Is this actually true?

I

insomniac

Suspended / Banned
Messages
172
Edit My Images
No
This is from a Bloomberg article this morning:

"Basic digital cameras have gotten really, really good over the past few years. That tiny shooter sitting in your smartphone is leaps and bounds better than the highest-end digital cameras from just five years ago."

Is this true, or a bit of hyperbolic license? The full article (largely unrelated to the above statement) is here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...w-15-500-device-turns-vintage-cameras-digital
 
A load of rubbish :rolleyes:

Some great improvements, in mobile photography over the last few years, but certainly not to rival top end dslr's from 5 years ago.

Would you rather have a Nikon D3S or the latest mobile phone camera?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Pure hyperbole I had a 20D 5 years ago and it was far superior to my iPhone 6 camera of today. Yeah sure they have some useful and fun features, slo-mo etc but for image quality they lag a long way behind even the entry level DSLR's of 5 years ago.
 
A lot of people look at pixel count and assume that it's higher, therefore it must be better. They pay no attention to anything else.

Plenty of people have said to me that their phone has a higher pixel count than my camera. I just nod along now and ignore it.
 
Utter rubbish.

My 2008 Canon 50d is far, far better than my iPhone. No surprises there! A Canon 350d would still take far, far better images, even with the kit lens.

Out of interest, is there a link to the story, I need to comment on it!
 
Last edited:
Pure hyperbole. To me, there are many dimensions to photography but fundamentally there is sensor, glass and light. Glass brings in light and puts it onto the sensor. Assuming all sensors are equal (they are not! and, as has been said, it goes beyond pixel count), then just think about the amount of glass, the sheer size of the front element of a DSLR lens vs that on a smartphone. I use a smartphone a lot for photography when I am out and about so I do like them but, every time I get a great capture, I think - wow, that would have been great on a DSLR.
 
Perhsos the author is referring to compacts, but that's still pushing it.
 
grotty said:
Perhsos the author is referring to compacts, but that's still pushing it.
Click to expand...
Given that the article is about Hasselblad's CFV-50C back and makes references to the Canon 5D and the Leica Q, I don't think we can assume he meant just compacts in that comparison. In either case their statement about smartphones is complete rubbish...
 
I have compact cameras that are better than my GF's iphone camera so I really don't know what the guy who wrote that is smoking.

Kneller has echoed my experiences, people have insisted that their phone camera was better than my camera but despite that easy to compare pixel count what matters is the final image and that's when the "phone cam is better" argument falls apart.

I personally haven't seen a phone camera yet that gives results as good as my first DSLR, Canon 300D.
 
Last edited:
In one sense Digital Photography is about counting numbers.

However pixel counting is only one aspect of this, that relies on many equally or more important aspects to achieve notable quality.

One benefit derived from mobile devices has been the necessary advance in the ability to mass produce produce microscopic fully molded lenses of astonishing quality. This ability has moved up the line to all aspheric lens production.

lens for digital camera have have taken a quantum leap beyond what was even necessary for film camera use. The need to focus images on microscopic individual pixels and the ability to create a defined spread over a number of pixels is astonishing.

Using heritage lenses on digital cameras allows one to share some of their Idiosyncratic qualities. Particularly in the area of soft focus and different aspects of Bokeh. However they rarely if ever achieve the detail levels and illumination over the whole sensor as do modern lenses.

There is no doubt that the special needs of mobile devices has helped further the advances of all cameras.
If you compare a mobile camera to a BOX brownie it wins hands down.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's true, however I do agree the cameras in phones these days are good enough for some people to ditch their compact point and shoots altogether.

Saying that though, i was fooled a couple of months back when I added a work colleague to my Facebook. I noticed some landscape photos in his album and I said, "I didn't know you were a keen photographer, what camera do you use", expecting him to reply with either Canon or Nikon etc. But to my surprise, he said Sony Z2.
 
R.Y.K. LEE said:
I don't think it's true, however I do agree the cameras in phones these days are good enough for some people to ditch their compact point and shoots altogether.

Saying that though, i was fooled a couple of months back when I added a work colleague to my Facebook. I noticed some landscape photos in his album and I said, "I didn't know you were a keen photographer, what camera do you use", expecting him to reply with either Canon or Nikon etc. But to my surprise, he said Sony Z2.
Click to expand...
The first paragraph isn't true - compact camera manufacturers have upped their game significantly - look at the Sony RX100, Pansonic LX100, Canon G7X / G1x etc. Leaps and bounds ahead of mobile phone cameras. The big camera guys are making fully manual compacts now for us enthusiasts and they are producing mind blowing little cameras.
 
odd jim said:
The first paragraph isn't true - compact camera manufacturers have upped their game significantly - look at the Sony RX100, Pansonic LX100, Canon G7X / G1x etc. Leaps and bounds ahead of mobile phone cameras. The big camera guys are making fully manual compacts now for us enthusiasts and they are producing mind blowing little cameras.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should be clearer.

I didn't say that phone cameras have surpassed compact point and shoots. I'm saying that many people I know have ditched carrying a compact point and shoot altogether, because the camera in their phone takes pictures of a quality that they are more than happy with.

My wife carries a Sony a5000, along with her phone. Because the a5000 takes better pictures. But before I got her an a5000, she only carried her phone to take pictures. This is because the images produced on her phone, she was more than happy with them compared to her compact point and shoot, and it also allowed her to instantly share them on social media etc.
 
Totally not true for hobby-grade cameras, but may be true for lowest end compacts.

5D mark 2 is 7 years old, produces much, much better quality images than any smartphone on the market. Especially the 7 year old 5D2.
 
R.Y.K. LEE said:
Maybe I should be clearer.

I didn't say that phone cameras have surpassed compact point and shoots. I'm saying that many people I know have ditched carrying a compact point and shoot altogether, because the camera in their phone takes pictures of a quality that they are more than happy with.

My wife carries a Sony a5000, along with her phone. Because the a5000 takes better pictures. But before I got her an a5000, she only carried her phone to take pictures. This is because the images produced on her phone, she was more than happy with them compared to her compact point and shoot, and it also allowed her to instantly share them on social media etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, agree with this. I think for the average person who isn't into photography, the smartphone, for them, is the best they've ever had as they've most likely never really bothered equipment wise before other than a disposable, or a cheap and cheerful £100 p&s.
 
Last edited:
I think Bloomberg is correct - especially if comparing a Nokia 3100 to any Canon DSLR - but make the same comparison to a Nikon camera nd the argument falls apart.
 
The 5D is 10 years and 6 days old, it still blows away even the very best that smartphones have to offer (in terms of image quality, if not so much image review as it has the most atrocious LCD known to man!)

That said, in the right hands (like any camera) smartphones are capable of some truly stunning images.
 
Of course tecnically speaking it's rubbish. But a lot of people have found that their new phone takes better photographs than their 5 year old DLSR. That's not because it's a better camera. It's because they never learnt how to use their DSLR. Just as today you see complaints in the camera forums from people who've wanted better photographs, bought a DSLR, and find that straight out of the camera the photographs don't look as good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Indeed my old D3000 took some lovely photos, even with the kit lens and that was an entry level camera more than 5 years ago. Way better than my iPhone 6.
 
magicolor1 said:
Given that the article is about Hasselblad's CFV-50C back and makes references to the Canon 5D and the Leica Q, I don't think we can assume he meant just compacts in that comparison. In either case their statement about smartphones is complete rubbish...
Click to expand...
I didn't assume anything, I said perhaps. Either way as the author didn't explicitly mention any type of digital camera it's possible he was referring to compacts, and just as possible he was referring to DSLRs. I agree it's twaddle, though.
 
Just read the article in full and it's pretty inaccurate in quite a lot of areas. For example he could have checked his definition of 35mm film on Wikipedia to realize he got that bit completely wrong! Plus there have been digital backs in Hasselblad V (and H) fit for over 10 years so he's a bit late to the party...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top