What Separates DSLR Photos from Smartphone Photos

[TheBigE]

All,

I wonder what separates Smartphone Pictures and photos taking by DSLR. This thought comes about after posting my last two groups of photos -

• [Planes, Automobiles at Model Show - C&C Appreciated
• Sommertag - Festumzug C&C Welcome

I always seem to wonder if the results I have obtained could have been realized by using a smartphone camera. Perhaps this is not a good metric for me to use, but I would hope that I could see how my time and efforts have resulted in photos that are clearly above that of a normal smartphone.

I am by no means putting down smartphone photos and I understand they can and have taken great photos. I recently saw the Joe McNally photo from Burj Khalifa looking straight down as he was perched atop of the building. This photo was taken by a IPhone and it certainly conveys emotions and awe. Furthermore, I can accept the adage that the best camera is....the one you have with you, whether DSLR or Smartphone or otherwise.

For me the power of the DSLR over the Smartpohone seems to be:

1. Ultimate control over the entire process. I can set manual control and really control the entire process. This is good and bad, as ultimate control means ultimate success or ultimate failure.

2 DOF - I really do not see any way to control DOF via Smartphone.

3. Information collected - I am continually amazed when I get a photo in to LR the amount of information that is contained in the photo and that can be revealed via post processing.

Obviously the size and the detail of the image can be captured and provide much better options in Post Processing with a DSLR.

I would be interested to hear others thoughts on this topic....

[HaseebM]

Add to your points, versatility of a Dslr.

[mknittle]

I don't have a smart phone My separation

[Manfred M]

Ability to control shooting parameters (sensitivity (ISO), aperture and shutter speed), large sensor (and the link to DoF you get with that), good glass (fast and sharp (if should say something when your camera lens costs more than your smartphone)), a decent viewfinder, etc.

[Mike Buckley]

Being able to reasonably easily see the scene being photographed when using a DSLR is clearly the single most important characteristic of that device for me. Probably the second most important advantage is that the shutter on a DSLR can be released remotely using a very small, inexpensive device.

[Geoff F]

I often find myself struggling to take photos which are good enough for me and when I'm messing about with different settings I look around to see everybody else happily clicking away with phones and little cheap cameras. They go away satisfied with just one click while I'm still struggling.

Then after seeing some of those shots I realised that they simply don't care about quality. The results will only be viewed at small size and resolution anyway. They aren't concerned about straight lines being bent or over exposure areas. No processing will ever be done to these images and in most cases they will never be transferred to any other media. Simply remaining on the phone until it is lost or stolen!

When I was looking for a pocket sized camera last year I struggled to find any which still used a real viewfinder. There is no way I could take a shot with my camera at arms length and even when using my display screen to check for reject shots I have to find a dimly lit area to clearly see what I have taken.

[Glenn NK]

A smart phone is for social media (usually displayed on the somewhat less than useful display of another phone); a DSLR or SLR is for obtaining high quality images that can be developed into something for other than sending to your friends that they will dispose of tomorrow.

If one can't use a DSLR, then one is stuck with the mediocre results of a smart phone.

It's essentially a question of determining the level quality required as to which to use.

[xpatUSA]

. . . Obviously the size and the detail of the image [that] can be captured . . .

My smartphone is 8MB and my current favorite DSLR (Sigma SD9) is 3.4MP. So, on that basis only, my smartphone wins

[Mike Buckley]

If one can't use a DSLR, then one is stuck with the mediocre results of a smart phone.

You might feel different about that when viewing these photos made on an Apple iPhone 6.

[chauncey]

It was Harry Callahan that said "A Man's Got to Know His Limitations"...one might paraphrase
that by saying that a smartphone has it's limitations.

[FootLoose]

It was Harry Callahan that said "A Man's Got to Know His Limitations"...one might paraphrase
that by saying that a smartphone has it's limitations.

Yes ... and DSLRs can't make phone calls

[Downrigger]

You might feel different about that when viewing these photos made on an Apple iPhone 6.

I was going to try make just that point without the benefit of that great example. A DSLR will not confer upon its user vision, or eye, or imagination. And users with vision or eye or imagination have much less between themselves and the image when using a smartphone than a fine DSLR.

I'd rather my D600 and my nice lenses, but every time I see a nice portfolio like the one in Mike's post (and there are many others), I realize I have a lot of work to do to justify my nice gear and that it certainly can't be relied upon to make good images by itself. You can do amazing art with a smartphone.

[pnodrog]

PRACTICALLY NOTHING - as the question starts at the result not with the chance of arriving there.

If you want the best chance of a great photo it would be prudent to use a piece of equipment specifically designed for the purpose, particularly so if the lighting is low or dynamic range very high. However for many uses a good photograph successfully captured by a cellphone will be the equal of one captured using a DSLR. "Successfully captured" is the key issue and in that respect a DSLR has a significant advantage.

[Manfred M]

You might feel different about that when viewing these photos made on an Apple iPhone 6.

Mike - I would never say you can't get great images out of a fairly basic camera, like the one in the iPhone. Given that the shooting conditions for all of these were not particularly challenging, there is no surprise at all that of the billion of images that have been taken with an iPhone, there are lots of good ones and a few outstanding ones out there.

I remember several decades ago, when Kodak launched a new camera series, they hired some of the world's best photographers to use them and used their work in their commercials and advertising material. Needless to say the ad campaign worked and the images were absolutely stunning. No surprise at all.

On the other hand, just like these iPhone images, the photographers worked within the limits of the equipment they were using; no shallow DoF shots, no motion blur; in short, no technically challenging shots that required anything more than the most rudimentary equipment.

When I travel, my smartphone is my backup camera. Fortunately, I have never had to use my backup yet...

When I see someone like Joe McNally using an iPhone for his professional work, I might start paying more attention to the tool.

[blakeshinn]

I share your frustration. My wife and I often both take photos at the same venue, me with my DSLR and her with her phone. Many times her photos are equal to or better than mine (maybe a reflection on my skills?). I find the biggest difference comes in pp. There is virtually nothing that I can do with her photos whereas I have RAW photos with endless options.

[DanK]

Smartphones offer essentially zero control. You can't control aperture, ISO, or shutter speed, can't changes lenses or zoom optically, and you can't shoot raw. The sensors are tiny. So, if you take a picture in which whatever it does is reasonable, and if you display it only on a screen (which is very low resolution), and if you have enough light that the tiny sensor is OK, a smartphone can produce good images. If any of that is not true--if you need a different lens, for example, or if you need to change depth of field, or if you need a faster shutter speed, or if you need the benefits of a larger sensor, of if the canned jpeg processing built into the phone's firmware is not what you want, the smartphone will be inferior.

[tclune]

Probably the second most important advantage is that the shutter on a DSLR can be released remotely using a very small, inexpensive device.

Like a smart phone...

[Mike Buckley]

Like a smart phone...

What inexpensive (costs about $10 or less), small device remotely releases the shutter on a smart phone. I ask because I don't use a smart phone and have never heard of such a device.

[xpatUSA]

Smartphones offer essentially zero control. You can't control aperture, ISO, or shutter speed, can't changes lenses or zoom optically, and you can't shoot raw. The sensors are tiny.

But time moves on, Dan.

My old Galaxy SII has exposure correction +/- 2 EV.

Manual controls are coming shortly to an iPhone near you (as of June 2014, re iOS 8):

http://www.tested.com/tech/photograp...mera-controls/

Meanwhile, some are able to shoot DNG - not perfect but quite close to raw:

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Raw-D...images_id58538

http://www.tested.com/tech/photograp...eeded-feature/

Veering off a bit, Apple is describing a very small 3-sensor camera module which splits RGB via a prism and dichroic filters which can fit in a smartphone - no more Bayer mush . . .

[Shadowman]

I think what separates DSLR photos from smartphone photos is how they are used by the user. All of the smart phone images I've viewed have been through electronic methods, most but not all DSLR photos are used both electronically and in printed format. There are large print sizes (reasonably viewable) that can only be achieved with a specific model DSLR, so surely there are limitations in output with particular models of smartphones as well.