CCF Archive Site

Great subject for IT people because digital photography intersects computer science and tradtional optics sciences. Plus art.

I believe that smartphones *mostly* replace low end point and shoot cameras. The one factor to keep in mind is the size of the camera sensor. The larger the camera sensor, other things being equal (such as resolution), the less thermal noise introduced into images in low light conditions. Also, again because of better/less noise with larger sensors, they can be "driven" to extremely high ISO ratings and still perform decently.

Digital photography low-light noise looks like colored speckles, which aren't visible or present in normal sunlight or under flash.

Because of the tiny focal length dictated by the thickness of smartphone cases and bodies, their image sensors are commensurately really tiny. So their ISO range is usually pretty limited.

I have a Moto G5 (a 2017 model) phone. The imager is 12 megapixel (3000x4000 roughly.) It amazes me how nice the images are. It does fairly well in available light. But, no tripod socket.

I also own a Canon G16  prosumerish point and shoot  actual camera. I can set it to 12000 ISO. The images are very rough but they are somewhat usable.

At 1600 or 3200 ISO I can take really good nighttime sky exposures with this camera. I could not do that with the phone.

Lastly there is the shooting stance. The Canon "real" camera is easy to hold for steady, sharp images. Smart phones make you adopt goofy, less stable shooting stances. And you're always having to avoid touching the glass so you don't trigger software.

Nighttime July northern sky behind our house a couple of years ago... with the G16. Click to zoom/expand.

A digital SLR would have no visible grain and would be even sharper.  The dark blob at the lower right is not a dark matter nebula. It's a neighbor's tree.

The exposure was 15 seconds at 800 ISO.

I had an old -- 2006 vintage Canon with the Imagine stabilization feature. Now that was nice. It ran on 4xAA batteries. I gave it away because its pictures were not any better than the ones made by modern phones.

Great subject for IT people because digital photography intersects computer science and tradtional optics sciences. Plus art.

I believe that smartphones *mostly* replace low end point and shoot cameras. The one factor to keep in mind is the size of the camera sensor. The larger the camera sensor, other things being equal (such as resolution), the less thermal noise introduced into images in low light conditions. Also, again because of better/less noise with larger sensors, they can be "driven" to extremely high ISO ratings and still perform decently.

Digital photography low-light noise looks like colored speckles, which aren't visible or present in normal sunlight or under flash.

Because of the tiny focal length dictated by the thickness of smartphone cases and bodies, their image sensors are commensurately really tiny. So their ISO range is usually pretty limited.

I have a Moto G5 (a 2017 model) phone. The imager is 12 megapixel (3000x4000 roughly.) It amazes me how nice the images are. It does fairly well in available light. But, no tripod socket.

I also own a Canon G16  prosumerish point and shoot  actual camera. I can set it to 12000 ISO. The images are very rough but they are somewhat usable.

At 1600 or 3200 ISO I can take really good nighttime sky exposures with this camera. I could not do that with the phone.

Lastly there is the shooting stance. The Canon "real" camera is easy to hold for steady, sharp images. Smart phones make you adopt goofy, less stable shooting stances. And you're always having to avoid touching the glass so you don't trigger software.

Nighttime July northern sky behind our house a couple of years ago... with the G16. Click to zoom/expand.

A digital SLR would have no visible grain and would be even sharper.  The dark blob at the lower right is not a dark matter nebula. It's a neighbor's tree.

The exposure was 15 seconds at 800 ISO.

Everything you say is true. Generally speaking the bigger the sensor the better the low light performance. That low light performance comes at the expense of weight in the case of a DSLR.

Years ago I had a Canon G7 which took great pictures in bright light but not so great in low light. Same a smart phones today. The G7 was the ancestor of your G16. The G7/G16 are very portable with the compact lens. Compared to a DSLR which would fire away.

I have a older Canon Rebel DSLR circa 2011. It still takes great pictures even though its dated. I also bought some Canon EOS M's which have the DSLR sensor in a small body. Though the sensor is big and they focus better than the point and shoots its still not a DSLR.

For years I have wanted a take anywhere camera that would not annoy me to carry. In the case of the DSLR with the lens its not always so much fun to carry. Sure the DSLR has power and flexibility but at the expense of bulk. Even though the smart phone does not do as well as a DSLR the portability and ability to share the pictures are far beyond what most cameras are capable of. 

I have an iPhone 7 and what blown me away is the quality of the pictures. Considering the tiny lens and sensor it does really well.