Is the gap between a mobile phone image and a DSLR Image so great?

R

Ricardodaforce

Self requested ban
Suspended / Banned
Messages
18,340
Edit My Images
No
I know from past experience that there are some here who just cant see that a mobile phone can be a classed as a camera and as one member succinctly put they are only good for "snapshots". I own a Nikon D7000 (recently bought to replace my much loved D3000) and an iPhone 4S. In my opinion, they are both cameras.
I took these shots yesterday in low-light conditions, one with the Nikon, one with the iPhone. I gotta say, when you consider one is a thousand euro dedicated DSLR, the difference in quality between the two images isn't massive.


Bienvenidos a Primavera by Ricardodaforce, on Flickr


The Fountain in the Square by Ricardodaforce, on Flickr

So, what's my point? I guess I'm wondering why is there so much apathy towards mobile phone photography from some members of the community? Why is it looked down upon and discounted by some?
Is taking a photo using a mobile phone "photography" in the same way that taking a photo using a dedicated camera is "photography"?
Are we going to arrive at a day when during a "what camera do you use?" conversation you don't scoff at "an Apple iPhone 4S or a Nokia Lumia 800" (or whatever models are coming our way)

I'm a great advocate of mobile phone photography and I think for photography in general it's a good thing. I think it brings people into the fold, that otherwise wouldn't have joined in.

So, what do you think. Is the mobile phone a valid medium for photography. Or not?

I am sure the pixel peepers will now be scrutinising the images and denigrating the mobile phone shot for its poor quality. Just so you know, both shots have been cropped.
 
I was just relieved I could tell which was which :)

I used to take photos with a cheesy old film camera with fixed lens and a fixed exposure. Mobiles are way better than that. Even managed the odd arty shot. Easier to be arty with a modern dslr though.
 
Flexibility, Ricardo. I think camera phones are great and I think that in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing they can be used to take good photographs. There are areas of photography, however, in which they are still significantly superceded by some dedicated cameras. Particularly cameras with interchangeable lenses.
 
Now do it in low light, of a fast moving object or something with far more contrast - that is the benefit of an SLR.

The conditions appear to be ideal in terms of bright light and not too much contrast - however in those conditions the whilst the camera picture is better it isn't twice as good as the phone despite being over twice as expensive

I think a phone can be a valid form in snapshot (ideal) situations - it won't cope with the demand we put on SLRs
 
Yes.
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
Now do it in low light, of a fast moving object or something with far more contrast - that is the benefit of an SLR.
Click to expand...

They were taken in low light Rick.


WilliamC said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Which particular question did you answer? You may have noticed (or maybe not) that I posed a few. For example:

Is the gap between a mobile phone image and a DSLR Image so great?

Is taking a photo using a mobile phone "photography" in the same way that taking a photo using a dedicated camera is "photography"?

Are we going to arrive at a day when during a "what camera do you use?" conversation you don't scoff at "an Apple iPhone 4S or a Nokia Lumia 800"

So, what do you think. Is the mobile phone a valid medium for photography. Or not?

I don't suppose you fancy expanding on your answer do you? Just a thought!
 
Ricardodaforce said:
They were taken in low light Rick.
Click to expand...

They really don't seem to be - just proves they (cameras within phones) are progressing vastly compared to when I last used one.

How well does it cope with movement?


if nothing else SLRs will have the benefit of massively wide angle lenses as well as long zooms ;)
 
Any device that captures an image is a valid medium for photography - the point is that for most people who own and operate a phone camera is that they will take snapshots with little or no compositional thought. There will always be a Ricardodaforce who is bucking the trend.

Conversely there must be millions of DSLR cameras out there where people have fallen for the lie that mere possession of XYZ device will improve their photography.

How many times have you heard "oooh that's a nice photograph, you must have a good camera"? - the important thing is always to work within the limits of the photographer and the equipment - and most critically have the camera available at the time of the shot!
 
Uneducated_Rick said:
They really don't seem to be - just proves they (cameras within phones) are progressing vastly compared to when I last used one.

How well does it cope with movement?


if nothing else SLRs will have the benefit of massively wide angle lenses as well as long zooms ;)
Click to expand...

It was raining very heavily at the time. The truth is I've never tried a panning shot or anything like that. It seems to cope ok with night as you can see here:


Neon Licht by Ricardodaforce, on Flickr
 
I saw some pictures taken on a mates samsung galaxy phone the other day,don't ask me the model.
The pictures looked fantastic.
My only question is to what size can they be printed and still look good.
I do worry that if you get a really good pic with a phone ,could I do a A4 off it.:thinking:
They are getting better all the time.
 
if i seen the pics i would never have guessed it would havebeen from a phone
 
I don't doubt that mobile phones can take great pictures, but they are just so fiddly to actually use as cameras.

It's difficult to do anything spontaneously as it takes so long for the thing to actually take the picture.

There is also no way to set either focus or exposure easily, at least on an iphone 4s, and of course no viewfinder.

Also it's jpeg only as far as file format goes.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
They were taken in low light Rick.
Click to expand...
Low light in Alicante is not the same as low light in the UK - 1/60s at f13 & 500 ISO is only achievable in Coventry at midday in July with zero cloud ;) :D

Seriously, I am very impressed with some of the phone-camera shots I've seen lately but I've never used one (except for the 1MP crappy camera on my Nokia 6230i - which, incidently, does all I want in a phone ;)) and so couldn't comment on their usability or on the ability to get consistently good photos with them - though I strongly suspect that I would give up using them in anything other than full-auto unless I was very desperate.

My opinion of modern smart phones is that they are on the whole, a product of marketing hype that has created a false 'need' and a whole new must-have image-conscious snobbery. I know that that is another argument but it is the one that founds my antagonism to camera-phones - not because of the camera but because of everything else that comes with it at a considerable cost.

Otherwise, I consider them to be decent P&S pocket cameras.
 
Interesting. I use a Nokia N8 phone which has (or had) arguably the best camera put on a phone, and I've been impressed with the output. As people have alluded to, the camera works best on static things in good light, and with a 28mm lens, it's a great piece of kit to have in my pocket at all times. I've even printed out A3 with good results. Will it replace an actual camera? No, but my compact saw an awful lot less use once I'd got the N8, if nothing else because it fits into my pocket whereas my compact didn't.

http://thevoicefromthenorth.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/199-nokia-n8-printing-a3-from-a-cameraphone/

http://thevoicefromthenorth.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/nokia-n8-vs-dslr/

http://thevoicefromthenorth.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/173-nokia-n8-vs-slr-again/
 
I think phone cams are great for a quick snap, although tbh if you took one and an SLR into a studio environment ant set the subject up, got the lighting right etc then you'd have two equally great pics.

But what about things like macro, fast subjects, low light, anything where the subject is more than say 20 feet away? That's where a phone is no use and a proper SLR comes in, versatility.
 
essexash said:
I think phone cams are great for a quick snap, although tbh if you took one and an SLR into a studio environment ant set the subject up, got the lighting right etc then you'd have two equally great pics.

But what about things like macro, fast subjects, low light, anything where the subject is more than say 20 feet away? That's where a phone is no use and a proper SLR comes in, versatility.
Click to expand...

In the image above the fountain was over 20 feet away in low light. Remember, the image was cropped.
 
The issue is, and will be for some time, small sensors and small lenses.

Not to mention the AF side of things, and ergonomics!

But that's not to say you can't get a decent image out of them of course. I wouldn't really say the gap is closing, as dslr technology is also moving on, but the quality is certainly getting better.

However, a dslr will never beat a camera phone on one aspect - convenience! My opinion is they have certainly closed the gap on small compacts, but not dslr's yet!
 
Last edited:
Personally ~ DLSR or film SLR for high quality/professional/portfolio/photographic purposes & iPhone{ography} for personal/fun/behind the scenes shots. A DSLR will always be ahead of the game. For me at least. Afterall, full exposure control, post processing possibilities, quality & not to mention interchangeable lenses is a must-have!
 
Last edited:
@OP - I certainly don't share any belief that a phone camera is somehow not a 'camera'..

It's all about the photographer behind it.. simple as..

The equipment just allows differing degrees of flexibility and some technical advantages, that is what you pay for with a DSLR.. But it's all pretty obvious really
 
Ricardodaforce said:
In the image above the fountain was over 20 feet away in low light. Remember, the image was cropped.
Click to expand...

Yeah for staged shots / static subjects , they're great. I was out cliff walking the other week and saw a buzzard hovvering on the cliff edge, my slr nailed it, your phone wouldn't of stood a chance. Phones are great for staged shots and happy snaps, not much else.
 
essexash said:
Yeah for staged shots / static subjects , they're great. I was out cliff walking the other week and saw a buzzard hovvering on the cliff edge, my slr nailed it, your phone wouldn't of stood a chance. Phones are great for staged shots and happy snaps, not much else.
Click to expand...

But if you do use the equipment to play to it's strengths you can still create some wonderful photographs, but that's a bit obvious I guess!

What you can't do (and your point is valid) is for any given moment with the same 'creative' person, create the same range of excellent photographs with a phone then you can with the more flexble equipment..
 
I think if someone is arguing that you can only take snapshots with a phone camera then they are patently an idiot. If they are saying that folk who use them mostly take snapshots, well I can go with that...but then again, most folk who buy cameras just take snapshots.

Phone camera's are cameras. How you use them is what is important. Yes, you are not going to take one to shoot the Rugby international or some F1. Then again you don't see folk with large format film cameras at those events and I can't imagine anyone is going to say those are crap and only of use for snapshots.

Cameras in phones are not DSLRs. They are not film cameras. They are just cameras and they can take great images that can be printed out large if you care to.

All the shots on my 500px are all currently iphone shots both taken and processed.
 
Gordon F said:
I think if someone is arguing that you can only take snapshots with a phone camera then they are patently an idiot. If they are saying that folk who use them mostly take snapshots, well I can go with that...but then again, most folk who buy cameras just take snapshots.

Phone camera's are cameras. How you use them is what is important. Yes, you are not going to take one to shoot the Rugby international or some F1. Then again you don't see folk with large format film cameras at those events and I can't imagine anyone is going to say those are crap and only of use for snapshots.

Cameras in phones are not DSLRs. They are not film cameras. They are just cameras and they can take great images that can be printed out large if you care to.

All the shots on my 500px are all currently iphone shots both taken and processed.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the point! People seem to think I am proposing an either/or scenario and they get defensive. What I'm saying is the mobile phone can be as valid a photographic tool as a DSLR. No one is claiming that the 2 are always interchangeable. Technology is progressing so rapidly that the gap between the 2 will continue to diminish though.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
This is exactly the point! People seem to think I am proposing an either/or scenario and they get defensive. What I'm saying is the mobile phone can be as valid a photographic tool as a DSLR. No one is claiming that the 2 are always interchangeable. Technology is progressing so rapidly that the gap between the 2 will continue to diminish though.
Click to expand...

Absolutely Ricardo. I think I posted on here before but after my talk at Apple in London i was approached by a leading UK design company who were carrying out research on behalf of a consumer electronics company (not sure whether it was a camera or phone company). They wanted to understand everything about iphoneography and apps etc and about what it was about this method of photography that was making it so successful. It was obvious during my discussion that they had been getting lots of folk in for a chat and that certain fundamentals were proving true...ie, Professional photographers (whatever they are) don't like amateur photographers who choose to do paying work on the side. Users of DSLR's (both professional and amateur) think mobile phone photographers are lower than amateurs in their little pond life environment.....:bang:

It is for sure though that some DSLR's and Compacts are going to become more camera phone like and camera phones are going to become more Compact and DSLR like...
 
I really do wish that TP had a Recommend button very good post in riposte to some of the 'camera snob' posts previously

Gordon F said:
I think if someone is arguing that you can only take snapshots with a phone camera then they are patently an idiot. If they are saying that folk who use them mostly take snapshots, well I can go with that...but then again, most folk who buy cameras just take snapshots.

Phone camera's are cameras. How you use them is what is important. Yes, you are not going to take one to shoot the Rugby international or some F1. Then again you don't see folk with large format film cameras at those events and I can't imagine anyone is going to say those are crap and only of use for snapshots.

Cameras in phones are not DSLRs. They are not film cameras. They are just cameras and they can take great images that can be printed out large if you care to.

All the shots on my 500px are all currently iphone shots both taken and processed.
Click to expand...
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Is the gap between a mobile phone image and a DSLR Image so great?.....

I don't suppose you fancy expanding on your answer do you? Just a thought!
Click to expand...

I gave a simple answer because it's a simple question. If your hired pro turned up to do your wedding with just a phone would you be happy? If the papers covered night football with a phone? Would you use a phone for birding? For astro photography? To cover an airshow? On safari? They're useful to have and get better all the time but no way are they a substitute for any of the above. So, "yes" the gap is great.
 
towershot said:
I saw some pictures taken on a mates samsung galaxy phone the other day,don't ask me the model.
The pictures looked fantastic.
My only question is to what size can they be printed and still look good.
I do worry that if you get a really good pic with a phone ,could I do a A4 off it.:thinking:
They are getting better all the time.
Click to expand...
I took a quick snap shot of the kids at the weekend on my galaxy s2 and out of interest printed it at A4 there was nothing wrong with the quality. Just to add the s2 has an 8 megapixel camera.
 
WilliamC said:
I gave a simple answer because it's a simple question. If your hired pro turned up to do your wedding with just a phone would you be happy? If the papers covered night football with a phone? Would you use a phone for birding? For astro photography? To cover an airshow? On safari? They're useful to have and get better all the time but no way are they a substitute for any of the above. So, "yes" the gap is great.
Click to expand...

I see you conveniently edited out the fact that I actually asked a number of questions. Bravo. Not being a mind-reader meant I struggled to work out which question your deeply-considered and expansive response was answering. I know now, so many thanks for your contribution :thumbs: By the way, who suggested the mobile phone is a substitute for birding, astrophotography, airshow/safari pictures :thinking:
 
I agree with your point whole heartedly...to some the iphone is a phone with a camera, to others it's a camera with a phone on it. Either way it's a valid form of photography and obviously takes good images.

I must ask though, the two images you're comparing in the first post...are they unprocessed, straight from camera without any filters added (via an app or otherwise, asides from a crop)?
 
Last edited:
antihero said:
I agree with your point whole heartedly...to some the iphone is a phone with a camera, to others it's a camera with a phone on it. Either way it's a valid form of photography and obviously takes good images.

I must ask though, the two images you're comparing in the first post...are they unprocessed, straight from camera without any filters added (via an app or otherwise, asides from a crop)?
Click to expand...

The mobile shot was taken using the HRD option, then converted to black and white using Camera+. The camera version was converted to black and white using Elements.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
I see you conveniently edited out the fact that I actually asked a number of questions. Bravo. Not being a mind-reader meant I struggled to work out which question your deeply-considered and expansive response was answering. I know now, so many thanks for your contribution :thumbs: By the way, who suggested the mobile phone is a substitute for birding, astrophotography, airshow/safari pictures :thinking:
Click to expand...

I have to admit I got confused about your 'point' since the thread title and 'points' being made in the OP seem to differ... :)

I think some are just answering the thread title, I wouldn't get too bothered about it..

:)
 
phil-t said:
I have to admit I got confused about your 'point' since the thread title and 'points' being made in the OP seem to differ... :)

I think some are just answering the thread title, I wouldn't get too bothered about it..

:)
Click to expand...

I couldn't get all of my point in the title :lol:
 
A picture needs to be judged on the picture alone. What camera took the picture is irrelevant.

Take your picture to an exhibition and it will be judged on image alone
Take your picture to a camera/photography forum and it will be judged on what camera was used.
 
In terms of literal image quality, smartphone cameras have come on enormously in the last few years and the writing has been on the wall for low end P&S cameras for some time. For day to day snaps they are entirely usable. For holiday photos, facebook fodder, etc. there isn't much of an arguement that "oh if you used a P&S/DSLR that photo would have been better."

There is an arguement that the physical kit isn't up to standard - the sensor, glass, accessories, etc. suitability there depends entirely on purpose. Would you be ok taking photos at a party? Sure. At the side of the pitch at the world cup, or a wedding, fashion photoshoot? Absolutely not.

Where they still fall down IMO, is in a few crimical areas.
-The basic ergonomics of using a phone as a camera just isn't good for more than a quick snap or two. Size, weight, shape, control layout - especially good on an SLR, acceptable on a P&S, terrible on a phone. That's just the nature of compromise for a pocketable all-round device.
-Control - from full manual to focus speed and flexibility, and pure wealth of custom controls. Phones just don't do too much here. If you're lucky you get to choose between a few ISO levels and extremely large DOF or just very large DOF.
-Control of light. From the terrible onboard "flash", to lack of control of studio flash or any OCF.

Of course, you can take great photos on them. They're just unsuitable for non-light use or a wide range of non-standard scenarios.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
They were taken in low light Rick.
Click to expand...

Not sure that is really that low light.

Exposure 0.006 sec (1/161)
Aperture f/2.4
Focal Length 4.3 mm
ISO Speed 64

Iphone

Exposure 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture f/13.0
Focal Length 35 mm
ISO Speed 500

Nikon



Try taking it with an iphone when you need to pump the ISO up to 1600 or so? Saying that the iphone processing is very good for the size of the sensor used
 
I have to say I've been seeing a lot of very impressive phone images lately. They have come on a long way!

I do agree though that DSLR's come into their own when the chips are down. Low light being a good example, but fast moving objects, complex flash set ups and triggering, extreme macro all spring to mind. If I were take a well lit landscape shot with my compact camera and one with the DSLR I'd probably be hard pushed to say which one is which, or the difference would certainly not be immediately obvious. But if I took an ISO 1600 shot in poor lighting, the compact's effort would stick out like a sore thumb. On the plus side the compact (or phone) fits in my pocket. Horses for courses and all that.
 
Phone cameras have come a very long way in a short time, and they're ideal for people who just want to take social photographs and share them straight away. The chances are that very few of these will ever be printed, although some of the phone cameras do seem to be quite capable of punching well above their weight.

I don't even know anyone who has a DSLR. Most of them just have a basic compact, or use their phone, and are quite content with them. This is a photography forum so you're bound to get different perspectives.
 
Had to try and claw back some blown highlights but this was taken on my Samsung galaxy S2. I'm very pleased with the camera on this one and it saves me carrying a compact when I don't want to have my DSLR with me.

SMALL18.JPG


I think that camera phones (with decent IQ) are a great way to capture an image without having to fill your pockets with a compact or carry a DSLR.

To To answer the thread title, I do see a big difference in my D7000 but under good lighting conditions, my phone camera matches IQ of around ISO800 on my D7000...and as I'm happy shooting anything all day long up to 3200 without any NR...I don't think camera phones are so bad :)
 
DaveKing said:
Not sure that is really that low light.

Exposure 0.006 sec (1/161)
Aperture f/2.4
Focal Length 4.3 mm
ISO Speed 64

Iphone

Exposure 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture f/13.0
Focal Length 35 mm
ISO Speed 500

Nikon

Try taking it with an iphone when you need to pump the ISO up to 1600 or so? Saying that the iphone processing is very good for the size of the sensor used
Click to expand...

I think the issue here is I am used to a lot more light than you guys. It always strikes me how little light there is in the uk when I visit. To me, it seemed a really dark day!
 
phone cameras are acceptable for online images however small sensors = poor dynamic range, lots of noise and general low IQ
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top