Can a mobile phone beat an 11 year old camera?

[@nekta72]

Excellent video, well said. I am in fact still using a gf1 shooting raw, and the images crap all over the latest of phones.

[@training7574]

Thanks a lot! I hesitated about retiring my old GF1 and getting myself a new iPhone. Instead, I got a better camera pouch so I can carry my GF1 more comfortably. You saved me a lot of money and above all, the image quality will be better.

[@cloudcitydigital]

I had this exact lens and body! AMAZING little setup.

[@marvelousdecay]

Hehe yep. The GF1 was the first camera I bought that had a "bigger" sensor and I remember being blown away by the results! :D

[@productguru8323]

Lumix 20 1.7 lens?

[@cloudcitydigital]

@@productguru8323 yes exactly!

[@davemz999]

The latest premium smartphone cameras are massively impressive, for what they are. Compared to any micro 4/3 ever made? Ohhh, maybe not.

[@MUHAMMADTHOHA1000]

nice video, I am still using GF1 since 2015

[@twoowls5570]

Great coverage....most interesting! Regards, Jimp

[@training7574]

I think the general conclusions are right. Looking at my old photos with GF1 and comparing photos in low light and fog with photos with a newer, compact Canon G9x mk ii, the colors of the GF1 photos are remarkably beautiful. Plus I did relatively little editing on them. But in sunny weather, I much prefer G9x, not least because of its size and hdr, which make Lightroom editing easier.

[@MichaelSchagen]

I use my phone camera just to help me remember stuff. Whenever I see something I want or need to remember, I take a picture of it instead of e.g. taking notes. I think most people take snap-shots for the same reason. Just as a token to help them remember a particular event or moment in time. For that phone snap shots suffice. But for 'photography' I.e. conveying a story or emotion, the shortcomings of phone cameras get in the way.

[@marvelousdecay]

Unfortunately that's true. I really would like to use my phone for more than just quick snapshots, but yeah we're just not there yet. Let's see what the next couple of years will bring!

[@agunemon]

I used a digicam in school to do just this, to copy the board before it gets erased as a point of referrence to browse while reviews hahahaha Edit:this was 2004-2012 from highschool to college with a 3 megapixel coolpix hehehehe

[@robertgretter9452]

When you carry a camera, you also carry the intension of taking photos.

[@StrangerObjects]

Fantastic new video. Love it. Thanks

[@marvelousdecay]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@evertonporter7887]

Very thorough comparison between the the GF1 and the iphone pro. I have a Panasonic GF2 which I bought on Ebay a few days ago to go with my excellent GX80. The camera's results really are superior to a smartphone under all conditions.

[@marvelousdecay]

Yeah all m4/3 cameras and above (APSC, medium format etc) will give so much better results. Even if they're ancient! I'm glad we have the ability to take pictures with our phones but we still have a lot of room until we reach a real's camera's quality.

[@HR-wd6cw]

I would say from a pure image quality standpoint based on the sensor and imaging technology (not the lens) they are about the same. But the added advantage of the GF1 is you can change the lenses, and possibly get better quality overall because of it. So in this case, I would say they are about the same. The biggest upper hand the iPhone might have is that people already have one (whether it's the 11 Pro or something else that's comparable or newer). So they can save money by not having a dedicated camera, but if money isn't a concern and you don't care so much about one device versus two, an interchangeable lens camera will always be at least as good, if not better. Although more and more cameras are now supporting RAW formats and some apps will now shoot with formats like Adobe's DNG so you do gain some flexibility with a smartphone, but I still wouldn't give up my dedicated cameras (regardless of format) for a smartphone.

[@interstat2222]

The mobile phone camera sharpening is actually mostly an AI type technique called Super Resolution where it guesses what the resolution should be based on a database of textures and so on. It’s used in TVs for upscaling by chip makers like MediaTek. Sony and Panasonic TVs have a very advanced version for their TVs.

[@HughRaine]

Really informative! Nice work!

[@marvelousdecay]

Thank you!

[@litchi4507]

Wished that you had included a segment on video recording quality comparison between the two devices.

[@tymon-iq5oc]

Iphone will destroy this camera in videos. Its only good in photos

[@leeraxd]

i just did the same side by side but with a 12 pro max and a gf1 14mm lens and ricoh gr2! I think GR2 is more comparable because it’s a fixed lens camera and it’s extremely portable. However, GR2 fails all around on low light even with raw. GF1 is an old body with tons of great Olympus and Lumix and even Leica lenses, so it’ll always be a superior camera, even if it’s 11 years old. The 12 Pro Max is a little more upgraded from the 11 Pro but it’s still going to fall short compared a good digital camera. I do think the iPhones do exactly what they need to though, in terms of the camera. Most people will only be viewing their phone pics on their screen so there really is no need for a large sensor. And some images, like landscapes, look really good on my phone camera. But iphone can never been the bokeh, macro, and low light qualities of a micro 4/3. Just too small of a device to fit a sensor like rhat.

[@aacc5188]

LX7 knocked this Arena gate, pure natural fastest lens still could fight any modern sensor phone

[@villagranvicent]

Excellent comparison, I miss my GF1, great little camera!

[@Wendy_WL]

How much was the iso setting for the gf1?

[@johnjon1823]

Phones do more than a good enough job for most ordinary people now. They legitimately replace most versions of point and shoot cameras and even video cameras in many instances. They are great. If, however, one is really interested in flexibility and a superior image achieved by lens selection and sensor function, for many situations an actual camera and good lens is needed. Camera companies are very slow to improve and innovate, generally speaking, and that has allowed phones to really have the innovation field unchallenged in many ways. Expensive real camera systems all seem years behind in terms of needed innovation. Cameras absolutely should by now seamlessly integrate into social media through the smart phone as easily as the camera built into the phone. In fact, I would argue that professional cameras should integrate better into social media and phone apps than the camera phone, that should be the goal. Pro and high end consumer cameras should dominate in ease of use for social media and integration with the cloud just as they already dominate in glass and sensor tech. Also, they need to get very serious about computational photography. It is more than sensors and lenses now, the arena for competition is larger. The original SONY Walkman was a game changer, an innovation, as was the IPod. We are way beyond those things, they got sucked into the smart phone, along with point and shoot cameras. Canon already admitted a while back their market was Pro and high end pro-sumer people. That's nice, but even there they are missing out. I used functions on Panasonic cameras that were YEARS ahead of Canon, easily half a decade, Canon lost sales to that, Fuji ate their lunch as well.

[@Gee021021]

Could you use this as a webcam now if surplus to requirements?

[@marvelousdecay]

Not sure I understand. You want to use the iPhone as a webcam or the GF1 as a webcam. If you're talking about the iPhone you certainly can, if you're talking about the GF1 you need unfortunately a newer camera that supports Panasonic cam program.

[@rocheuro]

very good comparison, properly made and very well commented. I would say the same. totally agree. The images are only as good as the sensor . Software magic is another story. often people even dont understand the difference between sharpness (artificial sharpenning) and true real details.. as well as overal "clarity and cleanness" of the image. The same applies to digital and optical zoom - people often misunderstand these two.

[@prismaticfire]

Hi, Dimitris. What app do you use or recommend for shooting RAW on the iPhone?

[@livinginbritishcolumbia9024]

I would advice two nice apps for iPhone raw shooting Camera+ and ProCam

[@melvinch]

Can a mobile phone have a m43 sensor ? Can a mobile phone compete without using computational algorithm on the images ?

[@detore]

I would love it if you summed down your stereo voice to a mono output (or atleast much less stereo field) It's messing with my brain as you point your mouth from side to side while you talk haha.

[@detore]

Great video though, good concept to look at!

[@stinkycheese804]

Seems like something you could control on your end, downmixing to mono...

[@detore]

@@stinkycheese804 ...yeah I'm not gonna do that for a single channel on KZbin

[@detore]

@@stinkycheese804 especially when arguably, this is not a good presentation method, why would any listener want to hear such a wide stereo effect just when a talking head changes their mouth direction slightly, constantly over an entire video?

[@AD4K69-a]

You should try it with the GF5

[@d3xmeister]

Iphone RAW’s are sharpened to death even with sharpening “disabled”

[@ShlomoLevi]

Panasonic GF1 has such a unique feature that it keeps the price better than all other cameras. In the sense that no one buys it, but people in the ads stubbornly try to sell it at a price higher than modern cameras in the store. IDK why

[@steadicamwalker]

Gf1 produces much better skin tones than other newer m43 models including G9. Gf1 has very bad noise performance and dynamic range. But it is a very good camera for portraits if u know what u are doing. I always use it with my A73 and most of the time my clients prefer the portrait from gf1.

[@steadicamwalker]

Gf1 produces much better skin tones than other newer m43 models including G9. Gf1 has very bad noise performance and dynamic range. But it is a very good camera for portraits if u know what u are doing. I always use it with my A73 and most of the time my clients prefer the portrait from gf1.

[@ShlomoLevi]

@@steadicamwalker still price asked on second hand market ridiculous. Btw gow much money you make in skintone portraits?

[@steadicamwalker]

@@ShlomoLevi u sound stupid and condescending. I don't have to reply to an idiot anymore. Only amateur photographers will complain a camera. Every camera has its pros and cons.

[@ShlomoLevi]

@@steadicamwalker you sounds like real loser)))

[@beesong2450]

bit of background, Im a photo noob. Out of nowhere my boss sold her GF1 with 14-45mm 3.5.-5.6 kit for $20. With some research, I realized I got a gem of a camera. planning to get the lumix 20mm 1.7 mk ii for those amazing photos.

[@marvelousdecay]

Enjoy your new camera!

[@beesong2450]

@@marvelousdecay thanks! my old "new" camera

[@ZerpsT]

7:30 and the sun was still up wtf. I'm from the Caribbean and that's such a wild concept lol

[@kyrpadelis702]

Fava, chilopites, chamoulis. Nice content btw!

[@flobermainmc]

lumix gf10 vs iphone 11 pro which better camera sir?

[@marvelousdecay]

Lumix GF10

[@flobermainmc]

@@marvelousdecay thanks . i Will buy gf10

[@RonoTron01]

Great video and side-by-sides. I have not used iphone for years. Came from a m4/3 family since 2009: GF1 > GX2 > GX85 > GX9, then wow, when I got the Samsung S21 phone this year, it changed everything. I still have my GX9 and all the lens from these 10+ years. but I must say, I've used S21 more often than m4/3 even when I had both on hand, simply because of the color and wide angle shots. GX9 cropped sensor just can't match the S21 super wide and slow-mo video capabilities. This year, I also got into full-frame with Canon mirrorless system RP > R6 for wildlife with 500mm zoom. GX9 still remains part of my studio setup and I'm thinking about retiring my entire m4/3 line. S21 goes into my pocket and remains to be one of the best mobile phone camera I've ever used on day-to-day basis. Whatever situation is, there's always a camera that's best suitable for that purpose. m4/3, you were great at one time in life, and you will be missed.

[@TheOdek1974]

Yup, cellphone is an overhyped to wannabe photographers, it means technology creates laziness to wannabe photographers, which is so sucks....

[@Jimbowholivesinsoup]

I have the same camera with the 20mm lens, and in making some light bokeh (especially portraits) or nature shots . The overprocessed phone images always fail. But what can I say, when I heard theyr already using AI in handheld cameras.. so these kind of "clean" images soon will be a thing to treasure.

[@bryanbrown292]

I think you are missing the main advantage of a dedicated camera - the lens. Yes - a modern iphone is likely better at it prime lens length than a 10 year old camera (even a larger sensor one). Try 500mm on your iphone vs a dedicated camera with a 500mm lens. No comparison.

[@rokko_fable]

Phone processors and processing are much better and faster than most cameras. As you said, its about the time you're willing to put in. You can get better images from camera but takes way more time. Not worth it unless you are making money from your photos. Even then, someone who knows lighting, composition, and the rest, could definitely make money using phone photography

[@rokko_fable]

@Michael Whyte I'm speaking from experience. I was an avid amateur for about 10 years and then shot as main source of income for about 5 years. I spent too much time in Lightroom. I remember one day vividly, I went on a hike with a buddy who had just gotten the iPhone 4. I took my dslr and a spare lense. When we got home I was blown away by the photos that came out of that phone. Could he get every shot I could, or crop or print as large? Of course not. One area specifically phone cameras are adept at is hdr (when done well) without the need for a tripod or pc to process. Obviously cameras still have there place. But a lot of those uses are pretty niche; Long telephoto, sports, tilt-shift, permanent studio setups etc. Now my only camera is a fuji x100 and I love it. But the point is phone cameras are quite capable, and "pros" often discount them entirely for no good reason.

[@vladimirmalchev557]

@@rokko_fable You can't defy the law of physics. Big lens are big lens for a reason.

[@stinkycheese804]

It is irrelevant. A camera only needs to process as fast as the data is coming in, doesn't need to cook the image trying to make it look artificially better than it can optically capture. Hence, even a decade old camera can take decent pictures, although cameras got better and faster too. There is no rule at all that a modern camera can't have a high performance processor but since it isn't needed, they wisely opted for smaller and longer battery life instead. I mean for the average consumer models, if we want to compare apples:apples which would be against average consumer phones.

[@rokko_fable]

@@stinkycheese804 far from irrelevant. You mention processing data as fast as it comes in... That is where phones win with photo stacking and bracketing etc. I think it was a Ricoh camera that did multi-exposure in-camera hdr first. But you basically had to use a tripod. But saved you from isolating highlights and shadows from multiple images and combining them yourself. I'm talking about just increasing dynamic range here, not that grossly over-processed garbage hdr. Certainly big sensors and big glass lenses have numerous benefits that a small sensor can't touch. Nobody is arguing against that. But people are too quick to discount mobile stuff because they like to sit on their high horse and feel good about their lens collection.

[@jimbochoo3316]

If you want a photo that looks more realistic, depth perception, and smoothness, you need to be shooting with a digital camera that has a larger sensor. There is no phone that can beat that. While both photos are digital and processed digitally by the software inside the devices, phone cameras look more artificial. The generally look flat and the bokeh is easily recognized as artificially generated. They are good for sharing quick photos but lack the wow factor of a good camera/lens combo.

[@mingzhezhang2992]

Finally a video pointing out iOS' garbage jpeg generation algorithm that prioritizes social media posting rather than quality. And two years after this video, iOS' jpegs are now patchy even with perfect day light condition. Seriously, for memorable scenes or important images, shoot in raw. If you really need Live Photo, just temporarily switch off raw after that and shoot a second one.

[@nateholden7598]

Oh and by the way. A camera is not super old unless it is 30+ years old maybe 40. At least to me.

[@Biosynchro]

The iPhone is sometimes my favourite camera, partly because it's challenging to get great image quality from it. But, sometimes it's almost impossible to get anything decent. On the other hand, for photographers, a late model Sony RX100 is much better value than a modern iPhone. The compact camera is not dead - rather, the best phones have shown us how much better the compact is in comparison.

[@jarosawzon4272]

Someone who came up with the idea to compare a smartphone with even an old camera must be unbalanced. Smartphones don't stand a chance, even with very old cameras.

[@ikratoss]

Top

[@tkpenalty]

Physics simply mean that phone shouldn't come close, until their sensors are at least the same size as the camera you are comparing to. Most sensors on the market these days are close to the maximum of the amount of light gathering per surface area from what I know. Mobile phones do kick the shit out of compacts that had similar sensor sizes - eg the Nikon V or Pentax Q series.

[@RiseUpToYourAbility]

Yeh I agree. I hate it when people are like mobile phones are going to make cameras obsolete. There are things that can't be shrunk down without sacrificing quality like sensor and lenses. People that only shoot on mobile phones are happy with the results they're getting because they don't really understand photography. Most of them shoot from eye level, and composition is simply placing the subject in the dead center of the shot. The sad thing is people think that a professional camera will get them professional results. They go out to buy a DSLR or mirrorless camera and their shots will still look no better than the pictures from a phone. A lot of the problem I think stems from the shitty kit lens that you are given. Most people want that bokeh effect that they see in magazine, and getting that from a kit lens is hard if you don't know what you are doing. I think every camera should come with a 50 f1.8. Great beginner lens, and it can get you bokeh all day long.

[@rokko_fable]

There are people that understand photography plenty that are happy to shoot with a mobile phone. You even said its about the photographer, not the camera, by mentioning ppl that think a dslr will get them pro shots. Well the opposite is also true, there are people that know what they are doing that can get great shots out of a phone. a pro musician could make beautiful music on a cheap instrument. But given the best instrument, a beginner is still crap. Probably 99% of people have no desire to move beyond being a beginner though.

[@stinkycheese804]

Yeah, it's quite ironic that people wan to do everything with their phone but phones are generally inferior to the devices they are replacing. The irony is they aren't even all that great for use MAKING CALLS any longer, had to make compromises in order to become a touchscreen computer instead.

[@ReinoldFZ]

Most people are not professional photographers, and cellphone has made what once was the largest segment of cameras, compact cameras, obsolete. Even in this video is hard to notice any difference without pixel peeping. What use has a DSLR if they are bulky and most of the time they will be at home. I use a Fujifilm X100S but when I don't have it I am quite happy with the camera of my Samsung S8+ in Pro mode.

[@demarestk]

Before even watching the video: no

[@marvelousdecay]

:D

[@jerrygreen5360]

phone camera better than camera,