Will camera phones replace DSLR cameras?

Brussels Sprout

These days most camera phones have pretty good sensors, large apertures, decent ISO range control, post processing tools and a host of apps for editing pictures.

Now obviously they're limited in terms of optical zoom and taking pictures of moving objects (amongst other things) but will there be a time soon (say in the next 5-10 years )when these issues can be resolved by some clever software or hardware and DSLR camers become a niche tool used only by purists?

Effects

No

thebaz

hopefully not , i like a camera to be a camera ; but many people will probably replace point and shoots with camera phone, which is grand .

the scary thing is something like Google glass , a contrapment for your head that record everything your eyes see - no thank you for me;
give me the fun , risk, creativity of a hand held camera any day;
if that was to become photography , I'd rather just live in the real world & find some other pursuit rather than take pictures.

endacl

Doesn't matter what sort of sensor the phone camera has, it still has a phone camera lens. So, for people who use a DSLR for what a DSLR is capable of and was designed to do, no. Phone cameras won't ever replace a 'proper' camera. They're still pretty good for what they are. A pocket phone/camera/organizer/browser

endacl

thebaz wrote: »

the scary thing is something like Google glass , a contrapment for your head that record everything your eyes see - no thank you for me;
give me the fun , risk, creativity of a hand held camera any day;
if that was to become photography , I'd rather just live in the real world & find some other pursuit rather than take pictures.

magicbastarder

cameraphones have come on in leaps and bounds in the last few years; as a wise friend once said, don't judge a concept by its execution.
it's quite feasible that with technical jiggery-pokery, cameraphones in X years time will be able to produce results not far off what today's enthusiast DSLR can.
the ubiquity of cameras, plus the ability to share the results instantly, will be both the best and worst things about them.

you'll still see the enthusiasts buying the best they can afford, because it's their interest, but the camera manufacturers should be worried; an iphone camera is already plenty advanced enough for many people to dispense with a dedicated camera,.

endacl

magicbastarder wrote: »

cameraphones have come on in leaps and bounds in the last few years; as a wise friend once said, don't judge a concept by its execution.
it's quite feasible that with technical jiggery-pokery, cameraphones in X years time will be able to produce results not far off what today's enthusiast DSLR can.
the ubiquity of cameras, plus the ability to share the results instantly, will be both the best and worst things about them.

you'll still see the enthusiasts buying the best they can afford, because it's their interest, but the camera manufacturers should be worried; an iphone camera is already plenty advanced enough for many people to dispense with a dedicated camera,.

Camera phones are grand for casual users and snappers. No dispute there. An iPhone camera is indeed a really good phone camera.

The fact is though, that a camera is a tool for gathering light. The part of the camera that does this is the lens. Whatever manufacturers do to gussy up the innards of the phone camera, it will always be physically impossible to gussy up the lens. This is a reality of physics, not a problem of technology.

That said, the majority of people using an entry level DSLR with a standard kit lens to do standard holiday snap type stuff, will probably use their iPhone camera to do a handier job that they'd be happy with. For photographers who use a DSLR to the fullest extent as a camera, a phone will just not be capable of producing anything like the results the expect. Purely a matter of size. How might Apple squish one of these into an iPhone chassis?

magicbastarder

endacl wrote: »

How might Apple squish one of these into an iPhone chassis?

they won't. sports photographers and the like will continue to use the bleeding edge technology.
but lenses like the above are bought by very few enthusiasts as it is anyway. that's part of the niche that the OP mentioned.

endacl

On the other hand, of course, it might be argued that the SLR camera was always 'a niche product used by purists'. It was the addition of the 'D' that made them cheaper and more generally accesible in recent times. The rise in quality might just return that 'niche' quality. Although at a nicer price!

I use both. For different things. Apelzenorangz.

thebaz

did Nokia not bring out a camera / phone , that you can add or replace a lens ?
bizarely , I dont think it can make a telephone call - iphones and the like are grand for multi purpose media use - listening to music , taking the odd snap or video , telephone use & surfing the web - but you wouldnt shoot a movie or make top quality music with them - sure it can be done , but quality ?

inkedpt

Yes! Not tomorrow thou... http://www.sonymobile.com/global-en/products/accessories/dsc-qx100/

Promac

inkedpt wrote: »

Yes! Not tomorrow thou... http://www.sonymobile.com/global-en/products/accessories/dsc-qx100/

This is closer to the truth than anything else I've seen posted on the subject.

A DSLR is a computer with an interchangeable lens stuck on the front that saves image data to a memory card.

A phone is a computer with a fixed lens stuck in the case that saves image data to a memory card.

There's not a lot of difference apart from the lens. On the computer side the phones are already way beyond my old 450D.

Why are we walking around with more than 1 computer? I don't think it'll be long before we have 1 computer and various accessories to help it do stuff for us. Including take photographs using quality glass.

This is getting close to the idea I'm talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaPf4ZIbDVM

Splinters

Promac wrote: »

A DSLR is a computer with an interchangeable lens stuck on the front that saves image data to a memory card.

A phone is a computer with a fixed lens stuck in the case that saves image data to a memory card.

There's not a lot of difference apart from the lens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaPf4ZIbDVM

You're saying that as if the lens wasnt a big thing. The lens is the piece that makes all the difference.

Theres a reason high end lends typically have a 72, 77 or 82mm front elements and thats something a mobile phone wont ever compete with.

Without any doubt future phones will have sensors that exceed those in modern DSLR's. What they won't do is change the laws of physics, change how light behaves or change whats needed to capture light in an image.

I do agree though that for the average consumer on the street we're already at a level where a decent high end camera phone probably does much the same if not better then bog standard point and clicks.

Kenny Logins

thebaz wrote: »

did Nokia not bring out a camera / phone , that you can add or replace a lens ?
bizarely , I dont think it can make a telephone call - iphones and the like are grand for multi purpose media use - listening to music , taking the odd snap or video , telephone use & surfing the web - but you wouldnt shoot a movie or make top quality music with them - sure it can be done , but quality ?

Sony have separated the lens and sensor (in a single unit) from the phone, making it somewhat modular. I think this is an interesting step forwards, but still no match for a dedicated camera.

FoxT

If you want to view the shot through the lens, to control DOF, to shoot in bad light, to shoot things that are moving fast, or are far away, or both, if you want to be able to adjust aperture or ISO on the fly without taking the camera away from your eye, then, you will remain using a DSLR for a long time.

I think that camera phones will kill off low end P&S cameras, and possibly some high end ones too, but DSLRs will be around for a bit. They are very inconvenient compared to phones (bulky etc) - but they compensate for this by being way better ergonomically, and delivering superior IQ.

The IQ margin is being eaten into big time as phone cameras improve, but it is still very much there. camera phones will never have the ergonomics though.

-FoxT

M5

Let's not forget that cameras are also improving as are the lenses

CabanSail

Having finally just made the switch up to Full Frame I can see the advantages that a larger sensor and more light gives you as a photographer.

To capture the best light data available at the moment means bigger glass and sensor size. Hence bigger gear.

The SLR design has been pretty much evolved to a peak, with the advantages of seeing the actual light which will be recorded.

Having said all ^^ that! I'm sure that in the future technology will grant us all sorts of new toys. There will be changes which allow the same quality but in more compact designs.

The important thing to remember is that what makes you a photographer is more to do with imagination than gear.

Promac

Splinters wrote: »

You're saying that as if the lens wasnt a big thing.

How did you read that from what I posted?

Go read it again.

dnme

endacl wrote: »

Camera phones are grand for casual users and snappers. No dispute there. An iPhone camera is indeed a really good phone camera.

The fact is though, that a camera is a tool for gathering light. The part of the camera that does this is the lens. Whatever manufacturers do to gussy up the innards of the phone camera, it will always be physically impossible to gussy up the lens. This is a reality of physics, not a problem of technology.

That said, the majority of people using an entry level DSLR with a standard kit lens to do standard holiday snap type stuff, will probably use their iPhone camera to do a handier job that they'd be happy with. For photographers who use a DSLR to the fullest extent as a camera, a phone will just not be capable of producing anything like the results the expect. Purely a matter of size. How might Apple squish one of these into an iPhone chassis?

Yet I have to argue that - that very thing you show here, puts me off furthering my photography. It's way too big and heavy, way too expensive and I never want to be seen with something designed to STAND OUT so much.....so excrutiatingly much as those ridiculously colored lenses with the ridiculous little red line. I did buy one, sold it soon after. I just hated the bling effect and found that it made me photograph less. I'd sooner my discreet little phone any day than straining my arms trying to hold this thing up.

Nerro

Splinters wrote: »

You're saying that as if the lens wasnt a big thing. The lens is the piece that makes all the difference.

Theres a reason high end lends typically have a 72, 77 or 82mm front elements and thats something a mobile phone wont ever compete with.

Without any doubt future phones will have sensors that exceed those in modern DSLR's. What they won't do is change the laws of physics, change how light behaves or change whats needed to capture light in an image.

I do agree though that for the average consumer on the street we're already at a level where a decent high end camera phone probably does much the same if not better then bog standard point and clicks.

You are saying this now, but buy the new iPhone or any cutting edge equipment, and look what's been awailable 10 years back...if you would be able to show it to somebody from back then I think he would resurrect which burning rituals, and that's only ten years back.yes the laws of physics will never change but new material, software,hardware etc will change the way we understand it and who knows how we will capture light let's say in 5 years.

PaulieC

I have the new Nokia Lumia 1020, which has Carl Zeiss optics, a 41-megapixel sensor, mechanical OIS etc. etc. It takes a fine snap, better than any phone or P&S I've ever seen.
I also have a Canon 5D MKII and some L lenses.
There is no comparison. None whatsoever. The Lumia is a fine replacement for a P&S, but there's no way that quality from a camera phone will surpass DSLR output.

endacl

PaulieC wrote: »

I have the new Nokia Lumia 1020, which has Carl Zeiss optics, a 41-megapixel sensor, mechanical OIS etc. etc. It takes a fine snap, better than any phone or P&S I've ever seen.
I also have a Canon 5D MKII and some L lenses.
There is no comparison. None whatsoever. The Lumia is a fine replacement for a P&S, but there's no way that quality from a camera phone will surpass DSLR output.

True. Two nice bits o' kit. Realistically though, when is a snap taken on the nokis's 41mp sensor ever going to require 41mp? Nice to have, but more of a selling point for folks that don't understand what a high pm count is actually useful 'for'. If you need a shot to be massively enlarged, I presume you'd reach for the Canon?

frozenfrozen

If my phone had the exact same features as my camera I would still grab my camera 9/10 times.. it's far more ergonomic to use. The only time I use my phone to take pictures is when I don't have my dslr with me because of it's size. Cameras are designed to take pictures, smart phones are designed to make phone calls and do pictures and video and facebook as a secondary thing.

Camera phones will get to a point where they replace nearly all point and shoot cameras for sure. It's nearly cheaper to buy an iphone now than a point and shoot and a phone and ipod and gps and whatever else they do. You also don't have to think about bringing your camera with you if you're using your phone as your camera; because you've always got it on you.

But for actual photography, as an activity where it's not a spur of the moment snap - the dslr will remain the tool of choice. The ergonomics, vast selection of interchangeable lenses, larger sensors, faster burst rates, more control... the DSLR is leaps and bounds ahead of every aspect of smart phone cameras. Except for being able to fit it in your pocket.. even mirror-less cameras aren't quite pocketable, and they are very small in comparison to full frame dslrs.

Also people will get bored of instagram-ing pictures of their breakfast

PaulieC

endacl wrote: »

True. Two nice bits o' kit. Realistically though, when is a snap taken on the nokis's 41mp sensor ever going to require 41mp? Nice to have, but more of a selling point for folks that don't understand what a high pm count is actually useful 'for'. If you need a shot to be massively enlarged, I presume you'd reach for the Canon?

of course I would, but the point of the 41 mp is to allow lossless digital zoom. It also allows reframing after the fact. Also, raw support is coming in a number of weeks.
I'll post some samples tomorrow, they really are pretty good

PaulieC

Full size original is here - http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7392/10852968805_8d13c9b90a_o.jpg

Great amount of detail captured, looking forward to getting the RAW support so the processing is left in my hands

DaireQuinlan

PaulieC wrote: »

Great amount of detail captured, looking forward to getting the RAW support so the processing is left in my hands

There's a crazy amount of processing on that though, looks like a combination of a lot of noise reduction combined with sharpening. And that's in ideal conditions, static subject @ infinity (or as much as makes no difference) and bright light. Highlights are blown and what detail there is drops off quite sharply toward the edge of the frame. So much what I'd expect from a phone or cheap compact, no real surprises.

PaulieC

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

There's a crazy amount of processing on that though, looks like a combination of a lot of noise reduction combined with sharpening. And that's in ideal conditions, static subject @ infinity (or as much as makes no difference) and bright light. Highlights are blown and what detail there is drops off quite sharply toward the edge of the frame. So much what I'd expect from a phone or cheap compact, no real surprises.

erm it is a phone.

lordRothery

magicbastarder wrote: »

cameraphones have come on in leaps and bounds in the last few years; as a wise friend once said, don't judge a concept by its execution.
it's quite feasible that with technical jiggery-pokery, cameraphones in X years time will be able to produce results not far off what today's enthusiast DSLR can.
the ubiquity of cameras, plus the ability to share the results instantly, will be both the best and worst things about them.

you'll still see the enthusiasts buying the best they can afford, because it's their interest, but the camera manufacturers should be worried; an iphone camera is already plenty advanced enough for many people to dispense with a dedicated camera,.

But remember whatever jiggery pokery the new sensors have in camera phones in x years time - so will the sensors in the DSLR - but of course the DSLR will have the huge advantage of having a proper lens.

ScumLord

I have a Nokia Lumia 920 and I'm pleasantly surprised by the quality of photos it takes but it's till incapable of zooming (as far as I'm concerned) and it involves a lot of moving around to fill in the space. But the photos it does take are easily ona par with any point and shoot camera.

It still doesn't come close to the photos I can take with my old olympus E510 even though the sensor isn't much bigger on the DSLR. The lenses make a world of difference.

Even if phones did get to the stage of current DSLRs the DSLRs would have progressed that much further ahead using the same kind of technology. Bar DSLR manufacturers stopping all development, camera phones will never catch up.

endacl

ScumLord wrote: »

Bar DSLR manufacturers stopping all development, camera phones will never catch up.

Even if DSLR stop all development...

The bottom line is lenses. You can't put a lens capable of capturing the same quantity of photons on a phone as you can on a DSLR body. That's the limiting factor. I've no doubt camera phones will evolve to be astoundingly impressive. Most already are, compared to what they could do 10 years ago. But DSLR quality they are not. This won't make a whole pile of difference to most. Doesn't make a whole pile of difference to me, TBH, for the majority of snaps I take. But if I want to take a 'proper' picture, I need a proper camera.

I'm not pro-DSLR and anti-phone. I'm pro- and anti- both. Depending on context. If I'm on a night out and I want to grab a few memento snaps, I certainly don't want to fiddle about in a camera bag selecting lenses and filters. Likewise, if I want a landscape, the iPhone will grab the image, but won't 'represent' it. The right wide-angle lens in front of my Canon will though.

Phone cameras won't ever replace 'proper' cameras, because they're different tools for different jobs. Hammers won't ever replace screwdrivers.

magicbastarder

lordRothery wrote: »

But remember whatever jiggery pokery the new sensors have in camera phones in x years time - so will the sensors in the DSLR - but of course the DSLR will have the huge advantage of having a proper lens.

yes...
but...
most people won't need the performance of a DSLR. hell, most people don't need the performance of your average starter DSLR today.

ScumLord

magicbastarder wrote: »

yes...
but...
most people won't need the performance of a DSLR. hell, most people don't need the performance of your average starter DSLR today.

Sure most people don't need DSLR performance. But for those of us that want/need the performance of a particular lens, it's going to be DSLR for the foreseeable future.

Wabbit Ears

I predict that with Mirrorless camera technology improving very soon you will have a phone that has a connector ring and you can just attach a lense and have a full on DSLR quality camera to rival the high end cameras today.

ScumLord

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

I predict that with Mirrorless camera technology improving very soon you will have a phone that has a connector ring and you can just attach a lense and have a full on DSLR quality camera to rival the high end cameras today.

The only problem with that is you'll have to carry around a lens for it to work.

I would love to bring my DSLR with me everywhere but it's a pain and I'd have to mind it and worry about it, so it's a hassle. It would be just as bad having to bring a lens around with me, meaning I'd just leave it at home and use the phone as a standard point and shot.

If you're going to be attaching lenses to your camera phone it offers up no advantage over a DSLR.

7upfree

PaulieC wrote: »

erm it is a phone.

I see what you mean Paulie. The preview photo looks splendiferous, but when it's blown up to full size on a large monitor the differences are there for all to see.