melgross said: Yeah, those cameras were great for their day. But as far as most specs go, the best smartphone cameras have caught up, and are definitely sharper.
Sure but you can't really put high quality glass on a smartphone. There is still a lot a photographer can do with shutter speed, ISO, f-stop, and focal length that can't really be achieved with a smartphone, but for point and shoot an iPhone is really good, and of course it takes video which those original DLSRs did not.
Lesson to be learned here? Don’t make buying decisions based on corporate marketing, and that includes Apple’s. Don’t make buying decisions based on anonymous so-called customer reviews which in reality are a majority of paid shills. Learn about and compare the product from professional review sites with a track record of objective reporting. Note: c|net is NOT one those professional sites. Even then be on guard for hints of bias and collusion.
Bottom line? You really can’t trust what you read about a product since everybody has an agenda or axe to grind of some sort. In Apple’s case at least you can go their store and try things out
Now before the Nikon and Canon kids start to go after each other, let's remember that DSLR was a very wide field. Before good-quality compact camera started mixing up the market, and mirror-less systems shook things up, your typical DSLR camera was a $200-$500 bundle, with a lens thrown after you for free. In these discussions people refer to expensive high-end systems, but that's not what the average Joe bought and calls a DSLR.
Now before the Nikon and Canon kids start to go after each other...
At the high end there is never any argument because they are both excellent. It really comes down to how much you have invested in glass. I shoot Nikon because I have thousands invested in lenses and even my really old lenses still work on the newest cameras. On the other hand Canon changed their lens mount around 20 something years ago. Nikon never changed theirs. At the time Nikon dominated the professional camera market, hence they could not afford to change their mount and abandon their professional users, where as Canon, at the time, mostly sold to consumers who typically had only one lens so Canon could afford to change their mount with little consequence. These days both brands are equally high quality. It really come down to how skilled the photographer is. Heck, I've heard that a few pros have even purchased the new high end Sony cameras.
It's hard to stand by the notion that they intentionally tried to deceive anyone, by uploading a photo contains all EXIF data. Obviously it was a mistake / misunderstanding.
i disagree. ignorance of whatever team/person who uploaded it can explain why the exif data remained on the offending image. its just being sloppy. police departments can tell you it happens every day...doesnt mean the criminals wanted to get caught.
You can tell right away that they used professional gear for that shot. To get a blurred background like that you need a low f-stop and a short focal length which I don't think you can duplicate with a smartphone.
You can add fake bokeh but it sometimes looks...well...fake. Depending on the composition it can look okay. Something without foreground is easier to fake.
If I were an employee of Huawei and I took that picture on my Canon 5DM3, then my boss turns around and orders me to write the advertisement implying a different camera took it, I'd be archiving all email conversations about it and use it as a smoking-gun when the truth comes out.
It's bad enough that advertising is selling a fantasy for many... but to downright lie, and try covering up is just shameful and pathetic. On the flip side, it's not like any company would ever fess-up and say "yea, we lied.. sorry". If there is even a shred of ambiguity they can use to make it sound like a mistake, they'll do that no matter what the momentary head-shake it causes.
Idiots. I wouldn't buy that chinese garbage anyways. Stunts like these just proves my point.
If I were an employee of Huawei and I took that picture on my Canon 5DM3, then my boss turns around and orders me to write the advertisement implying a different camera took it, I'd be archiving all email conversations about it and use it as a smoking-gun when the truth comes out.
It's bad enough that advertising is selling a fantasy for many... but to downright lie, and try covering up is just shameful and pathetic. On the flip side, it's not like any company would ever fess-up and say "yea, we lied.. sorry". If there is even a shred of ambiguity they can use to make it sound like a mistake, they'll do that no matter what the momentary head-shake it causes.
Idiots. I wouldn't buy that chinese garbage anyways. Stunts like these just proves my point.
That's the difference with culture in China, they will blindly follow leadership no matter.
melgross said: But, sigh, even my 6+ now takes sharper pictures, and the difference in noise and density range isn't that different.
I thought about doing only iPhoneography and not replacing my ancient DSLR ('05 Nikon D70). But the DSLR experience gives you vastly better ergonomics, creative control, and instant responsiveness. And I do have a fair number of full-frame autofocus Nikon lenses from when I used to shoot 35mm film.
I'm not a pro photographer, so ultimate image sharpness is less important than ergonomics, creative control, and performance. There are so many situations that an iPhone (or any smartphone) camera simply can't handle adequately.
I have that camera combo, and it is indeed, very good. There is no way that a smartphone is going to offer quality out of the camera that comes close to what a DSLR, or better mirrorless cameras can offer for one simple reason. Sensor size. The tiny sensors used in smartphones out of necessity, simply can't deliver anything close to the dynamic range, and low noise levels, that large sensors can, much less that of the 24x36 mm sensor of a full frame camera.
Any claims that they can should be ignored. Smartphone cameras should be enjoyed for the quality of the imags they can take, which is pretty good as it is, and certainly better today than professional digital cameras from 15 years ago, and possibly from some slightly newer ones than that. But lens quality is obviously an issue as well, as is jpeg only files.
Maybe, just maybe, with Apple's announcement of OS level RAW support, we MIGHT see RAW files from the built in camera finally appear for iOS devices, as they have for a number of Android devices for the last three years, or so. I really hope so, but we don't know that yet. OS level support makes it easier, but isn't necessary, and so I've always thought that Apple hasn't included it because of storage size issues. But maybe, if the rumors are true about 32GB being the new base storage size, Apple is relenting.
Great points. Even though phones can take pretty good pictures now, I don't think they will ever come remotely close to the quality of a full frame DSLR. That would be so awesome if Apple added RAW support. I actually use my iPhone exclusively for panorama shots. It would be nice to have RAW files of my panoramas.
As someone said above, Picture quality comes down to the lens then the medium which image is created on then the processing of the image. I started doing photograph back in the BW days and I have developed my own photos at one time. I personally never kept up with the technology, mainly due to costs so I am not going to argue the nuances, I had a good 35mm body with good lens and used to buy good film and then had most of my better photos develop at a professional lab, not the local drug store. I upgrade to DSLR, middle of the road and good lens about 10 yrs ago
Today with image processing technology you can fix lots of issues caused by low quality lens and CCD. Back in the day developing and processing a picture could not fix issues causes by a bad film or lens. For the longest time taking pictures with your phone was no better then the old style 110 or Instamatic cameras everyone use to have.
You will never get a great picture with a phone without the post processing. You can not get good quality picture with a small plastic lens which is the most important thing needed to take a good picture. This is where Apple has always excelled, their image processing is far better than any other cell phone camera out there. This is part of the reason Apple never got into the megapixel race, they were producing the same quality with less megapixel because they could fix the issues of poor lens and media unlike the competition. Even today it is all about image processing not the megapixel of the CCD.
melgross said: Yeah, those cameras were great for their day. But as far as most specs go, the best smartphone cameras have caught up, and are definitely sharper.
Sure but you can't really put high quality glass on a smartphone. There is still a lot a photographer can do with shutter speed, ISO, f-stop, and focal length that can't really be achieved with a smartphone, but for point and shoot an iPhone is really good, and of course it takes video which those original DLSRs did not.
Sure. I agree with that. It's another reason why smartphones will never achieve the same quality as a camera with a much larger sensor. In theory, a lens has its best performance wide open. But except for microscope objectives, that almost never the case. Yet, we can't close down a smartphone aperture because of size and cost restrictions.
But this was my business for many years. I've tested a lot of cameras and lenses for manufacturers over that time, in my lab. New sensors are far better than the old ones. I'm not just talking about resolution. Shot noise will always be much greater in these small sensors, but shot noise was pretty poor in those older APS-C sensors too. Pixel to pixel, they were worse than what we're seeing from the best, new, smartphone sensors.
Now before the Nikon and Canon kids start to go after each other, let's remember that DSLR was a very wide field. Before good-quality compact camera started mixing up the market, and mirror-less systems shook things up, your typical DSLR camera was a $200-$500 bundle, with a lens thrown after you for free. In these discussions people refer to expensive high-end systems, but that's not what the average Joe bought and calls a DSLR.
What, when was that? What DSLR was ever $200, bundle or not? The cheapest ones are about $500, and that's just in recent years, as prices of sensors continue to drop. The average DSLR price is closer to $1,000.
melgross said: But, sigh, even my 6+ now takes sharper pictures, and the difference in noise and density range isn't that different.
I thought about doing only iPhoneography and not replacing my ancient DSLR ('05 Nikon D70). But the DSLR experience gives you vastly better ergonomics, creative control, and instant responsiveness. And I do have a fair number of full-frame autofocus Nikon lenses from when I used to shoot 35mm film.
I'm not a pro photographer, so ultimate image sharpness is less important than ergonomics, creative control, and performance. There are so many situations that an iPhone (or any smartphone) camera simply can't handle adequately.
These days, I don't carry thousands of dollars of equipment around with me most of the time. I only use it when the situation calls for it. I'm retired, so I rarely do the kind of work I used to, just as a favor, here and there. But if I'm doing serious photography, then I use it. In fact, I'm really looking forwards to the new 5Dmk IV expected for Photokina in September, or shown just before, in August. I'm thinking of getting it. So my photo days are not over yet.
But, for general picture taking, I'm often amazed at just how good the iPhone is. If Apple could figure out how to put a 3:1 optical zoom in, it would kill off the rest of the cheaper point and shoot digital cameras still hanging around, as that's an industry that's dying. Actually, the entire photo industry is dying.
If I were an employee of Huawei and I took that picture on my Canon 5DM3, then my boss turns around and orders me to write the advertisement implying a different camera took it, I'd be archiving all email conversations about it and use it as a smoking-gun when the truth comes out.
It's bad enough that advertising is selling a fantasy for many... but to downright lie, and try covering up is just shameful and pathetic. On the flip side, it's not like any company would ever fess-up and say "yea, we lied.. sorry". If there is even a shred of ambiguity they can use to make it sound like a mistake, they'll do that no matter what the momentary head-shake it causes.
Idiots. I wouldn't buy that chinese garbage anyways. Stunts like these just proves my point.
You act like they care that much in China, Ethics is not at the top of the list of virtues in China.
What I find funny is the "Android Police" catch them, it just goes to show you how bad things are in the Android ecosystem there is a group of people out their call out those who practice to deceive.
I have that camera combo, and it is indeed, very good. There is no way that a smartphone is going to offer quality out of the camera that comes close to what a DSLR, or better mirrorless cameras can offer for one simple reason. Sensor size. The tiny sensors used in smartphones out of necessity, simply can't deliver anything close to the dynamic range, and low noise levels, that large sensors can, much less that of the 24x36 mm sensor of a full frame camera.
Any claims that they can should be ignored. Smartphone cameras should be enjoyed for the quality of the imags they can take, which is pretty good as it is, and certainly better today than professional digital cameras from 15 years ago, and possibly from some slightly newer ones than that. But lens quality is obviously an issue as well, as is jpeg only files.
Maybe, just maybe, with Apple's announcement of OS level RAW support, we MIGHT see RAW files from the built in camera finally appear for iOS devices, as they have for a number of Android devices for the last three years, or so. I really hope so, but we don't know that yet. OS level support makes it easier, but isn't necessary, and so I've always thought that Apple hasn't included it because of storage size issues. But maybe, if the rumors are true about 32GB being the new base storage size, Apple is relenting.
Great points. Even though phones can take pretty good pictures now, I don't think they will ever come remotely close to the quality of a full frame DSLR. That would be so awesome if Apple added RAW support. I actually use my iPhone exclusively for panorama shots. It would be nice to have RAW files of my panoramas.
iPhones definitely take the best panoramic photos in the entire smartphone industry. There is no real doubt of that. In fact, I'd venture to say that it's rare when even using a "real" camera, and software, you can equal Apple's algorithms. They just really are the best.
My friend Lloyd just added, on his site, a series of panoramic photos taken with his 6S+, I think it is. He's a professional in every way of the word. It's a worthwhile place to go, even if you don't pay for the restricted testing and other articles.
See the ones at the top, and then scroll down past some other articles, and you'll find the ones from last week too.
Comments
Bottom line? You really can’t trust what you read about a product since everybody has an agenda or axe to grind of some sort. In Apple’s case at least you can go their store and try things out
Makes no difference to the Android target market:
1. People who don't know the difference, and
2. People who know the difference but don't care.
I thought about doing only iPhoneography and not replacing my ancient DSLR ('05 Nikon D70).
But the DSLR experience gives you vastly better ergonomics, creative control, and instant responsiveness.
And I do have a fair number of full-frame autofocus Nikon lenses from when I used to shoot 35mm film.
I'm not a pro photographer, so ultimate image sharpness is less important than ergonomics, creative control, and performance.
There are so many situations that an iPhone (or any smartphone) camera simply can't handle adequately.
As someone said above, Picture quality comes down to the lens then the medium which image is created on then the processing of the image. I started doing photograph back in the BW days and I have developed my own photos at one time. I personally never kept up with the technology, mainly due to costs so I am not going to argue the nuances, I had a good 35mm body with good lens and used to buy good film and then had most of my better photos develop at a professional lab, not the local drug store. I upgrade to DSLR, middle of the road and good lens about 10 yrs ago
Today with image processing technology you can fix lots of issues caused by low quality lens and CCD. Back in the day developing and processing a picture could not fix issues causes by a bad film or lens. For the longest time taking pictures with your phone was no better then the old style 110 or Instamatic cameras everyone use to have.
You will never get a great picture with a phone without the post processing. You can not get good quality picture with a small plastic lens which is the most important thing needed to take a good picture. This is where Apple has always excelled, their image processing is far better than any other cell phone camera out there. This is part of the reason Apple never got into the megapixel race, they were producing the same quality with less megapixel because they could fix the issues of poor lens and media unlike the competition. Even today it is all about image processing not the megapixel of the CCD.
But this was my business for many years. I've tested a lot of cameras and lenses for manufacturers over that time, in my lab. New sensors are far better than the old ones. I'm not just talking about resolution. Shot noise will always be much greater in these small sensors, but shot noise was pretty poor in those older APS-C sensors too. Pixel to pixel, they were worse than what we're seeing from the best, new, smartphone sensors.
Progress happens.
These days, I don't carry thousands of dollars of equipment around with me most of the time. I only use it when the situation calls for it. I'm retired, so I rarely do the kind of work I used to, just as a favor, here and there. But if I'm doing serious photography, then I use it. In fact, I'm really looking forwards to the new 5Dmk IV expected for Photokina in September, or shown just before, in August. I'm thinking of getting it. So my photo days are not over yet.
But, for general picture taking, I'm often amazed at just how good the iPhone is. If Apple could figure out how to put a 3:1 optical zoom in, it would kill off the rest of the cheaper point and shoot digital cameras still hanging around, as that's an industry that's dying. Actually, the entire photo industry is dying.
You act like they care that much in China, Ethics is not at the top of the list of virtues in China.
What I find funny is the "Android Police" catch them, it just goes to show you how bad things are in the Android ecosystem there is a group of people out their call out those who practice to deceive.
My friend Lloyd just added, on his site, a series of panoramic photos taken with his 6S+, I think it is. He's a professional in every way of the word. It's a worthwhile place to go, even if you don't pay for the restricted testing and other articles.
See the ones at the top, and then scroll down past some other articles, and you'll find the ones from last week too.
http://diglloyd.com/index.html