[redvenom]

The iPhone 12 may have some cool auto computational features, but in no way is it better than an ILC camera like a DSLR. If you actually compare image quality side by side, a DSLR typically will smoke an iPhone. Not to mention there is no way to go past ~100mm on even the best phones.

[vmception]

Oh I forgot, I only do portraits and stopped taking interchangeable lens cameras with me places over half a decade ago. I don't do landscapes or wildlife photography, nor did I ever have a desire to to make rivers look like smudges with a long exposure.

For portraits, iPhone 12 Pro in okay lighting is the first one where I say, yeah good enough and often times better.

I don't care about DXOMark, I care about what humans think, and across mediums a photo from an iPhone 12 Pro absolutely is good and great enough.

[matwood]

I keep trying to leave my DSLR at home, but instead am looking at upgrading my Nikon. I love the iPhone and what it can do, and think flagship phones are the best snapshot cameras there have ever been.

But, my Nikon with my 50mm just takes noticeably better pictures in so many situations, particularly portraits. And if I expand my lens usage to my wide angle or my 300mm now we’re into types of pictures phones are completely incapable of taking.

[Auracle]

This is going to sound unintentionally confrontational but I’ll put up one of my DSLR portrait shots against your phone shots any day.

Good enough? Maybe. Better than a much larger sensor and better lens? No way.

[vmception]

And what do you use those photos for?

I’m only going to sound realistic

[Auracle]

I’m a professional photographer, so...

Even if I wasn’t, I love large prints and we always have some up in our house. Cell phone pictures are fine if you’re looking at them on your phone - not so much at 20x30”.

[formerly_proven]

> The iPhone 12 Pro is better than EVIL & DSLR cameras

goalshifted into "it is ok enough for this single type of photo + light".

[vmception]

A daguerreotype was probably superior processing technology than film with paper but it wasn’t convenient or superior enough to remain an option.

That's where we are today, and that's what "better" colloquially means.

[latenightcoding]

knowing that you only do portraits makes me disagree with you even more, no way your iphone can come close to a portrait shot with an 85mm or 135mm lens. Also the bokeh effect on iphones looks super unnatural

[sudosysgen]

Well, if you take one single kind of image that the software is optimized to almost fake, yes you can get close. But you'll never get to the level of, say, an a7iii+85mm1.4 even for portraits, even in good light.

In any case, good enough and better are two very different words. I really enjoy taking pictures on an ILC much more and the results I get are noticeably better even in portraits, including by people that don't know what I took it with. For example, good luck emulating the look of a 135mm f/2.8 (at night) with an iPhone if we're talking about portraits, or good luck doing better than a 50mm 1.4 for street, good luck doing better than a 70-200 2.8, and so on.

But yes, it has a much lower skill ceiling and often more consistent results, and it really does get close.

[vmception]

I enjoy the a-series but that’s exactly what I’m moving on from

I think I’ll get a gimbal and some contraption to trigger flash and maybe some adapter lenses as they trickle out for this form factor

Yes, the consistency in such a wide range of lighting situations is what’s attractive. Along with the built in non-destructive editing. Soon, ProRAW for even more of that. Live Photos by default which “captures the moment” more than the composition itself, and a software and syncing pipeline that supports that seamlessly. With the nearest replacement being an entire tool-belt and bags of gear.

I think at this point we will see the market choose, and often times I ahead of the accepted trend on that. A daguerreotype was probably superior processing technology than film and paper but it wasn’t convenient enough to remain an option. Same went for film and dedicated digital cameras. I think this is where we are now with the iphone 12 pro and ProRAW, even for photo enthusiasts.

[sudosysgen]

Well, to boot, no, film and paper were far way easier and more powerful to process than daguerréotype, and digital is also way more powerful to process than film. That being said, I do think you lose out on a lot of convenience with an iPhone as your sole camera.

To start, you can actually crop. You can use lenses with a higher focal length than 70mm, which for many people makes all the difference in portraits. If you're using something like ProRAW, you're limited to 1/3 of an FPS vs 20FPS.

If you want to capture the moment on an ILC, you can also just hold the shutter. This would be the very first time we go from a platform that has higher image quality and more editing lattitude to a technology that has less of it. The replacement isn't an entire tool belt and bags of gear, for me it's an A7ii and a 28-75 2.8 (for a total cost lower than the iPhone 12 Pro + my current phone and will outlive it by four or five times).

As for sales, the iPhone has already gobbled up everything except the high end camera market, which is actually seeing increasing sales, so we'll see about that. I don't find it all that probable.

As for ProRAW, it's technically completely inferior to, say, an ARW file.

[geerlingguy]

You can go past 100mm (35mm equivalent), but the quality really turns to mud even with the best adapted lenses!