I was told I would get a nasty suprise...

[Richard]

I was told by someone on this site that people who use phones to take pictures are in for a nasty surprise. That you can't print big and the IQ makes it not worth taking the picture. I took the below pictures this morning because I did not have my DSLR. But the nasty surprise was the person on this site was wrong. It was worth taking the picture and when I printed it at 8.5x11, it printed very well. I was trying to get a picture of the bird on the lamp post, and at this size you cant see it but if you look at the full size you can see it, what a pleasant surprise.

My Note 3 has the smallest sensor of phones, it is 13mp which means the sensor pixels are too small to be useful and is terrible for just about everything, or so I am told. But I found that it does a good job. As sensors get bigger and lenses on phones get better, I can only believe the images will get better. And as they get better the ground phones cover between the phone camera and the DSLR will only increase.

 

[Cailean Gallimore]

I bought a Note 3 a couple of weeks ago, and the camera is much better than I expected. In the right conditions it does a good job.

 

[carl english]

Very pleasing image.

 

[Bill Robb]

Well, it's not like as if a pinhole camera couldn't have taken that shot.

 

[Red5TX]

Sorry, but that looks pretty bad at 100%. It's very pretty at normal viewing sizes, though!

 

[hotdog321]

Sweet!

 

[mgd43]

Phones can produce very nice photos when used within their limits.

 

[RhysM]

Yeah the photo is fine, for what it is.

However, I could paint that scene in as much detail on canvas with watercolour paint. Doesn't prove my painting is as good as a DSLR.

 

[ApertureAcolyte]

Seems e your troll attempt failed to launch Richard

 

[Ontario Gone]

Hey if you already have a phone, and you don't want to spend the extra cash to get a real camera, good for you. I wouldn't recommend anybody who wants a camera, to go and buy a phone INSTEAD of a real camera just for that purpose. With that being said, sure the shot looks good enough for a glance when viewed very small, but to anybody who has used a modern sensor an inch or bigger, this is pretty bad.

That bird you mention, at first i thought i had dirt on my monitor. Im happy if you are happy, but you must have very low standards to be happy with this




Pixel level, now i see the bird... The trees however are a bit harder to distinguish...

Not to sound all doom and gloom, but here is some useful info if you plan on staying with phones for photography. Most of today's phones have a 1/3" or smaller sensor, with the exception of some Nokia models a little under 1". Because of the properties of light, when you want a bigger sensor, it also means the lenses must get "longer", physically speaking. Crop factors are what we are talking about.

If you throw a 1" sensor in a phone, it will nearly tripple the actual FL of the lens over what is in todays average phone. In otherwords, if you want to keep that same 30mm look that your shots have, your phone is going to be much bigger on the lens end, similar to how the Nokia models are bigger. The bigger the sensor, or the bigger the FL wanted, the larger the camera will be.

For a 1/3.2" sensor and a 30mm equivalent lens, the FL is going to be about 3.8mm, which allows phones to be fairly thin. A MFT size sensor needs about 15mm for that same FOV. If you want a 40mm look, even bigger. Phones are "portable" and convenient, and this is what people claim is an advantage. When that advantage disappears, then what? We can only go so small per sensor size, cant beat physics.

 

[Richard]

Sorry, but that looks pretty bad at 100%. It's very pretty at normal viewing sizes, though!

Print it out at 8x10, it looks great. It will never match a 21mp FF camera or even a 21mp apsc, but it is more than good enough. 13mp on the smallest phone camera sensor is pretty good, the images will only get better (yes even at 100 percent pixel peeping) as sensors get bigger like what Nokia is doing.

 

[RhysM]

Sorry, but that looks pretty bad at 100%. It's very pretty at normal viewing sizes, though!

Print it out at 8x10, it looks great. It will never match a 21mp FF camera or even a 21mp apsc, but it is more than good enough. 13mp on the smallest phone camera sensor is pretty good, the images will only get better (yes even at 100 percent pixel peeping) as sensors get bigger like what Nokia is doing.

Stating the bleeding obvious on both counts. To even attempt to compare them is idiotic. It's like saying an air rifle isn't as deadly as a rocket launcher or even a machine gun. It's such an obvious statement it doesn't even warrant the energy to type it.

 

[Richard]

Hey if you already have a phone, and you don't want to spend the extra cash to get a real camera, good for you. I wouldn't recommend anybody who wants a camera, to go and buy a phone INSTEAD of a real camera just for that purpose

I wouldn't suggest this either, but I will say the phones are good enough, the Note 3 has the smallest sensor of camera phones and is 13mp. It will only get better as image sensors get larger and lenses get better.

. With that being said, sure the shot looks good enough for a glance when viewed very small, but to anybody who has used a modern sensor an inch or bigger, this is pretty bad.

Print it out on an 8x10 and ask someone who is not a pixel peeping DPR person how they like the pictures. They will like it.

That bird you mention, at first i thought i had dirt on my monitor. Im happy if you are happy, but you must have very low standards to be happy with this.

What I was saying is that someone said I would have a nasty surprise. This images is great when viewed at normal size or printed at 8x10. There is no nasty surprise.

I own a few DSLRs with top of the line lenses. This is good picture, thought it will never match my 2k dslr with a 2k lens.

This is one of my setups. I am pretty particular about the quality I get. Phones are right now better than acceptable and are getting even better.

Pixel level, now i see the bird... The trees however are a bit harder to distinguish...

That the sensor can even capture this detail is amazing to me because as we all know phones are not really cameras. But I disagree and the gap is narrowing. I will say most people don't need a dslr to captures images. As phones get better, even less people will see the advantage of a dslr (my other point is DSLRs need to start innovating and adding features for the money they are asking or they will start losing market share.

Not to sound all doom and gloom, but here is some useful info if you plan on staying with phones for photography.

I plan to use the phone in addition to my dslr.

Most of today's phones have a 1/3" or smaller sensor, with the exception of some Nokia models a little under 1". Because of the properties of light, when you want a bigger sensor, it also means the lenses must get "longer", physically speaking. Crop factors are what we are talking about.

I understand how this works. I am not saying a phone will ever take the place of a dslr if you shoot sports or birds, but it does well now and will only get better. Most people don't shoot sports or birds and if you want to explore photography, Galaxy S4 which is free with a 2 year contract which has matrix/spot/center exposure, manual exposure/iso/ auto focus and manual spot focus choice on screen does a very good job for most people.

If you throw a 1" sensor in a phone, it will nearly tripple the actual FL of the lens over what is in todays average phone. In otherwords, if you want to keep that same 30mm look that your shots have, your phone is going to be much bigger on the lens end, similar to how the Nokia models are bigger. The bigger the sensor, or the bigger the FL wanted, the larger the camera will be.

For a 1/3.2" sensor and a 30mm equivalent lens, the FL is going to be about 3.8mm, which allows phones to be fairly thin. A MFT size sensor needs about 15mm for that same FOV. If you want a 40mm look, even bigger. Phones are "portable" and convenient, and this is what people claim is an advantage. When that advantage disappears, then what? We can only go so small per sensor size, cant beat physics.

We have not hit physics limit yet. I am open minded enough to see how far we can go with a camera that is built into a phone which can replace a camera, gps, computer, watch, tv, ect..

 

[Richard]

Sorry, but that looks pretty bad at 100%. It's very pretty at normal viewing sizes, though!

Print it out at 8x10, it looks great. It will never match a 21mp FF camera or even a 21mp apsc, but it is more than good enough. 13mp on the smallest phone camera sensor is pretty good, the images will only get better (yes even at 100 percent pixel peeping) as sensors get bigger like what Nokia is doing.

Stating the bleeding obvious on both counts. To even attempt to compare them is idiotic. It's like saying an air rifle isn't as deadly as a rocket launcher or even a machine gun. It's such an obvious statement it doesn't even warrant the energy to type it.

Bad analogy. The phone is much closer to a dslr than a air rifle is to a rocket.

Printed at a 4x5 you would have a hard time telling the difference between a phone and a better camera or at least someone who is viewing images and is not a photographer.

 

[Richard]

Seems e your troll attempt failed to launch Richard

Of course it failed, I never attempted to make it a troll post. If I did, it would have been quite successful as a troll post

 

[Richard]

Yeah the photo is fine, for what it is.

However, I could paint that scene in as much detail on canvas with watercolour paint. Doesn't prove my painting is as good as a DSLR.

I never said it was as good as a dslr. What I said was that people taking pictures with a newer phone will not have any nasty surprises when they go to print at 8x10.

 

[Draek]

Yeah the photo is fine, for what it is.

However, I could paint that scene in as much detail on canvas with watercolour paint. Doesn't prove my painting is as good as a DSLR.

Nor is a dSLR as good as a MF kit but, point is, nobody cares.

I'd never use a phone as my main camera, or even as my main pocket camera simply because I despise its ergonomics, but the people on this forum really need to understand that if gear and so-called "IQ" mattered nearly as much as they pretend it does, they should be able to match HC-B's best work with one hand tied behind their backs.

 

[KCK14]

I have some good gear. I know what sharp IQ is. Many times, my phone is "good enough"

Could I have gotten a better IQ with my D90 or Oly EM-5 ? Sure. But what is important to me is the expression and spontaneity of my grand kids. Second one was just born, family was all there for a couple days, I had the Olympus and everyone else had their phones. My pictures are sharper, they will make bigger prints (that no one wants). The images that will be best remembered and shown in future years? They were taken with phones. Either due to access (delivery room) or the luck or eye to get a good expression. They are "Good Enough"

I then went on a birding photo trip. My equipment allowed me to take some decent pictures. I guess I'm better at birds than I am with babies.

I am not a better photographer because I can produce superior IQ.

 

[Ontario Gone]

However, I could paint that scene in as much detail on canvas with watercolour paint. Doesn't prove my painting is as good as a DSLR.

Nor is a dSLR as good as a MF kit but, point is, nobody cares.

No, the point is, some people do care, and they have every right to express it. I care, the difference between you and me is i am not claiming "everybody" cares. I am aware that not everybody has my standards, apparently some are not.

Why do i not have a MF camera? Because it costs too much. If i had the money, i would have a MF for non action, a FF for high iso work, and a small mirrorless for times when size is a factor. The only time i would use a phone is when i absolutely could not bring a camera, and that's not very often.

 

[pavi1]

Bad analogy. The phone is much closer to a dslr than a air rifle is to a rocket.

Dream world with no basis in reality. If you ego is so fragile you must even speak a word to defend your choice, it is your ego that needs work. Not public perception.