Phone Arena does blind comparison camera test between DSLR, Note 4, and 6 plus...

[blankslate]

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Gala...ts-a-Canon-DSLR-and-the-iPhone-6-Plus_id66093

So, which one's better at taking photos – a modern DSLR camera, an iPhone 6 Plus, or a Samsung Galaxy Note 4? That's the question we wanted to answer with our recent blind camera comparison, and you might be surprised by the results we're about to share. Long story short, votes are greatly in favor of Samsung's phablet. The Galaxy Note 4 took first place in five out of six scenes, thus solidifying its name as one of the best cameraphones in existence. As for the camera we threw in the race, a Canon EOS 650D, it lagged quite a bit behind the Note 4 and Apple's finest.

Now, you're probably wondering how a quality DSLR lost to a couple of smartphone cameras. The answer, in our opinion, has a lot to do with what people perceive as a good-looking image. The iPhone, for example, usually produces colors that are warmer than they actually look – colors are somewhat inaccurate, but very eye-pleasing. In the meantime, the Galaxy Note 4 adds a hint of sharpness to its images, thus making details more pronounced. As for the DSLR camera, we had it set to automatic settings while shooting. Its RAW images were exported as JPEG by adding as little processing as possible, which produced faithful, yet not-so-catchy photos.

So at the end of the day, is the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 a better camera than a DSLR? Well, that depends on your priorities and on how you look at these two devices. The latter's RAW images look soft and uninspiring as they are, but can be made to look as good, if not better than the Note's – all it takes is a few minutes of simple editing. The Galaxy Note 4, on the other hand, as well as the iPhone 6 Plus, take care of all the post-processing for you – you get a pleasing picture with as little effort as possible. And we don't even have to mention that they fit in a pocket, unlike a DSLR.

Turns out most people in the blind comparison test prefered the Note 4 pictures more than the other devices. This does not mean the Note 4 took the most accurate photos just that for whatever reason the Note 4 camera took photos that are more appealing to the eyes of the test participants.



....

 

[Muadib]

Don't get me wrong, I love the Note 4 camera. However, it's no where near better than my DSLR.

 

[Graze]

Don't get me wrong, I love the Note 4 camera. However, it's no where near better than my DSLR.

This couldn't be more true. My lens alone cost as much as a Note 4!

 

[lopri]

It's Apple's fault.

Seriously, though, I took the blind test and my eyes liked four DSLR pictures, one Note 4 picture (the 5th one with lots of bricks/cobblestones) and one iPhone 6 picture (the 6th one, night time).

I liked the DSLR pictures because they looked more realistic to me. By realistic I mean the colors and how the photos convey the sense of space (distance, shape, lights/shades, etc.) Those also were most pleasing to my eyes.

But these days people apparently prefer shiny, exaggerated/warm lights and finer details in photos. I don't think there is anything wrong in that - beauty is inherently subjective matter and I am not a camera snob/expert just as I do not pick on minor issues on mobile displays. But the trend in people's taste seems unmistakable.

 

[ChronoReverse]

But these days people apparently prefer shiny, exaggerated/warm lights and finer details in photos. I don't think there is anything wrong in that - beauty is inherently subjective matter and I am not a camera snob/expert just as I do not pick on minor issues on mobile displays. But the trend in people's taste seems unmistakable.

Pretty much this. I do hope the RAW capability of Lollipop could be tested in the future though. It would be interesting to see how poor the images are before processing.

 

[Zaap]

I'd be impressed if the photo opening the article was taken with a cell phone, but of course it's not.

The test images are just flat images that don't begin to really bring out the DSLR's capablities, so it seems kind of pointless to me.

It does show that phone cameras have come a long way, I'll say that. For many average images, they're quite capable. For anyone really thinking they can replace or best a DSLR used to its full potential- that's laughable.

 

[Belegost]

My big issue with the comparison is here: "As for the DSLR camera, we had it set to automatic settings while shooting. Its RAW images were exported as JPEG by adding as little processing as possible, which produced faithful, yet not-so-catchy photos."

If you just dump the RAWs and convert straight to JPEG you're missing a lot, especially in terms of lens and sensor corrections (Vignette, CA, denoise, etc) which is why all the 650D images look soft and noisy. At least take the JPEG straight from the camera which uses the built-in corrections Canon worked out and provide an apples-to-apples comparison with the phones which were using their own processing.

Overall using auto mode and dumping RAWs to JPEG without developing is like racing a Ferrari against a Civic, but leaving the Ferrari in first gear with a set of retread tires.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Meh, we all know image quality takes a huge backseat compared to the convenience and connectivity of a phone.

Heck, I even argue mass consumers take better looking pics with a iPhone compared to a DSLR because the display quality to shoot and preview with is a night and day difference between both.

 

[rcpratt]

My lens alone cost as much as a Note 4!

And that means...what?

 

[holden j caufield]

my xperia z and lg g2 take amazing pics, I can't believe my phone takes better pics than any camera I've had (I don't own or know how to use a dslr so I can't compare)

 

[shortylickens]

And that means...what?

We are not your husband. Dont read into our statements like an angry wife.

 

[Anubis]

they really need to compare areas where things are in focus, IDK what they did but 1/2 those DSLR ones are not in focus

 

[Graze]

And that means...what?

It means optics quality is on a whole different level not even taking the sensor into account.

 

[Mopetar]

My big issue with the comparison is here: "As for the DSLR camera, we had it set to automatic settings while shooting. Its RAW images were exported as JPEG by adding as little processing as possible, which produced faithful, yet not-so-catchy photos."

If you just dump the RAWs and convert straight to JPEG you're missing a lot, especially in terms of lens and sensor corrections (Vignette, CA, denoise, etc) which is why all the 650D images look soft and noisy. At least take the JPEG straight from the camera which uses the built-in corrections Canon worked out and provide an apples-to-apples comparison with the phones which were using their own processing.

Overall using auto mode and dumping RAWs to JPEG without developing is like racing a Ferrari against a Civic, but leaving the Ferrari in first gear with a set of retread tires.

Yeah, that bothered me as well. A lot of what makes phone cameras as good as they are is the software. If you put the same level of SoC and software into a DSLR it would blow the camera phones out of the water because of the huge jump in quality due to the lens and sensor.

 

[Insomniator]

I wouldn't be suprised to see them close for indoor still shots with good lighting and just on the screen -- not printed. Try bringing them to the grand canyon and print out some 11x14's - then see which is better.

My main issue with cameras in general is that they still suck in dim lighting conditions. Its 2015, why can't cameras just take a pic of what my eye sees. I tried taking a pic of a neon sign in a dim bar with my Galaxy S5 a few nights ago and all you saw was a bright blur amongst tons of noise.

 

[darkewaffle]

I'm no photographer but those DSLR shots are pretty ugly, I feel like it wasn't really used correctly (relative to my brother's work with his which I'd give a solid 'pretty good'). Phone cameras are just glorified point and shoots but isn't the purpose of a DSLR to... not just point and shoot?

 

[blankslate]

The test images are just flat images that don't begin to really bring out the DSLR's capablities, so it seems kind of pointless to me.

They're comparing just point and shoot images. They're not saying that Phone Cameras take better photos. They did a blind comparison test of the three devices in "auto" mode. So it's kind of missing the point to complain that they didn't have an experienced photographer using the DSLR's options that aren't available to smartphone cameras.

Everyone here who thinks about it would grant that if you put the DSLR in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, they would be able to get better pictures; especially if they can post-process the image.

All this shows is that for point and shoot and in off-the-cuff, unexpected situations where someone may have a smart phone but not necessarily a DSLR recent smartphones can be more than capable of taking very good photos depending on the lighting and perhaps that DSLRs might want to offer different auto-shoot modes (but perhaps that would be rather unnecessary given what the target buyer should be).

Phone cameras are just glorified point and shoots but isn't the purpose of a DSLR to... not just point and shoot?

Yes, which goes to show that if someone is going to drop that kind of money on a camera it might be a good idea to take a class or at least read some good guides on how to use all of a DSLRs options for controlling how the camera captures light instead of just using one like a glorified a point and shoot.


.....

 

[Belegost]

They're comparing just point and shoot images. They're not saying that Phone Cameras take better photos. They did a blind comparison test of the three devices in "auto" mode. So it's kind of missing the point to complain that they didn't have an experienced photographer using the DSLR's options that aren't available to smartphone cameras.

Everyone here who thinks about it would grant that if you put the DSLR in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing, they would be able to get better pictures; especially if they can post-process the image.

All this shows is that for point and shoot and in off-the-cuff, unexpected situations where someone may have a smart phone but not necessarily a DSLR recent smartphones can be more than capable of taking very good photos depending on the lighting and perhaps that DSLRs might want to offer different auto-shoot modes (but perhaps that would be rather unnecessary given what the target buyer should be).





Yes, which goes to show that if someone is going to drop that kind of money on a camera it might be a good idea to take a class or at least read some good guides on how to use all of a DSLRs options for controlling how the camera captures light instead of just using one like a glorified a point and shoot.


.....

No, it doesn't even show that. If a person is taking a point-and-shoot image with a DSLR in auto mode they're not going to use the RAW output, they will use the JPEG produced by the camera. That JPEG would have looked enormously better than the images in this test because it would have included all the image corrections and enhancements that the engineers at Canon included to produce a nice looking image. It doesn't need an experienced photographer to get a decent image from a DSLR in auto mode; the camera makers have done a good job with that, and auto mode + JPEG from the camera will produce solid quality images. It does take one not dumb enough to take the RAW output and then not develop the image.

Photographers will frequently compare RAW straight from camera captures to see physical differences between lenses or bodies, but anyone with more than the most minimal knowledge would understand that comparing a straight RAW from one camera to a processed JPEG from another is a completely silly comparison.

Perhaps a better analogy for AT: It's like comparing two CPUs, one with turbo boost engaged and the other set to fixed multiplier for overclocking but then stuck at lowest base clock. It's a sign that the person performing the test had enough knowledge to be dangerous, but not enough knowledge to really understand what they were doing.

 

[sweenish]

I agree, this test is completely bogus because they changed to DSLR to purposefully be worse than the phones.

 

[jtvang125]

2 issues with this "test"

1. Why are almost all of the DSLR pictures slightly blurry? Either they have a defective camera or the camera was set up to fail. Even with the kit lens and on auto you're going to get way better pictures than that.

2. Not sure why they used RAW to jpeg conversion with little to no processing. The cellphones are applying quite a bit of sharpening by increasing contrast, saturation, sharpening and noise reduction. To apply little to none of these to the RAWs will make them dull and bland.

I'm not trying to discredit the cellphones cause they have come a long way but they're still no where near what a DSLR is capable of.

 

[Mopetar]

I agree, this test is completely bogus because they changed to DSLR to purposefully be worse than the phones.

It's got other issues as well though. Unless you have everyone looking at the images using the same display, there's no way to account for what that's going to do to the images. There's a noticeable color shift between my main display and one of my side monitors which does change my perception of some of the images.

It also measures what people like the most which itself isn't the same as what's objectively the highest quality or most accurate. Here's a similar case where people rated MP3 files as sounding better than the CD version even though the quality of the album version is higher. You also see the same thing in the electronics departments in stores where the TVs all have the saturation cranked up to make the colors pop.

You can see the same effect in the study results as well. In the first image where the Note 4 loses, the colors look more washed out than the other images, so people don't like how it looks regardless of whether or not that's what we would actually see with our own eyes.

 

[Midwayman]

The DSLR losing just proves they don't know what the hell they are talking about. They should have used JPG output on the camera if they weren't going to correct anything for example.

FWIW, the DSLR is going to have substantially less DOF than the phone cameras due to its much larger sensor, and longer focal length at the same FOV. Depending on where they're pulling the samples from relative to the focus point it could account for why the DSLR looks soft in comparison.

 

[rcpratt]

It means optics quality is on a whole different level not even taking the sensor into account.

No, it means that quality and price are not the same thing. Shocking, I know.

I'm not saying the quality of any phone is better than your DSLR. Just saying that quality <> $.

 

[foghorn67]

No, it means that quality and price are not the same thing. Shocking, I know.

I'm not saying the quality of any phone is better than your DSLR. Just saying that quality <> $.

To break it down into something you might understand...its like a Honda Civic pulling up to a McLaren P1 at an intersection. The McLaren doesn't want to race. The light turns green and the Civic pulls away and is ahead of a much faster car. The McLaren isn't racing, the driver is yawning, looking at the sites, the Civic is and gave it the beans. The bystander can say the Civic crossed the line first. But that doesn't mean the Civic is a faster a car.

 

[LtMikePowelll]

Comparison between DSLRs and smartphone cameras should be manual settings on each device. Not some auto settings. Granted that the only thing you can adjust in smartphone is ISO where as DSLRs have aperture and shutter speeds. I actually use my Note 4 less while use my Nikon D3300 for pictures instead.

Edit: for some reason the 650D pics seem like out of focus entirely and the inclusion of the 650d in this test is an afterthought.