Jschneir Loc: Santa Monica, CA

I teach a class, intro to digital photography, at our local college designed for seniors, but anyone is welcome. I have noticed a TREMENDOUS shift, about 70 to . 80 percent of the pictures brought into clss were NOT shot with a "real DIGITAL CAMERA, BUT A SMARTPHONE. When i compare these images with ones taken several years ago with real cameras, some very expensive real cameras, all too often the smartphone image is just as good and all to often frequently better. And even todays top of the line cameras can not yield as good an image without the help of Lightroom or Elements. It is amazing at how fast our world is changing.
Jerrys

jpgto Loc: North East Tennessee

The cell cameras have gotten better and better with each new release. A photographer
does not have the 'bulk' to carry around either! Plus, they usually have it in hand most of the time. The photography world is changing!

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

There are two kinds of people - those who want instant product and those that love process.
What has changed is the 'open ness' of photography. Where once we had to be shown printed exemplars from 'renown artists' Now the internet suggests 'like' as an exemplar.

We can now simple copy the kind of image we want by using 'nothing much more' than full auto. The whole art of personal experimenting to create a certain 'look' is now no more than 'googling' how..

have fun

danbir1 Loc: North Potomac, MD

As long as what you need is going on the internet and is not shot at low light situation, or where you need a good telephoto or a wide angle lens or tracking a bird in flight or taking a really good night photo and a lot more, then, yes, it is probably enough.
Otherwise, even though the phones get better, they are still WAY behind.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I agree that the world is changing and that smartphone cameras are getting better.

I disagree that the smartphone cameras are as good as or better than current DSLRs without postprocessing help.

While smartphone cameras are certainly good for a lot of things, the smartphone photos I have experience with have IQ below the DSLR photos I have experience with when it comes to pixel peeping. Most cell phone cameras jpgs have more compression artifacts than jpgs from the DSLRs I am familiar with. I will admit that I don't have a really wide experience with either type of camera, but within my family those generalizations hold (covering both iPhone and Android).

And of course, the DSLRs do better in low light situations, have more flexibility for off-camera lighting, and can be mounted to a tripod.

On the other hand, I believe the standards that photos are being held to have decreased as more people take more photos. More people means more snapshooters, not more photographers. Photos are not printed as much these days, but are displayed online, and in many cases on social media platforms that further reduce the IQ of the photo (primarily by limiting size). The snapshooters don't care. To them, the photos they get from their phone are "good enough" for the purposes to which they are applied.

</rant>

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I am not going to argue with you about your own experiences per se. I'm a long time advanced hobbyist photographer (and once museum professional flat reproduction photographer). I've worked with film and many types of cameras from 35mm, medium format, to 4x5" and 8x10" film photography since 1977. Today I am mostly shooting Digital. I still have 35mm and 4x5" film cameras, plus a number of digital ones. I had taken many classes at the once famous Tricommunity School of Photography in Covina, CA. This was offered through the Covina Valley Adult Education Program. From around 2011 to 2014 I took photo and PhotoShop classes there for fun. My formal education is as a Biologist and Educator many years before.

Anyway, at TCSP we were more or less encouraged to obtain and use "real cameras". A few instructors even discouraged the use of SmartPhones and would refuse to even look at an image on a handheld devise other than a "real" camera or better yet an actual print! Many of us thought that was a bit too extreme. But even at that, the changes in photography were obvious since the film classes I took in 1977 - 1980. TCSP has full B&W and Color Darkrooms yet it seemed haunted back there, no one used the darkroom equipment. Many of our students spent hours on creating huge composite HDR images from many individual images, and print these up to 30 x 40 inches. Other students printed large commonly 16x20" from single digital images. Many won awards and even sold huge murals commercially! Had outside companies print up to 4 x 6 foot or 6 x 9 foot for them. Come away, being few if any of use were looking for instant gratification. Though I certainly know what that is and see it virtually every other place I find images.

My main point here is actually digital cameras are improving as well and are their features too. Today we have MILC and DSLR cameras, and a few Medium Format Digital cameras as well. Have you seen the results with up to date cameras. Sure you might compare a 12 MP Digital camera to my own Samsung Galaxy Note8 SmartPhone or my wife's Note9, but neither is up to the I.Q. of a 45MP Nikon D850, 50MP Canon 5DS, or 100MP Fuji GFX 33mmx44mm Medium-Format Camera. Now the creativeness of a student may be a different thing altogether. Newer cameras also have built-in processing. I've seen talented fellow students take great images with a simple PnS camera or Cell Phone. I am referring to composition here and through out. The camera is but a tool. Yet, sadly also seen less or untalented camera users with money shooting with A Nikon D810 or Canon 5DmkIII. Seemed like the camera was being wasted.

Yes, I take images with my SmartPhone and can even shoot in Raw (10-bit?) and then process it with Photoshop. But I do the same with my "camera" files (14-bit) too because I am comfortable using Photoshop. And yes, the Cell shots as JPGs can be quite good as well as long as I get a nearly perfect capture. But again for showing at small size. Even a computer monitor is only typically 92ppi. Far far less than the resolution you can get with a Printer. A bit hard to compare but I can print at home at up to 300 or 600 dpi for a 13x19" print.

I guess your post brings up the "good enough" issue. But glad your students are enjoying themselves. Peace.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

If you have good light, and a relatively stationary subject (and you’re viewing the result on a small screen smartphone or tablet), a smartphone can deliver good results, but if either of those parameters are missing, the limitations become very clear very quickly. The DR and low light/high ISO capabilities of a smartphone are abysmal. For comparison, the low light ISO of an Apple IPhone 7 is 45, and the DR is 7 stops, while a top line DSLR like the Canon 5D4 has a low light ISO of 5100 and the DR is 11 stops. See the below graph.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I have printed an image taken with an iPhone 7+ to 20” by 30” with incredible resolution and image quality.
Made me a believer.
Images taken with smartphones are much better than your post and graph suggest.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Only if the DR is limited and there is adequate light. If you have adequate light and the subject has limited DR, then the results, such as yours, will be fine. On the other hand, try the same photo in low light and/or with a quickly moving subject, or a BIF, and you’ll quickly see the limitation. The graphs and the tabulation of low light ISO aren’t fantasy, they are accurate measurements, and they can’t be changed or disputed by anecdotal evidence of photos taken in Ideal conditions (which is often not the case).

traderjohn Loc: New York City

OllieFCR

I would love to see that image posted. Maybe it would create some more believers!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I have no qualms about the quality of images from cell phones.
I just find them very cumbersome to use and manipulate controls compared to a DSLR or bridge camera.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

I despise having to hold a phone camera or compact camera at arms length in order to frame the image.

Stan

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ditto!

mikedent Loc: Florida

Re: smartphones- which ones are considered to have the best cameras/optical quality? Do any have optical zoom vs digital zoom? What about separate lenses for wide/tele? Thanks-