3 ms·

What this article doesn't mention is that over time, cameras have made _huge_ leaps and bounds, while the author was transitioning through the phases he describ

What this article doesn't mention is that over time, cameras have made _huge_ leaps and bounds, while the author was transitioning through the phases he describes. It's likely that had he been already at the final stage of competence at the beginning, gear would have mattered a lot more. Cameras back then were just not able to provide good pictures in settings with non-ideal light conditions, for example. Sometime in the early 10s I took a half-decent hobbyist DSLR camera on vacation, and my wife and I took photos of the same motive - me with the DSLR, my wife with her then-current iPhone. You could barely use half of the photos my wife made. I guess if we repeated that experiment nowadays it would be the other way round.

cruffle_duffle 3y ago
> I guess if we repeated that experiment nowadays it would be the other way round. As somebody with a long unused DSLR packed away… I’d say it depends on the lens. Maybe. One thing that iPhones still can’t do as good as a DSLR is very low light (eg starfield), however the current crop of phones are getting pretty good at even this. Those DSLR’s are huge and quite frankly their workflows aren’t as smooth as on phones. If a DSLR could automagically upload all images to my repository (ie icloud) then I’d probably use them more. But as they say, the best camera is the one you have on you and the camera I have on me is almost always found in my phone.
- luqtas 3y ago
  also don't forget precise F-control and shutter speed, which are worlds of exploration for artistic outcomes, as well, better looking photos that the non-knowledgeable eye won't notice but the overall feeling is just better than a freaking constrained 700 mega-pixel iPhone camera... now, if one travels to rural Kazakhstan and register a touching moment, i think we can get along even with a Nokia pre-2010 camera
- graphe 3y ago
  The lidar on iPhones makes low light way better than cameras. If you don't do astronomy it will usually be better. The Samsung NX had wifi and upload to fb.
  - vladvasiliu 3y ago
    > The lidar on iPhones makes low light way better than cameras How so? My iphone 14 pro looks like a cartoon if I shoot people or animals in low light. Never had any "actual camera" look that bad, and my newest is an 8 year-old micro 4/3 model.
    - graphe 3y ago
      Mine look great, my camera looks even better if I set it up. I'm not going to go technical for most photos though because it isn't fun.
  - Arainach 3y ago
    Static pictures of a building in low light, phones can do decent. Anything moving and all the AI-assisted long exposures in the world can't help you. It's important to consider similar generations - yes, the iPhone 14 or Pixel 8 does better in static low light than my 2004-era crop sensor DSLR, but not better than a 2017-era full frame DSLR and dramatically worse than a current-gen mirrorless setup.
dataflow 3y ago
From what I've seen of my friends' gears, iPhones beat conventional cameras easily if you don't do any processing. But if you're going to process your DSLR RAWs, smartphones will just lose in comparison.
- ghaff 3y ago
  You can also shoot raw with many smartphones. And there are camera apps that give you more control. I'm not sure it's categorical that DSLRs clearly win over iPhones if you process (including cropping etc.) both. As someone else noted, DSLRs really win on lenses. Also things like high burst rate, high shutter speeds, etc. (And the viewfinder can be handy for better framing and just seeing what you're shooting).
  - dataflow 3y ago
    My friends weren't taking RAWs from their iPhones, so that part didn't really make any difference. (I actually don't think I've encountered anyone who does that!) I don't have an iPhone, but when I've tried RAWs on some other smartphones, they weren't nearly as good as from DSLRs. In fact I sometimes found it hard to even get the quality of their own JPEGs from the RAWs. (Lenses can of course add another factor, but everything I mentioned is with stock lenses.)
ghaff 3y ago
I have a fairly large Canon DSLR FF system I rarely use. There are a few cases (wildlife photography, sports, concerts, certain nature) mostly with very long or very wide lenses but, for most other shooting where I'm not going to spend an hour setting up a shot? Not worth it--especially when traveling or hiking. I do have a Fujifilm mirrorless but with the standard long wide to short tele zoom, I still bring it on certain types of trips but honestly it's almost a backup at this point. There's not a lot it beats my iPhone 15 Pro at--certainly for web viewing which is all I really do. This is especially true if you're not going to shoot photos with a lot of care taken to depth of field, shutter speed, etc. To just shoot, the phone probably does a better job a lot of the time.
vladvasiliu 3y ago
> I guess if we repeated that experiment nowadays it would be the other way round. I doubt that. I'm not a pro photographer by any means, but my 2016 olympus pen-f (m4/3 format, so the sensor area is a quarter of "full frame") wipes the floor with my iphone 14 pro it's not even funny. Had a friend the other day comment on some random pics I took in a bar with the pen-f, as seen on the phone's display: "how come your pictures look so good?". The subtle gradients, the details in dark areas, the barmaid's skin texture, all this looks like plastic on the iphone. Sure, neither is technically a "now-current" device, but I don't think there have been any earth-shattering improvements between the 14 and the 15. I hear some Android phones might have superior cameras, but again, I doubt it's a night and day difference with the iphone. The Olympus is 8 years old, and even when it was brand new it wasn't exactly state of the art. A recent model m4/3 would be a noticeable improvement, and a full-frame sensor would be in a whole different league. But one point where the iPhone (and similar androids) have the "real" cameras beat: it fits in a men's jeans pocket.
- onemoresoop 3y ago
  That and the fact that modern cameras add all kind of enhancements which may look good to amateurs but bother me a lot. I do enjoy being able to take phone snapshots anytime I don't have my large camera with me but when I lug the camera I think in different ways.

cruffle_duffle 3y ago

> I guess if we repeated that experiment nowadays it would be the other way round. As somebody with a long unused DSLR packed away… I’d say it depends on the lens. Maybe. One thing that iPhones still can’t do as good as a DSLR is very low light (eg starfield), however the current crop of phones are getting pretty good at even this. Those DSLR’s are huge and quite frankly their workflows aren’t as smooth as on phones. If a DSLR could automagically upload all images to my repository (ie icloud) then I’d probably use them more. But as they say, the best camera is the one you have on you and the camera I have on me is almost always found in my phone.

luqtas 3y ago
also don't forget precise F-control and shutter speed, which are worlds of exploration for artistic outcomes, as well, better looking photos that the non-knowledgeable eye won't notice but the overall feeling is just better than a freaking constrained 700 mega-pixel iPhone camera... now, if one travels to rural Kazakhstan and register a touching moment, i think we can get along even with a Nokia pre-2010 camera
graphe 3y ago
The lidar on iPhones makes low light way better than cameras. If you don't do astronomy it will usually be better. The Samsung NX had wifi and upload to fb.
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  > The lidar on iPhones makes low light way better than cameras How so? My iphone 14 pro looks like a cartoon if I shoot people or animals in low light. Never had any "actual camera" look that bad, and my newest is an 8 year-old micro 4/3 model.
  - graphe 3y ago
    Mine look great, my camera looks even better if I set it up. I'm not going to go technical for most photos though because it isn't fun.
- Arainach 3y ago
  Static pictures of a building in low light, phones can do decent. Anything moving and all the AI-assisted long exposures in the world can't help you. It's important to consider similar generations - yes, the iPhone 14 or Pixel 8 does better in static low light than my 2004-era crop sensor DSLR, but not better than a 2017-era full frame DSLR and dramatically worse than a current-gen mirrorless setup.

dataflow 3y ago

From what I've seen of my friends' gears, iPhones beat conventional cameras easily if you don't do any processing. But if you're going to process your DSLR RAWs, smartphones will just lose in comparison.

ghaff 3y ago
You can also shoot raw with many smartphones. And there are camera apps that give you more control. I'm not sure it's categorical that DSLRs clearly win over iPhones if you process (including cropping etc.) both. As someone else noted, DSLRs really win on lenses. Also things like high burst rate, high shutter speeds, etc. (And the viewfinder can be handy for better framing and just seeing what you're shooting).
- dataflow 3y ago
  My friends weren't taking RAWs from their iPhones, so that part didn't really make any difference. (I actually don't think I've encountered anyone who does that!) I don't have an iPhone, but when I've tried RAWs on some other smartphones, they weren't nearly as good as from DSLRs. In fact I sometimes found it hard to even get the quality of their own JPEGs from the RAWs. (Lenses can of course add another factor, but everything I mentioned is with stock lenses.)

ghaff 3y ago

I have a fairly large Canon DSLR FF system I rarely use. There are a few cases (wildlife photography, sports, concerts, certain nature) mostly with very long or very wide lenses but, for most other shooting where I'm not going to spend an hour setting up a shot? Not worth it--especially when traveling or hiking. I do have a Fujifilm mirrorless but with the standard long wide to short tele zoom, I still bring it on certain types of trips but honestly it's almost a backup at this point. There's not a lot it beats my iPhone 15 Pro at--certainly for web viewing which is all I really do. This is especially true if you're not going to shoot photos with a lot of care taken to depth of field, shutter speed, etc. To just shoot, the phone probably does a better job a lot of the time.

vladvasiliu 3y ago

> I guess if we repeated that experiment nowadays it would be the other way round. I doubt that. I'm not a pro photographer by any means, but my 2016 olympus pen-f (m4/3 format, so the sensor area is a quarter of "full frame") wipes the floor with my iphone 14 pro it's not even funny. Had a friend the other day comment on some random pics I took in a bar with the pen-f, as seen on the phone's display: "how come your pictures look so good?". The subtle gradients, the details in dark areas, the barmaid's skin texture, all this looks like plastic on the iphone. Sure, neither is technically a "now-current" device, but I don't think there have been any earth-shattering improvements between the 14 and the 15. I hear some Android phones might have superior cameras, but again, I doubt it's a night and day difference with the iphone. The Olympus is 8 years old, and even when it was brand new it wasn't exactly state of the art. A recent model m4/3 would be a noticeable improvement, and a full-frame sensor would be in a whole different league. But one point where the iPhone (and similar androids) have the "real" cameras beat: it fits in a men's jeans pocket.

onemoresoop 3y ago
That and the fact that modern cameras add all kind of enhancements which may look good to amateurs but bother me a lot. I do enjoy being able to take phone snapshots anytime I don't have my large camera with me but when I lug the camera I think in different ways.