7 ms·
I traveled to Japan recently with an middle-end smartphone (Samsung A72 with 12+35+60mm) & a middle-end DSLR (APS-C with 18-55mm), that I bought the same price.
by arnaudsm 4y ago
I traveled to Japan recently with an middle-end smartphone (Samsung A72 with 12+35+60mm) & a middle-end DSLR (APS-C with 18-55mm), that I bought the same price.
Surprisingly, picture quality was on par. Low-light, stabilization, everything. I sold my DSLR since.
APS-C sensors aren't relevant anymore, only full-frames can beat smartphones nowadays.
- okasaki 4y agoThat's just not true. Even a 1" compact with a decent lens (like Sony RX100) is better than any phone. Not to mention that phones have awful ergonomics.
- personjerry 4y agoPhones have perfect ergonomics for carrying everywhere, and that's my primary requirement for a camera!
- okasaki 4y agoPerfect for carrying it in a pocket sure, not at all great for carrying it around in a hand. A compact camera is wider but shorter in two other dimensions, so it's easier to carry.
- JKCalhoun 4y agoTrue. Hand grip with shutter trigger exactly where my finger rests — can't beat that ergo.
- Existenceblinks 4y agoTaking photo with phone is utter horrible. I admittedly can't take a decent selfie with one hand. Even holding chopstick is easier.
- addandsubtract 4y agoAre you using the volume buttons to take a picture? I sometimes find that more ergonomic than tapping the screen.
- Existenceblinks 4y agoI use the touch button if holding with one hand. The dedicated button for the shutter equivalent makes the photo shaky! How could that with one hand?
- usrusr 4y agoIn my main camera use case the "gopro" form factor has much better ergonomics than a phone, by a wide margin. Unfortunately, that market is wildly underserved because all existing cameras in that form factor barely consider stills even an afterthought, if they consider it at all. I'd pay real money for a camera that is on par with phones but does not come with an almost face-sized TV attached. (I use an RX-0, which at first glance seems to fit that bill, but doesn't really: it's an extremely small movie camera that only pretends to be a very small compact for addressing a wider audience than it deserves)
- arnaudsm 4y agoErgonomics is a mixed bag. DSLRs win at latency and burst, as well as manual mode. But sharing the pictures is a pain, the UI is hard for beginners. And the most important ergonomic of all : it's easier to grab my phone than the 1-pound DSLR.
- piva00 4y agoI can share pictures from my Fujifilm cameras via WiFi to my phone... I think you are using a pretty outdated kit and trying to judge the current crop of mirrorless cameras against that. Even Canon and Nikon abandoned the DSLR format, the digital photography world has embraced mirrorless, it's much more compact and the only thing you lose is the analog viewfinder through the mirror. For me it wasn't a loss at all. I've been a hobby photographer for almost 15 years, had DSLRs, full-frames and ended on mirrorless exactly because I needed something compact and light to carry around.
- Existenceblinks 4y agoYeah, mirrorless won since 5-7 years ago.
- achow 4y agoSensor wise yes, but not for post processing. All cameras (compact to SLR does post processing) other than for RAW format. And infact even for RAW format SLR cannot beat modern flagship phones [1] [2]. [1] Apple ProRAW https://support.apple.com/en-in/guide/iphone/iphae1e882a3/ios https://support.apple.com/en-in/guide/iphone/iphae1e882a3/io... [2] Samsung's 'Expert RAW' https://www.androidauthority.com/how-to-use-samsung-expert-raw-3170310/ https://www.androidauthority.com/how-to-use-samsung-expert-r...
- constantcrying 4y ago>even for RAW format SLR cannot beat modern flagship phones [1] [2] Total nonsense. Of course a modern medium or full format camera outperforms any phone on technical aspects.
- max51 4y ago>And infact even for RAW format SLR cannot beat modern flagship phones [1] [2]. What is described is those article is the same as a normal raw that DLSR have been doing for decades. Adding the word "expert" or "apple" in front of the name doesn't make your RAW files magically better. The only advantage for the smartphone here is that it's more user-friendly to edit the RAW files directly on the phone in one click compared to importing your photos in a software like Photoshop Lightroom
- achow 4y agoClarification - Mobile Phones can beat SLR in sheer computation and ability to add extra information in RAW files, which SLR cannot do. Understanding Apple ProRAW https://petapixel.com/2020/12/21/understanding-apple-proraw/ https://petapixel.com/2020/12/21/understanding-apple-proraw/ Excerpt: ProRAW has one more surprise up its sleeve. A few years ago, Apple began using neural networks to detect interesting parts of an image, such as eyes and hair. Apple uses this to, say, add sharpening to only clouds in the sky. Sharping faces would be quite unflattering. ProRAW files contain these maps!
- dboreham 4y ago> add sharpening to only clouds in the sky Of all the dumb things in this thread, this has to be the pinnacle! (Clouds are inherently fuzzy)
- JKCalhoun 4y agoAgree. A cellphone with its button-lens is never going to match an actual camera in the kind of flexibility that only real depth of field can offer. To be sure though, out of convenience I pretty much only take my phone on vacations. (Well, and an old medium-format TLR film camera just for the odd novelty photo — but it only ever leaves the van when I think I have a subject best suited for it. Oh, ha ha, and I have a stereo digital camera in the glove box that gets similar treatment.)
- Existenceblinks 4y agoTrue, "only full-frames can beat smartphones nowaday" is nonsense. iPhone 14 Pro Max's sensor size is 1/1.28". Naive physics, 1" is collecting more raw light. Now it depends on how good a person controls the collecting process (and post).
- okasaki 4y agoYes, and that's only on the "primary" wide-angle lens. The other two lenses have 1/3.5" and 1/2.55" sensors.
- ChuckNorris89 4y agoYeah, Samsung's current mid-range (~$300) phones are surprisingly capable devices that make the high-end ones (+$1000) seem unnecessary. If only they weren't so anti-repair as to heavily glue their batteries in.
- piva00 4y agoNot sure what you were using, I don't see that at all with my Fuji kits. I have both a X-Pro 3 and a X-T30 for street photography and both shoot much, much superior pictures than any smartphone is capable of... APS-C is still pretty relevant, your old DSLR might not be up to par to latest smartphone cameras though. And the image processing done by smartphones using AI tend to create weird and ugly artefacts depending on conditions, that doesn't happen with my mirrorless cameras, for example. Have you tried printing smartphone pictures and compare them to your DSLR shots?
- tourist2d 4y agoMaybe show some comparisons so we can judge rather than just assessing "facts"
- t_von_doom 4y agoA fair point but unfair in that you are not also asking this of the OP. The status quo is that that a dedicated camera will be better than a smartphone (see other comments)
- piva00 4y agoI just felt it's such an outrageous claim that I really hadn't to show that cameras with much larger sensors and better optics would shoot better pictures than a smartphone. For me it's the opposite, show how smartphones are better than the current crop of mirrorless APS-C as this is the extraordinary claim requiring evidence. When I get some time I might shoot some comparison pictures, but if I don't: remember that I'm not here to serve your demands, I'm sorry.
- michaelt 4y ago> I just felt it's such an outrageous claim I have used an iPhone SE and a mirrorless M4/3 camera to photograph a sheet of paper containing barcodes of varying sizes (including some with bars less than 1 pixel wide). I then checked which barcodes were readable in the resulting image. The light levels were the same, both cameras were positioned and zoomed so the target took up the entire image, and both cameras were supported on a tripod. I expected the M4/3 camera would blow the iPhone out of the water with its much larger lens, bigger sensor, and higher price. But no, the iPhone's image had marginally more readable barcodes. Modern smartphone camera performance is just crazy, for the sensor size.
- yetihehe 4y agoI've recently bought canon mirrorless just to also buy 50mm lens with f/1.2 aperture. I got photos I've always wanted to do (with blurred background) and no phone could match the quality of picture. Of course with standard 15-45 lens (f/3.5 - f/6) it's much closer to phone quality, but that's why I didn't go with compact or camera without exchangeable lens.
- bendews 4y agoEven the iPhone 14 Pro with its very much upgraded camera can only *just* start to be within the same league as a standalone camera when it comes to dynamic range. Noise performance, detail resolution etc. are all still woefully inadequate. In any instance, a phone camera can take amazing shots (especially when in great light) but a very long way from being equal. Everybody has a different threshold for "good enough" however and they have met yours.
- seunosewa 4y agoThey make up for the sensor deficiencies relative to a DSLR with image processing. You can simulate increase dynamic range and reduced noise by taking multiple exposures with multiple cameras and processing them with smart 'AI' algorithms.
- arnaudsm 4y agoTrue dynamic range yes, but smartphones have better HDR bracketing software. So my phone also beat my middle-end DSLR in backlit scenarios.
- piva00 4y agoI really don't agree with calling the D5300 a mid-range camera, it's 2013-2014 tech. Like I mentioned somewhere else I do understand the price comparison but it's not a mid-range camera anymore, it's very outdated.
- Jiejeing 4y agoEven with less outdated cameras (e.g. the last high-end APS-C from Nikon, the D7500), HDR bracketing is much worse than most mid-range phones from the last 5 years. And assembling them after manual bracketing in post-processing is also not great. Nikon HDR creates halos, doubling, even on relatively fast shutter speeds. That said, I don’t have the experience of phones being "good enough", and even my Sony RX100 (edit: was "RX1", my bad) first gen which is quite old is out-performing 99% of the smartphone market in picture quality on a good screen, if you exclude HDR.
- constantcrying 4y ago>Surprisingly, picture quality was on par. Low-light, stabilization, everything. Almost certainly this is not true. It seems far more likely to me that perceived image quality after in device post processing was similar. A lot of the quality of smartphone cameras comes from their software, which does a really good job at using the sensor data to create good images. Cameras sold to photographers do not do that, or not as much. This is by design, if you are a photographer (someone who is interested in the process of photography) these corrections are something you really do not want, as they remove your ability to manually control these corrections later. You are actually comparing two different types of images and it is quite unsurprising that the DSLR did not "win".
- blitzar 4y agoGoogle computational photography > DSLR non computed photo. But that is hardly a shocker ... when will we get better desktop tools to recomupte photos?
- constantcrying 4y ago>Google computational photography > DSLR non computed photo. As I said. This is by design. >when will we get better desktop tools to recomupte photos? Lightroom has already various AI features. What can lightroom not control manually what Google does automatically. Darktable is the FOSS alternative, although not as advanced.
- blitzar 4y agoBy design and necessity - I suspect people would not be happy if they saw what actually came off the sensor (or had to carry around a better sized sensor). https://skylum.com/luminar-ai https://skylum.com/luminar-ai is probably the closest I have seen
- constantcrying 4y agoFor some cameras "beauty filters" are even a selling point. For a professional photoprapher that would be a nightmare. But most people aren't photographers and only care about getting a good looking image after pointing and shooting. And there is nothing wrong with that, but it makes for bad comparisons.
- nradov 4y agoI have a recent Samsung flagship phone, and the same DSLR and lens as you. The DSLR is far superior for sports photography. My daughter plays indoor volleyball and smartphone pictures are garbage, just completely blurry due to the fast action. If I manually reduce the shutter speed then pictures are under exposed due to the tiny sensor. On the DSLR I can run it in shutter priority mode and push the ISO, so the results are pretty good (although a full frame camera would obviously be better). The smartphone does pretty well in most other situations that don't involve fast movement in poor lighting.
- ezconnect 4y agoMy Nikon D40 still shoots better picture than high end phones. But that is just my opinion.
- whatswrong 4y agoPicture quality most likely wasn't on par. Just look at this iphone 13 vs nikon d750 comparison: https://i.imgur.com/ght1Vyu.jpg https://i.imgur.com/ght1Vyu.jpg. Sometimes my Pixel 4a renders something which looks decent, sometimes it gives me oversharpened photos with unnatural colors, like the iphone photo. Let's not even mention the AI generated fake details, which look horrible to me 99.99% of the time.
- zip1234 4y agoAn SLR is nothing without a great lens. It is the most important part of the camera, more important than APS-C or full frame by a long shot. The lens may cost more than the camera body though...
- sudosysgen 4y agoWhat aperture did the 18-55 lens have? Most likely the DSLR isn't low end, but the lens is a very low end 60$ kit zoom.
- arnaudsm 4y agoLow-end indeed, I used the AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR. Better lenses are more expensive than my phone though.
- sudosysgen 4y agoA 50mm 1.8 is what, 100$?
- jjav 4y ago> APS-C sensors aren't relevant anymore, only full-frames can beat smartphones nowadays. Even my ~15 years old Nikon D40 easily beats my 2022 phone in photo quality.