Smartphone image quality VS Digital camera image quality

[maflynn]

f one plans on carrying around all the lenses that they will need.

I think that's what most photographers do, i.e., take the lenses they need ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As I said, if the person is really only looking to share their images on instagram or other social sites, then yeah a smartphone is probably good enough. Others who feel that photography is their business or hobby will want to invest in the appropriate tools to help them. If you're happy with the results of your phone, great. Others are looking to hone their skills and abilities and are looking to produce the best images that are pleasing to them. They get the equipment that fits those needs

 

[iluvmacs99]

That is one issue I found with the nicer higher end digital cameras is that you have to have the right lens to take advantage of its power and capabilities which is great if one plans on carrying around all the lenses that they will need. That also can be quite an additional expense as well on the other hand. It is and would be the right way though of taking great pictures.

When I was working with the pros covering the Olympics and FIFA world cups and other sanctioned events where we normally deal with 300m f/2.8 or the 500mm f/4 or the 200-400mm f/4 etc, these lenses cost on the upwards of $5000 to $12,000 and they are worth every penny. A real bright fast telephoto lens will always deliver better optical quality compared to a smartphone using computational AI algorithm and when you are selling those images to agencies and editors or shooting the Olympics where you absolutely need the Nikon D5 or the Canon EOS 1DX Mk 2 or the Sony A9. Having said that and had worked in the business for 26 years for a total of 30 years (4 years in photography/developing), I can tell you that the majority of photographers, around 80% were shooting with film point and shoot then, the digital point and shoot and now with a smartphone. That only leaves 20% of the people who absolutely need a traditional camera like the Nikon Z6 and Z7, D850 and D5, the Sony A7 Mark III or A7R Mark 4 or 9 or the Canon EOS R, RP etc... But that number is decreasing as the hobby is shifting from individual collection and display through paid galleries to non-paying sharing platforms like Instagram and Facebook which deliver very low and zero monetary value. On occasion, you can get paid handsomely through licensing and royalty payments, but that's getting pretty rare.

 

[oldmacs]

Smartphone cameras take ok photos and any camera is better than no camera when you're talking photos unexpectedly, however if it is at all expected I much rather having a proper camera. I have a Canon G16 (compact) and a Canon 550D (DSLR).

The G16 is approaching 6 years and the 550D approaching 10 years, but both take really lovely photos, significantly better low light performance, better flashes, good optical zoom and so much more control in pretty much every way.

Basically, I want photos that I can look back on and appreciate. My iPhone will give me them in cases where its the only camera on me but otherwise, my proper cameras will beat it every time.

 

[iluvmacs99]

During my last assignment before I was let go, I was at the FIFA Wordcup 2014 and working. I was amazed by the sheer number of freelancers; people, unlike us staff photographers, work on contracts or known as shooting on spec photographers. SPEC stands for speculative work photography; means gig photography. So you paid your way to Brazil, shoot on SPEC hoping to make some money and cry a ton when you realized that your editor bought or gotten photos from some smuck who took it with a smartphone! Yeap, happened a lot actually for mostly formalities. On the field shots where you do need telephoto lenses you can't duplicate that easily with a smartphone was when we get paid! When you are a staff personnel and photographer, you get paid regardless whether your photos get used or not. Sort of like a full time employee with full benefits and if you are sick, you get paid a sick day. Not so with a gig economy where a contractor don't get paid when you're sick or you're on vacation. When I saw that happening in 2014, I knew that editors and agencies found the smartphone photos adequate for publication and monetization and I and several of my ex-colleagues knew our days are pretty much numbered.

The photography industry has always been an 80% amateur market and 20% prosumer and professional market. The 80% market has pretty much been replaced by smartphones, but the industry that pays us to take photographs had gone to being generous to being a bunch of rip offs. Only just recently Apple began paying artists for licensing photographs taken with an iPhone. But that took a lot of online outreaching and exposure until Apple caved in.

In the past, photography had always started with working as an amateur and then migrating towards becoming a paid professional and the money was very good. Easily an upper middle class income work. It was easier to do this 20-30 years ago. Today, all are mostly done via apps and Youtube freely teaching you how to take good photographs, where about 20 years ago, these are paid courses you can only take in your local college or night school. The smartphone basically took all of that and made it simple and free. Just like how many of you actually cook a meal from scratch like your grandma does. Mostly, we order food through Grubhub or Skip The Dishes or buy ready made.

 

[stylinexpat]

During my last assignment before I was let go, I was at the FIFA Wordcup 2014 and working. I was amazed by the sheer number of freelancers; people, unlike us staff photographers, work on contracts or known as shooting on spec photographers. SPEC stands for speculative work photography; means gig photography. So you paid your way to Brazil, shoot on SPEC hoping to make some money and cry a ton when you realized that your editor bought or gotten photos from some smuck who took it with a smartphone! Yeap, happened a lot actually for mostly formalities. On the field shots where you do need telephoto lenses you can't duplicate that easily with a smartphone was when we get paid! When you are a staff personnel and photographer, you get paid regardless whether your photos get used or not. Sort of like a full time employee with full benefits and if you are sick, you get paid a sick day. Not so with a gig economy where a contractor don't get paid when you're sick or you're on vacation. When I saw that happening in 2014, I knew that editors and agencies found the smartphone photos adequate for publication and monetization and I and several of my ex-colleagues knew our days are pretty much numbered.

The photography industry has always been an 80% amateur market and 20% prosumer and professional market. The 80% market has pretty much been replaced by smartphones, but the industry that pays us to take photographs had gone to being generous to being a bunch of rip offs. Only just recently Apple began paying artists for licensing photographs taken with an iPhone. But that took a lot of online outreaching and exposure until Apple caved in.

In the past, photography had always started with working as an amateur and then migrating towards becoming a paid professional and the money was very good. Easily an upper middle class income work. It was easier to do this 20-30 years ago. Today, all are mostly done via apps and Youtube freely teaching you how to take good photographs, where about 20 years ago, these are paid courses you can only take in your local college or night school. The smartphone basically took all of that and made it simple and free. Just like how many of you actually cook a meal from scratch like your grandma does. Mostly, we order food through Grubhub or Skip The Dishes or buy ready made.

What you say is very true. Sort of like how Amazon took business away from most retailers. Next to lose their jobs will be people who make their living off of driving for others when self driving cars hit the roads.

 

[Ledgem]

I like my flower photos to be tack sharp.

View attachment 850535

Sure. You may disagree with my aesthetics. You may think that it's a boring or clichéd image. But on a technical level, it's pretty much there.

It's a nice photo of flowers, to be sure. It's not a proper comparison with the photo that stylinexpat posted, though. I agree with the assessment that his photo seems to lack fine detail; hair was mentioned, and I also noticed it in the plants' leaves. But his photo was taken from farther away. I'm sure that if he used his phone to take a photo of something up close, finer details would become a bit more visible. Not enough to match your camera, but enough that he might think we were all blowing smoke

I do have one example that isn't a great photo - and I haven't processed it to recover burned highlights or anything of that sort, and evidently MacRumors won't let me upload the full-resolution thing, so I had to downsize it by 50% - but hopefully it would show an example of the fine detail you can see even at a distance. There is some blurring in the farther background due to the depth of field not being deep enough (this was taken at ISO 100, 64mm, f/5.6 - I could have closed the aperture down a bit more, although then the ISO would have needed to go up), but the detail on the signs, and in particular on the electronic sign, should be evident.

I'll edit this post if the image seems to have undergone compression through MacRumors.

Edit: there seems to be some sharpness loss, part of which likely occurred with my resizing downward, but I think it still shows enough detail and so I'll leave it up.

Edit 2: having a bit more time to scrutinize it further, there's also a seeming loss of fine detail in some of the background objects. While I've no doubt that this image contains more detail than that from a smartphone, I don't think MacRumors is a good place to do fine comparisons.

 

[iluvmacs99]

What you say is very true. Sort of like how Amazon took business away from most retailers. Next to lose their jobs will be people who make their living off of driving for others when self driving cars hit the roads.

And don't forget the entire infrastructure that service drivers and car ownership nowadays will face a similar downsizing like the camera industry is facing now. Driving instructors, people who administer Class 1, 2 and 4 commercial licenses since you don't need those people driving anymore. Auto mechanics, car parts since you'll be selling less cars for ownership when people adopt more car sharing.

 

[robgendreau]

I dunno about the Huawei mentioned but the iPhone takes pretty good images. Here are controlled studio shots comparing the RX100VI and iPhone XR: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...&x=-0.02153521048882956&y=0.33809127213244455

I think the XR does quite well. But obviously the Sony will do much better under varied conditions vs a studio shot, especially if you need different focal lengths....

 

[iluvmacs99]

Apple runs a campaign "Shot on an iPhone" which had posted big billboard ads demonstrating photos taken with an iPhone, had famous people on covers of Time Magazine (that's pretty important) using an iPhone etc.. Despite the slightly lower quality, it doesn't stop publishers from using these so-called inferior photographs as commercial work. It's like when people accepts Uber and Lyft as opposed to Taxis, then it legitimizes the industry. The point is that, the commercial photography industry acceptance of lower quality work meant it had already approved the quality of these photos coming from an iPhone or Android phone. The OP's example is an indication of what technology had brought forth so far. Basically saying that the phone is not only good enough, but under the helm of a talented photographer, the images are accepted by major publications meant that it legitimizes the platform.

 

[Ledgem]

Apple runs a campaign "Shot on an iPhone" which had posted big billboard ads demonstrating photos taken with an iPhone, had famous people on covers of Time Magazine (that's pretty important) using an iPhone etc.. Despite the slightly lower quality, it doesn't stop publishers from using these so-called inferior photographs as commercial work. It's like when people accepts Uber and Lyft as opposed to Taxis, then it legitimizes the industry. The point is that, the commercial photography industry acceptance of lower quality work meant it had already approved the quality of these photos coming from an iPhone or Android phone. The OP's example is an indication of what technology had brought forth so far. Basically saying that the phone is not only good enough, but under the helm of a talented photographer, the images are accepted by major publications meant that it legitimizes the platform.

Sort of.

There are multiple business areas of photography. Some still have equipment requirements, likely because it's recognized that you still need a "regular" camera for anything less than optimal conditions (which includes lighting, subjects in motion, and/or that aren't close by). Then there are the types of photography where they don't really care how you got the image, they just want that image. Stock photography may fall into this category, as does many types of advertising.

I'd also note that some smartphone companies (Huawei - multiple times on that link) have been caught using DSLR images (Samsung in this link) and claiming them as being shot on their phones. I think Apple has a bit more integrity than that, but it falls into the advertising realm of just wanting the image.

Billboards are also interesting areas of photography in terms of what they mean. We often think that a billboard - being huge - requires some massive camera. Yet the viewing distances that most billboards are designed for is quite far, so the resolution actually doesn't need to be all that great. If you view a billboard up close, most probably would not appear all that impressive. If they did, it would represent a waste. But your point still stands that if smartphones can be used for these commercial applications, it may only be a matter of time before more performance gaps are closed and standard cameras become a thing of the past.

 

[mollyc]

I think people who believe a smartphone or lower end camera can match the IQ of a higher end dSLR/medium format camera will never understand the difference. People who truly enjoy photography as a hobby/job and have a good skill set and good gear will never be satisfied using a phone as their primary camera.

 

[stylinexpat]

And don't forget the entire infrastructure that service drivers and car ownership nowadays will face a similar downsizing like the camera industry is facing now. Driving instructors, people who administer Class 1, 2 and 4 commercial licenses since you don't need those people driving anymore. Auto mechanics, car parts since you'll be selling less cars for ownership when people adopt more car sharing.

Yeah, many things will be catching up with developed countries. This is why going to undeveloped countries is better now for making money

 

[jerwin]

It's a nice photo of flowers, to be sure. It's not a proper comparison with the photo that stylinexpat posted, though. I agree with the assessment that his photo seems to lack fine detail; hair was mentioned, and I also noticed it in the plants' leaves. But his photo was taken from farther away. I'm sure that if he used his phone to take a photo of something up close, finer details would become a bit more visible. Not enough to match your camera, but enough that he might think we were all blowing smoke

Pixelpeeping and wildlife photography are an expensive combination.

"f8 and be there" I think this was taken with a usually execrable 70-300mmm lens which I've since replaced.

 

[stylinexpat]

I just took these two pictures with my smartphone. First one with no AI and Second with AI. Basic photo settings on these 2 pictures from Huawei P30 Pro Smartphone

 

[Shanghaichica]

 

[mollyc]

If people are going to post photos to try to compare sharpness, it would be helpful to list what gear and settings are used.

 

[Ledgem]

If people are going to post photos to try to compare sharpness, it would be helpful to list what gear and settings are used.

I like it to be blinded first, and reveal the gear later. If you know that someone used an ultra high-end camera then your perception will already be skewed toward believing that it's superior in some form. There are studies showing that our visual perception is affected by group opinions, sometimes dramatically so. I've noticed this for my own gear: I use a fancy camera and a super fancy camera, and when I first started using the super fancy one I felt as if it put my just-fancy one to shame. But when I mixed shots from both cameras and blinded myself, I found it much more difficult to tell which photo was taken with which camera. The differences that had once seemed massive were much smaller, in reality... that's perception.

I just don't think the images uploaded to the forums are a great way to really see what these cameras and phones are capable of. Based on my own photo, it seems like there might be a second round of compression that's occurring. Ideally we'd be uploading to Dropbox or some file-sharing service and sharing it from there, where we could at least know that the file that others are seeing is the exact same as we created it.

 

[mollyc]

I like it to be blinded first, and reveal the gear later. If you know that someone used an ultra high-end camera then your perception will already be skewed toward believing that it's superior in some form. There are studies showing that our visual perception is affected by group opinions, sometimes dramatically so. I've noticed this for my own gear: I use a fancy camera and a super fancy camera, and when I first started using the super fancy one I felt as if it put my just-fancy one to shame. But when I mixed shots from both cameras and blinded myself, I found it much more difficult to tell which photo was taken with which camera. The differences that had once seemed massive were much smaller, in reality... that's perception.

I just don't think the images uploaded to the forums are a great way to really see what these cameras and phones are capable of. Based on my own photo, it seems like there might be a second round of compression that's occurring. Ideally we'd be uploading to Dropbox or some file-sharing service and sharing it from there, where we could at least know that the file that others are seeing is the exact same as we created it.

Yes but the problem is that if a person observes a “fault” in the photo and wants to offer meaningful advice it’s helpful to know if it’s a technical limitation, a settings error, or something beyond the limitation of the gear.

For instance, personally I think the focus is off on the tiger image (or the shutter speed too low or a combination). But perhaps it’s a gear limitation. Or maybe it’s just downsampling for web posting.

Despite the point of this thread, gear DOES matter in a lot of instances.

 

[stylinexpat]

Yes but the problem is that if a person observes a “fault” in the photo and wants to offer meaningful advice it’s helpful to know if it’s a technical limitation, a settings error, or something beyond the limitation of the gear.

For instance, personally I think the focus is off on the tiger image (or the shutter speed too low or a combination). But perhaps it’s a gear limitation.

Despite the point of this thread, gear DOES matter in a lot of instances.

This is true because certain gear could optimize a certain picture. Use a high end camera and add a high end macro lens to it then one would end up with a pretty nice macro shot of say a flower or something to that extent.

 

[r.harris1]

I just took these two pictures with my smartphone. First one with no AI and Second with AI. Basic photo settings on these 2 pictures from Huawei P30 Pro Smartphone

View attachment 850703 View attachment 850704

I prefer the top image. To me, the bottom one has an odd color cast in a lot of areas. Both look like smartphone captures .

Like most of us, I shoot a fair number of smart phone images in addition to my DSLR or mirrorless gear. A very small percentage I actually like. And some of the computational photography and other AI-centered processing is very clever, but a good photograph tells a story (or perhaps hints at one) and is skillfully captured and presented. And doing it well takes a lot of hard work and practice, regardless of the tool and whether that tool is high-end optics or the latest whiz-bang software.

We seem OK these days, as a society, with average images. Obviously, I’m just a bit grumpy and I get that smart phones are, well, smart, but reading some of the comments makes me just want to reach for the whiskey or beer or wine.

 

[Ledgem]

Yes but the problem is that if a person observes a “fault” in the photo and wants to offer meaningful advice it’s helpful to know if it’s a technical limitation, a settings error, or something beyond the limitation of the gear.

For instance, personally I think the focus is off on the tiger image (or the shutter speed too low or a combination). But perhaps it’s a gear limitation. Or maybe it’s just downsampling for web posting.

Despite the point of this thread, gear DOES matter in a lot of instances.

No disagreement from me there in general. In this thread we're trying to compare smartphone photos with "real camera" photos, and so blinding would help people to reach a more honest opinion. (Or at least, saying what took the photo after the photo has been posted, instead of before, so that people can at least observe and think about it before seeing the reveal.). Otherwise, you have a bunch of people saying that "real cameras are better" and of course they'll find more flaws in a smartphone photo if they know it's a smartphone photo. Things get more interesting if you're not sure exactly what you're looking at.

I still think the gear does matter in most cases - I can definitely tell photos from my iPhone compared with photos from my "real" cameras. However, in absolute perfect light I might have some pause with photos from my smartphone... I've never tried to blind myself to that. It would be interesting.

 

[r.harris1]

No disagreement from me there in general. In this thread we're trying to compare smartphone photos with "real camera" photos, and so blinding would help people to reach a more honest opinion. (Or at least, saying what took the photo after the photo has been posted, instead of before, so that people can at least observe and think about it before seeing the reveal.). Otherwise, you have a bunch of people saying that "real cameras are better" and of course they'll find more flaws in a smartphone photo if they know it's a smartphone photo. Things get more interesting if you're not sure exactly what you're looking at.

I still think the gear does matter in most cases - I can definitely tell photos from my iPhone compared with photos from my "real" cameras. However, in absolute perfect light I might have some pause with photos from my smartphone... I've never tried to blind myself to that. It would be interesting.

It might be interesting, but would show what we all know: In the right hands, good people can get good images from any photographic tool. I’ve seen some very nice landscape and portrait images from smartphones. Pretty good video too. Gear does matter. I think the person using it matters much more. I don’t think any tech, AI or otherwise, can turn an average photographer into a good one, at least in my case . What smartphones have done, in my mind, is lowered our collective bar on what we accept as good images. Like the firing of professionals to be replaced by random people with smartphones, as a previous poster discussed. We seem OK with that as a society, just like we don’t seem to mind being crammed into smaller and smaller seats on aircraft, as long as it’s cheap. The quality of the experience (the plane) or the image is further down the list of "must haves".

 

[Fishrrman]

mollyc wrote:
"If people are going to post photos to try to compare sharpness, it would be helpful to list what gear and settings are used."

Haha, then why didn't you include such info about the image you posted in your post #40 above ??
I had to save it to my desktop, then open in Preview to discover that it was taken with an iPhone XS...

 

[mollyc]

mollyc wrote:
"If people are going to post photos to try to compare sharpness, it would be helpful to list what gear and settings are used."

Haha, then why didn't you include such info about the image you posted in your post #40 above ??
I had to save it to my desktop, then open in Preview to discover that it was taken with an iPhone XS...

Because that’s not my post or my photo??? I don’t even own an iPhone XS.

 

[Ledgem]

What smartphones have done, in my mind, is lowered our collective bar on what we accept as good images. Like the firing of professionals to be replaced by random people with smartphones, as a previous poster discussed. We seem OK with that as a society, just like we don’t seem to mind being crammed into smaller and smaller seats on aircraft, as long as it’s cheap. The quality of the experience (the plane) or the image is further down the list of "must haves".

An interesting idea, but I'm not sure I fully agree with it. If you look back at many photos that were taken with film - not the masterpieces, but the more average works - it seems to me that smartphones offer technically superior images. Digital photography means that people can practice photography much more easily (you instantly see the photo you took, and there's no charge to develop the photo), and even lack of skill can sometimes be made up by getting lucky after taking a ton of photos (the "spray and pray" approach). The ubiquity of smartphones also means that someone is likely to be in the right place and at the right time to get that masterpiece. So the idea of using photos from some random person instead of a professional has merit in certain cases, particularly for news stories.

Higher-end cameras are still technically superior, but they're pushing beyond what we could do even with film. It's less that smartphones are lowering the bar of what's acceptable, and more that the higher-end cameras are going so far beyond it that many people might not see the need for it, nor the benefit. After all, what benefit is there to shooting with a high-end camera with 50 megapixels if you're just going to post photos to Facebook? In that regard, the way we view and interact with photos is likely what sets the bar for what's acceptable.

One last thought from me is that there has been a fairly rapid pace of development with digital photography, including cameras in cellphones. It seems to me that the overall leaps made in the arena of cellphones have been larger. Cellphones have already largely taken the place of "point and shoot" cameras, and in some cases they're within striking distance of higher-end cameras. Yet higher-end cameras are limited to the expectations and working styles of photographers and the old concepts of what a camera body should look like. Cellphones don't have those constraints, and being miniature computers designed to do practically anything, it seems to me that their potential for development is greater. They still have a very long way to go before they can beat traditional cameras in many areas, but I wouldn't be surprised if they get there.