Smartphones are REAL cameras! FIGHT ME!!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 มิ.ย. 2024
- Go to squarespace.com/Chelsea & save 10% off your first website or domain with code “Chelsea"
"Smartphones aren't real cameras" - I hear it ALL THE TIME. People get mad just because I review them. Photographers CONSTANTLY insist smartphones can't match the i mage quality of "real cameras", especially in low light.
It's nonsense, and I know that because I actually test smartphones like real cameras, side-by-side with traditional cameras. In this video, I'll compare smartphones to "real cameras" and show you real examples and tell you why you need to respect smartphone photographers. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
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.....
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
I hate how what is actually in the picture is just guesswork half the time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I mean, my floor is a bed too
😂
Hilarious 😂😂
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.
Same gear here except for the P1000. This Covid Era finds me re-editing images in Lightroom, Photoshop, Luminar and Topaz (testing that currently). Amazing how images from my current and prior phones and even less advanced cameras can be batch processed after which it's hard to know what was shot with what. The s21Ultra is by far the best for everyday macro to telephoto in any light. I wish I could fit it into a DSLR body for use in cold winter conditions. Hard to use with mitts on. D7200 shines for that.
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 💯‼️😉
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.
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.
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.
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 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!
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.
You're comparing a 1 sec exposure at 25600 iso to a 16 sec exposure at 358 iso?! You're gonna act like that's the best you could do with an R3???
Seriously, it's a joke. He went from a 30 second exposure to a 1 second exposure to get rid of star trails? Why not a 5 or 10 second exposure?
@@TechnoBabble Coz probably he has no clue
Great video! I agree with you, but what about prints? With such small sensors, files, and resolutions, aren’t the smartphones limited in the size prints they can make? Can 12 MP truly compete with 20+ MP for the making of large prints?
I mostly agree. Only question is, are we able to print the pics taken from cell phones? Or are they only better for purposes of electronic media?
You really convinced me Tony... I Though I still want to have my coveted x30 to capture the everyday moments of my kids as my phones tends to have this have some motion blur on taking my kids coz they're always on the move.
Also I wished you did tinker with the phones settings when you compared the cameras if the Google pixel, s22 ultra and iPhone 13 pro. As there are features to for taking good pictures from them like turning of the scene detection from the s22 ultra and the turning in the face retouch of the Google pixel when taking portrait mode as to significantly improve the face of the subject.
Anyways you really did a good job for this video. Keep it up 💪🏼
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.
This is an amazing video that is well timed for camera fanatics. I am a member of two photo clubs and shared the video with both. Next month our speaker is doing a presentation on iPhone photography and how to capture great images. This is a great tease to generate interest in the meeting. Today's cell phones produce super photos and no one can deny that they are real cameras, especially when you consider the fact that the best camera you can have is the camera that is in your pocket when the ideal photo opportunity presents itself. Thanks Tony!
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?
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...
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 👏👏👏
Well... I have the Samsung s22 ultra and I feel like the canon 80d I just got seems inferior because its older... Do I need to keep my 80d or just use the Samsung in pro mode primarily?
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
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.
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.
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
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)
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.
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 :)
Going on a year and a half since I finally made the jump.
Considered replacing my work mirrorless with a phone back when the Samsung S4 Zoom launched. Found it insufficient. But after trying a Huawei P30 Pro two years ago, I decided that my next camera would be a phone.
As my work camera started showing signs of age, I got a Huawei Mate 40 Pro through my carrier last year for just $600. I've got RAW images that are slightly cleaner than my old Panasonic and over twice the resolution, 50 megapixel stacked high res jpegs from the main camera that are nearly DSLR crisp and clean enough to crop in 2x for advertising work, 5x telephoto shots that are slightly muddy but clean enough for web work after cleaning, and automatic mode snaps that are more vibrant than from my mirrorless and often good enough for web-work, also.
Spend another $20 for a Lightroom Mobile subscription, and a piffle for Bimostitch Pro and I've got a unit that I can shoot on, edit on, and export straight to my clients within half a day. It's not top tier output, but it's fast and more than good enough for web publishing.
In-phone panorama modes are getting pretty powerful, too. But beyond that, phone processors are powerful enough now that video-editing, smoothing, stabilization and panorama-stitching apps on phones rival some of the best desktop apps. I've published 50-100 megapixel panorama stitches out of the phone's telephoto camera with third-party apps with minimal stitch correction in Adobe after the fact. Stuff that I used to do a mirrorless, a tripod and a lot of manual stitching work on desktop.
I still have issues with the output sometimes, but that's because I'm a pixel-peeper. A few jobs ago, I brought out my mirrorless camera and shot material on both that and the phone. I was aghast at how bad the color science on the camera was, at how rough the RAW output was compared to the phone RAWs, and how poorly it handled bad lighting in comparison. The camera still had advantages in resolving power in bright light and shallow depth of field, but in less-than-ideal conditions, the phone was superior.
Smartphone photography is progressing so fast that I'm reasonably sure that by the time I'm up for re-contracting with my carrier next year, the Mate 40's replacement will have even better RAW output and optics. Hell, some phones are scheduled to get RGBW sensors, which are a step above the RYYB in my phone. Can't wait to see what's available them.
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.
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.
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
@@kylemarsun 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.
@@kylemarsun 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.
In 2005 Sony Ericsson comissioned Robert Clark to travel North America with its S710a camera phone taking photograps of people and places. Clark made 2500 images. The S710a had 1,3 mp.
Hello Tony, I have a drone question, Is the micro 4/3 camera on the Mavic 3 really a step above the Sony 1" sensor used on the other drones, I looking for the drone that will give me the best detail in photos, don't really care about anything else...
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
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...
Thanks, I needed to see this. Have been taking note of advancements in cell phone cameras but thought, camera rigs have glass lenses, so it must be better. However as you say, results speak for themselves. I am convinced.
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
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.
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!
Nicely done. Well reasoned and passionately presented. I think this is one of your best, Mr. T.
Smartphones remove a barrier of entry, that's what I think the real problem photographers have with it. People whom practiced photographers see as "lesser than" competing with them on the same field.
High end digital camera or smart phone what really matters is the photographer’s skill.
@@raytreat6599 It doesn't remove the barrier of entry. I have yet to see one photo taken on an iPhone 12 or 13 by a non-photographer, that actually looked good.
@@creativevisiongaming I'm sure your first photos before becoming a photographer were as good as the ones you tale now.
@@KoalaMeatPie No, not even close. But still better than iPhone photos
@@KoalaMeatPie The more "practice" you need to take good photos the lower your talent level is sorry. You think Hendrix took years to learn to master the guitar?
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
You can shoot HDR on mirrorless too. You also can control what your shooting.
My iPhone 12 Pro Max is the first smartphone that is used as a working photo tool I use for bodybuilding events to quickly load useable photos to Instagram and Facebook. The photos were so good that competitors regularly copy the photos off Instagram and posted them on their own accounts. Also live streaming is very simple and quick.
However it’s not hard to find it’s limit. It’s not too good with a combination of action and low light scene. And if I am at an event where I can’t get access to the front of the stage then I need my Canon G3X travel camera with a long zoom lens. It is also frustrating that the live streaming on Instagram, Facebook and TH-cam apps won’t allow you to use the native camera controls like brightness adjustment or lens selection.
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
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.
amen! but how about printing? How big can I go? A2, A1? Can you show a print of a picture made by your mobile?
What is your opinion on using a dedicated 3rd party app instead of the stock one?
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.
"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.
Funny story this week actually bought an Elan 2e from National Camera exchange in minnesota. But I can't figure out for the life of me why it's super fast to focus but when I press the button all the way down it takes forever to take a photo and it doesn't matter what light I'm in. Doesn't matter if I'm in program or auto. I haven't really used your manually yet to figure out all the rest of the settings before I go full manual.
The what about cameras like sony rx100 mark 8? Should we use those or our phone?
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.
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 have never been out and about with my dslr and ended up saying man I really wish I had my smartphone camera right now, many times thou have cursed not having the dslr while only having my iPhone in hand.
This 100%
What is the censor size in a smartphone, can it be compared to the size of an Olympus Micro 4/3? would you say the trend is going towards a censor size of a point and shoot? or maybe even a "APS-c" like Sigma did many years ago
Great video Tony! The best smart phones today are definitely cameras. Personally I have a love/hate relationship with smartphones and the psychological impact that they have (along with resulting instant gratification) on society. I just can’t get inspired by my smartphone, since most of the time I feel what I do on it makes me “dumber” lol. So I choose to keep my phone in the bag while on a shoot or photo walk, to silence the temptation and distraction and focus only on the goal at hand. But it doesn’t make it not a real camera! Just one I have grown to mostly hate 😂
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.
very convincing demonstration on photo but what about video ? it is now part of pro photographer job also, does bulky ILC large sensor camera still have the upper hand in image quality for video and sound recording (cannot do multiple frame merging or heavy computational photography brcause it has to do it in1/24th sec )?
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.
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? 😁
Actually, I've been very impressed by smartphone images and, especially, video for several years.
My phone is still very low end though and my real interest is wildlife. Until smartphones can emulate the reach of 800mm on a full frame MILC, I'll be needing something more than even the highest end smartphone.
But I appreciate how far these phone cams have come.
Cheers Tony! This is Sean in Atlanta. I have to agree with you that the pictures I take with my iPhone 13 pro max are absolutely stunning images! I just never think about using my smart phone when I’m out on my daily photo walks… I am going to purposely put this thought in the front of my mind when I go out again with one of my cameras and I am going to take the same picture with my camera and then my phone and compare them. It certainly is a lot easier carrying my smart phone around than my camera bag and my thousands of dollars of camera gear!
Excellent video, as usual! Thank you so much for this great topic!
Sean
This was super informative! Thanks Tony!!
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.
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.
Digital Phone cams are awesome for small screens but there's still too much software correction to make the images look good.
well i use both, as you can carry a smartphone anywhere with out anybody noticing , only two issue on a smart phone is shutter lag and when a phone gets wet, touch display has issues.
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!
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 ! :)
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 !
Shhh! Keep a lid on it Tony! If my clients find out they can can snap away with their smart phone and achieve the same quality images I can with my DSLR, I’m out of the job!
@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
maybe, just maybe the image quility can match a real camera rig, but could never get real Bokeh, or have high framerates and as good video quility...
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?
Wonderful video! The smartphone that convinced me was the iPhone 7 because it had a viewable screen in bright sunlight. The Samsung Galaxy S3 had a great camera but you could hardly see the screen on a sunny day.
What an impressive contribution. Brave and well presented. I guess you could argue that learning to master the smartphone camera is a skill in itself. Thank you for blowing away the snobbery! By the way - lens size is a nonsense debate too. Take a look at the pupil on your own eyes - that's small, right? And in most scenario's better than an average camera! Thank you Tony.
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
Good arguments. Standard app or special photo app or direct into lightroom mobile?
I appreciate this video. As a content creator I am often intimidated bringing my traditional camera outside to Vlog but not my phone. Which is why I am thinking of upgrading my phone camera and selling my mirrorless camera.
I fully agree, they’re real cameras. My only issue with them which you mentioned in the video, is that they don’t have the feature parity in terms of customizing settings, controlling image output etc.. if Apple would just release an official pro camera app that just seamlessly let me control those settings, like set output to RAW, control aperture, ISO, etc… yes there are third party apps but they all feel like hacks. We need manufacturers to take them seriously first.
Agreed - though, you'd need more than an app to control physical aperture - as most phones have a fixed aperture haha.
I think smartphone manufacturers treat their market as point and click hobbyists. Some make a bit of effort but they all fall a little short. Tbf, camera manufacturers treat their customers as stuck in their ways and almost technophobic 😂
There's an app for that; it's just not an Apple app.🧐
@@KaiTiura there is no real aperture blades in the phone lens so no it can't adjust aperture. The best phones can do is switch between two specific ones. But those don't allow like f/8 or f/11
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.
you are totally rightTony... I have many cameras m43 and dslr (since 2010), and except for action photos and zooming I prefer my xiaomi mi 10t pro- I made many tests...
about 20 years ago, I was using my Nikon (film) N80, and saw someone using a complex setup, I asked if it was one of the new digital cameras...he started yelling at me that he was using a film camera and digital will never, ever compete. Now I use my Z6ii, and also use my iphone 13...very happy. thanks for t=your video.