@@zeScenzobecause it’s the kit lens so it’s not going to be amazing. Realistically the kit lens is just for people that aren’t interested in cameras and want one. People interested would get body only and get a decent lens
I'm sorry,it looks like you don't know how to use the camera. Iphone photos sure,look great. But are they clear when you zoom in? they are only good for instagram photos.
Pretty sure this is a paid attack by a competitor. When they focus on phone vs camera and skip over a bunch of stuff, it makes it seem like they are pushing you to more expensive cameras
iphone tele lens very worst. I just using r10(apsc)with kit lens is better so much. If you want better dof, full frame camera with 50mm1.8 is very enough!
In my opinion, iPhone photos look over saturated and artificially (over)sharpened (because they are. I hate that every phone manufacturer is doing that). On the other hand R100 videos look like crap.
The R100 will beat cheap smart phones every time and more expensive ones in the right hands. I have the iphone 14 pro and it has its uses, but it over-processes pictures as in your examples.
I had an argument with someone under another video who eventually said that smartphone tele lens get you better photos then an r100 with the 55-210mm lens. I told him this conversation is over if you're gonna deny basic physics...
I recently got an older M50 and noticed that it took better pictures across the board with the kit lens when compared to my galaxy s23 ultra. I only got the M50 to learn how to shoot in manual and I prefer taking pictures a lot more with the canon.
The iPhone picture results are mostly software based and it's quite apparent it's doing it wrong on the picture at 3:35 Look at the sky between the wires, the blue is not consistent. You are essentially comparing something that is processed to its maximum potential vs something that isn't.
The iPhone pics and video were over saturated and slightly off color. In auto mode the pics did seem to be comparable sharpness wise but the Canon obviously out does the iPhone when you manually adjust it yourself. I think the Canon still wins here even in auto mode because the colors are more true.
Another thing to note is that the iPhone will automatically edit your picture while the r100 will not, I’m sure once you edit the picture it would look better than the iPhone.
Are you aware there’s a lot of processing from the iPhone photos? The moment you take it and sometimes even before you click you can actually see all the processing and computing happening. So when you say “no edits” then I say that’s untrue.
Yeah but I don’t have to do any of those edits or think about them. Idk why camera people are weird when it comes to phone cameras. Like honestly it’s crazy how smartphones are basically better than most starter cameras.
@@appropriate-channelname3049 don't get confused, if you buy a camera it's because you want to have total control over the photos, apart from many more possibilities because of the lenses and the quality. A phone aims to give you everything done. If you compare a default processed photo from the phone with an unprocessed photo from the camera, normally the mobile will win, but if you manually process the photo from the camera it will beat the phone by far.
Try printing anything bigger than A4 with a camera phone , picture starts to look over processed . Camera phones are great for putting pics and videos on social media sites .
I have an iPhone 13 mini and a Canon R100. I mainly shoot in "portrait" for still photos and "cinematic" for video on my iPhone 13 mini. As for my R100 I have two lenses being a 100mm and a 24-105mm zoom lens. I prefer my iPhone for 4K video and I much prefer my R100 for photos. I use a mount adapter to mount my EF lenses to my R100. The mount adapter costs $130. My EF 100mm lens cost me $600., used. And my 24-105mm lens I goes for $130., used. I recommend spending the $130., to get the used 24-105mm lens over the kit lens for the R100. The iPhone 14 Pro is great. I look forward to the iPhone 15 Pro Max with it's 7 focal length in one lens, but it cost's $1200. I would rather get a nice full frame Canon camera body for $1200. That i've experienced two nice lenses on my R100, those two lenses blow my iPhone 13 mini camera out of the water. I am a hobby photographer. I mainly shoot flower n foliage photos.
Of course can. Even my entry level EOS 2000D beats the best smartphone cameras now. And I know you can take very good photos with phone cameras also. And also, why it seems like those US prices always seem cheaper than for example the prices we have here in Finland. Lucky Americans?
If you know how to use manual mode any aps-c sensor no matter the brand will out perform the iPhone 14 max or the Samsung galaxy ultra 23. The only thing that those phone do like an expensive camera is the low light performance.
They will both do significantly better macro than the kit lenses, or most non macro specific lenses, that’s the benefit of scale in a small sensor size
This was really really helpful. I was contemplating on getting a R100 or R50 as a throw around camera. Look I own a R5 with 24-105/4 and an 85/2. Great camera with great image quality, but I’ve noticed that its a bit of a hassle. Hear me out. All that is a bit of weight, less than a DSLR for sure, but heavier than a smartphone. Plus, having this gear… you tend to treat it like a baby… the sensor movement is sensitive, you don’t want to disalign it. Glass is glass you don’t want to break it especially if the gear is worth a few grand… I can afford to throw around a $500 camera… I can’t afford to throw around a $3 to 5K camera. Lastly, these cameras are good if you have time to setup… if you don’t have time me to setup… like me in Disney World… I need something quick… auto mode… no changing of lenses… but if an iphone is good enough then I’m not going to waste time with an entry level camera. Im not going to take the r5 either anymore.
Thank you so much! I was looking at this camera but I have the 14 Pro Max and my husband has the Pro, so we will stick with our phone until we can afford a more expensive line. I'll be looking at more videos to see if you have other comparisons with mirrorless cameras that are more effective than our phones! Love the side by sides!
This applies to all cameras out there. Even the $1500 R7 image quality is going to look exactly the same as the R100 in auto mode. So if you prefer the iPhone images in this video, stick to the iPhone forever. This video is a bit misleading tho and the R100 image quality is much better even in the samples shown in the video. Over-sharpening and over-saturation of the iPhone is NOT a good thing for real photographers. If you want the biggest jump in both photo and video quality, the $1200 R8 is the best value PRO camera you can get rn. Also, DON'T get the kit lens no matter what camera you purchase.
I think it's a matrer of purpose. While smartphones goal is to take a photo and immediately share it to social media. No time waste editing. Cammeras on the other hand, aren't thought to share images right away. So they don't put so much effotr on embedded colour procesing. It would be much fair to take the images to a processing software amd trying to "work" them.
Companies like Canon really shoot themselves in the foot by including kit lenses like this. Maybe it was fine back in the day, but the average first-time naive consumer is going to compare it to what they know (their phone) and rightfully conclude it sucks. They'd be better off including a fast 35 and relying on digital zoom only. That's why I think Fuji tend to be more popular with the younger crowd, something like a Canon looks like "you buy this to get better photos" then it just doesn't, whereas Fuji looks like "you buy this for a unique experience" and it does just that. Of course a more experienced photographer could get superior photos even out of the kit lens, but that's not generally who is buying kit-lens entry-level ILCs.
Superb review!! Just to add, any camera with a proper hand grip is a far more stable shooting platform than a phone, especially if you use the viewfinder
There's a reason Android based OSes and iOS/iPadOS default camera programs have such heavy post-processing (use Open Camera for unprocessed out-of-camera image and video). Even if dynamic range was improved past 2005, lens diffraction and ISO performance is a physical limitation due to basic physics. If you think images and video from phone cameras are anything but terrible to it'll do... Dunning-Kruger effect. No, 1-inch sensors aren't good enough and never were in the first place regardless of whether it's in a point and shoot, DigiCam, phone or a bridge camera.
Who uses auto mode with a dedicated camera on their hand? I never do that, I try to use the full potential of my camera and cameras will always beat smartphone photos if you use it right. Smartphone technology is not yet there to beat a camera.
Good video. I see some people miss the point. I use cameras, in fact I allways carry a camera with me. I shoot raw and process my pictures in Lightroom. I know phones overprocess the pictures (fake sharpness, fake saturation and fake bokeh) and I don't like it. But that's me, most people I know will never copy their pictures to a PC nor print them, they are just fine letting their phones process their images. The R100 will not improve their output in a meaningful way for them.
The kit lens is 380€ and with a 50mm F1.8 it’s 500€ on 淘宝. It’s very cheap but it doesn’t serve the porpoise of totally replacing my smartphone… I wish it would also take selfies
How many camera's do you have!? :-D You got to give it to Apple iPhone's for taking nice pictures. The video looks great on the 14 Pro too. The color reproduction and ease of just taking a camera out of your pocket, it's going to be hard to beat. Getting the better F1.8 lens on the R100 is the way to go for sure though. Seems a crime to use the kit lens. lol Really interesting to see how image quality is progressing from both phone and entry level camera's these days. Really awesome stuff.
I’m scared to count at this point haha. I’m amazed with how good phone cameras are getting, but I’m really excited to see what happens when cameras start to get all of the computational photography that phones have!
I’m sorry broski but u need to know how to operate the camera because ngl I could retake all photos better with a 2000D, the camera is definitely better than the phone
Interesting comparison but it is quite clear that all smartphone vendors rely on heavy postprocessing to output the image. I don't quite see the comparison as valid. 🙄
Hey Adam, nice video! I would love to see a video about pro-mist filters and the Tiffen alternatives that are out there. I know you are a big fan of the Tiffen pro-mist but i would like to know if the (often cheaper) solutions by other brands can keep up. Thanks for the great video as always :)
The kit is on sale for 349€, so I had to pull the trigger on it. Wouldn't call it a good camera, but I just want to get something better than a smartphone with the ability to change lenses
i just think that the dynamic range on the iphones now since the iphone 11s are just questioning if having a dedicated camera is necessary these days for some people.
3:35 No. That just isn't true and it is a myth that is spread all over TH-cam and in people's heads. I am the last one to defend Canon because I hate them for their politics on artificial feature restriction, but in this case I can't do anything else. The iPhone isn't "sharper", it is just more processed. Shoot a real RAW with it (not ProRAW) and you will see that huge difference. Often it is processed so heavily that colours and detail really suffer. See the grass in your photos at 3:34. That's not even close, no grass that you can find outdoors will look like on the iPhone. People who don't see this have to make an appointment at their local doctor's. Very smart that you excluded any editing from the test setup in the beginning because by that, you eliminate the whole advantage of having a real camera. And that is not even referred to postprocessing and RAW in any way, I just have in mind that you can select once before starting how you want your camera to process the images - a big advantage you don't have with your iPhone where you have to take what you get, something between okayish and nightmare. You can set any camera to sharpen more or add saturation and contrast by very simple sliders. Then go and shoot. No witchcraft in it, but million miles better than the restrictive approach that iOS still delivers.
Yall should now realized phones have lense but they also have built in filters so thats why they look good but a camera is better because it can shoot raw photos natural instead of filters on a phone and he didn’t edit the photos another reason why
Ok lets be honest, his conclusion aside... The DSLR or mirrorless will always beat the smell lense on the iphone. The iphone photos have a sort of gritty artifacting that the canon doesnt. same look as the digital zoom but less significant.
Thanks for this video! It’s the content I love and need 😌I’m honestly not sure what was the point of canon making this model when they made the R10 and R50. Everyone already thinks the R50 is the M50’s replacement so I’m just a little stumped about why this guy exists? Is it supposed to be an even more entry level camera?? Also I stopped believing in the kit lenses so when I upgraded I just got the body and use a sigma lens!
Yeah i agree with you, i guess to replace the rebel lineup with mirrorless? I mean it's 2023 and this thing still has a fixed display (professionals camera too like 1D but people that buy that can buy a monitor too)
finally! all the other videos compare the iPhone to like a 10k camera, I wanna see something that's realistic for me :P 3:40 but really? I thought iPhone looked meh worse a lot of the time. it's so overshapened and fake and lacks detail in some ways? the color is also almost always more pink/red or greenish video how ever is pure trash on the r100 IMO
the r100 would beat the iphone easily if he actually took good photos with it lmao, all the photos he took with the r100 are terrible (probably bc he was using auto mode), you could easily take much much better photos than this if you just used manual mode. the video does suck on the r100 tho
iphone photos are oversaturated and got a big postprocessing just look at how sharpen they are...the sun always look like is near sunset, always too yellowish, R100 did not a good job, but is enough look at the lenses to understand why....
Bro im not judging you but it seems you can't set the best settings on your camera cause the photos with r100 are look like the photos of samsung galaxy a10 then a mirrorless camera honestly or you don't know anyting about camera raw filter
You should know you cant really compare a phone camera with a real camera theres to much processing from the phone this video is misleading you can make the ohotos look like the iphone in lightroom
Solo vean la foto de la camioneta y la barquilla ven la diferencia en fotos. Todas las fotos del iPhone tiene tonos amarillos la cámara no. En fotos en mi opinión la cámara es mejor pero en video el iPhone si es superado a la cámara. Además las configuraciones que puedes hacer en cámara para fotos no las puedes hacer con el iPhone como en los lentes y configuraciones en el iPhone son limitadas
Well, to me it looks like the shitphone camera won both in video and photo. Maybe if you know photoshop and have couple of hours to edit your camera photos it's worth it, otherwise, the raw images are simply more pleasant from the iPhone.
😂 Gotta laugh. Dogma, dude, tx for that, I needed a good laugh. A guy once made the mistake of telling me his Iphone can take better photos than my 12mp Nikon D300s. I slapped on my 70-200 & we compared images. It wasn't even close. So yeah, you tell yourself your Iphone is better than my old camera, just because Apple tells you it is. 😂
why set the R100 to auto + jpeg? the point of buying a hybrid or reflex camera is that people are genuinely interested in photography and therefore use the camera to its full potential... Comparing it in this context limits it to insanity. What's more, having an iphone 14 pro at twice the price of the camera doesn't strike me as a reasonable opponent, especially if you leave the camera on full auto.......... I can't believe this content comes from a so-called photo channel.
What any dedicated camera can do and no smartphone camera can (there may be more, but this list is just off the top of my head): - Fast action shots (sport, wildlife, bird-in-flight) - Remote external flashes (professional portrait, real estate) - Tilt/shift Saying that most people would be very happy with their latest iPhone camera as it is more than good enough for family and travel photos.
Ok, let's see how those images print at A0. It's one thing to look at images on a screen, but it's a different story when you go to print. This is why I always laugh at these pointless comparisons.
It's actually bad comparison. Camera has HUGE sensor, it will have vastly more detail. It's not even close. And when you go to editing of raw files, IPhone raw photos wouldn't be even on the level of the cheapest early 2000's budget dslr or the earliest mirrorless cameras. And the amount of color and contrast depth you can bring out of camera is staggering. It's easy: bigger sensor=more light=more of the picture. Unless someone starts slapping full sensors on phones (they tried, it financially failed), phones just won't take as good of a photos as dedicated mirrorless or dslr, or even modern digital camera.
@@Mr.Gribble The Canon photos seem to have less sharpness and resolution. There is no way the photographer could mess that up by incompetence, unless he has deliberately messed with the photos.
@@TubeDupe The iphone just looks sharper because of all the bullshit Ai processing it has. Shoot RAW with the Canon, throw the files into lightroom, and you'll get milessss better photos than the iphony
Buying a camera has nothing to do with the camera - the actual investment is in lenses. The only brands I would invest in lenses in 2023 is Sony and Nikon. Sony if you want a wide selection of potential camera options to fit a variety of specific needs and Nikon if you want a brand playing a technologically spectacular game of catchup (and actually surpassing Sony) in many ways.
in my opinion (of course after seeing a video comparing photos taken by different phones) google phones take the best photos and apple was only tenth on that list. 😂
I got an old Panasonic SZ10 camera. I like its rendering in broad daylight but my Samsung S20 FE gets far more detail, accurate white balance, and by night its usability without a tripod to even handheld night shots is just magic. Cellphones indeed destroyed the market of compact cameras, and although an aps-c camera can get more detail, with the smaller sensor of cellphones you get more in focus, while with big sensor cameras you have to resort to f8 or f11, tripod, timer, hyperfocal, and praying for no wind, and even so not everything will be in focus except if you use tilt-shift lenses.
@@ReinoldFZright now I'm looking at a nightscape taken on my old Nikon D7000 with an 18-105 kit lens. It was a windy evening & yet the details are crisp & clear on an A1 size print. You see, it's one thing to look at something on a screen. It's quite another once it's printed.
Grab my new ESSENTIALS Lightroom Preset Pack! 📷 foxtailshop.com/products/essentials-preset-pack
Wrong comparetion bro
The title should be "can 1500$ phone beat 500$ camera?"
yeah, the thing is the camera can only do one thing, and it's sucking at it lol
@@zeScenzobecause it’s the kit lens so it’s not going to be amazing. Realistically the kit lens is just for people that aren’t interested in cameras and want one. People interested would get body only and get a decent lens
@@zeScenzo All other things make Android smartphone for 200$ better, as Iphone.
I'm sorry,it looks like you don't know how to use the camera.
Iphone photos sure,look great. But are they clear when you zoom in? they are only good for instagram photos.
Pretty sure this is a paid attack by a competitor. When they focus on phone vs camera and skip over a bunch of stuff, it makes it seem like they are pushing you to more expensive cameras
Try shooting an actual wedding with an iphone , u’ll know why real camera still rules haha
Or architecture photography. It was hellish experience
@@MaiElizabeth indeed hahaha... or any indoor low light venue
Stop crying soon mobiles will take over your real cameras😂😂
@@BruceLee-go2vy keep dreaming... let apple collect money from ppl like u so that they can build bigger park hahahaha
iphone tele lens very worst.
I just using r10(apsc)with kit lens is better so much.
If you want better dof, full frame camera with 50mm1.8 is very enough!
In my opinion, iPhone photos look over saturated and artificially (over)sharpened (because they are. I hate that every phone manufacturer is doing that). On the other hand R100 videos look like crap.
The R100 will beat cheap smart phones every time and more expensive ones in the right hands. I have the iphone 14 pro and it has its uses, but it over-processes pictures as in your examples.
I've been taking product shots for my wife's bakery on a Canon 7D and it knocks the socks off the iPhone 14 pro I have.
@@chasing-liberty I am not surprised :)
I had an argument with someone under another video who eventually said that smartphone tele lens get you better photos then an r100 with the 55-210mm lens. I told him this conversation is over if you're gonna deny basic physics...
I recently got an older M50 and noticed that it took better pictures across the board with the kit lens when compared to my galaxy s23 ultra. I only got the M50 to learn how to shoot in manual and I prefer taking pictures a lot more with the canon.
The M50 still remains a gem to this day!
The iPhone picture results are mostly software based and it's quite apparent it's doing it wrong on the picture at 3:35 Look at the sky between the wires, the blue is not consistent.
You are essentially comparing something that is processed to its maximum potential vs something that isn't.
Hahaha you have a point. The wires literally bug the camera
The iPhone pics and video were over saturated and slightly off color. In auto mode the pics did seem to be comparable sharpness wise but the Canon obviously out does the iPhone when you manually adjust it yourself. I think the Canon still wins here even in auto mode because the colors are more true.
Another thing to note is that the iPhone will automatically edit your picture while the r100 will not, I’m sure once you edit the picture it would look better than the iPhone.
You buy a camera to photograph, film manually or so but not automatic and that's why the Canon R100 wins 100%.
Are you aware there’s a lot of processing from the iPhone photos? The moment you take it and sometimes even before you click you can actually see all the processing and computing happening. So when you say “no edits” then I say that’s untrue.
Yeah but I don’t have to do any of those edits or think about them. Idk why camera people are weird when it comes to phone cameras. Like honestly it’s crazy how smartphones are basically better than most starter cameras.
@@appropriate-channelname3049 don't get confused, if you buy a camera it's because you want to have total control over the photos, apart from many more possibilities because of the lenses and the quality. A phone aims to give you everything done. If you compare a default processed photo from the phone with an unprocessed photo from the camera, normally the mobile will win, but if you manually process the photo from the camera it will beat the phone by far.
Try printing anything bigger than A4 with a camera phone , picture starts to look over processed . Camera phones are great for putting pics and videos on social media sites .
I have an iPhone 13 mini and a Canon R100. I mainly shoot in "portrait" for still photos and "cinematic" for video on my iPhone 13 mini. As for my R100 I have two lenses being a 100mm and a 24-105mm zoom lens. I prefer my iPhone for 4K video and I much prefer my R100 for photos. I use a mount adapter to mount my EF lenses to my R100. The mount adapter costs $130. My EF 100mm lens cost me $600., used. And my 24-105mm lens I goes for $130., used. I recommend spending the $130., to get the used 24-105mm lens over the kit lens for the R100. The iPhone 14 Pro is great. I look forward to the iPhone 15 Pro Max with it's 7 focal length in one lens, but it cost's $1200. I would rather get a nice full frame Canon camera body for $1200. That i've experienced two nice lenses on my R100, those two lenses blow my iPhone 13 mini camera out of the water. I am a hobby photographer. I mainly shoot flower n foliage photos.
I wonder how the r100 images would look with a L series lens
Of course can. Even my entry level EOS 2000D beats the best smartphone cameras now. And I know you can take very good photos with phone cameras also. And also, why it seems like those US prices always seem cheaper than for example the prices we have here in Finland. Lucky Americans?
Less taxes = cheaper goods
If I am correct, the R100 has an RF mount. The nifty fifty also has a RF mount. Why then do you use a mount adapter?
If you know how to use manual mode any aps-c sensor no matter the brand will out perform the iPhone 14 max or the Samsung galaxy ultra 23. The only thing that those phone do like an expensive camera is the low light performance.
They will both do significantly better macro than the kit lenses, or most non macro specific lenses, that’s the benefit of scale in a small sensor size
This was really really helpful. I was contemplating on getting a R100 or R50 as a throw around camera.
Look I own a R5 with 24-105/4 and an 85/2.
Great camera with great image quality, but I’ve noticed that its a bit of a hassle. Hear me out.
All that is a bit of weight, less than a DSLR for sure, but heavier than a smartphone. Plus, having this gear… you tend to treat it like a baby… the sensor movement is sensitive, you don’t want to disalign it. Glass is glass you don’t want to break it especially if the gear is worth a few grand… I can afford to throw around a $500 camera… I can’t afford to throw around a $3 to 5K camera. Lastly, these cameras are good if you have time to setup… if you don’t have time me to setup… like me in Disney World… I need something quick… auto mode… no changing of lenses… but if an iphone is good enough then I’m not going to waste time with an entry level camera. Im not going to take the r5 either anymore.
Just picked one of these up for $219 with the kit lens on Canon's refurb site.
Thank you so much! I was looking at this camera but I have the 14 Pro Max and my husband has the Pro, so we will stick with our phone until we can afford a more expensive line. I'll be looking at more videos to see if you have other comparisons with mirrorless cameras that are more effective than our phones! Love the side by sides!
This applies to all cameras out there. Even the $1500 R7 image quality is going to look exactly the same as the R100 in auto mode. So if you prefer the iPhone images in this video, stick to the iPhone forever.
This video is a bit misleading tho and the R100 image quality is much better even in the samples shown in the video. Over-sharpening and over-saturation of the iPhone is NOT a good thing for real photographers.
If you want the biggest jump in both photo and video quality, the $1200 R8 is the best value PRO camera you can get rn.
Also, DON'T get the kit lens no matter what camera you purchase.
I think it's a matrer of purpose. While smartphones goal is to take a photo and immediately share it to social media. No time waste editing. Cammeras on the other hand, aren't thought to share images right away. So they don't put so much effotr on embedded colour procesing. It would be much fair to take the images to a processing software amd trying to "work" them.
Atau coba cetak di ukuran 8R atau yg lebih tinggi lagi..
Companies like Canon really shoot themselves in the foot by including kit lenses like this. Maybe it was fine back in the day, but the average first-time naive consumer is going to compare it to what they know (their phone) and rightfully conclude it sucks. They'd be better off including a fast 35 and relying on digital zoom only.
That's why I think Fuji tend to be more popular with the younger crowd, something like a Canon looks like "you buy this to get better photos" then it just doesn't, whereas Fuji looks like "you buy this for a unique experience" and it does just that. Of course a more experienced photographer could get superior photos even out of the kit lens, but that's not generally who is buying kit-lens entry-level ILCs.
Superb review!! Just to add, any camera with a proper hand grip is a far more stable shooting platform than a phone, especially if you use the viewfinder
There's a reason Android based OSes and iOS/iPadOS default camera programs have such heavy post-processing (use Open Camera for unprocessed out-of-camera image and video). Even if dynamic range was improved past 2005, lens diffraction and ISO performance is a physical limitation due to basic physics. If you think images and video from phone cameras are anything but terrible to it'll do... Dunning-Kruger effect. No, 1-inch sensors aren't good enough and never were in the first place regardless of whether it's in a point and shoot, DigiCam, phone or a bridge camera.
Who uses auto mode with a dedicated camera on their hand? I never do that, I try to use the full potential of my camera and cameras will always beat smartphone photos if you use it right. Smartphone technology is not yet there to beat a camera.
Looks like you are comparing JPEG (post processed iphone images) to RAW files from the r50
Iphones extreme hdr and over sharpening looks terrible next to canons images. Image quality still miles ahead with canon if you care about it.
CANON R100 🤯⚡️💯🎉
Love this Camera
I have a Iphone 14 pro too and a Canon R100 plus Canon R10.
Its a ECO SYSTEM 🎉
Good video. I see some people miss the point. I use cameras, in fact I allways carry a camera with me. I shoot raw and process my pictures in Lightroom. I know phones overprocess the pictures (fake sharpness, fake saturation and fake bokeh) and I don't like it. But that's me, most people I know will never copy their pictures to a PC nor print them, they are just fine letting their phones process their images. The R100 will not improve their output in a meaningful way for them.
I’m about to make a purchase, either of this camera or the Samsung S24 Ultra, I want them to recommend me which option is the best
The kit lens is 380€ and with a 50mm F1.8 it’s 500€ on 淘宝. It’s very cheap but it doesn’t serve the porpoise of totally replacing my smartphone… I wish it would also take selfies
How many camera's do you have!? :-D
You got to give it to Apple iPhone's for taking nice pictures. The video looks great on the 14 Pro too. The color reproduction and ease of just taking a camera out of your pocket, it's going to be hard to beat. Getting the better F1.8 lens on the R100 is the way to go for sure though. Seems a crime to use the kit lens. lol Really interesting to see how image quality is progressing from both phone and entry level camera's these days. Really awesome stuff.
I’m scared to count at this point haha. I’m amazed with how good phone cameras are getting, but I’m really excited to see what happens when cameras start to get all of the computational photography that phones have!
I’ll be interested once the modding community make custom firmware for the R100 because that’ll probably fix the 4k with 60FPS
Great and helpful video!!
Are you serious? The price of Iphone 14 is very expensive for some people and you say that it is almost owned by everyone?
I’m sorry broski but u need to know how to operate the camera because ngl I could retake all photos better with a 2000D, the camera is definitely better than the phone
lmao that's exactly what i was thinking, bro actually took some of the worst photos i've ever seen anyone take on a professional camera
Let alone the cameras, that dude at the pic in minute 3:06 looks mad af 😂
Interesting comparison but it is quite clear that all smartphone vendors rely on heavy postprocessing to output the image. I don't quite see the comparison as valid. 🙄
Hey Adam, nice video! I would love to see a video about pro-mist filters and the Tiffen alternatives that are out there. I know you are a big fan of the Tiffen pro-mist but i would like to know if the (often cheaper) solutions by other brands can keep up.
Thanks for the great video as always :)
2:56 Disini saya lebih menyukai "Depth of field" yang lebih enak dilihat pada R100
The kit is on sale for 349€, so I had to pull the trigger on it. Wouldn't call it a good camera, but I just want to get something better than a smartphone with the ability to change lenses
i just think that the dynamic range on the iphones now since the iphone 11s are just questioning if having a dedicated camera is necessary these days for some people.
Hi boy. Just use yr jeronimo for that.
3:35 No. That just isn't true and it is a myth that is spread all over TH-cam and in people's heads. I am the last one to defend Canon because I hate them for their politics on artificial feature restriction, but in this case I can't do anything else.
The iPhone isn't "sharper", it is just more processed. Shoot a real RAW with it (not ProRAW) and you will see that huge difference. Often it is processed so heavily that colours and detail really suffer. See the grass in your photos at 3:34. That's not even close, no grass that you can find outdoors will look like on the iPhone. People who don't see this have to make an appointment at their local doctor's.
Very smart that you excluded any editing from the test setup in the beginning because by that, you eliminate the whole advantage of having a real camera. And that is not even referred to postprocessing and RAW in any way, I just have in mind that you can select once before starting how you want your camera to process the images - a big advantage you don't have with your iPhone where you have to take what you get, something between okayish and nightmare. You can set any camera to sharpen more or add saturation and contrast by very simple sliders. Then go and shoot. No witchcraft in it, but million miles better than the restrictive approach that iOS still delivers.
Yall should now realized phones have lense but they also have built in filters so thats why they look good but a camera is better because it can shoot raw photos natural instead of filters on a phone and he didn’t edit the photos another reason why
Ever heard of LOG pics and color grading!? Kid Cameras are meant for proffessional stuff with proffessional grading as the next step.
What of cannon D77 do you think is a good buy or I should buy an iPhone 13 Pro Max?
Ok lets be honest, his conclusion aside... The DSLR or mirrorless will always beat the smell lense on the iphone. The iphone photos have a sort of gritty artifacting that the canon doesnt. same look as the digital zoom but less significant.
Doesn't a 10 year 100D (Rebel) with a nifty fifty still beat the latest iphone ?
would it be better with raw plus lightroom edits?
if you shot in manual mode and edited the raw files then the r100 would be miles ahead of the iphone
Mkbhd did an entite review using the iPhone and the quality looked dope to me. Seaech Prius 2023 MKBHd 😊
Just looks like your saturation is turned up on your pricey phone. Didn't compare movement & low light? Phone has a tiny sensor.
Thanks for this video! It’s the content I love and need 😌I’m honestly not sure what was the point of canon making this model when they made the R10 and R50. Everyone already thinks the R50 is the M50’s replacement so I’m just a little stumped about why this guy exists? Is it supposed to be an even more entry level camera?? Also I stopped believing in the kit lenses so when I upgraded I just got the body and use a sigma lens!
Yeah i agree with you, i guess to replace the rebel lineup with mirrorless? I mean it's 2023 and this thing still has a fixed display (professionals camera too like 1D but people that buy that can buy a monitor too)
It's basically to make the eos R50 a more compelling choice.
finally! all the other videos compare the iPhone to like a 10k camera, I wanna see something that's realistic for me :P
3:40 but really? I thought iPhone looked meh worse a lot of the time. it's so overshapened and fake and lacks detail in some ways?
the color is also almost always more pink/red or greenish
video how ever is pure trash on the r100 IMO
the r100 would beat the iphone easily if he actually took good photos with it lmao, all the photos he took with the r100 are terrible (probably bc he was using auto mode), you could easily take much much better photos than this if you just used manual mode. the video does suck on the r100 tho
iphone photos are oversaturated and got a big postprocessing just look at how sharpen they are...the sun always look like is near sunset, always too yellowish, R100 did not a good job, but is enough look at the lenses to understand why....
Great video... Crisp and clear
Bro im not judging you but it seems you can't set the best settings on your camera cause the photos with r100 are look like the photos of samsung galaxy a10 then a mirrorless camera honestly or you don't know anyting about camera raw filter
please make videos on Panasonic cameras... they are amazing..
iPhone or any other phone are heavily processed pictures. There are no standard pictures on an iphone.
Please do a canon r50 vs iphone 15 pro max.
Kilka nietypowych ujęć na manualnym trybie i pozamiatane by było.
You should know you cant really compare a phone camera with a real camera theres to much processing from the phone this video is misleading you can make the ohotos look like the iphone in lightroom
How much is an iPhone?
The price of iphone 14pro price is twice than Canon R 100
I don't really know photography but how is this possible? How much does the camera used in the iphone cost or is it mainly to processing power?
It's possible because he doesn't know how to use a tenth of the camera's potential
Smartphone brands are increasing their sensor size day by day😂..they know only ai will not help,physics also important.
Solo vean la foto de la camioneta y la barquilla ven la diferencia en fotos. Todas las fotos del iPhone tiene tonos amarillos la cámara no. En fotos en mi opinión la cámara es mejor pero en video el iPhone si es superado a la cámara. Además las configuraciones que puedes hacer en cámara para fotos no las puedes hacer con el iPhone como en los lentes y configuraciones en el iPhone son limitadas
Good luck with chromatic aberration and when zooming in iPhone photos. Don't even try to print them 😂
Very helpful video.
I’m glad it helped!
R100 win's big in the right hands. The iphone uses Ai to process image.
3:22 it seems iPhone 14 pictures are best result but what about my new purchase this R100 ???
In a camera like this it’s the lens not the camera
Even my old 7d with my 70-200 f4 would beat any iPhone anytime. I have thrown the shit on mud, water, Rain, weddings, anything you can think of. 😂
Id rather shoot on my canon d30 (not 30d, d30) than an iphone ngl
R10 wins, iphone oversharp + none of these photos are edited
How could you even think of comparing a shitphone camera with a Literal CAMERA
There are 300$ cameras, maybe even 10 years old. And iPhone does way better than them. Doesn’t mean if its called a camera it’s automatically better
@@Dogma100 making a person yellow doesn't mean doing way better
Well, to me it looks like the shitphone camera won both in video and photo. Maybe if you know photoshop and have couple of hours to edit your camera photos it's worth it, otherwise, the raw images are simply more pleasant from the iPhone.
😂 Gotta laugh. Dogma, dude, tx for that, I needed a good laugh. A guy once made the mistake of telling me his Iphone can take better photos than my 12mp Nikon D300s. I slapped on my 70-200 & we compared images. It wasn't even close. So yeah, you tell yourself your Iphone is better than my old camera, just because Apple tells you it is. 😂
@@alwynsmit3546 EXACTLY!!
why set the R100 to auto + jpeg? the point of buying a hybrid or reflex camera is that people are genuinely interested in photography and therefore use the camera to its full potential... Comparing it in this context limits it to insanity. What's more, having an iphone 14 pro at twice the price of the camera doesn't strike me as a reasonable opponent, especially if you leave the camera on full auto..........
I can't believe this content comes from a so-called photo channel.
What any dedicated camera can do and no smartphone camera can (there may be more, but this list is just off the top of my head):
- Fast action shots (sport, wildlife, bird-in-flight)
- Remote external flashes (professional portrait, real estate)
- Tilt/shift
Saying that most people would be very happy with their latest iPhone camera as it is more than good enough for family and travel photos.
Please at least is Chinese smartphone, iphone so worst.
iPhone has stopped improving since the 5 or 6 generation
Bruh just raise levels on photoshop and r100 are equally same as iPhone 😂
Underrated channel.
Thanks for this video comparison.
Wow, the pictures of the Canon R100 are drastically WORSE. It's a different class! Gotta hand it to Apple.
Ok, let's see how those images print at A0. It's one thing to look at images on a screen, but it's a different story when you go to print. This is why I always laugh at these pointless comparisons.
It's actually bad comparison. Camera has HUGE sensor, it will have vastly more detail. It's not even close. And when you go to editing of raw files, IPhone raw photos wouldn't be even on the level of the cheapest early 2000's budget dslr or the earliest mirrorless cameras.
And the amount of color and contrast depth you can bring out of camera is staggering. It's easy: bigger sensor=more light=more of the picture. Unless someone starts slapping full sensors on phones (they tried, it financially failed), phones just won't take as good of a photos as dedicated mirrorless or dslr, or even modern digital camera.
No. This guy just absolutely sucks at using real camera's...
@@Mr.Gribble The Canon photos seem to have less sharpness and resolution. There is no way the photographer could mess that up by incompetence, unless he has deliberately messed with the photos.
@@TubeDupe The iphone just looks sharper because of all the bullshit Ai processing it has. Shoot RAW with the Canon, throw the files into lightroom, and you'll get milessss better photos than the iphony
The iphone tiny sensor compressed shitty photos are not comparable to a real camera. I have one.
huawei pura 70 ultra
The iPhone camera and cellphone for that matter give a sightly saturated color I will take real camera any day
the iphone images look horrible, over saturated, horrible sharpening
the r100 looked natural and realistic. and thats on auto
Looks like someone has bought Canon R100 😂
Let them believe their Iphone is better. 😂
Garcia Cynthia Wilson Richard Lewis Timothy
Thank you for saving money for some new people waiting huge different from the camera.
Wrong comparison. Iphone acutally enhances a picture with AI ;)
You should edit a raw in lightroom and compare again
Buying a camera has nothing to do with the camera - the actual investment is in lenses. The only brands I would invest in lenses in 2023 is Sony and Nikon. Sony if you want a wide selection of potential camera options to fit a variety of specific needs and Nikon if you want a brand playing a technologically spectacular game of catchup (and actually surpassing Sony) in many ways.
I agree with the glass comment, but don't disregard Canon RF glass.
I have bought yesterday EOS R 100 after watching this iPhone 14 picture comparison I’m feeling bad
Should I return it ???
No, keep it and learn to use it, try different lenses
Iphone looks saturated and fake but that's what social media users and normies think makes a good photo .
fake Comparison
Lol, the iphone pictures look so un natural. But you do you.
❤️❤️❤️
in my opinion (of course after seeing a video comparing photos taken by different phones) google phones take the best photos and apple was only tenth on that list. 😂
Apple looks so artificial
Stop comparing real cameras with phone cameras please.
Phones will never pass cameras in detail .
I got an old Panasonic SZ10 camera. I like its rendering in broad daylight but my Samsung S20 FE gets far more detail, accurate white balance, and by night its usability without a tripod to even handheld night shots is just magic. Cellphones indeed destroyed the market of compact cameras, and although an aps-c camera can get more detail, with the smaller sensor of cellphones you get more in focus, while with big sensor cameras you have to resort to f8 or f11, tripod, timer, hyperfocal, and praying for no wind, and even so not everything will be in focus except if you use tilt-shift lenses.
@@ReinoldFZright now I'm looking at a nightscape taken on my old Nikon D7000 with an 18-105 kit lens. It was a windy evening & yet the details are crisp & clear on an A1 size print. You see, it's one thing to look at something on a screen. It's quite another once it's printed.
You compare plumbs with nuts.
No sense.
R50 is best don't buy r100