# Phones vs DSLRs



## mrsL3MONade (Mar 10, 2015)

Nowadays, cell phones have as much technology as our Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) cameras and it begs the question, "Which  is better (or more necessary as a photographer's accessory), the highly portable and convenient-because-its-always-in-my-hand smart phone with a camera, or the much higher quality (although its a little heavier) and more-fun-to-use-because-of-the-more-convenient-and-professional-features DSLR camera?"
Most professional photographers still lug around the slightly heavier but better quality DSLR because they feel like they are not seen as a professional photographer unless they have a large intimidating lens, some still carry their cameras because they prefer to use the camera for what its made to do and use the phone for what its made to do (make calls), and some photographers enjoy the convenience of not having to carry around a heavy camera and bag and accessories but instead, carry around their smart phone and shoot happily with that because its convenient and they can carry it in their back pocket.
Where do you stand on this issue?


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 10, 2015)

Interesting first post....hmm. I havnt found a cell phone that can do what I can with my DSLR.

Seems the site is under attack lately?


----------



## mrsL3MONade (Mar 11, 2015)

Why does it seem like its under attack? I don't intend to be attacking anyone, just asking a question of opinion...


----------



## weepete (Mar 11, 2015)

Sigh.

This topic has already been covered a few times. Mobile phones offer a convienent way of capturing photos, however despite offering megapixels, because of design reasons they don't offer either the quality or the flexibility of any SLR or a resonable interchangeable mirrorless system.  

The reason why pros use these systems is not because that a big lens makes them look like a pro, but the quality of a big, fast lens is generally better than a small lens.

It's like saying why would you buy a car when a bicycle will do.


----------



## Designer (Mar 11, 2015)

mrsL3MONade said:


> Why does it seem like its under attack? I don't intend to be attacking anyone, just asking a question of opinion...


There have been several posts and threads lately from new-comers with some odd viewpoints.  Not that yours is so odd, that same question pops up from time to time.  

Think nothing of it.

Welcome to the forums!  

O.K., how about this one: "The BEST camera is the one you have with you."  Sure, I've taken photographs with my phone, but none that I have actually set out to do.  I'm an amateur photographer, and enthusiast of photography and several other interests.  So why would I carry around a larger camera if my cell phone would suffice?  The answer, of course, is that the cell phone technology, while it sounds impressive, simply cannot do what my camera can do.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 11, 2015)

First, I *hate* the "looking like a pro" aspect of a DSLR, with the possible exception of shooting sports where a big lens and a big camera body (or three) will grant you more access, no questions asked. Then the fact that I don't have to fiddle with credentials often makes up for my annoyance of the way you are perceived with a big DSLR.  For day to day shooting I disdain the way that a DSLR immediately labels you as an outsider.

Cell phone cameras are great. They've made leaps and bounds to the point of making staples of electronics stores, the piece of crap point and shoot, irrelevant. However they tend to have two major limitations that won't go away because of cell phones' tendency toward ultra light design: small sensor and small lens.

These two limitations mean they'll always struggle at certain thing dslrs do well. I don't see a day any time soon when a cell phone can shoot sports or wildlife well, amongst many other genres.

There's also another segment that's making major headway: large sensor mirrorless cameras. They aren't anywhere close to being as big as dslrs, but match them in image quality, and come close to matching them in features. And some even have features that dslrs lack (leaf shutter with 1/4000 x sync speed in the fuji x100 series is one example).

My approach is three tiered: cell phone for quick, in the moment stuff, portable aps-c sized camera for most day to day shooting (x100t, which I carry pretty much with me everywhere) and then DSLR for specialist applications.

Now what I do one day envision is a 3 part system where you have a lens, a sensor and a phone. Lenses would be interchangeable, essentially just slip a sensor disc in the lens. Your phone then serves as everything else that the camera does: the controls, the display, the viewfinder, the processor, the autofocus system, etc. the phone would connect via either a hard connection (lightning connector or similar) or wirelessly.

This has the advantage of making the system completely modular. You'd get body upgrades as you upgraded your phone. You could upgrade just your sensor whenever a new sensor technology came out. Lenses would be basically the same design as they are now.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 11, 2015)

I hate txting on my Nikon,  they really need to improve the UI.


----------



## W.Y.Photo (Mar 11, 2015)

Braineack said:


> I hate txting on my Nikon,  they really need to improve the UI.



IK right?? the IOS D890 is soooo last year.


----------



## waday (Mar 11, 2015)

OP: like others have said, we've seen these threads pop up enough that we usually roll our eyes... or the thread ends in a fistfight and has to get closed by the mod gods.

Quick search of the site:
Smartphone cameras vs semi pro cameras Photography Forum
Are DSLR s Dying Photography Forum
Are cell phones as good as DSLRs My friend says yes . Photography Forum
An ah-ha moment. Photography Forum
The Short Answer s Smartphones-vs-Cameras Photography Forum
The end of DSLR Photography Forum
DSLR or Cell Phone Photography Forum


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 11, 2015)

Braineack said:


> I hate txting on my Nikon,  they really need to improve the UI.


you're essentially paying a thousand or so dollars extra for features that you already have better versions of on your phone.    The processor in your phone is more energy efficient, more powerful, and more elegantly designed than the one in your camera.  And that gap is only going to widen.  Wade through your menu system on your nikon and tell me it's better designed than a typical modern smart phone.  Touch has made menus a bit easier to operate, but again, phones already do this better by leaps and bounds.  

Camera companies are awesome at making lenses and sensors.  The rest, meh.  I could see some sort of modular grip system with buttons and dials that work sort of like how a third party video game controller works on phones these days.  

As nearfield wireless communication speeds up and battery technology gets better every year, I don't see any reason why, several years from now, you'd have a separate, inferior computer in your camera, when it could just farm out the power of your phone.

GPS, automatically included.  Wireless, automatically included.  instant upload to flickr or whatever else, automatically included.  instant live view broadcasting straight from your camera, possible.  in the cloud transfer/syncing of all your photos, now something that happens automatically instead of taking an hour or so to upload after a few days of shooting.  That's to say nothing of having a better interface, touch screens, remote shooting capabilities with live remote viewfinder, more powerful processor and the possibility of simply having to carry around less stuff with you.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 11, 2015)

Cameras would be handier to use if they did have instant upload to Facebook/Flickr/FTP site/DropBox in an easy-to-configure, easy-to-use manner, and if they could accept Apps for various tasks, but it seems that the Japanese camera industry has almost zero clues about the Internet Age, so I do not expect any rapid movement in this direction until leadership changes occur at the various camera companies. However--the Nikon D7200 now comes with built-in WiFi and built-in NFC capability, so...that's a two-part nod to the modern era. Baby steps, I guess one could say, baby steps.


----------



## waday (Mar 11, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > I hate txting on my Nikon,  they really need to improve the UI.
> ...


I don't have a Nikon. Or were you referring to @Braineack and his comments? 

GPS and wireless are included, yes. For a fee. I (and mostly everyone with a cell phone) pay a monthly fee for my phone. If I didn't have to pay monthly for cell phone, I'd save that monthly fee and buy a new DSLR.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 11, 2015)

waday said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...


yes, I was responding to the person I responded to?

That was kind of my point, in this day and age we basically are forced to pay a cell phone bill, so might as well get as much usage out of those features as possible.


----------



## waday (Mar 11, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> yes, I was responding to the person I responded to?


It was meant to be a joke.. you said, "Wade through your..." My name is Wade. Joke lost. Now it's embarrassing.  



fjrabon said:


> That was kind of my point, in this day and age we basically are forced to pay a cell phone bill, so might as well get as much usage out of those features as possible.


I do. I also get as much out of my DSLR which also cost a lot.


----------



## RDenhardt (Mar 11, 2015)

Cell phones simply cant do what a DSLR can, different devices for different applications


----------



## waday (Mar 11, 2015)

Also, I'd like to say:


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 11, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Cameras would be handier to use if they did have instant upload to Facebook/Flickr/FTP site/DropBox in an easy-to-configure, easy-to-use manner, and if they could accept Apps for various tasks, but it seems that the Japanese camera industry has almost zero clues about the Internet Age, so I do not expect any rapid movement in this direction until leadership changes occur at the various camera companies. However--the Nikon D7200 now comes with built-in WiFi and built-in NFC capability, so...that's a two-part nod to the modern era. Baby steps, I guess one could say, baby steps.



Yeah, I don't think they'll ever catch up to cell phone makers.  Problem is that camera companies do have such a huge advantage when it comes to lenses that they aren't pushed like cell phone makers are when it comes to tech.  10 year old tech is breaking edge for camera makers.  If Samsung fell ten years behind in current tech, they'd be out of the cell phone game.  But in the camera world, where lenses rule, you can get by while lagging on technology investment.

What I envision is where companies like Nikon simply give up trying to make a computer in their camera (much like how Nikon gave up on making sensors and farmed the job out to Sony) and focus on what they are good at: lenses and (in most cases) sensors.  Would they give that up easily?  I don't think so, at first.  But it's where I see the market heading.  

The idea of having a portable processing hub that many other devices interact with is the future, as I see it.  We're seeing the beginning of it now with things like the Apple Watch, which mostly farms out the power of the iPhone.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 11, 2015)

waday said:


> Also, I'd like to say:


eh, at this point I think the conversation has morphed into "how DSLRs could take a few lessons from cell phones" which IMHO is as fruitful as most convo here.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 11, 2015)

The convenience of the cell phone camera is its thin, easy-to-pack form factor and its good stills/good video shooting capabilities, plus its super-easy communication with other people and their phones, as well as social media connectivity, and App-based expandability. Overall the cell phone of today is easy to use, powerful, and instantly connected. All these things above, all of them, make today's smart phone super convenient. 

Camera sales are dropping off world wide because today's smart phones make everything that the majority of today's picture-takers want to do EASY to accomplish; people want to take pictures and also videos, and then use them and share them, mostly through social media and web-based sites...currently this is the BIGGEST single place that photos and videos are being used, but cameras for the most part, cannot do any of the things the majority of people want to do, without a lengthy series of steps...the first of which is ,"*Return to home base to do everything that follows...*"


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 11, 2015)

Derrel said:


> The convenience of the cell phone camera is its thin, easy-to-pack form factor and its good stills/good video shooting capabilities, plus its super-easy communication with other people and their phones, as well as social media connectivity, and App-based expandability. Overall the cell phone of today is easy to use, powerful, and instantly connected. All these things above, all of them, make today's smart phone super convenient.
> 
> Camera sales are dropping off world wide because today's smart phones make everything that the majority of today's picture-takers want to do EASY to accomplish; people want to take pictures and also videos, and then use them and share them, mostly through social media and web-based sites...currently this is the BIGGEST single place that photos and videos are being used, but cameras for the most part, cannot do any of the things the majority of people want to do, without a lengthy series of steps...the first of which is ,"*Return to home base to do everything that follows...*"


Right.  Think about the photojournalism we see today. Mostly it's shot on cell phone cameras, because the news cycle is too fast for DSLRs.  Wifi in cameras has bridged the gap somewhat, but most of the images that end up having impact are taken on a cell phone and then tweeted out.  As much as we may long for them, gone are the days of an event being covered with a Leica and then the pictures surfacing days, if not weeks or months later.  If the image isn't out there within hours, it's often obsolete in a lot of photography genres.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 11, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Cameras would be handier to use if they did have instant upload to Facebook/Flickr/FTP site/DropBox in an easy-to-configure, easy-to-use manner, and if they could accept Apps for various tasks, but it seems that the Japanese camera industry has almost zero clues about the Internet Age, so I do not expect any rapid movement in this direction until leadership changes occur at the various camera companies. However--the Nikon D7200 now comes with built-in WiFi and built-in NFC capability, so...that's a two-part nod to the modern era. Baby steps, I guess one could say, baby steps.



my samsung wb150 P&S has wifi, and i can upload pictures on the camera directly to FB, twitter, email, to another mobile device like a phone or tablet....it has a whole screen dedicated to uploading your photo somewhere. 
its pretty high tech, and the wb150 isnt anywhere _*near*_ a new camera.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 11, 2015)

Ever-increasing speed to publishing has been the history of journalism. There was a time when news took literally weeks to bridge the Atlantic via sailing ship. There once was a time when "local calls" and "long distance calls" were differentiated and charged to customers at vastly different prices. Times change. Expectations change. Preferred delivery medium for news and information can and does change. Newspaper, radio,television,web,smart phone "push" content, Facebook...in the last year or so, I've noticed that Facebook has HUGELY increased its links to real-time breaking news stories from all around the world. Lately, I have found myself being informed of many breaking news items via Facebook.

For personal and social news, from my family, friends, and acquaintances, instead of seeing photographs three weeks later in the form of color prints shown around at parties, nowadays I can see images posted within minutes of their having been shot--as long as the person can access a network. And network access is where phones have the speed advantage and the network connectivity advantage. I think as time goes on, there's going to be more and more emphasis on real-time news dissemination, and I think there might be some alternatives to and competition with Facebook.

At one time "the cable companies" only offered TV. Cable TV. Today? Cable TV, cable music, streaming, video recording, cable programing guide info, plus phone service, and internet connectivity. All from "the Cable TV networks".


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 11, 2015)

mrsL3MONade said:


> "Which  is better (or more necessary as a photographer's accessory), the highly portable and convenient-because-its-always-in-my-hand smart phone with a camera, or the much higher quality (although its a little heavier) and more-fun-to-use-because-of-the-more-convenient-and-professional-features DSLR camera?"



Doesn't the above underlined text answer your question from your post ?


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 11, 2015)

Yep, and that's not even addressing Twitter, which is where news happens in real time now. Mostly we don't even wait for article to be written. It comes through Twitter in real time in 140 character bursts. 

This image became THE IMAGE of Ferguson through Twitter. 







A large element going forward for working pros in photojournalism will be how easy it is to get the image, and get it out there. If this image had posted a day later it wouldn't have had nearly the impact. It became viral on Twitter because it became available as the events were unfolding. It allowed a connection to the event that a story published months later doesn't have. 

This is where wifi/NFC connectivty to a cell phone is really the bare minimum required. It must also be incredibly easy to do as well.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 11, 2015)

fjrabon said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > I hate txting on my Nikon,  they really need to improve the UI.
> ...



the actual camera functions of my Nikon beat out my Samsung phone ten fold. I'll take dedicated buttons/wheels over a touchscreen interface any day.

and who cares about the processor and other fancy gimmicks if it can't simply take a good picture?


I hear apple is competing with Rolex now too, they designed a watch that can't even last 24hr on a charge.  but the touchscreen is pretty cool.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 11, 2015)

Braineack said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



There's nothing preventing you from having buttons and a touchscreen phone that runs the show underneath, this is what I meant by a modular system.  My Fuji has dedicated buttons and control wheels, in fact it has more manual control wheels than your Nikon does (three) and I can control it with my phone if need be too.

what causes your camera to take good pictures?  99% is the lens and the sensor.  I never said I wanted to put the lens and the sensor in a phone.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 11, 2015)

Braineack said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



thats the thing tho, phones _*can*_ take a good picture. Not under as many varying conditions as a DSLR can, but under certain conditions, cell phone pictures can be really good. 
I think we tend to downplay camera phone photography here because, for the most part, we all shoot DSLR's and can appreciate the versatility and image quality from a DSLR -vs- a cell phone or even a P&S. 
On the flip side, I think this gives us tunnel vision as far as photography goes, and we tend to discount any  medium  we dont feel is "up to par".  The truth of the matter is, the trend is ever increasing for people using their phones to take pictures, and while this certainly doesnt mean any of them are "good", it also does not mean they are "bad".


----------



## Braineack (Mar 11, 2015)

i have high standards, unlike your sluts 

I don't necessarily think the legacy approach to DSLRs is correct (designing them to be exactly like film cameras), and I will agree that they are WAY behind the curve in terms of utilizing today's tech/innovation, but cell phones  can still barely give me the quality I've been used to shooting digital since the mid 90s.  My current SG5 camera probably can match my old 1997 Sony Mavica in terms of IQ.

also remember I like to talk in hyperbole.


----------



## fjrabon (Mar 11, 2015)

Braineack said:


> i have high standards, unlike your sluts
> 
> I don't necessarily think the legacy approve to DSLRs is correct (designing them to be exactly like film cameras), and I will agree that they are WAY behind the curve in terms of utilizing today's tech/innovation, but cell phones  can still barely give me the quality I've been used to shooting digital since the mid 90s.  My current SG5 camera probably can match my old 1997 Sony Mavica in terms of IQ.
> 
> also remember I like to talk in hyperbole.



I get what you're saying, but I'm also saying I'm not talking about a cell phone camera.  I"m talking about a cell phone that is the computer, with a separate lens and sensor.  Though given the new lens tech that's on the horizon from Harvard, we may well be able to soon have actual DSLR quality in a cell phone if we can fit a big camera sensor in a cell phone: Flat lens offers a perfect image Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences


----------



## waday (Mar 11, 2015)

Perhaps we should ask the OP to clarify what they mean by professional photographer? Do they mean portrait photographer? Landscape? Photojournalist? Sports? Wildlife? Street? Macro? Infant?

Generally, when someone creates a thread to ask what type of camera or lens to buy, we don't just say, "this camera" or "that lens". We ask for the person to clarify what they will be photographing. Otherwise, all comments/suggestions may be irrelevant; for example, an 800 mm lens may not be appropriate for street photography. 

So, we should clarify what type of professional photographer the OP is talking about. Then, perhaps, we can answer the question.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 11, 2015)

I'm not inherently opposed to anything so long as it's good.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 11, 2015)

Braineack said:


> i have high standards, unlike your sluts
> 
> I don't necessarily think the legacy approach to DSLRs is correct (designing them to be exactly like film cameras), and I will agree that they are WAY behind the curve in terms of utilizing today's tech/innovation, but cell phones  can still barely give me the quality I've been used to shooting digital since the mid 90s.  My current SG5 camera probably can match my old 1997 Sony Mavica in terms of IQ.
> 
> also remember I like to talk in hyperbole.



Compare the video ability of the Samsung Galaxy Note 3 against the Canon 5D Mark III...Video Test Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Versus the Canon 5D Mark III

In most respects, the straight out of phone video quality of the phone is as good as the d-slr's video...at least at typical Vimeo or YouTube size viewing...and that's the secondary issue nobody seems to be addressing: we're seeing images today on very SMALL displays. Even a large TV has a very low,low megapixel count. In 99% of today's viewing of on-screen images, the Megapixel count of the capture device is several times higher than that of the display device, and so we're seeing a down-rezzed image almost all of the time.


----------



## sashbar (Mar 11, 2015)

Why compromise when you can have the best of two worlds? 

Product page of RICOH GR - RICOH IMAGING UK LTD.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 11, 2015)

Geez....you're still carrying a phone?  Hell I dumped having a phone in my hands for a smart watch that meets all my data needs and I use my DSLR for photography.   Really nice being able to take photos and make a phone call or send a text message via voice commands all at the same time.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Mar 15, 2015)

The iPhone 5S is more powerful than the computers that put a man on the moon. 

I don't see anyone trying to run the International Space Station off of cell phones, though.


----------



## Trever1t (Mar 15, 2015)

Did man really land on the moon?


----------



## JoeW (Mar 15, 2015)

mrsL3MONade said:


> Nowadays, cell phones have as much technology as our Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) cameras and it begs the question, "Which  is better (or more necessary as a photographer's accessory), the highly portable and convenient-because-its-always-in-my-hand smart phone with a camera, or the much higher quality (although its a little heavier) and more-fun-to-use-because-of-the-more-convenient-and-professional-features DSLR camera?"
> Most professional photographers still lug around the slightly heavier but better quality DSLR because they feel like they are not seen as a professional photographer unless they have a large intimidating lens, some still carry their cameras because they prefer to use the camera for what its made to do and use the phone for what its made to do (make calls), and some photographers enjoy the convenience of not having to carry around a heavy camera and bag and accessories but instead, carry around their smart phone and shoot happily with that because its convenient and they can carry it in their back pocket.
> Where do you stand on this issue?



I completely agree.  A very comparable example is your feet vs. your car.  Your feet can transport you, require much less space, upkeep and maintenance  then a car, no parking hassles, you take your feet everywhere you go, no need for a big ostentatious bag ("oh this?  it's just my feet!").  Anyone with a car is obviously just a poseur seeking status--those of us in the know, know that feet are the real transportation answer.

Okay, sarcasm aside, I take a lot of pictures with my phone--it's very handy.  But comparing a phone to a DSLR is like comparing feet to a car--there is no comparison.

I was at a Civil War re-enactment.  Re-enactors were several hundred feet away and roped off (for safety purposes).  I was shooting 'em with a 300mm lens...hmm...my phone can't do that.  I was shooting a concept for my church (Stations of the Cross) where I needed to capture the reflection of the cross in the eyes of my model...my phone can't do that.  I am planning to shoot a 4th of July macro shot of a series of red-white-and-blue pennants captured/refracted in a drop of water...my phone can't do that.  I like to play with white balance...um...really can't do that with my phone...it becomes a post production action rather than fixing it before the shot.  Just did some Bill Brandt type distortion shots with a fisheye lens--does your phone have a fisheye lens?

Look, I don't try to make calls with my DSLR or use it as a pedometer or check the weather with it.  I take lots of pictures with my iPhone 6, it's a nifty little device.  And as a camera, it's a really good point and shoot.  So to the OP, be clear, what you're really saying is that a really good point-and-shoot camera is as good as a DSLR.  And the only time this is every true is when you are just doing point-and-shoot work.  So for some people, a point-and-shoot is the optimal choice.  But for people who do more than "take snapshots" but instead "create pictures" you need the ability to shoot from hundreds of feet away or do macro of play with DoF.  And a phone just won't do those things.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 15, 2015)

Trever1t said:


> Did man really land on the moon?


pictures don't lie. Geez, i thought we all knew that.


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 15, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Trever1t said:
> 
> 
> > Did man really land on the moon?
> ...


A friend of mine is a believer in that we didn't land on the moon.
Amazing .... she ignores *ALL* facts etc related to physics, aerodynamics, rocket propulsion vs projectile speed.  It's amazing.  If you correlate the problems of the moon to the earth then nothing should fly or even get off the ground .. but they reject that correlation.  It's mind boggling and essentially disregards common sense in order to support their ideology / conspiracy. Reminds me of this ==> Question about a 1908 photo that might be a fake Photography Forum


----------



## 407370 (Mar 15, 2015)

JoeW said:


> I am planning to shoot a 4th of July macro shot of a series of red-white-and-blue pennants captured/refracted in a drop of water...my phone can't do that.  I like to play with white balance...um...really can't do that with my phone...it becomes a post production action rather than fixing it before the shot.  Just did some Bill Brandt type distortion shots with a fisheye lens--does your phone have a fisheye lens?
> .


I bought a set of lenses for my NOTE 3. 

Landscape (OK),



 
Macro (brilliant) 


 


and Fisheye (weird)



 
 all for about $50. I need to do a bit more practice with fisheye.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 15, 2015)

i want to know why it is always phone vs. dslr. The majority of everything i shot in my life was on film or point and shoots a dslr is a very small percentage of it.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 15, 2015)

Mr. Innuendo said:


> The iPhone 5S is more powerful than the computers that put a man on the moon.
> 
> I don't see anyone trying to run the International Space Station off of cell phones, though.


Only because the "Selfie" generation isn't in charge of NASA.


----------



## JoeW (Mar 15, 2015)

407370 said:


> JoeW said:
> 
> 
> > I am planning to shoot a 4th of July macro shot of a series of red-white-and-blue pennants captured/refracted in a drop of water...my phone can't do that.  I like to play with white balance...um...really can't do that with my phone...it becomes a post production action rather than fixing it before the shot.  Just did some Bill Brandt type distortion shots with a fisheye lens--does your phone have a fisheye lens?
> ...



Exactly my point.  In order to achieve those with a phone you're...adding lens.  There are a bunch of lens (including I think a 200mm lens) that you can attach to a phone.  But then it's not something you slip in and out of your pocket easily, just pop up and shoot.

All we're talking about here are a bunch of tools.  And the OP is effectively saying...my tool without lens can do what your tool with lens can do when I add lens.  Yes--that's my point (at least part of it).


----------

