iPhone camera vs DSLR

[Meister]

There are many, many big name and real serious pro photographers doing pro work with iPhones.

They work within the narrow limitations of the iPhone. That doesn't mean the iPhone camera is a good camera.
It just means that the artist is good.

I think I am being a bit misunderstood by some.
The iPhone camera doesn't take very good pictures compared to dslrs, mlsrs or analog cameras.
It is very limited but that doesn't mean that some amazing humans won't find a way to use it to create great images.

 

[chrono1081]

Nonsense... it's what you do and how you do it.

There's a lot of tech snobbery and BS about.

Agreed.

I adore my 5D2 (which I just sold since I don't have time for photography anymore) but it's not so much the camera as it is the photographer. The ability to frame a shot, shoot in pleasing light, and capture a scene will always always always trump fancy gear.

Sure, fancy gear helps with low light, or to capture sports moments, or gives you nice blurry backgrounds when using wide apertures but none of that means a thing if your composition sucks.

 

[kingalexthe1st]

DSLRs afford more creativity to realise the image in your head. Want bokeh or a shallow DoF? An iPhone can't do that anywhere near the level that a DSLR can. Conversely, if you shoot the kind of photos that don't need a small DoF (or macro, for that matter) then iPhone can do a pretty good job.

I read a review on Petapixel which was quite apt. They said that iPhone is todays Polaroid, and the fridge door on which our polaroids were placed is now Facebook (or social media in general). It's just a step up in technology for the same audience.

Alex

 

[fa8362]

Nonsense... it's what you do and how you do it.

There's a lot of tech snobbery and BS about.

I agree with Meister. Phone photos are not acceptable to ME.

----------

I can't be bothered to look for it now, but this subject has cropped up before. I posted a link to David Alan Harvey (Magnum photographer) going through his most recent book talking about the iphone shots in it. Magnum also have another photographer who shot the Libya conflict on an iPhone.

I guess these guys don't count as published pros on this forum though.

There are many, many big name and real serious pro photographers doing pro work with iPhones.

The technical quality of the phone photos are still crap, regardless if they sell.

 

[Dsching]

I agree with Meister. Phone photos are not acceptable to ME.
----------

The technical quality of the phone photos are still crap, regardless if they sell.

I agree. The image quality is not good.

----------

It might be snobbery if your standards are rock bottom.

LOL. So true!

 

[acearchie]

They work within the narrow limitations of the iPhone. That doesn't mean the iPhone camera is a good camera.
It just means that the artist is good.

I think I am being a bit misunderstood by some.
The iPhone camera doesn't take very good pictures compared to dslrs, mlsrs or analog cameras.
It is very limited but that doesn't mean that some amazing humans won't find a way to use it to create great images.

Not a bad thing but I completely disagree.

A good photographer is a good photographer regardless of what camera they use. The iPhone is not a bad camera at all. If you give a bad 'artist' the best camera in the world they will still take bad photos.

It does take good pictures compared to DSLRs for a very simple example that it is the camera that I have with me all the time.

You mention all the downsides of an iPhone but you fail to mention the disadvantages of a DSLR.

They are large, cumbersome, heavy, slow to setup and produce (photos), DOF is very shallow and expensive.

The limitations of an iPhone aren't that bad. I think photographers today have become too lazy. Many classic shots were made with film stuck to very low ISOs and through cameras with fixed lenses.

Here's a selection of iPhone shots I was able to find in 5 mins which I think proves it's not a bad camera.

Behind The Scenes by M a r i k o, on Flickr
Nice, France by MOHAMED TAZI, on Flickr

 

[fa8362]

Here's a selection of iPhone shots I was able to find in 5 mins which I think proves it's not a bad camera.

Sorry, but technically, those photos are inferior because the camera is inferior. Every one of those photos would have been better with a dslr.

 

[Meister]

Not a bad thing but I completely disagree.

A good photographer is a good photographer regardless of what camera they use. The iPhone is not a bad camera at all. If you give a bad 'artist' the best camera in the world they will still take bad photos.

It does take good pictures compared to DSLRs for a very simple example that it is the camera that I have with me all the time.

You mention all the downsides of an iPhone but you fail to mention the disadvantages of a DSLR.

They are large, cumbersome, heavy, slow to setup and produce (photos), DOF is very shallow and expensive.

The limitations of an iPhone aren't that bad. I think photographers today have become too lazy. Many classic shots were made with film stuck to very low ISOs and through cameras with fixed lenses.

Here's a selection of iPhone shots I was able to find in 5 mins which I think proves it's not a bad camera.

[url=https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5569/14969325611_dfe65b02cc_n.jpg]Image[/url]Behind The Scenes by M a r i k o, on Flickr
[url=https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3667/10833770044_5e4dc56342_n.jpg]Image[/url]Nice, France by MOHAMED TAZI, on Flickr
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Nice! Portability is the iPhones BIG plus. But thats it.

 

[acearchie]

Sorry, but technically, those photos are inferior because the camera is inferior. Every one of those photos would have been better with a dslr.

Yes but that's exactly the point. Maybe you would have had to get your DSLR out of your back and after that point the moment had past.

Photos aren't good because they are technically perfect. They are good because they capture a moment or scenario that generates and emotional reaction.

I could take pictures of focus charts all day long with a DSLR and whilst it could be nice and sharp and technically perfect it's not going to be an interesting picture.

What aspects of those shots harm lessen your interaction with them due to a technical fault?

 

[fa8362]

Yes but that's exactly the point. Maybe you would have had to get your DSLR out of your back and after that point the moment had past.

Photos aren't good because they are technically perfect. They are good because they capture a moment or scenario that generates and emotional reaction.

I could take pictures of focus charts all day long with a DSLR and whilst it could be nice and sharp and technically perfect it's not going to be an interesting picture.

What aspects of those shots harm lessen your interaction with them due to a technical fault?

There's nothing in that group of photos that couldn't have been taken with a dslr whether it was in a backpack or not.

 

[Attonine]

I agree with Meister. Phone photos are not acceptable to ME.

----------



The technical quality of the phone photos are still crap, regardless if they sell.

What do you mean by technical qualities? Grain? Dynamic range? What?

There are millions of DSLR photos, Film photos that also have crap technical qualities. There has been a trend for high grain, high contrast B&W photos over the past several years, crap technical qualities? What about high contrast, over exposed colour photos, crap technically? Maybe, but it's the image that counts, what is captured, what emotion it evokes. Lomo, Film, P&S, digital, leica, Zeiss, all have different qualities, strengths and weaknesses. The photographer uses the best tool for the purpose, the tool that will get the result the photographer wants.

Do Terry Richardson et al need a Leica S2 or Hassleblad to get the P&S snapshot aesthetic they became famous for? Oh no, Richardson famously used a crappy P&S to get this look which print fashion media went crazy for. Crap quality, crap camera, but unquestionably pro (Terry Richardson's moral code aside).

This snobbery over mobile photography has cropped up several times on this site. Pros, real big time pros do use mobile phones for pro work that is published by news sites and magazines the world over.

 

[acearchie]

Nice! Portability is the iPhones BIG plus. But thats it.

Is your aim to discredit the iPhone as a camera or to explain how superior a DSLR is?

The question was whether the iPhone could ever replace a DSLR for a casual user. My answer would be yes as it's a totally subjective.

It doesn't take much to look around and see that DSLRs are no way near as popular as camera phones.

Have a guess at what the top 4 cameras are that upload to flickr!

 

[Meister]

I could take pictures of focus charts all day long with a DSLR and whilst it could be nice and sharp and technically perfect it's not going to be an interesting picture.

What's wrong with focus charts?

 

[acearchie]

There's nothing in that group of photos that couldn't have been taken with a dslr whether it was in a backpack or not.

Ok follow that track then. Why would you need to get out your DSLR when the photos are good as is?

 

[Meister]

It doesn't take much to look around and see that DSLRs are no way near as popular as camera phones.

The popularity of DSLRs says nothing about their quality.
Phone-cameras come with the phone. They are not popular by themselves.

----------

Have a guess at what the top 4 cameras are that upload to flickr!

Phone-cameras. Obviously.

----------

Is your aim to discredit the iPhone as a camera or to explain how superior a DSLR is?

I have no aim and I totally agree with you.
The image quality of iPhones is bad compared to dslrs, but phone cameras have the HUGE advantage of being always with you.

 

[fa8362]

Ok follow that track then. Why would you need to get out your DSLR when the photos are good as is?

To me, they're not good. That's why I use high quality cameras and not phones. To me, phones are toys. If I'm going to make a picture, I'm going to do it with a quality recording device.

 

[acearchie]

The popularity of DSLRs says nothing about their quality.
Phone-cameras come with the phone. They are not popular by themselves.

----------

Phone-cameras. Obviously.

The two points counter act themselves!

Phone cameras are not popular versus the fact that the top four spots on the most popular cameras to upload to Flickr are iPhones!

Quality is such a subjective point, one man's trash is another man's treasure and all that.

The layman seems to believe that an iPhone is good enough and that was the basis of the question.

We might as well say that DSLRs don't have the quality of Medium Format digital cameras or Large Format film but they definitely capitalised on that market.

----------

To me, they're not good. That's why I use high quality cameras and not phones. To me, phones are toys. If I'm going to make a picture, I'm going to do it with a quality recording device.

That was my question. What is not good about them?

Would you rather than a technically perfect HQ image of a missed moment or a perfect expression or moment that had been captured by an iPhone.

 

[Meister]

What do you mean by technical qualities? Grain? Dynamic range? What?

Noise, aberations, coma, dr, BOKEH! , lens distortions, no control over focal length or lens.
Cellphones are worse in all these regards.
I completly agree with everything else you wrote.

----------

Phone cameras are not popular versus the fact that the top four spots on the most popular cameras to upload to Flickr are iPhones!

They are not popular, they are readily available. They come with your phone ...

 

[fa8362]

The two points counter act themselves!

Phone cameras are not popular versus the fact that the top four spots on the most popular cameras to upload to Flickr are iPhones!

Quality is such a subjective point, one man's trash is another man's treasure and all that.

The layman seems to believe that an iPhone is good enough and that was the basis of the question.

We might as well say that DSLRs don't have the quality of Medium Format digital cameras or Large Format film but they definitely capitalised on that market.

----------



That was my question. What is not good about them?

Would you rather than a technically perfect HQ image of a missed moment or a perfect expression or moment that had been captured by an iPhone.

The dslr wouldn't have missed ANY of that and would have delivered a much superior image.

 

[Meister]

To me, they're not good. That's why I use high quality cameras and not phones. To me, phones are toys. If I'm going to make a picture, I'm going to do it with a quality recording device.

this goes for me as well.
I get joy out of my dslr. I do not get that joy out of my phone camera.
I hoped I would but ...

(I am starting to pratice with my new iPhone though. And it has a lightmeter for analog )

 

[acearchie]

The dslr wouldn't have missed ANY of that and would have delivered a much superior image.

That's where we have to agree to disagree. You can't have your DSLR close at hand all the time and therefore you would be without an image.

The fact that the iPhone is small enough and practical enough to be with you all day for me makes it a very useful asset.

 

[fa8362]

That's where we have to agree to disagree. You can't have your DSLR close at hand all the time and therefore you would be without an image.

The fact that the iPhone is small enough and practical enough to be with you all day for me makes it a very useful asset.

Of course you can have your dslr close at hand. All you have to do is carry it. If a woman can carry a purse, a man can carry a camera.

 

[kingalexthe1st]

The dslr wouldn't have missed ANY of that and would have delivered a much superior image.

You're right, your DSLR would have taken a better-quality photo. But would you have had your DSLR with you in those situations? I would put money on you not carrying your DSLR with you at all times. Sure the iPhone doesn't have the quality as a DSLR, but it's not a bad substitute for when you see something to shoot and you don't have your DSLR with you. Better to take the photo on an iPhone than not at all, right? Would you not take a picture on your iPhone, when you have nothing else to shoot with, just because it's not up to DSLR quality? In fact, if you hadn't been told they were taken on an iPhone, would you have been able to say that they were?

Alex

 

[acearchie]

Of course you can have your dslr close at hand. All you have to do is carry it. If a woman can carry a purse, a man can carry a camera.

Ok well if you are the person that carries their DSLR with them at all times including when they sleep, as I do with my iPhone, then good on you.

However, there are venues and certain areas where DSLRs are not allowed and there the iPhone shows it's the victor!

 

[Meister]

Of course you can have your dslr close at hand. All you have to do is carry it. If a woman can carry a purse, a man can carry a camera.

i have a sunsniper strap and in my spare time I often walk around with my d610 and a prime dangling from my side. that way I have it quicker available than my phone. But I am a bit quirky