I'm a complete amateur. I have an iPhone 14 Pro and it does some amazing things. I can take pictures at night, basically, and have more than usable images (which almost always means some sort of thing that happened that I'm trying to document). I've done some legitimately good arty photography in 48mp RAW mode. I also have a Lumix G95D and the two kit lenses (12-60 and 45-150) and taking pictures with the camera is completely different. It feels good using a camera to take pictures. The iPhone is just... it's just not fun to use.
As a phone enthusiast I can see where the phone is good, for 1 phone heif is like hlg then delivered in dolby vision, dynamic range is going to favor the phone a lot of the time, tone mapping on the phone is just stronger than a few stops of raw dynamic range, heif on the phone that is. I am not even bothered by digital zoom on the phone, it's watercolor but if it is presentable I will post it, just edit it down, make it more cinematic tone, I use all the stock tools, -1/3ev on the camera app, then drop exposure more in post, put a bit of vivid warm. Phone photos are alright, when you introduce more shadows. Now coming to the lumix, try a powerhouse lens, cheap 45f1.7 is an absolute must for that system, 25f1.2 is silly beautiful, and the grand daddy of m43 75mmf1.8. Those will really spark a fire in pursuit of photography. m43 is a pretty small system, even a gf10 paired to a small 45f1.7 or 20mm f1.7 will make some incredible photos. Technically won't be as high dynamic range as phones but still very beautiful even with jpegs natural.
If you have a sense of which focal length you use to create your favorite images, you can get an MFT prime near that, either from Panasonic or Olympus. That will take your results up another level.
Thank you for showing the difference between a real camera and the iPhone in lowlight. Most reviewers cripple the DSLR with cheap glass then go shoot during midday in pristine sunlight. Any camera would look good during that time. I think the future of DSLR's is incorporating smartphone features directly into the camera. Built in SSD's, network connectivity, app stores, etc.
I am thinking it other way round. I believe cameras should focus on doing image capture and maybe light compression, and transfer to smartphone or any processing unit (like external recorder) for further processing and storage.
@@medicalwei These are good points, and for what it’s worth, I already transfer a fair number of photos to my phone and process them there (I enjoy doing this in the evening because I want to relax in our living area and not stare at a big computer screen). So as a workflow option, it’s good. But I suspect that as smartphone tech gets better and better , camera manufacturers will have little choice but to add inbuilt editing functionality. We’ll see what happens. But I imagine even now camera companies must be having intense r and d meetings over how to develop next.
It feels to me as if even the big camera companies simply haven't got the budget to invest in their products. I wonder what Apple expenditure on the camera aspects of their phones is in comparison.
To me the biggest issue with these comparisons is that the RU-vidrs take pictures in perfect lighting conditions where any camera does well. As a dad, my conditions for family photography are usually less than ideal indoors in low light. This is where the phone computational photography falls apart as even slightest movement of the subject prevents the phones ability to compose an HDR photo and the subject becomes extremely grainy and blurry. An ILC only takes one exposure with a shorter shutter speed that can freeze slight movement and the ISO performance kills phones in those situations. Adding a flash puts the last nail in the phone's coffin but in perfect sunny day conditions, I'd not take my mirrorless camera with me very easily.
If you want to double the quality of your low light smartphone photos, put it on a mini tripod, and use a warm LED light such as a LumeCube. I don't like all the distractions that come along with getting my smartphone out, and I still appreciate the INTENTION and experience of taking a camera along to capture memories. ;)
DSLRs aren't for family pictures either. I will enjoy my set of 18 Nikon lenses until the shutters of my bodies are dead, but then I'll make my life easy and buy the iPhone 22.
If you're going to do very graphical deep depth of field work in ideal light, a phone is a great choice. It just falls apart when you need versatility or if natural things can quickly look uncanny with too much pre-processing. I would use a phone for abstract architectural black and white, where it's all about vague expressive shape and lines for example. Those types of image can hide the technical flaws of the format like crunchy digital sharpening, over-clocked gain noise, colour banding, awkward HDR, and fauxkeh.
A pro camera is always better, except when you don't have it with you. On the other hand, the phone can be good enough for some purposes and it's always in your pocket.
I have a MFT system and comparing my Pixel 6 edited raws with my E-M5 III, I actually find the phone results quite good, and sometimes the phone is able to produce sharper results. It tends to be a little grainy but that's expected with a smaller sensor. Comparing against a 45mp full frame is pretty unfair, but seeing an iphone against MFT or APS-C where you're downsampling from 48mp to 20/24/26 would be interesting. The iphone colours always look bad to me though.
The APSC and MFT still outperform phones by a mile. Just compare the sensor size, the iPhone 15 Pro's main camera has a crop factor of 3.5, the Ultrawide has a crop factor of almost 6. Do not get fooled by the AI sharpening, there's more to image quality than sharp pictures.
For me the biggest difference is still real bokeh vs fake bokeh. The fake bokeh is getting better, but it still has a lot of errors on fine details around subjects. That said, I found it remarkable just how similar a lot of these shots are. It's comparing a big expensive professional camera to a CELL PHONE, and in some of the shots I would've struggled to tell which is which without a label. Obviously upon closer inspection you can tell the difference, but that they even have a passing similarity is amazing.
I see this in a different way. While iPhones etc. doing the computational thing internally, I get these possibilities in a way higher quality in Lightroom etc. Smartphone images are like a frozen pizza, it’s convenient and fast, but it doesn’t taste like a real pizza.
@@Benjamin_Jehne I understand where you’re coming from, but think of it this way: Traditional cameras are like making pizza from scratch at home. It’s time-consuming, requires more tools, and has a learning curve. While smartphones are like ordering from your favourite pizzeria - quick, efficient, and often just as satisfying for many occasions. It’s all about what suits the moment best.
@@madm4tty In that analogy, ordering Pizza from a Pizzeria would be like hiring a professional photographer to do it for you, the frozen pizza analogy still works for me for a phone.
@@dkcrogue Fair point. Let's tweak the analogy then. Traditional cameras are like brewing your coffee with a French press - it gives more control, often a richer taste, and is for those who value the process. Smartphone cameras are like using a pod coffee machine - quicker, convenient, and still delivers a good cup for most. It doesn't mean one is inherently better, just different methods for different moments.
@@madm4tty Yes, and if I want a quick, tasteless pizza or a random snapshot, I'll take the garbage tool. If I want to enjoy a good meal or create a good image, I'll go with the quality option. The phone is not a camera, it's a computer with some imaging capabilities.
I'm planning on taking my R6-II and 24-70 2.8 to Europe soon, even though I have capable phone (S23 ultra). This is an important family trip and I'll use my phone for a lot, and although the phone is easier and more convenient, my Canon takes superior pictures.
Chris, I really appreciate this review. I viewed your other reviews related to this subject, and became convinced that giving up my mirrorless Sony cameras was the right move. Losing telephoto capabilities was the biggest issue. My other issue is that I use DXO POST- processing of raw photos. DXO does not process the HEIC images from an iPhone. I keep nagging them to add it. But no luck so far. Thanks Again!
The delta between the iPhone and these expensive bodies and glass are getting so narrow, that I find it hard to justify the price of buying a mirrorless setup. I realize for certain situations, a camera will be the best choice. But those use cases are becoming fewer and fewer.
The biggest advantage of the phone is the ease of use. The biggest advantage of the camera is the ability to change the lenses and create drastically different look. And the price difference is not that big, because a pro camera or a good quality lens work fine for a decade or more. That's like 3 or 4 phones.
Ease of use is why I don't use a phone. It's just to fiddly to me. I had to invest in a Ricoh GR III just to get a pocket 28mm eq. snap camera. I like having confidence that the settings are right, and I can just turn it on and shoot, no focus tapping and locking, or swiping of screens - just good old buttons and dials to point and click with confidence. To be fair to phones though, the UX considerations on Ricoh cameras are phenomenal and not at all the norm. They're definetly the top of the game in that respect.
knowing the life span of the camera is at least 6-8 years (3 phones) I could justify going for it. in europe the price difference between an iphone 15 pro max 256GB and a very good android phone with the best snapdragon cpu, so still high end device, is €500 or $530. so if you account for 3 iphones in 6-8 years you have saved about €1,500 or $1,600 by not buying them. you can totally buy a good aps-c camera + lenses. this is how I started. if someone buy mid range phone instead, so this will feel like a downgrade from a use standpoint, you may even afford a Sony A7 C II + lenses
I think both are useful, if you can have the camera with you everywhere, sure, I'll prefer the mirrorless camera, but not all the time you have you camera with you everywhere you are, and the phone is with me all the time, so learning how to use the iPhone and avoid its limitations would be a preferred way. I would say not chasing one over another, but using both at the appropriate time. There is no point comparing the photo qualities or other features, there is no comparison. We can't break the rule of science
One of the reasons phone cameras are so popular is that it’s super easy to publish photos to social media and the internet. It’s about time proper cameras made it easy to do this too.
I do not think real cameras would be able to integrate the necessary software without a host of data protection and efficiency problems. It's easy enough as is, either way. Open app. Transfer. Upload. It's a literal minute of time.
I feel like the HDR stuff is also better for phones. That kind of seems taboo for proper cameras to do it in their body, as people would rather manually pick stuff to stack.
One option that I’m happy about is the ability to use apps like Nikon’s SnapBridge that lets you send photos directly to your phone - at least on newer cameras. It works pretty well, I think 👍🏼
I think it's a fair comparison, with one exception: you mentioned several times that the Z8 is much pricier than the iPhone. But you could draw exactly the same comparison with basically every other full frame mirrorless camera on the market, a lot of which are actually cheaper than the 15 Pro Max. You pay a premium for a Z8 vs let's say a Z7 or even a Z5, but the advantages you have over those models were not at all touched on the video.
Ideally rather than a Full Frame comparison, how about a Ricoh GR or Fuji X100 comparison.. It feels like this is the real place a mobile phone can compete. Any chance of a video on this? Im sure street shooters would appreciate it and it would be fantastic to see how the iphone fairs in different lighting conditions with these two mega popular cameras
Chris, why are we tapdancing around the two main issues? 1) Why in the hell are camera companies so unable or unwilling to include, in-camera, the same processing software and options found on most smartphones today? 2) How is it that an Iphone with a sensor the size of my pinky nail rivals the output of a full frame camera for a fourth of the cost? You want to increase the mirrorless camera market share...make it seamless to shoot and process your photos in-camera and then seamlessly upload them to the cloud. How about a camera that has SIMM card capability in order to be online all the time? Or how about a seamless hotspot function that can be set automatically to connect to your phone's 5G to upload to the cloud, without requiring you to learn code or follow a 10 setup procedure? And how about getting in-camera photo stacking functions to control depth of field, provide for HDR images, or for noise reduction in both raw and jpeg/heic? Sony offered this function (JPEG only) in their APS-C, but not in their full-frame offering (wtf?). I could go on and on. If you're going to charge $6K for a camera, then it should easily outperform a mere phone that costs a fourth or fifth of its value in every possible way, but for portability. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THIS. You can't tell me the Apple has some miracle software and magical hardware that camera companies cannot match. It is embarrassing to see how little mirrorless tech has advanced in comparison to cell phone technology. While camera companies have been engaged in this Autofocus/ISO pissing contest, cell phone companies have been creating camera functionality the people actually want. For fuhks sake, sony is still using the same crappy LCD's screens that date back to the A6000. I'm just about to sell my thousands of dollars worth of camera gear before it becomes worthless in one or two more Iphone generations.
Thanks for your excellent review. Basically the iphone does in camera photoshop - which means less creative choice. The main advantage of the iphone is convenience, i.e. it's usually in your pocket and no processing or picture style choices are required. It's certainly possible to take great pictures and vidoes with the iPhone.
I have an a6700. If you're applying some of the same image processing techniques as the iPhone, such as high quality denoising, and motion compensating deblurring, the a6700 beats the iPhone quite easily. If you have a mostly static scene and do a burst shot on the a6700, you can also use the multi-shot compositing technique to further boost quality. The main problem for me is the cost of buying the additional software to do all of this post processing.
but then you need to add some lenses which are not free. used a6100 would allow some budget for lenses (like the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, very well respected general purpose aps-c lens)
Ok… comparing a $1300 phone to a $5,000 pro camera. That’s like a Honda civic vs a McLaren P1. Two different worlds. Compare the iPhone to a modern $1500 camera and then this would all make sense.
I don't think anyone expected the iPhone to compete head-on with the Z8. The fact that it's even a serious discussion for professionals is a huge credit to the iPhone. Also, that 120mm focal length on the iPhone is pretty exciting. Still waiting for a phone that can capture wildlife with an 800mm focal length while fitting in my pocket!
Would be great if you incorporate Portrait Photography into your comparisons. It's quite limiting to only show and compare mostly landscape photography with it.
100% This is one thing I am missing thus far: maybe it's not the sensor and the processor that matter, but the lens. It's hard to believe a little pea lens could have the detail and lack of distortion that portrait lenses have.
I greatly enjoyed the video! I think that for a professional photographer, no, a camera phone cannot replace professional photography equipment. It’s not even close. However, for the average person Who just wants to take snapshots of their kids and family trips, your camera phone is probably the best option. As mentioned in the video, the photographs will come out much more polished than they would from a mirror less or DSLR camera. Most people do not want to spend hours editing photos at the computer. In addition, most people always keep the phone with them whereas bulky equipment will likely be left at home. And the quality will be far good enough for social media and smaller prints, 4 x 6, 5 x 7, 8 x 10. In my personal opinion there is really no reason to purchase a mid range camera anymore. Your camera phone should cover all of those situation‘s.
you know, watching an inconsequential fun little clickbaity video about overpriced cameras is exactly the stuff (I wanted to write content, but screw that word. hate that word) I needed after days of doomscrolling.
I brought my iPhone 15pro, Ricoh GR3, and Canon 5Dii recently to a trip to Japan. I took a ton of photos with my iPhone & GR3, but hardly used my DSLR. It was nice having photos from my iPhone, but I’m sure glad I shot with my GR3. Real cameras still kick the crap out of smart phones.
Interesting comparison, would interesting to repeat with some of the compact cameras out there like Sony cyber shot RX100VII and Canon Powershot G5 X mk II - close’ish in terms of portability, fewer megapixels but from a bigger sensor and a proper lens, have the high end phones killed this market or do the still have a raison d’étre?
I have Sony RX100-7, and the image from this camera is way better than any phone camera because the sensor in the RX100 is 4X the area of the sensor in the phone; no matter how they tweak the photo with software, the bigger sensor will always be better. Eeven on compact cameras that is 5 years old, it will beat out the current phone cams.
The 1" compact has better physical usability which translates to shots you would other wise maybe miss. You can save custom modes for reliable speed shooting, you have a solid range of optical zoom, you can use the flip screen for low angle shots or selfies while using the best lens on the system, you can decentralise your photography from your phone so you don't rely on a phone battery to do everything - allowing you better power management options on long trips.
Any high end smartphone advantage: good enough quality, good colors, built in hdr, quick, easy, limited editing needed, no need to transfer and edit after, major time saver, send or post immediately. Amd you always have ot with you. High end cam advantage: more control over shooting speed/aperture and settings, faster shutters, faster to change settings real time, natural bokeh, higher quality RAW, lenses to make it easier to shoot specific things (sports, animals, astrophotography, flash sync, full photoshoots, etc) For 90% of people, a smartphone is truly more than enough nowadays.
Of course, the one thing that you missed out is that old phrase "The best camera is the one you have with you!" I'm always going to have my phone with me, but I'll only have my "proper camera" and a huge lens with me if I've gone out specifically to take photos. Even with my ageing iPhone XS Max and its 12Mp sensors, the photos taken with it are often better straight out of camera than photos from my Fuji X series before processing in LightRoom, because of the AI stacking. So, unless I am going to print at huge sizes, then the iPhone photos are perfectly good for capturing memories, social media, viewing on my laptop, TV, etc. The other thing is for people photography. Most people are far less likely to be intimidated with a phone than with a big camera, because they're so used to seeing people taking photos and selfies anywhere and everywhere with their phones. That also makes a phone an excellent camera for street photography, where you simply blend into the background, unnoticed. Will I upgrade to an iPhone 15 Pro? The jury's out on that one. We'll see.
Surprising omission of THREE THINGS: 1) the pinhead size of 45 tiny pixels on a tiny phone sensor does not achieve what 45 MP’s do on a much much larger camera sensor; 2) regarding #1 above, try blowing up phone photos into large prints (yeah yeah, who prints anymore, I know) and see the BIG difference in image quality 3) No mention of how “zoomed” focal lengths on phones are not truly optical, but do pixels-stretching (thus detail diminishing) to achieve the results.
to me, i will still go with Pro Camera. Even though DSLR is heavy but it will still comes the best result. 2ndly, i don't have to worry about out of storage as i have extra SD card. and battery life no worry as well as I just need to buy extra battery. Even though Iphone is lighter and easy to carry around but it is still a phone with limitation on the storage and battery life.
I find it bit misleading when these phone manufacturers call their quad-bayer cameras 48MPs, given that the output isn't going to be the same level of detail as a traditional 48MP sensor. As we can see in the video here, the detail look can look good in good lighting, but starts to deteriorate quite quickly in low light. These quad-bayer sensors muddy the terminology and oversell their actual capabilities.
@@andrewdrone Yeah, it's "technically" 48MP, but the sub-pixels are arranged in a way that more closely resembles a 12MP sensor. The quad-bayer demosaicing software has to do more heavy lifting than a normal camera to try to resolve detail because the pixel arrangement is optimized for light gathering rather than fine detail resolving.
I know it is a way better video title, but you could also just take a Fujifilm X-S10 with the 18-55 kit lens (or a comparable Sony APSC) for the same price of the iPhone 15 Pro and it would still annihilate the iPhone cameras.
One issue is many ILC and phone comparisons often involves people using heavily scaled down images, thus all you can compare is the tonality of an image but you can't really compare detail levels, artifacting, or any other issues that heavily impacts the usability of an image.
There is a dude who made comparison videos between multiple iphone generations and i think a lumix gf2. I think up to ip 11 or 13. The old Lumix was better every time. Also these videos most of the time use processed raws, what 99.9% of the iphone users will never see. It would be more informative to see "soop" pics from the iphone. I'm not sure even people interested in photography would want to play with phone pictures while the first reason anyone uses a phone to take pictures is convenience.
To me the biggest issue is taking the pictures in perfect lighting conditions where any camera does well. As a dad, my conditions for family photography are usually less than ideal indoors in low light. This is where the phone computational photography falls apart as even slightest movement of the subject prevents the phones ability to compose an HDR photo and the subject becomes extremely grainy and blurry. An ILC only takes one exposure with a shorter shutter speed but the ISO performance kills phones in those situations.
Still hate the ergonomics of shooting with a phone, and the ways the phones consistently fight the user for control of how the camera is used.. Always dropping the damned things.
I just don’t want to have to carry around my camera bag anymore honestly. As someone who did it professionally in the past, a dedicated camera is just so much more effort, time, and money. Wish phones were just a hair closer. But think my days of printing 6 foot photos are over anyways.
I take my camera when I want do take live music or event photography. The phone is for fun walking around. I remember going into Boston for a day trip and deciding against actually taking my SLR out of the carry bag.
For me at this stage as an amateur, the real benefit is with subject separation or telephoto. For the rest, also I try, the phone takes most of the time a better picture. I am moving from Fuji to Full frame with primes (and telephoto later) for this reason.
In the UK 🇬🇧 you can now do prescription based photography, right? The reasoning behind that decision is the reason for a real camera! It is about focus, about calming you down and mono-concentration on one tool, and not the Swiss Army knife of competing notifications, which a phone is usually.
For the price of the iPhone 15 pro max I could buy a pretty nice apsc camera and take the photos I want to take rather than the photos apple thinks I want to take.
You actually said it. Cost for quality is disproportional, as my eyes can't perceive any huge or even minimal differences to the picture quality at all. Pound for pound, Dollar for Dollar , the iPhone 15 Pro Max (that I have) is the winner. PLUS, I can order a pizza when I'm done. Try doing that with a Nikon.
I always tell people that if they just want to point and shoot to take snapshots from vacation, they are better off with a tool meant to do that. That’s a cell phone. The full frame pro camera, like the z8, is a vastly more powerful imaging tool that will run rings around the cell phone. But only if you’re willing to take the time to learn how to use it. If you’re going to put it on auto mode and just point and shoot, your results might actually look worse than a cell phone because it is not a tool meant for that purpose.
I am so incredibly happy that you guys didn't go the trendy route of lying and saying the iPhone 15 Pro is as good as pro body cameras and that you don't need to buy expensive high end equipment blah blah blah Of course you don't need expensive equipment to make an Instagram post but omg I'm so tired of hearing popular influencers and creators say all you need is an iPhone.... maybe if all you do is play on social media then yeah all you need is an iPhone! Okay rant over, I'm just exhausted listening to people trying to pass a phone off as a professional piece of equipment... And I have and love my iPhone 14 Pro Max but I love my Alpha 1 more when it comes to pictures or video! But in all honesty the people who think they are going to start a career with an iPhone generally lack the understanding of cameras in the first place and would likely be better off just buying a phone in the first place! The whiskey is strong tonight... great video as always!
Great piece as always on your thoughts about the iPhone 15 Pro Max as a camera for photography vs a great pro grade camera. Would love for Jordan to do the same for use in pro video, perhaps for a video project where the iPhone is his only option that he must use to its ultimate ability, comparing and contrasting it to his experience doing same with pro video equipment.
Im tired of lugging around my bulking Nikon D300 camera when I travel. Also it makes me stick out like a sore thumb in the middle of a busy plaza in Europe. But the main advantage to this bulky camera is that when I get home I just take out the memory card, put it into my computer and , DONE, picture on computer. Now, that same journey from getting the picture from my iphone to the computer is a much more lengthy process. I have to upload my travels to shutterfly, then download all the shutterfly pictures onto my computer. But for some reason the pictures from shutterfly take SO much more memory. 1000 pictures from my Nikon memory card and it takes up about 3.5 GB. Same amount of pictures taken from shutterfly to my computer is about a whopping 25GB…that’s hard my computers memory. When I took a picture with my iphone 10 and send it to my computer. I looked at the properties and it took up 2.25 MB. Then I downloaded a picture from my phone to shutterfly and then downloaded that same picture from shutterfly to my computer and the same pictures property was 7.62 MB. Why is the same picture almost triple the size, just by going through shutterfly? The quality doesn’t seem to be any better.
I would want to say that you can buy a lens for the iPhone I came across a SandMarc telephoto lens. I don't think iPhone your outta luck yet. I agree with the blur back and other things you said. I think you check them out get that lens and compare it with an aftermarket lens like how that camera you have, has an aftermarket lens. that was untrue you said. You should know iPhone has a great aftermarket lens that makes the picture and video look better than stock. what I am noticing is that you but the camera for details that others won't be able to appreciate because it is not that noticeable you have to explain it for them to see it. At that point, you have to explain also the flexibility that a camera has over an iPhone which is true too like you said also. The iPhone is a weapon to eliminate the purpose like a flashlight of course it can be advantageous like a real flash but it gets the job done for most occasions then having a flash or trying to explain the calculator is pretty much for a lot of reasons but it gets a job for a lot of situation that people need it for. everything will be in the background for me important events but really you can have a great business shooting iPhone and get the job done for the majority of work people want a great video they don't care about the little detail background details you have to explain why it's better than iPhone is like a big deal I virtually got the same perfect shot of the main focus perfect. we are comparing a $1,100 smartphone that can do everything in there vs a $5,000 camera that does one thing better but ends up downloading pictures up to your smartphone to edit them on there or on a computer lol. it's more of a process and time with the camera than an iPhone. Cameras lenses go from $500 to 1,200 for the good to better in between and for iPhone, you won't spend $200 for an aftermarket lens to have a better shot and have the same comparison with a better result. Being portable is very important and the iPhone wins there is faster to get to a place than cameras with big chunky nerdy backpacks. Social acceptance iPhones or more socially accepted in restaurants and public buildings than cameras. which means you have more access to take pictures in public spaces than a huge camera looking like wanna-be influencers. iPhone is the better option; it really has eliminated the need for cameras for the regular person or even the professional person. how much are you going to pay to explain the difference? imagine someone said do want an iPhone camera that can do everything you need and more for almost the same shot instead of buying a laptop. tell me what would you buy after that. I never said the flashlight or calculator was fully eliminated, I said it was really used only for their main purpose like for a blackout or specific equations that the iPhone doesn't carry but besides that, it can help you through 80% of life events, and the iPhone camera does the same to Nikon and canon eliminate them for a lot purpose they were once used to now reduce to a small niche of people who really look for the little little detail that regular people wouldnt have seen it if you didn't explain to him
I just shot my new A7cii with 28-60 kit lens vs my iPhone 13 Pro indoors and outdoors and honestly I did not see any difference when both were in full Auto which is what I leave my camera on to make it easier for my kids to grab the camera and shoot. However when I capped ISO indoors to 1600, and added a flash the camera became better. We only look at pics on a 27 inch 1440 screen or send on whatsapp so the camera and iphone images feel the same so far.
Great comparison - but I would love to have seen an inclusion of hand held night time low light exposures too. Night mode on the phone will allow in very dark environments a 10 second hand held exposure, or more commonly 3 second or 1 second, and it aligns it automatically in software as best as it can. On a traditional camera you have way larger sensor, far superior light gathering ability and better long exposure options, but to do it hand held you'll have to use high iso or a tripod - and the way they both react to movement in the scene, or movement of the camera, is different.
Obviously you can't handhold a full frame camera for a 10 second exposure, but with IBIS and steady hands it's not hard to get a sharp 1/2s shot. Given the massively larger sensor and bigger apertures available on a dedicated camera, I'm confident such a comparison wouldn't result in "iPhone destroys $4K camera".
Agreed - I have an X-T4 with various lenses including the 56 ƒ/1.2 - wouldn’t expect the phone to destroy the camera, just that it would be an interesting comparison, in addition to those they already did. @@dragonnyxx
I find the night modes on cameras (Pixel 6 Pro, Iphone 14, so not the very latest) wonderful for memories, but would never use them for a shot i really wanted to get. So i guess i am saying better than a camera in most situations except the important ones for my money. A comparison would be fun though, good idea.
OM-1 has some similar functions for long exposure hand held photography, so it's totally possible to do the same as smartphones do with computational long exposures. It's a shame that not more camera manufacturers do this.
I would be interested in a similar video but putting the iPhone against the Panasonic G9 II, smaller sensor but computational photography on both, both have great video and stabilization...think about it ;)
4:00 natural look have more contrast or micro contrast between subject and the bokeh, rather than flat background like a badly photoshopped image. Natural out of focus is achieved by having more depth information even at unnecessary out of focus section
I wish smartphone manufacturers would focus on 1 main camera 48MP 1"-type with a great lens 1-3x variable zoom. That could really be a real compact camera.
I love using my Lumix G9 and lenses more than my Pixel 6 Pro but after viewing your conversation with Isaac from Google, I ordered the Pixel Pro 8. I sold my GX85 and a 20mm M43 lens, which I never used, to help pay for the Pro 8. So, having both a "real camera" and a top phone w/camera is the way to go for me👍
It will be a shame that the Iphone could not stabilizate a sensor so tiny that the ones that are on the Iphone promax. Bigger sensor need bigger mechanism to do so
New phones are remarkably good. I just wish there was a low end camera to compliment your phone. Something like an RX10 that cedes the first 120mm or so to the phone and uses that sacrifice to re-engineer the lens for maximum benefit, be it longer reach, smaller size, sharper glass, wider aperture, or a little of each.
G9ii looks great. I was just in a wildlife situation where I shot stills with the Z6ii but any video was noticeably bumpy, so I relied on iPhone 13Pro for vids. Only problem is audio quality affected when zoomed in and the footage looks really over-sharp.
Impressed with what the iPhone can do…is it better for you; well that depends on your use/needs (and perhaps budget). I’ve an older version of have often managed to get a photo or video I would never had had the chance to get with a camera…usually because I was hiking or scrambling and carrying a camera was largely not possible or maybe we were at a dinner and wanted a quick video of our food. iPhone all the way! For convenience hard to beat, especially for social media…for the best photography or video…no, a good camera (pretty much anything made in last few years) and lens. Soon maybe just AI? Nice video guys…and some lovely locations.
After all, it's impressive that we're comparing a $8000 setup (or more) JUST for photos/videos vs a $1200 phone, that's not only for making photos, it's actually a computer inside your pocket. It's a web browser, a current gen console (soon), a music player, everything. Smartphones have come a looong way. And yeah, for people making content for social media, this is more than enough. You can even use it as a webcam at home if you're streaming or making RU-vid videos. BUT if I had the money, I would pick the Pro Cam ofc :D, duuh.
Good video for you, you can make some money... But how can a photographer compare iPhone and Professional Camera? You can compare photos by printing photos in 2m x 3m.
Oh for the convenience of a phone. Its always there. They're getting so good now. Ive taken some great shots with a phone over the years. I do enjoy using a camera with a viewfinder and the options you have but sometimes the pictures i take with my phone look better.. The sky is always a tricky one. Blown out with the camera but looks so much better on the phone. They should marry the two technologies. Or have they already..?
