Wow...modern phones are amazing.......

Sootchucker

Sootchucker

Messages
2,824
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
No
Just got back from a weeks holiday in the beautiful city of Florence Italy. I went with my Sony A6700 and a selection of lenses as well as my Osmo Pocket 3. I got some great shots with the Sony, but to be honest, it became a pain to drag the bag around with me as it was so hot and crowded, so from day 3 onwards, I pretty much switched to my iPhone 16 Pro for almost everything.

It was extremely liberating to walk about with just a phone in my pocket rather than a small back pack, but to be honest I wasn't expecting too much from the phone (especially in low light or at night). Imagine my utter surprise then when I got the DNG files into Lightroom when I arrived home, and looked at the images. With the lightest of adjustments and a little denoise and sharpening (in Topaz Photo AI), I was to be honest totally amazed with the quality (certainly for posting on line etc). In my hand, I had a camera with 3 lenses - 13mm ultrawide, 24mm (with 28mm & 35mm options) from the standard lens and 120mm from the telephoto lens - (all optical not digital), shoot RAW and can produce 48mp images (at least from the super wide and standard lenses). Anyone else impressed with the standards on modern smart phones - I certainly think I have been guilty of big sensor snobbery and previously chuckled when I saw people snapping images with their smartphone - but then here I am now doing the same ! Yes I know they don't technically produce images of the same quality as that of say a FF or APS-C sensor camera and a good lens, and there are the inherent challenges in DOF, but for typical travel shots, I think it did just fine ?

I think I've totally underestimated them? - Some samples below:











 
Last edited:
Yup, 'computational photography' has come on leaps & bounds in the past few years.

Lovely set of images and TFS :)
 
I wish Samsung would improve the cameras on their phones.

My A56 is great for close ups and general views like your excellent examples but for long distance ????? No. They look like they've been taken through a bowl of porridge.
 
Totally agree. I used my 16 Pro a lot more on holiday. If I know I want a 'proper pic', one that I may frame I will use camera, or if it's a challenging sunset etc.... but the iPhone is excellent
 
ajophotog said:
Maybe but it might be that I have a good phone camera :LOL:
Click to expand...

After some thought I'm sorry I posted this and I'm sorry if any offense was caused.

I do get a bit phased when people praise smartphone pictures as my experience has been mixed. I'm often impressed with pictures I see on smartphone screens and even on tablet screens too and that's not surprising as I assume the pictures are tweaked and optimised to look good on the device they're taken with but to date I've never had a smartphone or tablet picture on my pc and been equally impressed. In fact I've found them to be without exception disappointing when I look at them on larger screens or more closely on their own device screen.

Good luck to those who are happy with smartphone pictures. I'm not so happy as lovely though pictures may look on smartphone screens when viewed as whole pictures I often want the picture on my pc where it never looks so good. To me any camera from 1" sensor and larger should be able to enable us to take pictures way beyond what a smartphone or tablet is capable of.
 
Last edited:
Totally agree that bigger sensor cameras in the right hands are capable of better results than any smartphone, and certainly for sport or birding (where longer focal lengths are standard), but as the saying goes, “the best camera is the one you have with you” and almost everyone carries a smartphone these days.

To be fair though, I’ve looked at some of these on my 27” 5k Mac Studio display and they still look pretty awesome, (not just on a small phone screen or tablet)
 
Have two 24”x36” pictures on the wall at home taken using an iPhone 15. Both really good quality, much better than I expected.
 
Sootchucker said:
I think I've totally underestimated them?
Click to expand...
I don't think so.
There's no way you're getting anywhere near the stated resolution (i.e. 48MP)... the recorded resolution (actual detail) is quite low. And some of the artifacts in the night scenes are rather surprising... not so surprising that the phone does that; but I wasn't expecting it given your enthusiasm.

Untitled-1.jpg
 
So photography is all about best camera and megapixels, arrrrr that’s where I’m going wrong, forgive me :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

Joking aside some of my favourite photos have been taken on my phone cameras.
 
Last edited:
ajophotog said:
So photography is all about best camera and megapixels, arrrrr that’s where I’m going wrong, forgive me :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

Joking aside some of my favourite photos have been taken on my phone cameras.
Click to expand...

I think if we accept that phones have a small sensor and lens with possibly quite a bit of processing going on and that the pictures are probably optimised to look their best on the device the results we get are maybe broadly in line with what we should expect. This goes for cameras too. I have a cheap Medion compact and it is frankly technically very limiting but the pictures don't always look awful on its back screen. TBH I don't like using phones for photography. There's zero ergonomics, you can't see detail in anything like good light and I don't like jabbing at an oblong box 18" in front of my face but I will use a phone to take a picture if I don't have anything else and I do think that a modern phone gives better image quality than some old compacts like my Medion. Apart from just about always being with is phones do have another advantage, you can take a picture and send it to someone or post it on social media very easily and you can't do that with most cameras.

A picture taken with a cheap smartphone. My car waiting to see the car doctor. Processed for effect on my pc.

1-20221018_095623-M.jpg

A couple of pictures taken with my very cheap and humble Medion compact, stitched and processed for best effect on my pc. I do have two pictures taken with that camera printed to fill A4's framed and on the wall and I could certainly do the same with a smartphone picture but in both instances I have to accept that for closer viewing the quality just isn't up to what I'd get from a 1" and upwards camera.

Whitby Pan.jpeg

I have mixed views on what photography is all about. I started with a Kodak Instamatic and that was quite limiting, it limited what I could take pictures off and expect anything like a decent picture of and it limited the technical quality I could expect too. These days the kit is much better and easily good enough for many of us but even now some people will be pushing the envelope of what's possible.
 
Last edited:
Florence is a beautiful city and your photographs do it credit. I have hardly used my Canon 6D since getting an iPhone 15 plus.
 
sk66 said:
I don't think so.
There's no way you're getting anywhere near the stated resolution (i.e. 48MP)... the recorded resolution (actual detail) is quite low. And some of the artifacts in the night scenes are rather surprising... not so surprising that the phone does that; but I wasn't expecting it given your enthusiasm.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same looking at the fourth night image with the vertical shot of the tower the detail looks badly smudged by I assume excessive noise reduction and if you look at the base of the tower the textures almost look cartoonish. I was actually wondering if these were LLM generated images as a test because they're similar in that they look ok at a glance but the closer you look, the weirder they get especially looking at any of the people in the images.

It's no snobbery towards phone images especially since I particularly like to see people who won't use normal cameras any more taking lots of pictures and they're decent photos. I do use my phone camera a lot but I'm finding it frustrating the increasing amount of over processing they seem to do and concerned by Google's new LLM feature where it will use genAI to generate a new texture or part of the image to replace lower detail sections. I do understand not wanting to carry gear about though so I've become quite keen on an RX100mk7, it's small enough to fit in a pocket and while its 1in sensor is a noticeable step down from the big sensors but it still gives something to work with and the images can clean up nicely. Plus having the 200mm on a 1in sensor (phone cameras tend to use smaller sensors for the telephoto options) in my pocket is surprisingly handy.
 
These look fine full screen on a phone.
But the amount of AI nonsense going on if you zoom in is a different story.

If you open the full-size IMG_4535 and zoom into the people on the rhs you’ll see that either, you’ve captured the most unfortunate looking group of people in Florence, or the iPhone couldn’t work out they were actually people.
 
Last edited:
To be fair (not that I need to justify the images as I'm pleased with them), the night images were shot handheld with night time mode activated (at a 1 second exposure) and totally handheld (rather than on a mini tripod), so there was bound to be camera shake and people movement that was processed out (as I believe the iPhone take multiple shots very quickly and averages them out ?). So yes, I'm sure there's a lot of AI and digital processing going on - no surprise there. Also to be honest my Sony A6700 on a 1 second exposure totally handheld (a proper 1 second exposure), wouldn't have faired much better and would have been quite a bit blurrier (in fact a total mess) - I know I tried it).

In the end though if the quality is good enough for the intended purpose, then the freedom of having just a phone in the pocket rather than a heavy backpack is sometimes worth more than carrying a heavy backpack, and like I say for holiday snaps are certainly good enough for me - others are free to disagree of course.
 
Last edited:
Sootchucker said:
In the end though if the quality is good enough for the intended purpose, then the freedom of having just a phone in the pocket rather than a heavy backpack is sometimes worth more than carrying a heavy backpack, and like I say for holiday snaps are certainly good enough for me - others are free to disagree of course.
Click to expand...
Certainly. There's a fair few times I'll use the phone camera for a snap. And there's plenty of times where I'll use a 2/3 or 1" sensor camera instead of one of my FF cameras. But I still don't think you have underestimated the cellphone camera...
 
My Samsung S24 Ultra has 4 lens and I must say the results are very impressive indeed. In default mode the pictures are very good, however I have started using pro mode for low light with action ie Music Gigs

The slow mo video is very impressive and though I believe a lot of software is processing the data to produce a good image. I am sure the camera manufactures could learn a thing or two from smart phones. I would like a better, and bigger rear screen on a camera, or even blue tooth the live feed to a smart in a much straight forward process. The default camera manufactures software is terrible to use,....yes Sony your app is a performance to use !
 
Modern phones are amazing without so many Ai fills and inventions.
The Ai interpretations are worse than a little noise or softness.
However Ai does well with repeated patterns, but is is difficult to know if any of the detail is real, artifact or just pure make believe.
 
For most people, most of the time a modern mobile phone is adequate for their needs as the picture will never be viewed on anything bigger than said mobile phone or tablet.
For enthusiast photographers who are prone to zooming in, printing large, cropping and who are generally more sensitive to technical issues such as tones, detail etc, then they may or may not be suitable in all instances (and especially not for specialised use cases like sport, etc).
Personally I love using them for snapshots and for experimentation. Probably 30-50% of my holiday snaps over the past 3 or 4 years have been taken on my iPhone 14 and the prints in my annual blurb book are to all intents and purposes indistinguishable from my RX100 or Z7.
Would I use an iPhone for my project photography that may end up in books or printed at A2 for an exhibition? Nope.
 
sk66 said:
I don't think so.
There's no way you're getting anywhere near the stated resolution (i.e. 48MP)... the recorded resolution (actual detail) is quite low. And some of the artifacts in the night scenes are rather surprising... not so surprising that the phone does that; but I wasn't expecting it given your enthusiasm.

View attachment 462623
Click to expand...
That's pretty gruesome!!
I thought that was Daniella Westbrook sitting there :thinking: :thinking:
 
Phil V said:
These look fine full screen on a phone.
But the amount of AI nonsense going on if you zoom in is a different story.

If you open the full-size IMG_4535 and zoom into the people on the rhs you’ll see that either, you’ve captured the most unfortunate looking group of people in Florence, or the iPhone couldn’t work out they were actually people.
Click to expand...
It was the annual get-together for victims of a non-qualified plastic surgeon.
 
Raincloud said:
Photography is not just about having the best camera with all the best gadgets. Its about having fun. Capturing great shots etc....pixel snobbery is only for those with a chip on their should when it comes to what device someone uses to capture memories etc.
Click to expand...
There's something of the false dichotomy there. Photography is about a lot of things - and for me fun is essential, no matter if I am fighting the light for a couple of hours with a large format camera or spraying and praying with my 'phone.

The "snobbery" thing is a red herring.

As for pixels, I predominantly use MF for my photography. I'd guess that maybe 2/3rds of my work is a blur.
 
Last edited:
strumstrum said:
I have an iPhone 16 Pro Max with Dazz Cam Pro app and what it offers is like voodoo both photo and video.
Click to expand...
But I don't want "voodoo" when I take a photo. I want the result to be almost exactly what I intend that it be.

If you look at the photos in the OP, just look at the top storey in the fourth image. You don't need a loupe to see that it looks like soup.

There are areas in the image which don't simply look like the confection produced by computation, but also look as if the algoritms gave up halfway through. They're not restricted to the top; they are also present at the base of the tower. The images aren't real. Yes, they were taken in all good faith, but they're pushing the boundaries of being an approximation. A good approximation, and a technical marvel, but don't fall for the illusion that the technology is the end result.

My sister works in the video editing sector and she frequently sends me photos taken on her smartphone. OK, she has the "eye", and she works really well with light. Some of her photos are remarkable, and that's because she knows the limits of what the thing is capable of and operates within those.

I'm very much a hybrid photographer, operating minly with film, and transitioning (very slowly) to digital. There are things which I find much easier to capture on digital, such as heavy foliage (particularly in even the slightest breeze). Low light is also an issue, of course, and even the fastest lenses have to heavily market that aspect of performance, which has always been the case. Interpolation (or guessing) is not a solution. It is no more than replicating the job of those who hand-painted glass negatives all those years ago.

We should be very highly critical of technology, recognising its faults and demanding solutions. Lauding it only allows the weaknesses to become standardised and accepted.

I'm very concsious, also, of the reason that the OPer used the phone. This is where technology really shines, of course. To have the facility to take snaps on the run with something we carry routinely is an utterly amazing leap. I'm aware, as well, that these are holiday snaps. The only arbitrer here is in fact the person who wanted them as a memory. They ampl fill that roll, and in al honesty, I'd love to able sometimes to travel as lightly as they did. The photos are fit for purpose, absolutely.

It's just that to offer them as evidence of the quality of smartphones is not great. Comparison with photographic equipment is not really relevant.

ETA: The thread title still has truth, though. The technology is amazing. It's just not there yet, and is going in the wrong direction too.
 
Last edited:
wow... this thread has really developed into something I never thought it would, with with some polar opposite views to smartphone photography :D
 
Sootchucker said:
wow... this thread has really developed into something I never thought it would, with with some polar opposite views to smartphone photography :D
Click to expand...
Both opposites are present in my own thoughts!

I really hope that you don't take my posts as critical of you.
 
Last edited:
Personally I think these pictures are amazing, especially when you consider some where taken handheld using a one second exposure. Yes, there are a few anomalies in some of the images, but would any of the naysayers have faired any better using a “proper” camera handheld with a one second exposure.
 
I've never used my mobile phone to take images apart from the odd shot for info purposes .......... but now seeing what the latest iphone Pro and Pro Max can produce I intend to upgrade as soon as the dust has settled on the new iPhone 17. For certain situations, and certain types of images the iphone produces very good results and as I carry my mobile with me most of the time why not have one that produces good images, albeit with the help of more and more Ai.

With the rapid growth of Ai I now never take the images I see on-line at face value
 
Raincloud said:
Probably a massive % of people do not pixel peep.
Click to expand...
I agree.

My guess that the percentage is in the region of 99.9999% but I'm open to evidence that my guess is wrong. That said, I prefer traditional cameras to my phone but whatever is in your hand, when the subject is in front of you, is the best recording device in the world.
 
Eucris said:
Personally I think these pictures are amazing, especially when you consider some where taken handheld using a one second exposure. Yes, there are a few anomalies in some of the images, but would any of the naysayers have faired any better using a “proper” camera handheld with a one second exposure.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have taken them in that way. I would use a subject for detailed focus, and let the background take care of itself. If I decide that I need to photograph the building I do so when the light is adequate.
 
NiallerM said:
Both opposites are present in my own thoughts!

I really hope that you don't take my posts as critical of you.
Click to expand...
Not at all, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I had to laugh myself when I looked at the blown up part of the image with the people sitting at the table, as yes, they looked like members of the "plastic surgery's gone wrong anonymous" club :ROFLMAO:

To be fair though they are so small in the frame that I don't think it distracts too much. I once took a similar photo with my Olympus micro fours thirds camera, with it's amazing IBIS. I was able to capture a 2 second exposure handheld and it was super sharp - however when I zoomed in, because people had moved their faces during the exposure, one head had 2 faces and 3 eyes - was quite spooky :)
 
Sootchucker said:
Not at all, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I had to laugh myself when I looked at the blown up part of the image with the people sitting at the table, as yes, they looked like members of the "plastic surgery's gone wrong anonymous" club :ROFLMAO:

To be fair though they are so small in the frame that I don't think it distracts too much. I once took a similar photo with my Olympus micro fours thirds camera, with it's amazing IBIS. I was able to capture a 2 second exposure handheld and it was super sharp - however when I zoomed in, because people had moved their faces during the exposure, one head had 2 faces and 3 eyes - was quite spooky :)
Click to expand...
Yup. Under the conditions that it will likely be viewed, none of those issues are, well, issues!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top