john isaacs
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 10,440
- Solutions
- 22
- Reaction score
- 9,912
So what? Most people don't take pictures for your artistic appreciation. They take them for their own personal enjoyment.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The real reason why smartphones are beating dedicated cameras....
- Thread starter Eyeris Productions
- Start date
I choose to use a dedicated camera to take my photos personally. Been using one far too long to change. But I can certainly see why many if not most choose a phone today especially when the camera mfg's continue to move away from any beginner and casual family user and concentrate on multi thousand dollar camera bodies and lenses. I personally believe that the average working person has no interest in the cameras the big mfgs are pushing these days. By and large they laugh at me and anyone else that packs a big ole ILC camera around. That's ok though, been doing it for 65+ years with no intention to stop yet. But I do also have a pretty decent cell phone in my pocket anywere or anytime, for the times this ole body does not feel up to carrying a few extra pounds around my neck, shoulder or belt.
This is the digital age, you can go with it or fuss about it. I'm having fun playing with it and can't afford film and prints anymore.
This is the digital age, you can go with it or fuss about it. I'm having fun playing with it and can't afford film and prints anymore.
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Its not that camera manufacturers are ignoring them. Its that they have no answer. Just on sheer scale, even at the camera industry's peak, phones were outselling them 10 to 1. Take a decade of having 10x more resources for stuff like R&D, market analysis etc.... it's a chasm they can't clear. How would you strategize to beat the likes of Google, Apple, Samsung etc... these are some of the biggest, smartest, most profitable companies in the world.
My wife thanks you for brightening up her and my day. If momma's not happy, nobody's happy. And it was pretty bleak around here for a while when someone ran down her photo. But she's getting better, and I didn't need breakfast anyway, trying to loose weight.
I'm not sure, suppose that's why I am not rich and running a huge camera company. One thought might be the old adage, if you can't beat em, why not try joining them? Hardly a week goes by that someone does not ask me, how can I get neat photos like yours. And I don't have a place to point them to based on what they want to spend. In years past, I could take them out to Walmart and we could come home with a basic Canon or Nikon ILC with a lens or two for a few hundred dollars or a really nice point and shoot that was easy to pack but had a telephoto lens for even less money. Those days are gone.
And no way are these going to spend $1,000 or more on something that only takes photos when they have a phone in their pocket that takes photos also. And neat photos is all they are after.
And no way are these going to spend $1,000 or more on something that only takes photos when they have a phone in their pocket that takes photos also. And neat photos is all they are after.
crashpc
Veteran Member
That's okay. I did not call it that way, you did, but it is along the lines of my opinion. Given the features of image quality, I have it for "junk". I can point these out, make comparison shots and we can discuss.
Maybe I get different stuf than you do, I view the images differently than you do, my sensitivity to artifacts is different than you have. This stuff can be subjective.
All what camera people are asking is the acknowledgement. Not even agreement.
I wonder. The image is 1800px wide. At 260dpi, it must be really small sceeen, because the image does not fill my monitor with 2560 pixels on the wide side, no matter the size (27").
Indeed. But there are more aspects to image quality than amount of elements present in the picture. When zoomed out and far from the book, you cannot read the text of it. Close up you can, but it doesn't mean that image quality is good. It is just different perspective. What I see is artificial detail mixed with no detail. The image falls apart, my eyes do not like what they see. If needed, I could show and elaborate.
Background noise is rather strong, reserved for emergency high ISO shots. But the image you posted is one taken in rather good light.
Sure:
Canon EOS M6 II, ISO25600 shot in the dark:
M6 II, ISO 25600
Mobile phone with very large sensor:
Xiaomi 12T PRO
Detail comparison:
Last edited:
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
I think a lot of the quality of the output people see from ILCs comes more from the meatbag pushing the shutter than the camera itself. And like you said phones have got really good. I'd wager their time and money would be better spent on photography courses and workshops to get more out of said phones than buying ILC kits.
I will admit though even looking at web size shots there's a visible gap between ILCs and even the best phones today that technique can't bridge. But is that worth the cost? For many I'd say no.
Well stated,
and that's just why I keep a very small mobile phone (non smartphone) in my shirt pocket to use as phone and to send text messages.
But to take pictures I always carry a 1" sensor camera at the waist and every now and then a DSLR in a strap.
Jahn
Last edited:
Eyeris Productions
Member
Why did you fail?
Consider that "Selfies" are extremely popular to report and record attended places and events by cell phone users. Selfie proliferations show how very important the cell phone cameras are to many consumers.
-
Don
Last edited:
I can't help if you don't understand that the photo was cropped for web viewing. I could post at full resolution and let this site downsize it as they please, but I'm sure you still would not like it. And if I post a photo from my mirrorless or dslr's, I crops or resize them to appr this same resolution also for web sharing. And as to screen size, I only use a 13.5" or a 15" laptops because of the high ppi resolution. I know people that have 4k screens but in 32" or 34" so the ppi is terrible for my viewing. I personally would rather view my photos at higher resolution in dots per inch speak as to look at a bunch of dots on a huge monitor screen. But that is a personal call and I don't suggest either to anyone. We each choose how we want to view our photos.
Last edited:
Son of Thunder
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,141
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 817
I don't either but we am the exception not the rule at least in America can't speak for the rest of the world. Whenever someone pays me to photograph a child going to prom or a wedding it is 50 people getting in my way all with phones
sybersitizen
Forum Pro
DPR forums don't downsize posted images (except for the previews embedded along with the text). Exact copies are hosted ... but you can choose to view them downsized.
Son of Thunder
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,141
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 817
They didn't leave canon till recently had the M50 which pre-covid was 599 quite often. Fuji non trans sensor cameras Panasonic G7 an Gx85 2 lens kit is often on sale for 699. Nikon has the Z30
tbcass
Forum Pro
Let me rephrase what I said. Since a high IQ is not important for selfies I believe people do not put a high-quality camera among the most important aspects of owning a smartphone. They only need a camera that is "good enough". So while having a camera in the phone is important, having a high-quality camera not so much. That was my thinking when I posted my response.
--
Tom
crashpc
Veteran Member
I do understand. Yet the path that got you to the photo is irrelevant to ones sight.
What´s the problem with someone disliking certain level of image quality? You do you, no need to be bothered with my opinion, really. You either don´t see it, or it doesn´t bother "your visual apparatus" as it does mine, or you see it, resent it and want this view of mine eliminated. Sort it out for yourself. I am not out here to get you. It was a remark on my observation, and for my taste/needs. I do not force others to share this view/stance. I am sorry if my text implied that somehow.
Maybe the issue really doesn´t bother you. Everytime I crop output of the sensor, I am "hemmorhaging image quality" and mourn over the loss I see. It is that bad, no matter the sensor size, really.
Well, in certain scenarios, for certain photos, obviously. It is better to have this than no photo. But again, this is not how I keep and use pictures. This is "mobile phone snapshot" for me, to share to masses and forget, as masses do not care. But then there is this "I do care" discipline of photography, just for myself, where I want to save that gem, and print and hang. In order to NOT HAVE pixellated image, the image quality needs to hold up, and the resolution must be 4K minimum. And that´s where my remark comes in, that mobile phone is not sufficient. It is very harsh even for myself, but I cannot convince my eyes otherwise. It is rather a curse.
This. The image you posted is nice. Upon downsizing to what size you might get on your LCD, and background processing, it looks really really great. It is just that with more capable camera, I can explore worse light situations with this quality, fool around and find out. Mobile phone camera cannot go that far. That´s why there is still enough enthusiasts. We have our varying reasons to prefer the camera. Obviously, each to their own. But, why do you think I bought a phone with 1/1,22" sensor? Because it does the job most of the time, when I do not have dedicated camera with me. The phone camera does dozen of things that dedicated camera can´t even think about:
Stealthiness, Battery life, Certain aspects of creativity, be at places due to size and weight, shoot macro where normal camera doesn´t even fit, let alone have space to focus, for the price - superres modes, scanning modes, auto perspective/distortion corrections, augmentation and automated text reading, googling based on image taken, easy sharing and transfer, file management, editing.
And so it turns out that even though I do not always appreciate the quality, given the reasons I just laid out, I, and many others "need both of these". We pick the proper tool for the job. No need for rivalry, really.
Eyeris Productions
Member
Again I go back to my original post. Many people here said they bought their phones outright, but I don't believe it on a national scale people do that. Many people I know use it with their plan, plus the convenience of having millions of phone stores throughout the nation compared to what, say, 100 camera stores in America. Sony did a recent report about across the board, many users are requesting larger sensors on all fronts of the camera industry. I think the cost of a photographer will increase in the future and there will be no more bad photographers if they want to do it professionally. Which I think is a great thing.
saltydogstudios
Senior Member
The vast majority of cameras sold in the past 2 decades were low end point and shoot cameras and maybe bridge cameras (long zooms) for people who wanted something a little more.
The vast majority of photos taken were taken with zero regard for the technical stuff and pretty much entirely just to keep memories.
Not only have smartphones made taking photos easier, they've made storing them and viewing them easier. They get backed up automatically to the cloud (if you have it set up that way) and it's the default viewing and sharing device.
Cameras just make that more difficult.
I don't have the numbers but I suspect the amount of high-end cameras sold hasn't changed nearly as much. I'm sure a lot of people got into photography through a point and shoot or bridge camera and then upgraded because they wanted moar - shallower depth of field, more control over settings etc.
But smartphones haven't killed off the high end of the market. Just the low end. I suspect if you look at camera manufacturers lineups today vs 15 years ago you'd see that very clearly based at the sheer number of models in each range, not to mention number of cameras sold at each tier.
--
"no one should have a camera that can't play Candy Crush Saga."
Ye olde instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sodiumstudio/ (will probably still be around after April 10th)
Last edited:
I don't have statistics for the share of people who buy their phones outright in the USA, but as someone mentioned in an another comment, the smartphones are overwhelmingly popular tools for photography worldwide, apparently regardless of whether they're typically purchased outright or on an X month plan in any particular country.
Eyeris Productions
Member
That's a great point you made, which explains why the move to Full frame and Medium Format cameras has exploded in the last ten years. I went from m43 to apsc to Fullframe now I own a medium format camera. I'm very excited to see what new features will be presented to us in the future.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum