[personZ]

The Galaxy S5 and iPhone 6 both feature on sensor phase detection. Further it's worth nothing that the whole notion of "n points of autofocus" is a flaw of phase detection, not a feature -- contrast detection has millions of possible points of autofocus. And indeed, most high-end SLRs have contrast-detection modes (e.g. Canon LiveView) that brings benefits that often merit its regular use, and are mandated for things like video mode.

I think you're presenting some sort of knowledge gap that is contrived. I used SLRs for years. I seldom use it anymore because the results of my smartphone, under many normal circumstances, are comparable. This is the case for many people. The camera you have and all of that, and they just keep getting better and better.

[Someone1234]

The primary benefit of a larger sensor is shooting in sub-optimal conditions. If all you do is take photos in perfect daylight then a smartphone can likely do as well.

SLRs shine when there is more lighting range (e.g. strong shadows and light) in the shot and in particular when it is a lower-light situation. A smartphone has to start doing HDR (which has inherent downsides, like its inability to record motion) a lot sooner than a lot of SLRs as the dynamic range is wider on the latter.

You also lose physical controls and the ability to change lenses on a smartphone, which slows you down, and makes your shots look more samey. The viewfinder (either EVF or OVF) is also a huge benefit when shooting in either strong sunlight or extreme darkness (as the LCD's backlight can bleed light into your shot).

As to contrast Vs. phase detection: Contrast is very accurate for non-moving targets and even some moving targets (thanks largely to software). Phase detection is still the king of the castle when it comes to high speed and erratic motion however, by far.

[personZ]

Yes, of course. I'm not saying that SLRs don't have a place. If you're a wedding photographer, you probably shouldn't bring your iPhone to the job.

But the post I replied to took it to the point of absurdity, where people questioned whether these were really "cameras", and you either have the fools amazed by their crummy results, or the pros who see through that ruse. That is nonsense. I've owned a number of SLRs through the years, back to a 35MM Minolta 9xi with a number of lenses. I am amazed at what is possible with smartphones, and constantly surprised at the very good shots they yield.

Further, just to put this into perspective, an iPhone 6 or a recent Lumia, with its tiny little sensor and tiny little lens, has attributes that beat out God like SLRs from just a few years ago. Those cameras were pro quality, best of the best then, but now the devices that beat them aren't worth calling cameras?

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5533410947/smartphones-vers...

[Someone1234]

That article doesn't support your conclusions. The graphs is totally worthless as the article admits:

> The graph is misleading at first glance because the phones and the cameras sit on different scales. So it’s not saying that the phones are better than current DSLRs, despite scoring higher.

So your conclusion:

> Further, just to put this into perspective, an iPhone 6 or a recent Lumia, with its tiny little sensor and tiny little lens, has attributes that beat out God like SLRs from just a few years ago.

Is not only not supported by contradicted by your link. Did you actually read it or just look at the graph and link?

[personZ]

"Splitting the difference between candlelight and daylight, around 6 years of technology has made up for the massive difference in the size of the lenses and sensors between the best phone and the $2,000 DSLRs."

"Phil Askey from DPReview described it as “the absolute best in its class, with the best image quality, lowest high sensitivity noise, superb build quality and excellent price.” He described the “Excellent resolution”, the “Noise free ‘silky smooth’ images”, with “very low noise levels even at ISO 1600.” The EOS 10D ran rings around the film that we’d been using for 50 years in terms of clarity and freedom from grain.

Yet it’s comprehensively humbled by modern phones. The iPhone out-shoots it, and the Nokia out-resolves it, all by huge margins."

Should I continue? Did you actually read it? Did you just rush to it to find a confirmation that SLRs are better? Of course they are better. Its point is that the same SLRs we lauded as extraordinary a mere decade ago -- and in some cases much more recently -- are now humbled, badly, by standard smartphones. Do you think the SLR owner of a decade ago was saying "yes, my device is junk. Just sticking with the form factor until it gets decent."?

As to the chart that you seemed to take offense at, its point was demonstrating the extremely rapid improvement in smartphone cameras. Each year the camera is significantly better than the year before, still in the tiny, integrated little module.