• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Smart phone vs. digital camera

I've still got my Pentax K1000. Interesting to see that on the chart. I do take an awful lot more photos on my phone, but the ones I go back and look at are the ones I take on the dSLR. Also it's the Canon 30D* that I grab when I am wanting to 'actively relax' and take the time seeking out the things to photograph in a mindful way.

*To be pedantic I've actually 3no. 30D that I have and use. One bought new, the other two second hand.
 
That's an interesting article but it doesn't describe the fact that there are two entirely different markets.

Most people only want a Happy Snap camera, something quick and easy to use in social situations and for broad scenery pictures from their holidays. This is where the phone rules. It's also handy for people like mechanics, if you can't really see the serial number on an engine block you can just shove the phone down in there and take a picture.

For people that are more interested in photographic art the storage medium is not as important as the lenses, and that is where and why the phone will never completely take over the market. Also for things like wildlife photography, I can take a nice picture of a bird in a tree where as someone with a phone only gets a picture of a tree.
 
For those who know, my choice is a Fuji X-T1, I do some phone photography, but very much prefer the "feel" of an actual camera in my hands
 
Off the top of my head I'd say this is a novelty comparison at best. People who would never typically buy a digital camera have a phone. Children, the infirme, low income, for example. And then people who do buy a digital camera also have a phone, so that's double-dipping or something.

Further hampering the sales of digital cameras is how snobby and elitist people are in the industry. If you walk into a camera store as a newb they will sell you something, but will hate doing it.

And then there's price, which explains itself. But, lenses can be more expensive than a phone, and I don't think they're counting lens sales into their graph - but they should because phones are a self-contained purchase, most cameras are not. (monthly phone plans and editing software subscriptions cancel each other out)

Don't forget the used market took off twenty years ago with online buying and selling. And old digital cameras still take decent photos, so a lot of people forego a new camera in lieu of a vintage camera just for the aesthetic.

I mean, how many phones could you buy with your kit? Bet it's more than a few. Plus, I think a lot of the preference for smart phones is YouTube has ingrained that GoPro look into the public's mind as normal and aspirational, but most people don't realize these tiny cameras are pretty much the bottom of the barrel for image quality.
 
Outdated said:
That's an interesting article but it doesn't describe the fact that there are two entirely different markets.

Most people only want a Happy Snap camera, something quick and easy to use in social situations and for broad scenery pictures from their holidays. This is where the phone rules. It's also handy for people like mechanics, if you can't really see the serial number on an engine block you can just shove the phone down in there and take a picture.

For people that are more interested in photographic art the storage medium is not as important as the lenses, and that is where and why the phone will never completely take over the market. Also for things like wildlife photography, I can take a nice picture of a bird in a tree where as someone with a phone only gets a picture of a tree.
Click to expand...

It does reference that in the article, they don't predict the immediate demise of higher end digital cameras yet... Although some phone manufacturers boldly say they are going to wipe out digital cameras, I don't see it happening...
 
Lysholm said:
Off the top of my head I'd say this is a novelty comparison at best. People who would never typically buy a digital camera have a phone. Children, the infirme, low income, for example. And then people who do buy a digital camera also have a phone, so that's double-dipping or something.

Further hampering the sales of digital cameras is how snobby and elitist people are in the industry. If you walk into a camera store as a newb they will sell you something, but will hate doing it.

And then there's price, which explains itself. But, lenses can be more expensive than a phone, and I don't think they're counting lens sales into their graph - but they should because phones are a self-contained purchase, most cameras are not. (monthly phone plans and editing software subscriptions cancel each other out)

Don't forget the used market took off twenty years ago with online buying and selling. And old digital cameras still take decent photos, so a lot of people forego a new camera in lieu of a vintage camera just for the aesthetic.

I mean, how many phones could you buy with your kit? Bet it's more than a few. Plus, I think a lot of the preference for smart phones is YouTube has ingrained that GoPro look into the public's mind as normal and aspirational, but most people don't realize these tiny cameras are pretty much the bottom of the barrel for image quality.
Click to expand...

I've spent at least a few thousand dollars on camera gear over the years
 
I have no interest in portraiture as a general rule, a long lens with an aperture of f/2.8 allows the quick shutter speed necessary for capturing still images of moving targets at a distance. Most animals won't sit still and pose for you or allow you to approach too close.

LemonBelliedFlyCatcher5.jpg
 
Even though I'm more of a hobbyist photographer, I'm still pretty serious about the quality of my pictures, so I would always choose my Nikon DSLR over a smartphone or a point and shoot camera.

I do like the convenience of having a camera on my phone just for quick snaps and video clips of my dogs. But almost all of the images on my phone are of my dogs, and there are a handful of selfies, although I'm not super crazy about pictures of myself (sometimes they're useful.) I don't use my phone camera for much else.
Something that frustrates me about smartphone cameras is that it's quicker and more convenient to use them vertically (in "portrait" mode vs landscape mode) and I prefer horizontal/landscape pictures, for the most part, and especially videos, but sometimes I don't even realize I'm filming videos vertically and then I go to edit them and I'm like "Ugh, I hate how this looks."

But with a DSLR as opposed to a phone, I can capture images like these, which I frame and put on my wall, and have occasionally submitted to galleries or magazines:

screenshot 1.PNG
screenshot 2.PNG
screenshot.PNG
 
Luca said:
I'm still pretty serious about the quality of my pictures
Click to expand...
I got pretty serious about the wildlife photography for a while but I simply didn't have the budget for a decent piece of glass. The picture I posted above was with a 300mm lens and it's widest aperture was f/5.6. It was a great lens as long as I had good strong light but underneath dense forest canopy it really suffered.
 
Outdated said:
I got pretty serious about the wildlife photography for a while but I simply didn't have the budget for a decent piece of glass. The picture I posted above was with a 300mm lens and it's widest aperture was f/5.6. It was a great lens as long as I had good strong light but underneath dense forest canopy it really suffered.
Click to expand...
My 300mm lens is my favorite too.
Since I'm not a professional, sometimes I also have trouble adjusting to certain types of lighting or shadows.
I have really enjoyed the wildlife photos you've shared on here :)
 
Luca said:
My 300mm lens is my favorite too.
Click to expand...
A general rule of thumb for a hand held camera is that the shutter speed needs to be at least double the focal length to counter any movement or shake in your hands. So with a 300mm lens you need a shutter speed of 1/600th of a second or faster. That's where having a wider aperture comes in to play, it allows more light in.
 
I've used a phone for the past year or so though I have to concede I also like actual cameras, even if they're not fancy - and all I've ever used are entry level digital cameras. (but still better quality than my phone's camera)

I had a dozen or so photos on Flickr Explore during the two years or so I was active there.

Here's an older photo that I haven't uploaded previously, using a c. 2005ish Kodak point-and-shoot.

GlastonburyTor2.JPG
 
I'm not getting a smartphone until it is absolutely forced on me.
And I know that day is coming.
I like small, old school, talk and text phones. I hardly ever use a phone anyway.

I take along a point and shoot when I'm going somewhere I might see something
I want a photo of.
Also had a Nikon DSLR most of my life. Finally sold it and went for just quick and easy.
Usually, I take shots at car shows, wildlife and vacation places.
Small digital is enough.

075.JPG

Bok Tower - one of my favorite places
Wiregrass 006.JPG
Don't know much about cars, but I go with a Buff to all the different ones around.

Weeki 048.JPG

Pretty as a Peacock.
 
The best camera I have had was actually a smartphone. It was a Nokia 1020, it took great pictures. So of course that phone expired and they stopped updating it and after a while it was an expensive paperweight. Stupid phones.
 
Can't fault Sherlock's uptake. As a consummate DSLR user, I realize just how shockingly far certain smartphones have come relative to their photographic features and quality. Though as others have posted, I'll stick with my DSLR that has no "2.0 expiration date" just yet. I have never owned a smartphone, and still prefer not to given their security vulnerabilities.

Though I also appreciate @Sherlock77 postings regarding mirrorless digital cameras. I may purchase one in the future...
 
Last edited:
Judge said:
Can't fault Sherlock's uptake. As a consummate DSLR user, I realize just how shockingly far certain smartphones have come relative to their photographic features and quality. Though as others have posted, I'll stick with my DSLR that has no "2.0 expiration date" just yet. I have never owned a smartphone, and still prefer not to given their security vulnerabilities.

Though I also appreciate @Sherlock77 postings regarding mirrorless digital cameras. I may purchase one in the future...
Click to expand...

Mirrorless are very good cameras... So are dSLR... Think mirrorless, think Leica rangefinder in digital form ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom