2011 DSLR vs 2019 phone?? (Oneplus 7t pro vs cannon eds 600d)

[The Torrent]

What would be better? An old DSLR such as a cannon 600d or a newish flagship phone? Such as a 7t pro?

[Mateyyy]

DSLR, no contest. 

You can't compare smartphone cameras to real, proper cameras, even with all the software tricks manufacturers have and still are implementing.

[badreg]

Resolution and dynamic range? Definitely a modern phone.

 

Form factor and interchangeable lenses? Dedicated camera.

[jaslion]

Dslr hands down no contest especially against a 600d.

[Hans Christian | Teri]

For what use-case exactly? The phone is continuously getting much stronger, and in most cases it is more convenient (and in some even superior) to an actual dedicated camera. A dedicated camera has one big advantage that will almost always make me take that over a phone, and that is interchangeable, actually good lenses. The 600D is mediocre at best, severely outdated at worst, but if you have good glass to put on the front, it will produce results you could never dream of getting from a phone.

[GDRRiley]

18 hours ago, badreg said:

Resolution and dynamic range? Definitely a modern phone.

 

Form factor and interchangeable lenses? Dedicated camera.

DR ha, The T5 I have (almost identical to the T3i/600D) looks way better than any phone camera even at only 18mp. Your forgetting it has raw photo

 

[badreg]

3 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

DR ha, The T5 I have (almost identical to the T3i/600D) looks way better than any phone camera even at only 18mp. Your forgetting it has raw photo

 

You know that nothing stops you from capturing in RAW with a phone, right?

 

The sensor in your T5 has a dynamic range of around 11 stops at base ISO. The iPhone 12 Pro has a dynamic range of 14 stops, which trades blows with modern full frame and medium format sensors that hit close to 15 stops. A modern flagship phone sensor is miles ahead of a mid-range APS-C sensor from 2011. It is not even close.

[GDRRiley]

24 minutes ago, badreg said:

You know that nothing stops you from capturing in RAW with a phone, right?

 

The sensor in your T5 has a dynamic range of around 11 stops at base ISO. The iPhone 12 Pro has a dynamic range of 14 stops, which trades blows with modern full frame and medium format sensors that hit close to 15 stops. A modern flagship phone sensor is miles ahead of a mid-range APS-C sensor from 2011. It is not even close.

you think the on paper DR is how you compare it, ha. its way behind

I can tell instantly what is a phone and which is a camera. even a 10 year old one looks way better than a modern flagship

you can with a limited amount of 3rd party apps.

[badreg]

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

you think the on paper DR is how you compare it, ha. its way behind

The way that dynamic range is measured in a lab (at least the way that DXOMARK does it) is a valid indicator of real world performance. It is expressed as the ratio between the highest luminance gray and the lowest luminance gray that has a signal-to-noise ratio above 1 that a sensor can capture. Effectively, the lower the noise floor, the higher dynamic range a sensor has.

 

In the real world, this has a direct effect on how far the exposure slider can be dragged to the right before the shadow areas fall apart. With a low dynamic range sensor like a 2011 Canon sensor, a ISO 100 image falls apart from massive amounts of noise and banding after +2.00 EV. Current high-end sensors will do +5.00 EV with minimal artifacting at base ISO. This is how dynamic range is determined in the real world and it closely matches what the lab measurements are.

 

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

I can tell instantly what is a phone and which is a camera. even a 10 year old one looks way better than a modern flagship

And yet again, you fall back to anecdotal, subjective claims that have no evidence. Just because you think that something looks way better doesn't make it so. When you make a blanket statement that you can always tell if an image was shot on a phone or a camera (especially when you have not done an ABX test), all you are doing is showing your hubris and an unwillingness to accept facts and data.

[Lord Vile]

On 11/16/2020 at 10:03 PM, The Torrent said:

What would be better? An old DSLR such as a cannon 600d or a newish flagship phone? Such as a 7t pro?

Real camera easily, I have a bottom end mirrorless and it spanks my iPhone 11 Pro in stills 

[GDRRiley]

13 minutes ago, badreg said:

The way that dynamic range is measured in a lab (at least the way that DXOMARK does it) is a valid indicator of real world performance. It is expressed as the ratio between the highest luminance gray and the lowest luminance gray that has a signal-to-noise ratio above 1 that a sensor can capture. Effectively, the lower the noise floor, the higher dynamic range a sensor has.

 

In the real world, this has a direct effect on how far the exposure slider can be dragged to the right before the shadow areas fall apart. With a low dynamic range sensor like a 2011 Canon sensor, a ISO 100 image falls apart from massive amounts of noise and banding after +2.00 EV. Current high-end sensors will do +5.00 EV with minimal artifacting at base ISO. This is how dynamic range is determined in the real world and it closely matches what the lab measurements are.

 

And yet again, you fall back to anecdotal, subjective claims that have no evidence. Just because you think that something looks way better doesn't make it so. When you make a blanket statement that you can always tell if an image was shot on a phone or a camera (especially when you have not done an ABX test), all you are doing is showing your hubris and an unwillingness to accept facts and data.

no it isn't a vaild one. on paper the A7SIII has 15 but in practice 12-13

unless you see a testing unit like this http://dsclabs.com/xyla/

by someone outside the company I wouldn't believe the numbers.

 

I have done testing. I've got a decent range of modern phones and cameras to compare. iphone 5s, 6s 7, x and SE2020. pixel 3a, S10 S8 vs canon t2-7/t2i-7i SL2 60D

talking about sharpness and color.

[Mateyyy]

8 hours ago, badreg said:

You know that nothing stops you from capturing in RAW with a phone, right?

 

The sensor in your T5 has a dynamic range of around 11 stops at base ISO. The iPhone 12 Pro has a dynamic range of 14 stops, which trades blows with modern full frame and medium format sensors that hit close to 15 stops. A modern flagship phone sensor is miles ahead of a mid-range APS-C sensor from 2011. It is not even close.

I happen to have just a 600D/T3i and a 12 Pro, and there’s no scenario I can think of where I’d take my phone’s camera over my DSLR, if I was serious about trying to get the best possible picture.

 

That’s not to say that there isn’t a time and a place for smartphone cameras at all - the convenience factor is undeniable. But saying that photos out of such a tiny sensor can come even close to that of a real camera is just not true.

[Blue4130]

I'm not going to add words, I'll let you guys discuss and whatever, but in my experience, dslr hands down. 

 

My examples are from a xiaomi 8 and Canon 30d with 50mm 1.4 (2006 camera) 

[badreg]

15 hours ago, Mateyyy said:

I happen to have just a 600D/T3i and a 12 Pro, and there’s no scenario I can think of where I’d take my phone’s camera over my DSLR, if I was serious about trying to get the best possible picture.

 

That’s not to say that there isn’t a time and a place for smartphone cameras at all - the convenience factor is undeniable. But saying that photos out of such a tiny sensor can come even close to that of a real camera is just not true.

 

This is a side by side of 100% crops of RAW images from an iPhone 11 and a Sony A7R4.

 

Is there a visual difference between the two? Sure, but the Sony is a 61MP sensor paired with a $1,500 lens. Yet this "tiny sensor" comes enough to a "real camera" that the difference is meaningless for most people. And this is compared to a current $4000 camera. Against a $600 camera from 2011 with a $200 lens, the iPhone would be ahead.

 

If you are interested in reading more, this is the article that the image came from:

https://blog.halide.cam/inside-the-iphone-11-camera-part-1-a-completely-new-camera-28ea5d091071

 

And just to give more context to what I am saying: I am a commercial photographer, and I have more real world experience with pushing cameras to their limits than most people here. Is it possible to squeeze more performance out of a dedicated camera than a phone? Of course, it is, but that requires a certain amount of skill, experience and post-production. But even then, no amount of skill will overcome the advancements in sensor technology in the last 8-9 years. You simply can't push a base ISO RAW image from a 600D by more than +2.00 EV before the noise becomes overwhelming, while modern iPhones will do that with ease.

[GDRRiley]

11 hours ago, badreg said:

Is there a visual difference between the two? Sure, but the Sony is a 61MP sensor paired with a $1,500 lens. Yet this "tiny sensor" comes enough to a "real camera" that the difference is meaningless for most people. And this is compared to a current $4000 camera. Against a $600 camera from 2011 with a $200 lens, the iPhone would be ahead.

 

If you are interested in reading more, this is the article that the image came from:

https://blog.halide.cam/inside-the-iphone-11-camera-part-1-a-completely-new-camera-28ea5d091071

 

And just to give more context to what I am saying: I am a commercial photographer, and I have more real world experience with pushing cameras to their limits than most people here. Is it possible to squeeze more performance out of a dedicated camera than a phone? Of course, it is, but that requires a certain amount of skill, experience and post-production. But even then, no amount of skill will overcome the advancements in sensor technology in the last 8-9 years. You simply can't push a base ISO RAW image from a 600D by more than +2.00 EV before the noise becomes overwhelming, while modern iPhones will do that with ease.

yes there is and its extremely easy to see, just the noise alone.

I right now have a 60D with a 24-105 USM. both are basically the same age a 600D it looks better than the iphone 12

 

then man I would hate to hire you. you'll shoot everything on an iphone and say you can't tell. I have pushed a 600d file a lot and it does well.

[Lord Vile]

12 hours ago, badreg said:

 

This is a side by side of 100% crops of RAW images from an iPhone 11 and a Sony A7R4.

 

Is there a visual difference between the two? Sure, but the Sony is a 61MP sensor paired with a $1,500 lens. Yet this "tiny sensor" comes enough to a "real camera" that the difference is meaningless for most people. And this is compared to a current $4000 camera. Against a $600 camera from 2011 with a $200 lens, the iPhone would be ahead.

 

If you are interested in reading more, this is the article that the image came from:

https://blog.halide.cam/inside-the-iphone-11-camera-part-1-a-completely-new-camera-28ea5d091071

 

And just to give more context to what I am saying: I am a commercial photographer, and I have more real world experience with pushing cameras to their limits than most people here. Is it possible to squeeze more performance out of a dedicated camera than a phone? Of course, it is, but that requires a certain amount of skill, experience and post-production. But even then, no amount of skill will overcome the advancements in sensor technology in the last 8-9 years. You simply can't push a base ISO RAW image from a 600D by more than +2.00 EV before the noise becomes overwhelming, while modern iPhones will do that with ease.

I have a £400 camera with a £300 lens and that melts the iPhone 11 Pro soo...

[Guest]

I could never use a phone over a dedicate DSLR or mirrorless camera. Especially not when charging someone money. A lot of what I do involves shooting inanimate objects and phones just don't do it well. Computational photography is okay for humans and landscapes, but I barely shoot either of those these days. Even if I did, I just cannot handle the noise and loss of detail. 

 

So for me, it would be DSLR/Mirrorless hands down.

[The Blackhat]

Truly if you look at that article and say the phone comes anywhere close, then you are either not actually looking, or lying to yourself, trolling, or simply cannot see the very blatant differences. If the last is the case, then you don't really have business commenting on the matter.

[Blue4130]

On 11/18/2020 at 2:01 PM, Blue4130 said:

I'm not going to add words, I'll let you guys discuss and whatever, but in my experience, dslr hands down. 

 

My examples are from a xiaomi 8 and Canon 30d with 50mm 1.4 (2006 camera) 

To further this, you can clearly see the noise and lack of sharpness in the phone image when looking at it on a small phone screen. Imagine how bad it looks when viewing a 11x14 print. The old Canon print at 11x14 is still really clean. 

[YellowJersey]

Depends on the application. Instagram shots in good light? Probably doesn't matter. However, as soon as you start printing, cropping, or working with low light, then you're going to notice the difference.

[Lord Vile]

14 hours ago, YellowJersey said:

Depends on the application. Instagram shots in good light? Probably doesn't matter. However, as soon as you start printing, cropping, or working with low light, then you're going to notice the difference.

Even for online stuff you retain more detail with a DSLR/Mirrorless, you get real depth of field vs a software algorithm and you have infinitely more control. 
 

Video is a different story however. 

[Lord Vile]

15 hours ago, Blue4130 said:

To further this, you can clearly see the noise and lack of sharpness in the phone image when looking at it on a small phone screen. Imagine how bad it looks when viewing a 11x14 print. The old Canon print at 11x14 is still really clean. 

To be fair the phone camera isn’t a good one but yeah the Canon would still beat any phone easily.

[GDRRiley]

53 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Video is a different story however. 

ive yet to see a phone video that looks good when you get it on anything larger than a tablet

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

ive yet to see a phone video that looks good when you get it on anything larger than a tablet

From my iPhone to a 27” monitor it looks fine.