Been shopping for a new portable telephone and comparing cameras and ..well have a look


from here:
http://www.gsmarena.com/piccmp.php3?...Camera3=300302

I understand that there is some special sharpening wizardry going on, but still, that is seriously incredible, how can a ~3mm lens come even close and arguably surpass a fully fledged DSLR??

poor comparison with the 5D3. so many factors involved + you're not really comparing apples with apples

How is it poor a comparison? there's a scene take a picture of it, sounds fair to me. My point is that I would have expected that a DSLR to have whipped a phone camera in any condition, and you can't say that the DSLR was 'hindered' as such by a scene with good lighting and no moving parts.
I understand that if you were to own a multi thousand dollar camera this would make your blood curdle, but I think this is good news, because if you can pull that much information out of a tiny lens with 2 orders of magnitude less resolving and light gathering power, simply by throwing a big processor and fancy software at it, then there is still a lot of improvement to pull out of a big camera.

This would be cherrypicking a result more than anything. Playing to the strength of the phone camera lens, and the weakness of the 50mm f1.4 lens attached to the SLR.

Put a proper "macro" lens on the SLR, or do a fair comparison with a portrait distance pic using the given lens and the SLR will blow any phone cam out of the water.

PS, the following was done with an older 400d (Rebel xti) 7 years ago..

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/....php?p=8063101

Quote:

Originally Posted by horst

How is it poor a comparison? there's a scene take a picture of it, sounds fair to me. My point is that I would have expected that a DSLR to have whipped a phone camera in any condition, and you can't say that the DSLR was 'hindered' as such by a scene with good lighting and no moving parts.

It's not fair - you're using a lens for a purpose it wasn't built for, on a body with a sensor that can out-resolve the lens (ie the lens can't handle the resolution & detail that the sensor can capture). The 50mm 1.4 is NOT a macro and certainly not all that sharp around the edges. What aperture did you shoot at? ISO? etc etc. Makes a HUGE difference to output.

I was a little confused by your talk about macros, until I realised that neither of you actually clicked through to the link, this is not a macro shot, it's a crop of this scene,it must be a good metre or two back.


And don't forget the context, my next phone is not going to be a Canon 5d, I was just remarking how incredible picture quality is of these newest technology devices.

You're still saying how good are phone cameras & using poor dslr shots to compare. Try using top notch dslr gear & the difference is still as big as the grand canyon. In the right conditions even a piece of shit camera can take a good photo.


But yes cameras in phones are getting pretty good for how tiny they are. They still suck arse in a lot of conditions though. For Helen Happysnaps they are all you need now.

you would also need to disclose the sensors that are used in the phones and the cameras.

sensors have made huge gains, since the term "DSLR" got coined, so that's something to take note of too.


( then, you also have to factor whether you're using a calibrated IPS LED monitor or not, etc. etc. )

just got a Sony k750 for photography. doesn't hold up anywhere near a Canon 7D