iPhone photos are better than a mirrorless camera photos

[Razeus]

I gave up on big Nikon/Canon gear and lenses.

I want small. I'm talking Fuji small. The pictures of flipping outstanding on my Fuji gear.

I'll put up my pics against any full-frame camera. Full-frame had it's day, but they refuse to innovated.

Fuji is much lighter to carry,cheaper, and the image quality, even at high ISO's, is just as good.

You have to remember the 35mm (full-frame) format was frowned upon once upon a time. But people wanted smaller with comparable image quality without having to carry a medium format device and thus it took off.

Now for digital, it's the same thing happening. With digital, you can get superb IQ out of a much smaller device.

It really doesn't matter once the photo is printed.

I'm going even smaller with a Ricoh GR soon.

I've seen my iPhone photos up close in Lightroom. They are very fuzzy and "smudged", but show up great on Instagram, Facebook, etc. due to the size of the screen of the device. iPhone is ok, but I wouldn't capture ALL my previous memories with it. There's only so much you can do at that small sensor size.

 

[MCAsan]

Be careful of saying in public that you gave up big heavy expensive DSLRs for smaller, lighter, and less expensive mirrorless. You may be accused of having an old weak body.

Welcome to mirrorless!

 

[Edge100]

Nope. iPhone photo files are horribly lossy JPEGs that you can't do anything with.

Except for, you know, making some awesome photography.

 

[576316]

Except for, you know, making some awesome photography.

I'm not saying you can't take awesome photos with an iPhone. You can take awesome photos with any camera if you're a great photographer. What I am saying is that the files the iPhone produces leave a lot to be desired when compared to files you'll get from a mirror less camera. With JPEGs, you're instantly limited on things like printing and editing. If all you want to do is apply minor adjustments and never really print any of your photos to a decent size, iPhone images are perfectly fine.

 

[Edge100]

I'm not saying you can't take awesome photos with an iPhone. You can take awesome photos with any camera if you're a great photographer. What I am saying is that the files the iPhone produces leave a lot to be desired when compared to files you'll get from a mirror less camera. With JPEGs, you're instantly limited on things like printing and editing. If all you want to do is apply minor adjustments and never really print any of your photos to a decent size, iPhone images are perfectly fine.

But isn't the whole point to take awesome photographs? Who cares if the files "leave a lot to be desired"? By your own admission, if you're a great photographer, you can make awesome photographs with an iPhone.

So what more do you need?*

* - I'm only being slightly facetious here. I absolutely understand the reason why you might want something technically better than an iPhone. But it is clearly possible to make wonderful photographs with just about anything. In fact, one might argue that, with necessity being the mother of invention, one might actually challenge him or herself to produce *better* photographs with the iPhone.

 

[576316]

But isn't the whole point to take awesome photographs? Who cares if the files "leave a lot to be desired"? By your own admission, if you're a great photographer, you can make awesome photographs with an iPhone.

So what more do you need?*

* - I'm only being slightly facetious here. I absolutely understand the reason why you might want something technically better than an iPhone. But it is clearly possible to make wonderful photographs with just about anything. In fact, one might argue that, with necessity being the mother of invention, one might actually challenge him or herself to produce *better* photographs with the iPhone.

No, the photograph is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the physical image file that's produced and the technicality of what you can do with that file after the fact. This is not about taking a great photograph, it's about the iPhone as a tool for photography. You could take a great photo on a potato if you had the skill.

 

[skaeight]

The great thing is we don't have to choose - this is a false dilemma. The best camera is the one you have with you

The only thing I'll add is remember Sony makes a Full Frame mirrorlesss camera which is about the same size as a small DSLR. And there are clear advantages of full frame sensors (depth of field, able to capture more light, able to produce bigger pictures). APS-C sensors have come a long way and can produce fantastic results, but it doesn't negate the benefits of the full frame sensor. To an extent this same argument can be extended to mirrorless vs DSLR, it's all about trade offs and picking what works best for you after deciding which factors are most important to you.

And maybe for some people this means an iPhone is their only camera, that's fine too

 

[Edge100]

No, the photograph is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about the physical image file that's produced and the technicality of what you can do with that file after the fact. This is not about taking a great photograph, it's about the iPhone as a tool for photography. You could take a great photo on a potato if you had the skill.

But why take the photograph, then, if not to make a great photograph? Is post-processing the end goal now?

If the iPhone gives you a great photograph (as you've admitted it can), then why do you need to do anything with it?

I don't mean to be contrary here, but it's worth asking yourself: why do you *need* to have malleable files? What are you doing with the files that you cannot otherwise achieve with the files from an iPhone?

A lot of people think they need better files, when what they really need is better photographs. Those are different things.

 

[FredT2]

With JPEGs, you're instantly limited on things like printing and editing. If all you want to do is apply minor adjustments and never really print any of your photos to a decent size, iPhone images are perfectly fine.

Aside from highlight recovery, there is really very little that you cannot do with a jpeg in a good editing program. As for printing, what is a decent size? I have plenty of beautiful 20x24 prints from my Canon 20D, an 8 megapixel DSLR.

 

[Edge100]

With JPEGs, you're instantly limited on things like printing and editing. If all you want to do is apply minor adjustments and never really print any of your photos to a decent size, iPhone images are perfectly fine.

How, exactly, is a JPEG going to limit your ability to make prints?

A 4000x3000 JPEG will print to the same dimensions at the same DPI as a 4000x3000 RAW.

 

[576316]

Aside from highlight recovery, there is really very little that you cannot do with a jpeg in a good editing program. As for printing, what is a decent size? I have plenty of beautiful 20x24 prints from my Canon 20D, an 8 megapixel DSLR.

This is impossible to explain so I'm gonna back out now. Megapixels is not what I'm talking about here.

 

[Edge100]

Aside from highlight recovery, there is really very little that you cannot do with a jpeg in a good editing program. As for printing, what is a decent size? I have plenty of beautiful 20x24 prints from my Canon 20D, an 8 megapixel DSLR.

Colour temperature changes are much easier with a Raw file.

 

[skaeight]

It's funny this RAW vs JPG argument extends to Fuji mirrorless as well. There is a whole crew of people now that have more or less sworn off RAW processing because they like the way that Fuji generates jpgs so much (Scott Bourne is one of them).

My personal opinion is I would prefer to the have ability to go back and get as much out of a picture as I can. For me the primary reason for using RAW is controlling things like color balance and being able to pull shadows back. Ideally this would all be done in camera, but there are times when lighting just doesn't agree with you but you want the shot. Being able to control the highlights and shadows are a way to do this.

This method is there, why not use it?

 

[Edge100]

This is impossible to explain so I'm gonna back out now. Megapixels is not what I'm talking about here.

It's not impossible to explain.

It's harder to recover highlights and change white balance on a JPEG vs a Raw. It's also harder to apply dramatic tonal changes, because of the limitations of 8-bit vs. 14-bit.

All of this is true. The *point* is: does it matter?

----------

It's funny this RAW vs JPG argument extends to Fuji mirrorless as well. There is a whole crew of people now that have more or less sworn off RAW processing because they like the way that Fuji generates jpgs so much (Scott Bourne is one of them).

My personal opinion is I would prefer to the have ability to go back and get as much out of a picture as I can. For me the primary reason for using RAW is controlling things like color balance and being able to pull shadows back. Ideally this would all be done in camera, but there are times when lighting just doesn't agree with you but you want the shot. Being able to control the highlights and shadows are a way to do this.

This method is there, why not use it?

Agreed. If you need it, you should use it.

The question is: do you need it?

 

[576316]

But why take the photograph, then, if not to make a great photograph? Is post-processing the end goal now?

If the iPhone gives you a great photograph (as you've admitted it can), then why do you need to do anything with it?

I don't mean to be contrary here, but it's worth asking yourself: why do you *need* to have malleable files? What are you doing with the files that you cannot otherwise achieve with the files from an iPhone?

A lot of people think they need better files, when what they really need is better photographs. Those are different things.

You can take an amazing composition and still require basic manipulation. Any professional photographer will likely tell you that. Images straight out of a camera tend to look flat and bland. At the very least you'd want to add contrast and clarity, maybe play with vibrance too. Having files which contain more information just allow you more flexibility.

 

[Edge100]

You can take an amazing composition and still require basic manipulation. Any professional photographer will likely tell you that. Images straight out of a camera tend to look flat and bland. At the very least you'd want to add contrast and clarity, maybe play with vibrance too. Having files which contain more information just allow you more flexibility.

Raw files tend to look flat and bland, because by definition**, they have no processing applied to them.

I'm not arguing that Raw files aren't more malleable than JPEGs; that's demonstrably the case. What I'm arguing is that, for most people, it doesn't matter, and that even if you think it matters, it probably doesn't.

** - Not always true.

 

[skaeight]

It's not impossible to explain.

It's harder to recover highlights and change white balance on a JPEG vs a Raw. It's also harder to apply dramatic tonal changes, because of the limitations of 8-bit vs. 14-bit.

All of this is true. The *point* is: does it matter?

----------



Agreed. If you need it, you should use it.

The question is: do you need it?

Yes.

 

[Edge100]

Yes.

That's the most sensible answer I've read yet. Honestly.

 

[Razeus]

Be careful of saying in public that you gave up big heavy expensive DSLRs for smaller, lighter, and less expensive mirrorless. You may be accused of having an old weak body.

Welcome to mirrorless!

I usually rebut by saying I'm in the streets ALL DAY walking, while theirs sits on a tripod, lazy as can be.

 

[kelub]

If you want to post process images yourself and have maximum flexibility doing so, use equipment that can take RAW images.

If you trust the device to essentially post-process the image for you at the moment it's taken, use JPG.

I got into photography as a hobby back around 2000, 2001 - back when film was still common for pros and serious amateurs, but digital was coming along and obviously the future (my first digital camera was a Sony 1.2MP P&S that took really stunning shots.) I was taking pictures with film (negative and slides) and scanning them to post process. I could scan an image in as an uncompressed TIFF, but it didn't really make much difference because what film I used and how the film was developed had more to do with the end result. I honestly feel that shooting JPG is actually closer to what I did with film.

I don't prefer that personally - I shoot in RAW so I can apply my own post processing. I like having the increased flexibility that RAW provides me. I think it's more like being a sculptor: the taking of the picture is just the first step of the artwork. Lighting, composition, framing, etc. The second step is post-processing, where I can manipulate that gathered data into a final product. RAW is closer to what a photographer in the pre-digital era would & could do who developed their own film, using chemical processes to alter the final product. It was much less common due to the cost and skill level required.

There is nothing wrong (or less "photography-ish") with taking images in JPG and letting the camera sort it out. Most cameras have the option to produce standard colors, vivid colors, black and white, color selection (just pick the blues or reds, etc), etc etc. If that's how, as a photographer, you want to practice your art, do it and don't apologize for it. I have known several people who have taken beautiful shots on a regular basis with zero post-processing steps.

Regarding mirrorless vs DSLR vs iPhone... use whatever you have on you, whatever you're comfortable with, whatever you enjoy using the most. I use my iPhone as my point-and-shoot because it's on me. I had a film SLR that I sold for a DSLR, which I later sold for a mirrorless (a Sony NEX-C3); I just in the past month sold it and went back to a DSLR. I took amazing pictures with the Sony. I just missed the art of taking photos with a DSLR. Quality of final product had nothing to do with it, it was just a personal preference.

There can also be a difference between a "snapshot" and a "photograph," in my opinion. I can take a snapshot of my kids running around because I want to capture the moment. Here in the next month or so, once bluebonnets are prevalent across N Texas, I'll likely go take photographs in the bluebonnets. That's not to say "snapshots" and "photographs" can't be blurred in distinction. Typically it comes down to intent.

Anyway. One day I'll write a short forum reply to something.

 

[skaeight]

If you want to post process images yourself and have maximum flexibility doing so, use equipment that can take RAW images.

If you trust the device to essentially post-process the image for you at the moment it's taken, use JPG.

I got into photography as a hobby back around 2000, 2001 - back when film was still common for pros and serious amateurs, but digital was coming along and obviously the future (my first digital camera was a Sony 1.2MP P&S that took really stunning shots.) I was taking pictures with film (negative and slides) and scanning them to post process. I could scan an image in as an uncompressed TIFF, but it didn't really make much difference because what film I used and how the film was developed had more to do with the end result. I honestly feel that shooting JPG is actually closer to what I did with film.

I don't prefer that personally - I shoot in RAW so I can apply my own post processing. I like having the increased flexibility that RAW provides me. I think it's more like being a sculptor: the taking of the picture is just the first step of the artwork. Lighting, composition, framing, etc. The second step is post-processing, where I can manipulate that gathered data into a final product. RAW is closer to what a photographer in the pre-digital era would & could do who developed their own film, using chemical processes to alter the final product. It was much less common due to the cost and skill level required.

There is nothing wrong (or less "photography-ish") with taking images in JPG and letting the camera sort it out. Most cameras have the option to produce standard colors, vivid colors, black and white, color selection (just pick the blues or reds, etc), etc etc. If that's how, as a photographer, you want to practice your art, do it and don't apologize for it. I have known several people who have taken beautiful shots on a regular basis with zero post-processing steps.

Regarding mirrorless vs DSLR vs iPhone... use whatever you have on you, whatever you're comfortable with, whatever you enjoy using the most. I use my iPhone as my point-and-shoot because it's on me. I had a film SLR that I sold for a DSLR, which I later sold for a mirrorless (a Sony NEX-C3); I just in the past month sold it and went back to a DSLR. I took amazing pictures with the Sony. I just missed the art of taking photos with a DSLR. Quality of final product had nothing to do with it, it was just a personal preference.

There can also be a difference between a "snapshot" and a "photograph," in my opinion. I can take a snapshot of my kids running around because I want to capture the moment. Here in the next month or so, once bluebonnets are prevalent across N Texas, I'll likely go take photographs in the bluebonnets. That's not to say "snapshots" and "photographs" can't be blurred in distinction. Typically it comes down to intent.

Anyway. One day I'll write a short forum reply to something.

+1 We might as well close this thread. You've summed it up.

 

[FredT2]

Colour temperature changes are much easier with a Raw file.

I didn't mean that it's not harder, just saying that it can be done.

----------

+1 We might as well close this thread. You've summed it up.

Absolutely!

 

[FWRLCK]

Obvious flame bait is obvious.

 

[FieldingMellish]

The thread title is true if the iPhone camera fulfills that user's needs. But to broadcast the statement as true in the general sense for all naturally invites counter argument.

 

[The Bad Guy]

Aside from highlight recovery, there is really very little that you cannot do with a jpeg in a good editing program. As for printing, what is a decent size? I have plenty of beautiful 20x24 prints from my Canon 20D, an 8 megapixel DSLR.

Go home, you're drunk.