Smartphone image quality VS Digital camera image quality

[r.harris1]

I think my own takeaways from this discussion and my own observations are the following:

(1) Smartphone image quality is still measurably lower than most larger sensors, though in certain situations, computational/AI methods help fill in a few of the gaps either during image capture or in post processing. And the quality of the sensors is getting generationally better each year, eating in to 1-inch and maybe slightly larger sensors, for some but not all situations.
(2) For a lot of people, smartphone image quality and point/shoot capabilities are adequate for their needs (social media, etc).
(3) It’s possible for good photographers to get nice images from smartphones for certain genres in certain situations
(4) Computational photography will continue to fill some of the quality gap for small sensors in certain situations, getting better each year. Example is computational depth-of-field and Portrait Lighting. These still don’t look nearly as good as optical approaches (to me), but may work well for certain needs.
(5) Computational photography in its various guises will continue to augment larger sensor photography too, from (seemingly) everyone’s favorite Eye AF, other AF modes, post processing such as all the Topaz software and from there all the way to the frame averaging in the Phase One backs if 60k cameras are your thing.
(6) The larger sensors also continue to improve, either via pixel count or price or off-loading technology. How well they handle color and noise. Many other things.
(7) Video, if you’re in to that, is apparently getting much better on the larger sensors and the phone sensors are doing well for certain situations too. I really can’t speak to video, just my understanding.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Apple fanboy]

I think my own takeaways from this discussion and my own observations are the following:

(1) Smartphone image quality is still measurably lower than most larger sensors, though in certain situations, computational/AI methods help fill in a few of the gaps either during image capture or in post processing. And the quality of the sensors is getting generationally better each year, eating in to 1-inch and maybe slightly larger sensors, for some but not all situations.
(2) For a lot of people, smartphone image quality and point/shoot capabilities are adequate for their needs (social media, etc).
(3) It’s possible for good photographers to get nice images from smartphones for certain genres in certain situations
(4) Computational photography will continue to fill some of the quality gap for small sensors in certain situations, getting better each year. Example is computational depth-of-field and Portrait Lighting. These still don’t look nearly as good as optical approaches (to me), but may work well for certain needs.
(5) Computational photography in its various guises will continue to augment larger sensor photography too, from (seemingly) everyone’s favorite Eye AF, other AF modes, post processing such as all the Topaz software and from there all the way to the frame averaging in the Phase One backs if 60k cameras are your thing.
(6) The larger sensors also continue to improve, either via pixel count or price or off-loading technology. How well they handle color and noise. Many other things.
(7) Video, if you’re in to that, is apparently getting much better on the larger sensors and the phone sensors are doing well for certain situations too. I really can’t speak to video, just my understanding.

Did I miss anything?

Sums it up well.
[doublepost=1564948153][/doublepost]

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.

Exactly! I can recognise your boy in your photo. The other looks like Google earth didn't want a passer by recognised in street view.

 

[iluvmacs99]

Any new technology brings upon a certain level of disruption in how we consume the delivery of the product. Take Amazon for example as it brought similar disruption into the retail industry. Within a few years after Amazon was born, it brought about the decimation of regional shopping malls. The disruption in the retail industry changed how most people consume their products. That is, they have no trouble ordering online. It was easy, convenient and mostly cheaper than buying from traditional retailers. Amazon changed the whole landscape of retail as smartphones did with photography. What Amazon couldn't kill yet is Walmart as it had adapted to the disruption of the business landscape and aligned itself to products that consumers can not easily obtain from Amazon, until of course Amazon figures out how to solve those logistic problems.

Why am I bringing this up? I think many people are missing one thing.

And that is, any technological disruption brings about a change in habits and trends in how consumer consume products. In the case of Amazon, it did away with malls and grocery stores and also changed how people want to buy products. They want to get them online, because of the convenience factor and the cost factor for both Amazon and its customers. Many retail experts had wrongly predicted the disruptive nature of Amazon in the beginning, because most of them are assuming how shoppers and consumers would traditional consume products before the disruption. What they did not factor upon was how consumers habit changed that now altered the retail landscape causing many malls and stores like Sears to close for good.

And the many people I think are missing thus far is that, people still assume we are consuming photography the same way we do before the smartphone disruption. And that is, we share images via traditional print medium. Why else we need bigger sensors and better low light performance?

That's because, we can crop or print big. The double spread magazine cover, the marketing blitz ads you see donning the walls of many retailers and sports outlet catching you in the midst and dreams of being one of those stars you fan boy or girl wanted to be; either in shoes, wears etc.. Those prints and presentation need to look good and flawless. While that market still exist and that's why we need traditional cameras to deliver those products, the true method of consumption for photographs and videos are through a smartphone. Few people print photos anymore. Smartphone is the method of consumption and it in itself is a major disruptive force because the requirements for a smartphone display is much less than a big print from a Nikon D850, Phase back, Fuji GFX or even a Sony A7R4. Do you really need 60MP if the end result is shown only on a smartphone screen? I don't think so. So really, we are discussing 2 different market segments. A market segment steeped in tradition, who are still wealthy and able to consume media through traditional means demand the best media files available, but another market segment, the segment that consume media whenever they can get them freely online don't really care if it came from the D850 or a Phase back.

Lastly, how photography is consumed keeps evolving. What we know of traditional sports today may evolve into something like we are seeing now; eSports where the athletes are console players. Do you really need a full frame camera body and a telephoto lens to cover eSports as you would with traditional sports events? Or would someone with a smartphone enough to cover that?

Any business is only viable when there is a market to consume its products. When that market changes, then the traditional expectation of a traditional camera will also change.

 

[r.harris1]

Any new technology brings upon a certain level of disruption in how we consume the delivery of the product. Take Amazon for example as it brought similar disruption into the retail industry. Within a few years after Amazon was born, it brought about the decimation of regional shopping malls. The disruption in the retail industry changed how most people consume their products. That is, they have no trouble ordering online. It was easy, convenient and mostly cheaper than buying from traditional retailers. Amazon changed the whole landscape of retail as smartphones did with photography. What Amazon couldn't kill yet is Walmart as it had adapted to the disruption of the business landscape and aligned itself to products that consumers can not easily obtain from Amazon, until of course Amazon figures out how to solve those logistic problems.

Why am I bringing this up? I think many people are missing one thing.

And that is, any technological disruption brings about a change in habits and trends in how consumer consume products. In the case of Amazon, it did away with malls and grocery stores and also changed how people want to buy products. They want to get them online, because of the convenience factor and the cost factor for both Amazon and its customers. Many retail experts had wrongly predicted the disruptive nature of Amazon in the beginning, because most of them are assuming how shoppers and consumers would traditional consume products before the disruption. What they did not factor upon was how consumers habit changed that now altered the retail landscape causing many malls and stores like Sears to close for good.

And the many people I think are missing thus far is that, people still assume we are consuming photography the same way we do before the smartphone disruption. And that is, we share images via traditional print medium. Why else we need bigger sensors and better low light performance?

That's because, we can crop or print big. The double spread magazine cover, the marketing blitz ads you see donning the walls of many retailers and sports outlet catching you in the midst and dreams of being one of those stars you fan boy or girl wanted to be; either in shoes, wears etc.. Those prints and presentation need to look good and flawless. While that market still exist and that's why we need traditional cameras to deliver those products, the true method of consumption for photographs and videos are through a smartphone. Few people print photos anymore. Smartphone is the method of consumption and it in itself is a major disruptive force because the requirements for a smartphone display is much less than a big print from a Nikon D850, Phase back, Fuji GFX or even a Sony A7R4. Do you really need 60MP if the end result is shown only on a smartphone screen? I don't think so. So really, we are discussing 2 different market segments. A market segment steeped in tradition, who are still wealthy and able to consume media through traditional means demand the best media files available, but another market segment, the segment that consume media whenever they can get them freely online don't really care if it came from the D850 or a Phase back.

Lastly, how photography is consumed keeps evolving. What we know of traditional sports today may evolve into something like we are seeing now; eSports where the athletes are console players. Do you really need a full frame camera body and a telephoto lens to cover eSports as you would with traditional sports events? Or would someone with a smartphone enough to cover that?

Any business is only viable when there is a market to consume its products. When that market changes, then the traditional expectation of a traditional camera will also change.

These are good points but I think that most people here get that smartphones and the web are the way images today are consumed and shared. After all, we share photos on this site. Right now, the (way overused word) disruption is hitting point and shoot cameras. And even there, it’s more convenience than disruption. Why carry a camera and phone if I can conveniently carry both in one small package with adequate quality for taking pictures of my friends and my food? Or my cat? If there is any disruption, it’s in image processing techniques and when/how they are applied, on and off sensor. And those will distribute across the different sensor sizes eventually. The higher end market has always been smaller but there’s still a market for quality images, including prints. There’s an art aspect still, after all.

Just an aside but I’d be willing to bet that “traditional” sports doesn’t get supplanted by eSports. It may have a huge market potential and may exist along side, but humans are still humans and like to see each other get physically walloped or at least break a sweat. So we’ll still need long lenses and camera that can operate in challenging conditions as well as the ability to crop and still deliver great image quality. My birding images still need those long lenses and my landscapes still need high DR sensors and ability to use 20 stops of filters. Maybe in some cases I can use smartphone HDR, but that’s not my preference.

And about those preferences. It’s not just a convenience factor. You don’t have to be an old codger living in a cave to appreciate and enjoy larger sensor photography. That most people don’t know or care that it’s a larger sensor or more expensive camera isn’t really relevant. It’s just a thing that ultimately isn’t important to people who enjoy it. And don’t give up on older tech. Film is enjoying a resurgence today. It has a look, like high-end DSLRs have a look. Or Phase backs. Or iPhones. These are ultimately tools, and for a while at least, they all have a place.

 

[iluvmacs99]

I don't think that traditional cameras will be completely replaced by smartphones just like desktop and laptop computers still have their places. These products are also being displaced by smartphones and tablets. Disruption has a way of creating a crisis in traditional industries which force them to adapt and change, either for the worse or better. I like when you mentioned image processing techniques as one form of technological disruption. I remembered 30 years ago after I graduated from computer science and got laid off during the mid to late 80s computer industry crash was when I went into the photography business, because I had computer training. Photoshop know how and Degas Elite experience plus some modest photographic skills. The early 90s and late 90s were when the disruption happened with digital photography vs film and was when my computer skills + photography really took off. Then, many professionals who were used to film and who couldn't transition to digital either quit the industry and switched careers or people like me replaced them and put them to pastures. I was young then. Just couldn't realized 30 years later having some young up and coming millennial who then replaced me because he had more expertise in social media. Having said that, it'll be interesting what the next decade would bring. I agree that the resurgence of film in today's world when back then, we all said death to film. LOL

 

[Frankied22]

I don't want to hijack this thread but I was going to make a similar thread recently so I will just ask here.

I am going on a trip and am wondering if it'll be worth it to get a point and shoot, like the Sony RX-100, and use that instead of my iPhone X. Realistically, how drastic of a difference in photos would I see?

Here are a couple photos I took on my trip last year with my iPhone X. I am willing to spend the $500-1000 for a dedicated camera for my next trip but I want to see DRASTICALLY better photos than what I got last year.

I got some really nice panoramic shots too but it says they're too large to upload.

 

[iluvmacs99]

I don't want to hijack this thread but I was going to make a similar thread recently so I will just ask here.

I am going on a trip and am wondering if it'll be worth it to get a point and shoot, like the Sony RX-100, and use that instead of my iPhone X. Realistically, how drastic of a difference in photos would I see?

Here are a couple photos I took on my trip last year with my iPhone X. I am willing to spend the $500-1000 for a dedicated camera for my next trip but I want to see DRASTICALLY better photos than what I got last year.

I got some really nice panoramic shots too but it says they're too large to upload.

The Sony RX-100 is a 1" sensor, so while it will provide much better dynamic range and noise performance compared to your iPhone X and yet just seeing the conditions you are shooting at, you would see some improvements, but not a drastic improvement. If you want a drastic improvement, you need to step up to a larger sensor like the m/43 (LUMIX GX9 or OMD E-M10 Mark III) or the Sony A6000 which is an APS-C camera. They are all somewhat compact. I myself own a Lumix ZS-100 (a 1" Sony sensor) as well as an Olympus m/43 and I prefer the m/43 more. I shot full frame before using my company's gear, but don't miss it for the things I do now for travel photography. iPhone X photos are already pretty good, so unless you are shooting in very challenging back lit, high contrast or low light conditions where a larger sensor would help immensely, you won't benefit from normal daylight stuff which a phone does well anyhow.

 

[kallisti]

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.

Your criticism is noted. I was trying to not get too far into the weeds on a technical level and may have erred on the side of making my point in too simple terms rather than providing a more nuanced argument.

Below is the RAW file from the D850 without any modifications in post. The reason I didn't include it in my above post is that it may introduce confusion for less experienced photographers.

(1) This is the unmodified RAW file (and a small web version of it). RAW files are *not* intended for direct posting on the web. They are the "raw material" which allows one to make changes in post. The expectation is that you will manipulate them in post to end up with a final image that you find suitable--and RAW files give you the most options in post. This ended up being a good exposure--the sky and water are exposed to the right but aren't blown out, retaining tonal detail that can be recovered later. Many elements are in shadow, but the important parts aren't pure black and retain detail that can also be recovered later in post. The iPhone failed by overexposing the image related to the sky and water. Since they were completely blown out, there is nothing available to recover in post, regardless of software. The iPhone capturing in JPEG and not RAW made the situation worse as there isn't enough data in the source file to manipulate in post.

(2) This is a high dynamic range scene. It's actually a challenging scene for any camera to capture. Overall, the iPhone may have made the right exposure call. Had it exposed for the sky/sea, everything else would have been horribly underexposed (even worse than what it ended up with). Underexposure is murder on shadows, especially with a small sensor and an image captured as JPEG. Had the iPhone exposed for the sky/sea, there might have been some detail in those areas, but everything else would have been incredibly noisy with nasty artifacts (worse than what is in the image it captured).

(3) But wait, this isn't a fair comparison--why aren't you showing the JPEG output from the D850 to directly compare with the JPEG from the iPhone? Simple: I don't shoot JPEGs with any of my serious cameras and only shoot RAW for the specific reasons outlined above. I'm willing to take the time to make my images look the way I want them to in post. Having the best and highest quality image data available as "raw material" lets me do that. I don't take photos for online discussions about why my gear is better than some other set of gear. I take photos because I care about the image quality of the final image. I don't really care how I get there as long as the final output meets my needs/expectations. Not as a pissing contest comparing my gear to "something else". It's all about the final image.

The JPEG file from the iPhone SE in this example (see my earlier post) is horrendous, can't be "fixed" in post, and doesn't meet any use I would want from it. It's not just the inferior composition or the slower shutter speed that introduced blur. It's that the iPhone file has significant artifacts in the source file compared to the D850 image. Artifacts that relate both to the camera and to the format the file was saved to. Garbage in --> garbage out.

 

[r.harris1]

I don't want to hijack this thread but I was going to make a similar thread recently so I will just ask here.

I am going on a trip and am wondering if it'll be worth it to get a point and shoot, like the Sony RX-100, and use that instead of my iPhone X. Realistically, how drastic of a difference in photos would I see?

Here are a couple photos I took on my trip last year with my iPhone X. I am willing to spend the $500-1000 for a dedicated camera for my next trip but I want to see DRASTICALLY better photos than what I got last year.

I got some really nice panoramic shots too but it says they're too large to upload.

No camera, regardless of cost, is going to give drastically better photos without practice, so if you did get an RX-100 variant, spend some time with it getting to know if before the trip. And whether you want to get a dedicated camera depends on what you value. You’d have a better sensor and more reach, but whether that’s of value is only something you can answer. Getting one in you hands, if possible, would be ideal ahead of the purchase.

 

[kenoh]

How many smart phone photographers do you see?

Foreground? zero...

Background? THOUSANDS....

Just being annoying sorry...

 

[PrecisionGem]

I really boils down to what you intend to do with the camera. Just like back in the 70's and 80's many many people were very hap with the pocket 110 instamtic cameras. Just like the smart phone, these had a fixed lens and took care of the exposure. Simple to operator, and pretty fool proof. The results were fine for basic snap shots. No professional or serious hobby photographer would use one, but the masses were happy.

A smart phone camera is fine for selfies, snap shots, recording your parking spot at the airport etc. But for serious photography it's a joke to compare one to an interchangeable lens camera. It's not just the sensor, its the lens, and the ability to change lenses depending on the needs, and the ability to control the aperture, shutter speed, focus etc.

Todays smart phones take great snap shots, much better than the old pocket 110 film cameras, but not close to what can be done with a 'real' camera.

Imagine something like this with a smart phone.

Nikon D700 with a 14mm lens HDR image.

 

[Ledgem]

Imagine something like this with a smart phone.

Nikon D700 with a 14mm lens HDR image. View attachment 851613

I like the image, at least in part because of that other-worldly look that leads some to call it "over-processed" (a very obvious HDR). Smartphones routinely do HDR exposures, but seem to process for realism.

However, you might be surprised at what your smartphone can do... I've manually done multiple exposures to "bracket" exposures on my iPhone (which was a huge pain; there's probably an app out there that does it similar to how bracketing exposures works on our cameras) and then ran the images through my HDR software. It was under bright conditions, of course, but the results were surprisingly good. Give it a try some time, I think you'll be surprised.

 

[PrecisionGem]

So and iPhone XS dual lens has a 35mm equivalent of 26mm and the ‘telephoto’ is 52 mm. My D750 gear goes from 14mm to 400mm. So a much broader range. My m4/3 system from 14mm to 600mm equivalent.

52mm is hardly considered telephoto, but actual what we would refer to as a standard lens.

Another thing missing on smart phone is either a hot shoe or sync connector. No way to use a dedicated flash or studio light.

For me the phone camera is used for simple snap shots, when I’m shopping and my wife wants to check something, a photo of a white board at work. Not for serious photography. It’s crazy to make the argument that it could be.