Are phones making cameras obsolescent?

[PaddyODawes]

Time on my hands...you know the feeling...anyway, I decided finally to do something I've been vaguely thinking about for awhile and do a straight mano a mano between my recently-acquired Samsung S7 Edge, whose image quality has impressed me, and my Sony RX-100 (1st gen).

Taking advantage of the currently wonderfully clear skies over London, I took a couple of shots apiece from the top of Parliament Hill. Conditions were perfect, as you can see. All settings were on 'auto' - for both phone and camera (with 'fine' and the like always preselected). Not surprisingly, both produced crisp, clear images (this being from the Samsung):



(I've resized it down to 1500 x 2000 from its original 3024 x 4032 to enable the upload.)

So far so predictable.

But when I cropped in hard, I was surprised to find that although there was a difference between the two:


(sam)


(son)

...it wasn't anything like as great as I'd been expecting.

Checking the properties of the two images, the standout difference...



...was the dpi rating - 72 for the Samsung, 350 for the Sony. I was also surprised to see that the Samsung had chosen to use f1.7 - with so much light about, you'd have thought closing down to f5.6 or so, like the Sony, would have been a better option. Maybe phones err on the side of faster shutter speeds, given the challenges of holding them steady. But it must be quite a lens to perform like that at virtually full aperture.

I imagine the differences between the two would become more apparent in more testing conditions - low light being the obvious example - but like I say, as it stands I was surprised. And impressed. Hats off to Samsung!

And at the risk of overstating the bleedin' obvious, the S7 is actually quite an old phone now. I presume Samsung have continued to tweak, and you probably get even better results on more recent models.

The subject line is obviously deliberately OTT, and I imagine dedicated cameras will be around for awhile yet. But I for one am pleased to find that I can get such good results from my constant companion.

 

[TGphoto]

Short answer, no.

Start of a long answer, depends on what type of person and photographer

Try doing the tests in poor light.

 

[f/1.2]

I think this thread has been done a few times before here.

In my opinion phones did away with cameras for every day photos years ago and now they are pretty decent for everyday snaps for social media etc.

Where you see the difference is when you want to print especially at larger sizes. Low light performance even with newer phones is still quite poor as you would expect from such a small sensor but they are being regularly improved with computational photography.

You have to rember that a lot of the "quality" you get from a phone isn't coming from the camera but from the processing in the phone itself.

 

[woof woof]

Regardless of image quality I just don't like using phones to take pictures, I don't like holding a featureless oblong thing in front of my face and jabbing at it with a finger. I know many are happy to do this but I feel I'm about to drop it and I can't really hold it steady whilst jabbing at it. All in all I find it a joyless experience.

 

[sirch]

I don't get the arbitrary difference between "phone" and "camera". Most modern smart phones ARE a camera with a few telephone capabilities thrown in, most of my modern cameras have WiFi, it's only the lack of a bit of software that stops them being able to make a Skype "phone call".

Try doing the tests in poor light.

Modern smart phones are pretty good in low light, better than a lot of fat cameras because low light (pubs, clubs restaurants) are a major use case of phone cameras so there is very good software for low light situations.

 

[f/1.2]

Modern smart phones are pretty good in low light, better than a lot of fat cameras because low light (pubs, clubs restaurants) are a major use case of phone cameras so there is very good software for low light situations.

Me and my wife both have an iPhone 11 Pro and my wife also has a Samsung S20 plus for her part time job, I think they are both pretty decent phones?

Both of them are terrible in low light compared to a real camera.

 

[Cagey75]

Show me an image from a phone cam above ISO 400 in a dark setting that isn't a smudged mess.

 

[woof woof]

I don't get the arbitrary difference between "phone" and "camera". Most modern smart phones ARE a camera with a few telephone capabilities thrown in, most of my modern cameras have WiFi, it's only the lack of a bit of software that stops them being able to make a Skype "phone call".


Modern smart phones are pretty good in low light, better than a lot of fat cameras because low light (pubs, clubs restaurants) are a major use case of phone cameras so there is very good software for low light situations.

The biggest differences to me are the phone camera use and handling which I just don't like and also sadly the image quality of the camera phone pictures I've seen so far.

I don't bother with phone cameras but Mrs WW constantly swaps pictures with her friends and family and some of them look absolutely lovely, stunning even, on her phones and tablet but once they're on my pc any issues are usually there to be seen and easily so. I haven't seen anything yet that competes with my Micro Four Thirds kit let alone FF.

I'm sure phone camera quality will improve but I doubt very much it can get to the point of rivaling cameras with much larger sensors which are also improving unless there's a major technological breakthrough which renders sensor size a non issue and even if there is we'll still have the use and handling issues a slim oblong device designed to slide into a pocket presents when compared to a much more ergonomic (for me) more conventional camera.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Yes and no.
<br>
It has pretty much killed the compact camera and lower prosumer end segment of the market. &nbsp;For a beginner, a phone will yield much better results to them because the computer inside do most of the work. &nbsp;Everything from camera shake, picking the focusing, processing, shadows and highlights etc are all taken care of in the background. &nbsp;If you are one of those people who only ever look at a photo on Instagram, it further reduces the gap between them to a point that they might not be able to tell the difference. &nbsp;It’s a bit like Nespresso vs real coffee. &nbsp;If you are an instant coffee drinker, either of them will taste better and the same even to you. &nbsp;In the same example, you are stuck with what you got with an Nespresso, what is inside the pod is what you get.
<br>
However, if you have the skill and knowledge in coffee to select beans, grind, brew or pull an espresso shot. &nbsp;All that together with the right equipment will yield a better cup of coffee than an Nespresso cup.
<br>
Same with camera, you will need both the equipment and the skill to go with it to make the most out of it and if you do, a DSLR will always be better simply because it allows the user more control to express their craft.

 

[imattersuk]

I think the easiest way to sum it up is the iPhone 11 Pro Max camera components cost a whopping $73.50 LOL

https://www.dpreview.com/news/31428...camera-components-add-73-50-to-the-final-bill

 

[Raymond Lin]

I think the easiest way to sum it up is the iPhone 11 Pro Max camera components cost a whopping $73.50 LOL

https://www.dpreview.com/news/31428...camera-components-add-73-50-to-the-final-bill

That's quite a lot in percentage terms out of the whole phone if you think about it.

 

[pukkagen]

Bricks are dead, iPhone X in portrait

 

[f/1.2]

Bricks are dead, iPhone X in portrait

View attachment 276818

Do you think that is good?

 

[twist]

Know which I prefer, note the ISO.

 

[imattersuk]

That's quite a lot in percentage terms out of the whole phone if you think about it.

5%

 

[Raymond Lin]

5%

Maths isn't your strong point

73.50 into 490.50.

 

[pukkagen]

Do you think that is good?

Merely = joke, hence D5

 

[shapeshifter]

The debate on this has been done before at quite some length. There is no reason not to do it over and over again.

The reason it gets debated over and over again is because the initial question is either vague or the issue gets split in to two seperate issues.

When the issue is have smart phoens killed the DSLR the answer is yes ,just about.

The reason is that smart phones are so convenient and now very capable for 75% of people, and smartphones achive what is required for 75% of those people. It's that fact destroys the other debate that is inevitably raised about low light, telephoto lenses and more. All of which the 75% have no interset in. So again the debate in favour of the DSLR is lost.

It is the relevence of what the majority(75%) of people want that sways the debate to say DSLR's are not obsolescent but more like a specialise item.

Who takes a DSLR with them on a night out now, but who carries a smart phone with them ALL the time.

Last month I had five photographs published in national magazines all taken with a 4 yr old smartphone.

I got them published because I had a camera with me that would do what was required 75% of the time and in particular 100% of what the magazine editor wanted.

And these smart phones are becoming more advanced the percentage gap is expanding. How long and how many people will carry a DSLR around just to be sure to get one of those 15% of shots that cannot be taken on a smartphone.

I have a pile of DSLR's and SLR's the only way they beat a smartphone in every way 100%....

... is you can hang em around your neck with a big tele on and be a real photographer. Up yours smartphone! Beat that!

 

[Retune]

Checking the properties of the two images, the standout difference...

...was the dpi rating - 72 for the Samsung, 350 for the Sony.

The DPI setting doesn't matter, it's just a tag in the file. You can change it in something like Photoshop without resampling the image or affecting the pixel dimensions.

I was also surprised to see that the Samsung had chosen to use f1.7 - with so much light about, you'd have thought closing down to f5.6 or so, like the Sony, would have been a better option. Maybe phones err on the side of faster shutter speeds, given the challenges of holding them steady. But it must be quite a lens to perform like that at virtually full aperture.

I think your phone has a fixed aperture lens.

 

[GreenNinja67]

No,

They're s***.

Next thread

 

[shapeshifter]

Know which I prefer, note the ISO.

View attachment 276819

It is pointless because the majority of people ,a massive majority 100's of millions of people who buy smartphones have no interest in this at all. They don't need it for the type of photos they take.

Time and time again this issue is raised. It is a point far more suited to comparing a Nikon D5 against a Canon EOS 1DX, then it's a relevant point because ISO matters to 90% of the peole who buy those cameras.

 

[woof woof]

When the issue is have smart phoens killed the DSLR the answer is yes ,just about.

One area in which smartphones have an advantage is maybe in social acceptability. People using a larger camera like a DSLR or smaller SLR sized mirrorless could well be seen as a wierdo or pedophile but using a smartphone seems to be tolerated much more, even if it's on the end of a stick and being waved about by some mad orchestra conductor or Harry Potter.

 

[AZ6]

My Samsung S7 is a better 'camera' than the old Ricoh GX8 I bought a good few years ago. But back then (2006 I think), the GX8 was miles better than any 'phone cam. The S7 has better software. And better battery life!

'Phones have killed the compact digital camera (why have two devices when you can have just one?). Although you can still get compacts, and a £60 compact is probably going to actually take better pics than most 'phones. Whilst costing a fraction of the price. How much is an iPhone X? Seventy eight thousand pounds?

Comparing pics from a relatively recent top end 'phone, and a compact, in good light, won't tell you much. Compare shots in low light, then see what results each produces. My Nikon Z6 is so far ahead of my 'phone it's not even funny. I can (and have!) shot at 51,200 ISO. Not even worth talking about 'phones in this context. A DSLR/MILC is way, way more capable than any 'phone will ever be. That doesn't mean a 'phone isn't a valid photographic tool though. It has it's place. In yer pocket, carried about everywhere. Perfect.

What I find very misleading, are those adverts showing 'examples' of photos shot on x, y or z 'phone. Pics that have been photoshopped and manipulated beyond all recognition. That is just lying, imo. I'm sure I could photoshop some pics from my mum's old Kodak Instamatic 56X, and get great results, if I spent enough time on them. Sure, the ads have a disclaimer, but not explanation as to exactly how much manipulation had to be done. That's just wrong.

Last month I had five photographs published in national magazines all taken with a 4 yr old smartphone.

I got them published because I had a camera with me that would do what was required 75% of the time and in particular 100% of what the magazine editor wanted.

No reflection on your abilities, but this is meaningless. Our media is full of pics and video shot on 'phones; editors will take whatever is available.

When the issue is have smart phoens killed the DSLR the answer is yes ,just about.

The reason is that smart phones are so convenient and now very capable for 75% of people, and smartphones achive what is required for 75% of those people. It's that fact destroys the other debate that is inevitably raised about low light, telephoto lenses and more. All of which the 75% have no interset in. So again the debate in favour of the DSLR is lost.

What you're forgetting, is that those same 75% who have no interest in using anything other than a 'phone, would have had no interest in using anything other than a simple zoom compact type cam, before 'phone cams became a viable option. 'Phones haven't 'killed' DSLRs at all; that is nonsense, sorry. All thats happened, is that the market has become more refined. 'Phones have killed COMPACTS, is all. Yes, DSLR sales are down, and camera sales down generally, and yes, 'phone cams getting better has a lot to do with it, but 'proper' cameras will continue to exist.

I have a pile of DSLR's and SLR's the only way they beat a smartphone in every way 100%....

... is you can hang em around your neck with a big tele on and be a real photographer. Up yours smartphone! Beat that!

All this means is that a 'phone cam is all YOU need. That's fine. Perhaps DLSRs were always overkill for you.

 

[shapeshifter]

No,

They're s***.

Next thread

Why do you go on at such length! Just get to the point will you!

 

[shapeshifter]

My Samsung S7 is a better 'camera' than the old Ricoh GX8 I bought a good few years ago. But back then (2006 I think), the GX8 was miles better than any 'phone cam. The S7 has better software. And better battery life!

'Phones have killed the compact digital camera (why have two devices when you can have just one?). Although you can still get compacts, and a £60 compact is probably going to actually take better pics than most 'phones. Whilst costing a fraction of the price. How much is an iPhone X? Seventy eight thousand pounds?

Comparing pics from a relatively recent top end 'phone, and a compact, in good light, won't tell you much. Compare shots in low light, then see what results each produces. My Nikon Z6 is so far ahead of my 'phone it's not even funny. I can (and have!) shot at 51,200 ISO. Not even worth talking about 'phones in this context. A DSLR/MILC is way, way more capable than any 'phone will ever be. That doesn't mean a 'phone isn't a valid photographic tool though. It has it's place. In yer pocket, carried about everywhere. Perfect.

What I find very misleading, are those adverts showing 'examples' of photos shot on x, y or z 'phone. Pics that have been photoshopped and manipulated beyond all recognition. That is just lying, imo. I'm sure I could photoshop some pics from my mum's old Kodak Instamatic 56X, and get great results, if I spent enough time on them. Sure, the ads have a disclaimer, but not explanation as to exactly how much manipulation had to be done. That's just wrong.




No reflection on your abilities, but this is meaningless. Our media is full of pics and video shot on 'phones; editors will take whatever is available.




What you're forgetting, is that those same 75% who have no interest in using anything other than a 'phone, would have had no interest in using anything other than a simple zoom compact type cam, before 'phone cams became a viable option. 'Phones haven't 'killed' DSLRs at all; that is nonsense, sorry. All thats happened, is that the market has become more refined. 'Phones have killed COMPACTS, is all. Yes, DSLR sales are down, and camera sales down generally, and yes, 'phone cams getting better has a lot to do with it, but 'proper' cameras will continue to exist.



All this means is that a 'phone cam is all YOU need. That's fine. Perhaps DLSRs were always overkill for you.

Sorry my old son. You seem to have seen your arse alright.

Smartphones are all 75% of the population need not just me.

Keep taking the tables or try reading my post when you are in a better mood.

 

[twist]

It is pointless because the majority of people ,a massive majority 100's of millions of people who buy smartphones have no interest in this at all. They don't need it for the type of photos they take.

Time and time again this issue is raised. It is a point far more suited to comparing a Nikon D5 against a Canon EOS 1DX, then it's a relevant point because ISO matters to 90% of the peole who buy those cameras.

Know which I prefer

 

[Cagey75]

Know which I prefer, note the ISO.

View attachment 276819

That's been my experience with 'smart' phone cameras, even the higher end ones. Anything above ISO 400 as I mentioned earlier, becomes a smudged mess, even in average light - they completely fall apart in anything approaching dim lighting.

 

[AZ6]

Sorry my old son. You seem to have seen your arse alright.

Smartphones are all 75% of the population need not just me.

Keep taking the tables or try reading my post when you are in a better mood.

Tables? Where am I taking them? You see, with this LockDown™, I'm not sure that constitutes 'essential' activity...

I did read your post. I fear I may have actually understood it better than you did yourself...

What you're forgetting, is that those same 75% who have no interest in using anything other than a 'phone, would have had no interest in using anything other than a simple zoom compact type cam, before 'phone cams became a viable option. 'Phones haven't 'killed' DSLRs at all; that is nonsense, sorry. All thats happened, is that the market has become more refined. 'Phones have killed COMPACTS, is all. Yes, DSLR sales are down, and camera sales down generally, and yes, 'phone cams getting better has a lot to do with it, but 'proper' cameras will continue to exist.

See?

Selecta....

 

[imattersuk]

Maths isn't your strong point

73.50 into 490.50.

Clearly not yours, the phone retails for $1449, try again

 

[woof woof]

Sorry my old son. You seem to have seen your arse alright.

Smartphones are all 75% of the population need not just me.

Keep taking the tables or try reading my post when you are in a better mood.

Maybe but most of them still don't know how to use them, if they can be used effectively at all in some situations.

The last little gathering I was at people snapped away with smartphones and when I got to see the results 99% of the pictures had motion blur which went from being noticeable to making the picture effectively a total write off.

I'd agree that for a posed shot in good light (or even in poor if the user has the time to enable flash etc) a phone is all 99% of people need but move away from that one narrow scenario and the keeper rate (by our standards or even by any reasonable standard) drops through the floor for most people.

 

[Harlequin565]

I think it's an interesting question that should probably do more to raise the question about how important gear is (another done to death topic!)

Unfortunately, here, your audience is probably somewhat biased. Asking people who spend hundreds if not thousands on camera gear if that gear is obsolete, is potentially an adventure on thin ice.

I had this conversation with my wife on our exercise walk at the weekend. I had my SLR, she had her phone. The upshot is that we were both completely happy with the results. Phones have made photography far more accesible to far more people, and there are some great photographers using phones, just as there are bad photographers using A7s.

In my experience, there is a misconception that better gear = better photographs. There is a misconception that every image needs to be pin sharp and noise free. There is a misconception that all images need to be able to be printed at A0. If you follow all of those, then phone cameras are mostly crap. However a boring photo is still a boring photo even if it's taken on top quality gear. And believe me - I know this from personal experience! [/notaprofessionalcaveat]

Have phones made cameras obsolete? No. Are they more popular? Probabaly. Is that a bad thing? Yes - if you're a camera manufacturer, otherwise no.

For me though... (opinion)

Spoiler

I hate using a phone for photography. I hate the viewscreen, I hate the pinch zoom, I hate the utterly pointless touchscreen shutter button. I feel absolutely no connection to the images. I can't control the exposure (unles I learn how to, which I don't want to do because previous reasons), I can't print big with acceptable quality (my phone is old!). It's great for copying receipts, recipes and eBay stuff. I love my mechanical cameras, I love the click of the shutter. I love a viewfinder which allows me to shut one eye and completely restrict my view to exactly what the camera sees. I like taking the time to find the photograph I want.
But I'm not you.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Clearly not yours, the phone retails for $1449, try again

Lol, why are you using cost of material into total sales cost?

Apples and oranges...

Try again.

Seriously, think hard before you reply, because it is borderline on being a waste of time talking with people who don't understand what they are talking about. Worst still, they are going to move the goal post.

What you are talking about is the COST of material to Apple at $73.50, then the percentage is the COST of the phone total. that is how much the camera is in percentage terms to the phone cost, phone cost to Apple. Not the phone cost to the customer. Profit margin isn't scaled on just on the camera, profit margin is scaled on the entire product.

 

[imattersuk]

Lol, why are you using cost of material into total sales cost?

Apples and oranges...

Try again.

The point I am making is that 5% of the cost of production is allocated to camera parts, what's the percentage on a proper camera, 25% maybe ?

 

[woof woof]

Lol, why are you using cost of material into total sales cost?

Apples and oranges...

Try again.

Seriously, think hard before you reply, because it is borderline on being a waste of time talking with people who don't understand what they are talking about. Worst still, they are going to move the goal post.

What you are talking about is the COST of material to Apple at $73.50, then the percentage is the COST of the phone total. that is how much the camera is in percentage terms to the phone cost, phone cost to Apple. Not the phone cost to the customer. Profit margin isn't scaled on just on the camera, profit margin is scaled on the entire product.

Reading that cost breakdown I was surprised how much the bits cost as a lot of stuff leaves the factory at costs you wouldn't believe they could bottle water for.

 

[Raymond Lin]

The point I am making is that 5% of the cost of production is allocated to camera parts, what's the percentage on a proper camera, 25% maybe ?

73.50 into 490.50.

I have given you the formula already. It's not 5%.

You are making cost of camera allocated to the sales cost. You are not even doing what you said, cost of PRODUCTION.

Production, not sales.

Apples, Oranges.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

For most of the people, most of the time, a smartphone camera is all they will ever need which would explain the way that the entry level compact market has been pretty much decimated.

For the above market, photographs are unlikely to ever leave the phone, and are unlikely to be printed. I did see some figures for this a while back but can’t remember where, however anecdotal evidence backs this up.

For us as enthusiasts who have a more discerning eye and who are more demanding in our functionality, then they are limited.

That being said, I have been impressed with the more recent phone cameras. I was commissioned to take some photographs for the launch of the Samsung S7 in 2016 and for a phone, I was very impressed with its low light capabilities. Sure, compared side by side at 100% with comparison shots from my full frame Nikon then they obviously weren’t in the same league. But the A3 prints weren’t bad at all and the non photographers I’ve shown them to have been impressed.

I’ve recently bought an IPhone 11 and have been impressed with it so far. Yes, I can’t use it to shoot sport or wildlife or fast moving stuff, but I don’t with my Nikon either. So it’s like any other camera, I use it within its limitations and most of the time it’s good enough. If I want to produce 30x20” exhibition prints, then the Nikon goes with me, but if I’m going for my daily lockdown walk round the village, or on a bike ride, then it stays at home and the IPhone is in my pocket.

 

[Studio488commercial]

The point I am making is that 5% of the cost of production is allocated to camera parts, what's the percentage on a proper camera, 25% maybe ?

A "proper Camera" would be 100% would it not ? there is nothing I can see on a "proper camera" that is not camera related ?

 

[woof woof]

Just a thought.

If a smartphone was just a camera rather than being a phone/camera/picture storage device/personal music player/computer how many people would choose to carry and use a camera of that form factor and quality?

 

[imattersuk]

A "proper Camera" would be 100% would it not ? there is nothing I can see on a "proper camera" that is not camera related ?

I'm talking mark up / margin but get your point.

 

[RichardC27]

I was also surprised to see that the Samsung had chosen to use f1.7 - with so much light about, you'd have thought closing down to f5.6 or so, like the Sony, would have been a better option. Maybe phones err on the side of faster shutter speeds, given the challenges of holding them steady. But it must be quite a lens to perform like that at virtually full aperture.

The vast majority of phones are fixed aperture, so the only thing they have available to them is a faster shutter speed and their built in jpeg processing to deliver a decent final image. If your phone shoots in Raw, try taking a Raw+jpeg photo so you can see just how much automated processing goes on to get half decent looking images out of such tiny sensors and lenses. The software processing is where the real advancements have come in mobile phone photography, much more so than the sensor or lens hardware.

Some more modern Samsung phones can switch between F1.2 and F2.4 on one camera, but it's a very rudimentary iris system on the outside of the lens, not within the camera itself