Smartphone image quality VS Digital camera image quality

[r.harris1]

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.

You make some well thought out and good points. (Ray steps off of his high horse )

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

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.

I think the biggest problems smartphones currently face are fixed focal lengths and, for the most part, fixed apertures, so they rely heavily on post-processing to give you a quality image. The current solution is to add more cameras to the back of the phone, which does cut down on the problem, but it doesn't resolve it--yet? But you are totally correct, smartphones have significantly closed the gap, and for many people, it's all they would ever need. I would even say that it has offered people a camera who may have never even owned a camera otherwise. I wonder how many people garnered an interest in photography because of their phone, realizing a previously undiscovered aptitute? We can put the best camera in the hands of an amatuer and get terrible results, and we can hand an iPhone to an pro and get great results. In that way, the medium doesn't matter. To quote my dad, "I can hit a bad shot with any golf club!"

 

[mollyc]

Back to my gear matters thought. I don't often shoot the same thing with my phone and a camera. If I have a camera, my phone is in my pocket and I'm actually using my camera. However, a few weeks ago I found myself taking daily, early morning walks around my parents' neighborhood. I'm not much of a morning person, but they don't have a treadmill and it was during the heat wave week, so I made a point to scramble out of bed as the sun was rising to get my walk in during the "cool" hour. I loved watching the sun rise through the trees each morning, but because I was going for three miles, I was reluctant to take my camera out with me. By the second to last day I finally stopped with my phone to snap a photo, and when I was unsatisfied with my result took the big camera out for the entire three miles the last day.

These are not direct comparisons, because they were different days in different spots, but but they are more similar than most photos I would take. Similar location, similar lighting, similar processing, and very different gear. The first one was taken with my iPhone 8+, shot in RAW in LR Mobile, and edited in the cloud based LR (old LR mobile) on my MBA. I purposely underexposed it to maintain highlights, but in doing so, I have an enormous amount of noise from raising the shadows. The second image was taken with my Nikon D800, a Lensbaby Velvet 56 and processed in LR Classic and Photoshop.

For my purposes, although I like the composition and frame better of the iPhone image, it is one that I will never print, never include in a portfolio, never enter in a competition. The details are mushy, the noise is atrocious and it just seems low quality. It's fine for Instagram, but not much else. The second image (on a technical basis) is much better with far less shadow noise, a better out of the gate exposure because I knew I could raise shadows in post) and a wider range of colors and tones.

Note that I shot in raw and then edited, just the same as I would with a real camera. For an even better comparison, the third photo is an iPhone jpeg shot through the native camera app (I cloned out the tree in the middle for my raw image). The comparison between the two raw images to the iPhone jpeg is laughable to me, but I suppose a vast majority of people would be fine with the iPhone photo. It is good enough for their purposes. But for me, nothing really compares to an image taken on a real camera and then edited. To me, gear matters.

1.

2.

3.

 

[kallisti]

This thread has really blossomed with lots of interesting replies going in various directions.

I also want to apologize to the OP as my previous post in this thread may have come off as a bit snarky. Mea culpa.

I don't have many pics of myself with my son. In 2018 a friend took a pic of us together with his iPhone X. He sent me the full-sized JPEG. This was taken indoors, but not in low-light.

Sharing the original JPEG sent to me as well as a version where I changed the white balance to be a little cooler and also upped the shadows.

I commented earlier in the thread on a post of an image from the OP's current phone camera that it really wasn't very sharp, even when the image was zoomed in. I also commented that the hair on the people in the pic was a "mush" without any detail.

Subsequent comments alluded that this lack of detail might not be important for the intended use of the photo. Point well taken.

The following images may provide a better example of the points I was making.

The "mush" I mentioned in my previous post is evident here in a non zoomed-in image. The entire image is soft. Which isn't necessarily a problem as there is no rule that "good" images have to be sharp, but it is certainly characteristic of images taken with a phone camera .

But there is a major problem with tonal gradations in the image. My forehead is a mush. Worse it isn't even a uniform mush. I can accept the lack of detail, but there is a "blotchiness" on my forehead that creates a very obvious artifact that isn't present in real life. It's not a smooth transition, it isn't a pleasing transition, and it isn't something that was actually there at the time of capture. It's an artifact related to the pic being taken on an iPhone (small sensor, JPEG, iPhone software processing, etc.). My wife made a Costco-equivalent print of the image for her office and the artifacts are quite evident there too. In hindsight I wish I had passed my "real" camera to my friend for the pic, as none of these artifacts would have then been present.

I've seen this type of artifact crop up in many of my own phone images. In strong outdoor light the iPhone performs fairly well. In indoor light (even if not really low-light) it struggles. Using the flash can mitigate this (because there is more light!), but it's a real problem for all phone cameras. Some may be "better" in this regard, but crap is crap. To be vulgar: eating a teaspoon of feces is more palatable than eating a tablespoon, but neither are really "good" or "enjoyable".

As others have mentioned, we may have moved into an era where most people just don't notice or care. Which I understand on one level but it also makes me sad. I personally do notice and do care. Meh, what can you do?

 

[stylinexpat]

I think the biggest problems smartphones currently face are fixed focal lengths and, for the most part, fixed apertures, so they rely heavily on post-processing to give you a quality image. The current solution is to add more cameras to the back of the phone, which does cut down on the problem, but it doesn't resolve it--yet? But you are totally correct, smartphones have significantly closed the gap, and for many people, it's all they would ever need. I would even say that it has offered people a camera who may have never even owned a camera otherwise. I wonder how many people garnered an interest in photography because of their phone, realizing a previously undiscovered aptitute? We can put the best camera in the hands of an amatuer and get terrible results, and we can hand an iPhone to an pro and get great results. In that way, the medium doesn't matter. To quote my dad, "I can hit a bad shot with any golf club!"

The Huawei P30 Pro is not too shabby with that zoom function on its built in lens. For a smartphone lens I think it is quite amazing. Would require a huge long lens on a digital camera to get those kinds of results. One thing is for sure and that is that smartphones have caught up quite a bit to digital cameras although they still have a bit to go. One thing that can not be denied is how good the Chinese have been at all of this.

Most images here look great but when you click on image and zoom in then even with the high end models and high end lenses some still tend to look a bit washed out.

https://www.alphashooters.com/cameras/a6400/lenses/

 

[Ledgem]

I would even say that it has offered people a camera who may have never even owned a camera otherwise. I wonder how many people garnered an interest in photography because of their phone, realizing a previously undiscovered aptitute?

That's what happened for me. My first camera-phone only took 640x480 VGA images, and they were technically awful... but that was the first time I had a camera, and even better, it was always with me. The camera became more of a priority when I upgraded my phone and I had a whole 1.2 megapixels (big deal back then). Worlds better than my first phone, but still pretty awful. By luck I won a free point-and shoot that was worlds better than my phone, and a year later I bought my first DSLR.

I'm not so sure my story could be replicated today. Everyone has a camera in their phone now, and they're probably taking photos when they would not have before... but what is it for? I found myself taking photos of interesting light patterns and reflections, empty places that were normally crowded, and other things that could have been construed as "artsy." Most people today seem to take photos of their food when eating out (I'm guilty of that too) and selfies (I never caught onto that one). Do you really need anything more than a cellphone for those purposes? If anything, it's harder to take a selfie with a "real" camera, and dragging a large camera to social outings can be a bit of a hassle. Yet everyone already has their phone on them in some form or another.

Then there's the fact that, bare image quality aside, a camera may be a step backward in functionality for most people. I can easily post a photo taken with my phone to some social network site, or even send it out to my family. If I take a photo with my camera, however, it's a different story. While there are apps to transfer the images to my phone, it's a bit of a hassle. And since I only shoot RAW (because I want to maximize what I'm getting out of my camera), it takes time to process, and my phone may not be the best processing platform... so while I personally post little to nothing to social networking sites, I recognize that a camera may actually be a hindrance to how most people are utilizing the photos and videos that they take. A smartphone is the perfect platform for them; the camera is just an additional, complicated step.

Even for the people who have a similar path as me - who find a love of photography through their smartphones - I'm still not sure that many would move on to full cameras. Part of it is that smartphones have become quite good, as we've already established. Another part of it is that it's pretty well established that the pace of smartphone development is quite fast, and some of the developments are legitimately surprising. "Portrait mode" on the iPhone to simulate a shallow depth of field, the lighting effects to simulate artificial lighting, and ever-increasing image quality... who knows what's next? If I felt that my iPhone were letting me down and I were just getting into photography, I'd probably figure that in another year or two my upgrade would let me do a lot more. That would be a lot easier than trying to learn photography with a "real" camera, which can be a fair bit more complicated and rarely has the same gentle learning curve of an Apple device.

 

[maflynn]

For a smartphone lens I think it is quite amazing.

He also states in the video (about 16:20) that the image quality is "nothing to write home" he then states at 16:47 the IQ is lousy

Again, that's what many of us have been saying, that smartphones image quality is inferior to a larger sensor camera. For social media smartphone images is good enough for many, but not for all.

 

[r.harris1]

I think we can say that smart phone cameras are driving fairly sophisticated evolutionary approaches in computational photography on small sensors. This makes it easy for many people to get nice images for mobile and internet-based platforms. It gets photography into a lot of hands and generates unprecedented quantities of images, obviously most of which are never seen, or if seen, thought of, again. I think we can say that having smart phones can put some people in the right place at the right time for certain news events (or similar things), though it's debatable whether a Joe Bloe is telling a story or simply a narrative (there's a difference though sometimes it doesn't matter). Like I said, I've seen some genuinely good images from smart phones, and the tech is increasing at a rapid clip.

I'm a materialist and technologist. I work in the machine learning and AI space (though not images), so I know enough to be dangerous around the tech. As a materialist, I value quality in design and output. I value the craft of a thing. I value the mind (and mindfulness) around the creation of something. I value a good story, well told. As a materialist, I obviously value materials - a nicely bound book, a well printed photograph, great ingredients in a meal, a nice MacBook Pro .

Nice images can indeed be created on a smartphone. As noted earlier, I can't disagree with many of the positives highlighted by others, but...I'm not looking for a smartphone to replace my other image capture devices. I don't ask that of my smartphone. Equipment does matter. Smartphones are tools that do a lot of things well. It's great to have in certain situations. Unlike perhaps others, I'm not looking for everything to be automated away. There's value, for example, in a pilot actually being able to fly a jet airliner.

Even if a smartphone could capture the exact same measurable image quality as a Phase One IQ4 150 (it can't), I'd prefer the Phase One (if I could afford it ) because I value the process of capturing images, the post processing of the images, the printing of the images, equally as much as the resulting image quality. I'd rather create a portrait with shallow depth of field using optics than in an automated fashion, but that's just me. I like the human touch. Maybe this is because I'm surrounded by technology and automation as part of my work, I don't know.

I use smart phones to capture images. I agree that they're very clever and they can do nice things, including image capture. They have their place. But for me, there are so many other aspects of photography that I enjoy - all of the human bits, even if kludgey or time consuming - to have a smartphone replace my other equipment, image quality being equal (it isn't, yet). It's about what you value, and only you know what that is.

 

[mollyc]

It's often amazing to me with the obsession over 4k/5k screens and high definition streaming, etc. that so many people are so satisfied with mushy still photos from a smartphone. There's a bit of a disconnect there to me.

 

[d.steve]

It's often amazing to me with the obsession over 4k/5k screens and high definition streaming, etc. that so many people are so satisfied with mushy still photos from a smartphone. There's a bit of a disconnect there to me.

Respectfully, I don't really see a disconnect here. I can completely understand an individual to be obsessed about 4k TV and not caring at all about smartphone photo quality or even photography at all.

I would expect some kind of correlation here, but not a super strong one.

 

[Infinite Vortex]

For me it really comes down to what I am doing with the images that determines the effort I will go to to get that image. I'm fortunately one that can make the choice of the upper end of either being armed with both a Samsung S10 along with Nikon DSLR and some really sweet Nikkor glass.

What is usually the crux of the matter is how often I will take out my DSLR… given its size and weight its a conscious thought to bring it along to whatever I'm going to. The smartphone is always in my pocket and I'm finding that hard to beat. Additionally it comes down to time. Not really the time it takes but the time I have to take it. I like taking my time over a shot however those I'm with rarely afford me that time. So my chances to enjoy the photography in of itself is hugely reduced unless I'm on my own or with other that are like minded and/or are prepared for it.

I would rarely recommend DSLR/mirrorless to anyone over a decent smartphone. If the difference is there they wouldn't be asking me in the first place and would know the pros and cons themselves. The important thing said here is "decent smartphone". Only can you make the comparison with the top end of smartphone cameras, and hence, the flagships (Pixel 3a being the sole exception).

While you do have a significantly more versatility with interchangeable and/or zoom lenses, exactly how is my S10 significantly different in fixed focals if my "portable DLSR kit" consists of a Nikkor 20mm f/1.8G, Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G and a Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC? I'm fixed focals usually either way.

Something that people also forgets about the portability vs cost facts as well is that just like DSLR lenses, I'm not limited to the one phone either. For an extra 2,000€ or so I can be able to step out the door with my S10 normal phone (I will have this either way so don't count this in the costs), an iPhone Xs for video and then a Huawei P30 Pro for that mega-telephoto. Coupled with a Sony RX100 Mk II (or variant of your liking - this is the one I have) what is it I really can't do? And I can fit that into anywhere with zero hassle.

Another aspect of it all is what happens in post… assuming there is any post processing. Can you get a RAW out of your smartphone and will you do any processing after the fact?

In the best of circumstances anyone competent in taking photos will get good photos. With better equipment and/or greater amounts of time of course, they should be getting far better results with a better/larger sensor and/or superior glass. FWIW I like that both Apple and Samsung have kept the MPs down.

To my mind the best image quality will come when the one takes the time whether that be at the time the photo is taken or the time in the practice to be proficient in their chosen camera.

 

[Ledgem]

It's often amazing to me with the obsession over 4k/5k screens and high definition streaming, etc. that so many people are so satisfied with mushy still photos from a smartphone. There's a bit of a disconnect there to me.

Respectfully, I don't really see a disconnect here. I can completely understand an individual to be obsessed about 4k TV and not caring at all about smartphone photo quality or even photography at all.

I would expect some kind of correlation here, but not a super strong one.

It depends on your expectations.

In my case, "retina" displays and 5K displays definitely drove some of my photography upgrades. I was originally happy with my camera a decade ago and felt like the images were nice and sharp, but once retina displays came out I was suddenly noticing missed focus and lack of detail. When I upgraded my camera two years ago I finally had something that could stand up to the full screen size of my 5K retina iMac. With displays that reveal flaws in an image so easily, mollyc is pointing out that it's hard to believe that lower-quality photos would be acceptable.

However, in my case I'm a pixel-peeper and I'm using a dedicated, high-end camera with high-end lenses. I expect certain things from that, and if my images don't appear life-like then I'm at least a bit let down. People taking photos with their smartphones already have screens that are fairly unforgiving; the flaws are there for them to see, but if they're primarily living amongst smartphone images then it becomes an "ignorance is bliss" scenario. If you're mostly seeing photos that lack fine details then you don't know how much better it could really be. And maybe they don't really care, either; most people really don't want to see all the flaws on their skin, or small errors in their makeup work.

And again, it comes down to how the photos are being used. I print large and use my photos as 27" 5K desktop backgrounds. Most people are probably using their photos as icon-covered cellphone backgrounds, and posting to Facebook and Instagram, where the quality takes another hit. They're not spending a good minute or two looking over a scene and admiring things, they're looking at a photo of food or of someone they know, perhaps reliving a memory. It's a very different relation to the photo. Used that way, it's very easy to imagine why people aren't bothered by lower image quality despite having better screens.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

It's often amazing to me with the obsession over 4k/5k screens and high definition streaming, etc. that so many people are so satisfied with mushy still photos from a smartphone. There's a bit of a disconnect there to me.

I never thought about it that way. I'm the opposite. I'm fine with 1080P for movies and video games, but I have a 4K monitor so I don't see the pixels for my Mac and for photography.

 

[maflynn]

It's often amazing to me with the obsession over 4k/5k screens and high definition streaming, etc. that so many people are so satisfied with mushy still photos from a smartphone. There's a bit of a disconnect there to me.

I think the disconnect occurs because many images from smartphone are only viewed from a smartphone. I can only comment about my personal experience, but of the friends, family, and others that I know. Most if not all of the social media consumption is done from a smartphone. Everything they share is basically viewed from a phone

 

[kallisti]

The Huawei P30 Pro is not too shabby with that zoom function on its built in lens. For a smartphone lens I think it is quite amazing. Would require a huge long lens on a digital camera to get those kinds of results. One thing is for sure and that is that smartphones have caught up quite a bit to digital cameras although they still have a bit to go. One thing that can not be denied is how good the Chinese have been at all of this.

Most images here look great but when you click on image and zoom in then even with the high end models and high end lenses some still tend to look a bit washed out.

https://www.alphashooters.com/cameras/a6400/lenses/

You shared a video of a comparison of moon pics taken with your model of phone compared to a dedicated DSLR. Your conclusion was that your phone is "not too shabby" and that "even with the high end models and high end lenses some still tend to look a bit washed out".

First off, I'm not sure what you mean by "washed out". By "washed out" are you referring to images looking soft or are you referring to the usual photographic use of the term related to lack of color saturation? As stated in several posts in this thread, images posted here have all been downsampled from the originals, so every image posted on this site isn't as sharp as the original and may have artifacts related to the downsampling process.

The video you shared is underwhelming in the comparison between the phone and a DSLR in photographing the moon. Despite what the narrator in the video states, the moon is challenging to capture well and is an example of a subject that is *extremely* gear dependent (as well as requiring perfect photographic technique). To be honest, sharp moon pics that fill the frame test the limits of any non-telescope gear, regardless of budget.

Sharing a series of pics from the same original image of the moon. Taken with a Nikon Z7, 200-500mm lens @ 500mm and wide open @ f/5.6. Taken on a tripod with good tripod technique. 1/125th sec and ISO 100.

Original uncropped image. 8256 x 5504 pixels.

Cropped image to fill the frame. 1624 x 1624 pixels. Printing this at the standard 300 ppi would result in a printed image with maximal size of 5.4 inches on a side. The image is soft secondary to the extreme crop--this is pushing the limits of both the lens and the camera.

Above cropped image upsampled in Topaz Gigapixel A.I. to 6496 x 6496 pixels. Printing this at the standard 300 ppi would result in a printed image with maximal size of 21.6 inches on a side. Gigapixel A.I. did a good job with this image. Not as good as what I could attain using a telescope, but made the image usable for decent print sizes.

My point is that the moon is a special case that is extremely gear-dependent. Good moon pics aren't going to happen with any phone camera. Even a DSLR with a long telephoto lens really isn't the appropriate tool for the subject as you are pushing the limits of what even the best gear can capture. Even Nikon's best and longest telephoto--the 600mm f/4 @ $12k isn't an ideal lens for moon pics. For this subject, you really need a telescope with an equatorial mount for optimal images.

My other point is that you still seem to be a little confused about how to evaluate image quality, specifically not seeming to understand the limits imposed by the process of posting images on the web. You seem to still want to evaluate images by their appearance in your web browser and how well the images look when you zoom in on them in your web browser. This is not valid on any level. Images posted here (and elsewhere on the web) are *not* a valid reflection of the actual files. They all look worse than the actual files. This tends to diminish the real differences between images.

Depending on what you plan to do with the images, the differences may or may not matter. They may or may not be noticeable. The intended audience (including yourself) may or may not be able to notice the differences. But they exist. *You* have to decide if they matter for your photography. Perhaps they don't for you and your uses--if so awesome! Keep taking pics and (hopefully) keep learning from both your successes and failures, like all of us do .

 

[stylinexpat]

You shared a video of a comparison of moon pics taken with your model of phone compared to a dedicated DSLR. Your conclusion was that your phone is "not too shabby" and that "even with the high end models and high end lenses some still tend to look a bit washed out".

First off, I'm not sure what you mean by "washed out". By "washed out" are you referring to images looking soft or are you referring to the usual photographic use of the term related to lack of color saturation? As stated in several posts in this thread, images posted here have all been downsampled from the originals, so every image posted on this site isn't as sharp as the original and may have artifacts related to the downsampling process.

The video you shared is underwhelming in the comparison between the phone and a DSLR in photographing the moon. Despite what the narrator in the video states, the moon is challenging to capture well and is an example of a subject that is *extremely* gear dependent (as well as requiring perfect photographic technique). To be honest, sharp moon pics that fill the frame test the limits of any non-telescope gear, regardless of budget.

Sharing a series of pics from the same original image of the moon. Taken with a Nikon Z7, 200-500mm lens @ 500mm and wide open @ f/5.6. Taken on a tripod with good tripod technique. 1/125th sec and ISO 100.

Original uncropped image. 8256 x 5504 pixels.

Cropped image to fill the frame. 1624 x 1624 pixels. Printing this at the standard 300 ppi would result in a printed image with maximal size of 5.4 inches on a side. The image is soft secondary to the extreme crop--this is pushing the limits of both the lens and the camera.

Above cropped image upsampled in Topaz Gigapixel A.I. to 6496 x 6496 pixels. Printing this at the standard 300 ppi would result in a printed image with maximal size of 21.6 inches on a side. Gigapixel A.I. did a good job with this image. Not as good as what I could attain using a telescope, but made the image usable for decent print sizes.

My point is that the moon is a special case that is extremely gear-dependent. Good moon pics aren't going to happen with any phone camera. Even a DSLR with a long telephoto lens really isn't the appropriate tool for the subject as you are pushing the limits of what even the best gear can capture. Even Nikon's best and longest telephoto--the 600mm f/4 @ $12k isn't an ideal lens for moon pics. For this subject, you really need a telescope with an equatorial mount for optimal images.

My other point is that you still seem to be a little confused about how to evaluate image quality, specifically not seeming to understand the limits imposed by the process of posting images on the web. You seem to still want to evaluate images by their appearance in your web browser and how well the images look when you zoom in on them in your web browser. This is not valid on any level. Images posted here (and elsewhere on the web) are *not* a valid reflection of the actual files. They all look worse than the actual files. This tends to diminish the real differences between images.

Depending on what you plan to do with the images, the differences may or may not matter. They may or may not be noticeable. The intended audience (including yourself) may or may not be able to notice the differences. But they exist. *You* have to decide if they matter for your photography. Perhaps they don't for you and your uses--if so awesome! Keep taking pics and (hopefully) keep learning from both your successes and failures, like all of us do .

I think what I mean to get at is images for marketing. As an example would be some some images used for marketing on Amazon. A better picture that does not look washed out when zoomed in on Amazon would probably have a better chance at being sold. I do realize that file upload size at times is limited for websites and Amazon. Taking a picture today from some of these newer smartphones for products within a certain range with an image looking less pixelated or washed out is getting pretty close to newly priced digital cameras under $1K for product marketing. Now though I have found an even better way to do this without needing a high end camera or smartphone so that when a picture online is zoomed in on looks even better for those who have large monitors or high resolution laptops or smartphones without looking bad after being enlarged or zoomed in on.


The images for the moon I think Huawei just used as a far point to try and achieve, perhaps a high mark to try and target. I do realize that this is not easy to ever get to from a point and shoot smartphone.

 

[PrecisionGem]

It’s a matter of what you do with a camera. Taking selfies and snapshots of friends etc, then a phone camera every from 5 years ago is fine. But for serious photography a phone camera is not versatile enough or can produce high enough quality photos.

How many sports photographers on the side lines of a NFL game do you see using a smart phone vs a Nikon or Canon DSL? Ever see a professional wedding photographer using a smart phone? Do you think all those pretty product photos on Apples site where shot with an iPhone?

Sensor size is just like film size. A 35mm film camera can not compete with 120 roll film camera, just like the medium format can not compete with a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera.

But beyond the sensor, its all about the lens, and the ability to choose the right lens for the desired photo.

 

[Ledgem]

Sensor size is just like film size. A 35mm film camera can not compete with 120 roll film camera, just like the medium format can not compete with a 4x5 or 8x10 view camera.

But beyond the sensor, its all about the lens, and the ability to choose the right lens for the desired photo.

I think it depends on the application. There's no way in heck that I'd want to do wildlife photography with a large format camera; "full frame" is already pushing it for that application, if you ask me. The smaller formats are superior there. The improved image quality of larger formats comes into play for things like portraits... but even for things like architecture and landscape, larger formats can have a hard time getting enough depth of field. So once again, smaller formats may win on convenience (because most people don't associate landscapes with focus stacking).

And then there's the fact that modern photos are beginning to go beyond the old paradigm of sensor size, thanks to computational techniques. HDR, focus stacking as mentioned... and now the combination of images from lenses of different focal lengths, it seems that there's quite a bit that can be done to improve an image beyond the raw sensor readout. I suspect there's much more to go on the computational side, too.

 

[kallisti]

While not necessarily aimed at the OP, there is an ongoing debate (as even evidenced in the replies in this thread) as to the image quality of phone pics compared to a dedicated camera. Or rather if the image quality differences really matter for most people.

I happen to have a good example from this spring of two pics taken at almost exactly the same time with both an iPhone SE and a Nikon D850.

Both pics were taken on a cruise. I was in the optimal shooting position and used a Nikon D850 with a Sigma 40mm f/1.4 lens. My mom was off to the right and took a pic with her iPhone SE.

Both images shared below.

iPhone SE, 1/120th sec at f/2.2 and ISO 40

The iPhone image with "auto" corrections applied in LR-- +1 stop of exposure, pulling down highlights, and boosting shadows.

Nikon D850 with Sigma 40mm f/1.4 lens, 1/800 sec at f/2 and ISO 64

While the compositions are obviously different, the quality of the images are not in the same ballpark. Both were shot at roughly the same aperture and ISO. The higher shutter speed obviously let me freeze motion better, but the 1/120th sec of the iPhone isn't exactly a slow shutter speed. But even taking that out of the equation, the overall quality of the file from the iPhone is quite obviously inferior. Not subtle. Not something that is only evident with pixel-peeping. The iPhone image is crap compared to something captured with a "real" camera.

The iPhone SE doesn't have the latest and greatest phone camera. Doesn't matter. The latest and greatest phone camera isn't going to be able to capture an image like this in an acceptable way. Moreover, this isn't a niche use case (like photographing the moon)--I was on vacation on a cruise and my son decided to jump in this window. This isn't some weird situation in bizarre light--it's something that regular people would face and want to photograph. The iPhone completely failed in capturing something that could even be shared on Facebook (at least by my standards). The dedicated camera nailed it.

Earlier in the thread a poster stated that one can "fix" images taken using a lower quality camera with software such as Topaz Lab's various products. I've used them and Gigapixel A.I. can do amazing things with some images, but there is a very real limit to what software can do if the source image is effectively crap.

I'm glad that people are happy with their phone cameras. As I've stated before, they work for some subjects and shooting conditions. But they also have severe limitations, even in commonly encountered shooting situations.

 

[CNebs]

While the composition is different the amount of light in the final picture is enough to affect your comparison. The first two are in front of the subject and from the looks of it in a darker area trying to capture the subject, while your final shot is directly in front of the light source itself.

Might as well have said: Here’s the photo I took from the side of the subject down a dark alley, and here’s the same photo I took, now granted the composition is different but I had direct light onto my digital camera. Don’t take all of that into account though, the phones just can’t compete.

 

[PrecisionGem]

I think it depends on the application. There's no way in heck that I'd want to do wildlife photography with a large format camera; "full frame" is already pushing it for that application, if you ask me. The smaller formats are superior there. The improved image quality of larger formats comes into play for things like portraits... but even for things like architecture and landscape, larger formats can have a hard time getting enough depth of field. So once again, smaller formats may win on convenience (because most people don't associate landscapes with focus stacking).

And then there's the fact that modern photos are beginning to go beyond the old paradigm of sensor size, thanks to computational techniques. HDR, focus stacking as mentioned... and now the combination of images from lenses of different focal lengths, it seems that there's quite a bit that can be done to improve an image beyond the raw sensor readout. I suspect there's much more to go on the computational side, too.

Actually a large format view camera is the preferred camera for architecture photography. With a view camera you tilts and shifts that can dramatically increase depth of field and also correct perspective problems. With my 4x5 I can have something in the forground just a foot or so from the camera in focus and also the background at 200 yards in focus. For me, the preferred landscape photos are with my RB67 pro 6 medium format as it sets up quickly, but by far the best image quality is from the 4x5.

Again, look on the sidelines of an NFL game. It's all full frame. Just a matter of using the right lens for the job.
[doublepost=1564888993][/doublepost]

While the composition is different the amount of light in the final picture is enough to affect your comparison. The first two are in front of the subject and from the looks of it in a darker area trying to capture the subject, while your final shot is directly in front of the light source itself.

Might as well have said: Here’s the photo I took from the side of the subject down a dark alley, and here’s the same photo I took, now granted the composition is different but I had direct light onto my digital camera. Don’t take all of that into account though, the phones just can’t compete.

I think the lighting on the iPhone pictures would be easier since at that angle the boy has more direct light on him. The Nikon shot the boy is mostly back light, making a more complex exposure. The iPhone can't handle the large dynamic range of the shot like the Nikon can.

 

[Ledgem]

Again, look on the sidelines of an NFL game. It's all full frame. Just a matter of using the right lens for the job.

I don't know that really says much about what the best tool for the job is, so much as what the trend may be. "Full frame" was always used, and even though APS-C and µ4/3 now exceed the performance of "full frame" cameras from some years ago, you don't see them in use. I don't think that's because the standards for sports photography have changed, either - they're just sticking with what they used and knew. Case in point, is Canon still making up a dominant chunk of what you see on the sidelines? Has Sony made any inroads? Not watching sports, I can't say I know the answer to that question, but I have heard that Canon still dominates in sports while Sony adoption has been slow. If that's true, it would further my point. After all, Sony offers superior image quality to Canon at this point, and they're also vying for the position of being a leader in autofocus performance... a competition between them and Nikon, not Canon.

(To be totally fair, I know that sports shooters are going for more than pure performance metrics. Canon probably offers a better professional support network than Sony, which counts for a lot. Their sports lens selection is also probably better established compared with Sony. I recognize that there are more variables at play there than what I've mentioned above.)

Thinking on it a bit further, I could accept the argument that "full frame" might be the best tool for the job if you're stationary with a tripod, but if you're on the move, there are definitely better tools.

As for me, I shoot with µ4/3 and Fuji's GFX system. I don't have any inclination to dump my µ4/3 gear, despite using a "superior" format in the mix. Even if Fuji offered lenses that would allow me to get the same angle of view as some of the telephoto lenses on µ4/3 I wouldn't go for it. I don't mind carrying around heavy lenses, but I think that would be a nightmare. A lens like the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 "Sigmonster" was on my wish list for a very long time, but realistically that's a lens I'd never take out even if I owned it. There comes a point where the gear just becomes too large and too heavy...

 

[PrecisionGem]

I don't know that really says much about what the best tool for the job is, so much as what the trend may be. "Full frame" was always used, and even though APS-C and µ4/3 now exceed the performance of "full frame" cameras from some years ago, you don't see them in use. I don't think that's because the standards for sports photography have changed, either - they're just sticking with what they used and knew. Case in point, is Canon still making up a dominant chunk of what you see on the sidelines? Has Sony made any inroads? Not watching sports, I can't say I know the answer to that question, but I have heard that Canon still dominates in sports while Sony adoption has been slow. If that's true, it would further my point. After all, Sony offers superior image quality to Canon at this point, and they're also vying for the position of being a leader in autofocus performance... a competition between them and Nikon, not Canon.

(To be totally fair, I know that sports shooters are going for more than pure performance metrics. Canon probably offers a better professional support network than Sony, which counts for a lot. Their sports lens selection is also probably better established compared with Sony. I recognize that there are more variables at play there than what I've mentioned above.)

Thinking on it a bit further, I could accept the argument that "full frame" might be the best tool for the job if you're stationary with a tripod, but if you're on the move, there are definitely better tools.

As for me, I shoot with µ4/3 and Fuji's GFX system. I don't have any inclination to dump my µ4/3 gear, despite using a "superior" format in the mix. Even if Fuji offered lenses that would allow me to get the same angle of view as some of the telephoto lenses on µ4/3 I wouldn't go for it. I don't mind carrying around heavy lenses, but I think that would be a nightmare. A lens like the Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 "Sigmonster" was on my wish list for a very long time, but realistically that's a lens I'd never take out even if I owned it. There comes a point where the gear just becomes too large and too heavy...

I'm with you on the weight and size. I have an Olympus micro 4/3 system, and find I use this camera the most. The lenses are half the size of my Nikon full frame, and cost much less too. However, the image quality from the Nikon full frame is superior, and my medium format is superior to the Nikon, and my 4x5 view camera beats them all hands down. Not even close. Throw in the tilts and swings and a view camera, aside from the size is hard to beat. I was doing this professionally now, I would buy a digital back for the view camera.

Back in the 70's and 80's I did wedding photography. For this I used an RB67 pro S, shooting 6x7cm or 2-¼" x 2-¾". You never saw a pro using 35mm for weddings.

 

[iluvmacs99]

I like to contribute my thoughts, having worked in the industry for about 30 years, as to why "full frame" seemed to be the de facto standard equipment being used in Sport venues throughout the world. It is not that you don't see other professionals use different equipment like the micro four thirds, which was used in some major sporting events like the Olympics (2010 Winter Olympics; I met a Japan press photographer shooting with his Olympus E-5 competing against Nikon D3 and he had some amazing shots) and world cup and NFL circuits by the most prestigious award winning photographers. They are just rare.

The real reason is dead simple. Sponsorship and marketing support by both Canon and Nikon made "full frame" the standard in sporting events. Canon offers CPS (Canon Professional Service) and Nikon offers (Nikon Professional Service) and they appear in almost all major events. Canon and Nikon also offer the "junior" version of CPS and NPS for photojournalist students. So they made sure they start them young with the drugs just like Apple does today with the educational venue. They also offer special services for bloggers and influencers, which equals to "FREE GEAR". Talk about inequality compared to us photographers who are making a living but decided not to spew B**LS**T on the web to spur up sales and politics that full frame is great, which was basically corporate brand washing.

The fact of the matter is that full frame became the standard because Canon and Nikon saw the profits they can make. They both started with APS-C, but when Nikon developed the Nikon D3 and the race began between them to design the best autofocus with best low light digital camera, they both decided that full frame was the best platform because it forces other professionals who would not otherwise consider full frame want full frame. The competitiveness in the agency work demanded that you shoot full frame, UNLESS you are shooting for a client who you know does not demand this. But it is rare nowadays as most clients want at least 12-20MP and full frame.

Having said that, unless you are a top "A" list photographer who shoots for major agencies on retainer with a decent "per dium" for events as well as a secure paycheque even if your work is not used then, most photographers work on SPEC; speculative work which is freelance. And freelancing is very difficult and paid very little. So what you usually get with other photographers who can't afford full frame is they get sucked in in these events by CPS or NPS with free full frame gear and then apply for some sort of sponsorship or loan arrangements to get them buying full frame. The premise is that, their APS-C can't match the "A" list photographers and they have to keep up with the Joneses. But they don't realize is that this is a forced upgrade path that most SPEC photographers will leave mainly penniless as their expenditure in camera gear outstrips their income needed to pay for these gear and their income work. I think some work for mostly below minimum wage; like about $5-$9/hr if you minus expenses and loans.

 

[PrecisionGem]

How many smart phone photographers do you see?