Thank you. I hang around Canon / Nikon threads.

I've not given talks for a while, and you remind me I need to write more photography tips article.

I've done commercial grade works with Samsung Galaxy S7 edge. http://www.goldfries.com/hardware-reviews/...galaxy-s7-edge/

The quality is really good, another option is the ASUS Zenfone Zoom. I tried pixel peeping, it's as good as DSLR in my book but being a phone camera there are weaknesses, like say white balance control. And sensor size is always inferior compared to dedicated camera.

Phone camera lose out a lot when in low-light. A dedicated camera will do better, and that's for certain.

The RX10 II is a great choice IMO. Even when RX10 was announced, I was surprised why no one actually talked about it. Where else can you get 24-200 F2.8 CZ lens in a package under RM 5000. My only issue with the RX10 models is that it feels a little slow, especially when you're changing focusing / zooming.

The reason why i said blurred because to capture static shot handholding a phone camera at night is difficult at slow shutter. Whether or not the phone uses a stabilizer to compensate the shakiness I have no idea. And im only pointing out phone camera limitation even for high end phone. Dont get me wrong. It's still good camera and totally recommended if intend to snap pictures everywhere anytime. But if you want better img quality with ability to control highlight through raw and higher clean iso, mirrorless or dslr is the way to go.



This post has been edited by DaddyO: Jun 19 2016, 11:46 AM

Phones can shoot raw as well. Admitedly its not perfect but its more than adequate for average guy-with-camera use.

Shot these off the window and nearby respective yesterday with my samsung S7

20160619_193105 by vmwt, on Flickr

20160619_224116 by vmwt, on Flickr

This post has been edited by sniper on the roof: Jun 20 2016, 09:24 AM

Sniper, you took those shot with samsung s7? Awesome shot dude.

Yes, was just responding saying that I took it handheld.



Yes, that's what I mentioned in earlier post.

Raw on camera phone is pretty useless, imo. Then again this is based on my experience on older phone camera that can shoot raw. The dynamic range and iso does not leave much to tweak.

Again, not saying phone camera cannot take good pics in the hands of capable people so can stop sending sample of phone photos. In fact i can even dare say 4k video on phone is much much better than some of the high end cams currently. Just that there will be plenty chances where you will wish to have proper cam than a phone cam when it comes to certain scene.

Ok. Maybe i didnt convey the message clearly. Sometime you will see beginner with high expectation who thinks they can capture the same quality img as those in flicker or ad using phone cam but comes out disappointed. I travelled once thinking the same way, then realised all my photos on my phone cam is blurry due to hand shake. And then i compare to my old samsung nx cam with kit lens which has far more better shots. Point is just because somebody can capture award winning pictures on a phone does not mean beginners should presume that they can do the same without venturing into a proper camera setup.

Absolutely correct. I exercised every bit of knowledge I have on photography and phone camera limitations when I take photos.

Settings aside, there are also other matters involved like
- composition
- knowing which scene works best (or within acceptable confines) of the camera
- holding technique

More often than not, newbies even struggle with good cameras, even high end cameras couldn't salvage the situation when lack in the other key aspects.

That depends. I know one newbie who get far better night shots with his 4 year old m43 lumix cam on auto than my new apsc cam with kit, max aperture f3.5. Back then i did not know about aperture and shutter speed, which later i realise after digging info on his cam is a much praised cam with f2.0 lens.

If newbie gets their hands on a "good" camera, say d750 with kit, they "may" get more better shots than their phone camera even without training. Of course not gonna recommend expensive d750 for beginner but just saying having a "good" dedicated cam can make a difference even if you have absolutely zero experience.

That's why "more often than not" and "may" appears in our posts.

The difference would be there but I doubt it will be that much.

For example, D750 with 24-120kit vs D5200 with 18-55 kit. If the condition is bad then the success rate isn't going to be that far off, both are likely to have equally bad photos, with one being a bit better like less noise and perhaps less blur.

If the condition is less challenging - probably one being no blur and the other slightly blur.

Entry level camera are pretty good these days. The gap between it and the higher end models has much reduced.

I get your point. But im comparing between smartphone camera to at least entry level dedicated cam like a5100 or rx100, haha. And its not just img quality but the ease and handling of dedicated cam than phone.

Not long ago, some rich or lucky newbie posted a FF (5dmkiii if i recall correctly) night pictures at showcase thread to ask whether the pics are sharp and i can tell the noise is very clean. Pretty sure high end smartphone cam cannot top that low light shot without looking like rainbow puke or jpeg mush unless you know the right technique.

This post has been edited by DaddyO: Jun 20 2016, 03:15 PM

RX100Mk3 tapau A5100 easily I think.

Anyway definitely a lot of difference. Phone camera so tiny, it does look good these days but there's still much limitation from it.

Yup, for sure phone can't top those. Samsung S7 also RM 2k+ range. So the camera system itself is probably just RM 1k or less.

I wont really say that if you pair a5100 with primes of equivalent focal, haha.

And I'm just saying that phone cams had gone a long way and the current crop are versatile enough for most situations.... even for slowing down a little to make some raw for cooking.

In fact, I no longer carry my RX100 around with me all the time and when I brought the wife&kids to an overseas holiday last month, I ended up using my phone far more often than the m43 + 5 lens which I also have in my backpack.

The photos may not be award winning (then again I'm just the average dad-with-camera) but IMO more than suffice to document the moments.

Which I believe is what this thread was about

Plus using just a phone is more liberating.


Far less than RM1K. It's more towards the software and its got already got a free super fast processor built in.

I believe i did mention that im a pixel peeper so im entitled to my opinion haha. Again, if you think phone cam is good enough, its good enough. Different people have different ways of evaluating photos. Just telling TS not to expect dslr quality off the start from a phone camera if he doesnt understand the limitation compared to a dedicated ones.

I personally dont take many photos with my phone cause i dont like fiddling with the interface and my phone handholding skill suck. Also i mostly shoot tele so fixed wide angle on phone is not liberating for me haha.

Fair enough.

If that's the case, TS should try minimum APS-C and above cos 1" sensor and even m43 also not clean @ base ISO.

I used to like the idea of travelling with DSLR and lenses, nowadays if ever I do, it has to be with WORK (or at least some purpose that phone camera can't do) in mind. If it's just a holiday, no DSLR / big gears please.

1'' like RX100 and m43 produces better result than smartphone camera actually. Camera phone tend to produce mushy picture for some reason even in raw whereas 1'' like RX100 produces more defined grain even in low light which looks better, to my eyes anyway. I did compare between RX100mk3 and a6000 (kit) last time and surprisingly find RX100mk3 to perform better than sony's apsc with kit.

Again, if you just want to upload to FB and instagram, phone camera is definitely good enough. I can't tell the difference unless I zoomed in.

This post has been edited by DaddyO: Jun 20 2016, 09:29 PM