# Are camera phones as good as digital cameras?



## Coupon92123 (Mar 25, 2021)

Hello everyone,
With the development of technology today, phones are made and integrating a lot of technologies. Nowadays, there are phones coming out with three or four cameras. That makes the quality of photos taken from the phones also very good. But are phone pictures as good as digital camera pictures
Thanks everyone.


----------



## limr (Mar 25, 2021)

A phone camera *is* a digital camera. 

Why do you want to know?


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 26, 2021)

Coupon92123 said:


> But are phone pictures as good as digital camera pictures


By what standard of measurement?


----------



## Soocom1 (Mar 26, 2021)

Capability to take a clean picture. 
yes. 
Ability to be blown up to 24x36 with a clean image.. 
not so much.


----------



## The Barbarian (Apr 2, 2021)

I'm really impressed with my new Samsung S21 Ultra.


----------



## Jeff15 (Apr 3, 2021)

No would be the short answer...


----------



## TexOkie (Apr 20, 2021)

Coupon92123 said:


> Hello everyone,
> With the development of technology today, phones are made and integrating a lot of technologies. Nowadays, there are phones coming out with three or four cameras. That makes the quality of photos taken from the phones also very good. But are phone pictures as good as digital camera pictures
> Thanks everyone.


I keep remembering the old saying, “The best camera is the one you have with you.” Who doesn’t always have their smartphone?


----------



## petrochemist (Apr 20, 2021)

Todays mobile phones take much better pictures than my first few digital cameras, but there are circumstances where even a 10 year old DSLR will out perform any camera phone. as the cameras become newer the number of circumstances where the phone can't compete increases dramatically.



TexOkie said:


> I keep remembering the old saying, “The best camera is the one you have with you.” Who doesn’t always have their smartphone?


I only carry one occasionally, probably carry it less than 1 day a week. On average there's more chance of me carrying a proper camera than a phone. 
I do tend to carry the phone when our camera club is meeting on location (when I'll have a camera with me too) & sometimes I'll have the phone when out shopping with the family.


----------



## Jeff15 (Apr 20, 2021)

I keep my camera lens immaculately clean. My problem with cameras in phones is how do you maintain such high standards ??


----------



## webestang64 (Apr 20, 2021)

IMO......From someone who prints photos all day from phones, DSLR's and PnS digital cameras, NO, camera phones do not match the image quality of the latter two.


----------



## jeffashman (Apr 24, 2021)

Not entirely sure it's a valid comparison. Were Kodak 110 instamatics as good as a Canon SLR back in the day? No, but they filled a niche. Today's cell phone cameras have the instamatics of the last century beat, hands down, but they don't match up to a DSLR. That said, they still take incredibly good photos given the right conditions. Here are a couple of examples taken with a Droid X flip-phone about 10 years ago.



Hibiscus01 by Jeff Ashman, on Flickr



GrasshopperOnHibiscus03 by Jeff Ashman, on Flickr
Note: The photos were post-processed using Adobe and Topaz products.


----------



## Strodav (Apr 24, 2021)

The reason they include 3 or 4 cameras in a smartphone is because they can't build a wide zoom range lens that small so many smartphones include ultra-wide, wide, and zoom cameras, each around 12mp with 2x to 5x optical zooms and then up to 10x digital zooms.  The cameras are getting very good at landscapes including panoramas, family shots, and general photography.  The PP they do in camera is amazing, especially for portraiture.  Their video capability is getting very good.  The most recent smartphones even allow you access to the raw image file.  Their connectivity, ability to post pictures to social media immediately, is unparalleled.  There are many award winning photos out there taken with a smartphone camera.  They are not good when long focal lengths are required like for sports, wildlife / birding or large prints.  They can't compete with the detail that dslrs/milc cameras with good quality glass are capable of and they are not at the dynamic range and tonal range capabilities of a modern dslr or at the fps rate of a modern dslr.  I'm not getting rid of my dslrs any time soon, but am taking, processing, and posting more photos from my smartphone cameras.  I just consider a smartphone another tool in my toolkit.  One of my favorite quotes is from Mark Denman: "It's not enough to just own a camera. Everyone owns a camera. To be a photographer, you must understand, appreciate, and harness the power you hold!"


----------



## Original katomi (Apr 24, 2021)

Really depends what you want to do
Right for the job


----------



## Gavin@VUTSA (Apr 28, 2021)

NO, because Camera phones do not have a big sensor and resolution as digital camera.


----------



## lanceslens (May 25, 2021)

Depends what you are trying to accomplish. If you don't plan on printing your work and just taking general snapshots down the street you may not notice the difference if viewing on your monitor, if lighting is good in both scenes. Phones take great pics when you have the correct lighting.  If you make a living shooting wildlife, product photography, sports, or need large prints for a client, camera phones will not cut it.


----------



## JasonDNeel (May 27, 2021)

Gavin@VUTSA said:


> NO, because Camera phones do not have a big sensor and resolution as digital camera.


*"The Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra has some cameras that mean serious business. The main camera has an unprecedented 108MP camera, which earns it a spot amongst the phone cameras with the highest number of megapixels"*

That's pretty reasonable for a phone! Granted a phone and a DSLR can't compete on many levels but still


----------



## Lez325 (May 28, 2021)

lanceslens said:


> Depends what you are trying to accomplish. If you don't plan on printing your work and just taking general snapshots down the street you may not notice the difference if viewing on your monitor, if lighting is good in both scenes. Phones take great pics when you have the correct lighting.  If you make a living shooting wildlife, product photography, sports, or need large prints for a client, camera phones will not cut it.


 Nail on the head 100%


----------



## SpenserEller (Jun 6, 2021)

A while back I decided to do a comparison between my Olympus EM5 Mk ii and my Galaxy S20 Ultra. I took similar pictures under the same lighting. The first image is from the Olympus. the second is from the Galaxy using the 108MP setting. The pictures below have not been edited. In my opinion, the quality of the Olympus is considerably better.

OMD EM5 Mk ii





Samsung Galaxy S20 Ultra


----------



## mrca (Jun 16, 2021)

Convenience, easy to carry, always have it with you adequate for on line  photos, yes, low light, shallow depth of field, control of exposure,  No.  If you want to ape what is in front of you, yes, but your creative control is diminished.


----------



## AlanKlein (Jun 16, 2021)

I find ergonomics of cellphone isn't too good.  You can't see the screen in sunlight and it's awkward to hold and snap.  But it is handy.


----------



## luckypiglive (Jun 24, 2021)

my cellphone camera works great for me. its a note ultra 20.


----------



## flyingPhoto (Jun 27, 2021)

all the camera phones i have dealt with cannot deal well with huge contrast in a scene, and have this wierd issue. 

The MANUAL mode does not jive with the AUTO EXPOSURE mode data. 

Meaning if i do a shot of a still life on auto mode, the exif data for shutter speed, etc cannot be entered into the manual mode and get the same result for a photo.


----------



## ac12 (Jul 2, 2021)

I saw something the other night that has me wondering.
When an iPhone could take a pic with no flash, and my EM10-mk2 HAD to fire the flash, I wonder.
Without a flash I would have a very underexposed pic, whereas on the iPhone I could see that it saw well without a flash.
So a decently good image on the phone vs. nothing on the EM10.  The phone wins.


----------



## Strodav (Jul 3, 2021)

ac12 said:


> I saw something the other night that has me wondering.
> When an iPhone could take a pic with no flash, and my EM10-mk2 HAD to fire the flash, I wonder.
> Without a flash I would have a very underexposed pic, whereas on the iPhone I could see that it saw well without a flash.
> So a decently good image on the phone vs. nothing on the EM10.  The phone wins.


I recently bought an iphone 12 pro max and know they increased the size of their 12mp sensors for better low light performance and significantly improved their in camera post processing software.  They are also allowing access to the raw sensor data in addition to the jpgs.  For family events, the iphone images are so good for social media I'm leaving the dslr at home and using the iphone.  I'm also taking more video with the iphone than I take with the dslr.  What I don't like about the iphone is the ergonomics.  Holding it steady, zooming, and using the shutter button is problematic compared to my dslr bodies.  Although you can stitch smartphone images together to make larger files, I get 45.7mp out my D850 with every click of the shutter.  If you need longer focal lengths, you need a dslr or milc.  My dslrs and lenses give me a lot more flexibility than the iphone, so I won't be getting rid of my cameras any time soon.


----------



## ac12 (Jul 3, 2021)

The other thing is my iPhone can take a panorama, by simply panning the phone.  The the sw in the phone does the heavy work of making the pano.  And it is so easy to do, that it is frustrating, because . . .
I can't do that with my mirrorless camera, I have to stitch the images in post.  And even then it does not look anywhere as good.


----------



## zombiesniper (Jul 5, 2021)

The camera in a phone for the most part is 95% as good. Where the phone lags behind is the lens. Not that they don't have quality lenses but a 120mm lens is still 120mm and who wants that having off their phone.


----------



## Lez325 (Jul 9, 2021)

I have a Samsung Galaxy s21 Ultra 5G- great camera, howvers it does not and will not, come close to my Sony a7Riv and Sony 600mm lens 

Les


----------



## Braineack (Jul 9, 2021)

The old adage: size doesn't matter, doesn't apply to camera sensors.


----------



## JoeW (Jul 9, 2021)

Here is a paraphrase of what the OP is effectively asking:  are hammers as good as saws?  And anyone being asked that question would reply "it depends upon what you're using it for." 

A camera is a tool.  And you use different tools for different jobs.  I can't use my Nikon D4 to make calls.  I can't use it to get on Instagram.  But my iPhone-12 won't take photos of Bald Eagles 600 meters away.  It won't shoot multiple frames per second.  It won't shoot in near darkness because the ISO won't go up to some obscenely high number.  I can't change the white balance on my phone.

It doesn't matter if the technology on hammers is going up, it's still not a saw.  Use the right tool for the right job.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 9, 2021)

While maybe not the best comparison, here are a few photos of my children. Please forgive that the eyes are oof, they're just snapshots.

This is of my daughter which I just took using an apple 12 Pro Max using portrait mode.



Here is one I took a couple yers back with the then, and certainly now, antique a900 and a cheap plastic fantastic 35mm:



Perhaps if I set the focus properly the phone would have shined, but I feel like the DSLR is more lifelike, with better edge separation and overall sharpness. The LiDAR does an OK job emulating depth of field, but I don't feel like it's as good as the real thing.

Certainly for snapshots like these the phone is WAY more convenient, faster and in general more fun and spontaneous. But quality-wise? Well, I guess "close but no cigar" ... and that's using some pretty old equipment.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 10, 2021)

at web viewing size, it really doesn't matter.






at 100% it certainly does.


----------



## ntz (Aug 1, 2021)

no, even the high end phones are not going to outperform the entry level DSRLs or Mirrorless cameras ... when you are viewing the picture on small screen, they might be similar or very often they might appear even better from phone (my wife with iphone 11 always wants to compare with me photos that she takes on the same place and on the phone display Vs me with camera display her photos look usually better, LOL), but when you start working with photo, when you zoom even to jpg it's crystal clear, that phone sensor is not going to outperform traditional camera sensor (dx/fx) by miles ... not even mentioning the lens


----------



## davholla (Aug 12, 2021)

ac12 said:


> The other thing is my iPhone can take a panorama, by simply panning the phone.  The the sw in the phone does the heavy work of making the pano.  And it is so easy to do, that it is frustrating, because . . .
> I can't do that with my mirrorless camera, I have to stitch the images in post.  And even then it does not look anywhere as good.


What software are you using?  I find ICE does a pretty good job.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 13, 2021)

davholla said:


> What software are you using?  I find ICE does a pretty good job.


ICE is free and does an amazing job beyond anything cell phone software offers today --especially for perspective corrections.


----------



## RVT1K (Aug 13, 2021)

Like I've been telling my kids since day one...there's a time and a place for everything.

 There's been times when a cell phone was all I had and I have managed to get some decent shots which was better than getting no shots. And I've seen other cell phone pics that were pretty nice.

  But for the type of shots I typically want to capture, a cell phone is mostly useless.


----------



## Soocom1 (Aug 13, 2021)

This still boils down to format size. plain and simple.


----------



## JohnTorcasio (Aug 14, 2021)

The more recent iPhones take very good photos


----------



## Braineack (Aug 16, 2021)

JohnTorcasio said:


> The more recent iPhones take very good photos


cool story:






						Are camera phones as good as digital cameras?
					

at web viewing size, it really doesn't matter.    at 100% it certainly does.



					www.thephotoforum.com


----------



## mrca (Aug 19, 2021)

Of course cell phones are as good as digital cameras.  That's why when you see a scrum of pro photographers, they don't have dslrs with 24-70's and 70-200s and instead are firing away with cell phones ... No, I haven't seen that either.


----------



## flyingPhoto (Aug 24, 2021)

mrca said:


> Of course cell phones are as good as digital cameras.  That's why when you see a scrum of pro photographers, they don't have dslrs with 24-70's and 70-200s and instead are firing away with cell phones ... No, I haven't seen that either.


Yeah its like why there be a huge glut of 10$ hasselblad and leica cameras on ebay now.... they all swapped to cell phone cameras...


----------



## mrca (Aug 24, 2021)

flyingPhoto said:


> Yeah its like why there be a huge glut of 10$ hasselblad and leica cameras on ebay now.... they all swapped to cell phone cameras...


 Wow, I should jump on a Hassie NOW.


----------



## thomsoxon (Sep 27, 2021)

It is helpful topic.Thanks to your answers, I decided to buy myself a new phone with a cool camera


----------



## The Barbarian (Sep 30, 2021)

Braineack said:


> ICE is free and does an amazing job beyond anything cell phone software offers today --especially for perspective corrections.


Yes.   I'm constantly amazed by the quality and versatility of that freeware ap.


----------



## The Barbarian (Oct 1, 2021)

Bottom line?   I have a lot of really good images that I never would have gotten without my Samsung phone.    If I have a choice, I go with my Pentax KP.   Or my K3, or even my Pentax Q, all of which do a better image than the phone does.    But I don't always have those cameras with me.   As the man says, the best camera is the one you have with you.


----------



## AlgarveCyclist (Oct 29, 2021)

For most amateur photographers, camera phones today are all they really need since they are very capable for what most want to do - share images via social media. 

I haven't printed a photo in more than a decade. 

Sony are launching their newest camera phone next month, I read that it has the same 1" sensor that their acclaimed RX100 VII uses. That leap will take camera phones into high-end PnS territory. 

My current smartphone is the iPhone 13 Pro Max which has decent low-light performance. Before that, Samsung S20 Ultra which served me well. My phone is on my person most of the day. I cycle competitively and train 3-5 hours a day - carrying my Canon R5 and lenses is not a viable option, but I do have my phone with me. Most of my photo's are for sharing with family and friends around the World (we are very spread out) and my phone is perfectly fine for that. 

I'm very much pro the latest tech because I am not interested in the tool tech skills some folks desire; I would prefer the camera to take care of everything and leave me to composition alone, ideally. I am a Mirrorless convert and have moved entirely from DSLR, having sold them and their lenses and going all in with Canon's R5 and RF lenses. As someone who enjoys photography but who never prints, doesn't take it very seriously and keeps it at casual hobby level, the tech that this camera brings absolutely provides me with more keepers; the Animal AF is amazingly accurate, the EVF so much better for making small adjustments before shooting. 

For hobby photographers like me, camera phones are great! But for those times when you want to get even better images, then DSLR's/Mirrorless will, of course, give you that step up.


----------



## jonnybaz (Dec 24, 2021)

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 (Dec 25, 2021)

jonnybaz said:


> 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 (Dec 25, 2021)

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.


mrca said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2021)

jonnybaz said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2021)

jonnybaz said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2021)

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 (Dec 26, 2021)

Lez325 said:


> 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 (Dec 26, 2021)

Jeff15 said:


> No would be the short answer...


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


----------



## Fujidave (Dec 26, 2021)

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 (Dec 27, 2021)

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 (Dec 27, 2021)

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 (Dec 27, 2021)

AlanKlein said:


> 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 (Dec 28, 2021)

mrca said:


> 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 




AlanKlein said:


> 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 (Dec 28, 2021)

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 (Dec 28, 2021)

mrca said:


> 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


----------



## mrca (Dec 28, 2021)

MF film has a gorgeous look as does the unique looks of some film stocks.  On 35mm the grain of a 3200 speed film can overpower the image, on 645 or larger it is gorgeous.   After shooting film for 40 years,  I was like many of us, enamoured by how clean a digital image and made the switch in early 2000 but in about 10 years the sterile, clinical look of digital became just that to me and pulled out my film cameras and finally started developing my film at a cost of about $1.50/ roll instead of $20+ with Dwaynes lab-  if you haven't seen the movie Kodachrome, it's one you shouldn't miss- and not quite "one hour" service but developed, dried and scanned in a few hours. My Mamiya rb67 entire kit, body, 4 lenses, 3 backs in pristine condition cost less than $1000.  The tonal transitions, black and white from a 5 element lens,  and the huge negative, not a "crop" medium format like so called medium format digital produces stellar images.   One of the backs is 645 that gets 16 shots a roll instead of the 10 in 67.  My Yashica mat 124 g is 6x6 and 12 shots and is lighter than a digital camera and on the street has me stopped 3 or 4 times with questions that morph into my elevator pitch and they approached me, not the other way around.  Problem is film has gotten expensive and Kodak just announced a 25% increase after the first of the year.  $14 for 35 mm but that works out to only about 30 cents a shot and the 6 7 about 80 cents a shot doing my own development.  They no longer sell 220 twice the length of 120  so the reels for tanks can take 2 rolls at a time on the one spool.  Interesting going back to a fixed iso and number of shots that you want to fill.  At all times now, I have 7 rolls in progress.  And it's just fun using the waist level finders on two of them and on the split screen focusing on the 35mm bodies, focusing manual focus lenses is a breeze, not to mention zone focusing for street to there is no need to focus and the film stock I use has 5 stops of useable image for over exposure.  Try using a digital image 5 stops over or under exposed.  And folks think film is hard.


----------



## Braineack (Dec 28, 2021)

Cell phone have incredibly piss-poor optics and take disgusting low-detailed images -- even under good light.










It's trash.  stop fooling yourself.


----------



## mrca (Dec 28, 2021)

Hey, Braineack, it's the classic they don't know what they don't know.  It's why my meme is when good enough isn't good enough and I then explain the difference.


----------



## AlanKlein (Dec 28, 2021)

Braineack said:


> Cell phone have incredibly piss-poor optics and take disgusting low-detailed images -- even under good light.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree there are lots of artifacts if you blow it up like your second picture.  But for smaller sizes as in your first picture, it's fine.  It depends what you want to do with it.  I've found for off-the-cuff pictures and clips of video, it works fine.  This is from a four or five-year-old Galaxy S7.  Ignore the title picture.  It isn't from the cellphone.


----------



## limr (Dec 28, 2021)

Ultimately, isn't the answer, as always, "It depends"? I mean, the original question is incredibly vague and broad, so of course, everyone is going to have different ways to approach and answer the question.


----------



## Soocom1 (Dec 29, 2021)

An aspect rarely explored in IQ has been the effect of enlargement of the final image.  Which is the core of the argument, the reproduction of the image larger than the original actual image. 

Now bear with me here for a moment. 

Once an image is taken, that's it. What has been shot is shot. 

What people forget is that the image when uber enlarged to the point where you see the pixelization, (some images will pixelate faster than others) its enlarging the final resolution period! There is no changing that.  

Remember, the enlargement is enlarging not only the overall image, but the size of each pixel by the same proportion. 

In film, speed of the film is determined by grain size. The same camera shooting 100 ASA/ISO will enlarge to a higher lever cleanly than will 3200 ASA/ISO. So a 24x36 enlargement of a 100 ASA frame will have a better and cleaner image than a 24x36 3200 ASA (considering all else is equal.) 

BUT, the resolution in digital is EXACTLY THE SAME at both ISOs because the size of the pixel never changes in the camera. Your not switching out sensors. So 3200 ISO image in a digi. will have the same pixelization as a 100 ISO, just more noise.  

This leads back to sensor size. 

The larger the sensor, the more actual area and higher pixel count in a digi.  and the same with grain in film. 

You cannot change physics. 

YES, a 6Mp. 42x36mm image sensor will have fewer pixels than a newer 24Mp 1/2.5 Samsung sensor. This is true. But once enlarged, your now talking enlargement ratios. And the Samsung will look REALLY GOOD on a 4x5 image, but enlarge it to a full 24x36, and its gone.


----------



## The Barbarian (Jan 7, 2022)

With a Samsung S22 Ultra


----------



## The Barbarian (Jan 7, 2022)

Closer


----------



## The Barbarian (Jan 7, 2022)

and closer




No processing other than the crops.   Looks pretty good to me.    Not a replacement for my Kp or K3.   But not bad.


----------



## Lez325 (Jan 8, 2022)

The Barbarian said:


> and closer
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Galaxy S22 or A22 ???


----------



## The Barbarian (Jan 8, 2022)

Lez325 said:


> Galaxy S22 or A22 ???


Er, S21 Ultra.   Sorry.


----------



## rslt (Jan 17, 2022)

Here's some pics from my Samsung s10, would have missed every one if I relied on a DSLR.
Can't compare with a DSLR resolution but I took and edited with Snapseed without the need of a computer.
Different tools.


----------



## jonnybaz (Jan 17, 2022)

rslt said:


> Here's some pics from my Samsung s10, would have missed every one if I relied on a DSLR.
> Can't compare with a DSLR resolution but I took and edited with Snapseed without the need of a computer.
> Different tools.


I like particularly the flower and the photo on the beach. Have you tried to print big any of these? I wonder how good would they be.


----------



## jonnybaz (Jan 17, 2022)

I want to extend my thoughts a bit. Not every dedicated camera is better than a smartphone. For example I shoot with a superzoom camera. I know that my camera is better in bigger focal lengths. But I know also that I have a small sensor. And many smartphones have better low light performance than my "dedicated camera". If we talk about DSLRS now,we have to consider that a 12MP print from a good smartphone close to a subject and with good light can stand the comparison with a print from a DSLR. Perhaps you cannot print as big as you can with a DSLR but you can still print big enough to hang to a wall. Don't forget that a few years ago DSLRS didn't exceed 10MPs! Not to mention earlier. Still you had good prints.


----------



## rslt (Jan 17, 2022)

jonnybaz said:


> I like particularly the flower and the photo on the beach. Have you tried to print big any of these? I wonder how good would they be.


Thanks, I don't have any way of printing them except professionally, also have nowhere to hang them.
Feel free to download and print if you like


----------



## Mitica100 (Sep 29, 2022)

Taken with a Samsung S21, post processed in Snapseed app.
While I don't expect my cell phone camera to perform like a DSLR, I use it for two reasons.
1- I want to see what the DSLR (or SLR Film, medium format film and large format film cameras) results will be like after processing/post processing. 
2- insurance, insurance and insurance! If, for some reason the DSLR or film camera malfunctions or runs out if batteries, I still have a picture of the subject I wanted to shoot.

That being said, is a cell phone camera as good as a DSLR or a film camera? Not really, if I want to blow up a lot the photo, but their pictures are great for sharing on social media and also keeping a record on the location where I shot so I can come back to the same spot.

To summarize my thoughts, I see a cell phone camera as a tool.


----------



## Ozzie_Traveller (Sep 30, 2022)

G'day all

I've just seen this post - even tho it's been around for a while .... and I thought I'd make a contribution.  My post was also done recently into another thread

*Smartfone vs 3x zoom image quality*

This comparison was done a year or so back and compared my new (then) smartfone with my trusty $99- Olympus 3x zoom pocket camera.  I do not mention the name of the smart-fone as I do not wish to get into a to-and-fro of "mine s better than yours" ..... this post is just for interest.

I suggest that YOU test your own equipment side-by-side and work out your own acceptabilities

The target image ... the flag at the rear of the boat




3x zoom pocket camera image - cropped




Smartfone image - cropped




As always, feedback welcome
Phil


----------



## jonnybaz (Oct 1, 2022)

Ozzie_Traveller said:


> G'day all
> 
> I've just seen this post - even tho it's been around for a while .... and I thought I'd make a contribution.  My post was also done recently into another thread
> 
> ...


Good comparison. Generally I believe this is the problem with smartphone's cameras. You can put inside a 1 inch sensor but you will never have the sharpness at the lens that you can have in a dedicated camera. You can have a bright enough image but never with the detail you will find in a camera.


----------

