Are phones making cameras obsolescent?

[woof woof]

Most people never take their photos off their phones. Just as most people never had prints larger than 6x4 made. The majority of people don't give a toss about the technical qualities of their pictures.

Cameras are going to get more expensive. Maybe even to the point where Leicas look reasonably priced!

Quite a few people I know do do prints, mostly ones they do themselves with their own printers. Some are given to the older friends and family members who don't do mobile phones or computers but some do seem to do prints for themselves and some even frame them and even put them up on a wall.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I had to touch up a few miserable snaps from Samsung S10 for one client (don't ask me why I accepted, must have been Corvid-1984 desperation). While they are better than compact from 2006 they have no chance against even 8MP 30D to stand up against scrutiny at any magnification. Details are over-sharpened, full of artefacts and colour is not what it should be. That's for daylight images, and anything darker looks plain miserable. They will look OK on phone's screen but are really no good for anything else. If you ask my opinion it has absolutely no chance despite all that marketing hype.

I am not saying Smagung S10 is the best out there for camera, but my understanding is that is was one of the poshest models out there only just replaced by S20, so it has to be fairly representative of a high end smart phone of 2019.

 

[davholla]

I've seen both. I've seen someone with a DSLR move to a Sony A6xxx (or Nex, I don't know) and now to some Chinese smartphone or other but I've also seen someone go from a smartphone to an A6xxx because the smarphone was rubbish at indoor friends and family gatherings. This ties in with what I've seen from people using smartphones, some of the end result looks good on screen but do the finger stretch thing or God forbid look at it closely on a pc and you see it's a motion blur ruined noisy mushy mess. That's fine if you don't look closely or don't care but some seem to care enough to move to a camera.

I know people who only ever look at photos on their phone - that way they always look good.

 

[jonbeeza]

Maye people who use a phone to capture images, don't pour over the photo so much. So maybe they just don't, or simply can't see image resolution.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Absolutely none of that matters to Joseph and Joanna Public. As long as the photo looks kinda ok on the phone screen then that is acceptable to 99.99% of phone users.

Agreed 100%. The "funny" cases come when Mrs Joanna decides to print these images, and print them large! Oh well...

The Photography industry know the winner will be the smartphone camera look at the huge amount of R&D that goes into making smartphone cameras better for example , multi lens capture, Artificial Intelligence, and the huge amount of post processing the phone does to images.

This may help Mrs Joanna with her ignorance but really the improvement of quality will only come though bigger sensors or multiple sensors and user education

With DSLR's the R&D budget is just aimed at producing bigger sensors, multiple card slots and stopping us using non OEM batteries. Hardly any of the really clever stuff is will be coming to DSLR's anytime soon.

To be honest I don't wish to see any of the "clever" stuff, I just want the very cleanest neutral and unprocessed RAW data from the latest and greatest sensor. I want to be able to make all the choices in post. Hopefully there will be 2 distinct lines such as the phones for general public and pro tools, however I can see there might be little left in between.

 

[ancient_mariner]

Sometimes I wonder what people use their cameras for and whether they understand the key aspects of how they work. Phone cameras are not a challenge to conventional large sensor cameras, not least because the manner of taking the picture is different. Certainly they've virtually killed the conventional low-quality compact market, and they will slightly reduce spontaneous purchases of 'real' cameras as they get better still. But that's all.

 

[snerkler]

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):

View attachment 276795

(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:

View attachment 276797
(sam)

View attachment 276798
(son)

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

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

View attachment 276805

...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.

Sorry I’ve not gone through all the posts as there’s too many but I’ve not seen anyone mention the two crops you’ve posted. To me the difference is night and day, and that’s just viewing on my phone. If viewing on my computer I’d expect the difference to look even more. Bear in mind also that that’s ‘just’ comparing a 1” sensor camera let alone a FF camera or even medium format.

I’m sure this has been said elsewhere on the thread but to average joe who only ever had a point and shoot camera then the phone has definitely killed this market. The phone has caused a decline in DSLR sales, but I would guess the biggest hit has been in the entry level stuff. When you start getting into your hobbiests and enthusiasts then a phone isn’t good enough for ‘serious’ photography.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

If viewing on my computer I’d expect the difference to look even more.

My experience is different. I use my phone and several "conventional" cameras with sensors from 1/2.3" to full frame. If you are not the sort of person who is obsessive about technical quality but instead value portability and immediacy then I can't see any reason not to use a phone or whatever else gets you the picture you want.

 

[yamahatdm900]

Agreed 100%. The "funny" cases come when Mrs Joanna decides to print these images, and print them large! Oh well...
.

I do agree but the latest phones will give a very decent A4 print and that is enough for majority of people.

 

[yamahatdm900]

Sometimes I wonder what people use their cameras for and whether they understand the key aspects of how they work. Phone cameras are not a challenge to conventional large sensor cameras, not least because the manner of taking the picture is different. Certainly they've virtually killed the conventional low-quality compact market, and they will slightly reduce spontaneous purchases of 'real' cameras as they get better still. But that's all.

For quality they dont get anywhere near but the trouble is not only are they replacing the compact market they are erroding the entry level DSLR/mirrorless market, although this dosent affect the higher end cameras it affects a camera firms bottom line. Which surely will cost the cost of the higher end gear to increase which leads to a decrease in sales then less R&D less reason to buy a new camera and so on. Plus given the fact that the gains in new cameras models seems to be getting smaller I'm talking from a stills point of view here not video, leads to the tough time facing Camera companies.
Then throw the Covid-19 nightmare and the resulting loss of people incomes things dont look rosy.
Dont get me wrong much prefer using a camera to a phone and I certainly dont think they will be consigned to history but It makes you wonder if all the camera companies will still be producing cameras in 18 months time.

 

[jonbeeza]

For quality they dont get anywhere near but the trouble is not only are they replacing the compact market they are erroding the entry level DSLR/mirrorless market,

But a phone camera can't compete with the entry level DSLR, my entry level Nikon D3300 produces great quality images. The entry level sensor is massive, compared to the sensor in a phone. It is only the buttons and functions that hamper an entry level DSLR, not the IQ.

 

[jonbeeza]

We got a couple of canvases printed a couple of weeks ago, one was for the missus and the other was for a family member. They were both photos of dogs, and one was taken by a family member on her phone, and the other was taken by the missus on a compact camera. The printer explained it would be better to make a much smaller canvas of the print taken with the phone, because of the poor image quality.


You can see the difference in the quality of the photo on the canvas, or at least some can. Although the phone user would only see the difference, if they saw both canvases side by side. They have only ever seen images from their phone, and that it the quality they are used to.

 

[yamahatdm900]

But a phone camera can't compete with the entry level DSLR, my entry level Nikon D3300 produces great quality images. The entry level sensor is massive, compared to the sensor in a phone. It is only the buttons and functions that hamper an entry level DSLR, not the IQ.

I totally agree with you but I'm just talking about sales.

 

[Dangerous]

I have a 7.5mp bridge camera which is getting old in camera years. It still produces as good if not better pictures than my 32mp phone camera. I have printed and displayed on screen comparison photos processed in different ways and asked the wife to pick the ones she thinks is the best.

Almost every time she will pick the image with the more pleasing colours (even when the difference is barely noticeable), it doesn't matter if the image is a tiny bit blurred (low definition or poor focus). She also seems to favour the subject being central in the image when the same image done to rule of thirds is technically (and to me visually) better. It suggests to me that technique & quality plays second fiddle. I wonder how many others think the same.

 

[Ed Sutton]

It suggests to me that technique & quality plays second fiddle. I wonder how many others think the same.

For almost everyone who doesn't think they are a photographer subject matter trumps image quality every time.

 

[snerkler]

My experience is different. I use my phone and several "conventional" cameras with sensors from 1/2.3" to full frame. If you are not the sort of person who is obsessive about technical quality but instead value portability and immediacy then I can't see any reason not to use a phone or whatever else gets you the picture you want.

I think you've misread/misunderstood my post

 

[davholla]

For almost everyone who doesn't think they are a photographer subject matter trumps image quality every time.

Sometimes that is true - I would rather take an out of focus shot of the loch monster, than the best ever photo of a lion (both very very unlikely).
However often you can have image quality unless it is a 1 second never repeated opportunity.

 

[ancient_mariner]

For almost everyone who doesn't think they are a photographer subject matter trumps image quality every time.

I'd say that for everyone who doesn't actually look at a picture then the axiom about subject matter is true. For those who do then the manner of presentation is just as important, and a part of presenting a subject is chosing the correct equipment for that presentation.

It doesn't matter to Joe and Joanna because they never look at the pictures they take and send to others - who also don't look at them except to glance for teh lulz. But it does matter to those who actually do look and don't want to be surrounded by pictures of their own making that suck. Of course it's possible to create images with a phone that don't suck, but it's a lot more restrictive that having a conventional camera available, even with digital zooming and fake bokeh unless that's the look you actually want.

 

[stickytape]

I have a 7.5mp bridge camera which is getting old in camera years. It still produces as good if not better pictures than my 32mp phone camera. I have printed and displayed on screen comparison photos processed in different ways and asked the wife to pick the ones she thinks is the best.

Almost every time she will pick the image with the more pleasing colours (even when the difference is barely noticeable), it doesn't matter if the image is a tiny bit blurred (low definition or poor focus). She also seems to favour the subject being central in the image when the same image done to rule of thirds is technically (and to me visually) better. It suggests to me that technique & quality plays second fiddle. I wonder how many others think the same.

youce got that right! I remember our trip to CA last year; in every photo of the better half, she insisted I always use my iPhone and portrait mode and blurry skin. She hated the sharpness of the eos R and insisted It made her look terrible!

 

[MrMackyB]

Mobile phones produce results that far exceed the expectations of the average person and they make sharing pictures so easy. No traditional camera manufacturer has gone anywhere near mastering that feature. This is why compact camera sales have fallen off a cliff.

If camera manufactures spend as much R&D money on getting DSLR's to easily share images as they do on making sure user cannot use 3rd party batteries they may crack that nut.

This exactly. Smartphones have displaced compact cameras for lots of people not for the camera but the functionality around the camera. Most people don't care about technical specs for their phone, all they care about is that it's good enough.
To be able to have a device always with you, that can take pictures, which you can the do a basic edit or crop, apply a filter to, or some other effect, and then post to whatever site you want is why people use them over a camera.

Camera makers need to add more user centric features, especially making it much easier to select and transfer photos between the camera and a tablet or phone, where you can then do the above, without the filters as it is a much better photo to start with. Sony, I'm particularly looking at you right now..

 

[woof woof]

Mrs WW showed me a picture of one of friends son in Thailand and I noticed he was wearing heart shaped glasses... Mrs WW told me they weren't real, they were an ap. I'd never have know. She did this a while back.

That's sort of us but that's not my hair and they're not my glasses. That's not her hair either.

These things are really clever but I keep wondering... Why?

 

[Pete B]

Kinda like saying that an Instamatic or a 110 film camera is going to do away with those old 35mm things.

 

[Dangerous]

These things are really clever but I keep wondering... Why?

Because they can. The app adds bunny ears, distorts faces, etc. etc. and they don't have to put effort in to it unlike post processing on a computer or tablet.

Kinda like saying that an Instamatic or a 110 film camera is going to do away with those old 35mm things.

110 did then what phones are doing now. Making it easy for the majority to get a photo they are prepared to accept as good enough without the effort required to use a SLR. At the time I couldn't afford a SLR but 'went big' with a 126 camera. Well I did get photos (if you can call them that) and it wasn't too long before the OM1 & shortly after the OM4 was part of my arsenal and the 126 confined to the bin.

When cameras went digital the film cameras went as by then they weren't getting much use. Not wanting to lug all that kit around I got a conpact (I say compact 3mp and almost as big as the OM1 was lol), I wanted more so the super compact (now called a bridge) camera came along, wanting more the 600D and as I outgrew that the 90D.

I count myself lucky as I have never taken a phone selfie, photo of my meal, added bunny ears to anything or printed out a phone photo I have taken, not that I've taken many.

 

[jonbeeza]

I have a 7.5mp bridge camera which is getting old in camera years. It still produces as good if not better pictures than my 32mp phone camera. I have printed and displayed on screen comparison photos processed in different ways and asked the wife to pick the ones she thinks is the best.

Almost every time she will pick the image with the more pleasing colours (even when the difference is barely noticeable), it doesn't matter if the image is a tiny bit blurred (low definition or poor focus). She also seems to favour the subject being central in the image when the same image done to rule of thirds is technically (and to me visually) better. It suggests to me that technique & quality plays second fiddle. I wonder how many others think the same.

That is probably because the sensor on the bridge camera is larger, than the sensor on the phone. Sensor size is more important than how many pixels.

 

[Dangerous]

That is probably because the sensor on the bridge camera is larger, than the sensor on the phone. Sensor size is more important than how many pixels.

True, very true.

 

[snerkler]

That is probably because the sensor on the bridge camera is larger, than the sensor on the phone. Sensor size is more important than how many pixels.

Probably in this case, but some phones have 1/1.7" sensors which is bigger than your average bridge and consumer compact cameras. Plus some are BSI and as a result of both some phones will arguably have better IQ than consumer bridge and compacts, assuming the lens is decent of course

 

[jonbeeza]

Probably in this case, but some phones have 1/1.7" sensors which is bigger than your average bridge and consumer compact cameras. Plus some are BSI and as a result of both some phones will arguably have better IQ than consumer bridge and compacts, assuming the lens is decent of course

If the sensor in a phone are made bigger, then the IQ will obviously be better. But my old phone takes poop photos.

 

[Dangerous]

Probably in this case, but some phones have 1/1.7" sensors which is bigger than your average bridge and consumer compact cameras. Plus some are BSI and as a result of both some phones will arguably have better IQ than consumer bridge and compacts, assuming the lens is decent of course

Mine is 1/2.5"

 

[Cockney]

I hate the way phone cameras are building peoples expectations in photography.
Actual likeness is now frowned upon. It must have no shadows and a massive HDR. As "toy story" cartoon like as possible.

 

[Tysonator]

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!

You right, this question has been asked some many time and normally not long after a new iPhone or latest Samsung has been released.


There is no doubt that smart phones have killed the point & shoot cameras and are even questioning do we need a DSLR ! ?
Of course we can say that Smartphone’s are poor in low light, have no off camera flash ( Godox do have an App to control Godox flashes remotely from a smartphone for using the smartphone camera ! ), can not use telephoto Zoom, As mentioned in this thread does one take a DSLR with them on a night out and DSLR's for us amateurs are only taken out on special events, ie. weddings, air shows, wildlife.

As the software in Smartphone’s keeps advancing so does the potential use of use and dynamic range, IQ of the photo increase ( to a point of course ).
For me the Smartphone are very versatile in their use for taking photos, video, time-lapse, hyperlaspe etc, etc. I am sure camera manufactures could use more software in the camera bodies, ie GPS, file transfer, built in memory, connecting to WiFi, automatic cloud storage etc.

This debate will carry when the new generation of smart phones are due out and the DSLR market is shirking year on year, unless camera manufactures engineer the cameras to be more versatile then asking a youngster to buy into an ego system that their phone can within reason cope with rather well !

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

the DSLR market is shirking year on year,

That's why people are giving up on them. Who wants a camera that won't do its duty?

 

[Tysonator]

That's why people are giving up on them. Who wants a camera that won't do its duty?

I want to video and take photos at the same time. So I mount my smartphone in video mode on top of the hotshoe like Jarrid Polen does with his GoPro.
I would love my DSLR to talk to my smartphone so that both AF on the same subject !
It that too much to ask for in this era of technology ! ?

 

[danbroad]

Phones have already killed dedicated cameras IMO. And it’s IMO a good thing, because in all of our Canute-and-the-waves arguments about dynamic ranges, ISO tonality etc etc...... there’s a huge resurgence, people are enjoying photography, enjoying the process of picture making, taking more pictures, communicating with images, sharing moments, the whole purpose of the medium in the first place. To me photography is an expression of art, creativity and emotion rather than a dry science.

Where cameras will survive is us enthusiasts, the niche users, the professionals, the places [like drone photography, macro, tele] where the tech can’t compete - yet. I think it’s great that the captured image has become such a central part of everyday life. I’m not into vinyl, but I see the parallels - my Apple music subscription encourages the new music and supports the industry, which in turn allows those guys to keep enjoying vinyl. Symbiotic, progressive.