When you shoot a portrait with a sony, nikon, canon, olympus, etc. professional camera at 1.8 aperture outdoors or indoors... it blows away any smart phone. I've tried and there's no comparison.
Well maybe, but thats an extremely specific case scenario. Teslas can do 0-60 in 2 sec, best in the world, but how many times would you actually use it? Most of your driving wouldn’t be 0-60 in 2 sec. Same for phones, most photos aren’t 85mm f/1.2 portraits. I use my phone for many things, most of my photos don’t have to be world class, and yes I keep a “proper camera” for the specific extreme cases too.
@@Mike_M_Smith I can easily tell the difference between a the physical focus falloff caused by a large sensor and lens and a smartphone faking background blur. Even on Instagram.
I’ve been making images with SLRs for over 50 years (yes, I’m that old😋). Two points: First, I’ve always heard the statement, “That’s an incredible photo, you must have a really good (expensive) camera.” That’s the same dogmatic belief that many, in spite of the proof, will hang onto. Second, this year, I accepted an iPhone 365 challenge and, wow, have I learned bucketloads! One is, you’re right, smartphones are REAL cameras! Another is, it’s the artist, the professional, the experience BEHIND the camera that makes the difference, not the camera itself. I’ll never give up my DSLR but then I’ll never be without my iPhone either! (Thanks for letting me rant!🙂)
You took the words right out of my mouth. I am waiting for the arrival of it gets here of the Vivo X80 Pro. There is a Pro + coming later in the summer. It's specs are amazing.
Most people are dumb. They dont know how to use the manual controls on a DSLR or Mirrorless. They just leave it on auto. A phone is better for most people you cant screw it up. I use both but most of the time I use my phone camera. You cant carry a huge camera everywhere
Most photographer who disagree because they already invested thousand of dollars in the convention camera and lens so when they find out that a smartphone could easily match most of the result from camera they tend to get frustrated and hence to make there purchase valid they usually disagree with this topic
Here's my take on this. "Real" cameras are still better than smartphone cameras and they always will be. WAY better. Why is this? Because of the bigger sensor. A phone camera cannot compete with its tiny sensor, even an APSC sensor is much, MUCH bigger than a tiny phone sensor. It is a physical limitation for the phone. But the phone uses computational photography to make it sharper and less noisy you say? Well I could just install AI image enhancement programs such as Topaz Denoise AI or similar, and I have a computer that can do far more processing than a phone, and process an image from a far bigger sensor that gathered a much higher quality input for me to work with!
Agree that Smart phone cameras are much better nowadays and hence can be used in most of situations. Having said that, I would want to see Tony stop using those 'Real Cameras' and completely switch over to smartphones for his professional work.
There is something strange. iPhone 13 Pro Max has a sensor of around 44mm² (pixel area 3.7µm²) and Sony 6400 has a sensor of 370mm² (pixel area 15.3µm²).. At 3:49, considering ISO, aperture, shutter speed and sensor size is almost impossible the same photometry... What's the magic?
Agree that smartphone cameras are real cameras and they have come a loooong way. BUT!!! The big problem is that the smartphone manufacturers themselves do not view smartphones as "professional" photography/ videography devices. Most manufacturers don't natively provide support for RAW on all lenses, or full manual modes for video and photo, no control for picture profiles, log profiles, many of which are important for the creative control. Most native camera apps, come with a good full AUTO mode, and a half assed implementation of a Manual mode, for the sake of it. I can only think of Sony Xperia which at least does approach smartphone photography in this "professional" direction. The processing potential is HUGE in smartphones, the manufacturers just use it give the best image/video straight out of camera, because the average customer is NOT a professional photographer. So we are stuck with using some third party apps for that creative control, and it is always an underwhelming experience, and THIS is the problem with smartphones.
This is ironic since Apple hires professional photographers and videographers/film makers to show off what the iPhone is capable of in the right hands. I'd bet those pros didn't switch to using an iPhone for their day job after the gig was over. It's also ironic because they geared their pro laptops toward power users by giving them the features crucial toward their work, but not so much on their pro iPhones. ProRes RAW is a step in the right direction, but to really be taken seriously, they would need to add the things you and many others here have talked about.
Real cameras take real photos. After that, the photographer decides what will become of these photos. Smartphones do not take real photos. They interpret reality. The only exception is the Sony Xperia 1 Mark 4.
You're right 👍 Also the google pixel 7 pro , which is the only smartphone with a camera with AI that shows the reality in their photos. Except the oversharpening
For me the most important takeaway of this video is: If camera manufacturers don't implement computational photography in their products AND better wireless connections they will lose even more photographers to smartphones than they already have. The compact cameras are dead and the entry level and midrange mirrorless cameras are about to vanish. I want state of the art bracketed wide dynamic RAW photos ooc, not just lousy JPGs... NOW!
Currently I can take much, much better images with my mirrorless from 2016 mirrorless than with my 2016 iPhone 6. But I totally agree that mirrorless cameras are in desparate need of computational features. Once they get them, they will again be clearly ahead of the current top of the line smartphones. But right now for many people the questions what’s better really comes down to their use case.
Something is very wrong with this comparison, either that Canon camera isn't very good, the user isn't very good or something else is going on. For starters ou are comparing images that have drastically different ISO settings. The smart phone images are all overly processed, they loose a lot of detail in this process you can see it at 5:48 and the colours are all wrong. Change the Canons settings to a much lower ISO and decrease the shutter speed down to something more realistic. It looks like you just turned the camera to auto and let it do it's own thing which isn't how you are really meant to use them. You are meant to adjust it to what you want to get the shot you intend to get.
For a lot of people, photography is not just the what but the how. I just don't like how it feels taking pictures with my cellphone, even though it takes great pictures. I like the tactile feeling of making images with a "proper" camera heh
Agree with that. I really struggle to hold a smartphone for photography (compared to a regular camera). Always feels like trying to shoot with a slippery eel in hand.
I suppose it is like people who think music sounds better on vinyl. For me convenience trumps everything. It takes the pressure off too. I only use my phone when I am shooting for fun and consequently I seem to get better shots.
Biggest advantage of smartphone is convenience. While traveling with kids and all their luggage I just don’t have space for another backpack full of heavy camera gear. My smartphone fits in my pocket and still takes great images. If I were single I would still be investing in photography gear but not anymore
In 2020 I took a special topics: photography class in grad school as part of my Masters program. I did a photo assignment for it using my iPhone 6. I don't own a digital camera, this is what I had. I took the photos through the camera function of Lightroom for iPhone, set to high contrast black and white. I didn't do any post work, only presented the photos that came out great. My classmates thought I had shot all my photos in film. They were surprised it was an old iPhone and Lightroom. It really doesn't matter what camera you use. What matters is the art you make with it.
Two immediate observations on this. Yes, a $1000-ish flagship smartphone will "beat" a $500 DSLR kit on straight-out-of-the-camera images. But this is all due toc computational photography. The iPhone in low light is taking nine shots with an f/1.8 lens (f/8.0 to f/16 FF depending on which camera you're using, applying crop factor) versus that one shot on an APS-C kit lens at f/3.5-f/6.3 (f/7.0-f/12.5 FF) again depending on the particulars. The sensor is 8-10x the area. The smartphone wins for a novice. But if you know what you're doing, you're going to know when you need to stack photos, when to bracket, etc. You will be able to get a better image with the APS-C consumer kit IF you're willing to put in the time. Sure, I'd pick a pro camera and pro lens, and you probably would too. It's true that currently, consumer DSLRs and mirrorless are not automating things the way phones do, and perhaps they ought to. I'd also agree that a smartphone can be a "real" camera. So can a DSLR, mirrorless, P&S, pinhole, film, anything you'd like to pick up. It's what's behind the camera that matters. In lieu of a real photographer's brain behind the camera, the phone will always do better. Hand that R5 to a novice and they're not going to get a better image than they would with the iPhone Pro, in all likelihood. That's the AIs replacing the need for a photographer's brain. If you can't do better on your own, maybe it's time to learn photography a bit better. Big camera shooters are no more immune to relying on tech to replace knowledge than smartphone shooters.
I got started with photography when I was 14 years old back in highschool. I'm going on 28 today and it is amazing where camera technology has come. As a working professional, I think it is great that more capable cameras are in people's hands than ever before. I remember taking my DSLR camera with me on vacation to capture trips. Now, an iPhone 13 Pro Max is more than sufficient. iCloud immediately backups photos and videos. If stolen, Apple Care can get me another phone within a day. Photos and videos can be shared instantly with family members around the world. Not to mention, the 13 Pro Max has insane battery life and I could also video call anyone in HD. This is a golden age of technology. I would love for Apple or Google to partner with Canon or Nikon on a camera one today, something like Android Auto and Apple Car Play.
the camera market is going down. why should they partner with a losing market. thats just going to give the camera market new buyers. if the camera manufacturers are serious they would start copying features from phones into their cameras.
@@Mike_M_Smith I did a three-year, B&W photo a day challenge. I probably learned enough about B&W shooting over the thousand images to consider going without the crutch of a color sensor 🙂
Agreed. People need keep taking unfocussed photos, poorly composed images in ever increasing resolution. As long as they do, the phone companies will have the money to keep developing better features
My Problem with Smartphones is that the photos offen look oversharpend and have to much contrast. An Iphone, Samsung or Google picture just doesn't look like real life what I would like. Otherwise, smartphone cameras really are amazing these days.
Hey man. Long time fan here. You don’t have to justify how you want to start covering cellphones and cellphone photography more. We get it. We like you and Chelsea and the knowledge you share. We get it. The only video that hit a million views in the last 3 years on this channel was a smart phone camera comparison. You two do you. We’re not going anywhere. I promise.
McDonald's staff can cook food for their customers to eat, and they can even build a career from there and eventually make some decent money, but would you consider them as profetional chefs? I guess not.
I’m glad that he did, if the camera manufacturers watched this video, I suspect they did, they will roll up their sleeves and get to work to fill this void.
@@williefufu2985 With camera vendors thinking increasingly about computational photography and other uses of compute power -- like object-detect autofocus -- they are slowly boosting performance. Nikon's Z9 processor is reportedly about 10x faster than the Z7 Mark II processor. Olympus/OMDS doubled the perfomance of the processor between the E-M1 Mark II and Mark III, and as much as tripled it in the OM-1. Of course, the CPU performance is only as good as their software, but we're not getting there without the hardware to run it. I'm also hoping that the Alice Camera -- that one from the Indiegogo a few years back -- actually comes out this fall. That's a bit odd, using a smartphone as a viewfinder/control panel, but it's got dual AI processors on-board, and an open AI processing pipeline. It'll be fun to see that one unleashed on coders.
I agree and disagree. And iPhone isn’t a real camera because you don’t control what it produces image wise. It decides what the photo is going to look like not the photographer. If I want to make a photo moody, I can do that by changing the settings.
Seriously though…. I hate using my phone for photos, my “ real camera” is fun. I get more joy out of my mirrorless than my phone. The other reality is I’m not going to plunk down $1500 on a fantastic smartphone/camera….I’ve already got a smartphone and yeah it’s top for iPhone but I still just hate it for photography. All the reasons you state why it’s a real camera is true in one sense but doesn’t change the feeling. Also I don’t get amazing bokeh with my smartphone…computational dog crap is what it is. Do I use my smartphone, yeah but I hate it.
This is exactly how I feel. A phone with a great camera is great to have handy. Two years ago before I got into photography I chose my new phone (Pixel 3XL) because of it's camera and a few other reasons. Now after being into photography for two years I hate using my phone; I never use it. I'll either use my Z6II or my recently acquired Nikon FM2 as it's way more enjoyable and I like having the control. As you said and I agree with, I hate the computational bokeh. I'm not into getting a new phone every year and if I was going to spend $1k or more on something it would be another camera 👍. Others don't have to agree and that's fine, I respect it.
Are smartphones real cameras? Yes, they're real cameras. Have they evolved TREMENDOUSLY in the last 5 to 10 years? For sure! I would argue they have evolved MORE than traditional cameras. Should people who belittle others for choosing to use a smartphone instead of a Canon be called out for their narrow minded elitist behavior? Yes! Not everyone has the inclination to pay thousands of dollars for a proper photographic kit, and nor should they. I still have shots I took 13-15 years ago with whatever Nokia phone I was using at the time, with a 1.3 megapixel camera. I like those shots. I couldn't have had them otherwise. That grainy POS low resolution image has recorded something dear to me. Now, that out of the way. My dude, you have 1.5 million subscribers, out of which I will guess that a lot are enthusiasts with proper gear. Are you seriously going to structure your video to suggest that smartphones are better than dedicated photographic gear? Come on! My 8 year old Sony a6000 takes SIGNIFICANTLY better shots than my 2021 Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra, the best smartphone camera I have access to, THE SECOND I put those images on a big screen, aka not on the phone's screen. What do I do to have better shots with my a6000? I know how to use it! I process my stuff! It's the whole point of a dedicated camera system. Yes, smartphones create a pleasing processed image for you in like half a second. If I put that image on my computer monitor and compare with the stuff I generate with both my a6000 and my A7 3, it's laughable. And if I zoom, game over. If you don't care, use a smartphone. If you are sick of the workflow a camera entails, use a smartphone. They are good _enough_. That said, they are not better. Not yet. Computational photography, regardless of how awesome and fast has become in the last few years cannot hold a candle to the images I can produce with my A7 3 paired with a 24-70 Sigma f2.8, raw, processed to taste in Lightroom. I don't understand why you feel the need to push this sort of narrative. It's not true. A worse thing cannot be better than a good thing. I don't care how smart a pixel is, it still cannot beat the kilo of large, clear glass I have in the front of the sensor of my camera, paired with my ability to use it, and then process the images, and a 6400 Iso, unprocessed, underexposed, out of focus portrait will not change that. Gear MATTERS. I will happily continue to use both my S21 and my dedicated kit whenever I feel like taking a picture, depending on the need. This is my hobby. I enjoy doing it and I have the ability to discern between 2 pictures. I work in the video game industry. I am a tech enthusiast. I enjoy gadgets and technology. I don't have a heart attack near a router or a network switch. I have a powerful PC. I like when small and light devices can do amazing things, like take good photos. That doesn't change the fact that you still shoot your stuff with an R5, or whatever camera tickles your fancy between your "gear doesn't matter" videos. There is a reason you do it. There is a reason you don't move your business of book making, wildlife photography and TH-cam channel to an iPhone. who are you trying to encourage with these 'gear doesn't matter , smartphones are awesome' videos? People who only use instagram and would never invest 2 thousand dollars in a camera kit anyway? Why?
Smartphones do sucks a lot and they still have long way to go. They could perform better with an existing hardware but problem is that they all are now using quadbayer sensors which are literally shitttt and secondly, image processing is inclined more towards to make it social media friendly i.e. over sharpness, very saturated colours, heavy HDR which is i found totally unnecessary.
I understand what you are saying but I think you are missing the point. He did preface the story with what happened to the photography gear from 4 decades ago. I am sure there was a person just like you now who said that digital photography, was a toy and useless. Give me my rolls of film and my very own darkroom and chemicals and I can outdo any digital camera with analog film. But, you are using that new (many generations improved) tech/digital gear now and nothing is wrong with that. But, just like film cameras. Technology marches on. Smartphone photography is getting better, sometimes by leaps and bounds, There is still nothing wrong with using the gear you have and I have now. But photography is miniaturizing and in this case it is in a pocket phone. I doubt you have a old style tube tv, you probably have a large flat screen tv. same example different appliance field.
I’m a pure hobbyist and I’ll readily admit that there are loads of people who take better (as in, more inspiring, artistic) pictures than I do. With some of today’s image processing in smartphones they definitely have better low light capabilities than my somewhat dated mirrorless. But heck, I just love making a point of grabbing my camera and going out to shoot. Often I’ll put on a prime and not even use the flexibility of an interchangeable lens system. But it’s when I decide to actually commit time to that and it’s hugely enjoyable to me. Also, I don’t have a current smartphone so mirrorless is still miles ahead of the pictures I’d be able to take with my phone. I’m definitely not in any position to be a gatekeeper (and honestly, for practical reasons I don’t think anyone else is either nowadays), but if people take great pictures with their smartphone - why would that bother me? It doesn’t. BUT: When you switched to the smartphone camera at 11:11, I did immediately notice it. The image gets mushy and the artificial bokeh just sucks IMO. For video, I don’t think smartphones are quite there yet. But I can think of several ways that small, highly intelligent cameras could improve upon that. I do believe that (much like modelling in audio production has all but replaced analog gear) modelling cameras and lenses is going to happen in only a few years. And if I can think of ways that this might work, than I bet that a lot of engineers have viable ideas already. And one thing I’m really concerned about is that many people may never learn processing their images but rather rely on a bunch of filter presets that do all sorts of things. And I see a lot of phone images with really weird curves applied by the phone. But I’m not sure things would be any different if those people used DSLRs or DSLMs. Maybe their images would simply have other weaknesses but still not look great. But people who truly care about the way their images look and who have an artistic vision for their work will eventually learn the tools and develop a unique look, regardless of the type of camera they use.
I don't think there is a lot of argument with this. I noticed creative tutorials site Domestika have an increasing number of photography courses that explicitly use smart phones.
I have been impressed lately by smartphone photos. I have not looked at them as deeply as you have, but everyday, around the house, normal lense type stuff, my daughters IPhone blows me away. It takes the shot and does the post processing. I struggle to get similar shots and the effort it takes is depressing. However, stopping action, or long telephoto work is not as good. In my experience low light is poor also, but I will look at this closer. I imagine they will improve as AI improves. I used to carry a camera with a long lense and a second camera with a short lense on wildlife outings. I am relying more and more on my cell phone as a second camera and I don't have the latest and greatest phone. At family functions, I am the one that gathers the photos from everyone and puts the albums together. I am the only "real camera" user. In general, the photos from my "real camera" are more usable, but, there are a lot of better compositions from the cell phones just because they are so much more convenient.
phones can compete with any camera in photos because of ai post processing. but usually they lack in low light video, they try to make up with extreme noise reduction, which flattens the videos. and also with cameras you can zoom further, or more bokeh etc. but general photography, they can easily win.
@@truthseeker6804 I don't find smartphones ever really "win". They can be comparable if you put them in their optimal shooting conditions, but as soon as you're not in broad daylight or shooting a still subject with night mode they fall apart.
It is getting tough to carry the DSLR when I travel. I'm a target and people notice the "eye" more than my S22 Ultra. Which by the way I have been impressed with. Even the telephoto. But I still make a day of going out with DSLR to get my best shots.
@@truthseeker6804 AI can do a lot but it cannot put back information, that is not there, just make it look that way. Camera manufacturers have to get better on that software part though and use the much better input they get from the sensor to feed it through the same AI technology.
@@salia2897 i believe camera manufacturers dont care. maybe sony might make something interesting. or unless samsung gets back into cameras, i believe they have the most potential. or if apple gets into cameras then that would be the end for all camera manufacturers.
BIG ISSUE. First, I agree with you. Cellphones have real cameras. End of the argument. I have issue with comparing at 5:30 minutes the R3 with the Pixel 6 Pro and using 30 sec exposure against 16 sec exposure. I know you have taken images of stars without trails. I know you know the settings for the R3 are wrong. Try again with a 1.4 lens for only 16 seconds. That would be a fair comparison. Trying to use completely different lenses at completely different settings is not something I would expect from you. It is a big flaw or disingenuous.
Of course the lenses are different... I can't put a Canon lens on a smartphone. And the 16 sec time on the Pixel isn't accurate; it's doing image stacking from a 4-minute exposure. But listen to the words I'm saying during that example; the smartphone doesn't need to beat the $8000 camera; it's just an example.
@@TonyAndChelsea What I meant by the lenses being different is the maximum aperture. You should have used and f1.4 for 15 secs. That would have been closer. Stars trails are directly related to the duration of the shot (of course I am preaching to the choir) My point is an RE, R5 with a Sigma 20 mm 1.4 will give you a superb stars image. No trails
@@osoriony not only that but who does Astrophotography at ISO 25600? I just hate seeing these “kit cameras” with their f/3.5-5.6 lens up against the native f/1.5 or so iPhone. Put a cheap 50mm 1.8 and get a closer result. I understand the point-you get the kit lens when you get the camera. But if we’re making a point of comparison, then make it a fair one at least.
Tremendous and good breakdown of the conventional camera and the cellphone camera. I votes yes for cellphone cameras being a real camera because they are. I love my Samsung Galaxy Ultra S21, NikonD7200, and Nikon P1000. Use whatever you want.
Me too ... btw Canon shooter 80D, 70D, 5DM3 50mm, 35mm L, 85mm 1.8, 85mm 1.2L, 18-135mm zoom. Nowadays only the 80D and 85s make it out the 🎒for portraits. Sometimes the 35mm 😉
@@jjaylad The Nikon D7200 is a beast of a camera. Bought it back in 2016. For the Samsung S21, a lot to say. I've heard much about Luminar, but never tried it.
@@alvinblackwell268 Nice setup Alvin! The Canon 80 D is a good one. I did a lot of homework on it. Cellphones are great, but with a dslr or mirrorless camera with a speedlight on top, there is no comparison.✌️
@@keithbrown454 Hey Keith, I agree but the workflow & smartphone convenience makes my S21 my go to for video in particular. If I am doing portrait work definitely the DSLR. BTW I am still planning to but an R5 or maybe an R1 in the future, because I love the tactile experience of my Canon cameras. However if Canon were smart they'd adapt Android OS on the R line of mirrorless cameras. That would be a game changer 💯‼️😉
I definitely think phones are real cameras, they are limiting but they do the same thing any camera can do, it takes a photo. For the first few years of my photography, it was almost entirely on my phone until I got a “real camera” last fall. Most of my favorite photos are still the photos I shot oh my phone, my iPhone 6s. Shooting on phones forces you to work on your composition much more than a “real camera”, it forces you to find interesting angles and shots. Shooting on my phone for the past years helped me out immensely when switching to a camera, I understood the styles i liked and all I really had to get used to was thinking in different focal lengths. If you want to get into photography, just start doing it, take your phone out and show the world what you see. Also it was pretty cool to see that you guys passed through my home state of Maine!
Yes today's smart phones are capable of taking incredible images, but for me they have one major drawback, you can't change the battery on most smart phones and in my experience after 2 or 3 years phones start to slow down and the batteries start to degrade until they become useless. Even my old xt1 is still taking great images and I suspect will do so when many of today's expensive smart phones will be assigned to the bin🤷♂️
Most smartphones let you change the battery... Typically it's a 15-20 minute process. But smartphone tech is developing so rapdily that if you care about the camera you'll probably want to upgrade anyway.
@@TonyAndChelsea Costing you more money in the long run than getting a camera that could last 10 years. No one keeps their smartphones for 10 years these days.
@5:52 Shorten the exposure to 1 second to eliminate star trails? What? According to the NPF rule for spot stars, with that lens + body combo you can shoot up to 11 seconds at 24mm. You should have used a 10 second exposure. Your ISO would have been around 2500, which would be perfectly acceptable. This is journalistic malpractice, honestly. Shame.
Once you wrap your mind around the fact, you have a Camera that has a phone 📞 in it, and not a phone with a camera. This really is quite liberating. I came to this realization back in 2016 while in a major magazine assignment, when sets locations were being assembled with lights. I went with my subject and she laid down to rest. I only had my iPhone 5s with me. The images produced. We’re actually phenomenal with multiple images chosen for the magazine layout. It was this day I realized I had a camera with a phone in it.
Yeah and how did those photos age looking at them now??? Same thing will happen again people are impressed by them now but but in 10 years they will look like crap whereas shots I took with my D800E from 10 years ago still look insanely good.
Each year more "real" photographers get frustrated that their aunt (who knows nothing about real photography) can magically take a photo with their new smart phone that the rest of the family thinks looks just as good as the photos from the "real" camera. Unless the camera makers start building in smartphone features and image processing, this trend won't stop soon.
Undeniably there's a place for smartphone photography, everything where content is the main point of interest, it doesn't matter if it's shot on a smartphone, or on a super expensive interchangeable lens camera.
Wow, thanks Tony, I voted for "no". But you concinced me! Phones are real cameras. Why I said no, is for the feeling I get with my entry level camera. It just feels better, I enjoy it much more with my DSLR than my samsung phone. The buttens, the feel, the joy, the viewfinder... that is why I like the DSLR. No smartphone gives me that feeling.
I rather use a dslr with its heavy clunky feel anyday. It's part of the experience of photography and sets the mood. Plus zoom lenses with full frame bodies are going to blow away the glass and sensors found on cellphones. It's not even close.
LOL - try carrying a complete zoom setup around with you when travelling by bike. I feel you are missing his point here - he is not necessarily saying throw your camera system away,, but they are pretty good.these days and everyone should learn how to use theirs to best effect. It isalwys the best tool for the job, or actually what you have with you at the time. My father goes down the road that he refuses to take video on his phone as he spent money on a Sony A1. So if he does not have that with him he just won't take anything, and misses out on recording what he is seeing. I wondering whether he is actually worried his phone footage will look pretty good :D
@Max Larson sensor size isnt everything. this video literally proved it. lenses and sensor quality also matters. take a full frame sensor from 15 years with f5.6 lens it would lose to even budget phones of today, even take a full frame sensor and give it f11 it would probably lose in low light to a phone.
@Max Larson post evidence your fz300 blew away any modern phone in low light. unless youre comparing digital zoom of the phone to the optical zoom of the camera. but stay in their default view, and lets see the low light results.
@@someoneelse1550i was saying thats probably why he claims his fz300 blew away the s22, because hes comparing optical zoom of the fz300 vs digital zoom of the s22. if he stays in their default view, the s22 would win easily. in low light.
What about the size of the sensor. How can you pack 50M pixels or more on a tiny sensor? Considering the cost of the latest smartphones they are much the same as mid level cameras I would like clarification on sensor size and number of pixels. With the same size sensor with 25mb and 50mb what are the pros and cons of each? Also what actually is computational photography? is it this that is compensating? Also i have never enjoyed the ergonomics of mobile phone photographing, holding it in your hand.
Lack of physical dials and a real grip kills it for me. There is a big difference (in my world view) between having an interest in "pics" and learning "photography".
I see what you mean and I prefer shooting my mirrorless 100% of the time over using my smartphone (which is terribly dated anyway so it’s a no-brainer). But it is going to go the way it always does with technological advancements: once the "new thing" gains traction because some of its advantages, it’s going to get developed to such a point that it supplants the "old thing". If you happen to know anything about live sound: that’s exactly what happened with digital mixing consoles. A lot of people kept hating on digital consoles for 15+ years, but nowadays analog mixing consoles are OBSOLETE. They just are. It’s just the way it goes.
@@rickbiessman6084 I'm old enough to hear the difference between tube emulators and real tubes (lol). ( bass/drums/vocals here). However... the layman is not and that's why what you just posted is spot on. The layman absolutely loves their phones... it's like a cheat code to get into photos without learning photography (as related to cameras). My GRii and Lumix LX5 solve the "always with me" issue just fine. 🤜🏾🤛🏾
@@musicmaestro88 Haha, funny coincidence that you’re a musician too. I’ll admit right away: after years of playing tube amps and subsequently switching to a Helix I can’t tell the difference (but quite a few Helix amp models are more dynamic and expressive than the tube amps I’ve owned). That’s why I’m fine using digital gear. But I definitely needed to take the deep dive into the world of guitar amps and pedals to understand how guitar tones even work. So there’s that... I do think learning the ropes the "old fashioned way" is at the very least extremely helpful, maybe even irreplaceable for mastering your craft, whatever it may be. Because along with technological develompent comes asthetic development. Unless you use new technology to create something entirely new, you’ve got to study the "past" in order to nail what you’re doing in the present.
Yeah the camera phones have come a mighty long ways, but cell phones can’t link up to strobes and other light sources that is needed for creative photography work. You can use a continuous light source with a cellphone camera but you won’t have the same results when using a digital camera body. Plus the camera phones takes away the joy of understanding photography because it does all the processing of images for you. But I’m for both worlds, the camera phones is a great tool to have in your pocket in certain situations.
I agree in lowlight a flash makes a huge difference. An ILC gives great images indoors with a flash when you bounce it off the ceiling. I agree with another commentor that smartfphone colors can look unnatural sometimes.
I have a Canon R5 w/ 28-70mm f/2 lens. With the battery grip and two sets of batteries, I have invested over $8,000 in this six-pound kit. I also have my iPhone 11 Pro Max w/ 512GB of storage for photos and what-not. I often pulling out my iPhone for quick shots than breaking out my R5. I find myself using both and even wishing that I would pull out my iPhone more often. Now for quality, my R5 runs circles around my iPhone 11 Pro Max. I was thinking about getting the 13 but I think I could wait a little longer and get the 14 as it will have better cameras and 5G for faster uploads. I hear rumors that the iPhone 15 will have a periscope-type telephoto lens that should be just amazing. This talk about smartphones not being real cameras used to be true in the past. But now they are totally useful. I wouldn't use my iPhone for professional work as of now, because there are many things I'm able to do with my R5 that make pro jobs easier and with improved quality. My iPhone is slower, I don't like touch screens for controls. I love real buttons as I can access them with my eye in the viewfinder. I also can rest my finger on a mechanical button which I can't do on my phone. My R5 shoots 45 MP files which is great for cropping in. My 12MP lacks this feature but I hear that iPhone 14 might come out with a 35MP sensor which would be awesome. It might even shoot 8k video. I wish my iPhone could meld with my R5 then it would be one of the best cameras in the world. I hope the iPhone 14 and 15 come out with the rumored features as that would convince me to use the iPhone as a reliable backup for paid shoots. I would be fantastic if I could have a great backup that fits in my pocket. And to be used as a primary when I'm out and about without my R5. Some of my best shots are being at the right place at the right time to get the shot no matter what.
“I wish my iphone could melt with my R5”. Same here!!! I love my r5 but i long for a much larger screen and while the canon menu is decent id still prefer an apple ui. The next best thing I’ve found is using the canon remote app on my iPhone but its still finicky and doesn’t always connect.
I totally agree. Smartphones are awesome. I use mine for street photography and I love it ! However, I shoot a lot of athletics, and for that, nothing beats my Canon eos 7d mark II. It is a case of what you use your camera for. Great video !
Preach brother! My iPhone 12 takes great photos. I have used it to take real photos and video for which I have been paid. Nothing is realer than an invoice. :) Any camera that produces the right image at the right time is real. More than 30 years ago I shot basketball with a motor-driven “real camera” with a fast short telephoto. I also kept a little point and shoot in my shirt pocket. When a player is running right at you on a fast break you’re going to have a hard time getting the dunk from behind the basket with a 105mm. A Sure Shot or XA might get it. If I were shooting basketball now, I might rely on an iPhone for that.
Those phones you used must be about 10 times as good as my year old s21. I recently did a similar test between my phone, a Canon point and shoot and a Canon rebel and there was no comparison. The phone pics looked great on the screen but had tons of weird artifacts and unrealistic colors when enlarged compared to the dedicated cameras
I was quiet surprised to discover that my current phone 14 Pro Max has a larger sensor size than my old compact point and shoot. I guess the sensor on its own wouldn’t produce good results at all so yeah, if the computation post processing is t up to scratch, the photos will look bad, but despite all this, the process is hit or miss a lot of the times.
the problem with phones and it is a huge one when it comes to photography: no viewfinder, bad ergonomics and lack of required precision in some types of photography (sports, fashion, etc). A good DSLR with a big bright pentaprism and great ergonomics is a great experience, no phone can emulate it and the images are better too, for the camera allows for precision.
They say the best camera is the one you have with you. And that for me is the iPhone 13 pro. It’s image processing blows me away with incredible dynamic range and no blowouts I have come to expect with my DSLR. The pano feature is amazing! However, I just got back from a trip in the Mideast and my go to camera was my Nikon D750. Yes, I’m sitting through post processing my photos, but that is where a picture becomes a photograph. I find my DSLR still gives me much more latitude and resolution than the iPhone and I am faster at capturing the image with the DSLR. Cropping is better on the DSLR. Yes, I look like a tourist, but the Nikon sensor adds a quality to the image I don’t see with the iPhone. I wish I could marry the image processing of the iPhone with the sensor from the Nikon. Now That would be amazing.
The only problem I see with calling a phone camera a real camera is that most of what you see on a phone is digitally manipulated through software, while a DSLR (not so much mirrorless) is mostly a physical image. Although both camera's can produce professional quality I still think it is important to learn how a photo is taken by using anything from a Daguerreotype to a smart phone camera. The best camera is the one in your hands!
I voted no because I believe in a principle. "Use the Right Tool for the right job". We can stand here and argue all day long about what is a real camera and what is not but truthfully, even you Tony will testify that you wouldn't use a phone for a professional photography gig. Imagine shooting wildlife with an iPhone. it is possible but you won't get what you want. I couldn't show up to a wedding with a smartphone to shoot. In the same vain I can't be walking around with my heavy DSLR taking pictures of everything all the time. There are Some moments that cannot be captured with a dedicated camera that only a phone can shoot. A spontaneous event like a kid's first steps or a brawl between two drunks. You cant be pulling out a Canon 6D whenever you want to capture such moments. The right tool for the right job.
Professional photography isn't the standard for what counts as work that should be included in the artform. Phone cameras are real cameras because if used by someone with the intent to take real, photographically sound images, they can work. Period. Sure, they might not work with every genre of photography but you can say the exact same thing with "real" cameras. You probably will struggle using a Canon T6 kit for sports photography, does that mean it's not a real camera, and not suitable for real photography?
you dont use a phone for "professional photography" because its the mentality that bigger camera provides better result. therefore they would even prefer you use a big old dslr instead of a compact a7c. its the mentality of size is better. which has been proven to be false.
@@PraiseYeezus Excellent points all around. Intent does matter. However, lemme point out that you said "Canon T6 KIT", which for those that are aware means if you intend to do sports photography with the T6 an upgrade to fast telephoto lenses is easily available for you thanks to detachable lens technology being possible to most dedicated cameras where far as smartphones are restricted to what lens are already in it. So yes, you can do professional photography with a smartphone but there will be limitations to what you can do with your smartphone even though your imagination is limitless
@@truthseeker6804 Interesting take there. But I wouldn't call it a mentality nor would I dismiss the statement completely. I personally feel that my DSLR feels more weighty and high grade with a grip attached and some people assume it is will take top-shelf images just because of its bulk and heft. On the flip side, size does matter in many cases. Larger bodies can mean larger sensors hence better lowlight performance, more space for batteries and better cooling. Certain cameras are big because there are components that are necessary for high-quality work like quality glass lenses, logic boards, and displays. So it is not exactly a mentality but at the same, such a thing as "bigger is better" mentality does exist.
@@jeffrymceden4423 big can mean better or worse. its really up to the user of the device. aside the user. spec vs spec still big can be worse, if its old technology. 15 years ago full frame would probably perform worse to modern bsi m4/3 or apsc or even zv1 bsi 1 inch. i just saw a video of iPhone 13 Pro vs Canon M50 low light video, and the iphone 13 pro was better.
Thanks for doing this video. It needed to be said. Smartphones are the real deal. They are computational photographic tools; forget the "phone" part. "Real" cameras will become ever more marginalized if they don't become computer-wise. I find my iPhone (12 Pro Max) especially good for street photography but It's surprisingly capable of other things, especially in RAW mode. We've been told prints from smartphones are lousy. Yes, they are resolution-limited but I have had good results at 11x14 and even beyond.
Computational photography is great, but it's not "real" by definition. Smarphones made up pictures basing on what sensor capture and what algorithm was learned. It's almost like websites where you can loosly draw some shapes, and AI generate photorealistic image from it. Computational photography is not worse, and somethimes it's even better, but it's just different than real photography. People still buying real cameras, becouse smarphone photos have this artificial look, and not giving you much control. Even raws are heavily edited becouse acctual raw information from smartphone sensor is rubish without computation tricks. Overall your iPhone shoots looks good, but your beard hairs looks super wierd, they pop up and diasppear whenever alhorithm decide it's a noise to smooth out or it's a detail to sharpen, motion blur is wierd, dof is wierd, shadows are wierd, skin tones are wierd. Everything is to smooth and to sharp at the same time, you look younger but also older. If you zoom in detail on your shirt will look better on iPhone, but whole image look unnatural, wierd, and like it was shoot on smartphone, it's not look real.
If photography is an art that requires practice and learning (exposure, composition, subject, emotion. style), then smartphone cameras are "real cameras". It is such a dedicated event to go out an shoot with a DSLR, but I always have my phone and if something strikes my eye, I can try to capture that idea. Whether I succeed or not, I still learn something about photography. They are amazing (real) cameras for learning.
I can see a similar discourse occurring from 1890 when the Kodak was announced - it rocked the photographic establishment, which was dominated by an elite who had the considerable economic and educational resource to engage with the processes of capturing, then processing and printing images - sometimes at considerable risk to themselves from the dangerous chemicals involved. The Kodak democratized photography, allowing anyone, with the relatively meagre resources required, to engage with photography; and the by-line "You press the shutter, we do the rest" expressed the sudden devolution of taking an image from all other aspects of its processing to a print. It allowed people to capture the minutia of their lives as never before and undermined the work of portrait photographers whose market was at the lower end - any sudden change will evoke negative response... Certainly, in the modern context, the cell phone provides a similar benefit: it is constantly available, portable and, critically, able to transmit images to anyone in the world almost instantly. Aided by massive steps forward in optics, electronics and computational photography, it has cemented its place in our society. Some may feel threatened by it, but I personally am happy to use conventional cameras for my own work while respecting the capabilities of this technology and those who use it - there are some amazing cell-phone photography artists out there...
I agreee with you completely. Even so, I rarely take pictures with my phone, because I find the process unpleasant. The screen is reflective, it's more difficult to compose the shot with the camera held at a distance from my eyes, and I struggle with the shutter button's placement (I'm interested in the Sony solution). When I do use my Samsung phone the results are often better than I get with my various Fujis and Nikons, and another advantage is that I'm rarely asked to desist in certain restricted spaces, like outside some London office blocks. For their ergonomics, my loyality to traditional cameras is unshaken!
SOOC you should expect a flagship smartphone to outperform a real camera. That is their purpose: to take "good" photos in increasingly more situations without any input from the shooter other that literally pointing and shooting. But if you can't outshoot the phone using your photographic skills, raw mode, etc. you have some learning to do. I could get a better shot than my 2022 smartphone even with older gear like my X-Pro1... generally even a 1" camera like my Sony RX10IV or Panasonic ZS100, if I'm willing to do the work (which might require some of the same tricks the phone is doing, like image stacking). Not always worth it, but always there in the bag of photo knowledge.
Smart phone image quality is not bad, I don’t care about pixels, when I print out my photos, I can print my smartphone pics and they look great up to 8.5x11. However, if I want to go bigger my S22 Ultra falls apart compared to any of my cameras. I don’t think you need a super expensive camera to get better shots than a smartphone. I still own my first DSLR, an 8 megapixel Canon Rebel XT, it’s way outdated by all of your metrics but if I take the time to set up my shots and have the right lens it will still produce the goods and outshoot a modern smartphone in many situations. For example if we do wildlife photography, there is no way you can do that will a phone, my OLD rebel XT and a 400mm f5.6 cost less used than the phone and in a 13x19 print I will have trouble telling the difference between that and my R6 or 5DsR, now I wont be able to crop. But to say that a phone can do the same or even better is quite a lot of BS, now if you sold all of your gear and shot only on a smartphone I’d have to eat my words and I’d be able to take you seriously and take this extremely biased video seriously. Try shooting any sporting even with a smartphone, what about the Olympics or a concert, anything paid, go shoot a wedding with a smartphone, when the day is done compare your phone pics to what you would get with even the most basic (rebel XT) with cheap primes, 28 1.8, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 with a cheap flash and off camera slave, all of this gear used would cost less than the latest and greatest iPhone X Ultra Plus Max Pro 13. I am a big fan of your page but bending things this far to prove a point is a bit much. You do have a point though, if you have nothing else a phone can do amazing things, I shoot dng on my phone exclusively and it’s fantastic, it has a real camera but a phone is not a real camera. We should have a shootout, my rebel XT vs any iphone you want, we can set a budget or no L glass, whatever you want, covering all shooting situations and see what can be done with each tool. The XT is a 17 year old camera… I hope you consider my challenge though I doubt you will because you know what the result would be in a fair contest not just selfies and posting everything to Instagram… On my latest outing with our church i was carrying an R6 with a 150-600 tamron and a 5DsR with a 100mmL macro, everyone was telling me the phone can do it all, don't need all that gear, blah blah blah, long story short after everyone got home we all started posting to our group page. After I posted my photos no one said you can do it all with a phone anymore, all 10 of thier latest and gratest phones with a camera were no comparison to my shots.
I can attest to this. One of my projects involved filming a mountaineering expedition up one of the 7 Summits. Though my Sony mirrorless did amazing, there were many moments it was near impossible to use due to safety concerns while climbing. My Iphone, on the other hand, was able to be easily pulled from a pocket to take quick a video without having to faff about with a larger system.
I personally had to decide whether to upgrade my iPhone 11 and sell my Sony A7iii, or keep my iPhone 11 and upgrade to a Sony A7iv. I went with the iPhone 13 Pro Max, sold my Sony Gear and “downgraded” back to my Canon 6D (Mark I). The “old” 6D takes 20.1 megapixel images, has a full frame sensor, and EF Lenses (although “old” and “being discontinued” serve an amazing purpose in most every type of stills photography most anyone would ever need). The iPhone 13 ProMax has unbelievable video, captures really nice photos, especially at night, automatically syncs photos and videos to the cloud/LR, and is with me most all of the time. Interestingly, over the past few months-I don’t find myself gawking over the newest interchangeable lens cameras, or anxiously awaiting the new Fuji x6 or Canon R12 or a7viii release dates anymore. There are certain circumstances I’ll take the 6D out but find the iPhone 13 ProMax is good for 100% of my video and 90% of my stills. To me, this was the logical choice.
In 2016 I realized that certain smartphone cameras beat large cameras (for example full frame cameras) in many situations, when I used the Google Nexus 5x in its fantastic and revolutionary HDR+ On mode, which has no issues with moving objects. Nonetheless, in the last few years smartphone cameras got worse. The Nexus 5x really just used computational photography and combined up to 8 raw files per photo in order to achieve a longer exposure time without blowing out highlights and without getting a blurry image. This method really gives you more true data. But meanwhile, smartphone cameras (since the Google Pixel 3) are using aggressive machine learning for digital zoom, white balance or noise reduction. The results can often look terrible/artificial at pixel level. In contrast to the computational photography of the Nexus 5x, machine learning does not give you more true data. It rather does the opposite and creates a photo with wrong data. Machine learning uses data from photos that were captured at a different place, at a different time and from different objects whereas mathematical demosaicing only uses true data for the interpolation. Machine learning can produce sharp details, but you don't know whether they actually exist (for example Pixel 3a and iPhone 13 Mini can produce totally wrong details when you zoom) and machine learning makes it hard to identify the wrong details, this makes machine learning digital zoom unusable in my opinion. Demosaicing artifacts like moiré or other traditional artifacts like oversharpening can be identified. I don't want a photo where I can't identify which details are true. Helpful are raw files (though HDR+ raw files can still contain some artificial artifacts) and live photos. Live photos record a short video, which doesn't seem to use machine learning for digital zoom. When I use the Pixel 3a at 7x, the live photo frames can look better than the jpg at pixel level.
Although I agree with you and smartphones these days also allow for manual settings and you can get some great images from a smartphone and I do use my smartphone to take photos. However, I do not really enjoy the photographic experience. I like the feel of dials and shutter buttons and manual focusing and is one reason I still shoot with film and switched over to the Fujifilm system.
I agree. I too have a few Fujifilm cameras. But it's more than just buttons and dials. It's how the camera feels in you hand, and the ease with which you can frame a shot. In other words - ergonomics. Then there's the process of taking the photo itself. On a phone, it's really an afterthought, despite what you might think from the adverts. You have to hunt around for the camera app, and then compose the shot whilst holding a smooth rectangular object. Then somebody rings you half way through, or you get a notification. I absolutely agree that smart phones are real cameras, and the images can be as good, if not better, than "proper" cameras, but they are not machines dedicated to taking photos. They're not exactly quick draw devices, IYKWIM. However, I could definitely do with a camera with a SIM and a direct connection to the cloud (without the use of a smartphone). Can't understand why nobody has done it. Or have they? Didn't Samsung make such a beast before exiting the camera market, and I think there's someone who makes something like that today, but I forget the name. Also, smart phones with decent cameras really aren't all that cheap are they? From a quick look, an iPhone 13 Pro will set you back the best part of £1000. You could get a low end DSLR and 3 or 4 lenses for that, particularly if you bought used. The Google Pixel 6 is more competitive at around £600. You would struggle to get a DSLR and a lens for that, but it could be done. My smart phone costs less than £150. It does have a camera, which is adequate, but not the best. Another thought. Perhaps a bit of a tangent. How long is your phone going to last? Apple won't let you replace the battery these days, and they eventually die, so then you need to buy a new phone. Some people just buy the latest iPhone on principle. Expensive. Cameras can go on for decades. Admittedly, the time a particular model of camera remains on sale appears to be shrinking, and their are people who simply must have the latest camera (Tony?), but at least you have some choice in the matter.
Smartphones do allow manual shooting. But mostly, that will immediately crapify the image from the smartphone. Rather than get your 2, 6, 8, 9, or 15 stacked images driven by an AI that's analyzing your phone motion, your subject motion, etc., applying additional AI agents to make up color that's lost in low light, etc. you get a single shot on a tiny sensor. A few companies get around that: Google did first with their "computational raw" file format, which includes a whole stack of images even in some manual modes. Apple's got a similar thing, ProRAW, but they don't offer manual modes... ProRAW just gives you the ability to do your own edits, rather than living with the editing AI's "artistic vision".
I am confused, are you promoting smartphones. When I had a camera I have to take my camera and the equipment. My phone is always with me. Someone once told me the best camera is the one that you have when you need to take pictures. Thank you. May the force be with you 🖖 nonu nonu.
Really great argument for the Smartphone. It's really odd to call any device that makes an image 'not a real camera'. My three cameras are... Kodak Box Brownie No2, iPhone 7+ and a Sony a7r iii, and I consider these and the results they produce to be very real.
What would a DSLR with the computational capabilities of a smartphone look like? also, isn't a smartphone really 2-4 independent cameras with independent sensors and lenses?
Congratulations, you're absolutely right. I have been a professional photographer since 1988 and in 2001 I was one of the first in Portugal to photograph digital weddings with the Nikon D100. They called me crazy and the laboratories didn't like the idea at all. I've been filming and photographing with an iPhone 13 Pro Max for a month... I know they'll call me crazy again and it's even harder to try to convince customers... But it's the future! Thank you again. Hugs from Lisbon 👌🤗
If the cellphone hadn't existed, the market would belong to the now suffering well known camera makers. But it does exist and the general consumer picture market does too. It's also taking part of the professional market as well. Because it is generating self employment of new kinds that never existed before. And very much needed because of the pandemic. When I was young I liked photography as a hobby. I bought a camera. Perfect for me. I liked it very much. I remember carrying it around so I didn't miss a photo opportunity. It was cumbersome. With three lenses it was worse. Now it is all contained in a slim wafer. Tremendous. But they can't do everything. Like selective focus and metering on a distant object in the middle of a busy street. So I missed the picture anyway because the cell phone couldn't take it and I didn't have my DSLR with me. My daughter shares my hobby and she's really talented. So when we can we go out to take pictures, but we gear up, because using the cellphone just doesn't feel the same. If you were to go on a fantasy trip, wouldn't you take the big camera?
I agree that smart phone cameras are legitimate cameras. I have gotten some amazing shots off my phones before. One thing that this video didn't mention was how the color rendering in smart phone photos can differ drastically than reality and from other smart phones. Each manufacturer has their own algorithms on how to process the photos so we can get wildly different results. But for regular cameras shooting the same scene, the colors in the photos from cameras of different manufacturers will all come out practically identical. With the pace of innovation in smart phone photography, I think the color issue will be greatly improved soon. For the people who don't agree, I think one factor might be that their perception of what a real camera should be is locked in how regular cameras operate. It's amazing how incredibly homogenous all the regular camera makers behave - none have implemented any of the useful features Tony talked about (such as computational photography, cloud back up, security, etc). It's also astounding how little out-of-the box thinking and innovation there really is in the regular camera industry. It might have something to do with most of these companies being Japanese and perhaps share some sort of similar business mindset. I think if the camera manufacturers started adopting features from smart phone cameras, more people would see smart phones as legit cameras.
It was especially evident with the R3 vs Pixel 6 Pro comparison of the night sky. Funny how Tony made no mention of it while declaring that the Pixel 6's image looked better.
I don't think colour accuracy will improve in near future or atleast brands will put any efforts in it. IMO ,There is a fundamental limitations with today's smartphones i.e. quadbayer sensor. Which neither could get true colour information nor perform better in low light conditions than similar size traditional bayer sensors.
@@yash_kambli The smartphone AIs don't really care at all about color accuracy. They're trying to make something that "looks good on Instagram." Both Google's Night Sight and Apple's Night mode use large stacks of images, exposures all controlled by an AI agent, along with another AI agent that essentially "invents" color. Stack enough images from those tiny sensors in low light, along with selective filtering/noise reduction, and you can get a decent image. But the color is going to look like hell if you have ISO high enough, even with image stabilization, to deliver a good shot. So there's the color enhancement AI for that. I don't know exactly what Google does (though most of their stuff is nicely detailed on the Google AI Blog), but Apple takes an extra longer exposure just for color. They don't use the image itself, because it'll almost certainly be shaky, but they use it as the basis for the AI's recoloring of the normal 8 shot stack (maybe more by now, but it was 8 shots when first introduced). The goal is pleasing color, not accurate color, which is part of why so many smartphone shots in low light look just a bit unreal.
But, Tony, you’re dealing with human tribalism. We are worth what we can sell. Smartphones lower the ‘cost’ of entry in so many ways that they are a threat to those that have spent endless hours and dollars to be a part of the tribe. The tribe, or club, limits access by requiring knowledge, expertise and capital to be a member. This makes their skills and output worth more. We are not going to happily give up what was so laboriously worked for to attain. This behavior by a species on a planet of limited resources touch’s EVERY ASPECT of the human existence. Great video. I have an iPhone 13 Pro, and a R5. They are both very real.
Kudos for a great argument. It's amazing that cameras today have still not adopted an OS that will allow workflow like a smartphone. I shot for years with my Pixel 2XL and loved the images. BTW, I'm still using that phone. I now have a Fuji X-T3 and one of the things that drives me crazy about it has nothing to do with the camera itself, it's the app. One thing that frustrates me sometimes is that I feel like I did a better job with composition when I used my phone camera. Sometimes I find it hard to see my LCD display on the X-T3 compared to the phone display. Anyway, thanks again for making a great point. Have a great holiday weekend!!
One of the Reasons I bought a canon RP IS it’s ability to file share with my smartphone. I have no problem shifting back and fourth between my camera and smartphone. Both are powerful tools, they have their strength and weaknesses. Surgeons use scalpels and saws, but for different needs
I remember reading a book about history of photography, around 1930 ish when Leitz 35mm camera started, it wasn't viewed as professional camera as back then the middle format camera were common and 35mm as too small. Jump into the 90's the so called not professional 35mm camera were already taken as professional gear. History has repeated itself, smartphone camera is viewed in the same manner as Leitz camera back then to see the Leitz would become a luxurious camera brand now. Thank you for your inclusiveness towards smartphone photographers 👏👏👏
Form own self observation, Phone Camera honestly capture a lot more moments than DSLR/Mirrorless. I would normally use my phone camera to capture most of the shots while my camera is tucked away in my backpack till I reach my destination for the actual shoot. I feel the limitations of smartphone comes when you need what's beyond it can do, like Tony pointed out wildlife photography, you can't have a 600mm lens inside a phone. (Yet I suppose). Especially the Ultra Wide Angle Lens or Telephoto Lens always seems to perform poorer in lower light - Which I often find myself using Ultra Wide. I hope smartphones would get better in lowlight video too, I often find myself in lowlight situations where cranking the ISO is the only option when my aperture is at f/2.8 so the Sony a7Siii still serves its purpose well. Other than that, I normally use a phone. (I know a lot of people that isn't a "camera geek" per se, doesn't understand you can't long exposure a video and questions why would you pour money on a camera)
What is a “real” camera, to start? How do you define it? What are the capabilities of a “real” camera? In the broadest sense, of course a smart phone is a real camera. It takes photos. It takes videos. And generally speaking you always have it with you, and any camera is better than no camera. But I think some of the examples here are awfully contrived and cherry-picked. The telephoto shot, for one. Literally no other smartphone could get those results (cough, iPhone). And sticking a kit lens on your mirrorless camera for the comparison? C’mon. Ultimately cameras are tools. And you want to use the best tool for the job. In some scenarios that is going to be a smartphone.. but in others, conventional cameras have distinct advantages.
R5, A1, Z9 aren't cameras either, the sensor reads the light then the processor uses an algorithm to save the image on your card. So by the time you see the image it has already been processed even if you shoot raw. Same old debate between film and digital, once its digital those algorithm kick in. These days hardly anyone prints so most images are for the web and phones are everywhere for their connivence, if I'm with my family I use them phone everything else I bust out a digital camera and the trinity of lenses.
Great video. I find people who gate-keep about topics like this seem to think that if other people can do what they do, that they somehow feel less ‘special’. It’s the same thing they said when the point and shoot cand 35mm film came out and made photography more accessible. It just means that the standard of ‘good’ photography got higher - a good exposure that has no (unintentional) motion blur doesn’t cut it anymore. Mood, composition and lighting are still what matters, and you can’t buy those in a camera (yet). I’m just happy that with smartphones, a lot more people understand and share my love for photography now :)
Thank you thank you. U r so correct!!! I have a gate keeper friend who is always asking why am I no longer using my Nikon or Sony cameras. I use my iPhone 12 Pro Max for most of my work now to hear your comments from someone like yourself with so much experience and knowledge in the photo industry is so refreshing
Good joke, The phone is nowhere close to a real photographer using the real camera. The examples are artificial, you found a scenario where a postprocessing algorithm knows how to handle the situation, but what if the algorithm doesn't know what to do. In this case you wrecked your pictures. Relying on artificial intelligence is a big mistake. I just took a couple of shots in my bedroom with iPhone 12 and X100V side by side in low light scenario. iPhone is completely destroyed by Fuji X100V.
I am a blind content creator and photographer. I wanted a camera… but then I slowly started to realise that my iPhone actually describes me via the screen reader what it sees. And I was… I am going to buy gimbal, lenses and filters for my iPhone and no camera camera.
My Pixel 6 Pro takes amazing photos. I just got into mirrorless photography/videography, recently purchased a Lumix S5. Honestly, the menu system is so complicated and the autofocus is pretty disappointing most of the time. It's a great camera but such a time-suck. Google and Apple, if you're reading this, I so wish that you would partner up with Panasonic, Sony, Canon, Nikon, et al. and produce a system with the brain of modern smartphones. I guess it would be considered a niche market but OMG, can you imagine how amazing the results would be with a large sensor and array of pro-level lenses? I think it would be worth doing when you consider the millions of creators potentially using your system!
Good point. I am bidding on a used S5 now but this video is making me think twice. I had no idea you could use an iphone as a WebCam or to Live Stream. Good luck with the autofocus on the S5! I must say though, the image quality on that camera does look amazing, especially when paired with lense such as the Lumix 35mm 1.4. (In the right hands of course!).
No way. Keep the manufacturer's functionality and controls as they are, thank you! Just add the smartphone's computational photography tricks and much more advanced processors to the already vastly superior sensors of existing cameras.
Yes smartphones these days are quickly becoming real cameras and replacing entry level to midrange cameras on the market (as much as i dont want to admit). HOWEVER like Tony mentioned briefly in the video there are situations (and not just super specific ones) where smartphones continue to (for quite some time in near future) lag behind or cannot simply catchup with real cameras. 1- The experience of taking/processing/even editing photos with phones may be simply and quick BUT if you are at least a hobbyist shooter then i promise you the tactile feel and overall shooting experience with a real camera is simply irreplaceable in every conceivable way in spite of the complex menu system and buttons etc. 2- ATM phones are ABSOLUTELY abysmal at these types of photography- sports, wildlife, most portraits, events (weddings, birthdays, concerts, formal functions etc). And lets be honest most pro shooters fall under in these categories anyway 3- Unlike a real camera (semipro or above), a smartphone can and often will run out of battery faster whilst potentially causing serious heating problems (personal experience). A real pro level ish type camera is designed to last at least an entire day without causing any heating or battery issues. 4- part a: if you want to use a smartphone as a pro shooting tool, and then you almost certainly need a backup phone to make calls, sms, etc because thats your money making tool which is occupied when shooting. Part B: phones in the video lets not forget are the flagship devices which costs over $1000 (at least in AUS), out of reach for many people meaning much like real cameras, you have to spend big money to get that pro level experience,.....but then again i guess if you are a pro you will make that investment so.................. Aaaaaaand I'm sure there are more but hopefully y'all get the gist I do wholeheartedly agree that pro cameras needs to have anti-theft technology, simplified menu systems, easier workflow when it comes to editing and publishing, etc but i will not be switching to fulltime smartphone photography until it is possible to insert a phone inside a DSLR type rig or frame, thereby replicating that pro shooting experience. PEACE...
Smartphones are real cameras, though they are point and shoot cameras, where for many people, that is good enough, especially for basic stuff like taking images of where you parked and the cars beside you in case they decide to dent your car in the parking lot. The primary issue is the reliance on computational photography will often sacrifice inter-tonal detail (which is why you often notice an almost painterly look on fine details when you zoom in 1:1 on a smartphone camera image. Even if you capture a raw file, the native dynamic range (very small) and base noise level at the lowest ISO, is often very high, thus they end up using heavy handed noise reduction. This all doesn't mean it is not a real camera, it just means there are limitations to the technology that the user needs to work around.
A smartphone is as much as a real camera as it is a real watch. If you pull up to a watch convention with a smartphone and show it off as your watch, it's not going to go well. People are just going to think you're joking. Sure you can argue that a smartphone tells time better than any "real" watch, and it can do everything that a "real" watch can do. However, no one is going to say that your iphone is a "real" watch.
@@RiseUpToYourAbility equally if you pull up to a watch convention with an apple watch youre going to be laughed at, but the apple watch is more technologically advanced than any watch, just as a smartphone is more technologically advanced than any "real camera". but people who go to watch convention want classic watches, just as "real camera" nerds want big bulky chungus they can hang on their neck. both are stuck in their old ways. btw i know theres "real cameras" that do 8k 60 and 4k 120 etc that phones cant do. im comparing the phone to its price market.
They are real cameras. And phone manufactures are working hard to overcome their limitations. They really need to add a feature that some laptops already have: battery bypass. Even if your phone is plugged in, it has to charge the battery from the incoming power and then use the battery to run the phone. If they had a bypass mode, then you could have external batteries or have it plugged in for fixed filming without shortening the life of the phone. (Since phone batteries are basically not replaceable anymore.) The lack of that feature means it sometimes isn't cost effective to use a phone as the main production camera in situations where it otherwise would be perfectly usable. That said, a lot of the "lack of difference" in a TH-cam video is a side effect of how most photography and video are shared. The compression on sites like Instagram and TH-cam is horrible. That often obliterates whatever advantage a traditional lens setup had and shifts the court strongly in favor of computational photography that can intelligently process the photo or video in ways that will survive whatever nonsense websites will do to it.
Hey! A redditor recommended your video to me, and I thoroughly enjoyed watching and hearing your thoughts. While I agree that smartphones are absolutely "real cameras," I do take several issues with your comparisons (sorry, I got carried away writing this... it's long). One thing that bothered my throughout is the mismatched settings between comparison photos. I would've liked to see what each camera looked like with identical settings. I assume you chose to leave them on auto and let the camera decide? I also assume you didn't do any post-processing to the photos? Ideally, I think you should've used prime lenses for the traditional cameras, especially for the low light comparisons. The Galaxy S22 Ultra, iPhone 13 Pro Max, and Pixel 6 Pro all use prime lenses, whereas you used zoom lenses on your Sony a6400 and Canon EOS R3. I would have preferred a prime-to-prime comparison because smartphone prime lenses have the benefit of being fast, whereas zoom lenses have smaller maximum apertures. Zoom lenses handicap the traditional cameras out of the gate, and boost the cost, which results in misleading comparisons - the traditional camera looks more expensive and performs worse, but we skirt around the fact that we chose to use a more expensive lens that performs worse in low light, which gives a false impression about traditional camera performance. The first comparison looks like it's comparing an Auto-HDR to a single exposure. Auto-HDR used to be an optional setting for the Galaxy S-series cameras, but since an April 2022 update, the S22 series permanently enabled Auto-HDR. The Sony a6400 is also able to take HDR images, but it doesn't look like you used that option. If I'm right, this is an apples to oranges comparison. Perhaps it's to demonstrate the ease of use with an S22 Ultra (it automatically selects HDR for you!), but it seems odd to emphasize how well an HDR image handles highlights and shadows while intentionally comparing to a non-HDR image. If I'm right about you not having done any post processing, that's also a dishonest comparison, as a raw photo from a Sony a6400 would have far more recoverable highlight/shadow detail than the HDR jpeg the S22 saved. Even clicking the "auto" adjustments button in Lightroom would probably recover the same highlights/shadows in the Sony picture. The second comparison is probably one of the least honest, in my opinion. You compare a 50mm APS-C lens to a 27mm 1/3.52" lens. To compare apples to apples, convert both to their 35mm equivalent, and the difference is staggering: 75mm vs 230mm. Of course the 230mm lens will win a telephoto contest! The third and fourth photos are pretty good showings for the smartphone, though again, I'm bugged that the Sony a6400 is inexplicably set to faster shutter speeds, despite the smaller aperture. That said, the iPhone's larger aperture and computational photography definitely shines here, and despite the results being muddy and clearly enhanced (looks like an AI up-res), the software does a good job smoothing out the grainy details. It is weird to hear you praising the fast prime lens on the iPhone when the a6400 had the faster shutter (I know "fast" refers to the size of the aperture, and the iPhone's is larger, but the point of the larger aperture is to let in more light and allow for a faster shutter speed. Here, the "faster" lens set a slower shutter while the "slower" lens set a faster shutter and boosted ISO to compensate). The sky looks better in the fifth due to the iPhone's smoothing, but the smoothing makes everything else look muddy and awful. The EOS R3 setup may cost $8k (would've cost less if you'd used a prime!), but it blows the iPhone out of the water here. Also worth remembering that just like the Galaxy S22 series, iPhone cameras automatically take HDR images, so we're comparing an HDR image to a single exposure EOS R3 image - I'd be very interested to see what the EOS R3 raw image looks like once it's had some basic adjustments made. Forgive me saying so, but your comment "the R3 does have a little bit more detail. It's close" is a massive understatement ending in a complete lie. The EOS R3 image is crisp and clear, while the iPhone is muddy and smeared. It's not close, they're not even in the same league. Same story with the sixth comparison. The iPhone look muddy and blurred, while the EOS R3 is remarkably crisp. Of course, I would expect the EOS R3 to deliver, given its price. The seventh is another comparison that is just laughably bad (though you may have done this on purpose to demonstrate the stabilization of the iPhone). Your comment, "Here's the best shots I could get handheld with a real $1k camera kit ... the conventional camera couldn't stabilize such a long shot" is completely misleading and bogus, because what you didn't reveal is that the Sony a6400 doesn't have image stabilization in the first place! Of course it was going to fail. If you're comparing stabilization, an honest comparison would have at least put the iPhone up against a traditional camera that has image stabilization. That said, I expect the iPhone would've still been better, since smartphone stabilization is fantastic. The eighth is one of the better comparisons, though again you leave out a deceptive detail. First, the good. The Pixel 6 Pro does a great job capturing the light of the stars, as well as the blue color of the sky. It doesn't capture the light coming off the bushes/trees as well, so I'm a little suspicious of how much of that blue sky is computational, but it does produce a pretty picture. Now for the deception. You complained about the star trails in the EOS R3 image, but you didn't mention that the exposure is twice as long as the Pixel 6 Pro's (30 sec vs 16 sec). The Pixel 6 definitely has the same streaking going on (despite your claim that the pixel "eliminates" them), and the streaks are about half the length as on the EOS R3. Long story short, both cameras are smearing, and the camera that had its shutter open twice as long recorded streaks twice as long (these streaks happen because the earth is rotating, and the stars have moved across the sky just a little bit during the time the shutter was open, causing the smear). That said, it is again impressive that the Pixel 6 captured as much light as it did in half the time. With his ninth comparison, I would've preferred if you'd simply matched the 16" exposure time as best as you could so you could've set a reasonable ISO (obviously no on expects a clean image at ISO 25600, even on a $6k camera that is inexplicably using a zoom lens instead of a prime lens for night photography). The comparison also unintentionally shows how streaky the stars in the Pixel 6 Pro truly are when compared to the sharp stars in the 1 sec EOS R3 image. All that said, I think you're absolutely right that smartphones are real cameras, and if you made it this far, thanks for reading!
How is it possible for smartphone manufacturers to evolve faster than Canon, Sony and so on? Well, the iPhone 12 sold 100 million units and the total yearly sale of mirrorless and DSLR cameras are around 7 million. This is an insane difference. The more units you sell, the more economy for perfecting the product. More units is everything.
Very good, though-provoking video. It's all about the right tool for the job. I'll extend Tony's chef analogy by saying that while some store-bought frozen dinners taste great I still feel the need for enjoying a meal prepared by a professional who crafted everything with passion, experience, and education. Smart phones produce wonderful pictures with increasing frequency. They are all-in-one cameras combining capturing, processing, backups, and distribution. They are quick, easy, and always available. The software compensates pretty well for the clearly still inferior hardware, and such automation takes away at least some creative control from the user. When you take a photo with a phone the device is deciding so much for you, and its decision-making process was determined by a team of programmers. Who really created the picture? All that's left is composition and there probably is an app for that, too. While automation happens with DSLR/mirrorless cameras to a certain extent (even when shooting in manual mode), those of us who took the time to hone our skills can really produce something special. Who do you credit for the frozen dinner you ate if you loved it? There is a lot to be said for automation, especially when you don't have time or patience, but I'm one who still spends hours to produce a single image (including post-processing). No AI knows what I envisioned in my mind when I decided to open the shutter. I do foresee the day when photographers (and chefs) are obsolete, just like MP3 audio traded the superior sound of CDs for all the other things physical media couldn't do. The vast majority of people will choose convenience over quality and find that acceptable, especially when the images they get are "good enough." How about comparing the absolute BEST images from top photographers using dedicated cameras and all-in-one smart phones (both with full automation and with as little assistance possible)? In many cases it will be close but I bet overall when speed isn't a consideration the traditional cameras will still shine. Just to be clear, I consider smart phones to be cameras. However, their operators are typically called "users" and, as good as the phones have become, "photographers" are not done-for quite yet. This was my first-ever comment after watching TH-cam videos for years. You stirred me, Tony.
"How about comparing the absolute BEST images from top photographers using dedicated cameras and all-in-one smart phones" I think you'll find that the best images out there taken with smart phones are really, really good. :)
Agreed. I'm curious to know how the best smart phones compare against dedicated cameras. Are they better than the best? Equal? Somewhere in the middle of the range? Smart phones, as I understand it, usually have fixed apertures, tiny lenses, and image sensors the size of a fingernail. It seems they depend on manipulating the pixels in order to achieve what the human eye considers excellence. So many photographers say to get it right in camera (though I think that art should never be bound by rules). I enjoy using Photoshop to bring the image closer to my mind's vision. Smart phones are almost never doing the equivalent of getting it right in camera since they are doing their own version of Photoshop on their shots. It might not seem this way to the user but it's happening (as it also does to some extent on the JPG files in a DSLR/mirrorless camera). So many smart phones default to HDR, which would mean they are often making a composite of multiple images. I love this when I'm in need of a quick selfie in horrible light to flaunt what I'm doing on vacation but you cannot compare what comes out of a DSLR or mirrorless directly against the processed output of a phone. That's like having a competition where one photographer can use Photoshop and the other cannot. To reiterate what I said initially (above), let's have a demonstration with skilled photographers using a dedicated camera and allow them to process their images. The phones obviously win on speed due to their automation and all-in-one nature, but let's compare the best skill, software, and available pro hardware against the top-end mobile devices. Make it a fair fight and compare apples to apples. My bet is that the pros still come out on top, at least for now. Tony, can you round up some fellow TH-cam stars and make this happen? 😁
Now imagine how good "real" cameras would be if they featured smart technology, a full-frame sensor with good glass, coupled with computational photography, internet connectivity, instant sharing, and backing up to the cloud. The bottom line is a good photographer will get good photos no matter what they use, a $7,000 camera, and a $3,000 lens doesn't magically make you a good photographer.
I haven't been doing much photography or video shoots in the last two years, and couple of weeks ago was hired to do a trade show. The lighting was very dark with bright led lamps everywhere... this is not unusual, a tripod helps, lowest aperture possible, correcting on the computer later etc so I was getting decent photos but my camera could only film HD video and not even in raw... so I actually felt a little bit embarrassed that the people who hired me had expensive smart phones and their videos (and often photos) ended up much better than mine in low light... they said my photos were beautiful however, my videos were unusable. It made me wonder okay so now what... should I just throw out my DSLR and get a top model iPhone? Would it actually make more sense for me to show up with a smart phone to shoot with now??? Note I have a 1st gen iPhone SE and it can shoot 4K but I was too embarrassed to bring that out, hey that phone has been good enough for me 😂 I never took smartphones seriously because I assumed they didn't shoot in raw high resolution that would be good enough for print, and the video zooming was horrendous... but it's gotten so much better it's making me rethink what to upgrade to.
The problem with smartphones is that everyone thinks they're a photographer when they're holding one. I just got into photography myself, mostly because when I search for a portrait photographer to take family pictures with my kids, I find a bunch of people with a smartphone taking pictures that I could take myself with no experience. My solution was to educate myself in photography and learn how to take better pictures.
I'm a wildlife shooter and using a smartphone for wildlife photography is simply useless. Smartphones are just point - shoot cameras with more features for amateurs who don't have any photo editing skills. I would say that smartphones are real cameras from a technological standpoint since all digital cameras work the same, but that's just not gonna cut it for me. Another point, comparing a smartphone camera to a professional camera (iPhone 13 Pro max / pixel 6 to canon r3) is basically cheating because smartphone cameras have features like computational photography and other smarts that help the final image. Most professional cameras out there don't have such things they just rely on the exposure triangle. I suggest you should compare a Panasonic GH6 to a smartphone or taking RAW images with the same settings on both and comparing them without editing. That would be fair
Awesome video. And thanks for putting it up. I have shared this video with quite a few of my friends and some of them have come up with excuses why there smart phones are not as good, then I relise they have commented without looking at the video. Some people will never have an open mind.. Seven years ago I made the statement that one day smart phones would catchup. And people laughed at me. I am 70 and think technology is awesome. And to learn new skills is great. I find smart phones are a great tool and I for one will be using them more when I can learn to use them for my style of photography. There is so much info to do this on the web. Thanks again your videos are great.
"The best camera is the one you have with you". It's safe to say we are never without our phones. My iPhone 13Pro shoots amazing photos and I use it 90% of the time as a casual photographer. Does it have limits, yes of course, but so does everything. For me, what I find is the compromise with a phone camera is that it's a fixed aperture (think always bein in aperture priority mode) and fixed focal length and zooming is accomplished via selecting from one of three prime lenses and then cropping. The one true gripe I have with using a phone is tactile. I find a traditional camera just easier to hold. It has a grip, a shutter button and knobs and dials, I'm not holding it 2 feet out in front of me and trying to use a touchscreen, that at times can be a challenge to see (bright sunlight) and use gestures for any adjustments.
@5:23 as an example Canon EOS R3 is 30 sec.The smart phone is 16 sec.Which one has more time to record universe movement.???Thats why Canon has elongated stars than smart phone .The playing field is not even here in your comparisons
When you shoot a portrait with a sony, nikon, canon, olympus, etc. professional camera at 1.8 aperture outdoors or indoors... it blows away any smart phone. I've tried and there's no comparison.
If you post the image on Instagram there is no difference.
Well maybe, but thats an extremely specific case scenario. Teslas can do 0-60 in 2 sec, best in the world, but how many times would you actually use it?
Most of your driving wouldn’t be 0-60 in 2 sec.
Same for phones, most photos aren’t 85mm f/1.2 portraits. I use my phone for many things, most of my photos don’t have to be world class, and yes I keep a “proper camera” for the specific extreme cases too.
@@Mike_M_Smith I can easily tell the difference between a the physical focus falloff caused by a large sensor and lens and a smartphone faking background blur. Even on Instagram.
@@TechnoBabble Some can even guess what brand of camera / phone took the picture.
@@TechnoBabble that’s a neat trick.
I’ve been making images with SLRs for over 50 years (yes, I’m that old😋). Two points: First, I’ve always heard the statement, “That’s an incredible photo, you must have a really good (expensive) camera.” That’s the same dogmatic belief that many, in spite of the proof, will hang onto. Second, this year, I accepted an iPhone 365 challenge and, wow, have I learned bucketloads! One is, you’re right, smartphones are REAL cameras! Another is, it’s the artist, the professional, the experience BEHIND the camera that makes the difference, not the camera itself. I’ll never give up my DSLR but then I’ll never be without my iPhone either! (Thanks for letting me rant!🙂)
You took the words right out of my mouth. I am waiting for the arrival of it gets here of the Vivo X80 Pro. There is a Pro + coming later in the summer. It's specs are amazing.
Most people are dumb. They dont know how to use the manual controls on a DSLR or Mirrorless. They just leave it on auto. A phone is better for most people you cant screw it up. I use both but most of the time I use my phone camera. You cant carry a huge camera everywhere
Cool so show me how it's the person behind the camera who can do birds in flight that are 50 ft away with a cell phone camera.....
Most photographer who disagree because they already invested thousand of dollars in the convention camera and lens so when they find out that a smartphone could easily match most of the result from camera they tend to get frustrated and hence to make there purchase valid they usually disagree with this topic
Here's my take on this. "Real" cameras are still better than smartphone cameras and they always will be. WAY better. Why is this? Because of the bigger sensor. A phone camera cannot compete with its tiny sensor, even an APSC sensor is much, MUCH bigger than a tiny phone sensor. It is a physical limitation for the phone. But the phone uses computational photography to make it sharper and less noisy you say? Well I could just install AI image enhancement programs such as Topaz Denoise AI or similar, and I have a computer that can do far more processing than a phone, and process an image from a far bigger sensor that gathered a much higher quality input for me to work with!
Agree that Smart phone cameras are much better nowadays and hence can be used in most of situations. Having said that, I would want to see Tony stop using those 'Real Cameras' and completely switch over to smartphones for his professional work.
Cropped images from most phone cameras are not going to look that good.
That's not his point.
Where does Tony say that a smartphone could replace a 8000$ camera in the video concerning paid photography jobs?
@@ronjenkins4257 that is precisely the point. To call them a real camera in a photographer’s point of view is saying it could replace.
@@creatorsjourney6286 No of course not.
There is something strange. iPhone 13 Pro Max has a sensor of around 44mm² (pixel area 3.7µm²) and Sony 6400 has a sensor of 370mm² (pixel area 15.3µm²).. At 3:49, considering ISO, aperture, shutter speed and sensor size is almost impossible the same photometry... What's the magic?
Agree that smartphone cameras are real cameras and they have come a loooong way. BUT!!! The big problem is that the smartphone manufacturers themselves do not view smartphones as "professional" photography/ videography devices.
Most manufacturers don't natively provide support for RAW on all lenses, or full manual modes for video and photo, no control for picture profiles, log profiles, many of which are important for the creative control. Most native camera apps, come with a good full AUTO mode, and a half assed implementation of a Manual mode, for the sake of it. I can only think of Sony Xperia which at least does approach smartphone photography in this "professional" direction.
The processing potential is HUGE in smartphones, the manufacturers just use it give the best image/video straight out of camera, because the average customer is NOT a professional photographer. So we are stuck with using some third party apps for that creative control, and it is always an underwhelming experience, and THIS is the problem with smartphones.
This is ironic since Apple hires professional photographers and videographers/film makers to show off what the iPhone is capable of in the right hands. I'd bet those pros didn't switch to using an iPhone for their day job after the gig was over.
It's also ironic because they geared their pro laptops toward power users by giving them the features crucial toward their work, but not so much on their pro iPhones. ProRes RAW is a step in the right direction, but to really be taken seriously, they would need to add the things you and many others here have talked about.
Real cameras take real photos. After that, the photographer decides what will become of these photos. Smartphones do not take real photos. They interpret reality. The only exception is the Sony Xperia 1 Mark 4.
You're right 👍 Also the google pixel 7 pro , which is the only smartphone with a camera with AI that shows the reality in their photos. Except the oversharpening
For me the most important takeaway of this video is: If camera manufacturers don't implement computational photography in their products AND better wireless connections they will lose even more photographers to smartphones than they already have. The compact cameras are dead and the entry level and midrange mirrorless cameras are about to vanish.
I want state of the art bracketed wide dynamic RAW photos ooc, not just lousy JPGs... NOW!
Currently I can take much, much better images with my mirrorless from 2016 mirrorless than with my 2016 iPhone 6. But I totally agree that mirrorless cameras are in desparate need of computational features. Once they get them, they will again be clearly ahead of the current top of the line smartphones. But right now for many people the questions what’s better really comes down to their use case.
Something is very wrong with this comparison, either that Canon camera isn't very good, the user isn't very good or something else is going on. For starters ou are comparing images that have drastically different ISO settings. The smart phone images are all overly processed, they loose a lot of detail in this process you can see it at 5:48 and the colours are all wrong. Change the Canons settings to a much lower ISO and decrease the shutter speed down to something more realistic. It looks like you just turned the camera to auto and let it do it's own thing which isn't how you are really meant to use them. You are meant to adjust it to what you want to get the shot you intend to get.
For a lot of people, photography is not just the what but the how. I just don't like how it feels taking pictures with my cellphone, even though it takes great pictures. I like the tactile feeling of making images with a "proper" camera heh
Agree with that. I really struggle to hold a smartphone for photography (compared to a regular camera). Always feels like trying to shoot with a slippery eel in hand.
@@peterreber7671 Use Live View. It addresses this exact problem.
I suppose it is like people who think music sounds better on vinyl. For me convenience trumps everything. It takes the pressure off too. I only use my phone when I am shooting for fun and consequently I seem to get better shots.
I agree. It’s the same as opening a record or an actual book (remember those!). The experience is part of the fun.
@@Beatsy yesss this!
Biggest advantage of smartphone is convenience. While traveling with kids and all their luggage I just don’t have space for another backpack full of heavy camera gear. My smartphone fits in my pocket and still takes great images. If I were single I would still be investing in photography gear but not anymore
In 2020 I took a special topics: photography class in grad school as part of my Masters program. I did a photo assignment for it using my iPhone 6. I don't own a digital camera, this is what I had. I took the photos through the camera function of Lightroom for iPhone, set to high contrast black and white. I didn't do any post work, only presented the photos that came out great. My classmates thought I had shot all my photos in film. They were surprised it was an old iPhone and Lightroom. It really doesn't matter what camera you use. What matters is the art you make with it.
Two immediate observations on this. Yes, a $1000-ish flagship smartphone will "beat" a $500 DSLR kit on straight-out-of-the-camera images. But this is all due toc computational photography. The iPhone in low light is taking nine shots with an f/1.8 lens (f/8.0 to f/16 FF depending on which camera you're using, applying crop factor) versus that one shot on an APS-C kit lens at f/3.5-f/6.3 (f/7.0-f/12.5 FF) again depending on the particulars. The sensor is 8-10x the area. The smartphone wins for a novice.
But if you know what you're doing, you're going to know when you need to stack photos, when to bracket, etc. You will be able to get a better image with the APS-C consumer kit IF you're willing to put in the time. Sure, I'd pick a pro camera and pro lens, and you probably would too. It's true that currently, consumer DSLRs and mirrorless are not automating things the way phones do, and perhaps they ought to.
I'd also agree that a smartphone can be a "real" camera. So can a DSLR, mirrorless, P&S, pinhole, film, anything you'd like to pick up. It's what's behind the camera that matters. In lieu of a real photographer's brain behind the camera, the phone will always do better. Hand that R5 to a novice and they're not going to get a better image than they would with the iPhone Pro, in all likelihood. That's the AIs replacing the need for a photographer's brain. If you can't do better on your own, maybe it's time to learn photography a bit better. Big camera shooters are no more immune to relying on tech to replace knowledge than smartphone shooters.
I got started with photography when I was 14 years old back in highschool. I'm going on 28 today and it is amazing where camera technology has come.
As a working professional, I think it is great that more capable cameras are in people's hands than ever before.
I remember taking my DSLR camera with me on vacation to capture trips. Now, an iPhone 13 Pro Max is more than sufficient. iCloud immediately backups photos and videos. If stolen, Apple Care can get me another phone within a day. Photos and videos can be shared instantly with family members around the world. Not to mention, the 13 Pro Max has insane battery life and I could also video call anyone in HD.
This is a golden age of technology. I would love for Apple or Google to partner with Canon or Nikon on a camera one today, something like Android Auto and Apple Car Play.
the camera market is going down. why should they partner with a losing market. thats just going to give the camera market new buyers. if the camera manufacturers are serious they would start copying features from phones into their cameras.
I’m still using a Nikon D3 and Leica M9 Monochrom.
@@Mike_M_Smith I did a three-year, B&W photo a day challenge. I probably learned enough about B&W shooting over the thousand images to consider going without the crutch of a color sensor 🙂
@@DaveHaynie unfortunately I sold the Monochrom. The second sensor that Leica replaced also became defective.
Agreed. People need keep taking unfocussed photos, poorly composed images in ever increasing resolution. As long as they do, the phone companies will have the money to keep developing better features
My Problem with Smartphones is that the photos offen look oversharpend and have to much contrast. An Iphone, Samsung or Google picture just doesn't look like real life what I would like. Otherwise, smartphone cameras really are amazing these days.
Hey man. Long time fan here. You don’t have to justify how you want to start covering cellphones and cellphone photography more. We get it. We like you and Chelsea and the knowledge you share. We get it. The only video that hit a million views in the last 3 years on this channel was a smart phone camera comparison. You two do you. We’re not going anywhere. I promise.
What are you trying to say, that no one is watching Tony and Chelsea anymore? Well your not wrong. Tony needs to make a change.
I didn't get that vibe from Tony
Show us on the doll where a smartphone touched you
Regardless of future coverage, the poll revealed a hugely common misnomer that I am glad got addressed.
McDonald's staff can cook food for their customers to eat, and they can even build a career from there and eventually make some decent money, but would you consider them as profetional chefs? I guess not.
LOL this was just a vehicle for Tony to blast Camera manufacturers for their lack of security features. I knew that was coming.
And compute and usability power... To be cruel, it's android cameras show a few years ago is beating dslr manufacturers hahaha
I’m glad that he did, if the camera manufacturers watched this video, I suspect they did, they will roll up their sleeves and get to work to fill this void.
@@williefufu2985 With camera vendors thinking increasingly about computational photography and other uses of compute power -- like object-detect autofocus -- they are slowly boosting performance. Nikon's Z9 processor is reportedly about 10x faster than the Z7 Mark II processor. Olympus/OMDS doubled the perfomance of the processor between the E-M1 Mark II and Mark III, and as much as tripled it in the OM-1.
Of course, the CPU performance is only as good as their software, but we're not getting there without the hardware to run it. I'm also hoping that the Alice Camera -- that one from the Indiegogo a few years back -- actually comes out this fall. That's a bit odd, using a smartphone as a viewfinder/control panel, but it's got dual AI processors on-board, and an open AI processing pipeline. It'll be fun to see that one unleashed on coders.
I agree and disagree. And iPhone isn’t a real camera because you don’t control what it produces image wise. It decides what the photo is going to look like not the photographer. If I want to make a photo moody, I can do that by changing the settings.
Seriously though…. I hate using my phone for photos, my “ real camera” is fun. I get more joy out of my mirrorless than my phone. The other reality is I’m not going to plunk down $1500 on a fantastic smartphone/camera….I’ve already got a smartphone and yeah it’s top for iPhone but I still just hate it for photography. All the reasons you state why it’s a real camera is true in one sense but doesn’t change the feeling. Also I don’t get amazing bokeh with my smartphone…computational dog crap is what it is. Do I use my smartphone, yeah but I hate it.
Feel and fun don’t take away from results. Preferences I guess
@@Simsationxl totally does, if you hate the tool you’re using it’s not going to give the best results vs something you actually enjoy using.
This is exactly how I feel. A phone with a great camera is great to have handy. Two years ago before I got into photography I chose my new phone (Pixel 3XL) because of it's camera and a few other reasons. Now after being into photography for two years I hate using my phone; I never use it. I'll either use my Z6II or my recently acquired Nikon FM2 as it's way more enjoyable and I like having the control. As you said and I agree with, I hate the computational bokeh.
I'm not into getting a new phone every year and if I was going to spend $1k or more on something it would be another camera 👍. Others don't have to agree and that's fine, I respect it.
Are smartphones real cameras? Yes, they're real cameras. Have they evolved TREMENDOUSLY in the last 5 to 10 years? For sure! I would argue they have evolved MORE than traditional cameras.
Should people who belittle others for choosing to use a smartphone instead of a Canon be called out for their narrow minded elitist behavior? Yes! Not everyone has the inclination to pay thousands of dollars for a proper photographic kit, and nor should they.
I still have shots I took 13-15 years ago with whatever Nokia phone I was using at the time, with a 1.3 megapixel camera. I like those shots. I couldn't have had them otherwise. That grainy POS low resolution image has recorded something dear to me.
Now, that out of the way.
My dude, you have 1.5 million subscribers, out of which I will guess that a lot are enthusiasts with proper gear. Are you seriously going to structure your video to suggest that smartphones are better than dedicated photographic gear? Come on! My 8 year old Sony a6000 takes SIGNIFICANTLY better shots than my 2021 Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra, the best smartphone camera I have access to, THE SECOND I put those images on a big screen, aka not on the phone's screen.
What do I do to have better shots with my a6000? I know how to use it! I process my stuff! It's the whole point of a dedicated camera system. Yes, smartphones create a pleasing processed image for you in like half a second. If I put that image on my computer monitor and compare with the stuff I generate with both my a6000 and my A7 3, it's laughable. And if I zoom, game over.
If you don't care, use a smartphone. If you are sick of the workflow a camera entails, use a smartphone. They are good _enough_. That said, they are not better. Not yet. Computational photography, regardless of how awesome and fast has become in the last few years cannot hold a candle to the images I can produce with my A7 3 paired with a 24-70 Sigma f2.8, raw, processed to taste in Lightroom.
I don't understand why you feel the need to push this sort of narrative. It's not true. A worse thing cannot be better than a good thing. I don't care how smart a pixel is, it still cannot beat the kilo of large, clear glass I have in the front of the sensor of my camera, paired with my ability to use it, and then process the images, and a 6400 Iso, unprocessed, underexposed, out of focus portrait will not change that.
Gear MATTERS. I will happily continue to use both my S21 and my dedicated kit whenever I feel like taking a picture, depending on the need. This is my hobby. I enjoy doing it and I have the ability to discern between 2 pictures.
I work in the video game industry. I am a tech enthusiast. I enjoy gadgets and technology. I don't have a heart attack near a router or a network switch. I have a powerful PC. I like when small and light devices can do amazing things, like take good photos. That doesn't change the fact that you still shoot your stuff with an R5, or whatever camera tickles your fancy between your "gear doesn't matter" videos. There is a reason you do it. There is a reason you don't move your business of book making, wildlife photography and TH-cam channel to an iPhone.
who are you trying to encourage with these 'gear doesn't matter , smartphones are awesome' videos? People who only use instagram and would never invest 2 thousand dollars in a camera kit anyway? Why?
I bought a 5D classic for $80 on ebay and I would use that any day over a smartphone for photos.
Smartphones do sucks a lot and they still have long way to go. They could perform better with an existing hardware but problem is that they all are now using quadbayer sensors which are literally shitttt and secondly, image processing is inclined more towards to make it social media friendly i.e. over sharpness, very saturated colours, heavy HDR which is i found totally unnecessary.
@@yash_kambli I wish Canon made a smartphone.
@@creativevisiongaming i wish that too.
I understand what you are saying but I think you are missing the point. He did preface the story with what happened to the photography gear from 4 decades ago. I am sure there was
a person just like you now who said that digital photography, was a toy and useless. Give me my rolls of film and my very own darkroom and chemicals and I can outdo any digital camera with analog film. But, you are using that new (many generations improved) tech/digital gear now and nothing is wrong with that. But, just like film cameras. Technology marches on. Smartphone photography is getting better, sometimes by leaps and bounds, There is still nothing wrong with using the gear you have and I have now. But photography is miniaturizing and in this case it is in a pocket phone. I doubt you have a old style tube tv, you probably have a large flat screen tv. same example different appliance field.
I’m a pure hobbyist and I’ll readily admit that there are loads of people who take better (as in, more inspiring, artistic) pictures than I do. With some of today’s image processing in smartphones they definitely have better low light capabilities than my somewhat dated mirrorless. But heck, I just love making a point of grabbing my camera and going out to shoot. Often I’ll put on a prime and not even use the flexibility of an interchangeable lens system. But it’s when I decide to actually commit time to that and it’s hugely enjoyable to me. Also, I don’t have a current smartphone so mirrorless is still miles ahead of the pictures I’d be able to take with my phone.
I’m definitely not in any position to be a gatekeeper (and honestly, for practical reasons I don’t think anyone else is either nowadays), but if people take great pictures with their smartphone - why would that bother me? It doesn’t.
BUT: When you switched to the smartphone camera at 11:11, I did immediately notice it. The image gets mushy and the artificial bokeh just sucks IMO. For video, I don’t think smartphones are quite there yet. But I can think of several ways that small, highly intelligent cameras could improve upon that. I do believe that (much like modelling in audio production has all but replaced analog gear) modelling cameras and lenses is going to happen in only a few years. And if I can think of ways that this might work, than I bet that a lot of engineers have viable ideas already.
And one thing I’m really concerned about is that many people may never learn processing their images but rather rely on a bunch of filter presets that do all sorts of things. And I see a lot of phone images with really weird curves applied by the phone. But I’m not sure things would be any different if those people used DSLRs or DSLMs. Maybe their images would simply have other weaknesses but still not look great. But people who truly care about the way their images look and who have an artistic vision for their work will eventually learn the tools and develop a unique look, regardless of the type of camera they use.
I don't think there is a lot of argument with this. I noticed creative tutorials site Domestika have an increasing number of photography courses that explicitly use smart phones.
I have been impressed lately by smartphone photos. I have not looked at them as deeply as you have, but everyday, around the house, normal lense type stuff, my daughters IPhone blows me away. It takes the shot and does the post processing. I struggle to get similar shots and the effort it takes is depressing.
However, stopping action, or long telephoto work is not as good. In my experience low light is poor also, but I will look at this closer. I imagine they will improve as AI improves. I used to carry a camera with a long lense and a second camera with a short lense on wildlife outings. I am relying more and more on my cell phone as a second camera and I don't have the latest and greatest phone. At family functions, I am the one that gathers the photos from everyone and puts the albums together. I am the only "real camera" user. In general, the photos from my "real camera" are more usable, but, there are a lot of better compositions from the cell phones just because they are so much more convenient.
phones can compete with any camera in photos because of ai post processing. but usually they lack in low light video, they try to make up with extreme noise reduction, which flattens the videos. and also with cameras you can zoom further, or more bokeh etc. but general photography, they can easily win.
@@truthseeker6804 I don't find smartphones ever really "win". They can be comparable if you put them in their optimal shooting conditions, but as soon as you're not in broad daylight or shooting a still subject with night mode they fall apart.
It is getting tough to carry the DSLR when I travel. I'm a target and people notice the "eye" more than my S22 Ultra. Which by the way I have been impressed with. Even the telephoto. But I still make a day of going out with DSLR to get my best shots.
@@truthseeker6804 AI can do a lot but it cannot put back information, that is not there, just make it look that way. Camera manufacturers have to get better on that software part though and use the much better input they get from the sensor to feed it through the same AI technology.
@@salia2897 i believe camera manufacturers dont care. maybe sony might make something interesting. or unless samsung gets back into cameras, i believe they have the most potential. or if apple gets into cameras then that would be the end for all camera manufacturers.
BIG ISSUE. First, I agree with you. Cellphones have real cameras. End of the argument. I have issue with comparing at 5:30 minutes the R3 with the Pixel 6 Pro and using 30 sec exposure against 16 sec exposure. I know you have taken images of stars without trails. I know you know the settings for the R3 are wrong. Try again with a 1.4 lens for only 16 seconds. That would be a fair comparison. Trying to use completely different lenses at completely different settings is not something I would expect from you. It is a big flaw or disingenuous.
Of course the lenses are different... I can't put a Canon lens on a smartphone. And the 16 sec time on the Pixel isn't accurate; it's doing image stacking from a 4-minute exposure. But listen to the words I'm saying during that example; the smartphone doesn't need to beat the $8000 camera; it's just an example.
@@TonyAndChelsea What I meant by the lenses being different is the maximum aperture. You should have used and f1.4 for 15 secs. That would have been closer. Stars trails are directly related to the duration of the shot (of course I am preaching to the choir) My point is an RE, R5 with a Sigma 20 mm 1.4 will give you a superb stars image. No trails
@@osoriony not only that but who does Astrophotography at ISO 25600? I just hate seeing these “kit cameras” with their f/3.5-5.6 lens up against the native f/1.5 or so iPhone. Put a cheap 50mm 1.8 and get a closer result. I understand the point-you get the kit lens when you get the camera. But if we’re making a point of comparison, then make it a fair one at least.
Tremendous and good breakdown of the conventional camera and the cellphone camera. I votes yes for cellphone cameras being a real camera because they are. I love my Samsung Galaxy Ultra S21, NikonD7200, and Nikon P1000. Use whatever you want.
Me too ... btw Canon shooter 80D, 70D, 5DM3 50mm, 35mm L, 85mm 1.8, 85mm 1.2L, 18-135mm zoom. Nowadays only the 80D and 85s make it out the 🎒for portraits. Sometimes the 35mm 😉
@@jjaylad The Nikon D7200 is a beast of a camera. Bought it back in 2016. For the Samsung S21, a lot to say. I've heard much about Luminar, but never tried it.
@@alvinblackwell268 Nice setup Alvin! The Canon 80 D is a good one. I did a lot of homework on it. Cellphones are great, but with a dslr or mirrorless camera with a speedlight on top, there is no comparison.✌️
@@keithbrown454 Hey Keith, I agree but the workflow & smartphone convenience makes my S21 my go to for video in particular. If I am doing portrait work definitely the DSLR. BTW I am still planning to but an R5 or maybe an R1 in the future, because I love the tactile experience of my Canon cameras. However if Canon were smart they'd adapt Android OS on the R line of mirrorless cameras. That would be a game changer 💯‼️😉
I definitely think phones are real cameras, they are limiting but they do the same thing any camera can do, it takes a photo. For the first few years of my photography, it was almost entirely on my phone until I got a “real camera” last fall. Most of my favorite photos are still the photos I shot oh my phone, my iPhone 6s. Shooting on phones forces you to work on your composition much more than a “real camera”, it forces you to find interesting angles and shots. Shooting on my phone for the past years helped me out immensely when switching to a camera, I understood the styles i liked and all I really had to get used to was thinking in different focal lengths. If you want to get into photography, just start doing it, take your phone out and show the world what you see.
Also it was pretty cool to see that you guys passed through my home state of Maine!
Smartphones edit the photo for you of course they're going to look really good straight out of camera.
You can shoot RAW with a smartphone, and still take advantage of the computational photography features if you want the best of both worlds.
Yes today's smart phones are capable of taking incredible images, but for me they have one major drawback, you can't change the battery on most smart phones and in my experience after 2 or 3 years phones start to slow down and the batteries start to degrade until they become useless. Even my old xt1 is still taking great images and I suspect will do so when many of today's expensive smart phones will be assigned to the bin🤷♂️
Most smartphones let you change the battery... Typically it's a 15-20 minute process. But smartphone tech is developing so rapdily that if you care about the camera you'll probably want to upgrade anyway.
@@TonyAndChelsea Costing you more money in the long run than getting a camera that could last 10 years. No one keeps their smartphones for 10 years these days.
@5:52 Shorten the exposure to 1 second to eliminate star trails? What? According to the NPF rule for spot stars, with that lens + body combo you can shoot up to 11 seconds at 24mm. You should have used a 10 second exposure. Your ISO would have been around 2500, which would be perfectly acceptable.
This is journalistic malpractice, honestly. Shame.
EXACTLY. I paused the video at 5:52 by coincidence to read comments and found yours. Ridiculous
Once you wrap your mind around the fact, you have a Camera that has a phone 📞 in it, and not a phone with a camera. This really is quite liberating. I came to this realization back in 2016 while in a major magazine assignment, when sets locations were being assembled with lights. I went with my subject and she laid down to rest. I only had my iPhone 5s with me. The images produced. We’re actually phenomenal with multiple images chosen for the magazine layout. It was this day I realized I had a camera with a phone in it.
Yeah and how did those photos age looking at them now??? Same thing will happen again people are impressed by them now but but in 10 years they will look like crap whereas shots I took with my D800E from 10 years ago still look insanely good.
That is such a broad statement, when the price range of smartphones goes from 200 to 2000 dollars.
He is only talking about higher end smartphones. Obviously.
Each year more "real" photographers get frustrated that their aunt (who knows nothing about real photography) can magically take a photo with their new smart phone that the rest of the family thinks looks just as good as the photos from the "real" camera. Unless the camera makers start building in smartphone features and image processing, this trend won't stop soon.
I sell prints up to 16X20 sometimes 20x30 shot with my iPhone 11 Pro Max all the time. My best seller is a phone shot.
Be sure to check out Gigipixel AI software for enlarging your iPhone files to make even larger prints!
Undeniably there's a place for smartphone photography, everything where content is the main point of interest, it doesn't matter if it's shot on a smartphone, or on a super expensive interchangeable lens camera.
Wow, thanks Tony, I voted for "no". But you concinced me! Phones are real cameras. Why I said no, is for the feeling I get with my entry level camera. It just feels better, I enjoy it much more with my DSLR than my samsung phone. The buttens, the feel, the joy, the viewfinder... that is why I like the DSLR. No smartphone gives me that feeling.
I rather use a dslr with its heavy clunky feel anyday. It's part of the experience of photography and sets the mood. Plus zoom lenses with full frame bodies are going to blow away the glass and sensors found on cellphones. It's not even close.
LOL - try carrying a complete zoom setup around with you when travelling by bike. I feel you are missing his point here - he is not necessarily saying throw your camera system away,, but they are pretty good.these days and everyone should learn how to use theirs to best effect. It isalwys the best tool for the job, or actually what you have with you at the time. My father goes down the road that he refuses to take video on his phone as he spent money on a Sony A1. So if he does not have that with him he just won't take anything, and misses out on recording what he is seeing. I wondering whether he is actually worried his phone footage will look pretty good :D
@Max Larson sensor size isnt everything. this video literally proved it. lenses and sensor quality also matters. take a full frame sensor from 15 years with f5.6 lens it would lose to even budget phones of today, even take a full frame sensor and give it f11 it would probably lose in low light to a phone.
@Max Larson post evidence your fz300 blew away any modern phone in low light. unless youre comparing digital zoom of the phone to the optical zoom of the camera. but stay in their default view, and lets see the low light results.
@@truthseeker6804 phones don't have optical zoom 99% of the time, just 2 to 5 different focal length lenses and switching between them
@@someoneelse1550i was saying thats probably why he claims his fz300 blew away the s22, because hes comparing optical zoom of the fz300 vs digital zoom of the s22. if he stays in their default view, the s22 would win easily. in low light.
What about the size of the sensor. How can you pack 50M pixels or more on a tiny sensor?
Considering the cost of the latest smartphones they are much the same as mid level cameras
I would like clarification on sensor size and number of pixels. With the same size sensor with 25mb and 50mb what are the pros and cons of each?
Also what actually is computational photography? is it this that is compensating?
Also i have never enjoyed the ergonomics of mobile phone photographing, holding it in your hand.
Lack of physical dials and a real grip kills it for me. There is a big difference (in my world view) between having an interest in "pics" and learning "photography".
I see what you mean and I prefer shooting my mirrorless 100% of the time over using my smartphone (which is terribly dated anyway so it’s a no-brainer). But it is going to go the way it always does with technological advancements: once the "new thing" gains traction because some of its advantages, it’s going to get developed to such a point that it supplants the "old thing". If you happen to know anything about live sound: that’s exactly what happened with digital mixing consoles. A lot of people kept hating on digital consoles for 15+ years, but nowadays analog mixing consoles are OBSOLETE. They just are. It’s just the way it goes.
@@rickbiessman6084 I'm old enough to hear the difference between tube emulators and real tubes (lol). ( bass/drums/vocals here). However... the layman is not and that's why what you just posted is spot on. The layman absolutely loves their phones... it's like a cheat code to get into photos without learning photography (as related to cameras). My GRii and Lumix LX5 solve the "always with me" issue just fine. 🤜🏾🤛🏾
@@musicmaestro88 Haha, funny coincidence that you’re a musician too. I’ll admit right away: after years of playing tube amps and subsequently switching to a Helix I can’t tell the difference (but quite a few Helix amp models are more dynamic and expressive than the tube amps I’ve owned). That’s why I’m fine using digital gear. But I definitely needed to take the deep dive into the world of guitar amps and pedals to understand how guitar tones even work. So there’s that... I do think learning the ropes the "old fashioned way" is at the very least extremely helpful, maybe even irreplaceable for mastering your craft, whatever it may be.
Because along with technological develompent comes asthetic development. Unless you use new technology to create something entirely new, you’ve got to study the "past" in order to nail what you’re doing in the present.
Yeah the camera phones have come a mighty long ways, but cell phones can’t link up to strobes and other light sources that is needed for creative photography work. You can use a continuous light source with a cellphone camera but you won’t have the same results when using a digital camera body. Plus the camera phones takes away the joy of understanding photography because it does all the processing of images for you. But I’m for both worlds, the camera phones is a great tool to have in your pocket in certain situations.
Linking to strobes.. well now they can with profoto. 😯 I wonder what’s next? 😁
Actually i think you already can, but it's very early in the game..m
I agree in lowlight a flash makes a huge difference. An ILC gives great images indoors with a flash when you bounce it off the ceiling. I agree with another commentor that smartfphone colors can look unnatural sometimes.
Absolutely ...WRONG.....see my post above re: Profoto lighting (the best in the business btw)
@@eljavix my profoto lighting works flawlessly with my Iphone 12pro max. been using it a couple years now and done paid portraiture with this combo
I have a Canon R5 w/ 28-70mm f/2 lens. With the battery grip and two sets of batteries, I have invested over $8,000 in this six-pound kit. I also have my iPhone 11 Pro Max w/ 512GB of storage for photos and what-not. I often pulling out my iPhone for quick shots than breaking out my R5. I find myself using both and even wishing that I would pull out my iPhone more often.
Now for quality, my R5 runs circles around my iPhone 11 Pro Max. I was thinking about getting the 13 but I think I could wait a little longer and get the 14 as it will have better cameras and 5G for faster uploads. I hear rumors that the iPhone 15 will have a periscope-type telephoto lens that should be just amazing.
This talk about smartphones not being real cameras used to be true in the past. But now they are totally useful. I wouldn't use my iPhone for professional work as of now, because there are many things I'm able to do with my R5 that make pro jobs easier and with improved quality. My iPhone is slower, I don't like touch screens for controls. I love real buttons as I can access them with my eye in the viewfinder. I also can rest my finger on a mechanical button which I can't do on my phone. My R5 shoots 45 MP files which is great for cropping in. My 12MP lacks this feature but I hear that iPhone 14 might come out with a 35MP sensor which would be awesome. It might even shoot 8k video.
I wish my iPhone could meld with my R5 then it would be one of the best cameras in the world. I hope the iPhone 14 and 15 come out with the rumored features as that would convince me to use the iPhone as a reliable backup for paid shoots. I would be fantastic if I could have a great backup that fits in my pocket. And to be used as a primary when I'm out and about without my R5. Some of my best shots are being at the right place at the right time to get the shot no matter what.
“I wish my iphone could melt with my R5”. Same here!!! I love my r5 but i long for a much larger screen and while the canon menu is decent id still prefer an apple ui. The next best thing I’ve found is using the canon remote app on my iPhone but its still finicky and doesn’t always connect.
I totally agree. Smartphones are awesome. I use mine for street photography and I love it ! However, I shoot a lot of athletics, and for that, nothing beats my Canon eos 7d mark II. It is a case of what you use your camera for. Great video !
Preach brother! My iPhone 12 takes great photos. I have used it to take real photos and video for which I have been paid. Nothing is realer than an invoice. :)
Any camera that produces the right image at the right time is real. More than 30 years ago I shot basketball with a motor-driven “real camera” with a fast short telephoto. I also kept a little point and shoot in my shirt pocket. When a player is running right at you on a fast break you’re going to have a hard time getting the dunk from behind the basket with a 105mm. A Sure Shot or XA might get it.
If I were shooting basketball now, I might rely on an iPhone for that.
Sometimes the best camera is the one that you have with you.
Those phones you used must be about 10 times as good as my year old s21. I recently did a similar test between my phone, a Canon point and shoot and a Canon rebel and there was no comparison. The phone pics looked great on the screen but had tons of weird artifacts and unrealistic colors when enlarged compared to the dedicated cameras
I was quiet surprised to discover that my current phone 14 Pro Max has a larger sensor size than my old compact point and shoot.
I guess the sensor on its own wouldn’t produce good results at all so yeah, if the computation post processing is t up to scratch, the photos will look bad, but despite all this, the process is hit or miss a lot of the times.
the problem with phones and it is a huge one when it comes to photography: no viewfinder, bad ergonomics and lack of required precision in some types of photography (sports, fashion, etc). A good DSLR with a big bright pentaprism and great ergonomics is a great experience, no phone can emulate it and the images are better too, for the camera allows for precision.
They say the best camera is the one you have with you. And that for me is the iPhone 13 pro. It’s image processing blows me away with incredible dynamic range and no blowouts I have come to expect with my DSLR. The pano feature is amazing! However, I just got back from a trip in the Mideast and my go to camera was my Nikon D750. Yes, I’m sitting through post processing my photos, but that is where a picture becomes a photograph. I find my DSLR still gives me much more latitude and resolution than the iPhone and I am faster at capturing the image with the DSLR. Cropping is better on the DSLR. Yes, I look like a tourist, but the Nikon sensor adds a quality to the image I don’t see with the iPhone. I wish I could marry the image processing of the iPhone with the sensor from the Nikon. Now That would be amazing.
The only problem I see with calling a phone camera a real camera is that most of what you see on a phone is digitally manipulated through software, while a DSLR (not so much mirrorless) is mostly a physical image. Although both camera's can produce professional quality I still think it is important to learn how a photo is taken by using anything from a Daguerreotype to a smart phone camera. The best camera is the one in your hands!
I voted no because I believe in a principle. "Use the Right Tool for the right job". We can stand here and argue all day long about what is a real camera and what is not but truthfully, even you Tony will testify that you wouldn't use a phone for a professional photography gig. Imagine shooting wildlife with an iPhone. it is possible but you won't get what you want. I couldn't show up to a wedding with a smartphone to shoot. In the same vain I can't be walking around with my heavy DSLR taking pictures of everything all the time. There are Some moments that cannot be captured with a dedicated camera that only a phone can shoot. A spontaneous event like a kid's first steps or a brawl between two drunks. You cant be pulling out a Canon 6D whenever you want to capture such moments. The right tool for the right job.
Professional photography isn't the standard for what counts as work that should be included in the artform. Phone cameras are real cameras because if used by someone with the intent to take real, photographically sound images, they can work. Period. Sure, they might not work with every genre of photography but you can say the exact same thing with "real" cameras. You probably will struggle using a Canon T6 kit for sports photography, does that mean it's not a real camera, and not suitable for real photography?
you dont use a phone for "professional photography" because its the mentality that bigger camera provides better result. therefore they would even prefer you use a big old dslr instead of a compact a7c. its the mentality of size is better. which has been proven to be false.
@@PraiseYeezus Excellent points all around. Intent does matter. However, lemme point out that you said "Canon T6 KIT", which for those that are aware means if you intend to do sports photography with the T6 an upgrade to fast telephoto lenses is easily available for you thanks to detachable lens technology being possible to most dedicated cameras where far as smartphones are restricted to what lens are already in it. So yes, you can do professional photography with a smartphone but there will be limitations to what you can do with your smartphone even though your imagination is limitless
@@truthseeker6804 Interesting take there. But I wouldn't call it a mentality nor would I dismiss the statement completely. I personally feel that my DSLR feels more weighty and high grade with a grip attached and some people assume it is will take top-shelf images just because of its bulk and heft. On the flip side, size does matter in many cases. Larger bodies can mean larger sensors hence better lowlight performance, more space for batteries and better cooling. Certain cameras are big because there are components that are necessary for high-quality work like quality glass lenses, logic boards, and displays. So it is not exactly a mentality but at the same, such a thing as "bigger is better" mentality does exist.
@@jeffrymceden4423 big can mean better or worse. its really up to the user of the device. aside the user. spec vs spec still big can be worse, if its old technology. 15 years ago full frame would probably perform worse to modern bsi m4/3 or apsc or even zv1 bsi 1 inch. i just saw a video of iPhone 13 Pro vs Canon M50 low light video, and the iphone 13 pro was better.
i cannot say that smartphones are not real cameras.
however, i can say that smartphones are not real phones. nobody uses those to call people anymore.
Thanks for doing this video. It needed to be said. Smartphones are the real deal. They are computational photographic tools; forget the "phone" part. "Real" cameras will become ever more marginalized if they don't become computer-wise. I find my iPhone (12 Pro Max) especially good for street photography but It's surprisingly capable of other things, especially in RAW mode. We've been told prints from smartphones are lousy. Yes, they are resolution-limited but I have had good results at 11x14 and even beyond.
Some Panasonic cameras use computational photography to aid the already great optics and large sensor.
Computational photography is great, but it's not "real" by definition. Smarphones made up pictures basing on what sensor capture and what algorithm was learned. It's almost like websites where you can loosly draw some shapes, and AI generate photorealistic image from it. Computational photography is not worse, and somethimes it's even better, but it's just different than real photography.
People still buying real cameras, becouse smarphone photos have this artificial look, and not giving you much control. Even raws are heavily edited becouse acctual raw information from smartphone sensor is rubish without computation tricks. Overall your iPhone shoots looks good, but your beard hairs looks super wierd, they pop up and diasppear whenever alhorithm decide it's a noise to smooth out or it's a detail to sharpen, motion blur is wierd, dof is wierd, shadows are wierd, skin tones are wierd. Everything is to smooth and to sharp at the same time, you look younger but also older. If you zoom in detail on your shirt will look better on iPhone, but whole image look unnatural, wierd, and like it was shoot on smartphone, it's not look real.
If photography is an art that requires practice and learning (exposure, composition, subject, emotion. style), then smartphone cameras are "real cameras". It is such a dedicated event to go out an shoot with a DSLR, but I always have my phone and if something strikes my eye, I can try to capture that idea. Whether I succeed or not, I still learn something about photography. They are amazing (real) cameras for learning.
I can see a similar discourse occurring from 1890 when the Kodak was announced - it rocked the photographic establishment, which was dominated by an elite who had the considerable economic and educational resource to engage with the processes of capturing, then processing and printing images - sometimes at considerable risk to themselves from the dangerous chemicals involved.
The Kodak democratized photography, allowing anyone, with the relatively meagre resources required, to engage with photography; and the by-line "You press the shutter, we do the rest" expressed the sudden devolution of taking an image from all other aspects of its processing to a print. It allowed people to capture the minutia of their lives as never before and undermined the work of portrait photographers whose market was at the lower end - any sudden change will evoke negative response...
Certainly, in the modern context, the cell phone provides a similar benefit: it is constantly available, portable and, critically, able to transmit images to anyone in the world almost instantly. Aided by massive steps forward in optics, electronics and computational photography, it has cemented its place in our society. Some may feel threatened by it, but I personally am happy to use conventional cameras for my own work while respecting the capabilities of this technology and those who use it - there are some amazing cell-phone photography artists out there...
I agreee with you completely. Even so, I rarely take pictures with my phone, because I find the process unpleasant. The screen is reflective, it's more difficult to compose the shot with the camera held at a distance from my eyes, and I struggle with the shutter button's placement (I'm interested in the Sony solution). When I do use my Samsung phone the results are often better than I get with my various Fujis and Nikons, and another advantage is that I'm rarely asked to desist in certain restricted spaces, like outside some London office blocks. For their ergonomics, my loyality to traditional cameras is unshaken!
SOOC you should expect a flagship smartphone to outperform a real camera. That is their purpose: to take "good" photos in increasingly more situations without any input from the shooter other that literally pointing and shooting.
But if you can't outshoot the phone using your photographic skills, raw mode, etc. you have some learning to do. I could get a better shot than my 2022 smartphone even with older gear like my X-Pro1... generally even a 1" camera like my Sony RX10IV or Panasonic ZS100, if I'm willing to do the work (which might require some of the same tricks the phone is doing, like image stacking). Not always worth it, but always there in the bag of photo knowledge.
Smart phone image quality is not bad, I don’t care about pixels, when I print out my photos, I can print my smartphone pics and they look great up to 8.5x11. However, if I want to go bigger my S22 Ultra falls apart compared to any of my cameras. I don’t think you need a super expensive camera to get better shots than a smartphone. I still own my first DSLR, an 8 megapixel Canon Rebel XT, it’s way outdated by all of your metrics but if I take the time to set up my shots and have the right lens it will still produce the goods and outshoot a modern smartphone in many situations. For example if we do wildlife photography, there is no way you can do that will a phone, my OLD rebel XT and a 400mm f5.6 cost less used than the phone and in a 13x19 print I will have trouble telling the difference between that and my R6 or 5DsR, now I wont be able to crop. But to say that a phone can do the same or even better is quite a lot of BS, now if you sold all of your gear and shot only on a smartphone I’d have to eat my words and I’d be able to take you seriously and take this extremely biased video seriously. Try shooting any sporting even with a smartphone, what about the Olympics or a concert, anything paid, go shoot a wedding with a smartphone, when the day is done compare your phone pics to what you would get with even the most basic (rebel XT) with cheap primes, 28 1.8, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 with a cheap flash and off camera slave, all of this gear used would cost less than the latest and greatest iPhone X Ultra Plus Max Pro 13. I am a big fan of your page but bending things this far to prove a point is a bit much. You do have a point though, if you have nothing else a phone can do amazing things, I shoot dng on my phone exclusively and it’s fantastic, it has a real camera but a phone is not a real camera. We should have a shootout, my rebel XT vs any iphone you want, we can set a budget or no L glass, whatever you want, covering all shooting situations and see what can be done with each tool. The XT is a 17 year old camera… I hope you consider my challenge though I doubt you will because you know what the result would be in a fair contest not just selfies and posting everything to Instagram… On my latest outing with our church i was carrying an R6 with a 150-600 tamron and a 5DsR with a 100mmL macro, everyone was telling me the phone can do it all, don't need all that gear, blah blah blah, long story short after everyone got home we all started posting to our group page. After I posted my photos no one said you can do it all with a phone anymore, all 10 of thier latest and gratest phones with a camera were no comparison to my shots.
I can attest to this. One of my projects involved filming a mountaineering expedition up one of the 7 Summits. Though my Sony mirrorless did amazing, there were many moments it was near impossible to use due to safety concerns while climbing. My Iphone, on the other hand, was able to be easily pulled from a pocket to take quick a video without having to faff about with a larger system.
it's sad what you're saying, I don't believe it but it's my opinion.
I personally had to decide whether to upgrade my iPhone 11 and sell my Sony A7iii, or keep my iPhone 11 and upgrade to a Sony A7iv. I went with the iPhone 13 Pro Max, sold my Sony Gear and “downgraded” back to my Canon 6D (Mark I). The “old” 6D takes 20.1 megapixel images, has a full frame sensor, and EF Lenses (although “old” and “being discontinued” serve an amazing purpose in most every type of stills photography most anyone would ever need). The iPhone 13 ProMax has unbelievable video, captures really nice photos, especially at night, automatically syncs photos and videos to the cloud/LR, and is with me most all of the time.
Interestingly, over the past few months-I don’t find myself gawking over the newest interchangeable lens cameras, or anxiously awaiting the new Fuji x6 or Canon R12 or a7viii release dates anymore. There are certain circumstances I’ll take the 6D out but find the iPhone 13 ProMax is good for 100% of my video and 90% of my stills. To me, this was the logical choice.
If you don’t do video 442 10bits, a7iii is still pretty good. I just upgraded a7iv btw. iPhone video is very good except the ghosting
So bottomline, shall we throw away our cameras? should we buy a good iPhone as our next camera instead?
I mean, my floor is a bed too
😂
Hilarious 😂😂
In 2016 I realized that certain smartphone cameras beat large cameras (for example full frame cameras) in many situations, when I used the Google Nexus 5x in its fantastic and revolutionary HDR+ On mode, which has no issues with moving objects. Nonetheless, in the last few years smartphone cameras got worse. The Nexus 5x really just used computational photography and combined up to 8 raw files per photo in order to achieve a longer exposure time without blowing out highlights and without getting a blurry image. This method really gives you more true data. But meanwhile, smartphone cameras (since the Google Pixel 3) are using aggressive machine learning for digital zoom, white balance or noise reduction. The results can often look terrible/artificial at pixel level. In contrast to the computational photography of the Nexus 5x, machine learning does not give you more true data. It rather does the opposite and creates a photo with wrong data. Machine learning uses data from photos that were captured at a different place, at a different time and from different objects whereas mathematical demosaicing only uses true data for the interpolation. Machine learning can produce sharp details, but you don't know whether they actually exist (for example Pixel 3a and iPhone 13 Mini can produce totally wrong details when you zoom) and machine learning makes it hard to identify the wrong details, this makes machine learning digital zoom unusable in my opinion. Demosaicing artifacts like moiré or other traditional artifacts like oversharpening can be identified. I don't want a photo where I can't identify which details are true. Helpful are raw files (though HDR+ raw files can still contain some artificial artifacts) and live photos. Live photos record a short video, which doesn't seem to use machine learning for digital zoom. When I use the Pixel 3a at 7x, the live photo frames can look better than the jpg at pixel level.
The Nokia Lumia camera phones were really good and from a while back and sort of fits your point.
Although I agree with you and smartphones these days also allow for manual settings and you can get some great images from a smartphone and I do use my smartphone to take photos. However, I do not really enjoy the photographic experience. I like the feel of dials and shutter buttons and manual focusing and is one reason I still shoot with film and switched over to the Fujifilm system.
I agree. I too have a few Fujifilm cameras. But it's more than just buttons and dials. It's how the camera feels in you hand, and the ease with which you can frame a shot. In other words - ergonomics. Then there's the process of taking the photo itself. On a phone, it's really an afterthought, despite what you might think from the adverts. You have to hunt around for the camera app, and then compose the shot whilst holding a smooth rectangular object. Then somebody rings you half way through, or you get a notification. I absolutely agree that smart phones are real cameras, and the images can be as good, if not better, than "proper" cameras, but they are not machines dedicated to taking photos. They're not exactly quick draw devices, IYKWIM. However, I could definitely do with a camera with a SIM and a direct connection to the cloud (without the use of a smartphone). Can't understand why nobody has done it. Or have they? Didn't Samsung make such a beast before exiting the camera market, and I think there's someone who makes something like that today, but I forget the name.
Also, smart phones with decent cameras really aren't all that cheap are they? From a quick look, an iPhone 13 Pro will set you back the best part of £1000. You could get a low end DSLR and 3 or 4 lenses for that, particularly if you bought used. The Google Pixel 6 is more competitive at around £600. You would struggle to get a DSLR and a lens for that, but it could be done. My smart phone costs less than £150. It does have a camera, which is adequate, but not the best.
Another thought. Perhaps a bit of a tangent. How long is your phone going to last? Apple won't let you replace the battery these days, and they eventually die, so then you need to buy a new phone. Some people just buy the latest iPhone on principle. Expensive. Cameras can go on for decades. Admittedly, the time a particular model of camera remains on sale appears to be shrinking, and their are people who simply must have the latest camera (Tony?), but at least you have some choice in the matter.
me too, just not the same thing
Smartphones do allow manual shooting. But mostly, that will immediately crapify the image from the smartphone. Rather than get your 2, 6, 8, 9, or 15 stacked images driven by an AI that's analyzing your phone motion, your subject motion, etc., applying additional AI agents to make up color that's lost in low light, etc. you get a single shot on a tiny sensor. A few companies get around that: Google did first with their "computational raw" file format, which includes a whole stack of images even in some manual modes. Apple's got a similar thing, ProRAW, but they don't offer manual modes... ProRAW just gives you the ability to do your own edits, rather than living with the editing AI's "artistic vision".
I totally agree
I agree, i fell uncomfortable when taking photos with smartphone and I'm very confident, even with my little m4/3
I am confused, are you promoting smartphones. When I had a camera I have to take my camera and the equipment. My phone is always with me. Someone once told me the best camera is the one that you have when you need to take pictures. Thank you. May the force be with you 🖖 nonu nonu.
Really great argument for the Smartphone. It's really odd to call any device that makes an image 'not a real camera'. My three cameras are... Kodak Box Brownie No2, iPhone 7+ and a Sony a7r iii, and I consider these and the results they produce to be very real.
I love the Brownie, and still have a Polaroid OneStep.
What would a DSLR with the computational capabilities of a smartphone look like? also, isn't a smartphone really 2-4 independent cameras with independent sensors and lenses?
Congratulations, you're absolutely right. I have been a professional photographer since 1988 and in 2001 I was one of the first in Portugal to photograph digital weddings with the Nikon D100. They called me crazy and the laboratories didn't like the idea at all. I've been filming and photographing with an iPhone 13 Pro Max for a month... I know they'll call me crazy again and it's even harder to try to convince customers... But it's the future! Thank you again. Hugs from Lisbon 👌🤗
I would send anyone home if they turned up to shoot my wedding with a phone.
Do they pay you for shooting wedding on a smartphones?
If the cellphone hadn't existed, the market would belong to the now suffering well known camera makers. But it does exist and the general consumer picture market does too. It's also taking part of the professional market as well. Because it is generating self employment of new kinds that never existed before. And very much needed because of the pandemic.
When I was young I liked photography as a hobby. I bought a camera. Perfect for me. I liked it very much. I remember carrying it around so I didn't miss a photo opportunity. It was cumbersome. With three lenses it was worse.
Now it is all contained in a slim wafer. Tremendous.
But they can't do everything. Like selective focus and metering on a distant object in the middle of a busy street. So I missed the picture anyway because the cell phone couldn't take it and I didn't have my DSLR with me.
My daughter shares my hobby and she's really talented. So when we can we go out to take pictures, but we gear up, because using the cellphone just doesn't feel the same. If you were to go on a fantasy trip, wouldn't you take the big camera?
I agree that smart phone cameras are legitimate cameras. I have gotten some amazing shots off my phones before. One thing that this video didn't mention was how the color rendering in smart phone photos can differ drastically than reality and from other smart phones. Each manufacturer has their own algorithms on how to process the photos so we can get wildly different results. But for regular cameras shooting the same scene, the colors in the photos from cameras of different manufacturers will all come out practically identical. With the pace of innovation in smart phone photography, I think the color issue will be greatly improved soon.
For the people who don't agree, I think one factor might be that their perception of what a real camera should be is locked in how regular cameras operate. It's amazing how incredibly homogenous all the regular camera makers behave - none have implemented any of the useful features Tony talked about (such as computational photography, cloud back up, security, etc). It's also astounding how little out-of-the box thinking and innovation there really is in the regular camera industry. It might have something to do with most of these companies being Japanese and perhaps share some sort of similar business mindset. I think if the camera manufacturers started adopting features from smart phone cameras, more people would see smart phones as legit cameras.
It was especially evident with the R3 vs Pixel 6 Pro comparison of the night sky. Funny how Tony made no mention of it while declaring that the Pixel 6's image looked better.
I don't think colour accuracy will improve in near future or atleast brands will put any efforts in it. IMO ,There is a fundamental limitations with today's smartphones i.e. quadbayer sensor. Which neither could get true colour information nor perform better in low light conditions than similar size traditional bayer sensors.
@@yash_kambli The smartphone AIs don't really care at all about color accuracy. They're trying to make something that "looks good on Instagram." Both Google's Night Sight and Apple's Night mode use large stacks of images, exposures all controlled by an AI agent, along with another AI agent that essentially "invents" color. Stack enough images from those tiny sensors in low light, along with selective filtering/noise reduction, and you can get a decent image. But the color is going to look like hell if you have ISO high enough, even with image stabilization, to deliver a good shot. So there's the color enhancement AI for that. I don't know exactly what Google does (though most of their stuff is nicely detailed on the Google AI Blog), but Apple takes an extra longer exposure just for color. They don't use the image itself, because it'll almost certainly be shaky, but they use it as the basis for the AI's recoloring of the normal 8 shot stack (maybe more by now, but it was 8 shots when first introduced). The goal is pleasing color, not accurate color, which is part of why so many smartphone shots in low light look just a bit unreal.
But, Tony, you’re dealing with human tribalism. We are worth what we can sell. Smartphones lower the ‘cost’ of entry in so many ways that they are a threat to those that have spent endless hours and dollars to be a part of the tribe. The tribe, or club, limits access by requiring knowledge, expertise and capital to be a member. This makes their skills and output worth more. We are not going to happily give up what was so laboriously worked for to attain. This behavior by a species on a planet of limited resources touch’s EVERY ASPECT of the human existence. Great video. I have an iPhone 13 Pro, and a R5. They are both very real.
Great analysis.
Kudos for a great argument. It's amazing that cameras today have still not adopted an OS that will allow workflow like a smartphone. I shot for years with my Pixel 2XL and loved the images. BTW, I'm still using that phone. I now have a Fuji X-T3 and one of the things that drives me crazy about it has nothing to do with the camera itself, it's the app. One thing that frustrates me sometimes is that I feel like I did a better job with composition when I used my phone camera. Sometimes I find it hard to see my LCD display on the X-T3 compared to the phone display. Anyway, thanks again for making a great point. Have a great holiday weekend!!
Well, it is a bigger, better, brighter screen for sure...
One of the Reasons I bought a canon RP IS it’s ability to file share with my smartphone. I have no problem shifting back and fourth between my camera and smartphone. Both are powerful tools, they have their strength and weaknesses. Surgeons use scalpels and saws, but for different needs
I remember reading a book about history of photography, around 1930 ish when Leitz 35mm camera started, it wasn't viewed as professional camera as back then the middle format camera were common and 35mm as too small.
Jump into the 90's the so called not professional 35mm camera were already taken as professional gear.
History has repeated itself, smartphone camera is viewed in the same manner as Leitz camera back then to see the Leitz would become a luxurious camera brand now.
Thank you for your inclusiveness towards smartphone photographers 👏👏👏
Form own self observation, Phone Camera honestly capture a lot more moments than DSLR/Mirrorless. I would normally use my phone camera to capture most of the shots while my camera is tucked away in my backpack till I reach my destination for the actual shoot.
I feel the limitations of smartphone comes when you need what's beyond it can do, like Tony pointed out wildlife photography, you can't have a 600mm lens inside a phone. (Yet I suppose). Especially the Ultra Wide Angle Lens or Telephoto Lens always seems to perform poorer in lower light - Which I often find myself using Ultra Wide.
I hope smartphones would get better in lowlight video too, I often find myself in lowlight situations where cranking the ISO is the only option when my aperture is at f/2.8 so the Sony a7Siii still serves its purpose well. Other than that, I normally use a phone.
(I know a lot of people that isn't a "camera geek" per se, doesn't understand you can't long exposure a video and questions why would you pour money on a camera)
What is a “real” camera, to start? How do you define it? What are the capabilities of a “real” camera?
In the broadest sense, of course a smart phone is a real camera. It takes photos. It takes videos. And generally speaking you always have it with you, and any camera is better than no camera.
But I think some of the examples here are awfully contrived and cherry-picked. The telephoto shot, for one. Literally no other smartphone could get those results (cough, iPhone). And sticking a kit lens on your mirrorless camera for the comparison? C’mon.
Ultimately cameras are tools. And you want to use the best tool for the job. In some scenarios that is going to be a smartphone.. but in others, conventional cameras have distinct advantages.
i think you need to re-watch the video, couple of stuffs you missed there. p.s. not saying phone cams better than dslr/mirrorless or vice versa
i think a real camera is just beeing a camera and nothing else. This is a phone that can take photos and videos
smartphones aren’t cameras they are super computers that are pocket sized, have technology to make calls and have cameras on the back
ya i am also thinking that only but i think most of the people dont realise the power of Smartphones
R5, A1, Z9 aren't cameras either, the sensor reads the light then the processor uses an algorithm to save the image on your card. So by the time you see the image it has already been processed even if you shoot raw. Same old debate between film and digital, once its digital those algorithm kick in. These days hardly anyone prints so most images are for the web and phones are everywhere for their connivence, if I'm with my family I use them phone everything else I bust out a digital camera and the trinity of lenses.
Great video. I find people who gate-keep about topics like this seem to think that if other people can do what they do, that they somehow feel less ‘special’. It’s the same thing they said when the point and shoot cand 35mm film came out and made photography more accessible. It just means that the standard of ‘good’ photography got higher - a good exposure that has no (unintentional) motion blur doesn’t cut it anymore. Mood, composition and lighting are still what matters, and you can’t buy those in a camera (yet). I’m just happy that with smartphones, a lot more people understand and share my love for photography now :)
Thank you thank you. U r so correct!!! I have a gate keeper friend who is always asking why am I no longer using my Nikon or Sony cameras. I use my iPhone 12 Pro Max for most of my work now to hear your comments from someone like yourself with so much experience and knowledge in the photo industry is so refreshing
Good joke, The phone is nowhere close to a real photographer using the real camera. The examples are artificial, you found a scenario where a postprocessing algorithm knows how to handle the situation, but what if the algorithm doesn't know what to do. In this case you wrecked your pictures. Relying on artificial intelligence is a big mistake. I just took a couple of shots in my bedroom with iPhone 12 and X100V side by side in low light scenario. iPhone is completely destroyed by Fuji X100V.
I am a blind content creator and photographer. I wanted a camera… but then I slowly started to realise that my iPhone actually describes me via the screen reader what it sees. And I was… I am going to buy gimbal, lenses and filters for my iPhone and no camera camera.
My Pixel 6 Pro takes amazing photos. I just got into mirrorless photography/videography, recently purchased a Lumix S5. Honestly, the menu system is so complicated and the autofocus is pretty disappointing most of the time. It's a great camera but such a time-suck. Google and Apple, if you're reading this, I so wish that you would partner up with Panasonic, Sony, Canon, Nikon, et al. and produce a system with the brain of modern smartphones. I guess it would be considered a niche market but OMG, can you imagine how amazing the results would be with a large sensor and array of pro-level lenses? I think it would be worth doing when you consider the millions of creators potentially using your system!
Good point. I am bidding on a used S5 now but this video is making me think twice. I had no idea you could use an iphone as a WebCam or to Live Stream. Good luck with the autofocus on the S5! I must say though, the image quality on that camera does look amazing, especially when paired with lense such as the Lumix 35mm 1.4. (In the right hands of course!).
No way. Keep the manufacturer's functionality and controls as they are, thank you! Just add the smartphone's computational photography tricks and much more advanced processors to the already vastly superior sensors of existing cameras.
Yes smartphones these days are quickly becoming real cameras and replacing entry level to midrange cameras on the market (as much as i dont want to admit). HOWEVER like Tony mentioned briefly in the video there are situations (and not just super specific ones) where smartphones continue to (for quite some time in near future) lag behind or cannot simply catchup with real cameras.
1- The experience of taking/processing/even editing photos with phones may be simply and quick BUT if you are at least a hobbyist shooter then i promise you the tactile feel and overall shooting experience with a real camera is simply irreplaceable in every conceivable way in spite of the complex menu system and buttons etc.
2- ATM phones are ABSOLUTELY abysmal at these types of photography- sports, wildlife, most portraits, events (weddings, birthdays, concerts, formal functions etc). And lets be honest most pro shooters fall under in these categories anyway
3- Unlike a real camera (semipro or above), a smartphone can and often will run out of battery faster whilst potentially causing serious heating problems (personal experience). A real pro level ish type camera is designed to last at least an entire day without causing any heating or battery issues.
4- part a: if you want to use a smartphone as a pro shooting tool, and then you almost certainly need a backup phone to make calls, sms, etc because thats your money making tool which is occupied when shooting. Part B: phones in the video lets not forget are the flagship devices which costs over $1000 (at least in AUS), out of reach for many people meaning much like real cameras, you have to spend big money to get that pro level experience,.....but then again i guess if you are a pro you will make that investment so..................
Aaaaaaand I'm sure there are more but hopefully y'all get the gist
I do wholeheartedly agree that pro cameras needs to have anti-theft technology, simplified menu systems, easier workflow when it comes to editing and publishing, etc but i will not be switching to fulltime smartphone photography until it is possible to insert a phone inside a DSLR type rig or frame, thereby replicating that pro shooting experience.
PEACE...
Smartphones are real cameras, though they are point and shoot cameras, where for many people, that is good enough, especially for basic stuff like taking images of where you parked and the cars beside you in case they decide to dent your car in the parking lot. The primary issue is the reliance on computational photography will often sacrifice inter-tonal detail (which is why you often notice an almost painterly look on fine details when you zoom in 1:1 on a smartphone camera image.
Even if you capture a raw file, the native dynamic range (very small) and base noise level at the lowest ISO, is often very high, thus they end up using heavy handed noise reduction.
This all doesn't mean it is not a real camera, it just means there are limitations to the technology that the user needs to work around.
A smartphone is as much as a real camera as it is a real watch. If you pull up to a watch convention with a smartphone and show it off as your watch, it's not going to go well. People are just going to think you're joking. Sure you can argue that a smartphone tells time better than any "real" watch, and it can do everything that a "real" watch can do. However, no one is going to say that your iphone is a "real" watch.
@@RiseUpToYourAbility equally if you pull up to a watch convention with an apple watch youre going to be laughed at, but the apple watch is more technologically advanced than any watch, just as a smartphone is more technologically advanced than any "real camera". but people who go to watch convention want classic watches, just as "real camera" nerds want big bulky chungus they can hang on their neck. both are stuck in their old ways.
btw i know theres "real cameras" that do 8k 60 and 4k 120 etc that phones cant do. im comparing the phone to its price market.
They are real cameras. And phone manufactures are working hard to overcome their limitations.
They really need to add a feature that some laptops already have: battery bypass. Even if your phone is plugged in, it has to charge the battery from the incoming power and then use the battery to run the phone. If they had a bypass mode, then you could have external batteries or have it plugged in for fixed filming without shortening the life of the phone. (Since phone batteries are basically not replaceable anymore.)
The lack of that feature means it sometimes isn't cost effective to use a phone as the main production camera in situations where it otherwise would be perfectly usable.
That said, a lot of the "lack of difference" in a TH-cam video is a side effect of how most photography and video are shared. The compression on sites like Instagram and TH-cam is horrible. That often obliterates whatever advantage a traditional lens setup had and shifts the court strongly in favor of computational photography that can intelligently process the photo or video in ways that will survive whatever nonsense websites will do to it.
Hey! A redditor recommended your video to me, and I thoroughly enjoyed watching and hearing your thoughts. While I agree that smartphones are absolutely "real cameras," I do take several issues with your comparisons (sorry, I got carried away writing this... it's long).
One thing that bothered my throughout is the mismatched settings between comparison photos. I would've liked to see what each camera looked like with identical settings. I assume you chose to leave them on auto and let the camera decide? I also assume you didn't do any post-processing to the photos? Ideally, I think you should've used prime lenses for the traditional cameras, especially for the low light comparisons. The Galaxy S22 Ultra, iPhone 13 Pro Max, and Pixel 6 Pro all use prime lenses, whereas you used zoom lenses on your Sony a6400 and Canon EOS R3. I would have preferred a prime-to-prime comparison because smartphone prime lenses have the benefit of being fast, whereas zoom lenses have smaller maximum apertures. Zoom lenses handicap the traditional cameras out of the gate, and boost the cost, which results in misleading comparisons - the traditional camera looks more expensive and performs worse, but we skirt around the fact that we chose to use a more expensive lens that performs worse in low light, which gives a false impression about traditional camera performance.
The first comparison looks like it's comparing an Auto-HDR to a single exposure. Auto-HDR used to be an optional setting for the Galaxy S-series cameras, but since an April 2022 update, the S22 series permanently enabled Auto-HDR. The Sony a6400 is also able to take HDR images, but it doesn't look like you used that option. If I'm right, this is an apples to oranges comparison. Perhaps it's to demonstrate the ease of use with an S22 Ultra (it automatically selects HDR for you!), but it seems odd to emphasize how well an HDR image handles highlights and shadows while intentionally comparing to a non-HDR image. If I'm right about you not having done any post processing, that's also a dishonest comparison, as a raw photo from a Sony a6400 would have far more recoverable highlight/shadow detail than the HDR jpeg the S22 saved. Even clicking the "auto" adjustments button in Lightroom would probably recover the same highlights/shadows in the Sony picture.
The second comparison is probably one of the least honest, in my opinion. You compare a 50mm APS-C lens to a 27mm 1/3.52" lens. To compare apples to apples, convert both to their 35mm equivalent, and the difference is staggering: 75mm vs 230mm. Of course the 230mm lens will win a telephoto contest!
The third and fourth photos are pretty good showings for the smartphone, though again, I'm bugged that the Sony a6400 is inexplicably set to faster shutter speeds, despite the smaller aperture. That said, the iPhone's larger aperture and computational photography definitely shines here, and despite the results being muddy and clearly enhanced (looks like an AI up-res), the software does a good job smoothing out the grainy details. It is weird to hear you praising the fast prime lens on the iPhone when the a6400 had the faster shutter (I know "fast" refers to the size of the aperture, and the iPhone's is larger, but the point of the larger aperture is to let in more light and allow for a faster shutter speed. Here, the "faster" lens set a slower shutter while the "slower" lens set a faster shutter and boosted ISO to compensate).
The sky looks better in the fifth due to the iPhone's smoothing, but the smoothing makes everything else look muddy and awful. The EOS R3 setup may cost $8k (would've cost less if you'd used a prime!), but it blows the iPhone out of the water here. Also worth remembering that just like the Galaxy S22 series, iPhone cameras automatically take HDR images, so we're comparing an HDR image to a single exposure EOS R3 image - I'd be very interested to see what the EOS R3 raw image looks like once it's had some basic adjustments made. Forgive me saying so, but your comment "the R3 does have a little bit more detail. It's close" is a massive understatement ending in a complete lie. The EOS R3 image is crisp and clear, while the iPhone is muddy and smeared. It's not close, they're not even in the same league. Same story with the sixth comparison. The iPhone look muddy and blurred, while the EOS R3 is remarkably crisp. Of course, I would expect the EOS R3 to deliver, given its price.
The seventh is another comparison that is just laughably bad (though you may have done this on purpose to demonstrate the stabilization of the iPhone). Your comment, "Here's the best shots I could get handheld with a real $1k camera kit ... the conventional camera couldn't stabilize such a long shot" is completely misleading and bogus, because what you didn't reveal is that the Sony a6400 doesn't have image stabilization in the first place! Of course it was going to fail. If you're comparing stabilization, an honest comparison would have at least put the iPhone up against a traditional camera that has image stabilization. That said, I expect the iPhone would've still been better, since smartphone stabilization is fantastic.
The eighth is one of the better comparisons, though again you leave out a deceptive detail. First, the good. The Pixel 6 Pro does a great job capturing the light of the stars, as well as the blue color of the sky. It doesn't capture the light coming off the bushes/trees as well, so I'm a little suspicious of how much of that blue sky is computational, but it does produce a pretty picture. Now for the deception. You complained about the star trails in the EOS R3 image, but you didn't mention that the exposure is twice as long as the Pixel 6 Pro's (30 sec vs 16 sec). The Pixel 6 definitely has the same streaking going on (despite your claim that the pixel "eliminates" them), and the streaks are about half the length as on the EOS R3. Long story short, both cameras are smearing, and the camera that had its shutter open twice as long recorded streaks twice as long (these streaks happen because the earth is rotating, and the stars have moved across the sky just a little bit during the time the shutter was open, causing the smear). That said, it is again impressive that the Pixel 6 captured as much light as it did in half the time.
With his ninth comparison, I would've preferred if you'd simply matched the 16" exposure time as best as you could so you could've set a reasonable ISO (obviously no on expects a clean image at ISO 25600, even on a $6k camera that is inexplicably using a zoom lens instead of a prime lens for night photography). The comparison also unintentionally shows how streaky the stars in the Pixel 6 Pro truly are when compared to the sharp stars in the 1 sec EOS R3 image.
All that said, I think you're absolutely right that smartphones are real cameras, and if you made it this far, thanks for reading!
How is it possible for smartphone manufacturers to evolve faster than Canon, Sony and so on? Well, the iPhone 12 sold 100 million units and the total yearly sale of mirrorless and DSLR cameras are around 7 million. This is an insane difference. The more units you sell, the more economy for perfecting the product. More units is everything.
Very good, though-provoking video. It's all about the right tool for the job. I'll extend Tony's chef analogy by saying that while some store-bought frozen dinners taste great I still feel the need for enjoying a meal prepared by a professional who crafted everything with passion, experience, and education. Smart phones produce wonderful pictures with increasing frequency. They are all-in-one cameras combining capturing, processing, backups, and distribution. They are quick, easy, and always available. The software compensates pretty well for the clearly still inferior hardware, and such automation takes away at least some creative control from the user. When you take a photo with a phone the device is deciding so much for you, and its decision-making process was determined by a team of programmers. Who really created the picture? All that's left is composition and there probably is an app for that, too. While automation happens with DSLR/mirrorless cameras to a certain extent (even when shooting in manual mode), those of us who took the time to hone our skills can really produce something special. Who do you credit for the frozen dinner you ate if you loved it? There is a lot to be said for automation, especially when you don't have time or patience, but I'm one who still spends hours to produce a single image (including post-processing). No AI knows what I envisioned in my mind when I decided to open the shutter. I do foresee the day when photographers (and chefs) are obsolete, just like MP3 audio traded the superior sound of CDs for all the other things physical media couldn't do. The vast majority of people will choose convenience over quality and find that acceptable, especially when the images they get are "good enough." How about comparing the absolute BEST images from top photographers using dedicated cameras and all-in-one smart phones (both with full automation and with as little assistance possible)? In many cases it will be close but I bet overall when speed isn't a consideration the traditional cameras will still shine.
Just to be clear, I consider smart phones to be cameras. However, their operators are typically called "users" and, as good as the phones have become, "photographers" are not done-for quite yet.
This was my first-ever comment after watching TH-cam videos for years. You stirred me, Tony.
"How about comparing the absolute BEST images from top photographers using dedicated cameras and all-in-one smart phones"
I think you'll find that the best images out there taken with smart phones are really, really good. :)
Agreed. I'm curious to know how the best smart phones compare against dedicated cameras. Are they better than the best? Equal? Somewhere in the middle of the range? Smart phones, as I understand it, usually have fixed apertures, tiny lenses, and image sensors the size of a fingernail. It seems they depend on manipulating the pixels in order to achieve what the human eye considers excellence. So many photographers say to get it right in camera (though I think that art should never be bound by rules). I enjoy using Photoshop to bring the image closer to my mind's vision. Smart phones are almost never doing the equivalent of getting it right in camera since they are doing their own version of Photoshop on their shots. It might not seem this way to the user but it's happening (as it also does to some extent on the JPG files in a DSLR/mirrorless camera). So many smart phones default to HDR, which would mean they are often making a composite of multiple images. I love this when I'm in need of a quick selfie in horrible light to flaunt what I'm doing on vacation but you cannot compare what comes out of a DSLR or mirrorless directly against the processed output of a phone. That's like having a competition where one photographer can use Photoshop and the other cannot. To reiterate what I said initially (above), let's have a demonstration with skilled photographers using a dedicated camera and allow them to process their images. The phones obviously win on speed due to their automation and all-in-one nature, but let's compare the best skill, software, and available pro hardware against the top-end mobile devices. Make it a fair fight and compare apples to apples. My bet is that the pros still come out on top, at least for now.
Tony, can you round up some fellow TH-cam stars and make this happen? 😁
Now imagine how good "real" cameras would be if they featured smart technology, a full-frame sensor with good glass, coupled with computational photography, internet connectivity, instant sharing, and backing up to the cloud. The bottom line is a good photographer will get good photos no matter what they use, a $7,000 camera, and a $3,000 lens doesn't magically make you a good photographer.
Been riding motorcycles for 40yrs.On a track skilled rider on 500cc bike can overtake average rider on 1000cc bike.Its not about the gear.
@@rubo1964 can you do it on 100cc bike? Can you do it with 500cc against another pro? Gear does matter.
I haven't been doing much photography or video shoots in the last two years, and couple of weeks ago was hired to do a trade show. The lighting was very dark with bright led lamps everywhere... this is not unusual, a tripod helps, lowest aperture possible, correcting on the computer later etc so I was getting decent photos but my camera could only film HD video and not even in raw... so I actually felt a little bit embarrassed that the people who hired me had expensive smart phones and their videos (and often photos) ended up much better than mine in low light... they said my photos were beautiful however, my videos were unusable. It made me wonder okay so now what... should I just throw out my DSLR and get a top model iPhone? Would it actually make more sense for me to show up with a smart phone to shoot with now??? Note I have a 1st gen iPhone SE and it can shoot 4K but I was too embarrassed to bring that out, hey that phone has been good enough for me 😂 I never took smartphones seriously because I assumed they didn't shoot in raw high resolution that would be good enough for print, and the video zooming was horrendous... but it's gotten so much better it's making me rethink what to upgrade to.
IF you feel that way go into a dark wedding venue with your iphone
lol okay? it works fine
Indoor sports and wildlife are the things smartphones suck at right now ... too bad these are the two main things I shoot ^^
Good video Tony ! :)
The problem with smartphones is that everyone thinks they're a photographer when they're holding one. I just got into photography myself, mostly because when I search for a portrait photographer to take family pictures with my kids, I find a bunch of people with a smartphone taking pictures that I could take myself with no experience. My solution was to educate myself in photography and learn how to take better pictures.
I'm a wildlife shooter and using a smartphone for wildlife photography is simply useless.
Smartphones are just point - shoot cameras with more features for amateurs who don't have any photo editing skills. I would say that smartphones are real cameras from a technological standpoint since all digital cameras work the same, but that's just not gonna cut it for me.
Another point, comparing a smartphone camera to a professional camera (iPhone 13 Pro max / pixel 6 to canon r3) is basically cheating because smartphone cameras have features like computational photography and other smarts that help the final image. Most professional cameras out there don't have such things they just rely on the exposure triangle. I suggest you should compare a Panasonic GH6 to a smartphone or taking RAW images with the same settings on both and comparing them without editing. That would be fair
Awesome video. And thanks for putting it up. I have shared this video with quite a few of my friends and some of them have come up with excuses why there smart phones are not as good, then I relise they have commented without looking at the video. Some people will never have an open mind.. Seven years ago I made the statement that one day smart phones would catchup. And people laughed at me. I am 70 and think technology is awesome. And to learn new skills is great. I find smart phones are a great tool and I for one will be using them more when I can learn to use them for my style of photography. There is so much info to do this on the web. Thanks again your videos are great.
"The best camera is the one you have with you". It's safe to say we are never without our phones. My iPhone 13Pro shoots amazing photos and I use it 90% of the time as a casual photographer. Does it have limits, yes of course, but so does everything. For me, what I find is the compromise with a phone camera is that it's a fixed aperture (think always bein in aperture priority mode) and fixed focal length and zooming is accomplished via selecting from one of three prime lenses and then cropping. The one true gripe I have with using a phone is tactile. I find a traditional camera just easier to hold. It has a grip, a shutter button and knobs and dials, I'm not holding it 2 feet out in front of me and trying to use a touchscreen, that at times can be a challenge to see (bright sunlight) and use gestures for any adjustments.
"The best camera is the one you have with you" is a lazy myth.
@5:23 as an example Canon EOS R3 is 30 sec.The smart phone is 16 sec.Which one has more time to record universe movement.???Thats why Canon has elongated stars than smart phone .The playing field is not even here in your comparisons
"look at these smartphone photos!.... on.... your smartphone screen"
show me the prints
:)
Great! I will save the money for gears But, no. 'Coz, for some poeple, cameras are toys, and much more fun to play with than smart phones!
Sad to imagine you felt this necessary. Any camera is a real camera. Respect for others, what they do and how they do it is always a good idea.
Look at the poll again at the beginning. A majority of those people said that a smartphone is NOT a real camera. He is addressing their ignorance.