[jlarocco]

I think it'd be more useful comparing with a "decent" point and shoot, because that's the market being eroded by camera phones. The only people moving from DSLRs to camera phones probably didn't really need the power of a DSLR in the first place.

[rcthompson]

Yes, a comparison with a decent point-and-shoot camera would be good, but the purpose of including a high-quality DSLR shot in the comparison would be as a reference point for "this is the best that the shot can possibly look", in order to put things on an absolute scale rather than just a relative one. (Obviously, the article text should make this purpose clear.)

[jrockway]

The best camera is the one you have with you. Once the moment has passed, having a better camera isn't going to recreate that moment. The iPhone pretty much wins this every time. It's always with you.

If you're in the studio creating scenes, you aren't going to use your iPhone, so it doesn't really matter. If you're going to buy a camera to carry everywhere, you're still not going to use your iPhone. So it's really an academic theoretical issue, in my opinion.

[tedunangst]

"I'm visiting Chicago this weekend; should I bring my big camera or can I save space by taking just my phone?" is not an academic theoretical question for some people.

[jrockway]

Bring your big camera. If it's too obtrusive for someone you want to photograph on the street, you have your iPhone in your pocket anyway.

[asavadatti]

I feel like you are not getting the point.

[jrockway]

The point is that the iPhone is technically utter garbage compared to even the cheapest low-end DSLR. Zoom into 100% on any iPhone picture and you're going to see nothing but compression artifacts with whatever remains blurred by pocket lint on the microscopically small lens.

Meanwhile, your DSLR is sitting at home in the closet. Guess which picture wins.

Here are two pictures I took recently, one with the iPhone, when the light was amazing, and one with my DSLR much later in the day, when the light sucked: https://goo.gl/photos/cnMFQaeUNHcBQdVG7

The clouds in the iPhone photo look amazing, and there are no cars in the street cluttering the view. But zoom in and see nothing but sensor noise and blurring from compression and generally poor technical performance of the camera.

Then look at the one taken with my DSLR. You can zoom in far down the street and read signs perfectly. But there is nothing interesting in the picture at all.

The iPhone phone camera sucked. The iPhone photo wins.

(Honestly, the iPhone camera almost ruins the picture, it would have looked amazing with the DSLR. But it was at home on my shelf. Not very useful there.)

[greendestiny]

Yes but the point is - it's a given that people want better cameras in their iPhones. They want to see DSLR images to see what they are missing out on and what they aspire to. The DSLR is just a sensor benchmark.

[jrockway]

Just go to Flickr or look at any picture in the New York Times. That's what DSLR pictures look like.

[christoph]

Upvoted because I completely agree and iterated the same in the parent/grandparent. So many scenarios where I couldn't be bothered to drag my SLR and lenses and was more than happy with the results from my iPhone to the point I now only drag the SLR out for very specific circumstances. Even then I miss the connectivity/social/quick retouching aspect the phone gives me that I can only dream of having on the SLR. A lot of my SLR photos still never leave my memory card/hard drive and get to be seen by the people around me.

[coldtea]

>but the purpose of including a high-quality DSLR shot in the comparison would be as a reference point for "this is the best that the shot can possibly look"

Ever heard of medium format? (and there are other options too).

[tormeh]

Commercial medium format cameras are, disappointingly enough, optimized for studio shoots and don't do well in low-light or other challenging conditions. Hasselblad isn't best at everything.

[coldtea]

Depends on what one asks from them. They might don't do as well on low light as a Sony high-end mirrorless, but they far exceed what their analogue medium format ancestors did (ISO/noise wise), which is more than enough.

I find this modern preoccupation with crazy ISOs (which one would never use in the film era) a red herring. Especially for landscape work, it's a non issue. What you want there is excellent dynamic range, which those offers.

And there are some such as these that are quite the monster: Pentax 645Z.

[jlarocco]

It wouldn't be any more absolute than it is now. If anything, it would just open it up to a million other critiques related to the DSLR chosen.

And it'd be mostly irrelevant anyway, because it ignores all the other advantages of using a DSLR.