Are camera phones as good as digital cameras?

[jonnybaz]

I think you can rely in smartphones for portraits. Nothing else. Portraits is a sector where flagship smartphones perform really well. In every other aspect you can find a dedicated camera for better outcome. In portraits you can call for almost a draw.

 

[mrca]

I think you can rely in smartphones for portraits. Nothing else. Portraits is a sector where flagship smartphones perform really well. In every other aspect you can find a dedicated camera for better outcome. In portraits you can call for almost a draw.

A draw? Maybe for viewing on that little screen or low res social media, but try printing one of those. Yes, it makes recognizable images, but so important in portraits is depth of field, perspective, bokeh ie oof areas in the background, separation and micro contrast. It's like saying a McDonalds burger is a draw with Ruth Christ's Steak house. Yes, both are recognizable as beef, but that's where the similarity ends.

 

[jonnybaz]

Maybe for viewing on that little screen or low res social media, but try printing one of those. Yes, it makes recognizable images, but so important in portraits is depth of field, perspective, bokeh ie oof areas in the background, separation and micro contrast. It's like saying a McDonalds burger is a draw with Ruth Christ's Steak house. Yes, both are recognizable as beef, but that's where the similarity ends.

A draw? Maybe for viewing on that little screen or low res social media, but try printing one of those. Yes, it makes recognizable images, but so important in portraits is depth of field, perspective, bokeh ie oof areas in the background, separation and micro contrast. It's like saying a McDonalds burger is a draw with Ruth Christ's Steak house. Yes, both are recognizable as beef, but that's where the similarity ends.

I must be clear here. Dedicated cameras are better in every aspect. When we are talking about portraits in daylight or under good artificial light the result is similar with a flagship smartphone. Or at least very close. The boceh effect is very well simulated. And the depth of field as well. For printing the outcome in almost every occasion is 12Mp. With or without pixel binning. Usually with. You can print 30 by 40 centimetres with good results.

 

[Lez325]

Maybe for viewing on that little screen or low res social media, but try printing one of those. Yes, it makes recognizable images, but so important in portraits is depth of field, perspective, bokeh ie oof areas in the background, separation and micro contrast. It's like saying a McDonalds burger is a draw with Ruth Christ's Steak house. Yes, both are recognizable as beef, but that's where the similarity ends.

I must be clear here. Dedicated cameras are better in every aspect. When we are talking about portraits in daylight or under good artificial light the result is similar with a flagship smartphone. Or at least very close. The boceh effect is very well simulated. And the depth of field as well. For printing the outcome in almost every occasion is 12Mp. With or without pixel binning. Usually with. You can print 30 by 40 centimetres with good results.

As a Professional Photographer - I usually print Portraits to well over that size 12 MP - I use a 61MP mirrorless body with an 85mm f1.4 lens - some I even print poster size 8ft x 4 ft - so I'm afraid your augment does not stack up in my book-

Phones are OK for social media that's it- I have a Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G and would be laughed out of the studio if I suggested doing a Portrait session with that + I would not be in business long either

Les

 

[Braineack]

I think you can rely in smartphones for portraits. Nothing else. Portraits is a sector where flagship smartphones perform really well. In every other aspect you can find a dedicated camera for better outcome. In portraits you can call for almost a draw.

You misspelled snapshots.

 

[AlanKlein]

Cellphones have their application They're convenient, always with you, and print well in small sizes. I don't need a 2 1/2 ton truck to drive to Dunkin Donuts to get a cup of coffee. On the other hand, if I'm the Dunkin' delivery guy then I'll use the truck.

 

[jonnybaz]

As a Professional Photographer - I usually print Portraits to well over that size 12 MP - I use a 61MP mirrorless body with an 85mm f1.4 lens - some I even print poster size 8ft x 4 ft - so I'm afraid your augment does not stack up in my book-

Phones are OK for social media that's it- I have a Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra 5G and would be laughed out of the studio if I suggested doing a Portrait session with that + I would not be in business long either

Les

I'm from Greece so I made the conversion from ft to meters to have an idea for the size you're mentioning. Real big printing! I'm not a pro but from what I hear for that big printings they use to print at 15,maybe 20 dpi even. The reason is that usually such posters are viewed from big distance. With the exception of course of posters you can meet in places such as bustops. So I think that in most simillar cases a smartphone printing would be adequate. I don't own one flagship phone to be clear. Instead I have an old APS-C and a relatively new superzoom dedicaded camera. But with portraits I think they manage it good enough. Using AI of course. I think I have seen some decent astrophotography shots from the Pixel 4 if I remember also...

 

[phlash46]

No would be the short answer...

Not true. It is ass good as most P&S cameras for pretty strait forward pictures.

 

[Fujidave]

Mobile phone camera's have come a long way over the years, but I would say they would never be better than a digital camera.

 

[mrca]

Lez, the problem is most folks think "sharp and well exposed" makes a good photo. Yes, as phones get more mp they will have more detail/sharpness. But unfortunately, most folks don't have a clue what goes into a great portrait. Shallow dof, good bokeh, microcontrast, separation/3D look, color rendering. But that tiny sensor and crap lens will have photos fall apart when printed. Folks will make prints off of low res images and don't have a clue about quality and often the only standard is it is recognizable. It is our jobs to educate them. And if a pro can't give more than sharp and well exposed, well we saw what happened in the early 2000's as those photographers went out of business.

 

[AlanKlein]

Even when people were printing back when they were mainly 4x6" prints. The camera results were so-so and most people were happy putting them in a photo album. That's pretty much the same with cell phone shots. Most people don't print their cellphone shots much less enlarge them too much. Yet, they're a lot better than the old amateur cameras. It's all relative.

 

[mrca]

Even when people were printing back when they were mainly 4x6" prints. The camera results were so-so and most people were happy putting them in a photo album. That's pretty much the same with cell phone shots. Most people don't print their cellphone shots much less enlarge them too much. Yet, they're a lot better than the old amateur cameras. It's all relative.

Had someone come to me wanting a large print of a heavily cropped 6 mp file. For him it was the shot of a life time and it had what should have been heavily detailed fur on the amimal. You never know when that shot will arise and I certainly don't want to regret it being on a limited format. How does that quote go, you puts down your money and you takes your chances.

 

[Lez325]

Lez, the problem is most folks think "sharp and well exposed" makes a good photo. Yes, as phones get more mp they will have more detail/sharpness. But unfortunately, most folks don't have a clue what goes into a great portrait. Shallow dof, good bokeh, microcontrast, separation/3D look, color rendering. But that tiny sensor and crap lens will have photos fall apart when printed. Folks will make prints off of low res images and don't have a clue about quality and often the only standard is it is recognizable. It is our jobs to educate them. And if a pro can't give more than sharp and well exposed, well we saw what happened in the early 2000's as those photographers went out of business.

I agree with the points you raised - As well a decent lighting? I own 4 x Bowens 600w lights various soft-boxes - beauty dishes- 3x speedlights too the list goes on and on- and I am STILL in business

Even when people were printing back when they were mainly 4x6" prints. The camera results were so-so and most people were happy putting them in a photo album. That's pretty much the same with cell phone shots. Most people don't print their cellphone shots much less enlarge them too much. Yet, they're a lot better than the old amateur cameras. It's all relative.

Oh I agree 100% - However: we are not comparing mobile phone camera's to old amateur camera's are we?

I have 3 x Sony mirrorless camera bodies @ 42mp- 50mp and 61mp and NO mobile camera image would compete on any genre of photography with these bodies- I won't even get onto lenses / Lighting and studio equipment and related costs - But I am sure you are well aware we are talking thousands Therefore NO Phone Camera would come close to the image quality we as photographers are required to produce, it's all relative is in not?

Have a nice day


Les

 

[mrca]

Lez, i agree. Tomorrow a shoot with 5 einsteins, a 7' octa and a 30 year old Mamiya RB67 with ilford 3200 film. It produces wonderful images and some of the shots will be with a soft focus lens, not out of focus, adding discs has the highlights blend into the shadows and mid tones. Beautiful grain that is more prominent in mid tones and gradiates out of the midtones Also some portra 400 that the youtubers in Puerto Rico ridiculed til they found they couldn't reproduce the look in PS with a plug in. Try that iwth a cell phone. Did a figure competitor shoot recently and when she came out wearing her skimpy competition bikini top, thong and 5" heels, I saw some words I liked from Clint's movie, Heart break ridge. Adapt, improvise over come were tattoed around her breast over her heart. I didn't know she was a marine and that marines could be that hot. But if a photographer wants to survive he must adapt, improvise and overcome.

 

[Lez325]

Lez, i agree. Tomorrow a shoot with 5 einsteins, a 7' octa and a 30 year old Mamiya RB67 with ilford 3200 film. It produces wonderful images and some of the shots will be with a soft focus lens, not out of focus, adding discs has the highlights blend into the shadows and mid tones. Beautiful grain that is more prominent in mid tones and gradiates out of the midtones Also some portra 400 that the youtubers in Puerto Rico ridiculed til they found they couldn't reproduce the look in PS with a plug in. Try that iwth a cell phone. Did a figure competitor shoot recently and when she came out wearing her skimpy competition bikini top, thong and 5" heels, I saw some words I liked from Clint's movie, Heart break ridge. Adapt, improvise over come were tattoed around her breast over her heart. I didn't know she was a marine and that marines could be that hot. But if a photographer wants to survive he must adapt, improvise and overcome.

100% right - adapt or go bust Never used a Medium format myself- something I may do as a hobby at some point

I shoot mostly wildlife these days-easy enough and a good market for images with my client base - as Studio work is not as commercial as it used to be( Covid19) although I do have 9 weddings booked for the Summer- all things being equal

Good luck with the gig tomorrow buddy


Les