I have a camera handy any time I want to make photos. Regarding the quality, those photos are poor quality. Whether I'd know they were taken with an iPhone is irrelevant. I know they're taken with an inferior device. I don't understand why you can't see the obvious deficiencies, because they're NOT subtle.
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
I have a camera handy any time I want to make photos. Regarding the quality, those photos are poor quality. Whether I'd know they were taken with an iPhone is irrelevant. I know they're taken with an inferior device. I don't understand why you can't see the obvious deficiencies, because they're NOT subtle.
I think we have now firmly established that this is the big quality of our phone cameras.
It's also their only advantage.
----------
Sleeping with your phone is kinky!
So you do not consider those photos to be good? Pleasing to the eye? Aesthetically beautiful?
But it's also a huge disadvantage of DSLRs!
Subtle, they are certainly not.
----------
Absolutely. But it's also a personal preference. I tend not to use my phone-camera even though it's on me a lot. I tend to take pictures when my dslr is at hand. iPhones are a great option to have, but for enthusiasts and pros (those are the people who usually own dslrs) the iPhone does not replace the real camera.
If I could look past the obvious deficiencies, perhaps. But I can't. I see wasted image opportunities that could have been far better exploited with a better camera.
And a good pair or running shoes can replace a CAR! Its totally subjective I guess!! A bike can replace an airplane too!
BTW the OP question was "can iPhone soon replace DSLR for people like me who are not professional photographers?"
A non professional and causual user are completely different.
Last edited:
So you go out purposefully to shoot photos, while others prefer to wing it and capture the moment. And if their iPhone is all there is to hand then that's what will be used.
I can see that they're not as sharp as a DSLR photo. The portrait of the blonde especially stands out in this case. It's obvious you feel iPhone cameras are of poor enough quality to warrant taking your DSLR out with you, which is fine. But to slam iPhone photos across the board just because they're not up to your standards is taking a one-size-fits-all approach when in reality it's horses for courses.
Personally, I think the photos acearchie showed are great. Who cares if they're not razor sharp, or a bit grainy? I like the story that photos tell. Image quality is further down the list on what makes a photo, to me.
Alex
Why not? They don't exhibit shallow dof, dr and lack of perspective distortion that the other posters mentioned make a DSLR better.
----------
Photography is different for everyone but I share the same view.
It's about a story, an emotion, something to connect with.
Post-processing on the go is another advantage. I'm seriously considering coming back to iOS with the iPhone 6+ because of the post-processing apps available. There's just not the same selection on android. It would be a fun, different and challenging way to photo!
Yup, yup and yup. Three for three!
Alex
Clearly a DLSR is a technically better (much better) camera than an iPhone. Just as a medium format is better than 35mm and an 8X10 will capture much more information than a medium format (it's a freakin' 8x10 negative!).
I say each to their own. I never see these "art" vs "technical capability" conversations going anywhere. Both sides are usually right. If a pin hole camera you built gets you out taking photos and it captures something that brings you joy then it's the best camera ever made. Same goes for the D4s.
I ignored my iPhone camera for a while but as I've tried to take photos that I'm proud to show others (keepers) with it I've learned more about photography in general and that has translated to my DLSR attempts. Careful what you dismiss and close your self off to.
The iPhone shots here are pretty impressive http://www.ippawards.com/?project=2014-winners#prettyPhoto Could they have been better with a DLSR? Technically better...sure. Would that fox have approached that close in that open position with with a big DLSR? Maybe, maybe not.
I also have this romantic idea that out there somewhere...probably in a used gear bin is a combination of camera and lens that will take images with a completely unique quality to them that I'll love and everyone else will think is amazing. It'll probably be something old that somebody dropped and cracked and traded it in for the next latest and greatest. I think this romantic notion exists in film but maybe it will in digital one day too.
I say each to their own. I never see these "art" vs "technical capability" conversations going anywhere. Both sides are usually right. If a pin hole camera you built gets you out taking photos and it captures something that brings you joy then it's the best camera ever made. Same goes for the D4s.
I ignored my iPhone camera for a while but as I've tried to take photos that I'm proud to show others (keepers) with it I've learned more about photography in general and that has translated to my DLSR attempts. Careful what you dismiss and close your self off to.
The iPhone shots here are pretty impressive http://www.ippawards.com/?project=2014-winners#prettyPhoto Could they have been better with a DLSR? Technically better...sure. Would that fox have approached that close in that open position with with a big DLSR? Maybe, maybe not.
I also have this romantic idea that out there somewhere...probably in a used gear bin is a combination of camera and lens that will take images with a completely unique quality to them that I'll love and everyone else will think is amazing. It'll probably be something old that somebody dropped and cracked and traded it in for the next latest and greatest. I think this romantic notion exists in film but maybe it will in digital one day too.
My thoughts on iPhoto camera Vs DSLR aren't important and I feel this thread has become somewhat derailed.
But can I use an iPhone camera to replace a DSLR for what I shoot? No. A resounding no.
But can I use an iPhone camera to replace a DSLR for what I shoot? No. A resounding no.
Nope. Not until Apple changes the laws of physics.
(I'm not counting the people who buy a DSLR and treat it like a PHD camera. For them, the DSLR never served a purpose other than to provide a "look" as it swung from their shoulder; they never bothered to learn enough about photography to understand their camera and how it is different from what might fit inside a phone)
(ILC = Interchangable Lens Camera, which includes DSLRs as well as Mirrorless cameras. PHD camera = Push Here Dummy, referencing a camera with an auto-everything mode where the camera manages to eke out reasonably decent images under many conditions despite the ignorance behind the viewfinder)
You just need your Schiller X1 water bike ;-)
http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20140905-cyling-the-seven-seas
My answer would be yes as it's a totally subjective, a bike for some could replace an airplane for someone who does not like/want to travel.
If you design a BS question or scenario you will always be able to have a certain answer. Notice how it has gone from non professional, to causal user, what will it be next, the amish population. Between non professional and casual users there is a huge gap. I would say most people who buy DSLR cameras are non professional. I don't have numbers but I would bet 99% are sold to non professionals. Of that 99% some might use it once and never again, and for those people a camera phone could replace a DSLR camera.
An iPhone can replace a DSLR camera for any multiple reasons like if you forget, its broken ect... And a pay phone can replace an iPhone in a pinch.
Public CCTV cameras might catch an event , and that would be the best camera in that scenario. Since the picture you have is always better then the picture you don't.
For most amateur camera enthusiasts aka casual user an iPhone will not replace a dedicated camera with variable optics. There is a better chance for an iPad to replace a Mac Pro in the future, but because of optical reasons this will not be possible for an iphone.
Reminds me of the digital vs film debate.
And consider that a smartphone shot is just the same thing as a DSLR shot. Just a different lens and sensor, and computer. Actually, the photo processing computer in a smartphone might spank a DSLR's computer. My phone does faster video than many DSLRs. Some phones have phase detection AF; my Oly M43 doesn't. You can take a shot with a great lens and a big sensor, only to find that you wanna add grain or otherwise edit it to look MORE like what an iPhone photo looks like. Just depends on your intention.
And back to film. A lot of art would never have been created if photographers only used the "best" cameras, i.e. view cameras. This same argument has occurred with film formats; I remember when a 35mm was considered a completely amateurish camera. Photography Monthly listed the 50 best cameras of all time, and the winner was...the Kodak Brownie.
I just care about the image. But then again, I like paintings, and the resolution on those is just crap....
And consider that a smartphone shot is just the same thing as a DSLR shot. Just a different lens and sensor, and computer. Actually, the photo processing computer in a smartphone might spank a DSLR's computer. My phone does faster video than many DSLRs. Some phones have phase detection AF; my Oly M43 doesn't. You can take a shot with a great lens and a big sensor, only to find that you wanna add grain or otherwise edit it to look MORE like what an iPhone photo looks like. Just depends on your intention.
And back to film. A lot of art would never have been created if photographers only used the "best" cameras, i.e. view cameras. This same argument has occurred with film formats; I remember when a 35mm was considered a completely amateurish camera. Photography Monthly listed the 50 best cameras of all time, and the winner was...the Kodak Brownie.
I just care about the image. But then again, I like paintings, and the resolution on those is just crap....
The ability to take low light pictures is definitely getting better though. If I wasn't just sitting in the car not paying attention and mindlessly saying "Take a picture!" to VoiceSnap like I was tonight, these could have been a lot better.
No edits by the way, except to rotate them. It was really, really dark.
Of course they're not DSLRs. If DSLRs could be compact and not just with smaller bodies, don't you think Nikon, Canon, Sony, and the others would be making them that way?
No edits by the way, except to rotate them. It was really, really dark.
Of course they're not DSLRs. If DSLRs could be compact and not just with smaller bodies, don't you think Nikon, Canon, Sony, and the others would be making them that way?
I'm a late comer to this discussion but I just read over all three pages of this and find this to be a very interesting debate.
The whole time I was reading this I kept seeing people type "good photos" and "crap photos". I couldn't stop from asking what exactly is a "good" photo or a "crap" photo.
Is a photo good because of the message or emotion it conveys? Or is it a good photo because it was taken with the best camera?
To me, I look at what the finished product (the photo itself) when deciding whether it is "good." I agree that phone cameras are not nearly as powerful as a DSLR but I have seen a large number of photos from phones that I would consider very "good" even thought they may not have been captured with the best equipment.
Just my two cents.
The whole time I was reading this I kept seeing people type "good photos" and "crap photos". I couldn't stop from asking what exactly is a "good" photo or a "crap" photo.
Is a photo good because of the message or emotion it conveys? Or is it a good photo because it was taken with the best camera?
To me, I look at what the finished product (the photo itself) when deciding whether it is "good." I agree that phone cameras are not nearly as powerful as a DSLR but I have seen a large number of photos from phones that I would consider very "good" even thought they may not have been captured with the best equipment.
Just my two cents.
We will never know if they would've been possible with a smartphone.
No need to start assumptions.
In a previous post you've included some beautifull shots done with iPhones.
It would be interesting to see them at larger magnification. I suspect that they won't hold up well. Do you have a link to the portrait of the hoody guy?
Even Jessicas image looks good when I see it on my iPad mini. I downloaded it and at closer look it's just an ocean of noise.
Last edited:
Do you mean a smartphone rather than a DSLR?
Most of them were taken from search by camera on Flickr and are only preview images.
Yes the noise is bad when blown up but who blows up pictures any more? People don't even print! I see Facebook and Flickr as the main sources for a lot of my peers and for that 800x600 is more than adequate!