3 ms·

Your phone camera is not as good as a cheap DSLR paired with a cheap 35mm f/1.8 in absolute terms. Your phone camera is way better at the job to be done, which

Your phone camera is not as good as a cheap DSLR paired with a cheap 35mm f/1.8 in absolute terms. Your phone camera is way better at the job to be done, which is to quickly share pics of your cock, cats, or kids, depending on what age bracket you are in. Traditional cameras, in which I include mirrorless, are still terrrrible when it comes to quickly bouncing a photo to Instagram, and arguably even worse when it comes to quickly making a video for TikTok.

lumost 5y ago
Entry level DSLRs are roughly the same price as a low-end smartphone. For many, simply switching from a low-end smartphone to a high end phone will produce better results. In particular the software assistance for capturing dynamic range and shooting in odd lighting conditions on an iPhone is pretty spectacular. Replicating the point and shoot experience requires a pretty substantial amount of skill on a traditional DSLR.
boulos 5y ago
> cheap DSLR paired with a cheap 35mm f/1.8 in absolute terms. I think this depends on the shot. The Pixel 4 easily beats “cheap DSLR” in several settings, particularly low light. I know folks who have an iPhone as a phone and a Pixel as a camera :). It’s true that it’s also much better at “photo production” (capture => minor edit => post), but I think you can find examples where the photo itself is strictly better.
- marlor 5y ago
  In low light, I’ve never seen a smartphone that will beat a fast prime on a mirrorless or DSLR camera. A kit zoom lens will struggle in low light, but you can get extremely high quality fast primes for a couple of hundred dollars these days that will blow away any smartphone.
  - AmVess 5y ago
    You aren't going to get a decent, fast prime for a few hundred dollars, much less an excellent one. Apple's low light performance in their new phones is excellent, and they are making huge strides in every area with every generation. A minimum acceptable DLSR with an acceptable fast prime will cost $1k, which is also the cost of Apple's excellent pro iphone that will rival the quality of the former for the average user.
    - marlor 5y ago
      The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is optically just fine if you stop down slightly, and the RF version is even better. It’s not much more than $100. The Olympus 25mm f/1.8 is absolutely fantastic, and smaller. As are all the Olympus fast primes. You can get it for $250. More expensive fast primes are worth the price for me. But the entry-level ones are optically pretty great these days.
  - boulos 5y ago
    Versus night sight? The single shot with wide enough glass is definitely going to be better: there just aren’t many photons on the little sensor! But the stacking that night sight does “in camera”, particularly since the Pixel 4, seems to outpace “cheap DSLR”. Here’s a basic Nikon vs Pixel 2 a couple years ago [1]. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/9rb53o/weekly_madebygoogle_photos_megathread_october_25/e8hy4ys/?context=1000 https://old.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/9rb53o/weekly_...

lumost 5y ago

Entry level DSLRs are roughly the same price as a low-end smartphone. For many, simply switching from a low-end smartphone to a high end phone will produce better results. In particular the software assistance for capturing dynamic range and shooting in odd lighting conditions on an iPhone is pretty spectacular. Replicating the point and shoot experience requires a pretty substantial amount of skill on a traditional DSLR.

boulos 5y ago

> cheap DSLR paired with a cheap 35mm f/1.8 in absolute terms. I think this depends on the shot. The Pixel 4 easily beats “cheap DSLR” in several settings, particularly low light. I know folks who have an iPhone as a phone and a Pixel as a camera :). It’s true that it’s also much better at “photo production” (capture => minor edit => post), but I think you can find examples where the photo itself is strictly better.

marlor 5y ago
In low light, I’ve never seen a smartphone that will beat a fast prime on a mirrorless or DSLR camera. A kit zoom lens will struggle in low light, but you can get extremely high quality fast primes for a couple of hundred dollars these days that will blow away any smartphone.
- AmVess 5y ago
  You aren't going to get a decent, fast prime for a few hundred dollars, much less an excellent one. Apple's low light performance in their new phones is excellent, and they are making huge strides in every area with every generation. A minimum acceptable DLSR with an acceptable fast prime will cost $1k, which is also the cost of Apple's excellent pro iphone that will rival the quality of the former for the average user.
  - marlor 5y ago
    The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM is optically just fine if you stop down slightly, and the RF version is even better. It’s not much more than $100. The Olympus 25mm f/1.8 is absolutely fantastic, and smaller. As are all the Olympus fast primes. You can get it for $250. More expensive fast primes are worth the price for me. But the entry-level ones are optically pretty great these days.
- boulos 5y ago
  Versus night sight? The single shot with wide enough glass is definitely going to be better: there just aren’t many photons on the little sensor! But the stacking that night sight does “in camera”, particularly since the Pixel 4, seems to outpace “cheap DSLR”. Here’s a basic Nikon vs Pixel 2 a couple years ago [1]. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/9rb53o/weekly_madebygoogle_photos_megathread_october_25/e8hy4ys/?context=1000 https://old.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/9rb53o/weekly_...