4 ms·

Still have a Nikon D70 from ~2004 that has only about 6 megapixels but will take better photos than any phone made today even using lenses that were made in the

Still have a Nikon D70 from ~2004 that has only about 6 megapixels but will take better photos than any phone made today even using lenses that were made in the 1970s. It is hard to describe to people without showing them but the sharpness of photos is amazing with high quality lenses.

geerlingguy 7y ago
I still shot (for still life images, mostly, with external flash) with a D60 until I upgraded that to an used, beat-up D700. You can definitely get much better images if you have a good lens, and on older cameras good lighting or very good form. But more modern smartphone lenses and software are plenty good for certain types of photography (and especially video). I shoot less and less with my D750 and D700 (in non-studio / non-low-light-event situations), and more and more with my iPhone, because of the convenience and portability. But there are definitely types of pictures that can't be taken without good glass and a larger sensor size. No software can simulate the physics that makes a longer focal length make a great portrait. (You just can't stuff that quality of glass into such a small lens, and the sensor can't physically gather enough photons to compete.)
- fock 7y ago
  basically I can agree on the basic premise of shooting holiday pictures with an iphone. it works well, as long as there is lots of light. If there's less (and even just rain), quality get's wonky. Today not "can't put into a family-album"-wonky but more like "won't make a magazine cover or desktop background or simple posterprint"-wonky. Which is perfectly fine for everyone of course, but given that you have to buy high-end (my very own 150$ Android One device has no such camera) and a central theme of this high-end innovation is that you buy a new device every 2 years (nowadays mainly advertised through the camera) and then throw the old one away, I just decided to buy a small ILC (EOS M10 on sale) and use that for taking pictures until the shutter dies (at times where my main camera is too big (and thus most would use a mobile)). Works fine for me and with 12mm/2 and 22mm/2 lenses I can (the 2010ish sensor notwithstanding) still only grin at the nightmode of the newest iPhone or the star mode of Google...
- JorgeGT 7y ago
  D70, D60... I think it's inevitable to add that I still use my D50 with a 20 years old 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D that I bought second-hand on eBay. While I agree that "the best camera in the world is the one that you have with you right now" and nowadays we always have our phones, I encourage people who enjoy taking pictures in their phones to try a second hand camera with a good lens. Seriously, even a beat-up one from eBay, just try! Costs way less than a new flagship phone and the difference is still amazing. And nowadays it's not difficult at all to learn how to use them decently, don't be afraid!
- rconti 7y ago
  Agreed. I bring all my travel photos into Lightroom which I subsequently edit on a 5k display. Today I travel with an iPhone 11 Pro and a Fuji X-T2. In the past it's been whatever current-gen iPhone and pocket cameras like the Sony RX-100Mk3, Canon S110, Canon S95, and DSLRs like a Nikon D3000 and D50. It used to be, the photos looked better on the phone after shooting them, just because the screen was so much better, but once imported to the computer, the iPhone photos looked like an oil painting even compared to a upper midrange P+S pocket camera, let alone a DSLR. It wasn't even close. These days, between the XT-2 and the iPhone 11 Pro, it's hard to tell which is which. Sometimes the iPhone looks better as-shot because of the image processing presets. Other times it's the Fuji. At 1:1 on a 5k display it's just not as obvious as it was when the pixels were blown up more. Even in good light, yes, the sharpness on the Fuji is better, but not by leaps and bounds. Not in a way that would be immediately obvious to anyone walking by the computer as it used to be. I've never bought high-end glass, and frankly, some of my earlier DSLR photos are pretty bad compared to what my iPhone returns these days.
  - ISL 7y ago
    Rent some high-end glass sometime when you're bored. It is enlightening both in its capability and when realizing that a lot of consumer glass is wonderful, especially at ~f/8 (here's looking at you, nifty-fifty).
aikinai 7y ago
I sync all my photos to my phone, even those I took with my camera, and whenever I show people photos on my phone they always notice immediately, even in thumbnail size. “You took that on your phone!?” No, definitely not, I just synced it to my phone.
- randyrand 7y ago
  Have any examples? Would love to compare.
  - rubatuga 7y ago
    Just to give a visual example of my own experiences, the first image is a typical shot from 2017 iPhone 8, 12MP, shot at ISO 20 (lowest possible noise), and the second image is from a 2011 Lumix GF2 Mirrorless, 12MP, shot at ISO 200. The first image is a splotchy mess, while the second image retains fine details, only the outside edges are blurry due to the toy lens I used. The other big differences that people are quick to notice, depth-of-field and focal length. [1] https://www.naut.ca/dropbox/IMG_1827.JPG https://www.naut.ca/dropbox/IMG_1827.JPG [2] https://www.naut.ca/blog/content/images/2019/09/P1040326.jpg https://www.naut.ca/blog/content/images/2019/09/P1040326.jpg
jotm 7y ago
There's simply no way a small sensor+lens can capture enough light, that's why even old DSLRs have higher picture quality (esp. sharpness/clarity) than the newest smartphones.
- bscphil 7y ago
  Surely that depends quite a lot on the display size though, right? If you print out the 6 MP image the GP was talking about at 300 DPI, that's something like a 7x10 image. If you're printing at typical wall portrait sizes, surely the latest iPhone (with its superior low-noise processing and all) would win in the majority of shooting conditions.
  - moron4hire 7y ago
    You also don't stand 6 inches away from a wall portrait.
    - bscphil 7y ago
      Well sure, but the high quality photo printers I've looked at seem to recommend 300 dpi. Some back of the envelope math: 20/20 vision = the ability to resolve differences 1 arc minute ≈ 290 microradians across. A distance of 1/300 inch subtends an angle of about 280 microradians at 12 inches, so I estimate someone with 20/20 vision could see pixelation on a 300 dpi image inside 12 inches. Is that too weird? Well, maybe if you're hanging it on the wall, but it seems odd to put a 7x10 image on the wall unless it's in a collection or montage. I think photos printed at 7x10 are more likely to be held in the hands, in which case shooting for transparent at 12 inches seems like the way to go, actually. (I suspect many people would have trouble discerning details in a 7x10 image from several feet away.)
      - mceachen 7y ago
        It depends on the image. Very high contrast areas (like text) on high quality coated stock can resolve up to 1200dpi (where higher resolution don't hold up even under a loupe). Photographic continuous tone images never have that sharp of contrast, though, and, again, depending on the image, you might not see jaggies even at 100dpi. 300dpi is sufficiently overkill to be an easy "set it and forget" resolution to recommend. (Source: I paid for college doing typesetting, graphic design, and digital prepress work).
majormajor 7y ago
I used to have a D70 and was disappointed by the sharpness of the D7000 I upgraded to after it took a bath in a river. From what I could find googling, sometime after the D70 they moved from CCD to CMOS sensors that were noticably softer on hard lines and edges. Would love to know if anyone here knows more specifics firsthand, but that camera's sharpness has always impressed me compared to the replacements I've tried out.
- bonestamp2 7y ago
  Agreed. The D70 was the best DSLR I've owned. I wish I kept it.

geerlingguy 7y ago

I still shot (for still life images, mostly, with external flash) with a D60 until I upgraded that to an used, beat-up D700. You can definitely get much better images if you have a good lens, and on older cameras good lighting or very good form. But more modern smartphone lenses and software are plenty good for certain types of photography (and especially video). I shoot less and less with my D750 and D700 (in non-studio / non-low-light-event situations), and more and more with my iPhone, because of the convenience and portability. But there are definitely types of pictures that can't be taken without good glass and a larger sensor size. No software can simulate the physics that makes a longer focal length make a great portrait. (You just can't stuff that quality of glass into such a small lens, and the sensor can't physically gather enough photons to compete.)

fock 7y ago
basically I can agree on the basic premise of shooting holiday pictures with an iphone. it works well, as long as there is lots of light. If there's less (and even just rain), quality get's wonky. Today not "can't put into a family-album"-wonky but more like "won't make a magazine cover or desktop background or simple posterprint"-wonky. Which is perfectly fine for everyone of course, but given that you have to buy high-end (my very own 150$ Android One device has no such camera) and a central theme of this high-end innovation is that you buy a new device every 2 years (nowadays mainly advertised through the camera) and then throw the old one away, I just decided to buy a small ILC (EOS M10 on sale) and use that for taking pictures until the shutter dies (at times where my main camera is too big (and thus most would use a mobile)). Works fine for me and with 12mm/2 and 22mm/2 lenses I can (the 2010ish sensor notwithstanding) still only grin at the nightmode of the newest iPhone or the star mode of Google...
JorgeGT 7y ago
D70, D60... I think it's inevitable to add that I still use my D50 with a 20 years old 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5D that I bought second-hand on eBay. While I agree that "the best camera in the world is the one that you have with you right now" and nowadays we always have our phones, I encourage people who enjoy taking pictures in their phones to try a second hand camera with a good lens. Seriously, even a beat-up one from eBay, just try! Costs way less than a new flagship phone and the difference is still amazing. And nowadays it's not difficult at all to learn how to use them decently, don't be afraid!
rconti 7y ago
Agreed. I bring all my travel photos into Lightroom which I subsequently edit on a 5k display. Today I travel with an iPhone 11 Pro and a Fuji X-T2. In the past it's been whatever current-gen iPhone and pocket cameras like the Sony RX-100Mk3, Canon S110, Canon S95, and DSLRs like a Nikon D3000 and D50. It used to be, the photos looked better on the phone after shooting them, just because the screen was so much better, but once imported to the computer, the iPhone photos looked like an oil painting even compared to a upper midrange P+S pocket camera, let alone a DSLR. It wasn't even close. These days, between the XT-2 and the iPhone 11 Pro, it's hard to tell which is which. Sometimes the iPhone looks better as-shot because of the image processing presets. Other times it's the Fuji. At 1:1 on a 5k display it's just not as obvious as it was when the pixels were blown up more. Even in good light, yes, the sharpness on the Fuji is better, but not by leaps and bounds. Not in a way that would be immediately obvious to anyone walking by the computer as it used to be. I've never bought high-end glass, and frankly, some of my earlier DSLR photos are pretty bad compared to what my iPhone returns these days.
- ISL 7y ago
  Rent some high-end glass sometime when you're bored. It is enlightening both in its capability and when realizing that a lot of consumer glass is wonderful, especially at ~f/8 (here's looking at you, nifty-fifty).

aikinai 7y ago

I sync all my photos to my phone, even those I took with my camera, and whenever I show people photos on my phone they always notice immediately, even in thumbnail size. “You took that on your phone!?” No, definitely not, I just synced it to my phone.

randyrand 7y ago
Have any examples? Would love to compare.
- rubatuga 7y ago
  Just to give a visual example of my own experiences, the first image is a typical shot from 2017 iPhone 8, 12MP, shot at ISO 20 (lowest possible noise), and the second image is from a 2011 Lumix GF2 Mirrorless, 12MP, shot at ISO 200. The first image is a splotchy mess, while the second image retains fine details, only the outside edges are blurry due to the toy lens I used. The other big differences that people are quick to notice, depth-of-field and focal length. [1] https://www.naut.ca/dropbox/IMG_1827.JPG https://www.naut.ca/dropbox/IMG_1827.JPG [2] https://www.naut.ca/blog/content/images/2019/09/P1040326.jpg https://www.naut.ca/blog/content/images/2019/09/P1040326.jpg

jotm 7y ago

There's simply no way a small sensor+lens can capture enough light, that's why even old DSLRs have higher picture quality (esp. sharpness/clarity) than the newest smartphones.

bscphil 7y ago
Surely that depends quite a lot on the display size though, right? If you print out the 6 MP image the GP was talking about at 300 DPI, that's something like a 7x10 image. If you're printing at typical wall portrait sizes, surely the latest iPhone (with its superior low-noise processing and all) would win in the majority of shooting conditions.
- moron4hire 7y ago
  You also don't stand 6 inches away from a wall portrait.
  - bscphil 7y ago
    Well sure, but the high quality photo printers I've looked at seem to recommend 300 dpi. Some back of the envelope math: 20/20 vision = the ability to resolve differences 1 arc minute ≈ 290 microradians across. A distance of 1/300 inch subtends an angle of about 280 microradians at 12 inches, so I estimate someone with 20/20 vision could see pixelation on a 300 dpi image inside 12 inches. Is that too weird? Well, maybe if you're hanging it on the wall, but it seems odd to put a 7x10 image on the wall unless it's in a collection or montage. I think photos printed at 7x10 are more likely to be held in the hands, in which case shooting for transparent at 12 inches seems like the way to go, actually. (I suspect many people would have trouble discerning details in a 7x10 image from several feet away.)
    - mceachen 7y ago
      It depends on the image. Very high contrast areas (like text) on high quality coated stock can resolve up to 1200dpi (where higher resolution don't hold up even under a loupe). Photographic continuous tone images never have that sharp of contrast, though, and, again, depending on the image, you might not see jaggies even at 100dpi. 300dpi is sufficiently overkill to be an easy "set it and forget" resolution to recommend. (Source: I paid for college doing typesetting, graphic design, and digital prepress work).

majormajor 7y ago

I used to have a D70 and was disappointed by the sharpness of the D7000 I upgraded to after it took a bath in a river. From what I could find googling, sometime after the D70 they moved from CCD to CMOS sensors that were noticably softer on hard lines and edges. Would love to know if anyone here knows more specifics firsthand, but that camera's sharpness has always impressed me compared to the replacements I've tried out.

bonestamp2 7y ago
Agreed. The D70 was the best DSLR I've owned. I wish I kept it.