Have we reached the point yet where smartphone cameras are good

>>61966699
No,

Ask /p/

>>61966859
/thread

Look at a pro camera. See how fat the lens is? Is the phone lens as fat? No? Then no

>>61966699
Nope, no chance.

Professional cameras and professional lenses are completely in a different league from smartphone cameras in most situation.

>>61966958
FYI: /p/ generally shoots cheap shit. Amazon / B&H / Adorama etc. may have average to good cameras in their bestsellers, but /p/ usually uses something poorfag vintage at 1/3 the price at most.

As smartphone cameras get better, so do professional cameras, so basically smartphones will always be shit-tier compared to professional

A better camera will not make you a better photographer. That said, a camera with more features does help.

>>61967268
Plus as it has been until now, we just couldn't miniaturize lenses and make them equally good to FF or MF lenses.

Yes, that $500-2.5k lens (or even $10k+ for huge telezooms) is just a lot bigger but also a lot better than any found on a smartphone.

File: P_20170816_223149_vHDR_Auto[1].jpg (179KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1024x768px

SONY IMX 362 and newer sensors are good enough to completely replace point and shoots, and usable by hobbist/indy film makers.

>>61967349
you are some kind of sap.

>>61967349
>A better camera will not make you a better photographer
It'll still take better pictures, regardless what idiot artfags claim a good final image is still over half the work of a machine.

Sure, if you're the only one who has a photo of an event like 9/11, then yours *is* fine, but if 1000 nicer cameras were taking ten times more photos each in the same period than yours could, chances are almost 100% that basically nobody will care about your shot.

>>61967369
>usable by hobbist/indy film makers.
You can, but for an indy film with actors you're really just better off NOT wasting everyone's time with a shitty camera like that.

It takes what, $3k (or $10k and you rent that) to get a far more decent amateur camera that is much more reliable, much easier to color grade, much more able to shoot many situations without bringing 1000 extra lights?
Yea, you generally have no excuse to do all the retakes and extra work to save THAT tiny sum, it's not like your time and your actor's or whatever should be *that* worthless.

Sure enough, people did watch films like that done on GoPros and such, but it's not really a great idea in a lot of situations.

File: Nokia-Lumia-1020-208.png (270KB, 766x500px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 766x500px

>he doesn't have a 41mp camera on his phone

>>61967484
>he thinks MP is the only factor in a good camera

>>61967484
>he thinks the number of pixels is relevant at all to image quality

File: Sensors-size-01-01.jpg (208KB, 1351x695px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1351x695px

>>61966699
Phone camera sensors are much much smaller than even crop camera sensors. Surely /g/ knows what happens when you cut down silicon.

Nope. They never will, unless some revolutionary re-imagining of photography hardware happens and size stops being an issue. Phones are small and flat, which prevents using decent lens for starters, or flash. Then, while best phone cameras' images may look decent enough as is, they really aren't, raw files aren't even comparable, any kind of editing is pain in the ass, etc. etc. It's about as different as, say, using your laptop's built-in mic vs. professional audio-capturing setups, sure when you say stuff in your laptop it's audible and everyone understands you, but it's just not in the same league in terms of quality, not even close, and since phones are just shitbuckets which aim to jam as many components as possible, into as little space as possible, for as little price as possible, they just can't reach pro levels on conceptual level. Phone cameras are very barebones and primitive considering they have to fit in the size of about a coin and should cost like a meal at a mediocre restaurant (at the very most), price and space concerns are really limiting what they can do. They're getting good enough that most people don't need dedicated cameras anymore (especially considering that using a camera properly is something that not a lot of people know how to do), pros operate on a different scale and phones don't cut it.

>>61967484
Good lord that is ugly, who the fuck designs Nokia's shit?

The S8 takes great pictures, much better than my $200 coolpix ;_;

>>61966699
Lolno

Cell phone cameras are about convenience; but for quality photos the only answer is a dedicated camera

If it's a picture of your food or a selfie or some of the other stupid shit kids nowadays do then the cellphone camera is good enough

>>61967268
This, p.much. Also you'll never get around the fact that bigger lenses just physically collect more light.

>>61966699

Honestly no. You need at least Go Pro quality to be taken seriously as a film maker / photographer.

>>61967155
>FYI: /p/ generally shoots cheap shit.

No we don't.

I have a D800, for example.
Plus about $4000 worth of lenses.
And I am far from the exception on /p/.

Anyways, the one thing that makes phone cameras particularly shit is the lack of control.
- can't manually focus
- auto-focus is slow and wonky as fuck and can't track moving subjects.
- can't change aperture (though granted, with such a tiny sensor you'll likely want to be wide open all the time anyways)
- on most phones can't set ISO, shutter speed or even exposure compensation.
- no spot metering.
- stupid amounts of shutter lag.

Yes, image quality is also shit in everything but perfect light, but I'd rather have a DSLR with a phone sensor and lens than a phone with a full frame sensor and professional level lens.

File: Screenshot_2017-08-19-08-47-09-1536394274.png (2MB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1080x1920px

>>61972798
Wrong. Most phones feature manual controls now.

Except the aperture thing, you're damn right about that.

>>61972831

Even so, it's still awkward and slow to use.
My DSLR has dedicated dials for pretty much every setting I need, that's what makes it a joy to use.

>>61972949
I'm not disagreeing, I very rarely use the manual focus but the shutter and I SO settings are fantastic for getting ideal low light shots or for getting a moving Target like my doggy.

>>61972831
what's that on the bottom right corner?

>>61974735
That would be the gallery icon showing the last picture taken.

Does your phone not do that?

>>61969276
I'd imagine Microsoft did, that phone came out when they owned Nokia.