With cell phone cameras getting better and better is this the end of the camera?

[ultimate weapon]

Yes due to the larger lens of real cameras they can take pictures further away and probably with more detail but let us be honest here the majority of pictures taken are up close and usually of people like families and friends. This means that the photo taker is going to be standing close to the subject which are other people like his friends and family. He would probably be standing at the max distance of 10m from the subjects but usually closer. You definitely don't need dslr lens to take pictures this up close and they are usually taken in tourist places in the day time with sufficient lighting.

Does this mean that discerning the photos taken up close with cell phone cameras of today and dslrs are going to become an art form like wine tasting? Where the average person cannot tell them apart and seriously is there a need to?

Is owning a dslr going to become something with snob appeal you know like owning a birkins bag or a prada bag that costs a ton more than a normal handbag.

Please tell me.

[Fiddlesticks]

Let me ask you this UW, with the technology of digital sound reproduction getting better and better by using computers with music synthesizers, is this the end of the piano, the violin, the guitar? Will these instruments be only for the music 'snobs'? Will we see concerts manned by groups of geeks sitting at keyboards and computers rather than orchestras seated with their instruments? I think the answer is obvious to most, that the music lover and the artists would never accept this. Sure the person who like to listen to a good tune when their going about their day will be satisfied with the digital music because they do not know any better or music is just not their thing or their passion. Likewise for those for whom taking photographs is just a causal thing for recording memories then the camera phone is quite sufficient and truly convenient but for those for whom photography is a passion then the camera phone will not satisfy their needs. Is it fair to call them camera snobs? (I am referring to your post 2103 in the Streets and Road Shots thread) I think that is an over reaction possibly fueled by a lack of understanding about the capabilities and needs of the professional or serious enthusiast photographers. THe camera is and always should be merely a tool but better tools are intended to enhance the skill of the one using it.

[rhythmworx]

How many cell phones can switch to camera mode in less than 1/2 a second, then in the next 1/8 of a second focus and take 9 FPS, can shoot in RAW format, can focus quicker that you can click your fingers, have accurate white balance, light metering, once enlarged to a 3+ foot print will still look sharp, keep the shutter actuated for as long as you want, use decent filters, polarizers, house a directable flash on and accommodate a softbox, trigger multiple flashes/strobes either wired or wirelessly, can tether to lightroom, mount to a tripod, adopt a battery grip, attach bellows to etc...

I could go on all night..

Fiddlesticks had the best point though, wish I had kept quiet.

The equipment is just a tool, just like chefs knives, you can pay £5 for one or £2000 for one made of the finest Japanese steel.

They may function similarly but will not cut the same though, and if you are removing a puffer fishes liver, that's the difference between a nice meal and death.

So a £50,000 photo shoot, shot within 10 metres, a phone just will not cut it.

A chef using the most expensive knife without the skills, is still a bad or learning chef.

<deleted> me what a ramble that was....

[FracturedRabbit]

The phone camera has pretty much destroyed the market for "point and shoot" cameras; both of which do a decent enough job of capturing snaps in reasonable light. Using a non-phone camera is nothing to do with shooting from further away; you can get a good enough shot of a landscape with a phone; it's the satisfaction of mastering a sophisticated tool and then using to produce the images you want to produce. For a diminishing few it is a business, for the rest of us it is a fun hobby which mixes technology and creativity, machines and software. If you have no interest in photography but just want to take snaps, then a phone camera is ideal (the best camera is the one you have with you), If you want to put more into the creation of photos, then you buy a camera which gives you creative possibilities (NOT necessarily a DSLR!) and get out there and enjoy using it.

To suggest that people who want to pursue an interest beyond the basics are snobs, is a strange point of view.... People have enthusiasms for different pursuits and hobbies, and good for them. The most boring people are those with no enthusiasm for anything.

[phuketrichard]

a phone is a phone and thats all it will ever be to me

proud to be a snob.

[Tywais]

I now have an LG G2 with a 13 Mpixel camera and is one of the best phone cameras current. If all conditions are just right, it does a good to very good job. But those conditions can be hard to find to compensate for the 'weaknesses' of the camera. A good dSLR gives you a lot more flexibility in finessing an image to come out well. Good conditions (lighting, contrast, etc.) still are important and need watched and considered but more can be done to make the shot better and more accurately with not ideal conditions with the bigger brothers.

I'm sure in the next 5-10 years there is going to be a lot more 'magic' in both formats, but the gap will never be truly narrowed. You know, laws of physics will dictate the limitations as will electronics so lots of room for growth.

As they say, the best camera is the one you have with you at that moment in time and in my case it is usually the Smartphone.

Moved to the Hardware part of the Photography forum.

[fabianfred]

I am pleased with the quality of pix and vids on my Galaxy Note 3 ...but even that is being surpassed by the new S5 especially in quick focus.

When 4K video or better 8K is common then people will just shoot video clips and extract frame captures of the best shots.

As someone said... the pocket cameras are being obsoleted but SLR's will still be irreplaceable.

[FracturedRabbit]

I wonder how long it will be before people stop referring to capable cameras as DSLRs...... It doesn't need a bloody mirror in it to be a competent camera!

Yours Sincerely,

MCATF Official Whiners and Lobby Group

(Mirrorless Cameras Are The Future)

[stiggy]

Phone cameras are a tool correct, put one in the hand of a good photographer great things can and will happen.

Same cannot be said for expensive DLSR's put one in the hands of a novice (without the Ai button) and it will look generally awful

Photography is about having the eye, having fun, conveying a message, an emotion, or capturing memories and events.

I use both, and enjoy it.Years back the same was said when film went digital, "you can take 100's of shots and get one good one, how is that photography ?"Yet I bet we all do that now, I do.

Personally if it brings more people into photography beyond family snaps,I think its great.

[Tywais]

I wonder how long it will be before people stop referring to capable cameras as DSLRs...... It doesn't need a bloody mirror in it to be a competent camera!

Yours Sincerely,

MCATF Official Whiners and Lobby Group

(Mirrorless Cameras Are The Future)

My bad. I should know better as I've never owned a dSLR but two mirrorless cameras. Except for my Nikon FE SLR.

[MJP]

One word . . . optics.

[ultimate weapon]

Let me ask you this UW, with the technology of digital sound reproduction getting better and better by using computers with music synthesizers, is this the end of the piano, the violin, the guitar? Will these instruments be only for the music 'snobs'? Will we see concerts manned by groups of geeks sitting at keyboards and computers rather than orchestras seated with their instruments? I think the answer is obvious to most, that the music lover and the artists would never accept this. Sure the person who like to listen to a good tune when their going about their day will be satisfied with the digital music because they do not know any better or music is just not their thing or their passion. Likewise for those for whom taking photographs is just a causal thing for recording memories then the camera phone is quite sufficient and truly convenient but for those for whom photography is a passion then the camera phone will not satisfy their needs. Is it fair to call them camera snobs? (I am referring to your post 2103 in the Streets and Road Shots thread) I think that is an over reaction possibly fueled by a lack of understanding about the capabilities and needs of the professional or serious enthusiast photographers. THe camera is and always should be merely a tool but better tools are intended to enhance the skill of the one using it.

You see you don't get my point. Sure they won't be replaced in orchestra concerts obviously but you left out one important factor. When you attend a concert you aren't just listening to the music you are watching them play. You are attending an event so you would be dressed up pretty nicely and seated in a nice theatre and so on. All of that adds to the experience.

You left out one important factor in my op. I was asking do you think one can be able to tell a picture taken by a cell phone and one by a digital camera. Would it become something like wine tasting where the average guy cannot tell apart some expensive french wine from something sold in say 7-11.

Frankly i honestly think some pictures taken by cell phone cams are so good ppl won't be able to tell apart but if you actually told them they would unfairly judge the cell phone picture to be worse off because of human biasness. You know something like the placebo effect in medical experiements where the person thought he was using medicine and his mind made him better same thing with the synthesizer and the phone cameras humans will think they produce worse sounds or pictures compared to the real thing and who knows they might actually be better.

[ultimate weapon]

You sure a digi cam can do all of that? switch to camera mode in less than 1/2 a second, then in the next 1/8 of a second focus and take 9 FPS, can shoot in RAW format, can focus quicker that you can click your fingers, have accurate white balance, light metering, once enlarged to a 3+ foot print will still look sharp, keep the shutter actuated for as long as you want, use decent filters, polarizers, house a directable flash on and accommodate a softbox, trigger multiple flashes/strobes either wired or wirelessly, can tether to lightroom, mount to a tripod, adopt a battery grip, attach bellows to etc...

Look i am sure some cams can do that but i doubt not all of them can do it. How fast can a digi cam turn on? Less than 1/2 a second it's already on and ready to take a pic? You sure?

Shooting in raw format seems only possible with a dslr and let's be honest here you need a pc to process them.

That camera probably weighs a ton.

Seriously back in the old days you know how huge cameras were and they didn't have color it was the same as the pcs. I doubt they would have imagined that a camera could be so small now or a camera could be part of a phone.

Edited March 14, 2014 by astral
Removal of long quote - Please use Reply button a the bottom

[ultimate weapon]

Phone cameras are a tool correct, put one in the hand of a good photographer great things can and will happen.

Same cannot be said for expensive DLSR's put one in the hands of a novice (without the Ai button) and it will look generally awful

Photography is about having the eye, having fun, conveying a message, an emotion, or capturing memories and events.

I use both, and enjoy it.Years back the same was said when film went digital, "you can take 100's of shots and get one good one, how is that photography ?"Yet I bet we all do that now, I do.

Personally if it brings more people into photography beyond family snaps,I think its great.

You are correct it reminded me of a few movies. The one starring michael jai white fighting his nemisis i forgot the movie title but he used the sheath of a chinese sword to fight his opponent who was heavily armed with a samurai sword.

In croaching tiger hidden dragon chow yuen fat as the master swords man defeated this female expert fighter armed with a sword with a tree branch and yip man defeated the strong opponent with a feather duster.

I wonder if an expert photograhper could take a good picture with an early cell phone camera. I am sure he could.

[Lockheed]

You'll never replace the DSLR but less and less people are using them.

These days I'm just taking snaps so the phone camera does the job and in some cases does it better than the high end compact.If I want really good photo's of a certain place then I get them from the web, maybe not exactly what I want but near enough.

I'm at the point where I'm seriously thinking of leaving the S95 at home and only taking the iPhone on trips abroad, where I can charge the phone but I'm heading into the Tasmanian bush for eight days soon and the S95 and two batteries will be with me, because I won't be near a charger, even though I'm taking a solar panel for the phone, that still won't be enough to run the phone camera.

I suppose certain situations warrant certain cameras, but for most the phone camera is number one, go to Flickr and search for the most used camera.

[rhythmworx]

Michael jai, bar girls are always mentioning him, they always seem to have a confused look on there face too,

[MJP]

You'll never replace the DSLR but less and less people are using them.

These days I'm just taking snaps so the phone camera does the job and in some cases does it better than the high end compact.If I want really good photo's of a certain place then I get them from the web, maybe not exactly what I want but near enough.

I'm at the point where I'm seriously thinking of leaving the S95 at home and only taking the iPhone on trips abroad, where I can charge the phone but I'm heading into the Tasmanian bush for eight days soon and the S95 and two batteries will be with me, because I won't be near a charger, even though I'm taking a solar panel for the phone, that still won't be enough to run the phone camera.

I suppose certain situations warrant certain cameras, but for most the phone camera is number one, go to Flickr and search for the most used camera.

I hate to say it but . . . for site work . . . I'm no longer using a DSLR. And I have three of them and over twenty lenses. Had enough of dragging the thing round and risking damage. I use a Samsung Galaxy Note 3 for pretty much everything to do with work now. Calls, internet, emails . . . photos and video! Even stuck a 64GB microSD card in it and it's in an Otterbox Defender case, so it's durable and usable.

It's just there. It's with you. You can snap and send there and then. Viewed at normal size (i.e., imported into a report and printed as part of an A4 page) it's perfect as long as the light is good. The presets are amazing. Like rich tone HDR. The flash isn't bad either.

I even do videos on site for inclusion in health and safety inductions, process the videos in Microsoft video maker or whatever it's called and import into PowerPoint presentations. And the quality is good. It's 4K!!!

What it won't do is marketing standard photography. For that, out comes a big tripod and bigger glass and lots of post processing. But for usable information only photos with a bit of flair, can't beat the phone.

[Fiddlesticks]

Can you tell the difference between photos taken with a phone cam and those taken by a DLSR (or a quality mirror less)? The answer is, it depends. When the image is being viewed on an average computer, not likely. When printed in larger sizes, yes. When viewed on a larger monitor at 100% or higher, more than likely. So, can the "average Joe" tell the difference? I would say no. But todays heavier DSLRs or quality mirror less cameras are not usually used by the average Joe. Will these cameras disappear because the average Joe can not tell them apart from camera phones? Heck no! So will the phone cam replace the DSLR/mirrorless? Not when the need for selective depth of field, is needed or when such things as focus stacking are important. Not likely for sports photography, bird photography, glamour photography or fine art photography. Not when images will be printed in 16x20 or larger. Don't expect these photographers to eschew the pro cameras in favor of their iPhone or even their newest Samsung.

[MJP]

Can you tell the difference between photos taken with a phone cam and those taken by a DLSR (or a quality mirror less)? The answer is, it depends. When the image is being viewed on an average computer, not likely. When printed in larger sizes, yes. When viewed on a larger monitor at 100% or higher, more than likely. So, can the "average Joe" tell the difference? I would say no. But todays heavier DSLRs or quality mirror less cameras are not usually used by the average Joe. Will these cameras disappear because the average Joe can not tell them apart from camera phones? Heck no! So will the phone cam replace the DSLR/mirrorless? Not when the need for selective depth of field, is needed or when such things as focus stacking are important. Not likely for sports photography, bird photography, glamour photography or fine art photography. Not when images will be printed in 16x20 or larger. Don't expect these photographers to eschew the pro cameras in favor of their iPhone or even their newest Samsung.

What you say there dear Fiddles is the phone may replace the old consumer point and shoots but it will never replace a photographers equipment.

Which is true.

[Fiddlesticks]

However I do believe that a pro will be happy to use the camera phone in certain situations when image size and photo quality are not the overriding concern.

Edited March 14, 2014 by astral
Removal of long quote - Please use Reply button a the bottom

[ultimate weapon]

Size of the camera is very important. Honestly just you mentioned it dragging it around sounds like it's really heavy and of course damaging it. Not only is it expensive but it's huge size might be detrimental to it when dropped for example.

Edited March 14, 2014 by astral
Removal of long quote - Please use Reply button a the bottom

[FracturedRabbit]

Competent cameras are not all huge....

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/26325010@N02/12497742685/" title="S2134322 by pattayadays.com, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7430/12497742685_7d8315a18b_o.jpg" width="940" height="705" alt="S2134322"></a>

[ETatBKK]

phone camera invites more people taking more casual photos, especially for those picture quality is not the prime concern. for example, my wife gave up an expensive Lumix and complained it is heavy; yet she is using her iPad for photo taking. she is fascinated by the easiness of phone camera and also the ability of sharing - a kind of fashion.

well, I also see a thin percentage of phone camera users considering an upgrade to a point-and-shoot, as their interest on capturing image expanded then functions and features of point-and-shoot are getting more convincing.

would phone camera replace professional DSLR ( or else ) ? not likely, yet professional may also expand their photographic tools to phone camera in some cases.

edit : this is not on a straight line.

Edited March 13, 2014 by ETatBKK

[Lockheed]

yet professional may also expand their photographic tools to phone camera in some cases.

I would imagine that a greater percentage of professionals have phone cameras, one thing they do is geo-reference there shots with the phone camera, no doubt they would do a whole lot more.

Search Lynda.com for online photography courses using the iPhone.

http://www.lynda.com/Photography-tutorials/iPhone-Photography-from-Shooting-to-Storytelling/90813-2.html

edit:

Edited March 13, 2014 by Lockheed

[sunshine51]

Can you tell the difference between photos taken with a phone cam and those taken by a DLSR (or a quality mirror less)? The answer is, it depends. When the image is being viewed on an average computer, not likely. When printed in larger sizes, yes. When viewed on a larger monitor at 100% or higher, more than likely. So, can the "average Joe" tell the difference? I would say no. But todays heavier DSLRs or quality mirror less cameras are not usually used by the average Joe. Will these cameras disappear because the average Joe can not tell them apart from camera phones? Heck no! So will the phone cam replace the DSLR/mirrorless? Not when the need for selective depth of field, is needed or when such things as focus stacking are important. Not likely for sports photography, bird photography, glamour photography or fine art photography. Not when images will be printed in 16x20 or larger. Don't expect these photographers to eschew the pro cameras in favor of their iPhone or even their newest Samsung.

What you say there dear Fiddles is the phone may replace the old consumer point and shoots but it will never replace a photographers equipment.

Which is true.

Here we go gear heads....Regardless of what hardware you lug around and the quantity/quality of it,

be it mirrorless, old fashioned film, shutterboxed DSLR, low end P&S-high end P&S or the latest

current hand phone camera with built in GPS & telephone....a photographers best equipment (tools)

are his or her eyes and brain. Everything else is just a recording device of variable quality...meaning,

all that gear you may or may not lug around just gives you extra options or zero options. You must

still "see" and envision the final product with whatever piece of kit you use...or else you're just broadband

recording day to day sights & sounds with the hopes something magical happens and you get a good

recording. It's the eyes & brain...people....not just the gear.

[MJP]

Depends. I mean gear helps. It does. Part of this art is gear selection which is also an extremely fun route to financial ruin.

I do like the Samsung Note 3 more and more for my work, which is not photography but togging does play a minor role, although an important one.

Tomorrow however I will be using the big camera for detailed industrial archaeological records to prevent me getting prosecuted later on following a demolition job.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[rhythmworx]

Point and shoot cams are still relatively small to carry around and can produce some decent results, especially the new ones.

I am not that well up on new phones and how well they take pics but I doubt any would be capable of bokeh and depth of field like this.

This is one from a 6MP Fuji F650 8 years old,

P.S. It's not a great pic just something I took sat on a bench drinking beer in the sticks in the middle of a bike ride.

[Snifas]

There are 2 separate things - snapshots and photography. When phone camera will be able perform at least half as regular dslr or mirrorlesd in low light or take long exposures then there will be a discussion. Now it is only apples and oranges plus some trolling.

[MJP]

There are 2 separate things - snapshots and photography. When phone camera will be able perform at least half as regular dslr or mirrorlesd in low light or take long exposures then there will be a discussion. Now it is only apples and oranges plus some trolling.

Yes.

For work I do snapshots.

For fun, passion, arousal even . . . I like to have a big tool in my hands.

[ultimate weapon]

At the end of the day it is the pictures produced.

Guys there is also the issue of the picture being produced you see a small enough picture that loads fast on ppl's pcs, smart phones etc and let's be honest here a picture on a smartphone probably looks sharper than on a pc screen.

This will shut up the entire discussion when someone produces pictures that make your mouth drop whether it's on a camera or a phone but again you know file hosting sites reduce image quality.