Will smart phone cameras replace DSLRs in the future? (Page 5): Good morning all. I have been doing Macro Photography for about 6 years now using smart phones. I am currently using the...

Love Wildlife

Good morning all. I have been doing Macro Photography for about 6 years now using smart phones. I am currently using the Note 8 for Macro Photography. I considered buying a macro lense for my camera so I went to my local camera store and did side by side shots with different macro lenses in the store and I would have to purchase a $750 macro lense to equal what the Note 8 can do in Macro Photography. The Note 8 has a 1.7 aperture and is really great in low light. I have an aphid blown up into a 13x19 inch photo in stunning detail. So I will stick to my Note 8 for Macro Photography unless I can get a good deal on a macro lense that will be just as good or better. With that being said my DSLR is superior in all other aspects and I do not believe that cell phones are going to be able to replace what a DSLR can do. I have tried those different lense attachments on my phone and what a joke those are. I guess if you are just posting something on that face book it would be ok but for true photography it will be the DSLR for me.

beerhunter13 Loc: Southern Ontario, Canada

I have yet to see anyone photographing wildlife in the woods I frequent with a smart phone. At 15 below zero, taking your gloves off to take a photo might be a problem. ("Smart phone gloves" are almost useless in the cold.) Smart phones might be great for selfies but not so much for a moose on the run or a bird in flight at 300 meters.

If you want to take pictures, use a smart phone. If you want to make pictures, use a camera.

Phones may have their uses but for serious photography leave them in your top pocket.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

Just a thought. When TV first came out the rage was to get a "home entertainment center" TV, clock, stereo, turntable etc. All in one All mediocre. In a piece of furniture. You don't see them any more. Sound systems, are mostly separate

FiddleMaker Loc: Merrimac, MA

rmalarz wrote:

Not for me, Jen. Smart phones are for making phone calls. Cameras are for making photographs. I try not to get either to multi-task by taking the other's responsibilities. But, then, that's just me.

To me, the print, and a large one at that, is the final stage of a photograph. Phones just don't cut it with a 24x36 print.
--Bob

Good point. No cell phone will give the same image quality that a Sinar 4 x 5 will give. Or a Deardorff 8 x 10. Period.

Bob Boner

Not for me!!

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

PhotoFem wrote:

I see people using iphones, smart phones and now even with new lens attachments to take photos of everyday life...and even nature. Perhaps, this is because they can instantaneously post their images on Facebook and Instagram. Instagram even has rudimentary tools to improve bad images...or, even alter their original look.
Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Jen

Smart phones will never have the sophistication of a full fledged digital camera, IMHO. However they are a great tool for documentation etc.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

FiddleMaker wrote:

Good point. No cell phone will give the same image quality that a Sinar 4 x 5 will give. Or a Deardorff 8 x 10. Period.

Neither will a DSLR at this time.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

PhotoFem wrote:

I see people using iphones, smart phones and now even with new lens attachments to take photos of everyday life...and even nature. Perhaps, this is because they can instantaneously post their images on Facebook and Instagram. Instagram even has rudimentary tools to improve bad images...or, even alter their original look.
Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Jen

They, (or something like them), probably will but there's still a fascination about dslr's, at least so far.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

BobHartung wrote:

Smart phones will never have the sophistication of a full fledged digital camera, IMHO. However they are a great tool for documentation etc.

Never is a long time and many times, not actually as long as expected ...

traderjohn Loc: New York City

FiddleMaker wrote:

Good point. No cell phone will give the same image quality that a Sinar 4 x 5 will give. Or a Deardorff 8 x 10. Period.

I have never heard of these items. I'm sure they would take a much better picture than a cell phone. Who buys those cameras? Are they expensive?? The general population wouldn't buy one of those things. Their lives are always in flux. It's the moment. The cell phone and its ability to capture the moment fits the bill. The ability to take pictures with a cell phone has improved and will become better. The audience that receives the picture is not going to get their panties in an uproar over ISO, composition, focal length or pixel count. They will not anguish over the EXIF data or PS, LR and whatever else is in vogue.

SuperFly48 Loc: NE ILLINOIS

If the device does not say NIKON or CANON on it; then it's NOT a camera! Case closed in my baby boomer world!!!

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

Mirrorless will replace the DSLR. People who use DSLRs will not replace them with cell phones. They will replace them with the next step up in photographic technology.

Will some of the photos now possible only with DSLRs be possible with cell phones in the near future? Yes. But in the near future advanced cameras will still take much better photos than the new cell phones. The tech that will make the better cell phone camera possible will also allow a much better advanced camera. One of the reasons there will be an edge is you can put a larger sensor in a camera that allows you more space between the front element and the sensor. A cell phone is limited in this.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

CHG_CANON wrote:

To all - the excellent images in the link above ha... (show quote)

"lowered quality of phone images"? Your average snapshot shooter is getting much higher quality photos now with smart phones than they did with the old "dumb" point and shoot film cameras. Serious amateur and pro photographers will continue to use the most advanced cameras to produce quality work, whether publications want to pay for them or not. I have capabilities now with the latest digital cameras I would love to have had in the film days, especially with image preview, high ISO performance and advanced autofocus systems.

Indiana Loc: Huntington, Indiana

PhotoFem wrote:

I see people using iphones, smart phones and now even with new lens attachments to take photos of everyday life...and even nature. Perhaps, this is because they can instantaneously post their images on Facebook and Instagram. Instagram even has rudimentary tools to improve bad images...or, even alter their original look.
Any thoughts on this?

Thanks,
Jen

Smart Phone Folks take photos for a different reason than Photographers, and I suggest they are not even interested in Photography. Cameras are built into smart phones and are not an option...the only option is whether you want to use it or not. These smart phone cameras are simply a means to visually communicate with others in a quick and efficient manner, and really are more of a communication device than photographic device. Just my opinion...and by the way, I don't have a smart phone. At 75 I still have a flip phone and never use the camera feature. If I want a picture I use my D850 or S100.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

beerhunter13 wrote:

I have yet to see anyone photographing wildlife in... (show quote)

Not too many markets for a moose on the run. How many pictures do you sell of birds at, what, 900 feet? It was pretty cold when this was taken. I think its a nice picture. Gives you some insight into where it was taken. Using the sun off the ski goggles.