camera vs cell phone camera

With the new baby, I've been using my phone's camera a lot. I've also taken quite a few with my 4 year old Panasonic Lumix DMC-FH2. My phone is a Motorola Nexus 6, and the wife has a Samsung Galaxy S5.

My initial thought was that the camera would take better pictures, but now I'm wondering if that is true. The benefit to the Panasonic is that it has a zoom lens. I know both phone cameras were in the top end when they came out.

I was just reading a review where they were talking how smartphone cameras are reaching/passing some DSLRs for the average person.

just for giggles: Comparisons

A lot of the question of "good enough" is what you intend to use the pictures for.

Like if you are going to blow it up to a 22x36" print, frame it, and hang it- well, the best camera you can get is required.

But if you are just e-mailing the picture, or posting it someplace- odds are that some compression will be required so that you don't fill up the system with thousands of 6Mb pictures.

Or if you print a handful for friends/Family.

Basically, if you intend to pass them out like you would Polaroid instant pictures, a smart phone camera will do just fine. I've used the camera from a iPod Touch to make Christmas cards out of- they look great.

For general snapshots it probably doesn't matter much except in tough lighting conditions if all you're doing is looking at them on a screen. Where you will see a difference is if/when you print the photos at anything over 8x12 or so.

I disagree. The quality will be visible even with compression and at smaller sizes. It's the old garbage in, garbage out scenario. There's only so much you can do with a tiny chip and miniature lens.

There are going to be outliers, of course - crappy DSLRs, crappier point-and-shoots and cellphones that do much better than you might expect. In specific tests, I can see how you might get unusual results. But physics is physics.

I'd say it definitely depends on what you mean by comparable. In a Cell Phone's ideal conditions - not too contrasty, infinite depth of field, good light - then they'll be comparable.

If you find you take photos indoors, in ambient light, or want less depth of field, then a DSLR or high-end compact will blow the phone out of the water. If you know how to use it, of course.

But a normal ~$200-400 compact camera isn't really much better in any situation than today's cell phones in my experience.

Keith Tanner wrote: I disagree. The quality will be visible even with compression and at smaller sizes. It's the old garbage in, garbage out scenario. There's only so much you can do with a tiny chip and miniature lens. There are going to be outliers, of course - crappy DSLRs, crappier point-and-shoots and cellphones that do much better than you might expect. In specific tests, I can see how you might get unusual results. But physics is physics.

The question is- does it matter? I don't recall many polaroid shots being great quality, nor the instamatics- but people used those in really high numbers.

Heck, I remember seeing some polaroid shots that had streaks of chemicals in them- but people were ok with it.

That's more my point.

If you were going to frame them, yes it matters. If you are going to stitch 6 of them on an 3x8 sheet to send out as Christmas cards, it doesn't. If all they do is sit on your computer as nobody ever looks them, it matters even less.

The pics I've seen taken with my wife's iPhone rival my DSLR, and easily surpass my few-years-old Canon pocket cam. The best camera in the world is the one you have with you. I'm going to agree with the "good enough" folks. And that's from the perspective of a camera buff who's shot with Hasselblads and 4x5 view cameras.

A piece of information that would be useful is to determine how the OP is using the camera. Manual or Program? Autofocus or manual? If you're relatively experienced and know how to set up manually for the specific characteristics you want in the photo, the camera is way easier to use, but if you're just using it like an expensive point-and-shoot, the results will often be closer to what you get from the phone.

More than half of your baby pics are going to be taken indoors. Indoors = terrible lighting unless you're a master of positioning lamps.

I'd argue that the best baby pictures are either spontaneous, or very zoomed in with melted away backgrounds. Camera phones have slow autofocus or require you to remove your finger from the shutter control, so you lose spontaneity. Camera phones usually have huge depth of fields and, thus, can't blur backgrounds well. Your best photos will ALWAYS be posed with a camera phone. Let's be honest: you can't pose most of the crazy stuff your child will do and most milestones are fleeting (first steps?).

A refurbished Nikon D3000-3300 can be had for under $350 at Adorama always. Canon directly sells a refurbished Rebel SL1 for $390. Manufacturer refurbs come with warranties and return policies so there's no reason not to cheap out. Both of those prices include excellent 18-55 mm lenses which are AMAZING for up close composition and very good for anything but total darkness. Both do video just fine too. Remember when your parents used a camcorder and tripod to stalk you?

Do you need to become a crackshot photographer? Nope! Do you want a fast-acting photo-generating appliance? Yep! Do you need to spend more than $400? Nope! Should you? Your call, but cheap DSLR plus kit lens > camera phone = most point-and-shoot compact cameras in this price range.

Here's some mystery baby photos because I like white knighting for cheap DSLRs. Imagine if I were this passionate about politics!

alfadriver wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: I disagree. The quality will be visible even with compression and at smaller sizes. It's the old garbage in, garbage out scenario. There's only so much you can do with a tiny chip and miniature lens. There are going to be outliers, of course - crappy DSLRs, crappier point-and-shoots and cellphones that do much better than you might expect. In specific tests, I can see how you might get unusual results. But physics is physics.

The question is- does it matter? I don't recall many polaroid shots being great quality, nor the instamatics- but people used those in really high numbers. Heck, I remember seeing some polaroid shots that had streaks of chemicals in them- but people were ok with it. That's more my point. If you were going to frame them, yes it matters. If you are going to stitch 6 of them on an 3x8 sheet to send out as Christmas cards, it doesn't. If all they do is sit on your computer as nobody ever looks them, it matters even less.

If you never look at them, then no, it doesn't matter

Polariods were popular because of convenience. There's no question a cellphone is more convenient than a DSLR. But the question wasn't about convenience. It was about quality.

We use our 42" TV as a photo frame in our house. The resolution of an iPhone 5 is good enough that it looks good on the TV. But you can tell the shots that came out of the DSLR because they're just more vibrant. A little sharper, a little more detailed, more depth. Even if you look at them on a cellphone screen, they're better.

If you think the 1/4" or so lens of a phone camera and the 2-4" lens of a DSLR are taking the same pictures you are fooling yourself. The MP ratings of phones are also starting to get meaningless. They may have a lot of MP, but that does not mean the photo is any better.

One thing to consider, and this goes for 4K videos and such: Technology marches on. Having a non-HD style photo or video was perfectly fine a few years ago, but they look a bit dated now. you may have little use for it now, but 20-30 years from now you may really appreciate having higher quality images / videos (when you are looking at them on a 16K full wall size screen )

I am also very suspicious that most all phones do a good amount of photo enhancement by default. This by itself is not a huge deal, but just be sure to take then into account when comparing.

A camera is a tool, and as with any tool you need to know a certain amount about how to use it in order to extract the maximum from it. It used to be that cell phone cameras were utter crap and it took very little skill to max them out. That has changed, and now there are cell phone cameras have more capability than many inexperienced photographers have the skill to use. The SLR can still do a whole lot more, but you may have difficulty extracting that if all you do is attach the kit lens and leave it fully automatic mode.

In reply to Keith Tanner: And what I'm asking, people should be honest- does quality really matter?

You look at pictures on TV that's bigger than I have in my home.

We barely look at them after they are taken. I've gone from two SRL's with different film, to one, to a couple of point and shoot film, to a few different point and shoot digitals. Now it's just phones. And we take way more pictures now than we ever have. And use them exactly the same way. Which is a manner that the iTouch took good enough photos.

alfa, yes it matters, but you do have a great point there. The best camera in the world is the one that you have with you.

I take a ton of pictures, of everything. My phone is 8mp, my Nikon is 16. I use them both, a lot. The cell is a Note 2, the Nikon is a AW120 point and shoot I paid about $240 for.

In ideal conditions, my cell takes outstanding pictures. In just about any conditions my Nikon will take outstanding pictures. That's the biggest difference I can see.

This is the cell phone.

This was shot with the Nikon.

There is a difference, even in good conditions.

The Nikon is much better at quick shots as well. It can go from off to taking the shot in under a second. The cell takes 1-2. The Nikon is has a 16X optical zoom, the cell has a 4X digital.

I use the cell for documenting things and taking pictures when I forget my Nikon. The Nikon is just a better camera.

My wife has a Nikon D3100. It's a decent of camera, it takes wonderful pictures, but I don't like it. To cumbersome and too slow.

Again, if you never look at them, it doesn't matter. You could simply draw pictures in the dirt with a stick.

And I'll happily acknowledge that convenience matters. Heck, it's why I carry an iPod instead of a tube amp and a big stack of vinyl everywhere I go.

But even on a phone screen, you can see the difference between a DSLR and a cellphone. The phones do all sorts of post-processing to make them pop under those conditions, but it's masking the difference more than fixing it.

By the time your memory has gone enough that you need the photos, your eyes will be too far gone to see the difference....

All snark aside, phone cameras are still improving at a faster rate than standalone cameras. Not in the optics so much, because they are very space-limited, but in the software and ancillary electronic trickery. I'm sure that for a massive percentage of photo snappers, multi-lens arrays on near future phones will outdo what the operator could do with a pro-sumer grade DSLR.

Reference: Light concept

In reply to Keith Tanner:

I post 10% of them on here.

The rest are sorted to get rid of duplicates and junk, and then dumped on a digital picture frame or dumped to Photobucket.

The biggest problem with digital pictures, is the sheer volume of pictures you can take in seconds. I've been known to shoot 10 of the same thing and when there is a pretty good camera with you at all times, I always find something to shoot.

alfadriver wrote: And what I'm asking, people should be honest- does quality really matter?

It depends on want you mean by "quality". SLRs aren't just about pictures that are sharper, have less noise, and better colors, there are pictures that are quite simply impossible to shoot with a phone.

Want to put a 400mm lens on your phone and shoot sports? You can't. Oh, there might be attachments to let you kludge together an optical adapter, but the autofocus on the phone simply can't track moving targets the way the SLR can.

The phone can't shoot 10 frames a second, so you can't just hold down the shutter to get that autocross shot where the car has just punted a cone and it's frozen in midair.

As has been mentioned, the phone has an almost infinite depth of field. This is great if you want everything to be in focus, but often you don't, and there's no way to deliver it.

Want to hook up some strobes so you can shoot professional-looking studio portraits? You can't, there's no hotshoe, no external flash syncing, and certainly no ETTL flash metering. (you can use a simple optical trigger, but that's very much the poor stepchild for this kind of work).

The list goes on.

May I suggest another option, completely and utterly outside the current point under debate, but really cool for snapshots?

Instax, or Fuji's modern version of Polaroid. Way more engaging than flipping though a thousand photos on a phone.

Along similar lines - that TV slideshow setup I mentioned? It's an excellent way to have your pics on display. It's just the screensaver for the Apple TV, but I'm sure every smart TV or Roku box does the exact same thing. The cool thing is that you look up and see a memory. Could be from our last trip, could be 15 years old. My wife will sometimes sit on the couch and just watch it. If you've got a bunch of pictures you never look at, maybe there's a solution.

Also, I shoot a lot of pictures for our website and FB feed. You can always tell when I'm using the phone vs using the DSLR. The phone's really convenient and easy, so it gets used for track events and the like. But the DSLR pics look much better, even on a computer screen.

Cell phones are great for photos. DSLRs are great for photography. If that makes sense.

A cell phone camera uses a small range of focus on a CMOS sensor and lets the software manipulate how it captures an image file. With a DSLR, all of the ways in which light enters the camera are controllable before it ever makes it to the sensor. Cell phones = sensor, software manipulation, then instagram. DSLRs = multi-element lenses, apertures, optical magnification, then sensor.

Which makes sense if you want to learn (or already know how) to use those features of a DSLR.