"What kind of camera should I buy?"

John Cote

Senior Member
Messages
1,582
Reaction score
437
Location
Indianapolis, USA, US
I am a longtime member of DPReview (Sep 6, 2002). I have been a professional photographer for most of my life making my dime mostly doing motorsport and studio work. I mostly post in the Nikon Forums as that has been my system of choice for most of my film and digital days.

I frequently get asked by friends, "What kind of camera should I buy?" Sometimes they add something like, I want to shoot flowers or I am going to Greece or whatever. More and more, my advice has been simply...just upgrade your smartphone and learn how to use it. I haven't brought a camera, other than my phone on vacation for years and have rarely regretted the decision.

A week or so ago I upgraded to the new iPhone 17 ProMax. This new phone cam has solved one of the remaining issues I have had with past gen iPhones which is getting a decent macro. It's not perfect yet but it is so much better and though I can't figure out why yet it just is. Before this gen the type and other fine detail on the dial of a watch would look jaggy and even AI generated. Now it looks respectable.

There are still some things an iPhone camera won't yet do. It wouldn't be a great safari cam or a sports action cam or a birds in flight cam...but for most folk this new phone cam is all you need.

This photo was taken outdoors in the shade with the 2x lens. (I still hate the fact that Apple wants you to use the wide lens as the default macro lens.)



31431746f03e43e89d70b63e818a2338.jpg



--
JohnCote
'Cameras are just cr@p we have to lug around because there is no direct brain to PhotoShop connection...yet!'
 
I am a longtime member of DPReview (Sep 6, 2002). I have been a professional photographer for most of my life making my dime mostly doing motorsport and studio work. I mostly post in the Nikon Forums as that has been my system of choice for most of my film and digital days.

I frequently get asked by friends, "What kind of camera should I buy?" Sometimes they add something like, I want to shoot flowers or I am going to Greece or whatever. More and more, my advice has been simply...just upgrade your smartphone and learn how to use it. I haven't brought a camera, other than my phone on vacation for years and have rarely regretted the decision.

A week or so ago I upgraded to the new iPhone 17 ProMax. This new phone cam has solved one of the remaining issues I have had with past gen iPhones which is getting a decent macro. It's not perfect yet but it is so much better and though I can't figure out why yet it just is. Before this gen the type and other fine detail on the dial of a watch would look jaggy and even AI generated. Now it looks respectable.

There are still some things an iPhone camera won't yet do. It wouldn't be a great safari cam or a sports action cam or a birds in flight cam...but for most folk this new phone cam is all you need.

This photo was taken outdoors in the shade with the 2x lens. (I still hate the fact that Apple wants you to use the wide lens as the default macro lens.)

31431746f03e43e89d70b63e818a2338.jpg
For many people a phone is fine for a lot of things. I’m on vacation shooting fall leaves and other things in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. All I can say is thank goodness I don’t have to rely on a phone. It’s also nice to see how many people there are here with actual cameras shooting.

I’m shooting with an A7RIVa, and a 20-70/4 (which I got recently). Prior to that I shot with an Olympus EM1.3 and 8-25/4 & 12-100/4 zooms (I had a couple of primes that I used less often). Phones are just so limiting… but they are pocketable, which makes them handy in a pinch. I could post dozens of examples but I think each has their place. Phone can never replace cameras for people like me. But cameras aren’t what matters to people like my wife - she takes things for memories only not max quality (I do both), and uses my photos for her Facebook.

A good compromise for some is small cameras like a RX100VII, XM5, OM5, etc.

--
NHT
 
Last edited:
iPhone pro max is an expensive device. For me, I would rather buy a completely adequate mid range phone that gets little promotion and spend the difference on a camera. That’s just me

greg
 
I am a longtime member of DPReview (Sep 6, 2002). I have been a professional photographer for most of my life making my dime mostly doing motorsport and studio work. I mostly post in the Nikon Forums as that has been my system of choice for most of my film and digital days.

I frequently get asked by friends, "What kind of camera should I buy?" Sometimes they add something like, I want to shoot flowers or I am going to Greece or whatever. More and more, my advice has been simply...just upgrade your smartphone and learn how to use it. I haven't brought a camera, other than my phone on vacation for years and have rarely regretted the decision.

A week or so ago I upgraded to the new iPhone 17 ProMax. This new phone cam has solved one of the remaining issues I have had with past gen iPhones which is getting a decent macro. It's not perfect yet but it is so much better and though I can't figure out why yet it just is. Before this gen the type and other fine detail on the dial of a watch would look jaggy and even AI generated. Now it looks respectable.

There are still some things an iPhone camera won't yet do. It wouldn't be a great safari cam or a sports action cam or a birds in flight cam...but for most folk this new phone cam is all you need.

This photo was taken outdoors in the shade with the 2x lens. (I still hate the fact that Apple wants you to use the wide lens as the default macro lens.)
For many people a phone is fine for a lot of things. I’m on vacation shooting fall leaves and other things in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. All I can say is thank goodness I don’t have to rely on a phone. It’s also nice to see how many people there are here with actual cameras shooting.

I’m shooting with an A7RIVa, and a 20-70/4 (which I got recently). Prior to that I shot with an Olympus EM1.3 and 8-25/4 & 12-100/4 zooms (I had a couple of primes that I used less often). Phones are just so limiting… but they are pocketable, which makes them handy in a pinch. I could post dozens of examples but I think each has their place. Phone can never replace cameras for people like me. But cameras aren’t what matters to people like my wife - she takes things for memories only not max quality (I do both), and uses my photos for her Facebook.

A good compromise for some is small cameras like a RX100VII, XM5, OM5, etc.
And what do you do with your max quality photos? I guess you print them really big? I don't and I don't think most people do. I get paid a lot to take photos and I haven't made a single print in years.

I never said that any phone would take max quality photos. I have Nikon Z9s for work and I bought a Z6-III to fart around with. Even the Z6-III takes a quantitatively better photo than the phone. I didn't say any phone would take the place of a good mirrorless or DSLR camera for people who "need max quality" or who did some of the work I mentioned in my OP though I did do a picture of a watch movement which printed full size on a magazine cover with my old iPhone. All I am saying is that the new phones are more than adequate for most of the people who call me up asking what kind of camera should I buy.

Most people just want to document...to post to social media or make a travel book at one of the digital printing companies. An experienced "max quality" photographer like you will be able to take better photos with a phone than they can take with what you call a "real camera.". Most great photos aren't about the camera anyway. They are about light and what is going on in the mind of the photographer.
 
Here is an iPhone shot of the magazine cover shot I did with my iPhone 15 pro-max...and it wasn't half the camera the new phone is. The photo is not as good as I could have taken with one of the Nikons but it was good enough for the editors, who couldn't wait and it got a lot of wows from the readers. It is a photo much more about the lighting than the camera.



25d49a3f5aa14c6d818bcb7804ce1a2e.jpg



--
JohnCote
'Cameras are just cr@p we have to lug around because there is no direct brain to PhotoShop connection...yet!'
 
NowHearThis: I hope you enjoyed your time in NH, where I live. Looks like a lot of rain this week, which we desperately need.

Marie
 
Can’t speak for what most others need. A lot of times, a lot of people didn’t even know what they like or desire.



For me, if I never try I’ll never know. But well cameras are expensive business, so I can perfectly understand it is not a hole for everyone to get into.



More often, it isn’t the limitation of the phone that is the biggest bottleneck, rather it is the size, weight and social inhibition of using bigger cameras that for many will outweigh the benefits of cameras.
 
The best photos I have taken have been with my phone, not because my phone is great at being a camera, but because it is better than a camera for editing and easy transition to social media or wherever. The editing and easy transmission to web sites makes it better than all cameras out there for the more popular types of photography like travel, family, etc.

I can get a mid range Pixel camera, one or two generations behind the current one, mine is a 6A and I can shoot and edit an image in one to two minutes and have it on Facebook or wherever. I can't do that with the most expensive cameras out there. Fuji with film sims and Panasonic with LUX's have figured this out and hence there popularity. But they still aren't a camera like a phone for editing.

I think once cameras are available with a built in program like Snapseed and no brainer transport to image wherever on the net, that is the camera the newbie should get.

I just read about a guy who is doing stock photography with his phone and doing well financially by it, like you said it's the image that wins not the equipment.

--
"Just go a different way." James Hoffmann
 
Last edited:
I am a longtime member of DPReview (Sep 6, 2002). I have been a professional photographer for most of my life making my dime mostly doing motorsport and studio work. I mostly post in the Nikon Forums as that has been my system of choice for most of my film and digital days.

I frequently get asked by friends, "What kind of camera should I buy?" Sometimes they add something like, I want to shoot flowers or I am going to Greece or whatever. More and more, my advice has been simply...just upgrade your smartphone and learn how to use it. I haven't brought a camera, other than my phone on vacation for years and have rarely regretted the decision.

A week or so ago I upgraded to the new iPhone 17 ProMax. This new phone cam has solved one of the remaining issues I have had with past gen iPhones which is getting a decent macro. It's not perfect yet but it is so much better and though I can't figure out why yet it just is. Before this gen the type and other fine detail on the dial of a watch would look jaggy and even AI generated. Now it looks respectable.

There are still some things an iPhone camera won't yet do. It wouldn't be a great safari cam or a sports action cam or a birds in flight cam...but for most folk this new phone cam is all you need.

This photo was taken outdoors in the shade with the 2x lens. (I still hate the fact that Apple wants you to use the wide lens as the default macro lens.)
For many people a phone is fine for a lot of things. I’m on vacation shooting fall leaves and other things in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine. All I can say is thank goodness I don’t have to rely on a phone. It’s also nice to see how many people there are here with actual cameras shooting.

I’m shooting with an A7RIVa, and a 20-70/4 (which I got recently). Prior to that I shot with an Olympus EM1.3 and 8-25/4 & 12-100/4 zooms (I had a couple of primes that I used less often). Phones are just so limiting… but they are pocketable, which makes them handy in a pinch. I could post dozens of examples but I think each has their place. Phone can never replace cameras for people like me. But cameras aren’t what matters to people like my wife - she takes things for memories only not max quality (I do both), and uses my photos for her Facebook.

A good compromise for some is small cameras like a RX100VII, XM5, OM5, etc.
And what do you do with your max quality photos? I guess you print them really big? I don't and I don't think most people do.
You don’t…”think”…most people do. So you don’t take the time to talk about needs, you just give blanket advice of buy a more expensive phone that’s more incremental than innovative (my opinions) and that solves all their reasons for looking for an upgrade. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you aren’t this bad, but by just guessing as to what you think people do, you sound like an old curmudgeon that knows nothing of photography and thinks everyone should shoot with phones. For fun and to help pay for my hobby, I did photography sales along with teaching photography classes. When someone came in and asked what they should get, I spent a lot of time listening and asking ‘find out questions’. I still do that today with friends and family. Everyone has different wants, needs, and things they hope to be able to do when getting a camera. AS I SAID, a phone might be right for some, it isn’t for everyone and I stand by what I said that another phone is not a great recommendation when someone asks what to get instead of a phone.

And as for prints, I made a nice 16x20 of Thors Well recently, for a co-worker who’s battling cancer. I have 3 photos from this vacation that I’m currently on that I will print either 20x30” or 24x36” and hang in my office.
I get paid a lot to take photos and I haven't made a single print in years.
What you do is not what everyone does. Recen
I never said that any phone would take max quality photos. I have Nikon Z9s for work and I bought a Z6-III to fart around with. Even the Z6-III takes a quantitatively better photo than the phone. I didn't say any phone would take the place of a good mirrorless or DSLR camera for people who "need max quality" or who did some of the work I mentioned in my OP though I did do a picture of a watch movement which printed full size on a magazine cover with my old iPhone. All I am saying is that the new phones are more than adequate for most of the people who call me up asking what kind of camera should I buy.
And I think that’s a disservice. And we can disagree about that.
Most people just want to document...to post to social media or make a travel book at one of the digital printing companies.
If that’s what most people do, although you admit you don’t know, you’re just guessing, a new phone is of no consequence. If people are using their phone as their medium, having the latest 48MP phone doesn’t really matter when viewing things on a 3mp screen that’s 1000-1500px wide. What is a new phone going to really do? My iPhone 15 has the same main camera as the IPhone 17pro. Same sensor, same resolution, same glass, … I paid $500 for my phone when I upgraded from the iPhone 13mini and only did that because the battery was going out and I got sick of typing on a tiny keyboard. Upgrading again would cost a ton and still be decades behind my micro four thirds gear let alone my 60mp A7RIVa and the amazing 20-70mm lens I chose to pair with it.
An experienced "max quality" photographer like you will be able to take better photos with a phone than they can take with what you call a "real camera."
I’ve proven this wrong more times than I can count. It was super easy to prove this wrong just by handing my EM1.3 with either of my zooms on it to my youngest daughter. She likes photography just not carrying cameras, but anytime I hand her my gear and I pull out my phone, her images blow my iPhone away. I’m not surprised given that the sensor in my old EM1.3 is 9x the size of the largest iPhone sensors and that I had an optical zoom range (using both lenses) of 16-200mm - far more useful than 13mm and 26mm on my phone. She could compose better, zoom in on her subject more, etc, etc, etc.
Most great photos aren't about the camera anyway. They are about light and what is going on in the mind of the photographer.
And that statement proves your previous statement wrong.

I took a great shot of Bass Harbor Head Lighthouse and took a similar one with my phone and the images are night and day. What I did to get the shot wasn’t rocket science, but my phone utterly failed in comparison. Good gear and a little time practing and learning make large differences in real cameras.
 
I guess I knew that this thread would have its detractors when I posted it. I am a working photographer and not a purist or a pixel peeper. in my business I a only concerned about making my customers happy and not with making art. Art is usually not what they want. In my leisure photography I am mostly concerned with making me happy. I hate hauling gear around and worrying about it getting lost or stolen or too heavy. The last print I made was an iPhone 7 or 8 shot of the spider outside the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. I printed it at 36" wide and it looked great at a recent gallery retrospective of my work.

But, let's not talk about my work. Let's look at the work of my friend Rad Drew who has taken "iPhoneography" to a new level. I challenge anyone to show that they have taken more exhibit worthy travel photos with their "real cameras" than Rad has with his iPhone. Here is a link to his website but know that he also makes large prints for exhibition from these files.

https://raddrewphotography.com/iphone-does-tuscany

Phone cams will not soon replace "real cameras" for a lot of work and they may never be right for the purists but they can make art with the right person pressing the...well...shutter.



148917a8301b4424a66d7ea3cff01e6c.jpg



--
JohnCote
'Cameras are just cr@p we have to lug around because there is no direct brain to PhotoShop connection...yet!'
 
Last edited:
NowHearThis: I hope you enjoyed your time in NH, where I live. Looks like a lot of rain this week, which we desperately need.

Marie
I got really lucky. It rained over night at Lincoln one time, but otherwise the weather has held out. Lovely state, which I had the time to see more. All the stops along the “Kanc” were amazing.
 
But, let's not talk about my work. Let's look at the work of my friend Rad Drew who has taken "iPhoneography" to a new level. I challenge anyone to show that they have taken more exhibit worthy travel photos with their "real cameras" than Rad has with his iPhone. Here is a link to his website but know that he also makes large prints for exhibition from these files.

https://raddrewphotography.com/iphone-does-tuscany
Just checked it and I don't like any of his Tuscany photos: they all look unnatural, overprocessed and flat. I'm certain it is invisible to the eye used to smartphone photos and screens, but for the eye more used to natural lights, well it's not pleasant.

I also don't doubt anyone with an iphone, enough money/reputation/network can get an exhibition... doesn't speak for the quality of the work.
 
But, let's not talk about my work. Let's look at the work of my friend Rad Drew who has taken "iPhoneography" to a new level. I challenge anyone to show that they have taken more exhibit worthy travel photos with their "real cameras" than Rad has with his iPhone. Here is a link to his website but know that he also makes large prints for exhibition from these files.

https://raddrewphotography.com/iphone-does-tuscany
Just checked it and I don't like any of his Tuscany photos: they all look unnatural, overprocessed and flat. I'm certain it is invisible to the eye used to smartphone photos and screens, but for the eye more used to natural lights, well it's not pleasant.

I also don't doubt anyone with an iphone, enough money/reputation/network can get an exhibition... doesn't speak for the quality of the work.
I don't take photos like he does and I don't process photos like he does but I can still admire his work.
 
But, let's not talk about my work. Let's look at the work of my friend Rad Drew who has taken "iPhoneography" to a new level. I challenge anyone to show that they have taken more exhibit worthy travel photos with their "real cameras" than Rad has with his iPhone. Here is a link to his website but know that he also makes large prints for exhibition from these files.

https://raddrewphotography.com/iphone-does-tuscany
Just checked it and I don't like any of his Tuscany photos: they all look unnatural, overprocessed and flat. I'm certain it is invisible to the eye used to smartphone photos and screens, but for the eye more used to natural lights, well it's not pleasant.

I also don't doubt anyone with an iphone, enough money/reputation/network can get an exhibition... doesn't speak for the quality of the work.
I don't take photos like he does and I don't process photos like he does but I can still admire his work.
 
NowHearThis: I hope you enjoyed your time in NH, where I live. Looks like a lot of rain this week, which we desperately need.

Marie
I got really lucky. It rained over night at Lincoln one time, but otherwise the weather has held out. Lovely state, which I had the time to see more. All the stops along the “Kanc” were amazing.
Glad you liked my little state!



Marie
 
Your friend has a lot of talent. The quality of the images on the website is poor, unlike your example.

One can understand quality reduction for a sample gallery, but I wouldn't buy without seeing a better quality example, probably a print.

Landscape is demanding of cameras if you plan to view at the equivalent of 72" x 48" print.

A
The term quality is certainly a qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) thing. Your definition may not be mine...and we might both be right even if we disagree. A couple of comments on what you said:

1) It sounds like quality to you is centered around resolution. I think resolution is a factor. When I look at an Ansel Adams print made with his 8X10 view camera, I do admire the resolution...the native dynamic range, the reality that is impossible without that huge piece of film. However, what really grabs me about, say "Moonrise, Hernandez" is the fact that this image only existed, with the moon in its place and the beautiful fading light for a matter of seconds...and Adams was there to shoot it. Not only was he there to shoot it but he had been there before and had the dream of how it would look...where to be to get it. Then there is the serendipity...the magic of the moment that nobody can create...what nature or God gave him...gives us. Resolution is part of it but not the main part. If Adams had captured that scene with a modern iPhone it would not have been the same but it would still have been a great photo...It almost certainly would not have gone down in history as one of the greatest landscape photos of all time but it would have been better than anything most of us will ever make. It is great because the scene was perfection and because of what was gong on in Adams' head...his dream.

2) If a person goes to photo exhibits and puts their nose 6 inches from the print and looks at the tonal transitions and detail (pixel peeping) they are, to me, missing the point. Back in the early days of digital I had a shot from an Indy 500 made into a billboard that appeared all over central Indiana. It was taken with a 4 mega pixel Nikon. The photo looked good enough to the marketing peeps I worked for to be a billboard and lots of people called me to say how stunning it looked. You saw it from your car...from 50 yards away. It captured a moment in great light and with great color and great context. Nobody walked up to inches away and said it didn't have enough native resolution. When I see a large print of a photo at an exhibit, I want to take it all in. I want to know what the photographer's dream was. The last think I might look at is a pixel view. The pixel view criticism is the same criticism the impressionist painters got from the realists who came before.

Again, I didn't say that you should ditch your "real camera" and become a devote of the iPhone. I just said that a lot of people who ask "what camera should I buy" would do better if they learned to dream and learned how to take good pictures with their phones.
 
Happy you guys could have you chat here. Cheers.
 
Your friend has a lot of talent. The quality of the images on the website is poor, unlike your example.

One can understand quality reduction for a sample gallery, but I wouldn't buy without seeing a better quality example, probably a print.

Landscape is demanding of cameras if you plan to view at the equivalent of 72" x 48" print.

A
The term quality is certainly a qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) thing. Your definition may not be mine...and we might both be right even if we disagree. A couple of comments on what you said:

1) It sounds like quality to you is centered around resolution. I think resolution is a factor. When I look at an Ansel Adams print made with his 8X10 view camera, I do admire the resolution...the native dynamic range, the reality that is impossible without that huge piece of film. However, what really grabs me about, say "Moonrise, Hernandez" is the fact that this image only existed, with the moon in its place and the beautiful fading light for a matter of seconds...and Adams was there to shoot it. Not only was he there to shoot it but he had been there before and had the dream of how it would look...where to be to get it. Then there is the serendipity...the magic of the moment that nobody can create...what nature or God gave him...gives us. Resolution is part of it but not the main part. If Adams had captured that scene with a modern iPhone it would not have been the same but it would still have been a great photo...It almost certainly would not have gone down in history as one of the greatest landscape photos of all time but it would have been better than anything most of us will ever make. It is great because the scene was perfection and because of what was gong on in Adams' head...his dream.
It's more about depth and having the option to compose with sub-scenes, although the sample images are too low IQ for a 32" 4k monitor.

That's a good example. Adams put heroic efforts into IQ and technical skill. It's very hard to match some of his images without high end kit. I'm not impressed with about half of his images and Moonrise is one.
2) If a person goes to photo exhibits and puts their nose 6 inches from the print and looks at the tonal transitions and detail (pixel peeping) they are, to me, missing the point. Back in the early days of digital I had a shot from an Indy 500 made into a billboard that appeared all over central Indiana. It was taken with a 4 mega pixel Nikon. The photo looked good enough to the marketing peeps I worked for to be a billboard and lots of people called me to say how stunning it looked. You saw it from your car...from 50 yards away. It captured a moment in great light and with great color and great context. Nobody walked up to inches away and said it didn't have enough native resolution. When I see a large print of a photo at an exhibit, I want to take it all in. I want to know what the photographer's dream was. The last think I might look at is a pixel view. The pixel view criticism is the same criticism the impressionist painters got from the realists who came before.
Dali deliberately used large brush strokes and pointillist techniques to force you stand back and take in tge whoke image. Mobile Still Life abd the Crucifixion are fascinating in real life. I like photographers who can see landscapes as fractal. That's a matter of taste, but some people try and force their tastes on others by creating conventions and using disparaging language.
Again, I didn't say that you should ditch your "real camera" and become a devote of the iPhone. I just said that a lot of people who ask "what camera should I buy" would do better if they learned to dream and learned how to take good pictures with their phones.
Actually, I agree with that. I'm writing this on my new S25 Ultra, which has quite a large shooting envelope.
 
Happy you guys could have you chat here. Cheers.
Thank you. She’s a very nice person and sent me a camera a while back for my daughter. She’s very kind and I appreciate the brief moments we have to exchange pleasantries. NH is a beautiful state and people with any camera will enjoy the many beautiful sights it has to offer.
Aww thanks. I’ve been here in NH since 1978 and it is a beautiful state. So much to offer, all seasons!



John Cote: sorry I hijacked your thread. I should have sent him a message.

Marie
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top