Digital Camera Recommendations

My guess is the 2nd is the iPhone shot. In my experience (a 5s, 6s, and 7) the iPhone has a lot of baked in sharpening and contrast enhancement that's apparent in that second shot. Of course the jpeg settings on the camera or whatever you did in post if you shot raw would have a huge impact as would the exposure parameters.


jeff
 
Agree with greenjp, the second image looks more heavily processed, but depending on particular settings, you could achieve similar results with a DSLR if you mess with its settings.
 
You all are correct, and yes the aggressive sharpening of the iPhone gives it away. The D3s image was processed from RAW in Lighroom with the exposure touched up a bit(ISO 800, f/8, and 1/80-I would have like a lower ISO but that's wht I needed for a hand-holdable shutter speed, and unlike newer Nikons the meter seems to bias a bit torwards under-exposure). Still, though, on the whole I'd say that they are pretty similar, and I can crank up the sharpness on the D3s image to make it look similar to the iPhone. I'm not sure whether or not the iPhone has an AA filter over the sensor-the pixel density would make me think that you could PROBABLY get away without one.

It's also worth mentioning, too, that the comparison falls apart in less-than-good light. The D3s base ISO is 200, and as can be seen, it takes very little hit from going to ISO 800. I've gone as high as 12,800 on it, and it's still good enough to turn out an 8x10 at that setting(I keep this relatively ancient camera around because the D4, Df, and D5 are better at high ISOs, but also cost a whole lot more). I didn't know what the iPhone was using until I looked at the EXIF data, and it reported ISO 80.

[Linked Image]
 
Originally Posted by bunnspecial
Still, though, on the whole I'd say that they are pretty similar,
I guess "pretty similar" is a relative term.
smile.gif


The iPhone photo has clipped shadows, beyond recovery - see the area on the ground under the bench. Either the detail was not captured due to the sensor's poor dynamic range, or the detail was captured but it got killed due to the phone's heavy built-in post processing. In either case, that detail is lost forever.

That's one aspect where shooting RAW has a huge advantage - on a properly calibrated monitor, you can easily see that detail in your Nikon shot. Not sure if the iPhone allows you to shoot in RAW to compare if it would fare any better in this particular scene.

[Linked Image]
 
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by bunnspecial
Still, though, on the whole I'd say that they are pretty similar,
I guess "pretty similar" is a relative term.
smile.gif


The iPhone photo has clipped shadows, beyond recovery - see the area on the ground under the bench. Either the detail was not captured due to the sensor's poor dynamic range, or the detail was captured but it got killed due to the phone's heavy built-in post processing. In either case, that detail is lost forever.

That's one aspect where shooting RAW has a huge advantage - on a properly calibrated monitor, you can easily see that detail in your Nikon shot. Not sure if the iPhone allows you to shoot in RAW to compare if it would fare any better in this particular scene.



Fair enough on that, and among other things I did "dig out" the shadows a bit when processing the RAW file-I always capture RAW+JPEG(on separate cards) on my main camera, so I will look at the JPEGs and see if the shadows are clipped that badly. I think there's a way to get RAW images from the iPhone, but I'm not positive.

In any case, the original point was made about a 3.2mp Fuji camera. Full frame CMOS sensors have an enormous amount of dynamic range-something that only continues to get better relative to this nearly 10 year old D3s-and IN GENERAL CCD sensors are not as good. The only real exception to this I can think of is the Fuji "Super CCDs" used in their DSLRs, which have two pixels per photosite to extend the DR. I do still use a Fuji Finepix S5 as I like both its color rendition and dynamic range.

So, my next project will be to both see if I can do a RAW capture from an iPhone, and also to try this same sort of test again with a CCD-based DSLR like a Nikon D200(10mp).

I also come back to the original claim that 3.2mp, 20 year old P&S looks better than an iPhone-I'm still skeptical of that for a lot of reasons.

BTW, I'm also NOT saying that the iPhone is in any way a replacement for a dedicated camera-just that I wouldn't necessarily dismiss one as being a useless toy. There are a lot of things I can do with a DSLR that would be impossible with a cell phone.
 
Originally Posted by Vikas
Did OP purchase new camera yet?

Yes, a few posts back he said he got a Panasonic G85, a micro four thirds camera.

jeff
 
I know that when I printed some pictures taken with my wife's iPhone 6 plus, and these were regular 4x6 photos, they looked average at best, but looked fantastic on screen. Lots of post processing artifacts showed up. My ancient Nikon d70s looked fantastic in comparison.

Maybe it has gotten better now, but I doubt it.

My advice is that if you want a camera for digital photo consumption and sharing, a good smartphone camera will be more than enough. But for quality prints, a DSLR or mirrorless camera will be hard to beat.
 
Originally Posted by bunnspecial
I also come back to the original claim that 3.2mp, 20 year old P&S looks better than an iPhone-I'm still skeptical of that for a lot of reasons.

BTW, I'm also NOT saying that the iPhone is in any way a replacement for a dedicated camera-just that I wouldn't necessarily dismiss one as being a useless toy. There are a lot of things I can do with a DSLR that would be impossible with a cell phone.

Totally agree with all your points here. That's why I asked the OP to post up some sample images because something just does not add up.
 
Originally Posted by KrisZ
I know that when I printed some pictures taken with my wife's iPhone 6 plus, and these were regular 4x6 photos, they looked average at best, but looked fantastic on screen. Lots of post processing artifacts showed up. My ancient Nikon d70s looked fantastic in comparison.

Maybe it has gotten better now, but I doubt it.

My advice is that if you want a camera for digital photo consumption and sharing, a good smartphone camera will be more than enough. But for quality prints, a DSLR or mirrorless camera will be hard to beat.

Concur on this. I only ever printed a 5x7 from my iPhone 5S (a 2013 phone), an outdoor shot during the day, and it looked OK in isolation but terrible compared to prints from my old Panasonic G3 (a 2011 camera). That G3 printed great up to 11x14, I don't think the iPhone's would have looked any good at that size.

jeff
 
The oldest P&S camera I currently have access to is Panasonic LX7, introduced in 2012 (cost $300 in 2014), so it is 10 years younger than OP's FinePix 3800, and it is more advanced, including larger sensor and a lot more pixels. Below is one comparison image against my Pixel 2 (unretouched JPEG in both cases). You guys decide which one you like better.

The first two are non-cropped, just resized.

The second two are cropped to show detail at 100% zoom.

Focus was on the glasses.

[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]


[Linked Image]
[Linked Image]



In reality, I can shoot both of these in RAW and then tweak them in Lightroom to make both look similar and to my preference, but that requires time and skill, which not everyone has. If someone is looking for a P&S camera, that someone is probably not interested in dealing with post processing, even though sometimes that is what it takes to turn a bad photo into a decent one or to make the photo come out well on paper.
 
Fortunately, it is all moot now because OP purchased a micro four thirds camera; an excellent choice. Of course it is far from a P&S camera at only 100% over the original budget!
 
Originally Posted by Vikas
Fortunately, it is all moot now
I'm still curious why his 17-year-old FinePix takes better photos than his iPhone XS.
smile.gif
 
Decent P&S and mirror less body cameras have superior lens and optics over the best phone.

The smartphones have incredible hardware and sortware to manipulate the image taken by lessor optics.

There is not a single camera maker who could afford the hardware costs and software development efforts like a smartphone maker can. So cameras rely on optics with less image processing. Smartphones have image processing up their sleeve.

I prefer smartphone because hauling cameras is miserable but at times yes images can be better.
 
Last edited:
I want to bump this.

Looks like manufacturers are not even attempting to make them any more. I have been looking to get a pocket travel camera with high zoom aka typical Panasonic Lumix but it seems like the last year was 2017 when they stopped making any more.

I opened mine once and removed the dust blob but the blobs are back and I am afraid those are on the intermediate lens and surgery required to fix that is beyond my capability.

I thought I could buy new but anything worthwhile costs more than good iPhone! The Sony RX with Zeiss lens or Lumix with Leica is more than iPhone 13 Pro!

Even with $400 budget, I am limited to 2016 or 2017 model of Sony or Panasonic with the well known marginal reliability of the lens moving mechanism which attracts dirt and sand.

The rational is "But I don't want to take out my "iPhone 13 Pro Max" in 3rd world country; so I want small P&S camera instead and I liked the Lumix (before it developed smudges again)" - Or call that my "marching orders".

I do not know if I can argue with "the boss" and tell "Instead of safeguarding the iPhone *and* the camera; just concentrate on safeguarding and using iPhone". But you know how that argument will go.
 
The rational is "But I don't want to take out my "iPhone 13 Pro Max" in 3rd world country; so I want small P&S camera instead and I liked the Lumix (before it developed smudges again)" - Or call that my "marching orders".


Even in a third world country everyone takes out their smartphone to take pictures and videos.
 
$400? I would pick a used DSLR if possible, otherwise look at review and see which one has the best dynamic range, newest biggest sensor and lense, etc. My opinion is the limitation is always in the amount of light you can get in and the size of the sensor and lense of the same generation pretty much dictates the result.
 
I cleaned the sensor again on that Lumix and now those spots are gone. I have no idea if the camera will complete its next trip without developing the spots again but my wife loves the camera so I hope it works for her.

Need a purse friendly high zoom, so DSLR is out of question. Even a mirror less is too big for the job.
 
Back
Top