iPhone 5 vs Budget Compact

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by boBQuincy

This may explain the high level of acceptance of phones as cameras, the average viewer is not looking for the same things in an image that photographers are looking for.

Very good point. And this is true in both directions.
There are reasons the "average" viewer may prefer the iphone and the enthusiast would prefer a separate budget compact, and there are reasons where the average viewer may prefer a separate compact and the enthusiast is happy with the iphone.

For example -- Seen some people bemoan the weak flash in the iphone. But a real enthusiast, is generally not happy with built-in flashes regardless.
Similarly, while all users may consider zoom, it seems to be a higher priority for the average user, while the advanced photographer is more understanding of the need to zoom with your feet. (I think many "average users" would take a $200 Canon SX260 with super zoom, over the $2800 fixed lens Sony RX1, purely based on the zoom. But no enthusiast would make that choice if they could have either camera for the same price).

On the other side, the iphone does seem to produce bright and less subtle images... which are often preferred by the "average viewers" as you were talking about.

Of course, a lot of "bad" iphone photographs, are simply because they are taken by people with absolutely no knowledge or intuition for photography.

Take the smart phone and put it in the hands of someone who knows photography... and you can get impressive results. And the same can be said for a "budget" compact as well.

[boBQuincy]

Originally Posted by havoc315

Similarly, while all users may consider zoom, it seems to be a higher priority for the average user, while the advanced photographer is more understanding of the need to zoom with your feet.

On that topic, the main use of a zoom lens may be to compensate for distance but zooming with our feet is still not the whole answer. The primary reason for choosing a focal length should be to set the size of the subject once we have established a position that sets the desired relationship between foreground and background items.

This is not often done but I see it in many of the best photos on this board.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by boBQuincy

On that topic, the main use of a zoom lens may be to compensate for distance but zooming with our feet is still not the whole answer. The primary reason for choosing a focal length should be to set the size of the subject once we have established a position that sets the desired relationship between foreground and background items.

This is not often done but I see it in many of the best photos on this board.

All true. Particularly, if you are trying to achieve a bokeh effect. (I love to use my 210mm zoom lens, for semi-macro shots)

But I don't think most lay people are using such considerations. How often do you see "good zoom" as the top priority for a layperson shopping for a camera. And that is usually not the top priority of a photo enthusiast. I'm not saying zoom is unimportant for an enthusiast, just saying it doesn't have the same priority and often has a different use. (Would a layperson rather have a superzoom lens, or a series of prime lenses at different focal lengths? Which would the enthusiast prefer to have most of the time?)

[rossb]

Originally Posted by havoc315

For example -- Seen some people bemoan the weak flash in the iphone. But a real enthusiast, is generally not happy with built-in flashes regardless.
...
Of course, a lot of "bad" iphone photographs, are simply because they are taken by people with absolutely no knowledge or intuition for photography.

Umm, ok. I guess that is a jab at the iPhone pics I posted. GMAFB, your samples were nothing to look at either.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by rossb

I just came from a family party. Two of these pics were taken with an iPhone 4s (not mine). The other was taken with a $185 Canon SX260 pocket Megazoom. Both images are sized down, the iPhone pics were downloaded from a post to Facebook.

Truthfully, the best of these 3 images is the first one. The only negative with it, is the resolution is quite low -- It appears that it was ripped off a facebook page, explaining the low resolution.
The second group shot is very poorly composed, and the resolution appears to be reduced by ripping it off facebook. Would need the full resolution image to judge.
The 3rd image is the only 1 posted at full resolution. It's sharpness is ok (probably better than the 2nd image, but can't really tell without seeing the full resolution copy of the second image), with some bad glare, shadows and red-eye from the flash.

The first image is the sharpest with most even lighting. The full resolution version of the picture is likely the best of the 3.

[photo_chick]

Originally Posted by havoc315

All true. Particularly, if you are trying to achieve a bokeh effect. (I love to use my 210mm zoom lens, for semi-macro shots)

But I don't think most lay people are using such considerations. How often do you see "good zoom" as the top priority for a layperson shopping for a camera. And that is usually not the top priority of a photo enthusiast. I'm not saying zoom is unimportant for an enthusiast, just saying it doesn't have the same priority and often has a different use. (Would a layperson rather have a superzoom lens, or a series of prime lenses at different focal lengths? Which would the enthusiast prefer to have most of the time?)

Just considering depth of field is a little oversimplifying things when you start talking about spatial relationships in regards to focal lengths. There's also perspective and compression which are arguably bigger considerations much of the time than depth of field.

But I agree, for most casual shooters who just want to pick up a camera and go on auto zoom is all about reach. Really, most enthusiasts only consider reach and maybe depth of field when they are deciding what focal length to use. Spatial relationships are advanced aspect of photography that many just don't think about. But it can make a huge difference in some images.

[rossb]

Originally Posted by havoc315

The 3rd image is the only 1 posted at full resolution.

A 1280 pixel wide image is not full resolution. I am not going to address your other comments as you have already made up your mind on this topic.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by rossb

A 1280 pixel wide image is not full resolution. I am not going to address your other comments as you have already made up your mind on this topic.

I can't see the pixel count. But quite clearly, the third image is posted at a much higher resolution than the other 2.

The iPhone 4s.. as an 8mp camera, should be able to produce good resolution shots at normal print sizes. Those shots appear to be greatly reduced resolution.

[rossb]

Originally Posted by havoc315

I can't see the pixel count. But quite clearly, the third image is posted at a much higher resolution than the other 2.

The iPhone 4s.. as an 8mp camera, should be able to produce good resolution shots at normal print sizes. Those shots appear to be greatly reduced resolution.

It is as simple as right-clicking the image in your browser and then clicking properties. The top two are 960 and the third is 1280. You could also just download the 3 images to your local drive. I can understand why you favor the Phone if you think the first two are 'reduced' and the third is 'full sized'.

[boBQuincy]

Originally Posted by havoc315

Of course, a lot of "bad" iphone photographs, are simply because they are taken by people with absolutely no knowledge or intuition for photography.
.

As I go off on a tangent again, to paraphrase Alain Briot: talent or intuition may count for something but the harder I work at this and the more time I spend trying to improve, the better my talent and intuition become.

[boBQuincy]

Originally Posted by photo_chick

Just considering depth of field is a little oversimplifying things when you start talking about spatial relationships in regards to focal lengths. There's also perspective and compression which are arguably bigger considerations much of the time than depth of field.

But I agree, for most casual shooters who just want to pick up a camera and go on auto zoom is all about reach. Really, most enthusiasts only consider reach and maybe depth of field when they are deciding what focal length to use. Spatial relationships are advanced aspect of photography that many just don't think about. But it can make a huge difference in some images.

You have obviously studied this. It is an advanced topic but a key part of photography where a small change can make a big difference in the photograph. It is harder to sell than megapixels and zoom range so we don't hear much about it.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by rossb

It is as simple as right-clicking the image in your browser and then clicking properties. The top two are 960 and the third is 1280. You could also just download the 3 images to your local drive. I can understand why you favor the Phone if you think the first two are 'reduced' and the third is 'full sized'.

I don't get an option for properties when I right-click those photos..... But if your numbers are correct, then the third picture has a 30% greater resolution, that's a very big difference at the photo sizes you posted. It's also a matter of the image being degraded by posting on facebook.
I'd be interested in seeing the "originals" of all 3 images, but truthfully, it's really only helpful if the images are taken at the same composition, by the same photographer.
The first image is the sharpest, with the most even exposure.
But if you disagree, it does show that different people will judge image quality differently.

[rossb]

I have IE and Firefox on my desktop. Both let me right-click images and view either 'Properties' or 'Image Info', which returns the image dimensions.

Downsizing is very kind to iPhone images, they will look much worse in full resolution. You already decided that photo 1 is best and I don't think the full resolution versions will change your mind. Photo 1 is from the phone, so I guess the phone can be declared the winner of this comparison.

[boBQuincy]

Originally Posted by rossb

Downsizing is very kind to iPhone images, they will look much worse in full resolution. You already decided that photo 1 is best and I don't think the full resolution versions will change your mind. Photo 1 is from the phone, so I guess the phone can be declared the winner of this comparison.

That has been my experience as well, iPhone photos look good on an iPhone display but on a large monitor they don't hold up well. In low light it gets worse very quickly. I took some in Be Our Guest ballroom, the noise is bad and the detail is gone but on the iPhone display they look pretty good.

The lens is about 6mm diameter and the sensor is 1/3.2" afaik. It is really good for what it is but it isn't powered by pixie dust!

[photo_chick]

Originally Posted by havoc315

I can't see the pixel count. But quite clearly, the third image is posted at a much higher resolution than the other 2.

The iPhone 4s.. as an 8mp camera, should be able to produce good resolution shots at normal print sizes. Those shots appear to be greatly reduced resolution.

Are you sure that's not noise you're seeing? Looks a lot more like noise and not low resolution to me on those first two. But what do I know. I'm just a girl with a camera.