iPhone camera vs DSLR

[v3rlon]

This.

If you're only taking photos of your cat, then the iPhone is awesome. If you need something, well…I dunno, adequate, please tell me how to shoot with an eight light setup with a phone.

Phillips Hue just kidding. But if folks want eight light set-ups, it would not be that hard to build an app for that with existing hardware and no changes to the phone at all.

On a related note, Hue is fun for setting up specific lighting colors, and no worse than some other lighting rigs I have seen as far as price goes. I am surprised more photo/video guys aren't dabbling with them.

 

[Oracle1729]

Okay, will do over the weekend. Also I'm not trying to prove anything. Just showing the results in some as you say easy photo taking circumstances.

Any chance of you posting those crop shots.

I shot this when I was reading about Yousuf Karsh and it was my effort to create a golden age Hollywood effect in is style. This really was beyond the dynamic range capability of my D90 and it was shot with an 18-200 wide open at 5.6 which explains the softness of the 100% crop. It's very far from ideal conditions shooting conditions and on old consumer-grade hardware.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Any chance of you posting those crop shots.

This was my part of my study of Yousuf Karsh and effort to create a golden age Hollywood effect. This really was beyond the dynamic range capability of my D90 and it was shot with an 18-200 wide open at 5.6 which explains the softness of the 100% crop. It's very far from ideal conditions shooting conditions and on old consumer-grade hardware.

Image

Sorry been busy at home with a poorly wife and daughter. I'll try this weekend.

 

[Oracle1729]

A bigger sensor will always yield a better result but most people don't have the eye to see the difference. Another difference is with DSLR, you can control the depth of field better and change lenses. There is a reason why you don't see wedding photographer shooting with an iphone...

Most people don't have the eye to see the difference on a 4.5" phone screen. Print at 5x7" and the difference is staggering. Print a 16x20 wedding portrait and a 99 year old with cataracts will spot the difference at 50 feet.

And in more difficult shooting conditions, like a dimly lit room, a white dress next to a black tux, the difference becomes a lot more dramatic, even on your little 4.5" screen.

 

[v3rlon]

Most people don't have the eye to see the difference on a 4.5" phone screen. Print at 5x7" and the difference is staggering. Print a 16x20 wedding portrait and a 99 year old with cataracts will spot the difference at 50 feet.

And in more difficult shooting conditions, like a dimly lit room, a white dress next to a black tux, the difference becomes a lot more dramatic, even on your little 4.5" screen.

I can agree with a bunch of this.

Bigger sensor allows better control of DOF.
Bigger sensor at same resolution allows bigger pixels in the sensor which in turn allow more light and thus better low light sensitivity.

These things work in favor of the DSLR in difficult shooting conditions. Phone makers are, of course, looking to overcome these in the same way that DSLR makers are looking to overcome their weaknesses compared to film or their competition.

The Shot posted by Oracle would be extremely challenging on a cell phone camera.

Of course, if you want a large DOF in bright light, the weaknesses of the smaller sensor are minimized. This is why they make great promo shots.

 

[Apple fanboy]

So here is the iPhone 6 plus cropped shot. Notice the blurred underside of the mushroom.

IMG_1778 by apple fanboy1, on Flickr

Here is the mushroom a the same size shot with my D7100 and 24-70 mm lens (macro was at home!)

_DSC7547 by apple fanboy1, on Flickr

 

[sarge]

I have a love hate relationship with cameras. Frankly, I’d rather not even have to use one at all. If I were any good at describing my emotional response to visual stimulus , I would dispense with cameras altogether.

The savvy artist always engages with the technology and understands how it impacts his or her vision, accepting its limitations while exploiting its strengths. It’s hard to better the mechanical chemical process of traditional darkroom photography if you intend to share it as a physical object with someone, just as its equally difficult to argue against the value of instantaneously sharing a digital incarnation with millions of people the world over. There is beauty in both as surely as there is beauty diverging into the math and engineering required to bring both these miracles of technology into being, the way a magnifying glass can either enlarge the viewable world (better for us to see) or concentrate the invisible proton and start a fire.

So....which of these series was taken with a twin lens reflex and which one was iphone?

http://www.brianchristophersargent.com/Down-With-the-Ship-1
http://www.brianchristophersargent.com/Notes-from-the-Underground

Which one was 6x7 Transparency, and which one digital SLR?

http://www.brianchristophersargent.com/Anatomy-of-a-Corner
http://www.brianchristophersargent.com/After-Dark-Prospect-Park

Bet you can't tell

 

[simonsi]

Most people don't have the eye to see the difference on a 4.5" phone screen. Print at 5x7" and the difference is staggering. Print a 16x20 wedding portrait and a 99 year old with cataracts will spot the difference at 50 feet.

That is kind of the point though, for most people globally their reference is the phone screen and nothing is ever printed or viewed any larger.

 

[sarge]

That isn't the whole point though. Some photos you couldn't take with anything but an iphone. If you want to be discreet for example an 8x10 view camera is not a good tool of choice

----------

nor is a Hasselblad with it's clunky mirror

 

[Oracle1729]

That is kind of the point though, for most people globally their reference is the phone screen and nothing is ever printed or viewed any larger.

The original question asked on this thread was "I know that professionals will always have DSLR and will rely on good lenses but can iPhone soon replace DSLR for people like me who are not professional photographers? What do you think?"

So the answer then is absolutely not. iPhones are fine for quick post to web snapshots, but for people who want a quality image that is suitable for print, iPhone is not a replacement and will not replace "real" cameras for the foreseeable future.

----------

So here is the iPhone 6 plus cropped shot. Notice the blurred underside of the mushroom.

I am not sure what you're showing. I thought you were going to post the 100% crops from the images you posted earlier. But even with these images, these are clearly not 100% crops. For one thing, your D7100 has a lot more pixels on the sensor so a 100% crop would show a lot more magnification from similar uncropped pictures.

These pictures look hardly cropped at all and are not helpful at all in comparing the optical quality of the 2 cameras. Can you show the uncropped versions of these pictures for reference? Or the 100% cropped versions of your earlier posts?

This is something I shot on my iPhone 4s and a 100% crop taken from the same image:

Note that there is almost no detail in the crop it's just a heavily artifacted blur. Even shot in bright daylight, there is a huge amount of noise visible. More noise than actual detail.

Just like in my earlier posts, 1 pixel in the cropped section of the image is 1 pixel from the original image. That's what 100% crop means. The SLR images hold up very well at 100%. The iPhone does not.

 

[simonsi]

iPhones are fine for quick post to web snapshots, but for people who want a quality image that is suitable for print, iPhone is not a replacement and will not replace "real" cameras for the foreseeable future.

The point I'm trying to get across is that for most people's usage, camera phone's have already won that battle. Of course there will always be people who want what a DSLR offers (I'm one of them), and that will likely always be more than a camera phone can offer, but for most people's usage a DSLR won't be necessary as they never required the full quality of the DSLR, they simply wanted more than was available from camera's and PAS's at the time - but increasingly their needs are being met by the better camera's in phones...

 

[Apple fanboy]

The original question asked on this thread was "I know that professionals will always have DSLR and will rely on good lenses but can iPhone soon replace DSLR for people like me who are not professional photographers? What do you think?"

So the answer then is absolutely not. iPhones are fine for quick post to web snapshots, but for people who want a quality image that is suitable for print, iPhone is not a replacement and will not replace "real" cameras for the foreseeable future.

----------



I am not sure what you're showing. I thought you were going to post the 100% crops from the images you posted earlier. But even with these images, these are clearly not 100% crops. For one thing, your D7100 has a lot more pixels on the sensor so a 100% crop would show a lot more magnification from similar uncropped pictures.

These pictures look hardly cropped at all and are not helpful at all in comparing the optical quality of the 2 cameras. Can you show the uncropped versions of these pictures for reference? Or the 100% cropped versions of your earlier posts?

This is something I shot on my iPhone 4s and a 100% crop taken from the same image:

Image

Note that there is almost no detail in the crop it's just a heavily artifacted blur. Even shot in bright daylight, there is a huge amount of noise visible. More noise than actual detail.

Just like in my earlier posts, 1 pixel in the cropped section of the image is 1 pixel from the original image. That's what 100% crop means. The SLR images hold up very well at 100%. The iPhone does not.

Sorry my mistake. Here is the un-cropped iPhone shot.
IMG_1778 by apple fanboy1, on Flickr

And I uploaded the wrong D7100 shot. Here is the 100% crop.
_DSC7547-2 by apple fanboy1, on Flickr

 

[Attonine]

http://petapixel.com/2014/10/01/pul...hotojournalist-takes-the-iphone-6-for-a-spin/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/26/t...-testing-the-camera-on-the-iphone-6.html?_r=1

2 links but basically the same article. A pulitzer prize winning photojournalist taking the iPhone 6 for a spin.

The conclusion of the NYT article : 'Professional photographers like Mr. Heisler probably won’t be shelving their pro cameras for iPhones yet. But don’t be surprised if they pull one out on the job."

Again, if cell phone camera's are good enough for Time Magazine, Magnum photos and now Pulitzer prize winning photojournalists, they're good enough for the rest of us.

 

[gkarris]

Interesting discussion....

I've taken some of the most awesome photos with my iPhone 3GS, and have taken some really bad shots with my Nikon D5000...

Just take pics!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

Back in film days, I've enjoys pics from all formats, from Kodak Pocket Instamatic, Polariod Time-Zero, and Kodachrome 35mm....

 

[simonsi]

please tell me how to shoot with an eight light setup with a phone.

In 5yrs there will probably be an App for that

 

[The Bad Guy]

In 5yrs there will probably be an App for that

You're probably right.

What I love about this thread is - ooooh the iPhone camera is going to get soooo much better whilst ignoring the fact the DSLR will too.

 

[simonsi]

What I love about this thread is - ooooh the iPhone camera is going to get soooo much better whilst ignoring the fact the DSLR will too.

LOL yes I agree but at the same time I feel the relatively static level of consumer-grade satisfaction will increasingly be met by the increased better images produced by their phones, leaving the still-better DSLR development cost to be met by a shrinking market....

 

[Oracle1729]

In 5yrs there will probably be an App for that

The entire focus of iPhone camera marketing is quick simple snapshots that "just work". Even if the camera did get a lot better, supporting complex lighting setups goes against the design. And unless Apple changes that philosophy a lot (fat chance), people who care to set up 8 lights won't care to do it on an iPhone.

----------

LOL yes I agree but at the same time I feel the relatively static level of consumer-grade satisfaction will increasingly be met by the increased better images produced by their phones, leaving the still-better DSLR development cost to be met by a shrinking market....

And yet our entire history of consumerism says people will always want the next great thing. People who today want to buy a consumer-grade SLR because they iPhone doesn't cut it will still feel the same in 5 or 500 years. No matter how good the iPhone gets, if the SLR is dramatically better, they will have to have it.

 

[simonsi]

And yet our entire history of consumerism says people will always want the next great thing. People who today want to buy a consumer-grade SLR because they iPhone doesn't cut it will still feel the same in 5 or 500 years. No matter how good the iPhone gets, if the SLR is dramatically better, they will have to have it.

Perhaps your "entire history of consumerism" doesn't include the VHS player then? Or the Pager? The typewriter? All of these were surpassed by different technologies that carried out the same task, DSLRs are no more immune or immortal than that.

You may recall (or google), about VHS winning the standards race despite Betamax (or Video 2000), being technically superior.

DSLRs are what, 15yrs old at most, I certainly wouldn't predict a 500yr lifespan for them, even in jest...

 

[Oracle1729]

Perhaps your "entire history of consumerism" doesn't include the VHS player then? Or the Pager? The typewriter? All of these were surpassed by different technologies that carried out the same task, DSLRs are no more immune or immortal than that.

You may recall (or google), about VHS winning the standards race despite Betamax (or Video 2000), being technically superior.

DSLRs are what, 15yrs old at most, I certainly wouldn't predict a 500yr lifespan for them, even in jest...

You're arguing in circles. You just said the iPhone would get "good enough" so consumers wouldn't care about better technologies.

Now you say consumers will dump any tech for the next best thing, which is exactly what I just said.

I didn't predict a 500 year lifespan for DSLRs, I predicted it for there always being consumers who want better tech. It's been true for 5000+ years, so I don't think predicting 500 more is stepping out on a limb.

As long as DSLR is better than iPhone there will be plenty of people who have to have it. If something else is better, DSLRs will die in the blink of an eye. But my post was in response to you saying

LOL yes I agree but at the same time I feel the relatively static level of consumer-grade satisfaction will increasingly be met by the increased better images produced by their phones, leaving the still-better DSLR development cost to be met by a shrinking market....

So which is it??? There has never, ever been a static level of consumer-grade satisfaction, and there most certainly is not today.

 

[simonsi]

So which is it???

Currently some consumers elevate to DSLRs who I believe in the future will stay with phone camera's, that is currently the migration path, I don't know of anyone who gets a DSLR before a phone these days.

So "good enough" will be met by phone development vs having to go and purchase a relatively expensive DSLR.

"next great thing" isn't necessarily the "next best technical thing", that is probably where we diverge.

No matter, history will decide....

 

[ChrisA]

To be honest a lot of what I'm reading is going way over my head! Lets get back to practical examples.....

Your example was to easy. It was a static subject, just some grass and dirt where you needed very large depth of field.

Try a classic shot of a dog catching a Frisbee where the dog has all four feet off the ground. Or even harder, a bird in flight. Or a basket ball layup where the ball is just leaving the player's' hand. Or how about a portrait with shallow depth of field. How about a race car, panned so the car is sharp but with motion blur on the background.

The iPhone can only do one thing well, posed or static shots where the DOF is huge.

Yes, almost all consumer type snap shots are of subjects standing dead still and looking at the camera. Phones are good for those kinds of shots.

 

[Apple fanboy]

You're probably right.

What I love about this thread is - ooooh the iPhone camera is going to get soooo much better whilst ignoring the fact the DSLR will too.

But the development of DSLR's IMO has got much slower. Take a picture with a D3 and then a D4. Can you see the difference in the picture quality? Maybe in extreme conditions, but generally no.

----------

Your example was to easy. It was a static subject, just some grass and dirt where you needed very large depth of field.

Try a classic shot of a dog catching a Frisbee where the dog has all four feet off the ground. Or even harder, a bird in flight. Or a basket ball layup where the ball is just leaving the player's' hand. Or how about a portrait with shallow depth of field. How about a race car, panned so the car is sharp but with motion blur on the background.

The iPhone can only do one thing well, posed or static shots where the DOF is huge.

Yes, almost all consumer type snap shots are of subjects standing dead still and looking at the camera. Phones are good for those kinds of shots.

Yes I chose an easy example, but I don't take pictures of dogs with frisbiees generally.
I'm not about to ditch my DSLR, but I think the times when you can use your iPhone instead are getting more common.

 

[SHNXX]

I'm not giving up my 5Dmk2 and mk3 any time soon but iphone is definitely more convenient most of the time.

I don't even carry the 5Ds when I travel anymore because it's just too bulky.

 

[fa8362]

If I didn't have a camera, and had just a phone, I wouldn't even bother photographing at all.