Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Sunday, March 13. 2022

Cameras vs iPhone

Smartphones vs Cameras: Where things stand in 2022 and what’s to come


Many people, including me, have never taken a course about all the things that an iPhone is capable of as an  iCamera.


I have a nice Canon, but I have only used it for Christmas card photos. I have not taken it anywhere for years because it is clunky and dorky. 


Other than professionals with specialized needs, or the most serious hobbyists, does any ordinary person need a camera anymore? 

Posted by The News Junkie in The Culture, "Culture," Pop Culture and Recreation at 15:17 | Comments (24) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I've taken pictures of cool things with my phone but when the phone died, the pictures went with it. So now I don't bother.
#1 yep on 2022-03-13 15:38 (Reply)
Da cloud! Da cloud!
#1.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-13 16:52 (Reply)
This is first Zackriel post that made me smile. Drinks?
#1.1.1 Bart (Link) on 2022-03-14 09:12 (Reply)
Reluctantly, I have to say no. Modern phones can take pictures that will satisfy any ordinary family or travel needs beautifully. Exposure and focus are 99.9% just what you'd hope for.

I used to own a good film SLR and I was pretty good at using it. I now own a good DSLR and am less good at using it because it has too many choices, and life is short.

And there is one more bag to haul everywhere. The only time my big camera gets out is if I'm on a purely photo mission.

But my phone is always in my pocket and 8+ out of 10 times it's capable of exactly the image I wanted. The computer image processing software is remarkable.
#2 RJ on 2022-03-13 15:59 (Reply)
I've been a film photog since high school — all formats, have a wet darkroom. But I switched to digital more than 10 years ago because electronic procressing (via Mac Preview and Photoshop) allowed me to make images with more control than was possible with film.

But truth is, I love the oldtime gear, and have a slew of Nikon legacy glass that i run with a Df, big and clunky as it is.

As you say truly, the fact is people want to take pix of their kids and familiy and travels, and the cam in their phone is more than sufficient. But if you care about images of these people, fer heaven's sake get 'em off that phone because you'll lose them when the phone dies as it will.
#2.1 PubliusII on 2022-03-13 20:56 (Reply)
My Samsung Galaxy S20's camera is sufficiently good to get, when the conditions are right and I've got the phone braced properly so it doesn't move for about 15 seconds or so, sections of the Milky Way. It's truly amazing how far we've come in a relatively short time.
#2.2 JLawson on 2022-03-14 00:13 (Reply)
I still have an older digital snapshot style camera that I still use from time to time. I find the form factor of cell phones awkward to handle for anything but spur of the moment snaps though the instant upload to social media sometimes overrides it. Personal preference.
#3 Christopher B on 2022-03-13 15:59 (Reply)
iPhone is lousy for action photography.

For example, a picture of a person running a 5K will come out badly.

If the subject is illuminated by absolutely brilliant daylight, you might have a chance. Otherwise, the aperture is only so big and there is only so much light, so exposure time will be long relative to the motion of the subject.

Those expensive lenses are the shape they are due to physics. If the lenses could just be smaller for more money, some enthusiast would pay it.
#4 action not so much on 2022-03-13 16:09 (Reply)
The smart?phone is OK for impromptu snaps, but for high quality outdoor shots or super-detailed still life, our Canon digital SLR is the bomb. Oh, and the timer function lets us do some fun Xmas cards every year.
#5 Mike Anderson (Link) on 2022-03-13 16:47 (Reply)
Mike Anderson: the timer function

Most modern cameras and smart phones will interface with Bluetooth for remote control; so no timer, and you can stop for a moment to get the kid back in the frame, and snap some more.
#5.1 Zachriel on 2022-03-13 16:57 (Reply)
I'm one of the few prople left that are cell phone-less. I continue to use a cheap Kodak digital I've has for 30 years or so. Use it a few times a year, ususally to document a damaged shipment of something worth putting in a claim for.
#6 BillH on 2022-03-13 17:10 (Reply)
Four cameras from a Panasonic TS25 pocket to a Nikon DSLR with a not that smart Kyocera phone; so I guess I vote for cameras.
#7 slm on 2022-03-13 17:15 (Reply)
The number of Ukrainians killed in fighting is in the thousands. This is a serious crisis that Biden's administration is trying to deal with. The number of migrants to our Southern border that have been killed in the past 12 months is in the tens of thousands. Biden could care less.
#8 JustMe on 2022-03-13 17:36 (Reply)
For the average user a phone camera is more than adequate. It's the handy device that's in everyone's pocket- except for BillH.

I just took a workshop on iPhone photography from a professional photographer who said that the iPhone camera quality is high enough that professional photographers use it, especially the iPhone Pro which has 3 lenses. There are all kinds of light/speed/aperture/zoom settings. She said that the only thing it can't do is sports photography, because that needs a long lens attachment.
#9 LP on 2022-03-13 18:19 (Reply)
After a recent vacation where I took all my photos with an iPhone 11, I find my self satisfied with the quality of the photos. But I found I hate the ergonomics of taking photographs with one. The camera will go on the next vacation and anywhere else I want to take photos. The phone camera will revert to 'I need a quick picture of this for future information'.
#10 John Fisher on 2022-03-13 21:02 (Reply)
This is something I've always wondered about. Why the heck isn't the lens in the middle of the back-of-the-phone? Wouldn't that make it possible to grip it comfortably, increase stability and dexterity without worrying about covering the lens with your finger? Wouldn't it let your thumbs and fingers free to address camera controls that could be developed for the touch screen to adjust the settings in real time, instead of hitting a button and then editing the photo later? Seems like the advances are stuck behind the paradigm of the old mechanical cameras.
#10.1 Aggie on 2022-03-14 10:05 (Reply)
I use my DSLR all the time. 300mm lens arent available on most phones.
#11 Joe B. on 2022-03-14 00:24 (Reply)
Digital photos have weird high-contrast edges.

The regular spacing of pixels produces moire patterns if you photograph another regular pattern, like house sidings or chain-link fences. This would be wildly unacceptable, so it's fixed.

The fix is to blur the light with an "anti-aliasing filter" so it always spreads over more than one pixel before being recorded.

That unfortunatly also blurs the picture, so some processing is done to resture the sharpness of what's recognized as a formerly sharp edge, and it's all sharp again.

Except those edges come out detectably weird, because information is mostly lost and then restored with best-guess processing.

Film cameras dont' have that problem because the film grains are not arranged regularly and produce no moire patterns.
#12 rhhardin on 2022-03-14 06:04 (Reply)
Right you are, sir. Another advantage of film (I'm talking B/W here, I'm really retro) is that it has much greater dynamic range than any digital sensor. You've all seen it: The background looks good, but the faces are dark. Or the faces are good but the sky is blown out, with weird color artifacts in the clouds. If you know what you are doing this need never be a problem with film.

Of course, what you get from a phone is good enough for 99% of people 99% of the time, and you get it right away. And if I need a picture for a Craigslist posting, I use my old DSLR, not my 4x5 view camera.
#12.1 Hairless Joe on 2022-03-14 10:03 (Reply)
Poll question: Other than professionals with specialized needs, or the most serious hobbyists, does any ordinary person need a camera anymore?

The answers above are overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, "No".
#13 steve walsh on 2022-03-14 06:34 (Reply)
Sweet. But with no kid and no desire for Yet Another Friggin' Gadget to Misplace, I think I'll pass.

Plus, my sweet, sweet telephoto lens doesn't attach to my smartphone.
#13.1 Mike Anderson (Link) on 2022-03-14 08:20 (Reply)
I need my camera because I do not own a cell phone and I am never going to get one.
#14 Bruce B (Link) on 2022-03-14 08:34 (Reply)
Bokeh
#15 Zachriel on 2022-03-14 08:34 (Reply)
1. If you're OK with Google and the gubmint seeing everything you photograph, I guess a cell phone would be enough.

2. Not to moot your question, but... "Low budget art film" used to mean grainy B&W stock. Now it means something photographed with a phone and edited on a PC...this is just one of several overlapping lists, i picked one of the older pages that came up:

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/03/movies-shot-on-iphones-unsane-tangerine-shorts-1201941565/amp/
#16 Ben David on 2022-03-14 16:28 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.