Mobile phone v Nikon Camera

[Baloo]

Assuming D90 was bought on year 1 tells me it hasn't been getting much use for over a decade.

So what it is not costing him anything is it?

This differs with last year's Samsung. So there is incentive to replace based on utility.

No the phones only going to get used for snaps remember.

No argument there if the camera's left at home 99% of the time. ;-)

So what, he has a perfectly adequate phone already for when he does not have his camera with him.

If he gets a great 24 month amortization plan he only pays 4.17/month for a fresh new £100 phone that he'd probably feel naked without it.

It might surprise you to learn that not everyone wants to carry a phone with them all the time, especially if they are an amateur photographer who wants to enjoy their hobby without a phone ringing!

 

[dolina]

So what it is not costing him anything is it?

It's idle asset. Is it worth to replace it?

No the phones only going to get used for snaps remember.

Why put artificial limits on any device? Smartphones have other functionalities. That is why they sell that well.

Digital cameras just does stills & video.

So what, he has a perfectly adequate phone already for when he does not have his camera with him.

So why replace the D90?

It might surprise you to learn that not everyone wants to carry a phone with them all the time, especially if they are an amateur photographer who wants to enjoy their hobby without a phone ringing!

That's what Airplane mode & Silence features come into play.

 

[Phil V]

My points are indeed neutral.

I have straight forwardly replied to yours & others statements. When shortcomings arise I provide possible remedies that does not require sizeable purchases.

I did not challenge some of your points.

Example I do not want to ask you to show the difference of year 2022 or newer flagship smartphone camera lenses as the R&D money generated from >1.2 billion smartphones would have provided innovations to it that we all may not be aware of.

You have enumerated very specific use cases where the digital cameras has the edge, but for the 99% of the rest of the applications, we were ending up with a digital camera in our pocket that has more utility as a camera or a phone than a digital camera that is 1-3kg without bag.

Many smartphones these days have separate cameras that cover

- wide
- standard
- telephoto
- super telephoto

I hold the smartphone this way and use the volume button as a shutter.

There are camera apps that allows the user to control the aperture, shutter, ISO, color temp, etc.

As you pointed out there are limitations. As such I said ILCs are there to address that last 1% of performance.

Anyone can ignore what I said if it does not fit their lifestyle. I am but providing a different point of view.

Would I use a smartphone attached to a spotting scope to take bird photos?

I would rather stay in bed until noon than to do such a silly thing.

I've seen how people do it. I've seen their output.

And people are very kind to them. It isn't photos worth stealing.

But if the use of the camera is take photos of a child's play set... then do you really need a £1k camera?

Should @Cordy be encouraged to buy a 200mm f/2.0 VR lens to mount his D90 to get DoF?

He was making a comparison between his Nikon vs his Samsung.

Indeed this a enthusiast photo forum but it does not preclude specific cameras because of their sensor size.

If I was married for 17 years and have a 16, 12, 8, 4 or 0yo. I'd probably have bought a Fuji medium format system as early as 2017. As they're worth the expense.

Exactly as predicted then eh?

 

[Deleted member 68495]

That's what Airplane mode & Silence features come into play.

If only they used that feature at snooker matches and theatres.

 

[dolina]

Exactly as predicted then eh?

If you don't take this seriously then I cannot help.

It is like having a conversation with mainframe advocate when I point out that the microprocessor does 99% of everything at a fraction of the size, weight, money and inconvenience.

Hence my statement of the last 1% of performance.

 

[Baloo]

It's idle asset. Is it worth to replace it?

Nope.

Why put artificial limits on any device? Smartphones have other functionalities. That is why they sell that well.

A computer is a better computer than a phone.
A map is a better map than a phone.
A torch is a better torch than a phone.
A camera is a better camera than a phone.
A Phone is only best at being a phone and it is only good for that when you have signal!

Digital cameras just does stills & video.

That's right they just take photographs better than a phone.

So why replace the D90?

I must of missed the bit where he said he was looking to replace the D90. He asked if the D90 is outdated which it is, but it is by no means obsolete it still takes excellent pictures, my 1992 Triumph is outdated yet I can still do 500 miles in a day on it!

That's what Airplane mode & Silence features come into play.

Or leaving it at home and taking a map and a torch and a camera with you.

 

[dolina]

A computer is a better computer than a phone.
A map is a better map that a phone.
A torch is a better torch than a phone.
A camera is a better camera than a phone.
A Phone is only best at being a phone and it is only good for that when you have signal!

That's right they just take photographs better than a phone.

I must of missed the bit where he said he was looking to replace the D90. He asked if the D90 is outdated which it is, but it is by no means obsolete, my 1992 Triumph is outdated yet I can still do 500 miles in a day on it!

Or leaving it at home and taking a map and a torch with you!

I guess for 1% of user it is true. ;-)

 

[Phil V]

If you don't take this seriously then I cannot help.

It is like having a conversation with mainframe advocate when I point out that the microprocessor does 99% of everything at a fraction of the size, weight, money and inconvenience.

But you’re doing it on a forum that is designed to cater precisely to the 1% (except it’s more than 1% but the analogy holds)

There’s nothing wrong with phone cameras as a replacement for consumer P&S etc but pretending they’re something else in a place that is literally populated for the people who need ‘something else’ is borderline insane.

 

[Cordy]

Yes, I prefer the Nikon D90 to my Samsung A04s although it is great; I just use the mobile for phone/texts occasional photos, plus the alarm is quite good. My mobile is not connected to the internet
I have used the D90 regularly over the years, my previous camera was a Cannon Powershot G3 4.0 mega pixels - don't remember which year but cost me a whopping £750
D90 is now used casually for photographs of family, grand kids etc plus things that I have made; mostly from wood, not forgetting occasional holidays.
The Nikon Z5 quite took my fancy but I have got used to the top window thing on D90 so am tempted to buy the Nikon Z6ii with kit lens, although I do like a 50 mm prime, It would be a birthday present to me from me, I will be 80 on 5th March. I believe Panamoz are a reliable postal supplier

 

[Phil V]

@dolina you might have missed the title at the top of the page.
This is a forum for photographers, it is designed for an audience of photographers.
My kids, most of my workmates, my sisters etc are the 90+% of people who don’t need to buy a camera; their phones are ‘good enough’.
But they’re also not members here, because surprisingly they don’t consider ‘photography’ to be of interest to them.

Now you’ve had your day here, can I suggest you…
Head over to petrolheads and tell them a 2010 Kia Ceed will give them 99% of what they’ll get from a super car.
Then try AVForums and tell them that their phone and cheap headphones will give them 99% of what they’ll get from their £5k turntable. And they really don’t need a big telly, they can watch tv on their phone.
Fishing forum and tell em a net from the seaside shop will catch them something interesting.

 

[dolina]

@Phil V your replies were leaning on being absolutist even when I provided workarounds.

I was under the impression that this forum did not discriminate on camera size or form factor.

So I provided a neutral view point that addresses OP's post.

Others showed photos that was too compressed. So I pointed out that changing the image-recording quality to RAW or least aggressively compressed JPEG may help. Odds are image quality will improve when magnified by ~100%. That is something I learned using a dSLR over 2 decades ago. A feature I looked for on smartphone.

The thing with cars is that they have not been disrupted as badly as the digital camera market. Sure EVs and hybrids are there but it isn't ubiquitous and isolated to people who can afford it.

Smartphones can be had for as little as £41 in poor countries so digital cameras are now the EV or hybrids. Hence the products introduced in the last dozen years being focused on image quality and specializations.

 

[Phil V]

@Phil V your replies were leaning on being absolutist even when I provided workarounds.

I was under the impression that this forum did not discriminate on camera size or form factor.

So I provided a neutral view point that addresses OP's post.

Others showed photos that was too compressed. So I pointed out that changing the image-recording quality to RAW or least aggressively compressed JPEG may help. Odds are image quality will improve when magnified by ~100%. That is something I learned using a dSLR over 2 decades ago. A feature I looked for on smartphone.

The thing with cars is that they have not been disrupted as badly as the digital camera market. Sure EVs and hybrids are there but it isn't ubiquitous and isolated to people who can afford it.

Smartphones can be had for as little as £41 in poor countries so digital cameras are now the EV or hybrids. Hence the products introduced in the last dozen years being focused on image quality and specializations.

Again… some very valid points about ‘the cameras of the masses’ that have 0 to do with the requirements of actual photographers.

I don’t understand what it is you don’t understand? Have you ever considered yourself a ‘photographer’?

I use my phone for >50% of all pictures I take. But less than 5% of all the images I want to keep. It’s awesome (within its massive limitations).

 

[Ed Sutton]

Fishing forum and tell em a net from the seaside shop will catch them something interesting.

Coincidentally I have been thinking about the camera v phone thing from a fishing perspective based on my 30 plus year involvement with fishing magazines.

In the film era reader submissions often included photos (prints) that were unusable. Only reasonably clued up anglers knew how to get decent results from their cameras. Most probably used cheap point and shoots. Films went to Boots, Max Spielmann etc.. When digital came along, perhaps surprisingly, the usability improved.

3mp and upwards bridge cameras and up-market compacts like the Canon G series were turning out jpegs that were much more easily corrected than prints from Truprint or similar. I ditched my film cameras for bridge cameras around 2003, not getting a DSLR until 2010 (by which time my magazine contributing days were pretty much over). I did use some pics for an ad series and for the craic I mixed them up between 12mp compact and full frame DSLR. Hard to tell the difference in a magazine at A4!

Since phones have had cameras in them the pendulum has swung back again. Everyone takes their phone fishing, the pics look just as good on a phone screen as on the back of a camera to the non-photographer. When run in print (which club magazines will do) they look bloody awful. As well as gross pixelation when printed at A4 in a magazine, camera shake is back with a vengeance (you don't notice it on the phone). I also get sent trophy shots by my customers, almost all taken with phones, and quite frankly they are usually pants. Too slow a shutter speed when the light drops is the most common fault.

Just my observations.

 

[Brazo]

I love the old automotive saying ‘there ain’t no replacement for displacement’ meaning you can’t beat size of engine. Originally there to suggest that a 1L turbo engine couldn’t beat a 2L engine because you can always strap a turbo to the 2L engine. No more car analogy’s I promise!

Same applies to cameras and small sensors. A phone camera is only ‘good’ because of computational photography. A proper camera may have a sensor some 80 x the size of the phone sensor, imagine if you applied the same computational photography to the larger sensor