Quote:
Originally Posted by tomson75
My 4s is capable of producing photos comparable to most DSLRs. So no, they don't suck. At all.
|
No, it isn't.
There isn't a phone on the market that can touch the average DSLR made even 7 or 8 years ago unless by comparable you mean they are both captured still images that are digital in nature. You'd have to dial back the settings on a current generation consumer level DSLR, shoot garbage third party glass, under the best natural lighting conditions, and not look at anything but the screen on the back of the DSLR for comparison to even get close. Even with everything weighted to the camera phone's advantage, you'd still end up with an inferior product.
Other than that, no. They are not capable in any regard to producing photos comparable to any DSLR unless you go back a decade or more in the camera world.
I'm thinking maybe the best camera phone out there could maybe, maybe, hold its own against the first generation Nikon and Canon consumer (not pro level) DSLR's with equally consumer level lenses in the hands of an amateur. And even with those stipulations, I think the camera phone's inferior quality would fall apart when you went above a 5x7 print.
In short call me when a camera phone can do this:
You have to be honest with yourself. The sensor size is nowhere near the same as a DSLR. You'll never get anywhere near the same picture quality out of a $300 phone as you will out of even a cheap kit lens combo when you compare the two final images side by side at the same resolution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoofbite
He's toting around this camera with what looks like the Hubble Telescope hanging off it.
|
If it was a Nikon, I'd be willing to bet it was a 70-200mm f2.8. It looks monstrous in person. It has a great range on a full-frame sensor.
It's a great lens and it produces great images all the way around. Also runs $2300.