Dslr, jack of all trades, can do sport, wild life, landscape, portrait, low light, all that by swapping lens and change settings. Smartphone master of instagram and fb.....

Images below are taken with sub RM 1,000 smartphone which is the ASUS Zenfone 3 Max. Yes, a phone, not a camera.

And these photos (of course with some post-processing) were submitted to Shutterstock, well known stock photo site with strict QC.

Only images with sufficient image quality and commercial value (composition most) will be accepted.


https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sp...kNsTZ1m71Eg-1-0


https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mi...kNsTZ1m71Eg-1-1


https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/en...kNsTZ1m71Eg-1-2


https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/sa...kNsTZ1m71Eg-1-3

Manual exposure? Nope, all these images were taken on AUTO (camera default).

Will I use smartphone camera for professional purpose? No, I won't BUT the above just tells you that IF you know your gear and work within its limitations and IF you know your craft - you can produce good stuff even with your smartphone camera.

No need to argue so much, if you think a DSLR alone or a big sensor camera alone is enough to get the job done - go ahead, try submitting your photos to Shutterstock.

Also if you think smartphones are so good - you're dreaming, no way can it match DSLR. You put on Facebook sure looks nice, everything small and whatever but smartphones are VERY limited. Even with the best of my skill and ability I wouldn't bank on smartphone to get the job done unless there's really no other option.

true, but i would guess 90% of members in LYN aren't any professional photographer

This post has been edited by mingyuyu: Apr 18 2017, 01:35 PM

Errrrrrr.....you make a lot of reference to shutterstock for it to be accepted as good image but if i know the site, it accepts any submission that is deemed "stocky" and commercially viable.

In other words, a picture of a tennis ball with whitebackground will also be accepted as long it is well lit and sharp cause a tennis company may want to use it as stock photo.

Just talking about technical stuff - Smartphone will never be at DSLR quality.

Sensor alone speaks it.

However the smartphone does replace DSLR in many cases, I also go cover event with smartphone nowadays. I travel take pic also using smartphone.

It replaces the DSLR not because it can attain such image quality but it is because smartphones are convenient (compact la) while image quality these days are really good, after all using only for Facebook / smaller screen / Monitor viewing the image at 2MP or less.

You really must know what you want out of it. For me event coverage, no one gives a shit about how good my image is. So instead of lugging 1.5kg + flash around and get perfect satisfying shots 100% of the time, I now go with a sub-200g (around 400g if add my rig) setup with only maybe at most 1 out of 10 event that works against my smartphone for lighting.

Very simple - I'm referring to image quality + composition.

They've rejected my photos taken with DSLR at ISO 400 before, they have all sorts of reason for rejection.

You're correct that they will accept pictures that seem "stocky" with commercial value but you'll have to note that they're really strict.

A picture of a tennis ball with white background may not be astounding in composition BUT it has to meet their requirement for IQ.

Noise - they'll reject
They think insufficient DOF or focusing wrong area - they'll reject
Exposure not to their liking - they'll reject.

The following were the reasons of reject that I've encountered

Focus and noise can be countered by making picture smaller. Some also rejected if the shots are way too common like flowers (unless outstanding). But other than that it is not a good indicator to tell good from bad. Heard that if you submit the failed shot at another time, it will get accespted by different reviewers.

But then you are losing out a lot of resolution so what's the point?

By the way no offence but I wonder what kind of shots do you think are high standard?

Its a stock photo site. Not site to receive photo critique. Even if you get Natgeo award, ur picture not necessary get accepted at stock site if it does not meet their basic criteria which are usually basic like sharpness, exposure, no branding/trademark and must look like something you can sell as stock photo.

In other words if you shoot with 24Mp but slight blurry at 100%, they will reject. But if you reduce down to 16Mp, and looks sharp, they will accept. Partly because they want quality to their site than deal with people critisizing their stock photos are mostly blurry so not worth paying. Also how many buyers want 24Mp or even 16Mp just to look at a tennis ball detail at 100%?

High standard shots are subjective. I dont like landscape shot much coz its mostly boring. I prefer portrait and streetshots. Some streetshots i know are blurry but invoke emotion, so that is my own high standard.

This post has been edited by DaddyO: Apr 18 2017, 02:40 PM

Yes different reviewers, not guarantee pass.

If only focusing is so easy, these guys pixel peep.

When your focus is off, it's visible even when you resize. The foreground or background clearly sharper than the subject.

DOF also you can't fool around, it's not something you can easily fix on post.

This is correct.

Unfortunately there aren't any critique sites around, I created one last time but response was poor.

Even those competition sites, that also you have to pay them quite a lot just to send pics. Feedback no guarantee, often not helpful too.



Well my post is about the subject "> Sub rm1000 camera (new) but with dslr quality, Exist or not?"

Shutterstock and other stock photography sites settles the IQ part and commercial value part (that's why the accept, because they think will have buyer) and with commercial value, art value may be there. Certainly not for a tennis ball shot like what you mentioned but that doesn't mean other images do not have artistic value.

This is why I use Shutterstock as example, rather than relying on vague responses of keyboard warriors who many don't even know photography well enough. Let it be scanned by people who actually scanned good images daily.

Stock photos sites, to them a good image is one that has sufficient IQ and also have commercial value, or art value, or both. My post is simple - just showing that smartphone camera is capable of reasonable image quality and color control that is able to pass the stringent requirement of stock photography sites, and that with right composition you will get good images with commercial value.

On other sites like say photo competition, there will be greater emphasis on art value and more often than not the judges will overlook technical flaws if the picture is strong in artistic value.

U dont understand. Even if you send a picture of a drink coaster, they may also accept with no critique. Thats why its not a good indicator and why even smartphone photo can pass if the all the checkboxes fulfilled. Stringent requirement on the stock sites also means no label, logo, brand, advert and even require model release form to post. If u take a city landscape of klcc for example, it will be rejected cause it has public bank logo on it, not coz its a bad pic.

On regards to resize, it actually does make it sharper when pixel peep cause it makes blur (focus or motion) less obvious. Of course doesnt work if blur too much, no need to be rocket science to know that.

On picture critiques, i suggest dont bother too much. Like i mentioned before standard differs between person to person. I seen youtube of people critique like shit, ranting on about rule of third, no focus point, blabla but when you see the critics own photo also nothing special. I would advice just to take a look at photos you like and take some hint on how they do it to improve than worry about what others say.

I know where you're coming from, but now you just have to understand what I'm saying here - IQ. I'm talking about IQ.

In the past, smartphones were so shitty no way it can even pass stock photo's IQ requirements, not even if you PP it because the base quality is like shit.

Nowadays even sub RM 1,000 can get pass it. They pixel peep, they're strict but camera phone image IQ has come to a point that they can make it pass their minimum requirement.

That's what I'm saying.

I'm talking about "good image quality" here. IQ IQ IQ IQ. If no feedback means you pass all their requirements for IQ so nothing to feedback, they expect you as contributor to know how to deal with that before submitting.

BUT note that good IQ isn't enough, you try use DSLR shoot pic of a coaster, not likely will pass because
1. composition not nice
2. lighting not good
3. we have too many of those.



And that's where the commercial / artistic value comes in, without that you're just yet another coaster (or tennis ball) pic. Even tennis ball, there are ways to light it to make it look more interesting.

I wont bother with TS question too much cause the answer is neither here or there. Basic answer is if you give a shit driver a ferarri car, he will just crash and burn. But it does make him look good for a while before the crash.

I guess some people seen a lot, they know what's good picture but just can't produce any.

They're like critics on fine-dining magazine - they can't cook anything decent on their own but they can sure tell the fine difference between average and excellent caviar.

Haha yeah this is funny, whole-heartedly agree to it.

Like what I said to some people before, if you haven't taken any good stuff now, upgrading just means you're taking better image quality shit photos.

this had become a 3-person chatting, but very insightful also

nevermind, to each, their own.. i say..

back to topic on sub-RM1000 camera, i dont think i have used enough camera to propose one