or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is I-Phone the new DSLR? - Page 2

post #31 of 50
post #32 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhcooley View Post
 
Most people don't need or want a DSLR, and many who do have them don't need them, either, and don't use them very well. Phone cameras are getting better, they're far more likely to be with you, and for the vast majority of pictures taken, they're fine. For many uses, they're clearly superior to a DSLR.

 

Guilty, Your Honor!  I don't mind acknowledging that I'm almost certainly one of those people...a snapshot hack.  

 

The pictures I take are of landscapes, people who are posing, some interior things, lounging pets, and well, lounging people even.  I don't take action pictures or anything artistic.  I did want a camera with a bigger sensor and quick lens for no-flash interiors in dim lighting, but as the pics I posted show, my I-Phone can handle that...certainly well enough for just showing to others on social media or on my laptop's photo album, and all without the learning curve of needing to fiddle with various settings.

 

DOF isn't really a concern for me, either.  So, for those of us who are not pro photographers or even photography hobbyists and just want an easy, inexpensive, and readily available way to record perfectly acceptable shots of cool stuff on vacation or of friends and family, it just seems that late-model I-Phones and Androids make more and more sense...especially as their capabilities continue to improve.  Plus, even bundled post-processing software can clean up smartphone images even more for laptop and social media display. 

 

I suspect that chart that was posted upthread showing that the sale of bigger cameras is on the decline will continue to show that trend in the years ahead.


Edited by Skierish - 6/3/15 at 12:54pm
post #33 of 50
Quote:


It is already here, but the cameras are crappy with the early models from Lytos selling for 88% off in April (I was thinking of playing with one, but didn't pull the trigger).

 

Mr. Cooley brings up DoF with small sensors. He is, of course, correct. Pentax has the tiny Q models that have interchangeable lenses with tiny sensors. I bought one used and played with it, now using it primarily to photograph 20 years or crap I accumulated to sell on ebay.  The biggest issue, outside of IQ with the small sensor, is DoF.  There is too much of it.  They developed an algorithm to artificially take away DoF, and you can certainly blur the background in PhotoShop, but these remedies are a PITA. 

 

Below is a photo taken last summer at a county fair using the small sensor where the DoF worked in my favor. A smartphone could not have taken the photo shown because the shot required a high shutter speed. With a smartphone the dynamic range would have been worse in the horrible mid-day sun. The photo isn't DSLR sharp and, therefore, looks better in B&W giving it a 1960's feel. Regardless, here it is in color:

 

 

BTW, those pigs were hauling ass.

 

When smartphones have DSLR capabilities and RAW, they can take photos like the above all day long even with small sensor. Perhaps we will see some of this in the iPhone 7 in 2016?  That is the rumor.


Edited by quant2325 - 6/4/15 at 9:23am
post #34 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by rx2ski View Post
 

I tend to stand by the notion that good photography is a result of the photographer and not his/her tools.


True, unless when it's not :) Of course you still need eye and experience and all that, but sometimes, you just can't make it without proper equipment.

This is shot of our position in Garmish at DH, which is pretty much one of nicest positions of all downhill WC races.

https://instagram.com/p/zptUAQMc3A/?taken-by=primozphsi

You are standing pretty far down the jump, which is somewhere middle to top left side of photo, next to that tiny white/red commercial. Photo is taken with phone, so you can imagine how big skier would be without big lens and proper camera (when you first see skier, he's out in air already, so auto focus needs to be super fast to track him down). And that's photo from same location (ok 3m further up behind air fence) with right gear:

www.photosi.eu/img/sport/spo_skiing_20150228nw_024938.jpg

 

So even though you still need eye and everything, you still need proper gear, or you can't do anything :)

post #35 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by primoz View Post
 


 

 

So even though you still need eye and everything, you still need proper gear, or you can't do anything :)

This includes PhotoShop or Lightroom. I like the way you separated the skier from the background in the photo above by turning the background to B&W. How did we ever survive without the Quick Selection tool and all those magic ants?

post #36 of 50

To get the benefit of a DSLR, you need big glass and someone who knows how to use it.

 

Here's my "How to take professional quality ski photos" about @Matchstix and  @Bob Peters (should have included @Philpug too) from last year's Jackson Hole gathering:

http://www.epicski.com/t/133137/sitrep-2015-epicski-gathering-in-jackson-hole/120#post_1848478

 

I know Matchstix rented a longer lens for the trip.  

post #37 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post
 

This includes PhotoShop or Lightroom. I like the way you separated the skier from the background in the photo above by turning the background to B&W. How did we ever survive without the Quick Selection tool and all those magic ants?


You are joking right? :) There was no turning background in BW in this photo. Of course Photoshop is essential tool with digital imaging, but with editorial photography, usage of Photoshop is extremely limited. Normally tolerated usage consists of cropping, levels, minor sharpening and burn/dodge, and that's pretty much it. Erasing/adding things from/to image, changing colors, turning parts of photos to BW (or different colors) is big no. You can do it once, and never again, as you will never be shooting for money again in your life.

post #38 of 50

I really, really thought the background was bereft of color due to post processing. This was not meant as a criticism of your work, which I enjoy.:beercheer:

post #39 of 50

No worries, I'm always happy to take critics, as that's pretty much only way to improve, and I still think there's never too late to learn something new. As far as photo goes, in winter forest is pretty much black and white, especially when you expose photo for front (skier) and forest in background is a bit underexposed, so it looks even more black and white... and out of focus. And it's also true, most of people don't really know difference between one sort of photography and the other. Cover shoot for some magazine or even commercial, or editorial photo is just a photo (I don't blame anyone for this... Apollo or air-to-air missile is just a rocket for me too :)), but with one, pretty much everything is allowed, while with other, pretty much everything is forbidden :)

post #40 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by primoz View Post


You are joking right? :) There was no turning background in BW in this photo. Of course Photoshop is essential tool with digital imaging, but with editorial photography, usage of Photoshop is extremely limited. Normally tolerated usage consists of cropping, levels, minor sharpening and burn/dodge, and that's pretty much it. Erasing/adding things from/to image, changing colors, turning parts of photos to BW (or different colors) is big no. You can do it once, and never again, as you will never be shooting for money again in your life.

 

I gotta admit, Primoz, I also thought the trees had been changed to B&W myself, as the lack of color from the slight underexposure in the background tricked me!  Like me, I think Quant was just admiring the effect and not intending to impugn your work at all...which I agree is incredible, and I really enjoy seeing.

 

Also, when I posted the 2 church interior shots earlier, it was really to show why I don't think a smartphone is a "useless brick" for those of us who aren't you...or your professional colleagues.  I will never be able to get the kind of results out of an "actual" camera that you and other pros do, no matter how advanced my gear.  I don't have that base of knowledge, that experience, or at this point in my life the desire to acquire either one.  So, for mere picture-taking mortals such as myself and 95% of the rest of folks out there, I just think that smartphones are getting to the point where they are more than sufficient for people like me who just wanna show pics to friends and family...which is to say those of us who are not you and never will be.

 

That said, I truly do appreciate exceptional photography and will admire such photographs at the occasional exhibition or gallery.  I've also always enjoyed the photos you post and hope to keep seeing them, as they're fantastic.  So, in summary, I agree pro photographers cannot do with just a smartphone, but I suspect most of the rest of us non-pro snapshot hacks can.

 

Below are two more smartphone shots.  The shots I got with my OMD were a smidge sharper with mildly better detail in the lightly stained-glass windows...a bit more discernible color.  I'm sure you could make both of these shots masterpieces, but even with a good camera body and one of its best lenses, I could only manage very, very slight improvement over my I-Phone.  Based on that and given my modest needs with respect to showing the pics to others, I'm just leaning more and more to smartphone being the way to go for me...and for most non-photography people.  These shot aren't taken by Primoz and company, but they aren't taken by a "useless brick," either.  

 

The 1st is the interior of St.-Sulpice, and the 2nd is the interior of Sacre-Coeur with no flash for either one.  They're I-Phones that were simply aimed and shot.

 

 


I posted these two examples,as they're the ones with some of the more challenging lighting, but the smartphone with some post-processing handled 'em mostly fine for tourist snapshots.  Shots in good light and outdoors produce even better results, obviously.

So, are they really that objectionable for my picture-taking needs as I've described them above???

post #41 of 50

Skierish maybe I was a bit harsh with "useless brick" :) Thing is, phone won't be able to compare with DSLR for long long time, even with low end DSLRs. On the other side, they might not be able to compare with more expensive pocket cameras yet, but they can compare even today with lower end pocket cameras. So on long run (and I don't mean 10 years but more like year or two), at least what I think, we won't really see pocket cameras anymore, and phones will "eat" this market. Now are phones ok for "normal" users or not. It depends what "normal" user means. Before I wasn't really referring to me, because for pro shooters, I don't think phones will ever be enough, but I'm pretty sure pro photographers and pro photography have expiry date, and it's closing fast, so soon we won't need to worry about that anyway. I meant more something like hobby photographers. I don't have any real numbers, but I would say DSLR maybe cover 10 or max 20% of camera market, and pocket cameras take rest 80%. So basically, phones will, sooner or later, take over those 80%, while DSLR users will keep their DSLRs. Without some extreme tech breakthrough, you won't be able to match quality of bigger sensors and big lenses (no matter if we are talking about wide or tele lenses), with little space you have in phone (even though nowadays phones in size of smaller laptop are popular, they are still small compared to size of sensor and lenses DSLR have).

So since original question was if phone are new DSLR I wrote this what I wrote. If question would be "are phones new cameras for 90% of people" I would just say, yes they are :)

post #42 of 50
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by primoz View Post
 

Without some extreme tech breakthrough, you won't be able to match quality of bigger sensors and big lenses (no matter if we are talking about wide or tele lenses), with little space you have in phone (even though nowadays phones in size of smaller laptop are popular, they are still small compared to size of sensor and lenses DSLR have).

 

Oh, I totally agree with that, but as someone else said above, most non-professional and non-hobbyist photographers with mirrorless ILC's and DLSR's will never be able to get the most out of the various capabilities of their expensive and bulky gear.  They'll shoot JPEG shots on full-auto.  I'm one of those people, and for me and others like me...the 80% you mentioned...the much-improved and continually improving capabilities of smartphones means that those people....me and the rest of the 80%...may well be better served saving money, time, and the need to lug bullky gear around by simply using our smartphones instead.  Smartphones may have reached the point that they're what is best for mere casual snapshooters...maybe.

 

I do agree, of course, that more serious hobbyist photographers and especially pro photographers that get paid for their work will always need high-end DSLR's and premium lenses to make a living.  For the rest of us, though...idaknow.

post #43 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by primoz View Post
 

Skierish maybe I was a bit harsh with "useless brick" :) Thing is, phone won't be able to compare with DSLR for long long time, even with low end DSLRs. On the other side, they might not be able to compare with more expensive pocket cameras yet, but they can compare even today with lower end pocket cameras. So on long run (and I don't mean 10 years but more like year or two), at least what I think, we won't really see pocket cameras anymore, and phones will "eat" this market. Now are phones ok for "normal" users or not. It depends what "normal" user means. Before I wasn't really referring to me, because for pro shooters, I don't think phones will ever be enough, but I'm pretty sure pro photographers and pro photography have expiry date, and it's closing fast, so soon we won't need to worry about that anyway. I meant more something like hobby photographers. I don't have any real numbers, but I would say DSLR maybe cover 10 or max 20% of camera market, and pocket cameras take rest 80%. So basically, phones will, sooner or later, take over those 80%, while DSLR users will keep their DSLRs. Without some extreme tech breakthrough, you won't be able to match quality of bigger sensors and big lenses (no matter if we are talking about wide or tele lenses), with little space you have in phone (even though nowadays phones in size of smaller laptop are popular, they are still small compared to size of sensor and lenses DSLR have).

So since original question was if phone are new DSLR I wrote this what I wrote. If question would be "are phones new cameras for 90% of people" I would just say, yes they are :)

True, but pocket cameras will also get better and better to the point where they equal a decent DSLR.  For hobbyists like me a good pocket camera is the perfect solution...just include a viewfinder please!  

post #44 of 50

Honestly... I think they won't as they won't exist anymore. Of course it's just my opinion, and I can be completely wrong, but I think it's very similar to iPod. Sure quality of music was better then on most of phones, but they simply don't exist anymore, as noone wants to cary two devices, if you can do it with just one, even though with very little bit worse quality. Same goes for example for navigation devices... few years back you could get Garmin and their cheap(er) chinese copies everywhere... nowadays they are more or less obsolete since you can do same with phone, which on top of that is always with you :)

Otherwise I have Canon s120 for pocket camera when I go skiing or with mtb, and I still think it works a lot better then my current phone (Samsung S5mini), but I think in few years phones will really erase pocket cameras to history. Let's see in few years if I was wrong :)

post #45 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by crank View Post
 

True, but pocket cameras will also get better and better to the point where they equal a decent DSLR.  For hobbyists like me a good pocket camera is the perfect solution...just include a viewfinder please!  


The problem is just what you say, no viewfinder. So shooting anything in the bright sun remains problematic, as does getting interchangeable glass that approximates what the DSLR can do. 

 

There is hope. Processors will increase in performance much, much faster than lenses do for obvious reasons. The two most likely improvements (at least according to the geek sites) will come from the internal processor and algorithms (like we now see) and  from external “jackets” that the smartphone drops into. The latter is interesting because the smartphone can be used as is, or become clicked into a device that can in theory  attach any lens to it, turning the smartphone into little more than a sensor. So a person can use the camera function of the smartphone normally, or attach it to a device that can hold a 300mm f/2.8 lens to photograph his goalkeeper son. Live view/screens suck in the sun, the balance could be terrible, and a FUJI-like viewfinder would have to be used. But it could easily happen.  The pros will always use their preferred equipment, but for the average consumer Primroz has it right.

 

BTW, I saw a new drone on Kickstarter that uses a smartphone as the recording device and controller. You just snap it into the drone and it records either using it preprogrammed or is controlled with another device. I think it is called, PhoneDrone. I have no idea if it is any good, but it shows the technology to do all this stuff will be ahead of the smartphone sensors getting to a "professional" quality.

post #46 of 50
Thread Starter 

Just ran across this tidbit to help stir the pot a wee bit more...

 

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/10/smartphone-camera-vs-dslr/3/

 

Toward the end where he does competing studio shots is where the difference between the two is truly highlighted, but he does seem to be saying that for most people in most situations, the cheap and simple smartphone may well be the way to go.

post #47 of 50
I'm very impressed with the camera on my Samsung Android phone. The high dynamic range mode works amazingly well. "Sport" fast shutter mode is good too.

I added a lanyard so I don't have to worry about dropping it.

Now if someone made a clip on mechanical viewfinder that would solve my biggest problem. I don't even need an accurate field of view, I just need to know what I am centered on.
post #48 of 50

Anyone looking at the new iPhone add on from DXO?

 

http://www.dxo.com/us/company

http://www.cnet.com/products/dxo-one/

post #49 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post
 

Anyone looking at the new iPhone add on from DXO?

 

http://www.dxo.com/us/company

http://www.cnet.com/products/dxo-one/

Yeah, I saw it on fstoppers and diyphotography and petapixel and it seems to be a great light weight solution to take on the mountain with RAW settings and the 1" sensor. The price will make it unpractical for many, but what a great piece of technology.  This kind of stuff will keep coming, and I guess the prices will get better over time. I am hoping Borrow Lenses or someone else buys this so I can rent it for a few days.

post #50 of 50

I was following this thread before my vacation and I thought I would add my 2 cents based on my experience with my recent trip to New Zealand and Tahiti.  I took a Canon DSLR (approximately 5 year old Rebel model), Panasonic TS3 (underwater), and my iPhone 6. 

It should be noted that the application is to vacation photos and scenics only and not the sort of action shots where an advanced DSLR has a big advantage on the others.  I am in no way a professional or even an avid amateur photographer but really enjoy photography and have been involved with it from more than a point and shoot perspective for about the last 35 years.  The primary use for these photos will be for photobooks, screen savers etc.   One or two may be blown up to 20 by 30 or so.

After some efforts with post-processing at home, I can offer the following observations.  The best pictures were clearly with the Canon DSLR shot with the excellent Canon 10-22 zoom lens many of which were exposure bracketed (3 stops) and post-processed in Photomatix and/or Lightroom.   The iPhone took as good or better pictures than the Panasonic (except of course, underwater) and required minimal effort in Lightroom (or not at all) to get them looking good.  For ease of use and the time commitment involved to get good photos, the iPhone is really impressive.  I am particularly impressed with the panoramic option as it can create some really exciting shots.  When compared to the effort it took to get that level of quality even 5 or 10 years ago it is pretty amazing.  By the way, I did not notice a big difference between the photos taken with my iPhone 6 and my wife’s iPhone 5.  Based purely on quality, the DSLR wins but not as dramatically as I would have expected and the effort entailed to get the best pictures was significantly more involved.  I wish I had used the phone more to capture the quick person in front of a landscape or building-type shots.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav: