How much difference does camera technology really make?
Discussion
I ask because I have an older Sony A200 DSLP with a Tamaron XR Di II lens, as well as others, and recently the shots have been disappointing in comparison to what I can take on a camera phone these days.
That has got me wondering about a camera upgrade, but I see Sony have stopped producing camera's with the old A mount, which means either a complete change of brand to Nikon or Canon or swap to something like a bridge camera, which these days have far more zoom than I have today, and back to the original point, probably better than what I have today.
That has got me wondering about a camera upgrade, but I see Sony have stopped producing camera's with the old A mount, which means either a complete change of brand to Nikon or Canon or swap to something like a bridge camera, which these days have far more zoom than I have today, and back to the original point, probably better than what I have today.
Edited by Megaflow on Sunday 5th June 17:31
My 2p is that unless you are doing some form of "specialised" photography, so something that needs a long lens (Wildlife or sports) or a specialist lens (macro, tilt-shift etc) or where you needs lots of control (shots of the milky way / long exposures etc) then you are probably best off using an iPhone!
I wouldn't have said that a few years ago, but the game has moved on and I think for what 99% of people use a phone for, an iPhone (or other smart phone) is enough for most people.
Others will have different opinions and I am saying this as someone who largely fell out of love with photography a few years back (but it did used to be part of what I did for a living.)
I wouldn't have said that a few years ago, but the game has moved on and I think for what 99% of people use a phone for, an iPhone (or other smart phone) is enough for most people.
Others will have different opinions and I am saying this as someone who largely fell out of love with photography a few years back (but it did used to be part of what I did for a living.)
I think a lot of the difference between your Sony photos and those from your iPhone is down to in-phone in—camera processing. The iPhone does a very good job of this so images can have ‘impact’ straightaway. Your Sony just can’t compete, but might be able to with some editing later on.
Megaflow said:
I ask because I have an older Sony A200 DSLP with a Tamaron XR Di II lens, as well as others, and recently the shots have been disappointing in comparison to what I can take on a camera phone these days.
That has got me wondering about a camera upgrade, but I see Sony have stopped producing camera's with the old A mount, which means either a complete change of brand to Nikon or Canon or swap to something like a bridge camera, which these days have far more zoom than I have today, and back to the original point, probably better than what I have today.
Sony are still in the business of interchangeable lens cameras, just not ones with a mirror on the A mount.That has got me wondering about a camera upgrade, but I see Sony have stopped producing camera's with the old A mount, which means either a complete change of brand to Nikon or Canon or swap to something like a bridge camera, which these days have far more zoom than I have today, and back to the original point, probably better than what I have today.
Edited by Megaflow on Sunday 5th June 17:31
They were already developing mirrorless cameras, and the next step for their DSLRs was the SLT, which made the mirror transparent instead of moving it to take the picture. But they realised what was the point and just removed the mirror for all their cameras and ditched the A mount for full force on the E mount. You can get A to E adapters if you carried on with Sony (or adapt your A mount lenses to any of the mirrorless FF mounts)
Sensor tech has come quite a long way even since the A200 was new, most notably in the noise/dynamic range performance. ISO6400 or even 12800 isn't much of an issue now.
Modern-day mirrorless autofocus tech also completely blows away those found in DSLRs. If you have usecases which can make us of this new tech and sensor performance, you will see results.
As mentioned by others, phones kind of "cheat" by doing a lot of fancy post-processing which a proper camera doesn't do for you, and some which you currently just can't do on a proper camera such as super fast image stacking.
If you intend to print an image a reasonable size then forget the iPhone.
For me photography is not so much about the final picture but more the enjoyment of the hobby of taking the picture (a but like the journey not the destination), as such ive gone back to basics and use film cameras, the iphone is always at hand for a snap if wanted, but handling an old camera with all the aperture 'clicks' , shutter noises and the act of winding on film makes it the enjoyable hobby i used to know it as again
For me photography is not so much about the final picture but more the enjoyment of the hobby of taking the picture (a but like the journey not the destination), as such ive gone back to basics and use film cameras, the iphone is always at hand for a snap if wanted, but handling an old camera with all the aperture 'clicks' , shutter noises and the act of winding on film makes it the enjoyable hobby i used to know it as again
I've belonged to two photographic clubs, and both had a bloke with a rangefinder camera that had seen better decades who would win competitions. One was a Leica, and was only too willing to tell you, but the other had a run-of-the-mill 35 mill with a hand-held exposure metre. A Weston.
I was and am of the opinion that the photographer is more important than the camera for quality shots. That said, they were limited in their output, one taking candid (carefully posed at times I reckoned) shots, and the other seemed to concentrate on sunrises and sunsets over The Channel. (Bit harsh.) The former used to put black insulating tape over the shiny bits of his camera. To me, it made it stand out.
I was and am of the opinion that the photographer is more important than the camera for quality shots. That said, they were limited in their output, one taking candid (carefully posed at times I reckoned) shots, and the other seemed to concentrate on sunrises and sunsets over The Channel. (Bit harsh.) The former used to put black insulating tape over the shiny bits of his camera. To me, it made it stand out.
Derek Smith said:
I was and am of the opinion that the photographer is more important than the camera for quality shots.
It’s not your opinion, it’s a fact. Just the same as giving me the best artist materials for oil painting won’t mean I’ll produce anything better than I could when I was 6. Nobody with a brain cell argues the other way. Tony1963 said:
Derek Smith said:
I was and am of the opinion that the photographer is more important than the camera for quality shots.
It’s not your opinion, it’s a fact. Just the same as giving me the best artist materials for oil painting won’t mean I’ll produce anything better than I could when I was 6. Nobody with a brain cell argues the other way. In the camera clubs I belonged to, there were a number of skilled, highly skilled, photographers. Whether they could produce the quality images they seemed to churn out when they were 6 years of age is something we may never know. However, in a club where a significant number of members produced excellent quality images, the decider between them was never, ever, the quality of the camera. Those with cameras which lacked the latest gizmos did not always win competitions either. Just seemed to.
Just to clarify, I did not mean to suggest, if it came over that way, that the Leica rangefinder was poor quality equipment of course. It was fixed focal length, with a testing maximum aperture and a challenging shutter speed range. Also, subject matter was rather limited.
Tony1963 said:
Derek Smith said:
I was and am of the opinion that the photographer is more important than the camera for quality shots.
It’s not your opinion, it’s a fact. Just the same as giving me the best artist materials for oil painting won’t mean I’ll produce anything better than I could when I was 6. Nobody with a brain cell argues the other way. I full understand the argument that given like for like equipment the photographer will be the differentiating factor, but for this discussion the photographer is the same, me, but the results are definitely not what the used to be.
As far as I can see it’s either:
1) I have got worse, seems unlikely when the phone produces results I am happy with.
2) The camera is degraded in someway.
3) My phone has changed over the years, and the 2 year old phone is now nearly as capable as a 15 year DSLR.
As far as I can see it’s either:
1) I have got worse, seems unlikely when the phone produces results I am happy with.
2) The camera is degraded in someway.
3) My phone has changed over the years, and the 2 year old phone is now nearly as capable as a 15 year DSLR.
Megaflow said:
I full understand the argument that given like for like equipment the photographer will be the differentiating factor, but for this discussion the photographer is the same, me, but the results are definitely not what the used to be.
As far as I can see it’s either:
1) I have got worse, seems unlikely when the phone produces results I am happy with.
2) The camera is degraded in someway.
3) My phone has changed over the years, and the 2 year old phone is now nearly as capable as a 15 year DSLR.
Essentially you're seeing images which appeal more to you, and you didn't realise such a thing existed until you saw it. In short, you're getting more discerning. Or spoilt!As far as I can see it’s either:
1) I have got worse, seems unlikely when the phone produces results I am happy with.
2) The camera is degraded in someway.
3) My phone has changed over the years, and the 2 year old phone is now nearly as capable as a 15 year DSLR.
As the photographer is the same I suspect it's the phone processing which is making the difference. It allows people to take fab photos whilst having no idea how they did it. And for most people that's enough. I suspect that if you shot RAW and processed them longhand you could match them or do better. But without seeing examples of what you like and don't like it's a guess.
Megaflow said:
I full understand the argument that given like for like equipment the photographer will be the differentiating factor, but for this discussion the photographer is the same, me, but the results are definitely not what the used to be.
As far as I can see it’s either:
1) I have got worse, seems unlikely when the phone produces results I am happy with.
2) The camera is degraded in someway.
3) My phone has changed over the years, and the 2 year old phone is now nearly as capable as a 15 year DSLR.
I just think your standards have changed after seeing the relative ease and convenience of how a smartphone gets a sharp picture.As far as I can see it’s either:
1) I have got worse, seems unlikely when the phone produces results I am happy with.
2) The camera is degraded in someway.
3) My phone has changed over the years, and the 2 year old phone is now nearly as capable as a 15 year DSLR.
Just to add to the mix, the choice of subject matter goes some way to making a difference. Some of the most iconic images in my lifetime have been blurred, poorly framed, and not properly focused. The chap standing in from of the Chinese takes, carrier bags in his hand. The demonstrator putting a flower into a rifle barrel, the Vietnamese chap being shot in the head, and the naked child burned by napalm.
Before my time there was Iwo Jima and the flag, the puddle jumper (blurred, out of focus and poorly exposed, yet I still remember it.) The common theme here was how poor technically they were.
But the photographer had an eye for the image.
Before my time there was Iwo Jima and the flag, the puddle jumper (blurred, out of focus and poorly exposed, yet I still remember it.) The common theme here was how poor technically they were.
But the photographer had an eye for the image.
Derek Smith said:
Before my time there was Iwo Jima and the flag, the puddle jumper (blurred, out of focus and poorly exposed, yet I still remember it.) The common theme here was how poor technically they were.
But the photographer had an eye for the image.
On Iwo Jima - 'And it’s all because Rosenthal swung his bulky Graflex 4x5 camera in the right direction at the right split-second and snapped the shot—without even looking through his viewfinder.'But the photographer had an eye for the image.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article...
Simpo Two said:
On Iwo Jima - 'And it’s all because Rosenthal swung his bulky Graflex 4x5 camera in the right direction at the right split-second and snapped the shot—without even looking through his viewfinder.'
That extract makes it sound like the whole thing was a surprise. He knew what was coming, probably had his camera set up ready for the shot. I've come up with some cracking images, especially those that were taken at the right split-second. I wonder if it has anything to do with the multiple images the software allows? Surely not.
I have a compact. It has a handy feature that takes multiple images of a backlit scene and them messes around with them until the whole image is properly exposed.
In that respect, technology helps. It occasionally allows the merely adequate to produce an image that people admire. Perhaps the difference is that the top quality photographs do it regularly.
I used to be pleased if I got one, maybe even two, quality images from a 35mm roll. Nowadays I'll have a 128gb card in my camera for a photoshoot and will feel really chuffed if half a dozen of the hundreds of images are good 'uns. I have improved though. The percentage of adequate ones, perhaps good enough for my website, has increased over time.
I have a compact. It has a handy feature that takes multiple images of a backlit scene and them messes around with them until the whole image is properly exposed.
In that respect, technology helps. It occasionally allows the merely adequate to produce an image that people admire. Perhaps the difference is that the top quality photographs do it regularly.
I used to be pleased if I got one, maybe even two, quality images from a 35mm roll. Nowadays I'll have a 128gb card in my camera for a photoshoot and will feel really chuffed if half a dozen of the hundreds of images are good 'uns. I have improved though. The percentage of adequate ones, perhaps good enough for my website, has increased over time.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff