Moving from dedicated camera to iPhone 11 pro

[ian87w]

I'm a firm believer of learning the craft before spending a ton on gear. I used to be a guitar instructor once upon a time and I would encourage my students to get an entry level guitar and see how well they like it and get a feel for whether or not it will be something of interest before investing a ton of money into a higher quality one.

I have the same philosophy with photography, for me it was the Canon 40D with kit lenses and I used it for years before finally getting the hang of it and finally upgrading my gear to better bodies and lenses. I'm far more interested in a well framed composition with foreground/background, exposure, etc than pixel peeping, it's just not my thing.

My favorite photographer is Fred Lyon and his best work was in the 50s and 60s, everything was manual and on film and I can say his photos (even back then) to this day make me envious. I've tried recreating some of his shots with all my brand new bitchin' gear and still can't come close to getting what he sees with his eye. When you're good you're good, choose your medium.

All that said, my biggest issue with phone cameras today isn't the technology as much as it is the lack of lenses. There's no way anyone will convince me that you can get the same quality or reach of a 70-200 F/2.8 on a FF sensor, it's simply a physical limitation and will remain that way no matter how many tiny lenses the paste on it. There is no substitute for quality glass. As far as being a quality point and shoot, I don't question them at all.

Wait, after all that, in the end you still put the focus on the gear. In the end, you still look at the gear, not the pictures themselves.
I guess in an alternate reality, you would probably be telling Fred Lyon that his photos are not great if he didn’t have a full frame camera and expensive glass like yours.

 

[ericgtr12]

Wait, after all that, in the end you still put the focus on the gear. In the end, you still look at the gear, not the pictures themselves.
I guess in an alternate reality, you would probably be telling Fred Lyon that his photos are not great if he didn’t have a full frame camera and expensive glass like yours.

Would you have told Stevie Ray Vaughn or Eddie Van Halen to play on an entry level guitar?

Any of us who want to achieve better photos as we improve naturally spend more on gear. And BTW, even in those days telephoto lenses existed that still had a better optical reach and quality than today's most sophisticated phones.

 

[Clix Pix]

Interesting take on it and it looks like you took the time to make sure you were all setup going into it. Can I ask how you went about your trade? I am thinking I would probably sell all of my Canon gear off and then use the money towards the Sony but if there's an option to trade towards it somewhere reputable I would consider that too.

I am fortunate enough to have a couple of good camera shops in this area, and in the past I have traded with both of them, swapped one or two pieces of gear for something new that I wanted..... Obviously this was going to be a much more significant deal, so I sat down one day and took the time to inventory everything, check out the official description of it, specify if I had any accessories with it, (Lens hood, for example, as some older gear didn't always come with that). Once I'd typed up that list I went to the camera shop of my choice, as actually I wanted to buy something anyway which had nothing to do with the upcoming potential trade, and after I'd bought what I went there to get I also mentioned that I was interested in the A7R IV and that I had a bunch of stuff which I'd like to trade in.....and handed the sales person my list. That gave the store personnel time to review my list, check it against whatever sources they use in order to come up with reasonable trade-in prices, etc., and a few days later I got an email with the estimated quote. There were a couple of things about which they weren't sure (the legendary Noct, for one) and of course they needed to actually see and handle everything anyway. A couple of days after that once I had ascertained that they had the camera body and lenses that I wanted actually in stock, I packed up the gear at home and transported it all over to the store.

It took a while for them to check out everything, which was understandable. I stared at the boxes of the new gear that had been set out on the counter but didn't open anything. Final quote given, accepted, I changed my mind about one lens that I wanted, and we moved forward with the deal.....

I went home with considerably fewer items than which I'd arrived at the store, and after I got home it still took a while for it all to really settle in, to fully come to grips with the fact that I had taken this gigantic leap. I stared at the boxes, then at the new camera body, the new lenses.....and tentatively, nervously, put everything together, but yeah, it took a few days before I really felt comfortable with my new gear and was no longer saying to myself, "what did I DO?" as I felt sad about the old gear...... What I did was absolutely the right thing for me at the right time but it still was somewhat of an emotional experience.

 

[Ledgem]

Looking at many historical and exceptional photography, many of them are not taken by fancy DSLR/mirrorless. In fact, many are taken before digital. But based on how some people look at photo quality today, apparently the quality is on the pixel, not on the actual photograph. People will take some random picture with their DSLR and claim how great it is because of the technical pixel peeping. It's funny. Photography for the techies has evolved from the art of taking a picture into the spec contest. How sad.

I'm going to guess that many historical photographs of the old, if shown today without their historical background, would be ridiculed on how blurry and noisy they are.

I admit I don't understand disparaging people who seek better technical perfection by bringing up the past. The old photography masters did their work with the equipment that they had at the time. A lot of things were different back then. Cameras were simpler; the way photos were viewed was simpler.

I understand that at the crux of this argument is whether photography should be about the art or technology. It's both. And more has changed in photography than just the cameras, which is not appreciated enough. In the past you viewed photos in print, in some form. Who prints these days? I do, but the overwhelming majority of my photos will never be viewed outside of a digital display of some sort. Display technology has also come a very, very long way. I used to be enthralled with my photos from my entry-level, 10 megapixel camera, but upon upgrading to a "retina" display I saw every bit of noise, every bit of motion blur, and every bit of missed focus, even without pixel peeping. Flaws are laid bare much more easily now than they were in the past, whether it was on CRT monitors (blurry by today's standards) or print.

There's still a place for film, just like there's still a place for hobbyists who enjoy running computers from 20 years ago. They can still contribute valued work. But modern standards have changed, because everything has changed. Some people forget the art aspect of photography in pursuit of the technical aspects, but the technical aspects should be respected as well. There are multiple reasons for them beyond pure consumerism and specification comparisons.

 

[ian87w]

I admit I don't understand disparaging people who seek better technical perfection by bringing up the past. The old photography masters did their work with the equipment that they had at the time. A lot of things were different back then. Cameras were simpler; the way photos were viewed was simpler.

I understand that at the crux of this argument is whether photography should be about the art or technology. It's both. And more has changed in photography than just the cameras, which is not appreciated enough. In the past you viewed photos in print, in some form. Who prints these days? I do, but the overwhelming majority of my photos will never be viewed outside of a digital display of some sort. Display technology has also come a very, very long way. I used to be enthralled with my photos from my entry-level, 10 megapixel camera, but upon upgrading to a "retina" display I saw every bit of noise, every bit of motion blur, and every bit of missed focus, even without pixel peeping. Flaws are laid bare much more easily now than they were in the past, whether it was on CRT monitors (blurry by today's standards) or print.

There's still a place for film, just like there's still a place for hobbyists who enjoy running computers from 20 years ago. They can still contribute valued work. But modern standards have changed, because everything has changed. Some people forget the art aspect of photography in pursuit of the technical aspects, but the technical aspects should be respected as well. There are multiple reasons for them beyond pure consumerism and specification comparisons.

From what I see, the party who first keeps disparaging others are those who keep saying how a "real" camera is a better and proper camera (full frame, expensive glass, etc) than a smartphone. Just look at the comments claiming bashing iPhones compared to DSLRs/mirrorless, while ignoring that photography is about the photo, not the gear. But I guess we are in the age of pixel peeping, where the quality of the pixel nd fancy gears become the determination of picture quality, rather than the actual photo.

 

[Ledgem]

From what I see, the party who first keeps disparaging others are those who keep saying how a "real" camera is a better and proper camera (full frame, expensive glass, etc) than a smartphone. Just look at the comments claiming bashing iPhones compared to DSLRs/mirrorless, while ignoring that photography is about the photo, not the gear. But I guess we are in the age of pixel peeping, where the quality of the pixel nd fancy gears become the determination of picture quality, rather than the actual photo.

I don't know that anyone is trying to put anyone else down. Sure, some people will get defensive, feeling a bit attacked for spending money on both cameras and smartphones. I think plenty just reply to say why a smartphone can't work for them... and then perhaps the people who dumped their cameras, perhaps still feeling a bit uncertain about making the move, feel defensive and attacked over why others want to keep using their cameras.

I can see how terminology like what is a "real" camera, what is "serious" photography, and so on come off as demeaning. I think that beyond the concrete words we understand what is meant, though: if you want to take any photography outside of very good light, or that involves an unusual perspective (think macro or telephoto), the iPhone cannot match traditional cameras. I won't say that it will never happen, but right now and for the foreseeable future.

iPhone photography has come a very long way and I am routinely impressed not only by what it can do, but how quickly it has been advancing. It still can't replace my "real" (read: traditional digital) cameras - not by my standards, at least. When my child was a baby I had an iPhone 7 Plus and really thought I might be able to use it in place of my other cameras. I took a photo indoors, in a room that was still pretty light but without direct sunlight coming in. The noise wasn't the issue; the blotchy skin tones were. The photos were fine in bright sunlight, but it was one of those technical flaws where once you saw it, you couldn't stop seeing it in every single photo taken under similar circumstances. Maybe if I had printed it then the colors would not have looked that way, and admittedly, when viewed on the relatively small iPhone screen I don't think it was overly noticeable. But on my larger screen it was a problem. I stopped trying to use my iPhone in place of my standard cameras at that point. Now I use an iPhone 11 Pro and the low light mode is really impressive, but I'll still favor my MILC in very poor light.

I suppose I should mention that we all have different levels of what is acceptable to us, and that's fine. Maybe someone else doesn't see or doesn't care about loss of fine detail and blotchy skin tones. As far as I'm concerned, that does not make them some uncultured slob, it means they can enjoy their life and not be on the expensive hamster wheel of seeking ever better photography equipment. Good for them. Just... don't share a bird photo where you had to digitally zoom in 500% with me, please

 

[ian87w]

I don't know that anyone is trying to put anyone else down. Sure, some people will get defensive, feeling a bit attacked for spending money on both cameras and smartphones. I think plenty just reply to say why a smartphone can't work for them... and then perhaps the people who dumped their cameras, perhaps still feeling a bit uncertain about making the move, feel defensive and attacked over why others want to keep using their cameras.

I can see how terminology like what is a "real" camera, what is "serious" photography, and so on come off as demeaning. I think that beyond the concrete words we understand what is meant, though: if you want to take any photography outside of very good light, or that involves an unusual perspective (think macro or telephoto), the iPhone cannot match traditional cameras. I won't say that it will never happen, but right now and for the foreseeable future.

iPhone photography has come a very long way and I am routinely impressed not only by what it can do, but how quickly it has been advancing. It still can't replace my "real" (read: traditional digital) cameras - not by my standards, at least. When my child was a baby I had an iPhone 7 Plus and really thought I might be able to use it in place of my other cameras. I took a photo indoors, in a room that was still pretty light but without direct sunlight coming in. The noise wasn't the issue; the blotchy skin tones were. The photos were fine in bright sunlight, but it was one of those technical flaws where once you saw it, you couldn't stop seeing it in every single photo taken under similar circumstances. Maybe if I had printed it then the colors would not have looked that way, and admittedly, when viewed on the relatively small iPhone screen I don't think it was overly noticeable. But on my larger screen it was a problem. I stopped trying to use my iPhone in place of my standard cameras at that point. Now I use an iPhone 11 Pro and the low light mode is really impressive, but I'll still favor my MILC in very poor light.

I suppose I should mention that we all have different levels of what is acceptable to us, and that's fine. Maybe someone else doesn't see or doesn't care about loss of fine detail and blotchy skin tones. As far as I'm concerned, that does not make them some uncultured slob, it means they can enjoy their life and not be on the expensive hamster wheel of seeking ever better photography equipment. Good for them. Just... don't share a bird photo where you had to digitally zoom in 500% with me, please

So in the end, the quality of the pixel is what matters for you (fine details, non-blotchy skin tones), not the photos. Got it. And oh, funny that you mentioned disparaging comments, especially after reading your last sentence. "yeah let's specifically point out a technical disadvantage (eg. high zoom) to ridicule people using their phones to take pictures"

Personally, instead of thinking "phone cameras are not good because they cannot replace big full frame and thousands of dollars lens," I am on the side of "with this phone, I now can take many pictures and memories, pictures that I would've missed if I only have a big camera."

 

[akash.nu]

I suppose I should mention that we all have different levels of what is acceptable to us, and that's fine. Maybe someone else doesn't see or doesn't care about loss of fine detail and blotchy skin tones. As far as I'm concerned, that does not make them some uncultured slob, it means they can enjoy their life and not be on the expensive hamster wheel of seeking ever better photography equipment. Good for them. Just... don't share a bird photo where you had to digitally zoom in 500% with me, please

What about non-zoomed in bird pictures?!

 

[LiE_]

I think this thread is going a little off on a tangent. It was never about whether I think I should ditch my camera because my iPhone is better. It's more about the circumstances where it made sense for me to hang up my camera and use my iPhone to continue to capture memories.

I love the results from my Fuji camera, this is the main reason why I've stuck with it so long and even as I write this I am not 100% convinced I won't regret it. What I've realised is that I don't ever go specifically out to take arty photos, all of my arty photos are a result of me looking for those shots while out with my family. If I was a single man, I honestly wouldn't bother with a dedicated camera, it's not that kind of hobby for me. The number 1 reason I picked up a dedicated camera was to capture some lovely photos of my family. Maybe as I get older I would be one of those old geezers with a big white beard and 300mm zoom lens walking around a botanical garden by himself taking photos of butterflies ?

I'll give it some more thought today, maybe I would be happy with the X-T30 and just the 35 f2.

 

[LiE_]

I'll give it some more thought today, maybe I would be happy with the X-T30 and just the 35 f2.

Going to keep my X-T30 and 35 f2, it's quite a small package. I still really need a proper camera to take photos of products for my wife's business so there is that.

 

[Ledgem]

So in the end, the quality of the pixel is what matters for you (fine details, non-blotchy skin tones), not the photos. Got it.

This kind of reads like you're just looking for a fight, honestly. Tonal gradation is a part of the photo. That applies whether you're shooting grayscale or color. Can there be a good photo with poor colors? Sure. Some artistic endeavors even rely on those technical imperfections. But if you're trying to capture life, would the photos be better with better color reproduction? I think you'll have a very hard time finding anyone who disagrees with that.

Here, have a visual example:

Compared with a version run through re-saving with poor compression a few times:

Is the second version bad? I'm not going to say that it can't be art, but let's put it this way: if the first photo wasn't visually pleasing to you (and the technical purists would probably point out some noise present in the image as if it ruins the whole thing), I can guarantee that the second won't be any better. Likely it'll leave a worse impression, especially if I'm trying to tell you it's a photo and not something like an attempt at turning a photo into something resembling a painting.

 

[LiE_]

Going to keep my X-T30 and 35 f2, it's quite a small package. I still really need a proper camera to take photos of products for my wife's business so there is that.

So I’ve traded in my X-T30 and bought another Fujifilm, the X100V. I think this will suit me way more, being smaller, more focused and producing excellent images. I never change lenses when I’m out and the 23 f2 on the X100V is a great lens. This will hopefully keep my foot in the door with photography and ultimately be better for the types of situations I use a camera.

 

[LiE_]

The new camera. I have some more accessories on the way (half leather case, front filter to make it fully WR and a screen protector).

A few snaps in the garden. 2 of these are SOOC jpegs using some in camera settings. I can see myself using the jpegs a lot more once I've dialled in my recipe.

 

[r.harris1]

The new camera. I have some more accessories on the way (half leather case, front filter to make it fully WR and a screen protector).
View attachment 1809538


A few snaps in the garden. 2 of these are SOOC jpegs using some in camera settings. I can see myself using the jpegs a lot more once I've dialled in my recipe.

View attachment 1809539

View attachment 1809540

View attachment 1809541

Excellent images and excellent camera. I have the previous version that I use as a walk-around camera. I love it to bits, though I have my eye on this version .

 

[LiE_]

So I took the X100V on holiday and got some lovely photos, it's a really good camera. However, it does cost £1299 and there was this niggling feeling that I will want to change lens in future. So I was able to return it and have been considering my options for a few months.

Yesterday I finally made a decision and put an order in the a Fujifilm X-E4 in black along with the new Fujifilm 33mm 1.4. This should cover the vast majority of my photography. I will probably grab a zoom lens for when I go on holiday as I find it more versatile when walking about.

 

[coolguy4747]

So in the end, the quality of the pixel is what matters for you (fine details, non-blotchy skin tones), not the photos. Got it. And oh, funny that you mentioned disparaging comments, especially after reading your last sentence. "yeah let's specifically point out a technical disadvantage (eg. high zoom) to ridicule people using their phones to take pictures"

Personally, instead of thinking "phone cameras are not good because they cannot replace big full frame and thousands of dollars lens," I am on the side of "with this phone, I now can take many pictures and memories, pictures that I would've missed if I only have a big camera."

These are not really opposing sides, as you seem to think they, and even more importantly they are certainly not the only available opinions. I agree with both statements - I like my "big" camera because it's better than my phone. But I'm also very grateful that phone cameras are so good these days that I never feel like I don't have the option to take a halfway decent photo. I actually just unexpectedly got an iPhone 13 Pro because my old phone just broke, and have been very impressed by the cameras compared to my previous phone...because...dare I say it...the quality of the pixels is better...

 

[LiE_]

I'm back pondering if I should stop chasing the phone upgrades for the camera improvements and just get another Fuji. I still often look through my photos taken on my Fuji with a lot of fondness.

 

[mollyc]

Wow what a thread. I had to read the whole thing from the beginning again and it's kind of a time trip. Many people talked about "4-5 years in the future" and here we are right at the four year mark. So trippy.

Anyway, in my opinion, other than perhaps night photography, I don't really see vast improvements in the computational side of photography that were predicted in the beginning of this thread. In 2019 I was using an iPhone 8+ and now I use a 14PM and I don't really think my phone photos are substantially better now than they were then, other than maybe in terms of MPs. I guess they are a bit cleaner, and I have a better zoom lens built in, but I'm still not reaching for my phone any more often for a photo than I used to (other than maybe photos of my dog, and we did not have a dog in 2019).

I'm back pondering if I should stop chasing the phone upgrades for the camera improvements and just get another Fuji. I still often look through my photos taken on my Fuji with a lot of fondness.

I think "chasing" is a poor methodology personally. I have a lot of gear. I used to trade in old gear to fund new gear, but I've decided that I like photography too much to sell old stuff so now I just keep amassing different camera bodies and lenses. 😂 It's more fun (for me) that way and I'm lucky that I don't have to sell older items, which isn't the case for everyone and I recognize that.

That said, I don't typically buy gear just to have new gear. When I get new stuff, it's because it fills a void of something that my existing gear can't do. It will be a specialty lens, or cover a focal length I don't yet have, or something just completely out of the blue like a $120 Instax camera, which gives me an entirely new look and feel from either a full fledged dedicated ILC or a phone.

I also do carry a camera with me everywhere I go now (although truthfully I don't go very many places that I use it spontaneously since I really only go to the grocery store or Costco on a regular basis). It's a fixed lens (the X100V that you traded in) and it isn't technically as versatile as a phone since it is a fixed focal length, and the phone has three focal length options, but I'd still use it every time over the phone because I value the image quality it gives me.

I give this by way of background to say that photography is my main hobby and I like to dedicate time to using what I have and photography is just a part of who I am. In the grand scheme of most people, I'm an anomaly, although there are a number of others on this thread who are similar to me. Then there are others on this thread who do not see the need or have the desire for a lot of gear and their opinions are just as valid as mine, despite being different.

All that said, you are wistful for your Fuji cameras. I'd encourage you to really think about what it is that you like about them. Most people aren't willing to carry a camera out just to have, even occasionally, unless they are on vacation or a specific photo-op outing. If you aren't willing to set the time aside to actually use a dedicated camera, it's not going to do you any good, and you will be back here in another 3-6 months saying you've sold it and you're back to the phone only.

What is it that you miss specifically? File size? Depth of field/bokeh? Ergonomics? Lack of computational processing? Better raw handling? There are a litany of other reasons why one prefers a dedicated camera to a phone, but for you, having gone back and forth over the past four years, I think you really need to figure out specifically what you feel you lack with your phone and then proceed.

And maybe it's just knowing that you can reach for a dedicated camera a couple of times a month that is enough to justify its cost. That's totally fine too. You are always going to need a phone, and if you can afford a dedicated camera setup, even if it's used rarely, that's a legitimate pathway to "better" (however one defines that) photography. Once it's purchased it's a sunk cost assuming you're a hobbyist, so if you can afford it and want it, then get it and use it when the desire hits you.

 

[LiE_]

Good post @mollyc !

The photos I have taken over the years (first Fuji in 2018 for Disneyland trip) have much more meaning to me. Each photo is carefully selected, edited and added to the photo set. When I look back it really captures the essence of an occasion. I don't feel that way about my photos I take on my phone. Part of it is the process but also the quality of the results are just not there. I love seeing the detail, the bokeh and the fun I can have with capturing things that aren't possible with a phone. I've printed dozens of my camera photos and they are hung in my living room.

I don't think I'll change in terms of when I take photos, it will always be during vacation, special occasions and interesting things I see when out with my family and camera. I also have another use case in that I want to capture more professional photos for my wife's business (she has a hair salon) which I did sometime ago.

I've also decided that I want to start printing more, creating some photo books and generally materialize my photos outside of online so that they are things I can look back on.

With all that said, I have an X-T4 and 33mm 1.4 coming in the next few days, I'll be taking it to my brothers disco themed dessert shop where my niece is having her birthday and then to my nephews 1st birthday the day after.

I also want to dabble in video on the X-T4 to see if I can produce some stuff for my wife's business.

I've made peace with the fact I may not use the camera as much as I would like. It's a skill and art I want to keep pushing.

 

[mollyc]

Good post @mollyc !

The photos I have taken over the years (first Fuji in 2018 for Disneyland trip) have much more meaning to me. Each photo is carefully selected, edited and added to the photo set. When I look back it really captures the essence of an occasion. I don't feel that way about my photos I take on my phone. Part of it is the process but also the quality of the results are just not there. I love seeing the detail, the bokeh and the fun I can have with capturing things that aren't possible with a phone. I've printed dozens of my camera photos and they are hung in my living room.

I don't think I'll change in terms of when I take photos, it will always be during vacation, special occasions and interesting things I see when out with my family and camera. I also have another use case in that I want to capture more professional photos for my wife's business (she has a hair salon) which I did sometime ago.

I've also decided that I want to start printing more, creating some photo books and generally materialize my photos outside of online so that they are things I can look back on.

With all that said, I have an X-T4 and 33mm 1.4 coming in the next few days, I'll be taking it to my brothers disco themed dessert shop where my niece is having her birthday and then to my nephews 1st birthday the day after.

I also want to dabble in video on the X-T4 to see if I can produce some stuff for my wife's business.

I've made peace with the fact I may not use the camera as much as I would like. It's a skill and art I want to keep pushing.

congratulations!