Professional Cameras vs iPhone

[Eric]

I have to be honest that in many situations the iPhone is both easier to use and produces as good or better results than my $5K camera/lens setup. I get that there's a learning curve with professional cameras and in the end when things are both shot and edited properly you can get professional looking results, but the lines are getting blurred.

I have taken to filming with both when I'm shooting, both to ensure that I have redundant footage and the "just in case factor", that way if I hose it up on my professional camera, I'm at least guaranteed decent results from the iPhone.

 

[Roller]

I do the same. While I'm not a pro photographer, I pay more attention to details than most casual shooters. My DSLR can do more than my iPhone, but the added weight and effort are often not worth it. With the camera, I often end up fiddling with settings and sometimes miss a shot, but the phone is almost always in my shirt pocket and ready to go, and the results are usually quite good.

I'm thinking my next camera purchase may be a dual-lens model that can take immersive movies to watch on the Apple Vision Pro. The iPhone 15 and 16 Pro can shoot spatial video, but the lenses are too close together to achieve the desired effect. The AVP has become my go-to device for looking at stills and video. visionOS 2.0 does a good job converting old photos to spatial, and it's amazing for looking at panoramas. Even though they're 2D, the experience is like being there. (Sorry to go off-topic, but I don't think the AVP gets the credit it deserves for this.)

 

[Citysnaps]

I've been shooting with iPhones pretty much exclusively for the last 7 years or so. They're great for the kind of photos I like to make - mostly of strangers I like to hit up on the street for a bit of conversation and a few posed portraits.

Wanting to take the above into making videos and interviewing people on the street, I'm especially interested in the four microphones and how they're used to dynamically separate subject audio. I've read that can be done in post. And would be a killer feature if it works well with decent separation and isolation. At this point I'm a little skeptical (beamforming at audio frequencies), but hoping to be surprised.

 

[Nycturne]

I have to be honest that in many situations the iPhone is both easier to use and produces as good or better results than my $5K camera/lens setup. I get that there's a learning curve with professional cameras and in the end when things are both shot and edited properly you can get professional looking results, but the lines are getting blurred.

I'll agree with lines getting blurred. Sony in particular uses very similar tech these days across the range, so the capabilities of the phone sensors and the larger sensors aren't leagues apart anymore. And we are clearly in the realm of deminishing returns. The iPhone 15 Pro sensor seems to be within a half stop in terms of dynamic range compared to my old A7R for example, while the latest A7R IV has about a full stop advantage to the iPhone 15 Pro. If you're not doing a ton of stretching of shadows/highlights, it's going to be hard to see the difference. For me, it's the dark/read noise in smartphones that still bugs me, and limits how big I feel I could print photography. I do wonder what the quantum efficiency of these newer phone sensors is like. Good QE helps a lot to swamp out sensor noise.

From a technical perspective, there's still an advantage to dedicated cameras/sensors that aren't packed in so tightly that cooling needs to suffer/etc. But the regimes where it matters is more and more niche over time. Akin to how I used to need as much power in a computer as possible for my job, but now things have evolved enough that I can start weighing the cost/benefit of marginally faster build times vs the cost of the machines to deliver them. I can make trade offs in terms of hardware that weren't possible 20 years ago.

Although at least in Astrophotography, we're still fighting for every single electron of dark current and read noise. Sensors like the ones used in the MILCs are king there, although costs of telescopes and filters for large full-frame sensors keep APS-C king there. I just picked up a camera for astro using a variant of the sensor in the A7R IV, which is electronically cooled to control dark current, and it is a beast. But it's even more niche than a MILC.

 

[Eric]

I'll agree with lines getting blurred. Sony in particular uses very similar tech these days across the range, so the capabilities of the phone sensors and the larger sensors aren't leagues apart anymore. And we are clearly in the realm of deminishing returns. The iPhone 15 Pro sensor seems to be within a half stop in terms of dynamic range compared to my old A7R for example, while the latest A7R IV has about a full stop advantage to the iPhone 15 Pro. If you're not doing a ton of stretching of shadows/highlights, it's going to be hard to see the difference. For me, it's the dark/read noise in smartphones that still bugs me, and limits how big I feel I could print photography. I do wonder what the quantum efficiency of these newer phone sensors is like. Good QE helps a lot to swamp out sensor noise.

From a technical perspective, there's still an advantage to dedicated cameras/sensors that aren't packed in so tightly that cooling needs to suffer/etc. But the regimes where it matters is more and more niche over time. Akin to how I used to need as much power in a computer as possible for my job, but now things have evolved enough that I can start weighing the cost/benefit of marginally faster build times vs the cost of the machines to deliver them. I can make trade offs in terms of hardware that weren't possible 20 years ago.

Although at least in Astrophotography, we're still fighting for every single electron of dark current and read noise. Sensors like the ones used in the MILCs are king there, although costs of telescopes and filters for large full-frame sensors keep APS-C king there. I just picked up a camera for astro using a variant of the sensor in the A7R IV, which is electronically cooled to control dark current, and it is a beast. But it's even more niche than a MILC.

Right, when it comes to noise reduction and dynamic range I still think the smartphones have a ways to go, but as you say they're getting close. For example in low light I'm often filming at ISO 12800 and as long as my shutter and aperture are properly set the shots are fantastic, the rub is getting all of that shit dialed in when I can just pull out the iPhone and run with it.

One issue that really bugs me about the iPhone (15 pro max in my case) is the green ghost light balls, particularly bad when I film traffic in low light because there is one for every headlight it seems which really takes from the shot. Still, happy with what they've been able to achieve thus far all considering.

 

[Citysnaps]

One issue that really bugs me about the iPhone (15 pro max in my case) is the green ghost light balls, particularly bad when I film traffic in low light because there is one for every headlight it seems which really takes from the shot. Still, happy with what they've been able to achieve thus far all considering.

I haven't experienced that yet, probably because I haven't shot in that environment with my phone.

I will say the 14PM and 15 PM are loads better on regular daytime flare than with my 12PM.

The 12 has a shiney silver ring with an inside bevel around the lens - I'm guessing for decoration. Which was perfect for reflecting off-axis Sun light right into the lens.

The result were these crescent-shaped artifacts right in the middle of the frame. Really frustrating, and I remember complaining a lot about that after ruining some otherwise good photos.

My 14PM had the same ring around the lens, but was black in color and with no inside bevel. Ditto with my 15. No more daylight flare.

 

[Eric]

I haven't experienced that yet, probably because I haven't shot in that environment with my phone.

I will say the 14PM and 15 PM are loads better on regular daytime flare than with my 12PM.

The 12 has a shiney silver ring with an inside bevel around the lens - I'm guessing for decoration. Which was perfect for reflecting off-axis Sun light right into the lens.

The result were these crescent-shaped artifacts right in the middle of the frame. Really frustrating, and I remember complaining a lot about that after ruining some otherwise good photos.

My 14PM had the same ring around the lens, but was black in color and with no inside bevel. Ditto with my 15. No more daylight flare.

I think it's a natural effect of the tiny lenses they use, seems like a physical issue but yeah you really only notice it when filming lights in the dark so I can see why most don't see it. That said, the low light capabilities with the right software backing it is really impressive.

 

[fooferdoggie]

I cant imagine I could manage a regular camera. but I wish I had more zoom so I get pics that look as close as they do with my eyes.

 

[Cmaier]

I cant imagine I could manage a regular camera. but I wish I had more zoom so I get pics that look as close as they do with my eyes.

Focal length of the human eye is around 20+mm, but because of curvature and optical effects, something like 50mm is generally considered pretty close to human field of view. Pretty much every phone now can get you at least 50mm. The new iPhones Pro, though, go to 120mm (if i am remembering correctly), so that should be plenty of zoom for you. They now have optical zoom range equivalent to very nice all-purpose/travel lenses.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Focal length of the human eye is around 20+mm, but because of curvature and optical effects, something like 50mm is generally considered pretty close to human field of view. Pretty much every phone now can get you at least 50mm. The new iPhones Pro, though, go to 120mm (if i am remembering correctly), so that should be plenty of zoom for you. They now have optical zoom range equivalent to very nice all-purpose/travel lenses.

maybe it's just the way I see it. it always seems the pics I take look farther away even on max zoom. or how the pic is displayed.

 

[Eric]

Focal length of the human eye is around 20+mm, but because of curvature and optical effects, something like 50mm is generally considered pretty close to human field of view. Pretty much every phone now can get you at least 50mm. The new iPhones Pro, though, go to 120mm (if i am remembering correctly), so that should be plenty of zoom for you. They now have optical zoom range equivalent to very nice all-purpose/travel lenses.

They can and it's not too bad but absolutely no comparison to a real lens with the same focal length, no matter how great they make the software and sensors this will always be a physical limitation to phone cameras.

 

[Cmaier]

They can and it's not too bad but absolutely no comparison to a real lens with the same focal length, no matter how great they make the software and sensors this will always be a physical limitation to phone cameras.

sure. i was simply referring to field of view. Until they make phones with much bigger sensors (or, equivalently, many small sensors that can add up to the same pixel area), you can’t beat a mirrorless or SLR camera. I’m not trading in my Q2 or A1 for an iPhone 16 Pro Max, but I do think my Sony RV100VI won’t see nearly as much time in my pocket.

 

[Eric]

sure. i was simply referring to field of view. Until they make phones with much bigger sensors (or, equivalently, many small sensors that can add up to the same pixel area), you can’t beat a mirrorless or SLR camera. I’m not trading in my Q2 or A1 for an iPhone 16 Pro Max, but I do think my Sony RV100VI won’t see nearly as much time in my pocket.

I always look forward to those improvements, I just don't see how they'll ever be able to compensate for real glass, something like a Sony 24-70 f2.8 comes with 13 groups, 18 elements, and 9 blades with at 82MM, no pea sized lens will ever be able to match that.

This is part of why I struggle, while the ease of the iPhone is great, I know if I want real professional shots I need to take the time to setup my real camera. Don't get me wrong, the output of the Sony is amazing so long as I put the work into it.

 

[Citysnaps]

Phone cams vs non-phone cams... For me it doesn't make much difference. Sure, if I were shooting for National Geographic or NFL (or any kind of) sports, or was a high-end wedding photographer, etc, that would be different. On the subject of wedding photographers, I've seen the work of a couple who use phone cams shooting in a reportage style where their photos stand tall. I would have loved to have them shoot my wedding.

For the photographs I like to *make* (I never use the words *take or shoot/shot*), an Apple phone from roughly an iPhone 8 or X onwards works fine.

Last year I was on a mission to process/print/mat/frame more than a hundred photos to fill up our home's walls (along with some of my wife's art). Trying hard to be a critical and neutral observer looking at those photos a year later, what they were made with has no bearing on the end result, my satisfaction, and how they communicate. For many I frankly don't remember if I made them with a phone or mirrorless/dSLR cam (other than relying on time frame when they were made).

But that's just me. I know others feel very differently about phone vs non-phone cameras.