spdmn54 Loc: Avon Lake, Ohio

I tend to disagree,the Note 8 had a"pro" mode that rivals my Nikon. I am getting ready to perform an experiment. I will take 2 shots of the same subject, one with my Note 8 and one with my Nikon d3200 and post it here. Then you decide.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

It is handy to have a camera of some sort with you at all times. It takes decent photos, but nothing that you can enlarge or crop a great deal. I was very surprised however - stunned, even - at the quality of a panorama I took with my iPhone of the harbor in Jonesport, Maine this summer: check the download!

(Download)

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Should have had a Canon F1, then you'd still be using it and find no comparison to it, and be able to use it to pulverize iPhones with out damaging the F1 camera. Built like an anvil!

Linda2 Loc: Yakima Wa.

That is amazing, downloaded and further enlarged it stayed incredibly sharp.

Woodworm65 Loc: Lombard, IL

Cletus Loc: Mongolia

Noob here with some stray thoughts.

Our notions about sensor size are based on a film mindset and one moment ... this one ... in the development of sensor and software technology. Film is apples. Sensors are oranges. All they have in common is being light-sensitive and behind a lens. People no longer rate cars by comparing their speed to that of a horse, know what I'm sayin'?

What we now like to call "full format" sensor size (traditional 35mm film-camera frame size) was regarded in the 1920s and '30s as suitable only for Sunday-shooting grandmothers. (Enlargers once were considered cutting-edge new technology.) Film and lenses got better and better, but that took many years. Our present beliefs about "small sensor = inferior resolution" and "full-frame sensors = full-frame image quality" are artifacts of the current state of sensor development and the high cost of larger sensor chips. Yet present sensors are light years ahead of what we had in 1999 when I got my first digicam. The sensor-size discussion probably will be utterly obsolete in what, one more year? Three more? How much more resolution can be built into a sensor that's a quarter inch on a side? Or an eighth of an inch? Nobody knows yet. But they're working on it. Ten years from now, maybe nobody ... not even pros ... will use sensors as big as a 35mm film frame, much less the size of a TLR or Hasselblad frame.

Tiny lenses, like on phones, characteristically have tremendous depth of field (depth of focus, more accurately) even wide open. That's good ... unless you like bokeh. But now the tiny lenses on phones are doing software-based bokeh, because a lot of people like bokeh and want it. Focus stacking ... HDR ... unbelievable stuff! Yeah, there are a lot of ugly HDR photos. But that's because it's still pretty new for most of us, and we're still learning how to use it.

Here's a fun fact. Ever hear of Bon Appetit? It's one of those foodie magazines. As a rule, they are very photo-intensive, full of huge, super-sharp pics that make you drool. Bon Appetit shot its entire March 2016 issue with phone cameras. You can see it online if you want to. Time magazine has put phone pics on its cover. Phone pics are on billboards. Can an Android or iPhone do everything? Of course not. But no camera ever has. And those phones ARE cameras, like it or not.

All this cool new technology can be built into traditional-shaped/sized cameras, and that's happening too. But fewer and fewer people are buying them. I don't hate big cameras and big lenses ... love 'em. Used them all my life, and still do, although not as much. Not a pro here ... but even us amateurs know we still need big cameras sometimes. But less and less as time goes on.

What I hate about my phone (much as I generally love it) is that it's harder to hold, with a harder-to-fire shutter and no viewfinder. I've solved all but the viewfinder problem by mounting it in one of those clamps they sell for putting phones on tripods ... and putting it on a cheap mini-tripod whose legs fold into a comfortable handle. I carry a $5 Bluetooth remote shutter button in my pocket when I'm out for the purpose of picture-taking. You can buy supplemental lenses to put on your phone, but that's not for me. Don't like tiny fiddly bits, especially expensive ones. I'm happy shooting the occasional happy snappy with only the naked phone. But for repeated use ... playing tourist or photographic excursions ... and for shooting video ... I put the phone on the clamp and mini-pod and carry it in an open shoulder bag. That way I can even use the tripod as a tripod. I keep a big old beat-up Gitzo in the car trunk, and once or twice, I've set it up and put the phone on it. That's my selfie stick. People who see it probably snicker, but I don't care. I do what works for me.

Oly Guy

I find that when shooting with a camera I generally do much better when shooting Manual Mode-controlling all 3 aspects of a picture. Auto is ok but I need to edit the final result and usually the result still is not as good. I enjoy setting the iso,ap. and shutter spd. to get the effective quality I am looking for. I guess I'm spoiled. Most people don't want to really be that involved, and would not be interested in learning as they simply are maybe too busy. Photography hasn't changed that much, and in the past most people were not interested and shot photos on automatic but iPhotos have replaced Cameras so really little has changed. When the Camera companies fold then we will be forced to settle for automatic also but I will keep shooting my way and smiling.

wilikioti Loc: Deep South, USA

The biggest advantage I have for my iPhone 7 is that I always have it with me and I have taken excellent photos with it. However, my DSLR is much more versatile and I still use it quite a lot.
There's a lot of apps available for smartphone cameras that have helped to manipulate and improve the photos from smartphones. Anybody that turns a blind eye toward the smartphones are missing a good experience not only for the camera but for the many other computer functions.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

I certainly don't want a cell phone in my acenole. Couldn't you just put it in a pocket?

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

I find the Iphone 7 pictures are great when it's sunny out, and I don't plan on cropping the picture. The photos are not that great when you crop and resize the picture as it pixelates pretty easily when you crop and then resize the photo. I only print a few pictures of grandkids mostly, which is fine with a 4x6 print. And, when you don't have a camera, the Iphone is a good backup. But, that said, having a 70-300 zoom on an MkIIIl sure tops the Iphone.

grandkids6

I have notice that my wife takes great photos of the grandkids, by the time I have to get my camera out of my case hook up the lens the grandkids are gone!!

b roll wanabee

Some great points. I use a galaxy s5
Great video. Slow motion is great.

I took close ups of a dollar bill with my phone
And then broke out all my gear.
Tripods diopters zoom lenses etc.

It takes a lot to get a more detailed close up shot
Than the phone.

That being said it can't handle the low light situations anywhere close to dslr.

I will upgrade phones in a year or two and plan to
Include a gimbal for it.

I have not done any focus stacking or hdr with a phone camera but am looking forward to it.

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

How many different interchangeable lenses can you use for your phone ?
And what are the zoom ranges ?

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

A note 8 and a D500 sounds more like a comparison. Otherwise it's apples and oranges to me.

GAS496 Loc: Arizona

[quote=Cletus]

"...What we now like to call "full format" sensor size (traditional 35mm film-camera frame size) was regarded in the 1920s and '30s as suitable only for Sunday-shooting grandmothers. (Enlargers once were considered cutting-edge new technology.) Film and lenses got better and better, but that took many years. Our present beliefs about "small sensor = inferior resolution" and "full-frame sensors = full-frame image quality" are artifacts of the current state of sensor development and the high cost of larger sensor chips. Yet present sensors are light years ahead of what we had in 1999..."

Could not agree more with your post. Excellent points. Photography has constantly gone thorough a metamorphosis and has always ridden the wave of technology. Some of us just like to use the old ways for esthetic/artistic reasons and others the cutting edge for the same reasons.

Jerry