Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone camera vs DSLR
- Thread starter Freida
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
VI™;20059682 said:
What do photojournalists in war zones have to do with whether DSLRs take better quality pictures for print than iPhones do?
What does the fact that a DSLR can take a better quality image for print have to do with getting your work on the (print) cover of Time or above the fold on page one of the NYT?
In those two instances, the photographer did use an iPhone to replace a DSLR to get a commercially and artistically successful photo, answering the OP's question at least in these cases as to whether it was a suitable replacement.
Thanks for sharing the links.
Isn't the debate about whether iPhones can replace DSLRs for non-pros?
VI is just adding to the evidence that Pros are already using iPhones in very demanding environments, and the work produced by said photojournalists using their iPhones is appearing in print.
Glad to see the the photojournalists using iPhones have moved up the ladder from "hacks" being paid by Apple to photojournalists! I take it by calling them photojournalists you now retract that iPhones have nothing to do with photography?
Why yes it is. So what does the fact that photojournalists in war zones find it too dangerous to walk around with a big camera so they compromise with an iPhone have to do with whether iPhones can replace DSLRs for non-pros?
It is refuting earlier statements that iPhones have nothing to do with photography, cannot be used to capture decisive moments amongst other statements. By establishing that indeed (some) professionals in war zones are choosing to use iPhones as their primary cameras, the fact is established that iPhones can and are being used simply as another kind of camera, and are producing images of high enough quality to be used in print media.
The fact that pros are using the phones in war zones which are extremely demanding environments and an environment in which you certainly don't want to be in with the wrong equipment we can move on to the issue of whether iPhones are up to the somewhat less demanding tasks of the everyday non-pro who is not getting shot at.
Then we can move on to individuals who are making a name for themselves on sites like Instagram and Tumblr posting some incredible work with iPhones. Individuals who are not being held back by the technical limitations of the iPhone when compared to DSLRs. Some of these individuals are getting work reproduced in various print media, winning commissions, getting commercial work etc.
By pure coincidence Time Lightbox has just published an article about another conflict photographer who has used his iPhone as his primary camera for the past 4 years. Good article.
http://lightbox.time.com/2014/10/10/instagram-balazs-gardi/
Last edited:
It doesn't refute anything, and neither do the mediocre quality photos that iPhone users post.
Keep saying it, someone will believe you....
----------
The point is clearly made that you don't need a DSLR to be a professional photographer.
The DSLR is the tool of choice in many photographic circumstances, it will get a professional photo-journalist killed in others, either way that same photo-journalist can use an iPhone for professional photography and have the results used commercially.
No-one here has tried to claim iPhones replace DSLRs under all circumstances, there are plenty of statements in this thread stating that NO iPhone photo's are of acceptable quality in technical or artistic content. That is just patently wrong.
Case closed I think but I expect the pointless debate over technical specs to continue.....and continue to miss the point completely.
Just for the record I use both and have no intention of giving up either my DSLR or my iPhone camera, in just the same way as I need more than one tool for gardening....
----------
Some time ago the numbers were posted that indicate DSLR shipments are in serious decline, the point for non-Pro's is completely made. In every aspect of measurable photo usage camera phones far outweigh DSLRs in volume. I'd use a simple measure of "acceptable quality to the user" as being if they use the image outside of their phone, if they post it etc. By that measure this debate is done. Camera phones ARE replacing DSLRs for non-pro usage (and some pro usage too).
No, it's not. You can promote the inferior quality of camera phones until you're blue in the face, but they're still inferior.
Inferior quality to DSLR.... yes, absolutely, is anyone arguing to the contrary? What has been said and demonstrated is that the "inferior" quality is acceptable.
Yes it can, has and does for many people. Not in every case will an iPhone (or whatever) camera produce the best shot but they are increasingly producing shots that those users are very happy with. Consequently there will be less take-up of DSLRs - and indeed less DSLRs are shipping indicating this is already happening.
As posted above, iPhone and other phone camera's are already being used by some organizations and individuals and in certain circumstances to replace DSLRs for commercially purpose so they are increasingly good enough for professional usage too.
----------
You clearly don't understand the word "acceptable", and refer back to the OP's question, that has been answered in full with the data and examples posted.
You are debating a different question, which as far as I can see no-one has disagreed with, DSLRs currently produce technically better images and can cope with a wider range of circumstances than camera phones before quality fall-off.
But they may both still pass the "acceptable" mark for the use for which the image is required.
I know you're new to this 250+ post thread and you're not going to read it before posting, but before you give your pathetic smart-ass reply, can you please at least read the original post back on page 1 so you know what we're talking about?
kkthx
Keep saying it, someone will believe you.... You think any pro doesn't own an SLR even if they take some snaps with an iPhone?
And that's still irrelevant. iPhones will not replace DSLRs for pros and serious amateurs. Doesn't matter if some photojournalists in tough environments choose to trade-off quality for safety.
Photojournalists were the first to use DSLRs when they were crap compared to film because it was easier to get the shot to print. Quality has always been a low priority in photojournalism. Even Nikon's pro bodies like the D2H and D3S which are targeted at photojournalism trade-off quality for other things like frame-rate. You're choosing one niche where quality is not a priority and then hand-picking a few people in that niche and pretending it has any meaning to the mass market.
And that has any meaning for the vast majority of people who are not photojournalists in war zones but want to take nice pictures?
Which thread were you reading? You've repeated that statement many times and if you actually read a few posts, you'll see it's not true.
v3rlon for example keeps repeating BS like "Until you can prove that the problems with the smaller for factor of the phone are impossible to solve (and it is impossible to prove something is completely impossible), you bold prediction of cell phones NEVER being good enough fails." so until I can prove physical laws will never be disproven, we have to assume $15 iPhones cameras will surpass $5000 DSLRs some day?
And then Attonine keeps repeating that if a few pro photojournalists can get iPhone pics for war zones published iPhones are good enough for the rest of us. So today already there's no reason to buy a DSLR according to him.
pletely.
Keep saying it, someone will believe you....
First P&S cameras are losing out to iPhones, DSLRs still aren't so let's see a citation better than "some time ago the numbers were posted".
Second, a million monkeys chimping away on a million iPhones will produce billions of pictures of cats all over the internet "proving" iPhone camera usage is much higher. With my DSLR, I take a lot of time and effort to create an image. It's easy to take millions of crappy pictures. But most people would rather see a few good pictures than waste hours looking at crappy ones.
I never said this, I never intimated this. My logic is clearly stated in a post above.
Do you really think this guy takes bad photos? This is a genuine question.
http://instagram.com/koci
I've seen no such demonstration. All I've seen are crappy phone photos. As I stated earlier, if I didn't have my camera and all I had was a phone, I wouldn't bother photographing. Phone cameras aren't worth my time.
----------
If the shoe fits... Out of context quotes mean nothing regarding quality. Obviously, people who don't care about quality have no issues with phone cameras.
I will relate a story and you can infer what you'd like.
My partner and I took his nephews to the zoo for the day. I took my DSLR (Nikon D3100) and, of course, I had my iPhone 5s with me. The DSLR took some really good photos, mostly of animals that were far away. I had my whole camera bag (backpack) with me, with an 18-55mm lens, fixed length 35mm lens, and a 55-200mm zoom lens.
For the first part of the day, I used the DSLR. I had to stop frequently to change lenses. They had to wait on me. It was cumbersome, and by the afternoon I was done with it. I was spending all of my time swapping lenses and little time being present with my family.
So I put the DSLR in the bag, and used my iPhone for the rest of the afternoon. This allowed me to be present in the experience, and still capture the moments I wanted to remember or share with family and friends. No, I didn't capture any great close-up shots of far away animals with the iPhone's admittedly limited digital zoom, but I did get acceptable photos that perfectly captured the moment.
The iPhone won't replace a high-end camera for the serious hobbyist or professional, but ultimately the best camera is the one you have with you. And in my experience, that's always my iPhone. The iPhone, when compared with a DSLR, is also the less intrusive option. I can be part of the fun or action more with my iPhone, whereas the DSLR makes me more of an observer or documentarian.
My partner and I took his nephews to the zoo for the day. I took my DSLR (Nikon D3100) and, of course, I had my iPhone 5s with me. The DSLR took some really good photos, mostly of animals that were far away. I had my whole camera bag (backpack) with me, with an 18-55mm lens, fixed length 35mm lens, and a 55-200mm zoom lens.
For the first part of the day, I used the DSLR. I had to stop frequently to change lenses. They had to wait on me. It was cumbersome, and by the afternoon I was done with it. I was spending all of my time swapping lenses and little time being present with my family.
So I put the DSLR in the bag, and used my iPhone for the rest of the afternoon. This allowed me to be present in the experience, and still capture the moments I wanted to remember or share with family and friends. No, I didn't capture any great close-up shots of far away animals with the iPhone's admittedly limited digital zoom, but I did get acceptable photos that perfectly captured the moment.
The iPhone won't replace a high-end camera for the serious hobbyist or professional, but ultimately the best camera is the one you have with you. And in my experience, that's always my iPhone. The iPhone, when compared with a DSLR, is also the less intrusive option. I can be part of the fun or action more with my iPhone, whereas the DSLR makes me more of an observer or documentarian.
Oh please. There are millions of pretentious wanna-be photogs out there with DSLRs who cannot take a picture to save their life too. Plus many truly artistic people taking their time and producing real artistic beautiful photography with their phones. I've never heard such over generalizing clap trap. Art is art. A camera is a tool. A great artist can take a better pic on an iphone than a pseudo artist with a top of the line Canon and the most expensive glass on the planet.
It's all realitive. Some tools will be better for certain things. But when it comes to true art...anything goes. There are no rules.
Where please, have I said that? Quote or retraction will do, please do not attribute others quotes to me.
And the decline in DSLR shipments? They are being replaced by what device in your opinion? My contention is that the small decline in DSLR sales indicates those users are being lost to digital camera's full stop and are replacing that sale with a non-sale and they are satisfied by the output of their camera phone. If they are satisfied then what benefit does the DSLR have for them (unless perhaps you are looking over their shoulder telling them whether to be satisfied or not).
Different tools for different uses, but increasingly DSLRs are being replaced by other devices such as phones, as per the OP's question.
You've repeated many times that nobody has claimed that. It has been claimed by others many times on this thread, so your repeated statement that nobody is claiming that is false. Sorry, I see that it was confusing.
What decline in DSLR sales? You're citing something you think you may have read on some thread a while ago. If anything, my D810 is at a point Nikon is going to have a hard time convincing me to replace it. My first camera (Nikon F2) lasted me 15 years. Digital may be at a mature enough point to keep the bodies a long time too. But not many people will give up a DSLR for a $15 toy camera module in a phone.
Here it is again for you.
----------
No. See above, I'm quoting a direct source, directly as above. Guess you didn't bother to read. it.
36% decline in digital overall 10% decline in DSLR. Read it yourself. Please.
----------
I can see users claiming that phone cameras produce acceptable results, nothing more.
Compare with many posts citing that "ALL phone camera pictures are junk" or similar.
No, but spending lord knows how much energy to repudiate the efficacy of phone cameras apparently is worth quite a bit of your time.
----------
As a general observation, I usually find that heels speak in clichès because they lack imagination. They have yet to invent a camera to make up for that.
Tough crowd in here, lol. I just came from a MacRumors thread leading to a Beats / Bose versus other brands of music listening devices debate. That one got contentious.
What I derive from that and this is: if the iPhone photos satisfy you, great. Its giving you what you want. Its only when photos of certain environments or scenes leave you wanting, then its either accept the deficiencies, or look for a better camera.
What I derive from that and this is: if the iPhone photos satisfy you, great. Its giving you what you want. Its only when photos of certain environments or scenes leave you wanting, then its either accept the deficiencies, or look for a better camera.
Could you post the whole images? Those are so small that they are unviewable on anything but an ipad screen.
----------
Nice! i like that guys work!
But is there anyway to see the whole images?
Here is a larger one. I posted in response to someone saying that it was impossible to capture the spirit of Cartier-Bresson with an iphone. Too bad, we'll never know whether or not he thought iphones were merde.
EDIT: PS - this was taken with the iphone5. I upgraded to the 6 and it's much better imho
EDIT: PS - this was taken with the iphone5. I upgraded to the 6 and it's much better imho
