Reconvic Loc: clermont Fl

a painful death

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

And yet here you are!

gessman Loc: Colorado

There are a lot of times when a cell phone does equal to a dslr or milc at a low level of functionality that doesn't put much of a demand on the results but one on one there are very few situations where my cell phone camera in my hands will produce an equal to or better shot than a dslr or milc - that's my experience and I use apps that give me more than default control of my cell camera. My biggest disappointment in using my "new" 4k cell camera is when I shot 4k video at a special family occasion and tried to look at it on a 65" 4k tv. That may very well be the ultimate test but if you have done that then you understand where the argument begins to find disfavor with the cell camera. When I go out shooting I don't want to have to wonder at what point my results will start to fall apart. As for your test, I wouldn't wager a cent on my ability to tell which were cell shots but frankly, I probably wouldn't bother to shoot those shots with any kind of camera. While nice enough, they are not within the scope of my interest range.

leftj Loc: Texas

unless these photos are SOOC there would be no way to evaluate them.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

A wonderful trip ☀️☀️☀️

genocolo Loc: Vail and Gasparilla Island

They are.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

baron_silverton Loc: Los Angeles, CA

Your arguments are good but very limited in scope.

It is not that a cell phone camera cannot produce a good image - indeed they can as we all know. Cell phones are extremely limited in other ways - lens selection - definitely telephoto - usually they have electronic zoom which pales in comparison to optical zoom, the ability to use filters etc., and the list goes on and on.

Most importantly, the physics of the tiny sensors in the cell phones make them inherently inferior - right now many phone manufacturer's are overcoming some of these limitations through computational photography - this is where math algorithms approximate and try to improve the defects in the limited/fragmented (noisy) data from a small sensor - and I will say for viewing small sized photos (i.e. on the phone itself or slightly bigger on a small computer screen) they do a great job.

That said the IQ from the phones are really very inferior to modern full frame digital cameras with good glass. If you don't believe me, just try to make a significant blow up of your camera phone shot.

Case in point, my friend took a great shot with him iPhone 11 MAX on a Caribbean beach of a waves crashing into a large rock and splashing - he caught the moment well and the shot (on his phone is very pretty). It was so nice, he thought he would blow it up and hang it on his wall - which he did. To his disappointment, when he received the blow up, it was very pixelated and did not look nearly as good as it had on the phone. From far away across the room, it still looks alright (and this is why Apple gets away with making bill boards and saying "shot on iPhone") but from regular viewing distance the quality is not very good and had my friend taken the same shot with a full frame modern camera he'd have a real wall hanger.

But - I would argue, phones are not supposed to be good at this - they are, in fact, designed for getting snap shots and that is what they are good at. Of course, when you display your shots in small format here on UGG it may be hard to see a difference but at 24X36 for example there will be no comparison and your phone shots will be easily recognized.

Also, I will add that the camera manufacturers have yet to incorporate much of this computational photography into their cameras - imagine how they will smoke the phones then when the phone has no advantage whatsoever and only the disadvantage of the smaller sensor (which is a matter of physics and can never be overcome).

This all said, if your point is that the phones are really good as walking around cameras and for snap shots - then yes - this is undeniable. Also, if it is between having no camera or having a phone (because they are small, light and with you anyway) then yes the phone wins here too.

But if you are trying to say that the phones actually compete with modern digital cameras on a professional level, this is totally false. They are great tool and perfect for what they are designed for - as a walk around, every day. snap shot camera that yes you can get an occasional great shot with - but never doubt that the same shot taken with a pro camera and pro glass would in every way be technically a better product and a more impressive image - cleaner, less noise, better control of DOF, better DR and the list goes on...

Still - I am glad that we all have phones that are in our pockets. I will also add as an after thought that the shooting experience with the phone also sucks in comparison to a digital camera, but it is nonetheless great to have it there in a pinch.

deanfl Loc: Georgia

I am looking at the photos on my iPad so all the photos could be iPhone photos. I will guess only photo #3 is with a DSLR.

When will you post which photos are taken with the iPhone?

User ID

Don’t lump them all together. True that pre-cell, many of today’s prolific cell snappers would have not been snappers at all. But pre-cell, and pre-P&S digital, there were legions of Instamatic users who were ok with $75 a year for film and photo finishing. Now that it’s absolutely free, they all shoot what would have previotcosted several hundred $$ per year. It’s not about photo albums (or shoe boxes) anymore. It’s about social media. Remember all those pix in grandmothers’ wallets ? That was analog social media.

User ID

Your tv is too big for the room or you’re intentionally sitting way too close to the screen. An 80” screen does not require more image quality than a 40” ... in the real world the smaller tv could actually require more.

mtcoothaman Loc: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

agreed

anotherview Loc: California

I took this picture of a young female using my cellular telephone camera. I did process the picture using both ACR and the full Photoshop, to bring out its potential. Being a skilled photographer, I doubt I could've done much better (if at all) with my full-frame camera and suitable lens.

Still, it is a snapshot for the moment, enjoyable as such.

To me, comparing the output of DSLRs, mirrorless cameras, and cellular telephone cameras puts the cart before the horse. Composition exposure, subject, and intention more determine a worthy photograph than does gear.

Young Girl, Chin Resting on Fist

PhotogHobbyist Loc: Bradford, PA

For me, I started into photography with a Kodak Instamatic taking "snapshots" for fun. While in the Navy, I decided I wanted more than snapshots and needed a more versatile and adjustable camera, so I bought a SLR. I had to learn a lot (and I'm still learning). I got used to using a SLR because at the time the cell phone was only a "maybe" early thought in some future thinking person's mind. Even the bag phone had not been invented. So, the SLR, now DSLR, is my personal choice. Yes, I have a cell phone and I do take some photos with it, but only when I do not have my DSLR with me.

Horseart Loc: Alabama

I'd say the first 3 were taken by a cell phone. My cell phone does a good job but I sell quite a few prints, so I always take my cameras in case I see something I may want to make large prints of to sell.