Sony believes phone cameras will eclipse DSLRs within a few years

[ChrisH1]

The phone you have with you will always take a better picture than the DSLR you left behind because it's too heavy or inconvenient.

 

[rmcrys]

No, smartphone photos aren't better than DSLRs.

I would like to see your example.

If I had the time right now, I would fetch a nice night non edited jpg photo straight from my dSLR (already sold) vs. an S20 Ultra I made last year. The at least 20 photos I did (almost 45 minutes making them) was with a micro 4/3 camera with optical stabilization, f2.0 lens, handheld; on the other side a Samsung S20 ultra, handheld, night mode.

The dSLR needed really high ISO and fast shutter to get decent light without blurry pictures; the S20 Ultra in night mode took (automatically) pictures for 5 seconds (handheld). Both outputs automatic, jpg. Showed my wife and friends and all found the S20 ultra photos much much better than the ones from the dSLR.

The same test was done with a full frame. This time against S22 Ultra. Photos at night (handheld, no PC editing, jpg) come out better from the S22 Ultra.

When talking about video, bokeh or a dSLR full frame with good expensive lenses, there is no competition. The dSLR wins hands down.

If you wish to be pedantic, your definition is wrong; [...]

You're confusing readout rates with frame rates. And while smaller sensors do have higher readout rates if one assumes constant power, that doesn't aid image quality. [ ...] . If small sensors and optics were superior, we'd have launched an iPhone into orbit, rather than the James Webb Space 25 square meter telescope.

You're again (to try to win the point) going sideways:

1) "my" Bokeh definition is taken from Nikon, famous camera maker. Search for the website.

2) I am talking high-end smartphone (eg. $1400) vs. similar priced dSLR which only do that task (photo/ video). No-one here is talking Smartphones vs. $4000 dSLR or $400.000.000 telescope. But ok, keep going...

 

[Endymio]

1) "my" Bokeh definition is taken from Nikon, famous camera maker.

So? It's still wrong. Here's another quote from Nikon:

"(bokeh) is easy using a fast fixed-focal-length (prime) lens with a low f-number. Careful focus on the desired subject blurs the foreground and background to make your chosen subject stand out"

2) I am talking high-end smartphone (eg. $1400) vs. similar priced dSLR which only do that task (photo/ video). No-one here is talking Smartphones vs. $4000 dSLR

Odd-- your first post stated specifically that you were talking about DSLRs costing "more than 1500€." But ignoring your goalpost moving, no smartphone sensor 30 mm^2 in size will ever match the low-light performance of even a 370mm^2 APS-C, much less that of a full-frame sensor. You just can't get around those pesky laws of physics. Nor will a plastic lens a few mm thick match the performance of a good DSLR lens. Throwing in software post-processing is just a red herring -- you can do that just as easily with a DSLR as a smartphone.

 

[rmcrys]

So? It's still wrong. Here's another quote from Nikon:

"(bokeh) is easy using a fast fixed-focal-length (prime) lens with a low f-number. Careful focus on the desired subject blurs the foreground and background to make your chosen subject stand out"

Odd-- your first post stated specifically that you were talking about DSLRs costing "more than 1500€." But ignoring your goalpost moving, no smartphone sensor 30 mm^2 in size will ever match the low-light performance of even a 370mm^2 APS-C, much less that of a full-frame sensor. You just can't get around those pesky laws of physics. Nor will a plastic lens a few mm thick match the performance of a good DSLR lens. Throwing in software post-processing is just a red herring -- you can do that just as easily with a DSLR as a smartphone.

whatever you say... l

What is 100% true: when you have/want to take a picture on a specific moment, you´ll have a smartphone; but only when you planned, you´ll have a dSLR.

So to end this discussion: an excelent smartphone will always substitute a low end dSLR, even if not perfect on image, it will be there on all moments (compare an iPhone 13 Pro vs. any sub $1500 dSLR); a very good dSLR will always win vs. smartphones, but you have to have it there (plan the moment).

Sales demo what I said.

 

[captaincranky]

Photos out of a smartphone are better vs. JPG (non-RAW) photos out of a dSLR. Of course if people shoot RAW and spend hours fixing the dSLR photos with professional software, you get better photos out of the dSLR.

You do realize that, "jpeg" quality, on a DSLR, is a variable paradigm, don't you?.When set on "high", jpeg files are almost as large as RAW files, and are virtually uncompressed.

There's a couple of reason to shoot jpeg with a DSLR. First and foremost, is the number of shots that can be taken in succession. The second is, if your editing software doesn't have the proper codec for importing the RAW files from your specific camera. These codecs change almost yearly

 

[captaincranky]

Bokeh and I quote "is defined as “the effect of a soft out-of-focus background that you get when shooting a subject"". So you want to name it to show up while saying the same I said.

Bokeh is also qualitatively judged. The number of diaphragm blades in the lens iris is a major factor. Focal length is another.

 

[captaincranky]

If you wish to be pedantic, your definition is wrong; there is both foreground and background bokeh, nor is it something you "get" whenever shooting a subject. A wildlife photographer, for instance, may (or may not) intentionally create bokeh in his foreground, while keeping the background razor-sharp.

The absolute determining factors on what will be in and out of focus are, where is the focal plane, what is the focal length, and what us the aperture setting.

The closer the focusing distance, the more the background will our of focus.
The longer the focal length, the shallower will be the DOF.
The wider the aperture, the shallower will be the DOF.

To go the opposite direction, very short lenses, (read extreme wide angle), can be placed at what us called the "hyper focal distance", stopped down, and just about everything from the front of the lens to infinity will be in focus.

 

[captaincranky]

I think what they always mean "phone cameras in 3 years will eclipse today's DSLR camera". And even that is never strictly true; it doesn't beat it terms of optics, just software trick to compensate for smaller sensors and less light going through a lens.

Not entirely true. I think I saw an ad for a new smartphone that was claiming an f 1.8 lens. (Don't remember the make or model).

Not trying to start trouble here. I don't even own a cell phone.

As far as I'm concerned they're only for a**holes and influencers. Oh, and for people that can't tell the difference between a "snapshot" and a photograph.

Somewhat comically, and embarrassingly, when walking through the Philly zoo, (Nikon and 70 -200 around my neck), I've been asked to take people's pictures with a cell phone. Then I have to ask them how to work it

 

[CowsGotMilk]

If I had the time right now, I would fetch a nice night non edited jpg photo straight from my dSLR (already sold) vs. an S20 Ultra I made last year. The at least 20 photos I did (almost 45 minutes making them) was with a micro 4/3 camera with optical stabilization, f2.0 lens, handheld; on the other side a Samsung S20 ultra, handheld, night mode.

You're going against a law of physics. Your phone may have AI enhancements, which outruns old DSLR in the night, but that's a victory.

 

[Superconductor]

Obviously some Millennial being cute ...

 

[Reinette Tineker]

What's to stop the same tech from making its way into DSLRs?

A passionate desire to sell millions of new smartphones only.

 

[waclark]

I think the only way a phone cam "eclipses" a DSLR would be in terms of more people carrying phones for cams than a separate DSLR. There's no way a phone is going to have the flexibility that a DSLR is going to have. At least not until you make a phone as big as a DSLR.

But, for most people, a good phone cam is more than enough. You can certainly take great pics with a phone, maybe not professional quality per se, but good enough to share with grandma.

 

[captaincranky]

The dSLR needed really high ISO and fast shutter to get decent light without blurry pictures; the S20 Ultra in night mode took (automatically) pictures for 5 seconds (handheld). Both outputs automatic, jpg. Showed my wife and friends and all found the S20 ultra photos much much better than the ones from the dSLR.

First off, the newer DSLRs (even APS-C sensors), work well at high ISOs. ISO 800, is pretty much, "the new ISO 200"

The new Samsungs are designed to be pretty much "imbecile proof" in low light. Bu the fact of the matter is, the "nifty 50" 50 mm f 1.8 DSLR lens.has the same aperture as the Samsung phone. So, if you want to di*k around with the standard "kit zoom lens", which are painfully slow, then yes, the phone wins in low light. (At least with respect to using it purely handheld).Of course anyone with any common sense or photgraphic experience, would use the back of a chair or something else to stabilize the camera..

But, for most people, a good phone cam is more than enough. You can certainly take great pics with a phone, maybe not professional quality per se, but good enough to share with grandma.

My point exactly. Cellphones excel at taking snapshots, but suck at taking photographs.

I posted this photo in another thread and for another reason. The technical specs are. A sh!t Nikon D-3100, with a **** kit lens, (18 to 70 mm F3.5 to 4.0), 1/10 sec @ISO 800. under a 90 watt recessed incandescent ceiling light. I cheated a bit, using the back of a chair to stabilize the camera. (That lens has no IS).

No major post processing was used, other than a touch of unsharp mask, to get the spherical aberration in his whiskers under control. Oh, and I jpeged the crap out of it, to make the upload size reasonable. The photo is up at full rez, so feel free to inspect it to your hearts content, at full screen.Also feel free to tell me if you think I need a phone to take decent pictures in low light. Inquiring minds want to know.

.

 

[rmcrys]

First off, the newer DSLRs (even APS-C sensors), work well at high ISOs. ISO 800, is pretty much, "the new ISO 200"

Link please?

And we're talking about dSLR with lenses, price around $1500 (comparable to an S22 Ultra, Xiaomi high end or iPhone 13 Pro). And why should I have to find chairs or other stuff?

But the best thing: my smartphone is always there on my pocket, great HDR (lots of dSLR take 3 shots and you have to manually unite them, sometimes adding ghosting. In RAW you may push things a bit but nothing comparable to real HDR). Then I with my S22 Ultra (and the future iPhone 14 Pro) can transfer files at >350 MBps to a PC, which most $1500 dSLR don't support (newer standards usually come on much more expensive devices).

So for me (and most people worldwide) end of the discussion: high-end smartphones already have enough quality and AI to automatically make great photos that substitute many cameras; and to add, on my S22 or on iPhones you can that great RAW files, conserving the added HDR info and *directly* edit them on Photoshop on the smartphone and even print them to a professional printer.

I think the only way a phone cam "eclipses" a DSLR would be in terms of more people carrying phones for cams than a separate DSLR. There's no way a phone is going to have the flexibility that a DSLR is going to have.

You mean other way around? With a smartphone you can edit, send, print and add "infinite" filters to what you shoot. With a Samsung you can even remove objects, edit faces/red eyes and small imperfections. Almost 99% those things are not doable on $1500 dSLRs.

Of course you can buy lots of lenses, do real bokeh and video in low light is infinitely better than on a smartphone.

But Samsung and Apple pay A LOT of money on I&D for new sensors and lenses, plus brutal algorithms in real time. At the end that will produce excellent results.

 

[captaincranky]

Link please?

Nikon D3500

D3500 24MP DSLR Camera with AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Lens and AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED Lens

www.adorama.com

Top ISO 25,600 The "big, heavy, body", weighs 13 oz. Kit cost w/ 2 lenses $750.00. With a 50 mm F 1.8 ($200.00 new) that ISO should be way more than enough to take candlelight pictures hand held. .

And why should have to find chairs or other stuff?

I guess that depends on how lazy you are, or how entitled you feel. For me, it's not too much trouble to stabilize the camera to get the shot I want. YRMV.

No comment on Baxter's "portrait"? I'm hurt.

BTW, the crappy old body I used for that shot is only 14,2 mp and top ISO of 3200. It's hard to justify saying no technology is being invested in real cameras, since the camera in the link is just the newer model of the one I have

 

[waclark]

Link please?

And we're talking about dSLR with lenses, price around $1500 (comparable to an S22 Ultra, Xiaomi high end or iPhone 13 Pro). And why should I have to find chairs or other stuff?

But the best thing: my smartphone is always there on my pocket, great HDR (lots of dSLR take 3 shots and you have to manually unite them, sometimes adding ghosting. In RAW you may push things a bit but nothing comparable to real HDR). Then I with my S22 Ultra (and the future iPhone 14 Pro) can transfer files at >350 MBps to a PC, which most $1500 dSLR don't support (newer standards usually come on much more expensive devices).

So for me (and most people worldwide) end of the discussion: high-end smartphones already have enough quality and AI to automatically make great photos that substitute many cameras; and to add, on my S22 or on iPhones you can that great RAW files, conserving the added HDR info and *directly* edit them on Photoshop on the smartphone and even print them to a professional printer.


You mean other way around? With a smartphone you can edit, send, print and add "infinite" filters to what you shoot. With a Samsung you can even remove objects, edit faces/red eyes and small imperfections. Almost 99% those things are not doable on $1500 dSLRs.

Of course you can buy lots of lenses, do real bokeh and video in low light is infinitely better than on a smartphone.

But Samsung and Apple pay A LOT of money on I&D for new sensors and lenses, plus brutal algorithms in real time. At the end that will produce excellent results.

I meant more flexibility in terms of lenses and exposure control. Phone cams do have some cool features, no question, but you are limited to the hardware built into the phone. A decent camera can change lenses, add different types of flash, trigger remote flash etc etc.

 

[waclark]

My point exactly. Cellphones excel at taking snapshots, but suck at taking photographs.

Also feel free to tell me if you think I need a phone to take decent pictures in low light. Inquiring minds want to know.

.

I don't think I suggested a phone would take better pics in low light. I have seen some really good phone photos, done by professionals, and they looked awesome. Phone picture quality has certainly gone up over the years and they will get better.

So, maybe the title of this article should have been "Sony believes that phone cameras will be on par with current DSLRs in a couple years". Because, that I believe. But in a couple of years DSLR tech will also be better.

 

[jonbar]

This idea of phones exceeding DSLRs is just marketing, to promote "how great" new Xperia is. But it won't happen in at least 10 years. DSLRs can host a large image sensor and great lenses, which phones cannot.

for sure, they will surpass Sony's crop DSLRs someday (e.g. last DX DSLR is Alpha 77 II, already 8 years old, Sony's mirror-less - not so much
PS: Let's not forget the best IQ comes from the best sensor - the 24-27mm equivalent (in photography known as Wide). All the rest are subpar, the longer - the worse. And even if a phone had the same Image Quality - it won't have the same ergonomics, which is a major factor.

 

[jonbar]

I don't think I suggested a phone would take better pics in low light. I have seen some really good phone photos, done by professionals, and they looked awesome. Phone picture quality has certainly gone up over the years and they will get better.

So, maybe the title of this article should have been "Sony believes that phone cameras will be on par with current DSLRs in a couple years". Because, that I believe. But in a couple of years DSLR tech will also be better.

Firstly, they mentioned DSLR's, of which Sony's latest was in 2016 and still a beast compared to phones. Secondly, for sure camera market will shrink, but Sony's new mirror less cameras will advance, too.

 

[jonbar]

Nikon D3500

D3500 24MP DSLR Camera with AF-P DX NIKKOR 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Lens and AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED Lens

www.adorama.com

Top ISO 25,600 The "big, heavy, body", weighs 13 oz. Kit cost w/ 2 lenses $750.00. With a 50 mm F 1.8 ($200.00 new) that ISO should be way more than enough to take candlelight pictures hand held. .

I guess that depends on how lazy you are, or how entitled you feel. For me, it's not too much trouble to stabilize the camera to get the shot I want. YRMV.

No comment on Baxter's "portrait"? I'm hurt.

BTW, the crappy old body I used for that shot is only 14,2 mp and top ISO of 3200. It's hard to justify saying no technology is being invested in real cameras, since the camera in the link is just the newer model of the one I have

Until recently, I have been using a D200
The Z50 is much, much, much better in almost every way and the sensor is 2014 tech.

 

[captaincranky]

Until recently, I have been using a D200
The Z50 is much, much, much better in almost every way and the sensor is 2014 tech.

Dude, no offense intended,. but the D-200 is a relic.It was released November 2005.! It has absolutely nothing to do with the pictures you'd get from a D-3400 (08-16 or D-3500.(08-18).

The irony here is, the 24 Mp sensor in those two cameras is (AFAIK), made by Sony. It's also the same sensor as in the "pro-sumer", D-7200.

Nikon screwed around with their numbers and went to two digits for APS-C (w/ in body A/F motors). 10 MP D-200 to 12 Mp for the D-90 I still have a D-90 body, (09-08)

 

[PhotogTommy]

Sony's CEO knows he is talking nonsense. It is marketing lies aimed at potential smartphone buyers that know nothing about the technology behind digital photography (Iie. optics, the physics of diffraction, sampling theory, signal processing, digital noise. etc.).

Smartphones are already as good as any average person needs, but they are not going to replace dedicated cameras for "serious" photography, no matter how much marketing BS gets spouted by unscrupulous money-grubbers that are in positions of influence.

Of course you could put a big sensor, a high quality lens and more buttons and dials in a smartphone, but then the phone would have to be much bigger and would start to look very much like a dedicated camera.