Phone camera are always over sharpen and over satuated in photo/video. Yes, I used my phone camera for unexpected occasion in the public. When I am purposely going out somewhere to take photo or video, I always carry my EOS R5C or GH5 with me. I don't mind the size at all. When I am on vacation I always bring my big camera and a small camera (Samsung NX500 28MP BSI)with a tiny flash attach at all time for indoor or restaurant shot. This work out perfectly for me. I never used phone for any picture on my vacation photos. My dedicate cameras always is my prefer choice.

Photographers can tell the differences. But, mostly, don’t care about the differences as long as they’re well taken.

Is. It better than using the Sony FE 50mm f1.8 should I upgrade

You cant change the f value (diaphram) on phone camera.

Always use the fitting tool for the job. On some occasions a phone is a better option, on others a camera.

would love to see anyone take any wildlife shots on a phone lol, not macro, not pet, actual decent wildlife, phones are outstanding for street, life, basically anything I can do on a 14 > 50 mill lens range after that the images fall apart very very quickly, PS the 14 ultra camera kit at least makes the phone feel like a camera, with exposure comp on the dial and a focus and shutter button, helps become more familiar and stable if your used to a camera, not a phone

Thank u . I have fz 1000ii Lumix . This helped thank u auto on f7 button

my phone camera? no, it sucks and it's awkward to take photos with it. getting my palms fingers messed up trying to reach for the "shutter" button while i can just pick up my dedicated camera. on top of that, the quality isn't anywhere near since its a 6 or 7 year old smartphone now, and it's no iPhone either. unless my phone is modern enough for acceptable editorial photos, im continuing to use my canon or Panasonic.

I try to limit how I use my phone, so it's not a disaster if I lose/break it, although either of those things would be very inconvenient! That's why, like you, it stays in my pocket most of the time. I almost always have a dedicated camera with me, for all of the reasons you mention. My current "A" cam is the Lumix G9M2, as I like being able to have 12-800mm available without having to carry a large/heavy pack and I give up nothing in terms of "IQ" to larger sensor systems. That said, it isn't always practical to carry a complete kit or even change lenses (only idiots try that in the rain), so I just got a Sony RX10IV. I have a a Lumix FZ1000, but it's not weatherproof and there's really no other camera that can complete with the RX10IV for travel (and general) use. Being able to go from 24-600mm with no worries (and no pack) is a huge advantage. If I need shorter than 24mm, my phone can do 12mm, so unless I need 800mm (mostly for wildlife), more macro flexibility, or it's dark (even with great NR, much beyond ISO 3200 is a stretch for a 1" sensor), I'm more than covered. Shame on Sony for not only failing to update this camera in seven years (although it's still amazing, it needs dual cards slots, a flippy screen, and a few other things, but the lens and sensor are still great), but they just ended production. I hope enough people request them to create a Mk V for them to do so (and/or get Lumix to make the FZs weatherproof)! Most of the time, the bridge camera is probably the best choice for the vast majority of photographers at any level!

Try making a print bigger than 5x7 and you will see the difference.

Thank you for putting out these videos where you address the biggest issues this camera has. I understand is not for everyone, but I became a follower of the GR series with the GR II. I still love the camera even though it's full of dust spots that are very noticeable and hard to remove digitally, which is my biggest gripe with the camera. Despite all that, I think I'm ready to get the GR IIIx and be prepared with an adapter, filter and even some gaffer tape.

Yup

You sound like my wife. A phone is not for forever pictures.

absolutely right at all ! i need also a mindset and a tool in my hand..

One more important BIG different. THE VIEWFINDER.

For me it was difficult to get used to Sony as a brand. In the 1980s it used to be 5 good Japanese brands for 35mm SLRs, Pentax, Olympus, Canon, Minolta and Nikon (in random order) plus some expensive Swedish and German brands plus some good Japanese niche players. Out of these I had 2 favorites. But now it is different. For Fullframe/APSC it is Sony, Canon, Nikon and some minor suppliers (Fuji, Lumix, OMsystems, Pentax...) for MFT it is a bit different... If I were starting today I would look into Sony, Nikon and MFT, skipping my favorite brands... That said, I always thought, that Sony should have retained the good name "Minolta", but Minolta having the reputation of being a bit behind Nikon and Canon, maybe starting with a new brand and building a new reputation as modern brand actually was a smart move..

Hello and thanks for the nice photos. Can you explain are photos edited or straight of camera? And what setting?

Thank you so much for your informative video as usual. I cannot agree with you more.

Phone + a cinema camera exclusively for work is the best combo. Popular budget hybrid cameras are overrated and usually for social media influencers. I would say if you really wanna get a camera, dont mess around and get one for something you actually wanna do professionally. If you wanna be a wildlife photographer, then buy a high end camera with a zoom lens straight away. No need for starting on a budget. You already have that in your pocket - your phone.

Phone cameras are crap.

I insist that my students use a camera and the viewfinder of the camera for class work. cell phones are very potent, pieces of equipment that produce good images consistently. It does lend itself to anecdotal (accidental) images that can be easily transmitted to other cell phones. The viewfinder forces you to frame, to consider and make decisions on the treatment of your subject. That's how one makes art.

Blasphemy with your opening line Matti! We all know a dedicated camera will always be better.

Everything you said, but also data security. Once you have seen someone framing up a shot with their phone only to have it nicked by a fly past snatch & grab on an electric scooter, it makes you realise the risks. If you get your phone nicked you lose your data, contacts, apps and all the security risks associated with it + the days of hassle trying to get it all sorted out. I usually pack at least a GX800 Pana with a cap lens, pocket sized. If it gets nicked or falls in the river, that's a bummer, but all I have to do is logon to MPB and buy another one.

If you can't tell the difference between a cell phone and a camera, you should reconsider your profession.

Also, you cannot load a film into a smartphone 🎞️😊

It's a completely different vibe and shooting experience for me with a "Real Camera." I hate LCD screens. The magic happens when you put your eye to a Viewfinder. You become one with your camera at that point.

cell phones are radio active cameras are not

Smartphone camera looks so artificial. I'd still go for dedicated camera.

Well, almost a click bate subject. Strong and different opinions guaranteed. My take? It all depends on what you are doing with your images. Yes, the best phone cameras produce nice images in most circumstances when watched at small phone screens, or printed in small to medium sizes. That is good enough for most people. But for people that use their images for large prints or in video productions that are watched on large TV's (42 inch and up) phone images are often not that nice to watch. All modern phones use a lot of image manipulations (with or without AI). And these images can look very artificial, especially when watched on large screens/prints. I use my Pixel phones for easy shooting/non demanding images and sending images around. For my more demanding work I use dedicated cameras. Not only for better image quality, but also because a real camera is much easier to handle when you don't want all-auto photography and you want to use specific settings to get the image the way you want it to look, not how the phonemaker wants it to look. With some phones you can change settings as well, but it is a pain to make these settings on a small screen. Just my two cents.

In my experience the phone camera has become so much better it has replaced the need for the dedecated consumer grade camera. To get better result than you can get with a phone camera you dont get with really expensive cameras, you need te hskill to use your tool. So I dont see any use cases for a dedicated fixed lens camera anymore. But system cameras paired with the skill to use it will still be far superior to the phone camera.

Phone cameras are for NPCs. They don’t care, they don’t know, they just have been told.

I use both for photography, but I prefer cameras. I get better photos and I can control the camera.

They might produce good pictures. BUT such a horrible experience. Its not just the picture, but the whole experience of the picture taking. For me. Only a camera gives me the 100% good Feeling.

Matti I urge you to really try current, modern photography centric android phones. If based on yesteryear's phones, of course the quality isn't as good. But tech has moved quite significantly forward since then. Try the vivo x200 pro and really give it a good chance. I have the previous year's one and to be honest it has replaced my macro lens and my tele lens on my fuji. It is that good. If you base your assessment based on an iphone, an actual camera wins every time, hands down.

I agree with you completely. My cell phone can do everything including excellent video. There are only 3 situations where Cell phone may not win, fast action, low light situation and super zoom. Try your Cell phone for birds in flight and sports. How about low light situations cell phone flash is a joke. Overall I still think cell phone is still fantastic. Those of you professional photographers can deny all you want about cell phone. Most pictures taken today are for social sharing. Pictures in Facebook and Instagram I cant tell the difference.

Thank you, good topic!

I love the images you shot with the phone, great compositions, interesting subject. nice contrast with colors... I can't yet do that with a phone. I need the isolation of the view finder to frame my shots. You seem to have lots of talent and experience. Nice!

Awesome video!

an iPhone delivers almost all the things I want from a camera, as well as some things that are much better than traditional cameras. The one thing they don't offer is a large sensor and interchangeable lenses. You can very easily see the difference in those situations. That doesn't mean that the iPhone isn't a "real" camera, it is just a camera that doesn't have a large sensor or the ability to use interchangeable lenses. I actually find that it is awesome to have a second camera.

I think the main concept here is that the phone people laugh at you when you oull out a bag of gear and stuff around with settings, like some old tech from the past, whereas they just pull out their phone and take the shot, and lets face it way good enough. I was in Phnom Penh at one of the famous sky bars, a group of young Chinese came in and one of the pretty girls was posing for the boys, of course we were all snapping away. My mate snapped a single shot with his Apple phone and on the back of his screen it looked pretty dam good, while I snapped a few shots with my Olympus and the 25mm 1.8. I saw his photo on the back of his screen and though jeez, its better than mine. I asked him to email me the image, when I looked at it on my computer screen it was as flat as a pancake. Sure my image was shot in RAW, but once processed it was 100% better, when you are a camera guy its a personal journey, and the nuances of a great image is wasted on 95% of the cell phone clan

In my personal experience people absolutely did and do complain about poor image quality from cell phone cameras. In my case it was my wife. She was so displeased with our cell phone cameras made her look (and our child look), she was willing to invest in a state-of-the-art mirrorless camera and lens combo. Modern "high quality camera phones" are the modern version of the old disposable film cameras or a polaroid. They are convenient. They take good-enough quality images in any typical situation a family find themselves in. And in the case of a polaroid, they are instant. That being said, to my eye (and my wife's eye) they all look very highly processed which typically translates to muddy color, soft, poor contrast images.

is it good for portraits?

Japanese company, all the way! I don’t care if it is expensive!

Nature, especially leaves and grass, look bad if they were photographed with a mobile phone. Mobile phone cameras simply cannot take a nice photo in nature. For street photography (cars, buildings, restaurants) it is perfectly fine. Also, processing photos from a mobile phone in Lightroom makes no sense, the quality always deteriorates rather than improves.

People won't be able to tell the difference as long as you limit yourself to things the phone's software is designed to do, but as soon as you step outside what the computational photography algorithms want to do, the phone camera starts to shackle you. Still within those limits, they can do wonders for those of us without much talent. I'm looking at an iPhone snap of a hibiscus flower I saw in a tropical garden last year. The computational photography algorithm in the phone correctly guessed that picture would look better with a shallow depth of field. I saw the flower, pointed the iPhone at it, and pushed the button, and the camera delivered an impressive looking image for posting on Facebook. But if I *hadn't* wanted that particular result I'd have struggled with the camera. And as good as the results were, if I crop or zoom it just a little bit, or view it on a monitor, the illusion disappears and it's a lot less impressive. Some of this can be fixed in software; two generations of camera hardware since my iPhone surely help too. But in the end the issue is choice. A photo represents many choices about how to record a scene. That process is laborious and rewarding. The more a phone makes those choices for you, the less that image represents your artistic vision. Don't get me wrong -- someone with real talent is going to get more great images with an iPhone than I will ever get with a completely manual camera. Choices are pitfalls for a duffer like me, but they're opportunities for someone who has the magic touch.

Phone can never replace a real camera for the reasons you mentioned. The tactile experience is so much fun that the phone simply lacks 📸

Years ago before I purchased my first DSLR I used to take creative photos with my phone all of the time. Then one day I was at Rockefeller center taking photos during the holidays. I held up my camera to take a shot and suddenly I just became hyper aware of approximately 200 other people taking phone photos around me. But I noticed only 4 or 5 guys with actual cameras focused intently on composing some unique shots with telephoto lenses. It was at that point I knew that I had reached the end of my phone photography and wanted to try something different. Purchased a cheap canon crop DSLR with a kit lens and a telephoto lens about a week later. I learned and fell in love with compression or perspective distortion created by the telephoto lens. Then long exposures and that was all she wrote. That was 2019 and now all I use my iPhone 15 pro camera for is taking photos of receipts, the classical birthday cake blowing out, a few videos or random funny things I wouldn’t take out my camera out for when driving around. Just don’t like phone photos at all, I don’t like the feeling of taking photos with my phone. I do value the cameras on there if I need them and that is why I always buy a pro model in case I need the different lenses in a harsh environment or shady place.

I own lots of cameras but recently have gravitated towards using my phone .... Did a trip last year to SE Asia and only took a pixel 3 phone, took great shots almost all the time, I started assembling a camera kit to do more travel and because I like to use wide angle (18mm) shots for architecture , landscape stuff thought that would be ideal, have a Fuji xa7, xc 16-50 and Samyang 12mm mf lens, I've recently come to the conclusion that it's too much hassle to carry around, keep charged, swap lenses all the time, I now have a pixel 6 and it has 0.7x 1x and 2x mag settings, 0.7x is great for wide shots and honestly I did a side by side comparison of both devices and found it hard to justify taking a dedicated camera. I travel for months at a time with carry on luggage and the camera setup weighs 1kg out of a 7kg limit.....

I understand the saying "the best camera is the one you have on you", and I often will use my iPhone for video. But because I have an iPhone it's really only good in bright daylight. iPhone has an issue with lens orbs when shooting video at night. Even using an action camera, set for low light, shoots better than my iPhone.

A phone is a swiss army knife, a dedicated camera is a scalpel. They both have their uses. What a use my phone camera for, as my eyes age, is as a quick and handy magnifying lens, particularly to read tiny serial number labels! Happy New Year Matti.