In terms of IQ, sharpness, dynamic range ect how far ahead are the latest crop of phone sensors away from the early full frame sensors??
Do you condenser some modern phone's as true tool worthy of making prints?
My opinion on this :
IQ isn't really the issue anymore, hasn't been for a while now. We can cram a good sensor and some okay glass into anything nowadays. And that'll get you decent prints in any reasonable conditions.
For me it all comes down to ergonomy, lens compatibility and battery life. And of course with lens compatibility you can go further in terms of creativity.
Full fledge cameras are still ahead in terms of extreme conditions management, but I think it's pretty much it.
>>2832602
>Full fledge cameras are still ahead in terms of extreme conditions management, but I think it's pretty much it.
autofocus, dynamic range, color rendition, focal lengths other than semi wide angle, low light capabilities, autofocus, viewfinders (and therefore stability) manual controls, raw image quality, lens quality (including corrections for aberrations and such)
Any technology that improves a 1/4" photo sensor will also improve a full frame or APS-C sensor.
Phones are certainly good enough for many things for most people, but it doesn't mean their capabilities are equal.
>>2832597
>In terms of IQ, sharpness, dynamic range ect how far ahead are the latest crop of phone sensors away from the early full frame sensors
Uh, there's no comparison. Early full frame sensor still blow the latest and greatest phones out of the water in every conceivable metric.
>>2832597
What you consider to be IQ can be somewhat subjective.
For example, if your only lens is incapable of pleasing background blur, I would consider it a low IQ tool.
And the cameras in a $900 modern cellphone are still horrible at this.
F2.2 claimed aperture on iphone 6 with 1/3" sensor (6mm diagonal even even APS-C is 26.82mm) has a DoF equivalent crop factor of 7.21x.
A "wide open" F2.2 on such a miniscule sensor will blur backgrounds equivalent to a F16 lens on a full frame camera from identical distance, in other words, barely at all.
How many people would choose to buy a DSLR lens that couldn't do at minimum F6 or wider aperture? Almost no one. This is the biggest flaw in phone cameras.
The other major flaw is being limited to one very limiting focal length and nothing else. The focal length is around 4mm that because of the tiny sensor is equivalent to 29mm on 35mm-film.
Who shoots portraits at 29mm? You can browse examples and the contrast between 80mm and 100mm isn't tht noticeable, but the difference between 30mm and 70mm+ for portraits is night-and-day, they look like two completely seperate humans.
With the emphasis on slimness, it's unlikely any of the mass market cellphone cameras will get a decent optical zoom range to fix this huge flaw.
>>2832597
The best phone sensor, though in "obsolete" phones is either the Panasonic CM1 which used a 1" 20MP probably Sony sensor or the Nokia 808 Pureview which used a 1.2" 42MP sensor. Compared to the earliest full frame sensor I can remember, the EOS-1Ds and if the CM1 used the RX100 III sensor, then:
Dynamic Range:
CM1 - 12.3 stops
1DS - 11 stops
Color depth:
CM1 - 22.4 bits
1DS - 21.8 bits
Low Light ISO:
CM1 - 495
1DS - 954
So the Panasonic CM1 sensor wins in two categories and is about a stop worse than the 1DS when it comes to low light performance.
At low ISOs, the top phones will outresolve the 1Ds and by that metric are "sharper". The Nokia 808 will outresolve even most modern DSLRs at low ISO. In a controlled studio setting, the 808 can produce outstanding large prints and the CM1 should be very good too.
In terms of sensor capability, those two phones will give the 10+ year old 1Ds a good fight.
HOWEVER, the smaller sensor phones are MUCH worse. The Lumia 1520 which has a typical 1/2.5" sensor has: 18.6 bit color depth, 10 stop dynamic range, and a low light ISO score of 71!
There's amazing smartphone photos out there butyou cannot stop down the aperture (not a huge deal since depth of field is large) and you don't get dials which make changing settings easy. Very uncomfortable compared to a larger cam.
But they do have some advantages like portability, 4K video where you can pick the best frame (essentially shooting at 8MP at 30fps), and face detection which is a fairly recent feature for dSLRs. It's a more usable AF for portraits.
I've made some medium sized (8x10) prints with a cellphone which are indistinguishable from full frame but those situations aren't common.
>>2832605
>dynamic range
>color rendition
Not really as can be seen from the CM1 vs 1Ds comparison. And full frame wide angle lenses back then were worse than phone lenses now.
>>2832617
Wide angle portraits aren't uncommon. More interesting than the ones I did with 100/2
>>2832720
>takes a 29mm portrait that looks like shit
>It's INTERESTING
Get the fuck out.
>>2832728
>who is Jeanloup Sieff
No YOU get the fuck out. And if you don't like the perspective, you can always step back and crop.
>>2832617
>F2.2 claimed aperture on iphone 6 with 1/3" sensor (6mm diagonal even even APS-C is 26.82mm) has a DoF equivalent crop factor of 7.21x.
>A "wide open" F2.2 on such a miniscule sensor will blur backgrounds equivalent to a F16 lens on a full frame camera from identical distance, in other words, barely at all.
this is why we got these dual camera phones, they can mimic even F0.95
>>2833019
Dual camera bokeh simulation looks terrible.
>>2833023
after 2 year they will iron out problems and it will be fine
>>2833026
I hope so. overdone bokeh is an annoying hipster fad that will go away when everyone can do it.
I've really been enjoying the camera on the LG G4 I've even made some prints using it and they look great (Small to medium sized prints) it's great being able to use a tripod and control my ISO and shutter speed I've even used an ND filter and got some great sunset stuff.
My phone is obviously never going to replace my Canon or Fuji gear but it's great to have such nice optics on the go with me at all times I can even handheld at 1 second and get sharp images so shooting architecture at night is still clean ISO wise.
>>2833023
No, it doesn't. At display sizes, without the DSLR photo next to it to compare it to, you'd never know it wasn't real.
The samples you've seen, literally the only thing you're looking at in the whole image is the quality of the bokeh, so you can notice that it's different. in a real scenario where someone posts an image using it without saying so, you'll be looking at a 1000 pixel photo with a subject and intent, and the smoothness of the bokeh balls will be (well, should be) something you completely gloss over.
>>2833124
I can tell even at display sizes. It looks okay to me but is mediocre photoshop masking + blur tier.
