iPhone camera vs DSLR

[Oracle1729]

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.

Really? I don't know anyone who follows that migration path. I know I owned DSLRs long before I ever owned a smartphone and I'd give up my smartphone long before I'd give up my camera. Basically because iPhones are not very good as cameras for more than selfies and food, they're not an entry into photography and not part of a migration path. If anything they discourage people from getting into real photography because when all you can get are blurry, grainy, poorly lit pictures, you think you have no skill in photography when the problem is your gear.

A close friend of mine who has zero interest in photography and doesn't own a smartphone spent a month in Scandinavia this year and bought an SLR for the trip. When he saw the pics he was getting he thinks it's the best thing he ever bought, even though it's the lowest end consumer model and he'll probably never take it out of auto mode.

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

Phone developers have zero interested in even making it "good enough". They want a simple snapshot device for simple-minded people. Adding "pro" features will just confuse the target masses. Look at all the apps that give "pro" style editing for $2 when what they're really selling is a cheap filter. There will always be the ignorant masses who will think they can take pictures with an iPhone. And there will always be people who understand what real optics does for them and things like dynamic range, resolution, sharpness, chromatic aberration, etc, etc, etc. And they will always be willing to buy a real camera.

There's a lot more people shooting selfies and food shots with iPhones then taking thought out photographs with real cameras. It doesn't mean real photo-enthusiests are going away.

Just like you can buy a keyboard synth app for your iPad and yet people still drop $5000+ on a real keyboard. A million people playing with an iToy doesn't hurt the market for the real thing.

----------

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

What do you mean extreme conditions? So if your camera is good enough to take a passible shot in the easiest conditions, that's good enough for you, and if it's good enough for you, nobody needs better?

The D750 is far beyond the D700 it replaced in every way in terms of image quality. Your iPhone 6 shoots look to be the same crap quality as my iPhone 4s 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.

So again, because you don't take pictures under difficult conditions the iPhone is as good as an SLR for most people. Wow, to be so conceited....

----------

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

What's your point? If Apple paid me as much as he was paid for the endorsement, I'd be shouting how great the iPhone is as a camera from the rooftops.

All that article says is that a professional photographer shooting easy subjects under ideal conditions can do a good job with an iPhone. A consumer will benefit from the more forgiving sensor and lens in a real camera. And anyone will benefit from the better quality camera under less than ideal shooting circumstances.

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.

And the fact that you fall for that shows the money that professional was paid was well spent advertising dollars. And if Nike shoes are good enough for Michael Jordan, they're good enough for me. And if U2 says I need to buy an iPhone, I'll buy 2.

 

[Zwhaler]

An Iphone never was a camera and never will be a camera. It takes snapshots, selfies, but not pictures of any quality.

Instagram? Yes. Professional or DSLR with a good lens level? Lol no.

 

[v3rlon]

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.

I haven't ignored that at all. I mentioned specifically that the human eye isn't getting any better (at any relevant rate, anyway). So if the cameras keep getting better, eventually, DSLRs and then (later) camera phones will get enough better than the human eye that it will not matter to the vast majority of users.

Also, phone cameras are improving at a faster rate than DSLRs because of more dollars and man-hours invested and because they do not have to innovate as much, but merely copy the more successful features on better cameras.

 

[Apple fanboy]

What do you mean extreme conditions? So if your camera is good enough to take a passible shot in the easiest conditions, that's good enough for you, and if it's good enough for you, nobody needs better?
The D750 is far beyond the D700 it replaced in every way in terms of image quality. Your iPhone 6 shoots look to be the same crap quality as my iPhone 4s shots.
So again, because you don't take pictures under difficult conditions the iPhone is as good as an SLR for most people. Wow, to be so conceited....

So you have made several points (and assumptions), which I'll answer as follows.
Extreme conditions would be dark or fast movement.
No my iPhone camera is not good enough for me (see my signature). I probably take less iPhone pictures than most. Probably because I don't do snaps (Instergram, food or going out snaps). If I'm doing photography, I'll have most of my gear on me.
I'm just saying the iPhone pictures are pretty good these days in forgiving circumstances.
The D750 supersedes the D610 not the D700 doesn't it? As I said. You could not tell which of my photos I post are taken with my D300 or my D7100. There is 4 years difference between those cameras. The difference between every generation of Nikon (and I guess other brands to, but I don't pay so much attention) is minimal. Thats a fact not an opinion.
I'm not being conceited and you have totally missed my point. I am a hobbits photographer. My pictures are taken with a DSLR. The next camera I buy will be a FF to go with my £1000's of lenses. Can I shoot the same types of pictures with my iPhone? No. Do I want to or try to? generally no.

 

[Meister]

The D750 supersedes the D610 not the D700 doesn't it?

As indicated by the numbering the D750 is supposed to be the successor to the D700.

From what I have seen the D750 seems to surpass the D610. The D700 only has one advantage over the D750 or D610. 8fps. The low light performance of the D700 compared to the D610 or D750 is not very good.

 

[Apple fanboy]

As indicated by the numbering the D750 is supposed to be the successor to the D700.

From what I have seen the D750 seems to surpass the D610. The D700 only has one advantage over the D750 or D610. 8fps. The low light performance of the D700 compared to the D610 or D750 is not very good.

And thats where Nikon get it wrong IMO. To much overlap in it's product range. Some older cameras have better features than new. Some pro bodies have features lacking in consumer bodies. Why don't they just have three FF and three (entry, middle, top) at a time?
Also why don't they give me a D750 foc whilst they are at it!

 

[Attonine]

And the fact that you fall for that shows the money that professional was paid was well spent advertising dollars. And if Nike shoes are good enough for Michael Jordan, they're good enough for me. And if U2 says I need to buy an iPhone, I'll buy 2.

I give up. Time Magazine, Magnum Photos getting paid by Apple to produce and run stories...really? Did you even read what the photographer said about how he ended up using the iPhone to make the story? You do know photography exists outside of the studio, DxO marks, pixel peeping? Are you familiar with the work of people like Saul Leiter, Ernst Haas, with Capa's D-Day photos, Anders Petersen, Jacob Aue Sobol to name a few? I'm sure you would be horrified by their work. Even though most of the work was produced using film, Leica M's and SLR's as well as some high end p&s's.

I will continue to be absorbed in the wonderful world of photos. I will continue to go to talks and signings by photographers and discuss their work with them. I will continue to buy photo monographs and photo books and spend hours getting lost in the images. I will continue to walk the streets, go to festivals, parties, and whatever else is on offer and take photos with whatever camera is in my pocket. And whilst doing all of this I will not give the equipment used to make the photos a second thought, I'll leave that to you.

 

[VI™]

This almost seems like the same arguement of "Will the budget photographer kill off the high end photography market?" You know, the wedding photographer that charges $200 and delivers 500-1000 photos on a DVD with little to no edits?

A lot of people argue that photographers charging so little will hurt the work of a photographer charging $2,000. The people looking for a $200 wedding photographer would never look at a $2,000 wedding photographer in the first place. The photographer charging 10 times as much is most likely offering quality, service, and features the cheaper photographer is not so they won't be put out of business as long as they keep doing what they're doing and innovating.

Now replace high end photographer with DSLR and budget photographer with iPhone.

 

[Meister]

And thats where Nikon get it wrong IMO. To much overlap in it's product range. Some older cameras have better features than new. Some pro bodies have features lacking in consumer bodies. Why don't they just have three FF and three (entry, middle, top) at a time?
Also why don't they give me a D750 foc whilst they are at it!

Yeah, Nikon is just throwing out dslrs and they give the customer so many options.
I think the best bangs for the buck are the D7100 for DX and the D610 for FX.
Want to get better then the D610? then get the D750 for €600 more.
The D(3 to 4s) and D8XX are not really sensible choices except for very specialized pros.

And the Df is,... well the Df.

 

[sarge]

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

No matter, history will decide....

In 1848, William Southgate Porter made 8 full plate daguerreotypes (6.5"x8") to construct a panorama of Cincinnati, OH.

The clarity of each of its eight copper panels is equivalent to a 140,000-megapixel digital image, thousands of times better than high-end commercially available digital cameras today.


http://www.codex99.com/photography/5.html
http://www.rochester.edu/news/photos/daguerreotype.html

iphone 6 is to DSLR what 3,888 DSLRs are to a single full plate Daguerreotype. We've all been waiting 166 years for the digital technology to catch up.

 

[Meister]

In 1848, William Southgate Porter made 8 full plate daguerreotypes (6.5"x8") to construct a panorama of Cincinnati, OH.

The clarity of each of its eight copper panels is equivalent to a 140,000-megapixel digital image, thousands of times better than high-end commercially available digital cameras today.


http://www.codex99.com/photography/5.html
http://www.rochester.edu/news/photos/daguerreotype.html

iphone 6 is to DSLR what 3,888 DSLRs are to a single full plate Daguerreotype. We've all been waiting 166 years for the digital technology to catch up.

Not really. Digital photography has revolutionized everything, just like the cameras on phones will revolutionize everything.
DSLRs have not replaced large format and iPhones won't replace DSLRs.
I am not sure what the practical application of a 140,000-megapixel image would be.

 

[sarge]

I guess you missed my earlier posts.

I already acknowledged the benefits of digital. The unspoken point I'm making is that the DSLR user is forgoing resolution for convenience sake, just as the iphone user forgoes the DSLR for practical (or equally valid artistic choices). I'm agnostic in this debate and simply choose to use the tool best suited for my needs....and I do use them all, from iphone, Full frame DSRL to 6x6cm, 6x7cm all the way up to 8x10 inches).

 

[fa8362]

This almost seems like the same arguement of "Will the budget photographer kill off the high end photography market?" You know, the wedding photographer that charges $200 and delivers 500-1000 photos on a DVD with little to no edits?

A lot of people argue that photographers charging so little will hurt the work of a photographer charging $2,000. The people looking for a $200 wedding photographer would never look at a $2,000 wedding photographer in the first place. The photographer charging 10 times as much is most likely offering quality, service, and features the cheaper photographer is not so they won't be put out of business as long as they keep doing what they're doing and innovating.

Now replace high end photographer with DSLR and budget photographer with iPhone.

Only a moron would charge only $200 to shoot a wedding. That doesn't even cover costs.

 

[VI™]

Only a moron would charge only $200 to shoot a wedding. That doesn't even cover costs.

Wow, that's some harsh judgement. So someone that bought a used DSLR for $200-$400 and has maybe $500 worth of primes and a $100-$200 flash (so about $1000 total investment in photography equipment) that shoots as a hobby is losing what by charging $200 for 2 1/2 hours of work? Why isn't $200 covering their cost when all they're spending after the initial investment is the money for a DVD to write the images on?

It's not like it's their day job and they're just doing it for some pocket change. Not everyone can afford a$1,000 for a wedding photographer, let alone a $5,000 wedding photography job. There are markets for everything and the point is that the $1,000 wedding photographer is looking pretty ignorant and wasting their breath by complaining about how the $200 wedding photographer is hurting their business because the people paying $200 for a wedding photography job wouldn't be looking at the $1,000 wedding photographer in the first place. And to look down on someone shooting weddings for $200 is pretty elistist. Let them do their thing. I know they're not taking money from me.

 

[Attonine]

You probably need to re-evaluate the 2 1/2 hours of work bit. More like 8 1/2 hours!

 

[VI™]

You probably need to re-evaluate the 2 1/2 hours of work bit. More like 8 1/2 hours!

That's my point. Someone that's only charging $200 might shoot for two hours, go home and run their photos through Light Room which may take them all of 30 minutes and be done. You generally get what you pay for and not everyone can afford to pay for the best. People can't even afford to pay for the middle of the road some times. I've known couples that have gotten married for $1000-$2000 and some that have spent over $10,000. Not everyone has the disposable income to be able to afford a lavish wedding. Ever seen those Redneck Wedding shows on TV? I'm pretty sure they're not spending very much on their weddings.

 

[Apple fanboy]

That's my point. Someone that's only charging $200 might shoot for two hours, go home and run their photos through Light Room which may take them all of 30 minutes and be done. You generally get what you pay for and not everyone can afford to pay for the best. People can't even afford to pay for the middle of the road some times. I've known couples that have gotten married for $1000-$2000 and some that have spent over $10,000. Not everyone has the disposable income to be able to afford a lavish wedding. Ever seen those Redneck Wedding shows on TV? I'm pretty sure they're not spending very much on their weddings.

Got married for around £2500 16 years ago. Church wedding and sit down reception for 120 people.
The photographers were a couple of friends with SLR's (wasn't into photography then, so no idea what they used). Pictures look great and it saved them buying us a present.

 

[Oracle1729]

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.

I give up. Time Magazine, Magnum Photos getting paid by Apple to produce and run stories...really? Did you even read what the photographer said about how he ended up using the iPhone to make the story? You do know photography exists outside of the studio, DxO marks, pixel peeping?

So your opinion is iPhones are so good now "the rest of us" shouldn't want anything else. And you honestly believe those articles are anything more than paid Shills for Apple? You really are a sucker. Please do give up, you're just embarrassing yourself.

Between various contests, I've posted any number of pictures on this forum that either could not have been shot at all on an iPhone (birds in flight, low light, distant animals that could eat me if I was in iPhone range) or would have been a lot more difficult to capture on an iPhone (needing apps that let me have more control of the camera) to some that are just worse on the iphone (B&W conversion is a lot better quality off 14 bit RAWs than 8 bit jPEGS). The last wedding I shot, I did 1800 pics and my first battery was still at 40%. (I do carry spares). Try that with an iPhone and you can't carry spares. Where are you going to get the storage space to do shoots like that with an iPhone?

But nope, a paid shill can shoot a few nice pictures under ideal conditions with a cheap toy camera, so it's all everyone needs. The mind boggles that there are people who fall for ads as completely.

I will continue to be absorbed in the wonderful world of photos. I will continue to go to talks and signings by photographers and discuss their work with them....

You do that. I will continue to take pictures that absorb viewers. And not with an iToy.

 

[v3rlon]

So your opinion is iPhones are so good now "the rest of us" shouldn't want anything else. And you honestly believe those articles are anything more than paid Shills for Apple? You really are a sucker. Please do give up, you're just embarrassing yourself.
...

In the same way that you are saying iPhones cannot take pictures at all and that no one has ever taken anything vaguely resembling a photograph with one. All those people claiming to be happy or satisfied with iPhone photos are all being paid by Apple to pretend to be happy.


Sheesh.
No one is saying that an iPhone is better than a D610 (or even a D90), but they are surely getting better, and serve well in places where they need to.

 

[Attonine]

So your opinion is iPhones are so good now "the rest of us" shouldn't want anything else. And you honestly believe those articles are anything more than paid Shills for Apple? You really are a sucker.

That is not my opinion at all. People are free to use whatever they want. Studio photography, sports photography, product photography, astro, landscape all have better and easier tools than iPhones. To counter posts stating that iPhones cannot produce photographs of good enough quality to be used by pros I have presented real world examples of pros and print media using iPhones and iPhone photographs. I have tried to demonstrate that cellphones can, have and are used by pros for professional work and cell phone photos are reproduced in international print media in news stories and in photographer produced monographs. I have tried to counter the sweeping statements made that cell phones cannot be used for serious photography by presenting the work of professional photographers rather than debate technical specifications of various cameras and sensor technology.

You are fee to believe that all the examples I have presented are from individuals and companies paid by Apple. I doubt this is the case, but without asking those involved I have no concrete evidence.

Think about this: Terry Richardson using a cheap P&S for his fashion work. Stephen Gill using a found, scratched up, cheap, plastic P&S to produce Hackney Wick. David Alan Harvey using Leica, Fuji, iPhone amongst others to produce (Based on) a True Story. Olivia Arthur using photos of photos in her work about women in Saudi Arabia. Stephen Shore using a cheap P&S in his early work. Professional photographers have a long tradition of using non-traditional tools, techniques and materials to produce their work. You clearly consider iPhones toys for photography. It's a valid point, but it certainly does not preclude it, or any cell phone, from being good enough to be used for professional work, as I have tried to show.

There is a growing community of instagrammers producing fantastic work with cell phones. Some are becoming commercially successful. I don't look down on any of these people at all, or their work. In fact I think it's wonderful and is enriching the field of photography and creating exciting new work.

Personally, when I see a great photo I just think wow! What a great picture. What equipment was used, grain, noise, DR, etc doesn't enter my mind. Sometimes there is a story behind the picture, like the guy reporting on the Libyan revolution whose DSLR broke so he switched to his iPhone. That just makes me think hey, great work.

 

[Meister]

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.

Image

I wouldn't call the D90 "old consumer grade hardware". The 18-200 is rather on the consumer end though.

Properly used this combo will pulverize any phone camera.

 

[Meister]

Think about this: Terry Richardson using a cheap P&S for his fashion work. Stephen Gill using a found, scratched up, cheap, plastic P&S to produce Hackney Wick. David Alan Harvey using Leica, Fuji, iPhone amongst others to produce (Based on) a True Story. Olivia Arthur using photos of photos in her work about women in Saudi Arabia. Stephen Shore using a cheap P&S in his early work.

Harvey - Leica M8 ($6k)
Richardson - Nikon D3X ($5k)

 

[Attonine]

Harvey - Leica M8 ($6k)
Richardson - Nikon D3X ($5k)

Please do more research before posting supposedly definitive statements like this.

DAH hasn't used an M8 for years and he barely used it then. Now he's using all sorts of cameras.
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/showthread.php?t=25497

And Terry Richardson
http://whouseswhatcamera.com/2011/09/16/what-camera-gear-does-terry-richardson-use/
http://laurentasg2.wordpress.com

These links were found within 30 seconds of a google search.

 

[Meister]

Please do more research before posting supposedly definitive statements like this.

DAH hasn't used an M8 for years and he barely used it then. Now he's using all sorts of cameras.
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/showthread.php?t=25497

And Terry Richardson
http://whouseswhatcamera.com/2011/09/16/what-camera-gear-does-terry-richardson-use/
http://laurentasg2.wordpress.com

These links were found within 30 seconds of a google search.

Richardson says D3X amongst others http://whouseswhatcamera.com/2011/09/16/what-camera-gear-does-terry-richardson-use/

I kinda doubt these photographers just use an iPhone.

David Alan Harvey about gear: "iPhone and leica quality are the same" ... C'mon! (http://www.seriouscompacts.com/showthread.php?t=25497)

 

[Attonine]

I never said they did, and the links don't say they do.

If you had taken the time to actually read and comprehend the text you would have realised this.

The links do, quite clearly show that Richardson uses P&S film cameras quite regularly (in fact this is the look that he is famous for) in his fashion work.

The DAH link and clip (if you opened it) has DAH showing different photos in his most recent book and stating which cameras were used including iPhone. But of course, these iPhone shots were only included because Apple paid him to use the iPhone...right?