I’ve been making images with SLRs for over 50 years (yes, I’m that old😋). Two points: First, I’ve always heard the statement, “That’s an incredible photo, you must have a really good (expensive) camera.” That’s the same dogmatic belief that many, in spite of the proof, will hang onto. Second, this year, I accepted an iPhone 365 challenge and, wow, have I learned bucketloads! One is, you’re right, smartphones are REAL cameras! Another is, it’s the artist, the professional, the experience BEHIND the camera that makes the difference, not the camera itself. I’ll never give up my DSLR but then I’ll never be without my iPhone either! (Thanks for letting me rant!🙂)
You took the words right out of my mouth. I am waiting for the arrival of it gets here of the Vivo X80 Pro. There is a Pro + coming later in the summer. It's specs are amazing.
Most people are dumb. They dont know how to use the manual controls on a DSLR or Mirrorless. They just leave it on auto. A phone is better for most people you cant screw it up. I use both but most of the time I use my phone camera. You cant carry a huge camera everywhere
I totally agree. Smartphones are awesome. I use mine for street photography and I love it ! However, I shoot a lot of athletics, and for that, nothing beats my Canon eos 7d mark II. It is a case of what you use your camera for. Great video !
This is why I carry around my “real” camera and then end up taking most of my pics with my iPhone ProMax. I continue to say until the camera companies institute computational photography in their big old bodies, they will continue to make themselves further and further less relevant. It’s inexcusable how the mobile computer makers have no space in their bodies yet are able to have supercomputing power but the real camera companies can’t do anything even remotely close. With the big sensors and optics if they combined that with even a modicum of computer processing they could again make real cameras really useful again.
You make a compelling argument, and I can agree with you on most points. Computational photography can compensate for the small sensor in many ways, although the more computation enters the equation, the less the image matches reality. Granted, for most things this isn't an issue, because the story and feeling is more important than the accurate representation of reality, unless you're doing forensic or preservation photography. The 2 main areas where I see smartphones lacking is in the ergonomics (important for quickly responding to events as they unfold) and the ability to interface with other tools, such as lenses, filters, flash, strobe, monitors, or follow-focus systems.
It's a difficult one. I worry what computational photography and pro quality smartphone cameras may do to the value most people place on photographers, which is already in a nosedive. On the other hand, I love that pro quality cameras are now in the pockets and handbags of *millions* of people, and anything that encourages more people to capture images in camera instead of just manufacturing them in Photoshop can only be good for the craft as a whole. I also *really* hope that the camera manufacturers might eventually take notice of all the software and feature advancements in phones and start putting them in their cameras someday. How is it 2022 and yet most new pro cameras still have user interfaces that feel like they were designed in 2002?!
i personally think that even with the possibility of tweak anything with just cursors and produce what sounds, for the person who's done it, the perfect image there will still be an artistic dimension in photography there is technics but contrary to what people may think most of times it is 90% about how to compose an image, what you want to say with it, your taste, your culture, etc (those look sometime like technical aspects and to some extent are (but if you want a yellow white ballance besause of golden hour technically it would be said to be not good, but artistically, it can be a good idea) but are mostly artistic aspects) and arround 10% of technicals skills, choice of tools to take the image and their limitations (and for professionnals, there is also the workflow) the problem is that most people may think that photography is a field for skilled people and technicians and if it is a bit right, it is mostly wrong what makes a good image is first and for most the story that comes with it so even though in one day images will automatically be taken, after it will be anyone's choice to personalize the image, keep or get rid of it and so on
Every chance he gets, going back YEARS, Tony runs down micro four thirds because of the sensor size relative to full frame. But come to a cell phone, and there's NO MENTION of sensor size. For that matter, try to find online the sensor size(s) used in cell phone cameras. If you do go looking, get the size in millimeters, because such sizes as "1 over 2.3 inches" or "one-inch" have no relation whatsoever to the inch measurement on your ruler.
Horses for courses, that's why I have a bunch of lenses. But the one camera I always have with me (so I always get the shot), is my phone. In fact it's probably the only thing that excites me about getting a new one!
Good joke, The phone is nowhere close to a real photographer using the real camera. The examples are artificial, you found a scenario where a postprocessing algorithm knows how to handle the situation, but what if the algorithm doesn't know what to do. In this case you wrecked your pictures. Relying on artificial intelligence is a big mistake. I just took a couple of shots in my bedroom with iPhone 12 and X100V side by side in low light scenario. iPhone is completely destroyed by Fuji X100V.
Don't give a hoot. That thing might have a camera IN it, but it is not a camera. I don't care how good the camera IN it is, it is NOT a camera, and trying to do photography with it might be good for times you don't have a camera available, but a great camera is also about how it feels in the hand. The most repeated advice I have heard for decades is, choose the camera that feels right in your hand. No thanks.
Uh...look, phones are cameras but I find these results to be downright cherry picked. I can take a shot in my living room of, say, kids or the bookshelf and it's so noisy (or too much noise reduction) details can't be made out at all. A 6D or RP will take a picture with a magnitude greater detail. Not to mention real depth of field. I just don't find these examples to be authentic. They do not match my real world experience.
When you shoot a portrait with a sony, nikon, canon, olympus, etc. professional camera at 1.8 aperture outdoors or indoors... it blows away any smart phone. I've tried and there's no comparison.
Well maybe, but thats an extremely specific case scenario. Teslas can do 0-60 in 2 sec, best in the world, but how many times would you actually use it? Most of your driving wouldn’t be 0-60 in 2 sec. Same for phones, most photos aren’t 85mm f/1.2 portraits. I use my phone for many things, most of my photos don’t have to be world class, and yes I keep a “proper camera” for the specific extreme cases too.
@@Mike_M_Smith I can easily tell the difference between a the physical focus falloff caused by a large sensor and lens and a smartphone faking background blur. Even on Instagram.
I’m glad that he did, if the camera manufacturers watched this video, I suspect they did, they will roll up their sleeves and get to work to fill this void.
@@williefufu2985 With camera vendors thinking increasingly about computational photography and other uses of compute power -- like object-detect autofocus -- they are slowly boosting performance. Nikon's Z9 processor is reportedly about 10x faster than the Z7 Mark II processor. Olympus/OMDS doubled the perfomance of the processor between the E-M1 Mark II and Mark III, and as much as tripled it in the OM-1. Of course, the CPU performance is only as good as their software, but we're not getting there without the hardware to run it. I'm also hoping that the Alice Camera -- that one from the Indiegogo a few years back -- actually comes out this fall. That's a bit odd, using a smartphone as a viewfinder/control panel, but it's got dual AI processors on-board, and an open AI processing pipeline. It'll be fun to see that one unleashed on coders.
For me the most important takeaway of this video is: If camera manufacturers don't implement computational photography in their products AND better wireless connections they will lose even more photographers to smartphones than they already have. The compact cameras are dead and the entry level and midrange mirrorless cameras are about to vanish. I want state of the art bracketed wide dynamic RAW photos ooc, not just lousy JPGs... NOW!
Currently I can take much, much better images with my mirrorless from 2016 mirrorless than with my 2016 iPhone 6. But I totally agree that mirrorless cameras are in desparate need of computational features. Once they get them, they will again be clearly ahead of the current top of the line smartphones. But right now for many people the questions what’s better really comes down to their use case.
I have been impressed lately by smartphone photos. I have not looked at them as deeply as you have, but everyday, around the house, normal lense type stuff, my daughters IPhone blows me away. It takes the shot and does the post processing. I struggle to get similar shots and the effort it takes is depressing. However, stopping action, or long telephoto work is not as good. In my experience low light is poor also, but I will look at this closer. I imagine they will improve as AI improves. I used to carry a camera with a long lense and a second camera with a short lense on wildlife outings. I am relying more and more on my cell phone as a second camera and I don't have the latest and greatest phone. At family functions, I am the one that gathers the photos from everyone and puts the albums together. I am the only "real camera" user. In general, the photos from my "real camera" are more usable, but, there are a lot of better compositions from the cell phones just because they are so much more convenient.
phones can compete with any camera in photos because of ai post processing. but usually they lack in low light video, they try to make up with extreme noise reduction, which flattens the videos. and also with cameras you can zoom further, or more bokeh etc. but general photography, they can easily win.
@@truthseeker6804 I don't find smartphones ever really "win". They can be comparable if you put them in their optimal shooting conditions, but as soon as you're not in broad daylight or shooting a still subject with night mode they fall apart.
It is getting tough to carry the DSLR when I travel. I'm a target and people notice the "eye" more than my S22 Ultra. Which by the way I have been impressed with. Even the telephoto. But I still make a day of going out with DSLR to get my best shots.
@@truthseeker6804 AI can do a lot but it cannot put back information, that is not there, just make it look that way. Camera manufacturers have to get better on that software part though and use the much better input they get from the sensor to feed it through the same AI technology.
@@salia2897 i believe camera manufacturers dont care. maybe sony might make something interesting. or unless samsung gets back into cameras, i believe they have the most potential. or if apple gets into cameras then that would be the end for all camera manufacturers.
Tremendous and good breakdown of the conventional camera and the cellphone camera. I votes yes for cellphone cameras being a real camera because they are. I love my Samsung Galaxy Ultra S21, NikonD7200, and Nikon P1000. Use whatever you want.
Same gear here except for the P1000. This Covid Era finds me re-editing images in Lightroom, Photoshop, Luminar and Topaz (testing that currently). Amazing how images from my current and prior phones and even less advanced cameras can be batch processed after which it's hard to know what was shot with what. The s21Ultra is by far the best for everyday macro to telephoto in any light. I wish I could fit it into a DSLR body for use in cold winter conditions. Hard to use with mitts on. D7200 shines for that.
Me too ... btw Canon shooter 80D, 70D, 5DM3 50mm, 35mm L, 85mm 1.8, 85mm 1.2L, 18-135mm zoom. Nowadays only the 80D and 85s make it out the 🎒for portraits. Sometimes the 35mm 😉
@@jjaylad The Nikon D7200 is a beast of a camera. Bought it back in 2016. For the Samsung S21, a lot to say. I've heard much about Luminar, but never tried it.
@@alvinblackwell268 Nice setup Alvin! The Canon 80 D is a good one. I did a lot of homework on it. Cellphones are great, but with a dslr or mirrorless camera with a speedlight on top, there is no comparison.✌️
@@keithbrown454 Hey Keith, I agree but the workflow & smartphone convenience makes my S21 my go to for video in particular. If I am doing portrait work definitely the DSLR. BTW I am still planning to but an R5 or maybe an R1 in the future, because I love the tactile experience of my Canon cameras. However if Canon were smart they'd adapt Android OS on the R line of mirrorless cameras. That would be a game changer 💯‼️😉
Agree that Smart phone cameras are much better nowadays and hence can be used in most of situations. Having said that, I would want to see Tony stop using those 'Real Cameras' and completely switch over to smartphones for his professional work.
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🤷♂️
Most smartphones let you change the battery... Typically it's a 15-20 minute process. But smartphone tech is developing so rapdily that if you care about the camera you'll probably want to upgrade anyway.
@@TonyAndChelsea Costing you more money in the long run than getting a camera that could last 10 years. No one keeps their smartphones for 10 years these days.
For a lot of people, photography is not just the what but the how. I just don't like how it feels taking pictures with my cellphone, even though it takes great pictures. I like the tactile feeling of making images with a "proper" camera heh
Agree with that. I really struggle to hold a smartphone for photography (compared to a regular camera). Always feels like trying to shoot with a slippery eel in hand.
I suppose it is like people who think music sounds better on vinyl. For me convenience trumps everything. It takes the pressure off too. I only use my phone when I am shooting for fun and consequently I seem to get better shots.
I got started with photography when I was 14 years old back in highschool. I'm going on 28 today and it is amazing where camera technology has come. As a working professional, I think it is great that more capable cameras are in people's hands than ever before. I remember taking my DSLR camera with me on vacation to capture trips. Now, an iPhone 13 Pro Max is more than sufficient. iCloud immediately backups photos and videos. If stolen, Apple Care can get me another phone within a day. Photos and videos can be shared instantly with family members around the world. Not to mention, the 13 Pro Max has insane battery life and I could also video call anyone in HD. This is a golden age of technology. I would love for Apple or Google to partner with Canon or Nikon on a camera one today, something like Android Auto and Apple Car Play.
the camera market is going down. why should they partner with a losing market. thats just going to give the camera market new buyers. if the camera manufacturers are serious they would start copying features from phones into their cameras.
@@Mike_M_Smith I did a three-year, B&W photo a day challenge. I probably learned enough about B&W shooting over the thousand images to consider going without the crutch of a color sensor 🙂
Agreed. People need keep taking unfocussed photos, poorly composed images in ever increasing resolution. As long as they do, the phone companies will have the money to keep developing better features
Those phones you used must be about 10 times as good as my year old s21. I recently did a similar test between my phone, a Canon point and shoot and a Canon rebel and there was no comparison. The phone pics looked great on the screen but had tons of weird artifacts and unrealistic colors when enlarged compared to the dedicated cameras
I was quiet surprised to discover that my current phone 14 Pro Max has a larger sensor size than my old compact point and shoot. I guess the sensor on its own wouldn’t produce good results at all so yeah, if the computation post processing is t up to scratch, the photos will look bad, but despite all this, the process is hit or miss a lot of the times.
BIG ISSUE. First, I agree with you. Cellphones have real cameras. End of the argument. I have issue with comparing at 5:30 minutes the R3 with the Pixel 6 Pro and using 30 sec exposure against 16 sec exposure. I know you have taken images of stars without trails. I know you know the settings for the R3 are wrong. Try again with a 1.4 lens for only 16 seconds. That would be a fair comparison. Trying to use completely different lenses at completely different settings is not something I would expect from you. It is a big flaw or disingenuous.
Of course the lenses are different... I can't put a Canon lens on a smartphone. And the 16 sec time on the Pixel isn't accurate; it's doing image stacking from a 4-minute exposure. But listen to the words I'm saying during that example; the smartphone doesn't need to beat the $8000 camera; it's just an example.
@@TonyAndChelsea What I meant by the lenses being different is the maximum aperture. You should have used and f1.4 for 15 secs. That would have been closer. Stars trails are directly related to the duration of the shot (of course I am preaching to the choir) My point is an RE, R5 with a Sigma 20 mm 1.4 will give you a superb stars image. No trails
@@osoriony not only that but who does Astrophotography at ISO 25600? I just hate seeing these “kit cameras” with their f/3.5-5.6 lens up against the native f/1.5 or so iPhone. Put a cheap 50mm 1.8 and get a closer result. I understand the point-you get the kit lens when you get the camera. But if we’re making a point of comparison, then make it a fair one at least.
Once you wrap your mind around the fact, you have a Camera that has a phone 📞 in it, and not a phone with a camera. This really is quite liberating. I came to this realization back in 2016 while in a major magazine assignment, when sets locations were being assembled with lights. I went with my subject and she laid down to rest. I only had my iPhone 5s with me. The images produced. We’re actually phenomenal with multiple images chosen for the magazine layout. It was this day I realized I had a camera with a phone in it.
Yeah and how did those photos age looking at them now??? Same thing will happen again people are impressed by them now but but in 10 years they will look like crap whereas shots I took with my D800E from 10 years ago still look insanely good.
Are smartphones real cameras? Yes, they're real cameras. Have they evolved TREMENDOUSLY in the last 5 to 10 years? For sure! I would argue they have evolved MORE than traditional cameras. Should people who belittle others for choosing to use a smartphone instead of a Canon be called out for their narrow minded elitist behavior? Yes! Not everyone has the inclination to pay thousands of dollars for a proper photographic kit, and nor should they. I still have shots I took 13-15 years ago with whatever Nokia phone I was using at the time, with a 1.3 megapixel camera. I like those shots. I couldn't have had them otherwise. That grainy POS low resolution image has recorded something dear to me. Now, that out of the way. My dude, you have 1.5 million subscribers, out of which I will guess that a lot are enthusiasts with proper gear. Are you seriously going to structure your video to suggest that smartphones are better than dedicated photographic gear? Come on! My 8 year old Sony a6000 takes SIGNIFICANTLY better shots than my 2021 Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra, the best smartphone camera I have access to, THE SECOND I put those images on a big screen, aka not on the phone's screen. What do I do to have better shots with my a6000? I know how to use it! I process my stuff! It's the whole point of a dedicated camera system. Yes, smartphones create a pleasing processed image for you in like half a second. If I put that image on my computer monitor and compare with the stuff I generate with both my a6000 and my A7 3, it's laughable. And if I zoom, game over. If you don't care, use a smartphone. If you are sick of the workflow a camera entails, use a smartphone. They are good _enough_. That said, they are not better. Not yet. Computational photography, regardless of how awesome and fast has become in the last few years cannot hold a candle to the images I can produce with my A7 3 paired with a 24-70 Sigma f2.8, raw, processed to taste in Lightroom. I don't understand why you feel the need to push this sort of narrative. It's not true. A worse thing cannot be better than a good thing. I don't care how smart a pixel is, it still cannot beat the kilo of large, clear glass I have in the front of the sensor of my camera, paired with my ability to use it, and then process the images, and a 6400 Iso, unprocessed, underexposed, out of focus portrait will not change that. Gear MATTERS. I will happily continue to use both my S21 and my dedicated kit whenever I feel like taking a picture, depending on the need. This is my hobby. I enjoy doing it and I have the ability to discern between 2 pictures. I work in the video game industry. I am a tech enthusiast. I enjoy gadgets and technology. I don't have a heart attack near a router or a network switch. I have a powerful PC. I like when small and light devices can do amazing things, like take good photos. That doesn't change the fact that you still shoot your stuff with an R5, or whatever camera tickles your fancy between your "gear doesn't matter" videos. There is a reason you do it. There is a reason you don't move your business of book making, wildlife photography and UA-cam channel to an iPhone. who are you trying to encourage with these 'gear doesn't matter , smartphones are awesome' videos? People who only use instagram and would never invest 2 thousand dollars in a camera kit anyway? Why?
Smartphones do sucks a lot and they still have long way to go. They could perform better with an existing hardware but problem is that they all are now using quadbayer sensors which are literally shitttt and secondly, image processing is inclined more towards to make it social media friendly i.e. over sharpness, very saturated colours, heavy HDR which is i found totally unnecessary.
I understand what you are saying but I think you are missing the point. He did preface the story with what happened to the photography gear from 4 decades ago. I am sure there was a person just like you now who said that digital photography, was a toy and useless. Give me my rolls of film and my very own darkroom and chemicals and I can outdo any digital camera with analog film. But, you are using that new (many generations improved) tech/digital gear now and nothing is wrong with that. But, just like film cameras. Technology marches on. Smartphone photography is getting better, sometimes by leaps and bounds, There is still nothing wrong with using the gear you have and I have now. But photography is miniaturizing and in this case it is in a pocket phone. I doubt you have a old style tube tv, you probably have a large flat screen tv. same example different appliance field.
Seriously though…. I hate using my phone for photos, my “ real camera” is fun. I get more joy out of my mirrorless than my phone. The other reality is I’m not going to plunk down $1500 on a fantastic smartphone/camera….I’ve already got a smartphone and yeah it’s top for iPhone but I still just hate it for photography. All the reasons you state why it’s a real camera is true in one sense but doesn’t change the feeling. Also I don’t get amazing bokeh with my smartphone…computational dog crap is what it is. Do I use my smartphone, yeah but I hate it.
This is exactly how I feel. A phone with a great camera is great to have handy. Two years ago before I got into photography I chose my new phone (Pixel 3XL) because of it's camera and a few other reasons. Now after being into photography for two years I hate using my phone; I never use it. I'll either use my Z6II or my recently acquired Nikon FM2 as it's way more enjoyable and I like having the control. As you said and I agree with, I hate the computational bokeh. I'm not into getting a new phone every year and if I was going to spend $1k or more on something it would be another camera 👍. Others don't have to agree and that's fine, I respect it.
Thanks for doing this video. It needed to be said. Smartphones are the real deal. They are computational photographic tools; forget the "phone" part. "Real" cameras will become ever more marginalized if they don't become computer-wise. I find my iPhone (12 Pro Max) especially good for street photography but It's surprisingly capable of other things, especially in RAW mode. We've been told prints from smartphones are lousy. Yes, they are resolution-limited but I have had good results at 11x14 and even beyond.
Preach brother! My iPhone 12 takes great photos. I have used it to take real photos and video for which I have been paid. Nothing is realer than an invoice. :) Any camera that produces the right image at the right time is real. More than 30 years ago I shot basketball with a motor-driven “real camera” with a fast short telephoto. I also kept a little point and shoot in my shirt pocket. When a player is running right at you on a fast break you’re going to have a hard time getting the dunk from behind the basket with a 105mm. A Sure Shot or XA might get it. If I were shooting basketball now, I might rely on an iPhone for that.
Undeniably there's a place for smartphone photography, everything where content is the main point of interest, it doesn't matter if it's shot on a smartphone, or on a super expensive interchangeable lens camera.
Most photographer who disagree because they already invested thousand of dollars in the convention camera and lens so when they find out that a smartphone could easily match most of the result from camera they tend to get frustrated and hence to make there purchase valid they usually disagree with this topic
Wow, thanks Tony, I voted for "no". But you concinced me! Phones are real cameras. Why I said no, is for the feeling I get with my entry level camera. It just feels better, I enjoy it much more with my DSLR than my samsung phone. The buttens, the feel, the joy, the viewfinder... that is why I like the DSLR. No smartphone gives me that feeling.
I have a Canon R5 w/ 28-70mm f/2 lens. With the battery grip and two sets of batteries, I have invested over $8,000 in this six-pound kit. I also have my iPhone 11 Pro Max w/ 512GB of storage for photos and what-not. I often pulling out my iPhone for quick shots than breaking out my R5. I find myself using both and even wishing that I would pull out my iPhone more often. Now for quality, my R5 runs circles around my iPhone 11 Pro Max. I was thinking about getting the 13 but I think I could wait a little longer and get the 14 as it will have better cameras and 5G for faster uploads. I hear rumors that the iPhone 15 will have a periscope-type telephoto lens that should be just amazing. This talk about smartphones not being real cameras used to be true in the past. But now they are totally useful. I wouldn't use my iPhone for professional work as of now, because there are many things I'm able to do with my R5 that make pro jobs easier and with improved quality. My iPhone is slower, I don't like touch screens for controls. I love real buttons as I can access them with my eye in the viewfinder. I also can rest my finger on a mechanical button which I can't do on my phone. My R5 shoots 45 MP files which is great for cropping in. My 12MP lacks this feature but I hear that iPhone 14 might come out with a 35MP sensor which would be awesome. It might even shoot 8k video. I wish my iPhone could meld with my R5 then it would be one of the best cameras in the world. I hope the iPhone 14 and 15 come out with the rumored features as that would convince me to use the iPhone as a reliable backup for paid shoots. I would be fantastic if I could have a great backup that fits in my pocket. And to be used as a primary when I'm out and about without my R5. Some of my best shots are being at the right place at the right time to get the shot no matter what.
“I wish my iphone could melt with my R5”. Same here!!! I love my r5 but i long for a much larger screen and while the canon menu is decent id still prefer an apple ui. The next best thing I’ve found is using the canon remote app on my iPhone but its still finicky and doesn’t always connect.
In 2020 I took a special topics: photography class in grad school as part of my Masters program. I did a photo assignment for it using my iPhone 6. I don't own a digital camera, this is what I had. I took the photos through the camera function of Lightroom for iPhone, set to high contrast black and white. I didn't do any post work, only presented the photos that came out great. My classmates thought I had shot all my photos in film. They were surprised it was an old iPhone and Lightroom. It really doesn't matter what camera you use. What matters is the art you make with it.
Hey man. Long time fan here. You don’t have to justify how you want to start covering cellphones and cellphone photography more. We get it. We like you and Chelsea and the knowledge you share. We get it. The only video that hit a million views in the last 3 years on this channel was a smart phone camera comparison. You two do you. We’re not going anywhere. I promise.
You clearly never have shoot a night sky before. Iso 25600 are insane and then calling it noisey. And all the other Points, I think you aren't actually a "real" Photographer. Of course every camera is a camera. And Professionals know how to use them. (You are clearly not one of them.) Give me a Camera from 2012 and I'll shoot a better night sky, then you with your 8k Camera. The Thing with Smartphones ist, that Manufactures promote them as things, that they don't are. Of course smartphones got a lot better and for the majority of people a smartphone is enough. But for now computing can't beat a good "real" camera, if you are a pro at least.
Yeah the camera phones have come a mighty long ways, but cell phones can’t link up to strobes and other light sources that is needed for creative photography work. You can use a continuous light source with a cellphone camera but you won’t have the same results when using a digital camera body. Plus the camera phones takes away the joy of understanding photography because it does all the processing of images for you. But I’m for both worlds, the camera phones is a great tool to have in your pocket in certain situations.
I agree in lowlight a flash makes a huge difference. An ILC gives great images indoors with a flash when you bounce it off the ceiling. I agree with another commentor that smartfphone colors can look unnatural sometimes.
Here's my take on this. "Real" cameras are still better than smartphone cameras and they always will be. WAY better. Why is this? Because of the bigger sensor. A phone camera cannot compete with its tiny sensor, even an APSC sensor is much, MUCH bigger than a tiny phone sensor. It is a physical limitation for the phone. But the phone uses computational photography to make it sharper and less noisy you say? Well I could just install AI image enhancement programs such as Topaz Denoise AI or similar, and I have a computer that can do far more processing than a phone, and process an image from a far bigger sensor that gathered a much higher quality input for me to work with!
I can attest to this. One of my projects involved filming a mountaineering expedition up one of the 7 Summits. Though my Sony mirrorless did amazing, there were many moments it was near impossible to use due to safety concerns while climbing. My Iphone, on the other hand, was able to be easily pulled from a pocket to take quick a video without having to faff about with a larger system.
Each year more "real" photographers get frustrated that their aunt (who knows nothing about real photography) can magically take a photo with their new smart phone that the rest of the family thinks looks just as good as the photos from the "real" camera. Unless the camera makers start building in smartphone features and image processing, this trend won't stop soon.
I definitely think phones are real cameras, they are limiting but they do the same thing any camera can do, it takes a photo. For the first few years of my photography, it was almost entirely on my phone until I got a “real camera” last fall. Most of my favorite photos are still the photos I shot oh my phone, my iPhone 6s. Shooting on phones forces you to work on your composition much more than a “real camera”, it forces you to find interesting angles and shots. Shooting on my phone for the past years helped me out immensely when switching to a camera, I understood the styles i liked and all I really had to get used to was thinking in different focal lengths. If you want to get into photography, just start doing it, take your phone out and show the world what you see. Also it was pretty cool to see that you guys passed through my home state of Maine!
They say the best camera is the one you have with you. And that for me is the iPhone 13 pro. It’s image processing blows me away with incredible dynamic range and no blowouts I have come to expect with my DSLR. The pano feature is amazing! However, I just got back from a trip in the Mideast and my go to camera was my Nikon D750. Yes, I’m sitting through post processing my photos, but that is where a picture becomes a photograph. I find my DSLR still gives me much more latitude and resolution than the iPhone and I am faster at capturing the image with the DSLR. Cropping is better on the DSLR. Yes, I look like a tourist, but the Nikon sensor adds a quality to the image I don’t see with the iPhone. I wish I could marry the image processing of the iPhone with the sensor from the Nikon. Now That would be amazing.
McDonald's staff can cook food for their customers to eat, and they can even build a career from there and eventually make some decent money, but would you consider them as profetional chefs? I guess not.
I agreee with you completely. Even so, I rarely take pictures with my phone, because I find the process unpleasant. The screen is reflective, it's more difficult to compose the shot with the camera held at a distance from my eyes, and I struggle with the shutter button's placement (I'm interested in the Sony solution). When I do use my Samsung phone the results are often better than I get with my various Fujis and Nikons, and another advantage is that I'm rarely asked to desist in certain restricted spaces, like outside some London office blocks. For their ergonomics, my loyality to traditional cameras is unshaken!
SOOC you should expect a flagship smartphone to outperform a real camera. That is their purpose: to take "good" photos in increasingly more situations without any input from the shooter other that literally pointing and shooting. But if you can't outshoot the phone using your photographic skills, raw mode, etc. you have some learning to do. I could get a better shot than my 2022 smartphone even with older gear like my X-Pro1... generally even a 1" camera like my Sony RX10IV or Panasonic ZS100, if I'm willing to do the work (which might require some of the same tricks the phone is doing, like image stacking). Not always worth it, but always there in the bag of photo knowledge.
Do you know the exposure triangle if you haven't pls 🙏 use it and you'll never compare cellphone to a dedicated 📷 ever again the bigger the pixel the better
What is a “real” camera, to start? How do you define it? What are the capabilities of a “real” camera? In the broadest sense, of course a smart phone is a real camera. It takes photos. It takes videos. And generally speaking you always have it with you, and any camera is better than no camera. But I think some of the examples here are awfully contrived and cherry-picked. The telephoto shot, for one. Literally no other smartphone could get those results (cough, iPhone). And sticking a kit lens on your mirrorless camera for the comparison? C’mon. Ultimately cameras are tools. And you want to use the best tool for the job. In some scenarios that is going to be a smartphone.. but in others, conventional cameras have distinct advantages.
Agree that smartphone cameras are real cameras and they have come a loooong way. BUT!!! The big problem is that the smartphone manufacturers themselves do not view smartphones as "professional" photography/ videography devices. Most manufacturers don't natively provide support for RAW on all lenses, or full manual modes for video and photo, no control for picture profiles, log profiles, many of which are important for the creative control. Most native camera apps, come with a good full AUTO mode, and a half assed implementation of a Manual mode, for the sake of it. I can only think of Sony Xperia which at least does approach smartphone photography in this "professional" direction. The processing potential is HUGE in smartphones, the manufacturers just use it give the best image/video straight out of camera, because the average customer is NOT a professional photographer. So we are stuck with using some third party apps for that creative control, and it is always an underwhelming experience, and THIS is the problem with smartphones.
This is ironic since Apple hires professional photographers and videographers/film makers to show off what the iPhone is capable of in the right hands. I'd bet those pros didn't switch to using an iPhone for their day job after the gig was over. It's also ironic because they geared their pro laptops toward power users by giving them the features crucial toward their work, but not so much on their pro iPhones. ProRes RAW is a step in the right direction, but to really be taken seriously, they would need to add the things you and many others here have talked about.
Although I agree with you and smartphones these days also allow for manual settings and you can get some great images from a smartphone and I do use my smartphone to take photos. However, I do not really enjoy the photographic experience. I like the feel of dials and shutter buttons and manual focusing and is one reason I still shoot with film and switched over to the Fujifilm system.
I agree. I too have a few Fujifilm cameras. But it's more than just buttons and dials. It's how the camera feels in you hand, and the ease with which you can frame a shot. In other words - ergonomics. Then there's the process of taking the photo itself. On a phone, it's really an afterthought, despite what you might think from the adverts. You have to hunt around for the camera app, and then compose the shot whilst holding a smooth rectangular object. Then somebody rings you half way through, or you get a notification. I absolutely agree that smart phones are real cameras, and the images can be as good, if not better, than "proper" cameras, but they are not machines dedicated to taking photos. They're not exactly quick draw devices, IYKWIM. However, I could definitely do with a camera with a SIM and a direct connection to the cloud (without the use of a smartphone). Can't understand why nobody has done it. Or have they? Didn't Samsung make such a beast before exiting the camera market, and I think there's someone who makes something like that today, but I forget the name. Also, smart phones with decent cameras really aren't all that cheap are they? From a quick look, an iPhone 13 Pro will set you back the best part of £1000. You could get a low end DSLR and 3 or 4 lenses for that, particularly if you bought used. The Google Pixel 6 is more competitive at around £600. You would struggle to get a DSLR and a lens for that, but it could be done. My smart phone costs less than £150. It does have a camera, which is adequate, but not the best. Another thought. Perhaps a bit of a tangent. How long is your phone going to last? Apple won't let you replace the battery these days, and they eventually die, so then you need to buy a new phone. Some people just buy the latest iPhone on principle. Expensive. Cameras can go on for decades. Admittedly, the time a particular model of camera remains on sale appears to be shrinking, and their are people who simply must have the latest camera (Tony?), but at least you have some choice in the matter.
Smartphones do allow manual shooting. But mostly, that will immediately crapify the image from the smartphone. Rather than get your 2, 6, 8, 9, or 15 stacked images driven by an AI that's analyzing your phone motion, your subject motion, etc., applying additional AI agents to make up color that's lost in low light, etc. you get a single shot on a tiny sensor. A few companies get around that: Google did first with their "computational raw" file format, which includes a whole stack of images even in some manual modes. Apple's got a similar thing, ProRAW, but they don't offer manual modes... ProRAW just gives you the ability to do your own edits, rather than living with the editing AI's "artistic vision".
But, Tony, you’re dealing with human tribalism. We are worth what we can sell. Smartphones lower the ‘cost’ of entry in so many ways that they are a threat to those that have spent endless hours and dollars to be a part of the tribe. The tribe, or club, limits access by requiring knowledge, expertise and capital to be a member. This makes their skills and output worth more. We are not going to happily give up what was so laboriously worked for to attain. This behavior by a species on a planet of limited resources touch’s EVERY ASPECT of the human existence. Great video. I have an iPhone 13 Pro, and a R5. They are both very real.
Lack of physical dials and a real grip kills it for me. There is a big difference (in my world view) between having an interest in "pics" and learning "photography".
I see what you mean and I prefer shooting my mirrorless 100% of the time over using my smartphone (which is terribly dated anyway so it’s a no-brainer). But it is going to go the way it always does with technological advancements: once the "new thing" gains traction because some of its advantages, it’s going to get developed to such a point that it supplants the "old thing". If you happen to know anything about live sound: that’s exactly what happened with digital mixing consoles. A lot of people kept hating on digital consoles for 15+ years, but nowadays analog mixing consoles are OBSOLETE. They just are. It’s just the way it goes.
@@rickbiessman6084 I'm old enough to hear the difference between tube emulators and real tubes (lol). ( bass/drums/vocals here). However... the layman is not and that's why what you just posted is spot on. The layman absolutely loves their phones... it's like a cheat code to get into photos without learning photography (as related to cameras). My GRii and Lumix LX5 solve the "always with me" issue just fine. 🤜🏾🤛🏾
@@musicmaestro88 Haha, funny coincidence that you’re a musician too. I’ll admit right away: after years of playing tube amps and subsequently switching to a Helix I can’t tell the difference (but quite a few Helix amp models are more dynamic and expressive than the tube amps I’ve owned). That’s why I’m fine using digital gear. But I definitely needed to take the deep dive into the world of guitar amps and pedals to understand how guitar tones even work. So there’s that... I do think learning the ropes the "old fashioned way" is at the very least extremely helpful, maybe even irreplaceable for mastering your craft, whatever it may be. Because along with technological develompent comes asthetic development. Unless you use new technology to create something entirely new, you’ve got to study the "past" in order to nail what you’re doing in the present.
Real cameras take real photos. After that, the photographer decides what will become of these photos. Smartphones do not take real photos. They interpret reality. The only exception is the Sony Xperia 1 Mark 4.
You're right 👍 Also the google pixel 7 pro , which is the only smartphone with a camera with AI that shows the reality in their photos. Except the oversharpening
I remember reading a book about history of photography, around 1930 ish when Leitz 35mm camera started, it wasn't viewed as professional camera as back then the middle format camera were common and 35mm as too small. Jump into the 90's the so called not professional 35mm camera were already taken as professional gear. History has repeated itself, smartphone camera is viewed in the same manner as Leitz camera back then to see the Leitz would become a luxurious camera brand now. Thank you for your inclusiveness towards smartphone photographers 👏👏👏
Two immediate observations on this. Yes, a $1000-ish flagship smartphone will "beat" a $500 DSLR kit on straight-out-of-the-camera images. But this is all due toc computational photography. The iPhone in low light is taking nine shots with an f/1.8 lens (f/8.0 to f/16 FF depending on which camera you're using, applying crop factor) versus that one shot on an APS-C kit lens at f/3.5-f/6.3 (f/7.0-f/12.5 FF) again depending on the particulars. The sensor is 8-10x the area. The smartphone wins for a novice. But if you know what you're doing, you're going to know when you need to stack photos, when to bracket, etc. You will be able to get a better image with the APS-C consumer kit IF you're willing to put in the time. Sure, I'd pick a pro camera and pro lens, and you probably would too. It's true that currently, consumer DSLRs and mirrorless are not automating things the way phones do, and perhaps they ought to. I'd also agree that a smartphone can be a "real" camera. So can a DSLR, mirrorless, P&S, pinhole, film, anything you'd like to pick up. It's what's behind the camera that matters. In lieu of a real photographer's brain behind the camera, the phone will always do better. Hand that R5 to a novice and they're not going to get a better image than they would with the iPhone Pro, in all likelihood. That's the AIs replacing the need for a photographer's brain. If you can't do better on your own, maybe it's time to learn photography a bit better. Big camera shooters are no more immune to relying on tech to replace knowledge than smartphone shooters.
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 😂
Congratulations, you're absolutely right. I have been a professional photographer since 1988 and in 2001 I was one of the first in Portugal to photograph digital weddings with the Nikon D100. They called me crazy and the laboratories didn't like the idea at all. I've been filming and photographing with an iPhone 13 Pro Max for a month... I know they'll call me crazy again and it's even harder to try to convince customers... But it's the future! Thank you again. Hugs from Lisbon 👌🤗
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.
If photography is an art that requires practice and learning (exposure, composition, subject, emotion. style), then smartphone cameras are "real cameras". It is such a dedicated event to go out an shoot with a DSLR, but I always have my phone and if something strikes my eye, I can try to capture that idea. Whether I succeed or not, I still learn something about photography. They are amazing (real) cameras for learning.
There is something strange. iPhone 13 Pro Max has a sensor of around 44mm² (pixel area 3.7µm²) and Sony 6400 has a sensor of 370mm² (pixel area 15.3µm²).. At 3:49, considering ISO, aperture, shutter speed and sensor size is almost impossible the same photometry... What's the magic?
I’m a pure hobbyist and I’ll readily admit that there are loads of people who take better (as in, more inspiring, artistic) pictures than I do. With some of today’s image processing in smartphones they definitely have better low light capabilities than my somewhat dated mirrorless. But heck, I just love making a point of grabbing my camera and going out to shoot. Often I’ll put on a prime and not even use the flexibility of an interchangeable lens system. But it’s when I decide to actually commit time to that and it’s hugely enjoyable to me. Also, I don’t have a current smartphone so mirrorless is still miles ahead of the pictures I’d be able to take with my phone. I’m definitely not in any position to be a gatekeeper (and honestly, for practical reasons I don’t think anyone else is either nowadays), but if people take great pictures with their smartphone - why would that bother me? It doesn’t. BUT: When you switched to the smartphone camera at 11:11, I did immediately notice it. The image gets mushy and the artificial bokeh just sucks IMO. For video, I don’t think smartphones are quite there yet. But I can think of several ways that small, highly intelligent cameras could improve upon that. I do believe that (much like modelling in audio production has all but replaced analog gear) modelling cameras and lenses is going to happen in only a few years. And if I can think of ways that this might work, than I bet that a lot of engineers have viable ideas already. And one thing I’m really concerned about is that many people may never learn processing their images but rather rely on a bunch of filter presets that do all sorts of things. And I see a lot of phone images with really weird curves applied by the phone. But I’m not sure things would be any different if those people used DSLRs or DSLMs. Maybe their images would simply have other weaknesses but still not look great. But people who truly care about the way their images look and who have an artistic vision for their work will eventually learn the tools and develop a unique look, regardless of the type of camera they use.
Good video 📹 Opinion. the processors in the iPhone 13 and Samsung 21 are more sophisticated and more expensive than even the best cameras such as a z9, r5, ilce 9 etc They take good pictures, and other things. But what is a camera ? It is a sacred object. Even if you can afford a crop sensor camera, when you take it out and take that picture, it defines you. Like you put on that mechanical rolex or weekend sports car. That image , you will examine in detail. The IPhone 📱 takes a picture of your parking ticket, vandalism damage to your property. You don't look at that picture twice. As long its functional. Try taking a picture of an amateur model.with an iPhone 13. A very horrible insult. Good argument for iPhone 📱 images.
I personally had to decide whether to upgrade my iPhone 11 and sell my Sony A7iii, or keep my iPhone 11 and upgrade to a Sony A7iv. I went with the iPhone 13 Pro Max, sold my Sony Gear and “downgraded” back to my Canon 6D (Mark I). The “old” 6D takes 20.1 megapixel images, has a full frame sensor, and EF Lenses (although “old” and “being discontinued” serve an amazing purpose in most every type of stills photography most anyone would ever need). The iPhone 13 ProMax has unbelievable video, captures really nice photos, especially at night, automatically syncs photos and videos to the cloud/LR, and is with me most all of the time. Interestingly, over the past few months-I don’t find myself gawking over the newest interchangeable lens cameras, or anxiously awaiting the new Fuji x6 or Canon R12 or a7viii release dates anymore. There are certain circumstances I’ll take the 6D out but find the iPhone 13 ProMax is good for 100% of my video and 90% of my stills. To me, this was the logical choice.
If the cellphone hadn't existed, the market would belong to the now suffering well known camera makers. But it does exist and the general consumer picture market does too. It's also taking part of the professional market as well. Because it is generating self employment of new kinds that never existed before. And very much needed because of the pandemic. When I was young I liked photography as a hobby. I bought a camera. Perfect for me. I liked it very much. I remember carrying it around so I didn't miss a photo opportunity. It was cumbersome. With three lenses it was worse. Now it is all contained in a slim wafer. Tremendous. But they can't do everything. Like selective focus and metering on a distant object in the middle of a busy street. So I missed the picture anyway because the cell phone couldn't take it and I didn't have my DSLR with me. My daughter shares my hobby and she's really talented. So when we can we go out to take pictures, but we gear up, because using the cellphone just doesn't feel the same. If you were to go on a fantasy trip, wouldn't you take the big camera?
I rather use a dslr with its heavy clunky feel anyday. It's part of the experience of photography and sets the mood. Plus zoom lenses with full frame bodies are going to blow away the glass and sensors found on cellphones. It's not even close.
LOL - try carrying a complete zoom setup around with you when travelling by bike. I feel you are missing his point here - he is not necessarily saying throw your camera system away,, but they are pretty good.these days and everyone should learn how to use theirs to best effect. It isalwys the best tool for the job, or actually what you have with you at the time. My father goes down the road that he refuses to take video on his phone as he spent money on a Sony A1. So if he does not have that with him he just won't take anything, and misses out on recording what he is seeing. I wondering whether he is actually worried his phone footage will look pretty good :D
@@kylemarsun sensor size isnt everything. this video literally proved it. lenses and sensor quality also matters. take a full frame sensor from 15 years with f5.6 lens it would lose to even budget phones of today, even take a full frame sensor and give it f11 it would probably lose in low light to a phone.
@@kylemarsun post evidence your fz300 blew away any modern phone in low light. unless youre comparing digital zoom of the phone to the optical zoom of the camera. but stay in their default view, and lets see the low light results.
@@someoneelse1550i was saying thats probably why he claims his fz300 blew away the s22, because hes comparing optical zoom of the fz300 vs digital zoom of the s22. if he stays in their default view, the s22 would win easily. in low light.
Smart phone image quality is not bad, I don’t care about pixels, when I print out my photos, I can print my smartphone pics and they look great up to 8.5x11. However, if I want to go bigger my S22 Ultra falls apart compared to any of my cameras. I don’t think you need a super expensive camera to get better shots than a smartphone. I still own my first DSLR, an 8 megapixel Canon Rebel XT, it’s way outdated by all of your metrics but if I take the time to set up my shots and have the right lens it will still produce the goods and outshoot a modern smartphone in many situations. For example if we do wildlife photography, there is no way you can do that will a phone, my OLD rebel XT and a 400mm f5.6 cost less used than the phone and in a 13x19 print I will have trouble telling the difference between that and my R6 or 5DsR, now I wont be able to crop. But to say that a phone can do the same or even better is quite a lot of BS, now if you sold all of your gear and shot only on a smartphone I’d have to eat my words and I’d be able to take you seriously and take this extremely biased video seriously. Try shooting any sporting even with a smartphone, what about the Olympics or a concert, anything paid, go shoot a wedding with a smartphone, when the day is done compare your phone pics to what you would get with even the most basic (rebel XT) with cheap primes, 28 1.8, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 with a cheap flash and off camera slave, all of this gear used would cost less than the latest and greatest iPhone X Ultra Plus Max Pro 13. I am a big fan of your page but bending things this far to prove a point is a bit much. You do have a point though, if you have nothing else a phone can do amazing things, I shoot dng on my phone exclusively and it’s fantastic, it has a real camera but a phone is not a real camera. We should have a shootout, my rebel XT vs any iphone you want, we can set a budget or no L glass, whatever you want, covering all shooting situations and see what can be done with each tool. The XT is a 17 year old camera… I hope you consider my challenge though I doubt you will because you know what the result would be in a fair contest not just selfies and posting everything to Instagram… On my latest outing with our church i was carrying an R6 with a 150-600 tamron and a 5DsR with a 100mmL macro, everyone was telling me the phone can do it all, don't need all that gear, blah blah blah, long story short after everyone got home we all started posting to our group page. After I posted my photos no one said you can do it all with a phone anymore, all 10 of thier latest and gratest phones with a camera were no comparison to my shots.
Smartphones can produce fantastic image quality... that is apparent and I really admit that I hate lugging around a camera bag (theft/robbery issues, weight, general nuisance) even if it's a small m43 system. So your comments tempted me to ditch it all and take a phone on my travels. Tempting! But, on reflection, I know I would miss cradling a camera against my face, choosing the focus, adjusting the exposure, shutter and aperture and pressing the button. I enjoy the tactile experience and my image quality is fine by me so, on reflection, I'll just have to accept the security issues and hassle and keep lugging the damned bag around. It's worth it.
I haven't been doing much photography or video shoots in the last two years, and couple of weeks ago was hired to do a trade show. The lighting was very dark with bright led lamps everywhere... this is not unusual, a tripod helps, lowest aperture possible, correcting on the computer later etc so I was getting decent photos but my camera could only film HD video and not even in raw... so I actually felt a little bit embarrassed that the people who hired me had expensive smart phones and their videos (and often photos) ended up much better than mine in low light... they said my photos were beautiful however, my videos were unusable. It made me wonder okay so now what... should I just throw out my DSLR and get a top model iPhone? Would it actually make more sense for me to show up with a smart phone to shoot with now??? Note I have a 1st gen iPhone SE and it can shoot 4K but I was too embarrassed to bring that out, hey that phone has been good enough for me 😂 I never took smartphones seriously because I assumed they didn't shoot in raw high resolution that would be good enough for print, and the video zooming was horrendous... but it's gotten so much better it's making me rethink what to upgrade to.
My Problem with Smartphones is that the photos offen look oversharpend and have to much contrast. An Iphone, Samsung or Google picture just doesn't look like real life what I would like. Otherwise, smartphone cameras really are amazing these days.
Kudos for a great argument. It's amazing that cameras today have still not adopted an OS that will allow workflow like a smartphone. I shot for years with my Pixel 2XL and loved the images. BTW, I'm still using that phone. I now have a Fuji X-T3 and one of the things that drives me crazy about it has nothing to do with the camera itself, it's the app. One thing that frustrates me sometimes is that I feel like I did a better job with composition when I used my phone camera. Sometimes I find it hard to see my LCD display on the X-T3 compared to the phone display. Anyway, thanks again for making a great point. Have a great holiday weekend!!
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.
Blow up any smartphone photo. Get back to me. Any camera is a camera. Smartphone cameras are useful. But in terms of equipment built around taking photos and taking photos of quality under scrutiny. For social media sure, it doesn't matter. But none of us take photos with the "how good will it look on Instagram" mindset. At least I don't.
@5:52 Shorten the exposure to 1 second to eliminate star trails? What? According to the NPF rule for spot stars, with that lens + body combo you can shoot up to 11 seconds at 24mm. You should have used a 10 second exposure. Your ISO would have been around 2500, which would be perfectly acceptable. This is journalistic malpractice, honestly. Shame.
Computational photography is great, but it's not "real" by definition. Smarphones made up pictures basing on what sensor capture and what algorithm was learned. It's almost like websites where you can loosly draw some shapes, and AI generate photorealistic image from it. Computational photography is not worse, and somethimes it's even better, but it's just different than real photography. People still buying real cameras, becouse smarphone photos have this artificial look, and not giving you much control. Even raws are heavily edited becouse acctual raw information from smartphone sensor is rubish without computation tricks. Overall your iPhone shoots looks good, but your beard hairs looks super wierd, they pop up and diasppear whenever alhorithm decide it's a noise to smooth out or it's a detail to sharpen, motion blur is wierd, dof is wierd, shadows are wierd, skin tones are wierd. Everything is to smooth and to sharp at the same time, you look younger but also older. If you zoom in detail on your shirt will look better on iPhone, but whole image look unnatural, wierd, and like it was shoot on smartphone, it's not look real.
Actually, I've been very impressed by smartphone images and, especially, video for several years. My phone is still very low end though and my real interest is wildlife. Until smartphones can emulate the reach of 800mm on a full frame MILC, I'll be needing something more than even the highest end smartphone. But I appreciate how far these phone cams have come.
What about the size of the sensor. How can you pack 50M pixels or more on a tiny sensor? Considering the cost of the latest smartphones they are much the same as mid level cameras I would like clarification on sensor size and number of pixels. With the same size sensor with 25mb and 50mb what are the pros and cons of each? Also what actually is computational photography? is it this that is compensating? Also i have never enjoyed the ergonomics of mobile phone photographing, holding it in your hand.
You really convinced me Tony... I Though I still want to have my coveted x30 to capture the everyday moments of my kids as my phones tends to have this have some motion blur on taking my kids coz they're always on the move. Also I wished you did tinker with the phones settings when you compared the cameras if the Google pixel, s22 ultra and iPhone 13 pro. As there are features to for taking good pictures from them like turning of the scene detection from the s22 ultra and the turning in the face retouch of the Google pixel when taking portrait mode as to significantly improve the face of the subject. Anyways you really did a good job for this video. Keep it up 💪🏼
So if smartphones are "real cameras" then we can expect the upcoming video where Chelsea drops her Sony/Canon/Nikon for an iPhone, right? If you were offered an all expense photography trip anywhere in the world but could only take one photographic device with you then surely you'd always choose the phone, right? I mean, if all else is considered equal and there's no advantage to using a camera over a phone, then why not just take a phone? Or, on the other hand, if they slapped full phone features into the next Canon flagship camera you'd just bring your camera everywhere with you and use that to take both pictures and make phone calls, right? Surely there wouldn't be any disadvantage to that. No one is arguing that you can't take good or even great pictures with a phone these days. You absolutely can. But there are reasons to choose a tool specifically made and designed for a specific job, from the technology involved all the way to the end user experience of using the device.
Great video. I find people who gate-keep about topics like this seem to think that if other people can do what they do, that they somehow feel less ‘special’. It’s the same thing they said when the point and shoot cand 35mm film came out and made photography more accessible. It just means that the standard of ‘good’ photography got higher - a good exposure that has no (unintentional) motion blur doesn’t cut it anymore. Mood, composition and lighting are still what matters, and you can’t buy those in a camera (yet). I’m just happy that with smartphones, a lot more people understand and share my love for photography now :)
you are totally rightTony... I have many cameras m43 and dslr (since 2010), and except for action photos and zooming I prefer my xiaomi mi 10t pro- I made many tests...
I have always thought smartphone cameras are amazing, particularly with the advantage of convenience and stealth. Perhaps the true dilemma is changing the perception of the client. Most client's would be like WTF? if you rocked in to a wedding shoot with an iPhone. Though high end pro cameras are better creative tools the margin is closing, and yes in some cases better or more appropriate tools. Today it is largely about perception. I think the camera in industry need a player like Apple to step in and create a 'pro' dedicated camera. Other camera manufacturers would soon up their game then.
Agree, a dedicated pocket camera (what smartphones replaced) would be excellent. I'd appreciate one sans the phone. Just a straight camera as you suggest.
I agree that smartphones are "real" cameras, but most of your points aren't very sound. I see it with my own photos: I seldom use any pictures I took with my phone (a flagship phone from 3 years ago). They're good enough for sharing to friends and family, and also good enough for Instagram due to the site's ridiculously low resolution, but I would never print them. They're just not good enough. Also, your point about low-light is completely nonsensical to me. If there's not enough light, there's not enough light. Letting an algorithm guess which pixels to keep and which to throw out isn't a substitute for the right gear for the right situation. Maybe good enough for Instagram, but to argue that a smartphone is the right gear for actually good pictures in that situation is just wrong.
Don't wanna brag, but those examples of younger generation photographers that Tony mentions shoot mainly on mirrorless and took some photos on the phone camera. And of course, on Instagram format, mobile photos are sufficient in most cases. The user Smultrix even uses middle format Fujifilm GFX... I found the other mentioned photographers too and they (if they mention it) use in most cases classic cameras, so I don't really understand why Tony chose those examples really... Not every picture on Instagram has to be put from a mobile camera... Most of the good mobile photographers learned to shoot this way on (and thanks to) classic cameras. That may change in the future and I am looking forward to it. Seems to me that Tony needed to put out a new video and lacked content, so he fabricated this. From my point of view, it leads to a poorly researched message (like in that video about crop claiming that you should crop aperture too, albeit it's optically nonsense and being repeated over and over on the internet).
I agree that smart phone cameras are legitimate cameras. I have gotten some amazing shots off my phones before. One thing that this video didn't mention was how the color rendering in smart phone photos can differ drastically than reality and from other smart phones. Each manufacturer has their own algorithms on how to process the photos so we can get wildly different results. But for regular cameras shooting the same scene, the colors in the photos from cameras of different manufacturers will all come out practically identical. With the pace of innovation in smart phone photography, I think the color issue will be greatly improved soon. For the people who don't agree, I think one factor might be that their perception of what a real camera should be is locked in how regular cameras operate. It's amazing how incredibly homogenous all the regular camera makers behave - none have implemented any of the useful features Tony talked about (such as computational photography, cloud back up, security, etc). It's also astounding how little out-of-the box thinking and innovation there really is in the regular camera industry. It might have something to do with most of these companies being Japanese and perhaps share some sort of similar business mindset. I think if the camera manufacturers started adopting features from smart phone cameras, more people would see smart phones as legit cameras.
It was especially evident with the R3 vs Pixel 6 Pro comparison of the night sky. Funny how Tony made no mention of it while declaring that the Pixel 6's image looked better.
I don't think colour accuracy will improve in near future or atleast brands will put any efforts in it. IMO ,There is a fundamental limitations with today's smartphones i.e. quadbayer sensor. Which neither could get true colour information nor perform better in low light conditions than similar size traditional bayer sensors.
@@yash_kambli The smartphone AIs don't really care at all about color accuracy. They're trying to make something that "looks good on Instagram." Both Google's Night Sight and Apple's Night mode use large stacks of images, exposures all controlled by an AI agent, along with another AI agent that essentially "invents" color. Stack enough images from those tiny sensors in low light, along with selective filtering/noise reduction, and you can get a decent image. But the color is going to look like hell if you have ISO high enough, even with image stabilization, to deliver a good shot. So there's the color enhancement AI for that. I don't know exactly what Google does (though most of their stuff is nicely detailed on the Google AI Blog), but Apple takes an extra longer exposure just for color. They don't use the image itself, because it'll almost certainly be shaky, but they use it as the basis for the AI's recoloring of the normal 8 shot stack (maybe more by now, but it was 8 shots when first introduced). The goal is pleasing color, not accurate color, which is part of why so many smartphone shots in low light look just a bit unreal.
Biggest advantage of smartphone is convenience. While traveling with kids and all their luggage I just don’t have space for another backpack full of heavy camera gear. My smartphone fits in my pocket and still takes great images. If I were single I would still be investing in photography gear but not anymore
Smartphones are smartphones and Camera would always be Camera👍 but also i think smartphone can never be a CAMERA that war thing only clicked me ya i can imagine smartphone are the future for fast and low cost shootings👍😌 process cost money🤔
Smartphones are real cameras, though they are point and shoot cameras, where for many people, that is good enough, especially for basic stuff like taking images of where you parked and the cars beside you in case they decide to dent your car in the parking lot. The primary issue is the reliance on computational photography will often sacrifice inter-tonal detail (which is why you often notice an almost painterly look on fine details when you zoom in 1:1 on a smartphone camera image. Even if you capture a raw file, the native dynamic range (very small) and base noise level at the lowest ISO, is often very high, thus they end up using heavy handed noise reduction. This all doesn't mean it is not a real camera, it just means there are limitations to the technology that the user needs to work around.
A smartphone is as much as a real camera as it is a real watch. If you pull up to a watch convention with a smartphone and show it off as your watch, it's not going to go well. People are just going to think you're joking. Sure you can argue that a smartphone tells time better than any "real" watch, and it can do everything that a "real" watch can do. However, no one is going to say that your iphone is a "real" watch.
@@RiseUpToYourAbility equally if you pull up to a watch convention with an apple watch youre going to be laughed at, but the apple watch is more technologically advanced than any watch, just as a smartphone is more technologically advanced than any "real camera". but people who go to watch convention want classic watches, just as "real camera" nerds want big bulky chungus they can hang on their neck. both are stuck in their old ways. btw i know theres "real cameras" that do 8k 60 and 4k 120 etc that phones cant do. im comparing the phone to its price market.
Of course smartphones are real cameras. The old Brownie Hawkeye was a real camera too. It took photos and that's all that is necessary to be called a real camera. I watched the Super Bowel and didn't remember seeing too many of the sports photographers on the side lines using smart phones. If you hire a pro to shoot your wedding and he or she shows up with a smart phone will you be impressed? I wonder how often Tony uses his smart phone for wildlife photography.
Very good, though-provoking video. It's all about the right tool for the job. I'll extend Tony's chef analogy by saying that while some store-bought frozen dinners taste great I still feel the need for enjoying a meal prepared by a professional who crafted everything with passion, experience, and education. Smart phones produce wonderful pictures with increasing frequency. They are all-in-one cameras combining capturing, processing, backups, and distribution. They are quick, easy, and always available. The software compensates pretty well for the clearly still inferior hardware, and such automation takes away at least some creative control from the user. When you take a photo with a phone the device is deciding so much for you, and its decision-making process was determined by a team of programmers. Who really created the picture? All that's left is composition and there probably is an app for that, too. While automation happens with DSLR/mirrorless cameras to a certain extent (even when shooting in manual mode), those of us who took the time to hone our skills can really produce something special. Who do you credit for the frozen dinner you ate if you loved it? There is a lot to be said for automation, especially when you don't have time or patience, but I'm one who still spends hours to produce a single image (including post-processing). No AI knows what I envisioned in my mind when I decided to open the shutter. I do foresee the day when photographers (and chefs) are obsolete, just like MP3 audio traded the superior sound of CDs for all the other things physical media couldn't do. The vast majority of people will choose convenience over quality and find that acceptable, especially when the images they get are "good enough." How about comparing the absolute BEST images from top photographers using dedicated cameras and all-in-one smart phones (both with full automation and with as little assistance possible)? In many cases it will be close but I bet overall when speed isn't a consideration the traditional cameras will still shine. Just to be clear, I consider smart phones to be cameras. However, their operators are typically called "users" and, as good as the phones have become, "photographers" are not done-for quite yet. This was my first-ever comment after watching UA-cam videos for years. You stirred me, Tony.
"How about comparing the absolute BEST images from top photographers using dedicated cameras and all-in-one smart phones" I think you'll find that the best images out there taken with smart phones are really, really good. :)
Agreed. I'm curious to know how the best smart phones compare against dedicated cameras. Are they better than the best? Equal? Somewhere in the middle of the range? Smart phones, as I understand it, usually have fixed apertures, tiny lenses, and image sensors the size of a fingernail. It seems they depend on manipulating the pixels in order to achieve what the human eye considers excellence. So many photographers say to get it right in camera (though I think that art should never be bound by rules). I enjoy using Photoshop to bring the image closer to my mind's vision. Smart phones are almost never doing the equivalent of getting it right in camera since they are doing their own version of Photoshop on their shots. It might not seem this way to the user but it's happening (as it also does to some extent on the JPG files in a DSLR/mirrorless camera). So many smart phones default to HDR, which would mean they are often making a composite of multiple images. I love this when I'm in need of a quick selfie in horrible light to flaunt what I'm doing on vacation but you cannot compare what comes out of a DSLR or mirrorless directly against the processed output of a phone. That's like having a competition where one photographer can use Photoshop and the other cannot. To reiterate what I said initially (above), let's have a demonstration with skilled photographers using a dedicated camera and allow them to process their images. The phones obviously win on speed due to their automation and all-in-one nature, but let's compare the best skill, software, and available pro hardware against the top-end mobile devices. Make it a fair fight and compare apples to apples. My bet is that the pros still come out on top, at least for now. Tony, can you round up some fellow UA-cam stars and make this happen? 😁
I’ve been making images with SLRs for over 50 years (yes, I’m that old😋). Two points: First, I’ve always heard the statement, “That’s an incredible photo, you must have a really good (expensive) camera.” That’s the same dogmatic belief that many, in spite of the proof, will hang onto. Second, this year, I accepted an iPhone 365 challenge and, wow, have I learned bucketloads! One is, you’re right, smartphones are REAL cameras! Another is, it’s the artist, the professional, the experience BEHIND the camera that makes the difference, not the camera itself. I’ll never give up my DSLR but then I’ll never be without my iPhone either! (Thanks for letting me rant!🙂)
You took the words right out of my mouth. I am waiting for the arrival of it gets here of the Vivo X80 Pro. There is a Pro + coming later in the summer. It's specs are amazing.
Most people are dumb. They dont know how to use the manual controls on a DSLR or Mirrorless. They just leave it on auto. A phone is better for most people you cant screw it up. I use both but most of the time I use my phone camera. You cant carry a huge camera everywhere
Cool so show me how it's the person behind the camera who can do birds in flight that are 50 ft away with a cell phone camera.....
I totally agree. Smartphones are awesome. I use mine for street photography and I love it ! However, I shoot a lot of athletics, and for that, nothing beats my Canon eos 7d mark II. It is a case of what you use your camera for. Great video !
This is why I carry around my “real” camera and then end up taking most of my pics with my iPhone ProMax. I continue to say until the camera companies institute computational photography in their big old bodies, they will continue to make themselves further and further less relevant. It’s inexcusable how the mobile computer makers have no space in their bodies yet are able to have supercomputing power but the real camera companies can’t do anything even remotely close. With the big sensors and optics if they combined that with even a modicum of computer processing they could again make real cameras really useful again.
You make a compelling argument, and I can agree with you on most points. Computational photography can compensate for the small sensor in many ways, although the more computation enters the equation, the less the image matches reality. Granted, for most things this isn't an issue, because the story and feeling is more important than the accurate representation of reality, unless you're doing forensic or preservation photography. The 2 main areas where I see smartphones lacking is in the ergonomics (important for quickly responding to events as they unfold) and the ability to interface with other tools, such as lenses, filters, flash, strobe, monitors, or follow-focus systems.
In a previous generation, some people didn't think that 35mm was a real camera.
It's a difficult one. I worry what computational photography and pro quality smartphone cameras may do to the value most people place on photographers, which is already in a nosedive. On the other hand, I love that pro quality cameras are now in the pockets and handbags of *millions* of people, and anything that encourages more people to capture images in camera instead of just manufacturing them in Photoshop can only be good for the craft as a whole. I also *really* hope that the camera manufacturers might eventually take notice of all the software and feature advancements in phones and start putting them in their cameras someday. How is it 2022 and yet most new pro cameras still have user interfaces that feel like they were designed in 2002?!
i personally think that even with the possibility of tweak anything with just cursors and produce what sounds, for the person who's done it, the perfect image there will still be an artistic dimension in photography
there is technics but contrary to what people may think most of times it is 90% about how to compose an image, what you want to say with it, your taste, your culture, etc (those look sometime like technical aspects and to some extent are (but if you want a yellow white ballance besause of golden hour technically it would be said to be not good, but artistically, it can be a good idea) but are mostly artistic aspects) and arround 10% of technicals skills, choice of tools to take the image and their limitations (and for professionnals, there is also the workflow)
the problem is that most people may think that photography is a field for skilled people and technicians and if it is a bit right, it is mostly wrong what makes a good image is first and for most the story that comes with it so even though in one day images will automatically be taken, after it will be anyone's choice to personalize the image, keep or get rid of it and so on
Every chance he gets, going back YEARS, Tony runs down micro four thirds because of the sensor size relative to full frame. But come to a cell phone, and there's NO MENTION of sensor size. For that matter, try to find online the sensor size(s) used in cell phone cameras. If you do go looking, get the size in millimeters, because such sizes as "1 over 2.3 inches" or "one-inch" have no relation whatsoever to the inch measurement on your ruler.
This is why the 35mm sensor argument is wrong.
Sad to imagine you felt this necessary. Any camera is a real camera. Respect for others, what they do and how they do it is always a good idea.
Look at the poll again at the beginning. A majority of those people said that a smartphone is NOT a real camera. He is addressing their ignorance.
Horses for courses, that's why I have a bunch of lenses. But the one camera I always have with me (so I always get the shot), is my phone. In fact it's probably the only thing that excites me about getting a new one!
Good joke, The phone is nowhere close to a real photographer using the real camera. The examples are artificial, you found a scenario where a postprocessing algorithm knows how to handle the situation, but what if the algorithm doesn't know what to do. In this case you wrecked your pictures. Relying on artificial intelligence is a big mistake. I just took a couple of shots in my bedroom with iPhone 12 and X100V side by side in low light scenario. iPhone is completely destroyed by Fuji X100V.
Don't give a hoot. That thing might have a camera IN it, but it is not a camera. I don't care how good the camera IN it is, it is NOT a camera, and trying to do photography with it might be good for times you don't have a camera available, but a great camera is also about how it feels in the hand. The most repeated advice I have heard for decades is, choose the camera that feels right in your hand. No thanks.
FRO will disagree with you Tony. His Canon Zoom lens makes his image pop 3d like. I don't think any phone can recreate that
what you get from cellphone camera is algrithm, what you get from camera is optics. It's just a taste problem
Where's the redo of the best cameea on a smartphone video? The s22 ultra had something wrong with it
Uh...look, phones are cameras but I find these results to be downright cherry picked. I can take a shot in my living room of, say, kids or the bookshelf and it's so noisy (or too much noise reduction) details can't be made out at all. A 6D or RP will take a picture with a magnitude greater detail. Not to mention real depth of field. I just don't find these examples to be authentic. They do not match my real world experience.
When you shoot a portrait with a sony, nikon, canon, olympus, etc. professional camera at 1.8 aperture outdoors or indoors... it blows away any smart phone. I've tried and there's no comparison.
If you post the image on Instagram there is no difference.
Well maybe, but thats an extremely specific case scenario. Teslas can do 0-60 in 2 sec, best in the world, but how many times would you actually use it?
Most of your driving wouldn’t be 0-60 in 2 sec.
Same for phones, most photos aren’t 85mm f/1.2 portraits. I use my phone for many things, most of my photos don’t have to be world class, and yes I keep a “proper camera” for the specific extreme cases too.
@@Mike_M_Smith I can easily tell the difference between a the physical focus falloff caused by a large sensor and lens and a smartphone faking background blur. Even on Instagram.
@@TechnoBabble Some can even guess what brand of camera / phone took the picture.
@@TechnoBabble that’s a neat trick.
LOL this was just a vehicle for Tony to blast Camera manufacturers for their lack of security features. I knew that was coming.
And compute and usability power... To be cruel, it's android cameras show a few years ago is beating dslr manufacturers hahaha
I’m glad that he did, if the camera manufacturers watched this video, I suspect they did, they will roll up their sleeves and get to work to fill this void.
@@williefufu2985 With camera vendors thinking increasingly about computational photography and other uses of compute power -- like object-detect autofocus -- they are slowly boosting performance. Nikon's Z9 processor is reportedly about 10x faster than the Z7 Mark II processor. Olympus/OMDS doubled the perfomance of the processor between the E-M1 Mark II and Mark III, and as much as tripled it in the OM-1.
Of course, the CPU performance is only as good as their software, but we're not getting there without the hardware to run it. I'm also hoping that the Alice Camera -- that one from the Indiegogo a few years back -- actually comes out this fall. That's a bit odd, using a smartphone as a viewfinder/control panel, but it's got dual AI processors on-board, and an open AI processing pipeline. It'll be fun to see that one unleashed on coders.
For me the most important takeaway of this video is: If camera manufacturers don't implement computational photography in their products AND better wireless connections they will lose even more photographers to smartphones than they already have. The compact cameras are dead and the entry level and midrange mirrorless cameras are about to vanish.
I want state of the art bracketed wide dynamic RAW photos ooc, not just lousy JPGs... NOW!
Currently I can take much, much better images with my mirrorless from 2016 mirrorless than with my 2016 iPhone 6. But I totally agree that mirrorless cameras are in desparate need of computational features. Once they get them, they will again be clearly ahead of the current top of the line smartphones. But right now for many people the questions what’s better really comes down to their use case.
I have been impressed lately by smartphone photos. I have not looked at them as deeply as you have, but everyday, around the house, normal lense type stuff, my daughters IPhone blows me away. It takes the shot and does the post processing. I struggle to get similar shots and the effort it takes is depressing.
However, stopping action, or long telephoto work is not as good. In my experience low light is poor also, but I will look at this closer. I imagine they will improve as AI improves. I used to carry a camera with a long lense and a second camera with a short lense on wildlife outings. I am relying more and more on my cell phone as a second camera and I don't have the latest and greatest phone. At family functions, I am the one that gathers the photos from everyone and puts the albums together. I am the only "real camera" user. In general, the photos from my "real camera" are more usable, but, there are a lot of better compositions from the cell phones just because they are so much more convenient.
phones can compete with any camera in photos because of ai post processing. but usually they lack in low light video, they try to make up with extreme noise reduction, which flattens the videos. and also with cameras you can zoom further, or more bokeh etc. but general photography, they can easily win.
@@truthseeker6804 I don't find smartphones ever really "win". They can be comparable if you put them in their optimal shooting conditions, but as soon as you're not in broad daylight or shooting a still subject with night mode they fall apart.
It is getting tough to carry the DSLR when I travel. I'm a target and people notice the "eye" more than my S22 Ultra. Which by the way I have been impressed with. Even the telephoto. But I still make a day of going out with DSLR to get my best shots.
@@truthseeker6804 AI can do a lot but it cannot put back information, that is not there, just make it look that way. Camera manufacturers have to get better on that software part though and use the much better input they get from the sensor to feed it through the same AI technology.
@@salia2897 i believe camera manufacturers dont care. maybe sony might make something interesting. or unless samsung gets back into cameras, i believe they have the most potential. or if apple gets into cameras then that would be the end for all camera manufacturers.
Tremendous and good breakdown of the conventional camera and the cellphone camera. I votes yes for cellphone cameras being a real camera because they are. I love my Samsung Galaxy Ultra S21, NikonD7200, and Nikon P1000. Use whatever you want.
Same gear here except for the P1000. This Covid Era finds me re-editing images in Lightroom, Photoshop, Luminar and Topaz (testing that currently). Amazing how images from my current and prior phones and even less advanced cameras can be batch processed after which it's hard to know what was shot with what. The s21Ultra is by far the best for everyday macro to telephoto in any light. I wish I could fit it into a DSLR body for use in cold winter conditions. Hard to use with mitts on. D7200 shines for that.
Me too ... btw Canon shooter 80D, 70D, 5DM3 50mm, 35mm L, 85mm 1.8, 85mm 1.2L, 18-135mm zoom. Nowadays only the 80D and 85s make it out the 🎒for portraits. Sometimes the 35mm 😉
@@jjaylad The Nikon D7200 is a beast of a camera. Bought it back in 2016. For the Samsung S21, a lot to say. I've heard much about Luminar, but never tried it.
@@alvinblackwell268 Nice setup Alvin! The Canon 80 D is a good one. I did a lot of homework on it. Cellphones are great, but with a dslr or mirrorless camera with a speedlight on top, there is no comparison.✌️
@@keithbrown454 Hey Keith, I agree but the workflow & smartphone convenience makes my S21 my go to for video in particular. If I am doing portrait work definitely the DSLR. BTW I am still planning to but an R5 or maybe an R1 in the future, because I love the tactile experience of my Canon cameras. However if Canon were smart they'd adapt Android OS on the R line of mirrorless cameras. That would be a game changer 💯‼️😉
Agree that Smart phone cameras are much better nowadays and hence can be used in most of situations. Having said that, I would want to see Tony stop using those 'Real Cameras' and completely switch over to smartphones for his professional work.
Cropped images from most phone cameras are not going to look that good.
That's not his point.
Where does Tony say that a smartphone could replace a 8000$ camera in the video concerning paid photography jobs?
@@ronjenkins4257 that is precisely the point. To call them a real camera in a photographer’s point of view is saying it could replace.
@@creatorsjourney6286 No of course not.
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🤷♂️
Most smartphones let you change the battery... Typically it's a 15-20 minute process. But smartphone tech is developing so rapdily that if you care about the camera you'll probably want to upgrade anyway.
@@TonyAndChelsea Costing you more money in the long run than getting a camera that could last 10 years. No one keeps their smartphones for 10 years these days.
For a lot of people, photography is not just the what but the how. I just don't like how it feels taking pictures with my cellphone, even though it takes great pictures. I like the tactile feeling of making images with a "proper" camera heh
Agree with that. I really struggle to hold a smartphone for photography (compared to a regular camera). Always feels like trying to shoot with a slippery eel in hand.
@@peterreber7671 Use Live View. It addresses this exact problem.
I suppose it is like people who think music sounds better on vinyl. For me convenience trumps everything. It takes the pressure off too. I only use my phone when I am shooting for fun and consequently I seem to get better shots.
I agree. It’s the same as opening a record or an actual book (remember those!). The experience is part of the fun.
@@Beatsy yesss this!
I got started with photography when I was 14 years old back in highschool. I'm going on 28 today and it is amazing where camera technology has come.
As a working professional, I think it is great that more capable cameras are in people's hands than ever before.
I remember taking my DSLR camera with me on vacation to capture trips. Now, an iPhone 13 Pro Max is more than sufficient. iCloud immediately backups photos and videos. If stolen, Apple Care can get me another phone within a day. Photos and videos can be shared instantly with family members around the world. Not to mention, the 13 Pro Max has insane battery life and I could also video call anyone in HD.
This is a golden age of technology. I would love for Apple or Google to partner with Canon or Nikon on a camera one today, something like Android Auto and Apple Car Play.
the camera market is going down. why should they partner with a losing market. thats just going to give the camera market new buyers. if the camera manufacturers are serious they would start copying features from phones into their cameras.
I’m still using a Nikon D3 and Leica M9 Monochrom.
@@Mike_M_Smith I did a three-year, B&W photo a day challenge. I probably learned enough about B&W shooting over the thousand images to consider going without the crutch of a color sensor 🙂
@@DaveHaynie unfortunately I sold the Monochrom. The second sensor that Leica replaced also became defective.
Agreed. People need keep taking unfocussed photos, poorly composed images in ever increasing resolution. As long as they do, the phone companies will have the money to keep developing better features
Smartphones edit the photo for you of course they're going to look really good straight out of camera.
You can shoot RAW with a smartphone, and still take advantage of the computational photography features if you want the best of both worlds.
I mean, my floor is a bed too
😂
Hilarious 😂😂
I sell prints up to 16X20 sometimes 20x30 shot with my iPhone 11 Pro Max all the time. My best seller is a phone shot.
Be sure to check out Gigipixel AI software for enlarging your iPhone files to make even larger prints!
Those phones you used must be about 10 times as good as my year old s21. I recently did a similar test between my phone, a Canon point and shoot and a Canon rebel and there was no comparison. The phone pics looked great on the screen but had tons of weird artifacts and unrealistic colors when enlarged compared to the dedicated cameras
I was quiet surprised to discover that my current phone 14 Pro Max has a larger sensor size than my old compact point and shoot.
I guess the sensor on its own wouldn’t produce good results at all so yeah, if the computation post processing is t up to scratch, the photos will look bad, but despite all this, the process is hit or miss a lot of the times.
BIG ISSUE. First, I agree with you. Cellphones have real cameras. End of the argument. I have issue with comparing at 5:30 minutes the R3 with the Pixel 6 Pro and using 30 sec exposure against 16 sec exposure. I know you have taken images of stars without trails. I know you know the settings for the R3 are wrong. Try again with a 1.4 lens for only 16 seconds. That would be a fair comparison. Trying to use completely different lenses at completely different settings is not something I would expect from you. It is a big flaw or disingenuous.
Of course the lenses are different... I can't put a Canon lens on a smartphone. And the 16 sec time on the Pixel isn't accurate; it's doing image stacking from a 4-minute exposure. But listen to the words I'm saying during that example; the smartphone doesn't need to beat the $8000 camera; it's just an example.
@@TonyAndChelsea What I meant by the lenses being different is the maximum aperture. You should have used and f1.4 for 15 secs. That would have been closer. Stars trails are directly related to the duration of the shot (of course I am preaching to the choir) My point is an RE, R5 with a Sigma 20 mm 1.4 will give you a superb stars image. No trails
@@osoriony not only that but who does Astrophotography at ISO 25600? I just hate seeing these “kit cameras” with their f/3.5-5.6 lens up against the native f/1.5 or so iPhone. Put a cheap 50mm 1.8 and get a closer result. I understand the point-you get the kit lens when you get the camera. But if we’re making a point of comparison, then make it a fair one at least.
Once you wrap your mind around the fact, you have a Camera that has a phone 📞 in it, and not a phone with a camera. This really is quite liberating. I came to this realization back in 2016 while in a major magazine assignment, when sets locations were being assembled with lights. I went with my subject and she laid down to rest. I only had my iPhone 5s with me. The images produced. We’re actually phenomenal with multiple images chosen for the magazine layout. It was this day I realized I had a camera with a phone in it.
Yeah and how did those photos age looking at them now??? Same thing will happen again people are impressed by them now but but in 10 years they will look like crap whereas shots I took with my D800E from 10 years ago still look insanely good.
Are smartphones real cameras? Yes, they're real cameras. Have they evolved TREMENDOUSLY in the last 5 to 10 years? For sure! I would argue they have evolved MORE than traditional cameras.
Should people who belittle others for choosing to use a smartphone instead of a Canon be called out for their narrow minded elitist behavior? Yes! Not everyone has the inclination to pay thousands of dollars for a proper photographic kit, and nor should they.
I still have shots I took 13-15 years ago with whatever Nokia phone I was using at the time, with a 1.3 megapixel camera. I like those shots. I couldn't have had them otherwise. That grainy POS low resolution image has recorded something dear to me.
Now, that out of the way.
My dude, you have 1.5 million subscribers, out of which I will guess that a lot are enthusiasts with proper gear. Are you seriously going to structure your video to suggest that smartphones are better than dedicated photographic gear? Come on! My 8 year old Sony a6000 takes SIGNIFICANTLY better shots than my 2021 Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra, the best smartphone camera I have access to, THE SECOND I put those images on a big screen, aka not on the phone's screen.
What do I do to have better shots with my a6000? I know how to use it! I process my stuff! It's the whole point of a dedicated camera system. Yes, smartphones create a pleasing processed image for you in like half a second. If I put that image on my computer monitor and compare with the stuff I generate with both my a6000 and my A7 3, it's laughable. And if I zoom, game over.
If you don't care, use a smartphone. If you are sick of the workflow a camera entails, use a smartphone. They are good _enough_. That said, they are not better. Not yet. Computational photography, regardless of how awesome and fast has become in the last few years cannot hold a candle to the images I can produce with my A7 3 paired with a 24-70 Sigma f2.8, raw, processed to taste in Lightroom.
I don't understand why you feel the need to push this sort of narrative. It's not true. A worse thing cannot be better than a good thing. I don't care how smart a pixel is, it still cannot beat the kilo of large, clear glass I have in the front of the sensor of my camera, paired with my ability to use it, and then process the images, and a 6400 Iso, unprocessed, underexposed, out of focus portrait will not change that.
Gear MATTERS. I will happily continue to use both my S21 and my dedicated kit whenever I feel like taking a picture, depending on the need. This is my hobby. I enjoy doing it and I have the ability to discern between 2 pictures.
I work in the video game industry. I am a tech enthusiast. I enjoy gadgets and technology. I don't have a heart attack near a router or a network switch. I have a powerful PC. I like when small and light devices can do amazing things, like take good photos. That doesn't change the fact that you still shoot your stuff with an R5, or whatever camera tickles your fancy between your "gear doesn't matter" videos. There is a reason you do it. There is a reason you don't move your business of book making, wildlife photography and UA-cam channel to an iPhone.
who are you trying to encourage with these 'gear doesn't matter , smartphones are awesome' videos? People who only use instagram and would never invest 2 thousand dollars in a camera kit anyway? Why?
I bought a 5D classic for $80 on ebay and I would use that any day over a smartphone for photos.
Smartphones do sucks a lot and they still have long way to go. They could perform better with an existing hardware but problem is that they all are now using quadbayer sensors which are literally shitttt and secondly, image processing is inclined more towards to make it social media friendly i.e. over sharpness, very saturated colours, heavy HDR which is i found totally unnecessary.
@@yash_kambli I wish Canon made a smartphone.
@@creativevisiongaming i wish that too.
I understand what you are saying but I think you are missing the point. He did preface the story with what happened to the photography gear from 4 decades ago. I am sure there was
a person just like you now who said that digital photography, was a toy and useless. Give me my rolls of film and my very own darkroom and chemicals and I can outdo any digital camera with analog film. But, you are using that new (many generations improved) tech/digital gear now and nothing is wrong with that. But, just like film cameras. Technology marches on. Smartphone photography is getting better, sometimes by leaps and bounds, There is still nothing wrong with using the gear you have and I have now. But photography is miniaturizing and in this case it is in a pocket phone. I doubt you have a old style tube tv, you probably have a large flat screen tv. same example different appliance field.
That is such a broad statement, when the price range of smartphones goes from 200 to 2000 dollars.
He is only talking about higher end smartphones. Obviously.
Seriously though…. I hate using my phone for photos, my “ real camera” is fun. I get more joy out of my mirrorless than my phone. The other reality is I’m not going to plunk down $1500 on a fantastic smartphone/camera….I’ve already got a smartphone and yeah it’s top for iPhone but I still just hate it for photography. All the reasons you state why it’s a real camera is true in one sense but doesn’t change the feeling. Also I don’t get amazing bokeh with my smartphone…computational dog crap is what it is. Do I use my smartphone, yeah but I hate it.
Feel and fun don’t take away from results. Preferences I guess
@@Simsationxl totally does, if you hate the tool you’re using it’s not going to give the best results vs something you actually enjoy using.
This is exactly how I feel. A phone with a great camera is great to have handy. Two years ago before I got into photography I chose my new phone (Pixel 3XL) because of it's camera and a few other reasons. Now after being into photography for two years I hate using my phone; I never use it. I'll either use my Z6II or my recently acquired Nikon FM2 as it's way more enjoyable and I like having the control. As you said and I agree with, I hate the computational bokeh.
I'm not into getting a new phone every year and if I was going to spend $1k or more on something it would be another camera 👍. Others don't have to agree and that's fine, I respect it.
Thanks for doing this video. It needed to be said. Smartphones are the real deal. They are computational photographic tools; forget the "phone" part. "Real" cameras will become ever more marginalized if they don't become computer-wise. I find my iPhone (12 Pro Max) especially good for street photography but It's surprisingly capable of other things, especially in RAW mode. We've been told prints from smartphones are lousy. Yes, they are resolution-limited but I have had good results at 11x14 and even beyond.
Some Panasonic cameras use computational photography to aid the already great optics and large sensor.
You're comparing a 1 sec exposure at 25600 iso to a 16 sec exposure at 358 iso?! You're gonna act like that's the best you could do with an R3???
Seriously, it's a joke. He went from a 30 second exposure to a 1 second exposure to get rid of star trails? Why not a 5 or 10 second exposure?
@@TechnoBabble Coz probably he has no clue
Preach brother! My iPhone 12 takes great photos. I have used it to take real photos and video for which I have been paid. Nothing is realer than an invoice. :)
Any camera that produces the right image at the right time is real. More than 30 years ago I shot basketball with a motor-driven “real camera” with a fast short telephoto. I also kept a little point and shoot in my shirt pocket. When a player is running right at you on a fast break you’re going to have a hard time getting the dunk from behind the basket with a 105mm. A Sure Shot or XA might get it.
If I were shooting basketball now, I might rely on an iPhone for that.
Undeniably there's a place for smartphone photography, everything where content is the main point of interest, it doesn't matter if it's shot on a smartphone, or on a super expensive interchangeable lens camera.
Most photographer who disagree because they already invested thousand of dollars in the convention camera and lens so when they find out that a smartphone could easily match most of the result from camera they tend to get frustrated and hence to make there purchase valid they usually disagree with this topic
Wow, thanks Tony, I voted for "no". But you concinced me! Phones are real cameras. Why I said no, is for the feeling I get with my entry level camera. It just feels better, I enjoy it much more with my DSLR than my samsung phone. The buttens, the feel, the joy, the viewfinder... that is why I like the DSLR. No smartphone gives me that feeling.
I have a Canon R5 w/ 28-70mm f/2 lens. With the battery grip and two sets of batteries, I have invested over $8,000 in this six-pound kit. I also have my iPhone 11 Pro Max w/ 512GB of storage for photos and what-not. I often pulling out my iPhone for quick shots than breaking out my R5. I find myself using both and even wishing that I would pull out my iPhone more often.
Now for quality, my R5 runs circles around my iPhone 11 Pro Max. I was thinking about getting the 13 but I think I could wait a little longer and get the 14 as it will have better cameras and 5G for faster uploads. I hear rumors that the iPhone 15 will have a periscope-type telephoto lens that should be just amazing.
This talk about smartphones not being real cameras used to be true in the past. But now they are totally useful. I wouldn't use my iPhone for professional work as of now, because there are many things I'm able to do with my R5 that make pro jobs easier and with improved quality. My iPhone is slower, I don't like touch screens for controls. I love real buttons as I can access them with my eye in the viewfinder. I also can rest my finger on a mechanical button which I can't do on my phone. My R5 shoots 45 MP files which is great for cropping in. My 12MP lacks this feature but I hear that iPhone 14 might come out with a 35MP sensor which would be awesome. It might even shoot 8k video.
I wish my iPhone could meld with my R5 then it would be one of the best cameras in the world. I hope the iPhone 14 and 15 come out with the rumored features as that would convince me to use the iPhone as a reliable backup for paid shoots. I would be fantastic if I could have a great backup that fits in my pocket. And to be used as a primary when I'm out and about without my R5. Some of my best shots are being at the right place at the right time to get the shot no matter what.
“I wish my iphone could melt with my R5”. Same here!!! I love my r5 but i long for a much larger screen and while the canon menu is decent id still prefer an apple ui. The next best thing I’ve found is using the canon remote app on my iPhone but its still finicky and doesn’t always connect.
In 2020 I took a special topics: photography class in grad school as part of my Masters program. I did a photo assignment for it using my iPhone 6. I don't own a digital camera, this is what I had. I took the photos through the camera function of Lightroom for iPhone, set to high contrast black and white. I didn't do any post work, only presented the photos that came out great. My classmates thought I had shot all my photos in film. They were surprised it was an old iPhone and Lightroom. It really doesn't matter what camera you use. What matters is the art you make with it.
Hey man. Long time fan here. You don’t have to justify how you want to start covering cellphones and cellphone photography more. We get it. We like you and Chelsea and the knowledge you share. We get it. The only video that hit a million views in the last 3 years on this channel was a smart phone camera comparison. You two do you. We’re not going anywhere. I promise.
What are you trying to say, that no one is watching Tony and Chelsea anymore? Well your not wrong. Tony needs to make a change.
I didn't get that vibe from Tony
Show us on the doll where a smartphone touched you
Regardless of future coverage, the poll revealed a hugely common misnomer that I am glad got addressed.
You clearly never have shoot a night sky before. Iso 25600 are insane and then calling it noisey. And all the other Points, I think you aren't actually a "real" Photographer.
Of course every camera is a camera. And Professionals know how to use them. (You are clearly not one of them.) Give me a Camera from 2012 and I'll shoot a better night sky, then you with your 8k Camera.
The Thing with Smartphones ist, that Manufactures promote them as things, that they don't are.
Of course smartphones got a lot better and for the majority of people a smartphone is enough.
But for now computing can't beat a good "real" camera, if you are a pro at least.
Yeah the camera phones have come a mighty long ways, but cell phones can’t link up to strobes and other light sources that is needed for creative photography work. You can use a continuous light source with a cellphone camera but you won’t have the same results when using a digital camera body. Plus the camera phones takes away the joy of understanding photography because it does all the processing of images for you. But I’m for both worlds, the camera phones is a great tool to have in your pocket in certain situations.
Linking to strobes.. well now they can with profoto. 😯 I wonder what’s next? 😁
Actually i think you already can, but it's very early in the game..m
I agree in lowlight a flash makes a huge difference. An ILC gives great images indoors with a flash when you bounce it off the ceiling. I agree with another commentor that smartfphone colors can look unnatural sometimes.
Absolutely ...WRONG.....see my post above re: Profoto lighting (the best in the business btw)
@@eljavix my profoto lighting works flawlessly with my Iphone 12pro max. been using it a couple years now and done paid portraiture with this combo
Here's my take on this. "Real" cameras are still better than smartphone cameras and they always will be. WAY better. Why is this? Because of the bigger sensor. A phone camera cannot compete with its tiny sensor, even an APSC sensor is much, MUCH bigger than a tiny phone sensor. It is a physical limitation for the phone. But the phone uses computational photography to make it sharper and less noisy you say? Well I could just install AI image enhancement programs such as Topaz Denoise AI or similar, and I have a computer that can do far more processing than a phone, and process an image from a far bigger sensor that gathered a much higher quality input for me to work with!
I can attest to this. One of my projects involved filming a mountaineering expedition up one of the 7 Summits. Though my Sony mirrorless did amazing, there were many moments it was near impossible to use due to safety concerns while climbing. My Iphone, on the other hand, was able to be easily pulled from a pocket to take quick a video without having to faff about with a larger system.
Each year more "real" photographers get frustrated that their aunt (who knows nothing about real photography) can magically take a photo with their new smart phone that the rest of the family thinks looks just as good as the photos from the "real" camera. Unless the camera makers start building in smartphone features and image processing, this trend won't stop soon.
I definitely think phones are real cameras, they are limiting but they do the same thing any camera can do, it takes a photo. For the first few years of my photography, it was almost entirely on my phone until I got a “real camera” last fall. Most of my favorite photos are still the photos I shot oh my phone, my iPhone 6s. Shooting on phones forces you to work on your composition much more than a “real camera”, it forces you to find interesting angles and shots. Shooting on my phone for the past years helped me out immensely when switching to a camera, I understood the styles i liked and all I really had to get used to was thinking in different focal lengths. If you want to get into photography, just start doing it, take your phone out and show the world what you see.
Also it was pretty cool to see that you guys passed through my home state of Maine!
They say the best camera is the one you have with you. And that for me is the iPhone 13 pro. It’s image processing blows me away with incredible dynamic range and no blowouts I have come to expect with my DSLR. The pano feature is amazing! However, I just got back from a trip in the Mideast and my go to camera was my Nikon D750. Yes, I’m sitting through post processing my photos, but that is where a picture becomes a photograph. I find my DSLR still gives me much more latitude and resolution than the iPhone and I am faster at capturing the image with the DSLR. Cropping is better on the DSLR. Yes, I look like a tourist, but the Nikon sensor adds a quality to the image I don’t see with the iPhone. I wish I could marry the image processing of the iPhone with the sensor from the Nikon. Now That would be amazing.
McDonald's staff can cook food for their customers to eat, and they can even build a career from there and eventually make some decent money, but would you consider them as profetional chefs? I guess not.
I agreee with you completely. Even so, I rarely take pictures with my phone, because I find the process unpleasant. The screen is reflective, it's more difficult to compose the shot with the camera held at a distance from my eyes, and I struggle with the shutter button's placement (I'm interested in the Sony solution). When I do use my Samsung phone the results are often better than I get with my various Fujis and Nikons, and another advantage is that I'm rarely asked to desist in certain restricted spaces, like outside some London office blocks. For their ergonomics, my loyality to traditional cameras is unshaken!
SOOC you should expect a flagship smartphone to outperform a real camera. That is their purpose: to take "good" photos in increasingly more situations without any input from the shooter other that literally pointing and shooting.
But if you can't outshoot the phone using your photographic skills, raw mode, etc. you have some learning to do. I could get a better shot than my 2022 smartphone even with older gear like my X-Pro1... generally even a 1" camera like my Sony RX10IV or Panasonic ZS100, if I'm willing to do the work (which might require some of the same tricks the phone is doing, like image stacking). Not always worth it, but always there in the bag of photo knowledge.
Do you know the exposure triangle if you haven't pls 🙏 use it and you'll never compare cellphone to a dedicated 📷 ever again the bigger the pixel the better
Ahahah no smartphones are not cameras and not smart 😂😂... They have cameras, and some have smart users
But, quality is beating camers on many fields...
What is a “real” camera, to start? How do you define it? What are the capabilities of a “real” camera?
In the broadest sense, of course a smart phone is a real camera. It takes photos. It takes videos. And generally speaking you always have it with you, and any camera is better than no camera.
But I think some of the examples here are awfully contrived and cherry-picked. The telephoto shot, for one. Literally no other smartphone could get those results (cough, iPhone). And sticking a kit lens on your mirrorless camera for the comparison? C’mon.
Ultimately cameras are tools. And you want to use the best tool for the job. In some scenarios that is going to be a smartphone.. but in others, conventional cameras have distinct advantages.
i think you need to re-watch the video, couple of stuffs you missed there. p.s. not saying phone cams better than dslr/mirrorless or vice versa
i think a real camera is just beeing a camera and nothing else. This is a phone that can take photos and videos
Indoor sports and wildlife are the things smartphones suck at right now ... too bad these are the two main things I shoot ^^
Good video Tony ! :)
Agree that smartphone cameras are real cameras and they have come a loooong way. BUT!!! The big problem is that the smartphone manufacturers themselves do not view smartphones as "professional" photography/ videography devices.
Most manufacturers don't natively provide support for RAW on all lenses, or full manual modes for video and photo, no control for picture profiles, log profiles, many of which are important for the creative control. Most native camera apps, come with a good full AUTO mode, and a half assed implementation of a Manual mode, for the sake of it. I can only think of Sony Xperia which at least does approach smartphone photography in this "professional" direction.
The processing potential is HUGE in smartphones, the manufacturers just use it give the best image/video straight out of camera, because the average customer is NOT a professional photographer. So we are stuck with using some third party apps for that creative control, and it is always an underwhelming experience, and THIS is the problem with smartphones.
This is ironic since Apple hires professional photographers and videographers/film makers to show off what the iPhone is capable of in the right hands. I'd bet those pros didn't switch to using an iPhone for their day job after the gig was over.
It's also ironic because they geared their pro laptops toward power users by giving them the features crucial toward their work, but not so much on their pro iPhones. ProRes RAW is a step in the right direction, but to really be taken seriously, they would need to add the things you and many others here have talked about.
Although I agree with you and smartphones these days also allow for manual settings and you can get some great images from a smartphone and I do use my smartphone to take photos. However, I do not really enjoy the photographic experience. I like the feel of dials and shutter buttons and manual focusing and is one reason I still shoot with film and switched over to the Fujifilm system.
I agree. I too have a few Fujifilm cameras. But it's more than just buttons and dials. It's how the camera feels in you hand, and the ease with which you can frame a shot. In other words - ergonomics. Then there's the process of taking the photo itself. On a phone, it's really an afterthought, despite what you might think from the adverts. You have to hunt around for the camera app, and then compose the shot whilst holding a smooth rectangular object. Then somebody rings you half way through, or you get a notification. I absolutely agree that smart phones are real cameras, and the images can be as good, if not better, than "proper" cameras, but they are not machines dedicated to taking photos. They're not exactly quick draw devices, IYKWIM. However, I could definitely do with a camera with a SIM and a direct connection to the cloud (without the use of a smartphone). Can't understand why nobody has done it. Or have they? Didn't Samsung make such a beast before exiting the camera market, and I think there's someone who makes something like that today, but I forget the name.
Also, smart phones with decent cameras really aren't all that cheap are they? From a quick look, an iPhone 13 Pro will set you back the best part of £1000. You could get a low end DSLR and 3 or 4 lenses for that, particularly if you bought used. The Google Pixel 6 is more competitive at around £600. You would struggle to get a DSLR and a lens for that, but it could be done. My smart phone costs less than £150. It does have a camera, which is adequate, but not the best.
Another thought. Perhaps a bit of a tangent. How long is your phone going to last? Apple won't let you replace the battery these days, and they eventually die, so then you need to buy a new phone. Some people just buy the latest iPhone on principle. Expensive. Cameras can go on for decades. Admittedly, the time a particular model of camera remains on sale appears to be shrinking, and their are people who simply must have the latest camera (Tony?), but at least you have some choice in the matter.
me too, just not the same thing
Smartphones do allow manual shooting. But mostly, that will immediately crapify the image from the smartphone. Rather than get your 2, 6, 8, 9, or 15 stacked images driven by an AI that's analyzing your phone motion, your subject motion, etc., applying additional AI agents to make up color that's lost in low light, etc. you get a single shot on a tiny sensor. A few companies get around that: Google did first with their "computational raw" file format, which includes a whole stack of images even in some manual modes. Apple's got a similar thing, ProRAW, but they don't offer manual modes... ProRAW just gives you the ability to do your own edits, rather than living with the editing AI's "artistic vision".
I totally agree
I agree, i fell uncomfortable when taking photos with smartphone and I'm very confident, even with my little m4/3
But, Tony, you’re dealing with human tribalism. We are worth what we can sell. Smartphones lower the ‘cost’ of entry in so many ways that they are a threat to those that have spent endless hours and dollars to be a part of the tribe. The tribe, or club, limits access by requiring knowledge, expertise and capital to be a member. This makes their skills and output worth more. We are not going to happily give up what was so laboriously worked for to attain. This behavior by a species on a planet of limited resources touch’s EVERY ASPECT of the human existence. Great video. I have an iPhone 13 Pro, and a R5. They are both very real.
Great analysis.
Lack of physical dials and a real grip kills it for me. There is a big difference (in my world view) between having an interest in "pics" and learning "photography".
I see what you mean and I prefer shooting my mirrorless 100% of the time over using my smartphone (which is terribly dated anyway so it’s a no-brainer). But it is going to go the way it always does with technological advancements: once the "new thing" gains traction because some of its advantages, it’s going to get developed to such a point that it supplants the "old thing". If you happen to know anything about live sound: that’s exactly what happened with digital mixing consoles. A lot of people kept hating on digital consoles for 15+ years, but nowadays analog mixing consoles are OBSOLETE. They just are. It’s just the way it goes.
@@rickbiessman6084 I'm old enough to hear the difference between tube emulators and real tubes (lol). ( bass/drums/vocals here). However... the layman is not and that's why what you just posted is spot on. The layman absolutely loves their phones... it's like a cheat code to get into photos without learning photography (as related to cameras). My GRii and Lumix LX5 solve the "always with me" issue just fine. 🤜🏾🤛🏾
@@musicmaestro88 Haha, funny coincidence that you’re a musician too. I’ll admit right away: after years of playing tube amps and subsequently switching to a Helix I can’t tell the difference (but quite a few Helix amp models are more dynamic and expressive than the tube amps I’ve owned). That’s why I’m fine using digital gear. But I definitely needed to take the deep dive into the world of guitar amps and pedals to understand how guitar tones even work. So there’s that... I do think learning the ropes the "old fashioned way" is at the very least extremely helpful, maybe even irreplaceable for mastering your craft, whatever it may be.
Because along with technological develompent comes asthetic development. Unless you use new technology to create something entirely new, you’ve got to study the "past" in order to nail what you’re doing in the present.
Real cameras take real photos. After that, the photographer decides what will become of these photos. Smartphones do not take real photos. They interpret reality. The only exception is the Sony Xperia 1 Mark 4.
You're right 👍 Also the google pixel 7 pro , which is the only smartphone with a camera with AI that shows the reality in their photos. Except the oversharpening
I remember reading a book about history of photography, around 1930 ish when Leitz 35mm camera started, it wasn't viewed as professional camera as back then the middle format camera were common and 35mm as too small.
Jump into the 90's the so called not professional 35mm camera were already taken as professional gear.
History has repeated itself, smartphone camera is viewed in the same manner as Leitz camera back then to see the Leitz would become a luxurious camera brand now.
Thank you for your inclusiveness towards smartphone photographers 👏👏👏
Two immediate observations on this. Yes, a $1000-ish flagship smartphone will "beat" a $500 DSLR kit on straight-out-of-the-camera images. But this is all due toc computational photography. The iPhone in low light is taking nine shots with an f/1.8 lens (f/8.0 to f/16 FF depending on which camera you're using, applying crop factor) versus that one shot on an APS-C kit lens at f/3.5-f/6.3 (f/7.0-f/12.5 FF) again depending on the particulars. The sensor is 8-10x the area. The smartphone wins for a novice.
But if you know what you're doing, you're going to know when you need to stack photos, when to bracket, etc. You will be able to get a better image with the APS-C consumer kit IF you're willing to put in the time. Sure, I'd pick a pro camera and pro lens, and you probably would too. It's true that currently, consumer DSLRs and mirrorless are not automating things the way phones do, and perhaps they ought to.
I'd also agree that a smartphone can be a "real" camera. So can a DSLR, mirrorless, P&S, pinhole, film, anything you'd like to pick up. It's what's behind the camera that matters. In lieu of a real photographer's brain behind the camera, the phone will always do better. Hand that R5 to a novice and they're not going to get a better image than they would with the iPhone Pro, in all likelihood. That's the AIs replacing the need for a photographer's brain. If you can't do better on your own, maybe it's time to learn photography a bit better. Big camera shooters are no more immune to relying on tech to replace knowledge than smartphone shooters.
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 😂
it's sad what you're saying, I don't believe it but it's my opinion.
Congratulations, you're absolutely right. I have been a professional photographer since 1988 and in 2001 I was one of the first in Portugal to photograph digital weddings with the Nikon D100. They called me crazy and the laboratories didn't like the idea at all. I've been filming and photographing with an iPhone 13 Pro Max for a month... I know they'll call me crazy again and it's even harder to try to convince customers... But it's the future! Thank you again. Hugs from Lisbon 👌🤗
I would send anyone home if they turned up to shoot my wedding with a phone.
Do they pay you for shooting wedding on a smartphones?
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.
If photography is an art that requires practice and learning (exposure, composition, subject, emotion. style), then smartphone cameras are "real cameras". It is such a dedicated event to go out an shoot with a DSLR, but I always have my phone and if something strikes my eye, I can try to capture that idea. Whether I succeed or not, I still learn something about photography. They are amazing (real) cameras for learning.
There is something strange. iPhone 13 Pro Max has a sensor of around 44mm² (pixel area 3.7µm²) and Sony 6400 has a sensor of 370mm² (pixel area 15.3µm²).. At 3:49, considering ISO, aperture, shutter speed and sensor size is almost impossible the same photometry... What's the magic?
I’m a pure hobbyist and I’ll readily admit that there are loads of people who take better (as in, more inspiring, artistic) pictures than I do. With some of today’s image processing in smartphones they definitely have better low light capabilities than my somewhat dated mirrorless. But heck, I just love making a point of grabbing my camera and going out to shoot. Often I’ll put on a prime and not even use the flexibility of an interchangeable lens system. But it’s when I decide to actually commit time to that and it’s hugely enjoyable to me. Also, I don’t have a current smartphone so mirrorless is still miles ahead of the pictures I’d be able to take with my phone.
I’m definitely not in any position to be a gatekeeper (and honestly, for practical reasons I don’t think anyone else is either nowadays), but if people take great pictures with their smartphone - why would that bother me? It doesn’t.
BUT: When you switched to the smartphone camera at 11:11, I did immediately notice it. The image gets mushy and the artificial bokeh just sucks IMO. For video, I don’t think smartphones are quite there yet. But I can think of several ways that small, highly intelligent cameras could improve upon that. I do believe that (much like modelling in audio production has all but replaced analog gear) modelling cameras and lenses is going to happen in only a few years. And if I can think of ways that this might work, than I bet that a lot of engineers have viable ideas already.
And one thing I’m really concerned about is that many people may never learn processing their images but rather rely on a bunch of filter presets that do all sorts of things. And I see a lot of phone images with really weird curves applied by the phone. But I’m not sure things would be any different if those people used DSLRs or DSLMs. Maybe their images would simply have other weaknesses but still not look great. But people who truly care about the way their images look and who have an artistic vision for their work will eventually learn the tools and develop a unique look, regardless of the type of camera they use.
Good video 📹
Opinion. the processors in the iPhone 13 and Samsung 21 are more sophisticated and more expensive than even the best cameras such as a z9, r5, ilce 9 etc
They take good pictures, and other things.
But what is a camera ? It is a sacred object. Even if you can afford a crop sensor camera, when you take it out and take that picture, it defines you.
Like you put on that mechanical rolex or weekend sports car.
That image , you will examine in detail.
The IPhone 📱 takes a picture of your parking ticket, vandalism damage to your property. You don't look at that picture twice.
As long its functional.
Try taking a picture of an amateur model.with an iPhone 13. A very horrible insult.
Good argument for iPhone 📱 images.
I personally had to decide whether to upgrade my iPhone 11 and sell my Sony A7iii, or keep my iPhone 11 and upgrade to a Sony A7iv. I went with the iPhone 13 Pro Max, sold my Sony Gear and “downgraded” back to my Canon 6D (Mark I). The “old” 6D takes 20.1 megapixel images, has a full frame sensor, and EF Lenses (although “old” and “being discontinued” serve an amazing purpose in most every type of stills photography most anyone would ever need). The iPhone 13 ProMax has unbelievable video, captures really nice photos, especially at night, automatically syncs photos and videos to the cloud/LR, and is with me most all of the time.
Interestingly, over the past few months-I don’t find myself gawking over the newest interchangeable lens cameras, or anxiously awaiting the new Fuji x6 or Canon R12 or a7viii release dates anymore. There are certain circumstances I’ll take the 6D out but find the iPhone 13 ProMax is good for 100% of my video and 90% of my stills. To me, this was the logical choice.
If you don’t do video 442 10bits, a7iii is still pretty good. I just upgraded a7iv btw. iPhone video is very good except the ghosting
If the cellphone hadn't existed, the market would belong to the now suffering well known camera makers. But it does exist and the general consumer picture market does too. It's also taking part of the professional market as well. Because it is generating self employment of new kinds that never existed before. And very much needed because of the pandemic.
When I was young I liked photography as a hobby. I bought a camera. Perfect for me. I liked it very much. I remember carrying it around so I didn't miss a photo opportunity. It was cumbersome. With three lenses it was worse.
Now it is all contained in a slim wafer. Tremendous.
But they can't do everything. Like selective focus and metering on a distant object in the middle of a busy street. So I missed the picture anyway because the cell phone couldn't take it and I didn't have my DSLR with me.
My daughter shares my hobby and she's really talented. So when we can we go out to take pictures, but we gear up, because using the cellphone just doesn't feel the same. If you were to go on a fantasy trip, wouldn't you take the big camera?
I rather use a dslr with its heavy clunky feel anyday. It's part of the experience of photography and sets the mood. Plus zoom lenses with full frame bodies are going to blow away the glass and sensors found on cellphones. It's not even close.
LOL - try carrying a complete zoom setup around with you when travelling by bike. I feel you are missing his point here - he is not necessarily saying throw your camera system away,, but they are pretty good.these days and everyone should learn how to use theirs to best effect. It isalwys the best tool for the job, or actually what you have with you at the time. My father goes down the road that he refuses to take video on his phone as he spent money on a Sony A1. So if he does not have that with him he just won't take anything, and misses out on recording what he is seeing. I wondering whether he is actually worried his phone footage will look pretty good :D
@@kylemarsun sensor size isnt everything. this video literally proved it. lenses and sensor quality also matters. take a full frame sensor from 15 years with f5.6 lens it would lose to even budget phones of today, even take a full frame sensor and give it f11 it would probably lose in low light to a phone.
@@kylemarsun post evidence your fz300 blew away any modern phone in low light. unless youre comparing digital zoom of the phone to the optical zoom of the camera. but stay in their default view, and lets see the low light results.
@@truthseeker6804 phones don't have optical zoom 99% of the time, just 2 to 5 different focal length lenses and switching between them
@@someoneelse1550i was saying thats probably why he claims his fz300 blew away the s22, because hes comparing optical zoom of the fz300 vs digital zoom of the s22. if he stays in their default view, the s22 would win easily. in low light.
Smart phone image quality is not bad, I don’t care about pixels, when I print out my photos, I can print my smartphone pics and they look great up to 8.5x11. However, if I want to go bigger my S22 Ultra falls apart compared to any of my cameras. I don’t think you need a super expensive camera to get better shots than a smartphone. I still own my first DSLR, an 8 megapixel Canon Rebel XT, it’s way outdated by all of your metrics but if I take the time to set up my shots and have the right lens it will still produce the goods and outshoot a modern smartphone in many situations. For example if we do wildlife photography, there is no way you can do that will a phone, my OLD rebel XT and a 400mm f5.6 cost less used than the phone and in a 13x19 print I will have trouble telling the difference between that and my R6 or 5DsR, now I wont be able to crop. But to say that a phone can do the same or even better is quite a lot of BS, now if you sold all of your gear and shot only on a smartphone I’d have to eat my words and I’d be able to take you seriously and take this extremely biased video seriously. Try shooting any sporting even with a smartphone, what about the Olympics or a concert, anything paid, go shoot a wedding with a smartphone, when the day is done compare your phone pics to what you would get with even the most basic (rebel XT) with cheap primes, 28 1.8, 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 with a cheap flash and off camera slave, all of this gear used would cost less than the latest and greatest iPhone X Ultra Plus Max Pro 13. I am a big fan of your page but bending things this far to prove a point is a bit much. You do have a point though, if you have nothing else a phone can do amazing things, I shoot dng on my phone exclusively and it’s fantastic, it has a real camera but a phone is not a real camera. We should have a shootout, my rebel XT vs any iphone you want, we can set a budget or no L glass, whatever you want, covering all shooting situations and see what can be done with each tool. The XT is a 17 year old camera… I hope you consider my challenge though I doubt you will because you know what the result would be in a fair contest not just selfies and posting everything to Instagram… On my latest outing with our church i was carrying an R6 with a 150-600 tamron and a 5DsR with a 100mmL macro, everyone was telling me the phone can do it all, don't need all that gear, blah blah blah, long story short after everyone got home we all started posting to our group page. After I posted my photos no one said you can do it all with a phone anymore, all 10 of thier latest and gratest phones with a camera were no comparison to my shots.
Smartphones can produce fantastic image quality... that is apparent and I really admit that I hate lugging around a camera bag (theft/robbery issues, weight, general nuisance) even if it's a small m43 system. So your comments tempted me to ditch it all and take a phone on my travels. Tempting! But, on reflection, I know I would miss cradling a camera against my face, choosing the focus, adjusting the exposure, shutter and aperture and pressing the button. I enjoy the tactile experience and my image quality is fine by me so, on reflection, I'll just have to accept the security issues and hassle and keep lugging the damned bag around. It's worth it.
I haven't been doing much photography or video shoots in the last two years, and couple of weeks ago was hired to do a trade show. The lighting was very dark with bright led lamps everywhere... this is not unusual, a tripod helps, lowest aperture possible, correcting on the computer later etc so I was getting decent photos but my camera could only film HD video and not even in raw... so I actually felt a little bit embarrassed that the people who hired me had expensive smart phones and their videos (and often photos) ended up much better than mine in low light... they said my photos were beautiful however, my videos were unusable. It made me wonder okay so now what... should I just throw out my DSLR and get a top model iPhone? Would it actually make more sense for me to show up with a smart phone to shoot with now??? Note I have a 1st gen iPhone SE and it can shoot 4K but I was too embarrassed to bring that out, hey that phone has been good enough for me 😂 I never took smartphones seriously because I assumed they didn't shoot in raw high resolution that would be good enough for print, and the video zooming was horrendous... but it's gotten so much better it's making me rethink what to upgrade to.
My Problem with Smartphones is that the photos offen look oversharpend and have to much contrast. An Iphone, Samsung or Google picture just doesn't look like real life what I would like. Otherwise, smartphone cameras really are amazing these days.
Kudos for a great argument. It's amazing that cameras today have still not adopted an OS that will allow workflow like a smartphone. I shot for years with my Pixel 2XL and loved the images. BTW, I'm still using that phone. I now have a Fuji X-T3 and one of the things that drives me crazy about it has nothing to do with the camera itself, it's the app. One thing that frustrates me sometimes is that I feel like I did a better job with composition when I used my phone camera. Sometimes I find it hard to see my LCD display on the X-T3 compared to the phone display. Anyway, thanks again for making a great point. Have a great holiday weekend!!
Well, it is a bigger, better, brighter screen for sure...
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.
I love the Brownie, and still have a Polaroid OneStep.
Blow up any smartphone photo. Get back to me. Any camera is a camera. Smartphone cameras are useful. But in terms of equipment built around taking photos and taking photos of quality under scrutiny. For social media sure, it doesn't matter. But none of us take photos with the "how good will it look on Instagram" mindset. At least I don't.
@5:52 Shorten the exposure to 1 second to eliminate star trails? What? According to the NPF rule for spot stars, with that lens + body combo you can shoot up to 11 seconds at 24mm. You should have used a 10 second exposure. Your ISO would have been around 2500, which would be perfectly acceptable.
This is journalistic malpractice, honestly. Shame.
EXACTLY. I paused the video at 5:52 by coincidence to read comments and found yours. Ridiculous
Computational photography is great, but it's not "real" by definition. Smarphones made up pictures basing on what sensor capture and what algorithm was learned. It's almost like websites where you can loosly draw some shapes, and AI generate photorealistic image from it. Computational photography is not worse, and somethimes it's even better, but it's just different than real photography.
People still buying real cameras, becouse smarphone photos have this artificial look, and not giving you much control. Even raws are heavily edited becouse acctual raw information from smartphone sensor is rubish without computation tricks. Overall your iPhone shoots looks good, but your beard hairs looks super wierd, they pop up and diasppear whenever alhorithm decide it's a noise to smooth out or it's a detail to sharpen, motion blur is wierd, dof is wierd, shadows are wierd, skin tones are wierd. Everything is to smooth and to sharp at the same time, you look younger but also older. If you zoom in detail on your shirt will look better on iPhone, but whole image look unnatural, wierd, and like it was shoot on smartphone, it's not look real.
Actually, I've been very impressed by smartphone images and, especially, video for several years.
My phone is still very low end though and my real interest is wildlife. Until smartphones can emulate the reach of 800mm on a full frame MILC, I'll be needing something more than even the highest end smartphone.
But I appreciate how far these phone cams have come.
What about the size of the sensor. How can you pack 50M pixels or more on a tiny sensor?
Considering the cost of the latest smartphones they are much the same as mid level cameras
I would like clarification on sensor size and number of pixels. With the same size sensor with 25mb and 50mb what are the pros and cons of each?
Also what actually is computational photography? is it this that is compensating?
Also i have never enjoyed the ergonomics of mobile phone photographing, holding it in your hand.
You really convinced me Tony... I Though I still want to have my coveted x30 to capture the everyday moments of my kids as my phones tends to have this have some motion blur on taking my kids coz they're always on the move.
Also I wished you did tinker with the phones settings when you compared the cameras if the Google pixel, s22 ultra and iPhone 13 pro. As there are features to for taking good pictures from them like turning of the scene detection from the s22 ultra and the turning in the face retouch of the Google pixel when taking portrait mode as to significantly improve the face of the subject.
Anyways you really did a good job for this video. Keep it up 💪🏼
So if smartphones are "real cameras" then we can expect the upcoming video where Chelsea drops her Sony/Canon/Nikon for an iPhone, right? If you were offered an all expense photography trip anywhere in the world but could only take one photographic device with you then surely you'd always choose the phone, right? I mean, if all else is considered equal and there's no advantage to using a camera over a phone, then why not just take a phone?
Or, on the other hand, if they slapped full phone features into the next Canon flagship camera you'd just bring your camera everywhere with you and use that to take both pictures and make phone calls, right? Surely there wouldn't be any disadvantage to that.
No one is arguing that you can't take good or even great pictures with a phone these days. You absolutely can. But there are reasons to choose a tool specifically made and designed for a specific job, from the technology involved all the way to the end user experience of using the device.
Great video. I find people who gate-keep about topics like this seem to think that if other people can do what they do, that they somehow feel less ‘special’. It’s the same thing they said when the point and shoot cand 35mm film came out and made photography more accessible. It just means that the standard of ‘good’ photography got higher - a good exposure that has no (unintentional) motion blur doesn’t cut it anymore. Mood, composition and lighting are still what matters, and you can’t buy those in a camera (yet). I’m just happy that with smartphones, a lot more people understand and share my love for photography now :)
you are totally rightTony... I have many cameras m43 and dslr (since 2010), and except for action photos and zooming I prefer my xiaomi mi 10t pro- I made many tests...
I have always thought smartphone cameras are amazing, particularly with the advantage of convenience and stealth. Perhaps the true dilemma is changing the perception of the client. Most client's would be like WTF? if you rocked in to a wedding shoot with an iPhone. Though high end pro cameras are better creative tools the margin is closing, and yes in some cases better or more appropriate tools. Today it is largely about perception. I think the camera in industry need a player like Apple to step in and create a 'pro' dedicated camera. Other camera manufacturers would soon up their game then.
Agree, a dedicated pocket camera (what smartphones replaced) would be excellent. I'd appreciate one sans the phone. Just a straight camera as you suggest.
I agree that smartphones are "real" cameras, but most of your points aren't very sound. I see it with my own photos: I seldom use any pictures I took with my phone (a flagship phone from 3 years ago). They're good enough for sharing to friends and family, and also good enough for Instagram due to the site's ridiculously low resolution, but I would never print them. They're just not good enough. Also, your point about low-light is completely nonsensical to me. If there's not enough light, there's not enough light. Letting an algorithm guess which pixels to keep and which to throw out isn't a substitute for the right gear for the right situation. Maybe good enough for Instagram, but to argue that a smartphone is the right gear for actually good pictures in that situation is just wrong.
"look at these smartphone photos!.... on.... your smartphone screen"
show me the prints
:)
Don't wanna brag, but those examples of younger generation photographers that Tony mentions shoot mainly on mirrorless and took some photos on the phone camera. And of course, on Instagram format, mobile photos are sufficient in most cases. The user Smultrix even uses middle format Fujifilm GFX... I found the other mentioned photographers too and they (if they mention it) use in most cases classic cameras, so I don't really understand why Tony chose those examples really... Not every picture on Instagram has to be put from a mobile camera... Most of the good mobile photographers learned to shoot this way on (and thanks to) classic cameras. That may change in the future and I am looking forward to it. Seems to me that Tony needed to put out a new video and lacked content, so he fabricated this. From my point of view, it leads to a poorly researched message (like in that video about crop claiming that you should crop aperture too, albeit it's optically nonsense and being repeated over and over on the internet).
I agree that smart phone cameras are legitimate cameras. I have gotten some amazing shots off my phones before. One thing that this video didn't mention was how the color rendering in smart phone photos can differ drastically than reality and from other smart phones. Each manufacturer has their own algorithms on how to process the photos so we can get wildly different results. But for regular cameras shooting the same scene, the colors in the photos from cameras of different manufacturers will all come out practically identical. With the pace of innovation in smart phone photography, I think the color issue will be greatly improved soon.
For the people who don't agree, I think one factor might be that their perception of what a real camera should be is locked in how regular cameras operate. It's amazing how incredibly homogenous all the regular camera makers behave - none have implemented any of the useful features Tony talked about (such as computational photography, cloud back up, security, etc). It's also astounding how little out-of-the box thinking and innovation there really is in the regular camera industry. It might have something to do with most of these companies being Japanese and perhaps share some sort of similar business mindset. I think if the camera manufacturers started adopting features from smart phone cameras, more people would see smart phones as legit cameras.
It was especially evident with the R3 vs Pixel 6 Pro comparison of the night sky. Funny how Tony made no mention of it while declaring that the Pixel 6's image looked better.
I don't think colour accuracy will improve in near future or atleast brands will put any efforts in it. IMO ,There is a fundamental limitations with today's smartphones i.e. quadbayer sensor. Which neither could get true colour information nor perform better in low light conditions than similar size traditional bayer sensors.
@@yash_kambli The smartphone AIs don't really care at all about color accuracy. They're trying to make something that "looks good on Instagram." Both Google's Night Sight and Apple's Night mode use large stacks of images, exposures all controlled by an AI agent, along with another AI agent that essentially "invents" color. Stack enough images from those tiny sensors in low light, along with selective filtering/noise reduction, and you can get a decent image. But the color is going to look like hell if you have ISO high enough, even with image stabilization, to deliver a good shot. So there's the color enhancement AI for that. I don't know exactly what Google does (though most of their stuff is nicely detailed on the Google AI Blog), but Apple takes an extra longer exposure just for color. They don't use the image itself, because it'll almost certainly be shaky, but they use it as the basis for the AI's recoloring of the normal 8 shot stack (maybe more by now, but it was 8 shots when first introduced). The goal is pleasing color, not accurate color, which is part of why so many smartphone shots in low light look just a bit unreal.
Biggest advantage of smartphone is convenience. While traveling with kids and all their luggage I just don’t have space for another backpack full of heavy camera gear. My smartphone fits in my pocket and still takes great images. If I were single I would still be investing in photography gear but not anymore
maybe, just maybe the image quility can match a real camera rig, but could never get real Bokeh, or have high framerates and as good video quility...
Smartphones are smartphones and Camera would always be Camera👍 but also i think smartphone can never be a CAMERA
that war thing only clicked me ya i can imagine smartphone are the future for fast and low cost shootings👍😌
process cost money🤔
Smartphones are real cameras, though they are point and shoot cameras, where for many people, that is good enough, especially for basic stuff like taking images of where you parked and the cars beside you in case they decide to dent your car in the parking lot. The primary issue is the reliance on computational photography will often sacrifice inter-tonal detail (which is why you often notice an almost painterly look on fine details when you zoom in 1:1 on a smartphone camera image.
Even if you capture a raw file, the native dynamic range (very small) and base noise level at the lowest ISO, is often very high, thus they end up using heavy handed noise reduction.
This all doesn't mean it is not a real camera, it just means there are limitations to the technology that the user needs to work around.
A smartphone is as much as a real camera as it is a real watch. If you pull up to a watch convention with a smartphone and show it off as your watch, it's not going to go well. People are just going to think you're joking. Sure you can argue that a smartphone tells time better than any "real" watch, and it can do everything that a "real" watch can do. However, no one is going to say that your iphone is a "real" watch.
@@RiseUpToYourAbility equally if you pull up to a watch convention with an apple watch youre going to be laughed at, but the apple watch is more technologically advanced than any watch, just as a smartphone is more technologically advanced than any "real camera". but people who go to watch convention want classic watches, just as "real camera" nerds want big bulky chungus they can hang on their neck. both are stuck in their old ways.
btw i know theres "real cameras" that do 8k 60 and 4k 120 etc that phones cant do. im comparing the phone to its price market.
Of course smartphones are real cameras. The old Brownie Hawkeye was a real camera too. It took photos and that's all that is necessary to be called a real camera. I watched the Super Bowel and didn't remember seeing too many of the sports photographers on the side lines using smart phones. If you hire a pro to shoot your wedding and he or she shows up with a smart phone will you be impressed? I wonder how often Tony uses his smart phone for wildlife photography.
Very good, though-provoking video. It's all about the right tool for the job. I'll extend Tony's chef analogy by saying that while some store-bought frozen dinners taste great I still feel the need for enjoying a meal prepared by a professional who crafted everything with passion, experience, and education. Smart phones produce wonderful pictures with increasing frequency. They are all-in-one cameras combining capturing, processing, backups, and distribution. They are quick, easy, and always available. The software compensates pretty well for the clearly still inferior hardware, and such automation takes away at least some creative control from the user. When you take a photo with a phone the device is deciding so much for you, and its decision-making process was determined by a team of programmers. Who really created the picture? All that's left is composition and there probably is an app for that, too. While automation happens with DSLR/mirrorless cameras to a certain extent (even when shooting in manual mode), those of us who took the time to hone our skills can really produce something special. Who do you credit for the frozen dinner you ate if you loved it? There is a lot to be said for automation, especially when you don't have time or patience, but I'm one who still spends hours to produce a single image (including post-processing). No AI knows what I envisioned in my mind when I decided to open the shutter. I do foresee the day when photographers (and chefs) are obsolete, just like MP3 audio traded the superior sound of CDs for all the other things physical media couldn't do. The vast majority of people will choose convenience over quality and find that acceptable, especially when the images they get are "good enough." How about comparing the absolute BEST images from top photographers using dedicated cameras and all-in-one smart phones (both with full automation and with as little assistance possible)? In many cases it will be close but I bet overall when speed isn't a consideration the traditional cameras will still shine.
Just to be clear, I consider smart phones to be cameras. However, their operators are typically called "users" and, as good as the phones have become, "photographers" are not done-for quite yet.
This was my first-ever comment after watching UA-cam videos for years. You stirred me, Tony.
"How about comparing the absolute BEST images from top photographers using dedicated cameras and all-in-one smart phones"
I think you'll find that the best images out there taken with smart phones are really, really good. :)
Agreed. I'm curious to know how the best smart phones compare against dedicated cameras. Are they better than the best? Equal? Somewhere in the middle of the range? Smart phones, as I understand it, usually have fixed apertures, tiny lenses, and image sensors the size of a fingernail. It seems they depend on manipulating the pixels in order to achieve what the human eye considers excellence. So many photographers say to get it right in camera (though I think that art should never be bound by rules). I enjoy using Photoshop to bring the image closer to my mind's vision. Smart phones are almost never doing the equivalent of getting it right in camera since they are doing their own version of Photoshop on their shots. It might not seem this way to the user but it's happening (as it also does to some extent on the JPG files in a DSLR/mirrorless camera). So many smart phones default to HDR, which would mean they are often making a composite of multiple images. I love this when I'm in need of a quick selfie in horrible light to flaunt what I'm doing on vacation but you cannot compare what comes out of a DSLR or mirrorless directly against the processed output of a phone. That's like having a competition where one photographer can use Photoshop and the other cannot. To reiterate what I said initially (above), let's have a demonstration with skilled photographers using a dedicated camera and allow them to process their images. The phones obviously win on speed due to their automation and all-in-one nature, but let's compare the best skill, software, and available pro hardware against the top-end mobile devices. Make it a fair fight and compare apples to apples. My bet is that the pros still come out on top, at least for now.
Tony, can you round up some fellow UA-cam stars and make this happen? 😁