Bill Pierce
Well-known
With the introduction of the iPhone 13 Pro and iPhone 13 Pro Max we see the continuing upgrade of the cell phone as a camera for both stills and motion. For some time now pros have used the phone on the street, in war zones and in other places where a camera might be thought of intrusive and unwelcome. Indeed, several feature films have been made with cell phones, although mounting a cell phone on a full sized crane seems to somewhat cancel the advantages of the phone’s small size.
But for most folks that small size is a real advantage, not just a tiny camera they can slip into a pocket and always have with them, but a phone and computer too - all for more or or less a thousand dollars. I’m told that understandably sales of lower priced digital cameras, the family snapshot cameras, have really been hurt by cell phones, and understandably so.
But, for the more serious photographer does a cell phone camera make sense? Of course, the answer is “It depends.” At least, at the present, the small sensor puts a limit on the quality of large prints or prints from cropped sections of an image. Notice we are talking prints. If all your photographs, stills and motion, end up on a computer screen, you are not going to notice much difference in image quality between the phone and a camera with a larger sensor.
Even with prints, a cell phone is going to look good with 8 1/2 x11 prints - but large prints or prints cropped from a small section of the file - not so good.
That for me is one of the two reasons I stick with cameras. The walls of my home are covered with fairly large framed prints. In the living room and studio - other folks pictures… but in the hallways, offices and bedrooms - my pictures. And there are occasional prints in gallery and museum shows along with those in permanent collections at museums and with a few collectors and a lot of friends. (And prints are important for another reason, they last compared to the signals on a hard disc.) (And a lot of those prints are from cropped sections of the image.)
There is one other major reason that I prefer cameras to cell phones. I’m a viewfinder person compared to an LCD screen person. I really feel silly holding a camera at arm’s length and staring at a small screen, especially in bright daylight when I can’t even see the screen image.
There are a lot of other reasons I prefer conventional cameras to cell phones including being an old person with a lifetime with cameras and living in an area with bad cell reception. But cell phones are a viable alternative to conventional cameras in many situations. What are your thoughts - cell phone yes, cell phone no, cell phone some of the time. And, of course, most important, why?
But for most folks that small size is a real advantage, not just a tiny camera they can slip into a pocket and always have with them, but a phone and computer too - all for more or or less a thousand dollars. I’m told that understandably sales of lower priced digital cameras, the family snapshot cameras, have really been hurt by cell phones, and understandably so.
But, for the more serious photographer does a cell phone camera make sense? Of course, the answer is “It depends.” At least, at the present, the small sensor puts a limit on the quality of large prints or prints from cropped sections of an image. Notice we are talking prints. If all your photographs, stills and motion, end up on a computer screen, you are not going to notice much difference in image quality between the phone and a camera with a larger sensor.
Even with prints, a cell phone is going to look good with 8 1/2 x11 prints - but large prints or prints cropped from a small section of the file - not so good.
That for me is one of the two reasons I stick with cameras. The walls of my home are covered with fairly large framed prints. In the living room and studio - other folks pictures… but in the hallways, offices and bedrooms - my pictures. And there are occasional prints in gallery and museum shows along with those in permanent collections at museums and with a few collectors and a lot of friends. (And prints are important for another reason, they last compared to the signals on a hard disc.) (And a lot of those prints are from cropped sections of the image.)
There is one other major reason that I prefer cameras to cell phones. I’m a viewfinder person compared to an LCD screen person. I really feel silly holding a camera at arm’s length and staring at a small screen, especially in bright daylight when I can’t even see the screen image.
There are a lot of other reasons I prefer conventional cameras to cell phones including being an old person with a lifetime with cameras and living in an area with bad cell reception. But cell phones are a viable alternative to conventional cameras in many situations. What are your thoughts - cell phone yes, cell phone no, cell phone some of the time. And, of course, most important, why?
Pfreddee
Well-known
Cell phone some of the time. I have a LOT of cat photos on mine, and some photos when my cell phone was my camera of choice because it was the only one I had with me. I prefer film cameras because that's what I grew up with, but I like digital, too. Maybe if I buy the latest I-phone, that will change.
With best regards.
Pfreddee(Stephen)
With best regards.
Pfreddee(Stephen)
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Funny you should mention that Bill, the same week Apple published this about the cameras in the newer iPhones:
Exposure to vibrations, like those generated by high-powered motorcycle engines, might impact iPhone cameras
Now I know from experience that those same motorcycle vibrations can make paperweights out of film cameras as well. But I've made numerous cross country motorcycle trips with a pretty old iPhone 4 and had no problems, though the image quality can't compare to these iPhone 13's I guess. So it seems the internal (mechanical) image stabilization in the newer phones can get really knocked out of whack from prolonged vibrations.
Cell phone cameras just seem like the newest miniaturization of Whiz Bang tech, and not something this old film photographer is terribly interested in. For me, it's not only my aversion to "Latest & Greatest Technology Hype" but like yourself, I strongly prefer a viewfinder when I am framing an image. Can't get that with a phone, at least not yet anyway.
But, to each their own I guess.
Best,
-Tim
Exposure to vibrations, like those generated by high-powered motorcycle engines, might impact iPhone cameras
Now I know from experience that those same motorcycle vibrations can make paperweights out of film cameras as well. But I've made numerous cross country motorcycle trips with a pretty old iPhone 4 and had no problems, though the image quality can't compare to these iPhone 13's I guess. So it seems the internal (mechanical) image stabilization in the newer phones can get really knocked out of whack from prolonged vibrations.
Cell phone cameras just seem like the newest miniaturization of Whiz Bang tech, and not something this old film photographer is terribly interested in. For me, it's not only my aversion to "Latest & Greatest Technology Hype" but like yourself, I strongly prefer a viewfinder when I am framing an image. Can't get that with a phone, at least not yet anyway.
But, to each their own I guess.
Best,
-Tim
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
iPhone?
Dmitry Markov does it well. For books as well. But I could see it is iPhone photography. Kind of low IQ crapiness.
Sensors Apple choose is one of the smallest ones for phones. Why choose better if you could hose those with money for less.
The shnooziness of Apple is also in RAW files accessibility. RAW files are significantly better, but only in few recent iPhones access to them is provided. With most iPhones it is third party crappy apps you have to pay via AppleStore and hope your CC is not going to be compromised or milked via same AppleStore.
Where are way-way better cameras in another phones with raw support. I know some are using this phones as cameras only, because phones themselves are obsolete.
As for me, I have zero interest to pay for those "pro" iPhones because as phones they are good for five years or so. Why overpay one grand for it, comparing to regular iPhone which takes cheese pictures for FB and readable numbers, letters pictures for work and else.
I prefer smaller than iPhones GRD cameras if I like to be light. DNG, normal controls and battery I could actually change. Not charge, every 12 hours.
Dmitry Markov does it well. For books as well. But I could see it is iPhone photography. Kind of low IQ crapiness.
Sensors Apple choose is one of the smallest ones for phones. Why choose better if you could hose those with money for less.
The shnooziness of Apple is also in RAW files accessibility. RAW files are significantly better, but only in few recent iPhones access to them is provided. With most iPhones it is third party crappy apps you have to pay via AppleStore and hope your CC is not going to be compromised or milked via same AppleStore.
Where are way-way better cameras in another phones with raw support. I know some are using this phones as cameras only, because phones themselves are obsolete.
As for me, I have zero interest to pay for those "pro" iPhones because as phones they are good for five years or so. Why overpay one grand for it, comparing to regular iPhone which takes cheese pictures for FB and readable numbers, letters pictures for work and else.
I prefer smaller than iPhones GRD cameras if I like to be light. DNG, normal controls and battery I could actually change. Not charge, every 12 hours.
JeffS7444
Well-known
iPhone gives me freedom to photograph in situations where it might otherwise be discouraged, such as interiors of shops and malls. When I wield it, I disappear into the background as far as onlookers are concerned. Embedded GPS data is a bonus.
Using Apple's default software with iPhone 11, I get a look which resembles an idealized version of what my own built-in signal processing perceived. While the JPEG/HEIF output may not be nearly as malleable as good raw file (no ProRaw offered in iPhone 11), I think iPhone with it's "Deep Fusion" technology does a remarkable job of handling tricky lighting and color-temperature situations: Aside from moderate cropping and scaling, the image of the public aquarium is unaltered. As a simple memento of a certain time and place, I think it works.
For now it remains more of a niche tool for me, and my next phone purchase is likely a number of years away. But who knows what capabilities iPhone 16 Pro will bring.
Using Apple's default software with iPhone 11, I get a look which resembles an idealized version of what my own built-in signal processing perceived. While the JPEG/HEIF output may not be nearly as malleable as good raw file (no ProRaw offered in iPhone 11), I think iPhone with it's "Deep Fusion" technology does a remarkable job of handling tricky lighting and color-temperature situations: Aside from moderate cropping and scaling, the image of the public aquarium is unaltered. As a simple memento of a certain time and place, I think it works.
For now it remains more of a niche tool for me, and my next phone purchase is likely a number of years away. But who knows what capabilities iPhone 16 Pro will bring.
Dogman
Veteran
My first requirement in using a camera is being comfortable while using it. Even if it's big and heavy, as long as it handles well, I'm comfortable. Even if it's small and light, as long as it handles well, I'm comfortable. There's no way I'm comfortable using what I have been calling a "slab of drywall" for picture-taking. It just doesn't feel right to me. Do I occasionally use it? Yeah, but not often. And I have never used a cellphone camera seriously. It's just not a viable tool for me.
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
I still have trouble even remembering that my phone has a camera in it.
What's that tell you?
What's that tell you?
I just do not like the cellphone ergonomically as a camera. Of course I use it sometimes to photograph my kid or to show a friend something. It’s just not for me as a serious tool. It can be though… Kathy Ryan (Office Romance) and Michael Christopher Brown (Libyan Sugar) made wonderful books (and exhibits) with iPhones 4 and 5 which convinced me that as long as you print small and commit fully to its advantages, the images can be great and have impact. We've seen lo-fi devices be used with impact throughout photography's history ... this is no different.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
In my experience there's no comparison between a late-model FF digital camera and a cell phone camera - especially of you're printing (I never print anything smaller than 8x10) or looking at pics on even a moderate sized computer screen.
And I've tried processing JPG files from my cell phone in Photoshop (which is supposed to be 20MP) - forget about it!
There is no way any cell phone will ever replace my FF digital camera.
And I've tried processing JPG files from my cell phone in Photoshop (which is supposed to be 20MP) - forget about it!
There is no way any cell phone will ever replace my FF digital camera.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I got tired of taking pictures of my finger.
Corran
Well-known
90% of the photographs on this site could just as well been taken with a cell phone, in terms of actually making a good photograph.
Well that could be said of anywhere that hosts images... and are you saying a cell phone is incapable of making a good photograph?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
My iPhone 11 Pro is just another camera, when I'm using it for that.
On two trips in the past five years, I've used an iPhone as my primary camera, carrying with it a compact travel tripod and a bracket to hold it on there, a Bluetooth shutter remote release, and on one of the trips, a set of the Moment accessory lenses. I've made 13x19 inch prints from some of the better photos that are indistinguishable from work done with any of my other cameras.
But I prefer holding other, dedicated cameras when shooting. The iPhone isn't ergonomically right for taking photos with other than occasionally, unless you buy the appropriate set of fixtures needed to make it ergonomic. My best photos are made using the tripod to hold the iPhone.
Obviously, neither my Hasselblad nor my Leica kits are worried about the iPhone replacing them. Nor is my Polaroid SX-70.
G
On two trips in the past five years, I've used an iPhone as my primary camera, carrying with it a compact travel tripod and a bracket to hold it on there, a Bluetooth shutter remote release, and on one of the trips, a set of the Moment accessory lenses. I've made 13x19 inch prints from some of the better photos that are indistinguishable from work done with any of my other cameras.
But I prefer holding other, dedicated cameras when shooting. The iPhone isn't ergonomically right for taking photos with other than occasionally, unless you buy the appropriate set of fixtures needed to make it ergonomic. My best photos are made using the tripod to hold the iPhone.
Obviously, neither my Hasselblad nor my Leica kits are worried about the iPhone replacing them. Nor is my Polaroid SX-70.
G
Corran
Well-known
I think you've got the opposite idea of what I was getting at.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
I use my cellphone a lot for photography. I agree, the ergonomics/man/machine interface is not the most elegant.
But, I am intrigued by Leica's smartphone and software development strategy:
https://www.ernstleitzlabs.com/
https://us.leica-camera.com/World-of-Leica/Leitz-Phone/Leitz-Phone-1
But, I am intrigued by Leica's smartphone and software development strategy:
https://www.ernstleitzlabs.com/
https://us.leica-camera.com/World-of-Leica/Leitz-Phone/Leitz-Phone-1
Doug A
Well-known
I use the camera function in my iPhone as a visual notepad, but little else. I almost always have a small film camera with me* and get a lot of enjoyment from using it.
* I carry an LTM Leica in a beat up green Domke F-5XA bag, with the label removed, just about everywhere I go.
* I carry an LTM Leica in a beat up green Domke F-5XA bag, with the label removed, just about everywhere I go.
lynnb
Veteran
I use my cell camera some of the time, Bill. Most often I use it when I want something in color and my camera is loaded with bw film, or if I want a panorama that I couldn't easily get otherwise. I've found the digital processing in recent cell phones has improved dramatically, helping get around some of the limitations of the small sensor. Being able to capture in RAW also helps - my cell is a Google Pixel 3a, not the latest and greatest but it's surprisingly good. I steer clear of the fake DOF effects because they're not there yet, but maybe that too will change. Here's a Pixel shot:
winter light, Sydney coast, June 2020 #122630 by lynnb's snaps, on Flickr
winter light, Sydney coast, June 2020 #122630 by lynnb's snaps, on Flickr
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Beautiful. I love the mood.
icebear
Veteran
A cell phone is a multi tool. Pretty advanced obviously but it's a jack of all trades. A Leatherman or Swiss army knife are also multi tools that work in case you don't have a special tool built for the particular job. It's better than nothing and most likely will get the job done. You might get the tomato or onion into pieces but the result and the process is far from the same than using a chef's knife.
In average lighting conditions a cell phone might yield surprisingly good results, certainly good enough to share on social media to show off where you've been, what you've seen and what you have shopped or eaten and 5 sec later no one will care, not even yourself.
To create a lasting image you will first need to see it in you mind and then you need a tool to capture it. I take it that in most case this will not be a cell phone.
In average lighting conditions a cell phone might yield surprisingly good results, certainly good enough to share on social media to show off where you've been, what you've seen and what you have shopped or eaten and 5 sec later no one will care, not even yourself.
To create a lasting image you will first need to see it in you mind and then you need a tool to capture it. I take it that in most case this will not be a cell phone.
dasuess
Nikon Freak
Agree with jsrockit, ergonomically a phone as camera does not work for me. Nor does it work for my type of photography, landscapes. Nice to have along though for all the apps which assist me in planning for taking landscapes.