Reading mode: Light Dark

How good are modern smartphones cameras compared to m43?

Go to last post
ok, but check this:

I can instantly share my photo on a device made not primarily for taking photos.

Thread closed, can't wait to see this pop up again with the same exact points :-P
 
I use a proper camera because I am an artist. People who use smartphones are snapshotters . That's how it is and always will be.
 
FoPar said:
I use a proper camera because I am an artist. People who use smartphones are snapshotters . That's how it is and always will be.
Click to expand...
I prefer dedicated cameras to smartphones, but calling all who use smartphones "snapshotters" is wrong. Art can be made with a smartphone as well, no matter its limitations.
 
Serguei Palto said:
Why I compare? Because I like optics and I was impressed by this particular lens performance in comparison with Pro Oly lens. So I just decided to share my impressions....

Optics is Optics independently on camera or system you prefer. Also, our knowledge came from comparisons…There is nothing wrong in comparison of different systems.
Click to expand...
This is problematic.

1. A scientist is concerned with optics, a photographer with shooting images - a process takes in many more factors.

2. Photography is not a simple matter of what one prefers. That's a philosophy of consumerism, which emphasises the whims and fancies of the (largely) uninformed buyer. While photography is characterised by a degree of consumer choice, it is also an extant technology for image making - a dedicated technology that has evolved in form and function from the earliest cameras. Evolution is a process of change and continuity: clearly there are advantages to changing technologies, but continuities in the shape and function of the camera remain.
 
Skropi said:
Serguei Palto said:
Skropi said:
Serguei Palto said:
Tom Axford said:
Serguei Palto said:
...

In both cases I have processed raw files with no lens corrections applied,
Click to expand...
That is a very perverse choice! Not a single one of my thousands of MFT images is uncorrected and I dare say I am not alone in that.

It would be a whole lot more useful to see a comparison of the corrected images.
Click to expand...
Are the images bad? If you think they are bad then, please, show your examples at close settings and conditions to know what is good :)

Have in mind that the images have been taken against the sun light, which makes, for example, the chromatic aberrations more pronounced, which is very important in testing.

Also it is not always usefull to compare corrected or AI-processed images. I want to remind that this is a technical forum, and what is indeed useful that is to know true optical performance.
Click to expand...
Yes, the image from the phone is considerably worse.
Click to expand...
Please, prove this.
Click to expand...
Prove what? Can you "prove" how blue the sky is?
Click to expand...
Yes, I can. Do you know why the sky is blue? I know why (just info for you). Everything can be expressed in numbers (just, for example: 2*2=4 not 5), and digital photography is about the numbers (do you know this?). Now humans discovered properties of many physical laws that rule this World. If you want to prove something, let us talk in numbers space.
Skropi said:
The phone photo you posted is washed out, it doesnt have a decent dynamic range
Click to expand...
Prove this!

The reality is just opposite. I have shown an example with a huge dynamic range (the image is taken against the sun; do you understand what it means?), where the shadows are very deep and bright areas are indeed extremely bright. Nevertheless, even at these conditions the shadows in smartphone image can be raised (and I did this), while no overexposed parts are in the image.
Skropi said:
compared to the camera pic, but if you cant see it, there is nothing I can do about it. By the way, do a poll and see which picture people prefer, and you will have your answer. The phone optics are worse, but if you prefer them then by all means use a phone as a camera.
Click to expand...
What education you have, in order to judge on the Optics. Please share! All you diplomas will be taken into account :)
 
traveler_101 said:
Serguei Palto said:
Why I compare? Because I like optics and I was impressed by this particular lens performance in comparison with Pro Oly lens. So I just decided to share my impressions....

Optics is Optics independently on camera or system you prefer. Also, our knowledge came from comparisons…There is nothing wrong in comparison of different systems.
Click to expand...
This is problematic.

1. A scientist is concerned with optics, a photographer with shooting images - a process takes in many more factors.
Click to expand...
Yes, "...a process takes in many more factors", especially when you just press a button:)
traveler_101 said:
2. Photography is not a simple matter of what one prefers. That's a philosophy of consumerism, which emphasises the whims and fancies of the (largely) uninformed buyer.
Click to expand...
:) Oh!... Yes!
traveler_101 said:
While photography is characterised by a degree of consumer choice, it is also an extant technology for image making - a dedicated technology that has evolved in form and function from the earliest cameras.
Click to expand...
It is something new for me:): "photography is characterized by a degree of consumer choice" !!! Unfortunately, I am too stupid to understand this.
traveler_101 said:
Evolution is a process of change and continuity: clearly there are advantages to changing technologies, but continuities in the shape and function of the camera remain.
Click to expand...
I am agree only in that the "Evolution is a process...". And, of course, "the shape and function of the camera", are crucial for continuaties of the Evolution....:)
 
Serguei Palto said:
Tom Axford said:
Serguei Palto said:
...

In both cases I have processed raw files with no lens corrections applied,
Click to expand...
That is a very perverse choice! Not a single one of my thousands of MFT images is uncorrected and I dare say I am not alone in that.

It would be a whole lot more useful to see a comparison of the corrected images.
Click to expand...
Are the images bad? If you think they are bad then, please, show your examples at close settings and conditions to know what is good :)

Have in mind that the images have been taken against the sun light, which makes, for example, the chromatic aberrations more pronounced, which is very important in testing.

Also it is not always usefull to compare corrected or AI-processed images. I want to remind that this is a technical forum, and what is indeed useful that is to know true optical performance.
Click to expand...
It's also important to know what you're arguing about, lens correction profiles involve no AI processing and phones do plenty of their own processing behind the scenes... :)
 
Paige Turner said:
Serguei Palto said:
Sranang Boi said:
The dynamic range of the phone image is crushed. The darker parts have been made less dark. The 3D depth is also flat.
Click to expand...
Just opposite. Please look at the dark areas. They are brighter in smartphone images because I have raised shadows a bit more in case of the smartphone.

The ADC in both cases has 12 bits, and the noise is at the level of the first (lowest) bit in the both cases.

Please show your example to know what is "unflat" ...
Click to expand...
Sounds like your phone would be better than a Nikon D850 in your eyes. You should keep you phone with you at all times.
Click to expand...
Everybody hears what he wants. Never have used Nikon D850, so, sorry, I have nothing to say.

This is a new smartphone (gift from my son), this phone is not used yet. I prefer the older phone, which has no such a good camera, but it is still OK for that it was made :)
 
Serguei Palto said:
john Clinch said:
Does your smart phone really slow unconnected RAW?
Click to expand...
Yes. I use my own raw-processing software (developed by myself), and, of course, I am convinced that in the both cases no lens corrections are applied.
Click to expand...
So are you gonna share that source code or the phone RAWs or should we just trust you and take your word for how the phone files were processed? Just wondering given the adversarial tone and the challenges to others...
 
RedDog Steve said:
The lack of a shutter button and EVF are, for me, significant drawbacks for the phone. The rest of the dedicated buttons and controls that a "real camera" usually has are noticeable benefits.

In the posted examples, I can't help but see the significant shadow lifting and exposure compression. A better comparison would images with closer shadow and highlight curves.
Click to expand...
I have posted raw-processed images with no lens corrections and no after-demosaicing sharpening. Yes, the shadows of the smartphone image are raised a bit more than the shadows in G9 image. However, the last is in favor of the smartphone, because we deal with the scene of extremely high dynamic range. The raised shadows prove the high dynamic range of the data captured by the smartphone.
 
Serguei Palto said:
Tom Axford said:
Your reply is unnecessarily unpleasant and condescending.

Please abide by Rule 1 in the Community Guidelines .
Click to expand...
Please, prove! Where and what was "unpleasant". I am ready to say "Sorry!".
Click to expand...
Just about everything mate, I really hope something is getting lost in translation because otherwise you'd have to be trolling or oblivious to the point of silly not to realize how you're rubbing people here.
 
Guy Parsons said:
Yes, 'phones can deliver pleasing and easy to use results, but and a big but, they are bloody horrible to use.

Like yesterday my wife offered to take a tourist couple's photo together with some big Sydney Vivid Festival illuminated logo. They handed over their 'phone and she took their shot but in doing so nearly dropped it because of the slippery thin nature of the thing, the response was "never mind, we are always dropping it" witnessed by the hopelessly cracked cover glass.

I like nice photo results no matter how they are taken, but I like a proper camera to hold with its usual features and knobs and buttons. My 'phone stays off and at home these days once the compulsory QR code logins to shops and eating places ceased here. It's simply too awful a device to carry and use.
Click to expand...
It is a good thought I share....
 
Serguei Palto said:
EspE1 said:
Interesting to note that the CEO of Sony Semiconductors (part of a corporation that manufactures both cameras and cell phones) asserts smartphone cameras will be superior to slrs by 2024

https://petapixel.com/2022/05/31/smartphone-cameras-will-be-superior-to-slrs-by-2024-says-sony-ceo/
Click to expand...
Smartphones came to our life, and it is the fact. I do not share the mind that "smartphone cameras will be superior to slrs by 2024".
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't care. Smartphones could make better photos than dedicated cameras, I still wouldn't use a smartphone for fun photography. Why? Because they're horrible, clunky, cramped & uncomfortable things to use, with no real manual controls, no EVF, & no real options for changing lenses. If all you want to do is point a slippery bar of soap at your subject, and get a nice, automated picture to share with friends, go for your life. I'm not here to tell you you're wrong, it's just not for me. For the same reason I drive a manual transmission car & motorcycle, no ABS, stability control, traction control etc etc etc. It's all about the involvement
 
Last edited:
The blown highlights in the smartphone shot are a distraction, I don't see any DR advantage, feel free to disagree and wave your hands in the air while pompously explaining basic algebra and asking what you think are rhetorical questions. :) :) :)

I shoot with my phone as much as my M4/3 & FF gear, but the phone output is nothing special without it's algorithms and stacking/tiling processing.
 
Last edited:
alcelc said:
1) Shoot under base ISO (good enough lighting condition) that even my 2001 LC5 can do comparable output to later models. As said by other members, when the shooting condition is getting difficult the difference will show up.
Click to expand...
It is a good recommendation for all systems.
alcelc said:
2) Phone is still lacking of the lens option, is also lacking the ergonomic for the level of control (convenience) a proper camera can.
Click to expand...
It is true, but my post was not about the smartphones. I gave an info on how good are small lenses used currently in the smartphones.
alcelc said:
3) Why compare the output with a not popular software? If the edited version of the G9 output is far from good / normal (IMHO it is far from my expectation, CA, sharpness, contrast down to resolution... unless it is a OOF shot, G9 & 12-100 should do far better than that). We should eliminate RAW conversion problem for a fair comparison.
Click to expand...
It is my software in which I am convinced - it does the correct job. I have more than 40 years experience in Science, and it is your choice to believe me or not. In the discussed case case the software made an accurate job, which is the same in the both cases.

No sharpness, no lens corrections in the both cases - all this is to enable you see what is called TRUE. This is the basis of a scientific approach.
alcelc said:
If you wish to start a thread on "Phone is good as Camera" (already too many and usually never end up well), I shall compare their SOOC JPG (to show the computational AI vs that of camera), then RAW converted outputs using compatible converter which is more familiar with members (we will know how it will perform) at the default setting for a fair comparison.
Click to expand...
OOC JPGs is a big job of different companies. Are you sure you want to compare the job of Hasselblad with a job of the Pana Team?

Are you sure that you know details on popular RAW converted outputs?
alcelc said:
Phone photography has advanced a lot. It is good to see threads about my phone can do better now. Or I am happy with my phone output... Why we must have to compare a phone vs a camera? Whenever comparison is involved, we should examine them closely and ... ? :-(

My 2 cents.
Click to expand...
I take your 2 cents virtually. Thank you. I have to repeat, my post was not about smartphones. It was about the quality of small lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Reflections on the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 II Release and a Call for OM System Innovation
4 5 6
Replies
115
Views
66K
CBR1100XX
C
S
Why do I prefer zoom lenses over primes on M43?
2
Replies
27
Views
41K
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
Tatouzou
  • User review User review
The affordable ultimate still M43 camera
Replies
4
Views
7K
John Bean (UK)
J
bluevellet
  • User review User review
Soft Spot For The 17mm f/1.8
Replies
15
Views
68K
baxters
B
MJ_Photo38
Which premium standard zoom to get?
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
255K
Kevin Stephens
K

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top