I am willing to bet that seeing some of her pictures brought an smile to your face. Some kids get real good at seeing interesting aspects of things that one usually considers mundane.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Using iPhone/iPad for photography
- Thread starter jwolf6589
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Most cameras today have great image quality. That is to say, they do well on "measurable attributes" like dynamic range, sensor resolution, color accuracy, tonal reproduction, exposure accuracy and so forth. I also think it's true that "the camera doesn't matter" in the general sense, meaning I can use any camera to get great image quality these days. Not great images necessarily, as that's another thing entirely, but the image quality (those measurable attributes) should be pretty good. I always like to say that it's a great time to enjoy photography.
That said, I think the "the camera does matter" in the specific sense, to each individual. A landscape photographer I really like is Joe Cornish from the UK. He shoots both medium format (Phase One backs on a Linhof Technika) and 35mm (Sony A7r4 I believe). Can I hand him an iPhone and and have him give me a great image back? Probably, but he feels his best work is with those other cameras for specific deliberate reasons. The workflow and constraints those systems impose and the choices he is forced to make because of those things all play into how he thinks about, composes and delivers his images.
It's certainly true that someone else might be able to replicate an image with another camera, even an iPhone, after the fact, but I don't think that's the point. Taking the Phase / Technika combo as an example, it is a large, very heavy combo that's entirely manual focus and somewhat unforgiving. But the Rodenstock lenses used on those systems are exceptional and with this combo he can come back with a very high resolution, color-accurate, 16-18-stop dynamic range raw file (i.e. great IQ). Because of the constraints of weight, manual focus, need for deliberate framing using lens shift, tilt, swing will look different to what someone with a different set of decisions and constraints would make. The camera system (including lenses) can inform the final image.
Likewise, one may use an iPhone where you need to make a different set of decisions and work with another set of constraints that would inform the final image. Every system imposes some set of boundary conditions that require some form of decision making - even if unconscious - that shapes the image. It could even be something like ergonomics or menu systems that we gel with (or not). Or the lens. Or cost constraints. Or time...the list goes on. All of those play into the decision making process around an image that gets captured.
Back to my own "day job" of software development and architecture. My approach to how I do my work is different because I use a Mac than it would be if used a Windows PC or a Linux-based machine. I would get great "software quality" on any platform but the constraints imposed by using a Mac force decisions that help me - Ray the individual - get work done better (for me). It may be that "constraints" isn't really the right word because it carries negative connotations and isn't my goal. But fewer or no choices in one area drive creative or efficiency decisions elsewhere.
So "the camera doesn't matter" and "it's just a tool" are entirely correct but also equally correct to say that the choice you make in the tool you use can set up different pathways to getting to the same goal that can result in unique outcomes.
"Ray's Philosophy of the Day" - done!
That said, I think the "the camera does matter" in the specific sense, to each individual. A landscape photographer I really like is Joe Cornish from the UK. He shoots both medium format (Phase One backs on a Linhof Technika) and 35mm (Sony A7r4 I believe). Can I hand him an iPhone and and have him give me a great image back? Probably, but he feels his best work is with those other cameras for specific deliberate reasons. The workflow and constraints those systems impose and the choices he is forced to make because of those things all play into how he thinks about, composes and delivers his images.
It's certainly true that someone else might be able to replicate an image with another camera, even an iPhone, after the fact, but I don't think that's the point. Taking the Phase / Technika combo as an example, it is a large, very heavy combo that's entirely manual focus and somewhat unforgiving. But the Rodenstock lenses used on those systems are exceptional and with this combo he can come back with a very high resolution, color-accurate, 16-18-stop dynamic range raw file (i.e. great IQ). Because of the constraints of weight, manual focus, need for deliberate framing using lens shift, tilt, swing will look different to what someone with a different set of decisions and constraints would make. The camera system (including lenses) can inform the final image.
Likewise, one may use an iPhone where you need to make a different set of decisions and work with another set of constraints that would inform the final image. Every system imposes some set of boundary conditions that require some form of decision making - even if unconscious - that shapes the image. It could even be something like ergonomics or menu systems that we gel with (or not). Or the lens. Or cost constraints. Or time...the list goes on. All of those play into the decision making process around an image that gets captured.
Back to my own "day job" of software development and architecture. My approach to how I do my work is different because I use a Mac than it would be if used a Windows PC or a Linux-based machine. I would get great "software quality" on any platform but the constraints imposed by using a Mac force decisions that help me - Ray the individual - get work done better (for me). It may be that "constraints" isn't really the right word because it carries negative connotations and isn't my goal. But fewer or no choices in one area drive creative or efficiency decisions elsewhere.
So "the camera doesn't matter" and "it's just a tool" are entirely correct but also equally correct to say that the choice you make in the tool you use can set up different pathways to getting to the same goal that can result in unique outcomes.
"Ray's Philosophy of the Day" - done!
I'd only obey someones rules if they paid for my iPad. Besides Apple made improvements to Mini 6 for using, not for sitting idle. But rest assured I don't normally use iPad for photography only sometimes. For example like for recording a take off on a plane.
Different tools for different purposes.
One of the big things is that larger sensors typically found on ILC cameras(typically 16x24mm or 24x36mm these days, although smaller and larger exist) have an advantage over the small iPhone sensors and those typically found in P&Ss. As a general rule, not set in stone, larger sensors operated at a given level of light sensitivity tend to be "cleaner" and have more dynamic range.
iPhones have optics now that are impressive on paper, although they're still fighting size/compact design and generally the purpose made camera lenses are better. Of course wide angle mirrorless lenses can typically murder their DSLR counterparts, but that's a different discussion.
Since you're the one who keeps mentioning cost-I'll point out, again-that $500 can easily buy either a starter DSLR kit or an older higher end body+lens.
A few weeks ago while I was parked, there was a squirrel right across the street from me on the sidewalk. The little guy stop up on his legs and was standing therefor a few minutes. I zoomed in quite a bit on my XS Max and got a picture. Later at home, I saw the picture was really bad from zooming in. It did not have any of the detail that I hoped it would have like being able to see the individual hairs on the squirrel.
I decided from that moment on that I would start either bring my canon 5D Mark IV or my Canon R5 with me every day. I have a few different lenses for either one, a 70-200mm and a 100-400mm lens that would have made that squirrel look like it was right next to me with every detail of his being in nice clear amazing color.
This is the picture that I got on my iPhone. Very bad.
Attachments
It depends what you're trying to do. "Better" cameras and lenses are less constraining. You can zoom closer, or shoot in darker ambient light with less quality loss, or have shakier hands and still get a sharp image... basically, you can afford to be sloppier with your technique and a bit less picky about your shooting conditions. Certain types of photography, such as macro and birding, are almost impossible without the specialized gear. But if you have the vision and the skill to get around your camera's technical shortcomings, you can outperform someone with a higher-end camera who lacks vision and skill.
That's what it comes down to. I'm so-so at photography but I enjoy it and want to get some decent photos. I don't want to focus so much on timing and preparing the lighting - used to enjoy things like that, but don't have time for it anymore. So I have a higher-end camera and a wide-aperture lens so that I can still shoot in crummy lighting and the photo is still decent. If I try with my iPhone or point-and-shoot the skin tones are blotchy.
Or, to borrow a car analogy, someone with a rear-wheel drive car and all-season tires can do just fine in getting to where they want to go, but the results will be iffy in a bad snowstorm. For people who don't want to wait out the storm or avoid roads with poorer conditions, there are vehicles with all-wheel drive and winter tires. Costs more and still doesn't totally guarantee you'll get to where you're trying to go (especially if you're a crummy driver), but you're more likely to meet with success. But if the roads are clear anyway, there may not be quite as much benefit, right?
My iPhone 11 Pro was, I think, the first three-lens model. If you tap on the circled "1x" you can switch between 2x and 0.5x (the XS Max probably has 1x and 2x only). You can also adjust the slider to get different values between those three. However, only the set markers (0.5x, 1x, and 2x) represent changing the lenses; everything else is a digital zoom, possibly with a lens change. Since you have a dedicated camera you likely know this, but for anyone else who stumbles upon this, digital zooming always results in quality loss. More to the point, it's something you can do, yourself, after the photo has been taken. You can't undo the digital zoom, however. As a result, I'd advise against ever digitally zooming in on something. Do the best you can with changing optics, and then see if digitally zooming is viable later. If it is, great; if it isn't, your original photo might still have something for you.
The good thing about spam calls I don't carry my phone anymore and if I do take it with me I cringe. Yet I have no problem always carrying my rx100 everywhere. (just now 2 spam calls). My friends understand I might not return texts right away. I can't even imagine wanting to upgrade my iPhone I hate the spam calls so much - pay $600 to carry a brick that annoys me constantly - NO!
Do I worry that there will be that "one" time when I need to call an ambulance - no I grew up in MT and honestly where a person would actually get hurt and be away from all others cell phones still don't work.
It is actually rather liberating not carrying the phone, try it on your next walk away from your house.
iPhone photography is dead because carrying a spam machine in your pocket is just plain stupid
Do I worry that there will be that "one" time when I need to call an ambulance - no I grew up in MT and honestly where a person would actually get hurt and be away from all others cell phones still don't work.
It is actually rather liberating not carrying the phone, try it on your next walk away from your house.
iPhone photography is dead because carrying a spam machine in your pocket is just plain stupid
People paint with a paintbrush or spray paint and can create art. Same thing with photography. iPhone, point and shoot, SLR… it’s not about the gear, it’s about the technique, the capture and how you use your gear.
Nothing wrong with using a iPad for photography. I mean don’t use it all the time but use it sometimes. My mini 6 has as good a camera as my iPhone 13 and can record 4K video. I don’t understand why some think it’s obnoxious to use a iPad for photography.
I think it mainly comes down to the location when using an iPad for photography. Are you in a concert or something similar with possibly lower level lighting or a lot of people, because if you are it can be pretty obnoxious to hold up a tablet with the screen brightness more than likely cranked high. I also think the stereotype isn't with an iPad mini, but the larger models especially leading up to the 12.9".
Now are you at say the botanical gardens, park, or even a museum where there is plenty of space and you shooting with your iPad sure you may get some looks just because when people think tablet I don't think photography necessarily comes to mind, but you are correct with there isn't much of a difference especially depending what model iPhone the tablet is being compared to.
Now are you at say the botanical gardens, park, or even a museum where there is plenty of space and you shooting with your iPad sure you may get some looks just because when people think tablet I don't think photography necessarily comes to mind, but you are correct with there isn't much of a difference especially depending what model iPhone the tablet is being compared to.
The Mini 6 has a flash so I dont need to worry about low light. I have seen people at Trump rally's using iPads for photography. In my case I used my Mini 6 at the airport, on the plane and such to take photos. But when I venture more into Alaska I obviously will bring my Canon.
Again, even with flash it depends on the situation to determine if it is "obnoxious". In you example for Trump rally's IMO that is obnoxious because to my knowledge those events are typically indoors and unless you are in the furthest back there are people who are trying to see too and I doubt all of those people you saw are using a mini.
The examples you gave that you personally use yours in IMO is not obnoxious, because although the airport is crowded (typically) you generally will not be interfering with someone's view same for while you are on the plane (this is assuming you are sitting at the window seat). Those situations are IMO more using what you have on you, because if you are already carrying the mini in your hands and see something you want to take a photo of rather than fumbling for your phone to take the picture yeah just use what you have on you, but going back to the rally example, I highly doubt the iPad was their only device to take a photo on them.
No many use the iPad at the rally’s but yes not everyone or hardly anyway was using a Mini. I see your point however. If you are blocking someone’s view that would be obnoxious.
Well then question answered, I am sure there are other examples but to the original post you made
I can fairly comfortably say that the majority only find it obnoxious when it interferes with their life just like pretty much anything.
How often are you carrying around an iPad. Sure, it it's the camera you have on you at the time it works fine. It's not meant to be used as a walk around camera. Taking a iPad to a concert is absurd on so many levels. One I'd cumbersome to carry with you. Way to big and obtrusive. Using it as a video camera is just silly.
When I travel on a flight iPad mini 6 is always on me while iPhone in pocket. Yes I do use it as a video camera.
how does your iPad mini's screen compare in bright sunlight to your iPhone? My older iPad sucks in mid-day sun to the point of being completely unpleasant to use. Do you need to use a shade or angle the screen away from reflections? Just looking for an honest assessment.
thanks,
thanks,
I use my iPad for scanning papers regularly, but as I always have my phone, regardless as whether I have any other kit such as an iPad, I will always use that (aside from my proper gear).
I suppose if one is only with ones iPad, then it would do in a pinch. The camera is ok for a snap.
But to take it somewhere specifically to use as a camera, providing you have any other Camera in your possession, is ridiculous to say the least. It gets in everyone else’s way, it’s not practical to carry when compared to any other system with a lens aside a laptop or a desktop, and you look like a douche doing it. 🤷♀️
I believe the strength of a photograph, and its ability to stir a viewer's imagination releasing some kind of narrative, has little to do with gear.
It's about the photographer and his/her imagination, life experiences, curiosity, ability to see, understanding composition, reading light, recognizing the power of gesture, knowing when and how to let details drop into the shadows to evoke mystery, ability to decide what elements should be or not be in the frame, and much more.
For the last five or so years I've been shooting exclusively with a phone camera; even though I have a variety of so-called "real" cameras (Arca-Swiss 4x5, dSLRs, mirrorless). My phone cam is good enough.
It's about the photographer and his/her imagination, life experiences, curiosity, ability to see, understanding composition, reading light, recognizing the power of gesture, knowing when and how to let details drop into the shadows to evoke mystery, ability to decide what elements should be or not be in the frame, and much more.
For the last five or so years I've been shooting exclusively with a phone camera; even though I have a variety of so-called "real" cameras (Arca-Swiss 4x5, dSLRs, mirrorless). My phone cam is good enough.