gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

👍👍
This is the crux of the matter. If one device is claimed to be "better", then I want to know "better for what." Every camera has its pros and cons. Let’s just give it all a rest. Personally I think that cellphones are a respectable way to get some excellent photos.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

We’re speaking to the choir on this issue, photographer to photographer. Most cell phone users aren’t much concerned about quality of the resulting photo or the size of the print. They’re just snapping away to document their lives and share their pictures. When I got my iPhone XR I was curious and found Emil
Pakarklis on YouTube with his lessons. A real eye opener as to what these devices can do. I won’t abandon my D7200 and I don’t do much printing so I can live with both.

GailConnorsPhotography Loc: Holbrook, MA

:sm24

GailConnorsPhotography Loc: Holbrook, MA

Very good YouTube video!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I will not buy a cellphone that does not have a Pro selection in its menu. The standard photo section is very good, but one can do a lot more by switching to the Pro mode if they know what they are doing and want to pull the most from their cellphone. Is the cellphone then as good as a stand alone camera in all situations? No. But one is able to improve over some the phone's standard algorithms. And it allows for creativity, like low key and high key shooting, where the phone is going to try and even out the lighting. And just like the ordinary camera, being digital allows one to shoot and change the settings until the shot is as perfect as possible, the subject is gone, or the moment has passed.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

The only reason I got an iPhone was that it was the only phone that ran an app that made my photography incredibly easier. That app nails exposure and processing. Otherwise, I'd be still using my Motorola small flip phone. I think that one might have had a camera, but I really don't remember.
--Bob

Edia Loc: Central New Jersey

The real problem with DSLRs or Mirrorless cameras is that they are updated every few years while cell phones are updated and improved every year. If camera manufacturers updated their cameras more often, they would not recover their development costs. This is because millions of cell phones are sold each year while camera sales are much less. As for photo quality of cell phones vs dedicated cameras, it all depends on the photographer, the subject, the lighting and the post processing. Also, the best camera is the one you have with you when you need to get the shot. Most of us always have a cell phone with us while we only carry our cameras when we know what we are shooting in advance.

out4life2016 Loc: Bellingham, Washington

I use both a Canon 6Dii and a iPhone 10s. Even though my iPhone takes quality photos there is so much more that my canon can control such as shutter speed for longer exposure shots and night time photography. My iPhone can be dropped down to an F8 aperture which is nice for that quick portrait but when blown up to say a 24x36 the canon beats it in quality all day.

Low Budget Dave

Yes and no.

The Snapdragon 855 in the new Samsung phones has about 5 billion transistors on a 64 bit chip, and is, quite frankly, optimized for gaming. (The new A13 processor that Apple uses has about 8 billion transistors on it, and the portions used for memory, AI, graphics and so on are all different.)

The Bionz X Processor in the new Sony cameras is a version of the old ARM A5 Android processor, which is a 32-bit system that was introduced back in 2011. (It was designed to do the same things as the ARM9 and ARM11, but to do them more slowly, with less heat, and with less power consumption.)

I am not an engineer, but just looking at the chip specs, my guess is that Sony could put much faster chips in their new cameras, but it would jack up the cost of an already expensive camera, and would more than double the heat as well.

The faster chips would add the ability to pre-process your images like cell phones do, but a lot of camera owners prefer the image to look "natural", and to add the tweaks to their own taste. The bigger chips would also give you the ability to make phone calls on your camera, (and to play 'Angry Birds'), but I don't see that being worth an extra $350.

amkras Loc: NY

I have had a full range photo gear and printed wonderful images from all. I have some lovely 11x14 prints from cell phones that you would not be able to distinguish from 'real' camera shots.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I’ve read that Pro Camera is a good one for iPhones. Don’t know if it works on other brands.

maranatha

Seems next generation not caring about taking photos to show grandchildren or even own children but then again how many of us spent lot of money on our wedding photos to never look at them again !!!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Samsung has always come with a Pro mode so far. A bit slower to operate than a standard camera with dials. Touch screen is laid out well enough. Has all the standard modes, ISO control, EC, RAW+JPEG capture, etc. One just has to pull it up and use it.

Drbobcameraguy Loc: Eaton Ohio

HTC does also. We went to a concert Sunday night and no cameras with detachable lenses allowed. My HTC One X in pro mode surprised me.

RPaul3rd Loc: Arlington VA and Sarasota FL

I have a Canon 5d Mark III and a Canon SL2 CMOS, which is lighter and good for overseas travel, and, during a recent trip I shot til I dropped at Petra, Jordan. Wouldn't you know it, my wife took a panorama with her IPhone 8S and that is the one I've enlarged. Yes the IPhone is limited in what it can do but I have found the photos nice and sharp and editable with the in camera software. Not giving up my Canon gear but I also like the IPhone's results.