Best JPEG output from mirrorless cameras.

[Kiat Leong]

As we know, mobile phones are producing amazing photos even though their sensor sizes are small. It's due to their powerful post-processing feature like iPhone's deep fusion and etc..

The question is, i want to know which mirrorless camera produces the best in-camera post-processing output to JPEG. Can the best matches those from the mobiles?
This is important for those shooters who don't edit their raws using PC post-processing editors and want to rely solely on the camera.

Thank you.

 

[Bobthearch]

As we know, mobile phones are producing amazing photos even though their sensor sizes are small. It's due to their powerful post-processing feature like iPhone's deep fusion and etc..
The question is, i want to know which mirrorless camera produces the best in-camera post-processing output to JPEG. Can the best matches those from the mobiles?
This is important for those shooters who don't edit their raws using PC post-processing editors and want to rely solely on the camera.
Thank you.

Let me actually answer your question clearly.

Every single "real camera's" JPG output simply can't hold a candle to a top-tier smartphone's, which excel at tonemapping and shadow-highlight rendition (a common strawman detractors might raise is per-pixel fidelity, but this has little bearing on the gestalt--i.e., the overall aesthetic of the shot, which is where smartphones pull far ahead).

You'll be posting some examples from your own phone?

I have an iPhone XR, and I can tell that third-party developers wouldn't be making $Thousands selling RAW camera apps if Apple's jpeg processing was worth a crap.

--
Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 

[Bobthearch]

The question is, i want to know which mirrorless camera produces the best in-camera post-processing output to JPEG.

I'm not seeing many answers to the question.

Perhaps because the answer is "Any of them."

That's not an answer to ... which mirrorless camera produces the best ...

As I suggested in my post, maybe there are few answers to that because best is undefined. What exactly determines best? Most pleasing color? Most accurate color? Highest dynamic range retention? Highest detail retention? Lowest noise? Fewest artifacts? Least compression?

The answer I gave above is accurate regardless of the specific combination of criteria.

Most cell phone jpegs are horribly compressed and low resolution. You'll get better from any current mirrorless system (or DSLR).

That's what the OP's other question was about ... this one:

Can the best matches those from the mobiles?

 

[sybersitizen]

The question is, i want to know which mirrorless camera produces the best in-camera post-processing output to JPEG.

I'm not seeing many answers to the question.

Perhaps because the answer is "Any of them."

That's not an answer to ... which mirrorless camera produces the best ...

As I suggested in my post, maybe there are few answers to that because best is undefined. What exactly determines best? Most pleasing color? Most accurate color? Highest dynamic range retention? Highest detail retention? Lowest noise? Fewest artifacts? Least compression?

The answer I gave above is accurate regardless of the specific combination of criteria.

The answer did not address the question under which you placed it. Put the answer (with some rewording) under the OP's other question and it does.

Most cell phone jpegs are horribly compressed and low resolution. You'll get better from any current mirrorless system (or DSLR).

That's what the OP's other question was about ... this one:

Can the best matches those from the mobiles?

 

[Real Canonist]

iPhones and actually I was quite pleased with OnePlus smartphone jpegs. I would say in general any smartphone will be the best at jpegs. Especially with Google Night sight and similar technology. Dedicated cameras aren’t necessary nowadays.

 

[Running on empty]

As we know, mobile phones are producing amazing photos even though their sensor sizes are small. It's due to their powerful post-processing feature like iPhone's deep fusion and etc..
The question is, i want to know which mirrorless camera produces the best in-camera post-processing output to JPEG. Can the best matches those from the mobiles?
This is important for those shooters who don't edit their raws using PC post-processing editors and want to rely solely on the camera.
Thank you.

Let me actually answer your question clearly.

Every single "real camera's" JPG output simply can't hold a candle to a top-tier smartphone's, which excel at tonemapping and shadow-highlight rendition (a common strawman detractors might raise is per-pixel fidelity, but this has little bearing on the gestalt--i.e., the overall aesthetic of the shot, which is where smartphones pull far ahead).

You'll be posting some examples from your own phone?

I have an iPhone XR, and I can tell that third-party developers wouldn't be making $Thousands selling RAW camera apps if Apple's jpeg processing was worth a crap.

Apple's JPG processing is poor at the per-pixel level, but its tonemapping is excellent, as is Google's.

As the rocks, deck, and white part of the wall show quite plainly--and even after accounting for DOF differences, the same scene with my Google Pixel 3a XL shows much more pleasing (and accurate) microcontrast than does the same shot with my DSLR, which I'd need to pull into ACR and tweak the contrast, clarity, and highlights slider to achieve the same pleasing and accurate look.


Pixel 3a XL


Nikon DSLR


Pixel 3a XL


Nikon DSLR

 

[Kodakrevisited]

Apple's JPG processing is poor at the per-pixel level, but its tonemapping is excellent, as is Google's.

As the rocks, deck, and white part of the wall show quite plainly--and even after accounting for DOF differences, the same scene with my Google Pixel 3a XL shows much more pleasing (and accurate) microcontrast than does the same shot with my DSLR, which I'd need to pull into ACR and tweak the contrast, clarity, and highlights slider to achieve the same pleasing and accurate look.

Excellent response and a good example to back up your point

 

[Max Iso]

As we know, mobile phones are producing amazing photos even though their sensor sizes are small. It's due to their powerful post-processing feature like iPhone's deep fusion and etc..
The question is, i want to know which mirrorless camera produces the best in-camera post-processing output to JPEG. Can the best matches those from the mobiles?
This is important for those shooters who don't edit their raws using PC post-processing editors and want to rely solely on the camera.
Thank you.

I don't agree phone output is amazing, i think mobile users think it is but then they are an easily impressed lot. My vote is for Canon, Fuji at #2 and MFT (Panny/Oly) at #3.

 

[ken_in_nh]

I feel like there's an agenda recently. New accounts popping up constantly just to promote smartphones photography?

Couldn't agree more, especially with such a naive, simplistic question. The OP didn't even tell us what he considers to be good. Over-saturated pictures, like my Pixel 3 makes? Pseudo-hdr?

Then there's the factor of cell phone camera manufacturer marketing hype. Sort through the marketing BS, and cell phone manufacturers are selling convenience for getting to social media, not quality pics, even though the quality can be good under certain limited circumstances.

 

[alcelc]

As we know, mobile phones are producing amazing photos even though their sensor sizes are small. It's due to their powerful post-processing feature like iPhone's deep fusion and etc..
The question is, i want to know which mirrorless camera produces the best in-camera post-processing output to JPEG. Can the best matches those from the mobiles?
This is important for those shooters who don't edit their raws using PC post-processing editors and want to rely solely on the camera.
Thank you.

Let me actually answer your question clearly.

Every single "real camera's" JPG output simply can't hold a candle to a top-tier smartphone's, which excel at tonemapping and shadow-highlight rendition (a common strawman detractors might raise is per-pixel fidelity, but this has little bearing on the gestalt--i.e., the overall aesthetic of the shot, which is where smartphones pull far ahead).

You'll be posting some examples from your own phone?

I have an iPhone XR, and I can tell that third-party developers wouldn't be making $Thousands selling RAW camera apps if Apple's jpeg processing was worth a crap.

Apple's JPG processing is poor at the per-pixel level, but its tonemapping is excellent, as is Google's.

As the rocks, deck, and white part of the wall show quite plainly--and even after accounting for DOF differences, the same scene with my Google Pixel 3a XL shows much more pleasing (and accurate) microcontrast than does the same shot with my DSLR, which I'd need to pull into ACR and tweak the contrast, clarity, and highlights slider to achieve the same pleasing and accurate look.


Pixel 3a XL


Nikon DSLR


Pixel 3a XL


Nikon DSLR

A clear move.

On base ISO, mostly still objects, good lighting condition... hence any potential issue (side effect) of the computational A.I. applied by phone could keep to minimal. Plus it is designed for more pleasant SOOC output (higher saturation, more contrast, and should have taken the benefit from HDR for the expanded DR etc), no wonder it is comparable to that from, even more pleasant than that from the camera.

Look at the histogram, the Pixel sample has dead shadows whereas the Nikon shot has the theoretically best exposure having most data preserved on both end.

Without the need of the right lens, under not demanding lighting condition, phone has no doubt the ability to deliver something good enough for many people. A reason it has killed the low end P&S and has drawn most of people who originally just looking for a recording tool from the camera market over the years.

But when everything going another way, could you phone still be able to stand up with your camera (provided that you are not using it P&S and at default only...) .

The linked thread in my earlier response here should have really touched the heart of the phone camera's problem I think....



--
Albert

 

[MyReality]

Fuji for people and mixed lighting, Canon for everything else.

 

[Vivid1]

They are close and some would say it comes down to personal taste, but I believe general consensus will agree with this ranking for jpg.

If you scan these forums you will see how many switchers from Canon are jumping through all sorts of hoops to try and regain 'Canon Colours'....

 

[Kodakrevisited]

That's funny, so basically you say that the phone pics are not as good as they look

--
Freelance Automobile Photographer

 

[108]

I'm a jpeg only shooter and am very happy with the jpegs from both my Fuji and my Olympus cameras. I would probably give the edge to Fuji. I prefer their film simulations to any other system of presets I have found.

You can't expect any camera to give you ideal jpegs that match your personal vision right out of the box, though. It takes several sessions of hard work , shooting and reviewing, to get a jpeg engine's deep settings arranged to suit your taste. I personally often turn both sharpening and noise reduction way down, sometimes to the minimum, because I find them a bit heavy handed at the base settings. It is easy to add in a bit of tuned sharpening yourself in post.

And yes, I post process my jpegs. If nothing else most images need to be cropped, and it's very easy to toss in a quick tweak or two to gamma, contrast, highlights/shadows, and even white balance at the same time. I use FastStone at my desk (don't be distracted by the name--it is far more than an image viewer) and Pixlr on my phone and tablets. Hypocam is a powerful little black and white jpeg editor.

I have noticed over the years that camera models vary pretty widely in their jpeg output out of the box, even if they are from the same manufacturer. A camera aimed at consumers will be set up to produce a "punchy" image, contrasty and highly saturated, while a higher end camera aimed at enthusiasts will come with more neutral settings from the factory. This may cause the unwary to be surprised by it's "flat jpegs". It is easy, of course, to go in and punch things up in those deep settings, a little or a lot, but you have to be aware of the need to do it and be willing to put in the work at the beginning.

I'm with you on this one, I shoot mostly LSF jpegs from my Oly cameras , noise and sharpening to the minimum , contrast -1, sometimes the ooc output is so good that I don't do any PP . Only time I may shoot raw is for night shots with my Em10 , I find the raws from the Em10 gorgeous for night cityscapes , rendering a better depth and "volume" than the jpegs .

 

[alcelc]

That's funny, so basically you say that the phone pics are not as good as they look

No, this posted sample is good.

What I said is the poster was clever on picking a sample from non demanding condition. I suppose every one who had paid attention to this topic should know well the strength and weakness of phone as well as its computational processing. If under those condition a phone can't deliver a usable result, it will not be able to take over the low end camera market.

But if under more demanding shooting environment, the result would become...???

Back to the images. We know we are looking at one processed image (certain processing should have been applied by the phone automatically) vs the one from camera that we don't know what had been done by the shooter. On a quick editing the sample from camera could be as good as that from the phone. So would there be a winner if both samples could receive similar processing could be a big "?".

 

[tbcass]

From what I've seen all mirrorless cameras produce better JPEG output than any smartphone camera. Smartphone photos look poor when you examine them closely. These days I think Sony JPEGs are the best with Canon the worst. Sony got a bad reputation in the past because of poor JPEG output but that is no longer true. Canon applies too much noise reduction to their JPEGs which reduces detail. I also think, and this is just my opinion, that their color leans too much too the orange end of the spectrum.

--
Tom

 

[markyboy81]

iPhones and actually I was quite pleased with OnePlus smartphone jpegs. I would say in general any smartphone will be the best at jpegs. Especially with Google Night sight and similar technology. Dedicated cameras aren’t necessary nowadays.

Of course they're not necessary. But are they desirable? Yes!

 

[Lettermanian]

I haven't read through every reply, but I have primarily shot jpeg since returning to photography in 2009. I've gone through numerous camera bodies and systems over the years, and landed on Fuji. I enjoy their film simulations and the overall shooting experience with Fuji cams more than with any other system I tried (though Olympus was a close second).



One feature I use frequently is Fuji's film simulation bracketing, which allows the user to pre-select three film simulations for bracketing. Then when shooting in bracketing mode, the camera will generate three jpegs (one of each sim) from only one shot. On their higher end cameras the user can also set the camera to produce jpegs+raw files in bracketing mode. So if you want to do further post-processing, you will have raw files to work with. I primarily shoot Provia, Chrome, and Acros sims in bracketing mode. I use Faststone as my image viewer on my pc, which allows for light pp if necessary.



it's a very subjective question you're asking, so hopefully all of these replies will give you the insight you need to help you make a decision. Good luck

 

[Bobthearch]

As we know, mobile phones are producing amazing photos even though their sensor sizes are small. It's due to their powerful post-processing feature like iPhone's deep fusion and etc..
The question is, i want to know which mirrorless camera produces the best in-camera post-processing output to JPEG. Can the best matches those from the mobiles?
This is important for those shooters who don't edit their raws using PC post-processing editors and want to rely solely on the camera.
Thank you.

Let me actually answer your question clearly.

Every single "real camera's" JPG output simply can't hold a candle to a top-tier smartphone's, which excel at tonemapping and shadow-highlight rendition (a common strawman detractors might raise is per-pixel fidelity, but this has little bearing on the gestalt--i.e., the overall aesthetic of the shot, which is where smartphones pull far ahead).

You'll be posting some examples from your own phone?

I have an iPhone XR, and I can tell that third-party developers wouldn't be making $Thousands selling RAW camera apps if Apple's jpeg processing was worth a crap.

Apple's JPG processing is poor at the per-pixel level, but its tonemapping is excellent, as is Google's.

As the rocks, deck, and white part of the wall show quite plainly--and even after accounting for DOF differences, the same scene with my Google Pixel 3a XL shows much more pleasing (and accurate) microcontrast than does the same shot with my DSLR, which I'd need to pull into ACR and tweak the contrast, clarity, and highlights slider to achieve the same pleasing and accurate look.


Pixel 3a XL


Nikon DSLR


Pixel 3a XL


Nikon DSLR

Yes, a good example of your point.

But I think the Nikon photo could have been improved with some adjustments.

For one, the Picture Control is set to Standard, which is always flat and under-saturated. Vivid Picture Control would have been more similar to the Google.

I do like how the Google phone shows the detail in the nearest rocks. That's partly due to the very narrow depth of field in the Nikon (f2.8 and FX sensor) and the fact that the Nikon image appears slightly over-exposed.



--
Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel and photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Special-interest photos: http://ghosttowns.placesandpics.com/

 

[sluggy_warrior]

But I think the Nikon photo could have been improved with some adjustments.

For one, the Picture Control is set to Standard, which is always flat and under-saturated. Vivid Picture Control would have been more similar to the Google.

agreed

I do like how the Google phone shows the detail in the nearest rocks. That's partly due to the very narrow depth of field in the Nikon (f2.8 and FX sensor) and the fact that the Nikon image appears slightly over-exposed.

Yeah, Nikon cameras tend to overexpose. I had to set EC to -2/3EV for D40, D5100, and D5500. And that habit burns me when switching to Fuji X-T20, which tends to underexpose about 1/3EV.

Also, the camera is supposed to leave the "vision" to the photographers, thus, usually we either tweak the camera settings to get the SOOC JPG we want, or we tweak the processing workflow/preset to get what we want from RAW. Our taste is subjective, and constantly changing.

 

[PhotoFactor]

That's funny, so basically you say that the phone pics are not as good as they look

No, this posted sample is good.

What I said is the poster was clever on picking a sample from non demanding condition. I suppose every one who had paid attention to this topic should know well the strength and weakness of phone as well as its computational processing. If under those condition a phone can't deliver a usable result, it will not be able to take over the low end camera market.

But if under more demanding shooting environment, the result would become...???

Back to the images. We know we are looking at one processed image (certain processing should have been applied by the phone automatically) vs the one from camera that we don't know what had been done by the shooter. On a quick editing the sample from camera could be as good as that from the phone. So would there be a winner if both samples could receive similar processing could be a big "?".

The demanding conditions where I've found my phone doing better than my ILCs (jpg) is when there is quite high contrast. Scenes like indoors with a window visible with outside scene. Or a building from outside, in shadow, with the sun behind it. In those cases the phone managed the bright/dark and tonemapping of areas better, showing more detail in shadows and not blowing out the highlights. Careful exposure compensation and possibly bracketing is required on the ILCs to prevent blowouts. The phone is a Pixel 2XL, versus OMD EM10ii and Sony A6000. I could get as good a jpg with the ILCs if made sure my exposure parameters were (manually) adjusted before taking the shot, possibly with some test shots needed, then edit the RAWs, but that takes quite a bit of work and the phone managed it as a default single jpg. So it's not only easy conditions where the phones can do better.

Now obviously if you want to do astrophotography or shoot ultra wide or long focal lengths, the ILCs are better. As is the resolution if you want large photos.