Smartphone vs. DSLR Shootout

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
I’m at a loss as to why someone would bother comparing the two, as one obviously trumps the other in quality. This writer even believes that smartphones are better because of their portability, but I can’t take him seriously because mirrorless cameras aren’t even mentioned.

…the smartphone may not produce the same massive, high-detail 22MP images as the full-frame DSLR, but the smartphone does manage to be good enough. Under most lighting conditions indoor or outdoor, the iPhone produced images that were perfectly acceptable—more than good enough to post on Facebook or e-mail to friends and family. If you're taking photos for print publication, a DSLR is the way to go; for personal use, a smartphone is perfectly fine.
 
I'm impatiently waiting for more phone companies to provide RAW image drivers. There are a lot of things one could do (I have a decent background in low-light microscopy) sensibly to really improve the quality of your average phone photo, even if the final image is saved to jpeg, as much as I'd prefer RAW to adjust white balance. Think Google's HDR+, which, when bright enough, takes a bunch of sequential images and does image fusion to push down noise. It'd be nice to leverage the "big" image processor sitting on the same pcb as my image sensor. :D

As far as his standards, hard to argue: those of us with gigantic monitors are worse for the wear (I'm not one of them), but for electronic consumption, phone images are frequently good enough.
 
Oh, and, yes. My weapon of choice is a Sony NEX. DSLR sensor, not much bigger than a P/S, especially with a pancake prime.
 
You can't have a shootout between an airplane and a cruise ship. Both get you from one place to the other, but the way they do it is distinctly different and thus impervious to comparison other than by what way you decide to accomplish your goal.

Smartphones are for portability, DSLRs are for quality.

In a DSLR you can capture more light through a bigger image sensor area and aperture, reduce noise by using a larger pixel compared to a mobile image sensor. There is no comparison, both serve separate distinct markets.
 
Nice try, Megalith, but your summary of the article:

I’m at a loss as to why someone would bother comparing the two, as one obviously trumps the other in quality. This writer even believes that smartphones are better because of their portability, but I can’t take him seriously because mirrorless cameras aren’t even mentioned.

Is not even close to even the part of the article you quoted:

…the smartphone may not produce the same massive, high-detail 22MP images as the full-frame DSLR, but the smartphone does manage to be good enough. Under most lighting conditions indoor or outdoor, the iPhone produced images that were perfectly acceptable—more than good enough to post on Facebook or e-mail to friends and family. If you're taking photos for print publication, a DSLR is the way to go; for personal use, a smartphone is perfectly fine.

I don't know what article you read that said a smartphone had better quality than a DSLR, but it wasn't this one, which states clearly:

Is the smartphone better? No. The DSLR and its lenses, even in my unskilled hands, produce higher-quality images, period. They’re higher resolution, and they contain more detail. It’s impossible for the iPhone’s little 8.5mm-ish sensor to grab as many photons as the DSLR’s big 35mm full-frame sensor. The DSLR wins every time, and the iPhone’s output, while good, isn’t as good.
 
They lost me as soon as they mentioned iPhone and post on Facebook.
Neither needs much in the way of quality, and almost cell phone camera would be good enough.

Based on reviews, the camera on my Note 4 is in the same level as iPhone 6 & 6 plus, with the newer Samsung's and iPhones showing only a minor improvement.

However, without an optical zoom, cell phone cameras are only good for close ups or wide landscapes. My Sony point & shot takes better pictures, especial of anything that I need to zoom in on.

If I'm going someplace where I plan on taking photos or video, I'll bring my camera. If I forget or have a problem with the camera, then I have my cell phone as a backup.
 
Look at the tree leaves in this photo zoomed in: http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/JT3A7925.jpg

Bad chromatic aberration and that is the Nikon.

Some lenses do that, he didnt choose well imo.
But you made a poster error, its a Canon camera and Canon lenses :p

Having said that, the Canon image still blows away the iphone.
You can zoom in further without the aberration figuring.

He could have chosen the very cheap Nikon 3300 with standard 18-55 zoom running fully automatic and handlily beaten the iphone.
Only £280 including 20% uk vat!!
http://slrhut.co.uk/product/ID1514C5/nik1958-_Nikon-D3300-DSLR-Camera-With-18_55mm-VR-Lens-_Black_-/
 
more than good enough to post on Facebook or e-mail to friends and family. [/I]

I would sure as hell HOPE so but, we've all seen FB and most family E-mail pics..

Someone who doesn't know jack could have a DSLR and still make it look awful, and someone who knows what they're doing could use a smartphone to take some nice pics...

Turns out we need more people that know what they're doing... Or less cameras.
 
I take ok photos with my cellphone but I always want a DSLR and waterproof point and shoot.
 
I would always choose my Nikon DSLR if given a choice or if it is preplanned. However, having said that, life is rarely preplanned on a day to day reality basis. It has been said, and I concur to some degree, the best came a in the world is the one you have with you when a shot presents itself. So, in this context, the phone camera is the one in the pocket all the time, and is the best for many candid shots and unexpected beauty of nature that keeps popping up at the most unexpected times.
 
I had a Sony DSC-QX10 and was amazed at the picture quality over my phone's camera. I could not get over the lag between it and my phone. Partly due to my phone being slow, partly due to the camera itself.

I've since gone with a Sony RX100 IV, as it's small, even better quality, and doesn't require my smartphone to control it. It has that ability though, without the lag the QX10 has.
 
You can't have a shootout between an airplane and a cruise ship. Both get you from one place to the other, but the way they do it is distinctly different and thus impervious to comparison other than by what way you decide to accomplish your goal.

Smartphones are for portability, DSLRs are for quality.

In a DSLR you can capture more light through a bigger image sensor area and aperture, reduce noise by using a larger pixel compared to a mobile image sensor. There is no comparison, both serve separate distinct markets.

This.
Turn the lights off and go home now.

For years our old Nikon 8MP CoolPix delivered much sharper images than any smartphone around. The downside was it was big and clunky. The wife fumbled it pulling it out of the camera bag enough times she finally killed it.

Our current Smart phones are LG V10s and they do take nice pix "for a smart phone" but still you can't touch a DSLR as far as image quality. You cannot escape quality optics with software tricks.
 
The article also fails to mention the difference in technology between DSLR and phone sensors.

One if the keys to how good a camera sensor is how much light it can acquire for the a to d. Not only are DSLR sensors larger allowing for more light but they work differently.

A typical phone camera sensor scans from cell to cell reading each cells value in a sequential manner to get the numbers. As this has to be done quickly to counteract movement of the image (hand or subject movement). This gives less time for the light well to collect photons making them more noisy...hence grain and noiseare the end result.

A DSLR sensor scans everything at once. Each cell has its on converter so it can take orders if magnitude more time to collect light for the a to d process.
 
Still true with the ubiquitous back-side illumination sensors used in phones? Don't think there is a BSI-CCD that isn't for highly specialized use (read: not cell phones), so you're a bit out of date on the state of the art. Also, from a quantum efficiency standpoint (photons in -> electrons read), phone sensors are a LOT better than a DSLR.

Sheer area and lower noise analog signal processing chain are what make the larger chips so much better. And, of course, glass.
 
Ack, sorry about the deleted close bracket screwing up the formatting (pretty please mods? :D)
 
Back
Top