Go to http://squarespace.com/Chelsea & save 10% off your first website or domain with code “Chelsea” “Smartphones aren’t real …
source
Smartphones are REAL cameras! FIGHT ME!!
Recommended For You
46 Comments
Comments are closed.
Go to http://squarespace.com/Chelsea & save 10% off your first website or domain with code “Chelsea” “Smartphones aren’t real …
source
Comments are closed.
Won't fight you because they do indeed have real cameras able to capture great images. The problem with phones is the ergonomics. Ok for short period of time, but I can't imagine having someone on a football field trying to keep up with dslr or mirrorless (ergonomically speaking).
Samsung's S20 through S22 cameras are actually better than the iPhone cameras
Please can you do a deep dive on the motion cam raw dng video with Samsung, man I'm telling you that's a whole game-changer, please, please I would like you to try it out just that the data is huge but I am sure you'll be surprised with the quality you'll get… Thanks, I'm your fan from Nigeria.
My camera is fantastic it also makes phone calls , lets me surf web , receive send emails etc etc etc . There are a few cameras around like this these days but only Sony have them in their range . Those folks at Canon , Nikon etc etc are still scratching their head figuring out how the tech works 😂
I agree that smartphones are real cameras, basically becoming the Brownie of the 21st century, but they also have the absolute worst ergonomics that I have ever experienced on a camera. Cameras figured out the ergonomics about 100 years ago, and phones have tried, or been forced to rethink that, and have failed miserably in my opinion.
Sure, they're real, but simple physics says they'll never be able to do what a DSLR/Mirrorless can do. Hell, just try to blow up an image taken on their small sensors.
My iPhone 12 Pro Max is the first smartphone that is used as a working photo tool I use for bodybuilding events to quickly load useable photos to Instagram and Facebook. The photos were so good that competitors regularly copy the photos off Instagram and posted them on their own accounts. Also live streaming is very simple and quick.
However it’s not hard to find it’s limit. It’s not too good with a combination of action and low light scene. And if I am at an event where I can’t get access to the front of the stage then I need my Canon G3X travel camera with a long zoom lens. It is also frustrating that the live streaming on Instagram, Facebook and YouTube apps won’t allow you to use the native camera controls like brightness adjustment or lens selection.
The invasion of Ukraine is a great example. Beyond documenting the destruction, smartphones are being used by thousands of grannies, teens and other civilians to provide Ukrainian troops with real-time intelligence on Russian troop movements, with devastating effect.
Really great argument for the Smartphone. It's really odd to call any device that makes an image 'not a real camera'. My three cameras are… Kodak Box Brownie No2, iPhone 7+ and a Sony a7r iii, and I consider these and the results they produce to be very real.
Yes today's smart phones are capable of taking incredible images, but for me they have one major drawback, you can't change the battery on most smart phones and in my experience after 2 or 3 years phones start to slow down and the batteries start to degrade until they become useless. Even my old xt1 is still taking great images and I suspect will do so when many of today's expensive smart phones will be assigned to the bin🤷♂️
Let's face reality, most of the photos that we professional photographers take (professional = who lives from taking photographies) end up being used mostly on digital devices or social networks. I love my Sony equipments (2 Sony A7R3, A7R4), the quality, the resolution, the ultra sharp optics, but more and more I use my iPhone in professional jobs. It all started accidentally, I started using my iphone 11 with a portable LED light, for a client who uses 100% of the photos on social networks, it was all I needed and from that moment I use my smartphone more and more for work. Luckily, time and today's young people are breaking paradigms and more and more clients are focused on the result, not on what equipment you use to take the photo.
I am going to paraphrase a comment made by the famous Mario Testino in an interview for Vogue magazine, "Don't you think that the trend of millions of users who use more and more smartphones every day to take pictures will finally end up extinguishing the professional photographer?". Mario: On the contrary, I think that the fact that more and more people are doing photography with their phones will make them respect more the good professional photographer, they will see that achieving a great photograph is not as easy as they thought".
The issue here Tony….. let’s say a couple is getting married. And they have a wedding photographer walk in with 3 smartphones. Do you think they would be all giddy and joyful that they have a great photographer ready to capture their big day?!? Then again. That would be so awesome.
Phones are phones. Cameras are cameras. So smartphones are just phones that also have camera in it.
Is one of the top 10 most valuable companies (Apple) can shoot at least part of their launch events on a smartphone – ie the very definition of professional photography – then why do we bother with a DSLR or mirrorless for anything other than very niche applications?
Of course they're real cameras. Any working photographer knows their importance and has probably made money from its images at some point. This thinking that it's not, it's just a snobbish attitude of some people.
Nice rant Tony! A small difference, phones are beautiful for internet and I love all the young artists who use them and produce excellent results but all the same JPG vs Raw it is a lost case as their 1/2 inch sensor! But I will agree with you about the artists!
Great video Tony! The best smart phones today are definitely cameras. Personally I have a love/hate relationship with smartphones and the psychological impact that they have (along with resulting instant gratification) on society. I just can’t get inspired by my smartphone, since most of the time I feel what I do on it makes me “dumber” lol. So I choose to keep my phone in the bag while on a shoot or photo walk, to silence the temptation and distraction and focus only on the goal at hand. But it doesn’t make it not a real camera! Just one I have grown to mostly hate 😂
Those film gatekeepers were right. Those early digital cameras were toys, but they got better over time so now people take them seriously. It's the same thing with smartphones.
A brownie is a real camera. So?
This past week, I have posted photos taken with my galaxy s22 ultra and my viewers can not tell the difference. I even impressed myself. Thanks Tony. 🙂
The only thing that smartphones are good at: shooting 4K videos.
Professional photography? Hit or Miss.
Most people don't really use the whole smartphone per se. How many people do you know use EVERY single feature including the different lenses on their phone? Smartphones are multipurpose tools, not dedicated cameras.
Agree… had even newspaper front page color print….from cell phone. Also had really nice framed large print for client.
Much easier for certain projects.
Been thru film, Polaroids (handy), and large full frame digital cameras…etc.
(Do luv my 51mp canons!)
Said no but that was a complete turn around for me after this video.
My phone has a trash camera because i bought it for the performance not the camera quality and i use a dslr for portrait photography because computational photography isnt good enough for artificial bokeh
Guys, sorry for the long comment!
I will start to say that smartphones are the top camera industry that innovate year after year. And that is because of the exorbitant competition between smartphone companies. This is what competition does, it makes innovation grow like to other.
Now I will share my photography experience.
I appreciate smartphones because they opened a gateway to photography to the whole population. Now every person has a phone and can take pictures and video at their leasure.
Personally I got to love photography due to a smartphone and my next step was to purchase a camera. My choice was a mirrorless, because it was the approximate experience to a smartphone, what you see is what you get. Didn't even consider a DSLR at that point, mainly because of their size and lack of real time view of my imagine. But as technology makes it easier and better for you, there is also a counter back, it makes everything more boring.
Funny enough, now in the present day, I don't even use a digital camera for my photography pleasure, I now use a very old film camera. Not a modern one, no, an old 60' camera, no lightmeter, fully mechanical. This is what brings me joy now. :))
With a smartphone or any digital camera, now just by the press of a single button, one button only, you'll get the perfect exposure. For me that just seems soulless now. There is no feeling to it. It's a boring operation.
For my old film camera, not only that I have to input the settings manually for each shot (aperture, shutter, iso) but I also have to think of exposure and light conditions for each shot in order to dial those settings. This slow process of you which the computer in modern cameras does it in miliseconds and also shows you the result instantly is what brings me pleasure. The interaction between me and the camera, pushing my brain to think, is something that is making me the key factor of making the image and not the computer.
I'm not blaming modern cameras, no, I'm just saying that technology advanced so far, that if I need an instant picture or to make a video I have a smartphone in my pocket! But for pure photographic pleasure I will use a fully mechanical old camera. 😊
the best camera is the camera you have with you….
One thing I have learned to want in any camera is a view finder. Living in Western Australia we have bright sunlight that can reflect off any screen – and that maybe why I just don't think of using my phone as much as I perhaps should. I also find it easier to hold and press a shutter on a conventional camera over having to tap a dot on the screen. Maybe that's just that I am older than I like to think I am….
I cannot accept smartphone post processing outcomes. Over saturated, sharpening, oil painting effect and most of the time the colour is off. Plus cannot be undone.
One of the Reasons I bought a canon RP IS it’s ability to file share with my smartphone. I have no problem shifting back and fourth between my camera and smartphone. Both are powerful tools, they have their strength and weaknesses. Surgeons use scalpels and saws, but for different needs
What an impressive contribution. Brave and well presented. I guess you could argue that learning to master the smartphone camera is a skill in itself. Thank you for blowing away the snobbery! By the way – lens size is a nonsense debate too. Take a look at the pupil on your own eyes – that's small, right? And in most scenario's better than an average camera! Thank you Tony.
"Gear shaming" is a typical critique tools used by many of the so called "real photographers" -your photo is evaluated not by the results but by the tool you use to take it. What can I say….. just ignore those people, the results is what counts!!!!!
It is funny: in some video you are proving (correctly) that 70-200 GM2 is better than 70-200GM, and not you are saying that Smartphones are better than cameras.
Of course, all these devices have their own cases. Still, I can easily see the advantage of my FF with 2.8/1.8/1.4 lenses over iPhone 12 (which I'm using a lot for photos).
Which camera manufacturer will be game enough to design a killer computational photography compact camera? Imagine how much more battery capacity, computational power, heat management and optics they can squeeze into a compact body vs a smartphone. Such a camera will leave the iPhone, S22 and even a $5000 mirrorless for dead for any type of photography.
okay!!… but these "Real cameras" are surly not for REAL Photographers !
the last 'camera' i bought is a d810 with a 24-120 for travel, which let me print 3-4 feet size photo or look at them on a 55" 4k tv ok, got exited so many times when later models came out , but they are just either didn't offer enough difference for me to switch, or have to spend huge money into a new system like the fuji 100, its too much for me on a hobby.
while i was on a trip, i discovered that i got very good results using my sony Z2 premium smartphone , which most of the shots sre good for a a3+ print, especially night shots, then i got a huawei p30 pro later , cause its good to have a little tele , and i want to compare the night shots, but when i try to shoot in raw, the main camera shocks me, the detail actually came so close to the d810 set, which i had a day cityshot printed in 36" with amazing details, friends thought its from the d810. so, along with the wide, tele cameras and 4k videos, i can cover all the needs on travel, and saving some weight 🙂
guess time to sell that old bulky camera.
Awesome video, great content, and I am a firm believer with what you said. My Fijifilm camera is gathering dust, except my 100V
Don't disagree with you Tony. My only observations are I have just picked up a 5D Mk1. Will the phone still work in 15 years… Or in 15 years time, will the iPhone 13 be worth buying…. as long as it still gets a signal, I guess so. I cannot afford to buy often. I can see it being tempting to trade all my gear for a Pixel 6, as I generally shoot landscape and my longest lens is 200MM. I suppose my problem is I already have kit, but fully understand that smartphone users can be real photographers.
That R3 astro shot was complete nonsense and you know it. You went from 30 seconds to 1 second to get rid of star trails? Why not 10 seconds?
The first comparison with the R3 is also ridiculous, the R3 looks infinitely better, even if it's a little noisier. At least it looks like a sharp photography and not an oil painting… Seriously, there are details in the R3 photo that you would have no idea existed looking at the iPhone shot.
You're obviously picking and choosing what aspects to talk about and which to ignore in each photo to make the smartphone look as good as possible instead of actually having a fair comparison.
And really, the R3? Just for the price shock value I suppose? You could have used any other modern, 24mp, full frame camera and it would have nearly identical results for these tests. There was absolutely no reason to use the R3 other than to point at the price.
You will never get the same autofocus, dynamic range or depth of field but… the truth is i'm mad, I myself have seen tiny sensors slowly catching up to professional gear purely from software, just looks at the stabilization in the latest GoPro. Truth is the RAW image being captured by these tiny sensors is terrible, but with the latest denoise, sharpness algorithms, multiple or long exposures etc. these latest smartphones can now take photos at night and in situations you would have needed a bright aperture lens. Oh yea, with the depth of field, well software is unfortunately taking care of that, even in video now. It currently looks terrible but software could make it completely replicate a 'real quality lens'
Smart phones are real cameras just like Square Space sites are real websites.
But how do compare a 25600 iso shot, to a 358 iso shot? You are purposely making 'pro' cameras look bad.
Plus, you would think camera manufacturers would step up their game, especially since their competition is a mini computer in your pocket that you can make phone calls from and take awesome pictures with. Canon and Nikon should step up their game.
Did you film this on your iPhone?
I think the contrast and depth of field is slightly better in a real camera vs camera phone. My Galaxy doesn't get bokeh like my real camera does unless I'm inches or a couple feet away. I don't have the s22, I have the s20, and I don't think they are that different, but maybe I'm wrong.
I don't think the phone and camera are the same, but similar.