do today's camera phones take better pics than 1st gen DSLR's?

[antihelten]

which still have better pixel level quality, just inferior in the features.

I wouldn't be so certain to be honest, I think people seriously overestimate the quality of 1st gen sensors like the KAF-1300.

But as already mentioned comparing todays camera phones to 1st gen DSLR's, doesn't really make any sense, since practically no one owns a 1st gen DSLR to compare with in the first place.

 

[shortylickens]

I wouldn't be so certain to be honest, I think people seriously overestimate the quality of 1st gen sensors like the KAF-1300.

But as already mentioned comparing todays camera phones to 1st gen DSLR's, doesn't really make any sense, since practically no one owns a 1st gen DSLR to compare with in the first place.

I think YOU are seriously overestimating the quality of cell phone sensors.

Do you realize that as you exponentially ramp up resolution on a tiny sensor with a tiny lens your image quality actually gets worse?

 

[openwheel]

I bet I can take better photos with cellphone than most people with DSLR.

 

[mnewsham]

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5533410947/smartphones-versus-dslr-versus-film

It’s sobering to look back at the old reviews of the cameras that we included. The earliest, the Canon EOS10D was a marvel of 2003. Phil Askey from DPReview described it as “the absolute best in its class, with the best image quality, lowest high sensitivity noise, superb build quality and excellent price.” He described the “Excellent resolution”, the “Noise free ‘silky smooth’ images”, with “very low noise levels even at ISO 1600.” The EOS 10D ran rings around the film that we’d been using for 50 years in terms of clarity and freedom from grain.

Yet it’s comprehensively humbled by modern phones. The iPhone out-shoots it, and the Nokia out-resolves it, all by huge margins.

 

[shortylickens]

I bet I can take better photos with cellphone than most people with DSLR.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

And I seriously doubt you've done enough samples to come up with anything that results in an actual statistic.

 

[AViking]

Uh at least the phones I've used have all been completely shitty compared to even my first 3MP point and shoot camera.

Camera phones only look good when you compare within the same category.

 

[AViking]

One thing with camera phones is that they are pretty much only useful on a sunny day unless you use the flash. If you use them in low light they generally look terrible and the white balance is in many cases way off. All my shots in snow give me blue pictures. Moving subjects? Forget it. Then of course there's the time for the pic to be taken. Camera phones are slow. Depth of field? Forget it. Stopping motion? Forget it. Using the flash? I'm not into on camera flash but to each their own. If you're shooting pics in a bar use a P/S.

So if you're taking pictures on a sunny day of a static subject they're fine.

They are getting better though. I think in a few years even I'd be happy printing camera phone pictures if they keep up their level of advancement. Until then though they're best used for just taking group shots at an event.

 

[antihelten]

I think YOU are seriously overestimating the quality of cell phone sensors.

Do you realize that as you exponentially ramp up resolution on a tiny sensor with a tiny lens your image quality actually gets worse?

Have you ever used a DCS 100? if not I don't see how you can claim that it necessarily outperforms a modern cell phone sensor.

And as for higher resolution sensors producing worse images, yes you do risk losing some highlight headroom, but you rarely see people complaining about that with current small high res sensors (at least to my experience), so it's hardly a significant problem.

 

[shortylickens]

Have you ever used a DCS 100? if not I don't see how you can claim that it necessarily outperforms a modern cell phone sensor.

And as for higher resolution sensors producing worse images, yes you do risk losing some highlight headroom, but you rarely see people complaining about that with current small high res sensors (at least to my experience), so it's hardly a significant problem.

In the navy, a journalist brought one on board. Pictures were surprisingly nice.



Next question.

 

[TerryMathews]

I bet I can take better photos with cellphone than most people with DSLR.

You're on. 3 minute exposure of a highway, at night, from 50ft.

Or, a snowball in flight.

 

[antihelten]

In the navy, a journalist brought one on board. Pictures were surprisingly nice.



Next question.

The question wasn't whether the dcs 100 takes nice pictures. The question was whether the sensor in the dcs 100 is significantly better than what you can find in a smart phone (obviously the optics of the dcs 100 is better than any smart phone out there).

The best comparison would thus probably be to compare the dcs 100 to a modern camera with a 1/2.3-1/3 inch sensor (similar to what you find in smartphone), to remove the optics from the equation (as much as that is possible at least)

 

[mnewsham]

Here is the Canon EOS 10D a $2k DSLR from 2003 with a $1,700 lens.

Compared to the Nokia Lumia 1020

to see more just spend 15-20 mins reading this comparison article.
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5533410947/smartphones-versus-dslr-versus-film

 

[Oyeve]

to see more just spend 15-20 mins reading this comparison article.
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5533410947/smartphones-versus-dslr-versus-film

Damn, the D800 is nice!

 

[mnewsham]

Damn, the D800 is nice!

haha yes the D800 is one hell of a camera, takes amazing shots in pretty much every condition.

 

[TerryMathews]

snip

From the same article

" One of the subtle biases is that smartphones naturally get lots in focus, but DSLRs have to stray far from their best settings to get the same look. In tech-speak, the iPhone 5S gets the same depth in focus as a full-frame DSLR at f/18. With a phone, you can freeze everyone along the length of a candlelit Christmas dinner table, and keep them all in focus. None of these DSLRs can do that, as f/18 and short shutter speeds don

 

[vi edit]

Here is the Canon EOS 10D a $2k DSLR from 2003 with a $1,700 lens.

Compared to the Nokia Lumia 1020

to see more just spend 15-20 mins reading this comparison article.
http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5533410947/smartphones-versus-dslr-versus-film

That's the whole problem with pixel peeping. Go back to Flickr and look at the originals. Check the details around the edges and especially the people in the bottom right hand in the bus parking.

With the Lumia they look like a painting effect with all of the smearing going on. Compare the 10D and 20D to it. Look at the busses and how clean they look with the Canon pics. Then the Lumia again. Yes, the Lumia "resolves" more as is evidenced by certain things, but it's at the cost of overall quality.

 

[mnewsham]

Canon EOS10D

Nokia Lumia 1020

In what way is the 10D any better? The details of the people in my opinion are much better on the Nokia, in low light the 10D comes back into contention simply because of the much larger sensor size.

In my honest opinion modern smartphones can certainly compare to and in some shooting scenarios out perform first generation DSLRs

 

[TerryMathews]

In my honest opinion modern smartphones can certainly compare to and in some shooting scenarios out perform first generation DSLRs

I dont think anyone ever disputed that.

What is disputed is that smartphone cameras are superior in every scenario.

 

[openwheel]

If I had a choice between 10D and Lumia 1020 for everyday photography and vacation, then Lumia is no doubt THE choice. It's results are amazing.

If I am shooting professionally then I would at least use a D800 with proper accessories.

There is a fine line between "want" and "need". I want a Lotus, but I really need a BMW. So I drive a BMW and play with vintage Lotus on rare occasion. It's silly to simplify especially considering how good smartphone cameras have become. To me the phone camera has surpassed DSLR due to its advancement and convenience.

 

[TerryMathews]

If I had a choice between 10D and Lumia 1020 for everyday photography and vacation, then Lumia is no doubt THE choice. It's results are amazing.

If I am shooting professionally then I would at least use a D800 with proper accessories.

There is a fine line between "want" and "need". I want a Lotus, but I really need a BMW. So I drive a BMW and play with vintage Lotus on rare occasion. It's silly to simplify especially considering how good smartphone cameras have become. To me the phone camera has surpassed DSLR due to its advancement and convenience.

I bring the right tool for the job. 90% of the time, my Galaxy Note 2 is sufficient. For those other times I have an EOS 50d.

The important thing is to keep in mind the limitations of each system.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

I dont think anyone ever disputed that.

What is disputed is that smartphone cameras are superior in every scenario.

viedit said "LOL not even close", so yes someone did dispute it.

i hadn't seen the dpreview article before, but that seems to be a more scientific test than opinions and anecdotes.

 

[dguy6789]

Canon EOS10D

Nokia Lumia 1020

In what way is the 10D any better? The details of the people in my opinion are much better on the Nokia, in low light the 10D comes back into contention simply because of the much larger sensor size.

In my honest opinion modern smartphones can certainly compare to and in some shooting scenarios out perform first generation DSLRs

This.

Stand-alone camera nuts remind me of those people that say any wine under $200 tastes terrible. For people who aren't career photographers there isn't a whole lot of tangible difference between a good smartphone camera and a stand alone camera.

 

[TerryMathews]

viedit said "LOL not even close", so yes someone did dispute it.

He said a whole lot more than that, did he not?

 

[shortylickens]

This.

Stand-alone camera nuts remind me of those people that say any wine under $200 tastes terrible. For people who aren't career photographers there isn't a whole lot of tangible difference between a good smartphone camera and a stand alone camera.

And thats fine but not the issue at hand.

Go back and read the thread title.

The fact most people are dumb and ignorant doesnt change the quality of the cameras themselves.

 

[mnewsham]

The fact most people are dumb and ignorant doesnt change the quality of the cameras themselves.

You haven't given your argument as to why you think the Canon EOS10D performs better than the Lumia 1020, the OP asks if first gen DSLRs are worse than cell phone cameras, for the most part yes. IF you want to be pedantic and argue that it can't do everything the DSLR can then sure go ahead, but i'd much rather have a camera IN MY PHONE that is 90% of a camera that cost upwards of $3k back when it was on the market (only 11 years ago).

Sure that 10% matters to some people, but I seriously doubt the OP meant are cell phone cameras UNEQUIVOCALLY better than DSLRs and was more concerned with overall use in which case the cellphones overall are better than the DSLR.