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

Phone cameras, great for facebook and ........ thats about it really.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Or are these views sweeping generalisations?
Click to expand...

No! Should have made it clear, its my opinion. :) Dont get me wrong, they are great for snaps :thumbs:

The last wedding I attended, 80% of the guests were clicking away and posting on facebook before the bride said I Do. And I must admit, some were excellent.
 
The Greek said:
No! Should have made it clear, its my opinion. :) Dont get me wrong, they are great for snaps :thumbs:

The last wedding I attended, 80% of the guests were clicking away and posting on facebook before the bride said I Do. And I must admit, some were excellent.
Click to expand...

So you see a vast difference between the two images in the first post? Does that mean you're in the camp that doesn't believe mobile phone photography is as legitimate an "art form" and DSLR photography?

It's an interesting debate!
 
Ricardodaforce said:
So you see a vast difference between the two images in the first post? Does that mean you're in the camp that doesn't believe mobile phone photography is as legitimate an "art form" and DSLR photography?

It's an interesting debate!
Click to expand...


I once mentioned a BMW I was contemplating on buying on a Mercedes forum, which I was/am a long time member, didnt go down to well, at first I couldnt understand why I received such a negative response, Then the penny dropped, these guys live and breath Mercedes, not interested in BMW. even tho its got four wheels and an engine.

I guess, its the same with you Iphone, yes takes pictures, but it doesn't interest me, I live and breath Digital camera .....SLR

As already mentioned, just my opinion. If your happy taking pictures with your phone, thats all that really matters.
 
POAH said:
I have no idea what you are on about TBH
Click to expand...

OK, I will try to make it make it easier to understand using your own words. With regards to the 2 images I posted, would you say the mobile phone one suffers from "poor dynamic range, lots of noise and general low IQ"?

The Greek said:
I once mentioned a BMW I was contemplating on buying on a Mercedes forum, which I was/am a long time member, didnt go down to well, at first I couldnt understand why I received such a negative response, Then the penny dropped, these guys live and breath Mercedes, not interested in BMW. even tho its got four wheels and an engine.

I guess, its the same with you Iphone, yes takes pictures, but it doesn't interest me, I live and breath Digital camera .....SLR

As already mentioned, just my opinion. If your happy taking pictures with your phone, thats all that really matters.
Click to expand...

I think you've really misunderstood me. The vast majority of photos I take are taken with a Nikon DSLR. It's just that I don't apply the inherent snobbery that exists in the photography world towards mobile phone photography. I do believe that mobile phone photography brings something worthwhile to our hobby, and that some mobile phones are very real cameras.
As you can see, there is a defensive attitude in this forum to these assertions.
 
dynamic range yes
resolution yes

as for noise its not exactly low light is it but it probably does have noise although its hard to tell when the image is so small when gets back to my point about it being about acceptable for online


Ricardodaforce said:
OK, I will try to make it make it easier to understand using your own words. With regards to the 2 images I posted, would you say the mobile phone one suffers from "poor dynamic range, lots of noise and general low IQ"?
Click to expand...
 
Ricardodaforce said:
OK, I will try to make it make it easier to understand using your own words. With regards to the 2 images I posted, would you say the mobile phone one suffers from "poor dynamic range, lots of noise and general low IQ"?



I think you've really misunderstood me. The vast majority of photos I take are taken with a Nikon DSLR. It's just that I don't apply the inherent snobbery that exists in the photography world towards mobile phone photography. I do believe that mobile phone photography brings something worthwhile to our hobby, and that some mobile phones are very real cameras.
As you can see, there is a defensive attitude in this forum to these assertions.
Click to expand...


Snobbery? Really?? Maybe just maybe, the inherent snobbery that exists in the photography world towards mobile phone photography is just in your mind.

Can you not just except that not everyone will share your views.
 
I wonder if the Victorian interwebs were full of the same argument when Eastman came up with the Box Brownie? Or if the watercolour 'n oil mob shook their fingers at Fox-Talbot? I certainly remember lots of 'real' photographers explaining to me how this digital stuff would never match, or replace, proper photography.

Me, when I can get a camera with a usable 12-400mm, f/1 -f/30 lens, 102,000 ISO, with 40MP, that will allow me to transmit pictures to my office as fast as I can take them, and that fits in a shirt pocket, I'll be a happy man.

New, simpler, cheaper technology is often decried by people who have invested large amounts of time and money learning how to use the old stuff. Ask Gutenberg. Or anyone who used to mend televisions and radios for a living. Or run a commercial darkroom.
 
iPhone

c6e987ae.jpg


7D

IMG_8914-1.jpg


A slightly extreme example perhaps but there are always going to be circumstances when a phone won't quite cut it. Having said that, mobile phone cameras are definitely a lot more usable than they used to be.
 
Forgetting the type of box taking the pictures, the question seems to be "how important are sensor size and lens quality?".

That's without taking into account other factors - such as AF/tracking accuracy for example - which whilst irrelevant for some types of photography are vital for others.

So, whilst the gap appears quite narrow when comparing some kinds of shot, it grows massively as the photography gets more demanding.
 
Last edited:
An iPhone does compare well to a cheap compact for IQ but even saying that it is much nicer to use a cheap compact. I have used a Canon A1200 off and on (even has a viewfinder) and it was a far better instrument for taking pictures than any phone.
Okay an extra thing to carry but not exactly heavy or that big is it.

An iPhone is not a DSLR (nowhere near) but again it is about the resulting image rather than the tool used to achieve it.
 
Leaving aside the technical limitations of a mobile phone camera in terms of IQ, I think ultimately the pertinent point to focus on in a discussion between a DSLR and a mobile phone camera is the level of control that the photographer has with it.

A mobile phone camera is very much point, compose, and shoot. There's nothing wrong with this, as it's just as valid a form of photography as any other. Hell, Cartier-Bresson probably would have liked mobile phone cameras.

A DSLR, on the other hand, allows the photographer far more freedom to alter the way in which the image will be captured, and this makes it a more versatile tool in terms of creativity. So for photographers who want to capture an image that not only represents the scene but also allows them to put their own spin on it for further effect or focus (I'm talking about DOF, etc), a DSLR is a more appropriate tool for the job.

Think of it like this: anyone can draw a picture with a blue ballpoint pen. But some people also like to use some colour. Neither one is more valid than the other; they're simply different approaches for different purposes.
 
Last edited:
The Greek said:
I once mentioned a BMW I was contemplating on buying on a Mercedes forum, which I was/am a long time member, didnt go down to well, at first I couldnt understand why I received such a negative response, Then the penny dropped, these guys live and breath Mercedes, not interested in BMW. even tho its got four wheels and an engine.

I guess, its the same with you Iphone, yes takes pictures, but it doesn't interest me, I live and breath Digital camera .....SLR

As already mentioned, just my opinion. If your happy taking pictures with your phone, thats all that really matters.
Click to expand...

I like this little story.
 
personal opinion is a mobile is fine if you don't have a "real" camera with you. they are good for snapshots etc of friends etc on a night out if thats your bag, and for updating stuff to social networking sites.

However, anything remotely serious involving photography, DSLR all the way. I've yet to see a professional use a camera phone for a studio session or wedding or landscape etc.
 
One of these days (for a laugh) I'm going to get bride, groom and both sets of parents ready for a group shot, whip out my mobile and say "smile!!"

:D
 
I'll hold off ordering my tripod for my iPhone for the moment. It has to be said convenience does have a place in photography
 
jon ryan said:
I wonder if the Victorian interwebs were full of the same argument when Eastman came up with the Box Brownie? Or if the watercolour 'n oil mob shook their fingers at Fox-Talbot? I certainly remember lots of 'real' photographers explaining to me how this digital stuff would never match, or replace, proper photography.

Me, when I can get a camera with a usable 12-400mm, f/1 -f/30 lens, 102,000 ISO, with 40MP, that will allow me to transmit pictures to my office as fast as I can take them, and that fits in a shirt pocket, I'll be a happy man.

New, simpler, cheaper technology is often decried by people who have invested large amounts of time and money learning how to use the old stuff. Ask Gutenberg. Or anyone who used to mend televisions and radios for a living. Or run a commercial darkroom.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. I'm a bit of a car nut and a car forum I sometimes populate have this sort of argument with regard to any new technology, electric motors, semi auto gearboxes, electric driver aids etc... I find technology fascinating and love seeing advances. If you like them you buy into them, if you don't you hope that enough other people share your view that the older tech prevails. It's the same in all walks of life.

The only thing I will say is that there is a lot of emphasis put on results in this thread and this is valid as obviously that is a BIG part of photography but I also love the satisfaction of using a 'proper' camera. Maybe I'm unusual in this respect but I love the instant response of a shutter and the noise it makes in the process. Turns the whole process into a tactile experience. I've even invested in some pretty old film cameras recently just for that full manual 'involved' experience. I doubt the results will be any better than my D700, maybe not even better than my phone but I don't give a hoot. Probably the same reason why I also always gravitate to older classic cars too. There is a lot of satisfaction in tackling a tricky corner at a track and knowing that your inputs got you through that corner and not with the help of an invisible computer juggling the throttle and applying braking to individual wheels to keep the car stable. Of course the computer driven car will be faster but that to me seems irrelevant as the satisfaction is removed. To a very large extent, this applies to my photography too.
 
Last edited:
There are thousands of posts on these boards arguing how significant the gap is between two lenses or two DSLR bodies.

In that context, posing this question about what are arguably the two extremes of the digital camera world, I find it 'interesting' how small that gap has been considered to be ;).
 
Last edited:
Interesting debate this. I am not bothered about smart phones, games etc etc so my last phone was a pretty simple one but I chose it in the end due to the IMO very decent quality camera.

I used it to take what I'd call snapshots. If I saw something when out and about and didn't have my camera, then I'd grab a photo to capture the moment. I found that zoom/cropping shots/panning and many other things were pretty poor compared to even my point and shoot camera, but for a simple grab a shot during the daytime, edit a little and post on Facebook it was prettty decent.

I'm sure Iphone and other phone cameras are much more capable than my old 5.1MP Sony was, but I'd much rather have a camera with me than a phone!

Another side to this is would you want phone photography displayed alongside camera photography? A fellow teacher here in Korea enquired when she first arrived about having her IPhone photography put on the walls of a local cafe. It never worked out, although I think that was because she isn't a great photographer ;) However a good quality shot like Ricardodaforce takes on the IPhone would IMO be worthy of going up a cafe, perhaps not a photo exhibition or a gallery, but to a non-photographer, I'm sure both camera and phone shots could be appreciated and enjoyed!
 
Does the fact that a device has a mobile radio in it have any relevance at all? A device has a sensor for taking photos. Some you can change lenses, some can't, some are big, some are small. Why is it a big deal if this particular sensor has a mobile radio in the same packaging?
 
mid_gen said:
Does the fact that a device has a mobile radio in it have any relevance at all?
Click to expand...

It normally means that there has been some compromise in the design because it is first and foremost being sold as a phone. It also means that the price is higher compared to other pocketable cameras - iphone (£500) vs Canon S100 (£360). Not that I'm anti-mobile phones, just that I can understand people recommending what they perceive to be better equipment. Personally I think the more types of cameras, the better.
 
Last edited:
Lynton said:
personal opinion is a mobile is fine if you don't have a "real" camera with you. they are good for snapshots etc of friends etc on a night out if thats your bag, and for updating stuff to social networking sites.

However, anything remotely serious involving photography, DSLR all the way. I've yet to see a professional use a camera phone for a studio session or wedding or landscape etc.
Click to expand...

I am not a professional photographer. I am an amateur. I sold my 5d and L lenses as I was hardly ever using them due to my constant use of my iPhone. I shot some wedding images for a friend with my phone and they seemed to like them as did Apple in Glasgow who used them to promote an iPhone event.....and I've done quite a lot of landscape photography with it too. In fact I was in the landscape photographer of the year book and exhibition with one of my iphone shots two years ago after they removed the category for camera phone shots, so i was in the same category as the 5dmk11 boys and girls. (sunday times and aa thingy). In a couple of weeks two of my nudes from my last studio session (iphone) will be hanging in a gallery exhibition in Los Angeles. I guess there are always exceptions to rules....
 
Very much proves the point that the image is all that matters, not what was used to get the image.
 
Lynton said:
However, anything remotely serious involving photography, DSLR all the way. I've yet to see a professional use a camera phone for a studio session or wedding or landscape etc.
Click to expand...

".......New York wedding photographer, Joshua Brown took it to a whole new level by publishing an entire book of breathtaking photos of his recent trip to Italy taken exclusively with Camera+."

Story here. His own website is here.

"I actually went out there to shoot a wedding in Florence, so I had my [Canon] 5D with me, but I really felt like I wanted to just relax and not haul a bunch of gear around all week," says Joshua. "I did actually bring the 5D out a few times, but all the images that made it to the book were from the iPhone."

He used the iPhone 4 (not 4S) and Camera+, which I really like.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
So, what do you think. Is the mobile phone a valid medium for photography. Or not?
Click to expand...

Yes it is, but then so is a 3DS or my 3 year old's Kiddiezoom, and if I'm honest I wouldn't trade my DSLRs in for any of them as for what I shoot none of them are a patch on an SLR (nor are most compacts either).

Looking at the 2 images in the OP I could tell straight away which was which without pixel peeping, however that's not to say that one was better than the other. I think for still or slow moving objects camera phones these days are very good, however I've never gotten on well with my Galaxy S2's camera.

The problem I see with camera phones is they are still in the new and fad stage and sure books are being published with iphone images, but also there are some being published just because they are iphone images and not because they're all that good. I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years it died out.

For those who say that phones will catch up, don't forget that compact and DSLR technology is also moving forward at a fairly quick pace.

Where I do think camera phones shine (at least I do with my S2) is not with stills but with video. When I had my 7D and wanted to shoot a quick vid of my kids playing I grabbed my phone, even if the 7D was hanging around my neck. It was easier to use (IMO) and the quality was great, certainly good enough for what I wanted.
 
ernesto said:
Very much proves the point that the image is all that matters, not what was used to get the image.
Click to expand...

Thirded. It doesn't matter if it's analogue or digital, phone camera or medium format, provided the image is there.

All cameras have pluses and minuses that make them more or less appropriate for the subject at hand, that's why I'll bet most of us have at least two camera in our arsenals [and the rest...].
 
Why do iphone camera users feel the need for acknowledgement from the rest of the photographic community that their iphones are capable of taking good photographs?

Are they really that needy for validation?

Or is it a brainwashing technique from zealots designed to convert the rest of us pagans to the cult of Apple?

I think we should be told.
 
Jambonier said:
Why do iphone camera users feel the need for acknowledgement from the rest of the photographic community that their iphones are capable of taking good photographs?

Are they really that needy for validation?

Or is it a brainwashing technique from zealots designed to convert the rest of us pagans to the cult of Apple?

I think we should be told.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum Jambonier! :lol:
 
Jambonier said:
Why do iphone camera users feel the need for acknowledgement from the rest of the photographic community that their iphones are capable of taking good photographs?

Are they really that needy for validation?

Or is it a brainwashing technique from zealots designed to convert the rest of us pagans to the cult of Apple?

I think we should be told.
Click to expand...

Since when is it only iPhone users who use their mobile phone cameras and want validation?

Your post speaks more about your own prejudices than those of anyone else.
 
Jambonier said:
Why do iphone camera users feel the need for acknowledgement from the rest of the photographic community that their iphones are capable of taking good photographs?

Are they really that needy for validation?

Or is it a brainwashing technique from zealots designed to convert the rest of us pagans to the cult of Apple?

I think we should be told.
Click to expand...

i don't need acknowledgement that iphones are capable of taking good photographs. I know they do. I do like a bit of validation that folk like the images I produce though. That was the case when I used a DSLR and a compact camera and a medium format film camera.

I suspect that a lot of the folk who actually post images on these forums are after the same sort of validation.

Rankbadyin:
Re the shot of the person taking an image with an iPAD. I have actually thought myself that a screen that size would be really rather cool for composing an image. I would probably be too embarrassed to do it myself though. Perhaps in a studio...
 
I don't really understand what all the fuss is about...

A good image is a good image...does it matter where it comes from?

TBH, if I could take amazing photos on my phone all the time I would - carrying my dslr is just annoying sometimes!

I've taken some crackera on my phone amd processed them to look great...where I wouldn't have got them had I of snobbed my phones camera...

Having said that, lighting obviously has to be good and my DSLR is obviously more capable in every circumstance...but I can conveniently capture shots wherever I am. If the lighting was good enough, I'd use a tele on my DSLR and get wides with my phone I'm that happy with the quality.

At the end of the day, when you break it down, our shared passion is images...not the equipment that enables the image to be captured.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top