Are pictures from cameras better?

File: 20170828_204526.jpg (4MB, 2200x4032px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2200x4032px

Also

There were more but they were too big in file size

>>3143555
That depends. A good photographer can take an amazing photo with anything. A good camera just gives you more possibilities and flexibility.
Biggest difference is the sensor size and better lenses on cameras.

For me the main reason I use a camera is the viewfinder and how it makes me look like a hobbyist photographer. If I shoot street photography on my phone it actually looks weirder than when I use a camera.

>>3143555
Objectively, yes.

Look up signal to noise ratio. Bigger sensor = bigger signal.

File: IMG_3237.jpg (3MB, 2114x3930px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2114x3930px

>>3143555
Thank me later

I think everyone would agree that shooting on a camera, peering through a viewfinder and feeling the shutter click, is more enjoyable than using a phone.
The camera doesn't help you in discovering a cool shot if you're walking outside, but I think once you've found something cool to snap, a camera with aperture, shutter speed, manual focus, histogram (I don't know how to use that) exposure meter, and a viewfinder, is indispensable.

>>3143555
Modern MFT or even FF with good glass vs phone? No contest, the MFT is better and the FF is worlds different in quality.

Of course it doesn't change how "relevant" the subject is to you, but the technical quality, work speed, range of situations you can shoot in and so on are worlds apart.

File: 1.jpg (1008KB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1008KB, 3008x2000px

>>3143555
Assuming you are talking about the technical quality of the image, yes. If you think that the photo you posted is anywhere near even a ten year old dslr quality... well, think again. Then again, of course you can find shitty point&shoot cameras that will have worse image quality than todays phone cameras, but I don't think that was what you meant.

Here's an image I took years ago with a Nikon D70, a 6 megapixel camera from 2004, and with a sort of shitty tamron 300/5.6 1:2 macro lens I got from a second hand store for basically free. 13 year old camera and a 30 year old cheap lens. It's not art or anything special, but it's image quality still destroys pretty much any phone out there, except maybe a nokia 808 pureview in optimal circumstances.

Now, if you are talking about art, the device doesn't matter that much. Great photos are taken with all sorts of devices.

>>3143960
So you lack confidence, that's it? You just don't care for photography

>>3144376
Thems fighting words.

I mean, spec sheet wise, yeah.
But hey, a camera is a camera, whatever you have on hand to take a shit is good.

Personally I absolutely hate how phone cameras basically have actual shit quality but they compensate through software, basically some blur/aa/sharpening/denoise whatever you want to call them. They look absolutely fine on your phone, they look fine on instagram (not that it matters since IG will rape the quality anyway), but if you ever want to work on it, they have less... info so to speak on which to work with if you know what I mean.

Control wise, I hate how the fucking phone sometimes refuses to take a shot, or dies, or has an aneurysm, or decides to refocus before the shot, etc. etc. etc.
A more manual camera (DSLR basically, some mirrorless have their own quirks) will simply do whatever you fucking tell it to do and that's beautiful.

I did sell prints from two pics taken with the phone though, and in the end composition is the most important bit I'd say, so use whatever, but always have a camera with you.

>>3143558
if u had lower iso this would look pretty good

Since this topic moved to the inevitable "what's more comfortable"

Cameras, Always.
My phone is too glossy, the edges are rounded and I have no idea what the designers were thinking, it's incredibly unwieldy. My hands can't keep it in any grip because it thinks my fingertips on the edges are telling it to switch into flash or some shit, but that's my phone.

Say you want to prove it to the world that phone cameras can compete with actual cameras, so you become a photographer that is recognized for your skill in taking great photos using a phone. Maybe afterwords you have some extra cash so you spend a little extra money on lenses specifically designed for phones - then you buy a phone that focuses on the camera aspect and then end up paying the same amount as you would a beginner camera. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the convenience+price that a phone is meant to market towards?

As a hobbyist phone cameras are good, and they are getting better each year. But if you think a phone can compete with professional cameras, the ones you see being used to take exceptional pictures for your instagrum and your desktop background then you're just at a disadvantage.

Photography is about capturing light. The lens gathers light and focuses it on a sensor or film that is inside the camera body.

Optics and mechanical precision used to determine how good a camera was. Computer software now plays a significant role. Software allows for more compact and inexpensive optical designs. Software also simplifies workflow, allowing photos to flow almost effortlessly from camera to computer and from smartphone to cloud.

>>3149844
My prejudice against smartphones is because I think of them like 110-format mini-cameras. Semi-wide angle lenses and a tiny film (sensor) size. The wide angle lens gives distorted unflattering portrait photos and uninteresting landscapes.

The latest smartphones can take dramatically superior photos compared with the 110 and Instamatic-film amateur cameras of just forty years ago.

The most interesting innovations (or tricks) of smartphones are:

1) HDR high dynamic range photos, combining layers of photos to compress high and low levels of luminosity into a single image. Doing what used to require very skilled darkroom or photoshop work.

2) mimic the selective focus, aka narrow depth of field, that used to be the exclusive domain of large cameras. The most common use is isolating a face from the background in a portrait.

>>3149844
>>3149857
In a side by side comparison the larger professional quality camera will take technically superior images compared to the smaller optics and sensor size of a smartphone. But there's an old saying... more or less... the camera you have with you is better than the one you left at home.

Here is another thought - Smartphones are more or less ubiquitous. You can take photos in places where photography is not allowed, in airports, church services, hospitals, military bases, etc...

Friends and strangers react differently when you hold a smartphone compared to a large professional looking camera.

When I'm alone taking photos of strangers, for example in an outdoor bazaar or at a sports event, I'm more relaxed taking photos with just a smartphone or cheap point-and-shoot camera than a pro camera that costs as much as an economy car. When I look relaxed, it makes my subjects more relaxed.

In some situations, like photographing my young cousin at the playground, bringing out a big pro-camera generates distrust and even anger. Likewise private guards and even police are weary of me when I'm carrying heavy photo gear.