[anish]

I stopped using DSLRs almost 5 years back. Pixel 3 was the first phone that ensured I don't need a DSLR camera - the picture quality was so good. Now I am using an iPhone 13 pro and the images it clicks are as good as SLR cameras.

[GeeTee TSI]

As someone with only a peripheral knowhow of photography, I have tried to draw parallels with what we understand best

• DSLR- BMW 330i or Jeep Wrangler Renegade (purpose built, options galore)
• Mirrorless - Skoda Octavia vRS (the underdog)
• Point and Shoot (generic) - Maruti Swift Diesel (an extinct category, once the rage)
• Point and Shoot (large sensor) - Volkswagen Virtus GT (affordable performance sedan, may cease to exist)
• Smartphone Cameras (median ones) - Kia Seltos/Hyundai Creta (darling of the moment)
• Smartphone Cameras (high end) - Skoda Superb (premium with ordinary roots)

Now where do I put a DSLT

[dipdawiz]

Originally Posted by GeeTee TSI

As someone with only a peripheral knowhow of photography, I have tried to draw parallels with what we understand best

• DSLR- BMW 330i or Jeep Wrangler Renegade (purpose built, options galore)
  ....
• Smartphone Cameras (high end) - Skoda Superb (premium with ordinary roots)

Now where do I put a DSLT

Well, at least for camera I have a BMW 330i and a Superb; I guess

Since last 7~8 years I am using my mobiles' camera for majority of travel photos (Nexus 5x, Galaxy S9, Galaxy S21), but they are limited with landscape and generic street photography. So 90% time I tag along my Nikon D7000, with a generic purpose 18-200mm lens from same brand and for those wilderness trips Tamron 150-400mm one is always with me. I am not much into portrait or macro. Using a DSLR for last 14 years (started with Sony, moved to Olympus 4/3rds then to Nikon).

Like in cars, it was said "no replacement for displacement", in camera no replacement for sensor size. The details captured in larger sensor cannot be compared if you see them in a larger screen (monitors, not TV) or large prints. I know most of the population are happy to have the photo on phone or cloud (to a great extend I too); and watched only on phone or TV; I love to print some of them now and then. My home regularly sees my photos printed up to A3 to A1 size and I change them periodically (good service from Vista print). A mobile camera cannot do it in many situations a photo is taken (be it Pro max or Ultra).

[Actuator]

I am a hobbyist photographer and believe that smartphone cameras can never substitute professional camera equipment (body+lens setup)

Although smartphone cameras have made significant improvements over time, primarily by slight hardware upgrades coupled with advancements in post-procesing engines, they are no match for modern mirrorless sensors when it comes to handling noise natively at high ISOs or shooting at 30 FPS while tracking Birds in Flight!

This isn't to deny that phone cameras aren't nifty or capable to capture most everyday life situations. Its just that the specificity of certain genres in photography requires the deployment of made to purpose tools where smartphone cameras fall abysmally short.

[mohansrides]

I will start by saying this. The level of discourse and debate on this forum has certainly gone down the tubes. These days people are commenting purely in a topical fashion without investing even a little bit of time to think about what they are actually saying, and if they really want to say it. In that sense, the responses on many threads have come to add a fraction to none of the value that this forum is/was known for.

Now coming back to the topic here, let us examine the different criteria mentioned against cameras.

Portability -

Is portability the only criteria? Again, let us look at a parallel. Most of us choose to get married and start families. Now, why do we do that? Families mean less time for travel and less disposable income for our own whims and fancies. Families also mean more responsibility and the constant worry about keeping everyone safe and healthy. So, why do we willingly take on these headaches? Because we make the determination that all of it is worth it - the lack of time & money for our own selves, the worries, the responsibilities; every single negative is worth taking on because the positives outweigh the negatives.

Every endeavour, including photography, is no different. Your returns are proportionate to what you put in. So, you can choose to see a camera and lenses as a burden, or you can view them as tools that expand your capabilities and which allow you to actually exercise your creativity instead of allowing algorithms to rob you of the opportunity to think and grow.

Having said this, I will never say that phone cameras are useless or that they are inferior to DSLRs. Indeed, being lightweight and portable and internet connected are all merits that deserve their place in everyone's choices. But they are not the only merits is my point.

Photo output -

Originally Posted by asethi

..Below example can demonstrate that, both pics are taken at the very same spot in Ladakh. First one is with iPhone 12 and second with Nikon D90 with standard 18-105 lens, and iPhone or any other smartphone just cannot recreate the perspective & detail of a DSLR.

This post really does say it in pictures. It is possible for us to look at the iphone12 photo and conclude that it is enough. But, it is only when we see the output of the DSLR are we able to see what is truly possible at that same spot. So you can point a cell phone at the exact same thing that an experienced photographer (who is even just a hobbyist) points his camera at. But, the two will never take the same picture. This is partly because of sensors and old fashioned physics, and partly because of the person behind each camera. One is going to get what his phone shows him; but the other guy will be able to extract multiple variations within the same constraints of composition.

Originally Posted by Aroy

...Finally as they say, it is the person behind the camera who matters not the camera, and within its shortcomings a cell phone in the hands of an expert can beat a normal photographer with a high end DSLR....

Absolutely!!

Anyone who has invested time in any field will know that only part of the training is about the technicalities of said field/equipment. The other, and arguably more important, part is the training of one's self; both in body and mind.

Example - Today we may have N options to source our meals; but typically none of those commercial meals will come close to the feeling of satisfaction of a well-made home meal made by a person who has trained himself or herself to go through the rigours of what it takes to make meal after meal for the family.

Just to drive home this example, let us stretch the context to feature someone who has spent time, officially or otherwise, in training to be a chef. If they cook the same meal that you cook for yourself everyday, you will still taste a huge difference. This is because the investment is not just in learning different cooking techniques and ingredients. The real work is in training their palettes to taste exponentially more nuances than what most of us can. They also train their bodies to spend hours standing in the heat of commercial kitchens which can be unforgiving. Now, when such a person brings all of that investment to make you your dal sabzi and chawal, you will undoubtedly notice the difference. At least I hope you will. I mean, assuming that the chef person is legit and if you still can't tell the difference, then that says more about you than it does about him or her.

Along the same lines, people who invest time with their cameras don't just learn the technicalities of photography. They learn the nuances of light and to figure out the different ways to compose an image to tell different stories. At a more basic level, they learn to determine if something is even worth photographing in the first place. After all this, they train their bodies to withstand the rigours of photography. While some photo sessions can be a breeze; there are many situations that require physical exertion. I know of hobbyists who have spent months planning and executing a single photograph. This is especially true for landscapes and wildlife where weather and the subjects are mercurial. Why go to even that extent. Next time you have a function in your house, try spending 2 hours photographing the function. See how you feel.

I have refrained from posting examples of my own work because I consider myself a rank amateur even after 25 years of taking photos. But, just to make a point, here are a few samples :

(Above) This is the house Ganpati taken with an iPhone 12 by the Missus. The idol was only 7 inches tall.

(Below) The EXACT same idol taken with a mirrorless full frame camera and a 50mm prime lens.

Like I said, the time spent in photography has less to do with the technical innards of cameras and more to do with learning to see better and then to convey that vision in interesting ways.

Moment Capture -

This too is a valid point. The camera in your hand is the best camera on any day. But, here is the thing though. It is not just enough for the cell phone to be handy. One still has to have the initiative to pull it out and fire away. Their bulk notwithstanding, many of us have trained ourselves to keep our cameras handy to capture those very fleeting moments. What's more?! People around us have gotten so used to the cameras that they don't even notice it any more.

I have a whole bunch of photos showing absolutely delectable moments. I would share them here, but for concerns about privacy and identities. In any case, here are a few.

(Above) When everyone was napping, a couple of thieves decided to raid the freezer for contraband.

(Below) A very effective negotiator convinces a tired gentleman that is was time to disregard his age related whingeing and get going on that promised outing.

Sure, a phone could capture all this. But, a zoom lens with a big focal length helps to stay out of the action while still being able to record the whole thing. Cameras can be immensely helpful to capture moments if one is prepared.

Bottom line - To cite criteria such portability, picture quality in computational photography, and readiness as the main reasons for phones being superior to DSLRs or mirrorless cameras is... well not really a complete statement. Cameras are still the way to go if you want pictures that are memorable instead of the click and forget nature of the 1000s of pics that we take every day. Almost all the pics I have posted here are ones that we look at every so often. By contrast, we never bother looking at the thousands of pictures that my wife clicks on her phone of the very same subjects. That says a lot I think.

The people here who think that phone cameras are the be-all and end-all should really get themselves a simple and compact camera like the RX100. Keep it handy. Next time you see something that you want to capture, grab that camera and shoot. Then shoot with your phone. Look at both pictures on your phone or your laptop and see if you can see a difference. Better still, get a simple APSC mirrored DSLR camera with a kit lens. These go for just 20k in the used market. Very good ones too. That is arguably cheaper than most phones with good cameras. Use the dedicated camera in tandem with your phone shooting the same subject. Then decide for yourself.

To sign off, here are a few pics of the car with a 15-30 lens.

Cheers

[airguitar]

Originally Posted by mohansrides

I will start by saying this. The level of discourse and debate on this forum has certainly gone down the tubes. These days people are commenting purely in a topical fashion without investing even a little bit of time to think about what they are actually saying, and if they really want to say it. In that sense, the responses on many threads have come to add a fraction to none of the value that this forum is/was known for.

I grudgingly acknowledge what you say however harsh it is - but that's not specific to this thread or this forum - it's the same across the world - at workplaces, in friend circles etc - it's the social media era that we live in, but some do buck the odds and keep the flag flying on this forum.

Perhaps, on this forum, we should start by setting the milestones (bhpian, senior bhpian etc ) by "thanks" offered as opposed to number of posts or by choosing the more hallowed members deciding if a member should be upgraded based on contributions. That's for another thread, I will post on forum recommendations.

Secondly, I did see your post on how this thread doesn't have it's heart in the right place or that it could be misleading. That seems to partly stem from the number of people using the phone for photography and that it might cause people to vote overwhelmingly in favour of the cellphone - but note how it's a multichoice poll and that the cellphone option says "I use only cellphone for all my photography" and that it starts with a question if you use DSLR the same way you used to. So overall it's targeted at people that were DSLR aficionados that may or may not have stuck their gadgets. Further, what's been useful to me is the options chosen beyond the cellphone - that's where most of the useful info that I was looking to get is.

[Turbanator]

Originally Posted by mohansrides

The level of discourse and debate on this forum has certainly gone down the tubes. These days people are commenting purely in a topical fashion without investing even a little bit of time to think about what they are actually saying, and if they really want to say it.

Completely OT, as a forum, we get benefited from the contributions our members make. Not everyone is expert in every field and there are many members, self included who are not good at anything but still try to contribute and help others in whatever way is possible.

We can not/ do not control what members feel and write. If someone has posted a wrong information, usually, it's confronted and debated. If someone knows better than others, they should share and update fellow members rather finding faults in their knowledge base.

[-xplora-]

Originally Posted by tarmacnaut

The auto industry saying 'No replacement to displacement' applies to the sensor size in the photography world. The higher the sensor size, higher will be the 'depth of field' a.k.a Bokeh, low light performance and image quality in general.

99% of smartphone sensors are miniscule in comparison to a full frame DSLR/Mirrorless camera or even the smaller APSC. So, however nice the smart phone pics might look on the screen, they generally are heavily processed for exposure, distortion and sharpness and they look artificial especially the 'portrait' mode's fake Bokeh, which makes you throw up.

This is when you are comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. In the old days of DSLR vs mobile all this makes complete sense and I agree sensor size ruled. In 2022 this is very debatable. I am not going to go into "purists" match. The fact that you have a digital camera, does not matter what kind, you are doing software processing and hardware image processing period.

Bigger sensor size is a definitely a huge plus, but that % of relevance has dropped. Now I am comparing consumer DSLR / Mirrorless here not FF pro cameras. Its like saying a Formula car performs better than a Lambo Aventador on tracks, its obvious.

Hardware Neural Engines + AI + ML datasets are correcting 80% of issues and errors a rookie would be making on flagship phones from apple / samsung / google / huawei / xiaomi. It used to look tacky and artificial with over sharpening, over saturation, over exposure but that line has diminished quite well and will continue on a break neck speed.

I believe the thing that matters most is the photographer, this is 60%, then comes light and then the equipment.

DSLR enthusiasts will mention about over processing / cannot print / shows its colors when you zoom in. Here's a question, how many of us who own FFs or even APSC cameras actually have printed in anything bigger than an A3 size in past 3 years ? Leave aside people who do this as a business / profession.

I was in this Sensor size club for several years, but I need to see compelling proof to still continue to believe it. Earlier it was just pure physics / optics at play, now AI has "bent the light" so to say.

All the pictures posted here are great, but are biased in the sense that all the DSLR / Mirrorless pictures shot are shot with planning / experience of shooting on those bodies / kits. While those shot on mobile are more like point and click.

How many are experts in using manual / pro modes in flagship phones offer in 2022 and shooting RAW and then going to LR ? which you do for your DSLRs

A fair comparison is a mobile shooting pro user with a DSLR pro user ( again consumer / prosumer grade DSLR / mirrorless )

PS: Forgot to add, CMOS sensor technologies themselves have evolved leaps and bounds in past few years due to this precise issue of reducing sensor size and still getting better images out of it. BSI is an example and so is RGB pattern arrangements. Now neither of the flagship players in the DSLR market nikon or canon make sensors or even make the hardware or software image conversion or processing engines. They are far far behind the likes of Samsung. The tech that goes into a mobile CMOS sensor is way higher than the one that goes into a consumer DSLR.

[Turbanator]

MOD NOTE : No off-topic posts please.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by airguitar

So how has your gear changed in the last few years ? Do you still use DSLRs the way you used to?

This is somewhat of a generic question. For DSLR users, what you shoot and how much you shoot dictate whether mobile or mirrorless can fully or partially replace DSLRs.

I shoot wildlife and nature. So, mobile doesn't do anything for me, apart from convenient videos and snapshots. I haven't replaced my DSLR gear with mirrorless yet for two reasons:
1. The next step would be super expensive. I know exactly what I want, and those will cost a bomb :-(
2. Just switching to mirrorless is not worth it, unless I can afford the specialist stuff.

My 3.5+ year old bodies and 3.5-6 year old lenses are doing fine. It is time in the field, learning, and practice that matter more IMO.

A huge male leopard from Uttarakhand


The mighty Trishul mastiff


Blue hour, Baijnath


Kumaon nights


Tiger cub chasing a langur


Trainline through Dudhwa National Park


Wary leopard (he was about to hunt a cheetal fawn)


Steppe eagle over a blackbuck carcass. Rajasthan.


Mustard plants, evening, Kumaon.


Cheetal stags in the mist


Mama's pet, Rajasthan


Sunset in Tadoba


Patterns of nature. Spiti river valley.


B&W portrait of a Ranthambore tigress


P.S. I do print large once in a while. E.g. the last tigress photo was a 48 x 32 inch print.

P.P.S. Mirrorless tech has surpassed DSLR tech now. So let's not think of DSLRs as the acme.

[Bala_R]

For a birder / wildlife shooter, DSLR / Mirrorless would be the preferred choice considering reach and speed, which mobile cameras cannot compete with.

It's a pain to carry the heavy gear, However the results you achieve pays off.

I carry Nikon D850, D700, 500mm f4, 70-200 f2.8.

I also use my S22 Ultra, when not in a mood to carry the heavy stuff.

[Achilles]

Most of the times, I prefer mobile photography due to the convenience factor. But sometimes depending on the mood , I takeout my DSLR + prime lens!

I bet none of the mobile phone camera currently available in market can beat the picture quality (not the eye pleasing filter effects) and manual adjustments that a DSLR offers.

That said, I won't be investing on a new lens/DSLR/mirrorless , but will be keeping my current kit as long as possible.

[FerroVolante]

I use a DSLR with a prime lens with autofocus as my primary webcam for video calls. I also have one ring light and one panel light attached to my desk on opposite sides of the computer.

The image quality and depth of field make it a totally professional looking setup as opposed to most video calls.

[asingh1977]

Great thread.

Can we break it up: Mirrorless crop sensor vs. full frame. World of a difference. I prefer using a camera, more options and makes nice 'art'. The learning curve is high and painful, and expensive!

All on Sony ILCE-6000. E55-210.

[neeravnaik]

I own many cameras including film cameras which are sort of on a comeback nowadays. Demand for film is quite high and supply is not able to keep up causing prices to shoot up. On Digital I started with Mirrorless with a Fuji XT2 camera. It is a great system with great lens selection. Recently have got Sony full frame Sony a7iv camera.

I have also got the old Canon 5d 1 as my DSLR. Reason being that I have many Film cameras and lenses so getting cheap old DSLR and using them is a fun experience. I am looking to buy an old Nikon DSLR also.

My film cameras is a big list- both SLRs and point and shoots. Film cameras are only available second hand so it is a challenge. Best way to buy is on eBay through Japan. There is a film photography community and sometimes you get good deals on it. I really love the old mechanical cameras I have which do not require complex electronics and give a very tactile experience of using it. Nikon F2 is my current favorite.

Film gives a very unique look and quality is also very good. It is a magical experience using a 40-50 year old camera and getting amazing results. Couple of film photos