DxOMARK Shows The Progress Smartphone Cameras Have Made in the Last 5 Years

[Canon Rumors Guy]

We all know how smartphones have pretty much killed the compact camera segment, but the growth is not simply because of convenience, the quality of smartphone cameras has improved faster than any other type of camera.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.dxomark.com/disruptive-technologies-mobile-imaging-taking-smartphone-cameras-next-level/">DxOMark breaks down how smartphone cameras</a> and image processing has improved exposure, noise control, maintaining detail, stabilization, autofocus, zoom and the most recent, bokeh simulation.</p>
<p><strong>From DxOMark:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Looking at the past 5 years of smartphone camera development, we can see that camera hardware and image processing are evolving alongside each other and at a much faster pace than in the “traditional” camera sector. DSLRs and mirrorless system cameras are still clearly ahead in some areas — for example, auto exposure, but in terms of image processing, Canon, Nikon, Pentax and the other players in the DSC market are behind what Apple, Samsung, Google, and Huawei can do. Thanks to their hardware advantages, the larger cameras don’t actually need the same level of pixel processing as smartphones to produce great images, but there is no denying that the performance gap between smartphones and DSLRs is narrowing. <a href="https://www.dxomark.com/disruptive-technologies-mobile-imaging-taking-smartphone-cameras-next-level/">Read the full report</a></p></blockquote>
<p>While I agree that the gap between smartphones and DSLRs is narrowing, it’s still not close and I’d even argue that smartphones aren’t close to prosumer compact cameras either.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[tntwit]

Phone cameras are great until something moves, particularly in "low light", which is pretty much anything indoors.

The reviews post endless comparisons between phone cameras or DSLR and the latest phone cameras, but they conveniently leave out any real candid shots. Few are of people, and the ones they include are always portraits where the subjects posed for the shot.

If people flinch in photos taken indoors with a phone camera, it will most likely be blurry. The flashes are weak and extremely slow response from the point the shutter is pressed to actually taking the photo. Without a flash, the shutter speed is extremely slow (seems like it is always around 1/15th).

Don't get me wrong, I use my cell camera extensively and unfortunately use the DSLR less, but they cannot compete with an DSLR and I'd agree that they cannot even really compare with a standard compact camera for any indoor shots of people.

 

[Canoneer]

The next breakthrough in smartphone imaging is likely going to take on the image-fusion tech of merging exposures from separate sensors. I wouldn't be surprised to see a 6-camera Galaxy or iPhone in the very near future, with 3 cameras at a 35mm and 100mm FoV equivalents. One sensor with a red filter, one with a blue, and one monochrome in each focal length configuration. That would improve dynamic range, micro-contrast, color accuracy, and low-light sensitivity. Huawei already released the P10 with a similar monochrome + RGB system.

 

[ahsanford]

DXOMark has a completely different scoring scale for smartphones for a reason -- if you stacked up cell phones vs. APS-C and FF it's still laughably off. Here's PTP's take on that below.

I fully appreciate the staggering number of smartphones out there and the dizzying amount of photography being done with them. And one cannot deny the innovation going on with smartphone cameras -- they are pioneering some hot new things because of their seemingly intractable sensor size / thickness constraints.

But difference in the quality of the film between smartphones and ILCs is still a chasm.

- A

 

[rawshooter]

So far i haven't even found a usable point and shoot camera app. All apps I've seen so far are useless for moving subjects as people, because the automatic uses far to slow shutter speeds for sharp handheld results of moving people (around 1/20).

And if I fix the shutter speed at a reasonable value then I have to watch out for overexposure, if it gets to bright because the app won't switch to a faster shutter speed. So again I have to setup the app and meanwhile the moment is over.

Why has no one made a descent camera app with auto iso, auto aperture and auto shutter with a user settable option to at least do 1/250 or whatever you want want it to be. And of course it should be cable to save raw files.

My 4000€ DSLR can do that but the stupid phone can't?

 

[LDS]

How much in-camera image processing most ILC users want? Actually, close to zero. Also, they want batteries last for hundreds of shot, not a few tens.

Being able to customize via software the image because of faster CPUs and more RAM is OK when you want a finished image out of the device - or when you need to simulate what the deficiencies of the system can't deliver - but it takes more power to run, and it may not be what you want.

Sure, it is exactly what most P&S users wanted and want, there they are a perfect replacement with more processing power and "effects". But I don't see it a plus for anything beyond it - just like in P&S, you lose a lot of control on the final image.

Also, even the iPhone X couldn't fit the camera they wanted in its thin design, the camera needs a little "bump" on the rear, because their hitting competing design issues - a good camera doesn't get along well with the required phone designs.

 

[Don Haines]

ultimately, photography is the collection of light. The more light you have, the more you can do with it...

my phone has a lens 3mm across..... my camera has a lens (being conservative) 60mm across. That's 400 times the light being gathered. DSLR wins!

 

[snappy604]

I personally am amazed what you can get out of a smart phone with such a tiny lens and sensor.

We can scoff and laugh off the phone cameras, but the evolution they've gone through is intense and amazing to watch. Not that long ago film camera buffs wrote off dSLRs too and while there are still some cool things from Film, it's been reduced to pretty niche uses.

It'd be interesting if they could put that horse power / knowledge towards something with an SLR or Mirrorless camera with a fullframe sensor and real lenses.

 

[hendrik-sg]

I personally am amazed what you can get out of a smart phone with such a tiny lens and sensor.

We can scoff and laugh off the phone cameras, but the evolution they've gone through is intense and amazing to watch. Not that long ago film camera buffs wrote off dSLRs too and while there are still some cool things from Film, it's been reduced to pretty niche uses.

It'd be interesting if they could put that horse power / knowledge towards something with an SLR or Mirrorless camera with a fullframe sensor and real lenses.

I would say, most of what the phone does can (and should) be done in post. Leaving the decission of how a pic is edited to a Computer, can go well or can ruin the pic.

Overlaying a BW and a Color pic from different cameras is coming from space Technology, as the bayer sensor filters 2/3 of the light, which is absolutely unwanted there. The best example are the Nasa pics of Pluto, which are just fantastic and are taken with gear wich was launched in 2006 from earth. Imagine what pictures we would have with today's imaging technology.

What we not have is a FF Point and shoot camera, or maybe we have and did just not try the fully automatic or Scene modes.

 

[Talys]

I personally am amazed what you can get out of a smart phone with such a tiny lens and sensor.

We can scoff and laugh off the phone cameras, but the evolution they've gone through is intense and amazing to watch. Not that long ago film camera buffs wrote off dSLRs too and while there are still some cool things from Film, it's been reduced to pretty niche uses.

It'd be interesting if they could put that horse power / knowledge towards something with an SLR or Mirrorless camera with a fullframe sensor and real lenses.

I use my smartphone camera all the time. It's a perfect replacement for a point-and-shoot. Pretty much 100% of the time though, photos I take from it are ones where quality doesn't really matter, one way or the other.

There are some things that smartphones are terrible at:

1. Long exposures, and therefore, many kinds of landscapes (like water)
2. Non-automatic exposures
3. Very wide shots
4. Anything telephoto
5. Tack sharp images; most look ok on a small phone screen, but are blurry on enlargement on a PC.
6. Anything that requires flashes or strobes
7. Anything that requires a filter, including creative lighting filters
8. Bokeh
9. Any time where light isn't great.
10. Any time when you want to overpower sunlight
11. Macro
12. Low light

 

[tmroper]

The ergonomics of phones certainly have a long way to go, before catching up to DSLRs or mirroless. I regularly see people drop their phones, but don't think I've ever seen someone drop a camera. Not right out of their hands anyway.

 

[Joe M]

ultimately, photography is the collection of light. The more light you have, the more you can do with it...

my phone has a lens 3mm across..... my camera has a lens (being conservative) 60mm across. That's 400 times the light being gathered. DSLR wins!

And then it's planted on a sensor that is 29 times or more larger (FF). Cameras on phones have come a long way indeed but you just can't cheat physics. The software has done a commendable job of trying and it will likely keep improving but unless they can make the entire screen a lens, it will always be inferior.

In my humble opinion these cameras/phones are still ridiculously far off what comes out of my FF camera or even my first crop, the 40D. Doesn't mean those things aren't darn handy though.

 

[Don Haines]

ultimately, photography is the collection of light. The more light you have, the more you can do with it...

my phone has a lens 3mm across..... my camera has a lens (being conservative) 60mm across. That's 400 times the light being gathered. DSLR wins!

And then it's planted on a sensor that is 29 times or more larger (FF). Cameras on phones have come a long way indeed but you just can't cheat physics. The software has done a commendable job of trying and it will likely keep improving but unless they can make the entire screen a lens, it will always be inferior.

In my humble opinion these cameras/phones are still ridiculously far off what comes out of my FF camera or even my first crop, the 40D. Doesn't mean those things aren't darn handy though.

I agree, it is incredible what they can do, but the technology has matured and it is unlikely to see any more than a few percent increase in efficiency. We now are getting into fancy tricks, like combining multiple cameras, to scratch out a bit more performance.... but in the end, it all comes down to the glass, and the more glass you have, the more light to play with.

 

[jeffa4444]

The best camera is the one you actually have to use. 9 times out of 10 were not carrying our DSLRs but we do carry our smartphones. The uploads to Flickr alone show what an impact Smartphones have had.

 

[jeffa4444]

What is enlightening is Huawei with the Mate Pro 10 produce a camera just better than Apple iPhone X a $ 1,000 /£ 1,000 smartphone!

 

[3dit0r]

Meh. I use my iPhone camera when I don't have my real camera on me, but I just can't get excited about it, or the results. It's OK for quick snaps of my food, or a quick shot of the dogs doing something funny. It's extremely limited for, e.g., landscape or travel use, for a number of reasons.

Sometimes OK for posting small to social media, but I've only ever printed twice (once from a 6s, once from a 7+) basically because the shots were nice and I just simply didn't have proper equipment on me, both times it was very disappointing even trying to get a nice A4 from them. They're OK as a memory, one worked better because it was always going to be a black and white, and there were no fine textures to worry about. The other, which wanted more dynamic range and colour depth was just a bit fuzzy and washed out, to be honest.

Also, the ergonomics are crap, and the AF and low-light totally useless. I was out with the girlfriend and the dog for a walk the other night, not intending to do any photography (it was pitch black for a start, and not good enough for any astro) when the rescue helicopter came down very low right on the cliff edge next to the lighthouse. Well, I was kicking myself, of course, as I usually carry the camera whatever, but sod's law... Anyway, as we rounded the lighthouse, I thought I'd be able to get a shot even with an iPhone as the 'copter was hovering level with the cliff top where we were walking, literally only 10 metres or so out (if you'd have taken a running jump, and you were Carl Lewis, you might have almost made it inside). So out came the iPhone. Wouldn't even bloody focus. Not a hope. Not on the lights, the interior, the guy all lit up by the spotlight on the winch. And there's no MF override for when it doesn't work. Got a couple which were almost in focus, but they are so noisy/smeared they were pointless. I suppose what was I thinking - the results are smeared even at base ISO, so it was never going to happen. With the real camera system I would have probably got a pretty stunning shot...

My thought is they can happily replace a p/s for the general public who were never that into it anyway, but they're very far from being serious artistic tools as yet, for many subjects, that is. I suppose if you were only shooting still life, or maybe, maybe even portraits under very controlled conditions you could almost get away with it, but why bother? Under those conditions, it's hardly onerous to have a full-sized camera anyway.

 

[LDS]

The best camera is the one you actually have to use. 9 times out of 10 were not carrying our DSLRs but we do carry our smartphones. The uploads to Flickr alone show what an impact Smartphones have had.

There are different kind of photographers - some need to wait for the photo to appear in front of them, others create them when they need and have time for them. The latter ones have the camera they need when they make their photos.

I'm not saying one kind of photography is better than the other - just saying for a subset of photographers having a camera ready at hand is not important at all, for others it's of paramount importance. For some how fast you can operate a camera is important as well (and here phones are not always the best option), for others it's not so important.

Reducing photography to a single type of image is a mistake, anyway.

And still, there are moments I would not touch any kind of camera - it would just ruin them.

 

[SkynetTX]

DxOMark states that smartphone cameras are much better then they were five or more years ago. That's true. But they will never come close to a DSLR or a mirrorless camera in any terms. You can have better software for image data processing but softwares will never be able to reach the quality of an APS-C or FF sensor: as I said in an earlier post missing details can not be enlarged and/or processed in any way.
Some say that smartphone cameras are handy. That's also true. If you don't or can't have your DSLR with yourself and you must take a picture of something, you can still use your phone. Just in case of emergency. If image quality doesn't matter, you can use your phone. DxOMark has a different scoring system for smartphones and cameras. If they'd use the same system DSLR would get about 80+ scores while phones could get a maximum of 20. Even point and shoot cameras are a way better.
If phones could have an APS-C sensor with a lens like Tamron's superzoom (18-400mm f/3.5-f/6.3) that would be another story. But they will never have.

 

[Talys]

The best camera is the one you actually have to use. 9 times out of 10 were not carrying our DSLRs but we do carry our smartphones. The uploads to Flickr alone show what an impact Smartphones have had.

Without a camera, you can't take a picture.

But without the right camera, you can't advantage of a lot of situations where you could take a photograph that really stands out from the crowd.

What is it that someone wants to do? To capture an interesting point in their everyday life and to share it? Certainly, some of these moments will also make great photographs. Also, when it's your family or friends, ANY photograph can be wonderful, because, after all, every photo of your grandson is precious and unique.

But photography is often about creating art that is exceptional. To be sure, the photographer is more important than the equipment, but the photographer will also need some tools to realize the photo that they have planned. Paraphrasing the book Light Science and Magic, planning can take seconds or days, but it's really important in the making of exceptional photography.

A photographer needs to understand some basic concepts like different types of light and the family of angles and perspective to make a planned shot, rather than luck into a good shot, but beyond that, they need proper exposure controls, which are sorely lacking on smartphones. They also need the right optics to bring the image to the sesor plane, and with a pretty wide fixed piece of glass, you'll have to work with getting what you get, not what you want.

There are also many situations where a skilled photographer with basic gear can make a spectacular photo whereas a smartphone photographer can only record a beautiful memory. For example, photographing a sunset on a lake is certainly possible with an iPhone, but to make it really stand out, a photographer may wish to use a long exposure and ND filter, because there are some things like long exposures of moving water that you just can't replicate in post.

Also, you're right: Flickr has exploded with photos. I'd go so far as to say, there are a flood of fantastic photos. But there are still relatively few exceptional photos - ones that stand out from the crowd. In my opinion, the number of these has not dramatically increases, certainly not proportionate to the number of photos.

There are a million times more photos of cats, but hardly any more photos of Siberian Tigers. There are a million more baby and family photos, but hardly any more of professional studio quality.

For myself, I love my smartphone camera, but it is a vastly different tool as my DSLR.

 

[tmroper]

The best camera is the one you actually have to use. 9 times out of 10 were not carrying our DSLRs but we do carry our smartphones. The uploads to Flickr alone show what an impact Smartphones have had.

Also, you're right: Flickr has exploded with photos. I'd go so far as to say, there are a flood of fantastic photos. But there are still relatively few exceptional photos - ones that stand out from the crowd. In my opinion, the number of these has not dramatically increases, certainly not proportionate to the number of photos.

That reminds of a letter from Alfred Stieglitz to Edward Weston in 1938, that I saw and took note of, in a Stieglitz photo book at my dad's house (can't remember the title):

"Yes, there seems to be millions on millions of photographers and billions of photographs made annually, but how rare a really fine photograph seems to be. ‘Intersting’ shots. It’s a pathetic situation—so little vision. So little true seeing."