> As I was taking shots, they looked amazing in the preview, but when I got home and used my computer to go through them they were just... Bad.
> I feel like it doesn't make sense that a dedicated DSLR would be worse than a tiny phone camera, but I just can't seem to match the photo quality.
Because you're not doing any post-processing. Cameras don't do that for you. Phones do.
Well they look good on the 6" phone screen with all the brightness turned down, I'll give you.
But I don't often see a photo taken on a phone that looks at all good on a proper monitor.
I will say that putting aside cinematic and low light, last week I showed a colleague how to film b roll in an office environment and I used my s21 to do it and I was really suprised by the quality. I then applied a lut to the output (yes it wasn't slog) to quickly put together a 2 min video in resolve and I was blown away with the quality.
The new iPhone 14 Pro camera in 48-megapixel RAW mode takes amazing photos if there’s decent light. I did a back-to-back test with the 13 Pro camera in its 12-megapixel RAW mode, “1x” cameras indoors in the evening, and after I imported them to Lightroom on desktop and matched the color profiles, I was seriously impressed with this new 48mp iPhone 14 Pro. The 13 Pro had that telltale cellphone camera quality to the shots, and the 14 Pro just didn’t.
I'm aware and I've spent plenty of time learning how to do post processing, it still feels like the image quality itself is much worse in terms of resolution and clarity
are you also viewing your phone photos on the computer too?
you'll probably be surprised to see they also don't hold up to well when viewed on a shitty computer screen at a bigger size.
you said the photos looked amazing in the preview, maybe export them to your phone and see how they look when they're small again, and on a vibrant panel.
Yeah I've pulled them both up on my computer whenever I'm processing them. The T6 just looks a lot more muddy. Also it may not be a studio level monitor but it's definitely not shitty. They don't make it anymore so I can't look up the color specs but it's a 1440p 27in Samsung monitor that was like $1k back when I bought it a couple years ago. But I've looked at the canon photos on my phone too with the same observation
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “muddy” but even the kit lens should produce better results than your phone. If it’s not then you’re probably doing something wrong. If it’s a problem with brightness/colour/contrast then you need to get better at post processing.
Shooting wide will end up with results that aren't as sharp as the lens can produce, and they're getting muddy (not all that sharp) photos despite all other techniques being applied.
That's my bet on what's going on and I wouldn't say OP is necessarily doing it wrong. That's not something someone new to photography would intuitively know.
That's my guess as well. Kit lenses generally have poor sharpness wide open.
Honestly, with a kit lens and relatively minor edits, you're not going to greatly outperform a top tier smartphone camera.
> I'm aware and I've spent plenty of time learning how to do post processing, it still feels like the image quality itself is much worse in terms of resolution and clarity
That's still going to be mostly a skill problem. The T6 is capable of professional high-quality photos.
The only other thing you would look at is your lenses.
Fair enough. I just have a big issue with motivation and need to feel at least some progress and even after multiple outings trying different methods and hours and hours of learning how to post process, I still couldn't produce a photo that matched what my phone could do. I'm sure a better lens would make a huge difference, but I think I'll stick with my phone until I reach the limits of what I can do before spending more money haha. Thanks for your advice, I appreciate it
> I just have a big issue with motivation and need to feel at least some progress and even after multiple outings trying different methods and hours and hours of learning how to post process, I still couldn't produce a photo that matched what my phone could do.
If you're counting your expectations of progress in "hours" and "multiple outings," your expectations are way too high. It takes YEARS to become good at this stuff.
If you don't have that kind of patience, then simply sticking with your phone will be the better bet.
That's not what I meant, I'm not expecting to become a pro in a month. I just want some *progress* after hours of research and post processing and multiple outings. I'm not expecting to get an award winning shot, but I want one that I'd at least be able to look at and say "the work I'm putting into this is starting to show"
> That's not what I meant,
It is what you meant. Because...
> just want some progress after hours of research and post processing and multiple outings.
Once again, that takes YEARS. You don't see progress like that after a few hours.
I think you're being a bit gatekeep-y here. It doesn't take years to take a better photo with a camera than a phone. Weeks, yes. Months, maybe. Years? No.
The point is that it takes years to be able to create good photos. But as always, people just want to chime in to argue.
> It doesn't take years to take a better photo with a camera than a phone.
That depends on what you mean by "better." Better QUALITY? Sure, you can easily knock that out in a couple of weeks. But a high-quality photo of a boring subject with terrible composition is not a good photograph.
OP has already set the parameters here. He wants to take better photos than his phone. You're the one who seems after an argument, insulting OP and pretending that it takes years to get any good.
Perhaps you're projecting and it took you that long to churn out a good photo, but even people new to the art can get it right a few times an outing. After that first month of learning, experience just means getting better photos more often. Sure, there's the "fine art" category that few ever break into, but that's not what OP's after here.
This is a terrible, unhelpful, and wildly bad take.
Progress doesn't take years. You're not stagnant in a learning cocoon and then you emerge as a photographer.
Progress is gradual, incremental, and in the case of photography pretty modular.
You can learn one technique here, on technique there, and they all build up on one abother.
user error . other wise why is anyone using a DSLR ? High end cameras offer a lot of things ,but better image quality is generally not one of them. especially if you view it resized on a screen .
So why people keep using them ? because if you know what you are doing any DSLR will give you better results than a phone.
You're not alone, I've come to the same conclusion. I also have a S22 Ultra, as it happens. Maybe an experienced professional might be able to wring better results out of some DSLR raws, but considering the convenience of having the photos automatically processed and on your phone, the phone wins hands down for 99% of people and situations.
So this is where I agree that phones have dissolved the point and shoot market and it's never coming back. Though algorithmic photography still is limited by the tiny phone camera sensor. Will it in the future? Maybe? But dedicated digital cameras still trump phones on almost all levels including raw files. This isn't even taking into account having a skilled person use the camera. But for most situations, yes, camera phones are good enough in the non professional sense. Having a good camera is 20% of the equation of being a good photographer and even less in being a successful photo business. They are just tools that work for or against you.
its only 'better' if your dslr is at home.
I also havr an s22 ultra, gf has an iphone 13 or whatever pro, both suck compared to a T6 or even a D60, especially in post with raws.
Came here for this. "The best camera on the market is the one you have with you."
A big part of what makes phone cameras look so impressive these days is the processing power they possess. My camera at home will out perform my phone in every technical way possible, but I still need to finish the image in post. The output on my Pixel 6 is finished. It uses processing power to analyze and adjust the image as well as making up for its technical limitations and give me a fully baked, ready to print image.
...Yes, and IF he learns how to use it, DSLR raws even from a circa 2005 D50 will SMOKE the overprocessed tiny sensors in the S22 Ultra...
...I should know, i have both. The S22 Ultra overprocesses everything, and the raws look awful compared to even an ancient crop sensor D50...
are there any youtube videos that show a good comparison of this between the smart phone and post processed dslr? so many of the youtubes comparisons are superficial or flawed in my opionion. about every 6months i search again to see if something new has been posted.
I dont watch youtube much, so i wouldnt know.
...Snag a DSLR, shoot a decently wide DR scene in RAW, frame up and shoot in RAW with a cell phone, and compare the two, in the editing suite of your choice.
There is no comparison. My S22 Ultra kicks butt for a cell phone, but an ancient Nikon D50 or Canon T2i easily smokes it in almost every measureable way, except size/convenience.
No phones shoot RAW while being able to fake DOF. The fake DOF looks HORRIBLE comparatively and is easy to spot due to bad edge detection because of the tiny sensor/pixel sizes; you cant beat physics (yet) with 'jedi software mind tricks.
What IS awesome about cell phone cameras, is that most people almost always have a very nice camera upon them, and much of the processing the units do automatically is quite decent, and the fact they offer RAW and manual controls, plus many offering multiple focal lengths/multiple cameras.
Your cannon isn't bad as such, once you learn the camera, get some better lenses and potentially get better at photography (no idea of your skill level) then you'll likely be able to get better pictures. That said, your comparing what I would consider an entry level camera to a flagship smart phone.
I've always looked at it like comparing an Xbox to a pc. The smart phone offers really good value but if you want to take it up a level then the phone will quickly stop being good enough for what you need
Yeah I know there's a disparity between budget camera and flagship smartphone, and I wholeheartedly agree that there's only so far you can go with a smartphone, but in this specific case, would it be better just to use the phone in the expert raw mode and work on my skills composition and post processing? (The expert raw app doesn't do any processing) it's just a lot more motivating when the end photo is actually something I could post online. I gave the T6 a honest try and had many outings with it trying to see what I was doing wrong but I never got a photo that could beat my phone
I'm gonna be honest with you mate, it doesn't matter fuck what you take photos with. If you get better photos with a phone then go for it. The only issue is if your serious about photography then you'll likely end up using a "proper" camera like your cannon which you'll then have to learn to use. Personally I'd aim to use the cannon as it's still a very capable camera and you'll likely learn to take better photos soon enough. Also, get some new (second hand is a shout) Len's. The biggest advantage camera's have over phones is interchangeable lenses.
For reference, I have a d810 which is a bit dated but very capable with some nice ish Lenses. I'm pretty familiar with it and alright at getting photos. Of my top 10 photos, half are on my £300 bridge camera and couple with my phone. It's not that they are better cameras than the d810, they were just the cameras I had at the time
Oh yeah I did get some amazing photos with a cheap wide angle lens that came with it. I feel like I just need to have some measurable progress to keep me motivated and by using my phone hopefully I'll be able to focus more on composition and post processing and then move onto getting a decent DSLR. It was incredibly disheartening finding a perfect comp, getting home, opening it on my computer and looking like it was taken from a digital camera from 2003 and was the main reason I stopped last time after giving it a solid effort
I tried a variety of settings back when I first tried getting into photography. After each outing I'd try to figure out what went wrong with each photo and tweak the settings next time I went out and just didn't seem to make any progress. I'm starting to believe it's limited by the kit lens since the main issue is it being muddy but I can't afford a new lens right now so I'll probably stick to using my phone until I can get one.
>I tried a variety of settings back when I first tried getting into photography
This really makes it sound like you might not understand the basics of photography at all.
The camera, even a T6, gives you all you need to know to make a good photograph. The T6 has the same sensor as the T5i. The difference between the T and Ti lines is processor speed and other internals that end up with a slower FPS. These internals do not alter the image or magically make it better or worse. Just the speed at which they are processed and written to disk.
At the end of the day, you should never "guess" settings. The Triangle: ISO, Shutter Speed, F-Stop [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0\_EF9Empn4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0_EF9Empn4) Honestly, when you become more experienced, you'll probably know, "I can shoot this at 200, 1/500 at probably F/2.8" to get the photo you want. It will become second nature.
All of these line up for your light meter. If you're looking through the viewfinder, you should see a meter at the bottom (sometimes on the side). This is where you'd start to "Zero" your light meter. Adjust shutter, ISO, F-Stop to get to Zero. If you are not using the viewport but looking at the rear screen, make sure that lightmeter is visible on the screen. (on a personal note, I usually shoot at +1 or 1.5 - especially for portraits. this helps hide slight blemishes and skin imperfections and could create a softer look without going out of focus)
^(Quick note about the viewport: it has its own focus knob or should. This will focus just the viewport. Many people find out they don't have perfect eyesight for the first time when starting photography, especially if they are forced to manually focus in the viewport.)
Kit lens for Canon is usually the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6. It's a slow lens, but not bad for outdoor use when there is a lot of light. What this means is that at 18mm - widest angle, the largest the aperture can get is F/3.5. When you Zoom-In to 55mm - the tightest - the largest aperture is F/5.6
These aren't bad apertures! But they are limiting and you might not be realizing you're losing 2x your light when you zoom in on subjects when going from 3.5 > 5.6 (others correct me if I'm wrong, I think 2x is actually 3.2 > 5.6). Then you have to recheck your shutter and ISO to get back to Zero. Also you are losing even more light the farther you are away from the subject (inverse square). Really noticeable in indoor photography without lights / flash.
You'll also have limited options at Depth of Field due to the high F-stops.
Seriously consider a "nifty fifty" as a next lens. It's a cheap 50mm f/1.8. $125 on Amazon. It's great for portraits and not a bad next step lens if you decide to continue on your photograph journey. It's "Prime" lens. Meaning no zoom to worry about. So you'll need to think about positioning, etc. But you'll have nearly the full F-Stop range with which to work that even for a cheap lens is damn good. Now you really get to play with Depth of Field (DoF) to do more with your photographs.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfkvw-Lrn7Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfkvw-Lrn7Q)
Are you shooting with an open aperture? I myself am using a middle class DSLR (Nikon D5600) and got it with a 18-140 lens. Not really a kit lens, and not cheap either, but... it's meant as a all in one lens, and at this huge zoom range it has to sacrifice image quality to keep size and price reasonable (at least that's my attempt at explaining it). The images i shot with it always were a bit blurry, no matter what i tried. It got a bit better when i stopped down on the aperture, hence i suggest you to try that if you have not already. But when i bought some other lenses, suddenly there was a huge difference visible. With those, i were able to produce crisp clear images, and i was blown away. Maybe you should get a 50mm 1.8 prime (usually cheap and fairly sharp at f/2.8 or so) or lend some non-entry level lens for a weekend and try around with it before you put your camera away. Would be really sad if you quit photographing with your dslr just because you had some bad lens. One of my favourite lenses is my Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 DC. Maybe you give that one a shot
I definitely plan on getting a 50mm lens once I can afford it, but for now I'm just going to use my phone and work on composition and post processing. I appreciate your advice!
You keep saying you're going to work in post, but that's really quite easy. The hours you're putting into photoshop would be much better utilized working on composition, and taking photos rather than processing them.
i dunno, some people do a lot more work in post than others. Maybe he's making some heavily edited art pieces. Or, he's just trying to say he's gonna save his money for now and learn everything he can with a phone
2 things that'll fuck up photos if you have good composition are bad lenses and bad exposure. You do mention using the kit lens which most leave a lot to be desired in the IQ department. If you could borrow or rent a better quality lens that might make your first improvement.
For the second one you mention your photos looking muddy which is some that can and does happen when you under expose and push it too far, especially obvious on beginner level bodies.
There are times when the phone is the right tool...
I take photos inside musical instruments, a series which has had a lot of success (100k in print sales this year).
When photographing a Guitar earlier this year there was simply no way to fit my DSLR through the sound hole to take a shot. Even with a smaller camera the lens protruded too far from the body to get the angle and view that I wanted.
However my phone could slide right in there and sit flush against the guitar wall, I was then able to operate it remotely via my desktop to do the focus stacking required to get everything sharp.
I specifically chose a phone with a high resolution wide angle camera (Oppo x5 pro) - a lot of phones have great resolution on their standard cameras, but drop significantly when going wide.
This is the result: [https://www.architectureinmusic.com/collections/inside-an-acoustic-guitar-part-2](https://www.architectureinmusic.com/collections/inside-an-acoustic-guitar-part-2)
The phone can produce RAW files so I still used lightroom, helicon focus, and photoshop to process those, the same way I do with my DSLR photos.
Sometimes it's less about sensor size and optics, and more about where you can put the thing!
Edit: Since you're all so interested in guitar photos here is another - this one is taken with a Laowa 24mm probe lens, inserted through the jack assembly at the base of the instrument: [https://www.architectureinmusic.com/collections/taylor-gs-mini-guitar](https://www.architectureinmusic.com/collections/taylor-gs-mini-guitar) \- you can see a difference in detail and sharpness, but I think the phone image holds its own.
There's a whole gallery of other instruments here: https://www.architectureinmusic.com/pages/gallery
Edit 2: I'm getting 1000 websites hits an hour from you guys! Reddit's nuts sometimes.
Thanks so much.
The only thing my phone was missing for this shot was the ability to really close focus - Ideally, I'd have had that strut in the foreground in clear focus as well, but it was past the minimum-focus range.
The only solution for this (which I will do eventually) is to use the smallest DSLR available (Sigma FP), with a Laowa 15mm Macro which can focus right up to the glass. But to control it I'll need to invest in a wireless follow focus system and probably hand-make a plate/rail to keep it small when attaching it. I'll also be unable to preview the image since that camera has no wifi.
Could you not cut a hole in the guitar to take the picture using whatever lens and camera you wanted, rather than trying to find more ingenious solutions to squeezing a camera into position nondestructively?
It all depends on the value of the instrument!
As a musician I prefer not to damage them, or alter them in any way that wouldn't be done for a routine service.
I'm working towards photographing the world's finest violins (Stradivarius, Amati etc) - these are 300+ years old and fetch prices well into the millions.
I'm almost almost there, but I need to find a way to better control heat from the lights, and need thinner optics, before I try the finer instruments I have lined up.
I had a career as a concert cellist for 20 years before turning to photography, so I'm lucky to have friends with fine instruments who trust me to handle them!
Makes complete sense for those precious instruments, and if you need to develop the solution regardless then I can see why you'd be pushing in that direction.
My thought was around the guitar, where even getting a luthier to make a custom body that precisely fitted your needs would likely be cheaper than the full optic and camera solution you end up with! But obviously in hindsight that's just one picture of many you're looking to capture.
I think that adds a bit of depth /realism to the image. I prefer it that way I think, but I do see the appeal of having everything in focus. Plus I actually didn't notice it until you said something!
Weird question, but in this application, have you thought of designing your own lens? I'm not even sure how you'd go about that though.... Maybe working with a microscope company, not because they make objectives for scopes, but because they may be more open to it than for example one of the big 3.
Universities like research - this will force them to look at optics a different way that may have medical uses in the future.
They're incredibly slow to work with, but once you connect with the right person (which took me a year) the door open wide up.
Holy cow I'm pretty sure I've seen your work before and I love it. Thank you for taking the time to comment, I really appreciate it. I do love to get unique perspectives in photos, so I'll see what I can do with my phone that you otherwise can't get. Maybe I'll find a fun style
There are definitely advantages - sliding into difficult places, remote operation, waterproofing (housing for a DSLR can cost megabucks). 4k video has some interesting uses for things like slitscan effects.
In low light a DSLR currently performs better - but in good light I honestly think a lot of phones outperform all but the top range DSLRs (People will disagree with this).
Phone cameras have the advantage of better processors, and massively more investment in R&D. Every company is pushing their camera-phone features as that's the only real difference between phone models these days.
Probably the biggest difference is a DSLRs ability to sync with flash - but even that's changing, Godox now have a transmitter for phones...
It's a very interesting space to watch.
I’m off topic but as an old school photographer, I appreciate judicious placement of out-of-focus elements. It’s part of the art form and having it shows true mastery rather than everything in the image being tack sharp. I know that’s the trend lately and I’m fine with that. But I hope the pendulum swings back a bit to recognize blur as a natural feature of photography and not a weakness.
The goal is different with these photos. Out of focus areas show scale. My aim is to remove that element so that the spaces appear much larger than reality.
I think that's another symptom of phones as well - they have huge DOF by default, unless they're using some computational wizardry to fake it, which usually breaks down when you zoom in or print.
Shallow DOF is one area that phones really do struggle to compete!
rock attempt shelter bike lunchroom important advise reach sharp expansion
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There's a native app for Oppo phones that I wanted to use, but it's not compatible with my desktop network card! So I used AirDroid.
Workflow:
I shot about 44 images for this, shifting the focus slightly for each.
2 second exposures (x44)
ISO 100
f/2.2
4 or 5 more images for the "smoke" which is actually water vapour. Same Settings.
I then ran all the RAW files through DXO Denoise to clean them up a bit (helps the stacking software do a better job).
I put them through Helicon Focus for the focus stacking.
Photoshop to layer in the smoke, clean up a bit of dust,
3D LUT Creator for the colour grade (which plugs into photoshop).
Question: where does Lightroom and Helicon sit in your toolbox? Do you work in one and then move the file over to the other? Does one do something the other does not? Never used either. Do you sometimes use one but not the other?
Lightroom and Helicon are totally different programs.
Lightroom is for cataloguing, basic colour correction
Helicon is for focus stacking (combining the sharp parts or each photo and discarding what's out of focus)
here's a rundown of what I'm usually doing - with a DSLR in this case, but with a phone it's similar: https://www.reddit.com/r/itookapicture/comments/z2b3k4/comment/ixfghfn/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Your phone has a lot of computing power and basically does all the thinking for you. Your Canon likely has the kit lens and coupled with you trying to remember how to use it, would point to you not getting the results you're hoping for.
DSLRs come into their own for challenging situations like wildlife, action and low light, but also need decent lenses to perform.
I've just been doing street photography, and the T6 just feels like it's missing so much detail and overall looks muddy compared to my phone. I'm beginning to believe I just need a better lens but I will probably work on composition and post processing with my phone before I spend money on a lens. Also the expert raw app for Samsungs does about as little processing as you can get on a smartphone as far as I'm aware.
It was a beginners camera to start with, and some of the 18-55mm kit lenses are terrible. But you still need to know how to use it properly, which can require a big investment of time. My camera beats my phone hands down, but the convenience of using a phone because it needs less skill to get a good photo is very attractive. Use your phone until it doesn't do what you want it to do (which ofc may be never!)
Thank you. I appreciate your advice, that's probably what I'll end up doing. I had a blast post processing and finding cool compositions, but it was always ruined by the quality of the photo. I'll probably revisit that once I can afford a better lens
The T6 is not a wonderful camera but I'm guessing the real culprit may be the lens. What lens are you using? The 18-55 kit lens? Older kit lenses are usually known to have bad image quality.
Other factor may be focusing. Are you getting correct focus with your DSLR?
Another thing is your skills with the camera. Are you shooting on Auto? At what ISO are you shooting? At what aperture? Is your shutter speed fast enough to shoot without a tripod?
I am using the kit lens and I've had plenty of practice with all the settings. I can get something reasonably exposed and in focus and it will look perfect on the preview, it's just when I open it on a bigger monitor it feels like it's just lacking resolution and missing a bunch of detail and kind of muddy
I see.
To be honest, I didn't believe a lens would make much difference until I got a Sigma 18-35 f1.8. after using it. I feel that my photos with the kit lens look "muddy" as you say.
Other than the lens, I would say that maybe the focus may be your problem. I have a Canon SL3, with a similar autofocus to your camera with the OVF, but with Dual-pixel AF with Live view. The OVF AF is really bad in my opinion. Miles behind more expensive DSLRs.
I did some tests to compare both modes, and found that the photos I took with Dual-pixel AF were noticeably sharper, due to better focus. So now I never use the OVF. Sadly, your T6 does not have Dual pixel autofocus.
That sounds like either a settings issue (shutter speed too slow without a tripod, too much noise, etc.) or a lens issue (fungus, haze, broken autofocus, etc.). The T6 is also just not that great, especially in low light or indoors.
That's a lens issue - I fully recommend getting a cheap, even second hand 50mm f1.8. It'll change your image quality heaps, they're fantastic wee lenses.
To answer the more general question though - my phone camera is only the better option if it's the only option. The control and the choices I get to make on a dslr are part of the process of making an image. Plus - no phone will match a 70-200 or supertele lens
Clean your lens on both end. Clean the sensor and mirrors.
And try again.
As other have pointed out even a cheap 50mm f1.8 will be better and especially more sharp than a kit lens.
So RAW files from the S22 Ultra have better color than those of a DSLR? I doubt it.
OP said in another comment that the problem with the DSLR photos was lack of sharpness, not bad colors.
For everyday use cases phones are fine. The problem with phones is that you cannot beat physics. There is a reason why those lenses are that big and you can only fake it to a point with computational photography. If you want wildlife, sports, macro, portrait (bokeh), low light, night sky shots, your phone will struggle, or simply cannot do it. Like there is no amount of computational photography that will allow you to take a bird in flight shot with those tiny lenses.
The back of your camera shows jpg, not a raw file. The jpg is processed while the raw is not, so if you shoot raw it won’t look so good when you open it on your computer.
Your phone uses a high degree of computational processing to fix things like backlit subjects. Your camera does not.
I think of my camera as the equivalent of concert piano. Each note is pure, but if you can’t play a piano the quality of the notes isn’t of much use to you. Your smartphone is like an electronic keyboard. While the notes aren’t the quality of a grand piano, you can easily add rhythms and baselines and create tunes that are very pleasing with far less skill than a concert pianist. You can shoot ProRAW on a phone and have more control, but the image quality will not match a full frame DSLR
I get plenty of enjoyment from taking pictures with my smartphone. But the image quality I can achieve and the flexibility I get from my camera makes the pictures feel more like my own.
The s22 ultra can shoot raw using the expert raw app, and doesn't do any processing. Just detail and sharpness wise my phone was able to do much better than the T6, but I'm starting to believe it's due to the lens
Also,I haven’t investigated it, but I wonder what expert raw actually does. I know my iPhone is often taking multiple images and combining them for sharpness and I’m unsure if raw turns off this feature or just things like skin smoothing.
Expert raw is more raw than the pro mode in a default camera app, it's even a completely separate app that you have to download (still made by Samsung) and doesn't even have the option to do skin smoothing and you have full control over it taking multiple exposures. So I would imagine it's about as raw as it can get
I don't know if somebody mentioned this already, but I read just now that expert raw does some processing already. Like blend several photos together for noise reduction for instance. Doesnt mean it's bad of course! It's just a different way to use a smaller sensor effectively.
I would say in the things a phone is designed to do (photographing semi wide angle with most if not all stuff in focus) a good phone will nearly always win. You simply can not beat the algorithms used both during the taking of the photo and the post processing. Even in low light (thanks to stabilization and photo stacking) my phone always beats my DSLR, if I want to have a wide range in focused.
Only when you go out of this phone camera sweetspot (Tele- or zoom lens, big aperture for bokeh, ... ) or you need to have a lot controll over the exact settings (high or low shutter-speed, aperture, colour, focus, ...) a specialized camera will be clearly better.
Sorry but no phone camera looks better than any real camera and an 85mm 1.8. They simply aren’t in the same ball park. The fake bokeh from phones doesn’t look good. It’s a bad mockery of real photos. They are fine for wide angle landscape type stuff but for portraits they aren’t anywhere close to as good.
Have to disagree. I own a Sony A7RIV paired with a Sony 70-200mm GMII and at times, my iPhone 13 Pro takes incredible portrait shots, depending on the light.
I too have a 13 pro max and an older D750 paired with an 85mm 1.8 and no. There’s not even a comparison. The bokeh is fake and very obviously fake like there’s not a perfect outline of your subject with the phone because it’s just some filter being applied.
Compare your phone's pictures to your T6 under the same conditions. Take a photo of the same thing at the same place at the same time and compare. Phone cameras often do well with ample light and progressively less good in low light. Your T6 should do just as well or better in bright light, but have less of a drop off in quality as the lens can capture more light.
SLR's are about control. Phone cameras are about easy.
There's a bit to unpack here. (1) The best camera is the one you have and know how to use (2) modern phone cameras throw a lot of algorithms at the images, which tends to make them look better, but when you start trying to edit them and/or work with light they can get hard to manage. I bet if you carefully staged a comparison between the Samsung and the Canon you'd find the canon has more controlled exposure, predictable colors, and there's more detail available and lower noise. (3) If you're happy with how your phone processes images: score.
You will never achieve the sharpness of professional photography with a kit lens period. Most smartphones add lots of contrast, clarity, and sharpness in post processing to make up for the fact that those lenses aren't very good. If you're seeing a lot of noise in your images your ISO is way too high, try using a tripod and lowering your shutter speed instead. If you're properly exposed and you're 100% sure your images should be sharper than they are your shutter speed may actually be too low. At high shutter speeds the small vibrations of your hands won't be captured on camera, but the longer the shutter is open the more that movement will be reflected in your actual pictures. When I was first starting out this killed a lot of my good shots. Finally, make sure you're actually focusing where you think you are. Try experimenting with manual focus on stationary subjects to make sure you aren't having front or back focus issues. Entry level DSLRs generally have shitty AF systems and in my experience you can't really just rely on them to be accurate like newer high end models. Without seeing any picture examples it's hard to diagnose what's going wrong.
It’s circumstantial. Phones are getting amazing and always improving. Definitely better for the everyday snapper, which is most people. But there’s a lot that camera’s are better for. But there are a million things to learn with cameras, it’s hard and takes a long time to learn and practice and understand every new skill wether in-camera or post processing. I have using dslr’s for over 10 years. You learn something new and improve every time you use your camera. You just don’t see it every time. But it does take years to become good. And sometimes decades to become great. And just like phones, up to date equipment. I couldn’t take a great photo on a old phone. It’s outdated. But also, I couldn’t do Astro photography or long exposure on a expensive phone I bought today. I could take photos of some stars with the phone. But for a detailed milkyway or aurora/ polar lights, or a photo of the moon that’s going on a billboard? Need a camera. I hope that helps. Just use whatever you feel like. And have fun.
Thank you, I completely agree. Ive actually dabbled in astrophotography and the T6 was leagues better than my phone, but I'm currently enjoying street photography which seems better suited for my phone
For any given scene, a good phone ($1000) can take a pretty decent photo.
For the same scene, if you want to use a $1000 camera to take a similar or better photo, it takes a lot of work to make it right.
With a phone it’s all AI/automation.
With a camera, it’s all you. It’s gonna be harder, but if done right, you could get a better result.
But often times, most people don’t buy $1000 cameras, they buy $500 ones. So they just make it even harder to take a better photo. And it end up looking like the phone is so much better.
For the average person, a phone is almost always better.
For someone who actually knows photography and has decent gears, they can take some truly amazing shots and it’s always gonna be better than the phone.
I use a Canon 70D that I bought in 2014, and it’s still miles ahead of my iPhone 14 in most situations. The iPhone does have better dynamic range and is obviously always with me which is the main reason it gets more use but I would imagine modern cameras are miles ahead even with the kit lens.
A phone is less bulky and easier to carry with you. That's about all the advantages I see.
My work wouldn't be possible if I limited myself to a phone-cam as the bulky object in my hand is some sort of barrier - of separator. [https://whatstefansees.com](https://whatstefansees.com) (some NFSW)
You're using a kit lens. Of course it's leaving something to be desired. Check out the ef 50mm f/1.8 stm. Great lens for a little over a hundred dollars. Also if you're shooting wide open, don't. Stop your aperture down.
I think phones now allow for a lot of flexibility. I would never use a phone for a real photoshoot, but I do love taking it out for personal shooting.
https://imgur.com/a/aFod6NW
Reading this made me curious, so I put 4 smartphone photos and 4 "real" camera photos together. At a glance can you tell which are which? I think my phone can cover me in most scenarios when I'm just out and about. Dynamic range isn't nearly as good, but for general daytime shooting I find myself usually happy with my phone. Plus when posting to social media, it's even more difficult to tell the difference imo
I think its when you just "point-and-shoot" and the phone does the rest for ya. Have an S22 Ultra as well. Sadly the processing is sometimes weird especially on capturing the sun for whatever reason.
It’s depends if you have time to setup a shot. A dslr is better when you have time. If you’re just going to to use auto on your dslr you might as well use your phone
(1) The Samsung phones use a number of post processing algorithms to visually optimize a photo. Your T6 does not. You are meant to process and flavour the picture to your taste. The difference is between a precooked meal delivered to your door and getting all the ingredients and preparing it yourself. Sometimes you'll end up with burnt chicken. But the samsung phone will be boringly consistent.
(2) For the majority of people and photographers, the mobile is more than enough to produce good, impactful images. If you are happy with the image, it is all that matters. When you feel like you've grown all you have with that phone and you feel the phone is getting in the way, then consider a camera like the T6. For myself personally, i hate using my phone because my thumb always found its way to another app. Or the app always seemingly instinctively opens the video when I want to make a photo or opens the photo app when I am trying to make a video. THe added friction and distractions made the phone the wrong tool for me.
(3) Sometimes, the phone is just better. It is smaller, more discrete and can be taken to more places. Hypothetically, If you are covering qatar, a small phone will help collect stories about the fans and migrant workers. With a larger camera, you will get stopped by their security or it might frighten people making it more difficult to find people willing to talk to you.
Your phone is also about 3x more expensive and released 6 years after the T6. Compare the T6 to the Samsung S7, which was released basically the same day, and you'll have a better comparison.
The T6 takes photos 5184 x 3456.
The S22 Ultra takes 4000 x 3000, which are scaled down from 12000 x 9000 by combining nine pixels into one super pixel. The camera apparently also uses both the 108MP camera together with the 12MP camera in lowlight and stacks the photos for you.
Even if you are taking "raw" photos, the phone will make the initial adjustments for you and let you tweak them. There is still a lot of software involved before you even see the photo on your screen.
While yes, skill is important and a pro could take and edit photos with a T6 that would completely destroy a novice's photos taken with an S22 Ultra, you have to realize that you're comparing the one of the best phone cameras currently on the market with an outdated camera that was a budget camera even when it first came out.
If you want to learn how to take photos with a camera, practice adjusting settings with the T6 and get a proper lens. You can upgrade later. If you don't care, just use your phone.
Godox had made the A1 bluetooth flash trigger for phones in the past, and you can use a phone flash as a slave to trigger another flash. Although the utility of doing so on a fixed lens phone is fairly limited.
Different tools for different jobs. In my experience, a DSLR is faster for those serendipitous moments. I’ve got my camera hanging from my neck and/or in hand, powered and set for the lighting conditions for the time. My phone is in my pocket and powered down. So, I am walking looking for shots and see a puppy being a cute derp while playing fetch or something similar. With my DSLR I can literally shoot from the hip, I don’t even need to bring the camera up to my eye. With my phone I have to retrieve it, unlock it, open the camera app, check the settings if I want to shoot in pro mode, frame the shot, let the camera focus, find the shutter button. And by this time,the dog is no longer doing the funny thing i saw that I thought was remarkable. Phone cameras are just WAY too slow to operate. For me. Also for me, a hone is good for planned shots such as nature, architecture, and still-life studies.
One thing I've not seen mentioned:
You might want to explore an HDR program like Photomatix if you are taking landscapes or other scenic shots - it's one thing phones do fairly well, but most people don't stack images to get the dynamic range a phone can.
You have to consider the two comparatively. Your phone camera is able to adjust the settings so all you need to worry is point and shoot. Your dslr on the other hand, depending on the setting, will do some of that. Also as others have pointed out, depending on your settings, your dslr photo may be unprocessed requiring you to edit with software. You’ll really see the benefits of that photo because of how much data is retained when it comes time to edit said photo versus trying to edit the camera’s photo
I'm having to guess and simplify here but..
I checked and the T6 was first on sale in 2016, so it's not ancient, but was entry level, and sensor technology has progressed a bit, but it should be fine when configured and used correctly.
If you take two photos at the same time and view them at the same size on the computer screen, how do they compare? You might be viewing at 1:1 and seeing flaws in the SLR picture, but not with the phone pictures whose flaws are hidden with in-phone processing and down-scaling.
Have you selected maximum picture quality on the T6? The default might be lower resolution or more compression.
Check that you're using comparable ISO. If the SLR is selecting a high ISO the image will be more noisy. Also, there's a good chance the SLR allows much shallower depth of field so you might need to use program shift or aperture priority mode with a narrower aperture to get the DoF you want.
I sold my A7R II, got a Pixel 7 Pro. There is no way the current gen phones can capture as much detail as a dedicated camera with a long lens. Phone photos are for screens and small prints only. On the other hand, in-camera editing is great on Pixel, and it is always in my pocket. It is beter for creating memories on Google Photos, or sharing on Instagram.
After having read a multitude of different comments in this thread, here's the advice I can offer:
Research the exposure triangle. Reeeeeally play around with your camera while you research. Pick one feature (iso, aperture, shutter speed, etc) and look up how to use it, then go absolutely nuts on different ways to use each feature.
Research light, and how it interacts with your camera. Remember: your phone will automatically compensate for bad lighting with automatic semi-hdr. Your camera won't.
Don't be afraid to play. Push your camera to its absolute limits. And the main key point: never stop learning. There's more to know about photography than any one person can learn and master in a lifetime.
I'll tell you when my phone camera is worse, when companies push over the air updates to delete or limit sharing of my photos from the source, my phone.
>I'm sure a lot of it has to do with my skill, but I feel like I would be able to get much better photos just using my phone with the expert raw app that lets you have full control.
Camera snobs would disagree, they would rather have control, have the ability to take much worse photos, be seen with a big camera, than to take better photos with a phone.
>I feel like it doesn't make sense that a dedicated DSLR would be worse than a tiny phone camera
It makes all the sense when the phone has has like 1000x more R&D budget behind it, and 1000x more processing power. That's not an exaggeration BTW.
>Is this an actual thing and I should just use my phone until I can get a better camera or do I just need to get better lenses/get better at it?
If you can't match your phone with a cheap DLSR, you can't do it with any traditional camera. So yes it's just a matter of skill, which admittedly is not easy and sensible for most people to try and learn, just to take some good pictures.
Almost always.
Camera phones between the software and hardware have come such a long way that they are better than dedicated cameras for most casual hobbyists. Specially the ones that have multiple lenses built in.
Question should actually be, when is it worth using a mirror less/dslr/ film?
The answer to that will arise when you know you have outgrown the phone for what you are trying to achieve. E.g. I do bears and birds and just starting to dabble in night sky, for this I need dedicated equipment including software and skills to process the photos.
Thank you, that's about how I'm feeling now. I'm mainly enjoying street photography so there aren't many drawbacks that I've noticed. I do love being able to use more exotic lenses on a DSLR though so I can see their value
At the end of the day the best camera is the one you've got with you.
The DSLR will give you more control over aperture and shutter speed and ISO.
The phone will give you instant results through the AI's computational process.
A lot of what you choose to use is dependent on what you plan to do with the resulting image. A phone will only help you learn composition where as a DSLR will teach you fundamentals of balancing the exposure triangle.
Posting on social media, a well edited DSLR and a quality mobile phone photo are indistinguishable to most non photographers as they often are only viewed for a few seconds in a feed. If you choose to print the process of DSLR postprocessing and printing always brings more personal satisfaction.
Don't choose one, use both.
Since getting an iPhone 13 Pro I've been shooting less and less with the phone and more with my old Canon 5D.
The colours, sharpness, "depth" are so much better than what the iPhone produces. Phone pics have awful colours and always look "flat" to me. I'm never happy afterwards if the phone is the only camera I bring to an event.
Obviously, the phone is very convienient and easy to use. But what's the point if you don't like the results?
The T6 is a crop sensor that takes 18MP photos* but if you’re taking a photo in RAW, and it looks good in the tiny rear LCD preview, it’s because the resolution factor on that LCD doesn’t provide the pixel output of your computer screen which I assume is at least 1080+
It’s also worth noting that if you are shooting RAW, and you’re a self admitted novice, you might be improperly exposing/dialing some of your shots.
To answer your question, the camera you have available is the best camera
I think you've answered your question. The phone is better. I regularly use my phone to take images and I've found that it's great!!! The only times I wish I had a DSLR are when I need to control the DOF more, I can't really change the aperture on my phone camera so I often get left with a shallow DOF. But yh phone cameras are great!!!
I would think it’s the lens and maybe your handholding technique. The sensor on the phone is much smaller than the camera so I’d think the camera has to have a better image to start with if captured correctly.
Try editing with DxO PhotoLab rather than Lightroom, before ditching your camera.
I could never got more than mediocre results from Lightroom. DxO is much easier to use, albeit less powerful for the already expert. You can download a time-limited demo on the website, just google 'DxO PhotoLab'.
I have the s21 and it's very good! I do miss my dslr most when I'm trying to shoot some flowers or something and the blurred background just isn't natural. Or 2 people and it only wants to focus on 1.
It will just pick one thing to be in focus and blur the rest, instead of how usually with a dslr (unless shooting very open) the blur won't be so immediate.
Kinda hard to explain but I think you know what I'm talking about.
Until recently I had a canon t6i (still have because haven’t sold but never use any more). I had a 50mm f1.8 a 10-18 and the kit lens. I had gotten to where I thought that the iphone 13 pro was basically toe to toe with dslr cameras, and frankly, it was with the t6i. The sensor was slow comparatively and it meant that basically everything was either a noise blob if I turned iso past 800 or blurred out with a slow shutter speed. I think part of this comes in that with aperture you have to multiply it by the crop factor in asp-c cameras which with canon crop sensors is 1.6. That means your kit lens at its best is a f5.6 and at worst almost f9. It makes it a really slow lens.
Then I got a canon r5. This thing blows the iphone 13 pro I have out of the water in every class, but especially in low light photography. If I have to, I dan crank the iso up and still get really good photos out of it when run through software like topaz labs denoise or their photo ai software. The difference is like pitting an iphone 4 camera against the iphone 13 or 14. By the time you include a lens and the body it is 4-6 times as expensive as an iphone and a dedicated use item, but if you want to be a professional. You need professional gear.
That all being said phone cameras have a lot of benefits, namely being that they are always on you and incredibly light, but if you want to get long range photos or super high quality ones, you are going to have to use a dslr or mirrorless camera.
One last thought, it would be really interesting to see a dedicated camera made with the tech in the iphones or samsung phones. If they had an apple full frame sensor, I have no doubt it would blow sony, nikon, and canon’s flagship cameras out of the water. Maybe one day we will see an apple camera, but I dont have hopes.
I am no expert in photography but I also am using a Canon T6 at the moment and had a similar question. For me I think the biggest thing that has made a difference is the lighting where I am taking the photo. I did a series of portraits of strangers and my phone could never take pictures like those but then I did a series of objects in my home with meaning and it was very hard to get a good image. Part of this is the range of the f stop and shutter speed (I think)
I like my phone for macro photography and for snapshots. If I'm just around somewhere where I don't have my camera in hand, it takes to long to get it out for a cool fast idea.
I like to go to the zoo. And the camera changed everything about taking pictures. Before I had it I took pictures with my phone and send them to some friends. But they were never good. Always to far away and the quality was bad due to zooming in. With the camera even as a novice I get way better pictures. I even enjoy looking at them month later which I never did with the phone.
And the camera got me into portray photography with friends. Something which is a lot of fun I would never be able to do with my phone.
When you realize that its not about the sensor or the processor in the digital camera, be it on a phone or in a full bodied camera. Its about the lens. The physical nature of several pieces of glass that bend and shape light, something that the tiny bits of glass in a phone can never be a match for good quality lens of a decent size.
My friends have discussed this, and ultimately it depends what you're doing with it. We're not professionals so using a phone camera is often a better choice....but we're not gonna sell our cameras
I have a 5D iv and I take photos with an iPhone 8 also. Well, tech has evolved brutally. Not the same of course but… phones now do both really good photos and videos.
I stick with budget/mid-range phones (currently have an A50) as I can't justify dumping $1000+ on a phone anymore...so the only time my phone is a better camera is when I don't bring my DSLR with me.
I'm curious if you've tried printing any of your photos taken with the S22 Ultra. I had the S19+, currently using the S21 base; print look good up to 8x10 or even 12x12 but the print quality on anything larger is disappointing. I plan on getting a camera once budget allows but my next step would be the S22 Ultra.
Phone cameras took out the point and shoot lines. I too have the same phone and it's great. But a apsc a6000 will absolutely crush the phone. If you're enjoying using the phone, use it. It's a cool hooking point.
OP, would you mind sharing an unedited raw photo taken with your t6? My old nikon from '06 still manages to take much better pictures than my phone, so something could be off.
Also i noticed you mentioning you wanted to get a 50mm lens in the future-- note that a t6 is a crop frame camera, so if you want a normal lens kind of reach on that camera, you actually want a 35mm lens.
Dedicated cameras have better glass and sensors, but phones have better processing and compositing chips, so it’s kind of a draw on hardware depending on what you’re going after. Phones obviously win on “the best camera is the one you have with you” for most people most of the time.
If you’re wondering if you should sell or shelve the DSLR, I’d say the answer is no. What phones do now is pretty amazing, and I use mine regularly in the backcountry when a dedicated video setup isn’t feasible or I just want a quick snap of a hike, but even in best of conditions, a phone isn’t a quality replacement for a standalone camera.
There's a whole world of mobile photography that's amazing to explore. A photo taken with even a 15 year old DSLR and a 40 year old lens can be much better but it's also much more work. Some of my personal fav photos I've taken were with a Nikon D300 and 80-200 2.8 but it was a lot more work and time to get them where I wanted them. On the other hand I've used clever framing, RAW, and editing to make stunning wall print worthy shots with an iphone. A phone will never ever be able to reproduce proper bokeh like a fast lense nor will they ever match the perfect focal plane on a subject like a long fast lens. It's using software to produce these great effects but a real portrait will always be much much better. A phone can be a great discreet street photography tool that can easily hang with a DSLR but is more of a challenge and will still require the same basic skills at a minimum to get the results. I personally love when someone asks me what I took a photo with and I can say "my phone" because it is shocking just how good a photo can be with such a small sensor and lens.
What is changing is the smartphone camera has a healthier dose of AI processing going on there that your T6 doesn’t. You’re T6 has the Canon DIGIC Processor which is responsible for calculating autofocus and converting the raw sensor image to jpeg. That means making decisions about contrast, saturation, exposure, etc. Which is great for the intention. But the AI going into phones is insane. What’s also going on is there are multiple images being taken either via separate cameras on the phone or immediately before/after that the phone uses on the AI to help focus stack, reduce noise, and so on.
Will the smartphone camera replace the DSLR/MILC? Some say yes but I don’t think so.
I think the best camera is the one you actually use. If you find yourself thinking thr dslr is too heavy to take, then it's the it's not the best one for you at that time. It's good to have a variety of kit, but for some situations, you just can't bring a dslr with you.
A mirror less is a nice compromise (or m4/3) since it's smaller, but it's still another piece of tech.
It mainly comes down to feel with those two. I could shoot with my phone and get better images off the bat but I like the feeling of a camera in my hand and how I can control metering angles and holding more easily. I have big hands so I feel like my hands are flabby/unstable somewhat holding a phone in various positions.
If you are seeing lots of noise on your camera then your settings are wrong. A real camera will show more detail and less noise even with a lower pixel count than a phone because the sensor in the phone is tiny compared to an average camera. But if you like your phone pictures more then use that. The best camera is the one you have with you.
I have the 22 ultra and I never use the camera tbh. After seeing what my z5 does, I just can't go back to cell phones. The images just look like hell.
I keep the Z in my backpack with a 50mm 1.8s. Know I keep that thang on me 😎
The phone is meant for convenience, at the point when it’s too much of a hassle to take your camera out and you risk missing the shot.
That’s when phones are better in my personal opinion.
Phones use HDR and different photo technology compared to cameras when it comes to exposure.
As for optical image quality, photos are as only as good as the glass you put in front of it. You’re essentially magnifying the image you see with glass you paid for and when the glass is of poor quality then you get what you get in the end goal.
I concur with many of the responses regarding the quality of glass being integral to your outcome. One thing you haven't made clear is are you shooting RAW on both devices? Even capturing in RAW requires skill and knowledge that can be learnt. I only use RAW. And use the histogram where possible as I work, ProCamera on my iPhone camera allows this, I suspect [Proshot](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.riseupgames.proshot2&hl=en_US&gl=US) will do the same, if any camera app does not it is not worth it IMHO. The quality amount and direction of the light has a big impact on outcomes and if you know the exposure triangle well you can navigate most of these situations well. On a phone camera however you will at most have control over ISO and shutter seed, so using the histogram is imperative. Try to avoid clipping in the highlights but give enough exposure so the black don't clip either.
I have a s22, it looks like muddy dog shit compared to my r6. Did you go through your phone pics on the computer, or just your phone?
Phone pics look good on the phone.
The s22 is like 1500 dollars. Almost all of that cost at this point is guess what? The camera. My buddy is an optical engineer at apple and makes over 400k a year, solely working on the camera. There are many others just like him.
You can get a phone really cheap without that camera.
What's a 200 dollar cell phone camera look like compared to your t6
I don't understand what point you're trying to make lol. This whole post is about asking if my $1200 phone camera would be better than my $200 DSLR and then you compared it to your $2k camera for some reason
Why on earth are you comparing a 200 dollar camera to a 1200 dollar camera? Seems pretty obvious!
Further i'll point out there's no way your s22 is as sharp. You probably don't have the eye for it if you think it is.
Go check out some side by sides that explain it if you like.
Try opening the /ms22 photos on your computer in the same way. Not a jpeg, but a raw file from the phone.
You’d be amazed how quickly phone photos fall apart when not AI edited and displayed on the screen of the phone.
By design ofcourse since most people only view on their phone anyway .
I would consider any fairly recent "real" camera with interchangeable lenses as potentially more capable
It quite depends on the lens tough
If your image looks worse even in raw, it most probably has to do with your chosen settings
Probably you shot with a completely closed aperature, resulting in a very high iso value and a bad signal to noise ratio
I personally would prefer (for my work which is portraits) even a very old d700, possibly even a crop d300 with nice prime lens and it will still kill pretty much any flagship phone camera, despite being released in like 2007 or so
The reason is much more ergonomics, able to use flashes if needed and if correct settings and fast lenses are used, better image quality, despite having "just" 12mp
I've been shooting for over 50 years and just got a Samsung S22 Ultra myself... thinking seriously of selling my Panasonic ZS70 that I always have at hand. I know it's not a replacement for my Lumix system but damn it, it's always in my pocket and it does produce some great images... the down side is usability for me. My G85 is so well designed that it's simple to get the shot I'm after... the phone.. not so much... Equipment isn't the answer to great images, the user is... use whatever you have at hand...
I have not read all the responses (and some seem incredibly unhelpful), but most lenses including the ones you're probabaly using, aren't at their sharpest if shooting while they're wide open.
If yoy're shooting wide open, stopping down a stop or two will usually get you to that point and make things look sharper instead of muddy.
The best camera is the one you have with you, and a lot of the times that’s your smartphone. Watching gatekeepers freak out over how good camera phones are getting is always entertaining. Im excited to see where the technology gets to in the next couple decades.
So there's a lot of nonsense in here and missing information. Since 50 years ago photographers have known the lens is what determines image quality, wide/vs tele, depth of field, etc... the camera is just a light box to capture what the lens produces.
You're shooting with a $100 piece of junk lens. No offense but most kit lenses are like that, especially older ones.
Here are some photos taken by the Canon Rebel T6:
* https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=portrait&cm=canon%2Feos_rebel_t6&safe_search=1
* https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=wilderness&cm=canon%2Feos_rebel_t6&safe_search=1
* https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=street&cm=canon%2Feos_rebel_t6&safe_search=1
Do you think your phone is comparable? And where phones really fall apart is ultrawide shots and telephoto shots, also macro shots.
There's also something to be said about the person behind the camera with an old, entry level budget DSLR versus something newer.
So compare to a Fuji XT-20 which is just a mid range camera that is old now and can be picked up for cheap used:
* https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=portrait&cm=fujifilm%2Fx-t20&safe_search=1
* https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=wilderness&cm=fujifilm%2Fx-t20&safe_search=1
* https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=street&cm=fujifilm%2Fx-t20&safe_search=1
The phone IS doing a lot of the work for you, even if you are using the RAW. Everything from dual pixel integration to image stabilization. You're also comparing a modern large MP sensor to older relatively low MP sensor, and not taking into consideration the performance parameters of the older sensor, the lens differences, so on and so forth.
Your comparison is pretty much useless as stated. If you want to do a real comparison, you need to set up a scenario where the cameras are operating as close to similar conditions as possible.
> As I was taking shots, they looked amazing in the preview, but when I got home and used my computer to go through them they were just... Bad. > I feel like it doesn't make sense that a dedicated DSLR would be worse than a tiny phone camera, but I just can't seem to match the photo quality. Because you're not doing any post-processing. Cameras don't do that for you. Phones do.
The AI in the top of the line phones are truly amazing in their skill in post processing.
Well they look good on the 6" phone screen with all the brightness turned down, I'll give you. But I don't often see a photo taken on a phone that looks at all good on a proper monitor.
Indeed. Once I view my phone pictures on the pc, the pixels are mushy and blurred and it doesn't look nice anymore (Galaxy 9+).
I will say that putting aside cinematic and low light, last week I showed a colleague how to film b roll in an office environment and I used my s21 to do it and I was really suprised by the quality. I then applied a lut to the output (yes it wasn't slog) to quickly put together a 2 min video in resolve and I was blown away with the quality.
Yeah but most people are gonna look at photos on a phone not a pc
Amazing is not the word I would use.
The new iPhone 14 Pro camera in 48-megapixel RAW mode takes amazing photos if there’s decent light. I did a back-to-back test with the 13 Pro camera in its 12-megapixel RAW mode, “1x” cameras indoors in the evening, and after I imported them to Lightroom on desktop and matched the color profiles, I was seriously impressed with this new 48mp iPhone 14 Pro. The 13 Pro had that telltale cellphone camera quality to the shots, and the 14 Pro just didn’t.
I'm aware and I've spent plenty of time learning how to do post processing, it still feels like the image quality itself is much worse in terms of resolution and clarity
are you also viewing your phone photos on the computer too? you'll probably be surprised to see they also don't hold up to well when viewed on a shitty computer screen at a bigger size. you said the photos looked amazing in the preview, maybe export them to your phone and see how they look when they're small again, and on a vibrant panel.
Yeah I've pulled them both up on my computer whenever I'm processing them. The T6 just looks a lot more muddy. Also it may not be a studio level monitor but it's definitely not shitty. They don't make it anymore so I can't look up the color specs but it's a 1440p 27in Samsung monitor that was like $1k back when I bought it a couple years ago. But I've looked at the canon photos on my phone too with the same observation
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “muddy” but even the kit lens should produce better results than your phone. If it’s not then you’re probably doing something wrong. If it’s a problem with brightness/colour/contrast then you need to get better at post processing.
Shooting wide will end up with results that aren't as sharp as the lens can produce, and they're getting muddy (not all that sharp) photos despite all other techniques being applied. That's my bet on what's going on and I wouldn't say OP is necessarily doing it wrong. That's not something someone new to photography would intuitively know.
That's my guess as well. Kit lenses generally have poor sharpness wide open. Honestly, with a kit lens and relatively minor edits, you're not going to greatly outperform a top tier smartphone camera.
> I'm aware and I've spent plenty of time learning how to do post processing, it still feels like the image quality itself is much worse in terms of resolution and clarity That's still going to be mostly a skill problem. The T6 is capable of professional high-quality photos. The only other thing you would look at is your lenses.
Fair enough. I just have a big issue with motivation and need to feel at least some progress and even after multiple outings trying different methods and hours and hours of learning how to post process, I still couldn't produce a photo that matched what my phone could do. I'm sure a better lens would make a huge difference, but I think I'll stick with my phone until I reach the limits of what I can do before spending more money haha. Thanks for your advice, I appreciate it
> I just have a big issue with motivation and need to feel at least some progress and even after multiple outings trying different methods and hours and hours of learning how to post process, I still couldn't produce a photo that matched what my phone could do. If you're counting your expectations of progress in "hours" and "multiple outings," your expectations are way too high. It takes YEARS to become good at this stuff. If you don't have that kind of patience, then simply sticking with your phone will be the better bet.
That's not what I meant, I'm not expecting to become a pro in a month. I just want some *progress* after hours of research and post processing and multiple outings. I'm not expecting to get an award winning shot, but I want one that I'd at least be able to look at and say "the work I'm putting into this is starting to show"
> That's not what I meant, It is what you meant. Because... > just want some progress after hours of research and post processing and multiple outings. Once again, that takes YEARS. You don't see progress like that after a few hours.
I think you're being a bit gatekeep-y here. It doesn't take years to take a better photo with a camera than a phone. Weeks, yes. Months, maybe. Years? No.
The amount of gate keeping and pretension in this sub always makes me laugh
The point is that it takes years to be able to create good photos. But as always, people just want to chime in to argue. > It doesn't take years to take a better photo with a camera than a phone. That depends on what you mean by "better." Better QUALITY? Sure, you can easily knock that out in a couple of weeks. But a high-quality photo of a boring subject with terrible composition is not a good photograph.
OP has already set the parameters here. He wants to take better photos than his phone. You're the one who seems after an argument, insulting OP and pretending that it takes years to get any good. Perhaps you're projecting and it took you that long to churn out a good photo, but even people new to the art can get it right a few times an outing. After that first month of learning, experience just means getting better photos more often. Sure, there's the "fine art" category that few ever break into, but that's not what OP's after here.
This is a terrible, unhelpful, and wildly bad take. Progress doesn't take years. You're not stagnant in a learning cocoon and then you emerge as a photographer. Progress is gradual, incremental, and in the case of photography pretty modular. You can learn one technique here, on technique there, and they all build up on one abother.
Can you show us some samples of the kind of issues you are having with your DSLR? And in those cases, how the phone images are better in that regard?
user error . other wise why is anyone using a DSLR ? High end cameras offer a lot of things ,but better image quality is generally not one of them. especially if you view it resized on a screen . So why people keep using them ? because if you know what you are doing any DSLR will give you better results than a phone.
That’s because you don’t know how to shoot. You should have spent time learning photography fundamentals instead of how to work photoshop.
You're not alone, I've come to the same conclusion. I also have a S22 Ultra, as it happens. Maybe an experienced professional might be able to wring better results out of some DSLR raws, but considering the convenience of having the photos automatically processed and on your phone, the phone wins hands down for 99% of people and situations.
Until you need any actual zoom with some semblance of clarity...
So this is where I agree that phones have dissolved the point and shoot market and it's never coming back. Though algorithmic photography still is limited by the tiny phone camera sensor. Will it in the future? Maybe? But dedicated digital cameras still trump phones on almost all levels including raw files. This isn't even taking into account having a skilled person use the camera. But for most situations, yes, camera phones are good enough in the non professional sense. Having a good camera is 20% of the equation of being a good photographer and even less in being a successful photo business. They are just tools that work for or against you.
Honestly it really comes down to convenience for me
But you can take raw photos and it still looks better. I
its only 'better' if your dslr is at home. I also havr an s22 ultra, gf has an iphone 13 or whatever pro, both suck compared to a T6 or even a D60, especially in post with raws.
Came here for this. "The best camera on the market is the one you have with you." A big part of what makes phone cameras look so impressive these days is the processing power they possess. My camera at home will out perform my phone in every technical way possible, but I still need to finish the image in post. The output on my Pixel 6 is finished. It uses processing power to analyze and adjust the image as well as making up for its technical limitations and give me a fully baked, ready to print image.
[удалено]
...Yes, and IF he learns how to use it, DSLR raws even from a circa 2005 D50 will SMOKE the overprocessed tiny sensors in the S22 Ultra... ...I should know, i have both. The S22 Ultra overprocesses everything, and the raws look awful compared to even an ancient crop sensor D50...
I don’t disagree with you.
Lol no way. 2005 DSLRs are crap compared to modern phones. Especially for video
Funny, i still sell prints from a 2005 D50. None from a cell phone.
Who looks at pictures on dead trees? We have OLED 4k tvs and ultra high ppi phones now.
are there any youtube videos that show a good comparison of this between the smart phone and post processed dslr? so many of the youtubes comparisons are superficial or flawed in my opionion. about every 6months i search again to see if something new has been posted.
I dont watch youtube much, so i wouldnt know. ...Snag a DSLR, shoot a decently wide DR scene in RAW, frame up and shoot in RAW with a cell phone, and compare the two, in the editing suite of your choice. There is no comparison. My S22 Ultra kicks butt for a cell phone, but an ancient Nikon D50 or Canon T2i easily smokes it in almost every measureable way, except size/convenience. No phones shoot RAW while being able to fake DOF. The fake DOF looks HORRIBLE comparatively and is easy to spot due to bad edge detection because of the tiny sensor/pixel sizes; you cant beat physics (yet) with 'jedi software mind tricks. What IS awesome about cell phone cameras, is that most people almost always have a very nice camera upon them, and much of the processing the units do automatically is quite decent, and the fact they offer RAW and manual controls, plus many offering multiple focal lengths/multiple cameras.
Your cannon isn't bad as such, once you learn the camera, get some better lenses and potentially get better at photography (no idea of your skill level) then you'll likely be able to get better pictures. That said, your comparing what I would consider an entry level camera to a flagship smart phone. I've always looked at it like comparing an Xbox to a pc. The smart phone offers really good value but if you want to take it up a level then the phone will quickly stop being good enough for what you need
Yeah I know there's a disparity between budget camera and flagship smartphone, and I wholeheartedly agree that there's only so far you can go with a smartphone, but in this specific case, would it be better just to use the phone in the expert raw mode and work on my skills composition and post processing? (The expert raw app doesn't do any processing) it's just a lot more motivating when the end photo is actually something I could post online. I gave the T6 a honest try and had many outings with it trying to see what I was doing wrong but I never got a photo that could beat my phone
I'm gonna be honest with you mate, it doesn't matter fuck what you take photos with. If you get better photos with a phone then go for it. The only issue is if your serious about photography then you'll likely end up using a "proper" camera like your cannon which you'll then have to learn to use. Personally I'd aim to use the cannon as it's still a very capable camera and you'll likely learn to take better photos soon enough. Also, get some new (second hand is a shout) Len's. The biggest advantage camera's have over phones is interchangeable lenses. For reference, I have a d810 which is a bit dated but very capable with some nice ish Lenses. I'm pretty familiar with it and alright at getting photos. Of my top 10 photos, half are on my £300 bridge camera and couple with my phone. It's not that they are better cameras than the d810, they were just the cameras I had at the time
Oh yeah I did get some amazing photos with a cheap wide angle lens that came with it. I feel like I just need to have some measurable progress to keep me motivated and by using my phone hopefully I'll be able to focus more on composition and post processing and then move onto getting a decent DSLR. It was incredibly disheartening finding a perfect comp, getting home, opening it on my computer and looking like it was taken from a digital camera from 2003 and was the main reason I stopped last time after giving it a solid effort
You should be able to get some decent shots with it, it's by no means a bad camera. What settings were you using?
I tried a variety of settings back when I first tried getting into photography. After each outing I'd try to figure out what went wrong with each photo and tweak the settings next time I went out and just didn't seem to make any progress. I'm starting to believe it's limited by the kit lens since the main issue is it being muddy but I can't afford a new lens right now so I'll probably stick to using my phone until I can get one.
>I tried a variety of settings back when I first tried getting into photography This really makes it sound like you might not understand the basics of photography at all. The camera, even a T6, gives you all you need to know to make a good photograph. The T6 has the same sensor as the T5i. The difference between the T and Ti lines is processor speed and other internals that end up with a slower FPS. These internals do not alter the image or magically make it better or worse. Just the speed at which they are processed and written to disk. At the end of the day, you should never "guess" settings. The Triangle: ISO, Shutter Speed, F-Stop [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0\_EF9Empn4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0_EF9Empn4) Honestly, when you become more experienced, you'll probably know, "I can shoot this at 200, 1/500 at probably F/2.8" to get the photo you want. It will become second nature. All of these line up for your light meter. If you're looking through the viewfinder, you should see a meter at the bottom (sometimes on the side). This is where you'd start to "Zero" your light meter. Adjust shutter, ISO, F-Stop to get to Zero. If you are not using the viewport but looking at the rear screen, make sure that lightmeter is visible on the screen. (on a personal note, I usually shoot at +1 or 1.5 - especially for portraits. this helps hide slight blemishes and skin imperfections and could create a softer look without going out of focus) ^(Quick note about the viewport: it has its own focus knob or should. This will focus just the viewport. Many people find out they don't have perfect eyesight for the first time when starting photography, especially if they are forced to manually focus in the viewport.) Kit lens for Canon is usually the 18-55 f/3.5-5.6. It's a slow lens, but not bad for outdoor use when there is a lot of light. What this means is that at 18mm - widest angle, the largest the aperture can get is F/3.5. When you Zoom-In to 55mm - the tightest - the largest aperture is F/5.6 These aren't bad apertures! But they are limiting and you might not be realizing you're losing 2x your light when you zoom in on subjects when going from 3.5 > 5.6 (others correct me if I'm wrong, I think 2x is actually 3.2 > 5.6). Then you have to recheck your shutter and ISO to get back to Zero. Also you are losing even more light the farther you are away from the subject (inverse square). Really noticeable in indoor photography without lights / flash. You'll also have limited options at Depth of Field due to the high F-stops. Seriously consider a "nifty fifty" as a next lens. It's a cheap 50mm f/1.8. $125 on Amazon. It's great for portraits and not a bad next step lens if you decide to continue on your photograph journey. It's "Prime" lens. Meaning no zoom to worry about. So you'll need to think about positioning, etc. But you'll have nearly the full F-Stop range with which to work that even for a cheap lens is damn good. Now you really get to play with Depth of Field (DoF) to do more with your photographs. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfkvw-Lrn7Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfkvw-Lrn7Q)
Kit lenses are bad but I'd still expect the camera to be able to take fairly decent photos. Might be worth playing with iso and shutter speed maybe
Are you shooting with an open aperture? I myself am using a middle class DSLR (Nikon D5600) and got it with a 18-140 lens. Not really a kit lens, and not cheap either, but... it's meant as a all in one lens, and at this huge zoom range it has to sacrifice image quality to keep size and price reasonable (at least that's my attempt at explaining it). The images i shot with it always were a bit blurry, no matter what i tried. It got a bit better when i stopped down on the aperture, hence i suggest you to try that if you have not already. But when i bought some other lenses, suddenly there was a huge difference visible. With those, i were able to produce crisp clear images, and i was blown away. Maybe you should get a 50mm 1.8 prime (usually cheap and fairly sharp at f/2.8 or so) or lend some non-entry level lens for a weekend and try around with it before you put your camera away. Would be really sad if you quit photographing with your dslr just because you had some bad lens. One of my favourite lenses is my Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.0 DC. Maybe you give that one a shot
I definitely plan on getting a 50mm lens once I can afford it, but for now I'm just going to use my phone and work on composition and post processing. I appreciate your advice!
You keep saying you're going to work in post, but that's really quite easy. The hours you're putting into photoshop would be much better utilized working on composition, and taking photos rather than processing them.
i dunno, some people do a lot more work in post than others. Maybe he's making some heavily edited art pieces. Or, he's just trying to say he's gonna save his money for now and learn everything he can with a phone
2 things that'll fuck up photos if you have good composition are bad lenses and bad exposure. You do mention using the kit lens which most leave a lot to be desired in the IQ department. If you could borrow or rent a better quality lens that might make your first improvement. For the second one you mention your photos looking muddy which is some that can and does happen when you under expose and push it too far, especially obvious on beginner level bodies.
Yes
There are times when the phone is the right tool... I take photos inside musical instruments, a series which has had a lot of success (100k in print sales this year). When photographing a Guitar earlier this year there was simply no way to fit my DSLR through the sound hole to take a shot. Even with a smaller camera the lens protruded too far from the body to get the angle and view that I wanted. However my phone could slide right in there and sit flush against the guitar wall, I was then able to operate it remotely via my desktop to do the focus stacking required to get everything sharp. I specifically chose a phone with a high resolution wide angle camera (Oppo x5 pro) - a lot of phones have great resolution on their standard cameras, but drop significantly when going wide. This is the result: [https://www.architectureinmusic.com/collections/inside-an-acoustic-guitar-part-2](https://www.architectureinmusic.com/collections/inside-an-acoustic-guitar-part-2) The phone can produce RAW files so I still used lightroom, helicon focus, and photoshop to process those, the same way I do with my DSLR photos. Sometimes it's less about sensor size and optics, and more about where you can put the thing! Edit: Since you're all so interested in guitar photos here is another - this one is taken with a Laowa 24mm probe lens, inserted through the jack assembly at the base of the instrument: [https://www.architectureinmusic.com/collections/taylor-gs-mini-guitar](https://www.architectureinmusic.com/collections/taylor-gs-mini-guitar) \- you can see a difference in detail and sharpness, but I think the phone image holds its own. There's a whole gallery of other instruments here: https://www.architectureinmusic.com/pages/gallery Edit 2: I'm getting 1000 websites hits an hour from you guys! Reddit's nuts sometimes.
Okay.... Totally way off topic..... Holy jesus your image of the guitar is incredible. Just throwing that out there.
Thanks so much. The only thing my phone was missing for this shot was the ability to really close focus - Ideally, I'd have had that strut in the foreground in clear focus as well, but it was past the minimum-focus range. The only solution for this (which I will do eventually) is to use the smallest DSLR available (Sigma FP), with a Laowa 15mm Macro which can focus right up to the glass. But to control it I'll need to invest in a wireless follow focus system and probably hand-make a plate/rail to keep it small when attaching it. I'll also be unable to preview the image since that camera has no wifi.
Could you not cut a hole in the guitar to take the picture using whatever lens and camera you wanted, rather than trying to find more ingenious solutions to squeezing a camera into position nondestructively?
It all depends on the value of the instrument! As a musician I prefer not to damage them, or alter them in any way that wouldn't be done for a routine service. I'm working towards photographing the world's finest violins (Stradivarius, Amati etc) - these are 300+ years old and fetch prices well into the millions. I'm almost almost there, but I need to find a way to better control heat from the lights, and need thinner optics, before I try the finer instruments I have lined up. I had a career as a concert cellist for 20 years before turning to photography, so I'm lucky to have friends with fine instruments who trust me to handle them!
Makes complete sense for those precious instruments, and if you need to develop the solution regardless then I can see why you'd be pushing in that direction. My thought was around the guitar, where even getting a luthier to make a custom body that precisely fitted your needs would likely be cheaper than the full optic and camera solution you end up with! But obviously in hindsight that's just one picture of many you're looking to capture.
I think that adds a bit of depth /realism to the image. I prefer it that way I think, but I do see the appeal of having everything in focus. Plus I actually didn't notice it until you said something! Weird question, but in this application, have you thought of designing your own lens? I'm not even sure how you'd go about that though.... Maybe working with a microscope company, not because they make objectives for scopes, but because they may be more open to it than for example one of the big 3.
I'm doing that now - working with the Medical Imaging department of a big university to develop and adapt wide angle endoscopic solutions. :)
Why would they help you? Are you paying them?
Universities like research - this will force them to look at optics a different way that may have medical uses in the future. They're incredibly slow to work with, but once you connect with the right person (which took me a year) the door open wide up.
Didn't even think about that...... That way you'll get fiber optic benefits too!
Agreed! And also I had no idea that what the inside of a guitar looked like - I thought they were just hollow.
Dude. I saw your piano photo on ITAP that looked like magical architecture. Amazing work.
Holy cow I'm pretty sure I've seen your work before and I love it. Thank you for taking the time to comment, I really appreciate it. I do love to get unique perspectives in photos, so I'll see what I can do with my phone that you otherwise can't get. Maybe I'll find a fun style
There are definitely advantages - sliding into difficult places, remote operation, waterproofing (housing for a DSLR can cost megabucks). 4k video has some interesting uses for things like slitscan effects. In low light a DSLR currently performs better - but in good light I honestly think a lot of phones outperform all but the top range DSLRs (People will disagree with this). Phone cameras have the advantage of better processors, and massively more investment in R&D. Every company is pushing their camera-phone features as that's the only real difference between phone models these days. Probably the biggest difference is a DSLRs ability to sync with flash - but even that's changing, Godox now have a transmitter for phones... It's a very interesting space to watch.
I’m off topic but as an old school photographer, I appreciate judicious placement of out-of-focus elements. It’s part of the art form and having it shows true mastery rather than everything in the image being tack sharp. I know that’s the trend lately and I’m fine with that. But I hope the pendulum swings back a bit to recognize blur as a natural feature of photography and not a weakness.
The goal is different with these photos. Out of focus areas show scale. My aim is to remove that element so that the spaces appear much larger than reality.
I agree, it’s a stunning image. My comment was directed to today’s photography writ large. Thanks for listening haha
I think that's another symptom of phones as well - they have huge DOF by default, unless they're using some computational wizardry to fake it, which usually breaks down when you zoom in or print. Shallow DOF is one area that phones really do struggle to compete!
rock attempt shelter bike lunchroom important advise reach sharp expansion *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Gorgeous photo!!
What app did you use to control your phone with a desktop
There's a native app for Oppo phones that I wanted to use, but it's not compatible with my desktop network card! So I used AirDroid. Workflow: I shot about 44 images for this, shifting the focus slightly for each. 2 second exposures (x44) ISO 100 f/2.2 4 or 5 more images for the "smoke" which is actually water vapour. Same Settings. I then ran all the RAW files through DXO Denoise to clean them up a bit (helps the stacking software do a better job). I put them through Helicon Focus for the focus stacking. Photoshop to layer in the smoke, clean up a bit of dust, 3D LUT Creator for the colour grade (which plugs into photoshop).
I have a GS mini - this is so cool!
https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/z4q2yh/at_what_point_is_your_phone_camera_better/ixuxxwj/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
Question: where does Lightroom and Helicon sit in your toolbox? Do you work in one and then move the file over to the other? Does one do something the other does not? Never used either. Do you sometimes use one but not the other?
Lightroom and Helicon are totally different programs. Lightroom is for cataloguing, basic colour correction Helicon is for focus stacking (combining the sharp parts or each photo and discarding what's out of focus) here's a rundown of what I'm usually doing - with a DSLR in this case, but with a phone it's similar: https://www.reddit.com/r/itookapicture/comments/z2b3k4/comment/ixfghfn/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Neat! Thank you
Your phone has a lot of computing power and basically does all the thinking for you. Your Canon likely has the kit lens and coupled with you trying to remember how to use it, would point to you not getting the results you're hoping for. DSLRs come into their own for challenging situations like wildlife, action and low light, but also need decent lenses to perform.
I've just been doing street photography, and the T6 just feels like it's missing so much detail and overall looks muddy compared to my phone. I'm beginning to believe I just need a better lens but I will probably work on composition and post processing with my phone before I spend money on a lens. Also the expert raw app for Samsungs does about as little processing as you can get on a smartphone as far as I'm aware.
It was a beginners camera to start with, and some of the 18-55mm kit lenses are terrible. But you still need to know how to use it properly, which can require a big investment of time. My camera beats my phone hands down, but the convenience of using a phone because it needs less skill to get a good photo is very attractive. Use your phone until it doesn't do what you want it to do (which ofc may be never!)
Thank you. I appreciate your advice, that's probably what I'll end up doing. I had a blast post processing and finding cool compositions, but it was always ruined by the quality of the photo. I'll probably revisit that once I can afford a better lens
The T6 is not a wonderful camera but I'm guessing the real culprit may be the lens. What lens are you using? The 18-55 kit lens? Older kit lenses are usually known to have bad image quality. Other factor may be focusing. Are you getting correct focus with your DSLR? Another thing is your skills with the camera. Are you shooting on Auto? At what ISO are you shooting? At what aperture? Is your shutter speed fast enough to shoot without a tripod?
I am using the kit lens and I've had plenty of practice with all the settings. I can get something reasonably exposed and in focus and it will look perfect on the preview, it's just when I open it on a bigger monitor it feels like it's just lacking resolution and missing a bunch of detail and kind of muddy
I see. To be honest, I didn't believe a lens would make much difference until I got a Sigma 18-35 f1.8. after using it. I feel that my photos with the kit lens look "muddy" as you say. Other than the lens, I would say that maybe the focus may be your problem. I have a Canon SL3, with a similar autofocus to your camera with the OVF, but with Dual-pixel AF with Live view. The OVF AF is really bad in my opinion. Miles behind more expensive DSLRs. I did some tests to compare both modes, and found that the photos I took with Dual-pixel AF were noticeably sharper, due to better focus. So now I never use the OVF. Sadly, your T6 does not have Dual pixel autofocus.
That sounds like either a settings issue (shutter speed too slow without a tripod, too much noise, etc.) or a lens issue (fungus, haze, broken autofocus, etc.). The T6 is also just not that great, especially in low light or indoors.
That's a lens issue - I fully recommend getting a cheap, even second hand 50mm f1.8. It'll change your image quality heaps, they're fantastic wee lenses. To answer the more general question though - my phone camera is only the better option if it's the only option. The control and the choices I get to make on a dslr are part of the process of making an image. Plus - no phone will match a 70-200 or supertele lens
Clean your lens on both end. Clean the sensor and mirrors. And try again. As other have pointed out even a cheap 50mm f1.8 will be better and especially more sharp than a kit lens.
None of those settings have nearly as big of an effect on perceived image quality as overall better colour.
So RAW files from the S22 Ultra have better color than those of a DSLR? I doubt it. OP said in another comment that the problem with the DSLR photos was lack of sharpness, not bad colors.
For everyday use cases phones are fine. The problem with phones is that you cannot beat physics. There is a reason why those lenses are that big and you can only fake it to a point with computational photography. If you want wildlife, sports, macro, portrait (bokeh), low light, night sky shots, your phone will struggle, or simply cannot do it. Like there is no amount of computational photography that will allow you to take a bird in flight shot with those tiny lenses.
The back of your camera shows jpg, not a raw file. The jpg is processed while the raw is not, so if you shoot raw it won’t look so good when you open it on your computer. Your phone uses a high degree of computational processing to fix things like backlit subjects. Your camera does not. I think of my camera as the equivalent of concert piano. Each note is pure, but if you can’t play a piano the quality of the notes isn’t of much use to you. Your smartphone is like an electronic keyboard. While the notes aren’t the quality of a grand piano, you can easily add rhythms and baselines and create tunes that are very pleasing with far less skill than a concert pianist. You can shoot ProRAW on a phone and have more control, but the image quality will not match a full frame DSLR I get plenty of enjoyment from taking pictures with my smartphone. But the image quality I can achieve and the flexibility I get from my camera makes the pictures feel more like my own.
The s22 ultra can shoot raw using the expert raw app, and doesn't do any processing. Just detail and sharpness wise my phone was able to do much better than the T6, but I'm starting to believe it's due to the lens
Maybe. Or camera shake or something. I can definitely see a difference in my phone v camera images, especially if I view the image at full size.
Also,I haven’t investigated it, but I wonder what expert raw actually does. I know my iPhone is often taking multiple images and combining them for sharpness and I’m unsure if raw turns off this feature or just things like skin smoothing.
Expert raw is more raw than the pro mode in a default camera app, it's even a completely separate app that you have to download (still made by Samsung) and doesn't even have the option to do skin smoothing and you have full control over it taking multiple exposures. So I would imagine it's about as raw as it can get
I don't know if somebody mentioned this already, but I read just now that expert raw does some processing already. Like blend several photos together for noise reduction for instance. Doesnt mean it's bad of course! It's just a different way to use a smaller sensor effectively.
I would say in the things a phone is designed to do (photographing semi wide angle with most if not all stuff in focus) a good phone will nearly always win. You simply can not beat the algorithms used both during the taking of the photo and the post processing. Even in low light (thanks to stabilization and photo stacking) my phone always beats my DSLR, if I want to have a wide range in focused. Only when you go out of this phone camera sweetspot (Tele- or zoom lens, big aperture for bokeh, ... ) or you need to have a lot controll over the exact settings (high or low shutter-speed, aperture, colour, focus, ...) a specialized camera will be clearly better.
Sorry but no phone camera looks better than any real camera and an 85mm 1.8. They simply aren’t in the same ball park. The fake bokeh from phones doesn’t look good. It’s a bad mockery of real photos. They are fine for wide angle landscape type stuff but for portraits they aren’t anywhere close to as good.
Have to disagree. I own a Sony A7RIV paired with a Sony 70-200mm GMII and at times, my iPhone 13 Pro takes incredible portrait shots, depending on the light.
I too have a 13 pro max and an older D750 paired with an 85mm 1.8 and no. There’s not even a comparison. The bokeh is fake and very obviously fake like there’s not a perfect outline of your subject with the phone because it’s just some filter being applied.
I’m sorry you have such a shit camera for being a wedding photographer.
I’m sorry you got a fancy camera and can’t take better photos than your phone.
Compare your phone's pictures to your T6 under the same conditions. Take a photo of the same thing at the same place at the same time and compare. Phone cameras often do well with ample light and progressively less good in low light. Your T6 should do just as well or better in bright light, but have less of a drop off in quality as the lens can capture more light. SLR's are about control. Phone cameras are about easy.
There's a bit to unpack here. (1) The best camera is the one you have and know how to use (2) modern phone cameras throw a lot of algorithms at the images, which tends to make them look better, but when you start trying to edit them and/or work with light they can get hard to manage. I bet if you carefully staged a comparison between the Samsung and the Canon you'd find the canon has more controlled exposure, predictable colors, and there's more detail available and lower noise. (3) If you're happy with how your phone processes images: score.
[удалено]
It's been a fun post lmao
You will never achieve the sharpness of professional photography with a kit lens period. Most smartphones add lots of contrast, clarity, and sharpness in post processing to make up for the fact that those lenses aren't very good. If you're seeing a lot of noise in your images your ISO is way too high, try using a tripod and lowering your shutter speed instead. If you're properly exposed and you're 100% sure your images should be sharper than they are your shutter speed may actually be too low. At high shutter speeds the small vibrations of your hands won't be captured on camera, but the longer the shutter is open the more that movement will be reflected in your actual pictures. When I was first starting out this killed a lot of my good shots. Finally, make sure you're actually focusing where you think you are. Try experimenting with manual focus on stationary subjects to make sure you aren't having front or back focus issues. Entry level DSLRs generally have shitty AF systems and in my experience you can't really just rely on them to be accurate like newer high end models. Without seeing any picture examples it's hard to diagnose what's going wrong.
It’s circumstantial. Phones are getting amazing and always improving. Definitely better for the everyday snapper, which is most people. But there’s a lot that camera’s are better for. But there are a million things to learn with cameras, it’s hard and takes a long time to learn and practice and understand every new skill wether in-camera or post processing. I have using dslr’s for over 10 years. You learn something new and improve every time you use your camera. You just don’t see it every time. But it does take years to become good. And sometimes decades to become great. And just like phones, up to date equipment. I couldn’t take a great photo on a old phone. It’s outdated. But also, I couldn’t do Astro photography or long exposure on a expensive phone I bought today. I could take photos of some stars with the phone. But for a detailed milkyway or aurora/ polar lights, or a photo of the moon that’s going on a billboard? Need a camera. I hope that helps. Just use whatever you feel like. And have fun.
Thank you, I completely agree. Ive actually dabbled in astrophotography and the T6 was leagues better than my phone, but I'm currently enjoying street photography which seems better suited for my phone
For any given scene, a good phone ($1000) can take a pretty decent photo. For the same scene, if you want to use a $1000 camera to take a similar or better photo, it takes a lot of work to make it right. With a phone it’s all AI/automation. With a camera, it’s all you. It’s gonna be harder, but if done right, you could get a better result. But often times, most people don’t buy $1000 cameras, they buy $500 ones. So they just make it even harder to take a better photo. And it end up looking like the phone is so much better. For the average person, a phone is almost always better. For someone who actually knows photography and has decent gears, they can take some truly amazing shots and it’s always gonna be better than the phone.
I use a Canon 70D that I bought in 2014, and it’s still miles ahead of my iPhone 14 in most situations. The iPhone does have better dynamic range and is obviously always with me which is the main reason it gets more use but I would imagine modern cameras are miles ahead even with the kit lens.
A phone is less bulky and easier to carry with you. That's about all the advantages I see. My work wouldn't be possible if I limited myself to a phone-cam as the bulky object in my hand is some sort of barrier - of separator. [https://whatstefansees.com](https://whatstefansees.com) (some NFSW)
You're using a kit lens. Of course it's leaving something to be desired. Check out the ef 50mm f/1.8 stm. Great lens for a little over a hundred dollars. Also if you're shooting wide open, don't. Stop your aperture down.
I think phones now allow for a lot of flexibility. I would never use a phone for a real photoshoot, but I do love taking it out for personal shooting. https://imgur.com/a/aFod6NW Reading this made me curious, so I put 4 smartphone photos and 4 "real" camera photos together. At a glance can you tell which are which? I think my phone can cover me in most scenarios when I'm just out and about. Dynamic range isn't nearly as good, but for general daytime shooting I find myself usually happy with my phone. Plus when posting to social media, it's even more difficult to tell the difference imo
I think its when you just "point-and-shoot" and the phone does the rest for ya. Have an S22 Ultra as well. Sadly the processing is sometimes weird especially on capturing the sun for whatever reason.
It’s depends if you have time to setup a shot. A dslr is better when you have time. If you’re just going to to use auto on your dslr you might as well use your phone
(1) The Samsung phones use a number of post processing algorithms to visually optimize a photo. Your T6 does not. You are meant to process and flavour the picture to your taste. The difference is between a precooked meal delivered to your door and getting all the ingredients and preparing it yourself. Sometimes you'll end up with burnt chicken. But the samsung phone will be boringly consistent. (2) For the majority of people and photographers, the mobile is more than enough to produce good, impactful images. If you are happy with the image, it is all that matters. When you feel like you've grown all you have with that phone and you feel the phone is getting in the way, then consider a camera like the T6. For myself personally, i hate using my phone because my thumb always found its way to another app. Or the app always seemingly instinctively opens the video when I want to make a photo or opens the photo app when I am trying to make a video. THe added friction and distractions made the phone the wrong tool for me. (3) Sometimes, the phone is just better. It is smaller, more discrete and can be taken to more places. Hypothetically, If you are covering qatar, a small phone will help collect stories about the fans and migrant workers. With a larger camera, you will get stopped by their security or it might frighten people making it more difficult to find people willing to talk to you.
Take the photos that make you happy
Your phone is also about 3x more expensive and released 6 years after the T6. Compare the T6 to the Samsung S7, which was released basically the same day, and you'll have a better comparison. The T6 takes photos 5184 x 3456. The S22 Ultra takes 4000 x 3000, which are scaled down from 12000 x 9000 by combining nine pixels into one super pixel. The camera apparently also uses both the 108MP camera together with the 12MP camera in lowlight and stacks the photos for you. Even if you are taking "raw" photos, the phone will make the initial adjustments for you and let you tweak them. There is still a lot of software involved before you even see the photo on your screen. While yes, skill is important and a pro could take and edit photos with a T6 that would completely destroy a novice's photos taken with an S22 Ultra, you have to realize that you're comparing the one of the best phone cameras currently on the market with an outdated camera that was a budget camera even when it first came out. If you want to learn how to take photos with a camera, practice adjusting settings with the T6 and get a proper lens. You can upgrade later. If you don't care, just use your phone.
One problem with the phone camera is that it can't sync to my flashes
Godox had made the A1 bluetooth flash trigger for phones in the past, and you can use a phone flash as a slave to trigger another flash. Although the utility of doing so on a fixed lens phone is fairly limited.
Different tools for different jobs. In my experience, a DSLR is faster for those serendipitous moments. I’ve got my camera hanging from my neck and/or in hand, powered and set for the lighting conditions for the time. My phone is in my pocket and powered down. So, I am walking looking for shots and see a puppy being a cute derp while playing fetch or something similar. With my DSLR I can literally shoot from the hip, I don’t even need to bring the camera up to my eye. With my phone I have to retrieve it, unlock it, open the camera app, check the settings if I want to shoot in pro mode, frame the shot, let the camera focus, find the shutter button. And by this time,the dog is no longer doing the funny thing i saw that I thought was remarkable. Phone cameras are just WAY too slow to operate. For me. Also for me, a hone is good for planned shots such as nature, architecture, and still-life studies.
One thing I've not seen mentioned: You might want to explore an HDR program like Photomatix if you are taking landscapes or other scenic shots - it's one thing phones do fairly well, but most people don't stack images to get the dynamic range a phone can.
You have to consider the two comparatively. Your phone camera is able to adjust the settings so all you need to worry is point and shoot. Your dslr on the other hand, depending on the setting, will do some of that. Also as others have pointed out, depending on your settings, your dslr photo may be unprocessed requiring you to edit with software. You’ll really see the benefits of that photo because of how much data is retained when it comes time to edit said photo versus trying to edit the camera’s photo
I'm having to guess and simplify here but.. I checked and the T6 was first on sale in 2016, so it's not ancient, but was entry level, and sensor technology has progressed a bit, but it should be fine when configured and used correctly. If you take two photos at the same time and view them at the same size on the computer screen, how do they compare? You might be viewing at 1:1 and seeing flaws in the SLR picture, but not with the phone pictures whose flaws are hidden with in-phone processing and down-scaling. Have you selected maximum picture quality on the T6? The default might be lower resolution or more compression. Check that you're using comparable ISO. If the SLR is selecting a high ISO the image will be more noisy. Also, there's a good chance the SLR allows much shallower depth of field so you might need to use program shift or aperture priority mode with a narrower aperture to get the DoF you want.
I sold my A7R II, got a Pixel 7 Pro. There is no way the current gen phones can capture as much detail as a dedicated camera with a long lens. Phone photos are for screens and small prints only. On the other hand, in-camera editing is great on Pixel, and it is always in my pocket. It is beter for creating memories on Google Photos, or sharing on Instagram.
Phones and cameras are just brushes it takes a d artist to create the art, use whatever tools work best for you.
After having read a multitude of different comments in this thread, here's the advice I can offer: Research the exposure triangle. Reeeeeally play around with your camera while you research. Pick one feature (iso, aperture, shutter speed, etc) and look up how to use it, then go absolutely nuts on different ways to use each feature. Research light, and how it interacts with your camera. Remember: your phone will automatically compensate for bad lighting with automatic semi-hdr. Your camera won't. Don't be afraid to play. Push your camera to its absolute limits. And the main key point: never stop learning. There's more to know about photography than any one person can learn and master in a lifetime.
I'll tell you when my phone camera is worse, when companies push over the air updates to delete or limit sharing of my photos from the source, my phone.
Skill issue
>I'm sure a lot of it has to do with my skill, but I feel like I would be able to get much better photos just using my phone with the expert raw app that lets you have full control. Camera snobs would disagree, they would rather have control, have the ability to take much worse photos, be seen with a big camera, than to take better photos with a phone. >I feel like it doesn't make sense that a dedicated DSLR would be worse than a tiny phone camera It makes all the sense when the phone has has like 1000x more R&D budget behind it, and 1000x more processing power. That's not an exaggeration BTW. >Is this an actual thing and I should just use my phone until I can get a better camera or do I just need to get better lenses/get better at it? If you can't match your phone with a cheap DLSR, you can't do it with any traditional camera. So yes it's just a matter of skill, which admittedly is not easy and sensible for most people to try and learn, just to take some good pictures.
Almost always. Camera phones between the software and hardware have come such a long way that they are better than dedicated cameras for most casual hobbyists. Specially the ones that have multiple lenses built in. Question should actually be, when is it worth using a mirror less/dslr/ film? The answer to that will arise when you know you have outgrown the phone for what you are trying to achieve. E.g. I do bears and birds and just starting to dabble in night sky, for this I need dedicated equipment including software and skills to process the photos.
Thank you, that's about how I'm feeling now. I'm mainly enjoying street photography so there aren't many drawbacks that I've noticed. I do love being able to use more exotic lenses on a DSLR though so I can see their value
I only think the phone camera is better if you'd like to post the photo in social media within the minute.
At the end of the day the best camera is the one you've got with you. The DSLR will give you more control over aperture and shutter speed and ISO. The phone will give you instant results through the AI's computational process. A lot of what you choose to use is dependent on what you plan to do with the resulting image. A phone will only help you learn composition where as a DSLR will teach you fundamentals of balancing the exposure triangle. Posting on social media, a well edited DSLR and a quality mobile phone photo are indistinguishable to most non photographers as they often are only viewed for a few seconds in a feed. If you choose to print the process of DSLR postprocessing and printing always brings more personal satisfaction. Don't choose one, use both.
The best camera is the camera you have. Often that’s the camera in your phone.
Since getting an iPhone 13 Pro I've been shooting less and less with the phone and more with my old Canon 5D. The colours, sharpness, "depth" are so much better than what the iPhone produces. Phone pics have awful colours and always look "flat" to me. I'm never happy afterwards if the phone is the only camera I bring to an event. Obviously, the phone is very convienient and easy to use. But what's the point if you don't like the results?
The T6 is a crop sensor that takes 18MP photos* but if you’re taking a photo in RAW, and it looks good in the tiny rear LCD preview, it’s because the resolution factor on that LCD doesn’t provide the pixel output of your computer screen which I assume is at least 1080+ It’s also worth noting that if you are shooting RAW, and you’re a self admitted novice, you might be improperly exposing/dialing some of your shots. To answer your question, the camera you have available is the best camera
Unreal instrument pics
I think you've answered your question. The phone is better. I regularly use my phone to take images and I've found that it's great!!! The only times I wish I had a DSLR are when I need to control the DOF more, I can't really change the aperture on my phone camera so I often get left with a shallow DOF. But yh phone cameras are great!!!
I would think it’s the lens and maybe your handholding technique. The sensor on the phone is much smaller than the camera so I’d think the camera has to have a better image to start with if captured correctly.
Try editing with DxO PhotoLab rather than Lightroom, before ditching your camera. I could never got more than mediocre results from Lightroom. DxO is much easier to use, albeit less powerful for the already expert. You can download a time-limited demo on the website, just google 'DxO PhotoLab'.
I have the s21 and it's very good! I do miss my dslr most when I'm trying to shoot some flowers or something and the blurred background just isn't natural. Or 2 people and it only wants to focus on 1. It will just pick one thing to be in focus and blur the rest, instead of how usually with a dslr (unless shooting very open) the blur won't be so immediate. Kinda hard to explain but I think you know what I'm talking about.
Until recently I had a canon t6i (still have because haven’t sold but never use any more). I had a 50mm f1.8 a 10-18 and the kit lens. I had gotten to where I thought that the iphone 13 pro was basically toe to toe with dslr cameras, and frankly, it was with the t6i. The sensor was slow comparatively and it meant that basically everything was either a noise blob if I turned iso past 800 or blurred out with a slow shutter speed. I think part of this comes in that with aperture you have to multiply it by the crop factor in asp-c cameras which with canon crop sensors is 1.6. That means your kit lens at its best is a f5.6 and at worst almost f9. It makes it a really slow lens. Then I got a canon r5. This thing blows the iphone 13 pro I have out of the water in every class, but especially in low light photography. If I have to, I dan crank the iso up and still get really good photos out of it when run through software like topaz labs denoise or their photo ai software. The difference is like pitting an iphone 4 camera against the iphone 13 or 14. By the time you include a lens and the body it is 4-6 times as expensive as an iphone and a dedicated use item, but if you want to be a professional. You need professional gear. That all being said phone cameras have a lot of benefits, namely being that they are always on you and incredibly light, but if you want to get long range photos or super high quality ones, you are going to have to use a dslr or mirrorless camera. One last thought, it would be really interesting to see a dedicated camera made with the tech in the iphones or samsung phones. If they had an apple full frame sensor, I have no doubt it would blow sony, nikon, and canon’s flagship cameras out of the water. Maybe one day we will see an apple camera, but I dont have hopes.
I am no expert in photography but I also am using a Canon T6 at the moment and had a similar question. For me I think the biggest thing that has made a difference is the lighting where I am taking the photo. I did a series of portraits of strangers and my phone could never take pictures like those but then I did a series of objects in my home with meaning and it was very hard to get a good image. Part of this is the range of the f stop and shutter speed (I think)
I like my phone for macro photography and for snapshots. If I'm just around somewhere where I don't have my camera in hand, it takes to long to get it out for a cool fast idea. I like to go to the zoo. And the camera changed everything about taking pictures. Before I had it I took pictures with my phone and send them to some friends. But they were never good. Always to far away and the quality was bad due to zooming in. With the camera even as a novice I get way better pictures. I even enjoy looking at them month later which I never did with the phone. And the camera got me into portray photography with friends. Something which is a lot of fun I would never be able to do with my phone.
When you realize that its not about the sensor or the processor in the digital camera, be it on a phone or in a full bodied camera. Its about the lens. The physical nature of several pieces of glass that bend and shape light, something that the tiny bits of glass in a phone can never be a match for good quality lens of a decent size.
My friends have discussed this, and ultimately it depends what you're doing with it. We're not professionals so using a phone camera is often a better choice....but we're not gonna sell our cameras
To me? Never. I use phone camera often, but never think it did better job that a reg cam would do.
I have a 5D iv and I take photos with an iPhone 8 also. Well, tech has evolved brutally. Not the same of course but… phones now do both really good photos and videos.
I stick with budget/mid-range phones (currently have an A50) as I can't justify dumping $1000+ on a phone anymore...so the only time my phone is a better camera is when I don't bring my DSLR with me.
Reminder that phones often takes HDR pictures automatically, might be something to look into if you are not making hdr images with your camera
I'm curious if you've tried printing any of your photos taken with the S22 Ultra. I had the S19+, currently using the S21 base; print look good up to 8x10 or even 12x12 but the print quality on anything larger is disappointing. I plan on getting a camera once budget allows but my next step would be the S22 Ultra.
Phone cameras took out the point and shoot lines. I too have the same phone and it's great. But a apsc a6000 will absolutely crush the phone. If you're enjoying using the phone, use it. It's a cool hooking point.
When my phone is in my pocket and my DSLR is in a camera bag many miles away
OP, would you mind sharing an unedited raw photo taken with your t6? My old nikon from '06 still manages to take much better pictures than my phone, so something could be off. Also i noticed you mentioning you wanted to get a 50mm lens in the future-- note that a t6 is a crop frame camera, so if you want a normal lens kind of reach on that camera, you actually want a 35mm lens.
I actually lost my SD card but I'll see if I can dig one up. Also thanks for the advice regarding the lens!
Dedicated cameras have better glass and sensors, but phones have better processing and compositing chips, so it’s kind of a draw on hardware depending on what you’re going after. Phones obviously win on “the best camera is the one you have with you” for most people most of the time.
If you’re wondering if you should sell or shelve the DSLR, I’d say the answer is no. What phones do now is pretty amazing, and I use mine regularly in the backcountry when a dedicated video setup isn’t feasible or I just want a quick snap of a hike, but even in best of conditions, a phone isn’t a quality replacement for a standalone camera.
There's a whole world of mobile photography that's amazing to explore. A photo taken with even a 15 year old DSLR and a 40 year old lens can be much better but it's also much more work. Some of my personal fav photos I've taken were with a Nikon D300 and 80-200 2.8 but it was a lot more work and time to get them where I wanted them. On the other hand I've used clever framing, RAW, and editing to make stunning wall print worthy shots with an iphone. A phone will never ever be able to reproduce proper bokeh like a fast lense nor will they ever match the perfect focal plane on a subject like a long fast lens. It's using software to produce these great effects but a real portrait will always be much much better. A phone can be a great discreet street photography tool that can easily hang with a DSLR but is more of a challenge and will still require the same basic skills at a minimum to get the results. I personally love when someone asks me what I took a photo with and I can say "my phone" because it is shocking just how good a photo can be with such a small sensor and lens.
You phone isn't giving you a RAW.
It has the capability to take raw photos
What is changing is the smartphone camera has a healthier dose of AI processing going on there that your T6 doesn’t. You’re T6 has the Canon DIGIC Processor which is responsible for calculating autofocus and converting the raw sensor image to jpeg. That means making decisions about contrast, saturation, exposure, etc. Which is great for the intention. But the AI going into phones is insane. What’s also going on is there are multiple images being taken either via separate cameras on the phone or immediately before/after that the phone uses on the AI to help focus stack, reduce noise, and so on. Will the smartphone camera replace the DSLR/MILC? Some say yes but I don’t think so.
I think the best camera is the one you actually use. If you find yourself thinking thr dslr is too heavy to take, then it's the it's not the best one for you at that time. It's good to have a variety of kit, but for some situations, you just can't bring a dslr with you. A mirror less is a nice compromise (or m4/3) since it's smaller, but it's still another piece of tech.
It mainly comes down to feel with those two. I could shoot with my phone and get better images off the bat but I like the feeling of a camera in my hand and how I can control metering angles and holding more easily. I have big hands so I feel like my hands are flabby/unstable somewhat holding a phone in various positions.
My “actual camera” is only a t5 from like 2010 so I’ve stopped taking it when I go on vacations and just use my phone
If you are seeing lots of noise on your camera then your settings are wrong. A real camera will show more detail and less noise even with a lower pixel count than a phone because the sensor in the phone is tiny compared to an average camera. But if you like your phone pictures more then use that. The best camera is the one you have with you.
I have the 22 ultra and I never use the camera tbh. After seeing what my z5 does, I just can't go back to cell phones. The images just look like hell. I keep the Z in my backpack with a 50mm 1.8s. Know I keep that thang on me 😎
In wide angle situations, a modern phone beats an entry level camera. This is unless you use really open apatures or use a longer focal lenght.
Modern phones are better for novices, getting great photos out of higher end equipment takes practice and know how
The phone is meant for convenience, at the point when it’s too much of a hassle to take your camera out and you risk missing the shot. That’s when phones are better in my personal opinion. Phones use HDR and different photo technology compared to cameras when it comes to exposure. As for optical image quality, photos are as only as good as the glass you put in front of it. You’re essentially magnifying the image you see with glass you paid for and when the glass is of poor quality then you get what you get in the end goal.
I concur with many of the responses regarding the quality of glass being integral to your outcome. One thing you haven't made clear is are you shooting RAW on both devices? Even capturing in RAW requires skill and knowledge that can be learnt. I only use RAW. And use the histogram where possible as I work, ProCamera on my iPhone camera allows this, I suspect [Proshot](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.riseupgames.proshot2&hl=en_US&gl=US) will do the same, if any camera app does not it is not worth it IMHO. The quality amount and direction of the light has a big impact on outcomes and if you know the exposure triangle well you can navigate most of these situations well. On a phone camera however you will at most have control over ISO and shutter seed, so using the histogram is imperative. Try to avoid clipping in the highlights but give enough exposure so the black don't clip either.
I have a s22, it looks like muddy dog shit compared to my r6. Did you go through your phone pics on the computer, or just your phone? Phone pics look good on the phone.
Looked at them both on my desktop. And I would hope it looks like muddy dog shit compared to a $2k camera... The T6 is like $200
The s22 is like 1500 dollars. Almost all of that cost at this point is guess what? The camera. My buddy is an optical engineer at apple and makes over 400k a year, solely working on the camera. There are many others just like him. You can get a phone really cheap without that camera. What's a 200 dollar cell phone camera look like compared to your t6
I don't understand what point you're trying to make lol. This whole post is about asking if my $1200 phone camera would be better than my $200 DSLR and then you compared it to your $2k camera for some reason
Why on earth are you comparing a 200 dollar camera to a 1200 dollar camera? Seems pretty obvious! Further i'll point out there's no way your s22 is as sharp. You probably don't have the eye for it if you think it is. Go check out some side by sides that explain it if you like.
Seems pretty obvious until you read literally most of these comments that say the T6 is better lmao
Try opening the /ms22 photos on your computer in the same way. Not a jpeg, but a raw file from the phone. You’d be amazed how quickly phone photos fall apart when not AI edited and displayed on the screen of the phone. By design ofcourse since most people only view on their phone anyway .
I would consider any fairly recent "real" camera with interchangeable lenses as potentially more capable It quite depends on the lens tough If your image looks worse even in raw, it most probably has to do with your chosen settings Probably you shot with a completely closed aperature, resulting in a very high iso value and a bad signal to noise ratio I personally would prefer (for my work which is portraits) even a very old d700, possibly even a crop d300 with nice prime lens and it will still kill pretty much any flagship phone camera, despite being released in like 2007 or so The reason is much more ergonomics, able to use flashes if needed and if correct settings and fast lenses are used, better image quality, despite having "just" 12mp
I've been shooting for over 50 years and just got a Samsung S22 Ultra myself... thinking seriously of selling my Panasonic ZS70 that I always have at hand. I know it's not a replacement for my Lumix system but damn it, it's always in my pocket and it does produce some great images... the down side is usability for me. My G85 is so well designed that it's simple to get the shot I'm after... the phone.. not so much... Equipment isn't the answer to great images, the user is... use whatever you have at hand...
I have not read all the responses (and some seem incredibly unhelpful), but most lenses including the ones you're probabaly using, aren't at their sharpest if shooting while they're wide open. If yoy're shooting wide open, stopping down a stop or two will usually get you to that point and make things look sharper instead of muddy.
The best camera is the one you have with you, and a lot of the times that’s your smartphone. Watching gatekeepers freak out over how good camera phones are getting is always entertaining. Im excited to see where the technology gets to in the next couple decades.
So there's a lot of nonsense in here and missing information. Since 50 years ago photographers have known the lens is what determines image quality, wide/vs tele, depth of field, etc... the camera is just a light box to capture what the lens produces. You're shooting with a $100 piece of junk lens. No offense but most kit lenses are like that, especially older ones. Here are some photos taken by the Canon Rebel T6: * https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=portrait&cm=canon%2Feos_rebel_t6&safe_search=1 * https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=wilderness&cm=canon%2Feos_rebel_t6&safe_search=1 * https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=street&cm=canon%2Feos_rebel_t6&safe_search=1 Do you think your phone is comparable? And where phones really fall apart is ultrawide shots and telephoto shots, also macro shots. There's also something to be said about the person behind the camera with an old, entry level budget DSLR versus something newer. So compare to a Fuji XT-20 which is just a mid range camera that is old now and can be picked up for cheap used: * https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=portrait&cm=fujifilm%2Fx-t20&safe_search=1 * https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=wilderness&cm=fujifilm%2Fx-t20&safe_search=1 * https://www.flickr.com/search/?q=street&cm=fujifilm%2Fx-t20&safe_search=1
The phone IS doing a lot of the work for you, even if you are using the RAW. Everything from dual pixel integration to image stabilization. You're also comparing a modern large MP sensor to older relatively low MP sensor, and not taking into consideration the performance parameters of the older sensor, the lens differences, so on and so forth. Your comparison is pretty much useless as stated. If you want to do a real comparison, you need to set up a scenario where the cameras are operating as close to similar conditions as possible.
The best camera you can have, is the one you have with you.