-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is it still worth getting a separate camera if you have a high end smart phone?
- Thread starter Gaaraz
- Start date
- Status
Ha!
Mirrorless cameras are supposedly pretty good and a slightly cheaper alternative to a DSLR:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=mirrorless+camera
But yes, you probably want a dedicated camera.
dreamcastmaster
Banned
As good relatively to other smart-phone cameras the iPhone 4S is, a dedicated point and click digital camera is always better. The cheap Sony camera I had 8 years ago took better pictures.
They look good thanks, but still very much in their infant stages based on this article: http://www.readability.com/articles/paylwuk5
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
People are really underestimating current point and shoot technology.
Check out the sony rx100.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/rx100/pool/with/7668137314/
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/08/08/the-sony-rx100-shoots-seal-in-concert-by-barry-burris/
Check out the sony rx100.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/rx100/pool/with/7668137314/
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2012/08/08/the-sony-rx100-shoots-seal-in-concert-by-barry-burris/
Nailed it.
You can get a pretty good p&s in that case.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Nice. Wish it had better zoom though.
The Faceless Master
Member
get a good camera
Fleet_of_Foot
Member
Just to be clear, you should be concerned with optical zoom, not digital. Digital zoom is garbage.
Not a good example. Many phones can handle that situation just fine, and many high end cameras can't. What point are you trying to illustrate? You need huge latitude to properly show the range there. Even with a high-end DSLR you'd need to do multiple exposures if you wanted to capture all the detail.
One of the easiest example to show dynamic range for a pair of novice eyes.A rea; camera in this situation do much better than a phone camera.
Do you already have the lenses you need?
Nope. Just looking for good veratile entry level body.
You won't get any macro capabilities with an entry level lens. Macro lenses by the way are pretty expensive. You can buy adapters to make lenses act as if they were macro though. Personally I have not tried it.
An entry level cam would probably have a 18-55mm lens. That would be ok for wide angel shots, but you won't be able to zoom much at all.
Yeah I poop on the point and shoots, but those lense are actually pretty versatile. You get a wide angle view, zoom, and even macro capabilities.
fabricated backlash
Member
As with everything, if you want something done properly, bring the proper tools.
Jack of all trades, master of none and all that stuff.
If you want to just make some snapshots, any camera will do honestly, but phone cameras are by far no contest to proper equipment.
Like others have allready pointed out there are some amazing good offers even for beginners and amateurs, and the quality difference is a mere physical reality that compact cameras are never going to be able to overcome... unless you mount physical lenses and big ass sensors onto a smartphone.
Usually for starters, a 28-70mm zoom lens is what I would recommend. I still have one from my original Canon Eos1 (analog) and it works great on new digital Canon Cameras as well (at least the models I've tried it with) Just make sure you get one with a decent aperture ratio.
Jack of all trades, master of none and all that stuff.
If you want to just make some snapshots, any camera will do honestly, but phone cameras are by far no contest to proper equipment.
Like others have allready pointed out there are some amazing good offers even for beginners and amateurs, and the quality difference is a mere physical reality that compact cameras are never going to be able to overcome... unless you mount physical lenses and big ass sensors onto a smartphone.
Usually for starters, a 28-70mm zoom lens is what I would recommend. I still have one from my original Canon Eos1 (analog) and it works great on new digital Canon Cameras as well (at least the models I've tried it with) Just make sure you get one with a decent aperture ratio.
Dark Octave
Banned
OP is it worth getting a DS/PSV if you have a smartphone?
Pro: Better dedicated performance.
Con: Something extra you have to lug around.
Pro: Better dedicated performance.
Con: Something extra you have to lug around.
Don't forget about price. I wouldn't jump in if you just want to "fool around."
I use macro adapters ($10 rings, $70 magnifier adapter). Results vary. The cheap rings are... Not ideal. The magnifier works okay if you are on a budget. If you just hold a lens backward you've got a capable macro lens for $0 more. Or you could get a cheap reversal ring and not worry about keeping it steady.
I've had my eyes open the Canon EF 100mm and 65mm MP-E. Some day.
edit:
Bellows are also an option. Never tried one. I would assume the effect is the same as extension tubes.
br0ken_shad0w
Member
Here's something decent for sub-$400 (if you're looking for entry level SLR): http://www.adorama.com/ICAT3KR.html
You could always go with one of the "pro-sumer" models. Pretty versatile and way better than any phone offerings.
out0v0rder
Member
not really
And if you have both a cell phone and a real camera, the best camera is the camera.
Houston3000
Member
Like most people have said, it really depends on what your goals are with the pictures you're taking.
If you're willing to learn the basics of manual camera operation, invest in a decent raw image editor (like Photoshop), and want to create some artistically awesome and hi-resolution photographs... especially of things like scenery, sky shots, pictures of moving objects and crowds, etc than it's a good idea to use a DSLR camera. Basically, do you want to have fun with your photography? ...or do you just want to have a camera to snap pictures of your friends?
It seems some people don't realize that photography can be a hobby.
If you're willing to learn the basics of manual camera operation, invest in a decent raw image editor (like Photoshop), and want to create some artistically awesome and hi-resolution photographs... especially of things like scenery, sky shots, pictures of moving objects and crowds, etc than it's a good idea to use a DSLR camera. Basically, do you want to have fun with your photography? ...or do you just want to have a camera to snap pictures of your friends?
It seems some people don't realize that photography can be a hobby.
NekoFever
Member
Until phones start getting proper optical zoom, it's always worth getting a standalone camera for anything other than unimportant, spur of the moment snaps.
Decent phone cameras are only just starting to approach my Panasonic P&S that I bought in about 2005, and even then that camera has much better low-light performance, a decent flash, and the all-important zoom.
Decent phone cameras are only just starting to approach my Panasonic P&S that I bought in about 2005, and even then that camera has much better low-light performance, a decent flash, and the all-important zoom.
SolidusDave
Member
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/41408224/2012-04-29 15.15.50-2.jpg ?
(nah I get what you mean. Though modern smartphone cams perform actually quite nice during daylight etc.)
Once I have more money I plan on buying a dedicated, good camera.
But even then I think it's just very convenient to have a good smartphone camera with you at all times. If you actually plan to take pictures (like a vacation), you can bring the real camera.
Also, smartphone camera apps allow various fast/instant image post-processing(&uploading, e.g. dropbox). That's enough for making your party pictures look a bit cooler. Not talking about instagram as other apps offer a lot more filters besides that vintage stuff.
Besides the general quality of my smartphone cam, I really miss out on taking good pictures at low-light settings as well as having no optical zoom whatsoever.
I don't think this will change all that much in the future, there are simply physical limitations if you plan on making your camera/device so small(slim).
xValentine
Member
Get a Sony RX100.
It can fit your front jeans pocket but still takes dslr quality images. Blows away S100 and GX1 easily. Even Nikon's mirrorless.
Dont settle for those crappy smart phone cameras. Unless your into instagram, quality is abysmal on most scenes.
Thank me later.
It can fit your front jeans pocket but still takes dslr quality images. Blows away S100 and GX1 easily. Even Nikon's mirrorless.
Dont settle for those crappy smart phone cameras. Unless your into instagram, quality is abysmal on most scenes.
Thank me later.
AstroNut325
Member
The smartphones I've had thus far have had terrible cameras compared to even low-end point-n-shoots ones. Then I got a DSLR just days before my son was born... a world of difference.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
$600 may sound like a lot but you can get one of the best cameras in terms of IQ in a Sony NEX 5N. The 'kit' zoom lens that comes with it is also good enough.
About if its worth it or not, I think its totally dependent on the photographer. I think a photographer could totally get away with an iPhone 4S for everything they do provided everything they do conforms to the strengths of the iPhone. Its when you start moving away from the cameras comfort zone is where you can become frustrated with the device (tracking fast movement, depth of field control, absolute control of exposure and focus). IQ is still not debatable, large sensor cameras still beat the best phones, handily but these newer sensors in smartphones are definitely holding their own.
With all that said, check out this link of a photographer at the Olympics who has shot great photographs with his iPhone...
http://fstoppers.com/pro-photographer-using-his-iphone-to-photograph-the-olympics
...goes to show if you're good enough at the craft you can bend the tool to your needs
Generally bridge cameras have smaller than DSLR sensors but can be equipped with good lenses. But I tend to think of them as Point and Shoots with a larger optical zoom range.
About if its worth it or not, I think its totally dependent on the photographer. I think a photographer could totally get away with an iPhone 4S for everything they do provided everything they do conforms to the strengths of the iPhone. Its when you start moving away from the cameras comfort zone is where you can become frustrated with the device (tracking fast movement, depth of field control, absolute control of exposure and focus). IQ is still not debatable, large sensor cameras still beat the best phones, handily but these newer sensors in smartphones are definitely holding their own.
With all that said, check out this link of a photographer at the Olympics who has shot great photographs with his iPhone...
http://fstoppers.com/pro-photographer-using-his-iphone-to-photograph-the-olympics
...goes to show if you're good enough at the craft you can bend the tool to your needs
Generally bridge cameras have smaller than DSLR sensors but can be equipped with good lenses. But I tend to think of them as Point and Shoots with a larger optical zoom range.
The picture quality I get out of my DSLR have driven friends to look into purchasing one themselves.
1. I have an entry level DSLR (though one of the higher rated models)
2. I am a complete amatuer with a decent eye for what makes a nice pic
I have an HTC 4G phone and there is no way I would settle on using that exclusively for taking photos, though I do use it a lot when on the go. I also have a 10mp point and shoot which is decent, but it now hardly gets any use because of the DSLR.
My 2 cents.
1. I have an entry level DSLR (though one of the higher rated models)
2. I am a complete amatuer with a decent eye for what makes a nice pic
I have an HTC 4G phone and there is no way I would settle on using that exclusively for taking photos, though I do use it a lot when on the go. I also have a 10mp point and shoot which is decent, but it now hardly gets any use because of the DSLR.
My 2 cents.
Dude. That's not good at all. Look at the shadows on the leaves. It's dead black. The shadow is comepletely dead.
Look at the shadow detail on this photo, taken by a 8 year old DSLR. More here.
Image quality of the photo is directly proportion to the size of image sensor. The only way to dramatically increase the IQ is to increase sensor size. It doesn't matter if its a 10mp sensor or a 30mp sensor. The physical size need to be big.
I can see the future of smartphones going that way. Once you stuff a 1080p screen in a phone, there is no other way to increase the spec. You have to make the sensor bigger and bigger to improve the photo IQ. It's possible to stuff a very big 1" sensor inside a phone. Look at the 808.
There's only one mention of this camera phone, and it saddens me deeply.
lunarworks
Member
My iPhone 4S takes decent photos, fits in my pocket, and goes everywhere with me.
My Nikon DSLR takes amazing photos, but is heavy and awkward to carry around at times.
Both have their advantages, and I love having both.
My Nikon DSLR takes amazing photos, but is heavy and awkward to carry around at times.
Both have their advantages, and I love having both.
From what I understand it's not so great at the "phone" part, and the "camera" part relies on its one strength of sheer MP size.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Symbian OS is supposed to be awful and the screen is low res. I expect Pureview will be much bigger once it actually hits Windows Phone.
I have seen some great photos from smartphones. You guys are generally right in saying that a dedicated camera will outperform a phone camera, but don't underestimate what people can do with what little tools they have. I own a Droid Bionic, notorious for its poor camera, and I've got some more than acceptable shots from it.
Not that I disagree with the advice on buying a proper camera! I just think camera tech in phone is moving along alright, and especially over the past couple of years we've seen some very capable p&s substitutes in the phone arena.
BlueTsunami's link above is a good example. I'm not replying to the OP exactly (I say yes, it is worth getting a real camera), just more the sentiment that cell cameras are woefully inept. They can do a good job.
Not that I disagree with the advice on buying a proper camera! I just think camera tech in phone is moving along alright, and especially over the past couple of years we've seen some very capable p&s substitutes in the phone arena.
BlueTsunami's link above is a good example. I'm not replying to the OP exactly (I say yes, it is worth getting a real camera), just more the sentiment that cell cameras are woefully inept. They can do a good job.
xValentine
Member
Images looks great. Then you hit its limitations.
user8503492
Banned
Usually carry this in the wifes purse for quick pic taken
Al much better then any phone Ive had.
But for more important stuff like sports events and such I bring this one
I know absolutely nothing about photgraphy and both cams were cheap as well as the lens at the time I bought them. Coolpix is ok for some things and the 3000 gets great pics sometimes (wish i knew more how to operate it, seems like it used to take great pics and now the pics are crappy, maybe it needs some type of adjustments?)
And an extra lens
Al much better then any phone Ive had.
I have a olympus EP3 to compliment my phone.
With the 20mm panasonic lens, it makes all of the pictures previously taken with my phone cam and point and shoot looks really bad.
I think you can get the EP2 for pretty cheap these days. There's not much difference between EP2 and EP3.
It's pretty smallish in size too.
With the 20mm panasonic lens, it makes all of the pictures previously taken with my phone cam and point and shoot looks really bad.
I think you can get the EP2 for pretty cheap these days. There's not much difference between EP2 and EP3.
It's pretty smallish in size too.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
if you want something that zooms, the question is obvious. (not a cell phone).
plus, if you take tons of pictures you're going to be losing battery on your cell phone then when you actually need to make a call you're fucked cause its out of battery
plus, if you take tons of pictures you're going to be losing battery on your cell phone then when you actually need to make a call you're fucked cause its out of battery
Roland Garros
Banned
I received my first DSLR two weeks ago and I'm getting frustrated at not being able to get the most out of it. Can totally relate to anyone feeling frustrated.
I JUST WANNA BE DECENT.
Yes, smart phone cameras fucking suck ass. Don't let anyone tell you differently, the best you get is with perfect light which is rare. A standard point and shoot will out shine smart phones.
I go CRAZY when all I see are parents out places taking photos of their kids using smart phones. For fucks sake people ... get a real fucking camera all those shake ridden, grainy phone pics you will regret when your kid is older. /RAGE
edit. My gear consists of ...
Phones (grrr)
HTC Rezound
DroidX (wife)
Cameras
Canon 7D - 24-70 2.8L carry lens
Canon Powershot ELPH 300 HS (wife)
The powershot is with my wife everywhere we go, the 7D is brought along for day trips, photo events and family gatherings. I use my cell phone to take photos of stupid shit and never my son.
Patience and just continue learning. It took me nearly 2 years of using my first DSLR and kit lens to feel comfortable enough with the fact I had 'maxed' out what was possible with my glass. I took the opportunity to upgrade the body at the same time, but nearly 3.5 years later I'm still learning more every week. Photography is a perfect example of the kind of hobby that you get out what you put in. If you put your camera on Auto, expect slow response time and mediocre photos. If you learn manual, or more easily Aperture or Shutter priority modes, and some decent post processing .. you can do most everything you want. From there the sky is the limit, how much time and effort translates into skill and better results.
Some photographers take years, or decades to get really great. It really can take that long... so stick with it.
I go CRAZY when all I see are parents out places taking photos of their kids using smart phones. For fucks sake people ... get a real fucking camera all those shake ridden, grainy phone pics you will regret when your kid is older. /RAGE
edit. My gear consists of ...
Phones (grrr)
HTC Rezound
DroidX (wife)
Cameras
Canon 7D - 24-70 2.8L carry lens
Canon Powershot ELPH 300 HS (wife)
The powershot is with my wife everywhere we go, the 7D is brought along for day trips, photo events and family gatherings. I use my cell phone to take photos of stupid shit and never my son.
Patience and just continue learning. It took me nearly 2 years of using my first DSLR and kit lens to feel comfortable enough with the fact I had 'maxed' out what was possible with my glass. I took the opportunity to upgrade the body at the same time, but nearly 3.5 years later I'm still learning more every week. Photography is a perfect example of the kind of hobby that you get out what you put in. If you put your camera on Auto, expect slow response time and mediocre photos. If you learn manual, or more easily Aperture or Shutter priority modes, and some decent post processing .. you can do most everything you want. From there the sky is the limit, how much time and effort translates into skill and better results.
Some photographers take years, or decades to get really great. It really can take that long... so stick with it.
xValentine
Member
Then take photos and read. Everything you need to learn is in the web, then apply it. Also a kit lens will just give you decent quality(assuming that's what you have). Get a prime lens (50mm or 35mm) and you'll be amazed.
- Status