# Are cell phones as good as DSLRs? My friend says 'yes'.



## Lightsped (Sep 27, 2014)

A friend asked me and made the claim that cell phones are almost as good or maybe as good as DSLRs because of their MP count. Now, I don't believe this, but what are some reasons I could give to disprove his theory?


----------



## jake337 (Sep 27, 2014)

Show examples.


----------



## W.Fovall (Sep 27, 2014)

Ask him to attach his phone version lens 70-200 f:2.8 .


----------



## rudimaes (Sep 27, 2014)

DSLRs, Systemcamera's and compact cameras (apart from the very cheap ones) are better.
DSLRs, System cameras and high end compacts have larger sensors so they will have
less noise in the pictures. Most of them have optical zoom, while smartphones have only digital zoom,
wich detoriates the picture quality.
More MP doesn't mean better quality and is only interesting if you want to print large posters or crop
your pictures.
But on the small screen of a smartphone, you will barely see any difference.
If your friend likes the picture quality of a smartphone, that's ok, because beauty is in the eye
of the beholder.
Rudi


----------



## hamlet (Sep 27, 2014)

Using a phone for photography is like using a butter knife as a cleaver. All the best to your friend.


----------



## Overread (Sep 27, 2014)

Your friend is either:

1) Seriously misinformed to the extreme

2) Trolling you

3) Bragging about his new phone


----------



## Lightsped (Sep 27, 2014)

Well, he is new to photography, but he is seriously passionate about cell phones. Specially the ones with little pieces of fruit on the case... Since he is somewhat interested in photography I don't want to cause him to be discouraged with what he thinks is good and give up with photos. Still, he asks me why I have to spend so much on bodies and 2.8 lenses. While the quality of his cell phone pics look ok, I just am not familiar enough with the technology in cell phone cameras as compared to DSLRs.


----------



## Overread (Sep 27, 2014)

Tell him that your camera and lenses are the same ones Nat Geo photographers use and that that is the difference


----------



## PropilotBW (Sep 27, 2014)

I think phone cameras work OK in bright daylight.  They are horrible in low light.


----------



## sashbar (Sep 27, 2014)

Do not argue with your friend. If he is interested in photography, give him a good book on photography as a present. Some book that explains how to work with the exposure triangle, depth of field, flash, low light etc. He will discover very soon that something is seriously lacking in his wonderful mobile camera.


----------



## 407370 (Sep 27, 2014)

The technology used to make digital pictures is down to the user. 
If a person gets what they want out of a phone then good. 
If (like me) they get what they want out of a bridge camera that is OK too.
To achieve what other people want will need a DSLR and a lot of equipment.
There is no right way to take a digital picture, it is entirely down to being happy with the end result.
Tell your friend to stop focusing on the technology and concentrate on the pictures.


----------



## pgriz (Sep 27, 2014)

Try doing a good separation of subject and background with a cell phone.  Not going to happen.  A DSLR with f/1.8 50mm, or 200mm f/4 will.
Try doing low-light with a cell phone.  It'll be great if you love noise.
Try getting a RAW so that you can truly tweak the image.  Not going to happen with a cell phone.
Try doing something (anything) with additional light sources like off-camera flash - not going to happen with a cell phone.
Try more complicated lighting scenarios such as strong backlight, with front fill.  Don't think most cell phones have that programmed in.


----------



## KenC (Sep 27, 2014)

pgriz said:


> Try getting a RAW so that you can truly tweak the image.  Not going to happen with a cell phone.



As if everything else summarized above weren't enough, this is the clincher.  I've taken some decent pictures with a cell phone, but in contrasty lighting I don't get what I could get from a raw file because I have no control over the settings used to make the jpg file the phone produces.  Although I would probably have this objection to shooting jpg on a DSLR, which is why I don't do it, I'm sure the dynamic range on an SLR sensor is better as well, which would produce a much better image than the cell phone, even on Auto/jpg.


----------



## JohnnyWrench (Sep 27, 2014)

Try stopping a fastball the instant it contacts the bat with a cell phone.


----------



## KmH (Sep 27, 2014)

A big advantage a DSLR has over a cell phone camera is being able to change the lens on the camera.

Many don't realize that image sensor pixels are not digital devices, they are analog devices.

Image sensor size and pixel pitch (pixel size) have a big influence on what a camera can and cannot do, from the control of depth-of-field to signal-to-noise ratio (low light performance).
Obviously the image sensor in a cell phone will be quite a bit smaller than the image sensor in a DSLR.
The 8 MP iPhone 6 camera has a pixel pitch of 1.5µ (micrometers or one millionth of a meter). The 24 MP Nikon D5300 has a pixel pitch of 3.9µ (microns).
Note the Nikon has 3 times more pixels yet still has a pixel pitch that is 2.6 times larger than the iPhone.
Understanding Digital Camera Sensors
Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography
Understanding Depth of Field in Photography



> Camera megapixels: Why more isn't always better (Smartphones Unlocked) - CNET
> The size of the image sensor is extremely important. In general, the larger the sensor, the larger your pixels, and the larger the pixels, the more light you can collect. The more light you can catch, the better your image can be.


----------



## photoguy99 (Sep 27, 2014)

You can do excellent work with any camera. You cannot take every picture with every camera.

There are superb photos that can be made with a cell phone. There are photos that are impossible to make with a cell phone, but easy with a DSLR.

You can replace 'cell phone' and 'DSLR' in the previous paragraph with any two of these, and it will remain true:

DSLR
cell phone
Medium format
Large format
Very large format
Digital medium format
Light-field
Scanning electron

Etc etc. Generalities are meaningless. Any one system can be the best system, depending on what you are trying to do.

It's like arguing whether a hatchet is better than a salmon.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 27, 2014)

4K Galaxy NOTE 3 V.S. Canon 5D Mark III - Video Comparison | LensVid.comLensVid.com

"
Photographer and videographer Alec Weinstein (from marsmining) was in the market for a new smartphone. He realized that the new Samsung Galaxy S5 and the Note 3 both have 4K video recording capabilities and decided to compare those to his 1080p 5D MKIII pro DSLR – the results are extremely interesting.

What is better – an almost $4000 pro camera (and lens) or a $550 Samsung Galaxy Note III smartphone – when it comes to shooting high res video?

The almost obvious answer would be the Canon – well, after watching this video we are not 100% sure any more. Here are a few notes we have after watching this video (make sure you try and find out which image was taken with what camera – and why do you think that before reading further):


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Sep 27, 2014)

If there's little to no difference ask your friend how he/she'd feel if if they went to get pictures done in a studio and the photographer decided to pull out his iPhone to take his picture. Or better yet, booked a photographer to take pictures at his wedding and the photographer showed up and pulled out his phone and started snapping pictures away. 

I was always impressed by the pictures my phone was taking until I compared them to the pics I took with my NEX-7.


----------



## CameraClicker (Sep 27, 2014)

Someone said the best camera is the one you have with you.  If that's true, then sometimes my cellphone camera is the best!  The rest of the time it is a very distant second, third, or fourth!

The cell phone has a benefit sometimes, it has a very short focal length, 4 mm, I think.  So you can get it right up to your subject and you will still have large DOF.  

Unfortunately, it has a really small sensor, so it struggles if light is less than perfect.  It has terrible controls which are hard to use, or I have never learned how to hold it to keep my hands out of the shot while keeping it steady and pressing the button.  Without an optical viewfinder, it is hard to use in bright sunlight because the screen reflects so much.  The really short focal length has no versatility compared to dSLR lenses.  Without a hot shoe you can't sync most strobes so you have to rely on the internal flash or continuous lighting.  There is shutter lag.
And, that's just the short list!


----------



## Derrel (Sep 27, 2014)

[Shocking] Getty licenses Nick Laham Photographs Of NY Yankees Taken With iPhone | Fstoppers

Getty Licenses Nick Latham Photographs of NY Yankees Taken With iPhone

This was back in 2012...but the images are STILL on the Getty site, available for licensing. Here they are:  Yankees Iphone Pictures & News Photos | Getty Images


----------



## bribrius (Sep 27, 2014)

proper tool for proper purpose


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Sep 27, 2014)

Derrel,

It seems to me that he picked out scenes where the phone would shine for the most part, and he mentions it at the beginning that they are all very well lit scenes. He also puts all his mkIII settings so that they match the phone's as best as possible. At least he concedes at the end that he's really comparing apples and oranges. I would guess that there are countless other situations where there would be a stark difference between the two. An easy one would be to change the f stop on the mkIII. Something the phone just can't do regardless of how good the image quality is. 

Aside from this, I guessed right about 50% of the time. To which I'LL concede is really good for the phone.


----------



## deeky (Sep 27, 2014)

I would say don't even worry about arguing with them.  They have their mind made up and your words probably aren't going to change that.  Invite them out on a photo trip somewhere and really push your capabilities.  Focus on selective focus, off camera flash, and some of the other things mentioned above that highlight what sets your camera apart.  Let him shoot what he wants.

Then, finish the event over a meal, beer, root beer float, whatever you like.  But have a laptop along to download your photos so you can help each other with things like composition, etc.  Look at his first, then walk through your own.  If you know how to use your camera, he will see the difference.  If not, he's an idiot and you aren't going to change his mind anyway.  Just smirk in silence knowing what you know.


----------



## TCampbell (Sep 28, 2014)

We don't use most of the pixels we collect anyway... so if you pick a well-lit scene (e.g. "sunny 16" type shots) with really broad depth of field... you're not going to see a lot of difference.

The difference will show up as soon as you do anything challenging... narrow depth of field, slow shutter (e.g. implying motion in a shot), very low light, etc.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Sep 28, 2014)

Lightsped said:


> A friend asked me and made the claim that cell phones are almost as good or maybe as good as DSLRs because of their MP count. Now, I don't believe this, but what are some reasons I could give to disprove his theory?


A high MP count doesn't make a camera "great" just as a big motor doesn't make a car "great".    Beyond that. . .. while there are a lot of technical reasons why a DSLR is superior to a camera phone from a photographic equipment standpoint;  I really wouldn't bother belaboring the point.  Clearly you're too new at photography to express the differences concisely yourself, and your friend is too new to realize the difference between something as simple as sensor size vs MP count.    Whenever I encounter people like your friend I just compliment them on their nice phone, and compliment the pretty* pictures of flowers, coffee, food, etc. and let them enjoy their moment.   It's better for everyone that way.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 28, 2014)

I was at my 30 yr reunion last night.  I didn't take any pics, but photos were taken.  Cameras used were one cheap bridge camera and many cell phones.  I'd rate the bridge camera pics as "acceptable"  and I'd rate everything else as "Marginal to Horrid".

of course NO post processing on probably all of them.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Sep 28, 2014)

Of course they are as good. I'm surprised there is even a discussion about it. Just the other day I made a call from my phone and took a picture of my ear, it's perfect.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 28, 2014)

yes:








vs my crap DSLR:


----------



## photoguy99 (Sep 28, 2014)

Of course, if you do known how to use a camera of type, oh let's say D, and you have no idea at all how to use a camera of type, let us select a letter at random, say, P, then the photos you take with the one will generally look a lot better then the photos you take with the other.

This is handy when you wish to defend your choice of D over P. And there's an even chance you don't even know you're cheating, because, humans.


----------



## snowbear (Sep 29, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> Of course they are as good. I'm surprised there is even a discussion about it. Just the other day I made a call from my phone and took a picture of my ear, it's perfect.



Yep.  In fact, I'd say that cell phones are much better . . . let's see you call home with a D810 or a 5Dm3.


----------



## CameraClicker (Sep 29, 2014)

We spent a couple of hours going through our local aquarium yesterday.  There are some places where a call is possible, but lots of places where there is just too much water.  The phone's camera doesn't need a signal and people had them out.  I don't know if they were happy with the results, there are 9 adults in this, and 5 phones are visible.



Which reminded me of this post, so I got out my phone too.  Since this is about camera quality and not about post processing, these are just resized to the same width and sharpened equally. 

Cell:    ................  5D Mk III:  

Cell:    ................... 5D Mk III: 

I've had my phone a while, it's a Samsung Galaxy S2.  A quick check shows there is an S5 now!  So, the new one might have a better camera, but I think my phone did a reasonable job in a situation that had bad light and many reflective surfaces and random light sources.  Certainly "good enough" for anyone who wants to show the folks at work what they were doing on the weekend.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 29, 2014)

Just wonderful:







just awful:


----------



## runnah (Sep 29, 2014)

Braineack said:


> Just wonderful:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I bet your DSLR doesn't even have any cool filters!


----------



## Braineack (Sep 29, 2014)

Should have used color sketch mode.


----------



## photoguy99 (Sep 29, 2014)

While your cell phone samples are not great, I quite dislike the DSLR photos as well. Hosing your victims down with strobes makes the pictures 'sharp and clear', as people say.

The cell phone photos get a lot more of the mood, although they are less 'sharp and clear'

Anyways. It's all hatchets versus salmon.


----------



## cynicaster (Sep 29, 2014)

I hate to admit it, but I'm quite impressed by what is possible with cell phone cameras.  With my current phone, I feel the technology has finally crossed that threshold of actually being worth the expenditure of energy to retrieve the phone from my pocket to take an impromptu picture.  That may not be saying a whole lot, but it's a huge leap from my last phone, which had such crappy image quality that I'd hardly even consider using it to snap a photo of a dishwasher for posting in the classifieds.

I'd put my current phone camera on par with a middle-of-the-run point and shoot (at least, the few that I have used), which, under the right conditions, can take really nice pictures.  

But the key here is the disclaimer _under the right conditions_.  If there is strong available light, and there is no need for long zoom or shallow DoF, then really nice photos can be made with a phone.  

Still, the fact remains that the flexibility afforded by even a modest DSLR system is out of sight compared to a cell phone camera.  To argue otherwise is patently absurd.  

I've noticed something when it comes to all kinds of technology: it seems like whenever leaps are made that cause people to say stuff like "Wow!  The <blank> is really impressive on <blank>, especially when you consider that it is just a <blank>!"--even if the praise may be reasonable in and of itself--there will always be a group of proponents of the new-fangled miracle gadget that tend to ride that wave of jubilation into the realm of delusion with respect to how good that gadget really is.  I think we're seeing that phenomenon at play with cellphone cameras.


----------



## dennybeall (Sep 29, 2014)

The controversy of cheap camera versus good camera has been around since the Nikon F and the Kodak Brownie were the two in the discussion. On a perfect day with perfect light and perfect distance they both take comparable photos. When anything changes the Nikon/Canon et al takes the game.


----------



## runnah (Sep 29, 2014)

I am going to enter the 24 hours of Le Mans in my ford focus cause that is a car just like the Audi R18 e-tron quattro LMP1 Racecar as they both have a steering wheel.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 29, 2014)

runnah said:


> I am going to enter the 24 hours of Le Mans in my ford focus cause that is a car just like the Audi R18 e-tron quattro LMP1 Racecar as they both have a steering wheel.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Sep 29, 2014)

My iPhone 5S takes an impressive photo, provided that conditions are right.

But it's never going to replace my DSLR's...


----------



## pgriz (Sep 29, 2014)

Cell phone cameras are probably killing more P&S sales than they are killing DSLR sales.  The vast majority (hey, I did the polls!  ) of cell phone photos are snapshots for sharing.  They have it over the P&S in that you don't need a computer to download (to the computer) and then upload (to the media-sharing sites).  Quality?  How much quality di you want/need out of a display several inches square?  The DSLR has far more creative capability, for those who care, and comparatively speaking that group is very small compared to the other horde.  I've used a cell phone photo to show my wife where I'm at, and what I was looking at.  I used my DSLR to capture an image we'll probably mount on a wall.  Really, different purposes entirely.


----------



## Leonidas Kontoulis (Oct 5, 2014)

Phone cameras are very limited compared to dSLRs...


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 5, 2014)

I think my phone camera is great
but not anywhere near my dslr

of course, the first priority of my phone is to be used as a phone.
the first priority of my camera is to be used as a camera

my phone has eliminated my use of my P&S, as the quality is better than the P&S.
plus it's 2 devices in one, a nice swiss army knife .. good at a lot of things but not everything.  ANd if you are using all the "filters" for instagram then you have the dslr beat as the dslr image would suffer greatly from those horrid filters if blown up.


----------



## JerryLove (Oct 5, 2014)

Derrel said:


> The almost obvious answer would be the Canon – well, after watching this video we are not 100% sure any more. Here are a few notes we have after watching this video (make sure you try and find out which image was taken with what camera – and why do you think that before reading further):


 I guessed correctly in all but one instance. 

Which raises some interesting questions about the veracity of the test. 

- My monitor is only running 1080p. The supposedly 1080p and 4k sources were cut down to take no more than half of that. I should not have seen a difference in resolution. 

Indeed: the 5DMKIII looks downright poor. It reminds me of SD video. So why is that?

Is the 5DMKIII simply a terrible video camera incapable of capturing 1mp video on its 20mp sensor? 
Is there something else in play? Is there a problem with the compression (and re-compression) used by the person who one must assume wanted the 5DMKIII to lose (or the video itself would not get hits)?

Is any of this relevant to a question on stills?

I don't have a 5D, I have a 6D. I do however have a Note 3. I take pics with both. Every pic thusfar that's been printed for work has been on the 6D. They have looked far better in my hands. 

Truth be told: I suspect that the hardware in a modern cellphone is more modern and sophisticated than the DSLR. Simply put: there's far more money put into development of cellphone cameras. That does not seem to trump the physical limitations; at least not in my experience. 

Also: Girls on the street don't want to pose for your cellphone.


----------



## greybeard (Oct 5, 2014)

Cell phones cameras have their place.


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 5, 2014)

I'd check out his pictures first.  If there better than yours, keep your mouth shut.


----------



## limr (Oct 5, 2014)

Well, the whole discussion is moot because we ALL know film is still better than either cell phones or DSLRs.














Kidding! Sheesh.

As a data point, I've got a Canon point-and-shoot (SX130...something like that. I never remember its exact model name) and a Galaxy S4 cell phone. The Canon can do more than the cell phone, but the quality of the photos is about the same, and the way I use the Canon is for more documentary shots, or test shots. The Galaxy does just fine for those purposes. When I want to take more artistic shots, I break out the real cameras. 

After playing with a Pentax K5 a few weeks ago, I figure that when I want to be creative with a digital camera, I'd choose a DSLR but I'd never go for the Canon or the cell phone.

So. For "real" pictures that I actually care about, I will use film, or when I eventually buy one, a DSLR. When it's just a snap, the cell phone serves perfectly well, making the Canon redundant since it's bigger, it sucks the life out of batteries like nothing else, and it doesn't produce pictures noticeably better than the phone.


----------



## Lumac (Oct 6, 2014)

There is plenty of occasion where cells phone are not going to be enough (portrait, astro, low light, macro...). Now, for 90% of the people, a good picture is a picture you can put on facebook or instagram. We (by "we" I mean people who tries to improve the way to think and use photography) know the difference between a beginner and an expert (composition, setting, light....). But how many people on the web are able to do the same? How many know what a diaphragme is and how does it affect the picture?

One french photographer did a wedding session with a cell phone (the one with the fruit on its back). He did very well, but I knew the limit of the smartphone (no bokeh, no low light picture, no big prints ...).


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 7, 2014)

limr said:


> Well, the whole discussion is moot because we ALL know film is still better than either cell phones or DSLRs.


 True !

Will take some time until we can reach the resolution of a 4x5 or worse 8x10 large format camera.

Then again, what film DO we still get for a 8x10 large format camera ?


----------



## limr (Oct 7, 2014)

Still available in 8x10 (and a few of them also in 11x14):

--Ilford in a few different ISOs and b&w emulsions 
--Kodak makes Tri-X 320, Portra 160 and 400, Ektar 100
--Fuji makes color sheets, both positive and negative. 
--Adox and Fomapan put out b&w emulsions
--MultiTone makes litho films in 8x10, 11x14, and 20x24
and
--Impossible Project has some insanely expensive 8x10 instant film

And that's just at B&H


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 7, 2014)

Resolution is a non issue anyways.


----------



## KenC (Oct 7, 2014)

limr said:


> Still available in 8x10 (and a few of them also in 11x14):
> 
> --Ilford in a few different ISOs and b&w emulsions
> --Kodak makes Tri-X 320, Portra 160 and 400, Ektar 100
> ...



Tri-X and not TMax?  If I were still shooting film I would be upset, not that I ever shot 8x10 or even 4x5, but still ...


----------



## limr (Oct 7, 2014)

They discontinued Tmax in 5x7 and 8x10, but still make it in 4x5, which is generally more popular anyway for those shooting large format. I think there are a few places in Europe still selling off its stock, and one site I checked said it was still producing the 8x10 on demand as a special order directly from the company (for a premium, I'm sure).

I don't have a large format camera - not a proper one anyway - but I do have a 4x5 pinhole camera that I've used with paper and I'm actually planning on getting some 4x5 film now that I've figured out a way to tray develop it


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 8, 2014)

hamlet said:


> Using a phone for photography is like using a butter knife as a cleaver. All the best to your friend.


 
This is a great analogy, because depending on what you're cleaving with that butter knife, it will still work and some people it will work perfectly, however for other things it's only slightly better than than trying to karate chop a side of raw beef with your hand.

Cell phones can be as good or better than a DSLR depending on the use, but not certainly because of the MP count. I can't attach a flash to a cell phone and I have very limited control, but if I want to record a video or snap a photo and instantly upload it to share or if I'm doing something where I don't want to lug around the weight of a DSLR and related equipment, the phone works perfectly.


----------



## Stradawhovious (Oct 8, 2014)

Cell phones are far superior to DSLR.


I have never ONCE been able to accept an incoming call or play angry birds on my D7000.  It's infuriating.


----------



## 407370 (Oct 8, 2014)

My daughter was doing a flute recital in the teachers home (big house) and everyone had a phone to record the event except one total ........ who insisted that he needed his giant tripod + 5DMK3 and separate lighting stand to record the event. The home owner eventually had to kick him out as he was so disruptive but he got belligerent and a few of us parents had to assist him to leave the premises. To this day he would not know what people were getting annoyed about as he was getting the best photo he could.

Time and a place.

 If you compare the rate of development of phone cameras to DSLR's the gap should be minimal in a few years.

A diaphragme is a form of contraception.


----------



## pgriz (Oct 8, 2014)

I think someone already did a hack and installed a video game on a Canon display.  Had to do a lot of extra coding to compensate for the libraries that weren't included in the camera's firmware.  Said it took several months, and other than proving the point that it could be done, that it wasn't worth the effort.  Plus I think the camera's ergonomics are all wrong for THAT function.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 8, 2014)

H'ere's a few of my photos visiting the doctors office the other day.  They looked good on my phone ...


----------



## ph0enix (Oct 8, 2014)

pgriz said:


> I think someone already did a hack and installed a video game on a Canon display.  Had to do a lot of extra coding to compensate for the libraries that weren't included in the camera's firmware.  Said it took several months, and* other than proving the point that it could be done, that it wasn't worth the effort.*  Plus I think the camera's ergonomics are all wrong for THAT function.



I could have told him that before he started.


----------



## pgriz (Oct 8, 2014)

ph0enix said:


> pgriz said:
> 
> 
> > I think someone already did a hack and installed a video game on a Canon display.  Had to do a lot of extra coding to compensate for the libraries that weren't included in the camera's firmware.  Said it took several months, and* other than proving the point that it could be done, that it wasn't worth the effort.*  Plus I think the camera's ergonomics are all wrong for THAT function.
> ...



Yeah, but he now has the bragging rights, that he's hacker enough to put a video game on a camera display.  That's no small shitz he showed there.  Of course, slightly more sane people would have listened to your advice and said said the same - but then, they would have had to do something useful with those months.  And that could be the greater challenge.


----------



## JerryLove (Oct 10, 2014)

So this happened too: Shootout: How does a high-end smartphone camera compare to a $3,400 DSLR? | Ars Technica

My problem with these comparisons are that they are usually garbage.

For one: the article doesn't really take advantage of a single feature that the 5DmkIII has over the much cheaper 6D or 7DmkII, and except for high ISO, this could have been done with a T3.

For another: The article compares an f2.2 1/4th second shot (well: shots actually) on an iPhone to a f4 1/40th shot on the DSLR. Despite having a f/1.2 lens, the reviewer inexplicably gives up 75% of his light. He also claims that he has to use the faster shutter because the iPhone has so much better an image stabilization (though it seems an IS 50 should be shot 1/12th or so, and I think he was shooting 24mm).

But even given those odd choices: he never shoots anything with movement; which would have shown the problem with the settings; as well as with iPhone's lesser autofocus speed.

If I seriously wanted to rig a review to favor the phone I would do exactly the things he did. Though I'd try to get a 1D to make it look even more ridiculous.

*edit* Above "gives up 75% of his light" was just the F value. He actually gave the iPhone 40x the light that he gave the Canon.


----------



## CameraClicker (Oct 10, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> So this happened too: Shootout: How does a high-end smartphone camera compare to a $3,400 DSLR? | Ars Technica
> 
> My problem with these comparisons are that they are usually garbage.
> 
> ...



I think he should take the cell phone to Alaska or Newfoundland and spend a day or two shooting whales.  That cell phone's 4 mm lens will really work well for that.  While away from civilization, perhaps he could get a few close-ups of a bear or two!  I see he has a 600 EX RT flash and a 430 EX II, as well as a 70-200 L lens for the 5D, so I think a comparison of flash photos of something, say, 50 feet away, might be interesting.

Apple's specs page doesn't mention focal length, 4 mm is a guess -- which would mean a 1/4 sec exposure could be hand held using the 1/<focal length> rule of thumb. 
From Apple's (Apple (Canada) - iPhone 6 - Technical Specifications page:
*iSight Camera*
New 8-megapixel iSight camera with 1.5µ pixels
Autofocus with Focus Pixels
ƒ/2.2 aperture
Optical image stabilization (iPhone 6 Plus only)
True Tone flash
Five-element lens
Hybrid IR filter
Backside illumination sensor
Sapphire crystal lens cover
Auto image stabilization
Auto HDR for photos
Improved face detection
Exposure control
Panorama (up to 43 megapixels)
Burst mode
Tap to focus
Photo geotagging
Timer mode

It's interesting optical image stabilization is only on the Plus version, according to the specs.  But there is Auto image stabilization, anyway.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 11, 2014)

You know what this thread needs?

More posts detailing special cases in which cell phones will not be a suitable tool. Ideally make the special case something really unusual.

Like, try to take a picture of a nebula with ur  cellie, loser!!1q1

Or

If very that cell phone wouldn't work very well ON THE MOON

And why do we need more of this? Because there's no horse so dead it can't be beaten more, and no camera enthusiast who isn't desperate to justify his purchases.


----------



## JerryLove (Oct 12, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> You know what this thread needs?
> 
> More posts detailing special cases in which cell phones will not be a suitable tool. Ideally make the special case something really unusual.


 Your child's evening sporting event.
Your child's indoor sporting event.
Your or your child's indoor activity (birthday party, whatever).
Shooting anything outdoors during the 50% or so of the time when it's not "day".
Shooting anything fast moving (say: "your dogs playing in the yard")
Shooting at indoor places (The aquarium, Chuck-E-Cheese, etc)

[sarcasam]Yep. Those sound like really special cases [/sarcasam]

I mean: I could come up with special cases if you like. Macro photography, astrophotography, telephotography, underwater photography, etc.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 12, 2014)

Talk about missing the point....


----------



## W.Fovall (Oct 13, 2014)

Cell phones are better for up skirt shots..


----------



## 4rum (Oct 13, 2014)

I'll gladly make one concession and it is not mine. I read the remark in a popular photo mag. The author stated: "The best digital camera is the one you are most likely to have with you." Personally I took this to mean simply that any photo is better than no photo. A theory not without merit. Having said that, I don't make calls from my camera and I don't expect my cell camera to compete with a DSLR. Love all the observations. 

'rum


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 13, 2014)

I have my D600 with me - almost always. So - I guess that makes it a cellphone now ? I should really try if I can call somebody with it.



As a general rule of thumb: sensor size can only be compensated by bigger sensor size - until the camera is too big for you.


----------



## TheStunch (Oct 13, 2014)

DSLR's are better than cell phones.  that is all. 

If expansion is needed, it's like this.  Photo quality on snap shot is similar, but once we go beyond basic composition and auto exposure, that's where the similarity ends.  Can you shoehorn a cellphone onto a tripod and make it a camera? of course, but that's like driving off road in a lifted mini van, rather than in a proper 4x4, jussst not the same.  Cell phones represent the new frontiers of digital photography in many ways (superior wifi connectivity, app integration, super fast processors, improved user experience, etc.) and in that regard are light years ahead of the average DSLR, and may well dictate where the industry pushes the DSLR as a tool for making great photos (so keep a close eye on Samsung, and Sony), but other than being test beds for great ideas that the big guys (Canon and Nikon) refuse to integrate properly, cell phones just do not stack up, regardless of anecdotal photo or video comparisons.  One of the biggest faults of cell phones, at least for the moment, is the the lens you have, is the lens you have (lens adapters don't count), also a major fault with point and shoot cameras, and while on the point and shoot subject, it should also be noted that the tiny sensors on cell phones, while they can be made better with software, simply lack the surface area to gather large amounts of light (ie: tiny imaging sites).  and while this does not always yield a bad photo, the hardware itself is limited, and so, if you consider yourself a pro, or avid amateur photographer, you will come up on your hardware's limitations rather quickly (especially when doing higher level photography), and will end up with a DSLR, sooner or later, generally speaking. 

If we want to make the cell phone comparison, here is a better way to consider it:  cell phones have been well below the level of point and shoot cameras for many years, and now they have caught up, and in a few ways surpassed their point and shoot cousins, so, to me, logically the argument is better stated "Is my really nice point and shoot camera equal to or better than a DSLR?"  Clearly the answer is no.

That being said, the best camera is still the one in your hand, lol


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 13, 2014)

Once again the argument goes:

DSLRs are objectively better because they do the things they do better, better.

Somehow the things cell phone cameras do better always (well, usually. Be attentive when Derrel writes) gets left out. Funny, that.


----------



## TheStunch (Oct 13, 2014)

beyond selfies and phone calls i can't think of much they do better, beyond expanding the interface and connectivity, which is not inherent to the platform of a cell phone, as Samsung's Android powered Galaxy cameras prove.  I guess 4k video is a nice feature, but it's not beyond the reach of a DSLR, but rather a feature that for some reason, like many other features that are great leaps ahead, just gets left off.  Really the cellphone vs DSLR debate is almost a distraction from the bigger question, which is sort of an indictment, why wont Canon and Nikon integrate this new tech into their new DSLR platforms?  The capability is there, they can make a smaller, smarter, more connected DSLR, with a better interface, more battery life, and a better user experience.  they just haven't, and looking at this practically, I can imagine the issue is 2 fold, one being cost, since they can piecemeal these features out over time and save yearly dev costs and force you to buy the latest greatest features, or in Nikon's case, some kind of awkward adapter, and the other is reputation, and by that I mean, they can't afford mistakes in implementation.  They make some of the finest DSLRs in the world. period, and messing up basic Android or iOS style functionality would be a tremendous black eye, while you can be certain that hard fighting rivals like Samsung, Fuji, or Sony (though Sony less so) will likely get right.  Though I feel I've both threadjacked and gotten off topic, I'll sum it up cell phones are great because they are small, take nice pictures, nice videos, and are always handy, but that's it, at least for now, they are kindof a Swiss army knife in the photo universe, always good to have, can do a little of everything, and best kept in your pocket unless a proper tool is left at home.  No sense in chopping down a tree with a pocket knife, though doing it that way does make the feat more impressive.


----------



## JerryLove (Oct 13, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Once again the argument goes:
> 
> DSLRs are objectively better because they do the things they do better, better.
> 
> Somehow the things cell phone cameras do better always (well, usually. Be attentive when Derrel writes) gets left out. Funny, that.


What, related to still photography at least (several people have pointed out the cell-phones far superior call-taking ability) do cell-phones do better than DSLRs (one supposes we must add "in general")?

Ummm. Selfies are easier because the unit is smaller (and relatively few DSLR's have screens that flip around completely).

Beyond that?

Nothing.

Every other advantage to the cellphone is going to be ergonomic ("you likely are already carrying it", "it fits in a pocket") or meta-photographic ("can post directly to facebook", "can do in-device editing").

*And no: Ars' low-light results are because of horrific choices in DSLR settings and hardware. That one can deliberately take a worse picture is not news.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 13, 2014)

Extreme depth of field is the obvious technical 'pure photography' one.

Ergonomics, availability, and connectivity are not to be waved lightly aside, though. They are real things.

As I mentioned earlier, I think Derrel had covered these things.


----------



## TheStig (Oct 14, 2014)

DSLRs are better because:
-manual controls 
-lens options 
-appealing depth of field 
-focus speed and accuracy 
-large sensor for noise performance 
-battery life / shooting time 

And many more. It's really not difficult to see the difference. Sounds like your friend has just never used a DSLR so they have no idea what they are missing out on.


----------



## waday (Oct 14, 2014)

Have you ever tried to put your DSLR in your pocket? You get lots of looks... some welcome, some not-so-much.


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 15, 2014)

No but I have a backpack all the time, anyway, even before I was into photography. My usual setup - D600, 70-200mm f4, 28mm f1.8 - weights about 2kg. Thats so extremely lightweight that I have to check the bag to make sure the camera is actually with me.

Also, theres much better cameras than just cellphones that will still fit into your jacket pocket. For example the Ricoh GR.


----------



## TheStunch (Oct 15, 2014)

+1


----------



## TCampbell (Oct 15, 2014)

The other day I was at the planetarium and thought I should snap a photo of the Spitz star-projector while I was there working on it.  I didn't have my DSLR so I used my iPhone 5s.  

Here is that result ... snapped with the planetarium lights ON.  As you can see... it's take sharp with absolutely no noticeable noise whatsoever.  ;-)




 

But then I remembered that some time ago... back when I was still shooting with my 5D II, I had also taken a shot of the Spitz star projector... but this time with the lights OFF.  Normally you can't see the projector in a dark planetarium with lights off, but I used one of my red lights to shine it across the Spitz while taking this 30 second exposure.

This is the result:



 

Based on these results, I can see why the iPhone 5s is the clear winner.  :-/


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 15, 2014)

The thing you guys are mostly falling down on is this: you conceive of photography largely as 'that which can be done with a DSLR'. Good photos are sharp, have low noise, lots of pixels, etc. All that stuff you get when you use a DSLR. Bad photos are everything else, by definition, and therefore don't count.

How many formal portraits have been made? A few billion, maybe. That's a high estimate. Sports photos? That's another few billion, maybe. A bigger one. And so on.

That's over the entire 150 year span of photography.

How many photos are uploaded to Facebook alone in a week? A couple billion. Every week. 100 billion in a year. Maybe more.

Photography isn't the thing you do with a DSLR any more. Sure, the formal portrait thing still exists. Sports photos are still taken. More than ever, really.

But in terms of photography as a whole, that set of things you do with a DSLR is a tiny blip. It barely moves the needle.

Photography is immediate. It's now. It's at least as much about frictionless sharing as anything else. Shallow depth of field doesn't even register as a relevant feature, except to a tiny little corner of the population.

That thing you do with the DSLR? It still exists, it's still pretty great. But it's only slightly more relevant than wet plate.

So defining 'better' as 'that which a DSLR can do' isn't just cheating, it's wrong.


----------



## Rick50 (Oct 15, 2014)

Well, I know one thing. You can call your friend on your cell but not on your DSLR.


----------



## TheStunch (Oct 15, 2014)

I agree that most photography is being done with cell phones, though i would add that most pro and high end photography is not, I would say that in the context of this forum, DSLRs are better (and portability not withstanding, better overall), though, cell phones are taking the photo industry and putting it on it's head with the ways the can be used to make art.  I wrote an article about it on my blog, though it is short and not totally comprehensive.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 15, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> .........
> 
> So defining 'better' as 'that which a DSLR can do' isn't just cheating, it's wrong.


Not entirely.  No one would say that a Camry is a better car than a BMW, but when it comes to cost of ownership or ease of parking the Camry would surely win.  Meanwhile it will get you where you need to go, reliably even.   The BMW would be a car for discerning enthusiasts while the Camry serves a market of consumer that doesn't really care too much about cars but still find themselves needing one nevertheless.  That doesn't make the Camry a better car from an enthusiasts perspective however.    
   To use another analogy, let's compare a proper stove/oven to a microwave oven.   More people use microwave ovens (and more often) than use regular ovens and stoves.  Does that mean that the microwave is a better way to cook?  Not if you have a passion for food it doesn't.  If all you're trying to do is fill a hole then sure, the microwave wins.  Chances are high however that the person using the microwave isn't terribly interested in the quality of their food so much as they are interested in simply abating their hunger.   The microwave, like the cellphone, has convenience and speed on it's side; but like the cellphone, it gives up quality to achieve convenience.   People who choose convenience are foregoing quality, usually knowingly so.   There's nothing wrong with that.  Quality as a quantifiable metric isn't terribly high up on most peoples value scale when compared to convenience, with the exception of the few things in life they are passionate about.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 15, 2014)

Except that we're in a world where almost nobody even understands that there is a thing like traditional cooking, a world in which almost everyone views cooking as identical to heating things in a microwave.

Claiming that a wolf range is better than a microwave will only go over well in a group of olde tyme traditional cookes. The rest of the world will just think you're odd.

Not to say the argument can't be made either way. I think it can, and neither way is particularly silly.

The point is that the answer isn't obvious unless you rig the game.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 15, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Except that we're in a world where almost nobody even understands that there is a thing like traditional cooking, a world in which almost everyone views cooking as identical to heating things in a microwave.
> 
> Claiming that a wolf range is better than a microwave will only go over well in a group of olde tyme traditional cookes. The rest of the world will just think you're odd.
> 
> ...


Clearly you've never heard of "Food Network", or "The Cooking Channel".


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 15, 2014)

Given the right conditions, I believe that a photo from, say, a new iPhone can rival a photo taken with a DSLR.

Under most circumstances, though, I believe a DSLR will out-perform, and out-shine, a cell phone every time.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 15, 2014)

Scatterbrained, you've clearly not understood my post. We're not literally in a world where almost nobody cooks. We're in the photographic equivalent.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 15, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Scatterbrained, you've clearly not understood my post. We're not literally in a world where almost nobody cooks. We're in the photographic equivalent.


Most, if not all of my friends cook.  So I don't understand this.  Maybe the demographic friends circle that you are in doesn't cook.

But a camera is a tool, it all depends upon how one knows how to use the tool.   A cell phone pic can be far better than a dslr, wheres a dslr pic can be far better than a cell phone pic.  It all depends upon the person taking the photo.  but in general, the dslr is far more flexible which requires, a more sophisticated user to use it to its potential.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 15, 2014)

Oh dear God people. I am extending an already existing analogy.

I am not claiming that nobody knows how to cook any more.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 15, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> ...I am not claiming that nobody knows how to cook any more.





photoguy99 said:


> ..... We're *not *literally in a world where almost *nobody *cooks.....



You're correct.  You used a double negative.


----------



## TCampbell (Oct 15, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> How many formal portraits have been made? A few billion, maybe. That's a high estimate. Sports photos? That's another few billion, maybe. A bigger one. And so on.



Your argument isn't very _well-reasonsed, _is it?  Facebook (being the "new" MySpace) isn't exactly a standard for what the world is doing anymore.  

How many sports photos are taken with camera phones... that people _actually_ like?   I'm thinking that's a rather low number.   Camera phones are miserable at action photography.

While we're at it... how many safari photos are shot with camera phones?  The "problem" here, is that the camera phone doesn't have long lenses.  By the time you are close enough to the tiger or brown bear to get the same photo you might get with a DSLR... you'll be its next lunch.  If you'd like to use the camera phone, that's fine... I think I'll be renting a nice long lens.

We're not exactly running low on people who come to this forum to express their displeasure with their current phone or camera and ask what they can do to capture photos of their active children in low-light?

How many brides are looking to hire wedding photographers who use camera-phones?  I'm guessing that's another fairly low number.

The list goes on and on.

The typical person who owns a smart-phone with a camera is happy to use it for snaps, but usually recognizes it for what it is... a great tool that you always have with you... for "snaps".  I like the notion that my phone has a small compact camera built-in.  For example... the last time the little water-refilling thingy on my toilet tank broke, I snapped a photo with my iPhone and took it to my friendly neighborhood hardware store... wherein the kind gentlemen at the store knew _exactly_ what I needed.  Oddly enough... that same photo did _not_ make it onto my wall as a framed print.

If the lighting is great and the subject isn't moving and there are no other factors that make the shot difficult to capture... then _every_ camera is a good camera.   It all falls apart when the shooting conditions become challenging or the client's expectations are high.

I'm not snubbing the camera phone... sometimes they are great.  They'll easily displace point & shoot cameras (they've done significant damage to that market already and I have very little doubt that within a handful of years they'll go the way of 8-Track tapes and Dymo "squeeze" label-makers.)  I would expect camera phones to be popular among those who would previously have used a simple point & shoot camera.  They are a long way from being able to encroach on DSLR territory.


----------



## TCampbell (Oct 15, 2014)

Rick50 said:


> Well, I know one thing. You can call your friend on your cell but not on your DSLR.



I would submit that on some carriers... your DSLR can _probably can _make phone calls about as well as your cellphone.  ;-)


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 15, 2014)

But TCampbell, my point is that Facebook (social media, more generally) is the standard.

You simply wave that away and then trundle out the same fallacy as everyone else: DSLRs are better because they do the things DSLRs do better.

There is more to photography. I submit that the things DSLRs do well, while important to you, are not important to the vast majority. Better for you, sure. Objectively better ... No. Simply, objectively, demonstrably, no.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 15, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Scatterbrained, you've clearly not understood my post. We're not literally in a world where almost nobody cooks. We're in the photographic equivalent.


Double negative aside, I was making a lighthearted jest at the thought that no-one knows how to cook.    Beyond that I think Tim's example parallels my own.   The cell phone camera is like the McDonalds or Hungry Man (frozen dinners) of the photography world.  Something for when you're eating out of necessity rather than pleasure.  That doesn't mean that people don't recognize that there is a higher level of quality available.    I know that when I carry my main camera with me (usually a gripped 5DII with either a 24-70 2.8 or 70-200 2.8 ) people in the crowd tend to yield space to me for shooting.   If I have my M or my phone that doesn't happen.  

Beyond that, I would dare say that the cell phone camera is likely to be a term boon to the enthusiast photography market.   It's like a "gateway drug" in that it sucks people in.  I've seen first hand how some people get sucked into photography through their cell phone cameras, then move up to some interchangeable lens system format.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 15, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> But TCampbell, my point is that Facebook (social media, more generally) is the standard.
> 
> You simply wave that away and then trundle out the same fallacy as everyone else: DSLRs are better because they do the things DSLRs do better.
> 
> There is more to photography. I submit that the things DSLRs do well, while important to you, are not important to the vast majority. Better for you, sure. Objectively better ... No. Simply, objectively, demonstrably, no.


Facebook is simply the new Polaroid picture album of the digital age, just as cell phone cameras are the new disposable/instant cameras of our times.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 15, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> But TCampbell, my point is that Facebook (social media, more generally) is the standard.
> 
> You simply wave that away and then trundle out the same fallacy as everyone else: DSLRs are better because they do the things DSLRs do better.
> 
> There is more to photography. I submit that the things DSLRs do well, while important to you, are not important to the vast majority. Better for you, sure. Objectively better ... No. Simply, objectively, demonstrably, no.


Meh, subjectively they may not matter to many; objectively the differences are quantifiable.     I'd dare say the burgeoning wedding/portrait/senior/newborn/delivery(birth)/birthday party/funeral, etc services prove that more people than ever are gaining an appreciation for images of a quality that they themselves can't produce.  Think about it, in the age of instant, automatic everything more people are hiring professional wedding photographers than ever before. Get engaged?  Better hire a photographer for an engagement shoot.    Maternity shoots are becoming an expected aspect of pregnancy.  There is a whole franchised industry of delivery documentation.  Senior portraits?  That wasn't a thing when I was a kid.   How about funerals? Yep, there is actually a growing market for photographers at funerals.   Bar/Bat mitzvahs, quinceaneras, proms.   You name it and parents are now hiring professional photographers to document it.   This shows that there is a recognized distinction between quality photography and random snaps.  The digital age hasn't changed that.  What was done with Instamatics and disposable cardboard cameras, then hung on refrigerators or stashed in shoe-boxes; is now being plastered all over Facebook.  Facebook and Instagram have become our digital refrigerator doors.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 15, 2014)

There's clearly no way to get this through to you guys, so I'm going to stop now.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 15, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> There's clearly no way to get this through to you guys, so I'm going to stop now.


There's clearly no way for you to see that the transition to digital has moved the Instamatics/Polaroids/Brownies/etc snap and share mentality from wallets/fridges/and coffee tables to our modern digital equivalents.  I imagine this same discussion was going on when Polaroid came out with instant developing film.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 15, 2014)

Oh, I do see that. That is precisely the point.

What you are missing is that there Polaroid/instamatic approach to photography *is* photography now. Airily waving it away as mere snaps and therefore irrelevant is simply wrong.

What you think of as 'photography' is now a tiny enthusiast niche. What you think of as irrelevant snaps by the unwashed masses, that's 'photography'.

Cue airy waving away and some discussion of how sports are impossible to shoot with a cell phone, and the beat goes on.

I've made my argument, I can't make it any clearer or more obvious.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 15, 2014)

What we think of as photography has always been a niche.  That's my point.  People who were using instant cameras didn't see themselves as photographers.  It's the same thing nowadays.  A majority of bicycles sold are simple commuter bikes and cruisers.  The people riding them don't consider themselves to be "cyclists", they just happen to be riding a bike.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 15, 2014)

I found a great article that really helps shed some light on this topic!

Trolling for Dummies | New Camera News


----------



## JerryLove (Oct 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Extreme depth of field is the obvious technical 'pure photography' one.


 The same DoF can be done on a DSLR. So that's wrong.



> Ergonomics, availability, and connectivity are not to be waved lightly aside, though. They are real things.


 And they are all accepted (though ergonomics are generally *far* better on a DSLR. 

But your claim was "Somehow the things cell phone cameras do better always (well, usually. Be attentive when Derrel writes) gets left out. Funny, that."

That "you are more likely to be carrying the cellphone" was mentioned several times in this thread; and no one has denied secondary advantages (size, weight, receiving calls). While no one has, on this thread, directly mentioned that the internet connection lets you publish to facebook; it's not something avoided.

Of course: typically people who have gone DSLR have something other than posting unedited photos to facebook in mind.


----------



## JerryLove (Oct 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Photography isn't the thing you do with a DSLR any more. Sure, the formal portrait thing still exists. Sports photos are still taken. More than ever, really.
> 
> But in terms of photography as a whole, that set of things you do with a DSLR is a tiny blip. It barely moves the needle.
> 
> ...


What you have done is called "moving the goalposts". 

Go back to the articles cited. They did not compare the iPhone's connectivity to Faceboook with that of the 5DMKIII. They compared picture quality. So that's what we've discussed.

Contrary to some assertions: the capabilities, in regards to photo production, are far higher on a DSLR than on a cellphone.

Now you are discussing entirely different points. Which has had a bigger impact on photography? I'd say the Polaroid, Point-and-click digital, and cellphone have had a far bigger impact than the DSLR. 

Which is in heavier use? Clearly the smartphone.

Which is more capable as a *camera*? The DSLR.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 16, 2014)

I tried to take a photo of a 747 flying over head with my cell phone on an over cast day

the photo sucked.  My cell phone needs manual controls for less than perfect conditions, and a much longer lens


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 16, 2014)

Though I still use my cell phone *alot*  
I just don't have the same expectations as with my dslr


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 16, 2014)

When hiring cell phone shooters to do paid work becomes the norm, I'll worry.

Actually, as a working pro, I don't mind the belief that cell phone photography (Facebook, Instagram, etc) has become the norm. I've spent 52 years not being "the norm", so I sure as Hell don't want to start now. At the end of the day, I know the cell phone quality photo isn't going to surpass the quality of the DSLR.

Just because something has become the norm doesn't mean it's "better". Often, "the norm" is simply what has become most attainable.

I take photos with my DSLR's, and I take photos with my iPhone. If I had to choose one or the other, no way in Hell do I choose the iPhone.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 16, 2014)

I haven't anything more to add. I've made a clear and reasonable argument addressing the central idea that a 'DSLR is better'. My facts are correct, my argument is reasonable.

I have led the horse to water and, add the proverb reminds us, my job is done.

I'll continue to read with interest any new rationalizations, but I'm pretty sure I have nothing more to say.

Well OK one more thing. _Even you guys use your cell phone cameras more than your DSLRs._


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I haven't anything more to add. I've made a clear and reasonable argument addressing the central idea that a 'DSLR is better'. My facts are correct, my argument is reasonable.
> 
> I have led the horse to water and, add the proverb reminds us, my job is done.
> 
> ...


Threads never die just because you want them to.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 16, 2014)

Are you under the impression I wasn't this one to die?

Wow. You really can't read.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> There's clearly no way to get this through to you guys, *so I'm going to stop now*.





photoguy99 said:


> I haven't anything more to add. I've made a clear and reasonable argument addressing the central idea that a 'DSLR is better'. My facts are correct, my argument is reasonable.
> 
> I have led the horse to water and, add the proverb reminds us, my job is done.
> 
> ...





photoguy99 said:


> Are you under the impression I *wasn't *this one to die?
> 
> Wow. You really can't read.



I don't know.
You keep saying that you are "stopping" or "not going to post anymore" and yet you still do.
You should read your own posts, and use proper wording ...


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 16, 2014)

Typo flames now? Lame.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Well OK one more thing. _Even you guys use your cell phone cameras more than your DSLRs._



Not as a camera I don't...


----------



## JerryLove (Oct 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I haven't anything more to add. I've made a clear and reasonable argument addressing the central idea that a 'DSLR is better'. My facts are correct, my argument is reasonable.


Your opionions and premises, however, are not shared and are asserted as though they are a given. Your argument lacks a well defined claim (as shown by the ability to equivocate).

And bluntly even your facts are in question. For example: you said
"Somehow the things cell phone cameras do better [usually] gets left out. "

You then gave examples which included size, the likelihood of it already being carried, etc. 

This things were not, in point of fact, left out. They were mentioned repeatedly by several different posters. So no, your facts are not correct either. 

Further: you make some real logical leaps. I'll show you one below.



> Well OK one more thing. _Even you guys use your cell phone cameras more than your DSLRs._


 There's the logical leap. That "more used" equals "better". I use my Caphlon steak knives more than my Shun, but my Shun are better knives. 

It's also a factual error in asserting to me (at least assuming "use" is "take photos with"). I take an order of magnitude more photos with my DSLR than with my phone. 

It's also another example of that "non-shared premise" that "better" is defined as "more used". Cheap point-and-click film cameras (and for that matter Polaroid instants) were "more used" in 1980 than SLRs were. Few would argue they "were better". 

And I use no camera at all more often than I use my smartphone. Turns out, if it doesn't rate a photo at all, I use nothing. If it rates a photo merely to convey a message, than I use whatever is most handy, and if it is worthy of photographing, I pull out my DSLR. 

Therefore, by your logic, the best camera is "nothing".


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 16, 2014)

Oh shoot. I was all wrong. I didn't realize that 'better' means 'more expensive'.

My bad.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I haven't anything more to add. I've made a clear and reasonable argument addressing the central idea that a 'DSLR is better'. My facts are correct, my argument is reasonable.
> 
> I have led the horse to water and, add the proverb reminds us, my job is done.
> 
> ...


The problem is your assumption that your logic is sound.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 16, 2014)

I'm sorry you can't follow my argument. I assure you that it's sound, however.


----------



## JerryLove (Oct 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Oh shoot. I was all wrong. I didn't realize that 'better' means 'more expensive'.


 If that's facetious: then it's uncalled for; and if it's sincere it shows a real failure to grasp the discussion.

Though there *can* be a correlation between "more expensive" and "better", based on the idea that the market will go for the highest quality available for a given dollar, that's certainly not the claim.

And were this a discussion of Nikon DSLRs vs similarly priced Leica cameras: the consensus might be different.

Instead we are looking at the ability to get quality output. In doing so, we are actually (usually) not terribly interested in the equipment that got us there. In skilled hands, a DSLR can take better photos under most circumstances than a comparable smartphone.

I think I speak for most that the standard for "better camera" starts with "more capable of taking better photos", and that other features are secondary falling, at best, into "better for you".

And to what extent there's a second tier of criteria: they are related to helping people take better shots. The 6D might be argued better than the 5DmkII because of better low-light performance. You trade a feature that helps get results in one circumstance for one which helps in another.

I'm pretty sure "better" isn't "more used" for most anyone on most any subject.



> I'm sorry you can't follow my argument. I assure you that it's sound, however.


I assure you that it is not. I've even been nice enough to be specific and point out examples of how it is not. 

But I can only lead you to water. I cannot make you drink.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 16, 2014)

No, we're just talking past one another. You're all refusing to see my starting point because you feel attacked. Which you're not, I agree entirely that a DSLR is the better to for the job - when it is the better tool for the job.

But this is the internet and disagreement = attack, and must be replied to with vigorous counter attack.

So it goes.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Oct 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I'm sorry you can't follow my argument. I assure you that it's sound, however.


Narcissism.  Thy name is Photoguy.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 16, 2014)

Or maybe, just maybe, I'm more qualified to judge soundness than you guys are. There's no way to be sure. But I know.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Oct 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> I agree entirely that a DSLR is the better to for the job - when it is the better tool for the job.



I, for one, certainly appreciate you stating ridiculously obvious facts.


----------



## waday (Oct 16, 2014)




----------



## astroNikon (Oct 16, 2014)

waday said:


>


Personally, I would like to see a thesis or dissertation paper on this from Photoguy
which should contain actual research and actual analysis..


----------



## xzyragon (Oct 16, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Oh shoot. I was all wrong. I didn't realize that 'better' means 'more expensive'.
> 
> My bad.



a starting DSLR kit is around $400 - $500 new, and you can pick up a starter kit with a couple OK lenses for $700 or $800.  If you're looking in the used market it's a helluva lot cheaper.  A new smartphone is $700 or $800.

The best camera for capturing the moment is the one you have with you.  My best camera is my 7D, so I routinely have it with me.


----------



## waday (Oct 16, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Research and analysis would actually be really interesting to see.

I doubt it would support his hypothesis.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 16, 2014)

What? Research? I've restated some trivially verifiable facts and drawn some equally trivial conclusions from them.

That's not really a 'research' or ' thesis' deal. I've done the former and written the latter so I have a rough idea.

Pray tell, what question would this research project propose to answer?


----------



## manaheim (Oct 16, 2014)

ooo... this topic. I haven't seen this one in weeks. *rolls eyes*


----------



## JerryLove (Oct 17, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Pray tell, what question would this research project propose to answer?



Is this claim true: "E_ven you guys use your cell phone cameras more than your DSLRs" (post #106)? _Anecdotal responses suggest it's not

Is the obvious implied claim true "Greater use = as good as or better"?

Can something be authoritatively claimed to be the standard and, if so, does greater-use on that standard = better? "Facebook (social media, more generally) is the standard." (post #92)

Did you, in fact, "stop now" (post #96)

Is this a correct definition of photography and how can we establish it? It's not supported (in exclusion of others) by English: "What you think of as irrelevant snaps by the unwashed masses, that's 'photography'." (post #98).

Indeed: "What is photography", which you have just assumed, seems worthy of its own research paper.

Can you prove "[there is] no camera enthusiast who isn't desperate to justify his purchases." (post #63). Doesn't this conflict directly with your claims that Daryll posts accurately?

Are cellphone cameras capable of a more extreme DoF than DSLRs? (post #73)
Are ergonomics better on a cellphone than a DSLR? (post #73)
Can connectivity be "waived aside" when determining a better "camera", or is that an intrinsic part of what makes a camera good or bad? (post #73)

Is this *the* definition of photography? It's not supported by any dictionary "Photography is immediate. It's now. It's at least as much about frictionless sharing as anything else. " (post #79).

Also: Can these meta assertions be supported?
"You're all refusing to see my starting point because you feel attacked. "
"this is the internet and disagreement = attack, and must be replied to with vigorous counter attack."
"I'm more qualified to judge soundness than you guys are. "
"you can't follow my argument. I assure you that it's sound"

That's only half the thread. Should I go on?

Your facts are not trivial, especially not your assumed ones. You simply assume that things are however you chose to define them; even when that equivocation is unique to yourself. You've covered almost every logical fallacy in the book including but not limited to: Straw-man, Appeal to authority, Ad hominem, and Equivocation (all evidenced above).


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 17, 2014)

Just listing a bunch of stuff you disagree with isn't the same thing as writing research proposals.

A bunch of that stuff is just definitions which we disagree on, and for which your definition is silly. Regardless there's no right or wrong, there's no research or thesis.

You really have a bug up your butt about the statement that you guys use your cells a lot. You need to reread other people's posts where several people clearly stated that as a fact of their lives. I was obviously just echoing those statements.

In general context matters. Especially in an informal setting like an internet forum. I write assuming that your familiar with the earlier remarks in the thread.

Other parts are just quoting mild hyperbole and raging against an obviously wrong literal reading. 'Everyone' often means 'a lot of people' or 'most people' in colloquial phrasing, for example, but you insist that I mean it literally (maybe not that exact word and usage, but several similar ones) and then complain that it's not literally true. Duh.

Just listing a bunch of fallacies and attributing them to me doesn't accomplish anything. Especially when you get them wrong.

But, try on petitio principii for yourself. I've pointed it out a couple of times, so no need to belabor the details here.

And on and on. Do I need to be worried that you're a psycho stalker here or do you just have an incredible amount of free time on your hands to pull this sort of post together?

I assume that you're just performing for the audience here, counting some imagined coup, but, whoa.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 17, 2014)

Also, I have decorously ignored this, but do you seriously not get that smaller sensors yield greater DoF?

There are some technical details you should state if you're a pedant up to and including 'if you are in a universe with these constants', but the statement as it stands is meaningful and well understood.


----------



## W.Fovall (Oct 18, 2014)

And now for something completely different


----------



## JerryLove (Oct 23, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Also, I have decorously ignored this, but do you seriously not get that smaller sensors yield greater DoF?
> 
> There are some technical details you should state if you're a pedant up to and including 'if you are in a universe with these constants', but the statement as it stands is meaningful and well understood.


I know as absolute fact that your claim above is false. 

I am completely certain that I can take my full-frame Canon 6D, put my 50mm f1.2 lens on it, put it on a tripod and take a picture. I know that I can then take my T2i, put the same lens on it, mount it on the same tripod, and get the exact same DoF.

The AoV was different; obviously. The resolution was different (better on the T2i once I cropped the 6D pic to match composition), but the DoF was completely unchanged. 

This is a trivial thing and you cannot manage to understand it.


----------



## JerryLove (Oct 23, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> Just listing a bunch of stuff you disagree with isn't the same thing as writing research proposals.


You asked what questions could be answered. I gave you a bunch. You are desperately dodging. It's kinda pathetic actually.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 23, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I have decorously ignored this, but do you seriously not get that smaller sensors yield greater DoF?
> ...



I understand it perfectly well. You are talking past me. You probably understand that we're talking about two different things, and I certainly do.

You are denying it, however. I don't know if you're stupid or just determined to count coup. Luckily, I don't care.


----------



## W.Fovall (Oct 23, 2014)

Larger sensor gets a shallower DOF.. This has been know for ever and Tony Northrup did a video on YouTube to help understand the math.


----------



## JerryLove (Oct 23, 2014)

W.Fovall said:


> Larger sensor gets a shallower DOF.. This has been know for ever and Tony Northrup did a video on YouTube to help understand the math.


 You don't understand a rather important part of that math... "for the same composition". 

Thought experiment. 

If all the pixels on the outside of my FF Canon 6D's sensor just broke. The inner pixels would capture a different DoF?!?

How does a pixel in the center of my sensor know whether a pixel on the outer edges of my sensor is working or not? What magic changes the light hitting a point on the sensor's plane based on whether a different part of the sensor is working or even exists? 

From CambridgeInColour "As sensor size increases, the depth of field will decrease for a given aperture (when filling the frame with a subject of the same size and distance). This is because *larger sensors require one to get closer to their subject, or to use a longer focal length in order to fill the frame* with that subject. " (Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

Note the part bolded by them. The sensor has no *direct* relationship to DoF. It's indirect and based on other factors. What you think you know is wrong.


----------



## W.Fovall (Oct 23, 2014)

Why wouldn't you fill the frame on a full frame camera? I can't over fill the crop c camera, people's heads will get cut off.. So what your saying is just for people that have no legs or somehow they glued there camera to the floor.


----------



## JerryLove (Oct 23, 2014)

W.Fovall said:


> Why wouldn't you fill the frame on a full frame camera? I can't over fill the crop c camera, people's heads will get cut off.. So what your saying is just for people that have no legs or somehow they glued there camera to the floor.


 No. I'm saying a phone doesn't have an advantage over a DSLR when it comes to DoF. Go back to how this started.


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 23, 2014)

What a fascinating train wreck.

@W.Fovall: Jerry is mainly playing word games in order to 'prove' me wrong, because he's angry, because he thinks I said some things I didn't say. He's carefully ignoring a lot of things.

Attempts to discuss the issues reasonably are not going to go anywhere, I suspect.


----------



## W.Fovall (Oct 23, 2014)

Yah... I know.... I try and get shallow DOF on my phone and and only can if I'm extremely close to subject, like inches away and then it's just slightly blurred background. While my 6d at 200mm I can be across the room and throw out everything as much as I want..


----------



## syaudi (Oct 23, 2014)

photography is an all-encompassing medium. regardless of the type of camera, be it a digital point-and-shoot, a mobile phone camera, a high-end DLSR or even a single use Kodak, they all function in the same way: to take a picture. the difference here is that the intent of the photographer and thus his needs of his equipment are what defines his camera. it's possible to take a photo on say, a Canon 1DX, that's even worse than what someone took on an old Nokia flip phone. while the image quality is drastically inferior to that of the DSLR, one may not be able to use the 1DX the way one needs to in order to take a photo with the same impact as the Nokia photo.
all in all, there shouldn't be any debate considering what type of camera is better. what you ought to do is support his interest in mobile photography, because as photographers we all revel in each other's photographs and experiences.

that being said, I love my 5D mkiii to death over my iPhone


----------



## JerryLove (Oct 23, 2014)

Added your new personal claim of fact to the list.



photoguy99 said:


> Pray tell, what question would this research project propose to answer?



Is this claim true: "E_ven you guys use your cell phone cameras more than your DSLRs" (post #106)? _Anecdotal responses suggest it's not

Is the obvious implied claim true "Greater use = as good as or better"?

Can something be authoritatively claimed to be the standard and, if so, does greater-use on that standard = better? "Facebook (social media, more generally) is the standard." (post #92)

Did you, in fact, "stop now" (post #96)

Is this a correct definition of photography and how can we establish it? It's not supported (in exclusion of others) by English: "What you think of as irrelevant snaps by the unwashed masses, that's 'photography'." (post #98).

Indeed: "What is photography", which you have just assumed, seems worthy of its own research paper.

Can you prove "[there is] no camera enthusiast who isn't desperate to justify his purchases." (post #63). Doesn't this conflict directly with your claims that Daryll posts accurately?

Are cellphone cameras capable of a more extreme DoF than DSLRs? (post #73)
Are ergonomics better on a cellphone than a DSLR? (post #73)
Can connectivity be "waived aside" when determining a better "camera", or is that an intrinsic part of what makes a camera good or bad? (post #73)

Is this *the* definition of photography? It's not supported by any dictionary "Photography is immediate. It's now. It's at least as much about frictionless sharing as anything else. " (post #79).

Also: Can these meta assertions be supported?
"You're all refusing to see my starting point because you feel attacked. "
"this is the internet and disagreement = attack, and must be replied to with vigorous counter attack."
"I'm more qualified to judge soundness than you guys are. "
"you can't follow my argument. I assure you that it's sound"
"Jerry is mainly playing word games in order to 'prove' me wrong, because he's angry, because he thinks I said some things I didn't say. He's carefully ignoring a lot of things."

That's only half the thread. Should I go on?

Your facts are not trivial, especially not your assumed ones. You simply assume that things are however you chose to define them; even when that equivocation is unique to yourself. You've covered almost every logical fallacy in the book including but not limited to: Straw-man, Appeal to authority, Ad hominem, and Equivocation (all evidenced above).


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 23, 2014)

OK, nutjob.


----------



## manaheim (Oct 23, 2014)

*That's quite enough from both of you.*

Any more of that and I'll lock the thread (which should have been locked the second it was posted.)


----------



## photoguy99 (Oct 23, 2014)

Oh by all means. It's just the two of us here in the blasted heath anyways and I really cannot see how this could conceivably go anywhere positive.


----------



## manaheim (Oct 23, 2014)

On this we agree.


----------



## Kawaracer (Oct 25, 2014)

I didn't read al posts, but a cell phone comparing with a Dslr is like comparing a dog with a horse. The cell phone is better in telephony and a Dslr in photography and there ends it


----------



## W.Fovall (Oct 25, 2014)

Kawaracer said:


> I didn't read al posts, but a cell phone comparing with a Dslr is like comparing a dog with a horse. The cell phone is better in telephony and a Dslr in photography and there ends it


My horse is better then my cell phone..


----------



## minicoop1985 (Oct 28, 2014)

Wow. what a clusterf**k... 

If you take all the photos I've taken since I've owned my own DSLR, I've taken WAY more with the DSLR and my film stuff than I have with my phone because my phone cameras are always crap. Sure, some people think they're great and all, but I'm not one of those people.


----------



## W.Fovall (Oct 28, 2014)

iPhone 6 pet store bird pic.. My 6D would have been able to blow out background much better and I had to hold the phone about 4" away from the bird to fill the frame.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 28, 2014)

I can't find the popcorn emoticon, so that one will have to do


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 29, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> I can't find the popcorn emoticon, so that one will have to do


You're late.


----------



## astroNikon (Oct 29, 2014)

Solarflare said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > I can't find the popcorn emoticon, so that one will have to do
> ...


Nah .. I've been leerking and watching.
after all, post # 26 is mine.


----------



## Overread (Oct 29, 2014)

And I think its maybe time we drew this to a close before we start getting really silly and comparing the merits of DSLRs VS Phones for hammering in nails or other such measures of quality.


----------

