iPhone Camera?

[theogt]

Originally Posted by SaltwaterServr

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.

[View Full Quote]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.



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.

I think what he means is that for candid point and click photos in average lighting current iPhone cameras are comparable to DSLRs. And he's right. There are tons of reviews out there comparing them and the DSLR photos are only marginally better.

But, yeah, stick a $2000 lens on a high end DSLR and stage a cool photo in perfect lighting and well duh.....

[TheCount]

Originally Posted by theogt

I think what he means is that for candid point and click photos in average lighting current iPhone cameras are comparable to DSLRs. And he's right. There are tons of reviews out there comparing them and the DSLR photos are only marginally better.

But, yeah, stick a $2000 lens on a high end DSLR and stage a cool photo in perfect lighting and well duh.....

Anything is "comparable" to something else of similar purpose. A Pontiac Aztek is comparable to a Bentley Continental.

I think the point of comparisons like that is not that the iPhone is capable of taking modern DSLR quality photos (I don't think it is), but that it's capable of taking photos of high enough quality for personal use and it's always available.

I don't know anyone that takes a DSLR everywhere they go, and I know a few people that make their living as photographers.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by TheCount

Anything is "comparable" to something else of similar purpose. A Pontiac Aztek is comparable to a Bentley Continental.

I think the point of comparisons like that is not that the iPhone is capable of taking modern DSLR quality photos (I don't think it is), but that it's capable of taking photos of high enough quality for personal use and it's always available.

I don't know anyone that takes a DSLR everywhere they go, and I know a few people that make their living as photographers.

Comparable I'm this context means similar quality. Thought that was obvious.

[TheCount]

Originally Posted by theogt

Comparable I'm this context means similar quality. Thought that was obvious.

I was afraid that's what you meant.

The term "similar" is about as descriptive as "comparable" btw, aren't you a lawyer or something?

[SaltwaterServr]

Originally Posted by theogt

I think what he means is that for candid point and click photos in average lighting current iPhone cameras are comparable to DSLRs. And he's right. There are tons of reviews out there comparing them and the DSLR photos are only marginally better.

But, yeah, stick a $2000 lens on a high end DSLR and stage a cool photo in perfect lighting and well duh.....

The image I posted could be shot in all kinds of lighting, with a $200 zoom lens with macro ability. The DSLR has the settings to adjust to get the image, a camera phone does not.

Which is like taking an F1 racing car, putting it against a dune buggy, and telling the drivers that they can only drive on knee deep loose sand. In that regard, they're both comparable.

Marginally better? Not hardly. Even in Hoof's photos you can see the obvious grain and noise that is signature of a camera phone rudimentary quality picture.

Put a 50mm f1.8 on a low end DSLR and it'll out shoot any camera phone on the market. Try to print out the exact image from both and you'll see the camera phone's rendition of eyelashes. Oh wait, they won't be there, they'll be smudges. This isn't a high end lens either, just a basic entry-level portrait lens.

As I said, you'd have to dial back a DSLR to the most basic settings, again miring a F1 in a mud bog, for a camera phone to have any kind of chance to be close to it. Even then you'd have to view the images in very small format to halfway camouflage the deficiencies of a camera phone image. Having thought about it, you'd have to take the tires off of the F1 to make the comparison apt.

I did run across a piss-poor attempt to compare a 4s to a Canon 5D. The author showed a crop out of both impages to compare the quality. Buried in the comparison he/she stated that the 5D image file size had been altered to be the same size of the 4s. In effect, the author stripped down the image quality, depth, and range in order to get it to be even slightly comparable to the 4s. In essence you'd have to take the absolute worst settings for image quality to get a comparable file size, and then the 5d was still a better overall image.

Another point not yet mentioned is the horrible flash you get on a camera phone, and there's nothing you can do about it. Hell, can you even set the flash response in regards to when the image is produced? Metering? RAW format? More than one shot every few seconds? Dynamic range? ISO? Shutter speed? f stop?

Camera phones are what they are, convenience items on a telecom device whose product is never meant to be viewed in print or at any size larger than the average playing card.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by TheCount

I was afraid that's what you meant.

The term "similar" is about as descriptive as "comparable" btw, aren't you a lawyer or something?

No, "comparable" most often denotes quality whereas "similar" is regularly used to describe any number of attributes.

[SaltwaterServr]

Originally Posted by theogt

No, "comparable" most often denotes quality whereas "similar" is regularly used to describe any number of attributes.

Two methods of production can be comparable and have zero to do with quality.

Comparable defined. I'm not seeing a thing in there about quality. If we go by your definition of "most often" then quality should be prominent in a dictionary definition.

Edit: Well, it does show quality in the definition of "compare" below. Worth noting that "similar" is also used in the same lines of denoting quality.

"Similar" used within the definition of "compare". The words are synonyms and carry no arbitrary distinction between them that you are trying to manufacture.

[theogt]

Originally Posted by SaltwaterServr

Two methods of production can be comparable and have zero to do with quality.

Comparable defined. I'm not seeing a thing in there about quality. If we go by your definition of "most often" then quality should be prominent in a dictionary definition.

Edit: Well, it does show quality in the definition of "compare" below. Worth noting that "similar" is also used in the same lines of denoting quality.

[View Full Quote]"Similar" used within the definition of "compare". The words are synonyms and carry no arbitrary distinction between them that you are trying to manufacture.

I didn't say quality was the only usage did I? I merely pointed out that, given the common usage, it should have been inferred, although the context alone should have been sufficient for that.

I also didn't say that similar and comparable aren't synonyms. But thanks for adding that extremely helpful bit of info anyway.

[SaltwaterServr]

Originally Posted by theogt

I didn't say quality was the only usage did I? I merely pointed out that, given the common usage, it should have been inferred.

I also didn't say that similar and comparable aren't synonyms. But thanks for adding that extremely helpful bit of info anyway.

You're welcome.

[pupulehaole]

Grammar fighttttttt!

[Sam I Am]

Comparing phone cameras to a DSLR is like comparing a Black and Decker saw to a DeWALT saw. Both cut wood, but one will do a lot better job of it than the other. If you worked in construction, you would grab the DeWALT saw not the Black and Decker. If you were a photographer or at least wanted high quality pictures, you wouldn't grab your phone.

My wife used to always take pictures with her phone and she still does, but when we are headed somewhere that she knows she will want to take pictures she grabs this little $179 point and shoot camera I bought her. The reason being, the pictures are far better than her phone takes and that point and shoot camera isn't even a DSLR.

[TheCount]

Originally Posted by Sam I Am

Comparing phone cameras to a DSLR is like comparing a Black and Decker saw to a DeWALT saw.

It's like comparing sneakers to hiking boots for mountain climbing!

[theogt]

Originally Posted by TheCount

It's like comparing sneakers to hiking boots for mountain climbing!

This isn't really a complete (or accurate) comparison.

You can wear sneakers or hiking boots while taking a stroll through the park or walking a trail in the woods. Sneakers would be better in either of those scenario.

I wouldn't say taking day to day point and shoot photos are anything like mountain climbing, but rather are much more similar to taking a stroll through the park.

[TheCount]

Originally Posted by theogt

This isn't really a complete (or accurate) comparison.

You can wear sneakers or hiking boots while taking a stroll through the park or walking a trail in the woods. Sneakers would be better in either of those scenario.

I wouldn't say taking day to day point and shoot photos are anything like mountain climbing, but rather are much more similar to taking a stroll through the park.

Lighten up. My analogy was not about everyday pics, so we agree, but who cares.

Does any of this really matter? Everyone should use whatever is best/available/affordable/etc.