Digi SLR v Camera phone

[Skyedriver]

OK so it's probably me and using an old camera (mainly me I suspect) but I have 2 Fuji S5600 which I have owned for 15 years or more and always been happy with the results as viewed on the lap top.
Recently young son has bought an iPhone 7.
The pics he takes as well as being well framed and positioned (he has a gift apparently, knew he must be good at something as well as being an irritating git) show better colour, better definition, better contrast, in fact altogether better photographs. TBH even the photos taken on my wifes' Nokia Windowphone are better at times.
Answer?
Give up
Buy a damn apple device
Buy a new DSLR
Try and adjust the Fuji cameras (something I've recently done is change the ISO on them to 400 from 200 to try and improve faster moving subjects in average light, do I put it back?)
On a different matter, one thing that has always annoyed me with these is the delay in actually taking a photo after pressing the button. Assume modern SLR are faster?

[Cantaloupe]

Pro photographers will always use SLRs, but you're right, one would be hard pressed to tell if a candid portrait
was taken with a £4000 SLR or a £300 cameraphone.

[Lazermilk]

Take a look at the Huawei P30 Pro, my mate has one and the pics he sent look awesome, by far the best photos I’ve seen any phone take.

[RichTT]

I will always take my Fuji x100 if I'm going on a sightseeing holiday or trip. But for casual holiday and every day use my Pixel 3 blows a cheaper digital camera out of the water. That in combination with a very clever photo storage ability and very clever algorithms make it appealing to never carry a camera about again.

[Tony1963]

Your Fujis are ancient. Almost everything about them will have improved beyond comparison now.
If you do any action photography at all, a modern dSLR will still blow a phone camera away.
If you print images at a large size, a modern dSLR will blow a phone camera away.

I’ve an iPhone XS and a decent Canon dSLR, and while I use it for taking thousands of photos every year, the iPhone just can’t compete with the Canon for ‘serious’ photography. You just can’t beat decent glass and a larger sensor.

Put an image from the iPhone 7 on a large screen, you’ll see what I mean.

[Coolbanana]

Mobiles like the P30, S10+, XS etc have very capable cameras for Social Media. On small screens, they look great, easy to use thanks to clever Auto features - even framing advice in some cases. If you share all your pictures on Instagram, WhatsApp and FB, then a mobile is pretty much all you need for everyday stuff.

However, no mobile currently comes close to matching what a DSLR or FF Mirrorless can achieve for true quality and certainly can't match the high-quality glass required for Sports, Wildlife or Wedding photography, for example.

I take loads of pics on my mobile - I use that and a GoPro when I am out cycling or unplanned walkabouts. My EOS R is noticeably far better however and is what I much prefer to have for planned trips.

My Canon 20D - my first DSLR - is still going strong, and even with just 8MP blows my S10+ away. Why? The quality of the glass I can put on it and the larger sensor. None of my mobile photos has ever matched the best that 14 yr old camera has produced.

Edited by Coolbanana on Wednesday 3rd July 08:32

[LordHaveMurci]

I am not a great 'tog but I use my Nikon DSLR for my kids cadets, kayaking etc & our pets in the garden/on walks etc.

Having decent zoom, decent low light performance, high shutter speed when req'd, control over aperture for DOF are all very useful to me & things my iPhone don't offer.

It is a bulky beast though, especially with the 70-200 so rarely comes out unless really necessary!

[coldel]

DSLRs will always have bigger sensors and the lenses will allow for better quality images. The camera phone in my opinion has done away with the need for a £100 compact camera and great at capturing photos of people/holidays/etc. but imagery such as telephoto, macro, wide angle, depth of field etc. still need proper lenses and proper sensors. You also have a much larger amount of control over the photo with the DSLR. IMO.

[GetCarter]

Hi Tony

Ditch the Fuji, or give it to a museum

Buy a modern DSLR or for 'fit in the jacket pocket' a Sony RX100. (Lots of versions that differ in price - the fact that you can buy 6 incarnations including the original *still* tells you how good they are).

Most of mine these days with said Sony >>>> http://www.stevecarter.com/latest/latesttorridon19...

[Coolbanana]

GetCarter said:

Hi Tony

Ditch the Fuji, or give it to a museum

Buy a modern DSLR or for 'fit in the jacket pocket' a Sony RX100. (Lots of versions that differ in price - the fact that you can buy 6 incarnations including the original *still* tells you how good they are).

Most of mine these days with said Sony >>>> http://www.stevecarter.com/latest/latesttorridon19...

Awesome photography!

The Sony is indeed a great little camera, I like mine too albeit I'm not achieving the magic you can.

[Tyre Smoke]

My Canon hasn't been out of it's bag for years - at least four.

I use my Samsung S9 for everything. Admittedly I'm not an avid snapper, but cameras on phones now have lots of adjustments available. Far more than they used to.

[Skyedriver]

Thanks everyone.
Just looked at the spec of the Fuji, 5M max
The iPhone is 7M
Those Sony RX100 look good, at a price for the vi version
Will read up a bit on them.
Steve, do you tie it to a drone for the aerial shots??
Is is worth looking at dSLR at all then or just go for the handier unit. Not likely to do anything professional.
The max we view on is a lap top screen or maybe a 24" PC monitor on rare occasions

[GetCarter]

Skyedriver said:

Thanks everyone.
Just looked at the spec of the Fuji, 5M max
The iPhone is 7M
Those Sony RX100 look good, at a price for the vi version
Will read up a bit on them.
Steve, do you tie it to a drone for the aerial shots??
Is is worth looking at dSLR at all then or just go for the handier unit. Not likely to do anything professional.
The max we view on is a lap top screen or maybe a 24" PC monitor on rare occasions

Ha, no I have a drone with camera! Though interestingly it has the same 1" sensor.

DSLR always better than the rest. Just have to pay big premium for them. and take big stuff out each day.

Edited by GetCarter on Thursday 4th July 07:05

[abzmike]

Just the past week or so I’ve been going through my iPhotos library looking for some nice postures from holidays and so on to get printed about A3 size for the wall in the hall. I’m finding that about 2/3 of the most pleasing to the eye are from my iPhone 6, rather than my Nikon D3300. Now someone will be along to tell me in a minute that it’s a diddy ‘consumer’ camera, but although the pictures are good, especially if zoomed or poor light, the iPhone ones especially of colourful scenes, sunsets and so on ‘pop’ more. Perhaps the phone is doing more processing internally to sex them up, and I’ve not touched up the Nikon, as I’d rather have them natural than artificial. It will be interesting to see how some compare when printed.

[Coolbanana]

abzmike said:

Just the past week or so I’ve been going through my iPhotos library looking for some nice postures from holidays and so on to get printed about A3 size for the wall in the hall. I’m finding that about 2/3 of the most pleasing to the eye are from my iPhone 6, rather than my Nikon D3300. Now someone will be along to tell me in a minute that it’s a diddy ‘consumer’ camera, but although the pictures are good, especially if zoomed or poor light, the iPhone ones especially of colourful scenes, sunsets and so on ‘pop’ more. Perhaps the phone is doing more processing internally to sex them up, and I’ve not touched up the Nikon, as I’d rather have them natural than artificial. It will be interesting to see how some compare when printed.

I'd agree that the Phone is indeed doing just that, more processing internally. I would just say...post-processing of your photos is not necessarily making them artificial. Do you shoot Manual, Auto etc? Is what you saw what the camera produced? Different camera's produce different images if left to their own Auto settings, some pretty decent, others not so much. The software in camera's is tweaked and mobiles do tend to saturate quite a bit to make them 'pop'. Natural? Maybe not. Maybe yes, depending how the camera interpreted the scene. DSLR's do tend to need you to tweak the settings I find to get your best images, rather than rely upon Auto.

When I was shooting DSLR's, the optical viewfinder showed me exactly what I could see but not what my camera would produce and the two are not necessarily going to be the same without some settings adjustment - certainly, my personal skill-level meant that I might not be taking the image as seen properly or as I was hoping for. I use Mirrorless with an electronic viewfinder now and that, more accurately, shows me what the camera will produce so that I can see what adjustments I want to make immediately.

Camera's like Sony's RX100 VI do produce pretty nice-looking images using its own preset settings which I always use since I don't really get along with Sony's Menu and Settings process for Manual adjustment. Mobiles are the same, they have tweaked presets that are generally nice. But DSLR's / FF Mirrorless will be nicer still if you set them up properly.

[MrMister]

Phones have come along way, but a good DSLR with fantastic prime lenses are still the daddy in every way from a professional shoooter aspect.

Phones are great for consumers the like, but even just ergonomics aside DSLRs are better to hold and eye up your shot etc, who cares if it's heavy (weight is good for holding your shot).…I'm oldskool and still hold my breath when I am focusing!

I shoot daily on a DSLR for work (Canon 5dsr and 7Ds), usually commercial scenario's and using a phone would be very awkward and just won't work at all!

But, I don't need to preach about the benefits of DSLRs as the people who know, know their better for paid daily work.

I get this alot from guys in the pub - "why do you need all that kit to do that shoot" simply put I know what shot I need to get paid etc... everyone thinks their a photographer now they have an iPhone and Instagram, yet ask them about aperture and shutter speed and they look gormless not all, but most...

Edited by MrMister on Wednesday 3rd July 22:07

Edited by MrMister on Wednesday 3rd July 22:10

[SCEtoAUX]

Also... these phones cost £1000 or so.

You could pick up something like a used Nikon D700, tripod, monopod, a couple of flashguns, a couple of prime lenses, a 70-300mm with macro and a decent book on photography for about the same money.

That would open up a world of photography that the camera phone user can only dream about.

[Tony1963]

SCEtoAUX said:

Also... these phones cost £1000 or so.

You could pick up something like a used Nikon D700, tripod, monopod, a couple of flashguns, a couple of prime lenses, a 70-300mm with macro and a decent book on photography for about the same money.

That would open up a world of photography that the camera phone user can only dream about.

But most of us would still want a newish smartphone too, so that’s a moot point.

[rene7]

Cameras within mobiles are Excellent at taking hoilday type SNAPs
What they can't take are something like these:-
>

>
Mobile camera's are now so good I never bother carrying a compact with me. [I used to carry a Canon G series everywhere]
The Snaps taken with mobiles are plenty good enough for sale - I've sold many Mobile 'Snaps' for top money. It's a Supply/Demand situation.
>
As as been mentioned Mobiles are no good for wildlife Photography - Especiially 'Birds in Flight' or Aircraft at an airshow for example
For the average Bloke in the street though they are dogz bks compared to the old type of 35mm film compact but for serious photography an SLR will always be king

[TheRainMaker]

I agree a real camera (not going to call is a DSLR as mirrorless is the way forward) is still better than a phone but the gap has closed to the point where the compact camera is dead.