Sony a7R3 with a 42mp sensor. The phone image breaks up very quickly when enlarged. No so with the Sony, or any other high pixel camera. I discovered long ago when I first got into digital after decades of film photography, an enlarged digital image eventually breaks down completely. On film, the grain gets bigger and bigger. That is the reason I love high pixel count sensors, to not suffer from image breakdown. It' like using super fine grain film on a 4x4 or larger camera.
One thing that is important to mention regarding Megapixel count, is that pretty much all phone sensors use pixel binning to end up with a 12MP shot. This does make sense though, since 180MP shots from a tiny phone sensor will probably hardly look good in any other condition than bright sunshine.
fun fact: the "108 MP" sensor in flagship samsung phones is actually just a 12MP equivalent sensor but each "pixel" is made up of 9 photosites, but the bayer filter isn't any finer (so you basically have 9 "pixels" of the same color in a group, you don't get any finer color information than you would in a 12MP sensor.
@@Jazzy-kz6wd almost correct, you will have more luma info, not more chroma info. But interpolation does help a lot. 12 vs 50mp is a difference
@@techtt6213 I have a Samsung S22 with a "50 MP" camera and a Sony A7R2 with 42MP and the best case I have for the S22 camera is RAW and manual prosessing, otherwise it's pretty garbage in my eyes in more or less everything, and the raw is 12MP.
@@techtt6213 no it isn't. The difference u see in 12 and 50mp images is merely due to an over sampling. Quad/nona bayer sensors can't capture high res images due to inability to do guess work as same color pixels situated side by side. This makes near impossible for image processor to apply exact colour on each pixel in the final image.
@@yash_kambli it's not due to oversampling, how would that work? It's demosaicing and other interpolation wizardry
I do take many pictures with my phone (Pixel 7) and the quality is always impressive... Until I view the pictures on a larger computer screen. Impossible to crop, very noisy (or automatically denoised into mush). It's fine for casually capturing a scene when I'm not carrying my "big" camera, but the difference in quality is still obvious.
Make this a start of a series. For example, Nighttime photos are getting better on smartphones, but if your aim is to capture more of the nightlife, then highlight how a dedicated camera can help you dial in the better shot compared to crossing your fingers that your smartphone took a decent one.
Night static shots. Those, even my 20 years point and shoot could do the same
Yeah, kinda dissapointed when I first tried nighttime shooting mode and it just uses a longer exposure
The main reason why I love my D7200 and often prefer it over my iPhone 14 Pro is first the bigger flexibility especially with longer zooms and also that smartphones nowadays are just taking it way too far with their processing.
Sometimes I think "oh this shot looks really great" but then as soon as I look at the image from my D7200 the shot from the iPhone looks absolutely terrible in comparison...
I like photography as a hobby. I bought a real camera cause upgrading a phone every year seems to be more expensive than buying a camera one time. I still own my camera for 4 years and same with my phone. My friends kept upgrading their phone every year and always says that their new phone has better camera.
Hi , Which camera u have ? Is it fulfilling all ur objectives.Yea I agree cameras are far better than mobiles
as long as that phone has all u need, why upgrade
All your arguments are valid BUT to get a good picture from a good camera you need everything you mentioned. For each situation you need a suitable lens, settings, lights, softbox and so on and so on. That one beautiful picture costs you literally thousands of dollars and years of experience. Buy a phone that automatically selects settings, press a button and that's it. 90% beautiful picture. Not to mention that any Action camera has 10x better image stabilization than any camera with a lens!
So unless someone has big plans for photography, I always say buy a better phone and you'll be happier.
P.S. I recently bought my first serious camera (X-T4) and I am very happy with the choice. At this point, I have already invested more than 3500 USD in just the camera, 2 lenses and basic equipment. But until I have gained experience, any iPhone takes better pictures...
It's truly bizarre that after reading your 1st paragraph, you then decided to buy that "serious" Fujifilm camera. I have a feeling the extra effort needed here might be too much?
I've had people tell me Micro 4/3 aren't 'real' cameras because their sensor is too small, and then in the same conversation claim that a phone can take pictures just as well as a larger camera. For those curious, last time I looked up specs, the biggest sensor on a phone(whatever the top iPhone was at the time, a couple years ago) was 10% the size of a 4/3 sensor, or about 2.5% the size of a FF.
The backpacker here. The one thing I absolutely love my phone camera over my "real" one is the waterproofing. When I'm hiking and it's down pouring, I put my xt4 away and break out my s21, and I don't have to worry. Other than that, I have come to be grossed at the images that come out of my phone they're so digitally enhanced that they no longer look normal. Maybe they parts just me
great video, yall
Pentax k3 and k1 are weather sealed and have wr lenses. Resistant, but not proof. Olympus tg is another alternative. I think it's mft or 1 inch sensor, but it should be able to shoot raw too, and it is waterproof.
But most phones aren't really waterproof either. Let them spend enough time in water, and they will suffer damage too.
@@MyChevySonic Both my Xt4 and my lens are weather sealed, but hiking out here in the south where it can downpour for a week, my camera gear isn't made for that. My phone however can be submerged (with my waterproof case) and it no problem. Also to change my entire system in order to have "waterproofing" is an insane take. Why would I sell my current setup to buy a waterproof camera system, when my camera is already waterproof.
I dont understand the point of your comment. "most phones aren't waterproof"... correct...but mine is as resistant as they come.
cheapo tip next time you are at a hotel grab a shower cap pop a hole in the middle and with a rubber band you've got yourself an effective cover, might be low-tech but it's helped me when hiking.
Weather sealed is very different from being actually water proof. Too bad they don't make cameras like Genba Kantoku anymore.
All flagships smartphones today (except the specialized ones like foldables) are IP67 and above, way better sealed than any modern mirrorless could get.
and Pentax cameras, they don't have mirrorless, so you're telling a backpacker to get a bulky DSLR when he could just settle with a phone camera and save a lot of space and weight.
Here is the thing, a few decades ago people were shooting video on actual film and then digital videography began to spring up. The film boys claimed it would never replace film videography and lo and behold it has. Now, mobile film making and photography is vastly improving. I can get exceptional results with an iphone pro max on pro res and lumafusion to where you’re average person can’t tell the difference. What do you know, pro digital camera guys are sweating it and saying “mobile film making will never replace digital cameras!”
as for smartphone shutter button, when I touch the screen I usually introduce much less shake than pushing a button
I bought an iPhone 14 Pro recently and for "the camera I always have in my pocket" it's pretty good. Personally I leave it in 48mp RAW not because I want 48mp images, but because it doesn't do the bonkers oversharpening stuff in that mode. However, I also bought a Lumix G95D recently and the comparison between taking pictures on them is just so illuminating. Intentionally taking pictures with the iPhone is limiting and annoying. Intentionally taking pictures on the Lumix is great. I can position myself in many different ways, I have control over everything, and I can still set it up so I'm in a point-and-shoot mode at the twist of a dial (I leave it in black and white when I do that.)
If I wasn’t already into photography as a hobby, just the handling alone would get me to buy a camera. I’ve never taken many phone pictures because of that. Other than landscapes if I’m out cycling and have minimal stuff with me. But it was never really fun like using a camera is.
I am hobbyist photographer and 70 years old, I been using a camera for most of my life; film, DSLR and now mirrorless camera. So I prefer a stand alone camera versus my iPhone camera. But my adult daughters, who have children, they use exclusively an iPhone for all their photography and videos. The main reason, they can immediately post their videos or photos to a text message, Facebook, Instagram etc.. They never print a photo, since they don't own a printer, so they come to dad for prints of photos that I have taken or in rare case get a photo printed thru some sort of service. These days it's rare to see young adult and young parents at Disney, parties, vacationing, etc. with a stand alone camera. It's the time we live in, I guess....
Very true. Whenever I see someone using a "real" camera when I'm on a trip, I stop and say "wow!" to myself. I don't know why camera manufactures can't enhance their wifi with WhatsApp, Instagram, and Facebook integration.
We used to do this for years. Now we use cameras and make prints. It’s just so much more real than the online slush of photos.
I think most people who like photography in a more serious way don’t have the urge to post immediately and some even sell prints, so I think it’s a different target. I personally enjoy to sit and take my time curating my pictures after a long photowalk, and then people always ask how is it possible that I capture such moments in such quality. Well, for starters, because I’m not in a hurry.
@@abelardojeda : Exactly! I'm the same way. After a trip with friends, I take time curating and processing my best images for display. In the meanwhile, my friends who use only their phones blast out dozens of pictures immediately on WhatsApp, only to be glanced at and forgotten.
There is a bit of a generational thing involved. Youngsters are obsessed with their phones, and regularly 'upgrade' them. They're not going to sink money into an SLR that could go into the next phone.
To illustrate:
My 86 yr old dad has a full frame DSLR and a ten yr old iPhone.
I have a basic DSLR and a 3 yr old phone.
My daughter has a fancy new phone, but no SLR.
Great video, as always. While on holiday I compared how long it took me to go from wanting to take a picture to taking it. Since I use a mid-price Samsung (A53), I might not have the best example of a mobile phone to hand, but even so, I found that I was missing numerous photo opportunities waiting for the mobile. Then, if I was in a great rush, I might touch the wrong part of the screen and switch to the front-facing camera or video. In comparison, my camera is ready almost instantly. My two cameras for comparison were a Sony RX100vii and a Fuji X-T30.
Hey on a Samsung phone go to settings->advanced->side key and you will be able to change the behavior of the power button so that, if you double click it, it will automatically launch the camera app, even if the phone is locked.
In the last 8 years all my phones have had this feature, and it's amazing, you never miss the shot
I’m 100 % with you regarding actual cameras vs phone cameras, but I wanted to mention a few tips regarding the iPhone (14Pro Max in my case). I use the photo mode, not portrait, with Live off, RAW on, and solely the 1x lens, without zooming. I’m careful to hold the camera “square” to the subject and I concentrate on slowing down and minimizing body movement. When used that way, the 48 MP RAW images are impressive, although you also have to be careful when transferring them in order to avoid unintentionally converting the format.
@@Perceptence Sure, and I still prefer “real” cameras. You can crop the 48MP images substantially, effectively zooming in, in post. The quality is pretty amazing for such a small camera.
I was always inclined and even defended mobile photography (i still somewhat do). I did shoot a lot of things using my mobile phone for years and i even have thats really good in terms of camera but one day i picked up my 15 yr old dslr and realized mobile phone cameras are decades behind real full frames and crop sensors. Thus, i bought a mirrorless just recently, lol
Yep. No idea how my 20 year old sony just was better than my phone but pretty much correct.
Smartphone camera sensors will ALWAYS be behind real camera sensors, the laws of physics dictate that, there is no getting around the laws of physics. The tiny size sensor in a smartphone camera when put up against an APSC sensor, full frame camera sensor, and ESPECIALLY A MEDIUM FORMAT CAMERA SENSOR will NEVER be able to match any of those, that's the laws of physics.
@@Hardin9 as we don't challenge the laws of physics. But pretty much yes. Cameras are still relevant regardless of what phone. Although, film cameras especially medium format cameras are potentially eaven more powerful (as it relies on a chemical reaction by light tough the grain plays a important role).
@@photonik-luminescence I fundamentally disagree, now that digital camera sensors finally surpass the resolution of film (full frame cameras, and some APSC camera like mine which is a Canon 90D SURPASS the resolution of 35mm film, and medium format cameras like those made by Fuji and Hassleblad DWARF the resolution of medium format film), digital cameras have rendered film cameras obsolete.
@@photonik-luminescence The Canon 90D is 32mp, 35mm film is 20mp, full frame cameras are now up to 50mp, and medium format cameras like Hassleblad's and Fuji cameras are over 100mp.
One big question you should ask is also: Do I want to edit my pictures after I took them? With a smartphone, once you take the picture it is "done", no further editing is needed. With a bigger camera, it makes sense to shoot raw and edit your pictures. That gives you much more control but is also more work and takes time - so for instant posting on Facebook you'll likely continue to use the phone. With a phone you can easily use iCloud or Google Photos to store all of your photos. With a dedicated camera, something like Adobe Lightroom makes more sense. About the image quality of smartphones vs. bigger cameras: One pretty striking example is the portrait of Chris at 5:03. You can see the huge amount of noise reduction applied by the iPhone, while the Canon picture is so much more detailed. There is a really big difference in the "effective" megapixels of those two images.
Disagree. Smartphones can take flat, RAW images and you can get some amazing results taking them into LR Mobile. May not be to the EXTENT of a real camera, specifically shadows and highlights, but you'll surprise yourself. Taking my Pixel 7 Pro photos into LR is a lot of fun
I'm not a beginner, but watching this was still helpful in terms of getting points I could use to other people claiming there is no need buying a dedicated camera anymore. Well, depends on the person of course.
Nice run and gun video. As far as a follow up, you might want to point out how low end phone cameras compare to high-end phone cameras.
One extra advantage of a camera: you can be shooting photos in peace, knowing you won't be disturbed by all kinds of messages, popups, calls, updates, etc. Much more zen.
That’s not a problem lol
Try the Samsung Z Flip 5 and use Flex mode as a tripod, use it in camcorder mode for great ergonomics, and use the cover display to take selfies using the main cameras. It doesn't have a zoom but still takes good pictures. But it doesn't replace a real digital camera.
The main thing for me is the malleability of the files. Small sensors are getting better but bigger always has and always will be better. The bigger sensors look more natural or even "filmic" if you will.
This is my first video of Petapixel after you guys shifted from DPReview. I was a regular of your videos in DPReview throughout the years and I also bought two of my cameras Nikon and Fuji based on your recommendations and reviews. I absolutely love your videos and efforts of the whole team. Wish you guys fantastic years ahead.
I appreciate how a significant portion of this video was actually saying how good cell phone cameras were, and that for most people who don't follow chiseled adventurous Canadians they probably are enough. As a photographer it's something I've been telling coworkers for years.
To disagree a bit, many of the advantages of a camera over a smartphone are much less pronounced if you only use an entry-level camera with its kit zoom lens as demonstrated in this video. Especially for Canon's APS-C cameras, this is currently a problem, since only slow zoom lenses are natively available for the system. Of the 7 reasons mentioned in the video, 4 (lenses, depth of field, image quality, selfies) aren't dramatically better on a Canon R-Mount APS-C camera with the available APS-C zoom lenses than on a high-end smartphone.
In fact, I'd argue that novice photographers take better pictures with smartphones because of their prime lenses. The quality of amateur photography - on Instagram and elsewhere - has generally improved now that most people compose their images by moving their bodies and the camera, rather than framing by zooming. Another "dirty secret" is that many smartphones, due to their better (AI-based) computational photography, have better auto white balance, color science, auto exposure and (due to their in-built multi-exposure HDR) even better dynamic range in bright light situations than traditional cameras.
Many of the disadvantages of smartphones - such as oversharpened/overprocessed images - can be avoided by switching the camera app to raw and processing the raw files in Lightroom Mobile. I'd advise any amateur photographer to get the most out of their smartphone before considering switching to a camera.
Avid camera user but have to agree here that smartphones have come a very long way and honestly wins over a camera in most cases. The convenience to bring everywhere, computation photography and ease of sharing the photos is unmatched and outweighs the 7 reasons mentioned. Unless you are wanting to edit hard in post, photos taken out of camera from smartphones honestly is more pleasing and looks better most of the time. The computational algorithms in smartphones don’t get enough credit. Besides low light/action and large prints, smartphones are my choice 99% of the time.
I’m not entirely sure about that. If you take an APS-C camera with an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kitlens, you get a zoom range from 28-85mm f/5-8 eq. On the iPhone 15 Pro, the only way to get to 85mm is to use the 3x lens. But that is equivalent to something like a 77mm f/22. F/8 vs f/22 means you lose 4 stops of light. And at f/22, you’re already in diffraction territory. Not sure how much computational photography can compensate for these things.
@@starbase218 sure for zoom and sports/wildlife phones suck! but how many people do that?
@@girlishoon181 so why dont the big brands have cameras for beginners with just as good computanional processing and nice UI where "normal" people can just shoot on "auto" mode like on an iphone???
so why dont the big brands have cameras for beginners with just as good computanional processing and nice UI where "normal" people can just shoot on "auto" mode like on an iphone???
High end Smartphones are amazing for photo and video. But the ability to manually adjust dials and taking the time to frame the shots properly takes practice and is more fun with dedicated cameras.
problem is camera and storage.
Which camera to use will depend on the purpose of your camera. If you take only a few causal photos(maybe 50 or so) in bright or adequate light, a phone camera is enough. For everything else, it would be better to get a standalone camera. ETA I carry around a Sony RX100, it is small enough to slip in to a pocket, and has most of the features of a larger DX-camera.
Screen glare is the main reason why I only use my phone for casual shots. I find it also handy for photographing bits out of magazines and newspapers that could be of later interest.
Try to use multiple flashes on a smartphone controlled by the main camera as with the Nikon CLS (Creative Lighting System). WIth a camera you can adjust the amount of ambient and flash light.
You can't beat the convenience of a phone, the ability to take a shot whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself. My real camera has been in storage for ages.
This video makes quite sense.
People buy iPhones arguing that they want better photos, but there's a 1% difference across iphone and other phones, compared to a much higher percentage of quality if you compare iphone with actual DSLR or special purpose camera or a drone camera
Great video! The camera manufacturers should be promoting this.
I just LOVE the way Jordan smiles when he has his pictures taken.
The truth is: Smartphone photos look only good in bright sunlight. If the amount of available light drops your photos get heavy noise processing or the camera slows down to multi-shot with long exposure that leads to blurry photos. It 's the nature and law of physics. You can't have it all with such tiny lenses and sensors on a smartphone that can't collect much light that well.
I use them together. I find colors are better through well-chosen glass, but sometimes I can just get the phone out faster. To compose and work a shot the camera is always the way to go for me. But I also use the phone to work out some compositions along side it.. The end purpose for the photo is part of deciding which tool to use.
would love to see you talk more about used cameras. i know dpreview was funded by amazon but now that you're at a more independent publication supported by sponsorships, you should use fewer low end cameras that cost upwards of $1,000. as far as just taking pictures goes, any decent entry level camera from 10 years ago is going to serve a beginner just as well and is going to be 1/4 the price, and any older, moderately professional gear is going to blow a cheap new camera away
@@Perceptence i said older professional gear OR entry level gear lol. give them a rebel t3i they'll do just as fine for 1/4 the price
more serious people can get proper professional gear
@@Perceptence it's better but not $1000 better lol
I think you didn't cover nd and polarized filters, long exposures etc
Three reasons for me:
1. Image Quality/DOF
2. Complete manual control
3. Interchangeable lenses
Image Quality is the Same
@@GOekks IQ can't be the same because of the huge difference in the physical size of the sensor - not the megapixels, but the actual dimensions. It's the same with cameras where medium format can yield better IQ than FF, and FF better IQ than APS-C, and APS-C better IQ than M4/3. So, bigger sensors have bigger photo-sites and bigger photo-sites mean better dynamic range, which then means better colour/tonal accuracy and transitions = IQ. It's not MP either - just the physics of sensors.
As far as touching the smartphone screen for taking photos is concerned, you can just set a timer of three seconds and keep it stable. Gimbal will make it even better. But the electronic viewfinder and fully articulated screen on the cameras are game changers. Some may argue that we do have pro settings in smartphones but the sensor size again makes it difficult to compete with the actual cameras.
Personally I am still super impressed by the photos I take with my S22 Ultra. When I got it I expected the 10x telephoto lens to be more like an afterthought. Just one more big number to put into the ads to make the phone look good.
Turns out it produces pretty sharp images though!
It can't compete with my 200-500 but in a pinch I'm happy with it. I also mainly use my phone for taking videos and switching between the 4 lenses is great.
I use S23 and it doesnt take a photo anymore..only AI drawing..
@@janzavorka3799 same here
I wish Samsung didn't stop making digital cameras.
In bright daylight, there is barely any difference but in lower light is really where the "real" cameras quickly show their value. A tiny bit of movement messes up the phone's algorithms and results in smudgy results. Using a flash lets me shoot in pitch black if I want with a camera.
Now, APSC vs full frame is where it gets tricky. I always grab my APSC camera due to the small size and weight of the fast lenses and the results are indistinguishable at equivalent settings.
Sure, you can go much faster with FF but the size and weight become such that I barely use the FF camera anymore.
Brilliant breakdown of the advantages! I'm convinced that a real camera offers unmatched versatility and quality 📸
A camera can bring out the creative monster inside you. A phone is, well, a phone that can take pictures those early Kodak cameras were famous for.
Wanna see a comparison between 24mm f1.8 in R10 and rf35mm in R8. Which one is good?
Great video! I think the main advantage of an iPhone that trumps all the advantages of a pro camera is its portability. Hauling a large camera when traveling or visiting friends is simply not practical. I gave up my SLR years ago as I discovered that for most situations an iPhone works just fine. When I need a pro camera with powerful lenses for a graduation or a safari I rent one which is much more affordable and I also get to use the latest technology!
Can you consider this as a way to start a series on how to move on from mobile to an dedicated camera. Since many of us were not camera users when there was no cellphones available, and now we are having the phone on hand to start taking pictures, in some moment you get interested to do more with the existing tool (smartphone), and with that you are getting more interested to jump to a "real" camera. That could be the idea of the future videos
Comparing phones with a camera like an R10 will make any average person say I prefer the phone. It's an enormous size and weight difference. If cameras want to stay relevant for non professional photographers and videographers, they have to invest in form factors like the one of Ricoh GR or Sony a7c and lighter smaller but equally powerful interchangeable lenses.
eh.. you want companies to overcome physics... the compact cameras are compact because they sacrifice a lot.
It's not that impossible. There are good compact primes from sony, sigma, samyang. Pentax produced great pancake lenses. And progress can continue to be made in optics, it's not all invented already. The first mirrorless cameras actually were in the right track of miniaturization but no, real photographers thought they were just toys, and the industry started producing SLR big mirrorless cameras and lost a lot of time.
Thank you! I get asked this question often, especially when I post both large-camera photos and smart camera photos to social media and the average viewer can't tell the difference.
I would loooooove to see an in depth comparison of full frame and medium format image quality. Primarily on the saturation point of the photo sites since they are much bigger! Great vid as always
They aren't much bigger. Individually speaking, the photosites of the sensor in my GFX 100S are the same size as those of the Sony A7R V (35mm) and the Fuji X-S20 (APS-C).
The smartphone advantage is it's always with you, it's robust as hell, and good enough for almost everyone's use case 99% of the time.
Definitely zoom and low light for me. Had a laugh at the selfie though, i always struggle to even take them with my phone, but the camera method actually looks easier :-)
Indeed, seeing selfies as one of the reasons surely came as a surprise. :-)
Try thr xiaomi photography kit with the proper shutter button and dial and manual zoom ... It could be the game changer
I invest quite a lot of time in custom cameras for Android. Its remarkable how much extra performance you can get out of them. Even video wise (Jordan) I'm talking opengate, RAW video. True RAW video, not some fake log or ProRes video.
Do you mind sharing some of those app? Or any good recommendations.
@@amagombo1 Yeah for sure, for photography, a good customized gcam (essential is a modified lib in 99% of the cases). For video, MotionCam is next level, but takes some effort
also on the phone all those updates eventually slows it down and many times when im in hurry i try to take the photo and it lags
I’ve rarely taken a photo with my iPhone that I like. I mean, sure they’re selfies, but…
Very good comparison. The HDR comparison is missing in this video - smartphones overperform DSLRs/Mirrorless thanks to software processing. With a DSLR you can overperform the smartphone only after editing or after creating a manual HDR photo, and is difficult to do this in filmmaking without cameras that records in RAW.
I've never gotten on with smartphone cameras
- everything is basically ultra wide to wide angle, for "normal" you end up cropping massively and it all ends up looking like junk
- Google/Android (?) colours are absolutely bonkers saturated out of the box
- All the AI / computational stuff gets irritating. Google routinely offers to take things out of shots that I wanted in, or offers to crank up the saturation to 11 from the 10 it chose in the first place. (admittedly, I can probably mostly turn all that stuff of)
I couldn't imagine trying to photograph a rally car flying by me with a smartphone and still have proper motion blur in the background and wheels: so-called panning shot, the hardest shot to pull photographing motorsports.
Shooting past 2x zoom on a phone is a big disappointment.
The first time I got exposed to proper settings on a smartphone was with the Nokia Lumia 1020. 41 MP with a Zeiss lens, and you can have it on manual to change the shutter speed, ISO, and exposure. I was able to create long exposure shots off the highway. Now I have the sony a6000 and the a7iv. Great cameras for my professional work.
It’s a little ironic choosing a Canon RF APSC camera when there are very few lenses for that particular mount and sensor size, honestly MFT would be a more compelling step up from mobile phones especially given the lens choice from super macros to anamorphic glass. Isn’t OM Digital Solutions a sponsor too?
@@invalleria there’s nothing I said to “eh?” about yeah use FF lenses on smaller bodies but it is expensive, bulky and not something to I’d recommend to someone coming from a smartphone. MFT, Fuji or Sony would all be better. That’s not a slur against Canon or any Canon shooter either, I’ve owned 2 Canons still own one of those so I’m not fanboying against them.
How much better is low-light performance on the "Real" camera? Thanks for explaining how the smartphone merges the best bits of a number of shots to approach the "real" quality. I am wondering if it is dark, maybe, regardless of how many shots are available, none of them are going to draw as much light through the smaller lens onto the smaller sensor so there won't be any shots as good as the "real" alternative for the smartphone to select from. I suspect this is true and puts the smartphone at a disadvantage, but have no sense of how much. At what point as dusk turns to night does the "Real" camera start to show a noticeable advantage? Thanks again for the best explanation I've seen on this topic.
Don't forget the JOY of handling a real camera vs a smartphone. This makes you take more pictures!
You pinpointed something I have felt since I picked up that first camera when I was ten years old. I like the way they feel, and I like to do the adjustments... basically everything about a camera is fun to me. I'm 73... I was just in my yard, messing with my camera. 9/29/23
I just found my Canon 7D MKII and Tamron 24-70 2.8 di in the closet I'm trying to remember all the settings and controls. This video makes me want to learn how to take good photos again. Should I get a new body or stick with the 7D
Here's my pitch for the smartphone killer entry level camera that I need personally:
1. Compact. It shouldn't be way bigger than the phone. That means nice compact primes, and light weight body I can chuck in a purse or jacket pocket easily. It's a camera that doesn't feel annoying to carry even if you ended up taking zero photos that day.
2. IQ - Honestly just no crunchy digital sharpening, and some nice high efficiency jpegs, with the standard latitude in dynamic range you can expect from apsc right now. Just enough that it doesn't fall apart quickly in non-ideal light. Plus, a pleasing no edit colour look like Canon, Nikon, Leica, or Olympus have. Maybe not as unfiltered as Sony with it's exactitude or Fujifilm with it's sometimes over-stylization.
3. AF - it doesn't need to blow my socks off, but it would be nice if it was somewhere in the range of S5II to A7IV. Canon would be great high middle to shoot for.
3. Selfie flip up screen. I can mount mics elsewhere, like on the side of the tripod head, use a cage or cold shoe adapter, or use lavs. Looking naturally up at the camera really helps us not have family vacation photos all looking like this:
🐶😏😒
100% not being able to use the best lens in selfie mode is terrible. The front camera is always mushy, crunchy, and noisy.
4. Ergonomics and UX. It should have a fantastic P mode with intelligent options to set limits on ISO and shutter speed. M mode is a given, but I suggest an M mode that has a tappable A setting for each of the exposure triangle to achieve P, A, or S. I hate locking and dragging sun icons to miss my shot anyway. Just copy the Ricoh GR for all the great one touch snap distance priority, tap to focus override, one touch AE when in manual mode type settings. Those are some of the best user centered designed cameras I've ever used.
5. Full touch operation, and a solid quick menu to avoid screen clutter. With a couple custom modes on a dial to let us jump to essential setups while the camera is off, so we can just power on and hit the shutter if needs be. All the swiping around on a tool not built for purpose is why I hate missing shots on my phone.
6. USB-C charging. If the batteries have to be tiny, give us little plastic cases for them to protect them from the elements when kept in pockets. I don't mind swapping out batteries like I'm reloading in call of duty, but I don't want them loose and raw in my pocket .
7. Fair stabilisation. I don't mind if it's mechanical, optical, or electronic tbh. Other people might though. If the body is small enough for a small mobile gimbal the basic stabilisation doesn't need to be unholy quality. Just enough to get you by at 1/8 of a second, or take out the micro jitters in handheld footage.
8. An app that works and is clean. All I want to do is open it, turn on the camera connectivity, hit connect on the phone, and then scroll through the gallery, multiselect and import. Idk why this is so hard. Alternatively give us a USB-C connection that auto opens the app when plugged in and can read right off the card for import.
9. Light and plastic is fine, like a phone. Just make the mount metal at least. Maybe sell tough cases/grips for the butter fingers, or if you want to slap it on as a pre-adventure precaution. Bonus points if they help with splash resistance.
10. Try to keep it under $1k USD if possible. I'd easily prefer to skip the $1k iPhone for a $200 entry level Samsung and then spend the difference on a camera that doesn't make me want to kill myself and then everyone else.
This sounds bleak, but I have had a few cameras that came pretty close to this, but all missed the mark just a little. G7XII was super close it just needed DPAF and I'd be mostly happy, EOS M6II would be perfect for me if they had made any lenses, Z30 / Ricoh GR / A7c / ZV-E1 would be great if they had the flip up screen for more discreet low angle perspectives that don't draw attention to me, and ruin candid moments of pets and kids who suddenly become interested in my swively twisty transformer toy.
The point is: We're close. I think camera companies need to invest in proper UX (not just UI) and also software a bit more. We need them to start thinking like they make devices not just cameras.
/listicle
Have you compared how the mobile phones vs cameras are doing the pictures in auto mode, P, S and A? Is there any camera that does HDR pictures and stack the pictures right away like the software of the phones?
Interesting video since I have this exact combo, an iPhone 13 Pro and an R10. Ive been a professional portrait/fashion photographer nearly 20 years and my iPhone remains my most used camera, by far. There are grips for the iPhone and Godox makes a great flash. I have 3 really good lenses in my iPhone and when the 15 comes out, I will have even better ones with larger sensors, faster apertures and a 46 megapixel main sensor. I also have apps to do things no "real" camera could ever do. Like the FIMO app, which gives me the ability to shoot dozens of classic film simulations and get a great variety of looks, everything from slide film to large format.I can also use an app like NOMO that emulates dozens of classic film cameras, everything from disposable toy cameras and Polaroids to pinhole and large format cameras. Photos from both these apps are very similar to the original film/camera look. IMO, the one and only advantage for a dedicated camera is if you need large prints, but I havent had to do those in ages. Most my work goes on websites and social media these days and smartphone photos are more than capable. Ive done entire clothing shoots for clients outdoors using an iPhone and most love it. Especially since I can Airdrop the photos to them at the shoot and they can edit and post them before we have even finished. The day is fast approaching where I won't even need a dedicated camera any longer.
You like that Godox phone flash? Didn't Godox discontinue it? I have had basically zero success with mine... you can't really stop down the phone's lens at all, so you have next to no control over the mix of flash and ambient light. If you're getting good results with it, I'd love to hear how!
Thank you Sir... You've just solve my problem... I almost took a wrong decision of buying phone instead of real camera...
Please, what's the name of the camera you are holding?
I have a Pixel 6 that still is considered to have one of the best smartphone cameras. But it sucks. everything looks like a HDR. The level of detail is bad. the colors washed out. and the lens is bad, it makes very strong and ugly flares against the light and looses contrast dramatically.
for a snapshots ok. for serious stuff not.
even a 15 year old APS-C outperforms a modern smartphone in most daylight situations by far. and also in the night with a tripod.
Another thing many d-SLR cameras have image stabilization, most of Sony and many Cannon models have stabilization that compensate for camera shake by shifting the image sensor or shifting an element in the lens.
For professional work making content for social media, I use an iPhone 90 percent of the time because it is small, good enough and no one cares. When I don't get paid I prefer the R5 with f1.2 primes, because of the joy.
Where can I watch your podcast, is there a link
PetaPixel TV Viewers just wouldn't have the same ring to it, would it?
I use my Apple 14 Oro Max a lot doing photography. I also carry a Olympus TG 6 because it is water proof ( it rains in Oregon, a lot, where I live. My purpose here is time to invest in the TG 7? Now in hear there is a Ricoh WG 7 too! How many other “tough” cameras are there?
I consistently take better photos with the camera. Maybe partly because I’m in photographer mode when I’m holding a camera. I frame and compose better. On my last family trip I only bought the iPhone, thinking to save gear and that it would be good enough. But all photos feel over sharpened and has no vibe at all. They almost all have an artificial look to them, and don’t portray the beautiful holidays in a nice way at all. But the iPhone consistently takes better group photos in shitty lighting. Backlit people in front of a window, you got it. People in overcast, you got it. But in good lighting the dedicated camera group pictures are potentially even better. They just look more like true documentation, and representing my memory in a much better way. For videos though… I think iPhone wins in most uncontrolled scenarios.
Good video but a couple of more advantages for the phone:
Weight , sure more lenses but the weigh and having multiple ones takes also more space, not exactly pocket friendly.
Cost: A dedicated camera even with a couple of good lenses surpasses the expensive phone today.
Nightphoto: phones are generally better at this today and we need camera manufacturers to start using what the phones does. I think OM Systemes has some computaional capabilities regarding for instance ND filters.
I am currently going in the other direction. There is often no need anymore to take a separate camera with me since I've got the S23 Ultra. And as we all know, the best camera is the one we can have all the time with us.😊
Yeah and the S23 Ultra is a much better example of excellent smartphone camera than the iPhone
Agreed. Got one relative recently to replace my iPhone 12 Pro, I'm blown away by the image quality. It's nowhere near as good as my FujiFilm setup, and I will always love my real cameras, but the S23 Ultra takes photos better than I imagined any cell phone ever could.
That is why I carry my R5.
Nah, more megapixel and AI work, less reality. I have a sony DSC F717 which is 20 Years old (unfortunately it barely has lenses that fit it but whatever) it has prooven to be better at literally anything of what my phone can. From 2 cm near macro shots, to x10 telephotos to absolutely normal pictures. No AI, just the power of a great camera. Also, i hate the AI that edits and photoshops the moon on a S23, that's so mean.
Nope. A proper camera always beats the over processed images from a smartphone.
Handling: ( just buy photography kit for your phone? - Like Xiaomi 14 Ultra ) / viewfinder: ( no reflect glass on s24 Ultra does it for most part - you capture what you see ) - Flash: ( you can buy external flashes for phones too! ) so 3 points eliminated.. the rest is true BUT Lense: ( 1. a good lense costs a lot??? 2. you can buy lense for phones too now + ND filter and etc. and they are much cheaper ) and for selfie .. I wont rotate my camera and hold it in my face in public.. with phone they might not even notice me taking photos of myself.. anyways is your camera as compact as a phone? can it do calls and play games or watch youtube??? for the price of 1400€ which is the best phone in the market you will get a trash camera which cant even do 4k 60fps.. not mentening the lense cost ..
My main reason is that cameras are fun! Photography is neat and using a camera with manual controls teaches you how that process works. I love smartphone photography and I think it's amazing that we all have access to great cameras in those devices, but using a "real" camera teaches you photography as a craft. It places the emphasis on photography as a fulfilling process, rather than just the end result product.
No mention of night photography? Proper long exposures?
One major issue I have with all my full frame cameras is none of them are small enough to fit in my pocket for carrying it around every time I go out.
I take my camera with me if i want to be creative. Phones are good for simple snapshots.
Funny this coming up cause I literally had this topic coming up in my "suggested for you" Instagram section.
And my opinion:
I love using my Sony A6300 in any possible situation (EVF is a big plus) - the smartphone screen sucks as a viewfinder. Another reason: haptic feedback. I prefer pushing a hardware shutterbutton instead of software...
3rd reason I love the A6300 w/ usually the SEL55-210mm: ZOOM! I hate these ultra wide smartphone lenses so much! Only useful for seriously close up subjects (Have you ever tried snapping a photo of a flying aircraft with a smartphone?).
I´d rather take the SEL55-210mm to shoot aircradt photos (although 210mm can get too short as well).
Perfect. Do not waste on pricy Smart phones considering Camera Quality or photography. Just use smartphone for office /personal contacts mails or chats etc... a dedicated camera is always better no doubt about it. In fact there is no need of such hype on smart phones promotion in terms of photography.
These are all good points, but for me the "handling" angle is the game-winner. For a quick shot a smartphone is manageable, especially if you use the side button as a shutter release (although if you're fumble-fingered it does raise the risk of pushing the opposite-side button as well and accidentally calling the cops) but if you're serious about photography, eventually you're going to get into situations in which you want to hold the camera up for 10 or 15 minutes at a time, watching the situation develop so you can catch the peak moment, and this is a painfully finger-cramping experience with a phone. Plus, what do you do if you get a text from bae just as the "decisive moment" arrives?
The pity of those "real cameras" is their shitty user interface, totally pre-Win95 style.
I have s22 ultra and a canon m200..... I use canon more for events and smartphone for casual pictures while going for a walk
Reqction time is the main advantage, when i take a photo on my phone the subject has moved before the photo actually captures, where as my dslr captures instantly when i hit the trigger
True, though when a subject suprises you it may be quicker to get the phone out
I use both types of camera. For me, smartphone camera are good for the time when you want to shoot unplanned pictures like someone funny expressions while hanging out or last moment notice taking pictures in an company event. Most of the time we have our phones on hand.
On the other hand, “real camera” comes in handy for situations where you already know you will be going to an event. Like prize giving ceremony, sport events, or birthday party.
Also, it depends on the final viewing device. Will it be send to social media or WA or telegram or get printed or display on tv or the like. Again, i use both and I utilise both on different situations 😊
I only upgraded to the fx30 when my s21 ultra started overheating during recording.
The shallow depth of field has a lot to do with the extra small sensors on the phone. They can be 5mmx5mm so even when the lens is fully open, the DOF is significant. Out of focus is done digitally.