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

[TerryMathews]

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.

And I think the only fair way to answer the OPs question is to say

In perfect conditions, the Lumia's sensor will provide better images. The further you divert from ideal, either through lighting or motion, the better the DSLR will look by comparison.

 

[AViking]

Comparing sunny day static pictures is really not doing anyone any favors. Besides, anyone who has a 10 year old DSLR that they bought for $2000 has surely already replaced it. Especially if they have $1700 glass that is still good.

Even if the pictures aren't great for printing I really have few complaints about sunny day static pictures with most camera phones. The problem is everything else. Gotta admit though that googling around shows me that a few of the newest phones really have stepped it up a couple notches. That's great!

 

[IeraseU]

I'm a photographer (portfolio here: www.southfloridapics.com)

Yes, the image quality in smartphones is comparable to older DSLR cameras. However it's not a black and white comparison because there are still many things that not ideal on phones because of the nature of the platform. For example, some issues are:

-Depth of field is pretty much a one size fits all proposition because of the size of the sensor and the fixed lens format.
-long exposure shots are not really possible.
-changing settings, even on advanced phones like the Lumia 1020, is much more cumbersome due to the fact that you have to dig in menus instead of having hardware controls
-shutter lag and the lack of an optical view finder make shooting action shots very challenging.
-working with external lighting, such as a 'stand alone flash' or studio lights is not really feasible.



On the plus side, the phone is very lightweight and generally it's always with you. That in itself is a tremendous advantage. It's also much easier to share photos directly from the phone, and often the editing/retouching software on a phone is extremely impressive. It's not going to match a workstation with photoshop, but it sure beats what I was using when I first started shooting.

Personally I only use a DSLR for paid work, and the rest of the time just carry a phone. The convenience factor just encourages more spontaneous and creative shooting, and I also want to mention that most phones do a very good job with video as well.

 

[vi edit]

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.

And that's the truth for me. I've got kids, I take pictures of birds and other animals, I take pictures indoors where the lighting and white balance can jack up cell phones. Trying to take a picture of a 2 year old on the move with anything less than absolute bright daylight is impossible. Trying to zoom in and get a shot of a bird on a birdfeeder that's 20 yards away is impossible. Trying to take a good picture of a basketball game with those oddball flourescent lighting is almost impossible.

I also really like a lot of bokeh with my shots. It's just stuff that is hard to do, if not virtually impossible without a *lot* of post-processing wizardry with cell phone shots.

I owned a Lumia 920. Camera sucked. Nokias noise reduction is more like a brush affect to images. It just took blurry, smudgy pictures. Even in perfect lighting. And the color scale was on way too warm side.

I prefer my Note 2 or Iphones over Nokias images. Apple's pictures are definitely sharper at the cost of a bit more grain/noise. But lines actually look like lines instead of smudges. Color scale is a little cooler too without being too cold.

And then comes printing. Posting online or to Facebook is one thing. When you go to print it's something entirely different. If you don't print pictures often then you'd probably never really notice. When my wife starts grabbing pictures off of the computer and sending them off to be printed it's painfully obvious which ones are taken from a cell phone vs one of the better cameras in the house.

I'm just a guy that likes control over what I'm doing. I drive a manual car. I like being able to control all major functions of my camera too. Most phones don't give me real good control over shutter speed, aperature, white blance and iso. There's "modes", but it's not the same for most of them.

And for the record, I tend to stay under the $12 a bottle mark for my wine. 😛

 

[mnewsham]

I owned a Lumia 920. Camera sucked. Nokias noise reduction is more like a brush affect to images. It just took blurry, smudgy pictures. Even in perfect lighting. And the color scale was on way too warm side

You realize the Nokia 1020 being used in that comparison is a hell of a lot better than the Lumia 920 camera right?


The Lumia 920 has an 8.7MP sensor the Lumia 1020 has a 41MP sensor, I know MP aren't everything, but the 920 isn't meant to be a super camera phone, the 1020 is.

 

[vi edit]

You realize the Nokia 1020 being used in that comparison is a hell of a lot better than the Lumia 920 camera right?

Yes, I realize that. But When you look at the "full size" image I see the same smudgy looking details. It's still appears to be using the post processing mechanics that frustrated me with the 920. Especially when Nokia hyped the ever loving crap out of the thing. I must just be sensitive to that while others aren't.

Everyone has their own likes/dislikes. I can't stand the frame interpolation thing that newer TV's do. Some people love it. I want my movies grainy damnit! Some people can't stand that. Maybe that's why I prefer the iPhone's more. 😀

 

[mnewsham]

Yes, I realize that. But When you look at the "full size" image I see the same smudgy looking details. It's still appears to be using the post processing mechanics that frustrated me with the 920. Especially when Nokia hyped the ever loving crap out of the thing. I must just be sensitive to that while others aren't.

Everyone has their own likes/dislikes. I can't stand the frame interpolation thing that newer TV's do. Some people love it. I want my movies grainy damnit! Some people can't stand that. Maybe that's why I prefer the iPhone's more. 😀

If post processing mechanics are your main gripe then the new Nokia Icon should improve on that, its got a 20MP sensor with a snapdragon 800 for supposedly much faster and better quality post processing.

 

[ElFenix]

If post processing mechanics are your main gripe then the new Nokia Icon should improve on that, its got a 20MP sensor with a snapdragon 800 for supposedly much faster and better quality post processing.

a faster processor isn't going to fix heavy handedness.

 

[vi edit]

I say "post processing" because on my 920 you'd snap the shot, you'd get a razon sharp image on the screen then a split second later it'd go blury and then save that way. I think it was decent hardware crippled by over aggressive software. Everything just came out too soft. And the color scales on it were overly agressive on brighter colors.

I've been really satisfied with the camera on my Note 2. It's fast, in side by side shots I can pull off better images than my wife's 5s in poor lighting, and it can take really decent pictures in the right environment.

The one nod I'd give the 920 is in video. That thing took amazing video. I was highly impressed with how well it did with that. And it wasn't just video, but the sound was excellent as well.

 

[mnewsham]

a faster processor isn't going to fix heavy handedness.

The optical image stabilization will certainty help tho.

 

[vi edit]

The optical image stabilization will certainty help tho.

I don't think you understand. Before the phone commits the picture to storage it applys processing. I think that processing is crippling the overall quality of the pictures the device is capable of.

 

[Red Storm]

For me, it doesn't matter how much better a dedicated DSLR camera may be, because a phone's camera is infinitely more convenient, and that trumps all. I feel a good number of people feel the same way. I will continue to use and enjoy the ever improving mobile cameras because they take up no additional space.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Cell phones are lower quality than low end Point and shoot cameras. Thy just use HDR wizardry to make things look less crappy. I do have to admit that I am surprised by how good the pictures are though.... for what the hardware is.

 

[ElFenix]

The optical image stabilization will certainty help tho.

i'm not sure where you're going with that

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

well, your original statement of "not even close" makes it seem like a landslide victory for an old DSLR, which is far from the truth.
in ideal photography conditions (lots of light, non-action shots), an iphone can hold it's own and even beat old DSLR's as evidenced by the article.

obviously there's going to be instances where a 300D will be superior, due solely to form factor and physical size, low light and fast shutter speed situations namely.
you can't seriously expect something as thin as a phone to have the same optical zooming capabilities as a huge mega zoom lens.

And that's the truth for me. I've got kids, I take pictures of birds and other animals, I take pictures indoors where the lighting and white balance can jack up cell phones. Trying to take a picture of a 2 year old on the move with anything less than absolute bright daylight is impossible. Trying to zoom in and get a shot of a bird on a birdfeeder that's 20 yards away is impossible. Trying to take a good picture of a basketball game with those oddball flourescent lighting is almost impossible.

I also really like a lot of bokeh with my shots. It's just stuff that is hard to do, if not virtually impossible without a *lot* of post-processing wizardry with cell phone shots.

I owned a Lumia 920. Camera sucked. Nokias noise reduction is more like a brush affect to images. It just took blurry, smudgy pictures. Even in perfect lighting. And the color scale was on way too warm side.

I prefer my Note 2 or Iphones over Nokias images. Apple's pictures are definitely sharper at the cost of a bit more grain/noise. But lines actually look like lines instead of smudges. Color scale is a little cooler too without being too cold.

And then comes printing. Posting online or to Facebook is one thing. When you go to print it's something entirely different. If you don't print pictures often then you'd probably never really notice. When my wife starts grabbing pictures off of the computer and sending them off to be printed it's painfully obvious which ones are taken from a cell phone vs one of the better cameras in the house.

I'm just a guy that likes control over what I'm doing. I drive a manual car. I like being able to control all major functions of my camera too. Most phones don't give me real good control over shutter speed, aperature, white blance and iso. There's "modes", but it's not the same for most of them.

And for the record, I tend to stay under the $12 a bottle mark for my wine. 😛

 

[vi edit]

I'll just toss out some of my own examples taken a few minutes ago after a couple glasses of scotch. 🙂

Reference cameras
1) Canon 300D that is almost 10 years old with an $80 50mm prime 1.8f lens.
2) Year old Sony RX100
3) A little over a year old Galaxy Note 2

All images were shot from the same distance, with the same ambient lights (CFL which play hell on white balance). I shot with the cameras using the built in flash. The Note 2 I took a shot without the flash because it actually looks better. The interesting thing to note with flash work is that the 300D had a white post it note in front of the flash (my ghetto bounce technique) and the RX100 was the ability to aim the flash "up" to give it a psuedo bounce. I can't do that with the Note as trying to bounce would block the lens.

Anywhoo...

Note 2 with Flash
https://whmcqq.dm2302.livefilestore...vGQRYeamprQNuIaPwE/20140212_213244.jpg?psid=1

Note 2 without Flash
https://whmcqq.dm1.livefilestore.co...sPbK4VeglNwFfyGtVU/20140212_205550.jpg?psid=1

RX100:
https://whmcqq.dm1.livefilestore.co...B41x08nlw9rnIuMKn9CaDP48s/DSC01981.JPG?psid=1

300D:
https://whmcqq.dm2302.livefilestore...R6Kg6Dsz21wTuj95536Oi9blA/IMG_4993.JPG?psid=1

Be honest with me...which one looks the best?

 

[vi edit]

When I take pictures of my kids at the dinner table that's the typical kind of lighting I'm working with. And those figures aren't even moving. For me, and what I'm typically taking pictures of, there is no comparison to me between large sensor cameras and cell phones. That's why I am rather outspoken about the difference.

Cellphones are great for casual shooting and quick snaps to stick online. But once the environment gets a little bit wonky it's down to sensor size and the ability to suck up as much light as the camera can without introducing motion blur.

 

[vi edit]

And for shits and giggles here's a pic of the contestant field taken by a 3rd gen iPad.

😀

https://whmcqq.dm2303.livefilestore...E4o7Bhbhc00Mws/2014-02-12T22-24-34.jpg?psid=1

 

[AViking]

Be honest with me...which one looks the best?

The note looks like crap. The RX100 ain't bad but the 300 is better. However you have them focused in different spots. So I'm mostly just trying to compare the parts that are tack sharp.

 

[AViking]

A tripod might have evened out the playing field between the last two a bit better. Either way the Note sucks.

 

[mnewsham]

Either way the Note sucks.

yeah but the note 2 isn't exactly the latest in smartphone tech, it's a phone from 2012. The Note 3 or upcoming Galaxy S5 would be better to use to represent current camera tech since smartphone cameras are advancing much faster than DSLRs or point and shoots.

 

[vi edit]

It's still not going to make a revolutionary difference in the result. The sensor size, optics and overall way that cell phones process things can't handle indoor shooting well. You'll get perfectly acceptable results to post at internet thumbnail/facebook resolution. But with unnatural lighting they have trouble adjusting the white balance and really have to strain to handle noise. Throwing more pixes at a small sensor just sort of pushes the problem further. You also don't have the option of throwing light at things as well with the built in flashes that cell phones have.

I'm not totally bagging on cell phones. Before I got my RX100 95% of all pictures I took were on my old iPhone4, my wifes 4s/5s or my Note 2. Outdoors and for candid shots they worked fine. But going to print them off to put in an album or give to my parents and they looked horrible.

Since getting a lot of horsepower in a small packing with the RX100 I'm seeing that as more of a daily carry and the cell phones are getting used less and less again. I can drop the RX100 in my pocket or coat and not look like the tool with the giant SLR at the cell phone party 🙂

 

[mnewsham]

It's still not going to make a revolutionary difference in the result. The sensor size, optics and overall way that cell phones process things can't handle indoor shooting well. You'll get perfectly acceptable results to post at internet thumbnail/facebook resolution. But with unnatural lighting they have trouble adjusting the white balance and really have to strain to handle noise. Throwing more pixes at a small sensor just sort of pushes the problem further. You also don't have the option of throwing light at things as well with the built in flashes that cell phones have.

I'm not totally bagging on cell phones. Before I got my RX100 95% of all pictures I took were on my old iPhone4, my wifes 4s/5s or my Note 2. Outdoors and for candid shots they worked fine. But going to print them off to put in an album or give to my parents and they looked horrible.

Since getting a lot of horsepower in a small packing with the RX100 I'm seeing that as more of a daily carry and the cell phones are getting used less and less again. I can drop the RX100 in my pocket or coat and not look like the tool with the giant SLR at the cell phone party 🙂

Guess you haven't noticed the trend in the past year in smartphones has been to stop going up in pixel count and concentrate on better quality, hell the HTC one has an impressive camera even though it's only 4MP.

The RX100 is also a $500+ camera. I don't know about you, but I paid $200 for a phone that happens to come decently close to a $500 dedicated camera.

 

[AViking]

I carry my D600 with me everywhere. A good camera bag does wonders. I'm not saying I take all pictures with it though. There's something much simpler about busting out a camera phone if I just want to take a shot of me and the girlfriend on the train.

However one thing that is very clear is that when you have two cameras like this NONE of the camera phone pictures get printed. None of them get further than Facebook. Hopefully that changes in the next couple years. I don't think you can ever replace a DSLR with a camera phone but I think it would be nice if the pictures we took had enough quality to want to put in an album.

 

[vi edit]

Guess you haven't noticed the trend in the past year in smartphones has been to stop going up in pixel count and concentrate on better quality, hell the HTC one has an impressive camera even though it's only 4MP.

I wouldn't call that a "trend". You call the Note 2 old, then say the Note 3 is more appropriate. Main difference? More MP. Sure there is a little processing difference too.

How about the newer Lumias sporting 20 and 40 MP?

I should have shot an HDR image from the Note in that comparison since that's the one real trick that recent cell phones and cameras have. But my main issue with HDR is that it looks good on small screens but once you go to print it off or look at it on a bigger display you can see all of the tearing and processing that is being applied.