[mod50ack]

> That's overly broad. A lot of what photographers do doesn't need those capabilities (hell, some photographers work with literal children's toys),

OK, but nobody is doing serious photographic work (professional or hobbyist) using children's toy cameras. Those are used for an occasional laugh. Now, yes, you can photograph most things with your phone. But my full-frame cameras produce WAY better portraits than my phone, which is supposed to have a fairly decent camera for a phone.

> My last two phones have been able to do this, FWIW.

Good! Hopefully this will become more common. The fact that the Pixel 6 Pro expands the sensor size but keeps a fixed-aperture lens made the camera worse, as far as I'm concerned.

[lmm]

> OK, but nobody is doing serious photographic work (professional or hobbyist) using children's toy cameras.

Some serious artistic photographers do do serious work with them, taking pictures to show in galleries and the like. I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone was out there doing professional e.g. wedding photography with one, for customers who want photos that look a bit different. Of course it's a stylistic choice, but camera choice often is.

> But my full-frame cameras produce WAY better portraits than my phone, which is supposed to have a fairly decent camera for a phone.

Now that's interesting - well-lit, no motion or anything, but still much better portraits? Would be interested to hear some more details about what's different/better.

[mod50ack]

> Of course it's a stylistic choice, but camera choice often is.

OK, I guess I mean to exclude this kind of work which is done because the cameras are of much worse technical quality — these are by definition not applications for which traditional dedicated cameras are used.

In other words, the toys are not replacements for more capable equipment. Yes, you can shoot with a Barbie camera (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkmrFguxgS0). But nobody could seriously claim that it replaces any standard ILC. We're not discussing whether or not phones (or Barbies) can take photos; we're talking about whether or not they can replace ILCs, and in what applications.

> Now that's interesting - well-lit, no motion or anything, but still much better portraits? Would be interested to hear some more details about what's different/better.

Well, of course, also, we don't always have good lighting or a lack of motion. Often, I am photographing people in motion, or in poor lighting, or both. And that's not a super niche thing. Imagine photographing an actor who is in the middle of a rehearsal (which I've done many times). A dedicated camera is just the right tool for that job, with the appropriate lens attached. Not to mention, of course, you want to have a somewhat telephoto lens for that — and one area where phone cameras have been, to my eyes, mostly marketing bluster is that of "super-zoom."

But looking back just at the same gear example I mentioned earlier: I often use my Sigma 135mm f/1.8 lens on my (full-frame) Canon R5. Now, I'll concede that this lens itself is much, much larger than anything you could slap on a phone, and the full-frame sensor is also far bigger than what you'd find on any phone, so you'd EXPECT something larger.

Now, to be fair, this is one of the lenses you can buy (tied with a Canon and Sony of the same spec) with some of the shallowest possible DOF on a full-frame camera. I don't always shoot wide open, but sometimes I do. In the ideal situation, I'd be shooting at ISO 100. And a 45MP FF sensor at its base ISO is just going to be ... really good. Admittedly, the iPhone (more than the Pixel, to my eyes, by a LONG shot) can produce some OK fake bokeh. But I suppose that my eye is good enough to know real bokeh from fake. My R5 will focus perfectly on the point I want and get the shot I am looking for every time. And AI-based trickery won't work equally well with all subjects; pure optics stays the same no matter what you're shooting.

The Pixel, though, in my opinion, produces pretty bad photos. Everything is NR'd, sharpened and HDR'd until it looks like a watercolor. I much prefer to apply (in most cases) pretty limited adulteration to my photos (which I shoot in RAW). I can shoot RAW with my phone, but I've never been anywhere near satisfied with the results. I will confess that the RAW results from the iPhone are significantly better, though still nothing like what I get from my dedicated camera. (I won't use an iPhone for reasons unrelated to photography.)

[Krisando]

Not the grand parent.

> The Pixel, though, in my opinion, produces pretty bad photos.

I've had the opportunity to play with iPhone 14, it has 12 megapixel cameras, but I find that the image quality is no difference to 8 megapixels of detail, and if you use third party applications that can take pictures without post processing, it's often closer to 6 megapixels and the grain in the image is not great. Smart phones don't appear to be resolving the detail advertised.

> I shoot in RAW

Shooting raw on my Android phones (since the iPhone 14 won't let me) shows there is clearly very little dynamic range, which when trying to do beautiful processing on skin tones or such, come out very flat (regardless if going for natural or unrealistically perfect).

I do a lot of photography in poor lighting, I over expose a lot so I can the details in the shadow, and then bring it back down in post processing in raw. Try to do anything similar on phones, terrible grain. Leave it to the phone processing, it does some really bad approaches at AEB with post processing and not very good handling on the HDR merge, plus the exposure time is huge, meh.

> But I suppose that my eye is good enough to know real bokeh from fake.

It's not convincing to me because you can see stuff like the background between strands of hair in focus. I imagine it's only going to get better at that.

The biggest problem with phone photography is sensor size currently and it seems unlikely we're going to have larger sensor sizes when it requires more flange distance for the optics.

[mod50ack]

Yeah, the iPhone doesn't have the best camera by any means. But having received some RAW photos from one, I feel like they at least don't look super shitty before you push them. Now, they do not compare to RAWs from my actual cameras (whether the R5 or 5Diii). But they at least might be worth looking at.

The iPhone does shoot RAW, by the way: 12-bit DNG, but apparently perhaps only on the Pro models. Also, the 48MP camera of the iPhone 14 Pro (this is the model whose RAWs I viewed, but I don't own one) can produce 48MP DNGs. In good light they can look decent enough for what they are.

The Pixel 6 Pro just takes smeary photos. Their NR and compression makes them look blocky like screencaps from a video.

I also have used the Sony Xperia 1ii (used to own this phone for a while). This was supposedly a phone with a focus on the camera. In my experience, it looked pretty bad.

The fake bokeh will get better, I'm sure, but it can never beat the real deal. Real shallow DOF already exists; sure, faking it will get closer, and that's probably enough for the average Joe, but it's not like we can't just keep using the real thing, which doesn't have the potential flaws.

The thing about larger sensors, of course, is that they require lenses that project a larger image circle — and phone lenses can't really be like ILC lenses because, well, the form factors conflict. You can't stuff a 135/1.8 in your pocket; the laws of optics are what makes those lenses as big as they are.

[Kye]

I had been hoping for metamaterial lenses to solve the physics problem, but that recent demo made it clear consumer applications are a very long way off. I can't actually find the demo, but it was someone from one of the three letter agencies showing it off on a stage. Maybe someone else will have it. It only shot in monochrome. The quality was good, and the lens was a lot smaller than an ordinary ILC lens on a camera you'd normally need to get that quality. But the presenter didn't offer much hope of it being better quickly. The demo was for a very specific scientific application.