4 ms·

Not 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 sup

by piva00 4y ago

Not 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 ago
Maybe show some comparisons so we can judge rather than just assessing "facts"
- t_von_doom 4y ago
  A 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 ago
  I 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.
    - FeistySkink 4y ago
      You didn't specify if the lens was up to the task in terms of sharpness on that MFT.
- arnaudsm 4y ago
  Sure, here it is ! https://imgur.com/a/VyHLYqP https://imgur.com/a/VyHLYqP Protocol: handheld at 10 PM, 10 shots each, at different ISOs, picked the best one The bottlenecks are different, but the sharpness is comparable. - The DSLR was limited by optics, it's blurrier with some chromatic aberration - The Phone has strong AI processing, I wish I disabled it
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > The Phone has strong AI processing, I wish I disabled it It's still over-sharpened and probably used multiple shots to get high dynamic range, it's much more noisy too, and shows less resolution Also the d5500 is a lower tier camera from 2015, the phone was released in 2021
    - arnaudsm 4y ago
      They have the same used price, which is the point of my comparison. Yes there's HDR bracketing, but we only care about the result. One is blurry (optics), the other has artifacts (AI), but overall sharpness is similar.
  - Markoff 4y ago
    TBH both photos look horrible compared to smartphones nowadays or is this just 100% crop? I'd like to see whole photo.
    - arnaudsm 4y ago
      Yes this is a 100% crop to highlight the sharpness is handheld low-light, the worst scenario there is
  - Jiejeing 4y ago
    Dynamic range is better on the phone, but otherwise the DSLR has sharper edges, less noise, nicer colors, and is less mushy (but that is possibly due to the "AI processing", so ditto about the "real" image). That said, noise reduction is usually more advanced on phones, and handheld with a kit lens at night with high-contrast zones is kind of the worst scenario for DSLRs (hopefully it was a stabilized kit lens at least).
arnaudsm 4y ago
Disclaimer, I'm a retired pro photographer that sold his full-frame to focus on software engineering. - The X-Pro 3 is $2k, not what I call middle-end. - I agree on the aggressive AI processing. Fortunately I could disable it. - It was a Nikon D5500. I used the 18-55 kit lens, but f/1.8 prime lenses can do better indeed, at the cost of switching lenses all day. - I compared on my 27" screen, no difference, even in low-light scenarios and at different ISOs
- piva00 4y ago
  The X-T30 is US$ 800-900 and uses the same sensor and processor of the X-Pro3 so they're pretty equivalent on picture quality. Don't stick to the X-Pro3 mention as that's missing the point. The D5300 is pretty old, I had one in 2013-2014, coming from a D3200. > - I compared on my 27" screen, no difference, even in low-light scenarios and at different ISOs This might be the main difference between us, I usually do prints in A3+ sizes and the differences in picture quality between a smartphone and my cameras are very noticeable.
  - arnaudsm 4y ago
    The point of my comparison was price. You can find better smartphones too. The A72 and D5500 have the same used price.
    - piva00 4y ago
      On the price point I agree with you but then the comparison becomes not so level by comparing semi-conductors technology from 2014 to the ones from 2021, that's 7 years of evolution on sensor technology packed into the phone's sensor, plus all the image processing advances since then. Again, I understand the price point but it's an oddball comparison. Perhaps a comparison between the A72 and a Fujifilm X-E2 could tell us more but I don't have either devices to directly compare myself :/
      - arnaudsm 4y ago
        I'd love to see a graph of sharpness/$ for both categories ! I think they're equal until the $400 range, after Mirrorless obviously wins

by piva00 4y ago

tourist2d 4y ago

Maybe show some comparisons so we can judge rather than just assessing "facts"

t_von_doom 4y ago
A 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 ago
I 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.
  - FeistySkink 4y ago
    You didn't specify if the lens was up to the task in terms of sharpness on that MFT.
arnaudsm 4y ago
Sure, here it is ! https://imgur.com/a/VyHLYqP https://imgur.com/a/VyHLYqP Protocol: handheld at 10 PM, 10 shots each, at different ISOs, picked the best one The bottlenecks are different, but the sharpness is comparable. - The DSLR was limited by optics, it's blurrier with some chromatic aberration - The Phone has strong AI processing, I wish I disabled it
- lm28469 4y ago
  > The Phone has strong AI processing, I wish I disabled it It's still over-sharpened and probably used multiple shots to get high dynamic range, it's much more noisy too, and shows less resolution Also the d5500 is a lower tier camera from 2015, the phone was released in 2021
  - arnaudsm 4y ago
    They have the same used price, which is the point of my comparison. Yes there's HDR bracketing, but we only care about the result. One is blurry (optics), the other has artifacts (AI), but overall sharpness is similar.
- Markoff 4y ago
  TBH both photos look horrible compared to smartphones nowadays or is this just 100% crop? I'd like to see whole photo.
  - arnaudsm 4y ago
    Yes this is a 100% crop to highlight the sharpness is handheld low-light, the worst scenario there is
- Jiejeing 4y ago
  Dynamic range is better on the phone, but otherwise the DSLR has sharper edges, less noise, nicer colors, and is less mushy (but that is possibly due to the "AI processing", so ditto about the "real" image). That said, noise reduction is usually more advanced on phones, and handheld with a kit lens at night with high-contrast zones is kind of the worst scenario for DSLRs (hopefully it was a stabilized kit lens at least).

arnaudsm 4y ago

Disclaimer, I'm a retired pro photographer that sold his full-frame to focus on software engineering. - The X-Pro 3 is $2k, not what I call middle-end. - I agree on the aggressive AI processing. Fortunately I could disable it. - It was a Nikon D5500. I used the 18-55 kit lens, but f/1.8 prime lenses can do better indeed, at the cost of switching lenses all day. - I compared on my 27" screen, no difference, even in low-light scenarios and at different ISOs

piva00 4y ago
The X-T30 is US$ 800-900 and uses the same sensor and processor of the X-Pro3 so they're pretty equivalent on picture quality. Don't stick to the X-Pro3 mention as that's missing the point. The D5300 is pretty old, I had one in 2013-2014, coming from a D3200. > - I compared on my 27" screen, no difference, even in low-light scenarios and at different ISOs This might be the main difference between us, I usually do prints in A3+ sizes and the differences in picture quality between a smartphone and my cameras are very noticeable.
- arnaudsm 4y ago
  The point of my comparison was price. You can find better smartphones too. The A72 and D5500 have the same used price.
  - piva00 4y ago
    On the price point I agree with you but then the comparison becomes not so level by comparing semi-conductors technology from 2014 to the ones from 2021, that's 7 years of evolution on sensor technology packed into the phone's sensor, plus all the image processing advances since then. Again, I understand the price point but it's an oddball comparison. Perhaps a comparison between the A72 and a Fujifilm X-E2 could tell us more but I don't have either devices to directly compare myself :/
    - arnaudsm 4y ago
      I'd love to see a graph of sharpness/$ for both categories ! I think they're equal until the $400 range, after Mirrorless obviously wins