R10 vs iPhone 13 Pro on Video

tkbslc wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

Photato wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

Photato wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

And how does iPhone do zooming in on a subject and holding focus? Or tracking focus of moving objects? Or controlling the exposure or focus points? Or choosing between deep and shallow depth of field?

Latest iPhones have a subject tracking and recognition as good or better than Canon.
You can control exposure with video dedicated apps like Filmic Pro.
In fact you can dislodge the exposure and focus spots unlike Canon ILC's

DOF control is where iPhones can't compete with dedicated cameras, among other aspects.

The R10 can do much better, but need brighter, affordable, native lenses.
Is up to Canon to decide if they want to compete or concede more market share to Smartphones.

In truth, the Canon is a much better $999 camera than the iPhone.

With a high quality lens yes, but with cheap lenses it is a match, however this is only limited to 24-28mm FL Eqv.

I won't be selling my R10 any time soon.
When paired with the RF100-400 lens, a 50mm or 85mm any Smartphone becomes a joke now and in the short term future.

But there is not denying the value that a high end smartphone brings if you can live within that limited focal range or have it doing the odd niche stuff that only an Smartphone can do.

It is just another tool in the arsenal of photo/videography.

No, with the kit lens the Canon is still superior. But when you use all of Apple’s advanced image processing against an unprocessed Canon image and you scale down the resolution of both, you’re putting things in Apple’s favor.

If your comparison is snapshots without post processing for displaying on 5” screens, the iPhone is just as good and maybe better.

I don't know, this feels like you are grasping at straws because you don't want to admit the Canon shot at f5.6 looks like noisy garbage. Remember this is video, so it's already quite compressed. You aren't going to be able to adjust it much at all, and it takes quite a bit of time to post process video. And the images are not scaled, they are 4k video, so 8MP. The phone is doing multi frame noise reduction and HDR even in video. It has a 4 stop faster lens, which makes it still over a stop faster in equivalent terms taking sensor size into account.

iPhones take good

Thats just ridiculous. When you stop a lens down indoors, blah blah… Big deal. Go shoot video of someone playing baseball or soccer and tell me which camera kicks ass.  The iPhone can’t possibly come close in a million ways. You’re choking off the light on the Canon and claiming that makes it inferior. But if that makes you happy, great.  Frankly, this thread is pointless if the purpose is to say, “I have an iPhone and I like it.”

If the question is which video camera is more powerful, it’s the Canon, by far. But it will take more effort and the right lens, but if shot properly, it can deliver professional results.  It’s not as strong at snapshots.

tkbslc wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

In truth, the Canon is a much better $999 camera than the iPhone.

And the iPhone is infinitely better at phone calls, texting, email, web browsing etc., etc., etc. Oh, and it works with my Apple Watch which is the best piece of tech ever invented. My R cameras can't do that.

So comparing just on the camera/video functionality is silly really.

I've got a complete set of FF L lenses and R cameras and while not doubt they can beat my iPhone 13 on ultimate quality, the iPhone does so much more and for many photo/video tasks is perfectly suitable.

I'm not really much of a video person, but I've decided all my videos will be shot on my iPhone. Mind you I'm not trying to shoot the next Gone With The Wind, but it works for my meager uses. Photo duty will be split between the phone and dedicated cameras.

A side point - the camera makers really need to make their cameras connect to users phones seamlessly. Since starting to use my iPhone for more phot stuff, I've realized just how useful having location data for each photo is. Most cameras can do this in some form but many aren't convenient. Canon actually does better than the Olympus, Panasonic and Sony cameras I have, but there's room for improvement.

Good grief. It is juvenile to change the subject in order to try to make someone seem wrong

This is an ironic statement given your comments in this thread.

You know what? My shoes can’t connect to the internet or tell time. So I’ll strap a couple of iPhones to my feet because they’re so much better.

I own iPhones and Canon cameras. I use the phone a lot more than my Canon, but that doesn’t make it better.

tkbslc wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

And how does iPhone do zooming in on a subject and holding focus?

iphones have great autofocus actually. PDAF for many years now.

Zooming in on a subject while recording makes for horrible video, don't do that. iPhone can do it, but you get digital zoom with lots of artifacts.

Zooming before recording works but stick with the 3 native focal lengths for good results.

Or tracking focus of moving objects?

again, very well

Or controlling the exposure or focus points?

both are available with a tap

Or choosing between deep and shallow depth of field?

Cinematic mode with fake blur is pretty decent if you background isn't too complex.

But let’s be honest, APS-C with a wide angle lens isn't going to have shallow DOF either. iPhone 13 pro lens is equivalent to f3.75 lens on 1.6x crop for DOF equivalence.

Ok, take some photos or videos of hummingbirds or bald eagles with an iPhone and let us know how it works out.

I love iPhone and I ordered the 14Pro, but I don’t have illusions that it can outperform my R5.

Moving the goalposts just a bit aren't we? OP was comparing wide angle video with an R10, not against a R5 and super telephoto prime tracking wildlife. Not sure why you seem to feel so threatened here.

It does not threaten me a bit. I’m just trying to answer this honestly. Shooting ambient light indoors at f/5.6 isn’t going to deliver great results. Either use a faster lens or add light. If that’s a corner case where the iPhone will be better, because its lens isn’t f/5.6, good for you, but it doesn’t make the iPhone an overall better camera, because it is not.

Ephemeris wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

jwilliams wrote:

MarshallG wrote:

In truth, the Canon is a much better $999 camera than the iPhone.

And the iPhone is infinitely better at phone calls, texting, email, web browsing etc., etc., etc. Oh, and it works with my Apple Watch which is the best piece of tech ever invented. My R cameras can't do that.

So comparing just on the camera/video functionality is silly really.

I've got a complete set of FF L lenses and R cameras and while not doubt they can beat my iPhone 13 on ultimate quality, the iPhone does so much more and for many photo/video tasks is perfectly suitable.

I'm not really much of a video person, but I've decided all my videos will be shot on my iPhone. Mind you I'm not trying to shoot the next Gone With The Wind, but it works for my meager uses. Photo duty will be split between the phone and dedicated cameras.

A side point - the camera makers really need to make their cameras connect to users phones seamlessly. Since starting to use my iPhone for more phot stuff, I've realized just how useful having location data for each photo is. Most cameras can do this in some form but many aren't convenient. Canon actually does better than the Olympus, Panasonic and Sony cameras I have, but there's room for improvement.

Good grief. It is juvenile to change the subject in order to try to make someone seem wrong

Yes, we all know what the iPhone can do. And it’s a very good camera. But its image quality simply is not better than a quality dedicated camera. It’s much more convenient, so when it’s good enough, great. But that doesn’t mean it can meet any kind of professional video production standard. It simply cannot.

But if it meets your needs and you like it… GREAT! Nothing wrong with that at all. My wife and I use our iPhones all the time. Everybody does. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm not sure everyone does - 100% Android in my place.

It’s an interesting comparison and it shows the phone can give usable video and with minimal effort. I'd think it's easier to share and it will be able to edit to come extent on the phone platform.

No argument that iPhone and Android make great video and are more convenient than a DSLR. I didn’t think that was the subject and I didn’t say the phones are bad, just that the dedicated cameras can produce better stills and better video.