If you have not had a chance to see my iPhone X review, I recommend that you start there first. This post is a continuation of my thoughts on the photography market, computational photography and the use of artificial intelligence in photography. It is not a review of the iPhone XS or XS Max, although all the images in this article are from these devices. Think of this post as a gallery of images, with some distantly related thoughts mixed in.
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 40, 1/1000, f/1.8
Is Smartphone Really a “Smartphone”?
Back in the day, a phone was just a phone… A physical device that let us make and receive phone calls. In my childhood, calling someone meant picking up a handset, then picking a number from the rotary dial, inserting the index finger into the number hole and pushing the dial clock-wise until the index finger reached a metal “end” bar. We had to do that with each digit in a phone number, then wait in between for analog “clicks”. Then would come a long pause, before we finally heard rings in the telephone. If there wasn’t anyone on the other side to pick up the phone, it would just keep on ringing… Fun times to remember, but my kids have no idea what an analog phone even is. Give them the rotary phone and they will look like the kids in this video:
I remember my first time seeing an answering machine. It was a large, separate device with a tape recorder that you had to put on the same telephone line. The ability to leave a message was so confusing for many who didn’t know what it was. It was actually comical to hear all the calls with people trying to “talk” to the answering machine. “Hello? Can anyone hear me?” – such voicemails were fairly common.
Then right as we started getting used to answering machines, came the first “digital” phone. Instead of a rotary dial, you could now simply press a number on a keypad and the phone would do all the work. Except our phone systems weren’t upgraded for a number of years after that, so you would still hear the same clicking analog noises! When “tones” finally arrived to our national phone system, we already had those amazing “two-in-one” wireless Panasonic phones with built-in answering machines. That, to us, was such a huge leap – you could now walk around your house and talk to someone without tripping over a phone wire.
iPhone XS Max @ 6mm, ISO 16, 1/500, f/2.4
I remember the first time I saw someone use a cell phone. It was a huge “brick” with a very long antenna that they had to pull out when they made calls or received them. Oh, and they also had to pop it open! For me, even thinking that one could make a call while driving in a car was already mind-blowing.
Now compare all this to a modern smartphone. The word “phone” is still part of the word, but how much do we actually use it? The younger generation isn’t really using smartphones for making calls – most of their communication has shifted to digital messages and social media.
iPhone XS Max @ 6mm, ISO 125, 1/60, f/2.4
And I don’t blame them. In the USA, phone calls seem to have shifted to robocalls, the “new” spam. I do not understand why we have to live with robocalls and why the government is not mass-banning them. I personally don’t pick up any calls from unknown numbers anymore, because each time I do, it is either a huge loan that I qualify for, or an extended warranty of some kind. At the end of the year, I get bombarded with companies wanting to sell cheap healthcare plans. Most of these calls are illegal, according to the FTC. Sadly though, just like email spam that never stopped, robocalls do not seem to be going away anytime soon.
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 25, 1/150, f/1.8
Anyway, I got sidetracked a little… Ah, the smartphone! Is that what we should keep calling it? From the standpoint of its functionality, the smartphone is more of a camera / personal computer now. It takes excellent images and video, it works sufficiently well for email and web browsing, and it even allows you to use productivity tools. Some smartphones are large enough to have high-resolution screens and others have dual screens, putting them in-between a mobile phone and a tablet, also known as a “phablet”. Long story short, a smartphone is more than a “smart” phone today. And with Apple and other manufacturers pushing more camera functionality into these devices, perhaps they now deserve a newer name like “camerasmartphone”?
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 100, 1/120, f/1.8
Take a look at the newest iPhone 11 Pro. The thing is a beast! With an insanely fast CPU + GPU, it is capable of recording 4K video from all of its cameras, all simultaneously. That’s a lot of processing power on such a small device. Huawei’s Mate 30 Pro is capable of shooting 4K at 60 FPS and slow motion video at 1080p resolution up to 960 FPS. That’s just mind-boggling, considering that none of the modern digital cameras can do this, not even the high-end $5K+ devices.
And here we are, still wondering why the digital camera market is collapsing. Of course it is collapsing – and it will only continue to do so! Why should anyone who wants to take decent pictures suffer through the pain of spending thousands of dollars on a camera system, many hours of learning how to use the camera and how to post-process images from it, when the alternative is to use a small, portable and idiot-proof device that they have in their pockets at all times?
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 320, 1/35, f/1.8
Big Camera Complexity Problem
Let’s review a typical workflow process of a photographer:
- Set up the camera and capture images / video
- Transfer media to a computer with sufficient memory and processing power to handle high-resolution images and video
- Import media into a photo / video application
- Organize and sort media
- Post-process media
- Export media
- Back up
- Print / display / publish media to the web
The problem is not just with the number of steps, but also with the complexity of each one. The first step of setting up the camera and capturing images / video by itself can take many hours of learning. The same goes with importing, organizing, post-processing, backing up and even exporting!
iPhone XS Max @ 6mm, ISO 16, 1/610, f/2.4
Now compare and contrast that to capturing images with a smartphone:
- Capture images or video with a single button
- Post-process the media using built-in or third party apps
- Publish the media
Anyone can do it. The best part is – there is practically no learning curve. Everything is touch-friendly and the results are instant. All images are backed up to the cloud automatically, so you don’t lose anything in case you lose your device.
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 125, 1/120, f/1.8
Also, look at all the older generation that is far more comfortable with an iPad than they are with a desktop PC. When my mom moved to the USA, I tried to teach her how to use a computer to keep in touch with the family back home. After several attempts, she gave up. The mouse, all the clicking and typing she had to do, as well as the things that constantly popped up on the screen annoyed and frustrated her very quickly. And then I bought her an iPad… it changed her life. She uses it for everything today and she will never go back to a computer again. Why should she, when there is something easier and simpler to use that she can figure out on her own?
iPhone XS Max @ 6mm, ISO 50, 1/120, f/2.4
How Media is Consumed
What is your source of media consumption today? For me, and I am sure for many others reading this post, it is either a smartphone or a tablet. For most day-to-day news, I default to my smartphone, since it is always with me everywhere I go.
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 25, 1/210, f/1.8
Five years ago, desktop users would account for 70% of the Photography Life traffic, with the rest (30% of traffic) coming from smartphones and tablets. Google Analytics says that in August of 2017 (just two years ago), the number of mobile users grew to a staggering 43%, with desktops still being the primary source of traffic. Guess what that number is today? 53%. The desktop is no longer the dominant source of web browsing for our readers.
And this is for a fairly technical photography website! I help run a number of other websites and I can tell you that sites with more generic type of content have already gone through this transformation earlier. For example, one site shows that the number of mobile users in the month of August of 2019 accounted for 79% of all traffic! That’s 8 out of 10 people choosing a mobile device for web browsing.
iPhone XS Max @ 6mm, ISO 16, 1/1250, f/2.4
It is clear that smartphones and tablets have already replaced desktops as devices for browsing the web. How things have changed…
Add social media platforms such as Instagram to the mix and the situation gets even clearer. Instagram now has over a billion active users. That’s a billion smartphone users looking at images that have the resolution of…wait for it…just 1.2 megapixels (1080 x 1080 pixels for a square image)!
What does this mean to us, photographers? Well, it means that the type of content we create is now primarily viewed on small devices with very little resolution. With camera manufacturers pushing 50+ MP sensors and 4K+ video recording capabilities, the question we need to ask ourselves is, who is all that extra resolution for?
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 25, 1/1800, f/1.8
Clearly, most consumers aren’t using their 4K desktop screens to check out your photos. And even if they are, you are most likely not even publishing content at that resolution in the first place. Here at Photography Life, we export most images in 2048 pixel long resolution. So if we take the highest resolution image, it would be a 2048×2048 square, which is just 4.2 MP. Most standard content from 3:2 aspect ratio cameras is not going to exceed 3 MP. And yet we constantly talk about all these amazing cameras with super high-resolution sensors…how ironic! It turns out that we end up down-sampling most of our images anyway.
Now I am not implying that high resolution cameras are not needed. There is a definite place for them among enthusiasts and professionals who intend to print very large images. I have already gone through this in my “how much resolution do you really need?” article. Professional landscape, studio and architecture photographers get paid for their work and obviously want to deliver the highest resolution and quality work to their clients. But if you are not one of them, you have to ask yourself – how much of your work do you actually print large? If most of your work ends up on social media platforms such as Instagram, or you print very little, you are potentially wasting a lot of your time and money getting the latest and greatest camera gear.
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 25, 1/125, f/1.8
There is nothing wrong with geeking out about cameras, lenses and all the amazing technology. Many of us are hobbyists and truly enjoy using the best tools (or should we say “toys”?) we can afford. But that’s not what moves the camera market. A typical consumer has already moved away from point-and-shoot cameras, and many are leaving their large cameras at home in favor of a smartphone.
Big Cameras = Big Problems
I have already pointed out one of the biggest issues with digital cameras today – it is their complexity. Let’s take a look at this in a little more detail.
It is clear that the last few years have given us big advancements in camera technology. We have seen huge leaps in image resolution. Thanks to all the CMOS sensor advancements, we now have cameras that can produce amazing dynamic range and very little noise, even when shooting in extremely dark environments. We have specialized cameras with insanely fast autofocus systems, 10+ FPS continuous shooting speeds and huge buffers that can fit hundreds of images. Full-frame cameras are cheaper than ever, and the number of camera options is abundant – both used and brand new. We now have insanely capable mirrorless cameras, with lenses that can out-resolve their DSLR counterparts. Without a doubt, this all sounds amazing and it really is!
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 250, 1/60, f/1.8
However, if we look from the standpoint of someone just starting out in photography, these advantages can quickly turn into a messy list of problems.
Choosing a camera system is a huge task in itself. One has to go through so many different types of criteria, including: camera brand, resolution, sensor size, autofocus system, shooting speed, video features, ergonomics, build quality, weather sealing, price, weight, so on and so forth. Lenses are a whole different ballgame: focal length, zoom vs prime, sharpness, weight, quality, native vs third party, focus speed, price, weight, etc. Add all the must-have accessories like straps, memory cards and support options, and things get progressively more complex.
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 25, 1/2500, f/1.8
But that’s just the start of the problem. Once beginners get their first camera system, they quickly realize that their expenses and time commitment do not stop there. All of a sudden, their computers are not fast enough to post-process those high-resolution images and video. Their storage is insufficient. Their computer screens that used to handle web browsing and occasional gaming just fine, are no longer good enough – they now need IPS monitors and screen calibration tools for a consistent editing experience.
Then, as they take pictures, they realize that their cameras and lenses are not as perfect as they thought they would be. They spent thousands of dollars, only to find out that their camera autofocus system is out of whack, their lenses are not good enough to consistently produce sharp images. They find out about all the lens aberrations, field curvature and focus shift issues, lens decentering and other optical problems. DSLR shooters have to learn about lens calibration issues, while mirrorless shooters come across brand new problems related to things like red dot flares and phase-detection striping / banding issues.
iPhone XS Max @ 6mm, ISO 16, 1/2000, f/2.4
And we haven’t even gotten to post-processing, storage and backups. I could go on and on…but you get the point. Digital photography has gotten way too complex for most people. Even seasoned photographers are getting tired of all the things they have to keep up with in order to stay relevant and competitive.
iPhone XS Max @ 6mm, ISO 16, 1/70, f/2.4
What’s Not Going to Save the Industry
With declining camera sales, all camera manufacturers are suffering. Now that sensor performance has pretty much hit the limits of CMOS sensors and flat-lined, manufacturers are pushing towards more resolution and camera features. Clearly though, this is not enough to push more camera sales.
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 32, 1/120, f/1.8
In fact, I would argue that unnecessarily increasing resolution will only result in declined camera sales. How much more resolution do we really need, when most lenses cannot resolve that much detail in the first place? I am working on an article that shows some interesting data, but the quick summary of it is that most Nikon F mount lenses cannot resolve more than 24 MP. Only some lenses can truly resolve up to 36 MP and only select few can actually exceed that.
This means that increases in sensor resolution are pretty much meaningless beyond 36 MP for the F mount. Unless lenses are developed from scratch specifically for high-resolution sensors (like those E-mount, RF-mount and Z-mount lenses), increasing camera resolution isn’t going to provide any advantages! You will simply end up increasing RAW file size, and that’s about it…
iPhone XS Max @ 6mm, ISO 16, 1/1150, f/2.4
This brings us to the mirrorless world. Yes, mirrorless cameras are the future for those of us who want to keep up with the latest technology and actually enjoy the benefits of high-resolution sensors. But for many photographers out there, all these advancements are just unnecessary, especially given the cost of moving to mirrorless.
Switching systems is very costly if you want to use native mount lenses. And no matter what some might say about adapters, they will never be as good as native lenses – they are meant to be temporary solutions and compromises. An adapter is yet another piece of gear to carry around, another point of potential failure and another point of attachment that is prone to decentering and other issues.
A solid 24 MP DSLR camera such as the Nikon D750 is plenty for the majority of photo enthusiasts. Why would they need more? Because the marketing departments are working hard on selling them on the latest and greatest. Notice how with each bump in camera resolution, we see all the promo images with crisp details and 100% crops that scream “amazing detail!”. Rumor sites build up the “pre-sale” excitement, while all the YouTube celebrities get to experience launch events with ready-to-shoot sets and free booze to boot. Keep them fed and happy, and they will say nice things to their millions of followers, who will be stupid enough to get into the latest hype.
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 25, 1/125, f/1.8
Some camera manufacturers even think their strategy should be to make an “all-in-one” camera, such as the Zeiss ZX1. We have seen smartphones with large sensors that completely failed. We have seen smartphone attachments with large sensors that failed (remember “DxO One”?). Inevitably, the Zeiss ZX1 will also fail – I just hope it does not bring Zeiss down with it, similar to what happened with DxO.
It is clear that such products are not going to be able to serve as a “bridge” between smartphone and big camera users. It turns out that most consumers don’t give a damn about how large an image sensor on their smartphone is, no matter what manufacturers try to say. When they see huge billboards with “Shot on iPhone” written all over them, they realize that a typical smartphone is good enough for their needs.
iPhone XS Max @ 6mm, ISO 16, 1/160, f/2.4
And photographers with big cameras don’t seem to care about such cameras either. They are already used to the process of using a separate device to capture images, and a separate environment for editing their pictures.
So for me, such products as the Zeiss ZX1 are products of “void” – gadgets that nobody wants or ultimately cares about.
The smartphones are quickly taking over the camera world, and sadly, there is no stopping it now. I would say that it is already too late for most camera manufacturers to be able to offer a product that a typical consumer would want. Their only hope for the future is to retain their existing customer base. With all the technological advancements, artificial intelligence and cloud computing, the digital camera market is sadly going to continue to decline.
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 100, 1/60, f/1.8
How Smartphones Will Take Over Most of the Camera Market
So far, some of the biggest factors for not wanting to choose a smartphone among serious photography enthusiasts have been: relatively low resolution, little dynamic range, lack of subject separation capabilities / bokeh and lack of specific features we commonly see on DSLR and mirrorless cameras. However, these are mostly temporary concerns that will likely be addressed overtime. Let’s go through these one at a time and assess their potential.
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 25, 1/1900, f/1.8
Resolution: We are already seeing quite a few smartphone manufacturers push beyond 10 MP on their smartphones, and this is only the beginning. Going forward, expect to see smartphones with much more resolution. However, as photographers, we know that resolution means very little in the real world – image quality suffers with tiny pixels. There are already smartphones out there that can shoot 40+ MP images, but the resulting image looks no better than from a 10-12 MP smartphone, because the pixel-level quality is just terrible. With AI-based image processors, we will see more “cooking” of resulting images that will improve pixel-level quality. In addition, smartphones might start utilizing sensor shift to take multiple shots and merge them to get better detail.
Noise: Smartphones generally have poor noise performance, especially when shooting in low-light conditions. However, this is already changing with the latest generation smartphones that are able to run noise reduction algorithms to significantly reduce noise in images. The next step from here is simultaneous capture of 4+ images to average them out and create very clean images, even when shooting in dim conditions.
Low-light Photography: The first iteration of “night mode” is already here for both Android and iOS, and it already looks very promising. Smartphones are using multiple exposures captured at different shutter speeds to seamlessly merge them into a single image. Some cameras are even able to shoot extremely long shutter speeds, allowing them to be used for astrophotography needs.
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 40, 1/120, f/1.8
Dynamic Range: Almost every modern smartphone can already capture HDR images. However, we are not far from the next step in dynamic range “revolution”, which involves taking multiple images at different shutter speeds for specific areas of the frame, then fully recovering all the highlight and shadow details. The resulting images would look much more natural compared to HDR photos and could potentially capture unlimited dynamic range.
Subject Separation: Apple and Android platforms are already taking advantage of AI-based algorithms that can use data from one or more cameras in order to separate subjects from the background. The first iterations had a lot of transition problems, but things are improving rapidly. Within the next few years, smartphones will be able to imitate the large sensor “look” quite well.
iPhone XS Max @ 6mm, ISO 16, 1/370, f/2.4
Focal Lengths: The iPhone 11 Pro has three cameras that cover 13mm, 26mm and 52mm focal lengths. With all the digital zoom options in-between, that’s basically a 13-52mm camera. I expect future cameras to follow suit and provide even more options to cover a bigger range of focal lengths.
It is clear that smartphone manufacturers are putting a lot of their resources towards creating an ideal camera that can capture both images and videos. Camera manufacturers won’t be able to compete with this, especially with their continuously-shrinking budgets and forecasts…
Smartphone R&D > Camera R&D
As technology progresses, the research and development (R&D) budget is going to play a key role in advancing the capabilities of cameras. With the elimination of the high-margin point-and-shoot market, continuous shrinkage of the entry-level market segment and declining demand on new cameras and lenses, camera manufactures are struggling to keep their R&D funds large enough to come up with ground-breaking products. Most cameras are simply being re-released with new labels and only slightly improved specs, which obviously interest a small percentage of potential customers and fans.
Now compare that to the fast-growing smartphone market:
Ouch! That’s 1.5 billion smartphone sales vs 121 million at the peak of camera sales in 2009. Who do you think is going to have more R&D money? Camera manufacturers are in trouble – they are continuously re-adjusting their sales forecasts and for a good reason. Soon enough, we will start seeing mass layoffs and camera division closures. That’s the inevitable outcome of this change. Camera companies experienced rapid growth from 1999 to 2009 and they all thought things are going to look amazing for them. Until smartphones moved in and started taking big chunks of their market share. Most didn’t realize what was happening until it was already too late.
Samsung was smart to pull out of the camera market on time. Sadly, only the strongest will survive this change going forward…
The Future of the Camera Industry
Sadly, the outlook for the camera industry is looking pretty grim. The camera companies that will most likely survive their new enemy, the smartphone, are going to be those who already have a strong client base. They will continue making specialized tools for enthusiasts and professionals, but their profit margins and market shares are going to shrink, while smaller R&D funding budgets will also impact new camera and lens release cycles.
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 25, 1/3000, f/1.8
Still, camera manufacturers should think hard about making their cameras easier to use. Instead of increasing the complexity gap between smartphones and specialized cameras, they should focus on what they do best – deliver exceptional image quality with superb ergonomics and simple menu systems. This will at least keep their existing customers from jumping ship.
iPhone XS Max @ 4.25mm, ISO 50, 1/50, f/1.8
What does this all mean to us, photographers? Don’t worry – there is little reason for serious concern. These changes are going to happen whether we like them or not, but we have to stay focused and don’t waste our time and money getting the latest and greatest gadgets. Shoot with what you already have and enjoy every moment of it.
P.S. After the launch of the iPhone 11 Pro, some of our readers emailed me, saying that they are selling off their cameras to fully move over to the iPhone 11 Pro. That’s a pretty drastic measure, but something I anticipate to see more and more in the future…
What do you think about all this? Please let me know in the comments section below!
iPhone XS and XS Max
- Optical Performance
- Features
- Build Quality
- Focus Speed and Accuracy
- Image Stabilization
- Image Quality
- High ISO Performance
- Size and Weight
- Metering and Exposure
- Movie Recording Features
- Dynamic Range
- Ease of Use
- Value
Photography Life Overall Rating
Fabulous rants.
Glad you enjoyed this rant on a Friday :) Have a good weekend!
Nasim, thank you for your excellent articles. This one is the best yet.
I was born in 1944 and have owned a camera since 1959. I now have a large selection of good lenses and two DSLR bodies. I carry my iPhone X all the time. I take almost all my photographs with a DSLR. Whenever I have a DSLR in my hands it prompts me to look and visualise, so I find it a creative tool. My iPhone is a visual memory tool. And a very valuable one, at my age.
So, are you interested in snapshots or photographs?
Almost all of my old treasured image memories are snapshots – often very bad photographs.
Hi Nasim, you nailed it again…I owe X-T3 with some lenses, and P30 Pro. The phones are amazing these days.
George
George, glad you enjoyed the article! Have a good weekend!
Nasim,
Perhaps this should be retitled Camera Phone vs. Camera Industry, as it is a very good think piece on the place of camera phones right now and very little that is iPhone specific other than the photos.
Great think piece. I continue to be surprised that Nikon and Canon have not gotten involved in the camera phone flagship market, even if it is only the way that Leica and Zeiss have participated. There is still a great deal more room for good lenses on camera phones, even if the mobile industry prefers to fiddle with the software / computational photo angle.
Thanks!
Ms Jen, I changed the title of the article, since it is in fact much more appropriate compared to the previous one, so thank you for the feedback!
I’ve often had this same thought – why doesn’t Nikon, Canon (or more likely, Sony) produce a camera with a point and shoot form factor (and optical flexibility) that offers all of the other smartphone advantages of AI on capture, in-camera processing, and in-camera publishing? The answer I am sure lies in the very significant cost of R&D associated with all these things, which the smart-phone easily handles with troves of subscription money constantly coming in and people upgrading their devices on a 2-year cycle.
I have to agree with you. Nikon had the Nikon One and messed that up. DX line was only a tease for you to realize your dreams were really only possible with their the FX line. No DX lenses beyond 300mm until recently. My DX Nikon I like and if I had an 80-400mm DX lens instead of the FX version I had to settle for it would have been. The big difference in weight between mirrorless and DX is the lens.
IMO this is not a rant. I think it’s a well reasoned, sobering view of how cameras in smart phones are now the photography tool of choice for the vast, vast majority of people – they easily meet, if not surpass, their image creation and sharing needs. I suppose from the “traditional” camera/lens manufacturers point of view, it now totally depends on whether the combination of the professional and the prosumer/hobbyist/enthusiast markets are sufficient to sustain their businesses. Clearly what can be said with certainty is that not all of them are going to survive. The only question is: which are the last few that will be left standing?
Tony, that’s a good question. I think the big three are here to stay: Canon, Nikon and Sony. Even then, all three will have to be smart about their product release strategies, focusing on what’s truly important and staying away from risky products and investments. Others will have to work harder to retain their customers and gain new markets. There is no other way when budgets and resources are cut…
The experience of taking a picture with a smartphone (of any brand and vintage) is like eating a reheated frozen gas-station burrito. In contrast using a D/SLR or Mirrorless camera is all about the experience and is akin to planning, preparing, savoring, sharing and reminiscing about a fabulous 6-course meal with matching wines.
One is simply an act, the other a memorable experience.
One uses someone else’s brain, the other uses yours.
Nick, hahaha, I love the gas station burrito analogy – that made me laugh! :)
I fully agree with you, which is why you and I will continue using our amazing cameras to capture images!
Amen. I was just on the Luminous Landscape site and the phrase “Contemplative Camera” reached out and grabbed me.
Cheers.
But that gas-station burrito surely fills you up in the when the 6-course restaurant isn’t open or you only have 5 minutes to eat your lunch eh? :-)
My most used lens is my 300/2.8.
When they make a cell phone that can replace it I’ll dump my DSLR.
The biggest drawback to phones as cameras is the lack of a viewfinder and a proper shutter release. Sure you can trick your smartphone out with all kinds of accessories to partially solve this problem but DSLRs with real viewfinders are superior.
This is your view. Mine is that I don’t care how I get the image. I just want to get what I see in my mind in a digital file or film image. If the smartphone (for me iPhone) is the best way to do it and I have that tool with me then that is the best method.
Thanks for the excellent article Nasim! I’ve been shooting with a Nikon D750 for the past four years and I’m going to switch to a Z7 or Z6. The biggest prints I’ve ever had made are 32 x 48 canvas wraps and I don’t envision the need for anything bigger. The practical side of me says to go with the Z6 and f/4 lenses as they come out. The not so practical side says not to make a “lateral” move and go with the Z7 and f/2.8 lenses. After reading your article I’m really wondering how much resolution do you actually need? I’m not going to do extreme crops or huge prints and I really think camera companies are using the megapixel race as a selling point. I’m mainly interested in landscape and travel photography. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
Dan, if you are not going to make huge prints, why bother with a high resolution camera? You will end up with bigger files, slower workflow and unnecessarily huge backups. I would just go with the Z6, unless you primarily shoot landscapes. For landscapes, the Z7 is a better choice due to better dynamic range, ISO 64 and lack of low-pass filter. If you shoot a mix of landscapes and travel, the Z6 is good enough in my opinion.
Thanks Nasim.
Hmmm. I dunno. You have some good arguments, but to my mind the fundamental shift started with the first DSLR: photography was no longer a separate market/technology but was subsumed in the larger electronics market. And became subject tot he same rules. Quick and continuous product replacement. Leasing and rental of software (like your old version of Photoshop? Oops, your OS no longer supports it…). Support. We’re now on the same sled as the PC/tablet/phone business. A pity, because that business excels at the 80% solution, you only have to be ‘good enough’. Meanwhile, as a landscape, wildlife and macro photographer, I’m not looking forward to the phone photo world. Need a long fast lens? 1:1 macro? Real wide angle? Those are niche concerns, and mass market products will never solve those problems. Argh :)
Yes, the magic of DSLR is in the lenses. The bodies are just tech. The lenses very often have a special magic that transcends the technology. Haven’t heard any satisfying explanations for the magic of the Canon 24-105 L, the Canon 135 F/2, or the Fuji 18-55.
What will we see with phones? iPhone 15 with big, honking adapter and Nikon 200/4?
This misses the reason cameras in smartphones are getting so good. It is mostly software and not so much hardware. The reason the current version of the iPhone XS or now Pro does such a good job with exposure is that it takes 4 underexposed shots, 1 at normal exposure, and 1 overexposed, and then nearly instantly blends them. The software extracts highlights from some files and shadows from others.
I personally took 14 raw shots with an A7iii full frame and 24-105 f4 in a sequence a few months ago and then merged them with LR Classic. I also did a quick and easy panorama with my iPhone XS Max. When I got them to my office and compared the difference in quality between the two was insignificant.
I have a big “but.” (Single “t” – though I’d need an ultrawide smartphone lens to shoot mine.)
Smartphone cameras, so far, haven’t proved it for me. I like camera phones and am amazed by the dead-on exposures my ancient iPhone 5S gives. However, phones cannot reproduce the character of the very best lenses. I’m not thinking of exotic early Leica or Zeiss glass, just modern affordable lenses that have true character. I include the Canon 24-105 F/4 L IS and the Canon 135 F/2.
To date, no phone camera pictures I’ve seen have shown me that these cameras aren’t just talking monkeys – amazing that they can talk, but they aren’t saying anything wonderful. They represent photography reduced to a dull technically nice average. And that’s something the camera manufacturers should harp on. Even the Fuji 18-55 2.8-4 lens is wonderful in ways no phone camera can match.
Ok, so, the detail and quality overall on my D850 is substantially higher than my D750, even when viewed on screen, not printed. I shoot at native ISO, use a tripod, electronic first shutter, mirror lockup and a wireless cable release. I can enlarger a detail from these images and find incredible clarity. I loved both of my D750s, but the D850’s larger sensor is clearly better.
There’s no way a smartphone photographer could do what I do for a living, either, which is studio product photography.
For a while companies believed that anybody could now take professional product pictures and gave the job to the intern or admin, and it was rough for pros, but now there are endless job postings for experienced photographers to take over studios because the images sucked.
And when I do print my photography, I would like it to be as fine as possible.
Also, professional photography, depending what you do, is only partly about the equipment anyway.
Agree a hundred percent. I got slammed by the expert commenters on DP Review for using the word “croppability.” Whereupon a professional said he bought a 5DSR for its 50-mpx sensor because designers liked to be able to do weird or very close crops. I find with my old Canon 6D and the excellent 24-105 L and 135mm F/2 lenses I can get beautiful deep crops, especially with the 135. (Effectively the 135 gives me a 300-400mm F/2 for stage events.) What camera sensor can do that?
Once again a good article that hits home. The industry is in trouble and there isn’t much one can see that will turn things around. I’ve thought about giving up the big camera myself many times. If I wasn’t as into birds and wildlife as I am I probably would.
I ordered the DJI Osmo Mobile 3 yesterday and it feels like I’ll be more creative and inspired by a $120 accessory than I’d be by anything I can buy for the same amount in the big camera market.
The times are changing and few are adapting. Probably in five years there will be no more than five companies actively making big cameras.
Back when I was a kid there were the great camera makers – Hasselblad, Nikon, Leica, Pentax, and I’m sure others whose names I don’t know. I don’t think Canon, Fuji and Olympus were around yet. Then there was Kodak, the film maker. They had the Brownie line of cameras for the mass market. Nobody mistook Brownies for anything other than snapshot cameras. They were great little cameras, but everyone knew that photographers didn’t use them. Camera phones are the Brownies of this era. They are snapshot cameras. They are for social media. Photographers do not use them. There is a physical limit to what cellphone cameras can do. The photos in this article are lacking. They are ok pictures for the ‘good enough’ crowd, but photographers are not in the good enough crowd. They never were. There was a boom in interest in photography because it got caught in the tech boom when it went from film to digital. Perhaps this boom is dying off now and the snapshooters are going back to their comfort zone. Good, because that’s where they belong. The dedicated camera companies will adjust.
There is an element prevalent today for everything having to be made for the lowest common denominator. Excellence is not prized at the moment. Hopefully that will change, but meanwhile we have to weather it. I often wonder what future cellphones will really have. They will be around until the next breakthrough in communications. Whatever that will be may not even include cameras on them. It is best to just wait and see what comes and not lose heart. But I think that complex cameras and lenses are here to stay, because there will always be people who pursue excellence around to want them. If that means that photography returns to being a small niche market the way it started out, then so be it. I believe that Nikon and the other originals will be among the companies that survive.
Elaine, that’s exactly the point of the article – the smartphone has taken over the mass consumer market and the camera industry is shrinking to its niche size. Those who want the best will continue to buy big and capable cameras…you cannot replace a DSLR + a super telephoto with a smartphone. The smartphone is going to be like an entry-level camera with an 18-55mm lens. That’s the bulk of the camera market…
Maybe this will mean that soon, new cameras will come out only a couple times per decade i.e. when there’s enough advancements, and when they’re actually finished so no firmware updates or mass recalls will be necessary, at least not for such crucial/basic things. Great reads, both of these!
Alvaro, it would be nice to see less frequent, but more meaningful camera releases. Thank you for your feedback!
Smart phone? What smart phone? I don’t need no stinking smart phone!
I use a flip phone, and will continue to do so until they pry it from my cold dead hands. I shoot a lot of sports, and SPs don’t work for beans for sports. I also shoot a lot of stuff that gets aggressively cropped; so again SPs don’t work for that (especially when I am still cropping 400+ mm shots).
William, haha, I love it :) I haven’t seen a flip phone for a while now!
No way smartphones can replace specialized tools. They are meant for mass consumption, so they will only cover generic / standard ranges.
Haha! That made me laugh too. You know, Smart Phones are great for a plethora of other things aside from photos. ;)
I am constantly getting abused over my phone – it predates flip phones, and I call it either a “tradies model” or a “dumb phone”.
It makes phone calls. I don’t get disconnect because it touches one side of my face while I’m trying to talk to someone.
It sends and receives SMS messages.
My next door neighbour hates it, because if he wants to send me something which includes a photo, he has to send an email. I monitor my emails – he’s far more likely to reach me that way. (The “blip” on my dumb phone hasn’t recovered from the time I turned it onto airplane mode, last time I went to Europe – so I only discover SMS messages if I go hunting for them).
I use it as an alarm clock – it’s great for that.
And if I want to take a photo, I use a camera. I had a box Brownie from Kodak when I was 10 – I don’t need another one, and instead of squandering anywhere about to about $2,500 on a phone that takes snapshots, goes flat after a few hours, and has to be replaced after 12 months, I’d rather spend $299 on a “smart phone” from someone like Nokia and use the other $2,200 on something I really need.
I didnt see one photograph that was narrower than 6mm. Wheres the 400mm shots of wildlife? Even 100mm? Not happening in the phone market. I make my money with wildlife shots, iPhone or otherwise, it’s not a useful tool for my work. When it is, I’ll let you know…The photos are all landscape. Didnt see a macro, or a long shot, lovely as they are.
Mark, I fully agree – the smartphones are only meant to potentially replace entry-level / point-and-shoot cameras with an 18-55m kit lens. For anything specialized like sports / wildlife and macro, they are completely useless! However, keep in mind that most people out there don’t care for such needs – the mass market just wants a decent camera that is good enough for their day-to-day needs. That’s where the smartphone comes in.
Camera manufacturers used to make a lot of money selling entry-level DSLR cameras with kit lenses. That market is quickly dying off…
When you factor moment lenses and some of the other attachments, some of the very casual wildlife spots and telephoto can be done with a smartphone as well.
What about the sensor size? I was shooting on a Sony a6500 last year and picked up the RX100VI. While I did love the smaller size, I immediately noticed a difference in quality from just the APS-C sensor to the 1″ sensor. Go from a tiny phone sensor to a full-frame, the quality difference is insane if you view it on anything other than Instagram. You can take a picture with any camera, but the difference in quality is what sets them apart. Sure, the majority of earth’s population doesn’t care, but anyone who’s remotely serious about quality understands the importance of the sensor and the glass and will sacrifice convenience and portability for the quality of the end product.
Do you hire a photographer using his smartphone for your memorable wedding photography session? I think my girl friend will divorce me before the weddings starting if she knows the official photographer of this day using only smartphone!!!!
My thoughts exactly. Nobody would pay any decent amount of money for a ‘wedding photographer’ who uses their smart phone. Maybe someday in the distant future we could see that… or someone with Zero money to pay for photos will get their friend to snap a few. It’s feasible that someone artsy with a good eye and great lighting will get a few good photos, but even that is a stretch.
The German Camera site dkKamera just completed a Sony RX100IV vs Huawei P30 Pro photo comparison.
The evaluation is in 3 parts and of course in German., with the link here:
www.dkamera.de/news/…ne-teil-3/
The punch line is ‘The Huawei P30Pro is the best pocketable camera for people seeking excellent image quality…’.
So I believe your perspective is right on the money,
I am seriously thinking of the iPhone 11 Pro rather than the 11 now. The iPhone 6s needs replacing soon. I have a D500 and a 500 F4G for bird photography. I cannot carry the DSLR and a whole bunch of other camera gear in the field. For other shots and walk around photography in the city and even landscape the collection of gear I have is starting to look redundant. Instead of moving to a Z series with 24-70 (F4 or 2.8) it would make more sense to use the iPhone 11Pro. It is an extra $700 and seems like a lot for a phone but it is a lot cheaper than the Z7 or Z6 gear I would need to get for non-wildlife photography. I print A4 A3 and A3+ (13 x19). They say iPhone can print up to A4 and look just great. What do you think?
I’m shooting with the Z7 and a 24-70 f/2.8. The quality is mind boggling. But I also have an iPhone XS Max that I ALWAYS have with me and is much more convenient than my Z7. So, obviously I use my iPhone when I need a snapshot, but if I want a really great photo worthy of editing and posting or even printing, I use the Nikon. So… it all depends on what you’re going to use the photo for and how much you value quality. To each his/her own… for me, photography is an extremely expensive hobby that I don’t make money on. I just enjoy it and I have a need for quality. If the quality isn’t worth the money and you prefer convenience and portability, skip the large DSLR/Mirrorless and just use your iPhone. Just my 2cents.
Another thought: If you make a print from an iPhone and put it side by side with a similar sized print from a DSLR, you will notice a difference. If you hang an iPhone photo on your wall alone, most people will not see the decrease in quality. Case in point, a buddy of mine (office right next to me) uses a GoPro on video for underwater shooting, then pulls still images from the video. He has a great shot of an octopus printed on canvas. While it’s a cool shot, I can tell the quality isn’t great. I have a turtle photo I shot on a D850 in an Ikelite housing with strobes that is absolutely stunning. Side by side, the two photos are in a different category all together (on the quality scale)…. something one would expect when you compare a $400 GoPro to a $10,000+ DSLR rig.
At age 63, I simply can’t see the smartphone screen well enough (and doubly so in daylight) to meaningfully compose my images. I need a viewfinder. I’m curious that the lack of viewfinders wasn’t listed as one of the negatives of smartphone cameras. It’s a huge one for me.
But then again, I care about my photos, which also puts me in the niche boat. I just hope the niche stays big enough to allow camera companies to keep making nice cameras I can afford.
I’m with you, Barry. I care about quality a great deal. I don’t see DSLRs/Mirrorless going away any time soon.
In recent trip to Kenya l took a 400 mm 2.8 plus 1.4x and a 100-400 mm lens with two bodies. Relied on an iPhone for landscape and videos. Worked great and saved in camera gear weight and size.
Hi Nasim, I think you didn’t go far enough in order to really see the advantage of advancing technology. Noise, dynamic range, image separation, blah blah blah is just the beginning. Think of Topaz AI software that can clean up your image because it knows (statistically) how to interpret image areas. The next step is obviously to compare your image to similar images (all in camera, by subscription of course) and find the best image of what you are trying to take a picture of. It could choose the best one for you or modify your shot with what it takes to be a photo that gets a lot of likes, hearts, or whatever you value your photo by. With the phone GPS and camera data and comparing to other images in a cloud database it can tell if you are taking a picture of the grand canyon from a certain perspective, time of day, angle of view, … or if it is your wife in front of the grand canyon. So all you have to do is let the camera decide (based on your social media posts) if you would prefer a photo of your wife or someone else in the shot. This is clearly a subject that should be tackled by your PL writers. Ultimately, only the camera needs to go on photo shoots. It can do the rest without you. Now I can go back to lounging on the couch and think of the next profession I can conquer. ;-)
Outstanding article. I think about this all the time and was excited to read your thoughts on the subject. Hope you are well.
Trillions of “photos” (mostly just snapshots) are being taken each year. Smartphones, with their “camera” facilities, are responsible for the VAST majority of those snaps.
And there are multiple reasons – one, dear to my heart, is “they always have their camera (AKA phone) with them!” – another, they don’t need or want prints – another, that they don’t any longer interact with “people”, they only interact via electronic media (my “age-ist” comment for the day!) – yet another, related reason, they show their photos to each other on the internet, and they can do it on the spot from that same smartphone – and another, they have already paid for a rather expensive smartphone that has a “camera” in it, so why on earth would they want to pay for another, separate camera?
So how many reasons can camera companies put up, to compete with that? Outside the realm of professional photographers and serious amateurs, very few.
And plummeting – not just “falling” – sales clearly reinforce this negative view.
But if it’s a negative view, is it also a negative outlook? Should we all give up and find a new occupation/hobby?
I don’t believe so. In the next few years, this will most likely plateau. Some player might very well drop out of the field – but enough will still be there, producing “cameras” and “lenses” and all the other bits and pieces.
During the past 10 or 20 years, there have been plenty of complaints from “photographers” (ie, the actual and potential market for “cameras”) that camera manufacturers don’t make what they want, and don’t listen to them when they tell the manufacturers what they want. In a falling market, that was utter madness. And it’s taking far too long, for the manufacturers to stop doing it.
If they want sales, ignoring their customers is the stupidest idea they could possibly come up with.
There are features out there now, which could EASILY be offered, and which are being withheld from the customers in far too many cases.
One of the most fundamental life experiences I have had – and I’ve had plenty, I’m steaming towards becoming 80! – was learning that a problem is a phenomenon that you can only do one of two things with – either you solve it, or you keep having it.
And falling sales is a problem that the manufacturers are having – so if they don’t like it, it’s up to them to do something about solving it! Don’t just blame smartphones for it!
I think your analysis is spot on. If I was a professional photographer of course I would want the latest equipment, but as a long time hobbyist I now only use one of my ‘real’ cameras when I need a telephoto lens for wildlife or (rarely) when I’m going to a family event like a wedding. Probably 95-99% of the time my only camera is an iphone. While my ‘real’ cameras and lenses certainly take better pictures, as you noted, they are total overkill for viewing on a 1Mp phone screen, and the workflow stopped being fun a while ago.
Your photos in this article are wonderful and they certainly show what these phone cameras are capable of (with the right photographer).
I teach a class for people who are interested in adding an interchangeable lens camera to their photo-taking arsenal in addition to their smartphones. There are basically two reasons that my students have given for wanting to add a dedicated camera and lenses:
– Smartphones don’t deal well with rapidly moving subjects
– Smartphones don’t have enough reach for wildlife, birding, sports, etc.
And, once they learn about it, many are also enthusiastic about the additional creative control they can get with a dedicated camera and lenses, especially things like long exposures, macro photography, and better control of depth of field.
From what I’ve seen, these are not things that will be easily done with smartphones, at least not anytime soon. I think the camera companies have an opportunity to stay relevant if they can add smartphone-like ease of operation through software, while still allowing for that longer reach, capture of action, and additional control.
But I think the window of opportunity is closing.
Very interesting article, and I agree with everything you wrote. As an avid amateur, I think you hit the nail on the head at the end of the article when you wrote “Shoot with what you already have and enjoy every moment of it.” I have as my primary cameras the Nikon D500, and D750 (also a D7200), and those cameras, with proper care, will last me many, many years. While I watch with interest what cell phone makers are doing, I enjoy working with different lenses, as well as old bargain lenses that still work on my cameras, and shooting different landscapes, birds in flight, macro, etc. I think DSLR camera manufacturers have to make cameras like the Nikon D3500 (small, light cameras that are relatively easy to use) to get consumers into their ecosystems and hook them so that they eventually buy more expensive DSLR or mirrorless cameras. A small, light camera that interfaces well with your cell phone (Snapbridge works well for me on my Samsung 9+) will be appealing to consumers who want to make photography a hobby and move up from cell phones.
Nassim, Your article nails it. I own a flip phone but I take photos with used & new D810 bodies, and lenses ( Nikon G prime, 2 Nikon E, and a Tamron prime). Now I obsess about bringing one or two bodies on vacation, then editing when I get home, storing files plus some of the other headaches you mention….my iMac is from 2011. Lens calibration..Had I purchased an iPhone instead, life would be less expensive, even buying a new one every two year. I gave a DSLR and macro lens to my son who has used iPhones for years. Now I know why he never used my gift. No need for apertures/ISO, calibration… besides a camera does not have Siri, iTunes, no instant photostat can breach anywhere in the world.
Photography will still be all about the skill behind the tool used for the capture of light.
I am old enough to remember the debates about moving from cut film; roll; 35mm and then digital cameras. Deep breath and enjoy new ways of creating images. Currently I take 80+ % of my images using a Google Pixel 2 camera/phone with the occasional picture using a Canon DSLR. Since using the Pixel 2 not one person has voiced any negative remarks re image quality – I tend to shoot Jpegs as they are great straight out of camera.
Your article hinted on one bit that I think is becoming more and more obvious, that of the phone becoming an ancillary part of the whole system. I think “phone” ought to be dropped and a whole new name for these devices should be created that is more applicable to the gamut of features they carry.
Hello, First time commenting. Great read/rant and so many valid points raised. I now juggle between my Nikon DSLR and my Samsung phone, dependent upon the circumstances. As a 64 year old that embraces parts of social media and maintains/overseas 5 websites and 4 FB pages related to my business, I see a lot of sense in what you write. I guess my generational position also means I am not wired into social media and a few images, a few times, will satisfy what are actual family and real friends that my personal FB reaches. A decent camera and lenses is still important. My big decision is the move to mirror less and the costs associated with a ‘system change’. I have stuck to Nikon (as primary cameras) since my Nikkormat in the 1970’s. My wife and I are regular travellers to many offbeat places. Changing will also lighten our load!! As we both are keen with a camera we have a bit of a load! Its no problem when disappearing into the Aussie outback with our troopie, but with a backpack thats another story! Everest Base camp Nth and many of the monasteries of remote Tibet last year sure tested out a 63 year old body receiving commands from a 25 year old mind!! Didn’t quite work all the time!
In addition, I still prefer the visuals you get through a DSLR eyepiece. Smart phone screens are terrible in bright sunlight and therefore some snaps are a bit of a guess as to framing. The VERY bright light of Tibet exacerbated this. Cheers
‘Troopie’ might need an explanation for those not versed in Australian slang.
Very prescient and thoughtful article Nasim ……and one point which you made and which is very fundamental and has a lot of relevance to the slew of high megapixel sensors which are being launched is whether their native lenses can support such high resolutions!
An article on this topic would be appreciated and knock the stuffing off many models which cannot be supported by available lenses. It will prove that many camera companies are unleashing meaningless MPs whose tech specs cannot be fully realised due to inadequate supporting lenses….Regards…..
Smartphone pics kook good only on smartphone screen. I’m using iPad now and all pictures aren’t look good on it with lots of oversharpening artifacts and other things. Personally I’m using iPhone for a quick snap of casual document but it worse than proper scanner. Smartphone same as swiss army knife, convenient but it won’t replace dedicated tools.
You are right but no at all. Mobile camera VS DSLR has to do with what ask every one from the photography. If you want just to keep the moment and share it on social, it’s OK a good mobile camera. But if you love the photography, a good DSLR or mirrorless is one way road.
I am using smart phones from 2007. My mobile has No1 at the tests of DXO before 2 years. At any photo the comparison between my mobile and my D750 is a jog. Just a double click on the screen of my iPad, is enough to see the big difference between the photos.
All of us the first we do when we see a photo at our mobile or iPad, is double click to zoom, so as can see the details.
Except that mobile cameras have very hight distortion, not only at buildings but also at the portraits even when you are using the portrait mode.
I prefer to carry my camera and my best 3 lenses at the traveling. My mobile it’s OK to keep memories for something which happened suddenly.
An excellent article with much to ponder. There is no doubt that smartphones are convenient and improving, and most people will carry them about without a second thought. That being said, and this is just a personal comment, but I LIKE taking photos with a camera that fits well in the hand and speaks of craftsmanship. My iPhone is good for simple videos and photos to send to friends, but I cannot say that I enjoy using it per se. As camera makers struggle to redefine themselves against the onslaught, they will loose most users who value simplicity and immediacy above all else, but those who appreciate the experience and the possible range of functions available with a MILC will continue to buy them.
Excellent article Nasim, great read and definitely a good food for thought piece and excellent photos btw. However I beg to differ primarily about costs…true, you can invest a lot in DSLR’s. Flip side of the coin, these followers of Apple, I’m not one of them btw, will happily spend thousands of dollars a year just for the next AND each iteration/version of the iPhone (same with Samsung). Invested in a DSLR ‘System’, you’re correct and it doesn’t make economic sense just to switch unless you’re a professional and/or can afford it. As with camera companies, Apple & Android marketing has captured and addicted these followers to spend massive sums for a phone they’ll use for a ~year then replace it with the next version that has promised even more goodies, so they’re really no different than the camera companies.
Up until this new phone, many Apple users have always been disappointed with the newer versions after they’ve spent a thousand or so dollars (mostly of my children), hopefully it won’t happen with this version. No, I won’t be chasing Apple and Android updates, I’ll stick with my current investment in my Sony A7III. I have an Android smart phone I’ve had for 2+ years, use it occasionally for photos and really don’t plan on upgrading it, not going to chase Apple/Android and spend thousands when my Sony works great for me. Just keeping my wife happy with her Samsung Note is enough money on phones…😂
In summary, I guess at least they can make a phone call when needed, if they have service and they will make a good back up to a DSLR if needed….Cheers and again, great, well written article.
Hi Nasim,
Great article. I agree that the smartphones are a very convenient way to capture photos but as we all know most folks hardly print photos. My observation is that pictures from smartphones are not very clear at 5×7 or 8×10 enlargements. I only wish that either Nikon or Canon would come up with a DSLR with a single button that would capture any scene with good exposure and detail without having to fuss with f.stops, apertures, ISO’s and other adjustments – without firing the flash! For the purists, they can always override the single button and fiddle with all the requisite adjustments. However that is my Utopian wish!
As always you write wonderful articles.
Thanks
Dear People,
In view of the citation below:
“What does this all mean to us, photographers? Don’t worry – there is little reason for serious concern. These changes are going to happen whether we like them or not, but we have to stay focused and don’t waste our time and money getting the latest and greatest gadgets. Shoot with what you already have and enjoy every moment of it.”
It seems plain to me that the corporate manufacturers will build “smartphones” into selected camera bodies.
It’s my guess that most existent camera bodies have phone type transmission capabilities (built in) to duplicate what “smartphones” are currently designed to do.
Hang in there,
Bob Pilgrim
Bob, Zeiss already has the ZX1 and other attempts have been made before by others (mostly from the smartphone side to integrate large sensors). None of them have been successful. I think the best camera manufacturers can do is simplify their tools and make them ergonomically amazing. Putting smartphone capabilities into a camera is impractical due to memory, storage, network, RAM and CPU/GPU requirements. Cameras will get hot, battery life will be miserable…
Amazing article, thanks Nasim
Glad you’ve enjoyed the article Joy!
Great article Nasim and I think you nailed it.
My prediction is one of the 3 ‘majors’ will announce their own camera phone, without a phone but all the other functionality, size and features of say the iPhone XS. But more.
As most now seem to resort to social media, texting etc for comms etc, the phone, for many, is unnecessary and without all the tech required for ‘voice’ communication they will have room in the box for more camera technology.
How long a lens in a phone is practically possible?
Say you settle for moderate 12 Mpx.
And you want no diffraction degradation, let’s use the practical limit of an aperture larger than 2x the pixel pitch in microns.
( A purist might suggest 1.5x.)
Then some simple arithmetic gives:
A 50mm-[35mm-eq.] lens needs an aperture of at least 3mm, an
85mm-eq lens one of at least 5mm (i.e. divide by 17 – regardless of sensor size).
Modern phones are around 8mm thick.
And the inside? At most 5-6 mm.
So we *could* have a diffraction-free 12Mpx 80-90 mm-FFeq phone camera, but that’s about the limit – or a thicker phone.
And for higher resolution this limit gets proportionally tighter.
Hi Nasim,
OMG, someone finally has written a very comprehensive and unbiased overview on what is going on in the camera market. Thank you, Nasim. I’ve written for more than two years about some of these very same issues… all of which fell on deaf ears. I hope your readers can set aside their predjudices for a moment at least to assess what you have given them. Good job and all the best.
Thoughtful summary of the issues, Nassim–thanks for a good read.
Funny thing, though: I don’t know many non-professional, non-committed photographers who are happy with their smartphone photography. I hear mostly disappointment–a frequent riff on “my pictures don’t look like the Apple billboards.” And they blame Apple or Samsung or Google for (yet another) case of big-tech gaslighting. As a creative person who can wrap his fundamental skills around any imaging tech, you may be overestimating mass market satisfaction with smartphone photography. Yes it’s widely available (everyone has a smartphone anyway); and yes it’s conceptually less complex for many than the “real camera” alternatives that came before it; but neither guarantees inherently good, meaningful, satisfying imaging.
I try to point out that photography is a craft, that it’s bigger than whatever the imaging tech of the day happens to be. Nobody’s born with an artist’s understanding of light. Or of color. Or of balance or proportion. Nobody’s born with an adult’s lived vocabulary of visual narrative. And while it might be possible to “can” some of that learning into choice-alleviating algorithms, it may also be worth thinking about what we lose when we shoot an anonymous algorithm writer’s narratives instead of our own.
But speaking for myself–as someone who is generally happy with his smartphone photography and as someone who’s enthusiastic about its future technologies, I am nonetheless deeply tired of being told it rivals the quality or creative potential of “real cameras.” Because I have eyes, and I can see the results. And even *brilliant* smartphone photographs (such as those you’ve included as the “story art” for this piece) even published in small presentation sizes, fare poorly in pretty much any aesthetic quality I’d compare. The textures are ugly, the colors are simple and blocky, and there’s never much detail–it’s all just obvious, fakey-fake sharpening artifacts. And it’s not just me being persnickety; laypeople see the difference too. That’s another thing I get asked, often: “Why do photographs now all look so FLAT?”
Finally: I think you underestimate the biggest liability hanging over smartphone photography’s future, which is the bait-switch business model that drives it. “Data is the new oil,” the venture capitalists say; smartphone photography-videography + cloud storage + social media = the slickest way to collect and capitalize user data. Smartphone cameras exist to put every smartphone photographer to work for Google, Zuckerberg, et al. That wasn’t commonly understood ten years ago; but now, we’re all pretty clear about the lengths “surveillance capitalists” have been willing to reach. Lots of people aren’t comfortable with it. In the west, organic imaging shares on social media platforms have been in shallow decline since early 2017. The famous Mary Meeker “Internet Trends” VC deck shows real ambivalence toward these companies among the 13 – 18 year old set. (They love Youtube; but Facebook? Hard Pass. Insta? Only private.) The “influencer” economy is maturing toward skepticism and demands for factual ROI numbers, which it often has a hard time delivering. And regulators and investigators are circling. Will Google be as excited about pumping R&D into Pixelphone cameras if the U.S. and/or the European Union regulate profit opportunities away from the data those cameras snoop?
I point this out, of course, because the fate of big tech’s camera-centric “surveillance capitalism” is not a liability Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc. share.
Anyhoo, thanks again for the article–good food for thought!
Mark, I wish I could highlight your comment on this post! I’m very happy to see that we have readers who are so well rounded on complex topics and the realities we live in today. I couldn’t agree more with everything you stated in your comment!
It seems like we live in a virtual bubble, AKA “bubbleconomy”. The scary thing is, people are buying into it, to the point where they are betting their futures on it. The most wanted job among the teens is to be an “influencer” – they see the fame, the money and the followings these personalities have, and they create a mental image of their idols. If only they had known how much of it is fake!
I seriously can’t wait to see it all collapse!
Maybe I am old fashioned….
But I still use a PC on a daily basis for all news, communication and browsing.
I do have a (simple) smartphone because some transactions require conformation by sms. But my “smart”phone stays on my desk. I do not carry it around (unless I need it for navigation). I think smartphones are inherently unsafe. Hackers are always ahead of the curve. No matter how hard companies try to convince us that they do everything to protect our privacy, I know enough about computers and IT to know that this is just not possible even if they really wanted to. But given their “data collection” business model I also do not believe them.
Smartphones are destroying people’s civility as well. People are glued to the screen half of the day. And I am not going to be told by smartphone manufacturers that my model is obsolete and not supported anymore (Apple’s favorite trick). So I can live more or less without them.
As for cameras: I have always used Nikon (since Nikkormat EL) and I still do. It is expensive, it is sometimes cumbersome with heavy DSLR’s and lenses. And since I shoot RAW I always post process. But I think post processing helps in evaluating your shots. You need to look at them. Smartphone pics are often click, publish and forget what you have done. Not for me.
But we are dealing with a mass market phenomenon that will not go away. So proper camera systems will probably get more and more niche and more expensive. Some streamlining by camera manufacturers would certainly help (the recent article on Pancake lenses come to mind).
Jozef
What you say in the article is true for the “snapshot market”. Those who do a massive amount of post-processing, the camera will still be essential (until maybe the phones will learn these, but i doubt they will lear all). Cameras/lenses for special applications will survive mostly. Medium format for large prints, large telephoto lenses for wildlife, fast lenses for astro to neame a few. Good article!
Lenses, ergonomics, that cameras do not have the same size restriction. Yes it will shrink as photo snappers ignore cameras altogether. But there will always be a market. Yes remove all the gimmicks from cameras at mid to top end, concentrate on a niche.
Maybe the problem is the consumers of images are not obsessed by gear and pixel peeping, but story, emotion, etc.? The only people I know who are anally retentive about technical image perfection are photographers. But the people I know who aren’t want to capture moments, and smartphones are more than sufficient or that.
I’m not a member of a photography club exactly because they’re nearly all middle aged, grumpy blokes, obsessed with statistics and full of envious of others with “better” cameras, and ridicule those with “worse” ones.
Excellent article Nasim and a whole field of outstanding responses to it. Mark and Jozef (above) both made very interesting comments I thought.
Like some of the other contributors, I come from a film world with most of my work having been done on 5X4 inch film (4X5 for you Americans!) or medium format. I am therefore used to big cameras and slow working methods. The mental discipline that setting up a 5X4 shot imposes on you is very interesting and the polar opposite of the sometimes thoughtless, smart phone shooting I see so often. As a result, the current crop of cameras seem to me to be little short of miraculous, very fast to use, great fun and enormously capable!
I too use a smart phone, but very seldom and have a deep dislike of the current obsession by people with them with regard to social media, especially youngsters. I have taken the odd snap on mine and the quality is surprisingly good, to a point but the experience of doing so, I find very uninteresting and un-pleasurable. I especially dislike the absence of a viewfinder.
I do not mind carrying my D850 around with me, enjoy the process of taking photographs with it and have no fear of having to put a little work and knowledge into the whole process. Frankly I do not find it too technically challenging (you have to put a little work in up front though), love the process of editing, post-production, the stunning quality of the images on my iMac and the beautiful prints that are the final destination.
For me, the journey is important, I do not use social media and so have little interest in any form of instant transfer to Facebook or whatever. I can get an edited image sent in an email within three or four minutes and that is quite rapid enough for any needs that have at the moment .I am no longer in the position of having clients needing images yesterday and so can, and do, just take my own sweet time with it all!
Yes, I do get distressed when I send images that I may have spent a significant amount time producing, to friends and family and know that they will at best look at them for a few seconds on their smart phone. I am beginning to send fewer and fewer for this reason. Ultimately, I take photographs for ME and find the images coming from my cameras and their lenses give me huge pleasure from the taking stage to the final image. If someone else enjoys them too, then that is a bonus!
I am also happy that so many people do take wonderful family snaps and videos on their phones. The democratisation of image making has been a great bonus in most respects, although it is also abused but then this has always been true of photography, since its beginnings in the 19th century! It certainly has been a wonderful documenting medium for my family and friends.
My conclusion is that even if a smart phone were to be able to beat the technical quality that I could produce with my camera, I would continue shooting images my own way with a dedicated camera and enjoying the process. I still shoot film sometimes and enjoy that too!
My view behind this change is, that social media has taken over for nearly everything. This includes Facebook, Instagramm, Whatsapp as well as Websites from other entities like Radio-Channels, Clubs, chatgroups etc. Social media includes the requirement of “anytime and anywhere”.
Cameras have – as you describe well – simply not been designed for social media. In combination with the shrinking “non-social-media areas” such as print-magazines it’s a problematic situation.
I’m interested if smartphones will keep their current design, as Smartwatches are coming and able to do some things which only smartphones could do some time ago. You can already buy smartwatches with included cameras (I have neither touched it nor seen the result, such as www.walmart.com/ip/T6…/726635910 ). For some users the “availabilty factor” of the camera may be rated higher that the quality factor ofthe photo (“good enough”).
For my individual situation, I use the smartphone now only seldom, as when I did return in the past, the “keepers” (print-outs, Background-Photos on the computer, …) where not created by the Smartphone (even though the number of returned pictures from the smartphone was higher due to the “availability factor”) . Reasons include indoor light-levels, outdoor light-photography, Bokeh/out-of-focus areas and others. (I prefer by far the natural light, which my FullFrame equipment can cover)
By now I take photos nearly the way I learned photography when Autofocus was not even available – I still use my old <20MP camera, but very robust Fullframe-Camera mostly with manual lenses such as CZ135/2 or 55/1.4. From time to time I check out some new Cameramodels, but beside resolution I wouldn't gain enough to justify the costs.
If I get another photography device, it will be a very high resolution camera (for Landscape and/or massive cropping) as I own already a camera for a low light situations. But I certainly do not belong the the majority of potential buyers.
The best thing about this article is the high level of perceptive comments that followed, Nasim you should be proud that your fan base responds with such wisdom, clarity and humour.
In my photography journey I have repeatedly learned how much the human brain and vision vastly exceeds the technical competence of even the very best camera. Modern DSLR’s are the bridge between what our brain sees and how we record that image which unfortunately our brain cannot do, our storage capacity diminishes as we age and we cannot possibly remember all the wonderful vistas and images we encounter in our all to short lifetime. The photos we take are that link which I think makes photography so interesting, we want to record our life in the very best format we can and a great image takes us back to that day, where we were, who we were with, the weather and the sound and smells. Spend time with a senior or someone with early dementia and watch as their eyes light up and how animated they become when looking through a photo album. For me there is no work or discipline or craft to using a smart phone, it is a modern day equivalent of the Brownie, it takes a snapshot, it does not take any effort, it does not tell a story, it does not engage, it does not allow you to make a mistake, it has no soul.
Michael, I fully agree – the comments are absolutely amazing, which shows how well-versed our readers are in so many areas.
Thank you for the excellent feedback. I fully agree with what you’ve said. I only use my smartphone to quickly send a snapshot of what I am seeing in front of me to my family. 90% of the images in this article, as well as in the iPhone X review were captured this way. I always first pull out my real camera, take a picture, and once I already have a “safe” shot, then I pull out my iPhone and take another pic, sometimes. In some cases I end up taking a picture only with my smartphone – but that’s when my camera is not with me.
Great article, good timing. Your comments on the R&D spend were underscored by the major business publications last week announcing that Apple has indicated it is transitioning in part to a camera company because that is where, they say, the the growth in mobile is coming from. You can do an internet search (“Apple a camera company”) to see in more detail what I am talking about.
Jim, I bet if Apple had known that it would become a camera company in the future, it wouldn’t have abandoned the Apple Aperture software…
Wouldn’t be surprised to see a come back. Bigger and better no doubt.
The photographers ( perhaps a proxy for the photography industry) responding to this excellent article seem to me to be still mostly in denial, focusing on the remaining deficiencies of smartphones rather than looking at the technologies getting deployed, their capabilities and their prospects.
The key advantages of the smartphone imho are threefold:
1. The gear is small and really essential, so it costs nothing extra to carry it.
2. The use is super simple, just point and shoot, even an American college graduate can do it. :)
3. Images are easily shared
In contrast, the camera industry is moving towards bigger, bulkier gear, with bigger lens openings, heavier lenses, more extensive features and yet more semi proprietary RAW formats.
Your analysis suggests the camera industry is deeply misguided and on a path to near extinction once the current user base dies off. Unfortunately, most camera companies are subsets of larger industrial conglomerates, so decisions are not made to help the camera business, but to help advance the larger corporate objectives. That relegates the camera sector to the ‘legacy business’ segment.
For the above reasons, I believe your evaluation is optimistic.
I expect a house cleaning after the 2020 Olympics, with several market exits..
Just as a follow on, I wonder whether any of the smart phone companies has applied to become the official photographer of the Paris 2024 Olympics. There is no domestic camera industry to defend in Paris and the location is very smart phone friendly.
Also, France likes to be seen as being on the cutting edge of new trends and the smart phone companies have much more money….
Martin G,
Street Shooting – Grab a used FUJI XT2 or Xpro2 w. 18-55 2.8-4,
and that will Blow Away any Iphone Cam Iteration –
an be Small and Light as a Feather; and you’ll Never Look back with regret .
Nasim,
Wonderful THought Provoking Article ~ Bravo !
Buuuut ~ is it just ME, or do everyone of YOU – SEE – ALL Smartphone Images as a collection of
tiny shattered pieces of sand like granules, with ZERO Depth of FIeld ?
I SEE Absolutely No Esthetic Beauty in such Images . . .
Wanna Talk Zeiss Primes on CHips, or Film ~ I HEAR YOU !!!
After reviewing the photos Nasim took with iPhone XS Max, it is clear that he really knows what he is doing regardless of what equipment he has in his hands. I’m sure he could do stunning work with a Kodak Brownie camera if given the chance and knowing its limitations. Aside from composition and content (story telling), I believe that as an artist, understanding the behavior of light and how to use and control it is at the heart of really good photography. But then mastery of the equipment and software used to take and process the images is also essential. This is where I make most of my mistakes. I would like to think that the more control one has over their equipment the tendency is to make more mistakes, the more professional the gear. However, I think the reverse is also true. One should be able to recover a usable image from a bad shoot. That being said, Nasim, I would interested to know how much post processing went into each shot and the amount of control the iPhone was given over the camera settings (e.g. was HDR used?). Overall, excellent article. Won’t be surrendering my DSLR soon. But I do see an iPhone 11 Pro in my future. Thanks!
Exactly what I’ve been saying for some time. The only camera company to get it was Samsung. The AI will kill what’s left of the camera industry within a decade. Nikon, Leica, and Olympus aren’t going to be at Photokina and all workshops have been canceled at PhotoExpo. Who would have thought in 1970 that Kodak would ever go out of business. It is ironic that they had a hand in their own demise with the development of the digital camera.
No one in my family has a camera but me. I have three sisters and one brother and many nieces and nephews. My son and his wife and the grand kids came for a visit and it was all cellphone for everything. We went hiking cellphones for video, photos, and tracking our progress along the trail. They were posting to social media as we hiked in real time. Cameras can simply not compete! I’d say when everyone who is 60+ now passes on so will the era of lenses and camera bodies in photography. Even professionals will use cellphones or something similar for their work. The photo industry as we know it is already dead one only has to read the tea leaves!
An article that distills much contemplation, research and experience. Thanks very much for sharing. I also agree with your overlapping criticisms in your review of the iPhone X Camera (emphasis on camera). To extend your key criticism…..If any company has any hope of surviving, they have to leap to fix the silent screaming mess passed off as usability (Haptics and Ergonomics)in ALL Interchangeable Lens Camera (ILCs). To attract new (ie younger) users, it probably won’t be enough to flatten the learning curve from phone to use a new ILC. This means future ILCs will have to embrace and extend features in Smartphones.
Judging from snippets of a recent interview with an Executive, Nikon do appear to understand at least some aspects of the new ecosystem in which they are struggling to persist. It’s hard to underscore the dire urgency to make their cameras easier to use. And as you rightly say, the menus in modern Nikon ILCs are nowhere near as terrible as others (eg Sony and Olympus), with Sony yet to match the ergonomics Nikon got right in their cameras 4 decades earlier (eg F3).
Nikon will strangle itself by maintaining the tradition of treating the customer as the proverbial mushroom (kept in the dark)….the rants and long requests to fix Nikon Z camera Firmware scream loudly! What we have seen in software patches of the Nikon Z6 and Z7 have yet to fix many obvious bugs and gaps (eg still NO blinkies, the options to set Custom controls for key features that have been in DSLRs for a few years already….)
here’s the links with key points: www.dpreview.com/forum…t-63128156
Nasim,
I agree with your comments. I also agree with many of the naysayers in this thread. Photography and video are a complex set of media and many people do it differently. For me personally cameras are just tools to put images into files. I was astonished when I started testing my iPhone XS Max last fall. It’s ability to get excellent exposure in almost any situation seemed almost impossible until I read more and found out that it was taking a series of shots at different exposures and merging them nearly instantaneously into a wide dynamic range finished file.
I have just recently looked into the way Apple is going to get low light shots using a burst of shots with different shutter speeds to 1. freeze action 2. longer shots to increase light. This is the sort of thing that more advanced higher end cameras are going to have to do to compete in the markets to come.
My guess is that of the big three Canon, Nikon, and Sony that Sony is the best situated to come up with software to compete. They are the only one of the big three that sells smartphones so that they can amortize their software costs.
Smartphone cameras became really good, but in my experience they are still not very usable in low light, e. g. in dimly lit rooms. Details are smeared away and slow shutter speeds lead to severe motion blur when photographing kids. Even the iPhone 11 shows these weaknesses.
Last but least it is also easier to use filters and speedlights with a dedicated camera. I also enjoy using evfs.
I am convinced, that there will always bei some enthusiasts, which will buy “real” cameras. :-)
I throw in with those expecting two directions of evolution toward merging phone and dedicated camera technologies – also with those thinking OEMs currently doing a good job with both (Sony, Samsung) are likely to do it before those specializing in one or the other:
1) increasing sophistication of camera firmware, user interface and microprocessor implementation, even to the point of open sourcing it, to much better internal algorithmic processing in order to make best use of vastly superior lens and sensor hardware on dedicated cameras. Current pro and prosumer cameras, even “best in class” by major OEMs, are still dinosaurs.
2) Fully dockable dedicated mirrorless camera modules commandeered by iOS or Android devices, with large sensor and lens options, independent battery and power supplies. Plug the phone in, and play serious glass and exposure settings, with a choice of third-party apps to navigate and control settings.
The “conflict” between fancy algorithmic compensation for crummy phone hardware versus wonderful expensive quality cameras crippled by prehistoric proprietary software is Darwinian, and neither will survive much longer.
“Why should anyone who wants to take decent pictures suffer through the pain of spending thousands of dollars on a camera system, many hours of learning how to use the camera and how to post-process images from it, when the alternative is to use a small, portable and idiot-proof device that they have in their pockets at all times?”
Well, because while those pics of NZ are really nice, pics from even a modest full-frame camera (e.g., 5d mk ii; d610) would be mind bending, could be blown up to larger than 3″ x 5″ on websites, and they could printed to 18″x20″. No knock on anyone else’s viewpoint, but until (and I agree, it is not if but when) phones can provide the same resolution and image quality as a full-frame camera, the delta in image quality between the two devices means there will a robust market for people who truly care about image fidelity.
*robust dedicated digital camera market*
Surely the point is that while the iPhone is fine for taking things that are conveniently large and standing conveniently still, they have a way to go before they can touch, say, a D7500/7DmkII with a 300/f4, 10-24mm or a 180/f2.8 macro.
Some of these posts make me laugh…
Pros all have cell phones already. Yet they still use real cameras with real lenses.
I was shooting at an air show on the weekend with a couple of bodies and some larger lenses. Mostly I was using my 300/2.8 and as I was shooting stills and video on my D850, it was sending them to my iPhone through SnapBridge. If I wanted, I could have posted them as quickly as those holding up their cell phones into the sky pointing at moving objects thousands of feet away. Mine of course would show something viewable that filled the screen, while their photos would be a series of small specks in a bunch of clouds.
If size and weight are so important, why wouldn’t I use the 300/f4 PFE I also had with me? Because when you have a large lens with lots of glass that lets in more light, you would always use it. I bought the smaller lens to replace my 300/2.8 since it had the same reach, but ended up keeping both. You just can’t trade off the benefits of the larger, faster glass. So saying that the tiny lens on a cell phone will be a choice is just ridiculous.
The last family event I was at, we all wanted photos since we don’t see each other often. I had my small shoulder sling with my D850 + 24-70/2.8 lens which I take when I want to travel very light. Everyone else had expensive cell phones. Everyone took the same shots. Phones were all over the place. Which shots do you think would be shared more? To compare them side by side on any device or social media is where you really notice the huge difference in quality. None of the cell phone shots would be able to be printed out in a nice wall mounted photo or canvas.
When I go hiking and take shots, any of them can be printed out on large canvas for everyone to enjoy.
And they can be posted to social media as we go. If you are into doing that. I would rather enjoy the experience. Cell phones snaps simply cannot compete. If that’s all you have then you should use it. But you will never get the same quality, obviously.
But one of the greatest joys is being able to mentor those just starting out with their first camera. This is a great hobby. So much learning, and fun with trying different types of quality photography. Macro, night, portrait, sports, wildlife, star trails, time lapse, lunar, video, etc. Spend time with family on a great hobby with fantastic results. I used to do my own enlargements in my darkroom. This was an investment in my passion. Sure, I could have sent them to someone else to produce, but then I would have missed out on the journey. Today it is so much easier to use software, and disk is cheap. It is so much more fun, without chemicals, and lets us keep our passion alive. Too many people want instant this and quick that and they don’t even care about the process or the results. They think fast is better regardless of the results.
As more people become lazy and complacent, you will be a star on social media… and you may see your photo on a billboard or in a magazine. Focus on the results (pun intended) and most of all enjoy the process. Become a part of your photos.
If you don’t enjoy and are not passionate about the hobby, then find another one.
But don’t slam those who do enjoy it.
In the short term I guess there will be increasing polarisation to the point that there is no overlap; until in the lone term there are tech revolutions that merge them again :)
Ok, so I am a very amateur point and shoot, auto focus only person and always will be unlke many of the people responding. I take tons of photos and videos daily, mostly for my own enjoyment but do share some on social media. I have an Iphone 6 which I need to replace immediately due to unsafe battery expansion (after 4+ years of use) and am trying to decide which Iphone to buy so your article and responses are very timely and thought provoking. I tried for 4 mos. to get by without a camera and just use my Iphone 6 to take photos and videos like my friends and 2 sons have done successfully, Unlike them, I take a ton of video (anything that moves or makes sound). I also have fairly poor fine motor skills and take photos and videos fairly rapidly (point and shoot quickly to not miss the action). I take almost NO posed photos of groups and never selfies. After my 4 mos, trial, my Iphone 6 did not come close to meeting my needs. The buttons on my phone were too close so my first photo or video would be great. But on the next one usually taken within a minute, I would accidentally press square or panorama or video when I wanted photo. I shoot videos of local concerts and other types of acts, fireworks, air shows, etc. Low light became a real issue with some of those. I do a lot of landscape/nature photos and videos and the lack of zoom was an issue. (I’m in a senior cycling group and we ride on nature trails so when I hear wildlife or my fellow bikers nearby, I take my camera or Iphone out my windbreaker pocket or small bike bag and shoot. They love seeing and hearing their videos on a Facebook page I set up. I was not successful in doing that with my Iphone (had to turn on phone via fingerprint, find photo app, find correct button) By that time the Kodak moment was long gone. Have had much success with new Canon pocket camera, just press power and record button (can almost do by touch w/o looking). In the beginning, I was taking a lot of bursts with my IPhone not quite as many after 4 mos. but still do even now. Since I shoot a lot of video, it was eating up battery and storage on my Iphone. Upload and download times from clouds are very slow (live in rural community-don’t have fiber optic) so 10-20 minute video can take over 24 hours, 2-3 minute video up to an hour. I carry 2 extra batteries with my camera and usually use at least 2 batteries during an outing sometimes 3. I use one 32mb memory card.
Due to eyesight issues, I feel I need at least a 10-11″ screen to do photo and video editing so improved editing function on the new Iphones will probably not be enough. Now I use my laptop to do very basic photo editing and my desktop for video editing (cutting out segments in middle to shorten videos). I still upload and print 4 X 6 photos sometimes (would do more if I had the time to go through and chose the best photos) I rarely print anything larger, so resolution isn’t an issue with the new smartphones. Image stabilization could be a big issue due to my rapid last second shooting. We travel some via car, plane, train, and My Canon pocket camera photos and videos are not blurry even when traveling 65 mph in a car which amazes me. Big bumps being the only issue. Photos from planes and trains are also great! I haven’t tried that with a new smartphone but doubt I’ll get the same results based on what I’ve read so far. Despite all that, I would absolutely LOVE to replace my pocket camera with a smartphone due to all the conveniences and efficiency that was mentioned. I have several competing hobbies/commitments so there is never enough time. I don’t do much photo/video sharing but know I would do more if it was less time consuming. I get a lot of social pressure to do that. I just don’t think the latest and largest IPhone 11 with max storage would meet my needs. Please convince me otherwise !!! I’m ready to buy. If only I could rent one for 3-4 mos with option to buy.