Remember when we used to carry an arsenal of lenses in a camera bag? Our shoulders often sagged under the weight. Then we fumbled as we changed from one lens to another in order to get just the right focal length. They were happy days in sunny weather but not so much fun on cold and rainy days. Can smartphone photography give us lens choice without lens changes?
A new day dawning
Now I’m well aware that what I’m about to say will be anathema to some Macfilos readers. It will rile others. And some will psychologically build fortress walls to stave off the barbarians. But Bob Dylan foresaw the future of digital photography…
Come gather 'round people Wherever you roam And admit that the waters Around you have grown …For the times they are a-changin'
Let me explain. Even though I’ve had a short sabbatical from Macfilos over the last few months, I do still have weekly coffee and coast walk with Macfilos regular John Shingleton, and Macfilos is a topic of conversation every week. Moving to the point of this short essay, it was last week, as we did a particular coast section near John’s home when he said, “Look at that. We should have brought a camera”. I admit that it did show a good scene, and then remembered that we both had cameras with us…..our iPhones.
Rapid lens changes with smartphone photography
Using the iPhone Pro, I was able to catch three different focal lengths from the three lenses on the back of the camera – 13mm ultra-wide, 24mm wide angle and 52mm.
While they are only 12MP images, I quite liked them as I viewed them later after a fast airdrop to the iPad. Each one had a different look from a captured moment in time. I must admit that I especially like the “look” of the 52mm equivalent image.
Upon further reflection, I realised that I’d been able to do something that morning that would have been impossible with a camera and separate lenses. That is, by virtue of the toggle buttons on the screen, I had taken the three images at three different focal lengths in less than three seconds. Click1, toggle to the second lens, click2, toggle to the third lens, click3. Gatling gun photography
As a card-carrying Luddite, I have for too long ignored the three toggles .5/1x/2 on the right side of the screen, providing for instant changes to the different focal lengths of the three lenses on the rear.
Further wonderings
Having crystallised into my neurones the ease of lens changes as part of the compact iPhone camera that is with me all the time, plus the simple transfer and editing protocols for smartphone images, and the acceptable image quality from computational skulduggery, I’m beginning to wonder more about the next leaps in smartphone photography. I am aware that there are moves afoot to extend the imaging sections of smartphone cameras down along the inside of cameras to get longer focal length equivalents. It will be fun to see what smartphone zoom cameras will produce.
So, here are a few questions to consider-
To what level of photography will next-generation smartphones take us?
How long before our real cameras are placed onto shelves to gather dust?
Or will we keep using cameras with short zoom lenses to enable fast changes of focal lengths, even though they aren’t as compact or convenient as a smartphone?
And a specific question for Leica types – Is there a Macfilos reader who has tried the Leica imaging system on the Xiaomi 13 Pro? Fifty megapixels, a 1” sensor, three focal lengths, and a Leica colour palette… What’s not to like? Maybe Leica was right when it decided to put a new emphasis on computational imaging five years ago. And, building on that, is a smartphone Leica the next camera for many of us? I do realise that the last question will rattle some cages.
A trip to London for some answers
Armed with my above question, the editor in London came to the rescue. He knows little about the Xiaomi Leica. As usual, though, he knows someone who does. He persuaded friend and Leica enthusiast Steve Kwan to provide us with some sample pictures from his new Xiaomi 13 Pro. They speak for themselves…
Above: The picture on the right is a crop from the left-hand image
Steven explains
“I have used the iPhone, Samsung S series, Huawei with Leica lens and Google Pixel. But the Xiaomi 13 Pro is so good that I am considering giving up my Ricoh GR.
“The quality of the Sony 1-in sensor is spectacularly enhanced by the Leica lenses and processing magic. I have never had so much fun using a smartphone camera because of the master-lens system, including 35mm f/1.4, 50 mm f/0.95, 75 mm f/1.25, 90 mm soft-focus f/2.2 and the filters, including “Leica look” and “film look”.
“The best camera in the world is the one that is always with you, and in this respect, the Xiaomi 13 Pro fits the bill.”
Smartphone photography conclusion
So, after seeing Steven’s work with the Xiaomi, perhaps it’s time for me to go back to the drawing board and up my game with the iPhone…
To conclude, let’s go back to Bob Dylan, a Nobel Prize winner (!) so he must be right in the last verse boldly distilled the changes that we have ahead of us
The line it is drawn The curse it is cast The slow one now Will later be fast …the present now Will later be past The order is rapidly fadin' ...For the times they are a-changin'
Editor’s Note: My sincere thanks to Steven Kwan for stepping into the breach and providing some excellent examples of the capabilities of the Xiaomi 13 Pro. His comment on pocket cameras is a shot across the bows of photographers who have an aversion to using the smartphone as a real alternative to more expensive camera gear. More and more people are choosing to rely on their phones. And paradoxically, the excellence of the results from smartphones (not just the Xiaomi Pro 13, but thanks largely to instant computational processing) are flattering to the user and make them think that they are real pros. This was never the case with the humble point-and-shoot camera, hence its demise as soon as something better came along.
XIAOMI 13 ULTRA UPDATE: The Xiaomi 13 Pro outlined above is soon to be joined by an even more serious beast, the Xiaomi 13 Ultra. Available only in China at the moment, the Ultra promises to be a serious competitor for current higher-end compact cameras. Read this hands-on view from T3.com: I tried the Xiaomi 13 Ultra – and think Apple needs to step up its camera game.
Read more from Wayne Gerlach
Want to contribute an article to Macfilos? It’s easy. Just click the “Write for Us” button. We’ll help with the writing and guide you through the process.
Geotagging was new to me until just about 18 months ago. (remember, I don’t use a smart phone). When I became aware, I quickly purchased a GPS accessory for my Nikon Df.
It quickly became invaluable in my work, where I am often taking pictures of engineering issues and sometomes after the fact the picture all look alike.
But I also find it a boon to travel photography. Now where did I take that picture/ is easily answered.
Until a smartphone which can truly have selective focus / wide aperture comes around, for me it is simple. If I don’t have an M10 with me (probably 1/2 the time) and a photo opportunity arises, I will use my iPhone. If I have both and do not have the couple of seconds time to think (ISO, f/ stop), I will grab the iPhone. If I have both and I need a decisive moment shot shortly where a split second makes a huge difference, there is no contest. If perchance I am someplace that I will need geotagging information, I would use the iPhone for a reference shot.
Otherwise I greatly appreciate the photo capability of my iPhone (12).
And for most people, a smartphone would easily beat a Sony RX100 MkIV* for ease of use, if ease of use is what you are after. I thought we were not into comparing glass plates with mainstream 20th Century film photography or glass plates with smartphones or am I missing the point again? The important point here is not about technicalities or image quality, it is about paradigm change and modalities. David, I know you were an excellent technical editor, but there is a ‘bigger picture’ here, if you will pardon the pun. Spouting technical points does not address the basic issue here. Most photographers want to know as little as possible about technicalities and everyone who uses a smartphone to take photographs is a photographer.
Do you by any chance have the ratio of Sony Rx etc cameras to smartphones or even just the Sony Experia models? I’m not really that interested in the numeric facts of the answer, it is just that making a comparison between this camera and smartphones is pointless, particularly after smartphones have killed the compact digital camera market. I feel strange discussing all of this when my last photographic purchase was a 160 year old lens. The digital turn has created some strange thinking about photography, but the digital process was always going to lead to tiny cameras that would fit in your pocket. The path we are on is inexorable. Wayne has done a great job in shining a light on all of this. It is no longer just the ‘Elephant in the Room’. The battle is over and lets move on to the ‘next big thing’ whatever that might be.
Meanwhile, I know quite a few people who are blissfully happy doing wet plate photography without making any comparisons with other photographic modes and techniques.
To David B, this is also addressed to Martin or anyone else who is interested and not just to you. For what it is worth, I have no interest in the Sony camera you mention and very little interest in most digital cameras or, indeed, smartphones generally. I find discussions about digital cameras and photography to be uninteresting a lot of the time. I perceive such digital devices (cameras or phones) to be largely just useful tools for image making. So, debates on the devices themselves are mostly uninteresting to me, but I find that what people do with them can be very interesting.
William
.
Clearly, you don’t find it “uninteresting” William, as you’ve just given us four (long-ish) paragraphs about “..discussions about digital cameras”..!
..Your turn..
I’ll be brief. What is interesting is what people are doing with smartphones and the effect that is having on imaging and communications. End of the matter, I hope.
William
I sort of identified with the comment “So What” when I started reading the comments. The article initially reminded me of the jpeg versus raw articles that were common well past their best before date. I have an iphone 14 pro something that can apparently take great images. I do not even think of using it for images. I have tried taking pictures with occasionally since the iphone 12 but no pleasure and no success. i have seen wonderful images taken with almost anything including film cameras. 😅
I think people focus too much on specs instead of the joy of photography-use whatever makes you enjoy capturing a moment in life! Life is short. Do not sit on the couch reading camera specifications. Get out and be creative and in the moment.
“Many make comparisons with today’s digital images and say that the 19th Century images are of a quality rarely seen today”. But one really should compare like with like, not apples with elephants.”
In the spirit of friendly debate on this topic, I would posit the comparison is actually valid. Comparing like for like should be comparing what was commonly used at each time period.
You would not suggest, I trust, comparing images made on 8.8mm x 13.2mm glass plates with today’s smart phone images with 1″ (misnamed) sensors?
.
??
So if one “..should be comparing what was commonly used at each time period..” then William’s description of present-day people making “..comparisons with today’s digital images and say that the 19th Century images are of a quality rarely seen today” is a pointless comparison.
Quick; better tell William, so that he can tell his visitors who “..often come in to view glass photographic plates from the 19th Century for various reasons …[and]… have been astonished by the quality of what they are seeing and comment on that..” that they should NOT be making those comparisons!
So we can compare, say, Scammell lorries with their contemporary Albion, or Foden, or ERF lorries, but can’t compare them with present-day Volvo or MAN lorries? (..Mind you, that won’t mean much if you’re not in the UK, so let’s say that you’re saying that one shouldn’t can’t compare mid-twenties Leica lenses with mid-thirties Leica lenses, nor any mid-forties lenses with mid-fifities lenses, etc.)
But if one can’t compare previous era items or behaviour – of any sort – with <present day items or behaviour ..then how does one measure progress (if any)?
Can’t a person compare ‘warm up’ time between valve (tube) radios and current transistor radios, and say that present-day radios snap on immediately without needing 30 seconds’ or a minute’s ‘warm-up’ time?
Can’t one compare camera movements – or the static camera shots – of, say, 1930s movies with those of present-day movies?
(..This is all really in the spirit of friendly debate, of course!..)
What about clothes of the nineteen thirties compared with clothing styles of the nineteen sixties? Ah; NO comparison allowed! Clothes of the nineteen thirties may only be compared with other clothes of the nineteen thirties! ..?
I think that maybe curators at London’s Victoria and Albert Museum might just disagree.
Yours in friendly debate,
David.
Thanks, David. You are a great man for bringing up technical arguments where none exist. I’m not comparing Roman Chariots with Ferraris or anything like that. The reason why people are astonished with the quality of old glass plates is because they are not expecting it.
However, the point about raising this is that what we are seeing today has arisen a number of times in the history of photography. For example, when Eastman came along with his box cameras and all you had to do was press the shutter and Kodak would ‘do the rest’, people were getting lesser quality pictures, but they were getting an easier to use camera which suited the way that they took pictures and showed them to friends and family. A ‘lifestyle’ change if you like. Then rolling along 40 years or more we had a chap called Oskar Barnack with his ‘kleine photo-wunder’. People were initially disappointed with the quality of images until photographers such as Paul Wolff worked out the processing side of things and also when 35mm films improved in quality. In more recent times digital cameras had, initially, inferior image quality compared to film cameras, but then, in a few years, that situation changed dramatically. All of this must seem familiar to anyone who looking at the current state of photography and the paradigm change caused by smartphone cameras. It has all happened before and it will happen again.
I’m not going to get into haptics and user experience as millions seem to be happy with what they are doing and a few ‘Life of Brian’ ‘I’m nots’ won’t really change that and convince the millions that they are wrong. Coming from left field are all of the young and not so young people who enjoy using film because they like the experience and the tactile reassurance. It is now a great big imaging world and people have loads of choices. A bit like the 1850s when you could choose daguerreotype, calotype, wet plate collodion, ambrotype etc, etc or whatever you are having yourself. It really is a case of what comes around, goes around.
William
.
I think you’re replying to the wrong person, William; it was Martin – see above – who took issue with comparing older technology with new technology.
And I’m not “..bringing up technical arguments where none exist..” ..I was bringing up a simple point of logic.
In “..the spirit of friendly debate on this topic..”, as Martin says, he suggests that “..Comparing like for like should be comparing what was commonly used at each time period”.
I was pointing out that if you do that, you can’t assess progress from one era to another.
Thanks David. I see now that some of your comments were paraphrasing Martin, so I will make these comments ‘urbi et orbi’ as the Pope might say. Leaving technology out of this you can make some comparison between what is happening now and what has happened before. Apples and Oranges have nothing to do with this. Learning lessons from history can help us to understand the present and to make sense of the future when it happens. The first thing you have to do is to put everything into the context of its time and to ignore the fact that technologies have changed and look at the broader picture. It should not be too hard to do.
William
I am enjoying this. Have to hand it to Wayne, you really “hit it out of the park” for stimulating debate.
Baseball expression. Sorry I don’t know any cricket expressions except of course sticky wicket, and I don’t think that applies here!
.
Martin, you said: “..You would not suggest, I trust, comparing images made on 8.8mm x 13.2mm glass plates with today’s smart phone images with 1″ (misnamed) sensors?”
Well, Martin, it all depends on what kind of emulsion (light-sensitive coating) you have on that 8.8mm x 13.2mm glass plate ..otherwise you may not be comparing like with like.
I mean if it’s coated with a Tri-X-like emulsion, you’re likely to get rather ‘grainy’ black-&-white results compared with a modern camera with a 1″ sensor, or if it’s Verichrome Pan-like (double coated for improved sensitivity) you may get nearer to a digital sensor’s b&w results, and if it were coated with a multi-layer Kodachrome emulsion – which, of course, can’t be processed properly any more – then you may find that the Kodachrome result – in bright light anyway – favours the teeny glass plate (better highlight resolution at least) than the 1″ sensor.
But you’d have to compare like with like!
(The 1″ refers to the glass tube of what used to be video cameras, in their early days, which provided a usable central area with a diagonal of about 15 or 16 millimetres, or about 0.6 of an inch ..a similar usable area to the 13.2 x 8.8mm of a so-called ‘One-inch’ sensor. But you knew that already!)
How awkward it’d be, though, loading teeny glass plate after teeny glass plate, and keeping the exposed ones in an absolutely dark place, and not rubbing against each other, till you could actually develop them. Think what trouble Roger Fenton had, and that you’d have to trundle round a miniature horse and cart wherever you went.
I think a Sony RX100 MkVI easily beats glass plates for ease of use. And it has that terrific compact zoom lens which can cope with just about anything!
Although I don’t own a smartphone, I have used them; if this is the way a person enjoys photography, who am I to judge? I suspect we each have unique emotional attachments to photos, and enjoy making them and viewing them, all in different ways.
For me — after cataract surgery, my right eye cannot close focus. I can focus rangefinders or electronic viewfinders, but not on the back of a camera or smartphone.
I could use autofocus — well, try to; I’m not very good at it. Or use a button on my Fuji XE-3 that focuses, selects brightness and ISO.
When we talk about where technology will take us, consider a dystopian vision: I ask some AI to create a photo in the style of Josef Sudek, portraying a young women reading a book. Hmm….
Is that where “photography” will be in 10 years?
To David B. I know that many system cameras have wifi, but going onto Facebook or Instagram etc with them (indirectly, of course) is quite a palaver and the extra quality of the image is generally not of interest to the majority of social media posters. Even the mainstream media outlets will use smartphone images if that is what they have.
On your next point, you have actually made my point by referencing Instagram, Zenfolio, Flickr etc. The volumes and the turnover are massive, so making an image that sticks in the mind of many people is just as difficult as before, perhaps even more difficult because of the traffic or, if you like, seeing the ‘woods for the trees’. The ‘turnover’ is what I referring to when I mentioned ‘here today, gone tomorrow’.
I was cataloguing a 10×12 glass plate holder/dark slide yesterday and I know all about the 19th Century Photographic Plate Sizes. In my You Tube talk on Photo History I mentioned Carleton Watkins who used 18×22 plates to make images of Yosemite which so impressed Abraham Lincoln that he declared it to be the world’s first national park. My interest in Watkins arose from his reported use of Dublin made Grubb lenses
To mix the last two points, I intend to post an image of a 19th Century Stereo Ambrotype on my Instagram tomorrow, taken with a smartphone, of course.
William
Wayne.
You wrote: ” Each one had a different look from a captured moment in time. I must admit that I especially like the “look” of the 52mm equivalent image.”
What was it about the “look” that you especially liked? This third “52mm” image worked for me as well. As you may know from my East Anglia and Velvia articles, I have a particular interest in landscape photography; but it is often difficult to describe why an image seems to work. To me though, your image has a story to tell in which the eye is drawn to the breaking waves in a balanced composition.
I don’t need a smart phone with a fancy three lens setup. I always carry with me my small and lightweight Sony RX100 Mk6 with its outstanding 1″ sensor. It meets all my photographic needs.
It isn’t called the “best travel camera on the planet” for nothing.
Chris
Gday Chris.
I like the simplicity of the 50mm image, along with the curves and swirls that lead the eye in and around and through the image. Hard to describe. Everyone sees an image differently. But I would have liked a more dramatic sky…..or maybe not 🤷♂️.
And have no concern, I fully admit that I’m not selling my RX100 (Macfilos contributor David Babsky caused me to go in that direction, Thanks David)…….nor my D Lux 109. Both are great compact zooms which continuously cover the same zoom range as the iPhone. It’s just that the new iPhone is a very compact new kid on the block.
.
👍 😄 ✔️
” I always carry with me my small and lightweight Sony RX100 Mk6 with its outstanding 1″ sensor.”
I keep a Nikon 1 J5 with 21 MP 1″ sensor, 10-30mm (27-81mm equiv) zoom, as my Always Have a Camera With You camera. Also outstanding, and very compact.
More pixels than my Nikon Dfs, which I use for most of my creative work. The Df is much more satisfying to use; while certainly not compact, it is more compact than the majority of Nikon DSLRs.
To Wayne. I disagree with your cooking analogies, although I often say in respect of digital cameras that ‘menus are for restaurants’. In ten years time we will be wondering why we had this discussion. Smartphones are a means of taking photographs and so are stand alone cameras. There is no more and no less to it than that on the camera aspect. If I’m still alive in ten years from now I’ ll still have my vintage cameras , but I will be wondering more about how to bequeath them.
William
Hello again William.
My microwave comment was very much just cheekiness as I arrived at an end of an extended session of replies to Comments.
And I do agree that this perennial topic of smartphone cameras will have disappeared ten years from now. On that note I do remember debates about whether digital imaging was truly “photography” in the literal sense. That to-and-fro seems to have disappeared.
Regarding your extensive collection of film cameras, I’d be guessing that you are thinking family, friends, and photography museum. Have you started writing a short discourse on each of them, pointing out historical facts why each is special? In the meantime do continue to treasure them, as I know you will.
Thanks, Wayne. I will leave the cameras to my wife and daughters, but there is a part of my collection which consists of Irish made and related items in my collection which I may leave to an appropriate institution. I am the Chairperson of Photo Museum Ireland, but we only have photographs, no cameras. I am, however, cataloguing a collection of cameras belonging to the former Photographic Society of Ireland (founded 1854) which are presently in the National Photographic Archive which is part of the National Library of Ireland. I am just about to head out the door to deal with the next tranche of boxes of cameras and lenses etc. I know I won’t find any smartphones in the boxes, but I will use a smartphone to record items in order to continue the research at home, before updating the database. Smartphone cameras have all kinds of uses.
William
I certainly hope to be using my cameras 10, 20 years from now, God willing. My plan is to start selling off stuff when I realize I am getting close to my deadline. Haven’t seen many hearses with U-haul trailers in tow.
Vive la difference.
But I won’t be carrying around a microwave oven even if they do put a camera in them. They’re for reheating leftovers 👨🍳😁.
With any recent camera (including smartphones) image quality is a given nowadays. Not sure why that is still being debated. For me the difference is mostly in the user experience and I personally do not rate the user experience of the iPhone as a camera very highly. For me using a Ricoh GR III is fun and using an iPhone for photography is not fun but I perfectly understand that 95% (if not more) of the population might feel very differently…
I often think it’s the difference between microwaving dinner and cooking dinner on saucepans on the stove top. And no I’m not a chef!
Well, now morning here in Oz and I’m about to head out the door to a Contract Bridge lesson. Believe me, at a junior level it’s more complicated than setting the menu on an Olympus or Sony camera. So, I’ll reply to the discussion Comments in a few hours time, when I get back to “brown couch” Mission Control.
But, at this stage I’d like to acknowledge t’Editor Michael and Steven Kwan for their significant inputs to take this article beyond the brief early draft. Michael, you took it to a new level. Steven, thank you for working with Michael in putting it together. It would be great to get more detail from you on your smartphone Leica experience, and the evolution of your smartphone photography that has brought you to your current stage. Thank heaps to both of you.
Good to know that the Leica look is just a software filter…
Gday Slowdriver. A good comment about the ‘look’ of the image. It’s noticeable that smartphone images are much better now than just a few years ago as the software has developed. I’m guessing that Leica’s computational imaging witchcraft is top shelf (maybe I need a Xiaomi 13 Ultra to use just as a pocketable travel camera. That’s truly a first world consideration).
Our Macfilos friend John Shingleton won’t mind me saying that over coffee recently he indicated that he’s sure that he can tell a smartphone image by it’s “look”, compared with a good camera image. I’m not sure that I could do that.
Certainly it’s no longer hot news that it’s possible to make good pictures with a smartphone (as long as the subject isn’t moving too fast, the light isn’t too dim, and you don’t plan to enlarge the final image too much.) But if you’re going to be holding your imaging device up to your eye for 15 or 20 minutes waiting for the image to come together, is a phone what you’ll want to be holding? I’ve tried it, and it’s really uncomfortable! (Not to mention the problem of what you do if the phone rings just as the decisive moment arrives…) You can drive a nail with a finely balanced carpenter’s hammer or with a rock, and either will get the job done, but if you’re going to be spending the morning driving nails, you’re going to appreciate a tool that was designed for the job…
This response is addressed to most people here. We are all ‘preaching to the choir’ on this site, which is aimed at camera fans, but there are hundreds of millions (dare I say billions) of people who once had stand-alone cameras and are now blissfully happy using their phones and, to nail one misconception on the head, people who use their phones to take photographs are real photographers – they make images with light. I sometimes jokingly refer to film cameras as ‘real cameras’, but what smartphones have are real cameras, just as real in their essential purpose as any digital system camera, albeit different. Sometimes the commentary on such matters can take me back mentally 170 or 180 years to when daguerreotypists might have said that calotypists were not real photographers and as for those newly arrived wet plate collodion types, the less said the better.
People here may find it difficult to take photos with a phone sometimes. I do, but I still take photos with a phone. Compare that with the millions of people who have no trouble with a phone, but would struggle using a very expensive Leica M, if they could afford such a thing. None of us are objectively right on this and none of us are objectively wrong. We are all doing the same thing, but differently, which is our choice.
Those still bemused with all of this might seek out my Macfilos article from 2017 in which I compared the shape and size of a Vest Pocket Kodak (VPK) from 1915 with both an iPhone and a Leica and, what is more, you could write comments on your photos with the pen that came with the VPK. A bit like Instagram, I suppose.
William
Thank you. I think you explained perfectly what I feel. Sometimes holding my phone just so, to get a picture, without accidentally tapping something on screen in hot sticky weather has been a juggling act that makes it feel like a bar of slippery soap and..no kidding… I’ve nearly dropped it off a bridge several times.
Hello JLW, William and Stephen again.
JLW – you are correct that low light is an achilles heel for phone cameras with their little pixels. But gee, computational imaging is addressing that in recent cameras.
William – good points re the evolutionary earthquakes in the history photography. Your comment has made me wonder about what was being said 20 years ago as digital photography was in it’s infancy i.e. those 2mp cmeras will never supplant film – correct, they didn’t, but then the technology moved to 6mp, then 10mp then 12mp and beyond, and attitudes changed,
Stephen – Let go of the slippery soap. It’s a good reason to upgrade. Then even your financial controller can’t refuse you a new phone camera 🙂
Hi Wayne
I don’t think low light is an achilles heel of camera phones any more – again the iphone 14 pro (and I’m sure the Samsung and other equivalents) now does an excellent job in low light. Usually without the need for any post processing (The M11 does better – but needs a lot of processing!
Thanks Jonathon, for first-hand comment re low light capability of the iPhone 14 Pro.
I didn’t stress enuf in the article that it will be truly interesting to see where smartphone photography will be in the next 3-5 years. Indeed, will “phone” be dropped from the moniker by then? I hope so.
For me, personally, photography has also to do with mastering a device. A (rangefinder) camera can be such a device, a smartphone (sophisticated as it may be) is not. But there is no question that smartphone photography can produce excellent outcome, and maybe the phone is the most unobtrusive and stealthy camera you can think of. The rest will be decided by consumer behaviour – I outlined some possible scenarios in this Macfilos article: “Smartphones: Is the writing on the wall for the good old camera?” – maybe this will make a good further reading.JP
Thank you JPR, Yes, the article refers to a question that has been asked many times before, and you and others have addressed it previously. For me, it was simply the change of mindset that I have made in the last few months that prompted me to sit down at the keyboard to revisit the area.
And then our editor Michael added the reference to the Xiaomi 13 Ultra. He’s shaken me to my bootstraps!
I may be missing something here, but I think about what you are photographing as part of the challenge. There is a difference between photographing to capture “I was there” vs “Look how beautiful/interesting/exciting this is”.
It’s a broad sweeping statement I know, but the smartphone is brilliant for capturing “I was there”. It works in almost all settings as a socially acceptable form of capture, whereas cameras seem to be increasingly unacceptable socially and intrusive or even banned from certain locations and events.
I still think that for most “Look how beautiful/interesting/exciting this is” a camera still works best in terms of the photographer’s much greater ability to make an imprint on the shot taken.
I take a camera almost everywhere I go, as I hate the feeling of missing a shot I could have taken, despite having a smartphone with me.
I guess implicit in that is that I still buy into the old hierarchy that the camera is superior and that the phone is merely convenient…but I really can’t live without either.
Cheers, Le Chef. You make a fair point about the current state of play. But something that I perhaps didn’t emphasise enough in the write-up was the question that we could all ask ourselves – What sort of camera will we each be using in 3 years from now? Or 5 years from now? Smartphone cameras are evolving faster that we might ever have expected. I think I know the personal 3-5 year answer for me, but we will each make or own decisions. And as with all ethical questions there is no right or wrong answer.
I enjoy using a camera and don’t imagine giving that up, in the same way I don’t intend to give up vinyl.
For me there will come a point when I don’t want “More” in terms of bigger sensors, AI, and all the cleverness that can be crammed into a camera. I actually am beginning to want “Less”.
Do I finally succumb and try an M camera for the first time?
Great article! Great replies!
Me – I’m really impressed by what I’ve seen from the Xiaomi 13 pro – but I’m unlikely to go that way as like others I’m too much submersed in the Apple domain.
But I have an iPhone 14 pro which I now largely use for product shooting (it produces usable images straight out of the camera). Apple Photos has slowly developed from a basic ‘looks’ app into a really useable piece of photo processing software (two of my sons, both excellent photographers are now using it instead of Lightroom for processing all their images – whether from film, camera or phone).
Unlike many, I think the standard of amateur photography has improved out of all recognition over the last ten years, and that phone cameras are largely responsible, both artistically and as a story telling device.
As for the title of the article “quick fire lens changes or the smart solution?”, my personal choice is a leica rangefinder with a 60mp sensor and a reasonably wide angle lens – the cropping potential is now huge so I rarely change lenses when I’m out (I also like the idea of shooting each session with one focal length) – I would often carry other lenses for that unconsidered shot (usually a wide angle Tri-elmar and a 75 f2) but seldom use them. . . . . then there’s an SL2 with a high quality zoom for those event moments!
I don’t really see why one needs to resolve everything to one option, and I ALWAYS carry a camera anyway. It’s a bit like saying there is no point in a Porsche now one can have a Tesla!
But my phone is a real photographic tool, and at £1200 it was a real bargain, just as a camera, and I can also make calls and send emails!
I only know Apple, but the difference in the phone cameras – even since the iPhone 12 – has been astonishing and rapid, it’s no good writing off phone photography if you’re using anything more than 5 years old.
All the best
Further good points Jonathan. I’d expect you to be very comfortable with your camera and lens preference(s) as your constant companions. All power to that.
“I’m also one of those people who for some odd reason ( dry fingers? ) needs to tap twice or more to get the phone to recognize my finger!”.
Yeah, when I try to answer my wife’s phone it won’t respond to my fingers. Yet sometimes she hands it to me to talk to someone and my ear touches the screen and ends the call. I despise those things. I use a flip phone, so the question of using phone for photography is moot in my case. Anyhow, why would I when I have all this expensive gear that I love to use?
Cheers, Martin. I didn’t like my new, later, bigger iPhone Pro at first. It seemed like a log compared to my earlier smaller iphone. But I soon realized that the larger screen solved my “klutz finger syndrome”, and I’ve soon become quite comfortable with the larger dimensions of the newer phone. Maybe even easier to use as a comer for for framing and composition too.
Sounds great..you have adapted. The reason I like using the smaller phone is that it actually fits in my wallet and I keep everything together that way.I also only use it for calls. Anything that needs screen space and I’ll use my iPad ( Good for klutzfingers and klutz eyes ) which is usually in my bag.
You’re right I do need to practice with the phone more ( It’s an iPhone SE, the old model ). The sun symbol does help with exposure but I couldn’t get accurate color in the situation i described no matter what. Yes, I could probably use a dose of editing on my computer to approximate what I saw but that’s not really my cup of tea. I like to get the image in camera as close as possible when I’m actually using a camera. I tend only to use the phone as a last resort as I don’t like the ‘feel’ of the thing in hand or using a screen instead of a viewfinder which I often can’t see easily in bright sunlight anyway. I’ve had a few successes though. I think some people ‘gel’ with a phone more than others but not everyone does in terms of the haptics. I’m also one of those people who for some odd reason ( dry fingers? ) needs to tap twice or more to get the phone to recognize my finger!
Your iphone SE is in fact the same camera as the iPhone 5s which is 10 years old! Digital cameras and especially phone cameras have changed so radically since then that it really doesn’t make much sense using this as an argument for the poor quality of phone pictures.
The iPhone 14 pro does a wonderful job producing excellent images which are susceptible to editing (but don’t often need it if you know how to use it properly).
Just sayin’
Fair point except for the fact that I have 10 year old cameras too, Olympus OMD EM5 for example, with IS, weatherproofing, lens options and a host of other functions. If I compare the SE with that, the Olympus is far and away more capable and it has a viewfinder! Pretty darned small too.It’s still very effective even in 2023. I admit, It doesn’t handle texting well though 🙂
I well understand that for most people today a multi-functional phone with camera makes sense but for someone like me who only uses a phone for phone calls and doesn’t much care about all the other features I’d still gravitate to a camera for the three reasons I mentioned..no viewfinder, inability to see the image on screen clearly in bright sunlight outdoors and poor haptics. If Apple somehow fixes those things in iPhone Pro XX whatever then I’ll have to take a look!
Hi Stephen
The OMD EM5 is a great camera – no question, but phone technology has developed much more in the last ten years – compare an EM5 image with an iPhone 14 pro image and I’m afraid the Olympus comes a very sad second, especially in terms of dynamic range and low light capabilities.
The iphone 14 still has no viewfinder and poor haptics . . . but I reckon these things are more about learning to shoot differently, however you can now easily see the image in bright sunlight.
I always have a Leica M with me, and I like shooting with that, but I do think the modern phones are remarkable, and if you don’t always carry a camera (but you do always carry a phone) then it seems odd not to upgrade to a modern one which does a much better job!
best
……..And Stephen and Jono are continuing the tennis rally metaphor……cross court forehand, top spin backhand, forehand down the sideline. Thank you both for thoughtful contributions.
For me I’d like to play a drop shot – I resisted the very thought of smartphone photography for years, but a change to permanent wearing of glasses over the last few months has made my use of a camera viewfinder annoying as my glasses clunk into the habitual location at the viewfinder. Much simpler to resort to the simpler, lighter, convenient phone camera…….and I’m aware that might be inviting a further slice backhand from our Macfilos community.
Interesting comparison Wayne, and….. here I shout Fault! 🙂
Hey Jonathan, that’s not fair play. You pointed out my phone was vintage so can’t really be compared with the latest ones ( agreed ) so I compared it with a camera from the same period but then you compared a 10 year old camera with the latest iPhone 14? Clever tactics!
To be serious, I teach young kids and they all have the latest iPhones and I’m very aware of what the tech can do. It’s impressive for sure. We used to be amazed by how much a company like Apple could cram into a laptop, then how much they could squeeze into an iPad and now just how capable the phones have become. I think it is not all about the tech though. As other contributors have pointed out here, it’s also about what you enjoy using and that’s why we use our Leicas for the picture taking experience right?. I need that grip… especially when I’m precariously balancing near the edge of a cliff to get the shot.
The screens are bright now but still not comparable to a finder methinks.
I agree with your comment that the “standard of amateur photos has improved” though you don’t define what you mean by standard, technically for sure, and also for serious photographers and Pro photographers too especially in terms of correct exposure. Just to put your mind at rest, my dinosaur of a phone is likely to be updated this year as I have no plans to replace the battery, so let’s see if that changes my opinion and I actually learn to like the thing!
Best,
Stephen
….the “standard of amateur photos has improved.”
I think the success of the smartphone is that it flatters the user. Results are immediately compelling, which was not the case with the point-and-shoot camera from ten years ago. Computational photography, combined with the ubiquity of phones, has created a whole new generation of photographers. Most of them wouldn’t have bought a small camera in the past; they have been introduced to the medium simply because the camera is there in a device they have to carry all the time. It’s the ultimate vindication of the best-camera-is-the-one-in-your-pocket theory. They see everyone else taking pictures with their phones. They try it. They are impressed by the results and suddenly become pro photographers. I hope that many of these recruits will eventually decide to buy a Canon, a Nikon or a Leica. But then they might be disappointed with the instant results…
I agree with most of this, but what is missing from your comment is the link with a direct communications function which a smartphone has, but stand alone cameras don’t have. Things like Leica FOTOS are an attempt to bridge that gap, but the battle has already been won and lost on that score. People like to be able to send a photo of their holiday to their auntie in Australia immediately it is taken. The superior IQ of stand alone cameras issue is not a matter which concerns over 90% of the population. The way that photos are ‘consumed’ on social media on a ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ basis has been a huge paradigm shift which has had an inexorable and seemingly permanent effect, for the medium term at least. There are still people out there who need to be able to produce prints the size of barn doors, but whether this will sustain an industry that is bobbling around in the waves of a flood of changes, which have their roots in digital electronic imaging technology, remains to be seen.
On whether the standards of photos have improved, the possibilities as regards producing images of a particular technical quality has gone up, but I suspect that the percentage of really great images has not really changed. There should be a lot more of them, but I am not seeing that, which may be due to the ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ nature of media consumption today.
Finally, I have been doing some work recently in a photographic archive. People often come in to view glass photographic plates from the 19th Century for various reasons, including research, writing a book etc. Most have been astonished by the quality of what they are seeing and comment on that. Many make comparisons with today’s digital images and say that the 19th Century images are of a quality rarely seen today. Maybe they are talking about phone images, but photographers in the 19th Century also had to learn their craft and take their time about creating images. Also the photos which they created are still there today. Most of the images taken today may not survive for so long.
William
.
William; a few comments:
Many digital SLRs do have wifi connectivity, for example the Canon R8 spec lists 2.4GHz Wi-Fi compatibility, plus Bluetooth, USB etcetera (..though no direct connection to phone networks via an internal SIM card ..but it easily connected to a pocket phone wirelessly ..as can be done with many ‘hi-end’ cameras).
“..I suspect that the percentage of really great images has not really changed. There should be a lot more of them, but I am not seeing that..” ..maybe you’re not looking in the right places: maybe you’re not seeing the huge number of eye-catching images on Instagram, SlickPic, Zenfolio, flickr, 500px, etcetera. Nelson saw no ships ..but he was holding up his telescope to his blind eye.
Finally, glass photographic plates generally didn’t need any enlarging, but were shot at a size of 6½ × 8½ inches, or 10 x 8 inches, and so forth, and often with small apertures – for great sharpness and depth-of-field. Imagine the quality of, say, a 24 megapixel 24 x 36mm sensor (that should easily match film resolution) but with that high resolution repeated over the whole area of a 120 × 165mm (6½ × 8½”) sensor ..that’s about 25 times the resolution of a current camera ..it’s a 600 megapixel resolution!
No wonder they’re “..astonished by the quality of what they are seeing and comment on that”. To compare the quality of digital pictures and glass plates (for example, of Heinrich Schliemann at Troy) “..Many make comparisons with today’s digital images and say that the 19th Century images are of a quality rarely seen today”. But one really should compare like with like, not apples with elephants.
Well summarized Mike.
If they do buy a Canon, Nikon or Leica I hope they discover there are still lots of ways to have ‘instant’ fun with their cameras. One of them being to invest in the affordable and tiny Canon Selphy printer which connects to your camera and can magically print out a postcard sized print of surprisingly good quality, in a few seconds, and yes, you can connect your smartphone to the printer too using the app. So they can use the camera and phone, as they like. I use mine a lot more than I thought I would.
Even with most of our images displayed digitally these days, most people can still appreciate the magic of a print ‘ developing in front of their eyes’
and we all, even in 2023, have a desk or a refrigerator door to display the pictures!
.
Stephen,
If you were using an iPhone (..I don’t know about other brands..) if you touch the screen at the point where you want best focus you’ll then see a ‘Sun’ symbol beside where you’ve touched. Then simply DRAG that sun symbol UP a little for more exposure, or DOWN a little for underexposure ..so that – for example – you get perfect sky or sunset shots.
It’s easy ..but you may need to practise once or twice to get the hang of it.
And even if it’s turned out too dark on your phone ..just send the picture to your computer, and then adjust the brightness and colours to whatever you want.
In other words; yes, you are missing something ..a couple of things, really.
A compact camera with a zoom lens is a great thing to carry ..but clearly, you WEREN’T carrying it when you saw the amazing red sky at sunset. So you used your phone, which you DID have with you. But just as you’ve probably worked out how to use a small camera with a zoom lens (..which knob controls the shutter speed or which knob works the aperture, and what the letters P A S M stand for, and how fast, or slowly, the zoom will zoom..) so you may need to test and try the various capabilities of your phone’s camera ..after which you may find that it’s really pretty useful, and you won’t be frustrated by it.
A now I see a thoughtful return of serve from David. The advantage of Leica in the smartphone is true “das Wesentliche” in a truly pocketable device. I did wonder whether Leica were making a mistake when they announced a couple of years ago their serious entry into the world of computational imaging. I apologise to Leica for my doubts.
Am I missing something? You could have got the same shots with a compact camera and a ZOOM LENS! I don’t see how a phone had anything to do with being able to get the three shots except for the fact you had it with you.
I had the opposite experience.
I came home from work one day and saw an amazing red sky at sunset and not having my camera, desperately tried to get photos of it on my phone. It was either underexposed or overexposed depending on where I touched the screen and there was no way i could retain the true color of the sky which came out orangey, also the phone was fiddly to hold. I tried to fix this with editing afterwards but it was no use.It was a total failure.Bright sunny day, maybe no problem, but even then i think a screen is no substitute for a good viewfinder, a solid grip and at least an M sized lens.
The images here are fine but are not so amazing that I would give up any of my cameras.
Bingo Stephen. I had this sentiment in an early draft but removed it from the text that I sent to t’Editor Michael. Why? Well, I thought that I’d not include it in an opinion piece that rattled cages, and see who came up with it. You win a prize (Dunno what tho!)
Let’s not overlook the pure joy of cleaning a sensor after one too many lens switches . . .
On the positive side: a co-worker and I noticed a University building that dwarfed humans; we set a challenge: who could best portray the brutalist effect. She with her iPhone 5s, me with my Leica M8.
She won. What I learned: the photographer can be the most important component of a system.
On the negative side: reading Leica’s discussion of the Xioaomi lens (plastic, of course) I noticed the phrase “ barely perceptible distortions”.
I was reading a review of the new iPhone; because of the nature of small plastic lenses, there are distortions, dealt with digitally. The review showed examples where the photos ‘fell apart’ due to over-processing. Of course I can destroy my own DNG files for the same reasons, though I get to choose, not the camera.
If I may, I’d like to rephrase “ The best camera in the world is the one that is always with you” to “The best camera is the one you have with you, know how to best utilize, and most enjoy.” It’s a wide umbrella, wide enough to include all of us.
“The best camera is the one you have with you, know how to best utilize, and most enjoy.”
Well said!!
Great post Kathy – certainly phone pictures fall apart more quickly with post processing – but then they don’t generally need much (it’s all been done in the camera).
. . . and I’d like to add something to your “the best camera” which is that
“If an image is interesting then nobody cares if it’s technically good. If an image isn’t interesting nobody cares at all”
best
Jono
So true.
I’m reminded of a comment by Thorsten Overgaard (I don’t recall the exact phrasing) “Nobody looks at a Cartier-Bresson photo and asks about sharpness or megapixels — because he didn’t do any of those things”.
One New Year’s eve we were walking back from a pub, along the banks of an inlet. It started snowing, a heavy, wet snow. It was magical, but too wet for the M8. Fortunately, Spouse had her iPhone SE, and I got the photo. It’s still a favorite — and didn’t even need post.
To Kathy, Martin, Jonathan – I enjoyed reading your conversation. And to reiterate and extend upon the earlier reply to Martin – Use what you like and like what you use, with the added proviso to do it thoughtfully. It’s what we Macphilosophers do as a routine.
I don’t even use a smart phone, for a number of reasons, so maybe I am not qualified to comment. But of course I will anyway. The article is well done, and makes good points. Not intending just to be negative, but my reaction is, So What?
I have seen smart phone images, and yes they are very good with the latest phones. Maybe even great. Photography is more than just the images produced. It is the entire process, including what goes on in ones head, the equipment used, the process of capturing images, and how they are viewed and by whom.
As far as the equipment part of this, let me go back in time, to 1967, and quote from a Nikon F brochure:
“the Nikon F is … especially for the man to whom fine equipment is itself a source of gratification with the knowledge that its quality goes hand-in-hand with the inevitable quality he will enjoy in the results.”
Replace Nikon F with Leica M11, or whatever camera you love.
As a collector, I have many cameras that I don’t use, but I always enjoy the process of whatever camera I am using, even it is in a smartphone. My preference is for older cameras, of course, and my two favourite Leica Ms are the M3 and M6. I’m not surprised at the Nikon brochure from 1967 (even the ‘for the man’ etc bit). The early Nikon professional SLRs are, indeed, lovely things and I have a small number of examples in my collection. The F is like an M3 with a pentaprism and there are also parallels between the M6 and F3, not least the long production periods of both cameras, although the dependance on batteries and aperture priority of the latter were only seen in the later M7.
All that being said, the most important thing in photography is the end result and a lot of people are very happy with their smartphone photographs and some of them are even professional photographers. Finally ‘great image quality’ and ‘great images’ are two entirely different things and that has always been the case. What is ‘great’ is, of course, entirely subjective.
I see nothing ‘so what’ about Wayne’s article as he has touched on some of the most pertinent photographic issues of today.
William
Well, I meant no disrespect with my So What. Only that I think most photographers for who it is a profession, and perhaps most of all to those for whom it is a passion, we already know that smart phones have amazing capabilities and are omnipresent (except for curmudgeons like me). It’s just that we would much rather use purpose-built cameras.
Thanks, Martin. Myself, I’m both a fully fledged curmudgeon with my old cameras and I like to think that I am ‘with the program’ as regards new tech, but my two daughters and grandson would probably tell you otherwise. The dexterity of younger people on their digital devices never ceases to amaze me.
William
Dexterity, yes amazing. Originality of content and creativity, not so.Many of them come up with exactly the same kind of images because of too much dependency on apps.
Hello again William, and Stephen.
I’m not sure where this message will end up in the Comments thread – a reply to Martin is determined to appear two units below your conversation.
But to the point that you address, yes re dexterity, but “Originality of content and creativity, not so” can certainly apply to camera users as well.
In common with most readers of this blog, I suspect I prefer to hold something that feels like a camera. I am not comfortable using a smartphone as a camera for extensive use. I put up with the haptics for quick shots when I don’t have a camera to hand. But I am always impressed by the results produced by smartphones. The computational processing appears to be on another level to the run-of-the-mill JPG processing in a traditional camera. If camera manufacturers could build in similar processing, that would be a huge step forward. However, times they are a-changing. The forthcoming Xiaomi 13 Ultra appears to have a usable grip and will go some way to addressing the handling question. I’d certainly like to try it, even though it would take a lot for me to leave the Apple ecosystem.
To Stephen, you need to look around more. There are a lot of very original images being produced with smartphones. I agree that more photographs does not necessarily equal better photographs, but if you look (not very hard really) you will see what people can produce with smartphones. The time for looking down our noses at smartphone photographs has well and truly gone. And I am speaking as someone who owns maybe 60 or 70 vintage film cameras.
William
Stephen, I quite agree with William – it seems to me that the standard of amateur photos has improved immeasurably over the last 15 years, and this is largely to do with the advent of smart phones.
Reply to Mike Evans – Thank you for adding the Xaiomi 13 Ultra announcement that the end of the article. Yes, a smart move to improve the haptics (horrible word that, I prefer ‘handling”) and it is truly pocketable being the same weight but only half the total dimensions (L+W+H) as a Ricoh GRIII or GRIIIx. And with 12mm, 23mm 75mm and 120mm options that is a great range – although i do wonder why not the 40mm or 50mm “sweet spot” exclusions.
The article that you reference throws down the gauntlet to Apple. It will be fun to see how they respond. Their plans must be well in place by now.
I agree completely Martin.
Use what you like, and like what you use.
Nice piece, Wayne. Just some thoughts to add. Some years ago when I predicted the reign of smartphones as cameras here, I was told that they were only good for ‘grooming’ photographers who would eventually migrate to serious digital system cameras. I have not seen much evidence of that and, if anything, young smartphone users seem to be more likely these days to seek out old film cameras for a more tactile experience. Leica is, of course, very wise to get involved in a JV with Xiaomi as, not only does it create a revenue stream, it also creates brand recognition.
As for the bagful of lenses, we have also had discussions here about computational cameras/photography, but, for traditional camera/lens manufacturers there is a disincentive to go there, which arises from the revenue stream that comes from interchangeable lenses. In the case of Leica the company has had that income stream for 93 years. However, the manufacturers of smartphones have no such disincentive and the image quality is improving all of the time as the images in your article shows.
There is some debate around the long term conservation and sustainability of digital images with some institutions now creating hard copy versions of digital archives. As regards usability, film cameras may indeed have a more secure future than their digital counterparts. They can do something which a smartphone cannot do, although we might wake up some morning to discover that a smartphone which can create images on film has been created – just joking.
There are, of course, wider issues around all of this, but if you go now to any tourist attraction around the world, for every 100 people there taking photos, well in excess of 90 of them will be using smartphones. And I have not even touched on the ability of smartphones to send the images they have just taken around the world within seconds. Film photography is a whole different experience, of course, and film users know that.
I will leave it at that.
William
Thanks William for your insights.
Regarding statistics, we have just returned from a trip to Vietnam. Of 29 relatively well-heeled westerners on a Red River/Halong Bay only two were using cameras. Correction, three if you count the two cameras that I took. But early on I changed to the convenience of the iPhone Pro, and by the end of the trip one of the other camera starters had changed to his smartphone too. So, at the end of the trip we were down to 1/29 = 3.4% using a camera. And I’m sure the number was lower amongst tourists when we were back in Hanoi.